This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

53190 

Vol. 74, No. 199 

Friday, October 16, 2009 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 851 

Worker Safety and Health Program: 

Safety-Conscious Work Environment 

AGENCY: Office of the General Counsel, 

Department of Energy (DOE). 

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; request 

for comment. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

received a petition from the Hanford 

Challenge on August 18, 2009, 

requesting the initiation of a rulemaking 

regarding safety policies at DOE’s 

nuclear facilities. The petition calls for 

DOE to establish by regulation a safety 

program using the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission’s ‘‘Safety-Conscious Work 

Environment’’ guidelines as a model. 

Public comment is requested on 

whether DOE should grant the petition 

and proceed with a rulemaking 

procedure on this matter. 

DATES: Comments must be postmarked 

no later than December 15, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted 

must reference the petition for 

rulemaking. Comments may be 

submitted using any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: steve.krahn@em.doe.gov. 

Include ‘‘Petition for Rulemaking’’ in 

the subject line of the message. 

• Postal Mail: Steven L. Krahn, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, 

Safety Management and Operations, 

Environmental Management Office, U.S 

Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. Please 

submit one signed original paper copy. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Steven L. 

Krahn, Acting Deputy Assistant 

Secretary, Safety Management and 

Operations, Environmental Management 

Office, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. Please 

submit one signed original paper copy. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven L. Krahn, Acting Deputy 

Assistant Secretary, Safety Management 

and Operations, Environmental 

Management Office, U.S. Department of 

Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 

586–2281, e-mail: 

steve.krahn@em.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 

U.S.C. 551 et seq., provides among other 

things, that ‘‘[e]ach agency shall give an 

interested person the right to petition 

for the issuance, amendment, or repeal 

of a rule.’’ (5 U.S.C. 553(e)) Pursuant to 

this provision of the APA, the Hanford 

Challenge petitioned DOE for the 

issuance of a new rule, as set forth 

below. In promulgating this petition for 

public comment, the Department of 

Energy is seeking views on whether it 

should grant the petition and undertake 

a rulemaking to consider the proposal 

contained in the petition. By seeking 

comment on whether to grant this 

petition, the Department of Energy takes 

no position at this time regarding the 

merits of the suggested rulemaking. 

The proposed rulemaking sought by 

the Hanford Challenge would institute a 

‘‘Safety-Conscious Work Environment’’ 

in DOE’s nuclear facilities, similar to 

that used by the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC). The NRC’s ‘‘SafetyConscious Work Environment’’ program 

encourages employees to report their 

concerns by guaranteeing that there will 

not be any adverse professional 

repercussions resulting from such 

reporting. The Department of Energy 

seeks public comment on whether DOE 

should grant the petition and proceed 

with a rulemaking procedure on this 

issue. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 8, 

2009. 

Scott Blake Harris, 

General Counsel. 

Set forth below is the full text of the 

Hanford Challenge petition: 

Before the U.S. Department of Energy 

August 18, 2009 

Petition for Rulemaking 

Pursuant to the provisions of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 

U.S.C. 553(e), Hanford Challenge hereby 

submits a Petition for Rulemaking to 

institute procedures and policies to 

further the Department’s mission of 

protecting the health and safety of the 

public and the workforce by ensuring 

that employees of the Department of 

Energy (DOE) and its contractors and 

subcontractors are free to raise concerns 

without fear of retaliation and reprisal 

against them. 

Specifically, this Petition calls for 

DOE to take positive steps to implement 

a ‘‘Safety Conscious Work 

Environment’’ in its facilities, using 

guidelines issued by the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) for 

evaluating and achieving the presence 

of a ‘‘Safety-Conscious Work 

Environment.’’ See, NRC Regulatory 

Issue Summary 2005–18, ‘‘Guidance for 

Establishing and Maintaining a Safety 

Conscious Work Environment’’, Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Office of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Office of 

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, 

August 25, 2005, and 10 CFR 50.7. 

A Safety Conscious Work 

Environment (SCWE) is defined as a 

work environment in which employees 

are encouraged to raise concerns and 

where such concerns are promptly 

reviewed, given the proper priority 

based on their potential safety 

significance, and appropriately resolved 

with timely feedback to employees. 

Attributes of a Safety Conscious Work 

Environment include (1) a management 

attitude that promotes employee 

involvement and confidence in raising 

and resolving concerns; (2) a clearly 

communicated management policy 

where safety has the utmost priority, 

overriding, if necessary, the demands of 

production and project schedules; (3) a 

strong, independent quality assurance 

organization and program; (4) a training 

program that encourages a positive 

attitude toward safety; and (5) a safety 

ethic at all levels that is characterized 

by an inherently questioning attitude, 

attention to detail, prevention of 

complacency, a commitment to 

excellence, and personal accountability 

in safety matters. 

Hanford Challenge requests that the 

Department— 

• Establish Departmental policy that 

calls for the positive presence of a 

Safety Conscious Work Environment in 

its nuclear facilities; 

• Institute rules, procedures and 

regulations requiring and incentivizing 

DOE managers, supervisory personnel 

as well as contractor and subcontractor 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53191 

1For example, in October 2007, the Washington 

Supreme Court affirmed a jury verdict in the case 

of 11 pipefitters, whistleblowers at Hanford, and an 

award of $7.3 million. Internal agency records 

indicate that the contractor charged the Department 

millions of dollars in attorney fees and costs in 

addition to the award—effectively putting the 

Department in the position of subsidizing illegal 

retaliation. 

employers to achieve and maintain 

Safety Conscious Work Environment 

programs at nuclear sites within at DOE 

nuclear sites within two years; 

• Require the Department of Energy 

to ascertain, through its normal 

inspection duties or upon good cause, 

whether a demonstrative ‘‘SafetyConscious Work Environment’’ program 

exists at a specific facility or within any 

DOE division, and to order corrective 

actions to remedy departures from such 

an environment; 

• Provide appropriate incentives 

within existing and new contracts that 

reward contractors and managers who 

take early and effective action to 

implement such a program. 

DOE’s enabling statute, 42 U.S.C. 

2201(p), authorizes the Department to 

‘‘make, promulgate, issue, rescind and 

amend such rules and regulations as 

may be necessary to carry out purposes 

of this chapter.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7254 

authorizes the Secretary to prescribe 

‘‘such procedural and administrative 

rules and regulations as he may deem 

necessary or appropriate to administer 

and manage the functions now or 

hereafter vested in him.’’ Additionally, 

the policy and purpose of the 

Department of Energy includes 

advancing ‘‘the goals of restoring, 

protecting, and enhancing 

environmental quality, and to assure 

public health and safety.’’ 42 U.S.C. 

5801(a). Also see, 42 U.S.C. 7101 

(Department of Energy Organization 

Act) and 42 U.S.C. 2011, (the Atomic 

Energy Act of 1954, as amended.) 

Introduction 

Hanford Challenge seeks a future that 

secures human health and safety, 

advances accountability of the 

government and corporate actors at the 

site, and promotes a sustainable 

environmental and economic legacy for 

Hanford and all affected communities. 

Hanford Challenge provides legal 

counseling and support for concerned 

employees (i.e., whistleblowers), 

particularly those who allege reprisal for 

voicing concerns about environment, 

safety, and health (ES&H) deficiencies 

in their places of employment. We work 

to ensure that worker’s ES&H concerns 

are addressed internally through 

existing processes, such as the Hanford 

Concerns Council, or through public 

exposure in the media, Congress, and 

the courts. 

Hanford Challenge’s Work With DOE 

Employees and Contractor Employees 

It has been repeatedly demonstrated 

that workers are the key ingredient to 

protecting the health and safety of the 

public and workers. Agency and 

contractor officials alike rely upon 

employees to exercise sound judgment 

in their work, and also as an early 

warning system for problems that have 

the potential to escalate and cause 

injuries and fatalities, threats to the 

environment, and waste of resources. 

Occasionally, employees who have 

raised environmental, safety and health 

concerns (whistleblowers) have 

subsequently experienced significant 

workplace reprisal that has impacted 

their careers, financial stability, and 

personal and familial relationships. 

Frequently, they are courageous people 

of integrity who have observed and 

documented health-threatening safety 

and environmental hazards, and refused 

to remain silent despite adverse 

consequences. Too often, concerned 

employees are turned into 

whistleblowers, who take their concerns 

up the chain of command and often to 

government agencies, the news media, 

Congress and the public in an effort to 

bring attention and reform to an issue 

that involves safety, health, protection 

of the environment, management of 

fiscal resources, security and other vital 

public policy concerns. Too often, such 

employees have fallen victim to 

harassment, intimidation, retaliation, 

and discrimination. Many have been 

terminated from their jobs, and their 

careers effectively ruined. The last 25 

years has seen hundreds of cases from 

DOE sites brought by such workers who 

have resorted to litigation in courts and 

before administrative agencies. These 

cases have cost contractors, the 

government, and the employees literally 

millions of dollars in attorney fees and 

judgments, fines and penalties.1 More to 

the point, operations at DOE facilities 

have been adversely affected in a 

multitude of ways because of these 

cases. A systemic approach is needed to 

institute and encourage a culture at DOE 

nuclear facilities that assures the 

prompt and safe reporting of concerns 

in a manner that protects the disclosure 

and the person making the disclosure, 

and results in a timely and effective 

review of the allegations. 

It is fundamental to the missions of 

the Department of Energy that it protect 

the public safety and health in the 

regulation and control of its nuclear 

weapons production facilities. It is also 

crucial that DOE and DOE contractor 

employees be encouraged to voice ES&H 

concerns without experiencing reprisal. 

More importantly, a ‘‘chilling effect’’ 

message is sent to the workforce at large 

when an employee is terminated for 

raising a concern. Such actions suppress 

the reporting of concerns because 

employees understandably become 

fearful of suffering reprisal were they to 

report a concern. As a result, the work 

environment destabilizes, morale among 

the employees dampens, and the 

atmosphere becomes charged. 

The NRC Model 

The commercial nuclear industry has 

a long history of dealing with the issue 

of employee concerns, and during the 

past 20 years has evolved principles and 

procedures that establish work 

environments encouraging safety reports 

and prohibiting retaliatory conduct that 

could chill such reports. The Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) defines 

its mission as the protection of the 

public safety and health in its regulation 

of commercial nuclear facilities. 

One example of the NRC’s approach 

to its regulation of licensees in the area 

of employee concerns involves a 

Connecticut nuclear station called 

Millstone, which has three reactors. In 

the late 1980s, Millstone Nuclear Power 

Station was the source of a high volume 

of employee concerns and allegations 

related to safety of plant operations and 

harassment and intimidation of 

employees. Following a TIME magazine 

cover story in March 1995 about the 

situation, in which the NRC Inspector 

General faulted the NRC for not 

recognizing that the reactors had been 

operating outside their license 

requirement for many years, the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

concluded that the large number of 

deficiencies identified at all three 

Millstone sites implied that some 

employees were reluctant to identify 

safety issues. 

In an Order issued on August 14, 

1996, the NRC mandated independent, 

third party oversight to address licensee 

noncompliance with regulatory 

requirements concerning, among other 

things, employee safety concerns. In this 

Order, the NRC directed that, prior to 

resumption of power operations, the 

Licensee should develop, submit to the 

NRC, and implement a comprehensive 

plan for reviewing and dispositioning 

safety issues raised by plant employees 

and ensuring that employees who raise 

safety concerns are not subject to 

discrimination. Additionally, the 

Licensee was ordered to retain the 

independent third party, subject to the 

approval of the NRC, to oversee its 

implementation of a comprehensive 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
53192 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

2The language that is in bold typeface is different 

than that already appearing in the NRC’s Statement 

of Policy at 10 CFR Part 50.7. 

plan. The plan for independent third 

party oversight was required until the 

Licensee demonstrated by its 

performance that the conditions which 

led to the requirement of that oversight 

had been corrected to the satisfaction of 

the NRC. 

