[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 56 (Thursday, March 22, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16679-16688]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6910]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 355

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0586; FRL-9651-1]
RIN 2050-AF08

Emergency Planning and Notification; Emergency Planning and List
of Extremely Hazardous Substances and Threshold Planning Quantities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency)
is taking final action to revise the manner for applying the threshold
planning quantities (TPQs) for those

extremely hazardous substances (EHSs) that are non-reactive solid
chemicals in solution. This revision allows facilities subject to the
Emergency Planning requirements that have a non-reactive solid EHS in
solution, to first multiply the amount of the solid chemical in
solution on-site by 0.2 before determining if this quantity equals or
exceeds the lower published TPQ. This change is based on data that
shows less potential for non-reactive solid chemicals in solution to
remain airborne and dispersed beyond a facility's fence line in the
event of an accidental release. Previously, EPA assumed that 100% of
non-reactive solid chemicals in solution could become airborne and
dispersed beyond the fenceline in the event of an accidental release.

DATES: This rule is effective April 23, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0586. All documents in the docket are listed in
the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will
be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically http://www.regulations.gov/ or in hard copy at the Superfund Docket, EPA/DC,
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The
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 Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
Superfund Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Franklin, Office of Emergency
Management, Mail Code 5104A, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460-0002; telephone number:
(202) 564-7987; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may also contact the Superfund, TRI, EPCRA,
RMP and Oil Information Center at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> (in
the Washington, DC metropolitan area). The Telecommunications Device
for the Deaf (TDD) number is<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> (in the
Washington, DC metropolitan area). You may wish to visit the Office of
Emergency Management (OEM) Internet Web site at www.epa.gov/emergencies/content/epcra.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Here are the contents of today's preamble.

I. General Information
    A. Who is affected by this final rule?
    B. What is the statutory authority for this final rule?
    C. List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
    D. What is the background for this final rule?
    E. Summary of Proposed Rule of April 15, 2011
II. Summary of This Action
    A. What is the scope of this final rule?
    B. Applying a TPQ for an EHS Solid in Solution
III. Response to Comments on April 15, 2011 Proposed Rule
    A. Comments Supporting Changes
    B. Comments Supporting Changes With Reservations
    C. Comments Opposing Changes
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (``NTAA'')
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Who is affected by this final rule?

    Entities that would be affected by this final rule are those
organizations and facilities subject to section 302 of the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) and its implementing
regulations found in 40 CFR part 355, subpart B--Emergency Planning. To
determine whether your facility is affected by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability provisions at 40 CFR part 355. If
you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. What is the statutory authority for this final rule?

    This final rule is being issued under the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), which was enacted as Title
III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (Pub.
L. 99-499), (SARA). The Agency relies on EPCRA section 328 for general
rulemaking authority.

C. List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

ARF--Airborne Release Fraction
CAS--Chemical Abstracts Service
CBI--Confidential Business Information
CERCLA--Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
EHS--Extremely Hazardous Substance
EO--Executive Order
EPA--Environmental Protection Agency
EMA--Emergency Management Agency
EPCRA--Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986
FR--Federal Register
HCS--Hazard Communication Standard
ICR--Information Collection Request
LEPC--Local Emergency Planning Committee
LOC--Level of Concern
MSDS--Material Safety Data Sheet
NFPA--National Fire Protection Association
NRC--National Response Center
NTTAA--National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
OMB--Office of Management and Budget
OEM--Office of Emergency Management (within EPA)

D. What is the background of this final rule?

    Title III of SARA (EPCRA) establishes authorities for emergency
planning and preparedness, emergency release notification reporting,
community right-to-know reporting, and toxic chemical release
reporting. It is intended to encourage state and local planning for,
and response to releases of hazardous substances and to provide the
public, local governments, fire departments, and other emergency
officials with information concerning potential chemical hazards
present in their communities. The implementing regulations for
emergency planning, emergency release notification, and the chemicals
subject to these regulations are codified in 40 CFR part 355. The
implementing regulations for community right-to-know reporting (or
hazardous chemical reporting) are codified in 40 CFR part 370.
    Subtitle A of EPCRA establishes the framework for local emergency
planning. The statute requires that EPA publish a list of extremely
hazardous substances (EHSs). The EHS list was established by EPA to
identify chemical substances that could cause serious irreversible
health effects from accidental releases (52 FR 13378, April 22, 1987).
The Agency was also directed to establish a threshold planning quantity
(TPQ) for each extremely hazardous substance.

    Under EPCRA section 302, a facility that has an EHS on-site in
excess of its TPQ must notify the State Emergency Response Commission
(SERC) and Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC), as well as
participate in local emergency planning activities. Under EPCRA section
304, the facility owner or operator must report accidental releases of
EHSs and hazardous substances listed under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in 40
CFR 302.4 in excess of the reportable quantity (RQ) to their LEPC and
SERC, and to the National Response Center if the chemical is a CERCLA
hazardous substance.
    Under ECPRA sections 311 and 312, facilities that have either (1) a
hazardous chemical present at or above 10,000 pounds or (2) an EHS
present at or above its TPQ or 500 pounds--whichever is the lesser, are
required to submit an Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory form
and a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for that chemical to their
SERC, LEPC and local fire department. A chemical is hazardous as
defined under the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA).
    In a July 26, 1990 Federal Register notice (55 FR 30632), EPA added
definitions necessary to designate Indian Tribes as the implementing
authority of the emergency planning reporting and notification
requirements and hazardous inventory reporting requirements. Under 40
CFR 355.61 and 40 CFR 370.66, when a facility is located in Indian
Country, SERC means the Emergency Response Commission for the Tribe
under whose jurisdiction the tribe is located. Such a Tribal Emergency
Response Commission is known as a TERC.
    The purpose of the EHSs list is to focus initial efforts in the
development of state and local contingency plans. Inclusion of a
chemical on the EHSs list does not mean state or local communities
should ban or otherwise restrict use of a listed chemical. Rather, such
identification indicates a need for the community to undertake a
program to investigate and evaluate the potential for accidental
exposure associated with the production, storage or handling of the
chemical at a particular site and develop a chemical emergency response
plan around those risks.
1. Regulatory Background
    The list of EHSs and their TPQs are codified in 40 CFR part 355,
Appendices A and B. EPA first published the EHSs list and corresponding
TPQs along with the methodology for determining the TPQs as an interim
final rule on November 17, 1986 (51 FR 41570). In the final rule of
April 22, 1987 (52 FR 13378), EPA made a number of revisions. Among
other things, the final rule republished the EHSs list, added four new
chemicals, and revised the methodology for some TPQs. The final rule
also defined TPQs for EHS solids in solution, based on comments on the
interim final rule. Details of the methodology used in determining
whether to list a substance as an EHS and deriving the TPQs are found
in the November 1986 and April 1987 Federal Register notices and in the
technical support documents,\1\ all found in the docket for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Threshold Planning Quantities Technical Support Document, 4-
7-87. Chemicals That Were Assigned Threshold Planning Quantities
Different From the Calculated Index Value, 4-7-87. Reactive Solids
Whose Threshold Planning Quantities Should Be Less than 10,000
Pounds, 4-7-87. Changes Made to Threshold Planning Quantities
Between Proposed Rule and Final Rule, 4-7-87. Technical Support
Document for Determination of Levels of Concern, 11-11-86.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Development of Existing TPQs
    The TPQs were initially assigned based on a ranking scheme using a
Level of Concern (LOC) based on acute toxicity and the potential for
airborne dispersion. The TPQ methodology is described in detail in the
``Threshold Planning Quantities Technical Support Document'' dated
April 7, 1987, which can be found in the docket for this rulemaking.
For each chemical, a ranking index was calculated which equaled the LOC
divided by an air dispersion factor (V). Chemicals were assigned TPQs
of 1, 10, 100, 500, 1000 or 10,000 pounds based on the order of
magnitude ranges of the index values. For gases, V = 1, while for
liquids, V was based on a volatilization model using the molecular
weight and boiling point of the chemical.
    Solid EHS chemicals with a particle size less than 100 microns in
diameter, molten solids, solids in solution, and solids with a National
Fire Protection Association (NFPA) reactivity rating of 2, 3, or 4 were
assigned a V equal to 1. If the EHS solid did not have a particle size
less than 100 microns, was not molten or handled in solution form, and
did not have an NFPA reactivity rating of 2, 3, or 4, then the EHS
chemical was assigned a TPQ of 10,000 pounds, which corresponds to the
highest index value. Solids with a NFPA reactivity rating of 2, 3, or 4
are denoted with an ``a'' in the Notes column of the EHSs list. For
solids in molten form, before applying the TPQ, the amount of chemical
on-site at any time is multiplied by an adjustment factor of 0.3 to
conservatively account for the maximum volatilization of the spilled
molten substance that is likely to take place.
3. Changes to EHS List and TPQs
    EPA has since amended the EHSs list and deleted 51 chemicals. Ten
chemicals were deleted based on the request of petitioners and the
remaining 41 chemicals were deleted as a result of Agency review. The
chemicals were deleted because they did not meet the toxicity criteria
for the list and/or were originally listed in error. Petitions
requesting the deletion of two chemicals, paraquat dichloride (which is
discussed below) and isophorone diisocyante have been denied.
Isophorone diisocyanate was not deleted from the EHSs list because its
inhalation toxicity met the EHSs listing criteria.
    EPA has also changed the TPQs for some of the EHSs. In the April
22, 1987 final rule, EPA reduced the TPQs for 36 substances, while it
raised the TPQs for 12 substances based on updated acute toxicity data.
Since then, EPA has lowered the TPQ for muscimol because of a
typographical error in a prior rulemaking; EPA has raised the TPQ for
isophorone diisocyanate because it was mistakenly based on a physical
state of reactive solid, when it is actually a liquid; and EPA has
denied a petition to raise the TPQs for azinphos methyl and fenamiphos.
4. Petition for Paraquat Dichloride
    Paraquat dichloride was originally listed as paraquat with a CAS
No. 1910-42-5 on the final EHSs list. ICI Americas submitted a petition
in October 1989 that requested the Agency to remove paraquat from the
EHSs list or alternatively, revise the TPQ. On October 12, 1994 (59 FR
51816), EPA changed the listed chemical name from paraquat to paraquat
dichloride to match the CAS Number and denied the petition to delete
paraquat or modify the TPQ, because the inhalation toxicity of paraquat
dichloride met the EHS listing criteria. Further explanation of EPA's
rationale for denying the petition can be found in the October 12, 1994
final rule (59 FR 51816) and in the April 15, 2011 proposed rule (76 FR
21299) for modifying the application of TPQs for EHS solids in
solution.
5. Zeneca's Request To Reconsider the Paraquat Dichloride Petition
    In November 1999, Zeneca (formerly ICI Americas) requested that EPA
reconsider either removing paraquat dichloride from the EHSs list or
raising

its TPQ. Zeneca claimed that the form of the chemical used in
inhalation toxicity tests (temporarily atomized powder under laboratory
conditions) is not relevant data to use for listing paraquat
dichloride. Zeneca believed that it was highly unlikely that inhalable
particles or vapors of paraquat dichloride could become airborne during
an accidental release. Zeneca did not agree with the rationale EPA used
to assign a TPQ of 10 pounds to paraquat dichloride, which is only
manufactured, processed and used in solution form. Zeneca claimed that
EPA did not explain why a greater potential for airborne dispersion for
solids in solution exists as opposed to liquid chemicals.
    On October 11, 2000, Syngenta (formerly Zeneca) filed an action in
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under the
Administrative Procedures Act seeking judicial review of EPA's
decisions regarding paraquat dichloride. In this complaint, Syngenta
requested EPA to either delete paraquat dichloride from the EHSs list
or raise its TPQ. In their complaint, Syngenta did not agree with EPA's
rationale to assign a lower TPQ of 10 pounds to paraquat dichloride,
which is only manufactured, processed and used in solution form.
Syngenta also claimed that EPA did not explain why it assumed a greater
potential for airborne dispersion for solids in solution, as opposed to
liquid chemicals. In addition, Syngenta argued that paraquat dichloride
solution is basically a non-volatile salt dissolved in water, and that
the physical and chemical characteristics of many solids like paraquat
dichloride limit their capacity to become airborne.
    On January 23, 2003, EPA filed a Motion for Voluntary Remand in
order to reconsider the petition. The court granted EPA's motion and
dismissed Syngenta's complaint on January 31, 2003. By order of
February 24, 2003, the court denied Syngenta's Motion to Amend
Judgment. EPA again reviewed the request to delete paraquat dichloride
and/or to raise its TPQ. In a November 21, 2003, letter to the
petitioner, EPA reaffirmed its denial to delete paraquat dichloride
from the EHSs list. EPA concluded that the acute toxicity of paraquat
dichloride meets the criteria for listing it as an EHS chemical. In the
same letter to the petitioner (available in the docket), however, EPA
agreed to consider a revision to the TPQ for paraquat dichloride in the
context of a proposed rule to amend the TPQ for all EHS chemicals
handled as solids in solution.

E. Summary of Proposed Rule of April 15, 2011

    In the proposed rule of April 15, 2011 (76 FR 21299), EPA proposed
that facilities who are subject to the emergency planning notification
requirements under section 302 of EPCRA, and who have a non-reactive
solid EHS in solution on-site, should multiply the amount of the non-
reactive solid chemical (in solution form) by 0.2 before determining if
this reduced quantity equals or exceeds the lower published TPQ. This
change was proposed based on data in the literature that shows less
potential for non-reactive solid chemicals in solution to remain
airborne beyond a facility's fenceline in the event of an accidental
release. This change affects not just paraquat dichloride solution, but
all EHS solid chemicals in solution, except reactive solids. The
application of a reducing factor to the amount of non-reactive EHS
solids in solution before comparison to its TPQ is similar to how
facilities apply the TPQs for EHSs that are molten solids, except that
for molten solids the factor is 0.3.\2\ EPA also defined solution to be
any aqueous or organic solutions, slurries, viscous solutions,
suspensions, emulsions, or pastes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The amount present on-site for EHSs that are in a molten
form is calculated by multiplying the weight of the chemical by 0.3
to determine if the lower TPQ is met or exceeded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, this change will not apply to the 12 solid EHS chemicals
that are reactive solids (denoted with ``a'' in the ``Notes'' column in
Appendix A or B of 40 CFR part 355). Reactive solids are more likely
than other solids to be dispersed into the air due to the energy or
heat created from their reactivity with water or air. The explanation
for not assigning a 10,000 pounds TPQ to each of the reactive solids is
discussed in the document, ``Reactive Solids Whose Threshold Planning
Quantities Should Be Less Than 10,000 Pounds,'' April 7, 1987, which
can be found in the docket to this rulemaking.
    Previously, EPA had assumed that 100% of non-reactive EHS solid
chemicals in solution could become airborne in the event of an
accidental release. Review of the literature data for accidental
releases of liquid aerosols shows that no more than 20% of the release
is expected to remain airborne. The data is from a 1994 U.S. Department
of Energy (USDOE) report \3\ (available in the docket) on the airborne
release fraction (ARF) from experimental liquid aerosol releases
involving metal salt solutions for a wide variety of release scenarios.
EPA based the 0.2 factor on the scenario with the highest release
potential in order best to serve the purposes of emergency planning. A
summary of the USDOE aerosol release scenarios with the highest ARFs
are listed in a table in the April 15, 2011 proposed rule (76 FR
21299). A more detailed discussion, along with the alternative
approaches considered, can be found in the April 15, 2011 proposed rule
and in the ``Technical Support Document for Revised TPQ Method for EHS
Solids in Solution'' in the docket for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ DOE Handbook, Airborne Release Fractions/Rates and
Respirable Fractions for Nonreactor Nuclear Facilities. December
1994. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585. DOE-HDBK-
3010-94. Volume I--Analysis of Experimental Data and Volume II--
Appendices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's revised TPQ methodology for non-reactive EHS solids in
solution and supporting data was peer reviewed and the technical
support document was revised based on peer review comments. The results
of the peer review and response to peer review comments are found in a
separate document, ``Peer Review of Technical Support Document for
Revised TPQ Method for EHS Solids in Solution,'' which is available in
the docket to this rulemaking. A summary of the peer reviewer's
comments and EPA responses to them are presented in the April 15, 2011
proposed rule (76 FR 21299).

II. Summary of This Action

A. What is the scope of this final rule?

    This final rule revises the manner for applying the TPQ for the 157
non-reactive EHS chemicals that are handled as solids in solution.
These 157 chemicals appear with two TPQs, (the higher TPQ is 10,000
pounds) in Appendix A and B of 40 CFR part 355. The 12 solid EHS
chemicals that are reactive solids are noted by footnote ``a'' in
Appendix A and B of 40 CFR part 355, and are not affected by this final
rule. Definitions of reactive and non-reactive solids, which were
explained in the preamble of the proposed rule, have also been added to
the regulations in 40 CFR 355.61 for greater clarity.
    Solid EHSs (except reactive solids) have a TPQ of 10,000 pounds or
a specified lower TPQ, for particular forms. For purposes of complying
with the emergency planning notification requirements of section 302 of
EPCRA, facilities should multiply the amount of EHS chemical handled as
a non-reactive solid in solution on-site by 0.2 before determining if
this amount equals or exceeds the established lower TPQ. If the amount
of the non-reactive EHS solids in solution on-site multiplied by 0.2
does not equal or exceed the lower

TPQ for that solid EHS, then the facility is not subject to the EPCRA
section 302 emergency planning notification requirements for that
substance. This amount includes only the weight of the chemical and not
the solvent or other chemicals in solution. The amount of non-reactive
EHS solids in solution may be determined by multiplying the weight
percent of the EHS solids in solution in a particular container by the
weight of the total solution. Solutions include aqueous or organic
solutions, slurries, viscous solutions, suspensions, emulsions, and
pastes.
    Additionally, EPA has also revised the regulations for 40 CFR
355.16(c) to be applicable only to molten non-reactive solids. That is,
the factor of 0.3 to be multiplied by the amount of a molten solid on-
site before comparing to the lower TPQ should only be used for non-
reactive solids in molten form, not reactive solids in molten form.
Reactive solids are more likely to be dispersed into the air due to the
energy or heat created from their reactivity with water or air and
their TPQs were developed taking these factors into account.
    Additionally, the methodology of applying TPQs for non-reactive EHS
solids in solution or non-reactive molten solids does not affect the
reporting requirements for sections 311 and 312 of EPCRA (40 CFR part
370). Regulations under 40 CFR 370.10 state that an EHS is present at a
facility if the ``amount of EHS present at any one time'' is equal or
greater than 500 pounds or the TPQ, whichever is lower. The reducing
factor of 0.2 for non-reactive EHS solids in solution or (0.3 for non-
reactive EHS molten solids) is not to be used for compliance with
hazardous chemical reporting. Therefore, EPA has amended the text of 40
CFR 355.16 (b) and (c) to clarify that the reduction in quantity for
the amount of non-reactive EHS solids in solution and for the amount of
non-reactive EHS solid in molten form present at a facility does not
apply for reporting requirements under 40 CFR 370.10, which covers MSDS
and hazardous chemical inventory reporting. That is, facilities must
not use the reduction in quantity on-site to determine the ``amount
present at one time'' for reporting under 40 CFR 370.10.
    The reason why the reducing factors are to be used for emergency
planning notification under 40 CFR part 355 and not under hazardous
chemical reporting under 40 CFR part 370 are explained below. Emergency
planning notification under section 302 helps LEPCs identify those
facilities whose accidental releases pose risks to the surrounding
community so they can develop emergency plans that identify the
location and number of affected populations, evacuation or shelter-in-
place procedures, etc. On the other hand, sections 311 and 312 of EPCRA
require submission of MSDSs and an on-site inventory of hazardous
chemicals to help emergency responders assess how to respond to an
emergency release or fire. In particular, responders need the amounts,
manner of storage and locations of the chemical on-site, the chemical
and physical properties, hazard ratings, toxicity information and
incompatibilities of the chemical, as well as measures needed to
contain the spill or fire at the facility in order to know how to
respond to an emergency. In addition, they need to know what type of
protective equipment is needed to protect them from exposure, not only
airborne, but also dermal exposure.
    Emergency release notification requirements under EPCRA section 304
also are not affected by this final action. Section 304 requires
facilities to notify the community emergency coordinator for the LEPC
of any area likely to be affected by the release and the SERC of any
area likely to be affected by the release (defined in 40 CFR 355.61) at
or above the reportable quantity (RQ) of any EHS or CERCLA hazardous
substance. If the chemical released is a CERCLA hazardous substance,
the release must also be reported to the National Response Center
(NRC). The RQ is not the same as the TPQ. TPQs are based on acute
mammalian toxicity and potential for airborne dispersion. RQs, on the
other hand, are developed using several criteria, including aquatic
toxicity, mammalian toxicity, ignitability, reactivity, chronic
toxicity, potential carcinogenicity, biodegradation, hydrolysis, and
photolysis (50 FR 13468, April 4, 1985).

B. Applying a TPQ for an Non-Reactive EHS Solid in Solution

    Facilities with a non-reactive EHS solid in solution should apply
the 0.2 factor only to the amount of EHS solid present, not the total
weight of the solution. As an example, a facility has 4,000 pounds of a
solution of 37% by weight paraquat dichloride on-site. Therefore, this
solution contains 1,480 pounds of paraquat dichloride (0.37 x 4,000
pounds). The facility would multiply 1,480 pounds by 0.2, which equals
296 pounds. This amount is then compared to the TPQ for paraquat
dichloride, which is 10 pounds. Because this amount exceeds the 10
pounds TPQ, the facility is required to comply with the emergency
notification requirements of section 302 of EPCRA. As another example,
a facility has 10 gallons (gal) of a solution of 37% by weight paraquat
dichloride on-site. The density of the solution is 9.33 pounds per
gallon. Therefore, this solution contains 34.5 pounds of paraquat
dichloride (10 gal x 9.33 lb/gal x 0.37). The facility would multiply
34.5 pounds by 0.2, which equals 6.9 pounds. This amount is then
compared to the TPQ for paraquat dichloride, which is 10 pounds.
Because this amount is less than the 10 pounds TPQ, the facility is not
required to comply with the emergency notification requirements of
section 302 of EPCRA.
    Facilities that handle both the powdered and solution forms of a
particular non-reactive solid EHS will have to consider the quantities
of each form and the particle size to determine whether they exceed a
TPQ. Below are several examples of how to apply the revised TPQ methods
in various cases.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For these examples, the EHS is not paraquat dichloride, but
an unspecified non-reactive solid EHS that has a lower TPQ of 500
pounds and a higher TPQ of 10,000 pounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Non-reactive solid in solution exceeds lower TPQ, powder below
10,000 pounds. A facility has on-site 5,000 pounds of a pure EHS powder
with a particle size equal to or greater than 100 microns, which is
less than the 10,000 pounds TPQ. However, they also have 1,000 gallons
of a 35% by weight non-reactive EHS solid in solution with a density of
9 pounds per gallon. The amount of solids in solution on-site is 3,150
pounds (1000 gallons x 9 pounds per gallon x 0.35). Multiplying the
3,150 pounds of solid in solution by 0.2 equates to 630 pounds, which
exceeds the lower TPQ of 500 pounds. Thus, the facility must report
under section 302 of EPCRA based on exceeding the lower TPQ for the
non-reactive solid in solution form.
    Non-reactive solid in solution below lower TPQ, powder exceeds
10,000 pounds. A facility has on-site 11,000 pounds of a pure EHS solid
powder with a particle size equal to or greater than 100 microns, which
is more than the 10,000 pounds TPQ. They also have 2,000 gallons of a
10% by weight non-reactive EHS solid in solution with a density of 9
pounds per gallon. The amount of solids in solution on-site is 1,800
pounds (2,000 gallons x 9 pounds per gallon x 0.10). Multiplying the
1,800 pounds of solid in solution by 0.2 equates to 360 pounds, which
is less than the lower TPQ of 500 pounds. Thus, the facility must
report under section 302 of EPCRA based on exceeding the 10,000 pounds
TPQ for the solid in powder form.

    Non-reactive solid in solution below lower TPQ, powder below 10,000
pounds. A facility has 5,000 pounds of a pure EHS solid powder with a
particle size equal or greater than 100 microns, which is less than the
10,000 pounds TPQ. They also have 1,500 gallons of a 15% by weight non-
reactive EHS solid in solution with a density of 9 pounds per gallon.
The amount of solids in solution on-site is 2,025 pounds (1.500 gallons
x 9 pounds per gallon x 0.15). Multiplying the 2,025 pounds of solid in
solution by 0.2 equates to 405 pounds, which is less than the lower TPQ
of 500 pounds. Thus, the facility is not required to report under
section 302 of EPCRA because it does not exceed the lower 500 pounds
TPQ for the non-reactive solids in solution form or the 10,000 pounds
TPQ for the powder with a particle size greater than 100 microns.
    Powdered product less than 100 microns, processed into solution. If
the same amount of solid EHS powder were involved as the same scenarios
above, except the powder has a particle size less than 100 microns,
then the lower 500 pounds TPQ would apply to the powder instead of
10,000 pounds. If either the amount of powder or non-reactive solids in
solution exceeds the lower TPQ, the facility would be required to
report under section 302 of EPCRA.

III. Response to Comments on April 15, 2011 Proposed Rule

    EPA received comments from three organizations. The number of
commenters in each group is as follows: Industry, 1 comment; and LEPCs,
SERCs (or TERCs) and Emergency Management Agencies (EMAs), 2 comments.
A complete summary of all comments and EPA's response to them is
presented in ``Response to Comments for Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act; Emergency Planning and List of Extremely
Hazardous Substances and Threshold Planning Quantities,'' which is
available in the docket. The major issues and the Agency's responses to
them are described below.

A. Comments Supporting the Changes

    Comment: One commenter believed that the proposed method better
reflects the ability of a solid substance becoming airborne. They also
support not changing the EPCRA section 304 reportable quantities for
EHSs.
    EPA's Response: We agree with the commenter, as it relates to non-
reactive solids in solution. However, EPA emphasizes that the changes
proposed (and finalized today) apply only to non-reactive EHS solids in
solution, not other solid forms, such as powdered solids. EHSs that are
powdered solids with a particle size of less than 100 microns diameter
are considered to be as dispersable in air as a gas and are subject to
the lower listed TPQ in Appendix A or B of 40 CFR part 355. On the
other hand, EHSs that are powdered solids with a particle size equaling
or exceeding 100 microns in diameter are subject to the higher TPQ of
10,000 pounds.
    Comment: Another commenter supported the proposed method because
they believe the changes can benefit SERCs and LEPCs to allow them to
better focus their limited resources on those amounts of EHSs that will
potentially cause the greatest harm. The commenter also thought the
proposal was consistent with Executive Order 13563, which promotes that
``analysis of rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or
excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal
them in accordance with what has been learned'' (76 FR 3822, January
21, 2011).
    EPA's Response: We agree with the commenter that the revised
methodology better aligns the regulatory requirements with the best
available science. That is, the additional experimental data on aerosol
releases refines the applicability and development of TPQs for non-
reactive EHS solids in solution because it provides a sounder
scientific basis for assigning TPQs, and thereby, more accurately
identifies the forms of solid chemicals that would pose the greatest
risks if accidently released. We also agree with the commenter that the
EHSs list and assigned TPQs are intended to help communities focus on
the substances and facilities of most immediate concern for emergency
planning and response.
    With respect to E.O. 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review, EPA did not address the application of this Executive Order in
the proposed rule because OMB review of this action had just been
completed before the Executive Order was issued in January 2011.
However, the Agency did include the revisions for the application of
TPQs for EHS non-reactive solids in solution in its report to OMB,
``Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews of Existing
Regulations'' (the Plan) in response to President Obama's charge in
Executive Order 13563 for each federal agency to develop a plan for
reviewing existing regulations. EO 13563 requires the agency to
``periodically review its existing significant regulations to determine
whether any such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded,
or repealed so as to make the agency's regulatory program more
effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives.''

B. Comments Supporting the Changes With Questions

    Comment: The commenter notes that the proposed rule states that a
facility determines the quantity of EHSs ``present'' for solids in
solution by multiplying the weight percent of non-reactive solids in
solution in a particular container by the total weight of solution in
the container, multiplied by 0.2. Under 40 CFR 370.30, a facility must
submit an MSDS for each hazardous chemical ``present'' at the facility
that meets or exceeds the applicable threshold level. Under the new
proposal, it appears the facility may report on the calculated amount
under the proposed regulation, thus changing the Tier II threshold
without any discussion or analysis. The commenter strongly urges that
the language of the proposed regulation address this ambiguity directly
and clarify its relationship to EPCRA section 312. The commenter
suggests the following language be added to the proposal in 40 CFR
355.16(b): This reduction in quantity does not apply to determining the
threshold for reporting under 40 CFR 370.10.
    EPA's Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that application of
TPQs for emergency planning and for hazardous chemical reporting should
be clarified in the regulations to make it clear that the reducing
factor is not used for compliance with the hazardous chemical reporting
requirements under 40 CFR 370.10. (See Section II.A of the preamble to
today's final rule for further discussion on this point.) However,
rather than say the reduction in quantity does not apply in determining
the TPQ (``the threshold'' as stated by commenter), EPA has amended 40
CFR 355.16(b) by stating that this reduction in quantity must not be
used to determine the amount present at one-time at a facility for
reporting under 40 CFR 370.10. That is, EPA sets the TPQs, but
facilities must determine the amount present to compare to the
threshold.
    EHS solids in molten form also have a reducing factor (0.3) applied
to the amount on-site before comparing with the TPQ. Therefore, EPA has
revised the regulation in 40 CFR 355.16(c) to also clarify that this
reducing factor must not be used to determine the amount present at
one-time at a facility for reporting under 40 CFR 370.10, which covers
hazardous chemical reporting. EPA has also revised 40 CFR 355.16(c) to
limit the application of the 0.3

reducing factor to be used only for non-reactive solids in molten form,
not for reactive solids in molten form. Definitions of reactive and
non-reactive solids, while explained in the preamble of the proposed
rule, have also been be added to the regulations in 40 CFR 355.61 for
greater clarity.

C. Comments Opposing the Changes

    Comment: One commenter was concerned with the effect that the
proposed rule will have on a community's ability to know if a hazardous
substance is present and prepare for a possible emergency. The proposed
regulation only considers a release scenario where a non-reactive EHS
solid in solution form is released via an airborne release. However,
LEPCs and Fire Departments have to look at all possible scenarios,
including a possible fire or spill to water. If there is any type of
emergency, the Fire Department will have to react to the total quantity
on hand. While there is a great deal of information in the
administrative record regarding the behavior of airborne releases of
the subject materials, none of that information suggests that these
materials are harmless in other accident scenarios.
    EPA's Response: EPA recognizes that the manner in which the TPQs
for non-reactive EHS solids in solution are being applied does not
address all environmental media that could be affected by an accident
release and EPA agrees that materials released via other accident
scenarios are not harmless. However, the development of TPQs for
emergency planning purposes under section 302 of EPCRA addresses the
air release scenario because EPA believes an air release is most likely
to involve potential exposures to the surrounding community. This air
release scenario was used to develop TPQs for all EHSs whether they
were gases, liquids, or solids. EPA is only modifying the approach for
non-reactive EHS solids in solution to reflect the scientific
information now available, which shows that an assumption of 100%
dispersion into the air beyond a facility's fence line affecting the
surrounding community is overly conservative.
    The TPQs are designed to help State and local officials identify
those sites where there is a greater potential for harm to the
surrounding community if a release were to occur, thereby focusing
resources on priority emergency planning problems (51 FR 41577,
November 17, 1986.) The approach used for setting TPQs under section
302 of EPCRA ranks chemicals based on ambient physical state, form and
the extent to which the material can become airborne and dispersed.
This approach provides a relative measure of concern rather than
absolute values and EPA acknowledged when developing the TPQs that
there is no precision associated with the numbers and they should not
be construed as ``safe'' (51 FR 41577, November 17, 1986). When the
TPQs were initially developed, EPA considered an approach based on
ranking the chemicals on toxicity alone without considering the
potential for them to become airborne, but this approach was rejected
because it might distort local planning priorities (see 51 FR 41577,
November 17, 1986 for further discussion on this point). The Agency
believes that limited state and local resources should be focused on
those substances that potentially cause the greatest harm should an
accidental release occur (52 FR 13390, April 22, 1987).
    Nevertheless, EPA recognizes that Fire departments will need to
react to the entire quantity on-site. Therefore, the reduction of the
amount on-site of a non-reactive EHS solid in solution is only allowed
for emergency planning purposes under section 302 of EPCRA and is not
to be used for reporting under sections 311 and 312 of EPCRA.
Accordingly, fire departments will have all the same information as
before for planning and responding to an accidental release. LEPCs also
have access to the same information for planning purposes.
    Comment: One commenter was concerned that the proposed change is a
unique approach to evaluating EHS chemicals and is foreign to LEPCs,
fire departments and SERCs. For other EHSs, it is not necessary to
carry around a calculator to evaluate whether the visually obvious
quantity being stored is actually in excess of the TPQ. For all other
EHS chemicals, looking at the MSDS and knowing the quantity on hand
suffices.
    EPA's Response: The approach being finalized today, which revises
the manner for applying TPQs for non-reactive EHS solids in solution is
not ``unique''; rather, EPA has already used a similar approach for
determining the manner for applying TPQs for molten solids (except that
the amount on-site is multiplied by 0.3). When proposing such an
approach for molten solids, the Agency received no feedback from LEPCs,
fire departments or SERCs (or TERCs) that applying this approach is
problematic. In addition, we would note that quantities of EHSs that
are stored as mixtures (such as solutions) already require some
calculation of the total quantity of mixture multiplied by the
concentration to determine the pounds of pure EHS (see 40 CFR 355.13).
Adding up various containers and sources of the stored EHSs within a
facility requires calculation and is already required (see 40 CFR
355.14). Some calculations for emergency planning should be expected
and EPA does not believe a further calculation for comparison to a TPQ
is unnecessarily burdensome. In addition, as noted elsewhere in this
preamble, the Hazardous Chemical Inventory reports provide the total
quantities and locations for use by emergency planning and response
groups, and thus, we believe the information that LEPCs and Fire
Departments need will still be available to them for emergency planning
purposes.
    Comment: One commenter was concerned about the burden being
balanced in this situation: a one-time notice versus the annual or even
more frequent effort by the LEPC and fire department to evaluate risks
present in the community. The commenter believes that a release of
these chemicals is hazardous and undoing 25 years of information
collection and emergency planning just so a one-time notice can be
avoided, seems absurd.
    EPA's Response: EPA believes that because most facilities have (or
should have) already reported the presence of EHSs exceeding relevant
TPQs to their LEPCs, it is not apparent how this change in requirements
will require more frequent effort by LEPCs and fire departments to
evaluate risks. The data already collected by LEPCs, fire departments
and SERCs (or TERCs) is still available and reporting on hazardous
chemicals ``aids in the development of state and local emergency
plans'' (40 CFR 370.1). If an LEPC believes that unreasonable risks are
still posed for an EHS present at a facility, section 302(b)(2) of
EPCRA allows a Governor or SERC to designate additional facilities
after public notice and comment to be subject to the emergency planning
and notification requirements of section 302 of EPCRA. In addition,
facilities are still subject to emergency planning notification if they
handle other EHSs that exceed their TPQs.
    We would also note that EPA did not make this change in reporting
just so a one-time notice could be avoided. The issue was initially
addressed due to a lawsuit that challenged, among other things, that
EPA did not adequately explain the basis for setting the TPQs for non-
reactive EHS solids in solution and did not adequately explain why it
thought that such solids in solution could be expected to be completely

dispersed into the air, as compared to gases or powdered solids. EPA
now believes, based on the studies cited in its technical analysis,
that the previous assumption that a release of a non-reactive EHS solid
in solution would be as readily dispersed to air as a gaseous EHS, for
example, was overly conservative and without a good basis.
    Finally, for all practical purposes, changing the notification
requirement affects only those facilities who have not yet reported a
non-reactive EHS solid in solution. Thus, EPA believes that this change
will allow those planning agencies with limited resources to better
focus their efforts on those forms of EHSs that are more likely to
cause the greatest harm. EPA also acknowledges that non-reactive EHS
solids in solution can be hazardous, but notes that the requirements of
EPCRA section 302 do not apply to all hazardous chemicals, only a
subset, such as the limited listing of EHS.
    Comment: One commenter noted that EPA suggested in the proposed
rule that Tier II reports will still provide adequate information to
LEPCs and fire departments. The commenter stated that the authority of
EPCRA section 303(d)(3) does not apply to Tier II reports, which will
immediately deprive LEPCs of perhaps their greatest asset in emergency
planning.
    EPA's Response: EPA agrees that the authority of EPCRA section
303(d)(3) [42 U.S.C. 11003(d)(3)] does not apply to Tier II reports.
Section 303(d)(3) requires that for each facility subject to the
requirements of Subchapter I--Emergency Planning and Notification, the
owner or operator of the facility shall promptly provide information to
such committee necessary for developing and implementing the emergency
plan, upon request from the emergency planning committee. Tier II
Inventory reporting requirements are covered under Subchapter II--
Reporting Requirements of EPCRA [42 U.S.C. 11021-11023].
    EPA believes that less priority can be given for these forms of
chemicals--that is, a non-reactive EHS solid in solution, based on the
data that indicates they are not expected to be as dispersed into the
air in the event of an accident. Other EHSs (such as gases and volatile
liquids) are in a physical state and form more likely to cause
potential risks to off-site communities when released. Facilities are
still covered under section 302 of EPCRA if they have other EHSs that
exceed the TPQs and thus, may still be required to provide some
information relevant for emergency planning. Also, for purposes of
emergency planning, section 302(b)(2) of EPCRA does allow a governor or
a SERC to designate additional facilities to be subject to emergency
planning and notification requirements, if such designation is made
after public notice and opportunity for comment.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
Rather, this final rule raises the amount of chemical on-site required
before triggering emergency planning reporting under 40 CFR part 355
for non-reactive EHS solids in solution. Facilities with this form of
EHS chemical would have already (or should have already) reported their
presence to their SERC (or TERC) and LEPC and identified a Facility
Emergency Coordinator and necessary information for development of a
local emergency plan to their LEPC. If, as a result of this rulemaking,
facilities find that they have a non-reactive EHS solid in solution on-
site which no longer equals or exceeds the TPQ, the facility should
notify their LEPC. Section 303(d)(2) of EPCRA requires facilities to
promptly provide to their LEPC any changes relevant to emergency
planning. Regulations at 40 CFR 355.20 clarify that relevant changes to
emergency planning should be reported within 30 days. EPA expects that
this notification will be a minimal burden. The emergency planning
notification requirement is not required annually. There may be a
slight burden reduction for facilities that are reporting non-reactive
EHS solids in solution for the first time under the EPCRA section 302
requirements.
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved
the information collection requirements contained in the existing
regulations at 40 CFR part 355 under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control
number 2050-0092, EPA ICR number 1395.07. The OMB control numbers for
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the rule on small entities'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule
relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect
on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
    This final rule changes the manner by which facilities apply the
TPQs for those non-reactive EHSs that are solid chemicals in solution
form. Specifically, facilities with a non-reactive EHS solid in
solution would be subject to the Emergency Planning requirements of 40
CFR part 355, subpart B--Emergency Planning only if the amount of non-
reactive EHS solids in solution on-site, multiplied by 0.2 equals or
exceeds the lower published TPQ. We have therefore concluded that
today's final rule will relieve regulatory burden for some affected
small entities and will have no economic impact on the rest of the
affected small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1532-1538 for state, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. This action does not impose any new requirements on state,
local or tribal governments. Facilities currently with non-reactive EHS
solids in solution on-site have already (or should have already)
reported these chemicals to their SERC (or TERC) and LEPC and
identified a Facility Emergency Coordinator and the necessary
information for developing an emergency plan to their LEPC. We expect
that this action will neither increase nor decrease the requirements
for SERCs (or TERCs) or LEPCs. Therefore, this action is not subject to
the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does
not impose any new requirements on state, local or tribal governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132.
    This action reduces the reporting burden on any facilities that
would have a non-reactive EHS solid in solution on-site for the first
time and could be subject to the emergency planning requirements for
that chemical under 40 CFR part 355, subpart B--Emergency Planning. We
also expect that this action will neither increase nor decrease the
requirements for SERCs (or TERCs) or LEPCs. This rule does not impose
any requirements on state or local governments. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action
reduces reporting burden on any facilities that would have a non-
reactive EHS solid in solution on-site for the first time and could be
subject to the emergency planning requirements for that chemical under
40 CFR part 355, subpart B--Emergency Planning. This action also does
not impose any new requirements on tribal governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined
in Executive Order 12866 and because the Agency does not believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. This action reduces the reporting
burden on any facilities that would have a non-reactive EHS solid in
solution on-site for the first time and could be subject to the
emergency planning requirements for that chemical under 40 CFR part
355, subpart B--Emergency Planning.

H. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action,'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution
or use of energy. Rather, this final rule would reduce reporting burden
on any facilities that would have a non-reactive EHS solid in solution
on-site for the first time and could be subject to the emergency
planning requirements for that chemical under 40 CFR part 355, subpart
B--Emergency Planning.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
would otherwise be impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are
technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations of when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994))
establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main
provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable
and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this final rule does not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. That is, based on new information and data, the Agency
believes that the amount of non-reactive EHS solids in solution that
would remain airborne from an accidental release into the environment
will be lower than previously considered, and thus, would have less
impact on the local community. This in turn will allow SERCs (or TERCs)
and LEPCs to better focus their attention and limited resources on the
amounts of EHS chemicals that can potentially cause the greatest harm,
including those affecting minority or low-income populations, and to
spend less time and fewer resources on those that pose less harm, when
released.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective April 23, 2012.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 355

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Disaster assistance, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste,
Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, Penalties, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control,
Water supply.

    Dated: March 15, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 355--EMERGENCY PLANNING AND NOTIFICATION

0
1. The authority citation for part 355 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  Sections 302, 303, 304, 325, 327, 328, and 329 of
the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986
(EPCRA) (42 U.S.C. 11002, 11003, 11004, 11045, 11047, 11048, and
11049).

0
2. Section 355.16 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read
as follows:

Sec.  355.16  How do I determine the quantity of extremely hazardous
substances present for certain forms of solids?

* * * * *
    (b) Solid in solution. Multiply the weight percent of the non-
reactive solid in solution in a particular container by the total
weight of solution in that container. Then multiply by 0.2.

    Note to paragraph (b):  This reduction in quantity must not be
used to determine the amount present at one-time at a facility for
reporting under 40 CFR 370.10.

    (c) Solid in molten form. Multiply the weight of the non-reactive
solid in molten form by 0.3.

    Note to paragraph (c):  This reduction in quantity must not be
used to determine the amount present at one-time at a facility for
reporting under 40 CFR 370.10.

0
3. Section 355.61 is amended by adding in alphabetical order the
definitions of ``Non-reactive Solid'', ``Reactive solid'' and
``Solution'' to read as follows:

Sec.  355.61  How are key words in this part defined?

* * * * *
    Non-reactive solid means any substance listed in Appendix A or B of
this part with two threshold planning quantity values, the higher TPQ
being 10,000 pounds.
* * * * *
    Reactive solid means any extremely hazardous substance denoted with
``a'' in the ``Notes'' column in Appendix A or B of this part.
* * * * *
    Solution means any aqueous or organic solutions, slurries, viscous
solutions, suspensions, emulsions, or pastes.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-6910 Filed 3-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 32 (Thursday, February 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 9224]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3596]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC12-66-000.
    Applicants: Turner Energy LLC, MoArk, LLC, DeCoster Enterprises,
LLC.
    Description: Joint Application for Disposition of Jurisdictional
Facilities and Privileged Treatment of Exhibit I.
    Filed Date: 2/7/12.
    Accession Number: 20120207-5161.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/28/12.

    Docket Numbers: EC12-67-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, Entergy Nuclear
Palisades, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Power Marketing, LLC, Entergy Nuclear
Vermont Yankee, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Fitzpatrick, LLC, Entergy Nuclear
Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, Llano
Estacado Wind, LLC, Entergy Power, LLC, Northern Iowa Windpower, LLC,
EAM Nelson Holding, LLC,EWO Marketing, LLC, Entergy Rhode Island State
Energy, L.P.
    Description: Application of EAM Nelson Holding, LLC, et al., for
Section 203 Authorization.
    Filed Date: 2/8/12.
    Accession Number: 20120208-5043.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/29/12.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG12-31-000.
    Applicants: Quantum Choctaw Power, LLC.
    Description: Quantum Choctaw Power Notice of Self-certification of
Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 2/8/12.
    Accession Number: 20120208-5011.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/29/12.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1022-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Request for Tariff Waiver of Pacific Gas and Electric
Company.
    Filed Date: 2/7/12.
    Accession Number: 20120207-5162.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/28/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1023-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Original Service Agreement No. 3187; Queue No. W3-
134 to be effective 1/16/2012.
    Filed Date: 2/8/12.
    Accession Number: 20120208-5049.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/29/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1024-000.
    Applicants: Carolina Power & Light Company.
    Description: Cancellation of Service Agreement No. 315 under
Carolina Power and Light OATT to be effective 1/20/2012.
    Filed Date: 2/8/12.
    Accession Number: 20120208-5062.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/29/12.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 pm
Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered,
but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 8, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-3596 Filed 2-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


                   Supporting Statement for EPA ICR 2470.03
 Identification of the Information Collection
1(a) Title:
Technical Assistance Needs Assessments (TANAs) at Superfund Remedial or Removal Sites, EPA ICR 2470.03, OMB Control Number 2050-0211.

1(b) Abstract:
ICR 2050-0211 addresses federally conducted community involvement for remedial activities at sites on the National Priorities List (NPL) (Superfund sites) or for removal actions lasting 120 days or longer. This ICR covers specifically the use of TANAs with members of the affected community in order to determine how the community is receiving technical information about a site; whether the community needs additional assistance in order to understand and respond to site-related technical information; and whether there are organizations in the community that are interested or involved in site related issues and capable of acting as an appropriate conduit for technical assistance services to the affected community. The TANA will help ensure the community's needs for technical assistance are defined as early in the remedial/removal process as possible and enable meaningful community involvement in the Superfund decision-making process. Additionally, the TANA process produces a blueprint for designing a coordinated effort to meet the community's needs for additional technical assistance while minimizing the overlap of services provided.

 Need for and Use of the Information Collection

2(a) Need/Authority for Collection:

TANAs are not required by statute or regulation; however, they are strongly recommended whenever an impacted community may require additional technical assistance. EPA believes involvement of the members of the community surrounding a Superfund site is critical to ensuring effective site cleanups.

What information will be collected?
The TANA will identify unaddressed technical assistance needs relating to the remedial/removal activities occurring at a given site, including non-advocacy information assistance and expertise; community education needs; organizational capacity-building assistance; and mediation or conflict resolution services.

From whom will the information be collected?
When the TANA is being conducted concurrently with the Community Involvement Plan (CIP) community interviews, the TANA questions will be asked of all interviewees. TANA interviewees may include state and local government officials, a Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) representative (if applicable), and community members/ leaders who have expressed a specific interest in, or knowledge of, the community's technical assistance needs (including but not limited to those participating in the site's Technical Assistance Grant (TAG), Community Advisory Group (CAG), or Technical Assistance Services for Communities (TASC)). The CIC should make every effort to ensure all affected stakeholder groups are represented in the TANA interviews.

If the TANA is being conducted after the CIP community interviews have been completed, the CIC may select interviewees from those participating in the original community interviews and include others who may be able to define the community's potential technical assistance needs. Additionally, community members may self-identify as wanting to participate in the TANA interviews. Given the specific nature of the TANA, EPA anticipates about 20 people to be interviewed for each TANA but the number may vary based on community interest. If the TANA is conducted concurrently with the CIP community interviews, this number may be greater. The interviews will be targeted towards those individuals requesting additional support on technical issues (e.g., inquiring about site documents to review) and individuals who request to be included in the interview process.

How will the information be collected?
The interviews associated with the TANA may be one of the first opportunities the EPA has to engage with community members one-on-one. Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) and On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs) accompany the CIC to learn firsthand about the community member's concerns. Whenever a contractor conducts the TANA interviews, EPA personnel will generally be present. In situations where interviewees have expressed concern with having EPA personnel participate, the interview may be conducted by the contractor alone. The interviewer will ask each stakeholder a series of questions (Attachment A), with the responses being documented. The stakeholder interview process should incorporate additional questions and/or seek clarification on responses as needed. The TANA interviews may be conducted either in-person or over the phone.

CICs can use contractor support to prepare for and conduct the TANA. The contractor support is useful for documenting the interviews and summarizing notes from individual interviews. The CIC, with or without contract support, then summarizes the interviews into a final TANA summary.

How frequently will the information be collected?
The TANA can be conducted concurrently with Community Interviews administered for developing an initial CIP or an update, or at a later date if the technical assistance needs of the community cannot be adequately defined by community members at that time. Conducting the TANA concurrently with the CIP community interviews can help minimize EPA staff time, defray costs and reduce the administrative/ time burden placed on community members. A TANA can be conducted at any time during the Superfund remedial process if it becomes evident that the technical assistance needs of the community are not being effectively addressed through existing technical assistance mechanisms. TANAs will most often be conducted at sites where communities have unaddressed technical assistance needs and most frequently once during the remedial/removal process.

2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data:

What will the information be used for?
A TANA will aid the CIC and the RPM or OSC in determining the technical assistance needs of a community affected by a specific site. This assessment will provide the Agency with a detailed record of potentially unmet technical assistance needs and provide a working document from which the most appropriate forms of technical assistance can be identified and provided to the community. One of the additional objectives for conducting a TANA is to avoid unnecessary duplication of technical assistance provided to a community through EPA programs and funding vehicles.

Will the information be shared with any other organizations inside or outside EPA?
The TANA will enhance opportunities for EPA to cooperate with other organizations (e.g., National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) Superfund Research Program grantees, nonprofits providing capacity building assistance) with the shared goal of addressing a community's technical assistance needs.

 Non- duplication, consultations, and other ICR criteria

3 (a) Non- duplication:

There is no duplication as there are no other sources available to collect this information. In addition, the Community Interviews conducted for a CIP have been revised to incorporate questions to address whether a formal TANA should be conducted. The development of the technical assistance needs assessment questions were coordinated with a revision of the Community Interviews tool to ensure questions asked of community members were not duplicative.

3 (b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR submission to OMB:

      Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d), in proposing to renew this ICR, EPA will publish a Federal Register Notice providing a 60-day public comment period. Attachment B is reserved for public comments & EPA responses.

3 (c) Consultations:

      Under 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), federal agencies are required to consult with respondents about the information collections before submitting approval requests to OMB. In accordance with this regulation, EPA staff will contact representatives from a cross section of stakeholders to seek feedback on the burden estimates in this ICR, and on the clarity of the information collection process. Attachment C is reserved for responses to consultation questions.

3 (d) TANA and other Community Interview Questions:

The TANA was written to specifically complement interviews conducted to develop or revise a CIP.  Definitive questions (per ICR 2050-0179) have been added to the Community Interviews tool guiding the CIC to only conduct a formalized TANA when an impacted community has unaddressed technical assistance needs and those needs are not anticipated to be effectively addressed through technical assistance provided directly by EPA staff (e.g., fact sheets, workshops, availability sessions, etc.). For the majority of sites, technical assistance provided by EPA staff will be sufficient to meet the needs of the community. Information collection through TANAs will be conducted with the minimal amount of burden necessary to ensure the technical assistance needs of impacted communities are appropriately assessed and addressed.

3 (e) General Guidelines:

The final TANA and resulting summary documents will be included in the official site file in the information repository. The site records will be retained according to the record-keeping requirements for CERCLA sites. Responsibility for these files will continue beyond the three-year ICR period as cleanups typically take more than three years. This information collection contains no special circumstances that would conflict with the general guidelines in 5 CFR § 1320.5.

3 (f) Confidentiality:

The nature of the data being gathered as part of this information collection is not confidential. Lists of participants in community interviews and lists of attendees of public meetings are not confidential. Some data gathered during community interviews may not be releasable, however, due to privacy concerns.

3 (g) Sensitive Questions:

The information gathering activities discussed in this ICR generally do not involve any sensitive questions.

 Respondents and Information requested

 4(a) Respondents
Respondents to this ICR are individual community members and State/ local officials who may be impacted by a Superfund site or a removal action lasting 120 days or longer. These community members voluntarily participate in community involvement activities throughout the remedial phase of the Superfund process.

4(b) Information requested

This ICR voluntarily requests information from community members at sites where the impacted community may have unaddressed technical assistance needs including but not limited to: non-advocacy information assistance and expertise; community education needs; organizational capacity-building assistance; and mediation or conflict resolution services.

 Data items, including record-keeping requirements

Technical Assistance Needs Assessments

CICs will conduct TANAs when it is determined that a community impacted by a remedial or removal (activity lasting 120 days or longer) site has unaddressed technical assistance needs. TANAs are not required by statute or regulation and for most sites technical assistance provided by EPA staff (e.g., fact sheets, availability sessions, workshops, trainings, etc.) will be sufficient to meet the technical needs of a community and a formal TANA will not be necessary.

The interviews associated with the TANA may be one of the first opportunities the EPA has to engage with community members one-on-one. RPMs and OSCs are expected to accompany the CIC to learn firsthand about the community member's concerns.  Additionally, a contractor may provide support for TANA interviews. In situations where interviewees have expressed concern with having EPA personnel participate, the interview may be conducted by the contractor alone. When the preliminary questions in the CIP community interviews suggest the need to conduct a TANA, the CIC may conduct the TANA interviews with a smaller number of individuals who can help define the community's specific needs. TANA interviewees may include state and local government officials, a PRP representative (if applicable), and community members who have expressed a specific interest in, or knowledge of, the community's technical assistance needs. The CIC will make every effort to ensure all affected stakeholder groups are represented in the TANA interviews. If the TANA is being conducted after the CIP community interviews have been completed, about 20 persons are expected to be interviewed given the specific nature of the needs assessment.

The interviewer will ask each stakeholder a series of questions, with the responses being documented. The stakeholder interview process will incorporate additional questions or request supplemental information as needed. The interviews are generally summarized into a succinct summary document detailing the unaddressed technical assistance needs of the community. The CIC, RPM, OSC, and appropriate members of the Site Team will review the content of the summary document. Additionally, interviewees may be provided an opportunity to review the draft document to ensure their information was accurately captured. EPA will distribute the final document to the community. The CIC will explore additional technical assistance options (e.g., Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) grants or TASC contract support) based on the TANA findings. The final TANA summary documents will be available at the site's information repository.

EPA expects approximately five TANAs to be completed at either remedial or removal sites in a given year. This estimate is based upon the average number of TANAs conducted through contractor support at NPL sites from the past three years.

  Respondent Activities

In participating in the remedial phase, community members may disclose information to EPA personnel during interviews. Community members may perform any or all of the following activities:
 Participate in interviews.
 Review the draft and final TANA summary document.
 Meet with technical assistance providers (i.e., TAG coordinators, TASC contractors, etc.)

 Information collected: Agency activities, collection methodology, information management

5(a) Agency activities
At any remedial or removal site where the impacted community may have unaddressed technical assistance needs, the Agency may conduct the following activities: TANA interviews, TANA summary document generation, and coordinating technical assistance between the community and assistance providers.
5(B) Collection methodology and management

The information collection methodology depends on the type of activity being conducted. TANAs will not require an extensive number of hours as 20 persons per affected site are expected to be interviewed annually. It is preferable for the interviews to be conducted in person; however,  remote interviews (e.g., phone, ZOOM, Skype, etc.) are advisable when travel funds or time are restrictive.

The activities reflected in this ICR do not lend themselves to automation because of the decentralized nature of each remedial/removal activity. These activities are site-specific and, therefore, are not conducive to mass data collection efforts. The use of improved information technology is not prohibited in any way.

5(c) Small entity flexibility

Information collection from small entities (individual community members, community organizations, etc.) is done on a voluntary basis. Since these respondents are providing information voluntarily, the Federal government is not placing any undue burden on small entities and does provide plenty of flexibility.

5(d) Collection schedule
TANAS CAN BE CONDUCTED CONCURRENTLY WITH Community Interviews administered for the development and update of a CIP, or at a later date if the technical assistance needs of the community cannot be adequately defined by community members at that time. A TANA can be conducted at any time during the Superfund cleanup process if it becomes evident that the technical assistance needs of the community are unknown or not being effectively addressed through existing technical assistance mechanisms. A TANA is most effectively utilized when conducted as early as possible in the community engagement process.

 Estimating the burden and cost of the Information Collection
6(A) Estimating respondent burden

Respondent burden estimates are calculated from an informal survey of CICs and EPA community involvement managers regarding the potential number of remedial/removal sites where the impacted community has unaddressed technical assistance needs which cannot be effectively addressed through technical assistance provided by the Agency. Additionally, TANAs conducted by EPA contractors were reviewed for estimating the time burden for community members and Agency personnel. The annual hours per activity figure is multiplied by the number of sites expected to be engaging in the activity every year. This calculation gives the total annual hours for all sites by activity.

The estimated number of respondents reported for this information collection is 100. This number is based upon the average number of TANAs conducted through contractor support at NPL sites from the past three years. The estimated respondent burden is based on an annual average of approximately five remedial/removal sites requiring a TANA in a given year with 20 interviewees per site.

 Community Burden Hours

All community burden hours are due to voluntary participation in the TANA interviews. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requires the inclusion of information gathering activities in which the community participates. These activities are those for which information is expressly collected from community members. The PRA (5 CFR part 1320, "Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public, FRN 8/29/1995, Sect. 1320.3 (h) (8)) excludes the following activities from the definition of information for the purpose of Information Collection Requests: attendance at public informational meetings or briefings, response to comments on EPA documents, participation in community groups for which EPA is not a sponsor, reading fact sheets, and making use of EPA open office hours. This ICR records estimated burden hours for community members to participate in TANA interviews.

EPA estimates that 20 people will be interviewed for one hour each at five remedial or removal (action lasting 120 days or longer) sites each year in the process of conducting TANAs. The total annual estimated burden for TANA interviews is 100 hours. As noted earlier, these hours include state/local government staff and possibly a responsible party if they wish to participate in the survey.

6(b) Estimating respondent costs

Respondent costs are divided into labor costs and other costs, which includes all operation and maintenance, non-labor, and capital costs. The methodology for calculating these costs for the three-year ICR period is addressed in detail below.

 Estimating labor costs

The hourly rate for community members who participate in Superfund remedial activities on a voluntary, and non-paid, basis is $25.87. The value is based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) March 2021 data, which reports an average hourly wage of $25.27 for "production, non-supervisory on private non-farm payrolls, seasonally-adjusted" employees. The recent trend in this category of BLS data is for the rate to increase approximately $0.60 per year. Therefore, $25.87 is the average rate over the three-year period of this ICR for all activities in which the community may participate. Labor costs for community activities represent hypothetical costs only.

  Estimating capital, operations and maintenance, and other costs

Community members have no O&M, non-labor or capital costs.

 Annualizing capital costs

No capital costs are incurred during the activities described in this ICR.
TABLE 1: ESTIMATED COSTS TO COMMUNITIES (Voluntary Activities, not actually expended costs)
                                   Activity
                        Total Activities at Sites/ Year
                          Hours per Activity per year
                               Hourly Labor Rate
                        Annual Labor Costs per Activity
            Capital, O&M, Non-labor Costs per Activity per Year
                        Total Annual Costs per Activity
                    Total Annual Labor Costs for all Sites*
         Total Annual Capital, O&M, Non-labor Costs for all Sites
                       Total Annual Costs for all Sites
                                TANA Interviews
                                      100
                                       1
                                    $25.87
                                    $25.87
                                      $0
                                    $25.87
                                    $2,587

                                      $0
                                    $2,587

6(c) Estimating Agency burden and cost
Burden on EPA covered in the ICR includes those hours and costs incurred in the implementation of Community Involvement activities. These activities include preparing for and conducting TANAs with community members impacted by a remedial or removal site. Total number of activities and the Federal hours required to complete them are estimated by a group of Headquarters and Regional Community Involvement EPA employees. The total estimated annual burden hours placed on EPA for the TANA process is 425 (Table 2).

Table 2: Estimated Burden Hours for Federal TANA process
                                   Activity
                                  # of Sites
                         # of Activities at each Site
                            Hrs. per Activity/ yr.
                      Annual Hrs. for Activity at a Site
                        Total Annual Hrs. for all Sites
                         Preparing for TANA Interviews
                                       5
                                       1
                                      10
                                      10
                                      50
                          Conducting TANA interviews
                                       5
                                      20
                                       1
                                      20
                                      100
                        Creating TANA Summary Document
                                       5
                                       1
                                      25
                                      25
                                      125
                Coordinating Technical Assistance to Community
                                       5
                                       1
                                      30
                                      30
                                      150

                                     TOTAL
                                      425

Labor costs to EPA were calculated using the assumption that 100 percent of the labor of these activities would be conducted through technical staff. To determine the hourly wage, 50 percent of the value of a Step 5, GS-12 $36.29 (and Step 1, GS-13 $43.15 are summed ($79.44), halved, and then adjusted for locality pay using a factor of 1.20, which results in $47.66. To further adjust for overhead, $47.66 is multiplied by 1.6, which results in $76.26. The annual labor cost for each activity that involves use of Federal hours is calculated using this labor rate. The total estimated annual costs EPA incurs for the TANA process is $32,390 (Table 3).
Table 3: Estimated Costs to the Federal Government for the TANA Process
                                   Activity
                           Total Activities at Sites
                          Hours per Activity per Year
                               Hourly Labor Rate
                       Annual Labor Costs per Activity*
                       Annual Capital Costs per Activity
                      Annual Non-Labor Cost per Activity
                       Annual O&M Costs per Activity
                        Total Annual Costs per Activity
                    Total Annual Labor Costs for all Sites*
                   Total Annual Capital Costs for all Sites
                  Total Annual Non-Labor Costs for all Sites
                   Total Annual O&M Costs for all Sites
                       Total Annual Costs for all Sites
                         Preparing for TANA Interviews
                                       5
                                      10
                                    $76.26
                                     $763
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                     $763
                                    $3,815
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                    $3,815
                          Conducting TANA interviews
                                      100
                                       1
                                    $76.26
                                      $76
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $76
                                    $7,600
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                    $7,600
                        Creating TANA Summary Document
                                       5
                                      25
                                    $76.26
                                     $1907
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                    $1,907
                                    $9,535
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                    $9,535
                Coordinating Technical Assistance to Community
                                       5
                                      30
                                    $76.26
                                    $2,288
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                    $2,288
                                    $11,440
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                    $11,440

                                     TOTAL
                                    $32,390
     *Rounded to the nearest whole dollar.

6(d) Estimating the respondent universe and total burden and cost
The number of sites where a TANA may be conducted over the three-year period of the ICR is based upon the number of TANAs conducted through contractor support at NPL sites over the past three years. The number of community members involved at each site is expected to be about 20 individuals. The total burden and cost to each respondent is a summation of all activities described in detail in previous sections of this document.

6(e) Bottom-line burden hours and cost tables
 Respondent tally
The total burden hours and costs displayed in the table below reflect the community members participating voluntarily at Superfund sites. Community costs of $5,812 (Table 1) are all hypothetical and do not represent the actual expenditure of dollars because participation is voluntary.
Table 4: Total respondent Burden Hours and Costs
                                  Respondent
                                 Annual Burden
                                  Annual Cost
                              Total 3 yr. Burden
                               Total 3 yr. Cost
                                  Communities
                                      100
                                    $2,587
                                      300

                                     Total
                                      100
                                    $2,587
                                      300
                                    $5,174

(ii) Agency tally
The total burden and costs represented in the following table is the amount EPA expects to spend directly in preparing for and conducting TANAs with communities at Superfund sites.
Table 5: Total Federal Agency Burden Hours and Costs
                                  Respondent
                                 Annual Burden
                                  Annual Cost
                              Total 3 yr. Burden
                               Total 3 yr. Cost
                         Federal- Community Activities
                                      425
                                    $32,390
                                     1,275

                                     Total
                                      425
                                    $32,390
                                     1,275
                                    $97,170

(iii) Variations in the annual bottom line
Variations to the annual bottom-line numbers may occur as TANA activities depend almost exclusively on the community needs at the site. EPA expects the relative number of annual activities to be similar in each year of the ICR period.

6(f) Reasons for change in burden
There is a 450-hour decrease in the total respondent burden hours over the three-year period. The number of individual TANAs sharply declined, from 25 to five per year thus decreasing the overall number of respondents voluntarily participating in this information request. There is a decrease of 825 burden hours over a three-year period for EPA due to a decrease in the number of TANAs conducted each year. There is a decrease of $55,605 in EPA burden costs.

6(g) Burden statement
The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average one hour per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This estimate includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying 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.
 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 Number which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov. Due to public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room are closed to the public with limited exceptions. The telephone number for the Superfund Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov. This site can be used to 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. When in the system, select "search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2021- [TBD] and OMB Control Number 2050-0211 in any correspondence.
 Attachments
Attachments to the supporting statement are available in the public docket established for this Information Collection Request (ICR) under the docket identification number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2021-[TBD]. These attachments are available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov or otherwise accessed as described in the sections below.

Attachment A
TANA Questionnaire
Attachment B
Reserved for Public Comments & EPA Responses
Attachment C
Reserved for Consultation Questions and Respondent Answers