[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33611-33612]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11007]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2021-0601; FRL-11002-01-OMS]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the
Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment
Request; Underground Storage Tank Finder Application (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Underground Storage Tank Finder
Application (EPA ICR Number 2696.01, OMB Control Number 2080-NEW), to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a request for
approval of a new collection. Public comments were previously requested
via the Federal Register on September 15, 2022 during a 60-day comment
period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public
comments.

DATES: Comments may be submitted on or before June 23, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments to EPA, referencing Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-ORD-2021-0601, online using https://www.regulations.gov/ (our
preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. EPA's policy is that all
comments received will be included in the public docket without change
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Submit written comments and recommendations to
OMB for the proposed information collection within 30 days of
publication of this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find
this particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under
30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search
function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexander Hall, Office of Research and
Development, Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response,
Environmental Protection Agency, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive,
Cincinnati, OH 45268; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a new ICR. An agency may not conduct
or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register
on September 15, 2022 during a 60-day comment period. Supporting
documents that explain in detail the information that the EPA will
collect are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can
be viewed online at https://www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA
Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-
1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit
http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The EPA recently developed the Underground Storage Tank
(UST) Finder application (hereafter ``UST Finder''). UST Finder is a
publicly available web map application containing a comprehensive,
state- sourced national map of UST and leaking underground storage tank
(LUST) data. UST Finder is available via EPA's GeoPlatform at https://gispub.epa.gov/ustfinder. UST Finder provides users access to
information on the attributes and locations of active and closed USTs,
UST facilities, and LUSTs in states in a geographic information system
(GIS) environment. This information collection relates to information
that state and territorial agencies already collect from UST and LUST
owners and operators as part of their customary business practice to
manage their compliance and enforcement programs. To successfully
implement, maintain, and improve the data quality and usability of UST
Finder, the Agency seeks to gather, on a voluntary basis, information
from state and territorial agencies that oversee UST/LUST programs.
Specifically, EPA will request that these agencies provide location and
other relevant data about USTs and LUSTs that is already being
collected and managed by states and territories.
    This information collection is voluntary and does not require the
agencies to collect additional data on USTs/LUSTs beyond the data
elements that are already being collected through their previously
implemented programs. States and territories will decide the extent of
information to be provided.
    The EPA intends to implement four options for collecting the UST/
LUST

data from states and territories: (1) by developing an Exchange server
or other automated service through which states can ``push'' their data
to the EPA, (2) by developing a link to the agencies' pre-existing
electronic service used to maintain public websites such that the EPA
can ``pull'' the data, (3) by allowing states and territories to submit
existing databases or spreadsheets through an approved file sharing
method, or (4) by EPA obtaining publicly available data from state and
territory public agency websites (an option that will be exercised if
states and territories do not voluntarily submit their data). For all
data transfer options, the EPA will standardize, curate, and enter
records into the UST Finder application.
    Form numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: States and territories with
delegated authority to operate UST and LUST programs under 40 CFR parts
280, 281, 282, and 40 CFR 302.4.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.
    Estimated number of respondents: 56 (total). This includes the 50
states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands,
Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands.
    Frequency of response: Semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 3,470 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $175,000 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation and maintenance costs.
    Changes in the estimates: This is a new information collection,
therefore, there are no previous burden estimates. The estimated burden
reflects assumptions based on Agency experience from the development of
the UST Finder application and consultation with affected entities. No
comments were received on the burden previously published in the
Federal Register. Should the EPA request to extend this information
collection 3 years from now, changes in burden will be evaluated at
that time.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2023-11007 Filed 5-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 28, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 187)]
[Notices]
[Page 56748]
[DOCID:fr28se05-197]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.

Extension:
    Rule 17f-2(d); SEC File No. 270-36; OMB Control No. 3235-0028.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget requests for approval of extension on the following rule and
form: Rule 17f-2(d).
    Rule 17f-2(d) was adopted on March 16, 1976, and was last amended
on November 18, 1982. Paragraph (d) of the rule (i) requires that
records produced pursuant to the fingerprinting requirements of Section
17(f)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') be
maintained, (ii) permits the designated examining authorities of
broker-dealers or members of exchanges, under certain circumstances, to
store and maintain records required to be kept by this rule, and (iii)
permits the required records to be maintained on microfilm.
    The general purpose of Rule 17f-2 is: (i) To identify security risk
personnel; (ii) to provide criminal record information so that
employers can make fully informed employment decisions; and (iii) to
deter persons with criminal records from seeking employment or
association with covered entities.
    Retention of fingerprint records, as required under paragraph (d)
of the Rule enables the Commission or other examining authority to
ascertain whether all required persons are being fingerprinted and
whether proper procedures regarding fingerprinting are being followed.
Retention of these records for the term of employment of all personnel
plus three years ensures that law enforcement officials will have easy
access to fingerprint cards on a timely basis. This in turn acts as an
effective deterrent to employee misconduct.
    Approximately 9,468 respondents are subject to the recordkeeping
requirements of the rule. Each respondent keeps approximately 32 new
records per year, which takes approximately 2 minutes per record for
the respondent to maintain, for an annual burden of 64 minutes per
respondent. All records subject to the rule must be retained for the
term of employment plus 3 years. The Commission estimates that the
total annual cost to submitting entities is approximately $196,850.
This figure reflects estimated costs of labor and storage of records.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid control number.
    Written comments regarding the above information should be directed
to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or by sending an e-mail to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief

Information Officer, Office of Information Technology, Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Comments
must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: September 20, 2005.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-5252 Filed 9-27-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 146 (Tuesday, July 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45936-45937]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18256]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2013-0029; OMB No. 1660-0005]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; National Flood Insurance Program Claim Forms

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

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 revision of a currently approved information
collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
this notice seeks comments concerning the collection of information
related to the flood insurance claims process.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 30, 2013.

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-2013-0029. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Docket Manager, Office of
Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Room 840, Washington, DC
20472-3100.
    (3) Facsimile. Submit comments to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    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 via the link in the footer
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Waters, Insurance Examiner,
FEMA at<PHONE_NUMBER> for additional information. You may contact the
Records Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of
information at facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER> or email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
is codified as 42 U.S.C. 4001, et sec. and is authorized by Public Law
90-448 (1968) and expanded by Public Law 93-234 (1973). The National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968 requires that the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) provides flood insurance at full actuarial
rates with limited exceptions for certain structures reflecting the
complete flood risk to structures built or substantially improved on or
after the effective date for the initial Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) for the community, or after December 31, 1974, whichever is
later, so that the risk associated with buildings in flood-prone areas
are borne by those located in such areas and not by the taxpayers at
large. In accordance with Public Law 93-234, the purchase of flood
insurance is mandatory when Federal or federally related financial
assistance is being provided for acquisition or construction of
buildings located, or to be located, within FEMA-identified special
flood hazard areas of communities that are participating in the NFIP.
When flood damage occurs to insured property, information is collected
to report, investigate, and negotiate in order to settle the claim.

