[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 77 (Wednesday, April 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22606-22611]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09380]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0782]

Grand Canyon National Park Quiet Aircraft Technology Incentive:
Seasonal Relief From Allocations in the Dragon and Zuni Point Corridors

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, Transportation; National Park
Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final notice to announce implementation and disposition of
public comments.

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

SUMMARY: On November 10, 2014, the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) and the National Park Service (NPS) published in the Federal
Register [79 FR 66763-66765] a notice of the agencies' proposal to
provide a quiet aircraft technology incentive for commercial air tour
operators at Grand Canyon National Park and a request for public
comments. Specifically, the agencies proposed to provide seasonal
relief from allocations in the Dragon and Zuni Point corridors for
commercial air tour operators that convert or have converted to quiet
aircraft technology. The FAA and the NPS have reviewed and considered
all comments, and have decided to proceed with implementation of the
incentive as proposed. This notice describes that decision and responds
to the substantive comments received.

DATES: This incentive is effective as of January 1, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Lusk, Program Manager, Federal
Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 92007, Los Angeles, California 90009-
2007; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Robin Martin,
Chief, Office of Planning and Compliance, Grand Canyon National Park,
P.O. Box 129, Grand Canyon, Arizona 86023-0129; telephone (928) 638-
7684; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Authority

    Authority: Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act,
Sec. 35001, Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 843; National Parks Air Tour
Management Act, Sec. 804, Pub. L. 106-181, 114 Stat. 192.

    1. The National Park Overflights Act of 1987, Pub. L. 100-91,
directed the Secretary of the Interior and the Administrator of the FAA
to take actions to provide for the substantial restoration of the
natural quiet and experience of Grand Canyon National Park and the
protection of public health and safety from adverse effects associated
with aircraft overflight. As part of these actions, operational limits
for commercial air tour operations at Grand Canyon National Park (the
park) were imposed by FAA regulations at 14 CFR part 93 issued on April
4, 2000. With some exceptions not relevant to this notice, these
regulations establish an allocation scheme for the park, require
commercial air tour operators to use one allocation for each flight
that is a commercial air tour, and prohibit operators from conducting
more commercial air tours in any calendar year than the number of
allocations specified on the certificate holder's operations
specifications issued by the FAA. 14 CFR 93.319.
    2. The National Parks Air Tour Management Act (NPATMA), Pub. L.
106-181, was signed into law on April 5, 2000. Section 804(a) required
the FAA to designate reasonably achievable requirements for fixed-wing
and helicopter aircraft to be considered quiet aircraft technology (QT)
for purposes of the statute's provisions. In 2005, the FAA issued a
final rule classifying aircraft operating in Grand Canyon National Park
and designating aircraft that meet the noise criteria as QT. 70 FR
16084-16093. These regulations were codified at 14 CFR 93.303 and
Appendix A to Subpart U of Part 93. Under NPATMA section 804(c),
commercial air tour operations by fixed-wing or helicopter aircraft
that employ QT and that replace existing aircraft are not subject to
the operational flight allocations that apply to other commercial air
tour operations at the park, provided that the cumulative impact of
such operations does not increase noise at the Grand Canyon. Section
804(d) provides that a commercial air tour operation by an aircraft in
a commercial air tour operator's fleet on the date of enactment of
NPATMA that meets QT requirements or is subsequently modified to meet
QT requirements may be used for commercial air tour operations under
the same terms and

conditions as section 804(c) without regard to whether it replaces an
existing aircraft. In addition, NPATMA expressly states that it does
not relieve or diminish the statutory mandate to achieve substantial
restoration of natural quiet and experience at the park.
    3. Section 35001 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act (MAP-21), Pub. L. 112-141, July 6, 2012, directs the
Secretary of the Interior and the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration to provide incentives for commercial air tour operators
that convert to QT, determined in accordance with the regulations then
in effect. MAP-21 gives as an example of an incentive increasing the
flight allocations for operators of QT on a net basis consistent with
section 804(c) of NPATMA, provided that the cumulative impact of such
operations does not increase noise at the Grand Canyon. MAP-21 also
provides that all commercial air tour operators must convert to QT by
2027.

II. Background

    Congress has encouraged the use of quiet aircraft technology (QT)
as one means of addressing noise from commercial air tours at Grand
Canyon National Park. The FAA was required by NPATMA to designate
reasonably achievable requirements for fixed-wing and helicopter
aircraft to be considered QT, and issued a final rule to accomplish
this in 2005. This rule did not include QT incentives and did not
relieve commercial air tour operators of their operational limitations.
NPATMA's provision that allocations do not apply to QT operations only
takes effect if the cumulative impact of such operations does not
increase noise at the Grand Canyon. Although the FAA concluded that
aircraft that meet the QT designation are consistently quieter than
aircraft that do not, 70 FR 16088, neither the FAA nor the NPS had
sufficient data at that time to determine whether noise would increase
if limits on the number of QT operations were removed. In addition,
NPATMA expressly states that it does not relieve or diminish the
statutory mandate to achieve substantial restoration of natural quiet
and experience at the park. Substantial restoration of natural quiet
had not been determined to be achieved at that time. Various QT
incentives were considered by the agencies following the 2005 final
rule, but were not finalized.
    MAP-21, enacted in July 2012, provided additional direction to the
FAA and the NPS on QT incentives. In response to MAP-21, the NPS, in
consultation with the FAA, reduced the fees applicable to commercial
air tour operations at the Grand Canyon by 20 percent (from $25 to $20
per flight) for an air tour using QT effective January 1, 2014. On
February 3, 2014, the FAA, in consultation with the NPS, announced its
intention to distribute FAA-held allocations to commercial tour
operators in proportion to the number of QT operations flown in the
first six months of 2014. 79 FR 6267-6268. These allocations were
subsequently distributed for use for QT flights during the 2014 air
tour season and beyond.

III. Seasonal Relief From Allocations for QT in the Dragon and Zuni
Point Corridors

    Following notice and public comment, the FAA and the NPS have
decided to provide an additional QT incentive in the Dragon and Zuni
Point corridors where QT can have the greatest positive effect on park
resources and where the need for relief from allocations has been
demonstrated. Under this incentive, commercial air tour operators
flying QT aircraft in the Dragon and Zuni Point corridors initially
will be relieved from having such operations count against their annual
allocations in the first quarter (January 1-March 31) of 2015. The FAA
and the NPS will use the quarterly reports that are currently required
to be submitted by the operators to determine the number of QT flights
flown during the first quarter that will not count against their annual
allocations. During this first quarter, QT flights will not use an
allocation, while non-QT flights must still use an allocation. All
commercial air tour flights, QT and non-QT, must use an allocation for
the remainder of the year (April 1-December 31). However, operators
will continue to benefit from the seasonal relief throughout the
remainder of the year since they may use allocations in April through
December that they would otherwise have used for QT flights conducted
in January through March.
    The first quarter of the calendar year, when park visitation and
demand for air tours are seasonally low, has historically had the
lowest level of commercial air tour operations. Providing this
incentive initially in the first quarter of 2015 is a prudent action
that gives the FAA and the NPS an opportunity to evaluate the impact of
the incentive, including the extent to which commercial air tour
operators continue to use QT in the remainder of the year which will
produce additional noise benefits for the park. The FAA and the NPS
want to incentivize commercial air tour operators to maximize the use
of QT throughout the year. To that end, the seasonal relief from
allocations may be extended to part or all of the fourth quarter
(October 1-December 31) in 2016 and following years, in addition to the
first quarter, based on an evaluation of the preceding year. In 2015,
the more that increased QT use reduces the noise level below the noise
baseline described in the following paragraph, the greater the prospect
for operators to have additional seasonal relief from allocations in
2016.
    To meet the statutory conditions in NPATMA and MAP-21, the FAA and
the NPS must ensure that the cumulative impact of QT operations
relieved from allocations does not increase noise at the park. Neither
NPATMA nor MAP-21 specifies a methodology for calculating whether the
cumulative impact of relieving QT operations from allocations would
increase noise. After extensive consideration of the statutory language
and the associated technical issues, the FAA and the NPS have
determined that, for this seasonal relief incentive, the annual noise
from both QT and non-QT commercial air tour flights conducted in the
Dragon and Zuni Point corridors must not exceed the annual noise level
of commercial air tour flights under the current Dragon and Zuni Point
corridors allocation system.
    The agencies have agreed that the cumulative noise impact \1\ will
be evaluated in terms of the total amount of commercial air tour noise
energy occurring inside park boundaries averaged over an entire year.
The agencies further agreed that the most suitable way to ensure that
the seasonal relief from allocations incentive for QT operations in the
Dragon and Zuni Point corridors does not increase noise in the park is
to compute noise at a large number of grid points throughout the park,
instead of only using grid points in the Dragon and Zuni Point
corridors. Accordingly, the NPS and the FAA used a grid of 1224 points
with 2 km spacing across the park. Technical experts from both agencies
also determined that a single number provides the most straightforward
means of determining whether there is an increase in noise. This number
is calculated by taking the total noise energy calculated for a year's
air tour data at each of the individual grid points and averaging it
over the entire park--resulting in a single LEQ12 value.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Cumulative noise impact is not the same criterion as the
substantial restoration of natural quiet (SRNQ). SRNQ is calculated
and determined on the peak day of air tour operations using the
percent time audible metric.
    \2\ LEQ12 stands for Equivalent Sound Level for 12
hours, which is a cumulative measure of the noise exposure of A-
weighted sound levels over a 12-hour period. LEQ12 is one
of several metrics used to evaluate air tour noise in Grand Canyon
and other national parks. The metric takes into account aircraft
noise levels, the number of aircraft operations, and the duration of
noise. A 12-hour LEQ is used since air tour operations occur during
the day, rather than over a 24-hour period.

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

    Using this methodology, the FAA and the NPS have modeled the annual
noise of commercial air tour allocations in the Dragon and Zuni Point
corridors as flown with the 2012 commercial air tour fleet mix and
route structure--resulting in a noise baseline of LEQ12 58.1
decibels (dB). This single number serves as a reference criterion for
measuring changes to the noise environment based on the cumulative
impact of operations. It is the average noise level across the entire
park as if a year's worth of flight allocations in the Dragon and Zuni
Point corridors took place in twelve hours on a single day. It is not
intended to represent a value which may be experienced by visitors to
the park on any particular day.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This LEQ12 value is not an average day noise
level. To produce a noise level representing an average day at an
average location in the park, further calculations of the 2012
LEQ12 58.1 dB value would need to be made and would
produce an LEQ12 average day noise level of 32.5 dB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A more detailed technical description of the methodology and
calculations that resulted in the LEQ12 58.1 dB reference
criterion has been placed in the docket. In order to accurately and
reliably ensure compliance with the statutory mandate that the
cumulative impact of operations under this QT incentive not increase
noise at the park, the same calculation described above will be applied
to each year's air tour data. The FAA and the NPS will model the annual
noise from all commercial air tour operations conducted in the Dragon
and Zuni Point corridors and compare the annual noise with the seasonal
relief incentive in place with the noise baseline of all commercial air
tour allocations in these corridors. Noise will be determined to
increase if the annual modeled LEQ12 noise of commercial air
tour operations conducted in the Dragon and Zuni Point corridors
exceeds LEQ12 58.1 dB in the park. If noise in any year
exceeds the noise baseline, the seasonal relief incentive will be
modified or discontinued as determined necessary to comply with the
statutory condition.
    To ensure that this incentive will not diminish the achievement of
substantial restoration of natural quiet and experience at the park,
all commercial air tour aircraft including QT must adhere to the
existing route structure throughout the park, including the Dragon and
Zuni Point corridors. Substantial restoration of natural quiet in the
park will continue to be calculated based on the peak day of air tour
operations using the percent time audible metric. The NPS will continue
to monitor noise to evaluate substantial restoration of natural quiet.
    This incentive applies only to commercial air tour operators that
have allocations in the Dragon and Zuni Point corridors; i.e.,
operators must have allocations in these corridors in order to be
relieved from allocations. It does not apply elsewhere in the Grand
Canyon Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA). There is an ample unused
surplus of commercial air tour allocations in the SFRA outside of the
Dragon and Zuni Point corridors; therefore, operators conducting air
tours in these other SFRA areas do not need relief from allocations and
would not be incentivized to convert to QT by a seasonal relief
incentive.
    Seasonal relief from allocations is intended to provide an
incentive for operators with non-QT aircraft to convert to QT in
advance of the statutory requirement for full QT conversion, and to
maximize use of QT already in the fleet. It rewards those operators who
have already fully converted to QT by allowing them to take full
advantage of the incentive. The number of air tours conducted by
operators using QT can increase beyond the level permitted under the
existing allocation system as long as the cumulative impact of the
additional number of quieter aircraft operating in the park does not
increase noise at the park.
    Seasonal relief from allocations will not automatically increase
the number of flights. Any increase in air tour flights will depend on
the demand for air tours, which is influenced by factors such as
general economic conditions and the amount of tourism. Seasonal relief
allows air tour operators to save allocations that would have been used
in the first quarter of the year and to use them during times of year
when air tour demand is higher. The most immediate effect of the
incentive is likely to be to provide a cushion of allocations to any
qualifying operator in the Dragon and Zuni Point corridors that is at
risk of running out of allocations before the end of the calendar year.
    If the seasonal relief in the Dragon and Zuni Point corridors is a
successful QT incentive, it is proposed to remain in effect unless it
violates the statutory condition that the cumulative effect of such
operations must not increase noise at the Grand Canyon, or diminishes
the achievement of substantial restoration of natural quiet, in which
case it will be either modified or discontinued; or until a longer term
approach for managing air tour noise in the park is in place.
    The FAA and the NPS commit to developing a long term approach for
managing noise in the park in an expeditious manner. Any long term
approach will continue to incentivize conversion to QT and will not
penalize earlier conversion to QT realized through the seasonal relief
incentive.

IV. Discussion of Comments

    The public comment period was open until December 10, 2014. The FAA
and the NPS received 147 comments on the November 10, 2014 notice
describing the proposal to provide seasonal relief from allocations in
the Dragon and Zuni Point corridors, including 60 comments which were
posted after the close of the comment period. Commenters included
individuals identifying themselves as hikers, backpackers, river
rafters and back-country visitors to the Grand Canyon; groups
representing those types of park users; environmental and conservation
organizations (collectively referred to as ``recreational and
environmental interests''). Joint comments were filed by a helicopter
trade association and a coalition of Grand Canyon air tour operators
(collectively referred to as ``air tour interests''). Most of the
comments expressed appreciation for the unique qualities of the Grand
Canyon, including natural quiet, and the desire that these qualities be
protected. The agencies reviewed and considered all comments, and have
responded below to comments of substance on the QT seasonal relief
incentive. Comments and responses are organized under subject matter
headings.

Statutory Basis for Incentives

    Comment: Several commenters representing recreational and
environmental interests questioned the authority for QT incentives and
expressed concern about the consistency of this seasonal relief
incentive with other laws protecting national parks. The air tour
interests offered their view of Congressional intent and criticized the
agencies for delay in implementing the legislative directive.
    FAA and NPS Response: This QT incentive is offered pursuant to MAP-
21 and to implement Section 804(c) of NPATMA, as described in this
notice. MAP-21 and NPATMA include protections to Grand Canyon National
Park, namely that the cumulative impact of QT operations relieved from
allocations must not increase noise at the park and that the
achievement of substantial restoration of natural quiet

and experience at the park shall not be relieved or diminished. This
latter provision in NPATMA ensures that this QT incentive is consistent
with the mandate in the 1987 Overflights Act to achieve substantial
restoration of natural quiet. Further, the NPS has an affirmative
responsibility to protect the resources and values of national park
units, including park soundscapes. To that end, since this measure
provides incentive for air tour operators and owners to improve their
fleets commensurate with industry advancements in quiet aircraft
technology, this incentive holds promise for the continual reduction of
noise in Grand Canyon National Park. The FAA and the NPS describe the
history of events that affected the time line of QT incentives in the
Background section of this notice.

Quiet Technology Incentives

    Comment: Commenters questioned whether the proposed incentive is
necessary in light of other incentives and the fact that operators are
already converting to QT. Some commenters representing recreational and
environmental interests objected to what they view as subsidizing a
private industry and suggested that operators should pay the cost of
converting to QT. The air tour interests noted that over $200 million
has been invested in QT aircraft by the air tour industry.
    FAA and NPS Response: Both NPATMA and MAP-21 contemplate allowing
increased flights, i.e., relief from allocations or operational caps,
by QT. This incentive addresses those provisions, i.e., it creates an
incentive for air tour operators to maximize use of QT aircraft by
allowing them to fly additional air tours beyond their current
allocations. Operators are financially responsible for the aircraft
they use for air tours and have already acquired a significant number
of QT aircraft at their own cost. MAP-21 requires all commercial air
tour aircraft operating in Grand Canyon National Park to fully convert
to QT not later than 2027.
    Comment: Some commenters representing recreational and
environmental interests suggested the proposal actually gives an
incentive to retain and operate noisier helicopters. The air tour
interests commented that operators already need to maximize use of QT
to recoup costs.
    FAA and NPS Response: Air tour operators that have already
converted to QT aircraft will have an additional incentive to maximize
use of those aircraft; other operators will have an incentive to
convert to QT. Because the cumulative impact of the incentive will be
evaluated based on the annual commercial air tour operations conducted
in the Dragon and Zuni Point corridors, the use of QT aircraft at any
time of the year will contribute to a determination that noise has not
increased and will increase the potential for the incentive to be
continued and extended to the fourth quarter in subsequent years.
    Comment: Commenters questioned the basis for classifying aircraft
as QT and asked who would validate aircraft in an air tour operator's
fleet as QT.
    FAA and NPS Response: Appendix A to Subpart U of 14 CFR part 93
contains the procedures for determining the QT designation status for
each aircraft. Additional guidance can be found in the FAA's Advisory
Circular 93-2, Noise Levels for Aircraft used for Commercial Operations
in Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area. The FAA is
responsible for designating aircraft as QT and for determining which
aircraft comply with that designation.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested that air tour operators should
be required by regulations to use QT aircraft all of the time or
convert over a period of time, while others called for a transition as
soon as possible to QT.
    FAA and NPS Response: MAP-21 requires all commercial air tour
aircraft operating in the Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight
Rules Area to fully convert to QT not later than 2027. In the meantime,
MAP-21 directs the FAA and the NPS to provide QT incentives to
encourage earlier conversion and use of QT.
    Comment: Some commenters representing recreational and
environmental interests suggested that flights using ``saved''
allocations should use QT. Other commenters suggested that each QT
flight should use a fraction of an allocation.
    FAA and NPS Response: The agencies structured this incentive to be
consistent with the NPATMA Sec. 804(c) provision relieving commercial
air tour operations by QT from operational flight allocations, subject
to protections with respect to noise and substantial restoration of
natural quiet in the park, and with the MAP-21 provision that
references increasing flight allocations consistent with NPATMA Sec.
804(c). Neither NPATMA nor MAP-21 requires additional conditions to be
placed on flights using allocations, as suggested by commenters. As a
practical matter, the FAA expects an air tour operator's fleet to
include the same proportion of QT for an entire year that it uses in
the first quarter of the year, which means that QT would be used for
allocations. Furthermore, the overall air tour activity in the Dragon
and Zuni Point corridors, whether using QT or non-QT, cannot increase
noise at the park.
    Comment: Some commenters representing recreational and
environmental interests advocated a 1-2 year trial period for the
incentive that expires on date certain. The air tour interests
suggested that the incentive include the fourth quarter at the outset.
    FAA and NPS Response: The agencies have determined that providing
this incentive initially in the first quarter of the year is a prudent
action that gives the FAA and the NPS an opportunity to evaluate the
noise impact of the incentive, which will depend not only on the first
quarter QT use but also on the extent to which commercial air tour
operators continue to use QT in the remainder of the year. The
incentive may be modified or discontinued as determined necessary to
comply with the statutory condition at the end of the first year or any
subsequent year.

Noise Calculation and Impact

    Comment: Some commenters were uncertain as to what the
LEQ12 58.1 dB metric represents and asked how the baseline
was developed.
    FAA and NPS Response: The LEQ12 58.1 decibels (dB)
reference criterion is a basis for judging changes to the noise
environment, and is not intended to represent a value which may be
experienced by visitors to the park on any particular day. Additional
information has been provided in this final notice, and a more detailed
technical description of the LEQ12 58.1 dB reference
criterion, including how it was calculated, has been placed in the
docket.
    Comment: Some commenters representing recreational and
environmental interests disagreed with using a cumulative metric or
annual average and said that noise increases should be measured based
on peak day or each and every day. Commenters also suggested that
supplemental noise metrics be considered.
    FAA and NPS Response: The statutory language ``cumulative impact of
such flights'' calls for a metric that calculates noise cumulatively
over a period of time. LEQ12 is one of several metrics that
is used to evaluate air tour noise in Grand Canyon and other national
parks and was selected by technical experts in the FAA and the NPS as
the most appropriate to use to determine cumulative impact. A daily
noise calculation is not appropriate for this purpose. Substantial
restoration of natural quiet, another required criterion,

will continue to be calculated based on the peak day of air tour
operations using the percent time audible metric.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the annual evaluation of the
incentive's impact should reflect conversion to any QT aircraft that
produces more noise than an aircraft in the baseline.
    FAA and NPS Response: The annual evaluation will calculate the
noise of all QT and all non-QT aircraft and will account for any
additional noise, whether from a noisier aircraft or from more aircraft
operations.
    Comment: Commenters questioned the baseline against which the
cumulative impact of QT operations will be compared (i.e., the annual
noise of commercial air tour allocations in the Dragon and Zuni Point
corridors as flown with the 2012 commercial air tour fleet mix and
route structure). Commenters representing recreational and
environmental interests suggested there should be an improvement in the
noise level over the status quo measured by actual operations rather
than allocations. The air tour interests questioned use of a 2012 fleet
mix rather than a fleet mix representative of either the year 2000 or
2005 and suggested that the comparison should be to sound levels that
would have been present if all aircraft were non-QT. The air tour
interests also suggested that the baseline should be substantial
restoration of natural quiet.
    FAA and NPS Response: Both NPATMA and MAP-21 include the QT
limiting provision: ``. . . provided that the cumulative impact of such
operations does not increase noise . . .'' at the park. Neither statute
provides for further reductions in noise with respect to QT incentives.
The prohibition on increasing noise is not defined or elaborated on in
either statute. The FAA and the NPS considered various possible
baselines and determined that the baseline should reflect the amount of
noise that can be generated by the number of commercial air tour
operations that are permitted under the current allocation system. If
noise exceeds a level that is currently permitted under the allocation
system, the agencies will consider it to be an increase in noise. The
alternative selection of a noise baseline using the actual level of air
tour operations in 2012, as recreational and environmental interests
suggested, would constitute a reduction from what is currently allowed
since the actual 2012 level of air tour operations was lower than what
is authorized. It would not be a QT incentive to set a baseline that is
lower than what air tour operators would be allowed to do under the
current allocation system. In addition, the agencies chose 2012 as the
year to model baseline noise. MAP-21 provided renewed direction for QT
incentives in July 2012 and directed the agencies to provide such
incentives not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of MAP-
21. While the agencies could not meet the 60-day time frame, it was
clear that the Congress gave meaning to 2012 with respect to QT
incentives. An additional consideration by the agencies was the
availability and currency of air tour fleet and operational data in
2012, as opposed to looking back to previous years. The alternative of
selecting either the year 2000 or 2005, as the air tour interests
suggested, was considered by the agencies, but was not adopted because
of concerns about re-creating earlier data for modeling input to obtain
a noise baseline and whether the selection of a past year would
adequately ensure no increase in noise and no diminishment of the
achievement of substantial restoration of natural quiet. This latter
consideration was involved in deciding not to model the noise baseline
with an all non-QT fleet, which would not reflect the noise environment
in the Dragon and Zuni Point corridors in 2012. The agencies are also
cognizant that an incentive must be based on a stable baseline that can
be relied on by air tour operators as they make QT conversion
decisions; therefore, the 2012 noise baseline will continue to be used
for this seasonal relief incentive in future years. With respect to
using a baseline of substantial restoration of natural quiet, this is a
separate applicable standard in NPATMA; not a substitute for the no
cumulative noise increase requirement. Both requirements must be met.
To ensure that this incentive will not diminish the achievement of
substantial restoration of natural quiet by exposing new areas of the
park to air tour noise, all commercial air tour aircraft, including QT,
must adhere to the existing route structure in the park.
    Comment: The air tour interests suggested that any noise increase
should be substantial or perceptible in order to justify discontinuing
the incentive. Commenters representing recreational and environmental
interests called for transparency and accountability, continued
modeling and/or monitoring to ensure noise does not increase, and
suggested that noise data should be made public.
    FAA and NPS Response: The FAA and the NPS are responsible and
accountable for ensuring that this QT incentive does not increase noise
at the park or diminish the achievement of substantial restoration of
natural quiet. The LEQ12 58.1 dB baseline is a fixed
baseline against which noise increases will be judged. Noise above the
baseline level will be considered to be an increase, regardless of
whether it is considered to be either ``substantial'' or
``perceptible''. The agencies will monitor the air tour operators' use
of QT for air tours as required to be reported in the operators'
quarterly reports submitted to the FAA, and will annually model noise
as described in this notice. Annual noise results will be publicly
available. In addition, the NPS will use periodic on site monitoring
consistent with industry standards. The NPS routinely uses monitoring
to supplement modeling results. Monitoring data would enable the NPS to
check the number of flights flown on each route segment, providing
cross-validation for the numbers reported by air tour operators.
Monitoring data also would provide the single event level (SEL) and
maximum sound level (Lmax) for each flight, enabling the NPS to confirm
the benefits of QT aircraft.
    Comment: Some commenters noted that ambient noise levels at the
Grand Canyon are very low and even QT aircraft can be heard. Commenters
representing recreational and environmental interests expressed concern
that overall noise will increase even if QT operations result in a
reduction in noise per flight and that park visitors will be in worse
position if the result is more constant noise from more frequent
flights.
    FAA and NPS Response: The overall noise cannot increase under the
statutory mandate that provides for the QT incentive to be allowed
subject to the cumulative impact not increasing noise at the park. The
LEQ12 metric used to evaluate cumulative impact takes into
account aircraft noise levels, the number of aircraft operations, and
the duration of noise. In addition, the incentive cannot, by statute,
diminish the achievement of substantial restoration of natural quiet at
the park.
    Comment: Commenters representing recreational and environmental
interests expressed concern that noise would increase in backcountry or
elsewhere in the Grand Canyon; that noise would increase in off-season
when backpacking and hiking is most comfortable and visitors enjoy a
respite from noise; or that the incentive would result in increased
flights of loud aircraft in summer.
    FAA and NPS Response: There are statutory protections to preclude
an overall, i.e., cumulative, increase in noise and to prevent
diminishing the achievement of substantial restoration of

natural quiet, as described in this notice and in the response to the
previous comment. QT aircraft must adhere to the current route
structure defined for air tour operations; no new areas of the Grand
Canyon will be opened to air tours under this incentive. The agencies
do not anticipate a significant increase in the number of air tours
operated in the winter months when tour demand is low. The incentive
should increase the proportion of QT aircraft used for air tours in the
Dragon and Zuni Point corridors and decrease the number of louder non-
QT aircraft. Air tour operators that convert or have converted to QT
for the seasonal relief are anticipated to continue to operate those
quieter fleets during the summer season. Seasonal relief allows air
tour operators to save allocations that would have been used in the
first quarter of the year and to use them during times of year when air
tour demand is higher; therefore, there may be increases in the number
of air tour flights at other times of year above the number that has
been allowed under the allocation system. If an increase in the number
of flights rises to the level that results in a cumulative increase in
noise, the seasonal relief incentive will be modified to reduce noise
or will be discontinued.
    Comment: Commenters suggest agencies mandate one ``quiet day'' per
month.
    FAA and NPS Response: This suggestion would presumably involve a
prohibition on air tours for one day each month, which is outside the
scope of approved measures currently in place at the park and is not a
QT incentive.
    Comment: One commenter called for assurance that incentives will
not degrade substantial restoration of natural quiet.
    FAA and NPS Response: The agencies will ensure that this incentive
does not diminish substantial restoration of natural quiet as required
by NPATMA.

Impact on air tour operations

    Comment: Commenters representing recreational and environmental
interests suggest this is an attempt to increase number of operations
by labeling them as quieter. The air tour interests express concern
that operators who have already converted to QT may not see a permanent
increase in their allocations. Commenters representing recreational and
environmental interests noted that they expected to see flights shift
from peak to off-peak as part of a QT incentive. One commenter
expressed the view that the seasonal relief incentive will result in
vigorous marketing of air tours in January through March.
    FAA and NPS Response: Currently, air tour operators can use
allocations at any time throughout the year based on the demand for air
tours and individual business decisions. This incentive does not change
that situation. The demand for air tours is expected to remain highest
in the peak season.
    Comment: Commenters representing recreational and environmental
interests advocated a cap on operations.
    FAA and NPS Response: Rather than imposing a numerical cap, the
statutory noise conditions effectively provide a limit.
    Comment: Commenters asserted that more frequent flights will
produce more air emissions.
    FAA and NPS Response: FAA and NPS air quality specialists do not
expect air tours to significantly affect air quality in national parks.

V. Implementation Steps

    The FAA and the NPS will use the quarterly reports that are
currently required to be submitted by the operators to determine the
number of QT flights flown during the first quarter that will not count
against their annual allocations. The FAA will implement the incentive
by amending the operations specifications of commercial air tour
operators holding allocations in the Dragon and Zuni Point corridors to
allow them to conduct air tours with QT aircraft without using an
allocation for such tours in the specified seasonal time periods. The
FAA and the NPS will cooperatively ensure that the statutory conditions
protecting the park are met.

VI. Environmental Considerations

    This action involving the FAA's amendment of operations
specifications is categorically excluded from more detailed
environmental review because it would not have a significant effect on
the environment. The FAA and the NPS have designed this incentive to
ensure compliance with the statutory conditions that the cumulative
impact of QT operating without allocations does not increase noise and
that the incentive does not diminish the statutory mandate to achieve
the substantial restoration of natural quiet at the park.

    Issued in Hawthorne, CA, on March 19, 2015.
Glen A. Martin,
Regional Administrator, Western-Pacific Region, Federal Aviation
Administration.
    Issued in Lakewood, CO, on March 23, 2015.
Sue E. Masica,
Regional Director, Intermountain Region, National Park Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-09380 Filed 4-21-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


"Smith, Russell"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>12/04/2007 11:31 AM	To
	Aaron Levy/DC/USEPA/US@EPA
	cc
	"Lee, Amanda I."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>	bcc

	Subject
	RE: CUE Methyl Bromide Final Rulemaking:  Final Informal Draft

USTR has no substantive comments although I did notice a couple of
typos:

Page 27, first line: "receive" should be "received"
Page 32, section 2:  The first sentence doesn't make sense.  Perhaps you
should drop the words "be expressed as follows" from the second line.

-----Original Message-----
From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 10:56 AM
To: Lee, Amanda I<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Belefski, Mary L.; Smith, Russell; Vetter, Darci<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: CUE Methyl Bromide Final Rulemaking: Final Informal Draft

Hello all,

Please find attached what I hope is the final informal draft for the
2008 CUE rulemaking.  In this draft, I've marked significant changes
that respond to issues raised during interagency review.  Minor
editorial changes that reviewers suggested have been made, but are not
explicitly marked in this draft.  As discussed on last week's calls, EPA
is currently estimating 2008 iodomethane uptake, and double-checking its
estimate of the feasibility of sulfuryl fluoride for 2008 cocoa bean
fumigations.  These issues may create small changes to the CUE amounts
in the attached draft.

Given the tight time frame for publishing this rule before the end of
the year, please provide comments on this draft within 24-hours, and
expect to hear from Amanda  in the very near future about any final
calls that may be needed before this package is formally transmitted
through EPA to OMB.

Once again, thank you all for your continued hard work and cooperation!

Regards,

Aaron Levy
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Stratospheric Protection Division
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW (6205J)
Washington, DC 20460
Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(See attached file: 2008 CUE FR Interagency - FINAL.doc)


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21284-21285]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09861]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC18-90-000.
    Applicants: Washington County Power, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization of Transaction Under
Section 203 of the Federal Power Act, and Requests for Expedited
Action, et. al. of Washington County Power, LLC.
    Applicants: 5/1/18.
    Accession Number: 20180501-5417.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/18.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3194-006; ER10-3195-006.
    Applicants: MATEP LLC, MATEP Limited Partnership.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of MATEP LLC,
et al.
    Applicants: 4/30/18.
    Accession Number: 20180430-5522.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1346-004.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2018-05-02_SA 2911 LEPA-MISO
External NRIS (J373) Compliance (4th Sub) to be effective 4/6/2016.
    Applicants: 5/2/18.
    Accession Number: 20180502-5154.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1817-005.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2018-05-02_Additional Compliance
filing of E-NRIS pro forma (5th) to be effective 4/5/2016.
    Applicants: 5/2/18.
    Accession Number: 20180502-5153.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-256-004; ER17-242-004; ER17-243-004; ER17-245-
004; ER17-652-004
    Applicants: Darby Power, LLC, Gavin Power, LLC, Lawrenceburg Power,
LLC, Lightstone Marketing LLC, Waterford Power, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Darby Power, LLC, et.
al.
    Applicants: 4/30/18.
    Accession Number: 20180430-5521.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1217-001.
    Applicants: Southwestern Electric Power Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amended and Restated NTEC PSA to be
effective 5/31/2018.
    Applicants: 5/3/18.
    Accession Number: 20180503-5012.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/24/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1511-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Second Revised ISA, SA No.
3483; Queue No. AA2-069 to be effective 4/2/2018.
    Applicants: 5/2/18.
    Accession Number: 20180502-5150.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1512-000.
    Applicants: Virginia Electric and Power Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Filing of Virginia
Electric and Power Company to be effective N/A.
    Applicants: 5/3/18.
    Accession Number: 20180503-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/24/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1513-000
    Applicants: Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy
Mississippi, Inc., Entergy New Orleans, LLC, Entergy Texas, Inc.
    Description: Post-Retirement Benefits Other than Pensions for 2017
Test Year of Entergy Arkansas, Inc., et al.
    Applicants: 5/1/18.
    Accession Number: 20180501-5416.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/18.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES18-36-000; ES18-37-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Arkansas, LLC, Entergy Mississippi, LLC.
    Description: Joint Application for Section 204 Authorizations of
Entergy Arkansas, LLC, et al.
    Applicants: 4/30/18.
    Accession Number: 20180430-5519.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 3, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-09861 Filed 5-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR

INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST NUMBER 1189.18

“F019 LISTING AMENDMENT - PROPOSED RULE”

DRAFT

December 2006

Table of Contents

 TOC \f

1.	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION	1

1(a)	Title and Number of the Information Collection	1

1(b)	Short Characterization	1

2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION	2

2(a)	Need and Authority for the Collection	2

2(b)	Practical Utility and Users of the Data	2

3.	NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 2

3(a)	Nonduplication	2

3(b)	Public Notice	3

3(c)	Consultations	3

3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection	3

3(e)	General Guidelines	3

3(f)	Confidentiality	4

3(g)	Sensitive Questions	4

4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED	4

4(a)	Respondents and SIC/NAICS Codes	4

4(b)	Information Requested	4

5.	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED(AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY,
AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT	5

5(a)	Agency Activities	5

5(b)	Small Entity Flexibility	5

6.	ESTIMATING THE HOUR AND COST BURDEN OF THE COLLECTION	5

6(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden	5

6(b)	Estimating Respondent Costs	5

6(c)	Estimating Agency Burden and Costs	6

6(d)	Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs	6

6(e)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs	9

6(f)	Reasons for Change in Burden	9

6(g)	Burden Statement	9

	EXHIBITS

Estimated Annual Respondent (Facility) Burden and Cost (Exhibit
1).........................................11

Estimated Annual Respondent (Facility) Burden for Existing ICRs

(Including Net Impact from F019 Listing amendment
ICR).........................................................12

1.	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION tc \l1 "1.
IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1(a)	Title and Number of the Information Collection tc \l2 "1(a)	Title
and Number of the Information Collection

This Information Collection Request (ICR) is entitled “F019 Listing
Amendment - Proposed Rule,” EPA ICR Number 1189.18.

1(b)	Short Characterization tc \l2 "1(b)	Short Characterization

Under Section 3001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
as amended, EPA is authorized to develop and promulgate regulations
identifying the characteristics of hazardous waste and listing
particular hazardous wastes which should be subject to EPA’s hazardous
waste regulatory system.  Under this authority, EPA promulgated
regulations at 40 CFR Part 261 that identify hazardous characteristics
(Subpart C) and list hazardous wastes (Subpart D).

EPA is proposing to amend the list of hazardous wastes from non-specific
sources under 40 CFR 261.31 by modifying the scope of EPA Hazardous
Waste No. F019, which currently reads: “Wastewater treatment sludges
from the chemical conversion coating of aluminum except from zirconium
phosphating in aluminum can washing when such phosphating is an
exclusive conversion coating process.”  EPA is proposing to amend the
F019 listing to exclude wastewater treatment sludges generated from zinc
phosphating, when zinc phosphating is used in the motor vehicle
manufacturing process, provided that the wastes are disposed in a
landfill unit that meets certain liner design criteria. Under the
proposed rule, the generators of such wastes may exclude these wastes
from the F019 listing provided they meet the conditions for the
exclusion.  In addition, EPA is proposing to require the generators to
keep records showing that their wastes were disposed in a landfill that
meets the specified design requirements.

The motor vehicle manufacturing industry incorporates aluminum into
vehicle parts and bodies for the purpose of making them lighter-weight
and thus more capable of increasing gas mileage.  However, when aluminum
is incorporated into the body of an automobile, the conversion coating
step in the manufacturing process results in the generation of a
RCRA-listed hazardous waste F019 in the form of a wastewater treatment
sludge from the conversion process, while the wastewaters from the
conversion coating of steel in the same industry, does not generate a
listed hazardous waste.  By removing the regulatory controls under RCRA,
EPA is facilitating the use of aluminum in motor vehicles.  EPA believes
that the incorporation of aluminum will be advantageous to the
environment since lighter-weight vehicles are capable of achieving
increased fuel economy and associated decreased exhaust air emissions.

In Sections 1 through 5 of this ICR, EPA presents a comprehensive
description of the information collection requirements in the proposed
rule.  In Section 6, EPA estimates the total annual incremental hour and
cost burden to respondents and the Agency under these requirements.

In the following paragraph, EPA briefly describes the information
collection requirement covered in this ICR.

Records of Shipments for Generators

Under proposed 40 CFR 261.31(b)(4)(iii), the generator of wastewater
treatment sludges from the manufacturing of motor vehicles using a zinc
phosphating process must maintain on site for a minimum of three years
documentation and information sufficient to prove that the wastewater
treatment sludges to be exempted from the F019 listing meet the
condition of the listing (i.e., ensure that shipments of such waste are
placed in landfill units that are subject to certain liner design
criteria).

2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION tc \l1 "2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE
COLLECTION

	2(a)	Need and Authority for the Collection tc \l2 "	2(a)	Need and
Authority for the Collection

EPA is requiring the information collection pursuant to RCRA Section
2002, which authorizes the EPA to prescribe regulations, including
information collection requirements, as are necessary to carry out the
requirements under the RCRA statute. The proposed rule requires
generators to maintain on site for a minimum of three years
documentation demonstrating that each shipment of waste was received by
a landfill unit that is subject to or meets the landfill design criteria
set out in the listing description.  This recordkeeping requirement is
needed in order for the generator to demonstrate to the regulatory
agencies that each shipment of its waste was sent to an appropriate
landfill.

2(b)	Practical Utility and Users of the Data tc \l2 "2(b)	Practical
Utility and Users of the Data

The recordkeeping requirement will enable regulatory agencies to track
shipments of excluded wastes for compliance and enforcement purposes.
It is consistent with normal business recordkeeping practices, and is
not expected to impose any additional paperwork burden on generators.

3.	NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA tc \l1
"3.	NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

3(a)	Nonduplication tc \l2 "3(a)	Nonduplication

None of the information required by the proposed rule would duplicate
information required by existing RCRA regulations.

3(b)	Public Notice tc \l2 "3(b)	Public Notice

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, EPA has issued a
public notice  in the Federal Register ([Insert Notice Date and
Citation]).  The public comment period extends through [Insert Date].
To assist the public in commenting on the proposal, EPA raised a few
issues in the preamble to the proposed rule and asked for the public to
comment on them.  At the end of the comment period, EPA will review
public comments received in response to the notice and will address
comments received, as appropriate.

3(c)	Consultations tc \l2 "3(c)	Consultations

On April 22, 2004, EPA through a posting on EPA’s website, indicated
that the Agency was in the process of considering a possible amendment
to the F019 hazardous waste listing under RCRA.  This possible amendment
would exclude waste water treatment sludges from the zinc phosphating
processes at automotive assembly plants in the motor vehicle
manufacturing industry when concentrations of constituents of concern in
those wastes fell below risk-based exemption levels.  On the F019
webpage, EPA provided waste sampling data and the methodology that the
Agency would use in considering the revision of the F019 listing using a
concentration-based approach.   Interested parties were invited to
review and comment on the information collected to support the possible
amendment that EPA was considering.  The comment period for the web
posting closed on June 1, 2005.  Twelve comments were received.   All
commenters supported a revision to the F019 listing, although some
expressed concerns regarding testing conditions for potential chemicals
of concern in the waste and how the concentration-based exemption would
be structured.

3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection tc \l2 "3(d)	Effects of Less
Frequent Collection

EPA has carefully considered the burden imposed upon the regulated
community by the proposed rule.  EPA is confident that those activities
required of respondents are necessary, and to the extent possible, the
Agency has attempted to minimize the burden imposed.  EPA believes
strongly that, if the minimum information collection requirements of the
proposed rule are not met, neither the industry nor EPA will be able to
ensure compliance with the requirements for demonstrating that the
wastes are nonhazardous.

3(e)	General Guidelines tc \l2 "3(e)	General Guidelines

This ICR adheres to the guidelines stated in the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, OMB’s implementing regulations, EPA’s ICR Handbook, and
other applicable OMB guidance.

3(f)	Confidentiality tc \l2 "3(f)	Confidentiality

Section 3007(b) of RCRA and 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B, which defines
EPA’s general policy on public disclosure of information, contain
provisions for confidentiality.  However, the Agency does not anticipate
that businesses will assert a claim of confidentiality covering all or
part of the proposed rule.  If such a claim were asserted, EPA must and
will treat the information in accordance with the regulations cited
above.  EPA also will assure that this information collection complies
with the Privacy Act of 1974 and OMB Circular 108.

3(g)	Sensitive Questions tc \l2 "3(g)	Sensitive Questions

No questions of a sensitive nature are included in the information
collection requirements associated with the proposed rule.

4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED tc \l1 "4.	THE
RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

4(a)	Respondents and SIC/NAICS Codes tc \l2 "4(a)	Respondents and
SIC/NAICS Codes

The following is a list of North American Industrial Classification
System (NAICS) codes associated with the facilities most likely to be
affected by the information collection requirements covered in this ICR.

NAICS Code			Industrial Sector

336111			Automobile Manufacturing

336112			Light Trucks & Utility Vehicle Manufacturing

4(b)	Information Requested

Under proposed 40 CFR 261.31(b)(4)(iii), generators must maintain on
site for a minimum of three years documentation and information
sufficient to prove that the wastewater treatment sludges to be
exem瑰摥映潲桴う㤱氠獩楴杮洠敥⁴桴潣摮瑩潩
景琠敨氠獩楴杮吠敨猠楨灰湩敲潣摲⁳潷汵瑡
愠洠湩浩浵挠湯慴湩琠敨映汯潬楷杮椠普牯慭楴湯ഺ

●          Name and address of the generating facility;

●          Brief description of the industrial process that generated
the wastes;

●         Quantity of wastes that were shipped to a landfill

●         Name of transporter and date the wastes were shipped;

●        Name of landfill receiving the wastes, quantity of wastes
received; by the               landfill, and date the wastes were
received by the landfill.

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

5(a)	Agency Activities

The Agency is not requiring waste generators to submit any information
for its review and approval under the proposed rule.  As specified
earlier, the Agency is instead proposing that the waste generators
maintain on site for a minimum of three years documentation and
information sufficient to prove that the wastewater treatment sludges to
be exempted from the F019 listing meet the condition of the listing.
Therefore, the Agency activities associated with the proposed rule
relate to ensuring compliance with the recordkeeping requirements.

5(b)	Small Entity Flexibility

The conditional exclusion is intended to be de-regulatory, and would
relieve both small and large waste generators from the RCRA hazardous
waste program requirements, as specified. In addition, EPA has kept the
paperwork requirements under the conditional exclusion as streamlined
and as consistent with standard industry practices as possible, to
thereby minimize the burden on both large and small entities.

 tc \l1 "5.	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED -- AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT5(a)	Agency ActivitiesThe Agency
is not requiring waste generators to submit any information for its
review and approval under the proposed rule.  As specified earlier, the
Agency is instead proposing that the waste generators maintain on site
for a minimum of three years documentation and information sufficient to
prove that the wastewater treatment sludges to be exempted from the F019
listing meet the condition of the listing.  Therefore, the Agency
activities associated with the proposed rule relate to ensuring
compliance with the recordkeeping requirements.	5(b)	Small Entity
FlexibilityThe conditional exclusion is intended to be de-regulatory,
and would relieve both small and large waste generators from the RCRA
hazardous waste program requirements, as specified.  In addition, EPA
has kept the paperwork requirements under the conditional exclusion as
streamlined and as consistent with standard industry practices as
possible, to thereby minimize the burden on both large and small
entities.

6.	ESTIMATING THE HOUR AND COST BURDEN OF THE COLLECTION tc \l1 "6.
ESTIMATING THE HOUR AND COST BURDEN OF THE COLLECTION

6(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden

In Exhibit 1, EPA estimates the respondent burden associated with the
new paperwork requirements in the proposed rule.  As shown in the
exhibit, EPA estimates that the total annual respondent burden for the
new paperwork requirements in the rule is approximately 35 hours per
year.

6(b)	Estimating Respondent Costs

EPA estimates that the total annual respondent cost for the new
paperwork requirements in the rule is approximately $2,600.  This cost
includes annual labor, capital, and operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs to be incurred by respondents affected by the information
collection requirements covered in this ICR.  Specific data and/or
assumptions used in developing these costs are described below.

Labor Costs

For purposes of this analysis, EPA estimates an average hourly
respondent labor cost of $114 for legal staff, $89 for managerial staff,
$59 for technical staff, and $31 for clerical staff.  These estimates
include overhead and fringe costs and are based on the 2004 labor wage
rate data used in the “Supporting Statement for Information Collection
Request Nr. 801.15: Requirements for Generators, Transporters, & Waste
Management Facilities Under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System.”

