        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Parts 531 and 533
        [Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0056]
        Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for New Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of intent; request for scoping comments.

          SUMMARY:
          Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), NHTSA plans to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the agency's Corporate Average Fuel Economy program for passenger automobiles (referred to herein as “passenger cars”) and non-passenger automobiles (referred to herein as “light trucks”). The EIS will consider the potential environmental impacts of new fuel economy standards for model years 2017-2025 passenger cars and light trucks that NHTSA will be proposing pursuant to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
          This notice initiates the NEPA scoping process by inviting comments from Federal, State, and local agencies, Indian tribes, and the public to help identify the environmental issues and reasonable alternatives to be examined in the EIS. This notice also provides guidance for participating in the scoping process and additional information about the alternatives NHTSA expects to consider in its NEPA analysis. In preparing this notice, NHTSA has shared the document with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Department of Energy (DOE).

          DATES:
          The scoping process will culminate in the preparation and issuance of a Draft EIS, which will be made available for public comment. To ensure that NHTSA has an opportunity to fully consider scoping comments and to facilitate NHTSA's prompt preparation of the Draft EIS, scoping comments should be received on or before June 9, 2011. NHTSA will try to consider comments received after that date to the extent the rulemaking schedule allows.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments to the docket number identified in the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
          • Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
          • Fax: 202-493-2251.
          Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the docket number of this document.
          You may call the Docket at 202-366-9324.

          Note that all comments received, including any personal information provided, will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For technical issues, contact Angel Jackson, Fuel Economy Division, Office of International Vehicle, Fuel Economy and Consumer Standards, telephone: 202-366-0154; for legal issues, contact Carrie Gage, Legislation & General Law Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, telephone: 202-366-1834, at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        In a forthcoming notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), NHTSA intends to propose Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for model years (MYs) 2017-2025 passenger cars and light trucks pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA).1
           In connection with this action, NHTSA will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the proposed CAFE standards and reasonable alternative standards pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and implementing regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and NHTSA.2
           NEPA instructs Federal agencies to consider the potential environmental impacts of their proposed actions and those of possible alternative actions. To inform decisionmakers and the public, the EIS will compare the potential environmental impacts of the agency's Preferred Alternative and a spectrum of alternatives, including a “no action” alternative. As required by NEPA, the EIS will consider direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed action and alternatives and will discuss impacts in proportion to their significance.

            1 EISA is Public Law 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492 (December 19, 2007). Portions of EPCA related to fuel economy are codified at 49 U.S.C. 32901 et seq.

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

          Background. EPCA, as amended by EISA, sets forth extensive requirements concerning the establishment of CAFE standards. It requires the Secretary of Transportation 3
           to establish average fuel economy standards at least 18 months before the beginning of each model year and to set them at “the maximum feasible average fuel economy level that the Secretary decides the manufacturers can achieve in that model year.” 4
           When setting “maximum feasible” fuel economy standards, the Secretary is required to “consider technological feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of other motor vehicle standards of the Government on fuel economy, and the need of the United States to conserve energy.” 5
           NHTSA construes the statutory factors as including environmental and safety considerations.6

            3 NHTSA is delegated responsibility for implementing the EPCA fuel economy requirements assigned to the Secretary of Transportation. 49 CFR 1.50, 501.2(a)(8).

            4 49 U.S.C. 32902(a).

            5 49 U.S.C. 32902(f).

            6 For environmental considerations, see Center for Auto Safety v. NHTSA, 793 F.2d 1322, 1325 n. 12 (DCCir. 1986); Public Citizen v. NHTSA, 848 F.2d 256, 262-3 n. 27 (DCCir. 1988) (noting that “NHTSA itself has interpreted the factors it must consider in setting CAFE standards as including environmental effects”); Center for Biological Diversity v. NHTSA, 538 F.3d 1172, 1196 (9th Cir. 2008). For safety considerations, see, e.g.,
            Competitive Enterprise Inst. v. NHTSA, 956 F.2d 321, 322 (DCCir. 1992) (citing Competitive Enterprise Inst. v. NHTSA, 901 F.2d 107, 120 n.11 (DCCir. 1990)).

        As amended by EISA in December 2007, EPCA further directs the Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to establish average fuel economy standards separately for passenger cars and for light trucks manufactured in each model year beginning with MY 2011. In doing so, the Secretary of Transportation is required to comply with special provisions relating to the standards for model years 2011-2030. The Secretary is required to “prescribe annual fuel economy standard increases that increase the applicable average fuel economy standard ratably beginning with model year 2011 and ending with model year 2020,” 7
           and those standards must “achieve a combined fuel economy average for model year 2020 of at least 35 miles per gallon for the total fleet of passenger and non-passenger automobiles manufactured for sale in the United States for that model year.” 8
           For MYs 2021-2030, the passenger car and light truck standards must simply be the “maximum feasible” average fuel economy standard for each of those fleets for each model year.9
           Additionally, the standards for passenger cars and light trucks must be “based on 1 or more vehicle attributes related to fuel economy” and expressed “in the form of a mathematical function,” and may be established for not more than five model years.10
           EISA also mandates a minimum standard for domestically manufactured passenger cars.11

            7 49 U.S.C. 32902(b)(2)(C).

            8 Id. § 32902(b)(2)(A).

            9 Id. §§ 32902(b)(2)(B), 32902(f).

            10 Id. §§ 32902(b)(3)(A), 32902(b)(3)(B).

            11 Id. § 32902(b)(4) (“each manufacturer shall also meet the minimum standard for domestically manufactured passenger automobiles, which shall be the greater of (A) 27.5 miles per gallon; or (B) 92 percent of the average fuel economy projected by the Secretary for the combined domestic and non-domestic passenger automobile fleets manufactured for sale in the United States by all manufacturers in the model year * * * .”).

        On May 19, 2009, President Obama announced a new National Fuel Efficiency Policy for establishing consistent, harmonized, and streamlined requirements to improve fuel economy and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for all new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the United States.12
           Pursuant to that announcement, NHTSA and EPA finalized the first-ever joint rulemaking to establish fuel economy standards and GHG standards for light duty vehicles on April 1, 2010. NHTSA established CAFE standards under EPCA/EISA and EPA established GHG emissions standards under the Clean Air Act.13
           The CAFE standards covered MY 2012-2016 passenger cars and light trucks and were estimated to require a combined average fleet-wide fuel economy of 34.1 mpg by 2016.14

            12 President Obama Announces National Fuel Efficiency Policy, The White House, May 19, 2009. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-Announces-National-Fuel-Efficiency-Policy/ (last visited Mar. 4, 2011).

            13 See 42 U.S.C. 7521(a).

            14 The EPA GHG standards were estimated to require a combined average fleet-wide level of 250 grams/mile CO2-equivalent for MY 2016, which is equivalent to 35.5 mpg if all of the technologies used to reduce GHG emissions are tailpipe CO2 reducing technologies. The 250 g/mi CO2 equivalent level assumes the use of credits for air conditioning improvements worth 15 g/mi in MY 2016.

        Following the first phase of the National Program, in a Presidential Memorandum issued May 21, 2010, President Obama requested that EPA and NHTSA build on the first joint rulemaking to continue a coordinated National Program to improve fuel efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions of light-duty vehicles for MYs 2017-2025.15
           The Memorandum stated that the National Program should seek to produce joint Federal standards that are harmonized with applicable State standards, achieve substantial annual progress in reducing transportation sector GHG emissions and fossil fuel consumption, and strengthen the industry and enhance job creation in the United States. As part of implementing this program, the President asked that the Administrators of EPA and NHTSA work with the State of California to develop a technical assessment to inform the rulemaking process.16

           The President also requested that the two agencies issue a Notice of Intent to Issue a Proposed Rule that announces plans for setting stringent fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards for light-duty vehicles for MY 2017 and beyond. On October 1, 2010, NHTSA and EPA jointly issued that notice concurrently with the Interim Joint Technical Assessment Report.17

            15 See The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Presidential Memorandum Regarding Fuel Efficiency Standards (May 21, 2010), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-regarding-fuel-efficiency-standards (last visited Mar. 8, 2011).

            16 See Interim Joint Technical Assessment Report, available at: http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/2017+CAFE-GHG_Interim_TAR2.pdf (Sept. 2010)

            17 See 75 FR 62739 (Oct. 13, 2010).

        In response to the President's call to provide greater certainty and incentives for long-term innovation by manufacturers, NHTSA is planning to set CAFE standards for MY 2017-2025 passenger cars and light-duty trucks, and NHTSA intends to do this in a joint rulemaking with EPA, in which EPA will set GHG standards for the same model years and vehicles. As noted above, however, NHTSA's statutory authority allows the agency to take final action prescribing CAFE standards in increments of no more than five model years.18
           In order to address this statutory limitation, NHTSA is considering proposing standards for the MY 2017-2025 timeframe, with the express condition that the standards for MYs 2022-2025 would be subject to a mid-term technology assessment and review. NHTSA would adopt standards for MYs 2017-2025, but standards for MYs 2022-2025 would not become effective at the established level unless and until NHTSA affirmed in a later rulemaking that they were, based on information available at the time of the later rulemaking, the maximum feasible standards for those model years. This condition would appear in the regulations. Because these two NHTSA actions would be proposed together to increase the efficiency of the light-duty fleet, and because they would be part of a joint NHTSA/EPA rulemaking for a coordinated National Program covering MYs 2017-2025, NHTSA plans to address the potential environmental impacts of the proposed alternatives for the full MY 2017-2025 period in a single EIS, notwithstanding the provision for a mid-term technology assessment and review.19
           NHTSA specifically seeks comment on the agency's proposed approach of analyzing the action for the MY 2017-2025 period in a single EIS.

            18 49 U.S.C. 32902(b)(3)(B).

            19 See 40 CFR 1508.18(b)(3) (including as federal actions under NEPA “[a]doption of programs, such as a group of concerted actions to implement a specific policy or plan; systematic and connected agency decisions allocating agency resources to implement a specific statutory program or executive directive.”).

        As required by statute, NHTSA's upcoming NPRM will propose separate attribute-based standards for MY 2017-2025 passenger cars and for MY 2017-2025 light trucks.20
           As in the last CAFE rulemaking, NHTSA plans to propose vehicle footprint as the attribute. Each individual vehicle model would have a specific fuel economy target based on the fuel economy capability of those motor vehicles having the same footprint as that vehicle model.21
           Fuel economy targets would reflect, in part, NHTSA's analysis of the technological and economic capabilities of the industry within the rulemaking timeframe. A manufacturer's CAFE standard, in turn, would be based on the target levels set for its particular mix of vehicles in that model year. Compliance would be determined by comparing a manufacturer's harmonically averaged fleet fuel economy levels in a model year with a required fuel economy level calculated using the manufacturer's actual production levels and the targets for each vehicle it produces.22

            20 See 49 U.S.C. 32902(b)(3)(A).

            21 Vehicle models made by different manufacturers would have the same fuel economy target if they had the same quantity of the attribute upon which the standards are based.

            22 While manufacturers may use a variety of flexibility mechanisms to comply with CAFE, including credits earned for over-compliance and production of flexible-fuel vehicles, NHTSA is statutorily prohibited from considering manufacturers' ability to use flexibility mechanisms in determining what level of CAFE standards would be maximum feasible. See 49 U.S.C. 32902(h).

        Under NEPA, the purpose of and need for an agency's action inform the range of reasonable alternatives to be considered in its NEPA analysis.23
           In developing alternatives for analysis in the EIS, NHTSA must consider EPCA's requirements for setting CAFE standards. As discussed above, EPCA requires the agency to determine what level of CAFE stringency would be the “maximum feasible” for each model year, a determination the agency makes based on the consideration of four statutory factors: technological feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of other standards of the Government on fuel economy, and the need of the United States to conserve energy.24

            23 40 CFR 1502.13.

            24 See 49 U.S.C. 32902(f).

        The alternatives that NHTSA plans to consider are:
        • A “no action” alternative, which assumes, for purposes of NEPA analysis, that NHTSA would not issue a rule regarding CAFE standards.25
           NEPA requires agencies to consider a “no action” alternative in their NEPA analyses and to compare the effects of not taking action with the effects of the reasonable action alternatives in order to demonstrate the different environmental effects of the action alternatives. The recent EISA amendments to EPCA direct NHTSA to set new CAFE standards and do not permit the agency to take no action on fuel economy.26
           This “No Action Alternative” is also referred to as the “baseline.”

            25 See 40 CFR 1502.14(d).

            26 CEQ has explained that “[T]he regulations require the analysis of the no action alternative even if the agency is under a court order or legislative command to act. This analysis provides a benchmark, enabling decisionmakers to compare the magnitude of environmental effects of the action alternatives. . . . Inclusion of such an analysis in the EIS is necessary to inform the Congress, the public, and the President as intended by NEPA. [See 40 CFR 1500.1(a).]” Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, 46 FR 18026 (1981) (emphasis added).

        • Alternatives calculated at the upper point and at the lower point of the range between 2% and 7%, representing annual fuel economy stringency increases from the MY 2016 standards, from 2017 through 2025. The calculations and the related evaluation of impacts would be performed separately for passenger cars and light trucks at each of these points so as to demonstrate their effects independently, since car and truck standards could increase at different rates from one another and at different rates in different years. These alternatives would bracket the range of actions the agency may select.
        • The Preferred Alternative, reflecting annual stringency increases for both passenger cars and light trucks that fall at levels between the upper and lower bounds identified above. NHTSA has not yet identified its Preferred Alternative.
        Thus, NHTSA plans to analyze the impacts of eight different standards for the DEIS: Two points bracketing the possible action alternatives for cars (2% per year and 7% per year) and two points bracketing the possible alternatives for trucks (2% per year and 7% per year), as well as a No Action Alternative and Preferred Alternative for cars and a No Action Alternative and Preferred Alternative for trucks.

        NHTSA has tentatively concluded that this range of annual percentage increases would satisfy EPCA's requirement that the standards be “maximum feasible” for each model year, based on the different ways NHTSA could weigh EPCA's four statutory factors. For example, the most stringent average annual increase NHTSA is considering for both passenger cars and light trucks (7%) weighs energy conservation and climate change considerations more heavily and technological feasibility and economic practicability less heavily. In contrast, the least stringent annual increase NHTSA is considering (2%) places more weight on technological feasibility and economic practicability.
        This range reflects differences in the degree of technology adoption across the fleet, in costs to manufacturers and consumers, and in conservation of oil and related reductions in greenhouse gases. For example, the most stringent average annual increase NHTSA is evaluating would require greater adoption of technology across the fleet, including more advanced technology, than the least stringent annual increase NHTSA is evaluating. As a result, the most stringent annual increase would impose greater costs and achieve greater energy conservation and related reductions in greenhouse gases.
        This range of stringencies, along with the analysis for the Preferred Alternative, would provide a broad range of information for NHTSA to use in evaluating and weighing the statutory factors of technological feasibility, economic practicability, and energy conservation. It would allow for consideration of differences and uncertainties in the way in which key economic inputs (e.g., the price of fuel and the social cost of carbon) and technological inputs are estimated or valued.
        The agency may select one of the above-identified levels of average increase for passenger cars and one for light trucks as its Preferred Alternative or it may select a level of stringency that falls between those extremes. The percentage increases in stringency are “average” increases and may either be constant throughout the period or may vary from year to year, but the average yearly increase over that period will equal the percentage increase selected.
        Within the range identified above, NHTSA may consider setting more stringent standards for the earlier years of the rule than for the later years, or, alternatively, setting less stringent standards for the earlier years of the rule than for the later years, depending on our assessment of what would be “maximum feasible” for those time periods for each fleet. In addition, NHTSA may consider setting standards for passenger cars and light trucks that increase at different rates between the high and low levels the agency is considering, depending on the agency's determination of the maximum feasible level for each fleet over time.

          Planned Analysis: While the main focus of NHTSA's prior CAFE EIS for light duty vehicles (i.e., the EIS for MYs 2012-2016) was the quantification of impacts to energy, air quality, and climate, and qualitative analysis of cumulative impacts resulting from climate change, it also addressed other potentially affected resources. NHTSA conducted a qualitative review of impacts of the alternatives on other potentially affected resources, such as water resources, biological resources, land use, hazardous materials, safety, noise, historic and cultural resources, and environmental justice.
        Similar to past EIS practice, NHTSA plans to analyze environmental impacts related to fuel and energy use, emissions including GHGs and their effects on temperature and climate change, air quality, natural resources, and the human environment. NHTSA also will consider the cumulative impacts of the proposed standards for MY 2017-2025 automobiles together with any past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
        NHTSA anticipates uncertainty in estimating the potential environmental impacts related to climate change. To account for this uncertainty, NHTSA plans to evaluate a range of potential global temperature changes that may result from changes in fuel and energy consumption and GHG emissions attributable to new CAFE standards. It is difficult to quantify how the specific impacts due to the potential temperature changes attributable to new CAFE standards may affect many aspects of the environment. NHTSA will endeavor to gather the key relevant and credible information.
        NHTSA intends to rely upon the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 Fourth Assessment Report and subsequent updates, Reports of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) and the current U.S. Global Change Research Program (U.S. GCRP), National Academies and National Research Council assessments of climate impacts, and the EPA Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act and the accompanying Technical Support Document (referred to collectively hereinafter as the EPA Endangerment Finding), as sources for recent “summar[ies] of existing credible scientific evidence which is relevant to evaluating the reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human environment.” 27
           NHTSA believes that the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the CCSP and U.S. GCRP Reports, the National Academies and National Research Council assessments, and the EPA Endangerment Finding are the most recent, most comprehensive summaries available, but recognizes that subsequent research may provide additional relevant and credible evidence not accounted for in these Reports. NHTSA may consider such subsequent information as well, to the extent that it provides relevant and credible evidence.

            27 40 CFR 1502.22(b)(3); see 40 CFR 1502.21. IPCC reports are available at http://www.ipcc.ch/ (last visited Mar. 8, 2011).

        NHTSA expects to rely on previously published EISs, incorporating material by reference “when the effect will be to cut down on bulk without impeding agency and public review of the action.” 28
           Therefore, the NHTSA NEPA analysis and documentation will incorporate by reference relevant materials, including portions of the agency's prior NEPA documents, where appropriate.

            28 40 CFR 1502.21.

          Scoping and Public Participation: NHTSA's NEPA analysis for the MY 2017-2025 CAFE standards will consider the direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts of proposed standards and those of reasonable alternatives. The scoping process initiated by this notice seeks public comment on the range of alternatives under consideration, on the impacts to be considered, and on the most important issues for in-depth analysis in the EIS.29

            29 See 40 CFR 1500.5(d), 1501.7, 1508.25.

        NHTSA invites the public to participate in the scoping process30

           by submitting written comments concerning the appropriate scope of the NEPA analysis for the proposed CAFE standards to the docket number identified in the heading of this notice, using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. NHTSA does not plan to hold a public scoping meeting, because written comments will be effective in identifying and narrowing the issues for analysis.

            30 Consistent with NEPA and implementing regulations, NHTSA is sending this notice directly to: (1) Federal agencies having jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to the environmental impacts involved or authorized to develop and enforce environmental standards; (2) the Governors of every State, to share with the appropriate agencies and offices within their administrations and with the local jurisdictions within their States; (3) organizations representing state and local governments and Indian tribes; and (4) other stakeholders that NHTSA reasonably expects to be interested in the NEPA analysis for the MYs 2017-2025 CAFE standards. See 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); 49 CFR 520.21(g); 40 CFR 1501.7, 1506.6.

        All comments to the relevant scoping process are welcome. NHTSA is especially interested in comments concerning the evaluation of climate change impacts. In particular, NHTSA requests:

        • Peer-reviewed scientific studies that have been issued since the EPA Endangerment Finding and that address or may inform: (a) The impacts of CO2 and other GHG emissions that may be associated with any of the alternatives under consideration; (b) the impacts on climate change that may be associated with these emission changes; or (c) the time periods over which such impacts may occur. NHTSA is particularly interested in peer reviewed studies analyzing the potential impacts of climate change within the United States or in particular geographic areas of the United States.

        • Comments on how NHTSA should estimate the potential changes in temperature that may result from the changes in CO2 emissions projected from setting MY 2017-2025 CAFE standards, and comments on how NHTSA should estimate the potential impacts of temperature changes on the environment.
        • Comments on how NHTSA should discuss or estimate any localized or regional impacts of potential increased penetration of alternative fuel vehicles, including upstream emissions and impacts regarding waste and disposal of advanced batteries.31

            31 In determining maximum feasibility, NHTSA may not consider the fuel economy of “dedicated vehicles,” including vehicles that operate only on natural gas, hydrogen, and electricity. 49 U.S.C. 32901(a); 49 U.S.C. 32902(h). NHTSA, however, recognizes that potential future increases in alternative fuel vehicle penetration could cause environmental impacts relevant to this EIS.

        • Comments on what timeframe NHTSA should use to evaluate the environmental impacts that may result from setting MY 2017-2025 CAFE standards.
        NHTSA is also interested in comments on how the agency is planning to structure the proposed alternatives. Subject to the statutory constraints of EPCA/EISA, a variety of potential alternatives could be considered within the purpose and need for the proposed rulemaking, each falling along a theoretically infinite continuum of potential standards. As described above, NHTSA plans to address this issue by identifying alternatives at the upper and lower bounds of a range within which we believe the statutory requirement for “maximum feasible” would be satisfied, as well as identifying and analyzing the impacts of a preferred alternative. In this way, NHTSA expects to bracket the potential environmental impacts of the standards it may select.32

            32 Should NHTSA ultimately choose to set standards at levels other than the Preferred Alternative, we believe that this bracketing will properly inform the decisionmaker, so long as the standards are set within its parameters.

        NHTSA seeks comments on what criteria should be used to choose the Preferred Alternative, given the agency's statutory requirement of setting “maximum feasible” fuel economy standards that increase ratably.33
           When suggesting an approach, please explain how it would satisfy EPCA's factors (technological feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of other motor vehicle standards of the Government on fuel economy, and the need of the United States to conserve energy).34

            33 See 49 U.S.C. 32902(f).

            34 Note that NHTSA is statutorily prohibited from considering flexibility mechanisms in determining what standards would be maximum feasible. In determining maximum feasibility, NHTSA also must consider dual fueled vehicles to be operated only on gasoline or diesel fuel and, as noted above, may not consider the fuel economy of “dedicated vehicles,” including vehicles that operate only on natural gas, hydrogen, and electricity. 49 U.S.C. 32901(a); 49 U.S.C. 32902(h).

        Two important purposes of scoping are identifying the significant issues that merit in-depth analysis in the EIS and identifying and eliminating from detailed analysis the issues that are not significant and therefore require only a brief discussion in the EIS.35
           In light of these purposes, written comments should include an Internet citation (with a date last visited) to each study or report you cite in your comments if one is available. If a document you cite is not available to the public online, you should attach a copy to your comments. Your comments should indicate how each document you cite or attach to your comments is relevant to the NEPA analysis and indicate the specific pages and passages in the attachment that are most informative.

            35 40 CFR 1500.4(g), 1501.7(a).

        The more specific your comments are, and the more support you can provide by directing the agency to peer-reviewed scientific studies and reports as requested above, the more useful your comments will be to the agency. For example, if you identify an additional area of impact or environmental concern you believe NHTSA should analyze, or an analytical tool or model you believe NHTSA should use to evaluate these environmental impacts, you should clearly describe it and support your comments with a reference to a specific peer-reviewed scientific study, report, tool or model. Specific, well-supported comments will help the agency prepare an EIS that is focused and relevant and will serve NEPA's overarching aims of making high quality information available to decisionmakers and the public by “concentrat[ing] on the issues that are truly significant to the action in question, rather than amassing needless detail.” 36
           By contrast, mere assertions that the agency should evaluate broad lists or categories of concerns, without support, will not assist the scoping process for the proposed standards.

            36 40 CFR 1500.1(b).

        Please be sure to reference the docket number identified in the heading of this notice in your comments. NHTSA intends to provide notice to interested parties by e-mail. Thus, please also provide an e-mail address (or a mailing address if you decline e-mail communications).37

           These steps will help NHTSA manage a large volume of material during the NEPA process. All comments and materials received, including the names and addresses of the commenters who submit them, will become part of the administrative record and will be posted on the Web at http://www.regulations.gov.

            37 If you prefer to receive NHTSA's NEPA correspondence by U.S. mail, NHTSA plans to provide its NEPA publications via CD.

        Based on comments received during scoping, NHTSA expects to prepare a draft EIS for public comment by September 2011 and a final EIS by June 2012.38
           The agency expects to issue a final rule in July 2012.

            38 40 CFR 1506.10.

        Separate Federal Register notices will announce the availability of the draft EIS, which will be available for public comment, and the final EIS, which will be available for public inspection. NHTSA also plans to continue to post information about the NEPA process and this CAFE rulemaking on its Web site (http://www.nhtsa.gov).

          Issued: May 4, 2011.
          Christopher J. Bonanti,
          Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

      [FR Doc. 2011-11278 Filed 5-9-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 300
        [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010; FRL-9993-17-Region 7]
        National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Omaha Lead Superfund Site

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; notice of intent.

          SUMMARY:

          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 7 is issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete 500 residential parcels of the Omaha Lead Superfund site (Site or OLS) located in Omaha, Nebraska, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the state of Nebraska, through the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA were completed at the identified parcels. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under CERCLA.
          This partial deletion pertains to 500 residential parcels. The remaining parcels will remain on the NPL and are not being considered for deletion as part of this action.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before June 24, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010, by one of the following methods: https://www.regulations.gov follow the online instructions for submitting comments; email hagenmaier.elizabeth@epa.gov or freeman.tamara@epa.gov; or by mail to Environmental Protection Agency Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219, Attention: Elizabeth Hagenmaier, SUPR Division or Tamara Freeman, ECO Office. The Omaha public libraries also have computer resources available to assist the public. The W. Dale Clark Library, located at 215 S. 15th Street, Omaha, NE 68102 is centrally located within the site boundary.

          Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: EPA Region 7 Records Center at 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Monday-Friday, excluding Federal holidays.

            Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID No. for this rulemaking. Comments received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Written Comments” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Elizabeth Hagenmaier, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 7, SUPR/LMSE, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219, telephone (913) 551-7939, email: hagenmaier.elizabeth@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Throughout this document “we,” “us,” or “our” refer to the EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:

          I. Written Comments
          II. Introduction
          III. NPL Deletion Criteria
          IV. Deletion Procedures
          V. Background and Basis for Intended Partial Site Deletion

        I. Written Comments

        Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010, at https://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, you may submit comments by email or mail to the persons and addresses listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

        II. Introduction
        The EPA Region 7 is proposing to delete 500 residential parcels of the Omaha Lead Superfund site (Site or OLS), from the National Priorities List (NPL) and is requesting public comment on this proposed action. The table of 500 Properties Proposed for the 2019 Partial Deletion of Properties from the Omaha Lead Superfund site. (EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010-1966) identifies specific properties included for this proposed partial deletion. The location of the 500 properties are shown on Figure 1 “Map for the 2019 Partial Deletion Omaha Lead Site” (EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010-1964). The NPL constitutes appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which the EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. The EPA maintains the NPL as those sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). This partial deletion of the Omaha Lead Superfund site is proposed in accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and is consistent with the Notice of Policy Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on the National Priorities List, 60 FR 55466 (November 1, 1995). As described in 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, a portion of a site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial action if future conditions warrant such actions.

        The EPA will accept comments on the proposal to partially delete this site for thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.
        Section III of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section IV discusses procedures that the EPA is using for this action. Section V discusses the 500 residential parcels of the Omaha Lead Superfund site and demonstrates how they meet the deletion criteria.
        III. NPL Deletion Criteria
        The NCP establishes the criteria that the EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), the EPA will consider, in consultation with the state, whether any of the following criteria have been met:
        i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;
        ii. All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or
        iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

        Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, the EPA conducts five-year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted from the NPL. The EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

        IV. Deletion Procedures
        The following procedures apply to deletion of the 500 residential parcels of the Site:
        (1) The EPA consulted with the state before developing this Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion.
        (2) The EPA has provided the state thirty working days for review of this notice prior to publication of it in this notice.
        (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, the EPA has determined that no further response is appropriate.
        (4) The state of Nebraska, through the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, has concurred with the deletion of the 500 residential parcels of the Omaha Lead Superfund site, from the NPL.

        (5) Concurrently, with the publication of this Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion in the Federal Register, a notice is being published in a major local newspaper, the Omaha World Herald. The newspaper announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion of the Site from the NPL.
        (6) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed partial deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified above.