The NFIP Appeals Process

    Section 205 of The Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance
Reform Act (FIRA) of 2004, Public Law 108-264, requires the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to establish by regulation an
additional process for the appeal of decisions of flood insurance
claims issued through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Consequently, FEMA published an interim final rule in May 2006 and a
final rule in October 2006 codifying into regulation what was
previously an existing informal process to handle appeals regarding
decisions related to coverage, or claims under the NFIP.

Collection of Information

    Title: National Flood Insurance Program Claim Forms.
    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form 086-0-6; Worksheet--Content--Personal
Property; 086-0-7; Worksheet--Building; 086-0-8; Worksheet--Building
(Continued); 086-0-9; Proof of Loss; 086-0-10; Increased Cost of
Compliance Proof of Loss; 086-0-11; Notice of Loss; 086-0-12; Statement
as to Full Cost of Repair or Replacement under the Replacement Cost
Coverage, Subject to Terms and Conditions of this Policy; 086-0-13;
National Flood Insurance Program Preliminary Report; 086-0-14; National
Flood Insurance Program Final Report; 086-0-15; National Flood
Insurance Program Narrative Report; 086-0-16; Cause of Loss and
Subrogation Report; 086-0-17; Manufactured (Mobile) Home/Travel Trailer
Worksheet; 086-0-18; Manufactured (Mobile) Home/Travel Trailer
Worksheet (Continued); 086-0-19; Increased Cost of Compliance (ICC)
Adjusters Report; 086-0-20; Adjuster Preliminary Damage Assessment;
086-0-21; Adjuster Certification

Application. NFIP Claims Appeals Process.
    Abstract: The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) appeal
process establishes a formal mechanism to allow NFIP policyholders to
appeal the decisions of any insurance agent, adjuster, insurance
company, or any Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) employee or
contractor, in cases or unsatisfactory decisions on claims, proof of
loss, and loss estimates.
    Affected Public: Individuals, households, farms, businesses, and
other for profit.
    Number of Respondents: 97,242.
    Number of Responses: 97,242.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 73,815.
    Estimated Cost: There are no recordkeeping, capital, start-up or
maintenance costs associated with this information 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.

    Dated: July 23, 2013.
Charlene D. Myrthil,
Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2013-18256 Filed 7-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-11-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 12, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40860-40868]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17341]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0100]

Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for
Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act of 2010 Rulemaking

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

ACTION: Notice of intent; request for scoping comments.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
NHTSA plans to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the
agency's rulemaking to implement the Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act
of 2010. The Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act mandates a rulemaking to
establish a standard requiring electric and hybrid vehicles to be
equipped with a pedestrian alert sound system that would activate in
certain vehicle operating conditions to aid visually-impaired and other
pedestrians in detecting the presence, direction, location, and
operation of those vehicles.
    Under NEPA, once an agency determines the purpose and need of the
proposed federal action, it engages in scoping. This is the process by
which the scope of the issues and the alternatives to be examined are
determined. This notice initiates the scoping process by inviting
comments from Federal, State, and local agencies, Indian Tribes, and
the public to help identify the environmental issues and reasonable
alternatives to be examined under NEPA. This notice also provides
guidance for participating in the scoping process and additional
information about the alternatives NHTSA expects to consider in its
NEPA analysis.

DATES: The scoping process will culminate in the preparation and
issuance of an Environmental Assessment (EA), which will be made
available for public comment. To ensure that NHTSA has an opportunity
to consider scoping comments fully and to

facilitate NHTSA's prompt preparation of the EA, scoping comments
should be submitted in time to ensure that they will be received on or
before August 11, 2011. NHTSA will try to consider comments received
after that date to the extent the rulemaking schedule allows.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern
time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the
docket number of this document.
    You may call the Docket at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Note that all comments received, including any personal information
provided, will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, contact Gayle
Dalrymple, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. For legal issues, contact Thomas
Healy, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a forthcoming notice of proposed
rulemaking, NHTSA intends to propose a Federal motor vehicle safety
standard requiring electric and hybrid vehicles to be equipped with a
pedestrian safety (PEDSAFE) sound system that emits a sound in certain
operating conditions to aid visually-impaired and other pedestrians in
detecting the presence and operation of those vehicles. The issuance of
a PEDSAFE standard is mandated by the Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act
of 2010 (``Pedestrian Safety Act'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Pedestrian Safety Act is Public Law 111-373, 124 Stat.
4086 (January 4, 2011). 49 U.S.C. 30111 note.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with this action, NHTSA intends to prepare an EA
analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the proposed safety
standard and reasonable alternative standards pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and implementing regulations issued by
the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and NHTSA.\2\ NEPA requires
Federal agencies to consider the potential environmental impacts of
their proposed actions and reasonable alternatives in their
decisionmaking. To inform decisionmakers and the public, the NEPA
analysis will compare the potential environmental impacts of the
agency's preferred alternative and reasonable alternatives, including a
``no action'' alternative. As required by NEPA, the agency will
consider direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts and discuss impacts
in proportion to their significance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ NEPA is codified at 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347. CEQ's NEPA
implementing regulations are codified at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, and
NHTSA's NEPA implementing regulations are codified at 49 CFR part
520.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

A. 2008 NHTSA Public Meeting

    On May 30, 2008, NHTSA published a notice \3\ in the Federal
Register announcing the holding of a public meeting on June 23, 2008 to
bring together government policymakers, stakeholders from the visually-
impaired community, industry representatives and public interest groups
to discuss the technical and safety policy issues associated with
hybrids, all-electric vehicles and quiet internal combustion engine
vehicles, and the resultant risks to visually-impaired pedestrians. The
prepared presentations submitted at the meeting and a transcript of the
meeting can be found in Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0108 on http://www.regulations.gov.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 73 FR 31187; May 30, 2008.
    \4\ The presentations are in document  0012 and the
transcript is in document  0023 (Docket No. NHTSA-2008-
0108-0012 and Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0108-0023, respectively).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. 2009 and 2010 NHTSA Reports

