60-Day Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 2014 / Notices
doing so, DOE/NNSA considered
mission requirements established by
law; contemporary goals and objectives
identified in site-level planning
documents; as well as anticipated
funding levels for DOE/NNSA and other
users of the NNSS and offsite locations,
such as the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security. Through the NNSS
SWEIS, DOE/NNSA considered the
potential environmental impacts that
could result from the implementation of
each proposed program, capability,
project and activity, and how it might
accomplish its underlying current and
future mission requirements in a
manner that minimizes adverse
environmental impacts.
Mitigation Measures
All practicable means to avoid or
minimize environmental harm have
been and will continue to be adopted
and employed in the continued
operation of the NNSS and other offsite
DOE/NNSA facilities in the State of
Nevada. DOE/NNSA will follow Federal
environmental laws and DOE Orders
and regulations, and utilize its
Environmental Management System to
ensure that environmental impacts are
systematically identified, controlled,
and monitored. Whenever possible,
mitigation measures will be
implemented to minimize those
impacts. DOE/NNSA will implement
mitigation strategies through habitat
conservation measures such as
revegetation; protection of cultural
resources with early planning and
avoidance; waste minimization and
energy conservation; and greater
inclusion of culturally affiliated
American Indian Tribes in monitoring
and conducting traditional ceremonies
to benefit the health of the land. DOE/
NNSA considers all of these measures to
be viable means to mitigate adverse
environmental impacts, and will apply
the applicable strategies as specific
programs, capabilities, projects, and
activities are conducted.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Issued at Washington, DC, this 15th day of
December 2014.
Frank G. Klotz,
Under Secretary for Nuclear Security,
Administrator/National Nuclear Security
Administration.

Appendix: Public Comments Received
After the Publication of the Final NNSS
SWEIS
DOE/NNSA received four comment letters
regarding the Final NNSS SWEIS. These
letters were received from the State of
Nevada Nuclear Project Office, Clark County,
Nye County, and the City of Las Vegas. A
letter from the EPA was also received after
the completion of the NNSS SWEIS.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:42 Dec 29, 2014

Jkt 235001

DOE/NNSA considered all comments
contained in these letters. DOE/NNSA
determined that none of these comments
identify or present new information that
would warrant a supplement to the Final
NNSS SWEIS or other additional NEPA
analysis. Most of these comments are similar
to, and in many cases the same as, comments
submitted on the Draft NNSS SWEIS, to
which DOE/NNSS responded in the Final
NNSS SWEIS (Volume 3, Comment Response
Document). Regarding transportation impact
comments submitted by the State, county and
local governments on the Final NNSS SWEIS,
shipments of low-level radioactive waste
(LLW) and mixed low-level radioactive waste
(MLLW) to the NNSS for disposal will
continue to be done in accordance with
commitments made to the State of Nevada
and provisions of the NNSS waste acceptance
criteria regarding routing and related matters
associated with such shipments. The
discussion below summarizes comments
from these letters not raised on the Draft
NNSS SWEIS and presents DOE/NNSA’s
responses.
Comment. The impacts of DOE/NNSA’s
Preferred Alternative, described in Section
3.4 of the Final NNSS SWEIS, were not
adequately analyzed.
Response. As addressed in Section 3.4 of
the Final NNSS SWEIS, the Preferred
Alternative is a hybrid composed of elements
of the three alternatives that were examined
in detail in the Draft NNSS SWEIS. DOE/
NNSA determined, by resource area, that the
potential environmental consequences of the
Preferred Alternative would fall within the
range of impacts reported in the NNSS
SWEIS.
Further, there would be no synergistic
effects resulting in unique impacts stemming
from the hybrid Preferred Alternative. The
potential environmental impacts resulting
from implementation of the Preferred
Alternative are displayed in Table S–1 and
3–3 of the Final NNSS SWEIS, including
activities for which there is insufficient
information available to conduct a projectspecific NEPA review.
Comment. The Final NNSS SWEIS does
not address the potential construction of a
MLLW Treatment Facility at the NNSS.
Response. Construction of a new MLLW
treatment facility within the Area 5 RWMC
is not envisioned at this time. If a need for
such a facility is identified in the future,
DOE/NNSA will complete the appropriate
NEPA review.
Comment. The Final NNSS SWEIS does
not include estimates of criteria and
hazardous air pollutants from rail and
intermodal (train to truck) transportation in
Tables 5–34, 5–39, and 5–42.
Response. Tables 5–34, 5–39, and 5–42
present detailed data that include analytic
results on criteria and hazardous air
pollutants. In addition, Tables 5–35, 5–40
and 5–43 of the Final NNSS SWEIS present
the data in a different format, including
estimated emissions of criteria and hazardous
air pollutants from both the all-truck
transport scenario and the primarily-rail
transport scenario (intermodal train to truck
transport) that would occur under each of the
alternatives.

