[Federal Register: July 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 128)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 37922-37927]
[DOCID:fr02jy08-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 523, 531, 533, 534, 536 and 537

[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0060]

Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) for New Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Notice of
Public Hearing

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

ACTION: Notice of availability of a draft environmental impact
statement (DEIS); notice of public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) to disclose and analyze the potential environmental impacts of
proposed Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for model year
(MY) 2011-2015 passenger cars and light trucks, which NHTSA recently
proposed pursuant to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007,
and a reasonable range of alternative standards. To inform
decisionmakers and the public, the DEIS compares the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed standards and alternative
standards reflecting a full range of stringencies, and it analyzes
direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts in proportion to their
significance. The DEIS provides a detailed analysis of potential
impacts on energy resources, air quality, and climate. The DEIS uses
climate modeling and NHTSA's own computer model to provide quantitative
estimates of potential impacts on air quality, carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions, global mean surface temperature,

rainfall, and sea level rise. The DEIS provides a qualitative analysis
of resources that may be impacted by changes in climate, such as
freshwater resources, terrestrial ecosystems, coastal ecosystems, land
use, human health, and environmental justice. It examines these impacts
on the U.S. and on a global scale. In addition, the DEIS analyzes
potential environmental impacts unrelated to climate change.
    NHTSA invites Federal, State, and local agencies, Indian tribes,
and the public to submit written comments and participate in a public
hearing on the DEIS using the instructions set forth in this notice. As
described in the PROCEDURAL MATTERS section of this notice, each
speaker should anticipate speaking for approximately ten minutes,
although we may need to adjust the time for each speaker if there is a
large turnout. To facilitate review of the DEIS, NHTSA has posted the
DEIS on its Web site, and it will be available in the Docket identified
by the docket number at the beginning of this notice.\1\ Copies in hard
copy or electronic (CD-ROM) form have been mailed to all stakeholders
on NHTSA's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) mailing list for
the proposed CAFE standards, and NHTSA will mail a copy of the DEIS or
a CD-ROM containing the Appendices to any other interested party who
requests one. NHTSA will consider the public comments received on the
DEIS in preparing final NEPA documents to support final CAFE standards
for MY 2011-2015 passenger cars and light trucks, which NHTSA plans to
issue later this year. The agency's NEPA analysis is informing NHTSA's
development of those standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The DEIS is available at: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/
site/nhtsa/menuitem.43ac99aefa80569eea57529cdba046a0/ (last visited
June 26, 2008).

DATES: Public Hearing: The public hearing will be held on Monday,
August 4, 2008, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the National Transportation
Safety Board Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC
20594. NHTSA recommends that all persons attending the hearing arrive
at least 45 minutes early in order to facilitate entry into the
Conference Center. If you wish to attend or speak at the hearing, you
must register in advance no later than Friday, July 25, 2008, by
following the instructions in the PROCEDURAL MATTERS section of this
notice. NHTSA will consider late registrants to the extent time and
space allow, but NHTSA cannot ensure that late registrants will be able
to attend or speak at the hearing.
    Comments: NHTSA must receive written comments on the DEIS by
Monday, August 18, 2008. NHTSA will try to consider comments received
after that date to the extent the NEPA and rulemaking schedules allow,
but NHTSA cannot ensure that it will be able to do so.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carol Hammel-Smith, Telephone:
202-366-5206, or Mr. Michael Johnsen, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fuel
Economy Division, Office of International Vehicle, Fuel Economy and
Consumer Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. E-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Information about the CAFE rulemaking and the NEPA
process is also available at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov.

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.
     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, will be posted without change to http://
www.regulations.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA has prepared a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) to disclose and analyze the potential
environmental impacts of proposed Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)
standards for model year (MY) 2011-2015 passenger cars and light trucks
and a reasonable range of alternative standards.\2\ NHTSA recently
proposed the standards pursuant to amendments made by the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) to the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (EPCA).\3\ To inform decisionmakers and the public,
the DEIS analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed
standards and alternative standards reflecting a range of stringencies,
and it analyzes direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts in proportion
to their significance. The DEIS provides a detailed analysis of
potential impacts on energy resources, air quality, and climate. The
DEIS uses climate modeling and NHTSA's own computer model to provide
quantitative estimates of potential impacts on air quality,
CO2 emissions, global mean surface temperature, rainfall,
and sea level rise. The DEIS provides a qualitative analysis of
resources that may be impacted by changes in climate, such as
freshwater resources, terrestrial ecosystems, coastal ecosystems, land
use, human health, and environmental justice. It examines impacts on
the U.S. and on a global scale. In addition, the DEIS analyzes
potential environmental impacts unrelated to climate change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C.
4321-4347, and implementing regulations issued by the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ), 40 CFR Pts. 1500-1508, and NHTSA, 49
CFR Pt. 520.
    \3\ EISA is Public Law 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492 (December 19,
2007). EPCA is codified at 49 U.S.C. 32901 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Background. EPCA sets forth extensive requirements concerning the
rulemaking to establish MY 2011-2015 CAFE standards. It requires the
Secretary of Transportation \4\ to establish average fuel economy
standards at least 18 months before the beginning of each model year
and to set them at ``the maximum feasible average fuel economy level
that the Secretary decides the manufacturers can achieve in that model
year.'' When setting ``maximum feasible'' fuel economy standards, the
Secretary is required to ``consider technological feasibility, economic
practicability, the effect of other motor vehicle standards of the
Government on fuel economy, and the need of the United States to
conserve energy.'' \5\ NHTSA construes the statutory factors as
including environmental and safety considerations.\6\ NHTSA also
considers environmental impacts under NEPA when setting CAFE standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NHTSA is delegated responsibility for implementing the EPCA
fuel economy requirements assigned to the Secretary of
Transportation. 49 CFR 1.50, 501.2(a)(8).
    \5\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(a), 32902(f).
    \6\ See, e.g., Competitive Enterprise Inst. v. NHTSA, 956 F.2d
321, 322 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (citing Competitive Enterprise Inst. v.
NHTSA, 901 F.2d 107, 120 n.11 (D.C. Cir. 1990)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As recently amended, EPCA further directs the Secretary, after
consultation with the Secretary of Energy (DOE) and the EPA
Administrator, to establish

separate average fuel economy standards for passenger cars and for
light trucks manufactured in each model year beginning with model year
2011 ``to achieve a combined fuel economy average for model year 2020
of at least 35 miles per gallon for the total fleet of passenger and
non-passenger automobiles manufactured for sale in the United States
for that model year.'' \7\ In doing so, the Secretary of Transportation
is required to increase average fuel economy standards for MY 2011-2020
vehicles through ``annual fuel economy standard increases.'' \8\ The
standards for passenger cars and light trucks must be ``based on 1 or
more vehicle attributes related to fuel economy.'' In any single
rulemaking, standards may be established for not more than five model
years.\9\ EPCA also mandates a minimum standard for domestically
manufactured passenger cars.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 49 U.S.C.A. Sec. Sec.  32902(b)(1), 32902(b)(2)(A).
    \8\ 49 U.S.C.A. Sec.  32902(b)(2)(C).
    \9\ 49 U.S.C.A. Sec. Sec.  32902(b)(3)(A), 32902(b)(3)(B).
    \10\ 49 U.S.C.A. Sec.  32902(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Earlier this year, NHTSA initiated the EIS process for MY 2011-2015
CAFE standards, which include light truck standards for one model year
previously covered by a 2006 final rule establishing CAFE standards for
MY 2008-2011 light trucks (namely, MY 2011).\11\ We did so because a
standard for MY 2011 must be issued by the end of March 2009 and
achieving an industry-wide combined fleet average of at least 35 miles
per gallon for MY 2020 depends, in substantial part, upon setting
standards well in advance so as to provide the automobile manufacturers
with as much lead time as possible to make the extensive necessary
changes to their automobiles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Average Fuel Economy Standards for Light Trucks Model
Years 2008-2011; Final Rule, April 6, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Proposed Action and Possible Alternatives: In its recent Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), NHTSA proposed attribute-based (vehicle
size) fuel economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks
consistent with the ``Reformed CAFE'' approach NHTSA used to establish
standards for MY 2008-2011 light trucks.\12\ The NPRM proposes separate
standards for MY 2011-2015 passenger cars and separate standards for MY
2011-2015 light trucks. This notice briefly describes the proposed
standards and the alternatives, which the NPRM and the DEIS discuss in
more detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Average Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light
Trucks; Model Years 2011-2015; Proposed Rule, 73 FR 24352, May 2,
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed standards, each vehicle manufacturer's required
level of CAFE would be based on target levels of average fuel economy
set for vehicles of different sizes and on the distribution of that
manufacturer's vehicles among those sizes. Size would be defined by
vehicle footprint.\13\ The level of the performance target for each
footprint would reflect the technological and economic capabilities of
the industry. The target for each footprint would be the same for all
manufacturers, regardless of differences in their overall fleet mix.
Compliance would be determined by comparing a manufacturer's
harmonically averaged fleet fuel economy levels in a model year with a
required fuel economy level calculated using the manufacturer's actual
production levels and the targets for each footprint of the vehicles
that it produces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ A vehicle's ``footprint'' is generally defined as ``the
product of track width [the lateral distance between the centerlines
of the base tires at ground, including the camber angle] * * * times
wheelbase [the longitudinal distance between front and rear wheel
centerlines] * * * divided by 144. * * *'' 49 CFR 523.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing the proposed standards and the alternatives, NHTSA
considered the four EPCA factors underlying maximum feasibility
(technological feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of
other standards of the Government on fuel economy, and the need of the
nation to conserve energy) as well as relevant environmental and safety
considerations. NHTSA used a computer model (known as the ``Volpe
model'') that, for any given model year, applies technologies to a
manufacturer's fleet until the manufacturer achieves compliance with
the standard under consideration. In light of the EPCA factors, the
agency placed monetary values on relevant externalities (both energy
security and environmental externalities, including the benefits of
reductions in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions). As discussed
in the NPRM, NHTSA also consulted with EPA and DOE regarding a wide
variety of matters.
    After assessing what fuel saving technologies would be available,
how effective they are, and how quickly they could be introduced, NHTSA
balanced the EPCA factors relevant to standard-setting. The agency used
a marginal benefit-cost analysis to set the proposed standards at
levels such that, considering the seven largest manufacturers, the cost
of the last technology application equaled the benefits of the
improvement in fuel economy resulting from that application. That is
the level at which net benefits are maximized. Accordingly, NHTSA
refers to the proposed standards as ``optimized'' standards or the
``optimized scenario''. In considering further action on the proposed
standards and reasonable alternatives, NHTSA also will consider its
NEPA analysis.
    NHTSA projects what the industry-wide average fuel economy level
would be for passenger cars and for light trucks if each manufacturer
produced its expected mix of automobiles and exactly met its
obligations under the proposed ``optimized'' standards for each model
year. For passenger cars, the average fuel economy (in miles per
gallon, or mpg) would range from 31.2 mpg in MY 2011 to 35.7 mpg in MY
2015. For light trucks, the average fuel economy would range from 25.0
mpg in MY 2011 to 28.6 mpg in MY 2015. The combined industry-wide
average fuel economy for all passenger cars and light trucks would
range from 27.8 mpg in MY 2011 to 31.6 mpg in MY 2015, if each
manufacturer exactly met its obligations under the standards proposed
in the NPRM.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ NHTSA notes that it cannot set out the precise level of
CAFE that each manufacturer would be required to meet for each model
year under the proposed standards, because the level for each
manufacturer would depend on that manufacturer's final production
figures and fleet mix for a particular model year. That information
will not be available until the end of each model year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed standards, the annual average increase during
the five-year period from MY 2011-MY 2015 would be approximately 4.5
percent. The annual percentage increases would be greater in the early
years due to the uneven distribution of new model introductions during
this period and to the fact that significant technological changes can
be most readily made in conjunction with those introductions.\15\
Pursuant to EISA's mandate, domestically manufactured passenger car
fleets also must meet an alternative minimum standard for each model
year. The alternative minimum standard would range from 28.7 mpg in MY
2011 to 32.9 mpg in MY 2015 under NHTSA's proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ With the proposed standards, the combined industry-wide
average fuel economy would have to increase by an average of 2.1
percent per year from MY 2016-MY 2020 in order to reach EISA's goal
of at least 35 mpg by MY 2020. In addition, the NPRM and the DEIS
discuss flexibility mechanisms available to manufacturers to meet
their obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the proposed standards, NHTSA has considered several
regulatory alternatives for purposes of both Executive Order 12,866
\16\ and its NEPA analysis, which includes a ``no action'' alternative
as required by NEPA.