        If comments are received within the 30-day comment period on this document, the EPA will evaluate and respond appropriately to the comments before making a final decision to delete the 500 residential parcels. If necessary, the EPA will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public comments received. After the public comment period, if the EPA determines it is still appropriate to delete the 500 residential parcels of the Omaha Lead Superfund site, the Regional Administrator will publish a final Notice of Partial Deletion in the Federal Register. Public notices, public submissions and copies of the Responsiveness Summary, if prepared, will be made available to interested parties and included in the site information repositories listed above.
        Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.
        V. Background and Basis for Partial Site Deletion
        The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the 500 residential parcels of the Omaha Lead Superfund site from the NPL, as previously identified.
        Site Background and History
        The Omaha Lead Superfund site (Site or OLS [CERCLIS ID #NESFN0703481]) includes surface soils present at residential properties, child-care centers, and other residential-type properties in the city of Omaha, Douglas County, Nebraska. The properties were contaminated as a result of deposition of aerial emissions from historic lead smelting and refining operations. The OLS encompasses the eastern portion of the greater metropolitan area in Omaha, Nebraska. The site extends from the Douglas-Sarpy County line on the south, north to Read Street and from the Missouri River on the east to 56th Street on the west. The Site is centered around downtown Omaha, Nebraska, where two former lead-processing facilities operated. American Smelting and Refining Company, Inc. (ASARCO) operated a lead refinery at 500 Douglas Street in Omaha, Nebraska, for over 120 years. Aaron Ferer & Sons Company (Aaron Ferer), and later Gould Electronics, Inc., (Gould) operated a lead battery recycling plant located at 555 Farnam Street. Both ASARCO and Aaron Ferer/Gould facilities released lead-containing particulates into the atmosphere from their smokestacks. The lead particles were subsequently deposited on surrounding residential properties.
        Beginning in 1984, the Douglas County Health Department (DCHD) monitored ambient air quality around the ASARCO facility. This air monitoring routinely measured ambient air lead concentrations in excess of the ambient air standard. Between 1972 and 1998 the DCHD measured the blood lead level in children within the county. The results of the measurements indicated a high incidence of elevated blood lead level in children. Blood lead screening of children living in zip codes located east of 45th Street consistently exceeded 10 micrograms per deciliter (μg/dl) more frequently than children living elsewhere in the county.
        In 1998, the Omaha City Council requested assistance from the EPA to address the high incidence of children found with elevated blood lead levels by the DCHD. In 1999, the EPA initiated an investigation into the lead contamination under the authority of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). On February 26, 2002, the OLS was proposed for the NPL (67 FR 8836), and on April 30, 2003, the OLS was listed on the NPL (68 FR 23077).
        The OLS includes those residential properties where the EPA determined through soil sampling that soil lead levels represent an unacceptable risk to human health. Residential properties where soil sampling indicates that lead concentrations in the soil are below a level that represent an unacceptable risk are not included in the Site. Residential properties include those with high accessibility to sensitive populations (children seven years of age and younger [0 to 84 months] and pregnant or nursing women). The properties include single and multi-family dwellings, apartment complexes, child daycare facilities, vacant lots in residential areas, schools, churches, community centers, parks, greenways, and any other areas where children may be exposed to site-related contaminated media. Commercial and industrial properties are excluded from the definition of the Site.
        The residential properties proposed for deletion from the NPL site were cleaned up under both CERCLA removal and remedial authority. Regardless of the authority used for the remediation of yards, the cleanup levels for soils for all the properties proposed for deletion were the same.
        Response Actions

        The initial EPA response was conducted under CERCLA removal authority. Due to the size of the site and the very large number of individual properties, it was necessary to prioritize sites for cleanup. The prioritization was based on factors such as the elevated blood level of children at each property and the lead concentration in the soil at each property. The result was a series of action levels that reflected the priority of categories of sites. Consequently, the action level for the site soils changed over time from 2500 mg/kg to 400 mg/kg, as the highest priority sites were cleaned up first. The cleanup level was established using the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK) model to determine the concentration to which the lead is cleaned up at each property within the site. The cleanup level for the OLS is 400 mg/kg of lead in the soil. The cleanup level of 400 mg/kg was selected to allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The cleanup level has not changed, and all properties, regardless of the action level, were cleaned up to 400 mg/kg.
        Removal Activities
        Beginning in March 1999, the EPA began collecting soil samples from properties that provided licensed child daycare services. The initial removal action dated August 2, 1999, consisted of excavation and replacement of contaminated soil where the lead concentration exceeded the action levels identified in the Action Memorandum. Response actions were implemented at properties that met either of the following criteria:
        • A child seven years of age or younger (0 to 84 months) residing at the property was identified with an elevated blood level (EBL) exceeding 15 μg/dl (this EBL was reduced to 10 μg/dl in August 2001) and a soil sample collected from a non-foundation quadrant exhibited lead concentrations greater than 400 mg/kg, or
        • A property was used as a child-care facility and a soil sample collected from a non-foundation quadrant exhibited a lead concentration greater than 400 mg/kg.
        On August 22, 2002, the EPA initiated a second removal action. This second removal action included all other residential type properties where the maximum non-foundation soil lead concentration exceeded an action level of 2,500 mg/kg. The 2002 Action Memorandum explicitly identifies the possibility of lead-based paint as a potential contributor to lead contamination of soils within thirty inches of the foundation of a painted structure. Due to the potential contribution of deteriorating lead-based paint near the foundations of structures, a lead concentration greater than 400 mg/kg in the soil in the drip zone (areas near structure foundations) was not, in itself, sufficient to trigger soil removal. However, if a soil sample from any mid-yard quadrant exceeded the action level, soil was removed from all areas of the property exceeding the 400 mg/kg cleanup level, including the drip zone. In November 2003, the EPA amended the second removal action to reduce the action level to 1,200 mg/kg concentration of lead in soil. In March 2004, the EPA amended the second removal action to combine the two removal actions. In March 2005, the EPA amended the removal action to reduce the action level from 1200 mg/kg to 800 mg/kg.
        At properties determined to be eligible for response under either of the Action Memoranda, soil with lead concentrations greater than the cleanup level was excavated and replaced with clean soil and the excavated areas were revegetated.
        EPA signed an Interim Recored of Decision on December 15, 2004. Beginning with the construction season of 2005, the scope of the removal action was expanded to address the requirements of the 2004 Interim ROD to include: (1) Stabilization of deteriorating exterior lead-based paint at properties where the continued effectiveness of the soil remediation was threatened; (2) response to interior dust at properties where interior dust lead levels exceeded applicable criteria; (3) public health education; and (4) participation in a comprehensive remedy with other agencies and organizations that addresses all identified lead hazards in the Omaha community.
        Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS)—Human Health Risk Assessment
        As part of the RI/FS, the EPA developed a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) for the Site using site-specific information collected during the OLS Remedial Investigation. Lead was identified as the primary contaminant of concern. The HHRA also identified arsenic as a potential contaminant of concern, but arsenic was eliminated based on its relatively low overall risk to residents and lack of connection to the release from the industrial sources being addressed by this Superfund action.
        The risk assessment for lead focused on young children under the age of seven (0 to 84 months) who are site residents. Young children are most susceptible to lead exposure because they have higher contact rates with soil or dust, absorb lead more readily than adults, and are more sensitive to the adverse effects of lead than are older children and adults. The effect of greatest concern in children is impairment of the nervous system, including learning deficits, reduced intelligence, and adverse effects on behavior. The IEUBK model for lead in children was used to evaluate the risks posed to young children (0 to 84 months) resulting from the lead contamination at the site. Because lead does not have a nationally-approved reference dose (RfD), cancer slope factor, or other accepted toxicological factor which can be used to assess risk, standard risk assessment methods cannot be used to evaluate the health risks associated with lead contamination. The modeling results determined that there was an unacceptable risk to young children from exposure to soils above 400 mg/kg.
        In October 2008, the EPA released a draft Final Remedial Investigation. Based on the 2008 data set, EPA established the boundary of the Final Focus Area for the Site. The Final Focus Area is generally bounded by Read Street to the north, 56th Street to the west, Harrison Street (Sarpy County line) to the south, and the Missouri River to the east, and encompasses 17,280 acres (27.0 square miles). By the time the Final Remedial Investigation was completed, the EPA had collected soil samples from 37,076 residential properties, including 34,565 properties within the Final Focus Area's boundary. In total, 34.2 percent of properties sampled through completion of the 2008 RI had at least one mid-yard sample with a soil lead level exceeding 400 mg/kg. In addition to soil sampling, the EPA collected dust samples from the interior of 159 residences to support the OLS Human Health Risk Assessment.
        Record of Decision
        The EPA completed the Final Record of Decision (ROD) for the OLS in May 2009. The Remedial Action Objective is to reduce the risk of exposure of young children to lead such that an individual child, or group of similarly exposed children, have no greater than a five percent chance of having a blood-lead concentration exceeding 10 μg/dl. The selected remedy includes the following components:

        • Excavation and Replacement of Soils Exceeding 400 mg/kg Lead
        • Stabilization of Deteriorating Exterior Lead-Based Paint
        • Response to Lead-Contaminated Interior Dust
        • Health Education
        • Operation of a Local Lead Hazard Registry as a type of Institutional Control

        Each of these components is described below.
        Remedial Actions
        Excavation and Replacement of Soils Exceeding 400 mg/kg Lead

        Excavation of soils was accomplished using lightweight excavation equipment and hand tools in the portions of the yard where the concentration of lead in the surface soil exceeded 400 mg/kg. Excavation continued in all quadrants, play zones, and drip zone areas exceeding 400 mg/kg lead until the residual lead concentration measured at the exposed surface of the excavation was less than 400 mg/kg in the upper foot, or less than 1,200 mg/kg at depths greater than one foot. Typically, soil excavation depths were between six and ten inches in depth. Soils in garden areas were excavated until reaching a residual concentration of less than 400 mg/kg in the upper two feet measured from the original surface, or less than 1,200 mg/kg at depths greater than two feet.
        After confirmation sampling verified that cleanup goals were achieved, the excavated areas were backfilled with clean soil to original grade and sod was placed over the remediated areas.
        EPA's remediation contractors stockpiled contaminated soil in staging areas, collected samples, and subsequently transported soil to an off-site subtitle D solid waste disposal landfill for use as daily cover and/or disposal.
        Stabilization of Deteriorating Exterior Lead-Based Paint
        The EPA used the lead-based paint assessment protocol, presented in the Final Lead-Based Paint Recontamination Study Report prepared for the OLS, to determine eligibility for exterior lead-based paint stabilization at those properties where soil lead concentrations exceeded 400 mg/kg. At those properties where the exterior lead-based paint assessment identified a threat from deteriorating paint to the continued protectiveness of the soil remedy, the owner of the property was offered stabilization of painted surfaces on structures located on the property. Exterior lead-based paint stabilization is not mandatory and was provided to those qualifying property owners who chose to have their exterior paint stabilized. Removal of loose and flaking lead-based paint was performed using lead-safe practices as described in EPA's Renovate, Repair and Painting Rule. The practices include wet scraping, and collection of paint chips using plastic sheeting. Scraped areas were primed and all previously painted surfaces had two coats of paint applied.
        Response to Lead-Contaminated Interior Dust
        As part of the final remedy, residents at eligible properties are provided the opportunity to have interior dust sampled. The interior dust response is not mandatory, and the resident may choose to decline. If the property owner agrees, the EPA collects samples of dust from interior surfaces. The analytical data is provided to the resident/tenant in a letter and the letter informs them whether any HUD criteria are exceeded. The Douglas County Health Department conducts follow up activities at any residence where the concentration of lead in the interior dust levels exceed the HUD criteria. For those residences that qualify and where the resident agrees, the residents are provided with a high-efficiency household vacuum cleaner, training on the maintenance and the importance of proper usage of the vacuum, and education on mitigation of household lead hazards. The Douglas County Health Department also provides training and education regarding the need to mitigate interior dust.
        Exterior lead-based paint stabilization and interior dust response were conducted retroactively at properties where soil cleanups were performed under CERCLA removal authority, as well as to properties addressed under CERCLA remedial authority.
        Health Education
        There are a number of identified lead hazards within the OLS, not all of which are connected to the contaminant source of the OLS. To better address all potential lead sources within the OLS, a health education program was developed and continues to be implemented to increase public awareness and mitigate exposure. An active educational program continues in cooperation with agencies and organizations that include Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (NDHHS), DCHD, local non-governmental organizations, and other interested parties. The following, although not an exhaustive list, indicate the types of educational activities provided at the Site:
        • Support for in-home assessments for children identified with elevated blood lead levels.
        • Development and implementation of lead poisoning prevention curriculum in schools.
        • Support for efforts to increase community-wide blood lead monitoring.
        • Physicians' education for diagnosis, treatment, and surveillance of lead exposure.
        • Operation of Public Information Centers to distribute information and respond to questions about the EPA response activities and lead hazards in the community.
        • Use of mass media (television, radio, internet, print media, etc.) to distribute health education messages.
        • Development and distribution of informational tools such as fact sheets, brochures, refrigerator magnets, etc., to inform the public about lead hazards and measures that can be taken to avoid or eliminate exposure.
        Institutional Controls
        The Omaha Lead Registry, (available at www.omahalead.org) is a GIS based database that provides the public with on-line access to the status of the EPA investigation and response actions. The EPA notifies residents and property owners about the information that is available through the lead hazard registry as part of the transmittal sent at the completion of soil remediation at each individual property.
        Community Involvement
        The EPA worked extensively with the Omaha community through a variety of communication vehicles including, but not limited to: Local speaking engagements, participation in citizens' groups and city council meetings, local public access television, public service announcements on local cable television, coverage on radio, television, in local and national newspapers, mass mailings of informational materials, public outreach by telephone, conducting public meetings, and through the EPA website.
        The EPA has been performing outreach to Omaha citizens, elected officials, school officials, health officials, the media, nonprofit groups, and others since becoming involved in the project in an effort to convey information about the hazards of lead poisoning, particularly the ways that lead affects the health of children. The EPA participated in numerous formal and informal meetings to explain EPA's role and commitment in Omaha, convey information about the Superfund process, and provide general information about the site and lead contamination. The EPA responds to inquiries on a daily basis regarding the site and individual property owner's sampling results.
        In January 2004, a Community Advisory Group (CAG) was formed for the OLS site. A CAG is a committee, task force, or board made up of residents affected by a Superfund site. The CAG provided a public forum where representatives with diverse community interests could present and discuss their needs and concerns related to the site and the cleanup process. The CAG was discontinued after the last meeting was held in October 2011. A new group, Child Lead Poisoning Prevention Group, formed. The first meeting of the Child Lead Poisoning Group was held at City Hall in May 2012. The Group is no longer active.
        Five-Year Review

