[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41154-41158]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16479]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69926; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2013-67]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE
Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services To
Modify the Credits for Certain Mid-Point Passive Liquidity Orders, Add
Two New Tiers Applicable to Transactions in Tape B Securities, Add a
Pricing Tier Applicable to Orders of ETP Holders for Tape A and Tape C
Securities That Are Eligible To Be Routed Away From the Exchange, and
Modify the Equity Threshold Applicable to the Cross-Asset Tier

July 3, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on June 20, 2013, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') 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 self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of
Fees and Charges for Exchange Services (the ``Fee Schedule'') to (i)
modify the credits for certain Mid-Point Passive Liquidity (``MPL'')
Orders, (ii) add two new tiers applicable to transactions in Tape B
Securities, (iii) add a pricing tier applicable to orders of ETP
Holders for Tape A and Tape C Securities that are eligible to be routed
away from the Exchange, and (iv) modify the equity threshold applicable
to the Cross-Asset Tier. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee
changes on July 1, 2013. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to (i) modify the
credits for certain MPL Orders, (ii) add two new tiers applicable to
transactions in Tape B Securities, (iii) add a pricing tier applicable
to orders of ETP Holders for Tape A and Tape C Securities that are
eligible to be routed away from the Exchange, and (iv) modify the
equity threshold applicable to the Cross-Asset Tier.\4\ The Exchange
proposes to implement the fee changes on July 1, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The proposed changes would apply to securities with a per
share price of $1.00 or above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MPL Orders
    The Exchange proposes to add an ``MPL Order Tier'' applicable to
MPL Orders that provide liquidity on the Exchange and modify an
existing credit for such orders.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A Passive Liquidity (``PL'') Order is an order to buy or
sell a stated amount of a security at a specified, undisplayed
price. See Rule 7.31(h)(4). An MPL Order is a PL Order executable
only at the midpoint of the Protected Best Bid and Offer. See Rule
7.31(h)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, under various tiers and Basic Rates, MPL Orders that
provide liquidity on the Exchange receive a credit of $0.0015 per share
for Tape A and Tape B Securities and a credit of $0.0020 per share for
Tape C Securities. The Exchange proposes to add a new tier under which
MPL Orders that provide liquidity on the Exchange would receive a
credit of $0.0020 per

share for Tape A, B and C Securities for ETP Holders, including Market
Makers, that execute an average daily volume (``ADV'') of MPL Orders
during the month that is 0.0775% or more of U.S. consolidated ADV
(``CADV'').\6\ As is currently the case, for all other fees and
credits, Tiered or Basic Rates would apply based on a firm's qualifying
levels.\7\ In this regard, for ETP Holders that do not satisfy the
proposed MPL Order Tier threshold, an MPL Order that provides liquidity
on the Exchange would receive the existing credit of $0.0015 per share
for Tape A and Tape B Securities. The Exchange also proposes that under
the existing tiers and Basic Rates that provide credits for MPL Orders,
the $0.0015 per share credit that applies to Tape A and B Securities
would also apply to Tape C Securities, instead of the current $0.0020
per share rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ U.S. CADV means United States Consolidated Average Daily
Volume for transactions reported to the Consolidated Tape and
excludes volume on days when the market closes early.
    \7\ The existing $0.0030 fee applicable to MPL Orders in Tape A,
B and C Securities that remove liquidity from the Exchange would not
change as a result of this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, if U.S. CADV during the month is 6.5 billion shares
across Tapes A, B and C, an ETP Holder would need to execute an ADV of
at least 5,037,500 shares of MPL Orders during the month in order to
qualify for the applicable MPL Order Tier credit of $0.0020 per share,
in which case the ETP Holder's executions of MPL Orders that provide
liquidity on the Exchange would receive a credit of $0.0020 per share
for Tape A, B and C Securities. Under this example, an ETP Holder that
executes an ADV less than 5,037,500 shares of MPL Orders during the
month would not qualify for the MPL Order Tier and, therefore, the ETP
Holder's executions of MPL Orders that provide liquidity on the
Exchange would receive a credit of $0.0015 per share for Tape A, B and
C Securities.
Tape B Tiers
    The Exchange proposes to add two new tiers applicable to
transactions in Tape B Securities that provide liquidity on the
Exchange.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Existing fees applicable to transactions in Tape B
Securities that remove liquidity from the Exchange would not change
as a result of this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Exchange proposes to add a new ``Tape B Adding Tier''
applicable to ETP Holders, including Market Makers, that provide
liquidity of 0.675% or more of U.S. Tape B CADV for the billing month.
A qualifying ETP Holder would receive a credit of $0.0002 per share for
orders that provide liquidity on the Exchange in Tape B Securities,
which would be in addition to the ETP Holder's Tiered or Basic Rate
credit(s). For example, if U.S. Tape B CADV during the month is 1
billion shares, an ETP Holder would need to execute an ADV of at least
6.75 million shares of Tape B Securities during the month in order to
qualify for the applicable credit of $0.0002 per share.
    Second, the Exchange proposes to add a new ``Tape B Step Up Tier''
applicable to ETP Holders, including Market Makers, that, on a daily
basis, measured monthly, directly execute providing volume in Tape B
Securities during the billing month (``Tape B Adding ADV'') that is
equal to at least the ETP Holder's May 2013 Tape B Adding ADV (``Tape B
Baseline ADV'') plus 0.275% of U.S. Tape B CADV for the billing month.
A qualifying ETP Holder would receive a credit of $0.0004 per share for
orders that provide liquidity on the Exchange in Tape B Securities,
which would be in addition to the ETP Holder's Tiered or Basic Rate
credit(s). For example, if U.S. Tape B CADV during the month is 1
billion shares, and the ETP Holder's Tape B Baseline ADV during May
2013 was 5 million shares, the ETP Holder would need to execute an ADV
of at least 7.75 million shares of Tape B Securities during the month
in order to qualify for the applicable credit of $0.0004 per share
(i.e., 1 billion shares CADV multiplied by 0.275% plus 5 million shares
Tape B Baseline ADV).
    Lead Market Makers (``LMMs'') on the Exchange could not qualify for
either of the proposed new Tape B tiers, nor would LMM provide volume
apply to the applicable volume requirements proposed for the new Tape B
tiers. Additionally, ETP Holders that qualify for Investor Tier 1,
Investor Tier 2, Investor Tier 3, the Retail Order Tier or the Retail
Order Cross-Asset Tier could not qualify for either of the new Tape B
tiers.\9\ Also, ETP Holders that qualify for the proposed new Tape B
Step Up Tier could not qualify for the proposed new Tape B Adding Tier
(i.e., an ETP Holder that qualifies for the $0.0004 credit under the
Tape B Step Up Tier could not also receive the $0.0002 credit under the
Tape B Adding Tier). Finally, for ETP Holders that qualify for either
of the proposed new Tape B tiers, Tiered or Basic Rates would apply to
all other fees and credits, based on a firm's qualifying levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Investor Tier 4 and Cross-Asset Tier ETP Holders would be
eligible to qualify for the proposed new Tape B tiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Routable Order Tier
    The Exchange proposes to add a pricing tier applicable to orders of
ETP Holders for Tape A and Tape C Securities that is based, in part, on
the amount of an ETP Holder's orders that are eligible to be routed
away from the Exchange (``Routable Orders'').\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ETP Holders are able to include an instruction with their
orders to determine whether the order will be eligible to route to
an away exchange (e.g., to execute against trading interest with a
better price than on the Exchange) or, for example, be cancelled if
routing would otherwise occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes that ETP Holders that provide liquidity on
the Exchange would receive a credit of $0.0032 per share for their
Routable and non-Routable Orders in Tape A and Tape C Securities if
such ETP Holders, including Market Makers, (1) provide liquidity of
0.40% or more of U.S. CADV during the billing month across all Tapes,
(2) maintain a ratio during the billing month across all Tapes of
executed Routable Orders that provide liquidity to total executed
provide liquidity of 75% or more, and (3) execute an ADV of provide
liquidity during the billing month across all Tapes that is equal to at
least the ETP Holder's or Market Maker's May 2013 provide liquidity
across all Tapes plus 40%. An ETP Holder that qualifies for the
proposed new Routable Order Tier would not be eligible for the Tape C
Step Up Tier fee of $0.0029 per share for removing liquidity or the
Tape C Step Up Tier 2 credit of $0.0002 per share for adding liquidity.
For all other fees and credits, Tiered or Basic Rates apply based on a
firm's qualifying levels.
    For example, if U.S. CADV during the month is 6.45 billion shares,
the ETP Holder would need to provide liquidity of at least 25.8 million
shares to satisfy the first threshold (i.e., providing liquidity of
0.40% or more of U.S. CADV during the month). Additionally, based on a
minimum of 25.8 million shares of required provide liquidity, the ETP
Holder would need to execute at least 19.35 million Routable Orders
that provide liquidity during the month (i.e., maintaining a ratio of
executed Routable Order provide liquidity to total executed orders of
75% or more). Finally, if the ETP Holder's ADV of provide liquidity
during May 2013 was 20,000,000 shares, the ETP Holder would need to
execute an ADV of at least 8 million additional shares of provide
liquidity during the month (i.e., executing an ADV of provide liquidity
during the month that is equal to at least the ETP Holder's May 2013
provide liquidity plus 40%).

Cross-Asset Tier
    ETP Holders, including Market Makers, are currently able to qualify
for the Cross-Asset Tier and a corresponding credit of $0.0030 per
share for orders that provide liquidity to the Exchange. To qualify for
the Cross-Asset Tier, an ETP Holder must (1) provide liquidity of 0.45%
or more of U.S. CADV per month and (2) be affiliated with an Options
Trading Permit (``OTP'') Holder or OTP Firm that provides an ADV of
electronic posted Customer executions in Penny Pilot issues on NYSE
Arca Options (excluding mini options) of at least 0.95% of total
Customer equity and Exchange-Traded Fund (``ETF'') option ADV, as
reported by the Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC''). For all other
fees and credits, Tiered or Basic Rates apply based on a firm's
qualifying levels. The Exchange proposes to decrease the equity
threshold from 0.45% to 0.40% of U.S. CADV.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\11\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ in
particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and
other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MPL Order Tier
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable
because the proposed MPL Order Tier credit of $0.0020 per share would
incentivize ETP Holders to submit additional MPL Orders on the
Exchange. This would increase the liquidity available on the Exchange
and, therefore, could increase the potential price improvement to
incoming marketable orders submitted to the Exchange. In this regard,
MPL Orders allow for additional opportunities for passive interaction
with trading interest on the Exchange and are designed to offer
potential price improvement to incoming marketable orders submitted to
the Exchange.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54511
(September 26, 2006), 71 FR 58460, 58461 (October 3, 2006) (SR-PCX-
2005-53).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed change is reasonable
because decreasing the rate for the non-MPL Order Tier credit for Tape
C Securities from $0.0020 per share to $0.0015 per share would align
the treatment of MPL Orders in Tape C Securities that provide liquidity
on the Exchange with that of Tape A and Tape B Securities for purposes
of the Exchange's Fee Schedule. This aspect of the proposed change
would also remove a pricing feature from the Fee Schedule that has
generally not incentivized ETP Holders to submit additional MPL Orders
in Tape C Securities, as was originally intended. In this regard, the
current Tape C MPL Order credit of $0.0020 was intended to increase the
liquidity available on the Exchange in Tape C Securities, generally,
and therefore increase the potential price improvement to incoming
marketable orders submitted to the Exchange in Tape C Securities.\14\
Instead, the Exchange believes that this increased liquidity may be
accomplished by implementing a U.S. CADV requirement applicable to the
proposed MPL Order Tier credit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68848 (February 6,
2013), 78 FR 9985, 9986 (February 12, 2013) (SR-NYSEArca-2013-09).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is also equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because the MPL Order Tier would be
available to all ETP Holders to qualify for and would apply equally to
MPL Orders from all ETP Holders in all Tape A, B and C Securities
traded on the Exchange.
    Finally, the Exchange notes that certain other exchanges also
structure pricing based on midpoint pricing, including with respect to
applicable volume thresholds that must be satisfied in order to qualify
for such pricing, and that the pricing levels proposed by the Exchange
are competitive with those exchanges.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For example, the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'')
provides a credit of $0.0020 per share for midpoint pegged or
midpoint post-only orders (``midpoint orders'') that provide
liquidity if the member provides an ADV of 5 million or more shares
through midpoint orders during the month, and the member's average
daily volume of liquidity provided through midpoint orders during
the month is at least 2 million shares more than in April 2013. See,
e.g., NASDAQ Rule 7018. See also Securities Exchange Act Release No.
69566 (May 13, 2013), 78 FR 29193 (May 17, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-
075). Additionally, a member of EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'') can
qualify for the EDGX Mid-Point Match (``MPM'') Volume Tier by adding
and/or removing an ADV of at least 3,000,000 shares on a daily
basis, measured monthly, on EDGX. See footnote 3 of the EDGX Fee
Schedule, available at http://www.directedge.com/Portals/0/docs/Fee%20Schedule/2013/EDGX%20Fee%20Schedule%20-%20Junev2.pdf. See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69725 (June 10, 2013), 78 FR
35996 (June 14, 2013) (SR-EDGX-2013-19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tape B Tiers
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable
because the proposed Tape B Adding Tier and Tape B Step Up Tier credits
would encourage ETP Holders to send additional orders in Tape B
Securities to the Exchange for execution in order to qualify for an
incrementally higher credit for such executions that add liquidity on
the Exchange. In this regard, the Exchange believes that this may
incentivize ETP Holders to increase the orders sent directly to the
Exchange and therefore provide liquidity that supports the quality of
price discovery and promotes market transparency. The Exchange believes
that the rates proposed for the Tape B Adding Tier and Tape B Step Up
Tier credits are reasonable because they are directly related to an ETP
Holder's level of executions in Tape B Securities during the month.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed Tape B Adding Tier and Tape
B Step Up Tier credits are also equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because they would incentivize ETP Holders to submit
orders in Tape B Securities to the Exchange and would result in a
credit that is reasonably related to an exchange's market quality that
is associated with higher volumes. Moreover, like existing pricing on
the Exchange that is tied to ETP Holder volume levels, the Exchange
believes that the proposed Tape B Adding Tier and Tape B Step Up Tier
credits are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they
would be available for all ETP Holders, including Market Makers, on an
equal and non-discriminatory basis.
    The Exchange also believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to exclude Investor Tier 1, Investor Tier 2, Investor
Tier 3, Retail Order Tier, and Retail Order Cross-Asset Tier ETP
Holders from qualifying for the proposed new Tape B tiers because the
ETP Holders that qualify for these specified tiers would already
receive a higher credit for such executions. The Exchange believes that
this is also true with respect to the proposal that an ETP Holder that
qualifies for both the proposed new Tape B Adding Tier and the new Tape
B Step Up Tier would receive the higher of the two credits, but would
not receive credits for both tiers. In contrast, the Exchange proposes
permitting Investor Tier 4 and Cross-Asset Tier ETP Holders to qualify
for the proposed new Tape B tiers because, even when combined with the
proposed Tape B Adding Tier or Tape B Step Up Tier credits of $0.0002
or $0.0004, respectively, the ETP Holders that qualify for Investor
Tier 4 and the Cross-Asset Tier would not achieve an overall credit
rate that is higher than that which

is available under Investor Tier 1, which is the highest credit that is
currently available in the Fee Schedule.\16\ Similarly, the Exchange
believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to
prohibit LMMs on the Exchange from qualifying for either of the
proposed new Tape B tiers and to exclude LMM provide volume from
applying to the applicable volume requirements proposed for the new
Tape B tiers. This is because, like the ETP Holders that qualify for
the tiers specified above, LMMs are already eligible for increased
credits that range from $0.0035 per share to $0.0045 per share for
executions of transactions that add liquidity to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Investor Tier 4 and Cross-Asset Tier ETP Holders are
eligible for a $0.0030 credit for their executions that add
liquidity on the Exchange. Investor Tier 1 ETP Holders are eligible
for a $0.0034 credit for their executions that add liquidity on the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Routable Order Tier
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable
because the proposed Routable Order Tier would contribute to
incentivizing ETP Holders to submit additional orders on the Exchange
that are eligible to be routed away from the Exchange. This would
increase the liquidity available on the Exchange because, for example,
instead of an order, or a portion thereof, being cancelled immediately
if the order would be routed, the order may remain available for
execution on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that Routable Orders
add to the quality of the Exchange's market because they are unlikely
to be quickly cancelled and therefore may provide liquidity on the
Exchange of a longer duration. The Routable Order Tier therefore would
support the quality of price discovery and promote market transparency,
thereby benefiting all market participants. In this regard, the
Exchange believes that the rate proposed for the Routable Order Tier is
reasonable because it takes into account the amount of Routable Orders
that an ETP Holder would be required to execute on the Exchange during
a month.
    The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable and equitable to
apply the Routable Order Tier pricing to executions of Tape A and Tape
C Securities, but not to Tape B Securities. This is because existing
pricing on the Exchange is often grouped according to Tape A and Tape C
Securities, with separate pricing applicable to Tape B Securities. In
addition, and for example, the Exchange is proposing incremental
credits in this filing that would only apply to ETP Holder executions
of Tape B Securities. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that it is
reasonable and equitable to apply the Routable Order Tier pricing to
Routable and non-Routable Orders of a qualifying ETP Holder because
this would create a further incentive for ETP Holders to submit
Routable Orders to the Exchange. This is also true because the
thresholds applicable to the Routable Order Tier pertain to liquidity
that consists of Routable Orders as well as the overall liquidity of an
ETP Holder, including non-Routable Orders.
    Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the proposed Routable Order
Tier is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all ETP
Holders have the ability to designate their orders as Routable Orders.
Additionally, the proposed credit of $0.0032 per share for Routable
Orders that provide liquidity to the Exchange would be available to all
ETP Holders that qualify for the Routable Order Tier. The proposed
thresholds are also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
they are based on objective criteria and the same criteria would be
applicable to all ETP Holders.
    The Exchange also believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory for an ETP Holder that qualifies for the proposed new
Routable Order Tier to not be eligible for the Tape C Step Up Tier rate
for removing liquidity of $0.0029 per share or the Tape C Step Up Tier
2 credit of $0.0002 per share for adding liquidity. This is because the
ETP Holders that qualify for these specified tiers would already
receive the benefit of a lower fee for such executions that remove
liquidity or a higher credit for such executions that add liquidity,
respectively.
    Finally, the Exchange notes that certain other exchanges also
structure pricing based on routability of orders, including with
respect to applicable volume thresholds that must be satisfied in order
to qualify for such pricing, and that the pricing levels proposed by
the Exchange are competitive with those exchanges.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ For example, a NASDAQ member may participate in the
Routable Order Program (``ROP'') with respect to any market
participant identifier (``MPID'') through which it (i) provides an
ADV of at least 35 million shares of displayed liquidity using
orders that employ the ``SCAN'' or ``LIST'' routing strategies, and
(ii) provides displayed liquidity and/or routes an ADV of at least 2
million shares prior to the Nasdaq Opening Cross and/or after the
Nasdaq Closing Cross using orders that employ the SCAN or LIST
routing strategies. With respect to SCAN or LIST orders in
securities priced at $1 or more per share that are entered through
such an MPID, NASDAQ charges a fee of $0.0029 per share executed for
such orders that access liquidity in the Nasdaq Market Center and
provides a credit of $0.0037 per share executed for such orders that
are displayed and that provide liquidity, in lieu of the fees or
credits otherwise charged or provided under NASDAQ Rule 7018. See
NASDAQ Rule 7014. See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68905
(February 12, 2013), 78 FR 11716 (February 19, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-
2013-023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cross-Asset Tier
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to the Cross-Asset
Tier is reasonable because the proposed reduction of the equities
threshold would directly relate to the activity of an ETP Holder and,
when combined with the applicable options threshold requirement, the
activity of an affiliated OTP Holder or OTP Firm on the Exchange,
thereby encouraging increased trading activity on both the NYSE Arca
equity and option markets by making it easier for ETP Holders to
qualify for the tier. The Exchange has determined to adjust the equity
CADV threshold in light of current and anticipated market conditions
and believes that this proposed change would provide a greater
incentive to attract additional equities and options liquidity. In this
regard, the Exchange also believes that the proposed change is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would apply to all
ETP Holders on the Exchange that are affiliated with an NYSE Arca
Options OTP Holder or OTP Firm and, as a result, the proposed reduction
in the equities threshold would make it easier for all such ETP Holders
to qualify for the Cross-Asset Tier. The proposed change is also
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory with respect to ETP Holders
that are not affiliated with an NYSE Arca Options OTP Holder or OTP
Firm because such ETP Holders would continue to have the opportunity to
qualify for the same credit of $0.0030 per share that is provided
pursuant to the Cross-Asset Tier by qualifying for Tier 1 or any of the
Investor Tiers.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\18\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. Instead, the Exchange believes that the
proposed change will encourage

competition, including by attracting additional liquidity to the
Exchange, which will make the Exchange a more competitive venue for,
among other things, order execution and price discovery. In general,
ETP Holders impacted by the proposed change may readily adjust their
trading behavior to maintain or increase their credits or decrease
their fees in a favorable manner, and will therefore not be
disadvantaged in their ability to compete. Specifically, all ETP
Holders have the ability to submit MPL Orders and ETP Holders could
readily choose to submit additional MPL Orders on the Exchange in order
to qualify for the proposed new MPL Order Tier. Similarly, an ETP
Holder could qualify for the proposed new Tape B tiers by providing
sufficient liquidity in Tape B Securities to satisfy the applicable
proposed volume requirements. Additionally, all ETP Holders have the
ability to designate their orders as Routable Orders and therefore any
ETP Holder could qualify for the proposed Routable Order Tier by
satisfying the proposed liquidity thresholds. Finally, the proposed
reduction of the Cross-Asset Tier equity threshold would apply to all
ETP Holders and, while certain ETP Holders are not affiliated with an
NYSE Arca Options OTP Holder or OTP Firm, such ETP Holders would be
able to qualify for a credit of at least $0.0030 per share that is
provided pursuant to the Cross-Asset Tier by qualifying for any of the
Investor Tiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will
impair the ability of ETP Holders or competing order execution venues
to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets. In
this regard, the Exchange notes that certain aspects of the proposed
change are similar to, and competitive with, pricing structures and
applicable fees and credits applicable on other exchanges.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra notes 15 and 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee or credit levels at a particular
venue to be unattractive. In such an environment, the Exchange must
continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to
remain competitive with other exchanges. The credits proposed herein
are based on objective standards that are applicable to all ETP Holders
and reflect the need for the Exchange to offer significant financial
incentives to attract order flow. For these reasons, the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive
environment and is therefore consistent with the Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \20\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \21\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \22\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Number SR-NYSEArca-2013-67 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2013-67. 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 on
official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying
at the principal offices of NYSE. 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 Number SR-NYSEArca-2013-67, and should be submitted on or before
July 30, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-16479 Filed 7-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 87 (Friday, May 7, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24505-24507]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09468]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2020-0500; FRL-10023-56-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Kentucky; Removal of Asbestos Requirements
From Jefferson County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is correcting the
erroneous incorporation of the asbestos National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) requirements into the Jefferson
County portion of the Kentucky State Implementation Plan (SIP). The
continued presence of the asbestos requirements in the Jefferson County
portion of the Kentucky SIP is inappropriate and potentially confusing
and thus problematic for affected sources, the Commonwealth, local
agencies, and EPA. EPA is removing the asbestos requirements because
these requirements are not related to the attainment and maintenance of
the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and are therefore
unrelated to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requirements for SIPs.

DATES: This rule is effective June 7, 2021.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2020-0500. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D. Brad Akers, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Akers can be
reached via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or via telephone at
(404) 562-9089.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 110 of the CAA requires states to develop and submit to EPA
a SIP to ensure that state air quality meets the NAAQS. These ambient
air quality standards currently address six criteria pollutants: Carbon
monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur
dioxide. Each federally-approved SIP protects air quality primarily by
addressing air pollution at its point of origin through air pollution
regulations and control strategies. EPA-approved SIP regulations and
control strategies are federally enforceable.
    On October 23, 2001 (66 FR 53658), EPA approved revisions to the
Jefferson

County portion of the Kentucky SIP,\1\ which included miscellaneous
rule revisions and the recodification of Air Pollution Control District
(APCD) of Jefferson County regulations. These revisions were submitted
to EPA on May 21, 1999, by the Commonwealth of Kentucky on behalf of
Jefferson County. Among these revisions were requirements for
permitting the demolition and renovation of facilities with asbestos,
in accordance with 40 CFR part 61, subpart M, National Emission
Standard for Asbestos. The asbestos requirements were adopted by
Jefferson County in paragraphs 1.3, 5.3, and 5.6 of Regulation 2.03,
Permit Requirements, Non-Title V Construction and Operating Permits and
Demolition/Renovation Permits, and this regulation was part of the
recodified rules included in the May 21, 1999, submittal. In the
October 23, 2001, final rule, EPA inadvertently incorporated the
asbestos requirements in Regulation 2.03, Permit Requirements, Non-
Title V Construction and Operating Permits and Demolition/Renovation
Permits, into the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP. The
version of the rules incorporated into the SIP were effective in
Jefferson County on December 15, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In 2003, the City of Louisville and Jefferson County
governments merged and the ``Jefferson County Air Pollution Control
District'' was renamed the ``Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control
District.'' See The History of Air Pollution Control in Louisville,
available at https://louisvilleky.gov/government/air-pollution-control-district/history-air-pollution-control-louisville. However,
each of the regulations in the Jefferson County portion of the
Kentucky SIP still has the subheading ``Air Pollution Control
District of Jefferson County.'' Thus, to be consistent with the
terminology used in the SIP, EPA refers throughout this notice to
regulations contained in the Jefferson County portion of the
Kentucky SIP as the ``Jefferson County'' regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(k)(6) of the CAA provides EPA with the authority to
make corrections to prior SIP actions that are subsequently found to be
in error in the same manner as the prior action, and to do so without
requiring any further submission from the State.\2\ While section
110(k)(6) provides EPA with the authority to correct its own ``error,''
nowhere does this provision or any other provision in the CAA define
what qualifies as ``error.'' Thus, EPA believes that the term should be
given its plain language, everyday meaning, which includes all
unintentional, incorrect, or wrong actions or mistakes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section 110(k)(6) states that ``Whenever the Administrator
determines that the Administrator's action approving, disapproving,
or promulgating any plan or plan revision (or part thereof), area
designation, redesignation, classification, or reclassification was
in error, the Administrator may in the same manner as the approval,
disapproval, or promulgation revise such action as appropriate
without requiring any further submission from the State. Such
determination and the basis thereof shall be provided to the State
and public.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The May 21, 1999, submission contained changes to Regulation 2.03,
Permit Requirements, Non-Title V Construction and Operating Permits and
Demolition/Renovation Permits, that contain asbestos requirements in
paragraphs 1.3, 5.3 and 5.6. EPA's October 23, 2001, approval of these
requirements into the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP was
in error. These paragraphs are appropriate for State and local agencies
to adopt and implement, but it is not necessary or appropriate to
incorporate them into the applicable SIP because asbestos requirements
are not related to the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. EPA
proposed to remove these paragraphs from Regulation 2.03 in a notice of
proposed rulemaking on March 4, 2021, and received no comments. See 86
FR 12554. EPA is therefore removing these paragraphs from the SIP.

II. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is amending regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. Specifically, EPA is removing paragraphs
1.3, 5.3, and 5.6 (asbestos requirements) of Regulation 2.03, Permit
Requirements, Non-Title V Construction and Operating Permits and
Demolition/Renovation Permits, from the Jefferson County portion of the
Kentucky SIP, which is incorporated by reference in accordance with
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5. The remainder of Regulation 2.03, Permit
Requirements, Non-Title V Construction and Operating Permits and
Demolition/Renovation Permits, will remain incorporated in the
Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP. EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).