The alternatives, in order of increasing stringency, are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Exec. Order 12,866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' 58
FR 51,735, October 4, 1993, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) A ``no action'' alternative of maintaining CAFE standards at
the MY 2010 levels of 27.5 mpg and 23.5 mpg for passenger cars and
light trucks, respectively.\17\ NEPA requires agencies to consider a
``no action'' alternative in their NEPA analyses, although the recent
amendments to EPCA direct NHTSA to set new CAFE standards and do not
permit the agency to take no action on fuel economy. (NHTSA also refers
to this ``no action'' alternative as a ``no increase'' or ``baseline''
alternative.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 40 CFR 1502.2(e), 1502.14(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) An alternative reflecting standards that fall below the
optimized scenario by the same absolute amount by which the ``25
percent above optimized alternative'' (described below) exceeds the
optimized scenario. NHTSA refers to this as the ``25 percent below
optimized alternative''.
    (3) An alternative reflecting the ``optimized scenario'', the
proposed standards based on applying technologies until net benefits
are maximized.
    (4) An alternative reflecting standards that exceed the optimized
scenario by 25 percent of the interval between the optimized scenario
and an alternative (described below) based on applying technologies
until total costs equal total benefits. NHTSA refers to this
alternative as the ``25 percent above optimized alternative''.
    (5) An alternative reflecting standards that exceed the optimized
scenario by 50 percent of the interval between the optimized scenario
and the alternative based on applying technologies until total costs
equal total benefits. This alternative is known as the ``50 percent
above optimized alternative''.
    (6) An alternative reflecting standards based on applying
technologies until total costs equal total benefits (zero net
benefits). This is known as the ``TC=TB alternative''.
    (7) A ``technology exhaustion alternative'' in which NHTSA applied
all feasible technologies without regard to cost by determining the
stringency at which a reformed CAFE standard would require every
manufacturer to apply every technology estimated to be potentially
available for its MY 2011-2015 fleet. Accordingly, the penetration
rates for particular technologies would vary on an individual
manufacturer basis. NHTSA has presented this alternative in order to
explore how the stringency of standards would vary based solely on the
potential availability of technologies at the individual manufacturer
level without regard to the costs to society.
    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.\18\ NHTSA believes that these alternatives represent a
reasonable range of stringencies to consider for purposes of evaluating
the potential environmental impacts of proposed CAFE standards under
NEPA, because these alternatives represent a wide spectrum of potential
impacts ranging from the current standards to standards based on the
maximum technology expected to be available over the period necessary
to meet the statutory goals of EPCA, as amended by EISA.\19\ However,
as discussed in the NPRM and in the DEIS, NHTSA's provisional analysis
of these alternatives suggests that some of them may not satisfy the
four EPCA factors that NHTSA must apply in setting ``maximum feasible''
CAFE standards (i.e., technological feasibility, economic
practicability, the effect of other motor vehicle standards of the
Government on fuel economy, and the need of the nation to conserve
energy).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 40 CFR 1502.13.
    \19\ Given EPCA's mandate that NHTSA consider specific factors
in setting CAFE standards and NEPA's instruction that agencies give
effect to NEPA's policies ``to the fullest extent possible,'' NHTSA
recognizes that a very large number of alternative CAFE levels are
potentially conceivable and that the alternatives described above
essentially represent several of many points on a continuum of
alternatives. Along the continuum, each alternative represents a
different way in which NHTSA conceivably could assign weight to each
of the four EPCA factors and NEPA's policies. CEQ guidance instructs
that ``[w]hen there are potentially a very large number of
alternatives, only a reasonable number of examples, covering the
full spectrum of alternatives, must be analyzed and compared in the
EIS.'' CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National
Environmental Policy Act Regulations, 46 FR 18026, 18027, March 23,
1981 (emphasis original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NEPA Process and the DEIS. In March 2008, NHTSA issued a notice
of intent to prepare an EIS for the MY 2011-2015 CAFE standards and
opened the NEPA ``scoping'' process. In that notice, NHTSA described
the statutory requirements for the proposed standards, provided initial
information about the NEPA process, and initiated scoping by requesting
public input on the scope of NHTSA's NEPA analysis for the proposed
standards.\20\ In April 2008, NHTSA published a supplemental scoping
notice providing additional guidance for participating in the scoping
process and additional information about the proposed standards and the
alternatives NHTSA expected to consider in its NEPA analysis.\21\ NHTSA
also outlined its plans for its NEPA analysis.\22\ NHTSA mailed both
Federal Register notices to hundreds of stakeholders and developed a
mailing list of interested parties, including Federal agencies with
environmental expertise, the Governors of every State and U.S.
territory or State NEPA contacts they identified, Indian tribes,
organizations representing state and local governments and tribes, the
automobile industry, environmental organizations, and other
stakeholders interested in the CAFE program. NHTSA received 1,748
comment letters in response to its scoping notices. NHTSA received 11
individual letters commenting on the scope of its NEPA analysis from
federal and state agencies, automobile trade associations,
environmental organizations, and individuals. The remaining comment
letters are form letters from individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement for New Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, 73 FR
16615, March 28, 2008.
    \21\ Supplemental Notice of Public Scoping for an Environmental
Impact Statement for New Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards,
73 FR 22913, April 28, 2008.
    \22\ Id. at 22916.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing the DEIS, NHTSA also consulted with Federal agencies
including: CEQ; EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, both of
which submitted scoping comments to NHTSA; the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the U.S. Department of
Commerce; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park
Service within the U.S. Department of the Interior; and the U.S. Forest
Service within the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
    NHTSA used the scoping process to help determine ``the range of
actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered'' in the DEIS and
to identify the most important issues for analysis.\23\ The DEIS
consists of a Summary and ten chapters: (1) Purpose and Need for the
Proposed Action; (2) The Proposed Action and Alternatives; (3) Affected
Environment and Consequences; (4) Cumulative Impacts; (5) Mitigation;
(6) Unavoidable Adverse Impacts; Short-Term Uses and Long-term
Productivity; Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources;
(7) Preparers; (8) References; (9) Distribution List; and (10) Index.
Three appendices include sources identified in scoping comments
(Appendix A), modeling data for air emissions and climate modeling
(Appendix B); and a cost-benefit analysis excerpt from

NHTSA's Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (Appendix C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See 40 CFR Sec. Sec.  1500.5(d), 1501.7, 1508.25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The DEIS devotes the most detailed analysis to direct, indirect and
cumulative impacts of the proposed standards and the alternatives on
energy, air quality, and climate. Key findings concerning estimated
potential impacts on CO2 emissions, global mean surface temperature,
rainfall, and sea level rise include the following:
     Global CO2 Emissions Reductions. Over the 2010 to 2100
timeframe, the range of alternatives NHTSA analyzed would reduce global
CO2 emissions (from all sources) by about 18 to 35 billion metric tons
of CO2 (based on global emissions of 4.85 trillion metric tons of CO2).
The alternatives would slow the expected increase in greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions from the transportation sector over this period.
     CO2 Concentration and Global Mean Surface
Temperature: Estimates for CO2 atmospheric concentrations
and global mean surface temperature vary considerably, depending on
which global emissions scenario is used as a reference case.
Temperature increases are sensitive to climate sensitivity. Yet,
projected differences among the CAFE alternatives are small--i.e.,
CO2 concentrations as of 2100 are within 1.7 to 3.2 parts
per million across alternatives, and temperatures are within 0.0006 to
0.012 [deg]C across alternatives--regardless of reference scenario and
climate sensitivity.
     Rainfall: The CAFE alternatives reduce temperature
increases slightly and thus reduce increases in precipitation slightly,
compared to the ``No Action'' alternative.
     Impact on Sea Level Rise: The impact on sea level rise
from the alternatives is at the threshold of the climate model's
reporting: The alternatives reduce sea level rise by 0.1 cm. Although
the model does not report enough significant figures to distinguish
between the effects of the alternatives, it is clear that the more
stringent the alternative (i.e., the lower the emissions), the lower
the temperature (as shown above), and the lower the sea level.
    The DEIS provides a qualitative analysis of resources that may be
impacted by changes in climate, such as freshwater resources,
terrestrial ecosystems, coastal ecosystems, land use, human health, and
environmental justice. It examines impacts on the U.S. and a global
scale. In addition, the DEIS qualitatively examines the alternatives'
non-climate change related direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on
potentially affected resources. Such resources include: Water
resources, biological resources, land use, hazardous materials, safety,
noise, historic and cultural resources, and environmental justice.
    Throughout the DEIS, NHTSA's analysis relies extensively on
findings of the United National Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (USCCSP),
including those presented in the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report:
Climate Change 2007 and the USCCSP's Scientific Assessments of the
Effects of Global Change on the United States and Synthesis and
Assessment Products.\24\ The DEIS also uses applicable CEQ regulations
to acknowledge uncertainty and incomplete or unavailable information
relevant to NHTSA's NEPA analysis.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See generally http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-
reports.htm (last visited June 25, 2008) and http://
www.climatescience.gov (last visited June 25, 2008).
    \25\ 40 CFR 1502.22; see 40 CFR 1502.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Procedural Matters: The public hearing will be open to the public
with advanced registration for seating on a space-available basis.
Individuals wishing to register to assure a seat in the public seating
area should provide their name, affiliation, phone number, and e-mail
address to Ms. Carol Hammel-Smith or Mr. Michael Johnsen using the
contact information in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section at
the beginning of this notice no later than Friday, July 25, 2008.
Should it be necessary to cancel the hearing due to an emergency or
some other reason, NHTSA will take all available means to notify
registered participants by e-mail or telephone.
    The hearing will be held at a site accessible to individuals with
disabilities. Individuals who require accommodations such as sign
language interpreters should contact Ms. Carol Hammel-Smith or Mr.
Michael Johnsen using the contact information in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section above no later than Friday, July 25, 2008.
Any written materials NHTSA presents at the hearing will be available
electronically on the day of the hearing to accommodate the needs of
the visually impaired. A transcript of the hearing and information
received by NHTSA at the hearing will be placed in the docket for this
notice at a later date.

