Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 2014 / Notices 78425 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: 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: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 202–566–1741. 

• Mail: EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0743, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail 

Code: 6205T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

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: 

arling.jeremy@epa.gov. 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. 

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. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 2014 / Notices 78427 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES