	             CRITERIA FOR CLASSIFICATION OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES AND PRACTICES

 	EPA ICR Number 1745.07, OMB Control Number 2050-0154

                               TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION	1       1(a)	Title and Number of the Information Collection	1       1(b)	Characterization of the Information Collection	1

2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION	2       2(a)	Need and Authority for the Collection	2       2(b)	Use and Users of the Data	2

3.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED	3       3(a)	Respondents/SIC codes	3       3(b)	Public Notice	3       3(c)    Information Requested.................................................................. 3        4.	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED-- AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT	7       4(a)	Agency Activities	7       4(b)	Collection Methodology and Management	7       4(c)	Small Entity Flexibility	8       4(d)	Collection Schedule	8

5.	NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA	8       5(a)	Nonduplication	8       5(b)	Consultations	9       5(c)	Effect of Less Frequent Collection	9       5(d)	General Guidelines	9       5(e)	Confidentiality	10       5(f)	Sensitive Questions	10

6.	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN HOURS AND COST OF THE COLLECTION	10       6(a)	Estimating the Respondent Burden Hours - Original ICR .  . . . . . . . . . . .10            6(b)    Estimating the respondent Burden Hours - Continuing ICR  . . . . . . . . .  13            6(c)	Estimating Respondent Burden Hours and Costs	16       6(d)	Estimating Agency Burden Hours and Cost	16       6(e)	Estimating State Burden Hours and Cost	17       6(f)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs/Master Tables	18       6(g)	Reasons for Change in Burden	19       6(h)	Burden Statement	19

	                                    EXHIBITS

Estimated Respondent Wage Rates (Exhibit 1)	16 Estimated Agency/State Wage Rates (Exhibit 2)	17 Estimated State Recordkeeping/Reporting Burden and Cost (Exhibit 3)	18 Estimated Annual Respondent Recordkeeping Burden and Cost (Exhibit 4)	21 Estimated One-Time Respondent Recordkeeping Burden and Cost (Exhibit 5)	22 Estimated Annual Respondent Reporting Burden and Cost (Exhibit 6)	23 Estimated One-Time Respondent Reporting Burden and Cost (Exhibit 7)	24 Total Estimated Annual and One-Time Burden Hours and Cost (Exhibit 8)	25

1.	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

      1(a)	TITLE AND NUMBER OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION         This continuing ICR is entitled "Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices (Renewal)"             ICR 1745.07, OMB Number 2050-0154.

      1(b)	CHARACTERIZATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

      The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended, mandated that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revise the Criteria for Solid Waste Disposal Facilities that may receive household hazardous wastes and conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG) wastes.  EPA submitted a Report to Congress in October 1988 that assessed the impacts on human health and the environment associated with Subtitle D (non-hazardous waste) units.  While this study found that the revised Criteria for municipal solid waste disposal units were necessary to protect human health and the environment, the report failed to draw a conclusion relating to industrial Subtitle D units.  The limited data on such units indicated that there might be a basis for concern and further study was needed.

      The proposed solid waste disposal facility criteria were published on August 30, 1988.  On October 9, 1991 EPA promulgated revised Criteria for Solid Waste Disposal Facilities (56 FR 50978) accepting household hazardous wastes.  These revisions fulfilled the part of the statutory mandate in RCRA Section 4010 for all units that receive household and CESQG hazardous wastes (i.e., municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs)).  Revisions to the part 257 criteria for other Subtitle D disposal units that may receive CESQG hazardous wastes were delayed as the Agency had little information concerning the potential or actual impacts that these types of units had on human health and the environment.

      On October 21, 1993, the Sierra Club filed suit against EPA in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to compel EPA to promulgate revised Criteria for non-municipal units that may receive small quantity generator hazardous waste.  As a result of the October 21, 1993 lawsuit, EPA and the Sierra Club reached agreement on a schedule concerning revised Criteria for non-municipal units that may receive CESQG wastes.  This schedule required that the EPA Administrator sign a proposal by May 15, 1995 and a final rule by July 1, 1996.  The proposal was signed on May 15, 1995 and the Agency promulgated the final rule on July 1, 1996.

      The attached supporting statement provides continued justification for the information collection requirements included in the final rulemaking for non-municipal units that may receive CESQG wastes.  In general, the final Criteria require that the following information be recorded in the facility operating record as it becomes available, and that this information be retained by the owner and made available to the State upon request:

      (1) Any location restriction demonstration required in §§257.8-257.9; and

      (2) Any monitoring, testing, or analytical data required in §§257.21- 257.28.

             This information collection request has a total of 152 respondents, a total of 11,220 hours resulting in an average annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden of 73.8 hours per respondent.

       In order to effectively implement and enforce final changes to 40 CFR Part 257--Subpart B on a State level, owners/operators of construction and demolition waste landfills that receive Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator (CESQG) hazardous wastes will have to comply with the final reporting and recordkeeping requirements.  The information collected is used by the States to regulate and ensure that non-municipal non-hazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG hazardous wastes, and CESQGs, are complying with the final revisions to the part 257, subpart B criteria and the revisions to part 261.  This program is implemented by approved States and all information will be reported to the States or kept in an operating record; in unapproved States, the "Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices" (40 CFR part 257) are self implementing, meaning that the owner/operator documents compliance with the Criteria and places the documentation in the operating record.  Once established as a non-municipal non-hazardous waste disposal unit, ground-water monitoring is to be conducted throughout the active life of the unit plus 30 years.  The only units that will incur burdens under the part 257, subpart B rule continue to be construction and demolition landfills that receive CESQG waste from off-site generators.  EPA has reviewed Biocycle trade magazine and has concluded that the number of Construction and Demolition (C&D) landfills has stopped the decline and has remained at the current level of 134. The number of respondents is therefore 134 C&D waste landfills plus 18 States, for a total of 152 respondents.                The Agency assumes 14 new and lateral expansion of existing units will be activated per year accepting CESQG waste subject to Part 257, Subpart B rule. EPA has estimated a one-time recordkeeping requirement for the Floodplains location restriction of 10 hours per unit.  There is a one-time reporting burden of two hours per unit.  Owners and operators of non-municipal non-hazardous waste disposal units that may receive CESQG wastes may demonstrate (document) that there is no potential for migration of hazardous constituents from the unit.  The demonstration is to be based on site-specific data and fate and transport modeling.  EPA estimates that no more than 1 owner/operator out of the 14 new facilities will attempt this demonstration.  EPA assumes that the required documentation would result in a one-time reporting requirement of 100 hours per unit. One-time burden hours are incurred under this provision for 3 of the 14 new small/arid/remote facilities that are eligible to use alternative ground-water monitoring and choose to upgrade.  The Agency assumes that 3 of the total 14 new units will be located in small/arid/remote locations.  There is a one-time recordkeeping burden of 10 hours per unit and a one-time reporting burden of two hours per unit.  EPA estimates 14 new or lateral expansions of existing construction and demolition landfills will choose to upgrade and will not be eligible to use alternative ground-water monitoring techniques.  The Agency assumes the one-time reporting requirement of 20 hours per unit would result for these 14 new or lateral expansions of existing units.   EPA estimates the total annual reporting burden for detection monitoring to be 32 hours per year for the 134 existing units and the 14 new or lateral expansions of existing units per year.  The annual recordkeeping requirement burden is two hours for each unit.  For assessment monitoring, EPA estimates that this rule would impose an annual reporting burden of 32 hours per occurrence per year.  For corrective action, EPA estimated an annual reporting burden of 200 hours per year to document progress in clean-up activities.  There are annual recordkeeping burdens at §§257.27(b), 257.28(c)(4) and 257.28(e)(2).  Each of these annual recordkeeping burdens requires two hours per unit, for a total of six hours.  EPA estimates that the recordkeeping requirement at §257.30 to place notifications in the operating record will impose a one-time recordkeeping burden of 10 hours on 1 new or lateral expansion of an existing unit per year.               A more detailed discussion of each data element and the respondent activities associated with each of the information collection requirements is presented in Section 6.

2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

      2(a)	NEED AND AUTHORITY FOR THE COLLECTION

      The final revisions to the Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices and Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste set forth in 40 CFR part 257, subpart B and revisions to 40 CFR 261 were developed in response to Sections 4010(c) and 3001(d) (4) of RCRA, which were added to the statute in the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments.  The final revisions to part 257, subpart B established specific standards and reporting and recordkeeping requirements for owners and operators of new, existing, and lateral expansions of existing non-municipal non-hazardous waste disposal units that receive conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG) hazardous wastes.  The final revisions to part 261 involved no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements.  These regulations were finalized under the authority of Sections 1008, 2002 (general rulemaking authority), 3001(d)(4), 4004 and 4010 of RCRA, as amended.

      2(b)	USE AND USERS OF THE DATA

      The information collected is used by the States to regulate and ensure that non-municipal non-hazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG hazardous wastes, and CESQGs, are complying with the final revisions to the part 257, subpart B criteria and the revisions to part 261.  The information collected is used by the State Director to confirm owner and operator compliance, and CESQG compliance, with the final regulations under the revised part 257 subpart B and the revised part 261.

3.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

      3(a)	NONDUPLICATION

      EPA took steps to minimize duplication of information collection.  The part 257, subpart B final rule included minimum recordkeeping and reporting necessary to document compliance with the rule's provisions.

      EPA deliberately did not prescribe specific recordkeeping procedures or formats.  This would allow States and owners or operators maximum flexibility in developing site-specific procedures that satisfy existing State requirements and the provisions of the Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices.  Furthermore, part 257, subpart B provides additional flexibility to approved States:  approved States have flexibility in establishing the location of the operating record and establishing alternative schedules for recordkeeping and notification requirements.

      3(b) PUBLIC NOTICE

            EPA issued a public notice in the Federal Register on February 28, 2012 (77 FR 12048).  The public comment period ended on April 30, 2012. No comments were received in response to the notice.

      3(c)	CONSULTATIONS

      This continuing ICR is based on the data collected for the original and the revised ICR for part 258 (municipal landfills - ICR #1381).  The part 258 ICR developed estimates in consultation with owners and operators of MSWLFs, State personnel, EPA personnel (Headquarters and Regional), and consultants working for EPA on the hazardous and solid waste programs.  Individuals from these organizations were interviewed to characterize the time an owner or operator (as well as the State) would need to spend on each separate requirement.  Since the minimum statutory requirements finalized in part 257, subpart B are almost identical to the corresponding sections of part 258, the Agency has prepared similar time estimates for the activities required under part 257, subpart B, making reasonable alterations and allowances to correspond with those sections where the requirements differ.

	The Agency contacted respondents to solicit feedback for this ICR renewal. There was no comment.

      3(d)	EFFECT OF LESS FREQUENT COLLECTION

      The Agency believes that less frequent recordkeeping and reporting could hamper State enforcement and compliance efforts, especially in States that have not been approved, since these States may not establish requirements more stringent than the Federal minimum.  However, the part 257, subpart B criteria allow approved States the discretion to establish alternative schedules for recordkeeping and notification requirements.

      3(e)	GENERAL GUIDELINES              This collection does not violate any of the Paperwork Reduction Act (50 CFR 1320.6) general guidelines.

      3(f)-(g)  CONFIDENTIALITY AND SENSITIVE QUESTIONS

      No data requested are believed to be confidential.  The Agency is not requesting any trade secret information and believes that the information collection complies with the Privacy Act of 1974 and OMB Circular A-108.  The recordkeeping and reporting requirements do not request information that is of a sensitive nature.

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

      The following subsections discuss how the information will be collected.  State agencies will not be responsible for collecting information.  Rather, the owners or operators of non-municipal non-hazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG wastes are required to collect the information, compile it in an operating record, and notify the State Director when the documentation is placed in the operating record.  The operating record is intended to be equivalent to a permit file that is routinely kept by the State permitting agency.  The Agency did not intend for the final rule to create additional recordkeeping except when the rule imposed more stringent Federal standards in addition to State requirements.              4(a)	RESPONDENTS/SIC CODES

      The groups affected by the final revisions to part 257, subpart B and part 261 include both the generators of CESQG wastes and owners or operators of new, existing, or lateral expansions of existing non-municipal non-hazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG wastes.

      As the rule affects generators of CESQG waste as well as the units where the waste is disposed, a relevant list of NAICS codes would potentially include most business areas contained in the NAICS document.  Therefore, it is not practical to include such a comprehensive list in this continuing supporting statement.  However, the final revision to 261.5 did not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirement on CESQGs; therefore, the rest of the analysis will address only new reporting and recordkeeping requirements for disposal units.              4(b)	INFORMATION REQUESTED

      The following subsections describe the recordkeeping requirements and reporting (notification) required in the final rule.  EPA deliberately did not use design standards to prescribe specific activities, conditions, or components.  This allowed owners and operators maximum flexibility in developing site-specific procedures that satisfy State requirements and provisions of the revised Criteria.          LOCATION RESTRICTIONS

Section 257.8 - Floodplains

      Owners and operators of new non-municipal non-hazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG wastes, existing non-municipal non-hazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG wastes, and lateral expansions of existing units must document (record) in their operating record demonstrations that the unit meets the location restrictions regarding floodplains (§257.8).  The owner or operator must notify the State Director when an exemption demonstration is recorded in the operating record.

Section 257.9 - Wetlands

      Owners and operators of new non-municipal non-hazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG waste and lateral expansions of existing units must demonstrate (report) to the Director of an approved State that the unit meets the requirements addressing wetlands (§257.9).

	GROUND-WATER MONITORING AND CORRECTIVE ACTION

Section 257.21(b) - No Migration Petition

      In an approved State, owners and operators of non-municipal non-hazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG wastes may demonstrate (document) that there is no potential for migration of hazardous constituents from the unit.  The demonstration is to be based on site-specific data and fate and transport modeling as presented in §257.21(b)(1)-(2).

Section 257.21(h) and (i) - Small and Arid or Remote Non-Municipal Non-Hazardous Waste Disposal Units

      Directors of approved States may allow owners and operators of new, existing, or lateral expansions of existing non-municipal non-hazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG wastes to use alternative ground-water monitoring techniques and alternative indicator lists as presented in §257.21(i)(1) and (2) for units meeting the criteria defined in §257.21(h).  The Director of the approved State should consider the factors in §257.21(i)(3) when authorizing and considering these alternatives.  Owners and operators of these qualifying small and arid or remote non-municipal non-hazardous waste disposal units must place in their operating record documentation demonstrating that they meet the criteria in §257.21(h).  Section 257.21(h) allows units to use the flexibility provided in §257.21(i) if the non-municipal non-hazardous waste disposal units receive less than 20 tons of waste per day, have no evidence of ground-water contamination, and are either in a remote area or an arid area of the country.  A remote area is defined at §257.21(h)(3) as "a community that experiences an annual interruption of at least three consecutive months of surface transportation that prevents access to a regional waste management facility."  An arid area is defined at §257.21(h)(4) as "an area that annually receives less than or equal to 25 inches of precipitation" and "has no practicable waste management alternative."

Section 257.21(i)(2) - Small and Arid or Remote Non-Municipal Non-Hazardous Waste Disposal Units

      Owners and operators of new, existing, or lateral expansions of existing non-municipal non-hazardous waste disposal units that detect contamination through the use of any alternative ground-water monitoring technique must perform expanded monitoring to show the nature and extent of the contamination and submit those results to (notify) the Director of the approved State of the contamination as required by §257.21(i)(2).  If the contamination has reached the saturated zone, then the owner or operator must comply with the requirements of §257.21 (i)(2)(i).  If the contamination is present in the vadose zone, on the surface, or anywhere else but the saturated zone, then the owner or operator must comply with the requirements of §257.21(i)(2)(ii).

Section 257.21 - §257.23 - Establish Ground-Water Monitoring Systems

      Owners and operators must notify the State Director that documentation pertaining to measurement, sampling, and analytical devices has been placed in the operating record.  The numbering, spacing, and depth of monitoring systems shall be certified by a qualified ground-water scientist or approved by the Director of an approved State.  Within 14 days of the certification, the owner or operator must notify the State Director that certification has been placed in the operating record.

      Owners or operators must notify the State Director that the description of the sampling and analysis program documentation has been placed in the operating record.

      The owner or operator must specify in the operating record a statistical method from §257.23(g) to be used in evaluating ground-water monitoring data for each hazardous constituent.  If another statistical method that meets the performance standards of §257.23(h) is used, the owner or operator must place justification for this alternative in the operating record and notify the State Director of use of this alternative test.

Section 257.24 - Detection Monitoring Program

      If the owner or operator determines that there is a statistically significant increase over background for one or more of the constituents in Appendix I (Appendix I of part 258), the owner or operator must, within 14 days of this finding, place a notice in the operating record and notify the State Director indicating which constituents have shown statistically significant changes from the background levels.

      The owner or operator may demonstrate pursuant to §257.24(c)(3) that a source other than the non-municipal non-hazardous waste disposal unit or an error has caused the statistically significant changes in background levels of one or more of the constituents.  This demonstration must be certified by a qualified ground-water scientist or approved by the Director of an approved State and be placed in the operating record.

Section 257.25 - Assessment Monitoring Program

      If the sampling results indicate that Appendix II (Appendix II of part 258) constituents have been detected, the owner or operator must, within 14 days after obtaining the results, place a notice in the operating record identifying the Appendix II (Appendix II of part 258) constituents that have been detected and notify the State Director that this notice has been placed in the operating record.  Within 90 days, and at least on a semiannual basis thereafter, the owner or operator must resample and record the concentrations of the detected Appendix II (Appendix II of part 258) constituents.  If the concentrations of all Appendix II (Appendix II of part 258) constituents are shown to be at or below background values for two consecutive sampling events, the owner or operator must notify the State Director of this finding.

      If one or more of the Appendix II (Appendix II of part 258) constituents are detected at statistically significant levels above the ground-water protection standard established under §257.25 (h) or (i) in any sampling event, the owner or operator must, within 14 days of this finding, place a notice in the operating record identifying the Appendix II (Appendix II of part 258) constituents that have exceeded the ground-water protection standard and notify the State Director and all appropriate local government officials that the notice has been placed in the operating record.  The owner or operator must also notify all persons who own the land or reside on the land that directly overlies any part of the plume of contamination if contaminants have migrated off site, if indicated by sampling wells in accordance with §257.25(g)(1).

Section 257.25(g)(2) - "False Positives"

      The owner or operator may voluntarily attempt to demonstrate that a source other than the non-municipal non-hazardous waste disposal unit that may receive CESQG wastes caused the contamination or that a sampling error occurred and that it is not required to move into remedy selection under the corrective action requirements.

Section 257.27 - Selection of Remedy

      The owner or operator must discuss the results of the corrective measure assessment, prior to the selection of remedy, in a public meeting with interested and affected parties.  The owner or operator must notify the State Director, within 14 days of selecting a remedy, that a report describing the selected remedy and specifying a schedule for initiating and completing remedial activities has been placed in the operating record, and how it meets the standards in §257.27(b).

      The owner or operator may document in the operating record that no clean-up is required if the conditions of §257.27(e) are met and the State Director is notified.

Section 257.28 - Implementation of Corrective Action Program

      The owner or operator may determine that corrective action cannot be achieved with any currently available remedy.  If so, the owner or operator must document in the operating record that a report justifying alternative corrective action measures has been placed in the operating record in compliance with the requirements of §257.28 (c)(4) and notify the State Director.

      Upon completion of the requirements of §257.28(e), the owner or operator must document in the operating record that the remedy has been completed in compliance with the requirements of §257.28(e) and notify the State Director.

	RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENT

Section 257.30 - Recordkeeping Requirements

      The owner and operator must record and retain near the unit in an operating record, information as it becomes available on any location restriction demonstration required under §§257.7 through 257.12 or any demonstration, certification, finding, monitoring, testing, or analytical data required in §§257.21 through 257.28.

      The owner and operator must notify the State Director when the information has been placed in the operating record or alternative location as approved by the Director of an approved State.  The Director of approved State can set alternative schedules the recordkeeping and notification requirements specified under §257.30, except for the notification requirement in §257.25(g)(1)(iii).

5.	AGENCY ACTIVITIES, METHODS, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT              5(a)	AGENCY ACTIVITIES

      This program is implemented by approved States and all information will be reported to the States or kept in an operating record; in unapproved States, the "Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices" (40 CFR part 257) are self implementing, meaning that the owner/operator documents compliance with the Criteria and places the documentation in the operating record.  EPA will not collect information from individual non-municipal non-hazardous waste disposal units.  EPA does have enforcement authority in States where EPA has made a formal determination that the State permit program is not adequate.  In enforcement situations, EPA may request information from the owner or operator.              5(b)	COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT

      EPA has not specified how these records are to be developed and maintained.  This ensures the maximum flexibility and minimum burden in meeting the final requirements.

      5(c) 	SMALL ENTITY FLEXIBILITY

      Respondents may include small businesses; all data requested are essential for both large and small businesses.  The information burden was minimized to the extent possible for all potential respondents through the final rule's self-implementing format.              5(d)	COLLECTION SCHEDULE

      All collection requirements discussed in this ICR are for the period of time starting July  31, 2012  until August 01, 2015.

      The final part 257, subpart B language established a schedule for the establishment of a ground-water monitoring program. Owners and operators of existing non-municipal non-hazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG waste and lateral expansions of existing units were to comply with the ground-water requirements of §§257.22 - 257.25 according to the schedule established in the regulations unless an alternative schedule was specified by the Director of an approved State under §257.21(d):

      1.	Existing non-municipal non-hazardous waste disposal units that received CESQG wastes and lateral expansions of existing units were to be in compliance by July 1, 1998.

      2.	New non-municipal non-hazardous waste disposal units were to be in compliance before waste was placed in the unit.

      3.	Under §257.21(d), the Director of an approved State could specify an alternative schedule for owners and operators of existing units and lateral expansions of existing units to comply with the ground-water requirements specified in §§257.22 - 257.25.  The alternative schedule was to ensure that 50 percent of all existing units were in compliance by July 1, 1998 and all existing units were in compliance by July 1, 1999.

      Once established at a unit, ground-water monitoring is to be conducted throughout the active life of the unit plus 30 years.  The Director of an approved State may decrease the 30-year period if the owner/operator demonstrates that a shorter period of time is adequate to protect human health and the environment and the Director approves that demonstration.

      The records and reports are to be maintained on an ongoing basis in the unit operating record; however, the part 257, subpart B Criteria allow approved States the discretion to establish alternative schedules for recordkeeping and notification requirements.

6.	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN HOURS AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

      6(a)	ESTIMATING THE RESPONDENT BURDEN HOURS - Original ICR

      The total universe of non-municipal non-hazardous waste disposal units that may receive CESQG waste includes two types of units:  (1) units where CESQG waste is co-disposed with industrial waste on site; and (2) Subtitle D units receiving CESQG waste from off site (including construction and demolition waste disposal units and commercial industrial solid waste disposal units).

      EPA originally assumed, and continues to assume, that units that co-disposed industrial non-hazardous waste and CESQG waste on site have ceased that practice to avoid the cost of compliance with part 257, subpart B.  The commercial (off-site) industrial waste disposal units currently operating are subject to stringent environmental controls, imposed by States and corporate policy, therefore, EPA continues to believe, that these off-site units will incur a negligible burden from the revisions to part 257, subpart B.  Therefore, the primary type of unit that continues to be affected by the part 257, subpart B rule is construction and demolition waste disposal units.

      Consequently, the only units that will incur burdens under the part 257, subpart B rule continue to be construction and demolition landfills that receive CESQG waste from off site generators.  EPA currently estimates that there are approximately 1,571 construction and demolition landfills in the United States as of 2004 as reported in the April 2006 issue of BioCycle (down from the estimate of 1,931 in 2003).

     Construction and demolition waste landfills that were not in compliance with the part 257, subpart B revisions in 1996 would have responded to the regulation in one of two ways:  (1) elected not to upgrade and decided to accept only construction and demolition waste that does not contain CESQG hazardous waste (these units would not be affected by the recordkeeping or reporting requirements of part 257, subpart B; or (2) upgraded and accepted CESQG waste (become subject to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the revisions to part 257, subpart B).

      The Agency's Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) (June 1996) for the final part 257,  subpart B rule, indicated that 162 construction and demolition waste landfills in 18 affected States would have elected to upgrade and thus become subject to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of part 257, subpart B.  The RIA also accounted for the number of small/dry/remote non-municipal units that would have opted to use alternative ground-water monitoring techniques.  As a result of this added flexibility, EPA believed that more units would have opted to upgrade.  For the purpose of the original ICR, EPA assumed that 50% of the construction and demolition units that were eligible to use alternative ground-water monitoring techniques would have chosen to upgrade.  This included half of the 21 landfills in Alaska (remote) and half of the 109 small landfills that were located in affected States with low precipitation.  Overall, EPA estimated that 65 additional landfills would upgrade and use alternative ground-water monitoring techniques.  Additional, EPA assumed that none of these 65 additional landfills would require expanded ground-water monitoring as discussed in the original ICR. Thus, the total number of upgrades of existing units was estimated to be 227. In the original ICR, 227 existing facilities were used to calculate burdens.  In addition, EPA projected, in the original ICR, that 11 new and lateral expansions of existing units will be activated per year as construction and demolition waste units accepting CESQG waste became subject to this final rule.

First Update

     In the first update (September 22, 1999) for this continuing ICR, EPA developed new recordkeeping and reporting burden estimates.  EPA revised its original estimate (162) of the number of construction and demolition waste landfills in the 18 affected States that would have elected to upgrade.  EPA revised the original estimate down from 162 landfills to 146.  This reduction was based on a decrease in the overall number of construction and demolition waste landfills that existed in the original 18 affected States. This reduction equated to a 10% reduction in the number of construction and demolition landfills that would have continued to have annual reporting and recordkeeping burdens during the period of time from September 30, 1999 until September 30, 2002.

     This same 10% reduction was used to reduce the number of existing construction and demolition waste landfills that would have continued to be subject to the reporting and recordkeeping burdens associated with corrective action (23 facilities in the original ICR vs. 21 in the first update).

     Small/arid/remote construction and demolition facilities incurred reporting and recordkeeping burdens in the original ICR, but, in the first update to the ICR, they did not incur any burdens because small/arid/remote construction and demolition wastes facilities incurred only one-time burdens during the time period between September 30, 1996 and September 30, 1999.  The Agency's original assumption that none of the existing small/arid/remote facilities would need to undergo expanded ground-water monitoring and corrective action continued to be assumed in the first update to the original ICR for the reasons that were presented in the original ICR.

   In the first update to the original ICR, one-time reporting and recordkeeping burden hours for existing construction and demolition waste facilities were also reduced because these one-time burdens occurred during the period of time between September 30, 1996 and September 30, 1999.  These one-time burdens were associated with the floodplain provision, the small/arid/remote demonstration, and the establishment of the ground-water monitoring system.                For the first update to the original ICR, like the original ICR, the Agency assumed 11 new and lateral expansions of existing units will be activated per year as construction and demolition waste units accepting CESQG waste become subject to the part 257, subpart B rule              Second Update

      For the second update, EPA developed new recordkeeping and reporting burden estimates.  EPA revised its first update estimate (146) of the number of construction and demolition waste landfills in the 18 affected that would have elected to upgrade.  EPA revised the first update down from 146 construction and demolition waste landfills to 127.  This reduction was based on a decrease in the overall number of construction and demolition waste landfills that exist in the original 18 affected States.  The total number of respondents was therefore 127 construction and demolition waste landfills plus 18 States (145 respondents).  This reduction equated to a 13% reduction in the number of construction and demolition waste landfills that would continue to have annual reporting and recordkeeping burdens during the period of time from October 1, 2002 until September 30, 2005.  There is a reduction even though there has been an increase in the total overall number of construction and demolition waste landfills back towards the original estimated number in 1994 because EPA is evaluating the change only in the original 18 affected States.

     This same 13% reduction was used to reduce the number of existing construction and demolition waste landfills that continue to be subject to the reporting and recordkeeping burdens associated with corrective action (21 in the first update vs. 18 in this second update).

     Any small/arid/remote construction and demolition facility that incurred reporting and recordkeeping burdens in the first update between September 30, 1999 and September 30, 2002 did not incur any additional burdens under the second update due to the one-time nature of those reporting and recordkeeping burdens.  In addition, any  new construction and demolition waste landfill (new between September 30, 1999 and September 30, 2002) did not incur any additional burdens under this second update due to the one-time reporting and recordkeeping burdens associated with the floodplain provision, the small/arid/remote demonstration, and the establishment of the ground-water monitoring system.

Third Update

     For the third update, EPA is again developing new recordkeeping and reporting burden estimates.  EPA has revised this ICR by increasing the number of C&D landfills subject to this ICR by revising the second update up from 127 construction and demolition landfills to 165.  This increase is based upon the original 18 affected States as reported in BioCycle trade magazine in January 2004.  The total number of respondents is therefore 165 construction and demolition waste landfills plus 18 States (183 respondents).  This increase represents a 30% increase in the number of construction and demolition waste landfills that were reported in the last update. For this ICR, the Agency assumes 14 new and lateral expansions of existing units will be activated per year as construction and demolition waste units accepting CESQG waste become subject to the part 257, subpart B rule.

Fourth Update

For the fourth update, EPA is again developing new recordkeeping and reporting burden estimates.  EPA has revised this ICR by decreasing the number of C&D landfills subject to this ICR by revising the third update down from 165 C&D landfills to 134.  This decrease is based upon the original 18 affected states as reported in Biocycle trade magazine in April 2006.  The number of respondents is therefore 134 C&D waste landfills plus 18 States, for a total of 152 respondents.  This decrease represents a 19% reduction in the number of C&D waste landfills that were reported in the last update.      For this current ICR, the Agency assumes 14 new and lateral expansion of existing units will be activated per year accepting CESQG waste subject to Part 257, Subpart B rule.  The Agency believes that fewer, larger landfills will sustain the need for lateral expansions.

(b)	ESTIMATING THE RESPONDENT BURDEN HOURS - Fifth update Continuing ICR

      For this fifth update, EPA is once again developing new recordkeeping and reporting burden estimates.  EPA has reviewed Biocycle trade magazine and has concluded that the number of C&D landfills has stopped the decline and has remained at the current level of 134. The number of respondents is therefore 134 C&D waste landfills plus 18 States, for a total of 152 respondents.  This decrease represents a 19% reduction in the number of C&D waste landfills that were reported in the last update.      For this current ICR, the Agency assumes 14 new and lateral expansion of existing units will be activated per year accepting CESQG waste subject to Part 257, Subpart B rule.  The Agency believes that fewer, larger landfills will sustain the need for lateral expansions.

	LOCATION RESTRICTIONS

Section 257.8 - Floodplains

      No existing facilities incur any one-time or annual burdens in this continuing ICR. For the 14 new non-municipal non-hazardous waste disposal units that may receive CESQG waste and lateral expansions of existing units that are affected by this requirement, approximately 20% are expected to be within a 100-year floodplain.  EPA has estimated a one-time recordkeeping requirement for this location restriction of 10 hours per unit.  There is a one-time reporting burden of two hours per unit.

Section 257.9 - Wetlands

      The requirement for the wetlands location restriction comes from the Clean Water Act (CWA) and incorporates EPA guidelines developed pursuant to the CWA.  Any recordkeeping requirement is attributable to implementing the CWA and not the Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices.  Therefore, in order to avoid double counting, no recordkeeping requirements for this location provision are included in this estimate.  The reporting and recordkeeping requirements are reported under OMB Control Number 2040-0086.

Section 257.13 - Deadline for Making Demonstrations

      This section does not include any recordkeeping or reporting requirements.               	GROUND-WATER MONITORING AND CORRECTIVE ACTION

Section 257.21(b) - No Migration Petition

      Owners and operators of non-municipal non-hazardous waste disposal units that may receive CESQG wastes may demonstrate (document) that there is no potential for migration of hazardous constituents from the unit.  The demonstration is to be based on site-specific data and fate and transport modeling.  EPA estimates that no more than 1 owner/operator out of the 14 new facilities will attempt this demonstration.  EPA assumes that the required documentation would result in a one-time reporting requirement of 100 hours per unit.  Section 257.21(b) does not contain recordkeeping requirements; however, the one-time recordkeeping requirements of two hours per unit from Section 257.30 have been included here.

Section 257.21(h) and (i) - Small and Arid or Remote Non-municipal Non-hazardous Waste Disposal Units

      One-time burden hours are incurred under this provision for 3 of the 14 new small/arid/remote facilities that are eligible to use alternative ground-water monitoring and choose to upgrade.  The Agency assumes that 3 of the total 14 new units will be located in small/arid/remote locations.  The requirement is for owners and operators of these small/arid/remote non-municipal non-hazardous waste disposal units to make the determination that they meet the criteria in §257.21(h).  There is a one-time recordkeeping burden of 10 hours per unit and a one-time reporting burden of two hours per unit.

Section 257.21(i)(2) - Small and Arid or Remote Non-municipal Non-hazardous waste disposal Units

      EPA has assumed that none of the 3 new or lateral expansions of existing non-municipal non-hazardous waste disposal units that are eligible to use alternative ground-water monitoring techniques and choose to upgrade will detect contamination requiring expanded ground-water monitoring.   First, because these disposal units are small and located in dry or generally frozen climates, they are less likely to have contamination.  Moreover, the economics are such that upgrading will be cost-effective for the small units only if expanded monitoring will not be necessary.  Therefore, EPA assumes that none of these units will have to incur the reporting or recordkeeping requirements associated with expanded ground-water monitoring.

Section 257.21 - §257.23 - Establish Ground-Water Monitoring Systems

      EPA estimates 14 new or lateral expansions of existing construction and demolition landfills will choose to upgrade and will not be eligible to use alternative ground-water monitoring techniques.  The Agency assumes the one-time reporting requirement of 20 hours per unit would result for these 14 new or lateral expansions of existing units.   There are one-time recordkeeping requirements at §§257.22(d)(2), 257.23(a), and 257.23(g).  All three sections has a six-hour per unit recordkeeping requirement.         Section 257.24 - Detection Monitoring Program

      EPA estimates the total annual reporting burden for detection monitoring to be 32 hours per year for the 134 existing units and the 14 new or lateral expansions of existing units per year.  The annual recordkeeping requirement burden is two hours for each unit.  This burden does not apply to existing, new or lateral expansions of existing units meeting the criteria for small units located in remote or arid regions as defined in §257.21(h).

Section 257.25 - Assessment Monitoring Program        EPA assumes that only existing units may need to establish an assessment monitoring program within the time frame covered by this ICR.  None of the new units are expected to require assessment monitoring prior to January 31, 2009.

      For assessment monitoring, EPA estimates that this rule would impose an annual reporting burden of 32 hours per occurrence per year.  EPA assumes that 22 units are included in the recordkeeping estimate.  This estimate includes the units that voluntarily chose to make the "false positives" demonstration at §257.25(g)(2).  There is an annual recordkeeping requirement of two hours for each unit.         Section 257.25(g)(2)  - "False Positives"

      See the discussion for §257.25 - Assessment Monitoring Program.

Section 257.27 - Selection of Remedy

      For corrective action, EPA estimated an annual reporting burden of 200 hours per year to document progress in clean-up activities.  The Agency assumes 22 units are included in the recordkeeping estimate and would have increased burdens.

      The estimated reporting burden includes consideration of §257.27(d), the requirement to establish a schedule for implementing and completing remedial measures.  The estimated burden also includes consideration of §257.27(e), the conditions that would allow no ground-water clean-up.

      If the owner or operator determines that compliance with §257.27(b) cannot be practically achieved, then the owner or operator must comply with the requirements of §257.28(c)(4).

      There are annual recordkeeping burdens at §§257.27(b), 257.28(c)(4) and 257.28(e)(2).  Each of these annual recordkeeping burdens requires two hours per unit, for a total of six hours.

Section 257.28 - Implementation of Corrective Action Program               EPA assumes that no owner or operator will have completed corrective action and, therefore, be required to comply with §257.28(f) prior to August 01, 2015.  Section 257.28(e) requires, at a minimum, 3 consecutive years of data to demonstrate compliance with the ground-water protection standard.  Assuming existing facilities entered into assessment monitoring no earlier than 2001, it is highly unlikely that any existing facility would have burdens associated with Section 257.28. This section, therefore, contains no reporting requirements.

	RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENT

Section 257.30 - Recordkeeping Requirements

      EPA estimates that the recordkeeping requirement at §257.30 to place notifications in the operating record will impose a one-time recordkeeping burden of 10 hours on 1 new or lateral expansion of an existing unit per year.

      6(c)	ESTIMATING RESPONDENT BURDEN HOURS AND COSTS

      For a summary of the estimated respondent annual and one-time recordkeeping and reporting requirements burdens and costs, see Exhibits 4 through 7.  For the purpose of preparing cost and burden estimates for this continuing ICR, EPA used the estimates prepared in similar programs that have been approved by OMB.  The primary ICR used as a guideline was the ICR for part 258, which contains similar reporting and recordkeeping requirements.  Additional ICRs reviewed included the Underground Storage Tanks (UST) program (Subtitle I) and the Subtitle C program.  Costs for construction and demolition waste facility respondents were estimated based on the wage rates presented in Exhibit 1.  These wage rates are based on the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2011 GS Salary table.  The wage rates were determined as follows: Legal- GS-14, step 5; Managerial- GS-15, step 5; Technical- GS-12, step 5; and Clerical- GS-7, step 5.  An overhead factor of 1.6 was applied to the rates and are shown below in exhibit 1.

      	EXHIBIT 1

Estimated Respondent Wage Rates for Commercial Construction and Demolition Landfills Only

Legal

                                    $ 73.58

Managerial

                                    $ 86.65

Technical

                                    $ 52.37

Clerical

                                    $ 29.52

      6(d)	ESTIMATING AGENCY BURDEN HOURS AND COST

      All information is submitted to the States; therefore, Agency burden and cost are negligible.  The State burden for recordkeeping will be for processing notifications sent by the owners or operators of units that elect to continue receiving CESQG wastes, review of the unit demonstrations, and certification of requirements.  States will be notified as specified previously under 3(b).  Exhibit 2 presents the wage rates used to estimate the cost to the Agency and States. These Agency/State wage rates are based on the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2011 GS Salary table.  The wage rates were determined as follows: Legal- GS-14, step 5; Managerial- GS-15, step 5; Technical- GS-12, step 5; and Clerical- GS-7, step 5.  An overhead factor of 1.6 was applied to the rates and are shown below in exhibit 2.

	EXHIBIT 2

                       Estimated Agency/State Wage Rates

Legal

                                    $ 73.58

Managerial

                                    $ 86.56

Technical

                                    $ 52.37

Clerical

                                    $ 29.52

      6(e)	ESTIMATING STATE BURDEN HOURS AND COST

      The annual and one-time recordkeeping and reporting burden for State agencies is summarized in Exhibit 3 below.  Based on the information in the recently revised ICR for part 258 (ICR #1381), the total estimated recordkeeping and reporting burden for clerical staff is 2.5 hours per notification and the total estimated burden for technical staff is one hour per notification.  For both recordkeeping and reporting estimates, the Agency assumes that neither the legal nor the managerial staff will be responsible for any additional burden or cost.

