        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [I.D. 061404A]
        RIN 0648-AS26
        Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Notice of Availability of Amendment 16-3 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability of an amendment to a fishery management plan; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS announces that the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) has submitted Amendment 16-3 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Secretarial review.  Amendment 16-3 would amend the FMP to include overfished species rebuilding plans for bocaccio, cowcod, widow rockfish, and yelloweye rockfish.  Amendment 16-3 is intended to address the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) to protect and rebuild overfished species managed under a Federal FMP.  Amendment 16-3 is also intended to respond, in part, to a Court order in which NMFS was ordered to provide Pacific Coast groundfish rebuilding plans as FMPs, FMP amendments, or regulations, as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

          DATES:
          Comments on Amendment 16-3 must be received on or before August 17, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          Copies of Amendment 16-3 and the Environmental Impact Statement/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the amendment are available from Donald McIsaac, Executive Director, Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Portland, OR 97220.
          You may submit comments on Amendment 16-3 or supporting documents, identified by [RIN 0648-AS26], by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.  Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • E-mail: Amendment16-3NOA.nwr@noaa.gov. Include the RIN number in the subject line of the message.
          • Fax:   206-526-6736, Attn:  Jamie Goen.
          • Mail:   D. Robert Lohn, Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-0070; or Rod McInnis, Acting Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Jamie Goen (Northwest Region, NMFS), phone:  206-526-4646; fax:  206-526-6736; or e-mail: jamie.goen@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Electronic Access
        This Federal Register document is also accessible via the internet at the website of the Office of the Federal Register: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
        Background

        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires each regional fishery management council to submit fishery management plans or plan amendments to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval.  The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires NMFS, immediately upon receiving a fishery management plan or plan amendment, to publish notification in the Federal Register that the fishery management plan or plan amendment is available for public review and comment.  At the end of the comment period, NMFS considers the public comments received during the comment period described above in determining whether to approve, partially approve, or disapprove the fishery management plan or plan amendment.
        This notice of availability announces an amendment, Amendment 16-3, to the FMP to include overfished species rebuilding plans for bocaccio, cowcod, widow rockfish, and yelloweye rockfish.  NMFS declared the bocaccio stock overfished on March 3, 1999 in a letter from NMFS to the Pacific Council announcing partial approval of Amendment 11 to the groundfish FMP, which approved the overfishing definition.  Cowcod was declared overfished on January 4, 2000 (65 FR 221), widow rockfish on January 11, 2001 (66 FR 2338) and yelloweye rockfish on January 11, 2002 (67 FR 1555).  Because the spawning stock biomass levels for these stocks were determined to be below the minimum stock size threshold defined by the FMP, rebuilding plans need to be implemented to return the stocks to their maximum sustainable yield biomass levels (target biomass).
        The rebuilding plans being adopted under Amendment 16-3 were approved by the Pacific Council at its April 2004 meeting.  These rebuilding plans specify rebuilding parameters for individual stocks and are intended to address the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement to protect and rebuild overfished species, in particular National Standard 1 on overfishing and Section 304(e).  When making the recommendation to implement these rebuilding plans, the Pacific Council sought to balance the rebuilding risks to each stock with the short and long-term socio-economic costs borne by groundfish buyers, commercial harvesters, and recreational operators as a result of constraining the fisheries to reduce total mortality of these overfished species.  Amendment 16-3 is based on the policies and rebuilding parameters established by Amendment 16-1.

        On August 18, 2003 (68 FR 49415), NMFS published a notice of availability for Amendment 16-1 to the FMP and approved the amendment on November 14, 2003.  The final rule to codify provisions of Amendment 16-1 was published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2004 (69 FR 8861).  Amendment 16-1 amended the FMP by requiring that Pacific Coast groundfish overfished species rebuilding plans be added into the FMP via FMP amendment and implemented through Federal regulations.  For each approved overfished species rebuilding plan, the following parameters are to be specified in the FMP:   estimates of unfished biomass (B0) and target biomass (BMSY), the year the stock would be rebuilt in the absence of fishing (TMIN), the year the stock would be rebuilt if the maximum time period permissible under the national standard guidelines were applied (TMAX), the target year in which the stock would be rebuilt under the adopted rebuilding plan (TTARGET), and a harvest control rule.  Other relevant information listed in Amendment 16-1 will also be included in the FMP, including the probability of the stock attaining BMSY by TMAX (PMAX).
        As required by the standards in Amendment 16-1, the rebuilding plans under Amendment 16-3 for bocaccio, cowcod, widow rockfish, and yelloweye rockfish include estimates of unfished biomass and target biomass, the year the stock would be rebuilt in the absence of fishing, the year the stock would be rebuilt if the maximum time period permissible under the national standard guidelines were applied, the target year in which the stock would be rebuilt under the adopted rebuilding plan, and the harvest control rule for each species.  Amendment 16-3 would add these parameters to section 4.5.4. of the FMP.  Other relevant information on each of these overfished stocks, such as stock distribution, fishery interaction, and the rebuilding strategy would also be added to section 4.5.4 of the FMP.  The information described above would be included in the FMP to serve as management benchmarks.
        In addition, the final rule to Amendment 16-1 requires that the two rebuilding parameters needed to establish annual or biennial optimum yields (OYs) for overfished species be codified in Federal regulations (69 FR 8861, February 26, 2004).  These parameters are the target year for rebuilding and the harvest control rule that is to be used during the rebuilding period.  The target rebuilding year is the year in which there is a 50 percent probability that the stock will be rebuilt with a given mortality rate.  The harvest control rule expresses a given fishing mortality rate that is to be used over the course of rebuilding, unless modified in a subsequent rulemaking.

        An approved rebuilding plan will be implemented through  setting OYs and establishing management measures necessary to maintain the fishing mortality within the OYs and to achieve objectives related to rebuilding requirements.
        Public comments on Amendment 16-3 must be received by August 17, 2004, to be considered by NMFS in the decision whether to approve, disapprove, or partially approve Amendment 16-3.  A proposed rule to implement Amendment 16-3 has been submitted for Secretarial review and approval.  NMFS expects to publish and request public  comments on proposed regulations to implement Amendment 16-3 in the near future.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated:  June 14, 2004.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 04-13730 Filed 6-17-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 680
        [Docket No. I.D. 021606B]
        RIN 0648-AU06
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Allocating Bering Sea And Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crab Fishery Resources

          AGENCY:
           National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
           Notice of availability of fishery management plan amendment; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
           Congress amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) to require the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to approve the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands (BSAI) Crab Rationalization Program (Program). The Program allocates BSAI crab resources among harvesters, processors, and coastal communities. The Program was implemented by Amendments 18 and 19 to the Fishery Management Plan for BSAI King and Tanner Crabs (FMP). Amendment 20 would modify the FMP and the Program to increase resource conservation and improve economic efficiency in the Chionoecetes bairdi crab (Tanner crab) fisheries that are subject to the Program. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the FMP, and other applicable laws.

          DATES:
           Comments on the amendment must be submitted on or before April 28, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Records Office. Comments may be submitted by:
          • Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802.
          • Hand Delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.
          • Facsimile: 907-586-7557.
          • E-mail: 0648-AU06-KTC20-NOA@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line of the e-mail the following document identifier: Crab Rationalization RIN 0648-AU06. E-mail comments, with or without attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes.
          • Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions at that site for submitting comments.

          Copies of Amendment 20 and the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) for this action may be obtained from the NMFS Alaska Region at the address above or from the Alaska Region Web site at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries.htm.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
           Glenn Merrill, 907-586-7228 or glenn.merrill@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that each regional fishery management council submit any fishery management plan amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a fishery management plan amendment, immediately publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the amendment is available for public review and comment.
        The king and Tanner crab fisheries in the exclusive economic zone of the BSAI are managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under the Magnuson-Stevens Act as amended by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-199, section 801). Amendments 18 and 19 to the FMP amended the FMP to include the Program. A final rule implementing these amendments was published on March 2, 2005 (70 FR 10174). NMFS also published three corrections to the final rule (70 FR 13097; March 18, 2005), (70 FR 33390; June 8, 2005), and (70 FR 75419; December 20, 2005).
        The Council submitted Amendment 20 to the FMP for Secretarial review, which would make minor changes to the FMP necessary for the management of the Tanner crab fisheries under the Program. If approved, Amendment 20 to the FMP would modify the allocation of harvesting shares and processing shares for Bering Sea Tanner crab. Under authority deferred to the State of Alaska (State) by the FMP, the State has determined that the Bering Sea District Tanner crabs are in two geographically separate stocks, and should be managed as two separate stocks; one east of 166° W longitude, the other west of 166° W longitude. Currently, under the Program, harvester quota share (QS), processor quota share (PQS), individual fishing quota (IFQ), and individual processing quota (IPQ) are issued for one Tanner crab fishery. Amendment 20 would modify the FMP to allocate QS and PQS and the resulting IFQ and IPQ for two Tanner crab fisheries one east of 166° W longitude, the other west of 166° W longitude.
        The current allocations are not consistent with management of the species as two stocks. Revision of the QS and PQS allocations would resolve this inconsistency, reduce administrative costs for managers and reduce potential operational costs and increase flexibility for harvesters and processors.

        Public comments are being solicited on proposed Amendment 20 through the end of the comment period (see DATES). NMFS intends to publish a proposed rule that would implement Amendment 20 in the Federal Register for public comment, following NMFS' evaluation under the Magnuson-Stevens Act procedures. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 20 to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 20. All comments received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 20, whether specifically directed to the FMP amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision. Comments received after that date will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendments. To be considered, comments must be received not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted by the close of business on the last day of the comment period.

          Dated: February 22, 2006.
          William D. Chappell,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E6-2733 Filed 2-24-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD
        40 CFR Chapter VI
        [Docket No. CSB-09-01]
        Chemical Release Reporting

          AGENCY:
          Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The Clean Air Act requires that the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) establish a regulation which would require that accidental chemical releases be reported to the CSB or to the National Response Center. With this advance notice of proposed rulemaking, the CSB seeks to obtain comments on how best to proceed with implementing this requirement. The CSB will use this information in the development of a proposed and then a final rule.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received by the CSB on or before August 4, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit written comments, identified by docket number CSB-09-01, by either of the following methods:
          • E-mail: anpr@csb.gov. Include CSB-09-01 in the subject line of the message.
          • Mail/Express delivery service: Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, Office of General Counsel, Attn: C. Kirkpatrick, 2175 K Street, NW., Suite 650, Washington, DC 20037.

            Instructions: All comment submissions must include the agency name and docket number. All comments received, including any personal information provided, will be made available to the public without modifications or deletions. For detailed instructions on submitting comments electronically, including acceptable file formats, see the “Electronic Submission of Comments” heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

            Docket: For information on access to the docket to read comments received by the CSB, see the “Inspection of Comments” heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Christopher Kirkpatrick, at (202) 261-7600.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        Statutory Requirement
        The CSB was established by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The statute directs the CSB, among other things, to:

          [I]nvestigate (or cause to be investigated), determine and report to the public in writing the facts, conditions, and circumstances and the cause or probable cause of any accidental release resulting in a fatality, serious injury or substantial property damages; and

          [R]ecommen[d] measures to reduce the likelihood or the consequences of accidental releases and propos[e] corrective steps to make chemical production, processing, handling and storage as safe and free from risk of injury as is possible. * * *

        42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(6)(C)(i) and (ii).

        The CSB's enabling legislation also includes a requirement that the CSB:

          [E]stablish by regulation requirements binding on persons for reporting accidental releases into the ambient air subject to the Board's investigatory jurisdiction. Reporting releases to the National Response Center, in lieu of the Board directly, shall satisfy such regulations. The National Response Center shall promptly notify the Board of any releases which are within the Board's jurisdiction.

        42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(6)(C)(iii).

        The statute also directs the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enforce the reporting requirements promulgated by the CSB. See 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(6)(O).
        Although the CSB's enabling legislation was enacted in 1990, the CSB did not begin operations until 1998. Since 1998, the CSB has not promulgated an accidental release reporting requirement as envisioned in the CSB enabling legislation. With the development of the Internet and other new information sources, the CSB has maintained that it could learn of most serious chemical accidents from these sources along with reports of chemical releases required to be filed with the National Response Center for purposes of timely identification of incidents appropriate for CSB on-site investigations. The CSB has not attempted to systematically conduct national surveillance activities of chemical incidents or releases.
        Recommendations To Implement Reporting Rule
        In 2004, the Inspector General recommended that the CSB implement the statutory reporting requirement: “The CSB needs to refine its mechanism for learning of chemical incidents, and it should publish a regulation describing how the CSB will receive the notifications it needs.” (Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, A Report on the Continuing Development of the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, OIG-04-04, Jan. 2004, at 14.) Recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) also recommended that the CSB fulfill its statutory obligation by issuing a reporting regulation. (U.S. Government Accountability Office, Chemical Safety Board: Improvements in Management and Oversight Are Needed, GAO-08-864R, Aug. 22, 2008, at 11.)
        The CSB recognizes that a reporting regulation is clearly required by the statute. Based on these audit recommendations and its own more recent experience, the CSB has concluded that a reporting rule would also be helpful to the CSB in improving the timeliness, completeness, and accuracy of the information it now collects on chemical incidents. For example, the CSB recognizes that there is sometimes a delay between some chemical incidents and media coverage and that a rule could potentially improve the CSB's ability to learn of certain incidents in a timelier manner before an accident site is disturbed or evidence is lost. The CSB also recognizes that a requirement to report certain information on chemical incidents, in addition to fulfilling its statutory mandate, could help the agency develop better information on chemical incidents occurring in the United States, and help both the agency and other organizations to identify issues and trends, and thereby further the cause of preventing chemical incidents. For these reasons, the CSB now intends to promulgate and implement a reporting rule as required by its enabling legislation after collecting input from all interested parties.
        Important Issues
        Some of the more important issues for the CSB's consideration and for public comment are as follows:
        Purpose of Rule—Incident Notification and Collection of Incident Data
        In the past, the CSB has argued that the sole purpose of a reporting regulation is to inform the CSB of major incidents warranting the deployment of investigators. (GAO-08-864R, at 70.) GAO has suggested that the value of a reporting rule is broader than ensuring that the CSB receives mere notification of incidents, stating that a rule would “better inform the agency of important details about accidents that it may not receive from current sources.” (GAO-08-864R, at 11.) GAO also suggested that the information obtained through a reporting rule could improve the CSB's ability to “target its resources, identify trends and patterns in chemical incidents, and prevent future similar accidents.” (GAO-08-864R, at 7.) These goals are typically those of a comprehensive surveillance program. Due to this focus on surveillance goals and more accurate incident data (as opposed to mere notification), it is important to describe how the CSB has previously collected such information and what it hopes to achieve in promulgating a rule.
        The CSB described the process it uses for receiving notice of and determining whether to investigate chemical incidents in a 2006 report to Congress:

          The CSB has a designated chemical incident screener on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week. A combination of notification services including the National Response Center, the National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB] Communications Center, and various news outlets, serve as sources of information to identify chemical incidents as they occur. The incidents in the database do not comprise an exhaustive list of all chemical incidents that occurred in the country on any given day. Incidents logged in the CSB incident-screening database are scored using a formula that measures several factors relevant to its potential selection for investigation. These factors include: Injuries/fatalities; public evacuation; ecosystem damage; potential for consequences; learning potential; property losses; public concern; history of the company.
          The factors assessing public and worker injuries and fatalities are given greater weight in the scoring system. Once scored, the factors are averaged, and based on the numerical score the incident is then assigned a priority level * * *.  Deployment decisions are made in accordance with the CSB incident selection protocol. The decision to deploy a team of investigators to the site of a chemical incident often needs to be made before an incident can be scored with complete certainty. Consequently, incidents may be re-scored if new information is obtained on site.

        (Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, Report on Chemical Incident Screening Database, Feb. 2006, at 3.)

        With some refinements, this is essentially the process that the CSB uses today for learning of incidents and making investigation deployment decisions. The agency has discontinued its contract with the NTSB Communications Center, but continues to rely on reports from the National Response Center and from media sources. As the agency has added news services and as internet search engines have become more and more powerful, the number of incidents that are logged into the CSB's system has increased substantially, from about 600 per year when CSB began keeping a somewhat rudimentary database of “screened” incidents, to over 1,000 incidents per year currently. The sole source of information for the majority (approximately two-thirds) of screened incidents is media reports. (OIG-04-04, at 14 n. 37; M.R. Gomez, et al., The CSB Incident Screening Database: Description, Summary Statistics and Uses, J. Hazard. Mater. 159 (2008) 119-129.) Reports of most serious incidents (which are the ones most likely to involve deploying investigators) are very often received from media sources first, even if the incident is also reported to the National Response Center and the report forwarded to the CSB later. This is significant, because the CSB seeks to make deployment decisions as quickly as possible so that investigators can arrive at the accident site within the first 24 to 48 hours after the time of the initiating event, in order to begin the investigation while the evidence is less likely to be disturbed and the witnesses' testimony is fresh. Thus, the CSB believes that a reporting rule would complement, rather than replace, the existing mechanisms by which the CSB typically learns of chemical incidents.
        The CSB's collection of incident information thus was an outgrowth of the CSB's effort to make its incident selection process more transparent and predictable, and was not done with the intention of establishing a formal national surveillance system or creating a valid and reliable chemical incident database. However, GAO noted that the CSB has sometimes used the database, in testimony to Congress and in other contexts, to give a sense of the scope of serious chemical incidents. GAO further noted the problems of accuracy and completeness with the information on incidents in the database:

          We found that CSB lacks a long-term strategy to improve quality controls, and the data [in the database] remain somewhat inaccurate and incomplete. For example, when we analyzed a subset of accidents in the database involving fatalities and injuries, we found at least five accidents (about 6 percent of the cases reviewed) where fatalities were not correctly recorded in the database. We also found seven accidents (about 4 percent of the cases reviewed) where data on injuries were missing as a result of incomplete data entry. Moreover, CSB does not have procedures to ensure that data has been entered accurately. The lack of data-reporting regulations and these data quality problems limit CSB's ability to target its resources, identify trends and patterns in chemical accidents, and prevent future similar accidents.

        (GAO-08-864R, at 7.)

        The CSB has already taken steps to improve the accuracy of information on chemical incidents that it collects, including software changes and supervisory controls on data entry. The CSB foresees that a reporting rule will further its current efforts to improve data collection and would permit more accurate surveillance of chemical incidents.
        Coordination With Other Chemical Incident Reporting Requirements
        The CSB has previously noted that EPA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) all collect chemical incident information for various purposes. (GAO-08-864R, at 70.) In drafting a new requirement, the CSB will seek to avoid unnecessary duplication with various other reporting requirements.

        Specifically, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) requires that companies immediately report to the National Response Center releases over the reportable quantities of any of several hundred listed hazardous substances and other substances with hazardous characteristics. See 42 U.S.C. 9603; see also 40 CFR 302.4 (table of hazardous substances reportable under this section of CERCLA). The Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) requires that companies report hazardous chemical releases potentially affecting the public to the Local Emergency Response and State Emergency Response office. For certain companies, the EPCRA also requires annual reports of releases of listed toxic chemicals during the previous 12 months. See 42 U.S.C. 11004, 11023. Facilities that are subject to the Risk Management Program (RMP) rule must report annually on any accidental releases that are reportable under that rule. See 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(7)(B)(i)-(ii) (mandating the Risk Management Program and regulatory scheme); see also 40 CFR part 68 (the Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions (CAPPs) that include the RMP rules); 40 CFR 68.130 (listing the reportable substances under the RMP). Workplace fatalities, including those caused by accidental chemical releases, must be reported within eight hours to OSHA. See 29 CFR 1904.39.

        ATSDR has collected information about chemical incidents from more than a dozen states for several years—although the data have some limitations, such as the exclusion of incidents related to petroleum products. The program is called the Hazardous Substances Emergency Events Surveillance (HSEES), and information about its history can be found at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HS/HSEES/index.html. The ATSDR has expressed interest in building upon its current efforts. Its Web page also contains information about this effort.
        Threshold for Report
        The CSB's current resources limit the number of detailed investigations it can conduct each year, and the CSB believes that an initial notification reporting rule should likely focus on selected, high-consequences events (for example, incidents that result in death, serious injuries requiring in-patient hospitalization, large public evacuations, very substantial property damage, or acute environmental impact). Such an approach to notification for high consequence events and reporting for others would reduce the reporting burden on industry and the volume of information to be collected and managed. Based on available information, the CSB believes there are likely to be at most a few hundred incidents throughout the country each year that would require reporting to the CSB if the threshold is set at a level to capture serious consequences or substantial near miss situations. Of course, limiting the threshold for reporting an incident would not limit the CSB's investigatory jurisdiction.
        Statutory Definitions

        The CSB notes that existing chemical release reporting requirements are generally triggered by a list of chemicals and a threshold amount for each chemical. On the other hand, the CSB may investigate any incident resulting in serious consequences (fatality, serious injury, or substantial property damage) that involves an emission into the ambient air of any RMP-listed hazardous substance or other extremely hazardous substance, no matter what quantity is present or released. See 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(2)(A), 7412(r)(6)(C)(i). The CSB has not defined such terms as “ambient air,” “extremely hazardous substance,” “serious” injury, or “substantial” property damage, but would likely need to do so in promulgating a rule.
        Collection of Initial Report
        A rule could require that a report be made directly to the CSB through an electronic form on the CSB Web site, or to the National Response Center, as provided by the CSB's enabling statute. With respect to the latter option, the legislative history of the CSB statute further explains:

          The regulations of the Board for accident reporting may provide that any person directed to make a report contact the National Response Center rather than the Board directly. This will assure coordination of such reports with responsibilities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, the Clean Water Act and the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. If the National Response Center is to be the initial point of contact under such rules, then the Board shall assure that officials at the National Response Center promptly notify the Board or its officers whenever an accidental release requiring an investigation has occurred.

        S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 236 (1989), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3385, 3620.

        Among other considerations, cost is a concern with using the National Response Center as a receiving point for reports to the CSB. The CSB received a preliminary estimate from the National Response Center that establishing and operating a dedicated CSB reporting line (toll-free telephone number) would cost $450,000 per year.
        Compliance Education
        Because the chemical accidents that the CSB can investigate may occur at a wide range of companies and operations but are relatively infrequent events, a rule could apply to many parties which could potentially, but likely will not, experience a serious chemical incident at some point. Most of those parties would have no direct contact with the CSB unless a serious incident occurred. Thus, the CSB must also consider how best to educate potentially affected parties about compliance with any final rule.
        Approaches
        The CSB has identified four general approaches for implementing the statutory requirement, as described below, but is open to additional suggestions:

        (1) A comprehensive approach would require the reporting of information on all accidental releases subject to the CSB's investigatory jurisdiction. The CSB is concerned that this approach might be unnecessarily broad in scope, duplicative of other federal efforts concerning chemical incident surveillance, and may not be necessary for the CSB to learn of most significant incidents that would justify an on-site investigation.
        (2) A targeted approach would require reporting of basic information (e.g., location, date, and time of incident; chemical involved; number of injuries) for incidents that met significant consequence thresholds (incidents that result in death, serious injuries requiring in-patient hospitalization, large public evacuations, very substantial property damage, or acute environmental impact). Such an approach would be consistent with that taken by several other federal agencies, whose accident reporting rules incorporate the same or similar consequence-based criteria. Examples of this type of rule include the NTSB railroad accident notification rule (49 CFR 840.3); Department of Transportation rules on notification of hazardous materials accidents (49 CFR 171.15), gas pipeline accidents (49 CFR 191.5), and hazardous liquid pipeline accidents (49 CFR 195.50); and the OSHA work-related accident reporting rule (29 CFR 1904.39).
        A related approach would require reports from certain high risk facilities no matter what the specific consequences of the incident. For example, the EPA Office of Inspector General recently issued a report which identified three different approaches to identifying high risk facilities covered by the RMP rule. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Inspector General, EPA Can Improve Implementation of the Risk Management Program for Airborne Chemical Releases, 09-P-0092, Feb. 10, 2009, at 17). Similar criteria could be employed in a rule to require that certain facilities promptly report incidents to the CSB.
        Based on such targeted reports, the CSB could determine whether the owner/operator would be required to submit additional, detailed information to the CSB for evaluation and further investigation.
        (3) A third approach would require owners or operators to report to the CSB more extensive information on chemical incidents in their workplace when notified by the CSB. The agency would continue to rely primarily on existing sources for initially learning of chemical incidents, but would follow up on a subset of the incidents (e.g., those with the most serious consequences, based on initial reports, and a sample of all others) to gather additional information through a questionnaire or on-line form that the reporting party would be required by the rule to complete and submit to the CSB. This approach would be primarily aimed at addressing the data quality problems of accuracy and completeness of information on incidents in the CSB's incident database. It would also allow the CSB to collect more complete and in-depth information on incidents than is generally available in the minutes and hours immediately after an incident. For example, the information required could go beyond the location, date, and time of incident, and also include information on the materials involved, the nature of the incident (e.g., chemical reaction, untested presence of flammables, etc.), and type of operation, as well as more complete information on consequences. This approach would formalize what the CSB screening personnel currently do, i.e., follow up (primarily by telephone) with companies and responders on approximately 60 incidents each year to gather detailed information on the consequences, as well as the processes and chemicals involved, beyond what is contained in media or NRC reports.
        (4) A fourth approach to a reporting requirement could be based upon the presence or release of specified chemicals and specified threshold amounts. However, CSB investigations have shown that serious consequences may and do result from the release of relatively small amounts of chemicals, and from chemicals that are not likely to be listed.
        Information Sought
        The CSB seeks comments and information in advance of drafting a proposed regulation to implement the accidental release reporting requirement. In addition to comments addressing the issues and approaches described above, the CSB is also interested in comments that address the following specific questions:
        • Are there Federal, State, or local rules or programs for reporting chemical or other types of incidents that would be an appropriate model for the CSB to consider in developing a reporting requirement?
        • Should an initial report be made to the CSB or the National Response Center?
        • What information should be reported to the CSB?
        • How soon after an accident should reporting occur?
        • Should the rule be designed with distinct requirements for rapid notification of high-consequence incidents and more systematic (and slower) notification of other incidents?
        • What specific factors (such as lists of chemicals or specific consequences) should the CSB consider in drafting a proposed rule?
        • How should the CSB gather information on incidents (such as combustible dust explosions and reactive chemical incidents) that may not involve specifically listed hazardous substances?
        • How might this reporting requirement best be tailored to avoid duplication with existing sources of information on chemical incidents, including federal, state, or local reporting requirements?
        • How might the CSB best target compliance education efforts?
        Electronic Submission of Comments
        You may submit comments by e-mail to: anpr@csb.gov. Please include CSB-09-01 in the subject line of the message. Comments may be submitted in the body of the e-mail message or as an attached PDF, MS Word, or plain text ASCII file. Files must be virus-free and unencrypted. Please ensure that the comments themselves, whether in the body of the e-mail or attached as a file, include docket number CSB-09-01 and your full name and address.
        Inspection of Comments
        All comments received by the CSB will be available to the public upon request. To obtain copies of the comments or arrange an appointment to inspect the comments at CSB headquarters (2175 K Street, NW., Suite 650, Washington, DC 20037) during normal business hours, please call the CSB at (202) 261-7600.

          Dated: June 18, 2009.
          John S. Bresland,
          Chairman, Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.

      [FR Doc. E9-14835 Filed 6-24-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6350-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 571
        [Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0108]
        Final Vehicle Safety Rulemaking and Research Priority Plan 2009-2011

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

          ACTION:
          Plan availability.

          SUMMARY:

          This document announces the availability of the Final Vehicle Safety Rulemaking and Research Priority Plan 2009-2011 (Priority Plan) in Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0108. The draft Priority Plan was announced in a Request for Comment published in the Federal Register on July 1, 2009. This document also summarizes the public comments received in response to that Request for Comments, and announces NHTSA's intent to incorporate those comments in the process of developing a longer-term motor vehicle safety strategic plan that would encompass the period 2010 to 2020, and will be announced in a separate Federal Register notice.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Dr. Joseph Carra, Director of Strategic Planning and Integration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room W48-318, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202-366-0361. E-mail: joseph.carra@dot.gov

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        On July 1, 2009, NHTSA published a Request for Comments (RFC) in the Federal Register (74 FR 31387) seeking public comment on the NHTSA Vehicle Safety Rulemaking and Research Priority Plan 2009-2011 (Priority Plan).

        NHTSA received 29 comments on the July 2009 RFC, from vehicle manufacturers (Ford; Fuji Heavy Industries USA (Subaru)), parts suppliers (Delphi; Bendix), industry organizations and associations (Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance); American Trucking Association (ATA); Heavy Duty Brake Manufacturers Association), automobile safety advocates (Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates); Safe Kids USA; SafetyBeltSafe USA; Automotive Occupant Restraints Council (AORC), and concerned organizations and individuals (The Center for Injury Research and Prevention at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP); Safe Ride News; John Walsh; William M. Gorman; Karen Ahmed). All of the comments on the NHTSA Vehicle Safety Rulemaking and Research Priority Plan 2009-2011 can be reviewed in http://www.regulations.gov (see Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0108).
        Most commenters expressed general support of the Priority Plan, with several commenters commending NHTSA for publishing the RFC and allowing public comment. Two commenters noted that periodic publication of the Priority Plan, along with status updates, is good public policy and that it would help them align their own research plans. Commenters generally agreed with the priority areas NHTSA identified in the plan. Several of them suggested some additional projects that the Agency should consider within the areas of child safety, crash avoidance and crash mitigation technologies, drowsy, distracted and impaired drivers, and heavy truck stability control.
        Several commenters suggested that it would be helpful if the plan more clearly explained how short-term priorities fit into NHTSA's overall mission to reduce fatalities and injuries in automobile crashes, and requested opportunities to meet to further discuss research plans and intermediate milestones. One commenter applauded the plan for being aggressive on behalf of highway safety. One commenter felt that the Priority Plan had serious deficiencies in that, in their view, it did not adequately address very specific areas including motorcoaches and related NTSB recommendations, crash compatibility regulatory action, older occupant protection, ejection mitigation regulatory action, glazing performance standards, consumer tire ratings beyond consumer information, remanufactured heavy vehicle truck tires, and motorcycle initiatives. That commenter suggested that these perceived deficiencies be corrected in the long-term plan. One commenter expressed concern that the Agency may not be adequately funded to achieve the goals delineated in the Priority Plan. Finally, several commenters discussed ways to improve crash datasets and to leverage existing SAE standards.

        NHTSA appreciates the public response to the July 2009 RFC regarding the short-term Priority Plan, and looks forward to continuing to engage stakeholders in the planning and formulation of priority research and rulemaking activities in order to further its mission of reducing fatalities and injuries in crashes on the nation's roadways. In considering the breadth and strategic nature of the comments received, the Agency has determined that communication of how the Priority Plan fits within the over-arching framework of its program goals is best accomplished by publication of an already-in-process integrated 10 Year Vehicle Safety Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan) that covers both the short-term and long-term priorities of the Agency. Such a Strategic Plan will allow the Agency to communicate its programs and priorities in a longer range strategic context and will serve the interests of the public in understanding and responding to the Agency's goals. Therefore, NHTSA will be considering the comments received in response to the July 2009 RFC in deliberations for developing a Strategic Plan that will cover the time period 2010 through 2020.
        For purposes of apprising the public on the status of progress relative to the efforts delineated in the short-term Priority Plan, NHTSA is publishing to the docket referenced above, in conjunction with this Notice, a final version of the Priority Plan which includes updates since it was published in July 2009. Specifically, this final version of the Priority Plan includes updates in the areas of background data analysis, motorcycle braking, New Car Assessment Program Vehicle-Child Restraint System (CRS) fit program, ejection mitigation, power windows, brake transmission shift interlock, child restraints in side impacts, rear visibility of vehicles, fuel economy, consumer tire rating program, motorcycle helmet labeling, compatibility, pedestrian safety, and heavy truck stopping distance. Added to the final plan is a project to finalize a driver distraction plan under the high-priority section “Light-Vehicle Crash Avoidance and Mitigation—Advanced Technologies.”

        Interested persons may obtain a copy of the plan, “Final Vehicle Safety Rulemaking and Research Priority Plan 2009-2011,” by downloading a copy of the document. To download a copy of the document, go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions, or visit Docket Management Facility at the street address listed above under ADDRESSES and reference Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0108.

          Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

          Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions, or visit Docket Management Facility at the street address listed above.

          Authority:
          49 U.S.C. 30111, 30117, 30168; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

          Issued on: November 4, 2009.
          Ronald L. Medford,
          Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.

      [FR Doc. E9-26932 Filed 11-6-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Parts 281 and 282
        [EPA-R06-UST-2018-0701; FRL-10014-71-Region 6]
        Arkansas: Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Program Revisions and Incorporation by Reference

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          Pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA or Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the State of Arkansas's Underground Storage Tank (UST) program submitted by the State. This action is based on EPA's determination that these revisions satisfy all requirements needed for program approval. This action also proposes to codify EPA's approval of Arkansas's state program and to incorporate by reference those provisions of the State regulations that we have determined meet the requirements for approval. The provisions will be subject to EPA's inspection and enforcement authorities under sections 9005 and 9006 of RCRA subtitle I and other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.

          DATES:
          Send written comments by February 8, 2021.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit any comments, identified by EPA-R06-UST-2018-0701, by one of the following methods:
          1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          2. Email: lincoln.audray@epa.gov.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-UST-2018-0701. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be available online at https://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 https://www.regulations.gov, or email. The Federal https://www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means the 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 the EPA without going through https://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, the 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 the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties, and cannot contact you for clarification, the 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.

          You can view and copy the documents that form the basis for this codification at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1201 Elm Street, Suite #500, Dallas, Texas 75270. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays and facility closures due to COVID-19. We recommend that you telephone Audray Lincoln, Environmental Protection Specialist at (214) 665-2239, before visiting the Region 6 office. Interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least two weeks in advance. The documents are also available in the docket for this rulemaking at https://www.regulations.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Ms. Audray Lincoln, Region 6, Project Officer, LUST Prevention/Corrective Action Section (LCRPU), Land Chemical and Redevelopment Division, EPA Region 6, 1201 Elm Street, Suite #500, Dallas, Texas 75270, phone number (214) 665-2239, email address lincoln.audray@epa.gov. Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff, the EPA Region 6 office will be closed to the public to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. We encourage the public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov, as there will be a delay in processing mail and no courier or hand deliveries will be accepted. Please call or email the contact listed above if you need alternative access to material indexed but not provided in the docket.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        In the final rules section of this Federal Register, the EPA is approving the State's UST program submittal as a direct rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If the EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn, and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. For additional information, see the direct final rule published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register.

          Authority:
          This proposed rule is issued under the authority of Sections 2002(a), 9004, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912, 6991c, 6991d, and 6991e.

          Dated: October 27, 2020.
          Kenley McQueen,
          Regional Administrator, Region 6.

      [FR Doc. 2020-24241 Filed 1-6-21; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 36
        [Docket No. FWS-R7-NWRS-2017-0058; FF07R00000 178 FXRS12610700000]
        Refuge-Specific Regulation; Public Use; Kenai National Wildlife Refuge

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Regulatory review.

          SUMMARY:
          The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) intends to initiate a rulemaking process that will consider changes to public use regulations that are applicable to Kenai National Wildlife Refuge and that were promulgated on May 5, 2016.

          DATES:
          October 2, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:

          The final rule that is the subject of this document may be found at www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-R7-NWRS-2017-0058.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Ryan Mollnow, Division of Natural Resources Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System—Alaska, 1011 E. Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503; telephone: (907) 786-3326; facsimile: (907) 786-3901; email: ryan_mollnow@fws.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On May 5, 2016, the FWS published a final rule to amend its regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in part 36 regarding public use of Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (81 FR 27030). The final rule became effective on June 6, 2016. The provisions of the final rule:
        (1) amended regulations regarding use of aircraft, motorboats, motorized vehicles, and snowmobiles;
        (2) codified historic restrictions on hunting and trapping within the Skilak Wildlife Recreation Area (WRA) consistent with the 2007 Skilak WRA final revised management plan;

        (3) expanded a prohibition on the discharge of firearms to include areas of intensive public use along the Russian and Kenai Rivers;

        (4) clarified the intent of existing regulations that require a special use permit for hunting black bears over bait by specifying that only the take of black bears is authorized under this requirement;
        (5) amended regulations associated with camping, use of public use cabins, and public use facilities;
        (6) established permanent regulations for managing wildlife attractants in the Russian River Special Management Area to reduce potential for human-bear conflicts; and
        (7) established regulations allowing for noncommercial gathering of edible wild foods and shed antlers.
        The FWS intends to initiate a rulemaking process that will consider changes to the May 5, 2016, final rule (81 FR 27030) that was codified at 50 CFR part 36. Throughout this process, the FWS will consider the purposes of Secretarial Order 3347 (“Conservation Stewardship and Outdoor Recreation”): Enhanced conservation stewardship, increased opportunities for outdoor recreation, including hunting and fishing, for all Americans, and improved management of game species and their habitat. The FWS will also identify ways to improve cooperation, consultation, and communication with State of Alaska wildlife managers regarding recreational hunting and fishing.

        At this time, the FWS is not accepting comments on the upcoming rulemaking process. When we publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register, the FWS will comply with all applicable laws governing the rulemaking process, including the requirement under 5 U.S.C. 553 to provide an opportunity for public comment on any proposed regulatory changes.

          Authority: 16 U.S.C. 460k et seq., 668dd-668ee, 3101 et seq.

          Todd Willens,
          Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 2017-21124 Filed 9-29-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4333-15-P