UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES, AND

TOXIC SUBSTANCES

TXR No:	0053177

MEMORANDUM

DATE:	March 7, 2005

SUBJECT:	PYRACLOSTROBIN: Second Report of the Dose Adequacy Review Team
(DART)

PC code: 099100

FROM:	Jessica Kidwell, Executive Secretary

Dose Adequacy Review Team

Health Effects Division (7509C)

THROUGH:	Jess Rowland, Chair

Dose Adequacy Review Team

Health Effects Division (7509C)

TO:		Ghazi Dannan, Toxicologist

Registration Action Branch 3

Health Effects Division (7509C)

John Bazuin/Cynthia Giles-Parker, PM Team 22

Fungicide Branch

Registration Division (7505C)

On February 23, 2005 the DART met to discuss BASF’s request to
terminate a supplemental female mouse carcinogenicity study.  Attached
please find the DART’s final report and recommendations.

Team Members in Attendance at the February 23, 2005 DART Meeting:
(Signature indicates concurrence with report unless otherwise noted:)

Karl Baetcke						____________________________________

William Burnam					____________________________________

Jessica Kidwell (Executive Secretary)
____________________________________

Jess Rowland						____________________________________

Other Attendees: Ghazi Dannan (HED/RAB3), Kelly O’Rourke
(HED/RAB3),Stephen Dapson (HED/RAB3), Gerome Burke (HED/RAB3), Paula
Deschamp (HED/RAB3)

Attendees at the March 4, 2005 conference call with Health Canada’s
Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA): William Burnam, Karl
Baetcke, Paula Deschamp, Jessica Kidwell, Catherine Adcock (PMRA)

On February 23, 2005 the DART met to discuss BASF’s request to
terminate a supplemental female mouse carcinogenicity study.  HED had
previously requested that this study be conducted to meet guideline
requirements based on the concern that dosing in female mice at the high
dose of 180 ppm in the main carcinogenicity study was not adequate.  In
2004, BASF sent a proposal to the DART with the proposed dose level for
the carcinogenicity study in female mice.  The DART recommended that a
supplemental study be conducted at a dose of 360 ppm (2x the original
high dose) (See DART memo, 5/26/04, TXR # 0052548).

The supplemental study was initiated in September 2004 and the
Registrant presented data obtained from study days 0 through 119.  BASF
is currently requesting the DART’s concurrence that the dose of 360
ppm be terminated due to a body weight gain decrease of 48% compared to
controls at day 119, and which, according to the registrant, appears to
be an excessive dose.  Since a dose of 180 ppm (½ the required dose of
360 ppm) was previously tested in the original mouse carcinogenicity
study, the registrant proposes that no further testing is needed.

The DART reviewed the registrant’s submission and considered their
request.  The DART agrees that there was a variable, but substantial,
decrease in body weight and body weight gain, with body weights
diverging from controls after day 56.  At day 91 there was a 12%
decrease in body weight and a 37% decrease in body weight gain. Food
efficiency was decreased by 56% compared to controls, however, no
information was provided on food spillage.  At day 119, there was a 20%
decrease in body weight and 48% decrease in body weight gain (over a 2
week period).  No mortality was reported and no other signs of toxicity
were seen.

The Registrant made the argument that the body weight/body weight gain
decreases with accompanying decreases in food efficiency at the dose of
360 ppm greatly exceeds the requirement using the criteria set forth in
the HED Interim Guidance Document (#G2003.02) Rodent Carcinogenicity
(July 1, 2003) which states: “...for the selection of carcinogenicity
study doses, a decrease in body weight gain approaching 10% compared to
controls over the duration of a study of at least 90 days is sufficient
evidence that an adequate high dose has been identified.” and the
Interim Guidance Document #G2003.01 Interpretation of Body Weight Data
which states: “Other factors should be considered such as food
efficiency to see if [body weight] changes are secondary to other
effects.”  The DART acknowledges the substantial decreases in body
weight/body weight gain, however, this supplemental study is being
conducted to assess the carcinogenic potential of pyraclostrobin at a
single dose greater than 180 ppm.  The interim guidance documents, on
the other hand, apply to selection of doses for a study and/or
evaluation of a carcinogenicity study that employed multiple dose
levels.  These criteria do not apply to this situation since the
supplemental study is a bridging study.

Therefore, it is the DART’s recommendation that the Registrant
continue this study for a total of 6 months to see if the decreases in
body weight/body weight gain and food efficiency are temporary or if the
body weight divergence is sustained.  At this time, the Registrant
should contact the DART for further evaluation of the body weight/body
weight gain effects, as well as other toxic effects seen, to determine
the adequacy of the dose.  (Note: The DART discussed this issue with
Health Canada’s PMRA on 3/4/05 and they agreed with the DART’s
recommendation for continuing the study.)

 Dose Adequacy Review Team Report

( PAGE  4 (


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 23, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35356-35360]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15662]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2000-0007; FRL-9997-04-Region 8]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Intermountain Waste Oil
Refinery Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 is issuing
a Notice of Intent to Delete Intermountain Waste Oil Refinery Superfund
Site (Site) located in Bountiful City, Davis County,

Utah, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public
comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to
section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).
The EPA and the State of Utah, through the Utah Department of
Environmental Quality (UDEQ), have determined that all appropriate
response actions under CERCLA, other than operation and maintenance and
five-year reviews, have been completed. However, this deletion does not
preclude future actions under Superfund.

DATES: Comments must be received by August 22, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2000-0007 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
     Email: [email protected].
     Mail: Erna Waterman, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. EPA,
Region 8, Mail Code 8SEM-RB, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-
1129.
     Hand delivery: U.S. EPA, Region 8 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Mailcode: SEM-RB, Denver, CO 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2000-0007. The http://www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous
access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: Utah
Department of Environmental Quality, 168 North 1950 West, Salt Lake
City, UT 84116; Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>); Hours: M-Th: 9 a.m.-9 p.m.; Fri-
Sat: 9:00 a.m.-5:30 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erna Waterman, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode: SEM-
RB, Denver, CO 80202,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 8 announces its intent to delete the Intermountain Waste
Oil Refinery Superfund Site from the National Priorities List (NPL) and
requests public comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes
appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated
pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA
maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a
significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites
on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the
Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in 40 CFR
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible
for Fund-financed remedial actions if future conditions warrant such
actions.
    EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this Site for
thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal
Register.
    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using
for this action. Section IV discusses the Intermountain Waste Oil
Refinery Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion
criteria.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in
consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have
been met:
    i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
    iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore,
the taking of remedial measures in not appropriate.
    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-
year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions
where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a
site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted
from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued
protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available
that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant
release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be
restored to the NPL without

application of the hazard ranking system.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:
    (1) EPA consulted with the State before developing this Notice of
Intent to Delete.
    (2) EPA has provided the state 30 working days for review of this
notice prior to publication of it today.
    (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has
determined that no further response is appropriate.
    (4) The State of Utah, through the UDEQ, has concurred with
deletion of the Site from the NPL.
    (5) Concurrently with the publication of this Notice of Intent to
Delete in the Federal Register, a notice is being published in a major
local newspaper, the Davis Clipper. The newspaper notice announces the
30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete
the site from the NPL.
    (6) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed
deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for
public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories
identified above.
    If comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on
this document, EPA will evaluate and respond appropriately to the
comments before making a final decision to delete. If necessary, EPA
will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public
comments received. After the public comment period, if EPA determines
it is still appropriate to delete the Site, the Regional Administrator
will publish a final Notice of Deletion in the Federal Register. Public
notices, public submissions and copies of the Responsiveness Summary,
if prepared, will be made available to interested parties and in the
site information repositories listed above.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from
the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for
informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the
NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should
future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the
Site from the NPL.

Site Background and History

    The two-acre Superfund Site Intermountain Waste Oil Refinery is
located in the City of Bountiful, in Davis County, Utah. The site was
originally part of a brick manufacturing facility that encompassed
about 20 acres. In the 1950s, an asphalt business was operated at the
site. In 1957, a trucking business that hauled various petroleum
products to customers opened and continued operating for approximately
35 years before closing in May 1993. During the 1970s, an oil blending
business operated on the property. The operation involved blending
green bottoms, purportedly a fraction of crude oil with diesel fuel,
which was sold for dust control at coal mines. Over the subsequent
years, used oil was treated onsite and was sent to cement facilities
for use as fuel in cement kilns. Aboveground storage tanks used in the
operations had an unlined secondary surface impoundment. Waste sludge
produced in the operations was reportedly disposed of in an offsite
landfill, and wastewater that may have remained after the treatment
process was boiled off at the site.
    The site owners began dismantling the facility in 1993. Some of the
waste was consolidated into a waste pile of approximately 100 cubic
yards, located on the east portion of the site. The remainder of the
site was covered with approximately 2 inches of gravel[hyphen]type
backfill. Due to unknown operations at the site, the groundwater became
contaminated with several solvents, mainly trichloroethylene (TCE) and
hydrocarbons. The source of the TCE was processes which occurred in the
storage tank area or the laboratory equipment.
    The Site consists of two Operable Units (OUs). OU1 addressed soils,
subsurface soils, and potential onsite contaminant sources including
tanks, drums, and containers. OU2 addressed contaminants found in the
ground water, mainly TCE, that were above drinking water standards and
the risk-based levels of concern. Investigations at the Site showed
that groundwater and soils were contaminated with processing and
disposal of waste products have resulted in contamination of soils and
groundwater at the Site. The EPA proposed the site to the National
Priorities List (NPL) as The Intermountain Waste Oil Refinery on 10/22/
1999 (64 FR 56992) and listed the Site as final on in the NPL on 5/11/
2000 (65 FR 30482). The EPA assigned the site CERCLIS ID UT0001277359.
    The first removal action of the property occurred in August 2001.
Potential sources of soil and/or groundwater contamination such as
laboratory chemicals, tanks, drums, and sump contents, were removed.
Additionally, an underground storage tank was removed during field work
for the installation of OU2 groundwater monitoring wells.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    A Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment (BHHRA), which also
included a screening level ecological risk assessment, was completed
for OU1. The BHHRA evaluated risks to potential workers and
hypothetical future residents and determined that volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) in soils could potentially accumulate inside a
building and create an unacceptable risk. This risk was primarily due
to 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene, with smaller
contributions from naphthalene, hexane, and cis-1,2-dichloroethene in
soil at some locations. There were no ecological concerns.
    The OU2 BHHRA evaluated exposure pathways for contaminated
groundwater at the Site for future or current onsite workers and future
residents. The assessment looked at risks from the inhalation and
ingestion of contaminated groundwater beneath the IWOR site.
Trichloroethylene was the only contaminate of concern identified in
groundwater by the risk assessment. Risks from exposure to contaminated
groundwater were determined to be above a level of concern for non-
cancer and cancer risks.

Selected Remedy

    EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for OU1, dated November 26,
2002, to address soils, subsurface soils, and potential onsite
contaminant sources including tanks, drums, and containers. Remedial
action objectives (RAOs) identified in the ROD include:
     Prevent exposure of workers and future residents from
inhalation of contaminated vapors intruding from soil to indoor air.
Non-cancer risks should be reduced to within or below a level of
concern (HQ<1); and
     Remove potential sources of soil and/or groundwater
contamination.
    The remedy selected in the OU1 ROD consisted of two components.
     Establishment of land use controls that require buildings
built, in whole or in part, on the property to have a vapor

mitigation system and require that soils excavated during the building
or other construction activities will be managed appropriately; and
     Removal of an underground storage tank (UST).
    EPA issued a ROD for OU2, on August 4, 2004, to address groundwater
and proper disposal of containers in the garage. The RAOs identified in
the ROD consisted of the following:
     Restore the aquifer to beneficial use (drinking water
standards) within a reasonable time frame;
     Prevent exposure to contaminated ground water through
ingestion of contaminated ground water, or inhalation of vapors during
use; and
     Prevent the future contamination of ground water that is
currently uncontaminated.
    The drinking water standard of 5 [mu]g/L for TCE was established in
the OU2 ROD as the cleanup level for restoring the aquifer to
beneficial use.
    The components of the OU2 selected remedy consisted of multiple
components.
     Dual phase extraction (DPE) and treatment: Where effective
in removing contaminated vapors as well as contaminated ground water,
DPE will be used. DPE involves pumping ground water and soil vapors
from the same well. Where, or when, there are no significant
contaminated soil vapors recovered through DPE, groundwater pump and
treatment will be used.
     Land Use Control, or Institutional Control: The land use
control will prevent the installation of a drinking water well on the
property until drinking water standards are met in the ground water.
     Monitoring: A monitoring plan to evaluate the
effectiveness of the remedy will be developed and implemented. The plan
will likely include sampling at least four wells monthly for the first
six months, and quarterly thereafter.
     Treatment and Discharge: The ground water that is
extracted will be treated by a treatment system that uses granular
activated carbon to remove the contaminants. The treated water will be
discharged to a storm water drain or other approved discharge point.
     Disposal of containers: There are about 25 one to five-
gallon containers currently stored in the garage. A number of the
containers contain lead-based paint, and most would be classified as a
hazardous waste for disposal purposes. Proper disposal now will prevent
any potential future risks from mismanagement of these containers.

Response Actions

    UDEQ and EPA have both led different aspects of the remediation
work, as defined in a cooperative agreement between EPA and UDEQ.
Remediation work was conducted in three removal actions: 1. Removal
action for property redevelopment in 2001, 2. DPE groundwater
remediation from 2004-2006, and 3. the solar powered
MicroBlowerTM at monitoring well MW-07 to remove TCE from
the vadose zone from 2013-2017.
    In June 2004, a Dual Phase Extraction (DPE) system was installed on
wells as part of a treatability study that was completed during the RI
for OU2. The DPE system was shut down in February 2006 after
groundwater goals were reached. Groundwater data showed TCE
concentrations were below drinking water standards for a period of
approximately 18 months. The system was dismantled and removed from the
Site in October 2006 and semiannual rebound monitoring and sampling
began. From October 2007 to May 2013, TCE concentrations in groundwater
periodically exceeded the cleanup goal and drinking water standard of 5
[mu]g/L in four monitoring wells. Based on these exceedances and the
findings of a streamlined remediation system evaluation, EPA
reinitiated vapor extraction in March 2013 by installing a solar
powered MicroBlowerTM at monitoring well MW-07 to remove TCE
from the vadose zone. The goal of the solar powered extraction system
was to remove the residual source of groundwater contamination. Sample
results show TCE concentrations in groundwater declined during the
operation of the solar panel extraction system.

Institutional Controls

    Institutional controls (ICs) were required for both OU1 and OU2
remedies. For OU1, an Environmental Notice and Institutional Control
(IC) to require buildings on the IWOR property to have vapor mitigation
systems was filed with the Davis County Clerk and Recorder's Office on
September 23, 2003. The State of Utah Department of Environmental
Quality has the authority to enforce this IC. In 2007, the site was
sold to Bountiful Irrigation for redevelopment. The garage, lab, and
house were demolished, and the site was graded and all remaining debris
from the previous owners was removed. A new office building and garage
were constructed, and the site continues to be used as a commercial
property for this irrigation business. The office building and garage
constructed on the site have active sub-slab vapor mitigation systems.
    The IC for OU2 to prevent the installation of a drinking water well
on the property until drinking water standards are met in the ground
water was filed on July 8, 2005 by the Davis County Clerk and
Recorder's Office. The State of Utah Department of Environmental
Quality has the authority to enforce this IC.

Operation and Maintenance

    As noted, the OU1 ROD required the establishment of ICs to prevent
exposure to contaminated materials and to require State review of
future changes to land use. ICs that support commercial use were
adopted by the property owner and the City of Bountiful. The 2013
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan consists of the groundwater
monitoring and sampling.
    The O&M Plan states that once TCE concentrations have been below 5
[mu]g/L for two consecutive monitoring and sampling events, the project
team may elect to turn off the solar powered vapor extraction system
and perform quarterly rebound monitoring. If over a period of two
years, no exceedances of 5 [mu]g/L are observed, then site closure can
proceed. As a result of abnormally dry and drought conditions, rebound
sampling was not completed on a quarterly schedule. However,
groundwater samples were collected in December 2015, April 2016, and
February 2018, and showed TCE concentrations were below the cleanup
goal and drinking water standard of 5 [mu]g/L for TCE. The solar
powered vapor extraction system, installed at monitoring well MW-07,
was shut down and removed from the Site in January 2017. The Final
Close Out Report for the IWOR Site was signed on July 1, 2019.

Five-Year Review

    Statutory Five-Year Reviews (FYR) of the site are required because
hazardous substances remain on-site above levels which allow for
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. Three FYRs were conducted in
2008, 2013 and 2018. The 2018 FYR found the remedy at the Site to be
protective of human health and the environment, with no issues or
recommendations. The next five-year review is scheduled to be completed
by September 2023.

Community Involvement

    Community involvement activities at the Site initially included
establishing a local presence by meeting with local property owners and
concerned citizens. Outreach efforts included community interviews,
fact sheets,

letters, flyers, door-to-door visits, public meetings, neighborhood
meetings, public comment periods and website updates. The most recent
interviews were conducted in the spring 2017 and 2018 for the 2018 FYR.
The EPA's Community Involvement criteria associated with 40 CFR
300.425(e)(4) requires EPA to conduct interviews and/or gather
community input.
    The Site is fully developed for commercial land-use. The successful
revitalization of this Site is sustainable, provides valuable reuse,
and elevates the quality of life with revitalization for years to come.

Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion

    The implemented Site-wide remedy achieves the RAOs specified in the
OU1 and OU2 RODs for all pathways of exposure. The selected remedy is
consistent with CERCLA, the NCP, and EPA policy and guidance. No
further Superfund responses are needed to protect human health and the
environment at the Site.
    The NCP (40 CFR 300.425(e)) states that a site may be deleted from
the NPL when no further response action is appropriate. EPA, in
consultation with the State of Utah, has determined that all required
response actions have been implemented and no further response action
by responsible parties is appropriate.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

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

    Dated: July 15, 2019.
Gregory E. Sopkin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2019-15662 Filed 7-22-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 71108]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29555]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Applications of Orange Air, LLC for Certificate Authority

AGENCY: Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 2011-11-11) Dockets DOT-
OST-2011-0073 and DOT-OST-2011-0074.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is directing all interested
persons to show cause why it should not issue orders finding Orange
Air, LLC, fit, willing, and able, and awarding it certificates of
public convenience and necessity to engage in interstate and foreign
charter air transportation of persons, property, and mail using one
large aircraft.

DATES: Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than
November 30, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Objections and answers to objections should be filed in
Dockets DOT-OST-2011-0073 and DOT-OST-2011-0074 and addressed to U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, (M-30, Room W12-140),
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC
20590, and should be served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to
the order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vanessa R. Balgobin, Air Carrier
Fitness Division (X-56, Room W86-487), U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202)
366-9721.

    Dated: November 9, 2011.
Robert A. Letteney,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2011-29555 Filed 11-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 241 (Monday, December 20, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72026-72027]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27456]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2021-1161]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of a Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Flight and
Duty Limitations and Rest Requirements--Flightcrew Members

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The collection involves reporting exceeded flight duty
periods and flight times, including scheduled maximum and actual flight
duty periods and flight times, basic flight information (e.g., city
pairs, departure times, flight number), and reason for exceedance.
Reporting and recordkeeping are required any time a certificated air
carrier has exceeded a maximum daily flight time limit or a maximum
daily Flight Duty Period (FDP) limit. It is also required for the
voluntary development of a Fatigue Risk Management System (FRMS), and
for fatigue training. The information is necessary to monitor trends in
exceedance and possible underlying systemic causes requiring operator
action, and to determine whether operator is scheduling realistically.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by February 18, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Please send written comments:
    By Electronic Docket: www.regulations.gov (Enter docket number into
search field).
    By mail: Sandra Ray, Federal Aviation Administration, Voluntary
Programs and Rulemaking Section AFS-260, 1187 Thorn Run Road, Suite
200, Coraopolis, PA 15108.
    By fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chester Piolunek, Jr. by email at:
[email protected]; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0751.
    Title: Flight and Duty Limitations and Rest Requirements--
Flightcrew Members.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The FAA collects reports from air carriers conducting
passenger operations certificated under 14 CFR part 121 as prescribed
in 14 CFR part

117 Flightcrew Member Duty and Rest Requirements, Sec. Sec. Sec.
117.11, 117.19, and 117.29. Air carriers are required to submit a
report of exceeded flight duty periods and flight times, including
scheduled maximum and actual flight duty periods and flight times,
basic flight information (e.g., city pairs, departure times, flight
number), and reason for exceedance. The purpose for the reports is to
notify the FAA that the certificate holder has extended a flight time
and/or FDP limitation. This information enables FAA to monitor trends
in exceedance and possible underlying systemic causes requiring
operator action as well as determine whether operators are scheduling
realistically. Additionally, if air carriers choose to develop a
Fatigue Risk Management System (FRMS) under Sec.  117.7 they are
required to collect data specific to the need of the operation for
which they will seek an FRMS authorization. It results in an annual
recordkeeping and reporting burden when carriers adopt the system
because they need to report the related activities to the FAA. Each air
carrier is also required to develop specific elements and incorporate
these elements into their training program (Sec.  117.9). Once the
elements have been incorporated, the air carrier must submit the
revised training program for approval.
    Respondents: 47 Air Carriers.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Varies per requirement.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 857 Hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 15, 2021.
Sandra L. Ray,
Aviation Safety Inspector, AFS-260.
[FR Doc. 2021-27456 Filed 12-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Supporting Statement for an Information Collection Request (ICR) Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Title: Clean School Bus (CSB) Rebates Program: Application, Payment Request, and Close Out Forms  EPA ICR No.: 2461.05 OMB Control No.: 2060-0686 (Renewal) Docket ID No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0103 Abstract This supporting statement is for the Information Collection Request (ICR) renewal for the Clean School Bus (CSB) Rebates Program. The CSB Rebates Program currently collects information under an existing ICR; namely the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) and Clean School Bus Rebate Program ICR No. 2060-0686. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) currently uses ICR No. 2060-0686 to collect information for the CSB Rebate Program to ensure its successful administration and management. An Emergency ICR No. 2780.01 was approved by OMB in September 2023 that included additional data necessary to adequately review and administer the CSB Rebate Program. This ICR renewal consolidates all components of the CSB Rebate Program collection.  School buses collectively travel over four billion miles each year. They provide safe transportation to and from school for more than 25 million American children every day. While new buses meet the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) tighter emission standards, most school buses on the road emit pollutants, including nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM), in diesel exhaust. These pollutants can contribute to poor air quality and negatively impact human health, especially for children, as well as for bus drivers, other school staff, and other community members. The CSB Rebate Program funds the replacement of existing school buses with cleaner buses, the operation of which result in better air quality throughout the communities in which they operate.  EPA uses approved procedures and forms to collect necessary information to operate the CSB Rebate Program and has been providing these rebates since 2022. For each rebate program, EPA utilizes three online forms for the three phases of the rebate lifecycle: 1) Application Form for eligible entities to apply to a new rebate program, 2) Payment Request Form for selectees to submit order documentation and receive funds, and 3) Close Out Form for selectees to document completion of the rebate-eligible activity. In Fall 2023, EPA launched the 2023 CSB Rebate Application for applicants, and the 2022 CSB Rebate Close Out Form for existing 2022 program participants; EPA is currently preparing to launch the 2023 CSB Rebate Payment Request Form in early spring of 2024. EPA will subsequently launch the 2023 CSB Rebate Close Out Form, as well as each rebate form for any future rebate programs (e.g., 2024 CSB Rebate Program). The data collected in these forms are needed to operate the rebate program as authorized by Congress under the CSB statute.  Summary of Burden and Costs To estimate public burden for the CSB Rebate Program, EPA based estimates on knowledge of the existing program, as well as the burden associated with recently added data fields under the Emergency ICR No. 2780.01. EPA has determined the information collected in the Application, Payment Request Form, and Close Out Form to be the minimum information necessary to determine applicant eligibility, project alignment with the CSB Rebate Program, and reporting necessary to determine project progress and completion. As shown in the following table, EPA estimates approximately 2,400 respondents will spend approximately 20,000 hours annually fulfilling the CSB rebate program reporting requirements at an annual cost of approximately $1M. Over the ICR period, total burden amounts to approximately 59,000 hours at a cost of approximately $3M. Respondent Type Number of Respondents/Responses per Year Total Burden and Cost - Annual Total Burden and Cost - Over ICR Period

Hours Cost (2022$) Hours Cost (2022$)             State governments (includes tribal)                         125               960  $55,623              2,879  $166,869 Local governments (includes school districts)                         955             8,708  $508,287            26,123  $1,524,861 Private Fleets                      1,320           10,096  $465,533            30,287  $1,396,599 Total                      2,400           19,763  $1,029,443            59,289  $3,088,328   Supporting Statement Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information. The CSB Rebate Program is amended under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law 117-58, and provides $5 billion for the replacement of existing school buses with clean and zero-emission (ZE) school buses. School buses collectively travel over four billion miles each year, providing safes transportation to and from school for more than 25 million American children every day. While new buses meet the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) tighter emission standards, most school buses on the road emit pollutants, including nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM), in diesel exhaust. These pollutants can contribute to poor air quality and negatively impact human health, especially for children, as well as for bus drivers, other school staff, and other community members. The CSB Rebate Program funds the replacement of existing school buses with cleaner buses that result in better air quality on the bus, in bus loading areas, and throughout the communities in which they operate.  This ICR renewal is necessary to ensure that EPA can collect information that is essential to appropriately administer the CSB program. Specifically, for each rebate funding opportunity under the CSB Program, EPA requires the collection of information on three online rebate forms: 1) the Application, 2) Payment Request Form, and 3) the Close Out Form. The information enables EPA to ensure that only eligible applicants receive funds under this program and the funds are used in accordance with program requirements. The online rebate forms also ensure fiscal control and accountability for EPA funds, and deter waste, fraud, and abuse. In addition, the information collected in the online rebate forms supports EPA submitting an annual report to that evaluates the implementation of the CSB Program, as required under 42 U.S.C. § 16091(b)(8).  Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used.  Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the Agency has made of the information received from the current collection. The purpose of the online rebate forms (Application, Payment Request Form, and Close Out Form) for the CSB Program are to verify that rebate recipients are eligible and use the CSB Rebate Program funds to purchase eligible zero-emissions school buses, clean school buses, electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) (where applicable), and other applicable program costs (e.g., workforce training). Applicants to any CSB rebate program (FY22, FY23, and future funding rounds) are required to submit a completed Rebate Application; those selected for funding are then required to submit a Payment Request Form with order documentation showing new vehicle/equipment orders meet program requirements. By the end of the project period, selectees must submit a Close Out Form to document completion of the rebate-eligible activity. These forms must all be signed by an Authorized Representative for the entity applying for or receiving the rebate funds.  Under the 2022 CSB Rebate Program, EPA used information submitted in the Application and Payment Request Forms to verify applicant and equipment eligibility and ensure that funds requested in the Payment Request Form conformed to program requirements. EPA further used information submitted in the 2022 CSB Rebate forms to improve information collected in subsequent programs (e.g., streamline and clarify data fields). EPA launched the Close Out Form for 2022 CSB Rebate selectees in September 2023, and this information collection is ongoing. Similarly, the FY23 CSB Rebate Program is still in the early phases of being administered after being launched in September 2023.  Each of the three online forms is briefly outlined below with representative screen shots of the three forms included in Attachments 3-5.  Application Information Application data fields collect information in several areas to ensure EPA has the information necessary to confirm an applicant's eligibility, the feasibility of the project, and ensure that the greatest number of applicants and projects are funded through the CSB Rebate Program. Information collected in the application falls into several categories, including: 1) general applicant information and school district information, 2) information on partnership agreements, 3) funding amounts, 4) existing bus details, and 5) acknowledgment of key program guidelines and requirements. First, General information collected in the application includes the applicants Unique Entity Identifier for sam.gov, the Electronic Funds Transfer indicator, contact information for the primary applicant and partners, and type of organization. In addition, EPA requests information on the school district that would be served by the new buses funded under the CSB program. For instance, applicants provide the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) school district ID, which allows EPA to identify school districts meeting one or more prioritization criteria identified in the CSB statue (e.g., high-need, rural, Tribal). This information supports a key program goal to ensure that buses are distributed to school districts that meet one or more of the prioritization criteria included in the CSB statue (e.g., high-need, rural, Tribal). In instances where the NCES ID does not automatically identify a school district as prioritized, applicants may self-certify as prioritized by attesting to their self-certification in the online rebate application form.  Second, EPA requires information on partnership agreements to support the successful deployment of clean school buses, should the applicant be selected for a rebate. Data collected under this category includes three supplemental documents to ensure that 1) all applicants certify school board awareness of and support to pursue the new bus project; 2) applicants applying for electric school buses have initiated communication with their local utility early in the planning process for electric school bus deployment; 3) third party applicants certify that they have approval to apply on behalf of school districts.  Third, EPA collects information on funding amounts to ensure that EPA is can appropriate allocate available funds and maximize the impact of the Clean School Bus program. To do so, EPA collects information on sources of non-EPA funding involved in the project, whether the applicant is requesting funds for charging infrastructure, whether the applicant is requesting lower levels of funding than they are eligible for, if they are requesting an American Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant bus, and if they are requesting funds to ship one or more buses to non-lower 48 states and territories.  Fourth, EPA collects information on buses to be replaced to ensure that they meet the eligibility requirements for EPA to fund an applicant under the CSB Rebate Program. Collecting eligibility information will ensure funds are disbursed according to statutory requirements, as well as allow EPA to better estimate emissions reductions and public health benefits. Examples of data collected on buses to be replaced includes: Vehicle identification number (VIN); current bus ownership; estimated life of equipment to be replaced; year, make, and model; and estimated mileage and idling time.  Finally, the application includes data fields for the applicant to confirm they understand and agree to follow program requirements. For instance, applicants must attest to the importance of developing workforce training plan. Additionally, the EPA plans to ensure future applicants understand the firm requirement that electric vehicle charging infrastructure funded in part or in full by CSB must comply with Build America, Buy America (BABA) requirements.  Payment Request Form Information Fields in the Payment Request Form are used to confirm that the applicant understands and agrees to follow Program requirements. An important aspect of this form is the submission of the order documentation between the selectee and equipment vendors. Data fields include make, model, and costs of vehicles, and, where applicable, equipment for electric charging infrastructure; contact information for the vendor selling the vehicle or equipment; estimated delivery date of new vehicles and/or equipment; and estimated annual fuel use and miles traveled for new buses. Selectees will also be required to upload appropriate documentation from infrastructure vendors to verify BABA compliance. The information collected on the Payment Request Form is necessary to ensure fiscal control and accountability for EPA funds, as well as to deter waste, fraud, and abuse. See Attachment 4 for a representative screen shot of the Payment Request Form.  Close Out Form Information By separating the Payment Request Form from the Close Out Form, EPA can disburse funds based on order documentation and associated information submitted with the Payment Request Form, which allows selectees to move forward with purchasing new buses and equipment; EPA then subsequently collects the remaining necessary information to administer the CSB Rebate Program in the Close Out Form. EPA utilizes the Close Out Form to document completion of the rebate-eligible activity. For instance, selectees must provide documentation to verify that existing buses to be replaced have been scrapped, new buses funded under the program have been delivered, and, where applicable, electric vehicle charging infrastructure has been delivered and installed. The Close Out Form also provides, where appropriate, detailed information on new equipment funded by the program and partners involved in the project. The exact information needed may vary depending on the type of applicant (i.e., Third-party, school district, or tribal).  Importantly, information that has already been submitted will be carried over into the Close Out Form from the Application and Payment Request Forms, thereby reducing respondent burden and avoiding duplication. Additional contact information for the primary and alternate business contact may be collected as relevant to each rebate project. Further reducing burden, selectees also have the opportunity to edit information previously entered into the Application Form related to the buses that were replaced in the project period if they decided to replace a different existing bus (i.e., swap one existing bus for another). Similarly, if necessary, selectees may edit information applicable charging infrastructure that they entered in the Payment Request Form. See Attachment 5 for a representative screen shot of the Close Out Form.   Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden. All three rebate forms outlined above (Application, Payment Request Form, Close Out Form) are in an online web portal with user-friendly interface. The online forms ensure that all required data fields are completed to avoid an applicant or selectee needing to resubmit information at a later date due to an incomplete form. Further, each of the online forms can accommodate information related to several vehicles, which avoids applicants or selectees needing to complete a unique form for each vehicle for which they are requesting funding. Importantly, the online forms significantly reduce burden on rebate recipients and EPA staff by auto-populating information already submitted in previous steps within a form, as well information provided in a previous form (e.g., auto-populate information from Application to Payment Request Form), and by enabling the editing of previous submissions where appropriate. EPA will use information submitted in the online rebate forms to ensure the CSB Program is properly administered and to fulfill the reporting requirements of the Program. EPA will store information entered in to the three forms in the same database used to store data collected under the existing ICR (EPA ICR No. 2461.04). Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Item 2 above. Information requested from respondents under this ICR is not available from other sources. There are no existing rebate programs at EPA where this information may have been previously collected. Some rebate recipients may have applied for and/or received grants or rebates from EPA; however, information currently held in EPA's Integrated Management System that could pertain to the current rebate program may not reflect current contact information for rebate recipients and would not include necessary information related to the specific vehicle(s) targeted for rebate funding. Where possible, EPA will look to allow applicants applying to multiple rebate funding opportunities under the CSB Rebate Program to utilize relevant information (e.g., applicant contact information) when applying to a future rebate funding program. The CSB Program's technology-based facilitation of the information collection will reduce the need for respondents to submit identification data and other data fields more than once.  If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe the methods used to minimize burden. The Application, Payment Request Form, and Close Out Form collect the minimal information needed to verify that rebate recipients are eligible for a Clean School Bus award, experience a fair and equal selection process, and that applicants use the funds received to purchase approved clean school buses and/or EVSE. The burden represented by the Application, Payment Request Form, and Close Out Form cannot be further reduced for small businesses. EPA needs certain basic information to make decisions regarding rebate payments, and this information is not dependent on an operator's size. EPA believes the reporting requirements included in this ICR do not place an unreasonable burden on small businesses. In general, CSB rebates offer a simpler funding mechanism for small entities compared to the processes involved in many federal grants. Additionally, EPA minimizes the burden on small entities by providing User Guides for the Application, Payment Request Form, and Close Out Form. Please refer to Attachment 6-8 for User guide reference  Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden. EPA recognizes the importance of balancing the need for data collection efforts against respondent burden and costs. If the information in the rebate Application, Payment Request, and Close Out Forms outlined above is not collected, then EPA would be unable to assess whether a rebate applicant is eligible to receive a rebate, appropriately allocate funding, and ensure that all parties involved in the potential new bus deployment project are in alignment on project planning. Further, EPA would be unable to appropriately verify the eligibility of buses to be replaced and requested new vehicles and, where applicable, electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Moreover, EPA would be unable to verify that rebate recipients used the program funds consistent with program requirements, and would be limited in gathering data that will be used to evaluate the implementation of the CSB statute for Congress, as well as to inform future research (e.g., quantifying emission reduction benefits of the program and estimating CSB performance in the field) and policy decisions (e.g., improving the cost-effectiveness of rebate funds).  In essence, not collecting the information in the rebate forms outlined in this Supporting Statement would severely limit or preclude EPA from appropriately administering a rebate program to address the requirements in the CSB statue and avoid fraud, waste, and abuse of federal funds, thereby frustrating the congressionally-established Clean School Bus Program. Information in each rebate form will be submitted one time for each rebate funding opportunity; therefore, a less frequent collection is not applicable.     Explain any special circumstances that require the collection to be conducted in a manner:  Requiring respondents to report information to the agency more often than quarterly; requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a collection of information in fewer than 30 days after receipt of it; requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any document; requiring respondents to retain records, other than health, medical, government contract, grant-in-aid, or tax records, for more than three years; in connection with a statistical survey, that is not designed to produce valid and reliable results that can be generalized to the universe of study; requiring the use of a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and approved by OMB; that includes a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by authority established in statute or regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and data security policies that are consistent with the pledge, or which unnecessarily impedes sharing of data with other agencies for compatible confidential use; or requiring respondents to submit proprietary trade secrets, or other confidential information unless the agency can demonstrate that it has instituted procedures to protect the information's confidentiality to the extent permitted by law. CSB Rebate recipients must retain all financial records, supporting documents, accounting books and other evidence of CSB Rebate Program activities for five years after submission of the Close Out Form. This requirement to retain records for more than three years is to comply with 42 U.S.C. § 16091(b)(5), which requires buses funded by the program to serve the school district listed on the application for not less than five years. If any litigation, claim, or audit is started before the expiration of the five-year period, the recipient must maintain all appropriate records until these actions are completed and all issues resolved. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publication in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken in response to the comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden. Describe efforts to consult with persons outside EPA to obtain their views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instructions and recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported.Consultation with representatives of those from whom information is to be obtained or those who must compile records should occur at least once every 3 years - even if the collection of information activity is the same as in prior periods. There may be circumstances that may preclude consultation in a specific situation. These circumstances should be explained. Over the course of the DERA and CSB Rebate Programs, EPA has consulted with representatives from industries that have received rebates from previous rebate funding opportunities to determine availability of the information requested on the rebate forms and the typical process and time required to procure a new vehicle or retrofit an existing vehicle.  Additionally, for the Emergency CSB Rebate Program ICR (ICR No. 2780.01), EPA developed estimates of the time needed to provide the required information. EPA based estimates on in-depth knowledge of the existing reporting forms, as well as burden associated with completing checkboxes and uploading forms. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees. Not applicable. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy. If the collection requires a system of records notice (SORN) or privacy impact assessment (PIA), those should be cited and described here. Applicants will not be required to submit confidential business information. If an applicant feels that any information requested would be confidential business information, the applicant may request that such information be treated as confidential. All confidential data will be handled in accordance with 40 CFR 122.7, 40 CFR Part 2, and EPA's Security Manual Part III, Chapter 9, dated August 9, 1976. Any claim of confidentiality must be asserted at the time of submission. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent. No information of a sensitive or private nature is requested in conjunction with these information collection activities, and these information collection activities comply with the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 and OMB Circular A-108. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information. The statement should:  Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden, and an explanation of how the burden was estimated. Unless directed to do so, agencies should not conduct special surveys to obtain information on which to base hour burden estimates. Consultation with a sample (fewer than 10) of potential respondents is desirable. If the hour burden on respondents is expected to vary widely because of differences in activity, size, or complexity, show the range of estimated hour burden, and explain the reasons for the variance. Generally, estimates should not include burden hours for customary and usual business practices. If this request for approval covers more than one form, provide separate hour burden estimates for each form and aggregate the hour burdens.  Provide estimates of annualized cost to respondents for the hour burdens for collections of information, identifying and using appropriate wage rate categories. The cost of contracting out or paying outside parties for information collection activities should not be included here. Instead, this cost should be included under `Annual Cost to Federal Government'.  For this ICR renewal, EPA combined currently approved reporting burden estimates with incremental reporting burden estimated in the Emergency CSB Rebate Program ICR No. 2780.01. These estimates are provided for the three applicant types: state, local, and private organizations. See Appendix A for additional details on the derivation of reporting burden.  Notably, EPA ensures a lower burden for entities completing an Application to request funding than entities that have been selected for funding and are completing a  Payment Request Form or Close Out Form; this approach both lowers burden for the larger number of entities applying for funding than those selected for funding, as well as ensures the information necessary to properly administer the program is collected from the Payment Request Form and Close Out Form. Table 1: Application Form Estimated Unit Burden   Hours Respondent Type/Activity Management Technical  Clerical Total State governments (includes tribal)          1a. Review instructions 0.40 0.15 0.85 1.40 1b. Gather information about existing vehicle(s) to replace or retrofit 0.00 0.75 1.50 2.25 1c. Fill out Application to Reserve Funds 0.25 0.50 0.50 1.25 1d. Sign and submit to EPA 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.10 1e. Submit Purchase Order to EPA within 60 days of application approval 0.10 0.00 0.40 0.50 Total 0.85 1.40 3.25 5.50 Local governments (includes school districts)         1a. Review instructions 0.50 0.15 0.95 1.6 1b. Gather information about existing vehicle(s) to replace or retrofit 0.00 0.75 1.90 2.65 1c. Fill out Application to Reserve Funds 0.25 0.50 0.70 1.45 1d. Sign and submit to EPA 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.3 1e. Submit Purchase Order to EPA within 60 days of application approval 0.20 0.00 0.50 0.7 Total 1.25 1.40 4.05 6.70 Private Fleets         1a. Review instructions 0.40 0.90 0.10 1.40 1b. Gather information about existing vehicle(s) to replace or retrofit 0.00 2.25 0.00 2.25 1c. Fill out Application to Reserve Funds 0.25 0.90 0.60 1.75 1d. Sign and submit to EPA 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.10 1e. Submit Purchase Order to EPA within 60 days of application approval 0.10 0.25 0.15 0.50 Total 0.85 4.30 0.85 6.00

Table 2: Payment Request Form Estimated Unit Burden   Hours Respondent Type/Activity Management Technical  Clerical Total State governments (includes tribal)         2a. Review instructions 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 2b. Gather invoices and information for new vehicle(s) and/or equipment 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 2c. Fill out Payment Request forms, sign submit 0.44 0.00 1.76 2.20 2d. Record keeping 0.04 0.00 0.16 0.20 Total 0.48 0.00 2.52 3.00 Local governments (includes school districts)         2a. Review instructions 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 2b. Gather invoices and information for new vehicle(s) and/or equipment 0.28 0.00 0.46 0.74 2c. Fill out Payment Request forms, sign submit 0.35 0.00 1.91 2.26 2d. Record keeping 0.04 0.00 0.20 0.24 Total 0.67 0.00 2.81 3.48 Private Fleets         2a. Review instructions 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.20 2b. Gather invoices and information for new vehicle(s) and/or equipment 0.40 0.40 0.10 0.90 2c. Fill out Payment Request forms, sign submit 0.44 0.66 1.10 2.20 2d. Record keeping 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 Total 1.04 1.06 1.30 3.40

Table 3: Close-Out Form Estimated Unit Burden   Hours Respondent Type/Activity Management Technical  Clerical Total State governments (includes tribal)         2a. Review instructions 0.13 0.06 0.61 0.79 2b. Gather invoices and information for new vehicle(s) and/or equipment 0.00 1.33 1.95 3.28 2c. Fill out Close Out forms, sign submit 1.14 0.38 1.49 3.00 2d. Record keeping 0.10 0.00 0.72 0.82 Total 1.36 1.76 4.77 7.89 Local governments (includes school districts)         2a. Review instructions 0.13 0.06 0.67 0.85 2b. Gather invoices and information for new vehicle(s) and/or equipment 0.42 1.33 2.04 3.79 2c. Fill out Close Out forms, sign submit 1.14 0.38 1.58 3.09 2d. Record keeping 0.10 0.00 0.78 0.88 Total 1.78 1.76 5.07 8.61 Private Fleets         2a. Review instructions 0.43 0.06 0.31 0.79 2b. Gather invoices and information for new vehicle(s) and/or equipment 0.60 1.93 1.50 4.03 2c. Fill out Close Out forms, sign submit 1.14 0.47 1.40 3.00 2d. Record keeping 0.04 0.00 0.63 0.67 Total 2.20 2.45 3.84 8.49

To estimate total respondent cost associated with this ICR renewal, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data on wages and fringe benefits (total compensation) are used. Specifically, wages are estimated for labor types (management, technical, and clerical) for state and local governments and for private fleets. EPA uses average wage data for state and local governments available from Table 3 in the Employer Costs for Employee Compensation for state and local government workers (See http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t03.htm). EPA uses average wage data for private fleets available from Table 4 in the Employer Costs for Employee Compensation for private industry workers (See https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t04.htm). Overhead costs are assumed to equal 20% of the sum of wages plus fringe benefits. This loading factor is described in Handbook on Valuing Changes in Time Use Induced by Regulatory Requirements and other U.S. EPA Actions. Table 4 presents the fully loaded wage rates used in this ICR. Table 4: State, Local, Private Loaded Wage Rates (2022$) Labor Category Wage1 Fringe Benefit1 Total Compensation Over-head % wage2 Overhead Hourly Loaded Wages3 BLS Occupational Group

(a) (b) (c) =(a)+ (b) (d) (e)= (c) *(d) (f)=(c)+(e)

State & local governments (including schools) Managerial $43.87  $24.70  $68.57  20% $13.71 $82.28  State and Local Government Workers: Management, Professional, and Related Professional / Technical $32.32  $23.56  $55.88  20% $11.18 $67.06  State and Local Government Workers: Public Administration Clerical $23.05  $17.18  $40.23  20% $8.05 $48.28  State and Local Government Workers: Office and Administrative Support                 Private fleets Managerial $46.70  $20.55  $67.25  20% $13.45 $80.70  Service Providing Industries: Management, Professional, and Related Occupations Professional / Technical $22.66  $10.35  $33.01  20% $6.60 $39.61  Service Providing Industries: Transportation and Material Moving Occupations Clerical $21.63  $9.43  $31.06  20% $6.21 $37.27  Service Providing Industries: Office and Administrative Support Occupations Footnotes: 1Source: State and Local Governments - Bureau of Labor Statistics Economic News Release Table 3. State and local government, by occupational and industry group, December 2022. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t03.htm Private Fleets - Bureau of Labor Statistics Economic News Release Table 4. Private industry workers by occupational and industry group, December 2022. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t04.htm 2An overhead rate of 20% is used based on assumptions in Handbook on Valuing Changes in Time Use Induced by Regulatory Requirements and other U.S. EPA Actions (EPA, 2020). 3Values may not sum due to rounding. Wage rates are rounded to the nearest cent.

Combining wage data with unit reporting time estimates yields unit cost estimates for CSB program reporting requirements as shown in Tables 5, 6, and 7.

Table 5: Application Form Estimated Unit Reporting Burden and Cost   Hours Costs (2022$) Respondent Type/Activity Management Technical  Clerical Total Management Technical  Clerical Total                   State governments (includes tribal)                  1a. Review instructions 0.40 0.15 0.85 1.40 $32.91 $10.06  $41.03  $84.01 1b. Gather information about existing vehicle(s) to replace or retrofit 0.00 0.75 1.50 2.25 $0.00 $50.29  $72.41  $122.71 1c. Fill out Application to Reserve Funds 0.25 0.50 0.50 1.25 $20.57 $33.53  $24.14  $78.24 1d. Sign and submit to EPA 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.10 $8.23 $0.00  $0.00  $8.23 1e. Submit Purchase Order to EPA within 60 days of application approval 0.10 0.00 0.40 0.50 $8.23 $0.00  $19.31  $27.54 Total 0.85 1.40 3.25 5.50 $69.94 $93.88 $156.90 $320.72 Local governments (includes school districts)                 1a. Review instructions 0.50 0.15 0.95 1.6 $41.14 $10.06  $45.86  $97.06  1b. Gather information about existing vehicle(s) to replace or retrofit 0.00 0.75 1.90 2.65 $0.00 $50.29  $91.72  $142.02  1c. Fill out Application to Reserve Funds 0.25 0.50 0.70 1.45 $20.57 $33.53  $33.79  $87.89  1d. Sign and submit to EPA 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.3 $24.69 $0.00  $0.00  $24.69  1e. Submit Purchase Order to EPA within 60 days of application approval 0.20 0.00 0.50 0.7 $16.46 $0.00  $24.14  $40.59  Total 1.25 1.40 4.05 6.70 $102.86 $93.88 $195.52 $392.25 Private Fleets                 1a. Review instructions 0.40 0.90 0.10 1.40 $32.28 $35.65  $3.73  $71.66 1b. Gather information about existing vehicle(s) to replace or retrofit 0.00 2.25 0.00 2.25 $0.00 $89.13  $0.00  $89.13 1c. Fill out Application to Reserve Funds 0.25 0.90 0.60 1.75 $20.18 $35.65  $22.36  $78.19 1d. Sign and submit to EPA 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.10 $8.07 $0.00  $0.00  $8.07 1e. Submit Purchase Order to EPA within 60 days of application approval 0.10 0.25 0.15 0.50 $8.07 $9.90  $5.59  $23.56 Total 0.85 4.30 0.85 6.00 $68.60 $170.33 $31.68 $270.61

Table 6: Payment Request Form Estimated Unit Reporting Burden and Cost   Hours Costs (2022$)  Respondent Type/Activity Management Technical  Clerical Total Management Technical Clerical Total                   State governments (includes tribal)                 2a. Review instructions 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 $0.00 $0.00  $9.66  $9.66 2b. Gather invoices and information for new vehicle(s) and/or equipment 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 $0.00 $0.00  $19.31  $19.31 2c. Fill out Payment Request forms, sign submit 0.44 0.00 1.76 2.20 $36.20 $0.00  $84.97  $121.17 2d. Record keeping 0.04 0.00 0.16 0.20 $3.29 $0.00  $7.72  $11.02 Total 0.48 0.00 2.52 3.00 $39.50 $0.00 $121.66 $161.15 Local governments (includes school districts)                 2a. Review instructions 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 $0.00 $0.00  $11.59  $11.59 2b. Gather invoices and information for new vehicle(s) and/or equipment 0.28 0.00 0.46 0.74 $23.04 $0.00  $22.21  $45.25 2c. Fill out Payment Request forms, sign submit 0.35 0.00 1.91 2.26 $28.61 $0.00  $92.32  $120.93 2d. Record keeping 0.04 0.00 0.20 0.24 $3.29 $0.00  $9.66  $12.95 Total 0.67 0.00 2.81 3.48 $54.94 $0.00 $135.77 $190.71 Private Fleets                 2a. Review instructions 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.20 $16.14 $0.00  $0.00  $16.14 2b. Gather invoices and information for new vehicle(s) and/or equipment 0.40 0.40 0.10 0.90 $32.28 $15.84  $3.73  $51.85 2c. Fill out Payment Request forms, sign submit 0.44 0.66 1.10 2.20 $35.51 $26.14  $41.00  $102.65 2d. Record keeping 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 $0.00 $0.00  $3.73  $3.73 Total 1.04 1.06 1.30 3.40 $83.93 $41.99 $48.45 $174.37

Table 7: Close Out Form Estimated Unit Reporting Burden and Cost   Hours Costs (2022$)  Respondent Type/Activity Management Technical  Clerical Total Management Technical Clerical Total                   State governments (includes tribal)                 2a. Review instructions 0.13 0.06 0.61 0.79 $10.29 $4.19  $29.27  $43.74 2b. Gather invoices and information for new vehicle(s) and/or equipment 0.00 1.33 1.95 3.28 $0.00 $88.99  $94.14  $183.13 2c. Fill out Close Out forms, sign submit 1.14 0.38 1.49 3.00 $93.39 $25.15  $71.93  $190.47 2d. Record keeping 0.10 0.00 0.72 0.82 $8.02 $0.00  $34.82  $42.84 Total 1.36 1.76 4.77 7.89 $111.70 $118.33 $230.16 $460.18 Local governments (includes school districts)                 2a. Review instructions 0.13 0.06 0.67 0.85 $10.29 $4.19  $32.16  $46.64 2b. Gather invoices and information for new vehicle(s) and/or equipment 0.42 1.33 2.04 3.79 $34.56 $88.99  $98.48  $222.03 2c. Fill out Close Out forms, sign submit 1.14 0.38 1.58 3.09 $93.39 $25.15  $76.28  $194.81 2d. Record keeping 0.10 0.00 0.78 0.88 $8.02 $0.00  $37.72  $45.74 Total 1.78 1.76 5.07 8.61 $146.26 $118.33 $244.64 $509.22 Private Fleets                 2a. Review instructions 0.43 0.06 0.31 0.79 $34.30 $2.48  $11.41  $48.19 2b. Gather invoices and information for new vehicle(s) and/or equipment 0.60 1.93 1.50 4.03 $48.42 $76.34  $55.91  $180.66 2c. Fill out Close Out forms, sign submit 1.14 0.47 1.40 3.00 $91.59 $18.42  $52.18  $162.19 2d. Record keeping 0.04 0.00 0.63 0.67 $3.03 $0.00  $23.53  $26.55 Total 2.20 2.45 3.84 8.49 $177.34 $97.23 $143.03 $417.60

Unit burden and cost are then combined with the number of respondents to estimate the total burden and cost associated with CSB Rebate Program reporting requirements in Table 8, 9 and 10. Because the ICR period lasts for three years, total burden and cost are presented annually as well as the total for the ICR period. Table 11 totals all reporting requirement burden and cost. Table 8: Application Form Estimated Total Burden and Cost Respondent Type Number of Respondents/Responses Per Year Unit Burden and Cost Total Burden and Cost - Annual Total Burden and Cost - Over ICR Period

Hours Cost (2022$) Hours Cost (2022$) Hours Cost (2022$) State governments (includes tribal) 125 5.50 $320.72 688 $40,090 2,063 $120,269 Local governments (includes school districts) 955 6.70 $392.25 6399 $374,600 19,196 $1,123,800 Private Fleets 1320 6.00 $270.61 7920 $357,202 23,760 $1,071,607 Total for Application 2,400

15,006 $771,892 45,018 $2,315,675

Table 9: Payment Request Form Estimated Total Burden and Cost Respondent Type Number of Respondents/Responses Per Year Unit Burden and Cost Total Burden and Cost - Annual Total Burden and Cost - Over ICR Period

Hours Cost (2022$) Hours Cost (2022$) Hours Cost (2022$) State governments (includes tribal) 25 3.00 $161.15                  75  $4,029                  225  $12,086 Local governments (includes school districts) 191 3.48 $190.71                665  $36,425               1,994  $109,275 Private Fleets 183 3.40 $174.37                622  $31,910               1,867  $95,729 Total for Application 399                  1,362  $72,364 $4,086 $217,091

Table 10: Close Out Form Estimated Total Burden and Cost Respondent Type Number of Respondents/Responses Per Year Unit Burden and Cost Total Burden and Cost - Annual Total Burden and Cost - Over ICR Period

Hours Cost (2022$) Hours Cost (2022$) Hours Cost (2022$) State governments (includes tribal) 25 7.89 $460.18                197  $11,505                  592  $34,514 Local governments (includes school districts) 191 8.61 $509.22              1,644  $97,262               4,933  $291,786 Private Fleets 183 8.49 $417.60              1,554  $76,421               4,661  $229,263 Total for Application 399                  3,395  $185,187             10,186  $555,562

Table 11: Total CSB Rebate Program Reporting Burden and Cost Respondent Type Number of Respondents/Responses per Year Total Burden and Cost - Annual Total Burden and Cost - Over ICR Period

Hours Cost (2022$) Hours Cost (2022$)             State governments (includes tribal)                         125               960  $55,623              2,879  $166,869 Local governments (includes school districts)                         955             8,708  $508,287            26,123  $1,524,861 Private Fleets                      1,320           10,096  $465,533            30,287  $1,396,599 Total                      2,400           19,763  $1,029,443            59,289  $3,088,328

Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden already reflected on the burden worksheet). The cost estimate should be split into two components: (a) a total capital and start-up cost component (annualized over its expected useful life) and (b) a total operation and maintenance and purchase of services component. The estimates should take into account costs associated with generating, maintaining, and disclosing or providing the information. Include descriptions of methods used to estimate major cost factors including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, the discount rate(s), and the time period over which costs will be incurred. Capital and start-up costs include, among other items, preparations for collecting information such as purchasing computers and software; monitoring, sampling, drilling and testing equipment; and record storage facilities. If cost estimates are expected to vary widely, agencies should present ranges of cost burdens and explain the reasons for the variance. The cost of purchasing or contracting out information collections services should be a part of this cost burden estimate. In developing cost burden estimates, agencies may consult with a sample of respondents (fewer than 10), utilize the 60-day pre-OMB submission public comment process and use existing economic or regulatory impact analysis associated with the rulemaking containing the information collection, as appropriate. Generally, estimates should not include purchases of equipment or services, or portions thereof, made: (1) prior to October 1, 1995, (2) to achieve regulatory compliance with requirements not associated with the information collection, (3) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the government, or (4) as part of customary and usual business or private practices. This ICR renewal accounts for labor costs only. There are no capital or operation and maintenance costs associated with this action.  Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information. Agencies may also aggregate cost estimates from Items 12, 13, and 14 in a single table. EPA will review the Application, Payment Request Form, and Close Out Form data fields submitted by applicants and selectees. Table 12 presents the estimated Agency burden hours and costs associated with the information collection activities under this ICR renewal. EPA based its burden estimate on the professional judgement of CSB Program staff. This estimate is considered conservative.  Agency wage rate data used to calculate labor costs were gathered from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management Salary Table 2023-DCB, for GS-13, step 10, employees in the Washington, D.C. area. Similar to respondent wages, Agency wage data are adjusted to account for both fringe benefits and overhead according to guidance provided in EPA's Handbook on Valuing Changes in Time Use induced by Regulatory Requirements and Other EPA Actions. The 2022 loaded wage rate of $131.31/hour is used in this analysis.

Table 12: Estimated Burden and Cost to the Agency Collection Activity Reporting Burden per Response Number of Responses  Total Agency Burden Over the ICR Period Total Agency Cost Over the ICR Period (2022$) Total Agency Burden Over the ICR Period Total Agency Cost Over the ICR Period (2022$) Application Form 1a. Review Application for eligibility with program requirements 0.50              2,400                    1,200  $157,572                        3,600  $472,717 1b. Reserve funds and update applicant status in tracking database 0.50              2,400                    1,200  $157,572                        3,600  $472,717 1c. Post Lottery Selected Application Review 6.00 600                   3,600  $472,717                      10,800  $1,418,152 Sub Total                       6,000  $787,862                      18,000  $2,363,587 Payment Request and Close Out Form             2a. Review Payment Request form materials to confirm compliance with program guidance 4.50 399                   1,796  $235,768                        5,387  $707,303 2b. Review Close Out form materials to confirm compliance with program guidance 4.50 399                   1,796  $235,768                        5,387  $707,303 2c. Release funds to applicant and update applicant status in tracking database 0.50 399                      200  $26,196                           599  $78,589 Sub Total                       3,791  $497,732                      11,372  $1,493,196 Total EPA Burden                       9,791  $1,285,594                      29,372  $3,856,783

Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in hour or cost burden. The change in reporting burden since the last ICR is due to the addition of certain data fields to the Application and Close Out Forms, as described in the Emergency ICR No. 2780.01, as well as an adjustment to the Payment Request Form reporting burden that was not included in the Emergency ICR No. 2780.01. Evidence from the initial program funding year indicates that current Payment Request Form estimates were too conservative by approximately two hours per form. Specifically, EPA Staff has adjustedpublic burden estimates to account for time needed for applicants to correct errors and re-submit the Payment Request Form. Applicant corrections are required to disperse correct funding amount and to deter fraud, waste and abuse. All data fields are reflected in Attachments 3 through 5.  For collections whose results will be published, outline the plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions. Not applicable. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons why display would be inappropriate. Not applicable. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in "Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions." EPA does not request an exception to the certification of this information collection.  Supplemental Information List of Attachments Ref Title 1. Appendix A: ICR Renewal Calculations 2 Title XI, §71101 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Public Law 117-58) 3 Clean School Bus Application Form Screenshots with Summary of Changes 4. Clean School Bus Payment Request Form Screenshots with Summary of Changes  5. Clean School Bus Close Out Form Screenshots with Summary of Changes 6. Clean School Bus Program Application User Guide  7. Clean School Bus Payment Request User Guide 8. Clean School Bus Close Out Form User Guide