	EXHIBIT 3

	Estimated State Recordkeeping/Reporting Burden and Cost

Number    of  Notifi- cations

Legal $73.58

Manager $86.56

Technical $52.37

Clerical $29.52

Total Hours Per/yr

Total Cost ($) Per/yr

LOCATION RESTRICTIONS

Annual

0

0

0

0

0

0.0

0.00

One-Time

3

0

0

1

2.5

10.5

$379

GROUND-WATER MONITORING AND CORRECTIVE ACTION

Annual

202

0

0

1

2.5

707

$25,487

One -Time

12

0

0

1

2.5

42.0

$1,514

      6(f) 	BOTTOM LINE BURDEN HOURS AND COST/MASTER TABLES

      Exhibits 4 and 6 present the estimated annual respondent burden hours and cost for reporting and recordkeeping requirements.  The annual burden for respondents is 10,312 hours and the estimated cost is $483,985.

      Exhibits 5 and 7 present the estimated one-time respondent burden hours and cost for reporting and recordkeeping requirements.  The total one-time burden for respondents is 548 hours and the estimated cost is $30,144.

            Exhibit 8 presents a summary of the burden hours and cost incurred by both the States and owners and operators as a result of this final rule.  The annual burden for reporting and recordkeeping requirements is 11,019,hours and the estimated cost is $509,472.  The total one-time burden for reporting and recordkeeping requirements is 601 hours and the estimated cost is $32,037.  The total one-time burden hours for reporting and recordkeeping has been annualized over a three year period and added to the annual burden hours, therefore, the total annual burden hours for reporting and recordkeeping is 11,220.  In a similar manner, the total annual estimated cost is $520,151.

             6(g)	REASONS FOR CHANGE IN BURDEN

      This is a continuing ICR.  Primary reasons for no changes in the burden is due to the number of C&D facilities have remained the same since the last renewal that were previously incurred during the period of time from August 01, 2012 until August 01, 2015.

                       CHANGES TO CAPITAL/STARTUP AND O&M COSTS

         In addition, the first update to this ICR was approved subject to the following terms of clearance.  It was requested that EPA verify that no non-labor costs would be incurred by respondents in complying with this collection.  If non-labor costs were to be incurred by respondents, EPA was to revise the second ICR to account for them.  EPA has revised this as well as the previous ICR to address these additional costs associated with performing a hydrogeologic study, installation of ground-water monitoring wells, and sampling costs associated with sampling of ground water wells.  EPA has assumed 14 new or lateral expansions for the period of July 31, 2012 until August 01, 2015.  These 14 expansions will each need to perform a hydrogeologic study in order to assess where to establish ground water monitoring wells.  The study, for a small site like most construction and demolition waste landfills are, would cost $137,350 per site for a total of $1,922,900.  This total cost averaged over the 3-year period would be $640,967 per year.

      For these new or lateral expansions, they will need to establish 4 wells per site for the purpose of ground water monitoring.  The capital cost for a total of 56 wells, at a depth of 50 feet, would total $398,496.  This total averaged over the 3-year period would cost $132,832 per year.  Lastly, the costs associated with sampling and analytical work would be a total of $803,860 per year.  This assumes that the sampling and analytical work is not performed by facility personal and that the analytical work is for analysis of VOCs only.

                                 O&M Cost Total Annual Hydrogeologic Study $1,922,900 $640,967 Well monitoring $398,496 $132,832 Sampling, Analytical work $2,411,580 $803,860 Total $4,732,976 $1,577,659

      6(h)	BURDEN STATEMENT                    The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 74 hours per respondent. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.  An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

      To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-0983, which is available for public viewing at the RCRA Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the RCRA Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An electronic version of the public docket is available for online viewing at http://www.regulations.gov .  Use http://www.regulations.gov  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.  Once 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, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID No. (EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-0983) and OMB control number (2050-0154) in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement

      This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting this information.

                                                                             EXHIBIT 4 	ESTIMATED ANNUAL RESPONDENT  RECORDKEEPING BURDEN AND COST

REQUIREMENT

       NUMBER OF                RESPONDENTS  -           ACTIVITY EXISTING      NEW

HOURS PER RESPONDENT - ACTIVITY LEGAL        MANAGER   TECHNICAL    CLERICAL $73.58/HR     $86.56/HR     $52.37HR         $29.52/HR

TOTAL  HOURS  PER YEAR

TOTAL COST  PER YEAR

Floodplains -  257.8

0                           0

   0                   0                      0                        0

        0

         0

Wetlands - 257.9

0                           0

   0                   0                      0                        0

        0

         0

No Migration Petition  257.21(b)

0                           0

   0                   0                      0                        0

        0

         0

Small and Remote Facilities - 257.21(h)

0                           0

   0                   0                      0                        0

        0

         0

Small and Remote Facilities - 257.21(i)

0                           0

   0                   0                      0                        0

        0

          0

Establish GWM  System - 257.23

0                           0

   0                   0                      0                        0

        0

          0

Detection Monitoring Program - 257.24

134                       14

   0                    0                     1                        1

      296

     12,120

Assessment Monitoring Program - 257.25

22                         0

   0                   0                      1                        1

        44

        1,802

Selection of Remedy 257.27

22                         0

   0                   0                       3                       3

       132

        5,405

Recordkeeping Requirements - 257.30

0                           0

   0                   0                       0                       0

         0

           0

TOTAL ANNUAL RECORDKEEPING BURDEN  AND COST

178                       14

       472

       19,327

	EXHIBIT 5 	ESTIMATED ONE-TIME  RESPONDENT RECORDKEEPING BURDEN AND COST

REQUIREMENT

       NUMBER OF                RESPONDENTS  -           ACTIVITY EXISTING      NEW

HOURS PER RESPONDENT - ACTIVITY

LEGAL       MANAGER   TECHNICAL    CLERICAL $73.58/HR   $86.56/HR      $52.37/HR         $29.52/HR

TOTAL  HOURS  PER YEAR

TOTAL COST  PER YEAR

Floodplains -  257.8

0                           3

   0                   2                      4                        4

        30

        1,502

Wetlands - 257.9

0                           0

   0                   0                      0                        0

          0

          0

No Migration Petition  257.21(b)

0                           1

   0                   0                      1                        1

         2

          82

Small and Remote Facilities - 257.21(h)

0                           3

   0                   2                      3                        5

        30

      1,433

Small and Remote Facilities - 257.21(i)

0                           0

   0                   0                      0                        0

          0

          0

Establish GWM  System - 257.23

0                           14

   0                   0                      3                        3

         84

       3,439

Detection Monitoring Program - 257.24

0                           0

   0                    0                     0                        0

         0

          0

Assessment Monitoring Program - 257.25

0                           0

   0                   0                      0                        0

          0

          0

Selection of Remedy 257.27

0                           0

   0                   0                      0                        0

          0

          0

Recordkeeping Requirements - 257.30

0                           1

   0                   2                      4                        4

        10

        501

TOTAL ONE-TIME RECORDKEEPING BURDEN  AND COST

0                           22

       156

     6,957

                                                                                EXHIBIT 6 	ESTIMATED ANNUAL RESPONDENT REPORTING BURDEN AND COST

REQUIREMENT

       NUMBER OF                RESPONDENTS  -           ACTIVITY EXISTING      NEW

HOURS PER RESPONDENT - ACTIVITY

LEGAL      MANAGER    TECHNICAL       CLERICAL $73.58/HR   $86.56/HR         $52.37/HR        $29.52/HR

TOTAL  HOURS  PER YEAR

TOTAL COST  PER YEAR

Floodplains -  257.8

0                           0

   0                   0                      0                        0

        0

         0

Wetlands - 257.9

0                           0

   0                   0                      0                        0

        0

         0

No Migration Petition  257.21(b)

0                           0

   0                   0                      0                        0

        0

         0

Small and Remote Facilities - 257.21(h)

0                           0

   0                   0                      0                        0

        0

         0

Small and Remote Facilities - 257.21(i)

0                           0

   0                   0                      0                        0

        0

          0

Establish GWM  System - 257.23

0                           0

   0                   0                      0                        0

        0

          0

Detection Monitoring Program - 257.24

134                       14

   0                   6                      12                      14

      4,736

    231,040

Assessment Monitoring Program - 257.25

22                         0

   2                   6                      12                      12

         704

      36,282

Selection of Remedy 257.27

22                         0

   10                 30                    40                      120

      4,400

     188,958

Recordkeeping Requirements - 257.30

0                           0

   0                   0                       0                       0

         0

          0

TOTAL ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN  AND COST

178                       14

       9,840

     464,658

                                                                                EXHIBIT  7  	ESTIMATED ONE-TIME RESPONDENT REPORTING  BURDEN AND COST

REQUIREMENT

       NUMBER OF                RESPONDENTS  -           ACTIVITY EXISTING      NEW

HOURS PER RESPONDENT  -  ACTIVITY

LEGAL          MANAGER   TECHNICAL    CLERICAL $73.58/HR      $86.56/HR        $52.37/HR       $29.52/HR

TOTAL  HOURS  PER YEAR

TOTAL COST  PER YEAR

Floodplains -  257.8

0                           3

   0                   0                      1                        1

          6

        246

Wetlands - 257.9

0                           0

   0                   0                      0                        0

          0

          0

No Migration Petition  257.21(b)

0                           1

   5                  20                    60                      15

       100

      5,684

Small and Remote Facilities - 257.21(h)

0                           3

   0                   0                      1                        1

          6

         246

Small and Remote Facilities - 257.21(i)

0                           0

   0                   0                      0                        0

          0

          0

Establish GWM  System - 257.23

0                           14

   2                   5                     11                       2

       280

      17,011

Detection Monitoring Program - 257.24

0                           0

   0                    0                     0                        0

          0

          0

Assessment Monitoring Program - 257.25

0                           0

   0                   0                      0                        0

          0

          0

Selection of Remedy 257.27

0                           0

   0                   0                      0                        0

          0

          0

Recordkeeping Requirements - 257.30

0                           0

   0                   0                      0                        0

          0

          0

TOTAL ONE-TIME REPORTING BURDEN  AND COST

0                           21

       392

    23,187

                                   EXHIBIT 8 	TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL AND ONE-TIME BURDEN HOURS AND COSTS

ANNUAL  BURDEN

                                ONE-TIME BURDEN Total Hours Total Costs

Hours

Costs

 Hours

Costs

State Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden                                                                               707                                                                            $ 25,487                                                                               53                                                                             $ 1,893                                       725                                     $26,118

Respondent Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden                                                                             10,312                                                                            $483,985                                                                               548                                                                             $30,144                                     10,495                                    $494,033

TOTAL ESTIMATED BURDEN                                                                             11,019                                                                            $509,472                                                                               601                                                                             $32,037                                     11,220                                    $520,151

Total Annual Burden Hours and Costs = Annual Burden + 1/3 of One-time burden


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 151 (Friday, August 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51951-51954]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18570]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78452; File No. SR-BatsEDGX-2016-33]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Adopt an Options Regulatory Fee

August 1, 2016.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on July 20, 2016, Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule

change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated the proposed
rule change as one establishing or changing a member due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange under section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule
change effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable
to Members \5\ and non-members of the Exchange pursuant to EDGX Rules
15.1(a) and (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Member'' is defined as ``any registered broker or
dealer that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange.'' See
Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to modify the fee schedule applicable to the
Exchange's options platform (``EDGX Options'') to adopt an ORF in the
amount of $0.0002 per contract side. The per-contract ORF will be
assessed by the Exchange to each Member and non-Member for all options
transactions cleared by OCC in the ``customer'' range, regardless of
the exchange on which the transaction occurs. The ORF will be collected
indirectly from Members and non-Members through their clearing firms by
OCC on behalf of the Exchange. The ORF will be collected indirectly
from Members and non-Members through their clearing firms by OCC on
behalf of EDGX Options.
    The Exchange believes it is appropriate to charge the ORF to
transactions by Members and non-Members that clear as customer at the
OCC, irrespective of where the transactions takes place. Many of the
Exchange's surveillance programs for customer trading activity require
the Exchange to look at activity across all options markets, such as
surveillances for position limit violations, manipulation, insider
trading, front-running and contrary exercise advice violations/expiring
exercise declarations. Accordingly, there is a strong nexus between the
ORF and the Exchange's regulatory activities with respect to its
Members', as well as non-Members', customer trading activity. These
activities span across multiple exchanges.
    In addition to its own surveillance programs, the Exchange works
with other SROs and exchanges on intermarket surveillance related
issues. Through its participation in the Intermarket Surveillance Group
(``ISG''),\6\ the Exchange shares information and coordinates inquiries
and investigations with other exchanges designed to address potential
intermarket manipulation and trading abuses. Also, the Exchange and the
other options exchanges are required to populate a consolidated options
audit trail (``COATS'') \7\ system in order to surveil trading
activities across markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ISG is an industry organization formed in 1983 to coordinate
intermarket surveillance among the SROs by co-operatively sharing
regulatory information pursuant to a written agreement between the
parties. The goal of the ISG's information sharing is to coordinate
regulatory efforts to address potential intermarket trading abuses
and manipulations.
    \7\ COATS effectively enhances intermarket options surveillance
by enabling the options exchanges to reconstruct the market promptly
to effectively surveil certain rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to assess ORF monthly based on information
received from the OCC regarding transactions that cleared in the
customer range. Notably, the Exchange believes that this will help to
alleviate confusion or even potential double-billing of customer
transactions. In particular, by billing all customer transactions on a
monthly basis the Exchange will be able to capture transactions that
may have been executed on the Exchange that were submitted for clearing
by a Member but then ``flipped'' to the account of a non-Member. Thus,
the Exchange believes that charging the ORF to Members and non-Members
across all markets will avoid having non-Members clear their trades
through non-Members in order to avoid the fee and to thereby avoid
paying for their fair share for regulation. If the ORF did not apply to
activity across markets then a Member or non-Member would send their
orders to the least cost, least regulated exchange. In addition,
applying the fee to all Members' and non-Members' activity across all
market will avoid options participants from terminating their
membership status on or not becoming a Members of certain exchanges
simply to avoid being assessed ORF.
    As discussed above, the ORF is designed to recover a material
portion of the costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation
of Members' and non-Member's customer options business, including
performing routine surveillances and investigations, as well as policy,
rulemaking, interpretive and enforcement activities. The Exchange
believes that revenue generated from the ORF, when combined with all of
the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, will cover a material
portion, but not all, of the Exchange's regulatory costs.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange notes that its regulatory responsibilities with
respect to compliance with options sales practice rules has been
allocated to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') under a 17d-2 Agreement. The ORF is not designed to
cover the cost of options sales practice regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will monitor the amount of revenue collected from the
ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees
and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs. The
Exchange expects to monitor its regulatory costs and revenues at a
minimum on a semi-annual basis. If the Exchange determines regulatory
revenues exceed or are insufficient to cover a material portion of its
regulatory costs, the Exchange will adjust the ORF by submitting a fee
change filing to the Commission. The Exchange will notify Members and
non-Members of adjustments to the ORF at least 30 calendar days prior
to the effective date of the change.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange announced its intent to charge an ORF on June
30, 2016. See Bats Options Exchange Regulatory Fee Schedule Update
Effective August 1, 2016 available at: http://cdn.batstrading.com/resources/fee_schedule/2016/Bats-Options-Exchange-Regulatory-Fee-Schedule-Update-Effective-August-1-2016.pdf. The semi-annual review
and notice provisions are similar to those adopted by NYSE Arca,
Inc. (``NYSE Arca''). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70500
(September 25, 2013), 78 FR 60361 (October 1, 2013) (SR-NYSEArca-
2013-91).

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

    The Exchange notes that there is established precedent for an SRO
charging a fee across markets, namely, FINRAs Trading Activity Fee \10\
and the BZX, MIAX, NYSE Amex, NYSE Arca, CBOE, PHLX, ISE and BOX ORFs.
While the Exchange does not have all of the same regulatory
responsibilities as FINRA, the Exchange believes that, like other
exchanges that have adopted an ORF, its broad regulatory
responsibilities with respect to a Member's and non-Members'
activities, irrespective of where their transactions take place,
support a regulatory fee applicable to transactions on other markets.
Unlike FINRA's Trading Activity Fee, the ORF would apply only to a
Member's and non-Member's customer options transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47946 (May 30,
2003), 68 FR 3402 (June 6, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation Date
    The Exchange proposes to implement the ORF on August 1, 2016.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and,
in particular, with the requirements of section 6 of the Act.\11\
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\12\ in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls. The Exchange notes that it operates in a
highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
direct order flow to competing venues or providers of routing services
if they deem fee levels to be excessive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the ORF is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it would be objectively allocated to Members and
non-Members in that it would be charged to all Members and non-Members
on all their transactions that clear as customer transactions at the
OCC. Moreover, the Exchange believes the ORF ensures fairness by
assessing fees to those Members and non-Members that are directly based
on the amount of customer options business they conduct. Regulating
customer trading activity is much more labor intensive and requires
greater expenditure of human and technical resources than regulating
non-customer trading activity, which tends to be more automated and
less labor-intensive. As a result, the costs associated with
administering the customer component of the Exchange's overall
regulatory program are materially higher than the costs associated with
administering the non-customer component (e.g., Member proprietary
transactions) of its regulatory program. In addition, the Exchange
believes the amount of the ORF is reasonable as it is significantly
lower than ORFs charged by other exchanges. By way of comparison, MIAX
charges an ORF of $0.0045 per contract side,\13\ and both NYSE Arca and
NYSE Amex charge an ORF of $0.0055 per contract side.\14\ The CBOE
charges an ORF of $0.0081 per contract.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See MIAX fee schedule available at http://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/MIAX_Options_Fee_Schedule_06012016.pdf (date May 1, 2016).
    \14\ See NYSE Arca Options fee schedule available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/arca-options/NYSE_Arca_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf (dated June 6, 2016); and NYSE
Amex fee schedule available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/amex-options/NYSE_Amex_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf (dated June
9, 2016).
    \15\ See CBOE fee schedule available at http://www.cboe.com/framed/pdfframed.aspx?content=/publish/feeschedule/CBOEFeeSchedule.pdf§ion=SEC_RESOURCES&title=CBOE%20Fee%20Schedule
 (dated May 16, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes applying the ORF to transactions executed or
cleared by non-Members is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because it should avoid having transactions cleared through non-Members
in order to avoid the fee and to thereby avoid paying for their fair
share for regulation.\16\ If the ORF did not apply to activity across
markets then a non-Member would send their orders to the least cost,
least regulated exchange. In addition, applying the fee to all Members'
and non-Members' activity across all market will avoid options
participants from terminating their membership status on or not
becoming a Members of certain exchanges simply to avoid being assessed
ORF. Moreover, the Exchange believes the ORF ensures fairness by
assessing fees to those Members and non-Members that are directly based
on the amount of customer options business they conduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Despite rule text to the contrary, the Exchange believes
based on conversations with market participants that other options
exchanges currently charge an ORF on all options transactions
cleared by the OCC in the customer range regardless of whether they
are executed or cleared by their member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes it is reasonable and appropriate for the
Exchange to charge the ORF for options transactions by a non-Member
regardless of the exchange on which the transactions occur. The
Exchange has a statutory obligation to enforce compliance by Members
and their associated persons under the Act and the rules of the
Exchange and cannot effectively surveil for manipulative conduct by
market participants (including non-Members) trading on the Exchange
without looking at and evaluating activity across all options markets.
Many of the Exchange's market surveillance programs require the
Exchange to look at and evaluate activity across all options markets,
such as surveillance for position limit violations, manipulation,
front-running and contrary exercise advice violations/expiring exercise
declarations.
    The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs of
supervising and regulating Members' and non-Members' customer options
business including performing routine surveillances, investigations,
examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking,
interpretive, and enforcement activities. The Exchange will monitor, on
at least a semi-annual basis the amount of revenue collected from the
ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees
and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs. If
the Exchange determines regulatory revenues exceed or are insufficient
to cover a material portion of its regulatory costs, the Exchange will
adjust the ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Commission. The
Exchange will notify Members and non-Members of adjustments to the ORF
via regulatory circular.
    The Exchange has designed the ORF to generate revenues that, when
combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees, will be less
than or equal to the Exchange's regulatory costs, which is consistent
with the Commission's view that regulatory fees be used for regulatory
purposes and not to support the Exchange's business side. In this
regard, the Exchange believes that the initial level of the fee is
reasonable.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The ORF is not intended to have
any impact on competition. Rather, it is designed to

enable the Exchange to recover a material portion of the Exchange's
cost related to its regulatory activities. The proposed ORF is also
comparable to, and in most instances less than, ORF fees charged by
other options exchanges. Further, the expansion of ORF to non-Members
is also not designed to have an impact on competition as the Exchange
believes based on conversations from market participants that it is
consistent with the practice by other exchanges in applying ORF to non-
Member transactions, despite rule text to the contrary.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any written comments from members or other interested parties.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \17\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\18\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-BatsEDGX-2016-33 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BatsEDGX-2016-33. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-BatsEDGX-2016-33, and should be
submitted on or before August 26, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-18570 Filed 8-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Marjorie Jones/RTP/USEPA/US

06/15/2007 04:40 PM

To

"Johansson, Robert"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

Fw: Friday e-mail #3 -- new Ozone RIA pieces to forward

Marjorie C. Jones

Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards

Air Benefit and Cost Group, Mail Code C439-02

Health and Environmental Impacts Division

RTP, NC 27711

voice:<PHONE_NUMBER>

fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Shipping/receiving: 4930 Old Page Rd.

Durham, NC 27709

----- Forwarded by Marjorie Jones/RTP/USEPA/US on 06/15/2007 04:40 PM -----

Marjorie Jones/RTP/USEPA/US

06/15/2007 04:39 PM

To

Eileen Pritchard/DC/USEPA/US

cc

Bruce Schillo/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Joseph-J Dougherty/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lesley Schaaff/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Mary Henigin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Rebecca Daniels/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rosalina Rodriguez/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, <EMAIL_ADDRESS>Thomas Gillis/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

Friday e-mail #3 -- new Ozone RIA pieces to forward

Please forward to Rob Johansson the attached draft Ozone RIA Executive Summary:

and Summary Chapter 8:

Thanks!  Margie

Marjorie C. Jones

Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards

Air Benefit and Cost Group, Mail Code C439-02

Health and Environmental Impacts Division

RTP, NC 27711

voice:<PHONE_NUMBER>

fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Shipping/receiving: 4930 Old Page Rd.

Durham, NC 27709


[Federal Register: February 6, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 25)]
[Notices]
[Page 6955]
[DOCID:fr06fe08-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. CP08-46-000]

Tarpon Whitetail Gas Storage, LLC; Notice of Public Scoping
Meeting and Site Visit for the Proposed Whitetail Natural Gas Storage
Project

January 30, 2008.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission)
will conduct a public scoping meeting and site visit for the Whitetail
Natural Gas Storage Project involving construction and operation of
natural gas storage, pipeline, and compressor station facilities by
Tarpon Whitetail Gas Storage, LLC (Whitetail) in Monroe County,
Mississippi.
    We invite you to attend the public scoping meeting beginning at 7
p.m. (CST) on Thursday evening, February 14, 2008, to provide
environmental comments on the proposed project. Your input will help us
determine the issues that need to be evaluated in the environmental
assessment. The public scoping meeting will be held at: Monroe County
Court House, 201 W. Commerce, Aberdeen, Mississippi 39730, Phone: 662-
369-8143.
    The Commission staff will also conduct a site visit of the location
of the proposed facilities. The site visit will begin at approximately
1 p.m. (CST) on February 14, 2008. Anyone interested in participating
in the site visit may attend; however, they must provide their own
transportation. The Commission staff, company representatives, and
interested participants will meet in the parking lot at the following
location: Shelaines Restaurant, 202 Hwy 145 North, Aberdeen,
Mississippi 39730, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-2118 Filed 2-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P