PO 00000

Frm 00045

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

78425

Comment. The Final NNSS SWEIS fails to
evaluate impacts that would be associated
with the proposed Greater-than-Class C
Disposal Facility.
Response. The cumulative impacts analysis
(Section 6.2.1.1) of the Final NNSS SWEIS
evaluated the potential environmental
impacts associated with a Greater-than-Class
C Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility at the
NNSS should DOE select the NNSS site for
such a facility. The data used were taken
from the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Disposal of Greater-ThanClass C (GTCC) Low-Level Radioactive Waste
and GTCC-Like Waste (DOE/EIS–0375–D),
issued in February 2011. Prior to selecting a
site for the disposal of GTCC low-level
radioactive waste and GTCC-like waste, DOE
will complete the appropriate NEPA review.
[FR Doc. 2014–30594 Filed 12–29–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0743; FRL–9920–95–
OAR]

Agency Information Collection
Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Protection of
Stratospheric Ozone: Critical Use
Exemption From the Phaseout of
Methyl Bromide (Renewal); EPA ICR
No. 2031.07, OMB Control No. 2060–
0482
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:

In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this
document announces that the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is planning to submit a request to renew
an existing approved Information
Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). This
ICR, 2031.06, is scheduled to expire on
June 30, 2015. Before submitting the ICR
to OMB for review and approval, EPA
is soliciting comments on specific
aspects of the proposed information
collection as described below.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on
or before March 2, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2014–0743 by one of the following
methods:
• www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Email: [email protected].
• Fax: 202–566–1741.
• Mail: EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0743,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail
Code: 6205T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460.
SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\30DEN1.SGM

30DEN1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

78426

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 2014 / Notices

• Hand Delivery: EPA–HQ–OAR–
2014–0743, Air and Radiation Docket at
EPA West, 1301 Constitution Avenue
NW., Room B108, Mail Code 6102T,
Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket’s
normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–
0743. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going
through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at http://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jeremy Arling, Stratospheric Protection
Division, Office of Atmospheric
Programs, (6205T), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number: (202) 343–9055; fax
number: (202) 343–2338; email address:
[email protected]. You may also
visit the Ozone Depletion Web site of
EPA’s Stratospheric Protection Division
at www.epa.gov/ozone/strathome.html
for further information about EPA’s
Stratospheric Ozone Protection
regulations, the science of ozone layer
depletion, and related topics.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:42 Dec 29, 2014

Jkt 235001

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How can I access the docket and/or
submit comments?
EPA has established a public docket
for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA–
HQ–OAR–2014–0743, which is
available for online viewing at
www.regulations.gov, or in person
viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket
in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington,
DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room
is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
Reading Room is 202–566–1744, and the
telephone number for Air and Radiation
Docket is 202–566–1742.
Use www.regulations.gov to obtain a
copy of the draft collection of
information, submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of
the contents of the docket, and to access
those documents in the public docket
that are available electronically. Once in
the system, select ‘‘search,’’ then key in
the docket ID number identified in this
document.
What information is EPA particularly
interested in?
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of
the PRA, EPA specifically solicits
comments and information to enable it
to:
(i) Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
(ii) evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
(iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses. In
particular, EPA is requesting comments
from very small businesses (those that
employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA
could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses
affected by this collection.

PO 00000

Frm 00046

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

What should I consider when I prepare
my comments for EPA?
You may find the following
suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as
possible and provide specific examples.
2. Describe any assumptions that you
used.
3. Provide copies of technical
information and/or data you used that
support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or
costs, explain how you arrived at the
estimate that you provide.
5. Offer alternative ways to improve
the collection activity.
6. Make sure to submit your
comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA,
be sure to identify the docket ID number
assigned to this action in the subject
line on the first page of your response.
You may also provide the name, date,
and Federal Register citation.
What information collection activity or
ICR does this apply to?
Affected entities: Entities potentially
affected by this action are producers,
importers, distributors, and custom
applicators of methyl bromide,
organizations, consortia, and
associations of methyl bromide users, as
well as individual methyl bromide
users.
Title: Agency Information Collection
Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Protection of
Stratospheric Ozone: Critical Use
Exemption From the Phaseout of Methyl
Bromide (Applications, Recordkeeping,
and Periodic Reporting) (Renewal).
ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2031.07,
OMB Control No. 2060–0482.
ICR status: EPA ICR 2031.06 is
currently scheduled to expire on June
30, 2015. An Agency may not conduct
or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of
information, unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
The OMB control numbers for EPA’s
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after
appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9,
are displayed either by publication in
the Federal Register or by other
appropriate means, such as on the
related collection instrument or form, if
applicable. The display of OMB control
numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
Abstract: EPA is seeking to renew
EPA ICR 2031.06 which allows EPA to
collect CUE applications from regulated
entities on an annual basis, and which