III. Final Action

    EPA is removing paragraphs 1.3, 5.3, and 5.6 of APCD Regulation
2.03, Permit Requirements, Non-Title V Construction and Operating
Permits and Demolition/Renovation Permits, from the Jefferson County
portion of the SIP because they are not related to the attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take
effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report,
which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this action and other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General
of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal
Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is
published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by July 6, 2021. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
Reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: April 29, 2021.
John Blevins,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
52 as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart S--Kentucky

0
2. Section 52.920(c) is amended in Table 2 under ``Reg 2--Permit
Requirements'' by revising the entry for ``2.03'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.920   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                             Table 2--EPA-Approved Jefferson County Regulations for Kentucky
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     EPA approval                               District
                 Reg                          Title/subject              date       Federal Register notice  effective date          Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Reg 2--Permit Requirements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
2.03................................  Permit Requirements--Non-           10/23/01  66 FR 53660............        12/15/93  Except for paragraphs 1.3,
                                       Title V Construction and                                                               5.3 and 5.6 regarding
                                       Operating Permits and                                                                  asbestos demolition, which
                                       Demolition/Renovation                                                                  were removed from the
                                       Permits.                                                                               federally approved SIP by
                                                                                EPA on 5/7/21.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2021-09468 Filed 5-6-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


RENEWAL OF INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST FOR THE EPISODIC RELEASES OF OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES

1.	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION	3
1a.	Title of the Information Collection	3
1b.	Short Characterization/Abstract	3
2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION	4
2a.	Need and Authority for the Collection	4
2b.	Practical Utility and Users of the Data	5
3.	NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA	5
3a.	Non Duplication	5
3b.	Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB	6
3c.	Consultations	6
3d.	Effects of Less Frequent Collection	6
3e.	General Guidelines	6
3f.	Confidentiality	7
3g.	Sensitive Questions	7
4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED	7
4a.	Respondents and SIC Codes	7
4b.	Information Requested	7
i.	Data items, including record keeping requirements	7
ii.	Respondent Activities	8
5.	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED  -  AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT	9
5a.	Agency Activities	9
5b.	Collection Methodology and Management	9
5c.	Small Entity Flexibility	9
5d.	Collection Schedule	10
6.	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION	10
6a.	Estimating Respondent Burden	10
6b.	Estimating Respondent Costs	11
i.	Estimating Labor Costs	11
ii.	Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs	12
6c.	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost	12
6d.	Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Cost	13
6e.	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables	14
6f.	Reasons for Change in Burden	14
6g.	Burden Statement	15
APPENDIX A: Phone-Log Summaries	16

IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION
Title of the Information Collection
Notification of Episodic Releases of Oil and Hazardous Substances (Renewal).
EPA ICR No. 1049.13, OMB No. 2050-0046.
Short Characterization/Abstract
This information collection request (ICR) addresses the reporting and recordkeeping activities required to comply with the release notification requirements for hazardous substances and oil specified in section 103(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended, and section 311 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended. These reporting requirements are codified at 40 CFR parts 110, 117, and 302. This ICR renews the collection activity previously approved under OMB No. 2050-0046 and applies to the period April 1, 2014 through March 31, 2017. Estimates of the burden placed on industry and the government to comply with the release notification requirements are presented on an annual basis.
CERCLA section 103(a) and CWA section 311 require the person in charge of a facility or vessel to immediately notify the National Response Center (NRC) of a hazardous substance release into the environment if the release quantity equals or exceeds the substance's reportable quantity (RQ) level and an oil discharge into U.S. waters. The regulated community is expected to:
      ::	Gather necessary release data, such as the time, quantity, and source of the release;
      ::	Notify the facility manager of the release;
      ::	Consult with the environmental compliance expert regarding the release;
      ::	Report the release to the NRC; and
      ::	Keep a log of release data such as the time, date, and circumstances of the release. (This information is expected, but not required under the regulations.)
There are no recordkeeping requirements specified under CERCLA section 103(a), CWA section 311, or their implementing regulations. The person in charge of the facility or vessel, however, may elect to maintain a log detailing the time, date, and circumstances associated with the reported release. The purpose of maintaining a log of reported releases is to track correspondence with response authorities and to document compliance with release notification requirements under CERCLA and the CWA. Because it is assumed the respondent will maintain a log of reported releases, burden and cost estimates associated with recordkeeping are included in the ICR.
NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION
Need and Authority for the Collection
The reporting activity required under 40 CFR parts 110, 117, and 302 is authorized under CERCLA sections 103(a) and 104(e), and CWA sections 311 and 308. The regulations implementing CERCLA section 103(a) (40 CFR part 302) require the person in charge of a facility or vessel to immediately notify the NRC of a hazardous substance release if the release quantity equals or exceeds the substance's RQ. The specific information provided in the notification required under CERCLA section 103(a) is authorized under CERCLA section 104(e). Section 104(e) authorizes the collection of release information, entry and inspection of the release site, and sampling activities at the release site for the purposes of "determining the need for response, or choosing or taking any response action under [CERCLA]." The release information collected is the minimum information needed to determine if a Federal response action is required to control or mitigate any potential adverse effects associated with a release.
In addition to the CERCLA notification requirements, the regulations implementing CWA section 311 (40 CFR part 110) require immediate notification to the NRC of any release of oil into U.S. navigable waters that causes a sheen, violates applicable water quality standards, or causes a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the water or upon adjoining shorelines. The information required to be provided under CWA section 311 is authorized by CWA section 308, which allows for the collection of release information and entry, monitoring, inspection and sampling activities at the release site for the purpose of ensuring that the objectives of the CWA are satisfied. The Federal government needs to be notified of releases of oil in order to determine if a response action is necessary to mitigate or prevent damage to public health or welfare or the environment.
Practical Utility and Users of the Data
The hazardous substance and oil release information collected pursuant to CERCLA section 103(a) and CWA section 311 has a variety of different uses. Federal response authorities, such as EPA and United States Coast Guard On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs), use the information to evaluate the environmental and human health risks attributable to a reported release and to determine if a Federal response action is necessary to mitigate or prevent any adverse effects associated with the release. Any reportable hazardous substance release or discharge of oil into the environment warrants a timely evaluation of its source, emission rate, chemical form, media affected, and quantity released to ensure the proper protection of public health and welfare and the environment. Responses to hazardous substance and oil release notifications by Federal authorities may take a variety of forms, including monitoring and overseeing cleanup activities conducted by the responsible party, evacuating surrounding populations, and directing the actual cleanup operation.
The hazardous substance and oil release information collected under CERCLA section 103 and CWA section 311 also is used by EPA program offices and other Federal agencies to evaluate the potential need for additional regulations, new permitting requirements for specific substances or sources, or for improved emergency response planning.
In addition, release notification information, which is stored in the national Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) data base, is used by state and local government authorities, the regulated community, and the general public. State and local government authorities and the regulated community use release information to help inform local emergency response planning. The public use release information to become aware of the releases that have occurred in their communities and throughout the nation and to learn of actions, if any, that are being taken to protect public health and welfare and the environment. The public has access to release information, statistics, and fact sheets through the Freedom of Information Act and the NRC's website (http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/nrchp.html).
NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA
Non Duplication
The information required to be provided in the telephone call to the NRC is the minimum information necessary to evaluate a hazardous substance release or discharge of oil. Direct notification to the NRC, as opposed to notification to multiple Federal response authorities, helps to ensure a coordinated Federal response effort and that unnecessary delays in requesting assistance do not occur. One call to the NRC fulfills the requirement to report releases of hazardous substances under CERCLA and several other regulatory programs, including the CWA, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. When the NRC receives a notification, the NRC watch stander immediately notifies the appropriate Federal OSC, who evaluates the circumstances surrounding the release and determines the need for a government response action. The Federal government has extensive resources, expertise, and authority under CERCLA to formulate response actions, ensuring a timely and coordinated field response with State, local, and private organizations, if needed.
EPA analyzed possible areas of overlap with other regulations, and concluded that there are limited areas of overlap with reporting requirements under other statutes and provisions. For example, there may be limited duplication with the reporting requirements specified in CERCLA section 103(a) and in certain permitting regulations. Permitting regulations often require reports if the permit level is exceeded. Thus, if a release of a hazardous substance exceeds its permit level and the substance's RQ, the release must be reported to both, the applicable Federal or state permitting authority, and NRC. However, the purpose and timing of the two reports often differ. Violations of permit regulations are reported to EPA Regional permitting offices or to state permitting authorities in order to maintain proper permit enforcement records or to evaluate ambient conditions over time. In contrast, Federal officials use release information provided to the NRC to evaluate the release situation and determine if a government response is necessary. Thus, the notification in monthly monitoring reports that a permit is exceeded is not timely for response purposes.
In addition to a possible overlap between CERCLA reporting and certain permitting regulations, there may be some overlap with respect to the reporting requirements specified in section 304 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), which requires immediate reporting of releases of CERCLA hazardous substances equal to or above an RQ to state and local response officials. Reporting to the NRC as well as to the appropriate State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) and Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC), as required under EPCRA section 304, is appropriate; however, because it ensures that the Federal government is alerted to releases that may require a Federal field response. Although the SERCs and LEPCs are notified of the releases under EPCRA section 304, some SERCs and LEPCs may not possess the resources necessary for a proper response action. Notification to the NRC allows for a timely response in the event of an emergency. Furthermore, reporting to the NRC, SERC, and LEPC provides for a coordinated effort among Federal, state, and local response officials, which helps ensure that an efficient response action is taken. When Congress enacted EPCRA section 304, it was aware that releases of hazardous substances were already reported to the NRC; Congress determined that it was necessary and appropriate for such potentially hazardous releases to be reported immediately to all potentially affected government jurisdictions. The requirements under EPCRA, however, are separate from those under CERCLA, and are outside the scope of this ICR (1049.13). The statutory requirements under CERCLA and EPCRA are clear and distinct; the Federal response system, as well as the state and local response systems, must be immediately alerted to potentially dangerous releases of hazardous substances that may pose a threat to public health or welfare or the environment.
Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), EPA is requesting comment from the public through the Federal Register notice on the renewal of this ICR (1049.13). The Docket ID No. for the notice is EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0549, and can be accessed at www.regulations.gov. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (78 FR 49265) on August 13, 2013. There were no comments received.
Consultations
EPA consulted with a number of Federal and state government agencies in the development of the information collection activities described in this ICR (1049.13). Workgroups were used to develop all RQ adjustment regulations as well as the oil discharge regulation. These Workgroups consisted of representatives from various EPA program offices, the ten EPA Regions, and the NRC. Participation of these parties in the Workgroups was sufficient to address and resolve all outstanding issues. The comments received on the proposed rules were addressed in the relevant Response to Comments Documents and in the preambles to the respective final rules.
In addition to Workgroup activities, EPA sponsored many workshops and training sessions throughout the country for industry and Federal, state, and local government response officials on the release notification requirements under CERCLA and the CWA. The workshops were held to educate the regulated community as well as those Federal and state agencies required to implement the regulations. In addition, the workshops provided an opportunity for the public to ask questions about, and comment on, the implementation of the reporting regulations under CERCLA and the CWA.
For this renewal, several individuals (fewer than 9) responsible for making notifications to the NRC were consulted regarding the process and burden this collection imposes. Brief summaries of those consultations are contained in Appendix A to this renewal supporting statement.
Effects of Less Frequent Collection
The information required under the regulations implementing CERCLA section 103(a) and CWA section 311 is not collected at any specified frequency; rather, it is collected when reportable releases occur. The information collected under the regulations, such as the source, quantity, and type of material released and the environmental medium affected, is critical to evaluating the threat posed by the release and the need for a response action. The regulatory requirements evaluated in this ICR (1049.13) represent EPA's efforts to ensure that the NRC is notified immediately of those hazardous substance and oil releases for which a Federal response action may be necessary to protect public health and welfare and the environment.
General Guidelines
The regulations implementing CERCLA section 103(a) and CWA section 311 adhere fully to OMB's general guidelines concerning the collection of information and the control of paperwork burdens on the public.
Confidentiality
The regulations implementing CERCLA section 103(a) and CWA section 311 do not require the submittal of any proprietary, trade secret, or other confidential information.
Sensitive Questions
The regulations implementing CERCLA section 103(a) and CWA section 311 do not require the submission of any sensitive business information. In addition, the information collection requested under these regulations is in compliance with the Privacy Act of 1974 and OMB Circular A-108.
THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
Respondents and SIC Codes
This section is not applicable. The use and release of hazardous substances and oil are pervasive throughout industry. EPA expects a number of different industrial categories to report hazardous substance and oil releases pursuant to the requirements specified in CERCLA section 103(a) and CWA section 311. No one industry sector or group of sectors or size of facility is affected disproportionately by the information collection burden.
Information Requested
Data items, including record keeping requirements
Notification under CERCLA section 103(a) and CWA section 311 is intended to ensure that Federal authorities receive prompt notification of hazardous substance and oil releases for which a timely response may be necessary to protect public health or welfare or the environment. The information provided in the telephone call to the NRC serves to notify government authorities of the release and provides them with a description of the circumstances surrounding the release. The following information is requested from all callers:
      ::	The name and location of the individual reporting the release, the name and type of organization (e.g., general public, industrial facility, or Federal, state, or local government) with which the individual reporting the release is affiliated, and the telephone number of the person reporting the release;
      ::	The name and location of the releaser, the type of organization responsible for the release, and the telephone number of the releaser;
      ::	The location of the release;
      ::	The date and time of the release;
      ::	The name and type of material involved in the release, and the quantity of the substance released;
      ::	The source of the release, the vehicle identification or carrier number, if applicable, and a brief description of the source;
      ::	The environmental medium affected by the release (e.g., air, land, water, or ground water);
      ::	The cause of the incident (e.g., transportation accident, operational error, natural phenomenon, terrorist related), and a brief description of the release scenario denoting any unusual circumstances associated with the release;
      ::	Information on damages that occurred as a result of the release, including the number of injuries, number of deaths, and any property damage;
      ::	A description of the response actions taken at the release site, if any;
      ::	The name(s) and type of organization(s) that the caller has already notified; and
      ::	Any additional comments or information regarding the release.
As mentioned previously, there are no recordkeeping requirements specified under CERCLA section 103(a), CWA section 311, or their implementing regulations. The person in charge of the facility or vessel, however, may elect to maintain a log detailing the time, date, and circumstances associated with the reported release. The purpose of maintaining a log of reported releases is to track correspondence with response authorities and to document compliance with release notification requirements under CERCLA and the CWA. Because the respondent will in all likelihood maintain a reported release log, burden and cost estimates associated with recordkeeping are included in this ICR (1049.13).
Respondent Activities
To comply with the notification requirements specified in the regulations implementing CERCLA section 103(a) and CWA section 311, the regulated community is expected to perform the following activities:
      ::	Gather necessary release data, such as the time, quantity, and source of the release;
      ::	Notify the facility manager of the release;
      ::	Consult with the environmental compliance expert regarding the release;
      ::	Report the release by telephone to the NRC; and
      ::	Keep a log of release data such as the time, date, and circumstances of the release. (This information is expected but not required under the regulations.)
These five general steps have been verified through conversations with environmental compliance experts at facilities that reported releases of hazardous substances to the NRC during 1992, 1993, and 1994. Each environmental compliance manager at these facilities was asked about the internal activities that are likely to occur between the time a release of a hazardous substance is discovered and the time a call is made to the NRC. The burden hours associated with reporting a release were in part based upon these findings.
THE INFORMATION COLLECTED  -  AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
Agency Activities
Every hazardous substance and oil release reported by the regulated community to the NRC must be evaluated by Federal authorities. The appropriate Federal On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) is notified of a release by a telephone call from the NRC. The NRC conveys all the relevant information regarding the release to the OSC, including whether the release is to air, soil, water, etc., the source of the release, and the type of substance released. The telephone call from the NRC to the OSC must occur within 15 minutes of the original release notification. The OSC is responsible for evaluating the circumstances surrounding the release to determine whether government monitoring and/or a Federal response action may be necessary.
NRC personnel are also responsible for entering release information into the NRC data base. The release data are stored in the NRC data base, ERNS, a national data base that stores release information by facility. The data can be accessed through the NRC web site: http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/foia.html. The primary activity of the Federal government under the regulations implementing CERCLA section 103(a) and CWA section 311 is processing and recording the reported release information, and responding to releases that may pose a significant hazard to public health or welfare or the environment.
Collection Methodology and Management
For purposes of reporting releases under the regulations implementing CERCLA section 103(a) and CWA section 311, a person in charge of a facility or vessel that experiences a reportable release must telephone the NRC. The NRC notifies the appropriate EPA Region or United States Coast Guard Office, the affected state, and any other Federal agency that may be able to lend support to a potential response action.
To manage the hazardous substance and oil release information submitted in accordance with CERCLA section 103(a) and CWA section 311, EPA uses the ERNS data base. When a hazardous substance or oil release is reported to the NRC, it is immediately entered into the NRC data base. The ERNS data base allows EPA to document, analyze, and maintain data gathered under the CERCLA and CWA notification process.
For Federal response authorities, the ERNS data base reduces the cost and time associated with processing and documenting release reports. For other EPA program offices, state and local response officials, and the public, ERNS provides for easy access to release data.
Small Entity Flexibility
The notification requirements apply equally to all facilities or vessels, regardless of size, that have reportable releases of CERCLA hazardous substances or oil. The regulations do not impose any general information collection or recordkeeping requirements on small businesses. EPA believes that the notification requirements specified under these regulations represent the minimum level of information necessary for Federal response officials to determine if a government response action is needed to prevent or mitigate any damage to public health or welfare or the environment. The regulatory requirements are satisfied by a toll-free telephone call to the NRC. A reduction in these reporting requirements for small businesses is not possible without jeopardizing the Federal government's ability to evaluate the threat posed by a release and determine if a Federal response is necessary.
Collection Schedule
Information is not collected at any specified frequency; rather, it is collected when reportable releases occur. Under CERCLA section 103(a), a release of a hazardous substance is reportable when it equals or exceeds its RQ. Pursuant to CWA section 311, a discharge of oil into navigable waters is reportable whenever the discharge causes a sheen, violates applicable water quality standards, or causes a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the water or upon adjoining shorelines.
ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION
Estimating Respondent Burden
Under CERCLA section 103(a) and CWA section 311, the person in charge of a facility or vessel that experiences a reportable release is expected to perform the following activities: (1) gather necessary release data, such as the time, date, quantity, and source of the release; (2) notify the facility manager of the release; (3) consult with the environmental compliance expert regarding the release; (4) report the release by telephone to the NRC; and (5) keep a log of release data such as time, date, and circumstance of the release. (A respondent is not required to keep a log of release data under the episodic release notification regulation; however EPA assumes respondents will keep a log of release data.) Cost and burden estimates associated with completing these activities assume that respondents will telephone the NRC with Picturefalse\* MERGEFORMAT release notifications per annum from April 1, 2014 through March 31, 2017.
Exhibit 1 presents a summary of the unit burden hours associated with reporting a typical release to the NRC. The burden associated with the first collection activity in Exhibit 1, "Initial Telephone Call to the NRC," includes the burden of gathering of data on the release, notifying the facility manager of the release, and consulting with an environmental compliance expert regarding the release. EPA has estimated that the respondent's burden hours for reporting a typical release is Picturefalse\* MERGEFORMAT hours.