How long will I have to speak at the public hearing?

    Once NHTSA learns how many people have registered to speak at the
public hearing, NHTSA will allocate an appropriate amount of time to
each participant, allowing time for lunch and necessary breaks
throughout the day. For planning purposes, each speaker should
anticipate speaking for approximately ten minutes, although we may need
to adjust the time for each speaker if there is a large turnout. To
accommodate as many speakers as possible, NHTSA prefers that speakers
not use technological aids (e.g., audio-visuals, computer slideshows).
However, if you plan to do so, you must let Ms. Carol Hammel-Smith or
Mr. Michael Johnsen know by Friday, July 25, 2008, using the contact
information in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above. You
also must make arrangements to provide your presentation or any other
aids to NHTSA in advance of the hearing in order to facilitate set-up.
During the week of July 28, NHTSA will post information on its Web site
(http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov) indicating the amount of time allocated for
each speaker and each speaker's approximate order on the agenda for the
hearing.

How can I get a copy of the DEIS?

    The DEIS is available on NHTSA's Web site at http://
www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/
menuitem.43ac99aefa80569eea57529cdba046a0/ (last visited June 26,
2008), and it will be available in the Docket identified by the docket
number at the beginning of this notice. To request a hard copy or a CD-
ROM of the DEIS, or to request a CD-ROM containing the Appendices,
please contact Ms. Carol Hammel-Smith or Mr. Michael Johnsen using the
contact information in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
above.

How do I prepare and submit written comments?

    It is not necessary to attend or to speak at the public hearing to
be able to comment on the issues. NHTSA invites the submission of
written comments on the DEIS which the agency will consider in
preparing the final NEPA documents to support the new CAFE standards
for MY 2011-2015 passenger cars and light trucks. Your comments must be
written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly
filed in the Docket, please include the docket number at the beginning
of this notice in your comments.
    Your primary comments cannot exceed 15 pages.\26\ However, you may
attach additional documents to your primary comments. There is no limit
to the length of the attachments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 49 CFR 553.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the

name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register at 65 FR 19477, April 11, 2000, or you may visit http://
www.regulations.gov.
    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, send three copies of your complete submission,
including the information you claim to be confidential business
information, to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Include a cover letter supplying the information specified in our
confidential business information regulation (49 CFR Part 512).
    In addition, send two copies from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential business information to Docket Management, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Room W12-140, Washington, DC
20590, or submit them electronically, in the manner described at the
beginning of this notice.

Will the agency consider late comments?

    NHTSA will consider all comments that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent the NEPA and rulemaking schedules
allow, NHTSA will try to consider comments that Docket Management
receives after that date, but we cannot ensure that we will be able to
do so.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See 49 CFR 553.23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes
available. Further, some commenters may submit late comments.
Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the docket for
new material. In addition, you may wish to check two separate dockets
relating to the proposed CAFE standards: (1) Docket No. NHTSA-2008-
0089, which accompanies NHTSA's NPRM; and (2) Docket No. NHTSA-2008-
0069, which accompanies NHTSA's request for manufacturers' product plan
information.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Passenger Car Average Fuel Economy Standards--Model Years
2008--2020 and Light Truck Average Fuel Economy Standards--Model
Years 2008-2020; Request for Product Plan Information, 73 FR 24190,
May 2, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments and information submitted to these dockets may be relevant
to NHTSA's NEPA analysis for the proposed CAFE standards.

    Issued: June 27, 2008.
Ronald Medford,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.
[FR Doc. 08-1406 Filed 6-30-08; 11:21 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 32910]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15104]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a closed meeting on Thursday, July
20, 2017 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(7), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit
consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    Commissioner Stein, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matters of the closed meeting will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed; please contact Brent J. Fields from
the Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 13, 2017.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-15104 Filed 7-14-17; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 7, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9537-9539]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01768]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0048; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-035-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Slingsby Aviation Ltd. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Slingsby Aviation Ltd. Models T67M260 and T67M260-T3A airplanes that
would supersede AD 2015-11-01. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as failure of a brake master cylinder pivot pin, which could
cause the rudder pedal mechanism to detach from the brake cylinder. We
are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 24, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Marshall Aerospace and Defence Group, The Airport, Newmarket Road,
Cambridge, CB5 8RX, UK; telephone: +44 (0) 1223 399856; fax: +44 (0)
7825365617; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet:
www.marshalladg.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0048; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2017-0048;
Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-035-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On May 18, 2015, we issued AD 2015-11-01, Amendment 39-18164 (80 FR
30136; May 27, 2015). That AD required actions intended to address an
unsafe condition on Slingsby Aviation Ltd. Models T67M260 and T67M260-
T3A airplanes and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country.
    Since we issued AD 2015-11-01, new service information was issued
to revise the inspection instructions and to add a new initial
inspection period after

replacement of the brake master cylinder pivot pins.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
AD 2016-0214, dated October 27, 2016 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    An occurrence was reported where pivot pin Part Number (P/N)
T67M-45-539, of rudder pedal assembly #4, installed on the right
hand (RH) side of the aeroplane (RH seat, RH pedal) failed during
taxi. This caused the rudder pedal mechanism to detach from the
brake master cylinder.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could cause the
rudder linkages to rotate out of their normal orientation, possibly
resulting in jammed rudder controls and consequent loss of control
of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Slingsby Advanced
Composites Ltd, trading as Marshall Aerospace and Defence Group
(hereafter called ``Marshall'' in this AD) issued Service Bulletin
(SB) SBM 200 to provide inspection instructions.
    Consequently, EASA issued Emergency AD 2015-0065-E to require
repetitive inspections of the brake cylinder pivot pins of rudder
pedal assemblies #1 and #4 and, depending on findings, replacement
of the affected pivot pin(s).
    Since that AD was issued, Marshall published SBM 200 Revision 2
to revise the inspection instructions and to introduce a new initial
inspection period after replacement of brake master cylinder pivot
pins on an aeroplane.
    For the reason described above, this AD retains the requirements
of EASA AD 2015-065-E, which is superseded, but requires the use of
the revised inspection instructions. This AD also allows deferring
the next due inspection after replacement of the pins.

You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0048.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Slingsby Aviation Ltd. trading as Marshall Aerospace and Defence
Group has issued Marshall Aerospace and Defence Group Service Bulletin
SBM 200, Revision 2, dated December 2015. The service bulletin
describes procedures for inspection of the brake master cylinder pivot
pin. This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this
NPRM.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 3 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 6 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost
about $50 per product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $1,680, or $560 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about .5 work-hour and require parts costing $100, for a cost of
$142.50 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
products that may need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-18164 (80 FR
30136; May 27, 2015), and adding the following new AD:

Slingsby Aviation Ltd.: Docket No. FAA-2017-0048; Directorate
Identifier 2016-CE-035-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by March 24, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2015-11-01; Amendment 39-18164 (80 FR 30136;
May 27, 2015) (``AD 2015-11-01'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Slingsby Aviation Ltd. Models T67M260 and
T67M260-T3A airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any
category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight
Controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as failure of a
brake master cylinder pivot pin, which could

cause the rudder pedal mechanism to detach from the brake cylinder.
We are issuing this proposed AD to detect and correct discrepancies
of the brake master cylinder pivot pin, which could lead to
detachment of the rudder pedal mechanism from the brake master
cylinder with consequent loss of control.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs
(f)(1) through (3) of this AD:
    (1) Within 300 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective
date of this AD or within 300 hours TIS after the last inspection
required by AD 2015-11-01, whichever occurs first, and repetitively
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 300 hours TIS or 12 months,
whichever occurs first, inspect the brake master cylinder pivot pins
part number (P/N) T67M-45-539 installed on rudder pedal assemblies
number 1 and number 4. Do this action following paragraph C.
INSPECTION of the Accomplishment Instructions in Marshall Aerospace
and Defense Group Service Bulletin SBM 200, Revision 2, dated
December 2015 (SBM 200, Revision 2).
    (2) If any cracking or distortion of the brake master cylinder
pivot pins is found or the pivot pin fails the dimensional check
during any of the inspections required in paragraph (f)(1) of this
AD, before further flight, replace the affected pivot pin with a
serviceable part following paragraph C. INSPECTION of the
Accomplishment Instructions in SBM 200, Revision 2.
    (3) Replacement of the brake master cylinder pivot pins as
required by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD does not terminate the
repetitive inspections required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD. If
both brake master cylinder pivot pins are replaced at the same time,
the first repetitive inspection after replacement of the pivot pins
can be deferred until 1,000 hours TIS after replacement of the pivot
pins.

(g) Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service
Information

    This AD provides credit for any inspections required in
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD if completed before the effective date
of this AD following the Accomplishment Instructions of Marshall
Aerospace and Defense Group Service Bulletin SBM 200, Revision 1,
dated April 2015.

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(i) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI EASA AD 2016-0214, dated October 27, 2016, for
related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2017-0048. For service information related to this AD, contact
Marshall Aerospace and Defence Group, The Airport, Newmarket Road,
Cambridge, CB5 8RX, UK; telephone: +44 (0) 1223 399856; fax: +44 (0)
7825365617; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet:
www.marshalladg.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January 18, 2017.
Melvin Johnson,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-01768 Filed 2-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 220)]
[Notices]
[Page 59206-59209]
[DOCID:fr17no09-77]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2009-0001]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request, 1660-0017; Public Assistance Program

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice; 60-day notice and request for comments; revision of a
currently approved information collection; OMB No. 1660-0017; Public
Assistance Program; FEMA Form 90-49, Request for Public Assistance;
FEMA Form 90-91, Project Worksheet (PW); FEMA Form 90-91A, Project
Worksheet--Damage Description and Scope of Work Continuation Sheet;
FEMA Form 90-91B, Project Worksheet--Cost Estimate Continuation Sheet;
FEMA Form 90-91C Project Worksheet--Maps and Sketches Sheet; FEMA Form
90-91D, Project Worksheet--Photo Sheet; FEMA Form 90-120, Special
Considerations Questions; FEMA Form 121, PNP Facility Questionnaire;
FEMA Form 90-123, Force Account Labor Summary Record; FEMA Form 90-124,
Materials Summary Record; FEMA Form 90-125, Rented Equipment Summary
Record; FEMA Form 90-126, Contract Work Summary Record; FEMA Form 90-
127, Force Account Equipment Summary Record; and FEMA Form 90-128,
Applicant's Benefits Calculation Worksheet.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity
to comment on a proposed revision of a currently approved information
collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
this Notice seeks comments concerning the information collected by FEMA
to make determinations for Public Assistance payments.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 19, 2010.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to submit comments:
    (1) Online. Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under docket ID
FEMA-2009-0001. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Office of Chief Counsel,
Regulation and Policy Team, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street, SW., Room 835,
Wash, DC 20472-3100.
    (3) Facsimile. Submit comments to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) E-mail. Submit comments to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include docket
ID FEMA-2009-0001 in the subject line.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice that is available on the Privacy and Use Notice link on the
Administration Navigation Bar of http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Clifford Brown, Program
Specialist, Public Assistance Grant Program at<PHONE_NUMBER> for
additional information. You may contact the Records Management Branch
for copies of the proposed collection of information at facsimile
number<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail address: FEMA-Information-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information collected is required for
the Public Assistance (PA) Program eligibility determinations, grants
management, and compliance with other Federal laws and regulations. The
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), authorizes financial and other
forms of assistance to State and local governments and certain Private
Nonprofit (PNP) organizations to support the response, recovery, and
mitigation efforts following Presidentially declared major disasters
and emergencies. 44 CFR Part 206 specifies the information collections
necessary to facilitate the provision of assistance under the PA
Program.
    Pursuant to 44 CFR 206.202(c), the Grantee is required to submit a
completed Request, FEMA Form 90-49 for each applicant who requests
Public Assistance. Section 206.202(d) requires the applicant to submit
a Project Worksheet (FEMA Forms 90-91, 90-91A, 90-91B, 90-91C, and 90-
91D) for each project. The Project Worksheet must identify the eligible
scope of work and must include a quantitative estimate for the eligible
work. As a supplement to the Project Worksheet, FEMA also requires a
Special Considerations form, FEMA Form 90-120, and an Applicant's
Benefits Calculation Worksheet, FEMA Form 90-128. There are also
various optional forms to aid the applicant in preparing and submitting
the Project Worksheet.
    Pursuant to 44 CFR 206.207, States are required to develop a State
Administrative plan to administer the PA Program. The submission of the
State Administrative Plan is required as a condition of receiving PA
funding. FEMA must approve a State Administrative Plan before awarding
any project grant assistance to a community or State applicant. The
State must submit a revised plan annually. In addition, FEMA will
request that the State amend its plan to meet current policy guidance
in each disaster for which Public Assistance is included.
    Pursuant to 44 CFR 206.204(c), the Grantee may to approve time
extensions for the completion of projects for an additional six months
for debris clearance and emergency work and an additional 30 months for
permanent work. Time extensions beyond the Grantee's authority (i.e.,
beyond the extensions available under section 206.204(c)), must be
submitted by the Grantee to FEMA, pursuant to 44 CFR

206.204(d). Such extensions require the Regional Administrator's
approval in writing, pursuant to 44 CFR 206.204(d)(2).
    A subgrantee may request additional funding through the Grantee to
the Regional Administrator for cost overruns, pursuant to 44 CFR
206.204(e). All requests for the Regional Administrator's approval must
contain sufficient documentation to support the eligibility of all
claimed work and costs. The Grantee must include a written
recommendation when forwarding the request to the Regional
Administrator.
    Pursuant to 44 CFR 206.204(f), progress reports must be submitted
by the Grantee to the Regional Administrator on a quarterly basis. The
Regional Administrator and Grantee negotiate the date for submission of
the first report. Progress reports describe the status of those
projects on which a final payment of the Federal share has not been
made to the Grantee, and outline any problems or circumstances expected
to result in noncompliance with the approved grant conditions.
    Once FEMA has made a determination on an application or project,
the applicant may appeal that determination. If an applicant seeks
appeal, 44 CFR 206.206 requires an applicant to submit a request for
appeal, and the Grantee to submit a recommendation regarding the
applicant's request. For those projects over $500,000.00 resulting from
Hurricanes Katrina or Rita (DR-1603, DR-1604, DR-1605, DR-1606, and DR-
1607), applicants may seek arbitration in lieu of an appeal. To seek
arbitration, applicants must submit a request for arbitration which may
be accompanied by a recommendation from the Grantee. Arbitration is
authorized by Section 601 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-5) and 44 CFR 206.209.

Collection of Information

    Title: Public Assistance Program.
    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0017.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 90-49, Request for Public
Assistance; FEMA Form 90-91, Project Worksheet (PW); FEMA Form 90-91A,
Project Worksheet--Damage Description and Scope of Work Continuation
Sheet; FEMA Form 90-91B, Project Worksheet--Cost Estimate Continuation
Sheet; FEMA Form 90-91C Project Worksheet--Maps and Sketches Sheet;
FEMA Form 90-91D, Project Worksheet--Photo Sheet; FEMA Form 90-120,
Special Considerations Questions; FEMA Form 121, PNP Facility
Questionnaire; FEMA Form 90-123, Force Account Labor Summary Record;
FEMA Form 90-124, Materials Summary Record; FEMA Form 90-125, Rented
Equipment Summary Record; FEMA Form 90-126, Contract Work Summary
Record; FEMA Form 90-127, Force Account Equipment Summary Record; and
FEMA Form 90-128, Applicant's Benefits Calculation Worksheet.
    Abstract: The information collected is utilized by FEMA to make
determinations for Public Assistance payments based on the information
supplied by the respondents. The following listing provides the
instances of information sharing and how the individual collection
instruments provide necessary information for Public Assistance
considerations. FEMA Form 90-49 identifies the applicant and initiates
the request. FEMA Forms 90-91A, B, C and D identifies the scope of the
work and cost estimates. FEMA Form 90-120 records factors that could
affect the scope of the work. FEMA Form 90-121 is used to determine
private non-profit applicant eligibility. FEMA Form 90-123 identifies
employees from the applicant's own workforce who perform related work,
and FEMA form 90-124 identifies materials of the applicant used on the
project. FEMA Form 90-125 provides a list of materials rented for the
project, FEMA Form 90-126 identifies contract costs for the project,
FEMA Form 90-127 records the applicant's equipment costs and FEMA Form
90-128 provides the applicant's benefit costs for the project. The
request for appeals, both first and second, and well as the arbitration
requests allow for the applicant to request a review of determinations
made.
    Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Government.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 167,554 Hours.

                                                 Table A.12--Estimated Annualized Burden Hours and Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Number of                Avg. burden     Total                     Total
                                                                Number of    responses    Total no.       per         annual    Avg. hourly     annual
         Type of respondent            Form name/form number   respondents      per           of        response   burden  (in   wage rate*   respondent
                                                                             respondent   responses    (in hours)     hours)                     cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State, Local or Tribal Government...  Request for Public                56          212       11,872        0.167        1,983       $51.10     $101,312
                                       Assistance/FEMA Form
                                       90-49.
State, Local or Tribal Government...  Project Worksheet (PW)            56          903       50,568          1.5       75,852        51.10    3,876,037
                                       and continuation forms/
                                       FEMA Form 90-91
                                       (including sheets 90-
                                       91A, 90-91B, 90-91C
                                       and 90-91D).
State, Local or Tribal Government...  Special Considerations            56          903       50,568          0.5       25,284        51.10    1,292,012
                                       Questions/FEMA Form 90-
                                       120.
State, Local or Tribal Government...  Applicant's Benefits              56          903       50,568          0.5       25,284        51.10    1,292,012
                                       Calculation Worksheet/
                                       FEMA Form 90-128.

State, Local or Tribal Government...  PNP Facility                      56           94        5,264          0.5        2,632        51.10      134,495
                                       Questionnaire/FEMA
                                       Form 90-121.
State, Local or Tribal Government...  Force Account Labor               56           94        5,264          0.5        2,632        51.10      134,495
                                       Summary Record/FEMA
                                       Form 90-123.
State, Local or Tribal Government...  Materials Summary                 56           94        5,264         0.25        1,316        51.10       67,248
                                       Record/FEMA Form 90-
                                       124.
State, Local or Tribal Government...  Rented Equipment                  56           94        5,264          0.5        2,632        51.10      134,495
                                       Summary Record/FEMA
                                       Form 90-125.
State, Local or Tribal Government...  Contract Work Summary             56           94        5,264          0.5        2,632        51.10      134,495
                                       Record/FEMA Form 90-
                                       126.
State, Local or Tribal Government...  Force Account Equipment           56           94        5,264         0.25        1,316        51.10       67,248
                                       Summary Record/FEMA
                                       Form 90-127.
State, Local or Tribal Government...  State Administrative              56            1           56            8          448        51.10       22,893
                                       Plan/No Form.
State, Local or Tribal Government...  State Administrative              56            1           56            8          448        51.10       22,893
                                       Plan--Submission of
                                       Amendments After a
                                       Declaration/No Form.
State, Local or Tribal Government...  Request for Time                  56           47        2,632          0.5        1,316        51.10       67,248
                                       Extension/No Form.
State, Local or Tribal Government...  Request for Additional            56           19        1,064          0.5          532        51.10       27,185
                                       Funding Cost Overruns
                                       for Large Projects/No
                                       Form.
State, Local or Tribal Government...  Progress Report/No Form           56            4          224          100       22,400        51.10    1,144,640
State, Local or Tribal Government...  Request for First                 56            7          392            1          392        51.10       20,031
                                       Appeal and
                                       Recommendation/No Form.
State, Local or Tribal Government...  Request for Second                56            2          112            1          112        51.10        5,723
                                       Appeal and
                                       Recommendation/No Form.
State, Local or Tribal Government...  Request for Arbitration/         171            1          171            1          171        51.10        8,738
                                       No Form.
State, Local or Tribal Government...  Recommendation for                 4           43          172            1          172        51.10        8,789
                                       Arbitration.
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...........................  .......................           56  ...........  ...........  ...........      167,554  ...........   $8,561,990
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Cost: There are no annual reporting or recordkeeping
costs associated with this collection.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the

burden of the proposed collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.

Lawann Johnson,
Acting Director, Records Management Division, Office of Management,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. E9-27542 Filed 11-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 59 (Wednesday, March 27, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11415-11416]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05824]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2019-0135]

Safety Zone; Pittsburgh Pirates Fireworks, Allegheny River,
Pittsburgh, PA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce safety zones for the Pittsburgh
Pirates Fireworks on the Allegheny River, extending the entire width of
the river, from mile 0.2 to 0.9 in Pittsburgh, PA. The safety zones are
necessary to protect vessels transiting the area and event spectators
from the hazards associated with the Pittsburgh Pirates barge-based
firework displays following certain home games throughout the season.
During the enforcement period, entry into, transiting, or anchoring in
the safety zones is prohibited to all vessels not registered with the
sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels, unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh
(COTP) or a designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.801, Table 1, Line 1 will be
enforced from 8 p.m. through 11:59 p.m. each day on May 24, June 21,
August 3, August 23, and September 27, 2019, unless the firework
displays are postponed because of adverse weather, in which case, this
rule will be enforced within 48 hours of each scheduled date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice of enforcement, call or email MST1 Jennifer Haggins, Marine
Safety Unit Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety
zones for the annual Pittsburgh Pirates Fireworks listed in 33 CFR
165.801, Table 1, line 1 from 8 p.m. through 11:59 p.m. each day on May
24, June 21, August 3, August 23, and September 27, 2019. Should
inclement weather require rescheduling, the safety zone will be
effective following games on a rain date to occur within 48 hours of
the scheduled date. Entry into the safety zone is prohibited to all
vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official
patrol vessels, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine
Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) or a designated representative. Persons
or vessels desiring to enter into or pass through the safety zone must
request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. If
permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the
instructions of the COTP or designated representative.
    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR
165.801 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement
in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime
community with advance notification of these enforcement periods via
Local Notice to Mariners and updates via Marine Information Broadcasts.

    Dated: March 21, 2019.
A.W. Demo,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit
Pittsburgh.
[FR Doc. 2019-05824 Filed 3-26-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40263-40266]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13084]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0226; 10963-01-OAR]

Proposed Baseline Approval of the Contact-Handled Transuranic
Waste Characterization Program Implemented at the Department of
Energy's Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, Illinois

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability; opening of a 45-day public comment
period.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is
announcing the availability of, and soliciting public comments on, the
proposed ``baseline'' approval of the contact-handled (CH) transuranic
(TRU) debris waste characterization program implemented by the Central
Characterization Program (CCP) at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE)
Argonne National Laboratory in Lemont, IL. The inspections supporting
this proposed baseline approval took place from November 15-17, 2022
remotely and on site in Lemont, IL. EPA identified no findings or
concerns and proposes to approve the ANL-CCP CH TRU debris waste
characterization program. EPA's report documenting the inspection
results and proposed baseline approval is available for review in the
public docket listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. Until
the Agency finalizes its baseline approval decision, the DOE Carlsbad
Field Office may not certify ANL-CCP's CH waste characterization
program and the site may not ship transuranic waste to the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant for disposal.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 7, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2023-0226, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. EPA
may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not
electronically submit any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is

restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods,
the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit: http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Ellis<PHONE_NUMBER>) or Edward
Feltcorn<PHONE_NUMBER>). Radiation Protection Division, Center for
Waste Management and Regulations, Mail Code 6608T, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20460;
email addresses: [email protected] or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in electronic
media that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the electronic media as
CBI and then identify electronically within the files what specific
information is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of
the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the
comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-
0226 and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
     Follow directions: The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

    The DOE operates the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) facility
near Carlsbad in southeastern New Mexico as a deep geologic repository
for disposal of defense-related TRU radioactive waste. TRU waste
contains more than 100 nanocuries of alpha-emitting TRU isotopes, with
half-lives greater than twenty years, per gram of waste. Much of the
existing TRU waste, which may also be contaminated with hazardous
chemicals, consists of items contaminated during the production of
nuclear weapons, such as debris waste (rags, equipment, tools) and
solid waste (sludges, soil). Legacy weapons production facilities,
including ANL, that have generated TRU waste for shipment to and
disposal at WIPP are expected use approved waste characterization
programs.
    EPA's inspection and approval processes for waste generator sites,
including quality assurance and waste characterization programs, are
described at 40 CFR 194.8. The Agency has discretion in establishing
technical priorities, the ability to accommodate variation in the
site's waste characterization capabilities, and flexibility in
scheduling site waste characterization inspections.
    In accordance with the conditions in the WIPP compliance
certification and relevant regulatory provisions, including 40 CFR
194.8, EPA conducts ``baseline'' inspections at waste generator sites,
as well as subsequent inspections to confirm continued compliance. As
part of a baseline inspection, EPA evaluates each waste
characterization process component (equipment, procedures and personnel
training and experience) for adequacy and appropriateness in
characterizing TRU waste intended for disposal at the WIPP. During the
inspection, the site demonstrates its capabilities to characterize TRU
waste and its ability to comply with the regulatory limits and tracking
requirements under Sec.  194.24. The baseline inspection can result in
approval with limitations and conditions or may require follow-up
inspection(s) before approval. Within the approval documentation, EPA
specifies what subsequent program changes should be reported to the
Agency, referred to as Tier 1 (T1) or Tier 2 (T2) changes, depending
largely on the anticipated effect of the changes on data quality.
    A T1 designation requires that the DOE Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO)
provide to EPA documentation on proposed changes to the approved
components of an individual site-specific waste characterization
process (such as radioassay equipment), which the Agency must approve
before the change can be implemented. T2 designated changes are minor
changes to the approved components of individual waste characterization
processes (such as visual examination procedures) which must also be
reported to EPA, but the site may implement such changes without
awaiting Agency approval. The inspections conducted to evaluate T1 or
T2 changes are under the authority of EPA's WIPP compliance
certification conditions and regulations, including 40 CFR 194.8 and
194.24(h). In addition to follow-up inspections, EPA may opt to conduct
continued compliance inspections at TRU waste sites with a baseline
approval under the authority of the WIPP compliance certification
regulations, including Sec.  194.24(h).
    In accordance with 40 CFR 194.8, EPA issues a Federal Register
notice proposing a baseline compliance decision, dockets the inspection
report for public review, and seeks public comment on the proposed
decision for a minimum period of 45 days. The report describes the
waste characterization processes the Agency inspected at the site, as
well as their compliance with 40 CFR 194.8 and 194.24 requirements.

A. Proposed Baseline Decision

    This notice announces EPA's proposed baseline approval of the CH
TRU waste characterization program implemented by the CCP at the DOE's
Argonne National Laboratory. In accordance with 40 CFR 194.8(b), EPA
conducted Baseline Inspection No. ANL-CCP-CH-Baseline-2022 on November
15-17, 2022, remotely and at Argonne National Laboratory. Upon EPA's
final approval, the DOE may emplace ANL-CCP CH TRU waste in the WIPP.
    ANL is located in Lemont, Illinois, approximately 25 miles
southwest of downtown Chicago. Originally founded

in 1946 as the first national laboratory, ANL grew from conducting
initial experiments performed at the University of Chicago to producing
plutonium for nuclear weapons. Since then, ANL has supported research
and development of nuclear reactors and related systems, materials, and
components for civilian and national defense programs. This work
historically included development of essentially all domestic reactor
systems in use today for isotope production, power generation and naval
submarine propulsion, as well as applications for weapons destruction,
defense waste management, defense safeguards and security and space
propulsion. Currently, ANL is a multi-disciplinary research laboratory
that performs basic and applied work in engineering, chemistry,
physics, materials and environmental studies. Transuranic waste-
generating activities at ANL consist mainly of cleaning out buildings
or other areas previously used for a variety of research activities.
    EPA is proposing to approve the ANL-CCP waste characterization
program implemented to characterize CH TRU waste as documented in the
accompanying inspection report. Specifically, the proposed approval
includes:

    (1) The AK (Acceptable Knowledge) process for ANL CH TRU waste.
    (2) The MILCC5 (Mobile ISOCS Large Container Counter No. 5) NDA
(Non-destructive assay) system and processes for characterizing CH
TRU waste.
    (3) The VE (Visual Examination) process to identify waste
material parameters and the physical form of CH TRU waste.

Any changes to the waste characterization activities after the date of
the baseline inspection must be reported to and, if applicable,
approved by EPA according to Table 1 below. All T1 changes must be
submitted for approval before their implementation and will be
evaluated by EPA. Upon approval, the Agency will post the results of
the evaluations in EPA's general WIPP docket at regulations.gov (Docket
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0012). ANL-CCP must submit T2 changes at the end of
the fiscal year quarter in which they were implemented.
    EPA's final approval decision regarding the ANL-CCP CH waste
characterization program will be conveyed to the DOE separately by
letter following EPA's review of public comments received in response
to this notice and proposed approval discussed in the inspection
report. This information will be provided through EPA's WIPP docket
provided for this action at regulations.gov (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2023-0226), in accordance with 40 CFR 194.8(b)(3).

                                                     Table 1
                  [Based on November 15-17, 2022, Baseline Inspection ANL-CCP-CH-Baseline-2022]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           ANL-CCP CH waste
          Process elements            characterization process--   ANL-CCP CH waste characterization process--T2
                                              T1 changes                             changes *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acceptable Knowledge (AK)..........  Implementation of payload    Submission of a list of active ANL-CCP CH AK
                                      management.                  experts and site project managers
                                                                  Notification to EPA upon availability of or
                                                                   substantive modification ** to:
                                                                   AK summary reports (e.g., CCP-AK-ANLE-
                                                                   002)
                                                                   AK accuracy reports (annually, at a
                                                                   minimum)
                                                                   Waste stream profile forms and any
                                                                   associated change notices
                                                                   Add container memoranda
                                                                   Site AK procedures requiring CBFO
                                                                   approval ***
                                                                   Enhanced AK documents such as CCP-TP-
                                                                   005, Attachment 9 forms and AK Assessment,
                                                                   CCE and Basis of Knowledge memoranda
                                                                   (including addition of new figures or
                                                                   attachments).
Nondestructive Assay (NDA).........  New equipment or             Submission of a list of ANL-CCP NDA operators,
                                      substantive physical         expert analysts and independent technical
                                      modifications ** to          reviewers that performed work during the
                                      approved equipment.          previous quarter
                                     Extension of or changes to   Notification to EPA upon substantive
                                      approved calibration         modification ** to:
                                      ranges for approved          Software for approved equipment
                                      equipment.                   Operating ranges upon CBFO approval
                                     Measurement geometries        Site NDA procedures requiring CBFO
                                      other than 55-gallon drums.  approval. ***
Visual Examination (VE)............  VE for non-debris waste....  Submission of a list of ANL-CCP VE operators,
                                     VE by any process other       VE experts and independent technical
                                      than ANL-CCP VE operators    reviewers that performed work during the
                                      observing ANL waste          previous quarter
                                      handlers package the waste  Notification to EPA upon substantive
                                      in a glovebox, as            modification ** to site VE procedures
                                      demonstrated during the      requiring CBFO approval. ***
                                      2022 baseline inspection.
Real-time Radiography (RTR)........  Implementation of RTR......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ANL-CCP will report all T2 changes to EPA every three months.
** ``Substantive modification'' refers to a change with the potential to affect ANL-CCP's CH waste
  characterization processes or documentation of them, excluding changes that are solely related to the
  environment, safety and health; nuclear safety; or the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; or that are
  editorial in nature or are required to address administrative concerns. EPA may request copies of new
  references that the DOE adds during a document revision.
*** Site procedures include any procedures used by ANL-CCP personnel that require Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO)
  approval. This includes ANL-CCP-specific procedures as well as applicable CCP-wide procedure.

III. Availability of the Baseline Inspection Report and Proposed
Approval for Public Comment

    EPA has placed the report discussing the results of the inspection
of the CH TRU waste characterization program at ANL in the public
docket as described in the ADDRESSES section of this document. In
accordance with 40 CFR 194.8, the Agency is providing the public 45
days to comment on this and EPA's proposed decision to approve the ANL-
CCP CH TRU waste characterization program. The Agency will accept
public comment on this

notice and supplemental information as described in Section I above. At
the end of the public comment period, EPA will evaluate all relevant
public comments and, as the Agency may deem appropriate and necessary,
revise the report and proposed approval or take other appropriate
action. If EPA concludes that there are no unresolved issues after the
public comment period, the Agency will issue an approval letter and the
final report. The letter of approval will authorize the DOE to approve
the ANL-CCP waste characterization program implemented to characterize
CH TRU waste at ANL.
    Information on the approval decision will be filed in the official
public docket opened for this action on www.regulations.gov, Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0226 (as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this
document).

Jonathan Edwards,
Director, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air.
[FR Doc. 2023-13084 Filed 6-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P