E:\FR\FM\30DEN1.SGM

30DEN1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 2014 / Notices
requires the submission of data from
regulated industries to the EPA and
requires recordkeeping of key
documents to ensure compliance with
the Montreal Protocol on Substances
that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Protocol)
and the CAA.
Entities applying for this exemption
are asked to submit to EPA applications
with necessary data to evaluate the need
for a critical use exemption. This
information collection is conducted to
meet U.S. obligations under Article 2H
of the Montreal Protocol on Substances
that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Protocol).
The information collection request is
required to obtain a benefit under
Section 604(d)(6) of the CAA, added by
Section 764 of the 1999 Omnibus
Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act
(Public Law 105–277; October 21, 1998).
Since 2002, entities have applied to
EPA for a critical use exemption that
would allow for the continued
production and import of methyl
bromide after the phaseout in January
2005. These exemptions are for
consumption only in those agricultural
sectors that have demonstrated that
there are no technically or economically
feasible alternatives to methyl bromide.
The applications are rigorously assessed
and analyzed by EPA staff, including
experts from the Office of Pesticide
Programs. On an annual basis, EPA uses
the data submitted by end users to
create a nomination of critical uses
which the U.S. Government submits to
the Protocol’s Ozone Secretariat for
review by an international panel of
experts and advisory bodies. These
advisory bodies include the Methyl
Bromide Technical Options Committee
(MBTOC) and the Technical and
Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP).
The uses authorized internationally by
the Parties to the Protocol are made
available in the U.S. on an annual basis.
The applications will enable EPA to:
1. Maintain consistency with the
Protocol by supporting critical use
nominations to the Parties to the
Protocol, in accordance with paragraph
2 of Decision IX/6 of the Protocol;
2. Ensure that critical use exemptions
comply with section 604(d)(6);
3. Provide EPA with necessary data to
evaluate the technical and economic
feasibility of methyl bromide
alternatives in the circumstance of the
specific use, as presented in an
application for a critical use exemption;
The reported data will enable EPA to:
1. Ensure that critical use exemptions
comply with Section 604(d)(6);
2. Maintain compliance with the
Protocol requirements for annual data

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:42 Dec 29, 2014

Jkt 235001

submission on the production of ozone
depleting substances;
3. Analyze technical use data to
ensure that exemptions are used in
accordance with requirements included
in the annual authorization
rulemakings.
EPA informs respondents that they
may assert claims of business
confidentiality for any of the
information they submit. Information
claimed confidential will be treated in
accordance with the procedures for
handling information claimed as
confidential under 40 CFR part 2,
subpart b, and will be disclosed only if
EPA determines that the information is
not entitled to confidential treatment. If
no claim of confidentiality is asserted
when the information is received by
EPA, it may be made available to the
public without further notice to the
respondents (40 CFR 2.203). Individual
reporting data may be claimed as
sensitive and will be treated as
confidential information in accordance
with procedures outlined in 40 CFR part
2.
Burden Statement: The annual public
reporting and recordkeeping burden for
this collection of information is
estimated to average 1.0 hours per
response. Burden means the total time,
effort, or financial resources expended
by persons to generate, maintain, retain,
or disclose or provide information to or
for a Federal agency. This includes the
time needed to review instructions;
develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes
of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
requirements which have subsequently
changed; train personnel to be able to
respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and
review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.
The annual application, reporting,
and recordkeeping burden is as follows:
15 applicants to the critical use
exemption program at 570 hours per
year; 4 producers and importers at a
total of 88 hours per year (quarterly
reporting); 50 distributors and pesticide
applicators at 612 hours per year
(annual reporting); and 1,000 end users
at 325 hours per year (periodic
certification of purchases of critical use
methyl bromide at the time of each
purchase). The total industry burden is
therefore 1,595 hours per year.
The annual public application burden
for this collection of information is

PO 00000

Frm 00047

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 9990

78427

estimated to average 38 hours per
response (570 hours divided by 15
responses). The annual public reporting
and recordkeeping burden for this
collection of information is estimated to
average 0.64 hours per response (1,025
hours divided by 1,614 responses).
Overall, the total annual public burden
(application, reporting, and
recordkeeping) for this collection of
information is estimated to average 1.0
hours per response (1,595 hours divided
by 1,629 responses).
The total annual labor cost burden
associated with information collection
request is $624,721. EPA estimates the
costs as follows: Application costs
totaling $80,883 per year, recordkeeping
and reporting costs totaling $506,814
per year, and self-certification by
producers, importers, distributors, and
end users costing $37,024 per year. EPA
estimates the capital costs to be $0.
Are there changes in the estimates from
the last approval?
There is a decrease of 1,663 hours in
the total estimated respondent burden
compared with the burden currently
approved by OMB. The primary reason
for the decrease in burden hours is a
decrease in the number of applicants
and end users as well as distributors of
methyl bromide. The CUE Allocation
rule for 2014/2015 removed minor
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements related to critical stock
allowances. In addition, after December
31, 2014, when methyl bromide is
phased out in developing countries,
certain reporting requirements related to
the production and export of methyl
bromide to those countries are no longer
applicable.
What is the next step in the process for
this ICR?
EPA will consider the comments
received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will
then be submitted to OMB for review
and approval pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue
another Federal Register notice
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to
announce the submission of the ICR to
OMB and the opportunity to submit
additional comments to OMB. If you
have any questions about this ICR or the
approval process, please contact the
technical person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Dated: December 15, 2014.
Drusilla Hufford,
Director, Stratospheric Protection Division.
[FR Doc. 2014–30603 Filed 12–29–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

E:\FR\FM\30DEN1.SGM

30DEN1