The NRC has made a clear and cogent 

determination that the ability of 

employees to raise concerns is integral 

to the protection of public health and 

safety. The hazards at DOE nuclear 

facilities are no less dangerous, and yet 

throughout the DOE complex, reprisals 

against employees continue unabated, 

and hostile working environments are 

instituted without challenge from the 

DOE. This Petition urges the prompt 

incorporation of the NRC methodology 

for protecting employee concerns at its 

facilities. This Proposed Rulemaking 

seeks to assist the DOE in improving its 

operations consistent with its mission 

and in accomplishing a work 

environment that has a ‘‘zero tolerance 

for reprisal’’ in fact and not just in 

rhetoric. 

In 2005, the NRC issued a Regulatory 

Issue Summary, (RIS 2005–18, 

‘‘Guidance for Establishing and 

Maintaining a Safety Conscious Work 

Environment’’) which identified 

effective practices for licensees and 

contractors ‘‘for ensuring problem 

identification and resolution essential to 

ensuring the safe use of nuclear 

materials and operations of facilities.’’ 

(RIS 2005–18 at 3.) These included: 

• Establishing a Policy Statement 

published to all employees and asserts 

that it is ‘‘everyone’s responsibility to 

promptly raise concerns’’ and ‘‘makes 

clear that retaliation for doing so will 

not be tolerated.’’ (Id. At 4) This 

includes allowing and encouraging 

workers to use work hours to report 

concerns, sanctions for retaliation, 

setting expectations for management 

behaviors that fosters employee 

confidence in raising concerns, 

providing information on the various 

avenues for raising concerns, making 

clear that employees have the right to 

raise concerns externally and a 

commitment to training. 

• The training program helps 

reinforce the principles and practices of 

SCWE and should include clear 

explanations of the legal definition for 

protected activity, adverse action and 

retaliation, as well as consequences for 

deviation from applicable laws and 

regulations. Training can also include 

defining gateways to identify concerns, 

appeal processes, and alternative 

processes for raising concerns. Training 

can also emphasize appropriate 

management behaviors, including the 

importance of protecting confidentiality, 

fostering good listening skills and 

identifying countervailing pressures 

(goals and deadlines) that may interfere 

with appropriate listening and 

responses. 

• Important aspects of an effective 

SCWE include conducting the necessary 

open inquiry to identify the full scope 

of the concern(s) being brought forward, 

and assuring that concerns are promptly 

prioritized, reviewed, and resolved. 

Employees who bring forth concerns 

should be provided feedback, and 

appeal avenues made available for 

employees who continue to hold a 

concern. 

• Management should establish an 

alternative process to raising concerns 

with line management. 

• The program requires assessment, 

including lessons learned evaluations, 

benchmarking, the establishment of 

performance indicators, survey and 

interview tools, direct observations, exit 

interviews and 360-degree appraisals. 

• Contractors should be required to 

flow down expectations and 

requirement of the SCWE program to 

sub-contractors. 

• Senior management should be 

involved in reviewing employment 

actions when there is any indication 

that it involves an employee who raised 

a concern. 

Proposed Rulemaking 

1. Establish Departmental policy in 

the Code of Federal Regulations that 

mandates the establishment of a 

‘‘Safety-Conscious Work Environment’’ 

program which actively encourages 

employees to report health, safety or 

environmental and other employee 

concerns at DOE-owned sites; 

This procedural step is necessary to 

clarify and formalize DOE’s policy on 

prohibition of reprisals against 

employees who raise concerns. The 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

codifies its policy in 10 CFR Part 50.7. 

The NRC’s statement of policy could 

easily be modified to suit the purposes 

of the Department of Energy. A DOE 

version of this policy could read like 

this: 2

Employee protection. 

(a) Discrimination by an agency official, or 

a contractor or subcontractor of the 

Department against an employee for engaging 

in certain protected activities is prohibited. 

Discrimination includes discharge and other 

actions that relate to compensation, terms, 

conditions, or privileges of employment. The 

protected activities are established in section 

211 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 

as amended, and in Departmental 

regulations codified at 10 CFR Part 708 and 

in general are related to the administration or 

enforcement of a requirement imposed under 

the Atomic Energy Act or the Energy 

Reorganization Act. 

