Science and Technology for Sustainability

Multi-Year Plan (FY2008–FY2012)

Post Science Advisory Board

Corrected Final Draft

February 21, 2007

Office of Research and Development

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Foreword

U.S. EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) has initiated a
multi-year planning (MYP) effort to lay out the direction of research in
selected topic areas over a 5-year period.  The documents describing
these topic areas provide a framework that integrates research across
ORD’s Laboratories with goals established under the Government and
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) that support the Agency’s mission
to protect human health and the environment.  Each MYP identifies a set
of long-term goals with associated Annual Performance Goals (APGs) and
Annual Performance Measures (APMs).  By creating a formal structure
which anticipates research needs and tasks, research managers are better
able to predict the impact that annual planning and resource allocation
decisions will have on ongoing work, while providing a means to
consistently evaluate research options.  In addition, the MYPs foster
the integration of strategic risk-based environmental protection
practices and provide a framework to anticipate future environmental
issues.  These MYPs are intended to be living documents and are updated
as needed, reflecting the current state of the science, resource
availability, and Agency priorities.

All MYPs include two major components:  (1) a narrative description of
the plan, and (2) a matrix of goals and measures.  The narrative
provides an introduction and background to the topic of the plan,
describes the long-term goals, provides information on the process used
to array performance goals to achieve long-term goals, and describes the
integration between goals and organizations.  The matrix is used to
indicate annual goals and measures needed to meet the long term goals
identified in the plan.  These goals and measures are arrayed across
time (i.e., fiscal years) and laboratories and are based on total annual
resource levels for the MYP topic area that will not exceed the resource
level proposed in the most recent Presidential Budget.

ORD has prepared a new Sustainability Research Strategy, a document that
is designed to guide all of ORD’s research programs.  This MYP will
focus on a subset of the research questions raised within the Strategy
by addressing those that are not topic specific to other MYPs and
present a concrete program to address the science issues raised in the
strategy.

Table of Contents

  TOC \o "1-2" \u  Science and Technology for Sustainability	  PAGEREF
_Toc146698439 \h  1

Foreword	  PAGEREF _Toc146698440 \h  1

Chapter 1. The Shift to Sustainability	  PAGEREF _Toc146698441 \h  4

1.1 Why Sustainability?	  PAGEREF _Toc146698442 \h  4

1.2 EPA’s Evolution Toward Sustainability	  PAGEREF _Toc146698443 \h
4

1.3 Establishing the Strategic Direction	  PAGEREF _Toc146698444 \h  6

1.4 The Six Themes of Environmental Sustainability	  PAGEREF
_Toc146698445 \h  7

1.5 The Strategic Research Approach	  PAGEREF _Toc146698446 \h  8

1.6 ORD’s Role in Environmental Sustainability	  PAGEREF _Toc146698447
\h  9

1.7 The Value of Sustainability Research	  PAGEREF _Toc146698448 \h  9

Chapter 2. Building the Foundation for a Sustainability Program
PAGEREF _Toc146698449 \h  11

2.1 The Pollution Prevention and New Technologies Research Program
PAGEREF _Toc146698450 \h  11

2.2 Research Accomplishments under P2NT	  PAGEREF _Toc146698451 \h  11

2.3 PART Review of P2NT	  PAGEREF _Toc146698452 \h  13

Chapter 3:  Creating a Framework for the STS MYP	  PAGEREF _Toc146698453
\h  15

3.1 The Agency’s Strategic Plan: Goal 5	  PAGEREF _Toc146698454 \h  15

3.2 The Long Term Goals for the STS MYP	  PAGEREF _Toc146698455 \h  15

3.3 Logic Model as applied to the Sustainability Research Program
PAGEREF _Toc146698456 \h  19

Chapter 4. Prioritizing STS Research	  PAGEREF _Toc146698457 \h  22

4.1 A Review of the P2NT MYP	  PAGEREF _Toc146698458 \h  22

4.2 Research Questions and Issues Applicable to the STS MYP	  PAGEREF
_Toc146698459 \h  22

4.3 Role of Research Approaches	  PAGEREF _Toc146698460 \h  24

4.4 Criteria to Guide Research Choices	  PAGEREF _Toc146698461 \h  24

Chapter 5. Planned Research Program for STS MYP	  PAGEREF _Toc146698463
\h  27

5.1 Planned Research Program	  PAGEREF _Toc146698464 \h  27

5.2 Relationship to Related Programs and Activities	  PAGEREF
_Toc146698476 \h  31

5.3 R & D Investment Criteria	  PAGEREF _Toc146698477 \h  34

5.4 Future Research Activities	  PAGEREF _Toc146698478 \h  35

Acronyms

APG		Annual Performance Goals

APM		Annual Performance Measures

CARE		Community Action for a Renewed Environment

CNS		Collaborative Science and Technology Network for 	Sustainability

CRADA	Cooperative Research and Development Agreement

DOE		Department of Energy

EMAP		Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program

ETV		Environmental Technology Verification Program

ESTE		Environmental Sustainable Technology Evaluation Program

FWS		Fish and Wildlife Service

FTE		Full Tine Equivalent (employee)

GDP		Gross Domestic Product

GPRA		Government and Performance Act

IAC		Innovation Action Council

ISO		International Standards Organization

LCA		Life Cycle Assessment

LID		Low Impact Development (water program)

LTG		Long Term Goal

MFA		Material Flow Analysis

MOU		Memorandum of Understanding

MYP		Multi-Year Plan

NOAA		National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPD		National Program Director

OMB		Office of Management and Budget

ORD		Office of Research and Development

P2NT		Pollution Prevention and New Technology (P2NT)

P3		People, Prosperity, and Planet Student Design Program

PART		Program Assessment Rating Tool

PLA		Polylactides

PM		Performance Measures

RoE		Report on the Environment

SBIR		Small Business Innovation Research

SES		Sustainable Environmental Systems

SIRRA		Sustainable Installation Regional Risk Assessment

SRS		Sustainability Research Strategy

STS		Science and Technology for Sustainability

TRACI	Tools for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other
Environmental 				Impacts

TSE		Technology for a Sustainable Environment

USDA		United States Department of Agriculture

USGS		United States Geological Survey

Chapter 1. The Shift to Sustainability

1.1 Why Sustainability?

As detailed in ORD’s Sustainability Strategy, a combination of forces,
including a growing world population and a rapidly expanding GDP,
suggest that significant stress will be placed on the earth’s
resources and the ability of humanity to maintain or improve
environmental quality.  The challenge for this and future generations is
to prevent or mitigate the negative consequences that can come with this
growth while simultaneously insuring continuous improvement in
environmental quality, human health protection, and our overall standard
of living.  These increasing demands on our environment require a new
set of approaches that help our Nation move toward a more sustainable
future.  These approaches must go beyond traditional end-of-pipe control
strategies that have historically focused on pollutant emissions.  We
now understand that environmental problems are rarely contained within a
single resource area or within a single product’s life cycle.  We know
that they extend across geographic regions and timeframes.  It has
become obvious that a more integrated, systems-based approach is
required to meet the needs of today while maintaining the prospects for
the same quality of life for tomorrow’s generation.

This perspective lies at the heart of what we now refer to as
“sustainability”.  As defined by the well known Brundtland Report,
sustainability is development which meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs.  From a public policy perspective, sustainability means meeting
basic environmental, economic, and social needs now and in the future
without undermining the natural systems upon which life depends.

1.2 EPA’s Evolution Toward Sustainability

For almost 20 years, the concepts embodied by the idea of sustainability
have appeared in various forms within EPA documents and by those who
advise the Agency.  For example, the 1987 Science Advisory Board (SAB)
Report, Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental
Problems, specifically recommended that the EPA increase its efforts to
insure that environmental concerns become a central part of the
nation’s public policy discussion, pointing toward the integration of
economic, social and environmental considerations.  Later, in their 1995
report, Ecosystem Management: Imperative for a Dynamic World Ecosystem
Management, the SAB pointed to the need for a better understanding of
ecosystem resilience and sustainability.  The landmark 1999 National
Research Council report, Our Common Journey: A Transition Toward
Sustainability, called for an effort “to reinvigorate the essential
strategic connections between scientific research, technological
development, and societies' efforts to achieve environmentally
sustainable improvements in human well-being”.  The authors of that
document note that the central challenge for promoting the transition
toward sustainability is to create an integrated and place-based
understanding of our environmental problems.  The approach should lead
to the design of strategies and institutions that can better integrate
incomplete knowledge with experimental action into programs of adaptive
management and social learning.  Inherent in all of these reports is the
acknowledgement that the adoption of sustainability-based programs could
enhance the Agency’s efforts at achieving positive environmental
outcomes.

Another dimension of the Agency’s evolution toward sustainability can
be seen by the EPA’s environmental stewardship initiative.  In the
2006 report, Everyday Choices: Opportunities for Environmental
Stewardship, EPA’s senior managers identified sustainable outcomes in
six resources areas relevant to the Agency’s mission.  For the first
time, EPA’s senior leadership has proposed establishing a series of
sustainability outcomes to serve as a starting point for an Agency-wide
discussion of exactly what can, and should be, our overall
sustainability goals. While more discussion and debate will be needed to
refine these outcomes and goals, the Everyday Choices report provides a
critical link between the idea of stewardship and sustainability.

Table 1.1. Proposed Sustainable Outcome Measures

Natural Resource Systems	Sustainable Outcomes

Energy 	Generate clean energy and use it efficiently.

Air	Sustain clean and healthy air.

Water 	Sustain water resources of quality and availability for desired
uses.

Materials	Use materials carefully and shift to environmentally
preferable materials.

Land	Support ecologically sensitive land management and development.

Ecosystems	Protect and restore ecosystem functions, goods and services.

Source Everyday Choices: Opportunities for Environmental Stewardship,
Innovation Action Council Report to the Administrator, November 2005.
www.epa.gov/innovation

ORD’s Sustainability Research Strategy, along with this MYP, will play
a crucial role in achieving measurable sustainable outcomes. Building on
the vision of environmental stewardship, this program will engage in
research activities that will study the sustainability of systems (e.g.,
ecological, technological, and human built) from a life cycle
perspective.  The results of this effort can be adopted by all four
stewardship groups targeted by the IAC: 1) Individuals (via consumer
choices), 2) Communities (via ecosystem protection and infrastructure
planning and management), 3) Government (via facility planning and
management, technology demonstrations, policies and regulations) 4)
Companies (via product design, supply chain management facility design
and management).  ORD Assistant Administrator Dr. George Gray has set a
clear long-term focus for ORD; to identify research to inform
stewardship solutions that can be implemented from the individual to the
national scale.

1.3 Establishing the Strategic Direction

In 2004, recognizing the growing importance of sustainability, and
pursuant to a long-standing vision that was first set forth in early
days of the pollution prevention research program, ORD’s senior
management formally instructed the organization to begin planning a
transition to a sustainability-based research program.  The first step
in that effort was the creation of ORD’s Sustainability Research
Strategy.  The strategic direction for this Science and Technology for
Sustainability (STS) MYP is derived from that document.

Since the World Commission on Environment and Development issued its
1987 report, Our Common Future, the term “sustainability” has
managed to become both a rallying point and a source of controversy.
This document, better known as the Brundtland Report, specified that
development is considered sustainable when it “meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs.”  By the time of the 1992 United Nations Conference
on Environment and Development (the “Rio Earth Summit”), there was a
growing consensus that the concept of sustainability should encompass
interrelated ideas drawn from economic, social and environmental realms.
The interrelated nature of these three domains has been referred to as
the “three pillars of sustainability”.  While ORD’s research
strategy is primarily focused on one pillar, that of environmental
sustainability, it’s clear that operationally, these three pillars are
intertwined.

ORD’s research strategy also draws a distinction between the idea of
environmental protection and environmental sustainability.  It does so
by building the concept of sustainability upon the foundation of
protection, a mandate that EPA has advanced since its inception.
Expanding the discussion to include environmental sustainability not
only adds to ongoing protection efforts, but it creates a new dimension
to the Agency’s efforts.  The intergenerational question inherent in
the definition of sustainability suggests the need for taking a
long-term, system-wide view of the environment.  This is a sea change in
how the EPA views both environmental problems and their solutions. The
EPA’s traditional mission of environmental protection is rightly
concerned with meeting its legislative mandates through programs that
regulate the sources of particular environmental problems. However, if
we hope to achieve a degree of environmental sustainability, we must
rethink how current and anticipated problems stand in their relationship
to changing human and environmental systems. Among the most difficult
aspects of refocusing EPA’s efforts on sustainability will be to
evolve our analysis and programs beyond traditional media-specific,
“stovepipe” approaches that have served the Agency and the nation
well for over three decades.

So, how should EPA approach environmental sustainability? How should EPA
organize research on environmental sustainability and address the goals
of achieving the sustainable outcomes identified in the Everyday Choices
report? From an extensive review of relevant literature and experience,
six broad themes of environmental sustainability research emerge:

1.4 The Six Themes of Environmental Sustainability

So, how should EPA organize research on environmental sustainability and
address the goals of achieving the sustainable outcomes identified in
the Everyday Choices report.  In the course of crafting the
Sustainability Research Strategy, six broad themes of environmental
sustainability emerged to guide our research.  The first four themes
concern the earth as a natural system, while the last two examine the
role of human motivation and behavior.  The specific research objectives
identified in Chapter 3 of this document are a subset of the broader
research questions defined below.

Natural Resource Protection

This theme recognizes that our stock of renewable natural resources
exists within a complex and interlinked natural systems and acknowledges
that these resources are central to improving our standard of living
from generation to generation.  The sustainability question is one of
how to best maximize the benefits that these renewable resources provide
mankind, while simultaneously taking into account the system-wide
effects that their use has on the regenerative capacity of the entire
system.  This issue is of particular concern when looking at the role of
natural systems and their role in maintaining clean air and water.

Non-renewable Resource Conservation

Our society is dependent on the use of non-renewable natural resources
such as high-grade mineral ore, fossil fuels, and fossil groundwater,
all of which are in limited supply.  As we improve our standard of
living, we make choices to use these finite resources.  The
sustainability issue here is multifaceted, involving issues such as
substituting renewable resources when possible, improving energy
efficiency, and more closely examining material management and the life
cycle of products.

Long-term Chemical and Biological Impacts

The concept of sustainability is built on an intergenerational
perspective, and while chemical toxicity has been central to the
Agency’s mission, this vision suggests that to achieve sustainable
outcomes we need to be particularly mindful of the long-term impacts
that certain chemicals and genetically modified organisms can have on
the environment and human health.  Dealing with the chemical toxicity
concerns presented by bioaccumulation and persistence play a significant
role in our efforts to achieve sustainable outcomes.  The sustainability
issues focus on assessing chemical and biological impacts and
substituting benign chemicals for toxic chemicals through green
chemistry and new technologies.

Human-built Systems and Land Use

With the growth of urban populations over the last century, human-built
systems have undergone tremendous growth and now threaten the
vulnerability of the planet’s natural systems.  In order to pursue
sustainable outcomes, we need to better understand the relationship
between human-built systems and natural systems at all spatial scales.
While broad in context, this theme will focus on land renewal and
restoration, decision-support tools for urban land development, and life
cycle assessment for land use and building design.

Economics and Human Behavior

It’s recognized that the sustainable management of natural and
man-made systems is in large part a question of choice and behavior, and
as such, the behavioral sciences play a central role in any
sustainability framework.  This includes developing ecosystem valuation
methods, solving market failures, and understanding the role of
incentives in decision making.  Research in this area is largely an
element of the existing ORD Economics and Decision Science Research
Program.  Activities defined in this plan will be closely coordinated
with the economics research program.

Information and Decision-making

The establishment of an information infrastructure is a necessary step
on the path toward sustainability.  This includes the development of
data sources decision support tools based on metrics that quantitatively
assess environmental systems for sustainability.  It also suggests the
need to disseminate sustainability information to stakeholders, academic
institutions and the public.

1.5 The Strategic Research Approach

The framework of the Sustainability Research Strategy is based on the
concept that sustainable environmental outcomes are best achieved by in
a systems-based context that not only looks at the environment, but
incorporates the influences of economy and human behavior where
appropriate.  This approach presents a fundamental change in research
design.  In a systems-based approach, the traditional goals of achieving
clean air or water or protecting ecosystems and human health are best
understood through a multimedia systems approach.  To do this, the EPA,
along with its partners, needs to develop the integrating
decision-support tools (i.e., models, methodologies, technologies, etc.)
that produce the data and insight which will guide decision makers to
shift toward practices that promote environmental sustainability or
environmental stewardship outcomes.

While ORD’s Sustainability Research Strategy provides a framework for
unifying existing and future ORD Research Programs, the Science and
Technology for Sustainability (STS) MYP provides a more narrow framework
within which ORD can develop and deliver a suite of tools, management
practices, and technologies to assist decision makers within Agency
Program and Regional Offices, as well as in local and regional
governmental entities, solve high priority environmental challenges.
The STS MYP is the first of many ORD research programs which will
address the research questions laid out in the Sustainability Research
Strategy as they plan and conduct research that is responsive to current
Agency mandates (e.g., Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Solid Waste and
Disposal Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, etc.).  Moreover, the STS research program will be
critical in the development of integrated and multimedia
sustainability-based strategies that promote the long-term preservation
of environmental quality by keeping natural systems intact and fully
functioning.

1.6 ORD’s Role in Environmental Sustainability

A 1997 National Academy of Engineering report, entitled “The
Industrial Implication for Environmental Design and Management”,
suggests that the path to sustainability “involves the creative design
of products, processes, systems, and organizations, and the
implementation of smart management strategies that effectively harness
technologies and ideas to avoid environmental problems before they
arise.”  From ORD’s perspective, the science of sustainability is
simply the development of an underlying knowledge base that supports
this statement.

System-based approaches have their roots in the disciplines of ecology
and economics. The lessons gleaned from researchers in these disciplines
suggests that a scientific approach to sustainability must start by
first clearly defining the system boundaries, and then establishing the
corresponding parameters that will be used to define its sustainable
state.  While there has been some progress in the area of system
definition, there has been little progress in the resolving the latter
issue. Research is needed to develop quantifiable metrics that
characterize the state of a given system while providing insight on
which pathways will lead to a sustainable state.

Research can also lead to technological solutions or options that enable
a transformation to sustainability.  In a 2005 National Academies of
Sciences workshop hosted by its “Board of Chemical Sciences and
Technology” (BCST), the participants identified eight priority
sustainability areas in need of Government support.  They are green
chemistry and engineering (GCE), life cycle assessment (LCA),
computational toxicology, renewable chemical feedstocks, renewable
fuels, energy intensity of clean processing, separation sciences, and
education.  These areas all represent unique research niches in which
ORD has a strong presence.

For over a decade, through both its intramural and extramural programs,
ORD has been in leader in the development of environmentally benign
chemicals, materials, processes and systems and in the creation of
decision support tools.  For example, the Technology for a Sustainable
Environment (TSE) Program (jointly sponsored with NSF from 1995 through
2003) helped to catalyze the academic communities in the fields of green
chemistry and green engineering.  In addition, ORD is actively promoting
the concept of sustainability among the next generation by encouraging
innovations in the areas of agriculture, materials and chemistry,
energy, information technology, water, and the built environment through
its “People, Prosperity, and Planet” (P3) student design
competition.  ORD is also the home to a unique multi-disciplinary
research program that is developing sustainable management principles
that incorporate science, engineering, hydrology, economics, ecology,
and law.  This program provides an example of how ORD researchers are
actively involved in system definition and metrics development.

1.7 The Value of Sustainability Research

The value of the research program described within this MYP is that it
provides the EPA with a suite of scientifically based models, methods,
technologies, and strategies that are designed for the long-term
protection of the environment.  This approach recognizes that problems
ultimately exist within systems, and that these systems vary in their
scale, both in terms of space and time.  The idea espoused here is
simple; instead of trying to remediate or restore a watershed or
ecosystem after damage is done, it is fundamentally better to seek ways
to maintain the system’s original environmental integrity.  This
approach also recognizes that the environmental consequences of actions
must be examined for their system-wide impacts.  For example, the
sustainable management of a region’s water quality is as much of a
problem of establishing the right economic incentives (such as
appropriately designed water and sewer fees) as constructing engineered
solutions.  Though this plan is modest in its scope, it is an important
first step toward creating a new vision of environmental protection.

Chapter 2. Building the Foundation for a Sustainability Program

2.1 The Pollution Prevention and New Technologies Research Program

In the Agency’s early years, the emphasis was on controlling or
remediating environmental problems.  With the passage of the Pollution
Prevention Act of 1990, the Agency began to look for ways to incorporate
pollution prevention activities into regulatory options.  This led to
the increased use of holistic approaches in managing air, water and land
resources.  In recognition of this changing perspective, ORD created a
Pollution Prevention Research Strategy in 1998, and followed it with the
Pollution Prevention and New Technologies (P2NT) Multi-year Plan in
2000.  The overall goal of the P2NT program was to provide tools and
technologies for advancing environmental systems management while
continuing to prevent and control pollution and reduce human health and
ecological risks originating from multiple economic sectors.

As a prelude to writing that multiyear plan, ORD surveyed the Agency’s
Program Offices and Regions for their highest priority concerns.  Some
common themes emerged.  Socio-economic methods were seen as having great
potential as a method to promote pollution prevention activities.  Life
cycle assessment methods were increasingly viewed as the ideal platform
to compare the environmental impact of alternative risk management
approaches.  Green chemistry was seen as a solution to many regulatory
and programmatic concerns.  And overall, there was a call to develop
ways to measure the effectiveness of pollution prevention activities and
verify the performance of pollution prevention technologies.

In order to address these and other concerns, the writers of the P2NT
MYP framework developed a research plan organized around five
independent research tracks: Environmental Technology Verification,
Pollution Prevention Tools, Green Chemistry and Engineering, Sustainable
Environmental Systems, and Small Business Innovation Research Program.

2.2 Research Accomplishments under P2NT

ETV

In an effort to stimulate the market for new pollution prevention
technologies, the Agency established the Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) Program, which the potential buyers of new
technologies turn to for un-biased, scientific and quality controlled
evaluations of new products and technologies.  Over the past decade, the
ETV program has conducted hundreds of verifications.  A recent report by
EPA’s National Advisory Committee for Environmental Policy and
Technology Policy (NACEPT) strongly endorsed EPA’s current technology
and verification program and recommended that EPA “should devote more
attention and resources to those Agency programs that incorporate and
encourage sustainability as one of the goals or criteria for technology
development or implementation assistance.”

Life Cycle Assessment Methods

During the 1990’s, researchers began to explore a new method of
analysis that was designed to provide decision makers with a more robust
picture of the environmental impacts of new products, production
methods, or policies.  This method, now known as life cycle assessment
(LCA), attempts to identify environmental insults at each and every
stage of a product life cycle, from the extraction of raw materials
through final use or disposal.  In doing so, the analysis seeks to
prevent the inadvertent transfer of pollutants from one stage of use to
another.  For over ten years, ORD’s staff has been at the forefront of
developing and perfecting the methods and analytical approaches of this
emerging technique

Environmental Impact Assessment Models

A research area that is closely related to the Life Cycle Assessment
area is that of environmental impact assessment modeling.  These models
allow users to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with an
inventory of environmental outputs.  ORD’s staff developed one such
suite of models, the Tools for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical
and Other Environmental Impacts (TRACI).  TRACI impact models reduce raw
environmental output information into more easily understood measures of
environmental impact in 12 categories.  TRACI has since become the
preeminent North American impact modeling tool.

Green Chemistry

ORD’s in-house staff of green chemists and engineers has focused their
efforts on developing and demonstrating cleaner synthesis for commodity
and specialty chemicals through improved catalysis, use of solvent-free
and alternative reaction media, new reactors for process
intensification, and the use of new and innovative separation
technologies.  The research program actively seeks out collaborative
partnerships with technology developers and industrial users.  The many
accomplishments of this program include studies that support the use of
supercritical CO2 as a solvent media, titanium dioxide as a non-toxic
oxidizer, and the use of membrane systems as a low-cost, efficient
separation technology.

TSE

Jointly sponsored with the National Science Foundation, Technology for a
Sustainable Environment (TSE) is an ORD’s extramural grants program
that has supported green chemistry, green engineering, and industrial
ecology.  The program has many technology success stories, including:
bioengineered yeast to ferment ethanol from xylose sugars and the
production of polylactides (PLA) from corn.  In addition to the
environmental and economic success of the technology, TSE has also
contributed educational benefits by stimulating curriculum enhancement
and inspiring the next generation of researchers and business leaders
who work on TSE projects as graduate students.

SBIR

The highly-competitive Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program
provides critical financial support to the best small businesses to help
spawn successful commercial ventures that improve our environment while
creating jobs and promoting economic growth.  The EPA is one of 10
federal agencies that participate in the SBIR program begun in 1983.  In
the program, small businesses compete for funds to commercially advance
their high risk concepts.  The SBIR program has contributed a number of
commercial successes over the years, including replacement of toxic
hexavalent chromium in the plating process.

Sustainable Environmental Systems

Research into the management of environmental problems at a systems
level is taking place within a special research group with ORD.  Their
work is based on the growing recognition that no environmental problem
has a single causative source.  This has lead to a research program that
seeks ways to provide long-term solutions through new management
strategies that incorporate a variety of solutions working in together
in consort, such as innovative technologies coupled with market-based
incentives.   This approach has helped the Agency recognize that for
solutions to be sustainable, decision makers must consider the combined
impacts of multiple stressors from diverse sources, and that many of the
best and most long-lasting solutions will come from addressing these
problems from a systems perspective

2.3 PART Review of P2NT

As part of the Federal Government’s efforts to insure that all federal
programs achieve results, the Office of Management and Budget began
conducting a systematic evaluation of government programs using a
standard questionnaire called the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART).
 In 2003, the Pollution Prevention and New Technologies Research Program
was one of the first EPA programs to undergo a PART Review.  As a result
of this review, OMB made several recommendations to improve the
program’s effectiveness. These included becoming more responsive to
the needs of Agency client offices, clearly identifying priorities,
fostering more collaboration with other researchers, and developing an
ability to measure and track program results over time.

The research program laid out in this MYP responds directly to OMB’s
recommendations.  Its redesign reflects broader national needs and
Agency priorities. Its new focus on the pursuit sustainable outcomes (as
defined in Everyday Choices) is also mirrored in comments that EPA’s
Regional and Program Offices provided in their review of the draft EPA
Strategic Plan 2006-2011 in which they urged the EPA to place more
emphasis on “problem solving” across different media. In addition,
the growing enthusiasm for sustainability at state and local levels
presents new opportunities to help decision-makers at all levels of
government choose courses of action that will lead to achieving
sustainable outcomes.

Toward this end, three Long Term Goals were established that were based
around the following logical construct.  First, develop
scientifically-based metrics and measures to assess systems for both
their current level of sustainability and to measure long-term progress
(LTG 1).  This in turn supports the development, adoption and use of
scientifically-based decision-support tools (LTG 2) and
sustainability-based technologies (LTG 3).  In the end, this line of
inquiry will ultimately lead to sustainable environmental outcomes
through the actions of national and regional decision makers as they
make changes in environmental policies.  A more detailed discussion of
these three LTG will occur in the next chapter.

Chapter 3:  Creating a Framework for the STS MYP

3.1 The Agency’s Strategic Plan: Goal 5

As this document is being prepared, Goal 5 of the Draft 2006-11 EPA
Strategic Plan is undergoing revisions to place greater emphasis on
Stewardship and Sustainability objectives. Two sub-objectives of the
proposed Plan, Objective 5.4 and 5.4.2, are directed toward research
needs.  ORD’s Sustainability Research Strategy (SRS) proposes a broad
framework that unites the ORD Multi-Year Plans (MYP) that supporting the
goal of sustainability.  This MYP is one of the key implementation
research programs in support of this agency-wide objective.

Goal V of the Draft EPA Strategic Plan for 2006-2011

Objective 5.4: Enhance Society(s Capacity for Sustainability through
Science and Research. Conduct leading edge, sound scientific research on
pollution prevention, new technology development, socioeconomic,
sustainable systems, and decision-making tools. By 2011, the products of
this research will be independently recognized as providing critical and
key evidence in informing Agency polices and decisions and solving
problems for the Agency and its partners and stakeholders

Sub-objective 5.4.2: Conducting Research. Through 2011, conduct
leading-edge sound scientific research on pollution prevention, new
technology development, socioeconomic, sustainable systems and
decision-making tools. The products of this research will provide
critical and key evidence in informing Agency policies and decisions
affecting the Agency program in Goal 5, as well as EPA partners and
stakeholders.

While this MYP can only address a small part of the research that is
needed to advance sustainability, ORD recognizes that is a necessary and
critical first step in that process.  ORD intends to partner with other
program offices and other federal and state agencies, and can use its
research results, methods and tools to assist clients both inside and
outside EPA in pursuing sustainable outcomes

3.2 The Long Term Goals for the STS MYP

The Long Term Goals of the STS MYP are outcome-oriented.  They support
the Agency’s objective of applying scientific and engineering
knowledge to effect long-term environmental improvements and protection
of human health.  As viewed conceptually in Figure 1, the overall
objective of the program is to position the Agency to provide technical
support to broader regional and national sustainability policies and
initiatives.

Figure 1:  Science and Technology for Sustainability Long Term Goals

To accomplish this, there needs to be a regular and continuous
assessment of environmental trends, as well as a thoughtful
consideration of likely alternative future scenarios.  Together, these
will inform the development of sustainability metrics (LTG 1) that will
not only provide baseline information on the sustainability of systems,
but will also allow the measurement and tracking of progress in
achieving sustainable outcomes.  Information gathered during the
assessment of conditions and the development of metrics will provide
researchers with critical information that is necessary to develop and
implement a series of decision support tools (LTG 2) and innovative
technologies (LTG 3) that will promote sustainable outcomes.

Long Term Goal 1

Decision-makers adopt ORD-identified and developed metrics to
quantitatively assess environmental systems for sustainability.

LTG 1 is the foundation of the STS Research Program.  This goal builds
on the research already conducted in support of the Agency’s “Draft
Report on the Environment” (RoE).  ORD staff has played a significant
role in identifying appropriate indicators and providing quality control
in their development.  This goal seeks to establish a new set of
scientifically-based sustainability indicators that are readily
comprehendible at multiple scales, relevant to decision-making, and
easily accessible to the public.

Metrics need to be developed in relation to clearly stated objectives.
The Agency has already begun to identifying a set of objectives based on
the sustainability outcomes identified by the Innovative Action Council.
 For example, one use of metrics might be to track changes in ecological
quality and condition in conjunction with land-use changes.  These
metrics would be designed to help engage the public in what might
otherwise be a scientific discussion.  This is critical because any
attempt at sustainable environmental management without public
participation is unlikely to succeed.

This work is also dependent on a clear understanding and
characterization of the behavior of natural, social, and economic
systems.  Efforts to enhance the long-term sustainability of these
systems will depend on the availability of adequate definitions,
indicators, and metrics.  The research under LTG 1 will develop and
identify the essential attributes of each system.

This research strategy proposes two parallel research tracks in the
development of sustainability metrics.  The first track will start with
a comprehensive review metrics currently in use to determine where gaps
exist.  This is seen as critical work.  A number of fairly simple
sustainability indicators currently exist, and while these measures may
inform the public on the general notion of sustainability, they are
often lacking in scientific rigor.  If sustainability is to play any
role in future environmental policy debates, the process of establishing
benchmark values and measuring progress must be vastly improved.
Metrics and indicators must be unambiguous and robust, and need to
employ cost-effective data sources.

The second research track will test research results in real world
situations.  This will involve the applying indicators and metrics to
problems in specific geographic regions, ecosystems and watersheds.  It
will also be done in collaboration with STS program partners and
customers.  It’s expected that this work will result in a set of
well-defined protocols, software tools and guidance for applying
sustainability metrics to environmental problems.  It will also help
highlight the important role that data plays in the development of
metrics.  By conducting research in close collaboration with potential
customers, researchers can ensure their products are practical,
validated, and readily acceptable by final the users.

There is an important feedback loop embedded here, and that is how
metrics development work will inform both the assessment of current and
future trends, and well as the work conducted in LTG 2.

Long Term Goal 2

Decision-makers adopt ORD-developed decision support tools and
methodologies to promote environmental stewardship and sustainable
environmental management practices.

Decision support tools are designed to help Agency policy-makers,
corporate officials, engineers, and local and regional planners to
identify and implement sustainability options. As was noted earlier, ORD
has a long history of developing and applying methods, models and tools
to help in environmental decision-making. Some methods, such as life
cycle assessment, have been discussed in previous sections. In general,
these methods, models and tools assist businesses, communities,
governments, and individuals to understand the potential implications of
their decisions.  The models relate to human activities (transportation,
industry, agriculture, and construction), the protection and consumption
of resources (water, energy, materials, ecosystems, land, and air),
economics and human behavior; and environmental conditions. Research
topics under this goal include perfection of methodological techniques,
the development of generalized models and decision tools, and issues
surrounding the collection and synthesis of data and information.

There are several types of tools that are relevant to sustainability
decision-making.  Scenario modeling enables an understanding of
environmental conditions over time and allows a dynamic exploration of
how today’s choices combine with economic and social trends to create
potential future environmental conditions.  Geographic-based tools, such
as urban growth simulators, help decision makers understand how
environmental stressors effect conditions in space.  Material and
environmental flow-based tools can link the use of materials to the
issue of resource sustainability while informing designers and engineers
on improvements in materials use.  Agent-based models provide insights
into how individual human behavior and choice can affect renewable and
non-renewable resource sustainability.

Intramural and extramural research conducted under LTG 2 will not only
address specific environmental policy and management situations, but the
decision making process itself.  Close interaction between researchers
and with the relevant decision makers will be an important part of this
work.  The experience gained from these activities will furnish the
basis for developing general guidelines and methodologies that can
address a wide range of sustainability-related issues. These can include
case studies that illustrate lessons that are transferable to other
decision-making circumstances and sustainability management strategies
that are applicable to various scenarios.  The research will also focus
developing frameworks that can integrate models and decision-support
tools.

As was mentioned earlier, by developing clear sustainability outcome
goals and metrics under LTG 1, decision support tools can be tailored to
address the issues those metrics are pointing toward.

Long Term Goal 3

Decision-makers adopt innovative technologies developed or verified by
ORD to solve environmental problems, contributing to sustainable
outcomes.

The products from this LTG will provide practical technological
solutions that promote improved and sustainable environments to those
concerned with implementing environmental policies at the local and
regional level or those impacted be environmental regulations. By
providing innovative technologies, or by designing technologies to be
green from the start, a net increase in the environmental sustainability
can be realized. This net increase can manifest itself in a number of
ways; through decreases in criteria/priority pollutants releases
throughout a product’s lifecycle, decreased solvent usage, increased
energy and material savings, increased resource conservation or
decreased water usage

The fields of Green Chemistry and Green Engineering address the design
of molecules, products, processes, and systems that use safer chemicals
and materials; use materials, water, and energy efficiently; and/or
reduce the generation of waste at the source. Green Engineering and
Green Chemistry research is generally played out on a product-by-product
or a process-by-process basis. While some of this work is supported by
industry, EPA has historically played an important role in supporting
research that underpins general methodologies or that addresses specific
environmental problems or emerging issues of concern. EPA recognizes the
important role that technology innovation must play in achieving
sustainability. For example, the EPA Administrator has recently asked
EPA’s National Advisory Council on Environmental Policy and Technology
(NACEPT) to look at the issue of sustainability in more detail and make
additional recommendations on the role that technologies can play in
this area.

Metrics developed under LTG 1 will also be used to evaluate the
environmental improvement provided by the implementation of these
technologies.  Catalyzing innovation in academic and industrial
settings, such as through the P3 and SBIR programs, is particularly
important to increase ORD’s leverage under this goal.

This LTG draws heavily from the Research Strategy’s Long-term Chemical
and Biological Impacts theme, which focuses on the issue of persistence
and/or bioaccumulation of chemicals in the environment and human
population.  In order to address and overcome this long-term
environmental challenge, decision makers must have access to a broad
inventory of solutions. These solutions are achieved by an investment in
core research, technology development, and ultimately technology
verification.  This goal is built on developing a strong scientific
foundation and is guided by a multi-disciplinary approach.

Tools and methodologies developed under LTG 2 will inform this LTG as to
future directions for research including the identification of areas
where the greatest improvements can be made so that resources can be
more effectively distributed.  Examples of this include utilizing
methodologies, such as Life Cycle Assessment, to identify problem areas
in a specific sector of the regulated community (e.g., the development
of different chemicals to treat drinking water that produce fewer and
safer residuals) and then directing research to address these areas.

3.3 Logic Model as applied to the Sustainability Research Program

The customers of the STS program have been defined as the Agency, the
research community and policy and decision-makers – all of which have
constituents represented in both the public and private sectors.  The
outputs from the program’s research activities include a variety of
technology solutions (in the form of alternative processes for
addressing priority pollutants), decision support tools (such as life
cycle and impact assessment models), and metrics and indicator to
measure progress toward stewardship and sustainability.

Figure 2.  The Logic Model Applied to the STS Research Program

The short-term outcomes expected from STS research activities include
increased adoption rates of innovative sustainable management practices,
decision support tools, and alternative processes and technologies.  The
long-term environmental benefit of the STS research program is overall
improvements in environmental performance that results in the reduction
or elimination of environmental pollutants and the decreased use of
resources such as water, energy and raw materials.  Based on the
program’s redesign, there is an expectation that the dissemination,
integration and exchange of research results between the STS program and
its various customer groups will also inform the four stewardship groups
targeted by the Agency’s Innovation Action Council (IAC).  The IAC had
targeted Individuals, Communities, Government, and Companies, who will
in turn have the knowledge and information necessary to make better
consumer choices; to devise more holistic policy; and encourage current
and future environmental compliance through product design and materials
management.  The STS program also has several performance measures (PMs)
which solicit feedback from these customer groups.  Although each PM
uses different evaluation instruments (surveys, etc), all rely on
measuring usage levels of STS products to determine program
effectiveness.

Tracking Results over Time

LTG 1: The expected outcome is a process that starts with the
development of scientifically-based metrics and transferable protocols
for applying those metrics to environmental problems.  This will be
followed by the ability to accurately measure sustainable environmental
performance over time.  Finally, that knowledge will be used refine the
metrics, to inform the assessment of trends and future scenarios, and to
improve those decision support tools developed in LTG 2.

LTG 2:  The expected outcome from the tools that are developed under
this goal is that the decision making process itself will be altered by
causing decision makers to place greater emphasis on stewardship and
sustainable management practices in addressing local, regional and
national problems.

LTG 3:  The expected outcome from the process of developing, applying
and verifying sustainable technologies that emerge from this program
will be measurable improvements in environmental performance, such as
reduced emissions or energy consumption.

Chapter 4. Prioritizing STS Research

4.1 A Review of the P2NT MYP

The design of this STS research program represents a strategic decision
by the Agency to transform a research program focused on pollution
prevention efforts into one that examines the question of environmental
sustainability in the context of systems.  In order to create a
systems-based sustainability research program, three separate steps were
taken.  First, a review was conducted of the old P2NT program to
determine which programs are meeting the needs of its current clients
while simultaneously addressing the objectives set forth in the
Sustainability Strategy.  Secondly, a review was conducted of issues and
research question related to the six themes of environmental
sustainability to determine which could best be handled within the STS
research program and which were best suited for inclusion in other MYPs.
 This resulted in a sub-set of research questions, which are presented
below, that guided the development of this multiyear plan.  Finally, a
set of criteria was established to guide the final selection of research
projects.

4.2 Research Questions and Issues Applicable to the STS MYP

A series of research questions and issues were described in Chapter 4 of
the Sustainability Strategy.  They were carefully reviewed in order to
identify those questions which were directly related to the Long Term
Goals described in the previous chapter of this document.

Natural Resource Protection

Modeling linkages between anthropogenic and natural resource systems in
terms of material and energy flows.

Developing future regional scenarios and integrated models to assess
impact on ecosystems and ecosystem services.

Non-Renewable Resource Conservation

How can life cycle assessment be made more efficient, reliable, and
comprehensive so that it will more effectively inform design decisions
that lead to reducing or eliminating the use of non-renewable resources?

What innovative technologies can be developed to improve the efficiency
of non-renewable resource consumption? What opportunities exist to
replace non-renewable with renewable feedstocks and materials in an
environmentally beneficial manner?

How can material flow analysis and related methods provide better
insights into opportunities for reducing or eliminating the use of
non-renewable resources?

What tools can be used to operationalize the concept of industrial
ecology, enabling a systems understanding of energy and material flows?

How can we ensure that societal shifts in material use—such as from
petroleum to renewable feedstocks for energy and materials—do not lead
to unforeseen and unsustainable consequences?

What tools are needed to develop, test, and measure the life cycle of a
full suite of energy conversion technologies (using renewable and
non-renewable energy sources)?

Long-Term Chemical and Biological Impacts

Develop and apply innovative chemical transformations utilizing green
and sustainable chemistry and engineering. Improve the yield, safety,
and specificity of chemical processes by identifying appropriate
solvents, controlling thermal conditions and purity, and recovering
process catalysts or byproducts.  Formulate products that reduce waste
and that are environmentally benign.

Develop life cycle tools to compare the total environmental impacts of
products generated from different processing routes and conditions.
Develop and implement models for the efficient application of life cycle
analysis methods to new products and technologies including
nanomaterials, green chemistry, and engineering.

Develop and implement systems-level methodologies and technologies for
applying material flow analysis to complex industrial networks. Develop
improved methods for systems analysis of material flows that reflect the
differences in health and environmental impacts of different substances.

Human-built Systems and Land Use

What tools can decision makers use to assess the potential impacts of
land use, landscaping, and building design decisions upon community well
being and environmental quality?

What sustainability criteria should be developed to guide urban land
development and future revitalization efforts?

What core set of principles can best be used to guide the design,
construction, and management of human systems in a manner that protects
natural systems and their properties and functions?

Economics and Human Behavior

How can we better integrate economic and ecological models to inform
environmentally sustainable decisions?

What is the relationship between environmental sustainability indicators
and measures of economic value?

How can economic instruments (e.g., trading schemes, auctions, and
taxes) be devised which effectively incorporate society's concerns for
sustainability in resource allocation decisions?

Information and Decision-Making

What are appropriate sustainability goals for energy, water, air, land,
materials, and ecosystems?

What are the most appropriate trends, indicators, and metrics to measure
society’s progress toward reaching sustainable outcomes?

What data are needed to construct sustainability indicators and metrics;
and how can the data be effectively and efficiently collected?

4.3 Role of Research Approaches

Chapter 5 of the ORD Sustainability Research Strategy presents five
approaches to conducting this research.  These represent areas of strong
ORD competence and they complement one another in informing programs and
decisions within and outside EPA. They are offered in the Strategy as
one component of an overall implementation plan and they help to align
research activities around core themes.

The logic of this approach was not lost in the design of this MYP, as
witnessed by the adoption of three of these research approaches to serve
as the basis for our Long Term Goals:  metrics, decision support tools,
and technologies.  In addition to these, two approaches were described
in the ORD Sustainability Research Strategy: systems and collaborative
decision-making.

At the heart of this program is the need to understanding the
interconnections, resilience, and vulnerabilities over time of natural
systems, industrial systems, the built environment, and human society
lies at the heart of this research program. A systems-based perspective
will inform and guide research in metrics, decision-support tools, and
technologies.

Sustainability also depends on understanding the behavior of decision
makers within business and industry, communities, and government.
Because developing policies and approaches that promote stewardship and
sustainability need to be informed by an understanding of how decisions
are made in diverse groups, understanding the nature of collaborative
decision making is particularly important.

4.4 Criteria to Guide Research Choices

In order to create a rational research program that reflects the needs
of clients and addresses the research questions and issues raised within
the Sustainability Research Strategy, a set of five decision criteria
was established.  These represent important, but competing, vectors of
stakeholder interest and Agency guidance

Resource Availability

The Agency’s guidance for writing a Multi-year Plan states that plans
should be developed using a resource based established in the current
FY07 Presidential Budget.  At the time of this documents creation,
resources allocated to the existing P2NT research program are modest,
with the extramural budget set at approximately $2.7 M and the FTE
ceiling set at 36.5.  An examination of resource allocation trends over
the past five years suggests that the program can expect to see a
continuing decline in both extramural budgets and FTE allocations.   For
this reason, it is particularly important to be strategic in the
investment of resources.

Relevance to the Agency’s Mission and the needs of Program and
Regional Offices

It is vital that a research program address the need of the Agency’s
Regional and Program Offices. Toward that end, client offices were
surveyed on their research priorities in the area of sustainability
during the summer of 2005.  The results of that survey represent a wide
variety of research projects. This list is contained in Appendix A.  The
results of this survey were then filtered through two questions: 1) Is
the issue a sustainability research requirement, and 2) Should this
sustainability research need be addressed within the STS MYP, or
elsewhere within ORD?  As a result of this analysis, the following lists
presents five topical areas that represent a consolidated view of the
Agency’s Program and Regional Office sustainability research needs:

Develop alternatives to toxic, bioaccumulative chemicals, and create new
methodologies and technologies to screen chemicals for harmful human
impact.