        The EPA completed the first Five-Year Review for the site in September 2014. Five-Year Reviews for the site are statutory. The triggering action for the Five-Year Review is the completion of the Final Record of Decision for Operable Unit 2, completed in May 2009.
        The protectiveness of the remedy was deferred in the Five-Year Review because the remedy had not been completed at all of the properties within the site boundary. However, cleanup activities at the 500 residential parcels included in this partial deletion action are complete and protective of human health. There are no issues or recommendations in the Five-Year Review related to these 500 residential parcels proposed for deletion.
        The next Five-Year Review will be completed in September 2019.
        Summary of EPA Work Completed
        Soil Testing and Remediation
        The EPA Region 7 completed the EPA lead portion of the remedial action on December 29, 2015. The city of Omaha and the Douglas County Health Department will be performing the remaining field work. As of December 29, 2015, the EPA collected soil samples from 42,047 properties. There are 489 remaining properties to be sampled. The EPA has obtained access to collect samples from 163 of the 489 properties.
        Based on the soil sampling results, 14,019 properties were eligible for soil remediation. The EPA remediated lead contaminated soil at 13,090 properties (93 percent) of the properties that were eligible for remediation. There are approximately 929 remaining properties that are eligible for soil remediation. The EPA obtained access to remediate fifty-one of the remaining properties.
        Lead-Based Paint Testing and Stabilization
        The EPA tested 12,057 properties for the presence of lead-based paint (LBP). Six thousand seven hundred and eighty-two (6,782) properties qualify for LBP stabilization. The EPA completed LBP stabilization on 6,249, (92 percent) of the eligible properties.
        Dust Sampling
        The EPA collected dust samples from 3,933 properties consisting of 4,477 residences for lead contaminated dust. These numbers reflect the fact that some of the properties are multi-residence properties.
        Continuing Remedial Action
        The EPA completed Cooperative Agreements with the city of Omaha and the Douglas County Health Department that provide funds to allow these local government agencies to continue efforts to obtain access to the remaining properties and conduct sampling and remediation activities at those properties where they obtain access.
        Determination That the Criteria for Deletion Has Been Achieved
        In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), Region 7 of the EPA finds that the 500 residential parcels of the Omaha Lead Superfund site (the subject of this deletion action) meet the substantive criteria for deletion from the NPL. The EPA has consulted with and has the concurrence of the state of Nebraska. All responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required. All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA was implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate.
        The implemented remedy at the 500 residential parcels has achieved the degree of cleanup specified in the ROD for all pathways of exposure. All selected remedial action objectives and associated cleanup levels are consistent with agency policy and guidance. No further Superfund response is needed to protect human health and the environment.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.

          Authority:
           33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

          Dated: May 8, 2019.
          Edward H. Chu,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

      [FR Doc. 2019-10568 Filed 5-23-19; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 271
        [EPA-R09-RCRA-2008-0726; FRL-8771-7]
        Nevada: Proposed Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          Nevada has applied to EPA for final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant final authorization to Nevada. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register, EPA is authorizing the changes by an immediate final rule. EPA did not make a proposal prior to the immediate final rule because we believe this action is not controversial and do not expect comments that oppose it. We have explained the reasons for this authorization in the preamble of the immediate final rule. Unless we get written comments which oppose this authorization during the comment period, the immediate final rule will become effective on the date it establishes, and we will not take further action on this proposal. If we receive comments that oppose this action, we will withdraw the immediate final rule and it will not take effect. We will respond to public comments in a later final rule based on this proposal. You may not have another opportunity for comment.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before March 30, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-RCRA-2008-0726 by one of the following methods:
          • http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          • E-mail: downey.jennifer@epa.gov.
          • Fax: (415) 947-3533 (prior to faxing, please notify the EPA contact listed below).
          • Mail: Send written comments to Jennifer Downey, Region IX (WST-2), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
          • Hand Delivery: Jennifer Downey, Region IX (WST-2), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. Such deliveries are only accepted during the office'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-R09-RCRA-2008-0726. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 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).

            Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy.

          You may view and copy Nevada's application at the following addresses: Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Protection, 901 So. Stewart Street, Ste. 4001, Carson City, NV 89701, Phone: 775/687-4670, Business Hours: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. U.S. EPA Region IX Library-Information Center, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415/947-4406, Business Hours: 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Thursday.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Jennifer Downey, Region IX (WST-2), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415/972-3342. E-mail: downey.jennifer@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        For additional information, please see the immediate final rule published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register.

          Dated: January 29, 2009.
          Laura Yoshii,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.

      [FR Doc. E9-4122 Filed 2-25-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P