Annual Capital and Operation & 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 the
proposed rule.

O&M costs are those costs associated with paperwork requirements
incurred continually over the life of the ICR.  They are defined by the
EPA as “the recurring dollar amount of costs associated with O&M or
purchasing services.” EPA does not anticipate that respondents will
incur O&M costs in carrying out the information collection requirements
of the proposed rule.

6(c)	Estimating Agency Burden and Costs

The annual burden and costs to the Agency for collecting information
under the rule would be negligible.  This is because the Agency is not
requiring waste generators to submit any information for its review and
approval under the proposed rule.

6(d)	Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

	In Exhibit 1, EPA provides estimates of the annual number of
respondents that will be required to comply with the new paperwork
requirements in the proposed rule.  In the same exhibit, EPA estimates
respondent burden and costs associated with these requirements.  Table 1
presents the number of respondents that are expected to participate
under the rule.  As of year-end 2005, EPA estimated that there are 68
facilities that are generating or have the potential to generate
wastewater treatment sludges using the zinc

phosphating process.  The universe of 68 facilities includes 15
facilities that are delisted for F019, 14 facilities that have not been
delisted for F019, and 39 facilities which could also choose to
conversion coat aluminum in the future.

Table 1

	Number of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Potentially

	Affected by the Proposed F019 Listing Amendment

Type of manufacturer

Number of Facilities

Number of Facilities

Potentially Affected (F019 Generators not  Delisted)*

Automobiles

	26

	6

Light Trucks & Utility Vehicles

	42

	8

Total Number of Facilities

	68

	14

       * The remaining facilities are either delisted or do not generate
a F019 hazardous waste.

	Respondent Burden and Cost

In the following paragraphs, EPA discusses the universe assumptions of
Table 1 in regard to the paperwork requirements in the proposed rule.

Reading the Regulations

As shown in Exhibit 1, EPA estimates that 68 F019 sludge generators and
potential generators will read the rule amending the F019 listing to
exclude wastewater treatment sludges from zinc phosphating each year.
EPA estimates the incremental labor hour burden for reading the
regulation to average 30 minutes per respondent.

Record of Shipments for Generators

Under 40 CFR 261.31(b)(4)(iii), generators must maintain on site for a
minimum of three years documentation and information sufficient to prove
that the wastewater treatment sludges to be exempted from the F019
listing meet the condition of the listing.  EPA expects that the
generators would incur negligible burden for this activity since they
would most likely keep such records as a standard business practice
(e.g., invoices or shipping papers).

	Total Respondent Burden and Cost

In Exhibit 2, EPA presents a summary of the total annual respondent
burden and costs associated with both new and existing paperwork
requirements.  The specific information collection activities of the new
paperwork requirements are described throughout this ICR, and the total
annual burden and cost estimates associated with them are calculated in
Exhibit 1, summarized in Exhibit 2, and briefly described below.  The
existing paperwork requirements are those that are contained in the
current RCRA regulations and that apply to generators of F019 sludge
using the zinc phosphating process.  These existing requirements, the
existing ICRs with which they are associated, and the total annual
burden and cost associated with them also are summarized in Exhibit 2
and briefly described below.

New Paperwork Requirements

Using the per respondent burden estimated in Section 6(a), the per
respondent costs estimated in Section 6(b), and the respondent universe
estimated in this section, Exhibit 1 illustrates the total respondent
burden and costs associated with all of the new information collection
activities in the proposed rule.  As noted above, this exhibit presents
the annual burden and costs over the three-year effective life of the
ICR.  The exhibit calculates the burden and cost of one-time activities
by dividing the total number of respondents by three.  In Exhibit 2, EPA
summarizes the total annual respondent burden and cost of these new
paperwork requirements derived in Exhibit 1.

Existing Paperwork Requirements

In addition to the new paperwork requirements in the proposed rule, EPA
also estimated the burden and cost savings that generators and
manufacturers would expect for no longer following the existing RCRA
information collection requirements for the excluded materials.  In
Exhibit 2, EPA presents the total annual respondent burden and cost
savings under the existing paperwork requirements, broken out by the two
existing EPA ICRs that are affected by the rule.  In developing Exhibit
2, EPA reviewed each of the affected ICRs to identify the existing
information collection activities that are currently undertaken by
generators and manufacturers, calculated the associated burden and costs
(or savings), and presented the totals in the exhibit.

The total costs in Exhibit 2 are broken down into labor and operation
and maintenance (O&M) costs.  In Section 6(b), EPA presents a discussion
of the capital and O&M costs associated with new paperwork requirements
from the rule.  In the following paragraph, EPA presents a brief
discussion of the O&M costs associated with each of the existing ICRs
that are affected by the rule.

For the Biennial Report ICR (ICR No. 976), O&M costs are associated with
maintaining copies of Waste Generation and Management (GM) and Waste
Received from Off-Site (WR) forms.  For the Manifest ICR (ICR No. 801),
the O&M costs are associated with postage for sending and returning
copies of the manifest form.

6(e)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs

Respondent Tally

In Exhibit 2, EPA presents the total annual respondent burden and cost
for both new and existing paperwork requirements associated with the
rule.  As described specifically in Section 6(d) above, these new and
existing paperwork requirements apply to generators of F019 sludge using
the zinc phosphating process.  As shown in Exhibit 2, the total annual
respondent burden for these new paperwork requirements is approximately
35 hours, at an annual cost of approximately $2,600.  As also shown in
Exhibit 2, the total annual respondent burden savings under the existing
paperwork requirements, which are associated with two existing EPA ICRs,
is approximately 960 hours, at annual cost savings of approximately
$69,900.  In the same Exhibit 2, EPA then combines the burden and cost
impacts under both new and existing paperwork requirements and estimates
the total annual respondent burden savings for all information
collection activities at approximately 920 hours and an annual cost
savings of approximately $67,300.

The bottom line respondent burden hours saved over the three-year period
covered by this ICR is approximately 2,760 hours, at a total cost
savings of $201,900.

6(f)	Reasons for Change in Burden

In finalizing the conditional exclusion for the F019 listing at 40 CFR
261.31, EPA will relieve generators of F019 sludge using the zinc
phosphating process from existing RCRA Subtitle C regulations for that
waste.  These generators will only need to comply with the landfill
disposal conditions contained in the F019 listing description in order
to manage these wastes.

6(g)	Burden Statement

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection of information is estimated to average 0.6 hours per
response.  However, in addition to the new paperwork requirements in the
rule, the Agency also estimated the annual respondent burden savings
that generators could expect as a result of no longer having to follow
information collection requirements under two existing EPA ICRs
(Biennial Report ICR and Manifest ICR).  Taking both the new proposed
and existing RCRA information collection requirements into account, EPA
expects the rule would result in a net reduction in annual reporting and
recordkeeping burden of 68 hours 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 existing systems to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.  An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-RCRA-2004-0019, which is available for online viewing at
www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the OSWER Docket in the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue,
NW, Washington, D.C.  The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>,
and the telephone number for the OSWER Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An
electronic version of the public docket is available at
www.regulations.gov.  This site can be used to submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket,
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically.  When in the system, select “search,” then key in
the Docket ID Number identified above.  Also, you can send comments to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC  20503, Attention: Desk
Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-RCRA-2004-0019 and OMB Control Number 2050-0053 in any
correspondence.

	Exhibit 1 - Estimated Annual Respondent (Facility) Burden and Cost

                                                           Hours and
Costs per Respondent (per Facility)
                                             Total Hours and Costs

INFORMATION ACTIVITY

Leg.

$114/Hr

Mgr.

$89/Hr

Tech.

$59/Hr

Cler.