Conduct assessments and develop management practices, in an integrated
manner that addresses the impact of continued urbanization on
ecosystems.

Develop and deploy new Life Cycle Assessment and Material Flow Analysis
methodologies and decision support tools.

Model the integration of multi-disciplinary sustainable management
approaches and conduct futures scenario building that address Agency
priorities.

Develop methodologies and technologies for sustainable designs for built
environment.

It’s important to note that in many cases, the research needs
identified by Program and Regional Offices as a sustainability need
could not be readily characterized as such

True to ORD’s Research Capabilities

As has been indicated throughout this document, both ORD’s intramural
and extramural programs have had a long and successful history of
addressing problem that are focused on sustainable outcomes.  Green
chemistry, life cycle assessment methods work, or in the innovative
multi-disciplinary sustainable environmental management work, ORD has
demonstrated that it can balance a strong in-house research capability
with access to the Nation’s best academic scientific and engineering
researchers and most innovative small companies through its extramural
programs.  A sustainability research program needs to build on the core
intramural capability while taking advantage of the flexibility afforded
by extramural programs.

Potential for High Impact

As witnessed by the list of research questions and issues presented
above, there are clearly more topics worthy of attention than there are
resources to accomplish them. To be successful, this program must focus
on those areas where there is potential to make a high impact on the
existing state of knowledge and sustainability outcomes.  This includes
areas where ORD’s research staff is recognized nationally and
internationally as leading experts in their field, as well as areas
where a modest ORD investment in the academic community could
potentially make a big difference.  The focus should be on nationally
compelling problems where the solutions can have far reaching impacts.
This includes collaborative efforts where synergistic research efforts
can accomplish far more than by ORD working alone.  In the end, research
must enable the long-term sustainability outcomes of the various
resource systems discussed within the Research Strategy.

Systems Based Research

Throughout this plan, the notion that sustainable solutions are
predicated on systems-based solutions has been at the heart of nearly
everything.  Several ongoing efforts embody this principal, such as the
work on sustainable environmental management approaches or the
Collaborative Network for Sustainability (CNS) grants program.  All
research effort should, at a minimum, acknowledge the importance of
systems-based work, and should strive to identify the individual work
within the context of larger systems.

Chapter 5. Planned Research Program for STS MYP

5.1 Planned Research Program

A research program addressing the three Long Term Goals was created
after: 1) a careful review of the P2NT Program, 2) a consideration of
the research questions and issues that were raised within the SRS, and
3) through an application of the criteria described in the previous
chapter. These individual research efforts, when placed within the MYP
framework, will produce the data and information necessary to create the
case-studies, policy recommendations, and management strategies which
are needed to inform clients on the best way to achieve stewardship
outcomes and implement sustainable management practices.  A flow chart
outlining the relationship between the three LTGs and their Annual
Performance Goals (APMs) can be found in Figure 3.

LTG 1: Decision-makers adopt ORD-identified and developed metrics to
quantitatively assess environmental systems for sustainability.

APG 1.1:  Develop, apply and track scientifically-based metrics for
sustainable environmental management at local and regional scales
(2011).

APM 2008:  Conduct a state-of-the-art review of sustainability metrics
and indicators.

APM 2009:  Initiate at least one applied metrics project with an outside
collaborator for the purpose of validating in-house metrics research.

APM 2011:  Deliver a suite of sustainability metrics and indicators that
are suitable for inclusion into the National Report on the Environment.

APG 1.2:  Develop and apply methodologies and metrics that evaluate and
quantify the effectiveness of environmental innovations and technologies
that support sustainable outcomes (2011).

APM 2010:  Deliver a suite of scientifically-based and validated
sustainability metrics which provide a means to evaluate innovative
environmental technologies.

APM 2011:  Deliver a suite of scientifically-based and validated
sustainability metrics to industry which focuses on enhancing
sustainability outcomes at the design and verification stages of
production

LTG 2: Decision-makers adopt ORD-developed decision support tools and
methodologies to promote environmental stewardship and sustainable
environmental management practices.

APG 2.1:  Develop and implement systems-based methods and models that
promote sustainable policies, industrial practices and market behavior
(2011).

APM 2010:  Deliver a decision support tool for use by the Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics that streamlines the use and application
of Life Cycle Assessment methods.

APM 2011:  Deliver to the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response a
decision support tool which integrates Life Cycle Assessment methods
with Material Flow approaches to support the selection of sustainable
materials and products.

APG 2.2:  Develop and implement computer-based tools for assessing
environmental impacts to influence the design and development of
sustainable technologies and products (2011).

APM 2009:  Expand the suite of environmental impact assessment models to
include sustainable land use.

APM 2010:  Expand the suite of environmental impact assessment models to
include sustainable water use.

APM 2011:  In support of sustainable management decisions at the local,
regional and national level, build upon existing energy and
environmental impact models to create the ability to provide
sustainability scenarios on future outcomes for use by the Agency.

APG 2.3:  Develop and implement sustainable environmental management
methodologies at local and regional scales which consider stewardship
issues including water, land use, materials, energy, economy and ecology
(2012).

APM 2008:  Provide decision makers at the local level with results from
an auction-based approach to the sustainable management of urban
watersheds.

APM 2009:  Initiate at least one collaborative research project that
applies sustainable criteria to the management of a regional ecosystem.

APM 2010:  Provide decision makers at the local level with
recommendations on the effectiveness of a small-parcel, best management
practice approach to managing urban watersheds.

APM 2011:  Transfer 5 tools, approaches or lessons learned from
collaborative projects that addressed sustainable solutions to local and
regional environmental issues to decision makers in other regions.

APM 2012:  Build the capacity to provide local and regional decision
makers with a suite of decision tools and models to support stewardship
outcomes and sustainable environmental management practices.

LTG 3:  Decision-makers adopt innovative technologies developed or
verified by ORD to solve environmental problems, contributing to
sustainable outcomes.

APG 3.1:  Address priority Agency concerns by soliciting technology
requirements, coordinating and synthesizing activities, and transferring
those innovations to EPA Program Offices, Regional Offices, and other
partners (2010).

APM 2008:  Complete eight verifications of environmental technologies
that promote sustainable outcomes.

APM 2008:  Complete five SBIR Phase II technologies needed by EPA
Regions and EPA Program Offices.

APM 2009:  Complete five SBIR Phase II technologies needed by EPA
Regions and EPA Program Offices.

APM 2010:  Complete five SBIR Phase II technologies needed by EPA
Regions and EPA Program Offices.

APM 2010:  Complete a report which documents the impact that
Agency-verified environmental technologies have had on achieving
sustainable outcomes.

APM 2011:  Complete five SBIR Phase II technologies needed by EPA
Regions and EPA Program Offices.

APM 2012:  Complete five SBIR Phase II technologies needed by EPA
Regions and EPA Program Offices.

APG 3.2:  Develop new technologies that minimize environmental impacts,
including environmentally benign chemicals, chemistries, materials,
products, and industrial processes and systems (2011).

AMP 2008:  To conclude this effort, deliver report on results of a
collaborative membrane research effort designed to economically separate
ethanol made from waste biomass.

APM 2009:  Initiate three new external agreements with outside
collaborators focused on the development of environmentally benign
chemicals, chemistries or materials that support sustainable outcomes.

APM 2009:  Facilitate the scaling up (through commercialization, etc.)
of seven innovative designs or technologies developed by teams of
students to address sustainability issues.

APM 2011:  Initiate three new external agreements with outside
collaborators focused on the development of environmentally benign
chemicals, chemistries or materials that support sustainable outcomes.

Figure 3.  Flow Diagram of the STS LTGs and APGs

The extent to which these research efforts will contribute to providing
guidance and knowledge for managing systems related to the Research
Strategy’s six theme areas will vary significantly.  For example, due
to the program’s historical knowledge-base and scientific
capabilities, some of the research themes will be engaged directly, such
as in activities that focus on the sustainable management of materials
and ecosystems, and to a lesser extent, energy, and, water, land use
questions.  As mentioned earlier, ORD’s Sustainability Research
Strategy envisions the STS MYP as the first of many research programs
designed to address the question of sustainability.  With that
understanding, it is expected that the remaining research questions
identified in the Research Strategy will be addressed by other ORD
programs, and their associated Multi-Year Plans.  The following table
(5.1.) highlights areas where other research strategies are likely to
make contributions.

 Table 5.1. Sustainability Research Themes Addressed by Multi-Year Plans

X – some association 		XX – strong association

National Program Director Area	Multi-Year Plan	Renewable  Resources
Non-renewable Resources	Chemical & Biol. Impacts	Human-built Environment
	Economics & Behavior	Information &

Decisions

Air	Air Toxics

X

X

	Particulate Matter

X

X

	Tropospheric Ozone

X

X

X

Global Change & Mercury	Global Change	X	X

XX	X	X

	Mercury

X	XX

	Water Quality	Water Quality	XX

X

	Drinking Water	Drinking Water

XX

Human Health	Human Health

	XX

	X

Ecological Risk	Ecological Research	XX

X

	X

Pesticides, Toxics, and ECDs	Endocrine Disruptors

	XX

Safe Pesticides

	XX

Toxics

	XX

	(not an NPD area)	Computational Toxicology

	XX

	Contaminated Sites/ Resource Conservation	Contaminated Sites

	Hazardous Waste

	XX

Economics and Decision Sciences

	XX	XX

5.2 Relationship to Related Programs and Activities

Links to ORD Programs

In addition to the research areas identified in the ORD Sustainability
Research Strategy, the STS program will be poised to transfer its
research results on system boundaries and metrics development to a
number of ORD research programs.  Ongoing discussions at the strategic
level among ORD’s research programs and the associated National
Program Directors (NPDs) will both inform the actual design of research
efforts and provide ready clients for its systems definition and metrics
research findings.  ORD programs such as Economics and Decision Science,
Ecosystem Protection, Drinking Water, Water Quality, and Global Climate
Change can potentially incorporate STS research in the development of
solutions that integrate traditionally distinct research areas; thus,
moving ORD’s research agenda toward a multidisciplinary or
sustainability framework.

Links to EPA Programs

Collaboration with Key Program and Regional Office Activities

Moving toward sustainability depends on the adoption of more integrated
approaches with better connections between scientific research and its
application.  Collaboration with both Program Offices and Regions allows
them quick access to the underlying knowledge provided by research while
simultaneously providing ORD with a better sense of what research is
actually valued.  Given the forward-looking, systems-oriented nature of
this sustainability research program, collaboration is particularly
critical because the connections between research activities and program
needs can be quite complex. Under this MYP, ORD will interact with EPA
Program and Regional Offices in several ways.

Offering Input and Advice to Programs

One way ORD can better understand the perspective of Program and
Regional Offices’ it to participate on advisory committees and review
teams.  This allows researchers to better see where they can connect
their science to the on-going programs. Some of the programs that will
benefit from the research conducted under the Science and Technology for
Sustainability program include:

Smart Growth Implementation Assistance program

Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) program

Brownfields Research, Training, and Technical Assistance Grants

Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem Solving Grants

Targeted Watersheds Program.

Incorporating a Scientific Perspective into Agency-Wide Initiatives

ORD’s participation on Agency-wide committees and ad hoc groups can
bring a much needed scientific and engineering perspective to help
formulate the Agency’s future directions.  For example, the Innovation
Action Council (IAC) has formed a staff group to explore future options
for stewardship at EPA.  ORD’s active participation in this group has
helped highlight how science and technology can play a key role in
promoting stewardship through the development of indicators to enable
the tracking of local, regional, and national progress, or from new
insights that the economic and decision sciences have provided on
personal stewardship behavior.  The Multi-Media Pollution Prevention
Roundtable has formed the Multi-Media Materials Management (M4) group
where ORD provided case examples and has developed a framework to
identify priorities for future research and application.

Drawing upon Program and Regional Expertise for ORD Programs

There are a number of EPA programs can serve as a source of expertise
and experience in developing research questions and direction for the
STS program.  For example, the Office of Water’s (OW) Low Impact
Development (LID) Program has addressed the issue of low-impact
storm-water management, a component of the STS agenda.   Several
programs within the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, such as
Design for the Environment and the Green Suppliers Network, are
encouraging conservation of materials, water, and energy and the move
from toxic to safer chemicals.  Programs within Office of Policy,
Economics and Innovation, such as the Sectors Strategy Program, the
Smart Growth Program, and National Environmental Performance Track also
relate to sustainability.  Finally, the new materials management-based
approach adopted by Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, the
Resource Conservation Challenge, can also inform ORD thinking.

Communicating Scientific Knowledge and Results to Programs and Regions

ORD must communicate progress of its ongoing sustainability research to
those within EPA who make or guide policy decisions.  A wide variety of
communication channels exist for this purpose.  Forums such as internal
EPA lecture series, such as the Millennium Lectures, or meetings and
workshops that appeal to a broader EPA audience, such as the EPA Science
Forum, provide ready opportunities.  ORD’s Sustainability web site can
ultimately be able to serve as a living resource for program and
regional offices, as well as the broader public.  Brochures can be
developed for ORD sustainability programs that will convey information
and valuable, relevant results to programs and regions, as well as the
public. Finally, collaborative research arrangements with cutting edge
researchers at universities and within industry will help increase the
visibility of ORD research within the Agency.

Complementary Research and Implementation Activities outside EPA

An inventory of all government entities involved in
sustainability-related research was completed to assist in the
development of the STS MYP design and research agenda.  Results of that
inquiry revealed there are many complementary on-going efforts,
especially at the federal government level, which address the research
questions posed in the ORD Sustainability Research Strategy.   For
example, complementary efforts which would support the objectives of the
three LTGs include tapping into existing data sets and knowledge
development for geographic information systems.  This in turn, would
further clarify the definition of human-built systems and their
interactions with natural systems.  Current examples of collaborative
efforts in which the STS program can potentially join include.

At the Federal Level:

The Fish and Wildlife Service’s Land Use Planning and Monitoring
Program is an effort to evaluates the interaction of human-built and
natural systems and is similar to EPA’s Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP) program.

LANDSAT imagery and multi-sensor data are used by National Academy of
Science, U.S. Geological Service, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration to expand the understanding of urbanization and examine
its impacts on air quality and aquatic species.

ORD’s REVA analysis tool and the National Park Service’s assessments
of air pollution impacts on National Parks both build on an expanding
knowledge base to better understand the impact of human built systems on
surrounding natural systems.

The Department of Defense has developed a number of sustainability-based
planning tools including the Sustainable Installation Regional Risk
Assessment (SIRRA), and the Proactive Options with Neighbors for Defense
Installation Sustainability (PONDS).  Their experience with these
generic sustainability planning methodologies can improve environmental
performance within the Regulated and Decision-maker communities.

The National Science Foundation provides support to sustainability
research efforts.  The Materials Use: Science, Engineering, and Society
(MUSES) Program solicits new multidisciplinary activities that encourage
researchers to reach beyond their disciplinary boundaries in order to
address complex issues related to materials use in the environment.  The
Collaborative Large-Scale Engineering Analysis Network for Environmental
Research (CLEANER) Program is using planning grants to develop the
capability for near-real time dynamic monitoring and analysis in support
of environmental management.

At the State Level:

A similar inventory of complementary activities at the state and
geographic regional levels is currently being compiled, again, with the
goal of seeking venues for collaborative research and partnerships
within the area of environmental sustainability.

While these specific data sets and tools allow for environmental
improvements geared toward specific audiences and /or geographic
regions, there are additional benefits in amalgamating several
collections of relevant data sets.  Most notably, those benefits include
increasing the knowledge-base regarding the development of generic
methodologies which more effectively understand/manage interactions
between the natural and human-built systems

Collaborative Research with Industry:

STS’ precursor, the Pollution Prevention and New Technologies (P2NT)
Program, has an extensive history of partnering with industry in joint
research efforts aimed at specific industrial sectors or chemical
processes that could most benefit from pollution prevention measures.
Through the use of Cooperative Research and Development Agreements
(CRADAs) and Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with targeted
industrial partners, a collaborative research approach will continue in
this program as well.  Currently, there are 7 active CRADAs in the STS
program and on-going negotiations with additional industrial partners to
enter into several more agreements.

5.3 R & D Investment Criteria

Relevance

The Science and Technology for Sustainability program is expected to
achieve the programmatic goal of providing the tools and guidance to
develop more sustainable environmental policies.  The program is
relevant to the Agency’s evolving mission, which already embodies many
elements of sustainability, through its Environmental Stewardship
approach.  As such, it also expected to meet the R&D Investment Criteria
established by OMB’s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART).  OMB’s
relevance criteria played a prominent role in the design of the STS
program’s outcome-oriented Long Term Goals. Preliminary feedback from
OMB on the STS program’s long term goals and associated performance
measures has been positive.  After examination of the program redesign,
OMB feedback included a clear expectation that the program would be
capable of demonstrating progress toward its goals through its annual
performance measures.

Quality

The STS program was evaluated, but not rated, by OMB using the PART in
2005.  In 2006, the entire Sustainability program (Research Strategy and
MYP) will undergo several external reviews.  The STS program is also
scheduled for review by a subcommittee of the Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC) in FY07.  This external review will focus on the
program’s design, its effectiveness in delivering products and
services to target customers, and the appropriate prioritization of
resources to reach program goals.

Performance

The STS research program has three annual performance measures which
will quantify progress toward achieving the Long Term Goals established
for the program.  There is a performance measure associated with each
Long Term Goal which evaluates the STS program’s effectiveness through
use of its products and data.  The Performance Measures are:

LTG 1: The expected outcome starts with the development of
scientifically-based metrics and transferable protocols for applying
those metrics to environmental problems.  This will lead to the ability
to accurately measure sustainable environmental performance over time.
Finally, that knowledge will be used refine the metrics, to inform the
assessment of trends and future scenarios, and to perfect decision
support tools developed in LTG 2.

LTG 2:  The expected outcome is that the decision making process itself
will be altered by causing decision makers to place greater emphasis on
stewardship and sustainable management practices in addressing local,
regional and national problems.

LTG 3:  The expected outcome will be measurable improvements in
environmental performance.

Specific mechanisms and instruments designed to measure the program’s
effectiveness and ability to meet its goals are currently under
development.