(1) The protected activities include but are 

not limited to: 

(i) Providing the Department or his or her 

employer information about alleged 

violations of either of the statutes named in 

paragraph (a) introductory text of this section 

or possible violations of requirements 

imposed under either of those statutes; 

(ii) Refusing to engage in any practice 

made unlawful under either of the statutes 

named in paragraph (a) introductory text or 

under these requirements if the employee has 

identified the alleged illegality to the 

employer; 

(iii) Requesting the Department to institute 

action against his or her employer for the 

administration or enforcement of these 

requirements; 

(iv) Testifying in any Department 

proceeding, or before Congress, or at any 

Federal or State proceeding regarding any 

provision (or proposed provision) of either of 

the statutes named in paragraph (a) 

introductory text. 

(v) Assisting or participating in, or is about 

to assist or participate in, these activities. 

(2) These activities are protected even if no 

formal proceeding is actually initiated as a 

result of the employee assistance or 

participation. 

(3) This section has no application to any 

employee alleging discrimination prohibited 

by this section who, acting without direction 

from his or her employer (or the employer’s 

agent), deliberately causes a violation of any 

requirement of the Energy Reorganization Act 

of 1974, as amended, or the Atomic Energy 

Act of 1954, as amended. 

(b) Any employee who believes that he or 

she has been discharged or otherwise 

discriminated against by any person for 

engaging in protected activities specified in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section may seek a 

remedy for the discharge or discrimination 

through an administrative proceeding as 

provided in Departmental regulations 

codified at 10 CFR 708 or in the Department 

of Labor. The administrative proceeding must 

be initiated within 60 days after an alleged 

violation occurs with the DOE, and within 

180 days with the Labor Department. The 

employee may do this by filing a complaint 

alleging the violation with the Department of 

Labor, Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration. In either proceeding, the 

agency may order reinstatement, back pay, 

and compensatory damages. 

(c) A violation of paragraph (a), (e), or 

(f) of this section by a contractor or 

subcontractor of the Department may be 

grounds for— 

(4) Denial, revocation, or suspension 

of the contract. 

(2) Imposition of a civil penalty on the 

contractor or subcontractor. 

(3) Other enforcement action. 

(d) Actions taken by an employer, or 

others, which adversely affect an 

employee may be predicated upon 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53193 

nondiscriminatory grounds. The 

prohibition applies when the adverse 

action occurs because the employee has 

engaged in protected activities. An 

employee’s engagement in protected 

activities does not automatically render 

him or her immune from discharge or 

discipline for legitimate reasons or from 

adverse action dictated by nonprohibited considerations. 

(e)(1) Each contractor or 

subcontractor shall prominently post 

the provisions of this policy at DOEowned facilities. This form must be 

posted at locations sufficient to permit 

employees protected by this section to 

observe a copy on the way to or from 

their place of work. 

(f) No agreement affecting the 

compensation, terms, conditions, or 

privileges of employment, including an 

agreement to settle a complaint filed by 

an employee with either the Department 

of Labor pursuant to section 211 of the 

Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as 

amended, or pursuant to a proceeding 

initiated under the provisions of 10 

CFR Part 708 may contain any 

provision which would prohibit, 

restrict, or otherwise discourage an 

employee from participating in 

protected activity as defined in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section 

including, but not limited to, providing 

information to the DOE or to his or her 

employer on potential violations or 

other matters within DOE’s regulatory 

responsibilities. 

2. Hanford Challenge calls upon DOE 

to reestablish the position of Assistant 

Secretary for Environment, Safety and 

Health (EH) within the DOE, and give 

EH the authority and the resources to set 

DOE policy on the issue of all agency 

and contractor employee concerns. 

Specifically, the EH Assistant 

Secretary— 

• Should report directly to the 

Secretary of Energy, and should seek to 

standardize DOE policy across the 

complex. 

• Should be given adequate funding 

and staffing and the authority to 

implement policy, conduct 

investigations, levy sanctions, and 

order corrective actions to abate 

violations. 

• Should institute rules, procedures 

and regulations incentivizing DOE 

managers and supervisory personnel as 

well as contractor and subcontractor 

employers to maintain a safety 

conscious work environment where 

employees are free to raise employee 

concerns without fear of reprisal. 

• Should incentivize facilities to 

conduct independent and reliable 

employee surveys to measure whether 

employees feel free to raise concerns 

free of reprisal on a company-bycompany basis (including at DOE) to 

use as a basis for determining whether 

corrective actions should be 

undertaken. 

EH should be responsible primarily 

for setting and enforcing Departmental 

policy. Other duties should include— 

• Developing language to insert into 

the Department of Energy Acquisition 

Regulations incentivizing contractors to 

maintain a safety conscious work 

environment; 

• Developing posters and employee 

communication vehicles to distribute 

for posting around the complex; 

• Inspecting and evaluating each 

facility in the complex to ascertain that 

the standards set by the DOE in the area 

of employee concerns are being reached; 

• Investigating and correcting 

extraordinary cases of hostile and 

chilled work environments, high-profile 

cases, or facilities experiencing a large 

number of discrimination complaints 

alleging reprisals for raising concerns. 

A revitalized and effective EH is of 

paramount importance for achieving 

employee protection and safer work 

environments. 

3. Amend existing contract(s) at its 

nuclear weapons production and 

former nuclear materials production 

sites to incentivize the establishment 

and maintenance of a safety-conscious 

work environment, and to put 

contractors on notice that the contract 

can be conditioned, suspended and/or 

revoked upon a finding by the DOE that 

a company has engaged in a pattern 

and practice of whistleblower reprisals 

or has failed to maintain a safetyconscious work environment; 

This proposal follows the lead of the 

NRC, which has put licensees on notice 

that the license to operate the facility 

hinges upon maintaining a retaliationfree work environment. As the 

Department moves away from the 

Management and Operating (M&O) 

contracting model, and towards the 

performance-based contracts, there is a 

greater need to spell out DOE’s policies 

in relation to prohibition against 

reprisals in contract language to tie 

specific awards to this performance. 

Contractual financial incentives and 

penalties are necessary to encourage a 

climate free of reprisals. A substantial 

portion of every DOE contract in the 

nuclear complex should depend upon 

employee freedom to report and resolve 

employee concerns. 

4. Address ‘‘hot spots’’ where the 

chilling effect now exists, based upon 

the investigative reports of the Labor 

Department, Office of Special Counsel, 

MSPB, OCEP, or OHA and where there 

may be a strong perception among 

employees that there will be reprisal. 

Corrective actions could include: 

Æ Training of supervisory employees 

and workers by employee concerns 

experts; 

Æ Developing guidelines for use of 

the ‘‘holding period’’ concept 

recommended by the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission for contested 

proposed job actions; 

Æ Instituting a ‘‘personal 

accountability’’ rule to hold individual 

managers accountable for reprisals. 

Conclusion 

The current Rulemaking proposal 

seeks to bring the agency’s actions and 

policies in line with its statutory 

mandate to protect the public health 

and safety by requiring the 

establishment of policies, rules and 

practices that encourage employees of 

the Department and its contractors to 

raise and resolve employee concerns, 

especially when such concerns impact 

health and safety, security, or the 

environment. Our proposal draws 

heavily from the practices of the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and 

seeks to adopt such policies for use at 

the Department. 

We urge swift consideration and 

thorough deliberation of our proposal, 

and look forward to a response from 

your office. 

[FR Doc. E9–24929 Filed 10–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0704; FRL–8969–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; 

Volatile Organic Compound Emission 

Control Measures for Lake and Porter 

Counties in Indiana 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On September 4, 2009, the 

Indiana Department of Environmental 

Management (IDEM) submitted several 

volatile organic compound (VOC) rules 

for approval into its State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). The purpose 

of these rules is to satisfy the VOC 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) requirements for the Lake and 

Porter portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake 

County, IL-IN, 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. These rules are 

approvable because they satisfy the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS