RENEWAL OF INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
OIL POLLUTION ACT FACILITY

RESPONSE PLAN REQUIREMENTS (40 CFR PART 112)

(EPA # 1630.10)

IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

Title of the Information Collection

Renewal of Information Collection Request (ICR) for the Implementation
of the Oil Pollution Act Facility Response Plan Requirements (40 CFR
Part 112). EPA ICR #1630.10.

Short Characterization

This information collection request (ICR) renewal pertains to EPA’s
Facility Response Plan (FRP) requirements as codified in 40 CFR 112.20
and 112.21. This regulation implements requirements mandated by the Oil
Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990.

The FRP rule incorporates requirements of Clean Water Act (CWA) section
311(j)(5), which was added by OPA section 4202.  The regulation requires
that owners and operators of facilities that could cause “substantial
harm” to the environment by discharging oil into or on the navigable
waters or adjoining shorelines prepare plans for responding, to the
maximum extent practicable, to a worst case discharge of oil, and to a
substantial threat of such a discharge.  Each FRP must be submitted to
EPA, and the Agency reviews the plans from facilities identified as
having the potential to cause “substantial harm” to the environment
from oil discharges.  In accordance with OPA statutory requirements, EPA
reviews and approves plans for certain FRP-regulated facilities that
have the potential to cause “significant and substantial harm.”

While EPA’s FRP rule addresses preparedness requirements for
non-transportation facilities, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) has authority
to establish requirements to prevent and contain discharges of oil from
vessels and marine transportation-related (MTR) facilities, and the
Department of Transportation (DOT) Office of Pipeline Safety, which is
part of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), regulates many onshore pipelines. Some facilities must meet the
requirements of two or more federal agencies, because they engage in
activities that fall under the jurisdiction of those agencies; these
facilities are called “complexes.”

Facilities regulated under the FRP rule represent a subset of facilities
covered by the Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC)
regulation at 40 CFR part 112.  EPA amended the SPCC rule on December 5,
2008 and November 13, 2009, but these amendments did not affect the FRP
rule.   (see 73 FR 74236 and 74 FR 58784).  Additionally, EPA finalized
a rule on October 14, 2010 that required SPCC facilities subject to the
FRP rule to amend existing plans, if necessary, to ensure compliance
with the SPCC rule by November 10, 2010.  For facilities subject to the
SPCC rule that became operational between August 16, 2002 through
November 10, 2010, these facilities were required  to prepare and
implement an SPCC plan by November 10, 2010. (see 75 FR 63093).  This
final rule did not affect the compliance dates in the FRP rule.

Since the last ICR, EPA has continued performed a review of information
regarding facilities that have submitted an FRP to their EPA Regional
Administrator (RA). The information was collected from each of EPA’s
ten regions and compiled into a national inventory of FRP-regulated
facilities. The inventory was updated in April 2010 and reflects the
number of planholders currently in operation at that time.  For the last
ICR renewal, the national inventory of FRP planholders compiled by EPA
in April 2007 indicated that owners and operators of 4,132 facilities
had developed and are maintaining FRPs.  Information available about
individual plan holders, however, shows that about 4.6 percent of active
FRP facilities were owned and operated by the federal government (e.g.,
military installations). These federal facilities are excluded from the
burden estimate analysis, given that they are not considered
“persons” under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Consequently, the
burden analysis uses 3,942 as the number of existing non-governmental
facilities that are maintaining an FRP as of 2007.  EPA projected that
between 2007 and 2010, approximately 286 new facilities will become
subject to FRP requirements over the three-year period, or approximately
95 new facilities each year.  This estimate is based on annual
industry-specific growth rates used to project the number of new SPCC
facilities.  These 95 new FRP facilities represent approximately 0.5
percent of new facilities subject to the SPCC regulation annually.  The
remaining 99.5 percent of the estimated number of new SPCC facilities
(18,444 facilities) will only complete a certification form because they
do not meet the “substantial harm” criteria.  Based on the latest
update to the FRP planholder universe dated April 2010, there are 4,341
active FRP facilities, which is within the projected growth range for
this period.  The universe of FRP facilities is not anticipated to
change substantively for the next ICR renewal period.  Thus, the burden
estimates for this ICR renewal have  not been adjusted.

The total burden on the entire FRP regulated community over a three-year
period is estimated to be 1,297,880 hours (adjusted for burden
attributable to compliance with other Federal regulations and burden
that overlaps with State-level response planning requirements).  The
total burden is estimated to result in approximately $88,449 in capital
costs and $52,283,484 in total costs (including labor costs associated
with facility and contractor personnel).  EPA does not anticipate that
FRP facilities will incur operating and maintenance (O&M) costs since
there are no anticipated costs associated with hard copy or electronic
document storage.

NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

Need/Authority for the Collection

In 1990, Congress enacted the Oil Pollution Act (OPA, Pubic Law 101-380)
to help prevent major oil spills and ensure efficient, effective
responses to spills when they occur. OPA contained significant
modifications to many provisions of section 311 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA).  OPA section 4202(a)(6) added CWA section 311(j)(5) to require
the owner or operator of a facility to prepare and submit “a plan for
responding, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst case
discharge, and to a substantial threat of such a discharge, of oil...”
 This requirement applied to any onshore facility that, “because of
its location, could reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm to
the environment by discharging into or on the navigable waters,
adjoining shorelines, or the exclusive economic zone.” Certain
offshore facilities are also affected by OPA.

EPA incorporated OPA facility response planning requirements into an
existing regulation, 40 CFR part 112 as §§112.20 and 112.21 and
Appendices C through F on July 1, 1994 (see  59 FR 34070) . Subparts A
through C of the regulation establishes procedures for the preparation
and implementation of SPCC Plans to help “minimize the potential for
oil discharges.”  Owners and operators of a subset of facilities that
meet the FRP applicability criteria must also prepare FRPs.  EPA amended
the FRP rule on June 30, 2000, to modify the requirements for an owner
or operator of a facility handling, storing, or transporting animal fat
or vegetable oil (see 65 FR 40775).

The response plan requirements enhance EPA’s ability to protect
navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, fish and wildlife, and sensitive
environments when oil discharges occur and reduce the cost of oil
discharges to the regulated community and society.  Response planning
efforts reduce such costs by ensuring that discharges are controlled and
cleaned up swiftly and efficiently.  Facilities that are prepared to
respond to incidents are more likely to contain the spread of a spill
before it reaches navigable waters and to mitigate the effects of a
spill on the environment.  A recent GAO report notes that the
effectiveness of spill response can impact the cost of spill cleanup:
“The longer it takes to assemble and conduct the spill response, the
more likely it is that the oil will move with changing tides and
currents and affect a greater area, which can increase costs.  Some
officials also stated that the level of experience of those involved in
the incident command is critical to the effectiveness of spill response,
and they can greatly affect spill costs.  For example, poor decision
making during a spill response could lead to the deployment of
unnecessary response equipment, or worse, not enough equipment to
respond to a spill."

Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The FRP facility owners and operators are the primary users of the data
collected under this ICR. Facility-specific response plans help facility
owners and operators develop a response organization and  identify the
necessary resources to adequately respond to an oil spill in a timely
manner. Successful plans are scenario-based and developed through the
preparation of risk analyses of the areas in question (a model format
for the plan is presented in Appendix F to 40 CFR part 112).
Specifically, FRPs must include: identification of small, medium and
worst case discharge scenarios; development of strategies to respond to
each scenario; and identification and provision of resources necessary
to respond to each scenario per Appendix E of 40 CFR part 112. When FRP
are implemented, they can aid in reducing the impact of oil spills.

EPA reviews all response plans submitted under 40 CFR part 112.
Additionally, EPA reviews and approves response plans for those
facilities whose discharges may cause “significant and substantial
harm” to the environment, in order to ensure that facilities believed
to pose the highest risk have adequate resources and procedures in place
to respond to a spill. EPA promulgated FRP facility requirements so that
facility owners and operators plan for adequate resources to respond to
oil spills. EPA also uses the facility-specific information provided in
the response plans to update Area Contingency Plans (ACPs) as required
by OPA.  Certain plan information, such as provisions for adequate
response capability to respond to a worst case discharge, helps EPA and
other government agencies to better understand the distribution and
capacity of the spill response industry and more appropriately allocate
government resources to complement existing private-sector capacity.

Regional, State, and local response authorities also benefit from
information contained in FRPs. OPA requires that response plans be
consistent with the requirements of the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) and ACPs. Area Committees,
which are established by OPA section 4202, make use of the FRPs in
preparing and updating ACPs. Local Emergency Planning Committees under
the direction of the State Emergency Planning Committee also use
facility-specific information to help develop local contingency plans
required under SARA Title III Community Right-to-Know provisions.  This
information allows local and regional response authorities to better
understand the potential hazards and response capabilities in their
area, thus reducing risk to communities.

NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

Nonduplication

A substantial number of facilities that handle, store, or transport
hazardous substances are subject to emergency planning requirements
under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Occupational
Safety and Health Act (OSHA), other Federal statutes, and state
requirements.  OPA response plans are intended to supplement, not
duplicate, these other plans by specifically focusing on oil.  EPA
coordinated with the USCG, DOT, and DOI’s Minerals Management Service
(MMS) throughout the 1994 and 2000 rulemakings in order to promote
consistency with response plan requirements mandated by other Federal
agencies.  Presently, EPA develops interagency contingency plans and
then organizes interagency Area Planning Drills alongside Preparedness
for Response Exercise Program (PREP) drills and exercises with other
Federal, State and local agencies.

EPA is committed to minimizing regulatory overlap and allows facility
owners and operators to build upon, or draw from, the format and content
of other response plans to develop their FRPs under 40 CFR part 112. For
example, facility owners and operators of onshore sites or installations
that have both transportation-related and non-transportation-related
components (i.e., complexes) are permitted to prepare one response plan
with separate sections that address each component.  Integrated
Contingency Plans (ICPs) prepared in accordance with the notice
published on June 5, 1996 provide an acceptable format for such
consolidation (see 61 FR 28642).  Owners or operators of facilities that
are subject to more than one OPA jurisdiction, for example
transportation-related and non-transportation related onshore facilities
that are part of the same complex, may satisfy all requirements by
submitting a copy of the ICP to each program in the agency that has
review authority for specific regulations.  In addition to related
federal planning requirements, numerous States and the District of
Columbia have their own regulations that require varying degrees of
response planning.  Because EPA is flexible on the format of the
required response plans, owners or operators of certain facilities may
be able to modify versions of their existing response plans to comply
with the FRP rule.  However, if another response plan is used, it must
meet the requirements of the FRP rule, be equally stringent, be
cross-referenced to the response plan format included in Appendix F to
40 CFR part 112, and include a self-contained Emergency Response Action
Plan (ERAP) section.

Public Notice Required to Prior Submission to OMB

Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), EPA is
notifying  the public through today’s Federal Register of this renewal
ICR and is soliciting public comment concerning the burden estimates for
respondents.  EPA is specifically requesting comments on the Agency’s
need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden
estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden,
including through the use of automated collection techniques.  .

Consultations

For the prior ICR renewal request, EPA consulted nine FRP facilities to
verify that the burden assumption is reasonable. EPA contacted
facilities of various sizes, geographical location, and industry
sectors, including facilities involved in extraction and production of
crude oil and facilities that handle non-petroleum oils. Facility
respondents provided information regarding the facility’s ICR burden,
frequency and basis of plan amendments, format of FRP submittals to EPA,
and overall comments and suggestions on the FRP program. The responses
generally confirmed the reasonableness of the FRP ICR burden and unit
costs estimates.

The names, companies, and telephone numbers of the representatives of
those facilities are given below.

Ercole Pagano, Rensselaer Terminal,<PHONE_NUMBER>;

Mike Schatz, Astoria Gas Turbine Operations Inc.,<PHONE_NUMBER>;

Quinton Hancock, Eden Brewery,<PHONE_NUMBER>;

Doug Maska, Western Wisconsin Energy,<PHONE_NUMBER>;

Darryl Pierce, Clam Lake Production Facility,<PHONE_NUMBER>;

Denise Jett, Borger Refinery,<PHONE_NUMBER>;

Rodney Fenske, South Dakota Soybean Processors,<PHONE_NUMBER>;

Paul D. Fritz, Sinclair Oil Corp. - Sinclair, Wyoming Refinery, (307)
328-3543;

Mr. John Kwietniak, Tesoro Alaska,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Effects of Less Frequent Collection

Initial FRP preparation and submission is a one-time event.  After FRPs
are prepared, OPA section 4202 requires that they be reviewed
periodically and be consistent with the applicable ACP and NCP.
Additionally, the owner or operator of a facility determined to have the
potential to cause significant and substantial harm to the environment
must resubmit revised portions of the plan to EPA after each material
change.  Material changes include changes in the amount or location of
oil storage, changes in spill prevention equipment and capabilities, and
other changes that affect the response to a discharge causing
“substantial harm” to the environment.  Less frequent collection of
this information would not meet regulatory requirements and could
jeopardize a facility owner’s or operator’s ability to respond
appropriately to a significant oil spill.

As required by 40 CFR 112.20(g)(2), owners or operators of substantial
harm facilities must review relevant portions of the NCP and the
applicable ACP annually and update their FRP as appropriate. Also, FRPs
should be revised based on evaluations of drills and exercises, as
applicable.

General Guidelines

The information collection activities discussed in this ICR comply with
all Paperwork Reduction Act regulatory guidelines (5 CFR 1320.6), with
the exception that the retention period for records extends beyond three
years.  According to 40 CFR 112.20 (c)(4), the EPA Regional
Administrator (RA) will review plans periodically on a schedule
established by the RA provided that the period between plan reviews does
not exceed five years.

In addition, some facilities must meet the response planning
requirements of two or more federal agencies, because they engage in
activities that fall under the jurisdiction of those agencies. If a
facility owner or operator should file an ICP to fulfill both the FRP
requirements and the requirements of another agency, that plan would be
subject to the inspection requirements of both agencies. For example, a
plan that fulfills both the EPA’s FRP requirements and the USCG’s
response planning requirements would be subject to Coast Guard review
every 5 years.  In an effort to maintain consistency with the USCG
requirements, EPA plans periodic reviews on a schedule similar to the
USCG’s five-year review. Therefore, the records related to this
information collection must be retained for at least five years.

The retention of records for at least five years is also necessary to
maintain consistency with the Federal statute of limitations on
assessment of civil penalties for violations of the Oil Pollution
Prevention regulation.

Confidentiality

None of the information collected under the FRP rule is believed to be
confidential. One of the criteria necessary for information to be
classified as confidential (40 CFR 2.208) is that a business must show
that it has previously taken reasonable measures to protect the
confidentiality of the information and that it intends to continue to
take such measures. EPA has no evidence of such actions on the part of
affected facilities; thus, EPA has provided no assurances of
confidentiality to facility owners or operators when they file their
FRPs.

Sensitive Questions

The information collection activities discussed in this document do not
involve any sensitive questions.

THE RESPONDENTS AND THE CHANGE IN INFORMATION REQUESTED

Respondents/NAICS Codes

The industries that are likely to be affected by the requirements in the
FRP regulation fall into many North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) categories, including those associated with petroleum
production, processing (refining), distribution and marketing, and
consumption.

The FRP rule requires that all SPCC-regulated facility representatives
conduct an initial screen using the flowchart in Appendix C of 40 CFR
part 112 as a guide to determine whether their facility is subject to
the response plan requirements at §§ 112.20 and 112.21.  EPA has found
that only small percentages (approximately 0.5 percent) of the 18,540
new facilities that EPA estimates become regulated under SPCC each year
meet the screening criteria and as a result must develop an FRP.  The
six industrial categories containing the greatest number of respondents
required to develop an FRP are presented in Exhibit 1.  The estimate of
the total number of facility representatives required to prepare
response plans is presented in section 6(a).

EXHIBIT 1

Primary Industry Sectors and NAICS Codes

Covered by the FRP Regulation

CATEGORY	NAICS Codes

Petroleum and Petroleum Products Wholesalers	4227

Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution	2211

Petroleum and coal products manufacturing	3241

Other Commercial Facilities	miscellaneous

Heating Oil Dealers	454311

Manufacturing	31-33

Information Requested

Data Items, Including Recordkeeping Requirements

Only those facilities that could cause “substantial harm” to the
environment must prepare and submit response plans. Representatives of
newly regulated facilities that are subject to the Oil Pollution
Prevention regulation are asked to refer to the flowchart shown in
Appendix C of 40 CFR part 112 to determine whether they meet the
“substantial harm” criteria.  In addition, the RA has the authority
to require the owner or operator of any facility subject to the Oil
Pollution Prevention regulation to prepare a response plan.  Under the
FRP rule, facilities are screened as “substantial harm” if one or
both of the following criteria are met:

The facility’s total oil storage capacity is greater than or equal to
1 million gallons, and any of the following is true:

The facility lacks adequate secondary containment for any aboveground
storage tank area.

The facility is located at a distance (as calculated using the
appropriate formula in Appendix C of 40 CFR part 112 or a comparable
formula) such that a discharge from the facility could cause injury to
fish and wildlife and sensitive environments, as described in Appendices
I, II, and III of the Department of Commerce’s “Guidance for
Facility and Vessel Response Plans: Fish and Wildlife and Sensitive
Environments” (59 FR 14713, March 29, 1994) and the applicable Area
Contingency Plan.

The facility is located at a distance (as calculated using the
appropriate formula in Appendix C of 40 CFR part 112 or a comparable
formula) such that a discharge from the facility would shut down a
public drinking water intake.

The facility has experienced a reportable oil spill in an amount greater
than or equal to 10,000 gallons within the last five years.

The facility has a total oil storage capacity greater than or equal to
42,000 gallons and transfers oil over water to or from vessels.

Under the FRP rule, the Agency requires the preparation of
facility-specific response plans by “substantial harm” facilities.
As required by section 311(j)(5)(c) of the CWA, which was added by
section 4202(a) of the OPA, the response plan shall:

Be consistent with the requirements of the NCP and ACPs.

Identify the qualified individual having full authority to implement
removal actions, and require immediate communications with Federal
officials and other response personnel.

Identify, and ensure by contract or other means, private personnel and
equipment necessary to remove, to the maximum extent practicable, a
worst case discharge and to mitigate or prevent a substantial threat of
such a discharge.

Describe the training, equipment testing, periodic unannounced drills,
and response actions of persons at the facility under the plan.

Be updated periodically.

In order to fulfill the above requirements, the regulation requires that
the response plan include the following elements:

An emergency response action plan that consists of the information most
pertinent to conducting an actual response, such as contact and
equipment lists [§112.20(h)(1)].

Information about the facility’s location, owner, operator, and
qualified individual having full authority to implement removal actions
[§112.20(h)(2)].

Information about emergency response, including: notification
procedures, equipment, personnel, evacuation plans, and duties of the
qualified individual [§112.20(h)(3)].

Evidence of availability of private personnel and equipment necessary to
remove, to the maximum extent practicable, a worst case discharge and to
mitigate or prevent a substantial threat of such a discharge
[§112.20(h)(3)(i) and (ii)].

An evaluation of potential oil spill hazards at the facility
[§112.20(h)(4)].

A discussion of specific oil spill scenarios and the steps facility
personnel would follow to mitigate and respond to the spill described in
each scenario [§112.20(h)(5)].

Descriptions of the discharge detection systems, human or automated, in
use at the facility [§112.20(h)(6)].

Information on plan implementation, including: response actions to be
carried out by facility or contracted personnel, disposal plans for
contaminated cleanup materials, and measures to provide adequate
containment and drainage of spilled oil [§112.20(h)(7)].

Information on facility self-inspection, drills/exercises, and response
training, including descriptions of training and drill/exercise programs
and documentation of tank inspections, equipment inspections, training
meetings, training sessions, and drills/exercises [§112.20(h)(8)].

Diagrams, including the site plan and the drainage plan
[§112.20(h)(9)].

A description of facility security systems [§112.20(h)(10)].

EPA has included a model response plan in Appendix F to 40 CFR part 112.
 The model response plan was developed with the input of EPA’s
On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs) and others actively engaged in oil spill
response and covers those elements judged critical to an effective
response. The response plan was based on Hazardous Materials Emergency
Planning Guides NRT-1 and NRT-1A and the Handbook of Chemical Hazardous
and Analysis Procedures.  The model plan provides a depiction of the
level of detail and organization for an effective response plan and
provides sufficient flexibility to include certain items that are
required by the CWA as amended by the OPA, the Oil Pollution Prevention
regulation, and other Federal regulations.  As noted, certain facilities
may be regulated by more than one Federal agency (i.e., USCG and EPA).
As discussed in section 3(a), owners or operators may avoid duplicating
the work required under other regulations by preparing one response plan
that covers the entire facility and referencing which sections meet the
regulatory requirements of various agencies.

Respondent Activities

Owners or operators of all facilities affected by the Oil Pollution
Prevention regulation must determine whether their facility meets the
“substantial harm” criteria. EPA provides a flowchart included in
Appendix C to 40 CFR part 112 (Attachment C-I) to assist in this
determination.

According to 40 CFR part 112, Appendix  C, Section 3.0, owners or
operators of facilities that do not meet the “substantial harm”
criteria must complete and maintain at the facility, the certification
form, Attachment C-II provided in Appendix C to 40 CFR part 112.

Owners or operators of facilities that do meet the “substantial
harm” criteria must prepare and submit a response plan, which involves
the following steps:

Understanding the rule by reading and interpreting the rule, as well as
reviewing available guidance on preparing response plans;

Collecting the required information, performing a hazard analysis,
developing spill scenarios, and ensuring the capability to respond to a
worst case discharge;

Organizing the information into a format consistent with the model plan
included in Appendix F of 40 CFR part 112;

Mailing the response plan to EPA;

Implementing the response plan;

Reviewing and updating the response plan periodically; and

Maintaining records.

In preparing a response plan, facility personnel must gather background
information such as the location, quantities, and types of material
stored and a geographic description of the site (maps, schematic
diagrams, and latitude and longitude).  Much of this information should
exist in the facility’s SPCC Plan.  Such information will be used in
the development of hazard assessments and response strategies.  The
response plan also must include a discussion of detection and
notification procedures at the facility as well as a list of response
equipment.  A facility response coordinator will be chosen to meet the
OPA requirement that the FRP designate a qualified individual who will
have full authority to implement response actions.  Roles and
responsibilities of other members of the response team (both facility
responders and outside parties) must also be clearly established.  A
facility owner or operator may wish to enter into an arrangement with an
outside response contractor.  If so, that contractor’s role during a
spill response must be clearly defined.

The facility owner or operator must perform a hazard evaluation, which
involves identifying potential hazards based on facility-specific
information, determining the vulnerability of the surrounding area given
the hazards, and assessing the risk of an oil discharge. The results of
the hazard evaluation will then be used to develop spill scenarios.  For
the worst case scenario, the facility owner or operator will calculate
the volume of a worst case discharge and will identify means to
implement an effective response to such a discharge.  All aspects of an
effective response must be included in the response plan, including
containment, countermeasure, and mitigation procedures for different
types of incidents, and the provision for proper cleanup and disposal of
contaminated material.  The response plan is typically a written
document sent to EPA and also kept at the facility.  Once a plan is
developed, it must be exercised on a regular basis through a facility
program of self-inspections, drills or exercises, and personnel training
that follows PREP or an equivalent approved by EPA [see §112.21(c)].

THE INFORMATION COLLECTED - AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY,
AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

Agency Activities

The Agency activities related to FRPs are as follows:

Log submitted response plans into a tracking database, sends postcards,
emails or letters acknowledging receipt, and stores these plans on file
at Regional offices.

Review substantial harm facility FRPs.

Identify for review and approval the facility response plans of
facilities that could cause “significant and substantial harm” and
notify facilities of this determination.

Review, approve, and maintain FRPs for significant and substantial harm
facilities based on guidance developed by EPA.

Notify facilities of approval.

Provide a list of deficiencies to those facility owners and operators
whose plans are not approved.

Inspect facilities to verify compliance.

Collection Methodology and Management

As noted, the primary beneficiaries of the facility response planning
requirements are the facilities themselves. EPA estimates that
representatives from 99.5 percent of SPCC-regulated facilities have
determined that their facility could not “reasonably be expected to
cause substantial harm” based on the criteria outlined in the
flowchart in Attachment C-I of 40 CFR part 112.  Consequently, the
representatives of these facilities do not have to prepare response
plans. On average, the owners or operators of an estimated 18,540 newly
SPCC-regulated facilities will be required to perform the initial
screening process using the flow chart in Appendix C of 40 CFR part 112
each year. Of these newly regulated facilities, approximately 95 (0.5
percent) facilities are expected to meet the substantial harm criteria
and be required to prepare an FRP.

Response plans, submitted by the owners or operators who determined that
their facilities meet the “substantial harm” criteria, are sent to
the appropriate EPA Regional office for Agency review.  A copy of the
FRP is kept at the facility to be used in the event of an oil spill
response or drill.

FRPs for facilities that meet the “significant and substantial harm”
criteria must be reviewed and approved by the EPA Regional office.  The
response plan review and approval process is directed by EPA’s RA’s
based on national criteria and local conditions and considerations.  EPA
regional offices notify each owner or operator directly of the status of
the facility’s response plan (i.e., approved or deficient).  For
deficient response plans, a list of these deficiencies is typically sent
to the facility to be addressed prior to EPA’s approval of the plan.
The review and approval process is tracked by the EPA Regional office.

Small Entity Flexibility

Based on the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis presented in the Regulatory
Impact Analysis to the 1994 FRP rule, small facilities generally do not
meet the “substantial harm” criteria and, therefore, generally are
not required to prepare response plans, except at the discretion of the
RA [see §112.20(b)(1)].

Collection Schedule

The FRP regulation currently does not require a specific collection
schedule. Development and submission of FRPs by owners or operators of
facilities that have the potential to cause substantial harm is a
one-time event. However, facility owners or operators are required to
review and update their FRPs periodically to reflect changes at the
facility.  Certain plan revisions for facility changes that materially
affect the response to a worst case discharge must be submitted to EPA
for review and incorporation into the FRPs on file with the Agency.  The
Agency reviews all plans and plan revisions when they are submitted and
periodically thereafter.

ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

Respondent Burden

This section presents estimates of the burden respondents incur when
they undertake the information collection activities contained in the
FRP rule. The burden to regulated facilities is estimated in terms of
the time (in hours) spent by facility personnel to review the FRP
regulation and complete a certification form or prepare an FRP and
maintain the plan on an annual basis. Data from EPA regional offices
were used to determine the number of facilities that are currently
subject to the FRP requirements as well as estimates for facilities that
are expected to meet the substantial harm screening criteria over the
three-year ICR period.

As section 3(c) explains, the current ICR (approved March 31 2008)
estimates the time it takes the owners or operators of facilities to
complete the compliance activities based on consultations with facility
engineers familiar with Oil Pollution Prevention program compliance, EPA
Regional staff involved in the implementation of the program, and owners
and operators of FRP-regulated facilities.  Interviews conducted to
support the ICR approved in 2004, and again for  2008 ICR renewal
request, revealed that burden estimates were comparable (within the same
order of magnitude).  Further, the consultations conducted in 2004 and
2007 did not reveal any information regarding significant sources of
burden not captured in prior ICR renewal requests (such as unaccounted
for recordkeeping costs or other time-consuming tasks associated with
FRP regulatory compliance).  EPA recognizes that the information from
interviews with a limited number of individuals is not statistically
representative of the burden experienced by all FRP facilities.
Nevertheless, the results of the most recent consultations conducted in
2007 suggest that EPA’s burden estimates appear to adequately capture
industry practices.  Therefore, this renewal ICR does not change the
hour or capital cost burden estimates used in the prior ICR renewal
request.

Classification of Respondent Facilities Subject to the Information
Collection

FRP-regulated facilities are a subset of the SPCC facility universe.  As
described in the FRP rule, owners or operators of facilities are
required to prepare and maintain FRPs if they can reasonably be expected
to cause substantial harm to the environment by discharging oil into or
on navigable waters or adjoining shorelines.  Example characteristics of
a facility that could cause it to be considered a “substantial harm”
facility are that: it transfers oil over water to or from vessels and
has a total oil storage capacity greater than or equal to 42,000
gallons; its total oil storage capacity is greater than or equal to one
million gallons and it does not have secondary containment for each
aboveground storage area sufficiently large to contain the capacity of
the largest aboveground oil storage tank, or it is located such that a
discharge could cause injury to fish, wildlife or sensitive
environments, or would shut down a public drinking water intake, or has
had a reportable oil discharge in an amount greater than or equal to
10,000 gallons within the last five years.  There is a wide variety of
facility types and sizes among those that fit these characteristics.
Because the costs of compliance activities associated with FRPs depend
largely on the physical and operating characteristics of the facility,
the 2007 FRP renewal ICR supporting statement included burden and cost
estimates based on a representative facility approach that classifies
facilities by size (storage capacity in gallons) and facility type. This
ICR renewal supporting statement follows the same approach.  Three FRP
facility size categories were defined as follows:

Facilities having total storage capacity greater than 1,320 gallons, but
less than or equal to 42,000 gallons)

Facilities having total storage capacity greater than 42,000 gallons but
less than or equal to one million gallons

Facilities having total storage capacity greater than one million
gallons

Because FRP regulations apply only to facilities with an oil storage
capacity of over one million gallons, or over 42,000 gallons if the
facility transfers oil over water to or from vessels, the FRP burden
analysis only considers facilities in the second and third facility
categories.

The FRP facility type categories were based on how oil is used at the
facility. Facilities were classified as using oil in one of three ways:

Storage/consumption facilities: consumption of oil as a raw material or
end-use product

Storage/distribution facilities: marketing and distribution of oil as a
wholesale or retail

Production facilities: extracting oil from the ground as part of
exploration or production activities

Based on these size and type characteristics, a total of six FRP model
facilities were defined.

For purposes of this analysis, the universe of regulated facilities is
also divided into existing and new facilities, to reflect the
differences in compliance activities among these two groups.  Existing
FRP-regulated facilities include facilities that initiated operations
prior to the approval of this ICR revision. This analysis focuses on
existing facilities for which owners or operators have prepared FRPs and
are assumed to have incurred all burden and costs associated with the
initially preparing their FRPs, but are expected to incur annual
maintenance burden and costs including occasional major revisions.  New
FRP facilities include those facilities that will initiate operations
during the ICR approval period or prepare an FRP for the first time. New
facility owners or operators are required to review the FRP rule, make a
determination, and complete certification or prepare an FRP. New
facility owners or operators required to prepare FRPs will incur
first-year burden for plan preparation as well as subsequent-year burden
for maintaining FRPs.

Periodic information collected from each of EPA’s ten regional offices
provides an inventory of facilities that have submitted and are
currently maintaining an FRP. As of April 2010, there were approximately
4,341 such FRP facilities nationally.  Information available about
individual planholders shows that 81 FRP facilities were owned and
operated by the federal government (e.g., military installations). These
federal facilities are excluded from the burden estimate analysis, given
that they are not considered “persons” under the Paperwork Reduction
Act.  Since the FRP universe has not changed substantively since the
last ICR renewal, the burden analysis for this ICR renewal uses 3,942 as
the number of existing non-governmental facilities that are maintaining
an FRP as of 2007 (4,130 as a three-year average). This number
represents approximately 0.7 percent of the estimate of facilities
regulated under the SPCC rule (596,097 facilities). Using annual
industry-specific growth rates, EPA is estimating that the annual number
of new FRP facilities is approximately 95, or 0.5 percent of the number
of new SPCC facilities. The remaining 18,444 new SPCC facilities (99.5
percent) are not subject to FRP requirements and will complete the
Attachment C-II certification form indicating that they are not
substantial harm facilities.

EPA estimates the total number of respondents (as a three-year average)
at 22,574, of which 4,130 facilities are FRP-regulated and 18,444
facilities are not subject to FRP requirements. The Agency identified
state and local government owned entities based on the facility
description available for individual FRP holders. As a result, EPA
estimates 22,509 private and 65 state/local respondents.

Exhibit 2 provides estimates of the number of existing and new
facilities subject to FRP requirements over the three-year period
covered by the ICR.  Exhibit 3 presents the distribution of regulated
facilities by category.  The number of facilities in each
cross-tabulated category reflects the 2007 estimated total number of
existing facilities, apportioned to each category based on assumptions
used in prior ICRs regarding the proportions of facilities within each
industry sector and size category within the overall universe of
facilities as well as facility-level data in the April 2010 FRP
database.  It should be noted that the estimate of FRP facilities in
this supporting statement reflect a net decrease since the 2004 estimate
because the 2007 and 2010 numbers are based on the actual number of FRPs
submitted to EPA, rather than a fixed fraction of the SPCC universe, as
was assumed in 2004.

EXHIBIT 2

Estimate of Existing and New Facilities Subject to the SPCC and FRP
Rules1

Facility Type/ Year	FRP Facilities

Year 1 (2007)

Existing Facilities	3,942

New Facilities2	91

Year 2 (2008)

Existing Facilities	4,034

New Facilities2	95

Year 3 (2009)

Existing Facilities	4,128

New Facilities2	100

1 Numbers exclude facilities owned and operated by the Federal
government.

2 The number of new facilities subject to the FRP regulations includes
facilities that have initiated operations over the period covered by the
renewal supporting statement.

Source: EPA inventory of FRP facilities compiled from regional data.

EXHIBIT 3

Number of Facilities in 2010 Subject to the FRP Requirements

MODEL FACILITY CATEGORY	FACILITY SIZE	TOTAL2

	SMALL1	MEDIUM	LARGE

	Storage/Consumption	0	               128 	            1,427
1,555

Storage/Distribution	0	               427 	            1,893
2,320

Production	0	119 	                40 	159

TOTAL3	0	              674 	           3,360 	       4,034

1 EPA assumes that no small facilities currently regulated under 40 CFR
part 112 are affected by response planning requirements.

2 The total includes facilities existing at the start of 2010 and
facilities that become FRP-regulated over the course of the year (3,942
+ 91 = 4,033 in Exhibit 2)

3 The total number of facilities in this table may differ slightly in
other tables due to rounding.

Source: EPA inventory of FRP facilities compiled from regional data.

Estimated Annual Burden per Respondent

The owners or operators of all SPCC-regulated facilities must determine
whether they are subject to FRP requirements based on the substantial
harm flowchart (Attachment C-I in Appendix C to 40 CFR part 112).  EPA
assumes that the owners or operators of all existing SPCC-regulated
facilities have completed the screening and that only new facilities
will need to review the substantial harm flowchart. Owners or operators
at facilities that meet the “substantial harm” criteria will need to
prepare FRPs. In addition, facility owners or operators that already
have prepared an FRP will be required to maintain their plan.

The total burden of the information collection on the regulated
community is determined by combining average per-facility (“unit”)
burden estimated for each facility category with the total number of
affected facilities in that category.  Unit burdens are based on
estimates of the labor required to adequately perform the necessary
activities.  Unit burden estimates include facility personnel in the
following labor categories:  management, technical, clerical, foreman,
and laborer.

As discussed previously, EPA assumes that the owners or operators of
99.5 percent of all new SPCC-regulated facilities will only review the
“substantial harm” flowchart to determine and certify that they are
not subject to the requirements of the FRP rule.  Unit burden estimates
for these new facilities are presented in Exhibit 4 for small, medium,
and large facilities.  Owners or operators of SPCC-regulated facilities
that are not required to prepare a response plan will have a minimal
rule familiarization burden since the information considered in the
flowchart is readily available in the facility’s SPCC Plan.  Owners or
operators of facilities that fall below the total oil storage capacity
thresholds (i.e., below 42,000 gallons, and therefore also below 1
million gallons) will need only to review the flowchart and prepare a
certification form, requiring, on average, an estimated 15 minutes of
management time. The certification form will be retained at the facility
with the SPCC Plan. Owners or operators of larger facilities that have
either 42,000 gallons or more or 1 million gallons or more in oil
storage capacity will have to examine the criteria in greater detail to
make the determination of whether they need to prepare an FRP, requiring
an estimated 1.5 and 6.5 hours, respectively.

For other facilities, unit burden and cost estimates for preparing FRPs
are based on a model-facility approach. The response plan requirements
include both a first-year burden to prepare the plan and a smaller,
subsequent year burden to maintain the plan.  Response plans must ensure
that facility owners or operators have the equipment, personnel,
information, and procedures needed to respond to a worst-case discharge
as well as spills of smaller quantities.  Compliance activities to
prepare the FRP consist mostly of personnel time to collect and organize
information about the facility and its operations; develop scenarios and
response strategies; and implement the measures described in the plan.
In subsequent years for plan maintenance, owners or operators of
facilities may update the response plan, including keeping logs of
response training and exercises.  EPA assumes that the owners or
operators of most facilities currently subject to FRP rule requirements
have already developed FRPs (i.e., they have already incurred the
initial burden of plan preparation) and are now maintaining those plans.

EPA estimates that owners and operators of 3,942 existing facilities
will be required to maintain FRPs in 2010 (see Exhibit 2).  EPA
estimates that owners or operators of an additional 286 facilities will
be required to develop and maintain plans over a three-year period.
Unit burden and cost estimates for plan development and maintenance
(unadjusted for overlap with other Federal and State requirements) are
shown in Exhibits 5 and 6 for new and existing facilities, respectively.

The first-year burdens to a new “substantial harm” facility for rule
familiarization and preparation of an FRP are shown in Exhibit 5 for
facilities in each of the six model facility categories. EPA estimates
that a consumption, distribution, or production facility with between
42,000 gallons and 1 million gallons in oil storage capacity (and which
transfers oil over water to and from vessels) will need 165, 181, or 145
hours of labor (including facility and contractor labor), respectively,
to prepare an FRP.  EPA assumes that response planning for a consumption
or distribution facility with 1 million gallons or more in total oil
storage capacity (and that meets other substantial harm criteria) will
require 341, 384, or 304 hours, respectively.  EPA does not have an
estimate of the preparation burden associated with large production
facilities. Instead, this analysis assumes that half the number of large
production facility owners or operators required to prepare an FRP for
the first time are included in the estimate of new consumption
facilities, and will therefore incur the consumption facility
preparation burden. The other half will incur the distribution facility
preparation burden.

The subsequent-year burdens to an existing “substantial harm”
facility for plan maintenance are shown in Exhibit 6 for facilities in
each of the five model facility categories (medium and large consumption
and distribution facilities; medium production facilities). EPA
estimates that consumption, distribution, or production facility with
between 42,000 gallons and 1 million gallons in oil storage capacity
will need 54, 55, or 54 hours of labor, respectively, to maintain an
FRP. EPA assumes that response planning for a consumption or
distribution facility with 1 million gallons or more in oil storage
capacity will require 154, 171, or 154 hours, respectively. These
labor-hour estimates include facility and contractor labor hours.

	EXHIBIT 4

Burdens and Costs of Rule Familiarization and Certification for SPCC
Facilities Not Required to Prepare FRPs

Size Category of Facility	Hours Required to Read Rule, Make
Determination, and Complete Certification	Unit Cost

	Number of Facilities	Total Burden (hours)	Total Cost

	Management	Technical	Clerical	Total

Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	3-Year Total

Small	0.25	0	0	0.25	$15 	13,485 	16,015 	19,593 	49,093 	12,273
$747,849

Medium	1	0	0.5	1.5	$74 	1,686 	2,003 	2,452 	6,141 	9,212 	$455,171

Large	2	4	0.5	6.5	$344 	16 	31 	52	99 	644 	$33,948

TOTAL

15,187 	18,049 	22,097 	55,333 	22,129 	$1,236,968

EXHIBIT 5

Estimated Total Burden and Total Cost for New Facilities Required to
Prepare FRPs

Size	Model Facility Category	Unit Burden (hours)	Facility Labor Cost	O&M
Costs	Capital Cost	Total Unit Cost	Number of Facilities	Total Burden
(hours)	Total O&M Costs	Total Capital Cost	Total Cost

	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3

Medium	Consumption	165	$7,901 	$0 	$245 	$8,146 	3 	3 	3 	1,4161 	$0.00
$2,100 	$69,822

	Distribution	181	$8,750 	$0 	$250 	$9,000 	9 	10 	10 	5,180 	$0.00
$7,165 	$257,953

	Production	145	$6,897 	$0 	$240 	$7,137 	4 	6 	9 	2,817 	$0.00 	$4,654
$138,419

Large	Consumption	341	$15,497 	$0 	$452 	$15,949 	31 	32 	33 	32,677
$0.00 	$43,314 	$1,528,373

	Distribution2	384	$17,782 	$0 	$463 	$18,245 	41 	42 	43 	48,816 	$0.00
	$58,859 	$2,319,427

	Production2	304	$13,643	$0 	$443 	$14,086 	3 	2 	3 	1,964 	$0.00
$2,862 	$91,054

TOTAL

91 	95 	101 	 92,871 	$0.00   	$118,954 	$4,405,048

1 Values presented in this table and other tables of this document are
calculated based on the estimated number of facilities and burden hours,
before rounding. Values in the tables, however, show rounded results.
Estimating the total burden using rounded values presented in the table
may not correspond to the total reported.  For example, as shown in
Exhibit 5, using the rounded values presented in the table suggests a
total burden (hours) of 165*(3+3+3) = 1,485 for medium/consumption
facilities, while the estimated total burden (hours) is actually
calculated as 165.25*(2.79+2.86+2.92) = 1,416.

2 This analysis assumes that half the number of large production
facility owners or operators required to prepare an FRP for the first
time are included in the estimate of new consumption facilities and will
therefore incur the consumption facility preparation burden. The other
half will incur the distribution facility preparation burden.

	EXHIBIT 6

	Estimated Burden and Unit Cost for Existing Facilities Required to
Maintain FRPs

Size	Model Facility Category	Unit Burden (hours)	Facility Labor Cost	O&M
Costs	Capital Cost	Total Unit Cost	Number of Facilities	Total Burden
(hours)

	Total O&M Costs	Total Capital Cost	Total Cost

	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3

Medium	Consumption	54	$2,259 	$0 	$0 	$2,259 	125 	128 	130 	20,678
$0.00 	$0.00 	$864,976

	Distribution	55	$2,311 	$0 	$0 	$2,311 	417 	427 	436 	70,418 	$0.00
$0.00 	$2,959,146

	Production	54	$2,259 	$0 	$0 	$2,259 	115 	119 	125 	19,406 	$0.00
$0.00 	$811,766

Large	Consumption	154	$5,991 	$0 	$0 	$5,991 	1,395 	1,427 	1,459
659,254 	$0.00 	$0.00 	$25,647,941

	Distribution	171	$6,846 	$0 	$0 	$6,846 	1,851 	1,893 	1,935 	971,114
$0.00 	$0.00 	$38,880,606

	Production	154	$5,991 	$0 	$0 	$5,991 	38 	40 	42 	18,447 	$0.00 	$0.00
	$717,688

TOTAL

3,941 	4,034 	4,127 	1,759,317 	$0.00 	$0.00 	$69,882,1234

Estimating Respondent Costs

Estimating Facility Labor Costs

To determine the per-facility costs for typical new and existing
respondents in each size category, the unit time estimates for
compliance activities are multiplied by the hourly wage rates for the
appropriate categories of labor conducting these activities.  The labor
wage rates for private industry were derived from the March 2007 U.S.
Department of Labor’s Employment Cost Indexes and Levels.  The 2007
wage rates include wages and salaries; benefit costs, including paid
leave, supplemental pay, insurance, retirement and savings, legally
required benefits, severance pay, and supplemental unemployment
benefits.  These wage rates reflect private industry averages, which
were estimated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) based on a survey
of 35,600 occupations within 8,200 establishments in the private sector.
These wage rates reflect industry averages, which may under- or
overestimate the actual wages received by some FRP regulated facility
personnel.  EPA further adjusted these rates to reflect overhead costs
of 17 percent. Average wage rates could underestimate the actual wage
rates received by some FRP-regulated facility personnel, but may
overestimate the actual wage rate received by other facility personnel.
The estimated wage rates used in this analysis are:

Facility Total Compensation Hourly Wage Rates

Management:		$60.93

Technical:		$52.35

Clerical:		$26.35

Foreman: 		$34.01

Laborer: 		$27.54

Multiplying these wage rates by the corresponding unit time estimates
yields the total facility labor unit cost for each facility in each
model category presented in Exhibits 4, 5, and 6.

The BLS data provides generally accepted information on industry base
wage rates and fringe benefits. Overhead rates can be calculated using
various formulas.  The reasons for using a 17 percent overhead rate are
described in footnote   NOTEREF _Ref177962434 \h  8 .  EPA has also
evaluated the impact of alternative overhead loading rate assumptions on
the total costs of this ICR.  Specifically, EPA considered
recommendations in an EPA document entitled Estimating Costs for the
Economic Benefits of RCRA Noncompliance (September 1997). This document
suggests that labor overhead and profit can be estimated at 50 to 100
percent of the base salary and fringe benefit costs.  EPA estimated that
raising the overhead rate to 50 percent would increase the wages listed
above by 28 percent.  If a 100-percent overhead rate were used, these
wages would increase by 71 percent.  The 50 percent and 100 percent
alternatives may be high because the rates include profit as well as
overhead.  Nevertheless, EPA reports the impact of these alternative
rates in section 6(d), under the discussion of total respondent costs.

Estimating Costs of Operating and Maintenance (O&M)

In prior ICR renewal requests, EPA assumed that O&M costs were
negligible, as was confirmed by consultations with facility
representatives in 2004, which indicated that planholders incurred no
additional cost due to hard copy storage (e.g., in existing file
cabinets) or electronic storage (e.g., on a facility’s computer
network). This renewal ICR assumes O&M costs continue to be negligible.

Estimating Capital/Startup Costs

 In addition to labor costs, facilities are expected to incur additional
capital costs and direct costs including expenses for telephone calls,
postage, photocopying, and other direct costs for FRP preparation. These
costs are one-time startup costs required to prepare and submit an FRP,
and as such are included with capital costs. Costs vary by model
facility category and are also presented in Exhibits 5 and 6.  The
estimated capital costs to maintain FRPs are negligible.

Adding O&M costs and capital costs to the labor costs for facility
personnel yields the total annual compliance cost per model facility, as
presented in Exhibits 5 and 6.  Preparation of an FRP is expected to
cost a consumption, distribution, or production facility having between
42,000 gallons and 1 million gallons in total oil storage capacity
$8,146, $9,000, or $7,137, respectively. EPA estimates that the total
cost to a consumption/production or distribution/production facility
having 1 million gallons or greater in total oil storage capacity will
be $15,949, $18,245, or $14,085, respectively.  As shown in Exhibit 6,
EPA assumes that maintaining plans will cost the smaller capacity
facilities $2,259, $2,311, or $2,259 annually, respectively, and will
cost the larger capacity facilities $5,991, $6,846, or $5,991 annually,
respectively.

Estimating Agency Burden and Costs

This section summarizes the estimated burden and cost of the revised ICR
to the Agency.  Burden estimates are based on input from EPA regional
staff involved directly with the implementation of 40 CFR part 112.  EPA
will incur burdens and costs to receive, process, review, and approve
submitted response plans.  The number of response plans for existing
facilities is estimated to be 3,942. Processing submitted FRPs includes
entering information into EPA’s tracking system, filing the plan for
review or for use during an unannounced exercise, and review for
required elements per Appendix F.. EPA must also approve plans from
facilities which are deemed as of significant and substantial harm
facilities per §112.20(f)(3).

Exhibit 7 shows the unit burden and labor cost to EPA for processing
FRPs and for reviewing for approval response plans from certain
facilities.  Based on program experience, processing submitted plans is
estimated to consist of approximately 20 minutes of technical time. A
substantial amount of government resources is required to
comprehensively evaluate the adequacy of each response plan submitted by
a facility representative.  Program staff estimate that reviewing and
approving a response plan, including a site visit when necessary,
requires 38 hours of technical EPA staff time and 2 hours of management
time.

For this revised ICR, Agency labor costs are based on the 2007 General
Schedule (GS) pay schedule. EPA estimates an average hourly labor cost
(labor plus overhead) of $59.23 for managerial staff (GS-13, Step-5),
and $41.55 for technical staff (GS-11, Step-5). To derive hourly
estimates, EPA divided annual compensation estimates by 2,080, which is
the number of hours in the Federal work year.  EPA then multiplied
hourly rates by the standard government overhead factor of 1.6. Unit
costs are unit time estimates multiplied by the hourly labor rates for
EPA personnel.  For example, the labor burden to EPA for review and
approval of each FRP is estimated to require two hours of management
time (2 x $59.23 = $118.46) and 38 hours of technical time (38 x
$41.55 =$1,578.90) for a total of 40 hours per plan at a cost of
approximately $1,698 each.

EXHIBIT 7

Estimated Unit Burden and Cost to EPA (2007)

ACTIVITY	UNIT BURDEN (hours)	UNIT COST

	Managerial	Technical	Clerical	Total

	Process and Store Submitted Response Plans	0	0.3	0	0.3	$12

Review and Approve Response Plans	2	38	0	40	$1,698

Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

Estimated Total Annual Burden and Costs for All Respondents

The total burden of the information collection is the combined total
burdens of rule familiarization, substantial harm certification, and
development of the facility response plan.  Total burden is calculated
by multiplying unit burden estimates by the number of facilities
affected.  Total cost is derived in a similar manner.

The total burden and costs associated with the development of FRPs shown
in Exhibits 5 and 6 must be adjusted to reflect both prior compliance
with similar State regulations, since data collection efforts for
compliance with similar State regulations may be useful in developing a
facility response plan, and shared costs with overlapping Federal
regulations.  Numerous States have regulations requiring varying degrees
of response planning.  To the extent that these response plan
requirements overlap with EPA’s FRP rule provisions, facility owners
or operators may use the information already prepared for the State in
their FRPs.  Consequently, facility owners or operators that already
have prepared response plans under State regulations may not incur all
costs and burdens estimated in Exhibits 5 and 6. State regulations vary
significantly both in terms of the level of response planning required
and the type of facilities covered.  EPA evaluated the extent of
commonality between State response planning requirements and those in
the FRP rule to arrive at an estimated adjustment of 14 percent for
State-related burden overlap.

In addition, certain facility owners or operators may be required to
prepare response plans pursuant to the regulations of more than one
Federal agency as a result of the nature of their facilities.  The
owners or operators of these jointly regulated facilities are likely to
prepare one response plan that fulfills the requirements of all Federal
response planning regulations affecting them.  Certain response planning
activities and sections of the plan will be the same under all
regulations and therefore, the costs associated with these activities
are appropriately considered shared costs that should not be attributed
to any single regulation. For purposes of this ICR revision, the total
burden and costs have been adjusted to reflect that only one-half of all
shared costs are attributed to the FRP rule.

Adjustment to Reflect Overlap with Other Federal Requirements

It is estimated that based on the presence of other Federal
requirements, the following percentages of response planning burdens, by
model facility category, are not attributable to the FRP rule:

FIRST YEAR

Medium consumption 					0.0%

Medium distribution 					18.4%

Medium production					12.5%

Large consumption/production				0.0%

Large distribution/production				23.4%

SUBSEQUENT YEARS

Medium consumption  					0.0%

Medium distribution 					44.5%

Medium production					24.9%

Large consumption					0.0%

Large distribution					32.6%

The burdens and costs to facility owners or operators that prepare and
maintain FRPs (presented in Exhibits 5 and 6) were adjusted to reflect
State or other Federal requirements to obtain the estimates presented in
Exhibits 8 and 9. Percentage reductions were applied for prior State
compliance and overlapping Federal regulations, as appropriate, for each
model facility category. For example, the total burden to prepare FRPs
for a production facility having between 42,000 gallons and 1 million
gallons (medium category) in total oil storage capacity, which is 145.25
hours, was adjusted by 24.7 percent [1- (1-0.14) (1-0.125) where
(1-0.14) accounts for the state-related burden overlap of 14 percent
discussed in Section 6(d)(i) and (1-0.125) accounts for the overlap with
other federal requirements as listed above   yielding an adjusted burden
of 109.4 hours]. Adjustment factors for other model facility categories
were similarly calculated using the 14 percent state-related burden
overlap and the estimated burden overlap with other federal requirement
listed above for each facility category.

The total burden and O&M and capital costs to the entire regulated
community are presented in Exhibit 10. The burdens and costs over three
years are taken from Exhibits 4, 8, and 9. The total adjusted burden on
the regulated community over three years is estimated to be 1,297,880
hours. The total adjusted O&M costs for the three year period is $0 and
the total adjusted capital cost is $88,449 (see Exhibit 10).

EXHIBIT 8

Adjusted Burden and Unit Cost for New Facilities Required to Prepare
FRPs1

Size	Model Facility Category	Adjusted Unit Burden (hours)	Facility Labor
Cost	O&M Costs	Capital Cost	Total Unit Cost	Number of Facilities	Total
Burden (hours)	Total O&M Costs	Total Capital Costs	Total Cost

	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3

Medium	Consumption	142 	$6,794 	$0 	$211 	$7,005 	3 	3 	3 	1,218 	$0
$1,806 	$60,047

	Distribution	127 	$6,143 	$0 	$176 	$6,318 	9 	10 	10 	3,637 	$0
$5,030 	$181,083

	Production	109 	$5,194 	$0 	$181 	$5,375 	4 	6 	9 	2,121 	$0 	$3,505
$104,230

Large	Consumption2	293 	$13,328 	$0 	$389 	$13,716 	31 	32 	33 	28,102
$0 	$37,250 	$1,314,400

	Distribution	253 	$11,718 	$0 	$305 	$12,024 	41 	42 	43 	32,170 	$0
$38,788 	$1,528,502

	Production2	220 	$9,868 	$0 	$320 	$10,188 	1 	2 	3 	1,420 	$0 	$2,070
$65,858

TOTAL

91 	95 	100 	 68,669 	$0	$88,449	$3,254,120

1 Burdens and costs are adjusted to reflect prior compliance with State
Regulations and overlapping Federal regulations (see Section 6(d)(ii)).

2 This analysis assumes that half the number of large production
facility owners or operators required to prepare an FRP for the first
time are included in the estimate of new consumption facilities, and
will therefore incur the consumption facility preparation burden. The
other half will incur the distribution facility preparation burden.

EXHIBIT 9

Adjusted Burden and Unit Cost for Existing Facilities Required to
Maintain FRPs1

Size	Model Facility Category	AdjustedUnit Burden (hours)	Facility Labor
Cost	O&M Costs	Capital Cost	Total Unit Cost	Number of Facilities	Total
Burden (hours)	Total O&M Costs	Total Capital Costs	Total Cost

	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3

Medium	Consumption	46 	$1,943 	$0 	$0 	$1,943 	125 	128 	130 	17,783 	$0
	$0 	$743,880

	Distribution	26 	$1,102 	$0 	$0 	$1,102 	417 	427 	436 	33,590 	$0 	$0
$1,411,513

	Production	35 	$1,459 	$0 	$0 	$1,459 	115 	119 	125 	12,536 	$0 	$0
$524,401

Large	Consumption	132 	$5,153 	$0 	$0 	$5,153 	1,395 	1,427 	1,459
566,959 	$0 	$0 	$22,057,229

	Distribution	99 	$3,971 	$0 	$0 	$3,971 	1,851 	1,893 	1,935 	563,246
$0 	$0 	$22,550,751

	Production	108 	$4,213 	$0 	$0 	$4,213 	38 	40 	42 	12,971 	$0 	$0
$504,624

TOTAL

3,941 	4,034 	4,127 	1,207,085 	$0 	$0 	$47,792,398

1 Burden and costs are adjusted to reflect prior compliance with State
Regulations and overlapping Federal regulations. (See Section 6(d)(ii))

EXHIBIT 10

Total Burden and Costs Over Three Years

Activity	YEAR 1	YEAR 2	YEAR 3	TOTAL

	Burden (hours)	O&M Cost	Capital Cost	Burden (hours)	O&M Cost	Capital
Cost	Burden (hours)	O&M Cost	Capital Cost	Burden (hours)	O&M Cost
Capital Cost

Certification1	6,004 	$0 	$0 	7,208 	$0 	$0 	8,915 	$0 	$0 	22,127 	$0
$0

Preparation	22,045 	$0 	$28,298 	22,839 	$0 	$29,405 	23,784 	$0
$30,746 	68,669 	$0 	$88,449

Maintenance	393,317 	$0 	$0 	402,256 	$0 	$0 	411,512 	$0 	$0 	1,207,084
	$0 	$0

TOTAL	421,366 	$0 	$28,298 	432,303 	$0 	$29,405 	444,211 	$0 	$30,746
1,297,880 	$0 	$88,449

1 According to 40 CFR 112(App. C)(3.0), owners or operators of
facilities that do not meet the “substantial harm” criteria must
complete and maintain at the facility the certification form provided in
Appendix C to 40 CFR part 112, Attachment C-II.

EPA also calculated costs based on alternative overhead loading rates
on wages. Exhibit 11 shows a comparison of the annualized total cost for
the rule using the selected 17 percent overhead loading rate on wages
and costs based on two alternative overhead loading rate assumptions:
50 percent (Alternative 1) and 100 percent (Alternative 2). Alternative
1 yields 28 percent higher total costs, while Alternative 2 increases
total costs by 71 percent.

EXHIBIT 11

Alternative Total Cost Measures

	Labor	Capital	O&M	Total

17% Overhead	$17,398,345 	$29,483 	$0 	$17,427,828

50% Overhead	$22,269,882 	$29,483 	$0 	$22,299,365

100% Overhead	$29,751,170 	$29,483 	$0 	$29,780,653

Estimated Total Annual Burden and Cost to EPA

The total annual burden and cost to EPA are presented in Exhibit 12.
Total burden and costs are determined by multiplying the unit burden and
cost to EPA for each activity (see Exhibit 7) by the number of plans
processed, reviewed, and approved (shown in the second column in Exhibit
12).  EPA assumes it will receive on average of approximately 95 new
FRPs each year.  EPA estimates that the burden and cost for processing
new FRPs will be approximately 29 hours and $1,189 in labor costs per
year.  EPA also estimates that the burden and cost of reviewing the new
FRPs of substantial harm facilities, as well as reviewing and approving
the new FRPs of significant and substantial harm facilities, will be
approximately 3,814 hours and $161,856 in labor costs per year.

EPA will also incur costs in subsequent years to review and approve
response plans from facilities that undertake a major modification to
their FRP.  EPA estimates that of the 3,942 existing facilities with
FRPs, approximately one-fifth, or 788 undertake an FRP modification that
triggers the need for EPA review and approval.  Annualized burden and
cost to review and approve existing response plans are estimated to be
32,280 hours and $1,369,906 in labor costs.

Total cost to EPA for processing, reviewing, and approving new and
existing plans are estimated at 108,368 hours and $4,598,851 in labor
costs over three years.  There are no capital or O&M costs to the Agency
for this ICR.  The annualized burden and cost to EPA over three years
are 36,123 hours and $1,532,950.

	EXHIBIT 12

	Estimated Total Burdens and Costs to EPA

ACTIVITY	YEAR ONE	YEAR TWO	YEAR THREE	TOTAL

	Number of Plans	Burden (Hours)	Cost	Number of Plans	Burden (Hours)	Cost
Number of Plans	Burden (Hours)	Cost	Burden (Hours)	Cost	Annualized Cost

Process and Store Newly Submitted Response Plans	 91 	 27 	 $1,132 	 95
 28 	 $1,184 	 100 	 30 	 $1,250 	 86 	 $3,566 	 $1,189

Review and Approve New Response Plans	 91 	 3,631 	 $154,078 	 95
3,800 	 $161,255 	 100 	 4,011 	 $170,234 	 11,442 	 $485,567 	 $161,856

Review and Approve Existing Response Plans	 788 	 31,520 	$1,337,653
807 	 32,280 	$1,369,906 	 826 	 33,040 	$1,402,159 	 96,840 	$4,109,718
	 $1,369,906

Total	 N/A 	 35,178 	$1,492,863 	 N/A 	 36,108 	$1,532,345 	 N/A
37,081 	$1,573,643 	108,368 	$4,598,851 	 $1,532,951

Source: EPA regional personnel estimate.

Bottom Line Burden and Cost Tables

Exhibit 10 summarizes the total estimated burden hours and cost incurred
by all respondents (existing and new facilities) to comply with the FRP
information collection requirements.  The estimated burden hour and
costs incurred by EPA are summarized in Exhibit 12.  Exhibit 13 below
summarizes the total burden and cost incurred by both respondent
facilities and government.  The average annual burden to respondents is
432,627 hours, there are no annualized O&M costs, and the annualized
capital cost is $29,483.

EXHIBIT 13

Total Burden and Cost Estimates

	Facilities	EPA	Total

	Burden (hours)	Non-Labor Total Cost	Burden (hours)	Total Non-Labor Cost
Burden (hours)	Total Non-Labor Cost

O&M Cost	Capital Cost

Year 1	421,366 	$0.00 	$28,298 	35,178 	$0.00 	456,544 	$28,298

Year 2	432,303 	$0.00 	$29,405 	36,108 	$0.00 	468,411 	$29,405

Year 3	444,211 	$0.00 	$30,746 	37,081 	$0.00 	481,292 	$30,746

Total	1,297,880	$0 	$88,449 	108,367 	$0.00 	1,406,247 	$88,449

Reasons for the Change in Burden

Differences in burden and costs from the previous ICR are attributed to
adjustment changes. Adjustments are caused by updating information
(e.g., number of affected facilities, burden estimates, and labor rates)
in the absence of changes to the FRP regulatory requirements.  Program
changes, burden and cost effects directly associated with revisions to
the FRP rule are not applicable to this renewal ICR.

The prior ICR renewal reflected a change in the number of affected
facilities, due to the availability of more detailed inventory of
planholders. This renewal ICR does not include and adjustments to the
number of affected facilities, since the number of plan holders has not
changed substantively since the  last ICR approval.  In 2006, EPA
initiated an effort to compile data from each of its ten regional
offices on facilities that had submitted an FRP to update our knowledge
of the FRP universe.  The latest update to inform this ICR renewal was
completed in April 2010 and contains the list of all 4,341 active
facilities that currently maintain an FRP, including 4,260 facilities
not owned and operated by the Federal government.  Thus, the FRP
universe is lower than the 6,183 FRP facilities presented in the 2004
renewal ICR as it was based on a fixed proportion of the estimated
number of facilities subject to SPCC.  To estimate the number of new
facilities that will develop an FRP during the three-year period of 2007
through 2009, EPA used annual industry-specific growth rates.  EPA
estimates that 286 new facilities will prepare FRPs during the
three-year period covered by this ICR.

In total, the burden hours presented in the last renewal ICR decreased
relative to the current OMB inventory (see Exhibit 14).  The burden
estimate showed an annualized decrease of 202,367 hours due to
adjustments in the estimated number of affected facilities since the
last ICR approval (November 30, 2004).  No significant change in the
burden estimate is anticipated for this ICR renewal.

EXHIBIT 14

Estimated Annualized Burden and Costs Comparison

	Annualized Burden (hours)	Annualized Capital and O&M Costs

Prior OMB Burden Inventory	634,994 	$20,716

Change in Burden 	(202,367)	$8,768

Current Burden Estimate	432,627 	$29,484

Burden Statement

The public reporting and recordkeeping burden to all respondents are
presented in Exhibit 15. These burdens include the time required to
review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain
the data needed, estimate the information required and complete and
review the collection of information.  The average public reporting and
recordkeeping burdens to a newly regulated facility where the owners or
operators are not required to prepare FRPs (i.e., facilities where the
owner or operators certify that they do not meet the “substantial
harm” criteria) are estimated at 0.4 hours per year.  The average
annual reporting and recordkeeping burdens to a newly regulated facility
where the owners or operators are required to prepare FRPs (i.e.,
first-year costs for plan development) are estimated at 240.1 hours per
year.  The average annual reporting and recordkeeping burdens to a
facility where the owners or operators maintain FRPs (i.e., subsequent
year costs for annual plan maintenance) are estimated at 99.7 hours.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply
with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed
in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

EXHIBIT 15

Recordkeeping and Reporting Burden for Affected Facilities

	Total Average Annual Burden (hours)	Number of Facilities per Year
(Respondents)	Average Annual Burden per Respondent (hours)

Certification1	 7,376 	 18,444 	 0.4

Preparation	 22,890 	 95 	 240.1

Maintenance	 402,361 	 4,034 	 99.7

1 According to 40 CFR 112(App. C)(3.0), owners or operators of
facilities that do not meet the “substantial harm” criteria must
complete and maintain at the facility the certification form provided in
Appendix C to 40 CFR part 112, Attachment C-II.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0559, which is available for online viewing at
www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Office of Emergency
Prevention, Preparedness, and Response Oil Program Docket in the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW,
Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the Office of Emergency Prevention, Preparedness, and
Response Oil Program Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Use www.regulations.gov to
obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view
public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public
docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are
available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then
key in the docket ID number identified above.

 See section 6(d) for further details.

 The President has delegated the authority to regulate
non-transportation-related onshore facilities under sections
311(j)(1)(C) and 311(j)(5) of the CWA to EPA. (See Executive Order
(E.O.) 12777, section 2(b)(1), 56 FR 54757 (October 22, 1991),
superseding E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243.)  By this same E.O., the President
has delegated similar authority over transportation-related onshore
facilities, deepwater ports, and vessels to the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), and authority over other offshore facilities,
including associated pipelines, to the U.S. Department of the Interior
(DOI). A 1994 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among EPA, DOI, and DOT
has redelegated the responsibility to regulate certain offshore
facilities located in and along the Great Lakes, rivers, coastal
wetlands, and the Gulf Coast barrier islands from DOI to EPA. Coast
Guard vessels and marine transportation-related facility activities have
been moved to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

 	GAO report number GAO-07-1085: “Maritime Transportation: Major Oil
Spills Occur Infrequently,

but Risks to the Federal Oil Spill Fund Remain”, September 7, 2007,
page 27.

 Note that facilities may downsize their oil storage capacity and
effectively “drop-out” of the FRP regulations. EPA does not attempt
to characterize the number of existing facilities that will downsize
over this renewal ICR period.

 EPA used data obtained from state agencies to estimate the number of
SPCC-regulated oil storage facilities (e.g, manufacturing; retail trade;
construction; wholesale trade; etc) and federal sources such as EIA and
USDA to estimate the number oil production facilities and farms. For
detail, see the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 2006 Final SPCC Rule,
November 2006.

 EPA views this burden estimate, which was used in the 2007 renewal ICR
supporting statement, to be conservative.

 United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer
Costs for Employee Compensation, June 2007.

 Overhead costs were computed separately from BLS data and were assumed
to be an additional 17 percent of the total wage rate, which is composed
of direct wages and salaries and employee benefits, as reported by BLS.

 These estimates include the burden of copying and submitting a plan to
EPA. EPA estimated burden time required to reproduce the Plan and submit
it to EPA at one-half hour of clerical and one-half hour of managerial
time. Source: Regulatory Impact Analysis of proposed revisions to the
Oil Pollution Prevention Regulation (40 CFR Part 112), February 1993.
Additionally, EPA assumed that an owner/operator of an average medium
size facility spends approximately $50 on compiling, copying, and
postage fees and that the owner/operator of an average large size
facility spends about $100. Source: Facility Response Plans: Information
Collection Request Burden Study. December 2003.

 For previous ICRs, a survey of EPA regional offices was conducted to
estimate the average burden (per plan) required to receive, process,
review, and approve submitted response plans.

 A fraction of these plans will be judged inadequate and require
revision before being approved. The estimated cost to EPA reflects this
possibility.

 The methodologies for determining the extent of overlap with other
Federal regulations as well as the percentage of prior compliance with
State regulations are described in more detail in Chapter 4 of the
Regulatory Impact Analysis supporting the 1994 final rule.

 Actions such as personnel or title changes, phone number or contact
address changes are not considered major modifications and do not
require further EPA review.

 EPA believes this is a conservative estimate of the number of
facilities in a region with a large number of facilities that undergo a
major FRP modification. Some regional EPA personnel have stated that the
owners or operators of as few as 5% of facilities in their region
undertake a major FRP modification annually, while others in regions
with fewer facilities or different types of facilities stated that
approximately half of the FRP revisions over a seven month period could
be considered major.

 In setting terms of clearance for the 2004 ICR request, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) had requested that EPA provide a change
worksheet, if applicable, updating the burden estimate for the FRP ICR
to reflect revisions to the SPCC respondent universe. The current FRP
burden estimate, however, considers the actual number of FRP planholders
instead of a fixed proportion of SPCC respondents.

 PAGE  20

 PAGE  23

 PAGE  29

 PAGE  32

 PAGE  34

 PAGE  35

 PAGE  37


[Federal Register: September 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 172)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 45981-45982]
[DOCID:fr08se09-3]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0362; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASW-10]

Establishment of Class D Airspace; Arlington, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E airspace at Arlington, TX.
Establishment of an air traffic control tower at Arlington Municipal
Airport has made this action necessary for the safety and management of
Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at Arlington Municipal Airport.

DATES: 0901 UTC, December 17, 2009. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR
Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On June 24, 2009, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to establish Class D airspace at
Arlington Municipal Airport, Arlington, TX. (74 FR 30022, Docket No.
FAA-2009-0362). Interested parties were invited to participate in this
rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the
FAA. No comments were received. Class D airspace designations are
published in paragraph 5000 of FAA Order 7400.9S, signed October 3,
2008, and effective October 31, 2008, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1. The Class D airspace designations listed
in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by establishing Class D airspace extending upward from the
surface up to but not including 2,000 feet MSL for the safety and
management of IFR operations at Arlington Municipal Airport, Arlington,
TX.

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes controlled airspace at Arlington Municipal Airport,
Arlington, TX.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9S, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, signed October 3, 2008, and effective October 31,
2008, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D airspace.

* * * * *

ASW TX D Arlington, TX [New]

Arlington Municipal Airport, TX
(Lat. 32[deg]39[min]50[sec] N., long. 97[deg]05[min]39[sec] W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface, to but not
including 2,000 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of Arlington
Municipal Airport, excluding the portion east of a line between lat.
32[deg]43[min]48[sec] N.; long. 97[deg]05[min]06[sec] W.; and lat.
32[deg]38[min]10[sec] N.; long. 97[deg]3[min]26[sec] W., and lat.
32[deg]36[min]16[sec] N.; long. 97[deg]03[min]31[sec] W., and
excluding that airspace within the Dallas/Fort Worth, TX, Class B
airspace area. This Class D airspace area is effective during the
specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective dates and times will thereafter be
continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
* * * * *

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 25, 2009.
Ronnie L. Uhlenhaker,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. E9-21224 Filed 9-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 116 (Friday, June 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 39417]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12863]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD23-7-000]

PJM Capacity Market Forum; Second Supplemental Notice of Forum

    As announced in the April 19, 2023 Notice in this proceeding, the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will convene a
Commissioner-led forum to examine the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM)
capacity market in the above-captioned proceeding on June 15, 2023 from
approximately 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, following the
Commission's scheduled open meeting. The forum will be held in-person
at the Commission headquarters at 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426 in the Commission Meeting Room.
    The purpose of this forum is to solicit varied perspectives on the
current state of the PJM capacity market, potential improvements to the
market, and to consider related proposals to address resource adequacy.
The forum will include three panels that will explore whether the PJM
capacity market is achieving its objective of ensuring resource
adequacy at just and reasonable rates, discuss potential market design
reforms that may be needed to achieve this objective, and discuss state
Commissioners' and state representatives' views on these issues.
    A finalized agenda for this forum is attached to this Supplemental
Notice, which includes the forum program and expected panelists.
    While the forum is not for the purpose of discussing any specific
matters before the Commission, some forum discussions may involve
issues raised in proceedings that are currently pending before the
Commission. These proceedings include, but are not limited to:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.................  Docket Nos. ER22-962, et
                                              al.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.................  Docket Nos. ER23-729, et
                                              al.; EL23-19, et al.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.................  Docket No. ER23-1038-001.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.................  Docket No. ER23-1067-000.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.................  Docket No. ER23-1609-000.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.................  Docket No. ER23-1700-000.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.................  Docket No. EL21-78-000.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.................  Docket No. ER23-1996-000.
SOO Green HVDC Link ProjectCo, LLC v. PJM    Docket No. EL21-103-000.
 Interconnection, L.L.C.
Roy J. Shanker v. PJM Interconnection LLC..  Docket No. EL23-13-000.
Essential Power OPP, LLC, et al v. PJM       Docket No. EL23-53-000.
 Interconnection, L.L.C.
Aurora Generation, LLC, et al. v. PJM        Docket No. EL23-54-000.
 Interconnection, L.L.C.
Coalition of PJM Capacity Resources v. PJM   Docket No. EL23-55-000.
 Interconnection, L.L.C.
Talen Energy Marketing, LLC v. PJM           Docket No. EL23-56-000.
 Interconnection, L.L.C.
Lee County Generating Station, LLC v. PJM    Docket Nos. EL23-57, et al.
 Interconnection, L.L.C.
SunEnergy1, LLC v. PJM Interconnection,      Docket No. EL23-58-000.
 L.L.C.
Lincoln Generating Facility, LLC v. PJM      Docket No. EL23-59-000.
 Interconnection, L.L.C.
Parkway Generation Keys Energy Center LLC    Docket No. EL23-60-000.
 v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Old Dominion Electric Cooperative v. PJM     Docket No. EL23-61-000.
 Interconnection, L.L.C.
Energy Harbor LLC v. PJM Interconnection,    Docket No. EL23-63-000.
 L.L.C.
Calpine Corp. v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C  Docket No. EL23-66-000.
Invenergy Nelson LLC v. PJM                  Docket No. EL23-67-000.
 Interconnection, L.L.C.
East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc. v.     Docket No. EL23-74-000.
 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
LSP University Park, LLC...................  Docket No. RP23-809-000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The forum will be open to the public and there is no fee for
attendance. Information will also be posted on the Calendar of Events
on the Commission's website, www.ferc.gov, prior to the event.
    The forum will be transcribed and webcast. Transcripts will be
available for a fee from Ace Reporting<PHONE_NUMBER>). A free webcast
of this event is available through the Commission's website. Anyone
with internet access who desires to view this event can do so by
navigating to www.ferc.gov's Calendar of Events and locating this event
in the Calendar. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission provides
technical support for the free webcasts. Please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email [email protected] if you have any questions.
    Commission forums are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an email to [email protected], call toll-free<PHONE_NUMBER>
(voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    For more information about this forum, please contact Katherine
Scott at [email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>. For information
related to logistics, please contact Sarah McKinley at
[email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 9, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-12863 Filed 6-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P