    In the two years following the public meeting, NHTSA issued two
reports, one in October 2009 and the other in April 2010. The earlier
report was entitled ``Research on Quieter Cars and the Safety of Blind
Pedestrians, A Report to Congress.\5\ The report briefly discussed the
quieter cars issue, how NHTSA's research plan addresses the issue, and
the status of the agency's research in following that plan. In an
effort to quantify the problem of hybrid crashes with pedestrians,
NHTSA examined the incidence rates for crashes involving hybrid
electric vehicles and pedestrians under different circumstances, using
data from 12 states, and compared the results to those for internal
combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. This study, which was based on a
small sample size, found an increased rate of pedestrian crashes for
hybrid vehicles compared to their peer ICE vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Research on Quieter Cars and the Safety of Blind
Pedestrians, A Report to Congress, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC,
October 2009, available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Crash%20Avoidance/Technical%20Publications/2010/RptToCongress091709.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the April 2010 report,\6\ NHTSA said that it recognized that
quieter cars, such as hybrid-electric vehicles in low-speed operation
using their electric motors, may introduce a safety issue for
pedestrians who are visually-impaired. This study documented the
overall sound levels and general spectral content (i.e., the
characteristics of the sound such as frequency, phase, and amplitude
values of the sound) for a selection of hybrid-electric and internal
combustion vehicles in different operating conditions, evaluated
vehicle detectability for two surrounding (or ambient) sound levels,
and considered countermeasure concepts that are categorized as vehicle-
based, infrastructure-based, and systems requiring vehicle-pedestrian
communications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Garay-Vega, Lisandra; Hastings, Aaron; Pollard, John K.;
Zuschlag, Michael; and Stearns, Mary D., Quieter Cars and the Safety
of Blind Pedestrians: Phase I, John A. Volpe National Transportation
Systems Center, DOT HS 811 304 April 2010, available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Crash%20Avoidance/Technical%20Publications/2010/811304rev.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some of the main findings were that overall sound levels for the
hybrid-electric vehicles tested were lower at low speeds than for the
internal combustion engine vehicles tested. There were also significant
differences in human subjects' response time depending on whether
electric or internal combustion propulsion was used at both the lower
and higher levels of ambient sound. Candidate countermeasures were
discussed in terms of types of information provided (direction, vehicle
speed, and rate of speed change, etc); useful range of detection of
vehicles by pedestrians, warning time, user acceptability, and barriers
to implementation. This study provided baseline data on the acoustic
characteristics and auditory

detectability of a vehicle when a single vehicle is tested at a time.

C. 2011 Pedestrian Safety Act

    The Pedestrian Safety Act requires NHTSA to conduct a rulemaking to
establish a Federal motor vehicle safety standard \7\ requiring an
alert sound for pedestrians to be emitted by all types of motor
vehicles \8\ that are electric vehicles \9\ or hybrid vehicles \10\
(EVs and HVs). Thus, the covered types of vehicles include not only
light vehicles (passenger cars, vans, sport utility vehicles and pickup
trucks), but also low speed vehicles, motorcycles, medium and heavy
trucks and buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NHTSA is delegated authority by the Secretary of
Transportation to carry out Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United
States Code. See 49 CFR Sec.  501.2. This includes the authority to
issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 49 U.S.C. 30111.
    \8\ Section 2(4) of the Pedestrian Safety Act defines the term
``motor vehicle'' as having the meaning given such term in section
30102(a)(6) of title 49, United States Code, except that such term
shall not include a trailer (as such term is defined in section
571.3 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations). Section 30102(a)(6)
defines ``motor vehicle'' as meaning a vehicle driven or drawn by
mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public
streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle
operated only on a rail line.
    \9\ Section 2(10) of the Pedestrian Safety Act defines
``electric vehicle'' as a motor vehicle with an electric motor as
its sole means of propulsion.
    \10\ Section 2(9) of the Pedestrian Safety Act defines ``hybrid
vehicle'' as a motor vehicle which has more than one means of
propulsion. As a practical matter, this term is currently
essentially synonymous with ``hybrid electric vehicle.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rulemaking must be initiated not later than 18 months after the
date of enactment of the Pedestrian Safety Act. Given that the date of
enactment was January 4, 2011, rulemaking must be initiated by July 4,
2012.
    The PEDSAFE standard must specify performance requirements for an
alert sound that enables visually-impaired and other pedestrians to
reasonably detect EVs and HVs operating below their cross-over
speed.\11\ The Pedestrian Safety Act defines ``alert sound'' as a
vehicle-emitted sound that enables pedestrians to discern the presence,
direction,\12\ location, and operation of the vehicle.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Section 2(3) of the Pedestrian Safety Act defines ``cross-
over speed'' as the speed at which tire noise, wind resistance, or
other factors make an EV or HV detectable by pedestrians without the
aid of an alert sound. The definition requires NHTSA to determine
the speed at which an alert sound is no longer necessary.
    \12\ The Pedestrian Safety Act does not specify whether vehicle
``direction'' is to be defined with reference to the vehicle itself
(thus meaning forward or backward) or the pedestrian.
    \13\ Section 2(2) of the Pedestrian Safety Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Pedestrian Safety Act specifies several requirements regarding
the performance of the alert sound to enable pedestrians to discern the
operation of motor vehicles. First, the alert sound must be sufficient
to allow a pedestrian to reasonably detect a nearby EV or HV operating
at constant speed, accelerating, decelerating and operating in any
other scenarios that NHTSA deems appropriate.\14\ Second, it must
reflect the agency's determination of the minimum sound level emitted
by a motor vehicle that is necessary to allow visually-impaired and
other pedestrians to reasonably detect a nearby EV or HV operating
below the cross-over speed.\15\ Third, it must reflect the agency's
determination of the performance requirements necessary to ensure that
each vehicle's alert sound is recognizable to pedestrians as that of a
motor vehicle in operation.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Section 3(a) of the Pedestrian Safety Act.
    \15\ Section 3(b) of the Pedestrian Safety Act.
    \16\ Section 3(b)(2) of the Pedestrian Safety Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Pedestrian Safety Act mandates that the PEDSAFE standard shall
not require the alert sound to be dependent on either driver or
pedestrian activation. It also requires that the safety standard allow
manufacturers to provide each vehicle with one or more alert sounds
that comply, at the time of manufacture, with the safety standard. Each
vehicle of the same make and model must emit the same alert sound or
set of sounds. The standard is required to prohibit manufacturers from
providing anyone, other than the manufacturer or dealers, with a device
designed to disable, alter, replace or modify the alert sound or set of
sounds emitted from the vehicle. A manufacturer or a dealer, however,
is allowed to alter, replace, or modify the alert sound or set of
sounds in order to remedy a defect or non-compliance with the safety
standard.
    Because the Pedestrian Safety Act directs NHTSA to issue these
requirements as a motor vehicle safety standard under the National
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act),\17\ the
requirements must comply with that Act as well as the Pedestrian Safety
Act. The Vehicle Safety Act requires each safety standard to be
performance-oriented, practicable,\18\ and objective \19\ and meet the
need for safety. In addition, in developing and issuing a standard,
NHTSA must consider whether the standard is reasonable, practicable,
and appropriate for each type of motor vehicle covered by the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301.
    \18\ In a case involving passive occupant restraints, the U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals for D.C. said that the agency must consider
public reaction in assessing the practicability of required safety
equipment like an ignition interlock for seat belts. Pacific Legal
Foundation v. Department of Transportation, 593 F.2d 1338 (D.C. Cir.
1978). cert. denied, 444 U.S. 830 (1979).
    \19\ In a case involving passive occupant restraints, the U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit said, quoting the House
Report (H.R. 1776, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.1966, p. 16) for the original
Vehicle Safety Act, that ``objective criteria are absolutely
necessary so that `the question of whether there is compliance with
the standard can be answered by objective measurement and without
recourse to any subjective determination.' '' Chrysler v. Department
of Transportation, 472 F.2d 659 (6th Cir. 1972).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a federal motor vehicle safety standard, the pedestrian alert
sound system standard would be enforced in the same fashion as any
other safety standard issued under the Safety Act. Thus, violators of
the standard would be subject to civil penalties.\20\ A vehicle
manufacturer would be required to conduct a recall and provide remedy
without charge if its vehicles were determined to fail to comply with
the standard or if the alert sound system were determined to contain a
safety related defect.\21\ Further, vehicle manufacturers,
distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses would be
prohibited from rendering the sound system inoperative.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 49 U.S.C. 30112 and 30165.
    \21\ 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120.
    \22\ 49 U.S.C. 30122.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Pedestrian Safety Act requires NHTSA to consider the overall
community noise impact of any alert sound required by the safety
standard. In addition, NHTSA will consider the environmental analysis
prepared under NEPA when setting the standard.
    As part of the rulemaking process, NHTSA is expressly required by
the Pedestrian Safety Act to consult with:
     The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to assure that
any alert sound required by the rulemaking is consistent with noise
regulations issued by that agency;
     Consumer groups representing visually-impaired
individuals;
     Automobile manufacturers and trade associations
representing them;
     Technical standardization organizations responsible for
measurement methods such as
    [cir] The Society of Automotive Engineers,
    [cir] The International Organization for Standardization, and
    [cir] The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, World
Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ NHTSA officials have been participating in the meetings of
the World Forum informal working group charged with addressing the
problem of quiet cars. NHTSA is sending copies of this notice to
that group and to each of the other organizations with which it is
required to consult.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Act, NHTSA must publish a final rule establishing the
standard requiring an alert sound for EVs and HVs by January 4, 2014.
The Pedestrian

Safety Act requires that the agency provide a phase-in period, as
determined by NHTSA. However, full compliance with the standard must be
achieved for all vehicles manufactured on or after September 1st of the
calendar year beginning three years after the date of publication of
the final rule. Thus, if the final rule were promulgated sometime in
2013, the three-year period after the date of publication of the final
rule would end sometime in 2016. The first calendar year that would
begin after that date in 2016 would be calendar year 2017. Thus, under
that time scenario, full compliance would be required not later than
September 1, 2017.
    Finally, the Pedestrian Safety Act requires NHTSA to conduct a
study and report to Congress whether the agency believes that there is
a safety need to require alert sounds for motor vehicles with internal
combustion engines. The report must be submitted to Congress by January
4, 2015. If NHTSA determines that there is a safety need to require
alert sounds for those motor vehicles the agency must initiate a
rulemaking to require alert sounds for them.

D. Related Activities

    Other national regulatory bodies, international standards
organizations, and automotive manufacturers are considering the
possibility of adding alert sounds to EVs and HVs to aid pedestrian
detection of these vehicles.
    The Japanese Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and
Tourism (MLIT), after studying the feasibility of alert sounds for EVs
and HVs, issued guidelines for pedestrian alert sounds in 2010. MLIT
concluded that pedestrian alert sounds should be required only on HVs
that can run exclusively on an electric motor, EVs, and fuel-cell
vehicles.\24\ MLIT guidelines require that EVs and HVs generate a
pedestrian alert sound whenever the vehicle is moving forward at any
speed less than 20 km/h and when the vehicle is operating in reverse.
MLIT guidelines do not require vehicles to produce an alert sound when
the vehicle is operating, but stopped, such as at a traffic light.\25\
The manufacturer is allowed to equip the vehicle with a switch to
deactivate the alert sound temporarily.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Guidelines for Measure against Quietness Problem of HV,
[sic] MLIT and JASIC (2010). GRB Informal Group on Quiet Road
Transport Vehicles (QRTV) Working papers of the 3rd informal
meeting. Tokyo, 13-15 July 2010. Available at: http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29grb/QRTV_3.html.
    \25\ The MLIT guidelines do not require that an EV or HV emit an
alert sound when the vehicle is idling. Idling and stopped refer to
the same operating scenario.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MLIT includes the following guidelines for the type and volume
of sounds emitted by EVs and HVs:
     The sound shall be a continuous sound associated with a
motor vehicle in operation.
     The sound is not allowed to sound like sirens, chimes,
bells, a melody, or a horn. The sound of animals, insects, and natural
phenomena such as waves, wind, and river currents, are also prohibited.
     The sound shall be automatically altered in volume or
tone, depending on the vehicle's speed for easier recognition of the
movement of the vehicle.
     The volume of the sound shall not exceed the level of the
sound generated by ICE vehicles operating at the speed of 20 km/h.
    During its March 2011 session, the World Forum for Harmonization of
Vehicle Regulation of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
(UNECE) adopted guidelines covering alert sounds for EVs and HVs that
are closely based on the Japanese guidelines.\26\ The guidelines will
be published as an annex to the UNECE Consolidated Resolution on the
Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3). The guidelines developed by the UNECE
recommend that EVs and HVs emit pedestrian alert sounds beginning when
the vehicle starts moving and continuing until the speed of the vehicle
reaches 20 km/h. The guidelines do not specify that a vehicle emit an
alert sound when the vehicle is stopped or when a HV's ICE is engaged
and thus emitting sound. As under the Japanese guidelines,
manufacturers would be allowed to equip vehicles with an on-off switch
that the driver can use to silence the alert sound. The UNECE
guidelines also contain the same provisions for the type and volume of
alert sounds emitted by EVs and HVs as do the Japanese guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The guidelines were developed by the Informal Group on
Quiet Road Transport Vehicles (QRTV), which operates under the
auspices of the Working Party on Noise (GRB). Papers relating to the
informal group's six periodic meetings may be found at http://live.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29grb/qrtv_1.html, http://live.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29grb/qrtv_2.html, http://live.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29grb/qrtv_3.html, http://live.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29grb/qrtv_4.html, http://live.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29grb/qrtv_5.html, and
http://live.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29grb/qrtv_6.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Vehicle Sound for Pedestrians (VSP) subcommittee of the Society
of Automotive Engineers (SAE) is working to develop a test procedure to
measure sound emitted by ICE vehicles and sound systems that procedure
alert sounds for use on EVs and HVs.\27\ SAE has developed a draft
version of standard J2889-1, Measurement of Minimum Noise Emitted by
Road Vehicles. The purpose of J2889-1 is to provide an objective,
technology neutral test to measure the sound emitted by a vehicle in a
specified ambient noise condition.\28\ J2889-1 does not account for
psychoacoustic factors such as annoyance, recognizability, or
detectability. J2889-1 specifies the test site conditions,
meteorological conditions, and ambient noise level under which the
sound should be recorded. The test contains procedures for measuring
the sound pressure level (loudness) in decibels and frequency content
\29\ and changes in sound pressure level and frequency content of
sounds emitted by a vehicle in order to measure how the sounds relate
to vehicle speed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ A late 2010 status report on this work can be found at
http://www.sae.org/events/gim/presentations/2011/VSP.pdf.
    \28\ http://standards.sae.org/wip/j2889/1/.
    \29\ Low frequency sounds have a low pitch like the notes on the
lower end of a musical scale and high frequency sounds have a high
pitch like the notes on the upper end of such a scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is
cooperating with SAE in its efforts to develop a vehicle minimum noise
measurement standard. The ISO document (ISO/NP 16254 Measurement of
minimum noise emitted by road vehicles) \30\ and SAE document are
reportedly technically identical. The standard will provide procedures
for assessing the performance of countermeasure systems, including, for
example, a pitch shift measurement procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=56019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Automotive manufacturers that produce EVs for the U.S. market have
developed various pedestrian alert sounds, recognizing that those
vehicles, when operating at low speeds, pose a risk to pedestrians. For
example, the pedestrian alert system for the Nissan Leaf produces a
sound that could be described as a high-pitched whirring sound that
increases in volume as the vehicle accelerates forward. The pedestrian
alert sound deactivates once the vehicle reaches 32 km/h (20 mph). The
Leaf produces a beeping sound when operating in reverse. The vehicle is
equipped with a switch that allows the driver to turn off the alert
sound. The Leaf does not produce a sound when the vehicle is operating,
but stopped.

    The Chevrolet Volt, produced by General Motors, is equipped with a
driver activated pedestrian alert system. The system, which is
activated when the driver pulls back on the turn signal handle, emits a
short horn pulse.
    Automotive equipment manufacturers have begun developing speaker
systems designed to produce alert sounds to install on EVs and HVs.
Most of the systems have a single speaker that projects sound forward.
The same speaker is used to provide an alert sound both when the
vehicle is moving forward and when the vehicle is moving backward.
Other systems currently under development would allow the pedestrian
alert sound to be projected only in the direction of travel of the
vehicle. Manufacturers of these systems indicate that the directional
projection of warning sounds will reduce the amount of noise that the
system must produce to provide acoustic cues to pedestrians of the
presence of a nearby vehicle.

II. Purpose and Need for Rulemaking

    The purpose of the rulemaking mandated by the Pedestrian Safety Act
is to require EVs and HVs, which tend to be quieter than the ICE
vehicles, to be equipped with a pedestrian alert sound system that
would activate in certain vehicle operating conditions to aid visually-
impaired and other pedestrians in detecting the presence, direction,
location, and operation of those vehicles. Taking this action is
expected to reduce the number of incidents in which EVs and HVs strike
pedestrians.

III. The Alternatives

    This notice briefly describes a variety of possible alternatives
that are currently under consideration by the agency, and seeks input
from the public about these alternatives and about whether other
alternatives should be considered as we proceed with the rulemaking and
the EA. In developing Alternatives 2 through 5, NHTSA considered, as it
is required to do so, the Pedestrian Safety Act's requirements for
establishing a PEDSAFE standard. Those requirements are set out above
in section I of this notice.
    These alternatives are based on agency research seeking to
determine, with due concern for environmental considerations, what type
or types of sound will be most appropriate and effective for aiding
pedestrians in detecting, identifying and localizing \31\ the sound of
EVs and HVs both in the near future and in the more distant future as
the percentage of EVs and HVs in the vehicle fleet increases. The
agency notes that its research is ongoing and that outcome of that
research could affect the array of alternatives from which a preferred
alternative is selected for the notice of proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Sound localization refers to determining the distance and
direction of a detected sound.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The alternatives currently under consideration are:

A. Alternative 1: ``No Action'' Alternative

    This alternative assumes, strictly for purposes of NEPA analysis,
that NHTSA would not issue a rule requiring pedestrian alert sounds for
any electric or hybrid motor vehicles.\32\ NEPA requires agencies to
consider a ``no action'' alternative in their NEPA analyses and to
compare the effects of not taking action with the effects of the
reasonable action alternatives to demonstrate the different
environmental effects of the action alternatives. In defining this
baseline alternative, the agency would consider what actions might be
taken by other parties in the absence of action by this agency. In
other words, the agency would consider what the world would be like if
a Federal rule were not adopted. In this regard, the agency notes that
manufacturers of electric vehicles have generally been equipping their
vehicles with various types of pedestrian warning sounds,\33\ but
manufacturers of hybrid vehicles have generally not been doing so.
NHTSA notes further that since the Pedestrian Safety Act directs the
agency to issue a PEDSAFE standard for electric and hybrid vehicles,
the statute does not permit the agency to take no action on this
issue.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See 40 CFR 1502.2(e), 1502.14(d).
    \33\ Until NHTSA completes its rulemaking under the Pedestrian
Safety Act, the agency cannot fully determine the extent to which
any of those systems might be compliant.
    \34\ CEQ has explained that ``[T]he regulations require the
analysis of the no action alternative even if the agency is under a
court order or legislative command to act. This analysis provides a
benchmark, enabling decision makers to compare the magnitude of
environmental effects of the action alternatives. [See 40 CFR
1502.14(c).] * * * Inclusion of such an analysis in the EIS is
necessary to inform Congress, the public, and the President as
intended by NEPA. [See 40 CFR 1500.1(a).] ``Forty Most Asked
Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act
Regulations,'' 46 FR 18026 (1981)(emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Alternative 2: Recordings of Actual Internal Combustion Engine
Sounds

    Under this regulatory alternative, recordings of sounds produced by
ICE vehicles would be used to create the pedestrian alert sound. The
sounds produced by an ICE vehicle would be recorded when the vehicle is
operating at constant speeds, forward from 0 potentially up to 32 km/h
(0 to 20 mph) and in reverse potentially up to 10 km/h (6 mph). Other
components of a vehicle's noise output such as tire noise, aerodynamic
noise, and air conditioning fan noise would not be included in the
recording used for the alert sound because these sounds are also
emitted by EVs and HVs. The sound system would be programmed so that
the pedestrian alert sound would vary based on the speed and operating
mode of the vehicle in which the system was installed. Regulatory
compliance with this alternative might be determined by an objective
test that measured the overall decibel level and the average one-third
octave band level \35\ of the sound to ensure that the sound mimics as
nearly as possible that of the ICE vehicle from which it was
recorded.\36\ The results from the sound recordings would be compared
to the sound profile of an ICE reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ An octave refers to the interval between one frequency and
its double or its half. An octave relates exponential increases in
the frequency spectrum to how humans perceive sound. A one-third
octave band is an octave divided into thirds with the upper
frequency limit being 2* (1.26) times the lower frequency. A one-
third octave band roughly corresponds to a human's ability to
analyze different frequencies of sound separately. A measure of the
one-third octave level captures the sound pressure level, also
referred to as decibel level, of the different frequencies that make
up the frequency spectrum that is audible to humans.
    \36\ As noted elsewhere in this document, given the limitations
of the speakers that are likely to be used to comply with the
standard to be issued by this agency, the sound as broadcasted will
differ from the sound as recorded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The advantage of a pedestrian warning sound consisting of a
recording of an ICE vehicle is that the sound would have the same sound
characteristics and volume levels of ICE vehicles currently in use.
Further, ICE sounds are known and accepted by pedestrians. The agency
anticipates that ICE-based and ICE-like synthetic sounds (i.e., sounds
that are representative of an ICE vehicle, but are not from a recording
of an ICE vehicle) played at current vehicle sound levels would not
significantly change the overall sound profile of urban (low-speed)
traffic noise, except for some loss of lower frequencies. The overall
sound of traffic noise would be similar for ICE sounds if ICEs were
replaced one-to-one with HVs/EVs.
    An ICE vehicle recording would be reasonably recognizable to
pedestrians as the sound of a motor vehicle. However, if the recording
were played through low-fidelity speakers, it would tend to sound
somewhat higher, thinner, and more metallic than an ICE

vehicle.\37\ This is because this type of speaker cannot reproduce the
low frequency components of ICE sounds, but can effectively project
non-ICE vehicle sounds that are comprised of components in the higher
frequency ranges. On the other hand, a pedestrian alert sound based on
an ICE vehicle recording would also limit acoustic variation among
alert sounds, thereby reducing the possibility that a multitude of
different alert sounds from different vehicle models would annoy or
confuse pedestrians.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ This problem would also affect all of the other action
alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In view of its similarity to ICE vehicle sounds, an ICE vehicle
recording is presumed to be recognizable at the same distance as ICE
vehicles are recognizable. The drawback to using an ICE vehicle
recording as a pedestrian alert sound is that non-ICE vehicle sounds
could possibly be designed so as to provide better detectability for
pedestrians, presumably at lower decibel levels.

C. Alternative 3: Synthesized ICE-Equivalent Sounds

    In this alternative, simulated ICE vehicle sounds would be
synthesized directly by a digital-signal processor programmed to create
ICE vehicle-like alert sounds that would vary pitch and loudness in
relation to the speed and operating mode of the vehicle. The synthetic
sounds would be based on actual ICE vehicle sounds.
    The resulting synthesized sounds would resemble those of
Alternative 2, and thus have advantages and disadvantages similar to
those of that alternative.
    The synthesized sounds would have an additional advantage as a
result of having fewer components along the frequency spectrum. This
could allow for better detectability in ambient noise environments in
which those frequency components are not present. To the extent that
detectability was aided, the decibel level could be commensurately
lowered to reduce the potential for any environmental impact.\38\ This
adjustment would be intended to ensure that the sound impact of EVs and
HVs would be no greater than that of existing ICE vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ The same step would be taken for Alternatives 4 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The compliance test method for alternative 3 would be the same as
the method used in alternative 2.

D. Alternative 4: Combination of Synthesized Non-ICE Sounds and ICE
Components to Aid Recognition

    This regulatory alternative would consist of a pedestrian alert
sound combining some of the acoustic characteristics of sounds produced
by ICE vehicles and some characteristics of non-ICE vehicle sounds
engineered for enhanced detectability.
    These types of sounds share some of same advantages and
disadvantages of the sounds discussed in some of the other
alternatives, especially Alternative 5.
    One advantage of the combination of a synthesized sound and
components of an ICE sound is that there is a greater likelihood that a
pedestrian will recognize the sound as one coming from a motor vehicle.
    Because this sound would not have a comparable ICE vehicle profile
for which a safe detection distance at a given decibel level has been
established, detectability of these sounds would likely need to be
assessed through human subject testing. These combination ICE and non-
ICE sounds would also vary pitch and loudness in relation to the speed
and operating mode of the vehicle. Further, in addition to the issue of
detectability, the agency must consider the issue of recognizability.
It too likely could be assessed only through human-subject testing.
    To the extent that the non-ICE elements permitted detection at
lower decibel levels than the alternatives based on ICE sounds, the
agency could specify such a lower decibel level in an effort to ensure
that the potential for environmental impact would not be any greater
than that for Alternatives 2 and 3. Because the sound for this
alternative would contain acoustic characteristics of an ICE sound, it
might prove more acceptable to the public than that for Alternative 5.