      Initial Telephone Notification
In estimating the burden to industry that the regulations implementing CERCLA section 103(a) and CWA section 311 may impose, EPA has assumed that the respondent's initial telephone notification to the NRC regarding a release requires approximately Picturefalse hour of technical personnel time and Picturefalse hour of managerial time. Therefore, in this ICR (1049.13), as in the previous ICR (1049.12), EPA assumes Picturefalse burden hours for the initial telephone notification. This burden-hour estimate was confirmed through telephone conversations with facilities that reported releases to the NRC. Facilities generally agreed that the time required to evaluate a release will vary, depending on the nature of the release. Most of the facilities stated that the evaluation was relatively straightforward, requiring well under one hour. One facility stated that evaluating a release and determining if the release should be reported to the NRC could require as many as four hours of a single technical expert's time. Other facilities responded that it would probably take 15 minutes to (1/2) hour of managerial time to determine whether a call to the NRC was required. In general, most facilities agreed that, on average, two to three person-hours was a reasonable estimate for the time required to determine the need to report the release to the NRC. Therefore, in this ICR (1049.13), as in the previous ICR (1049.12), the assumption is made that the burden of the telephone call for each reportable release is Picturefalse hours (composed of Picturefalsehour of management's time and Picturefalsehour of technician's time), regardless of the environmental medium affected and the substance released.
      Recordkeeping
Although neither CERCLA nor the CWA requires that records of releases be kept, EPA assumes that a facility will keep a log of any calls made to government organizations. Such a log will be useful for managers in establishing that the notification requirements of CERCLA section 103(a) and CWA section 311 have been met. The log may include a description of the incident and its cause; the NRC/ERNS report number, a brief account of any conversations with Federal officials, and a description of the outcome of the incident, including any cleanup action taken. The burden associated with internal recordkeeping is estimated at Picturefalsetechnical hour and Picturefalseclerical hour per release. Further, a ratio of Picturefalsemanagerial hour to each hour of clerical time is also assumed. Therefore, in this ICR (1049.13), as in the previous ICR (1049.12), EPA assumes Picturefalse burden hours per release for recordkeeping.
      Response Actions
Under section 103(a) of CERCLA and section 311 of CWA facilities and vessels responsible for a release are required to take appropriate action to clean up the release. However, because there is no paperwork burden associated with these response actions, the capital and labor costs associated with response actions are not within the scope of this ICR (1049.13).
Estimating Respondent Costs
Estimating Labor Costs
The estimated cost to a respondent for evaluating a release and calling the NRC regarding the release are a function of the time expended by respondent personnel (i.e., the burden estimates presented in section 6(a)), and the hourly wage rates for the appropriate categories of labor. The hourly wage rates used for industry in this ICR are from June 2013 and were obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. For purposes of this analysis, EPA estimates an average hourly respondent labor cost of Picturefalse\* MERGEFORMAT for managerial staff, Picturefalse\* MERGEFORMATfor technical staff, and Picturefalse\* MERGEFORMAT for clerical staff.
These rates reflect employer cost for employee compensation in the United States as of June 2013 and include both employer costs for legally required benefits (e.g., social security, worker's compensation, and unemployment insurance), other important fringe benefit categories (e.g., insurance, paid leave, retirement and savings), and overhead and general and administrative costs.
Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs
Capital costs usually include any produced physical good needed to provide the needed information, such as machinery, computers, and other equipment. EPA does not anticipate that respondents will incur capital costs in carrying out the information collection requirements of this regulation.
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs are those costs associated with paperwork requirements incurred continually over the life of the ICR. EPA does not anticipate that respondents will incur O&M costs in carrying out the information collection requirements of the proposed rule.
Costs associated with the burden hours presented in section 6(a) of this ICR (1049.13) are shown in Exhibit 2.
                          Picturefalse\* MERGEFORMAT
For a typical release, EPA has estimated that it costs the respondent Picturefalse\* MERGEFORMAT to report the release to the NRC and record the release data in the respondent's log.
Estimating Agency Burden and Cost
Federal government authorities are expected to perform the following activities under the episodic release notification regulation:  (1) process respondent telephone notifications of a release; (2) monitor cleanup activities; and (3) conduct field response actions. EPA estimates that only the first Federal government activity listed above, "process telephone notifications," will involve the processing of submitted paperwork. Estimated unit burden hours and costs and total annual burden hours and costs for the "process telephone notifications" activity are presented in Exhibit 3. For the period covered by this ICR (1049.13), EPA has assumed that the Federal government average hourly labor cost isPicturefalse\* MERGEFORMAT.
                          Picturefalse\* MERGEFORMAT
      Processing Telephone Notification
The total burden of processing a telephone notification of a release consists of the time the NRC uses to (1) communicate with the respondent, (2) record and enter the information provided in the telephone call into the NRC data base, and (3) contact the predesignated EPA or Coast Guard OSC or other parties by telephone. EPA has estimated that one hour is needed to complete all the activities associated with processing an initial telephone notification. Therefore, the unit cost associated with processing an initial telephone call is Picturefalse\* MERGEFORMAT (Picturefalse\* MERGEFORMAT hour x Picturefalse\* MERGEFORMATper hour =Picturefalse\* MERGEFORMAT).
      Response Activities
For some percentage of releases, the information provided in the telephone notification will prompt EPA to monitor cleanup activities. Monitoring a cleanup will allow EPA to directly assess and evaluate the circumstances surrounding the release, and the population and environment potentially affected by the release. In a small percentage of cases, the owner/operator will be unable to respond to the release or cleanup activities will appear unsatisfactory, requiring EPA to conduct its own field response actions to ensure that all potential hazards have been addressed and that the release has been thoroughly cleaned up. However, as these actions are not directly related to the processing of submitted paperwork, the costs and burden hours associated with these actions are not covered under this ICR (1049.13).
Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Cost
ERNS data from 2010, 2011, and 2012 were used to estimate the number of releases that will be reported to the NRC during the period of April 1, 2014 through March 31, 2017. The exhibits in this section show projected annual release reports, burden hours, and costs.
The total cost and total burden estimates presented in this ICR (1049.13) are the aggregate annual costs and burden hours associated with reporting all hazardous substances and oil releases pursuant to CERCLA section 103(a) and CWA section 311.
Annual respondent burden hours are equal to the number of releases reported to the NRC in a year multiplied by the unit burden hours associated with reporting a release. Annual cost is equal to the number of releases reported to the NRC in a year multiplied by the unit cost of reporting a release. Exhibit 4 presents the annual total annual burden hour and cost estimates for respondents.

Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables
Exhibits 3 and 4 present the annual burden hours and costs incurred by the government and respondents, respectively, for all information collection requirements covered in this ICR (1049.13). Exhibit 5 summarizes the bottom-line burdens and costs incurred by both respondents and government. The bottom-line burden to respondents is approximately Picturefalse\* MERGEFORMAT hours per year, at a cost ofPicturefalse\* MERGEFORMAT. The bottom line burden to the government is approximately Picturefalse\* MERGEFORMAT hours per year, at a cost ofPicturefalse\* MERGEFORMAT.
                          Picturefalse\* MERGEFORMAT
Reasons for Change in Burden
Compared to the previous ICR (1049.12), unit burden hours for industry and the government have not changed in this ICR (1049.13). However, total annual burden hours for industry and government have decreased in this ICR (1049.13) because the projected number of release notifications per annum in this ICR (1049.13) is less than the projected number of release notifications per annum in the previous ICR (1049.12). The previous ICR (1049.12) projected Picturefalse\* MERGEFORMAT releases would be reported to the NRC annually; while this renewal ICR (1049.13) projects Picturefalse\* MERGEFORMAT releases will be reported to the NRC annually. Comparing this ICR (1049.13) to the previous ICR (1049.12) total annual burden hours for industry decreases by Picturefalse\* MERGEFORMAT hours and for EPA by Picturefalse\* MERGEFORMAT hours.

This ICR (1049.13) projects a decrease in the number of releases reported to the NRC annually; however, there are increases to the unit costs to responders for managerial, technical, and clerical labor categories. The result is an overall increased cost burden for industry. The previous ICR (1049.12) estimated the cost-burden to industry asPicturefalse\* MERGEFORMAT, this renewal estimates the cost-burden to industry will be Picturefalse\* MERGEFORMAT or Picturefalse\* MERGEFORMATgreater than the previous estimate. The estimated government unit cost remained the same however, the cost burden for government is projected to decrease, from Picturefalse\* MERGEFORMAT to Picturefalse\* MERGEFORMAT a decrease ofPicturefalse\* MERGEFORMAT. The decrease is due to a projected decrease in the number of reportable releases.
                          Picturefalse\* MERGEFORMAT
Burden Statement
The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average approximately Picturefalse\* MERGEFORMAT hours per response, which includes Picturefalse\* MERGEFORMAT hours of reporting and Picturefalse\* MERGEFORMAT hours record keeping per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This 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-SFUND-2013-0549, which is available for public viewing at the Superfund Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Superfund Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov. Use www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the 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 Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. (EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0549) and the OMB control number (2050-0046) in any correspondence.

 APPENDIX A: Phone-Log Summaries

The following calls were made in December 2013. The individuals to interview were selected randomly from Incident Reports that were sent to the EPA from the National Response Center (NRC). The individuals who were contacted are kept confidential as it is for Government Use Only. Persons responsible for making notifications were queried about their experience in determining whether a release has occurred, making the report to the NRC, and completing any internal recordkeeping, and whether the 4 hours estimated by EPA was realistic. The contacted individuals were assured that EPA would not identify them as the person who was contacted.

   1. Incident #1065998, Western Precooling Systems, Yuma, AZ  -  Caller reported a leaking storage tank that released some vapor into the atmosphere. The cap wasn't secured and a valve leaked overnight.
         a. The reporting party indicated during the phone interview that the 4 hours was a sufficient burden estimate. With respect to the experience in making the call, the reporting party had difficulty understanding the person on the other end of the line.
   2. Incident #1065210, Invista, Orange, TX  -  Caller reported a release of an unknown amount of hydrogen cyanide into the atmosphere due to leaking equipment at a production facility.
         a. The reporting party indicated during the phone interview that the 4 hours was a sufficient burden estimate. They try to make any notifications within 15 minutes. The reporting party did not have much experience in making reports as he had not been on the job for very long. Did not have any other comments on the process.
   3. Incident #1068413, Ineos, Lima, OH-Caller reported a release of unknown amounts of acrylonitrile, acrolein, and hydrogen cyanide into the atmosphere as a result of equipment failure. The air pollution control device advised a shutdown due to a malfunction.
         a. The reporting party indicated during the phone interview that 15 minutes is an unrealistic amount of time (too short) to notify the National Response Center once the release is known. The releases are always identified in the field but the timing of the notification can be off. Thirty minutes would be more realistic. The overall 4 hour burden estimate is probably ok, but could not say for sure unless previous records were checked.