5.4 Future Research Activities

Should the Science and Technology for Sustainability research program
receive a significant increase in its budget allocations, the program
would first seek to restore the Collaborative Network for Sustainability
(CNS) program.  The CNS Program would provide EPA with a living
laboratory to test and evaluate sustainable management practices through
collaborative partnerships with innovative local and regional
initiatives.  During its operation, the CNS program provided the EPA
research staff with unique opportunities to work with local and regional
decision makers, and in the process, gain insights into the complex
interplay of environmental concerns, constrained local budgets, and
opposing stakeholder visions.

Additional resources would also allow the STS Program to address one or
more nationally compelling sustainability problems with its unique
systems-based approach.  This might include a more in-depth examination
of the environmental implications of using biomass as an energy source,
or investigating innovative approaches to resolve the problem of hypoxia
in the Gulf of Mexico

Finally, additional resources would allow additions to the in-house
staff with a skill mix designed to better support the development of
metrics and indicators.  Currently, there are no in-house experts with a
background in decision theory, the staffing level for economists (seen
as a critical competency) is inadequate, and the program recently lost
its only environmental attorney to retirement.  Given the importance of
maintaining a strong intramural component to the program, these staff
additions are critical.

Appendix.  Research Needs of EPA Program and Regional Offices

Program/Regional Office	Sustainability Research Needs

	Office of Water (OW)	Water Reuse:  Questions of water quality and
quantity.

	Development of Sustainable Infrastructure

	Smart Growth Workgroup:  How do you minimize the adverse effects of
development on water quality & ecosystems?

	Ecosystems:  Focus on water quality issues.

	Low Impact Development Technologies:  Evaluate the ground water impacts
from using BMPs.

	Water Star Program: Maintains water quality and water re-use
considering energy

	Delaware River Basin Project:  What are the urbanization effects on the
surrounding ecosystems?

	Office of Air and Radiation (OAR)	Sustainable Building Materials –
Operational & Construction:

     What are more sustainable operational parameters?

     What are more sustainable maintenance products?

	Analyzing Smart Growth from an air quality perspective on a regional
and national scale

     What are the multimedia implications?

     What are the overall environmental impacts?

	Energy:  Provide future scenarios to be completed through Global
Climate Change MYP.

	Focus on the Life Cycle impacts of alternative technologies in the
future.

	Develop cross-disciplinary decision support tools.

	Continued research on indoor environments.

	Green Buildings:

     Sustainability implication of construction materials used

     Design of sustainable buildings

	Operation & Maintenance:  What are resource efficient and cost
effective design strategies?

	Evaluation of mold resistant wall board.

	Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic Substances (OPPTS)

	Design for the Environment (DfE):

     Life Cycle Assessment methodologies for use in comparing products
and processes.

     Dealing with the problem of electronic wastes and wiring and cable
products.

	Evaluate & compare full and streamlined LCA methodologies for actual
products and chemicals in order to determine the best methodology
approach.

	New Chemicals Program:  Evaluate existing models for proposed
chemicals.

	Study production process for design alternatives and by-products.

Program/Regional Office	Sustainability Research Needs

	Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)  	MFA for product
and waste steams to increase recycling and reuse

	Conduct Life Cycle Assessments for Industrial Sectors (using the TRI
database) with the initial focus on the 30 priority chemicals

	Develop alternatives for top 30 priority chemicals:  OSWER has GPRA
goal to reduce volume of these chemicals by 10% in 5 years.

	Develop manufacturing & process changes for the top 5 industrial
processes resulting in lead-containing wastes.

	Join the National Partnership for Implementing the Resource
Conservation Challenge.

	Develop in infrastructure (LCA-based) for waste production/generation

	Conduct Joint research will industry’s biggest polluters to develop
preventive measures, etc. such as PPG of Louisiana.

	General reports to develop production processes that are just as
economically effective.

	SMARTe:  A decision support tool for land revitalization.

	Regional Office Needs	Viable Alternatives to Chlorinated Solvents

	Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products

	Most environmentally significant chemicals must be prioritized

	Estimate Mercury Fish Tissue Concentrations and Predict Impacts of
Mercury Deposition on Watersheds

	Development or Refinement of Methods to Determine Speciation of
Arsenic, Chromium, and Mercury in Soils, Sediments, Water and Biota

	Real Time Pathogen Indicators and Microbial Source Tracking

	Development of Procedures for Calculating Non-carcinogenic Risks for
Currently Non-regulated Compounds

	Marine and Freshwater Contaminated Sediments

	Compile and Analyze Existing Vapor Intrusion Date and Evaluation
Methods

	Viable Alternatives to Chlorinated Solvents

	Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products

	Most environmentally significant chemicals must be prioritized

	Estimate Mercury Fish Tissue Concentrations and Predict Impacts of
Mercury Deposition on Watersheds

	Development or Refinement of Methods to Determine Speciation of
Arsenic, Chromium, and Mercury in Soils, Sediments, Water and Biota

	Real Time Pathogen Indicators and Microbial Source Tracking

	Development of Procedures for Calculating Non-carcinogenic Risks for
Currently Non-regulated Compounds

	Marine and Freshwater Contaminated Sediments

	Compile and Analyze Existing Vapor Intrusion Date and Evaluation
Methods

	Modeling and Monitoring the Fate of Mercury Emissions across Ecosystems

	Innovative Treatment Technologies for NAPL’s Chlorinated Solvents,
Chlorinated Pesticides, Dioxin Wood Treated Wastes and Metals

	TMDL Research Needs

	Full-scale Development of Ballast Water Treatment on Ships

	Mine Waste Management Techniques Using Automated Treatment Systems and
Remote Telemetry Monitoring Technologies

	Air Monitoring and Assessment of Impacts from Pesticide Drift

Science and Technology for Sustainability Multi-Year Plan
(FY2008–FY2012), Feb. 21, 2007

 PAGE

 PAGE   36

 See Regional Summaries of State and Tribal Issues and Priorities for
the 2006-2011 Strategic Plan Revision.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/ocfopage/plan/regions/index.htm"
www.epa.gov/ocfopage/plan/regions/index.htm

LTG 3: Decision-makers adopt innovative technologies developed or
verified by ORD to solve environmental problems, contributing to
sustainable outcomes

LTG 2: Decision-makers adopt ORD-developed decision support tools and
methodologies to promote environmental stewardship and sustainable
environmental management practices

LTG 1: Decision-makers adopt ORD-identified and developed metrics to
quantitatively assess environmental systems for sustainability

Conducting qualitative assessments of current trends and futures
scenarios

Provide support to regional and national sustainability policies and
initiatives

FY10

FY11

FY12

LTG 1: Metrics

LTG 2:

Decision Tools

LTG 3:

Technologies

APG

1.1 & 1.2

APG

2.1 & 2.2

APG

2.3

APG

3.1

APG

3.2

Inputs and Resources

EPA

Research

Staff

STAR

Grantees

EPA Program Offices & Regions

Local

&

Regional

Government

Short Term

Outcomes

Use of

Tools to

Support

Sustainable

Decision

Making

Adoption of Metrics to Measure Sustainability

 Adoption of Technologies

Clients

Local, Regional and National Decision Makers in Support of Stewardship
and Sustainable Policies and Initiatives

Industrial Decision Makers

Research Activities

Develop and Apply Sustainability

Metrics

Create

Decision

Support

Tools

Develop,

Apply and

Verify

Technology

Outputs Outreach

&

Transfer

Sustainability

Metrics

Decision Support Tools

Sustainable

Environment

Practices

Technology

Intermediate

Outcomes

Sustainable Practices are added to Local, Regional, and National
Policies

Pollution is avoided and risk is reduced due to STS Research

Long Term

Outcomes

Risk to Human Health and the Environ is Reduced or Prevented due to STS
Research

STS Research and Clients

Outcomes and Results


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 204 (Monday, October 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 53339]
[FR Doc No: 2018-22910]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84439; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2018-070]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on
Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Corporate Non-Convertible Bonds
on Nasdaq

October 16, 2018.
    On August 27, 2018, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to list and trade corporate non-convertible bonds
on Nasdaq. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on September 6, 2018.\3\ On October 12, 2018, the
Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\4\ The
Commission has received no comments on the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84001 (August 30,
2018), 83 FR 45289.
    \4\ Amendment No. 1 is available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nasdaq-2018-070/srnasdaq2018070-4514560-176013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is October 21, 2018. The Commission is extending the 45-day time period
for Commission action on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider this proposed rule change and Amendment No.
1 thereto. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act,\6\ designates December 5, 2018, as the date by which the
Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings
to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No.
SR-NASDAQ-2018-070).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-22910 Filed 10-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 46997]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16990]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2016-80]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Flirtey
Inc.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's
awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process.
Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of
information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of
the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before August 8, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-7185
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Ngo,<PHONE_NUMBER>, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591. This notice is published
pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 13, 2016.
Dale Bouffiou,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2015-7185.
    Petitioner: Flirtey Inc.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: 21 and Sec. Sec.  45.23(b);
61.23(a)(c); 61.101(e)(4)(5); 61.113(a)(b); 61.315(a)(c); 91.7(a);
91.119(c)(d); 91.121; 91.151(a)(1); 91.405(a); 91.407(a)(1);
91.409(a)(1)(2); and 91.417(a)(b).
    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner is requesting UAS
delivery operations for urgent medical, food, and logistics industries
and research and development.

[FR Doc. 2016-16990 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P