E. Alternative 5: Synthesized Non-ICE Sounds Developed To Enhance
Detectability

    Under this alternative, pedestrian alert sounds would be created
based on psychoacoustic principles \39\ using a digital-signal
processor. Some characteristics common to these non-ICE vehicle sounds
would include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Psychoacoustics is the field of science that studies how
humans perceive and react to sounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Pitch shifting denoting vehicle speed change (in order to
replicate a vehicle accelerating from 0 to 32 km/h (0 to 20 mph), a
linear pitch change of approximately 40% is necessary, based on changes
in vehicle speed);
     Pulsating quality, with pulse widths of 100 to 200 msec
and about three to ten pulses per second interval;
     Inter-pulse intervals of no more than 150 msec;
     A fundamental tonal component in the 150 to 1000 Hz
frequency range;
     At least three prominent harmonics in the 1 to 4 kHz
frequency range;
     Four or more frequencies with average sound pressure
exceeding 50 dB(A).
    Sounds having the characteristics listed above might not resemble
the sound of an ICE vehicle, although recordings of ICE vehicle noise
can be processed through a digital signal processor to conform to the
characteristics above while retaining a quality that would allow
pedestrians to identify the sound as coming from a motor vehicle.
Although the alert sound would not sound like an ICE vehicle, it would
still vary pitch and loudness in relation to the speed and operating
mode of the vehicle, which would enable pedestrians to identify the
sound as that of a motor vehicle in operation.
    An advantage to some synthetically developed alert sounds with no
ICE vehicle references is that the sounds appear to offer a detection
distance comparable to that of an ICE vehicle sound at a lower decibel
level. If this alternative were selected, the agency would specify such
a lower decibel level in an effort to ensure that the potential for
environmental impact would not be any greater than that for
Alternatives 2 and 3.
    The detectability of a specific non-ICE sound, however, likely
could be assessed only through human-subject testing because these non-
ICE vehicle sounds do not have an ICE vehicle reference for which a
decibel level corresponding to a safe detection distance has been
measured. Further, in addition to the issue of detectability, the
agency must consider the issue of recognizability. It too likely could
be assessed only through human-subject testing.
    Using non-ICE vehicle sounds as pedestrian alert sounds, however,
could entail some disadvantages. If the open-endedness of this approach
resulted in a wide variety of different alert sounds for different
vehicle models, it could complicate the learning and recognizing of
alert sounds and thereby confuse pedestrians. Further, there are
questions as to whether all non-ICE vehicle sounds would be
recognizable as those of a motor vehicle. Multiple different alert
sounds with no common acoustic characteristics might have a negative
impact on community noise levels.

F. The Alternatives in General

    Each of the alternatives set forth above by NHTSA represents a
different way in which NHTSA conceivably could balance the potentially
competing considerations of recognizability, detectability,
effectiveness, environmental noise impact and cost. For example,
Alternative 2 places more weight on the recognizability of the alert
sound as that of an ICE motor vehicle and minimization of any risk of
an adverse noise impact on the community than Alternative 5 does.
Conversely, the latter alternative places more weight on detectability
than the former alternative does.
    The agency may select one of the above-identified alternatives as
its preferred alternative. 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. The above alternatives represent a
broad range of approaches under consideration for setting the proposed
PEDSAFE standard and whose environmental impacts we plan to evaluate
under NEPA.
    As detailed below, NHTSA invites comments to ensure that the agency
considers a range of reasonable alternatives in setting a PEDSAFE
standard and that the agency identifies the environmental impacts
associated with each alternative. Comments may go beyond the approaches
and information that NHTSA used in developing the above. The agency may
modify the alternatives and environmental effects that will be analyzed
in depth based upon the comments received during the scoping process
and upon further agency analysis.

IV. Scoping and Public Participation

    The scoping process initiated by this notice seeks public comment
on the range of alternatives and impacts to be considered in the EA and
to identify the most important issues for in-depth analysis involving
the potential environmental impacts of NHTSA's PEDSAFE standard.\40\
NHTSA's NEPA analysis for the PEDSAFE standard will consider the
direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed
standards and those of reasonable alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In preparing this notice of public scoping, NHTSA has consulted
with agencies, including CEQ, Department of Energy, EPA, and the
Department of Interior. Through this notice, NHTSA invites
participation by the public and all Federal agencies, and by Indian
Tribes, State and local agencies with jurisdiction by law or special
expertise with respect to potential environmental impacts of the
proposed PEDSAFE standard, and the public to participate in the scoping
process.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Consistent with NEPA and implementing regulations, NHTSA is
sending this notice directly to: (1) Federal agencies having
jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to the
environmental impacts involved or authorized to develop and enforce
environmental standards; (2) the Governors of every State, to share
with the appropriate agencies and offices within their
administrations and with the local jurisdictions within their
States; (3) organizations representing state and local governments
and Indian Tribes; and (4) other stakeholders that NHTSA reasonably
expects to be interested in the NEPA analysis for the proposed
pedestrian alert sound standards. See 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); 49 CFR
520.21(g); 40 CFR 1501.7, 1506.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, NHTSA invites all stakeholders to participate in the
scoping process by submitting written comments concerning the
appropriate scope of NHTSA's NEPA analysis for the proposed PEDSAFE
standard to the docket number identified in the heading of this notice,
using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section of this
notice. NHTSA does not plan to hold a public scoping meeting, because
written comments will be effective in identifying and narrowing the
issues for analysis.
    NHTSA is especially interested in comments concerning the
evaluation of community noise impacts. Information on some of the basic
elements of evaluating those impacts can be found in ``Technology for a
Quieter America,'' a 2010 report by the National Academy of Engineering
(NEA) of the National Academies.\42\ For example, chapter 2 of the
report addresses community noise and chapter 3 addresses metrics for
assessing environmental noise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ The report can be found at: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12928&page=R1. See also World Health
Organization, Guidelines for Community Noise, edited by B. Berglund,
T. Lindvall, and D. H. Schuela, Cluster of Sustainable Development
and Healthy Environment, Department of the Protection of the Human
Environment, Occupational and Environmental Health. Geneva,
Switzerland, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, NHTSA requests:
     Peer-reviewed scientific studies relevant to any
environmental issues associated with this rulemaking.
     Reports analyzing the potential impacts within the United
States, in particular geographic areas of the United States or in
special habitats and environments like those in the National Park
System.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ In these areas, there may be a special need to use quiet
vehicles for purposes such as wildlife tours. See, for example, the
brochure of the National Park Service on its program, the Natural
Sounds Program, for protecting the acoustic environment of the areas
in the National Park System. The brochure can be found at http://www.nature.nps.gov/naturalsounds/PDF_docs/NSP_standard_brochure_final_10_1_08.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Suggestions on how to assess the potential for this
rulemaking to result in the emission of sound which, either because of
its volume or nature, causes annoyance, as well as suggestions for how
to limit that potential while achieving the safety purposes of the
Pedestrian Safety Act. While the issue of volume could be addressed by
placing a limit on the maximum volume of the alert noise, what steps
could be taken to address the nature of the sound emitted?
    To aid commenters in understanding the differing sound levels in
different environments, we have set out below two tables from the
introduction to NEA's report ``Technology for a Quieter America:'' \44\
a 2010 report by the National Academy of Engineering (NEA):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See page 6 of the report.

                      Comparison of A-Weighted Sound Levels in Common Outdoor Environments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   A-weighted sound level
         (decibels)                          Typical outdoor setting
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
80
                              Noisy Urban Area (daytime)
70
                              Commercial Retail Area
60                                                                                Non-Park
                              Suburban Area (daytime)
50

                              Suburban Area (nighttime)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40

30
                              Hawaiian volcanoes (crater overlook)                   Park
20

10
                              Haleakala (in crater, no wind)
0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sound Pressure Levels Generated by Various Noise Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Sound pressure level                         dB(A)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quiet library, soft whispers............................              30
Living room, refrigerator...............................              40
Light traffic, normal conversation, quiet office........              50
Air conditioner at 20 feet, sewing machine..............              60
Vacuum cleaner, hair dryer, noisy restaurant............              70
Average city traffic, garbage disposals, alarm clock at               80
 2 feet.................................................
Subway, motorcycle, truck traffic, lawn mower...........              90
Garbage truck, chain saw, pneumatic drill...............             100
Rock band concert in front of speakers, thunderclap.....             120
Gunshot blast, jet plane................................             140
Rocket launching pad....................................             180
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA understands that there are a variety of potential
alternatives that could be considered that fit within the purpose and
need for the proposed rulemaking, as set forth in the Pedestrian Safety
Act. Therefore, NHTSA seeks comments on how best to structure a
reasonable alternative for purposes of evaluating it under NEPA.
Specifically, NHTSA seeks comments on what criteria should be used to
structure such alternative. When suggesting a possible alternative,
please explain how it would satisfy the Pedestrian Safety Act's
requirements and other provisions.
    Two important purposes of scoping are identifying the issues that
merit in-depth analysis and identifying and eliminating from detailed
analysis minor issues that need only a brief discussion.\45\ In light
of these purposes, written comments should include an Internet citation
(with a date last visited) to each study or report you cite in your
comments if one is available. If a document you cite is not available
to the public on-line, you should attach a copy to your comments. Your
comments should indicate how each document you cite or attach to your
comments is relevant to the NEPA analysis and indicate the specific
pages and passages in the attachment that are most informative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 40 CFR 1500.4(g), 1501.7(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The more specific your comments are, and the more support you can
provide by directing the agency to peer-reviewed scientific studies and
reports as requested above, the more useful your comments will be to
the agency. For example, if you identify an additional area of impact
or environmental concern you believe NHTSA should analyze, or an
analytical tool or model that you believe NHTSA should use to evaluate
these environmental impacts, you should clearly describe it and support
your comments with a reference to a specific peer-reviewed scientific
study, report, tool or model. Specific, well-supported comments will
help the agency prepare a NEPA analysis that is focused and relevant,
and that will serve NEPA's overarching aims of making high quality
information available to decisionmakers and the public by concentrating
on important issues, ``rather than amassing needless detail.'' \46\ By
contrast, mere assertions that the agency should evaluate broad lists
or categories of concerns, without support, will not assist the scoping
process for the proposed standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 40 CFR 1500.1(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please be sure to reference the docket number identified in the
heading of this notice in your comments. In addition to meeting the
notice requirements in the implementing regulations issued by CEQ,
NHTSA intends to provide notice to interested parties by e-mail. Thus,
please also provide an e-mail address (or a mailing address if you
decline e-mail communications).\47\ These steps will help NHTSA to
manage a large volume of material during the NEPA process. All comments
and materials received, including the names and addresses of the
commenters who submit them, will become part of the administrative
record and will be posted on the Web at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ If you prefer to receive NHTSA's NEPA correspondence by
U.S. mail, NHTSA intends to provide its NEPA publications via a CD
readable on a personal computer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on comments received during scoping, NHTSA expects to prepare
an EA for public comment in conjunction with the proposal, which is to
be issued by July 4, 2012, and a final EA to accompany the final rule,
which is to be issued by January 4, 2014.
    Separate Federal Register notices will announce the availability of
the EA, which will be available for public comment, and the final NEPA
document, which will be available for public inspection. NHTSA also
plans to continue to post information about the pedestrian safety
rulemaking, including information relating to the NEPA

process, on its Web site (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov).

    Issued: July 6, 2011.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2011-17341 Filed 7-7-11; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 40 (Friday, February 28, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 11986]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04107]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9049-6]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements filed February 17,
2020, 10 a.m. EST through February 24, 2020, 10 a.m. EST pursuant to 40
CFR 1506.9.

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or https://www.epa.gov/ nepa/.
    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20200050, Final, BLM, USFS, ID, Proposed East Smoky Panel Mine
Project at Smoky Canyon Mine, Review Period Ends: 04/28/2020, Contact:
Kyle Free<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20200051, Final, USAF, WI, United States Air Force F-35A
Operational Beddown Air National Guard, Review Period Ends: 03/30/2020,
Contact: Ramon Ortiz<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20200052, Draft, BR, BPA, USACE, OR, Columbia River System
Operations,Comment Period Ends: 04/13/2020, Contact: Rebecca Weiss 800-
290-5033
EIS No. 20200053, Final Supplement, BR, CA, Final Supplement to the
Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for
Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion, Contra Costa County, California,
Review Period Ends: 03/30/2020, Contact: Jamie LeFevre<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20200054, Draft, BIA, BLM, NM, Farmington Mancos-Gallup
Resource Management Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement,
Comment Period Ends: 05/28/2020, Contact: Jillian Aragon<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20200055, Draft, CHSRA, CA, California High-Speed Rail:
Bakersfield to Palmdale Section Draft Environmental Impact Report/
Environmental Impact Statement, Comment Period Ends: 04/13/2020,
Contact: Dan McKell<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20200056, Final, USACE, CT, New Haven Harbor Connecticut,
Navigation Improvement Project, Final Integrated Feasibility Report and
Environmental Impact Statement, Review Period Ends: 03/30/2020,
Contact: Todd Randall<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20200057, Final, FHWA, NH, I-93 Exit 4A, Contact: Jamison S.
Sikora<PHONE_NUMBER>, Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 139(n)(2), FHWA has issued a
single FEIS and ROD. Therefore, the 30-day wait/review period under
NEPA does not apply to this action.

    Dated: February 25, 2020.
Cindy S. Barger,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2020-04107 Filed 2-27-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P