$31/Hr

Respon. Hours/Yr

Labor Cost/Yr

Capital/

Startup Cost

O & M

Cost

Number of Respondents

(Facilities)

Total Hours/Yr

Total Cost/Yr

Understanding the F019 Listing Amendment

Read the rule

0.10

0.10

0.30

0.00

0.50

$38.00

$0.00

$0.00

68

34

$2,584.00

Facilities Claiming Conditional Exclusion from the F019 Listing

Keep Records of

Shipments

0

0

0

0.1

0.1

$3.10

$0.00

$0.00

14

1.4

$43.40

Total

0.10

0.10

0.30

0.1

0.60

$41.10

$0.00

$0.00

Varies

35.4

$2,627.40

Agency Data Sources:

Wage Rate Data:		“Economics Background Document - Estimate of
Potential Economic Impacts for USEPA’s Proposed Amendment to the RCRA
Hazardous Wastecode F019 to Exclude Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Industries.”

“Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request Nr. 801.15:
Requirements for Generators, Transporters, & Waste Management Facilities
Under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System.”

Labor Hours:		“Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection
Request 1189.17: Revision of RCRA Wastewater Treatment Exclusions for
Hazardous Waste Mixtures.”

“Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request Number
1189.11: Zinc Fertilizers Made from Recycled Hazardous Secondary
Materials.”

	Exhibit 2 - Estimated Annual Respondent (Facility) Burden for Existing
ICRS (Including Net Impact from F019 Listing Amendment ICR)

ICR Name

ICR Number

Respondents

(Facilities)

Total Labor Hours

Total Labor Cost

Total O&M Cost

Total Annual Cost

Biennial Report ICR

976

14

# Facilities x Hours/Yr per Facility

14 x (0.3) = -4.2

-$307.00

# Facilities x O&M Cost/Yr per Facility

14 x ($0.02) = -$0.28

     -$307.28

Manifest ICR

801

14

# Facilities x Hours/Yr per Facility

14 x (68) = -952

-$69,615.00

# Facilities x O&M Cost/Yr per Facility

14 x ($0.06) = -$0.84

-$69,615.84

	Subtotal Other ICRs

-956.2

-$69,922.00

-$1.12

-$69,923.12

F019 Listing Amendment ICR

1189.18

Varies

 35.4

   $2,627.40

 $0.00

   $2,627.40

	                                 Net Impact (F019 ICR + Other ICRs) =

-920.8

-$67,294.60

-$1.12

-$67,295.72

 tc \l2 "6(a)	Estimating Respondent BurdenIn Exhibit 1, EPA estimates
the respondent burden associated with the new paperwork requirements in
the proposed rule.  As shown in the exhibit, EPA estimates that the
total annual respondent burden for the new paperwork requirements in the
rule is approximately 35 hours per year.6(b)	Estimating Respondent
CostsEPA estimates that the total annual respondent cost for the new
paperwork requirements in the rule is approximately $2,600.  This cost
includes annual labor, capital, and operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs to be incurred by respondents affected by the information
collection requirements covered in this ICR.  Specific data and/or
assumptions used in developing these costs are described below.Labor
Costs For purposes of this analysis, EPA estimates an average hourly
respondent labor cost of $114 for legal staff, $89 for managerial staff,
$59 for technical staff, and $31 for clerical staff.  These estimates
include overhead and fringe costs and are based on the 2004 labor wage
rate data used in the Supporting Statement for Information Collection
Request Nr. 801.15: Requirements for Generators, Transporters, & Waste
Management Facilities Under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest
System.Annual Capital and Operation & Maintenance CostsCapital 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 the proposed
rule.O&M costs are those costs associated with paperwork requirements
incurred continually over the life of the ICR.  They are defined by the
EPA as the recurring dollar amount of costs associated with O&M or
purchasing services. EPA does not anticipate that respondents will incur
O&M costs in carrying out the information collection requirements of the
proposed rule.6(c)	Estimating Agency Burden and CostsThe annual burden
and costs to the Agency for collecting information under the rule would
be negligible.  This is because the Agency is not requiring waste
generators to submit any information for its review and approval under
the proposed rule.6(d)	Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total
Burden and CostRespondent UniverseIn Exhibit 1, EPA provides estimates
of the annual number of respondents that will be required to comply with
the new paperwork requirements in the proposed rule.  In the same
exhibit, EPA estimates respondent burden and costs associated with these
requirements.  Table 1 presents the number of respondents that are
expected to participate under the rule.  As of year-end 2005, EPA
estimated that there are 68 facilities that are generating or have the
potential to generate wastewater treatment sludges using the zinc
phosphating process.  The universe of 68 facilities includes 15
facilities that are delisted for F019, 14 facilities that have not been
delisted for F019, and 39 facilities which could also choose to
conversion coat aluminum in the future.Table 1	Number of Motor Vehicle
Manufacturers Potentially 	Affected by the Proposed F019 Listing
AmendmentType of manufacturerNumber of FacilitiesNumber of
FacilitiesPotentially Affected (F019 Generators not
Delisted)*Automobiles 	26	6Light Trucks & Utility Vehicles	42	8Total
Number of Facilities	68	14       * The remaining facilities are either
delisted or do not generate a F019 hazardous waste.	Respondent Burden
and CostIn the following paragraphs, EPA discusses the universe
assumptions of Table 1 in regard to the paperwork requirements in the
proposed rule.  Reading the RegulationsAs shown in Exhibit 1, EPA
estimates that 68 F019 sludge generators and potential generators will
read the rule amending the F019 listing to exclude wastewater treatment
sludges from zinc phosphating each year.  EPA estimates the incremental
labor hour burden for reading the regulation to average 30 minutes per
respondent. Record of Shipments for Generators	Under 40 CFR
261.31(b)(4)(iii), generators must maintain on site for a minimum of
three years documentation and information sufficient to prove that the
wastewater treatment sludges to be exempted from the F019 listing meet
the condition of the listing.  EPA expects that the generators would
incur negligible burden for this activity since they would most likely
keep such records as a standard business practice (e.g., invoices or
shipping papers).Total Respondent Burden and CostIn Exhibit 2, EPA
presents a summary of the total annual respondent burden and costs
associated with both new and existing paperwork requirements.  The
specific information collection activities of the new paperwork
requirements are described throughout this ICR, and the total annual
burden and cost estimates associated with them are calculated in Exhibit
1, summarized in Exhibit 2, and briefly described below.  The existing
paperwork requirements are those that are contained in the current RCRA
regulations and that apply to generators of F019 sludge using the zinc
phosphating process.  These existing requirements, the existing ICRs
with which they are associated, and the total annual burden and cost
associated with them also are summarized in Exhibit 2 and briefly
described below.New Paperwork RequirementsUsing the per respondent
burden estimated in Section 6(a), the per respondent costs estimated in
Section 6(b), and the respondent universe estimated in this section,
Exhibit 1 illustrates the total respondent burden and costs associated
with all of the new information collection activities in the proposed
rule.  As noted above, this exhibit presents the annual burden and costs
over the three-year effective life of the ICR.  The exhibit calculates
the burden and cost of one-time activities by dividing the total number
of respondents by three.  In Exhibit 2, EPA summarizes the total annual
respondent burden and cost of these new paperwork requirements derived
in Exhibit 1.Existing Paperwork RequirementsIn addition to the new
paperwork requirements in the proposed rule, EPA also estimated the
burden and cost savings that generators and manufacturers would expect
for no longer following the existing RCRA information collection
requirements for the excluded materials.  In Exhibit 2, EPA presents the
total annual respondent burden and cost savings under the existing
paperwork requirements, broken out by the two existing EPA ICRs that are
affected by the rule.  In developing Exhibit 2, EPA reviewed each of the
affected ICRs to identify the existing information collection activities
that are currently undertaken by generators and manufacturers,
calculated the associated burden and costs (or savings), and presented
the totals in the exhibit.The total costs in Exhibit 2 are broken down
into labor and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.  In Section 6(b),
EPA presents a discussion of the capital and O&M costs associated with
new paperwork requirements from the rule.  In the following paragraph,
EPA presents a brief discussion of the O&M costs associated with each of
the existing ICRs that are affected by the rule.  For the Biennial
Report ICR (ICR No. 976), O&M costs are associated with maintaining
copies of Waste Generation and Management (GM) and Waste Received from
Off-Site (WR) forms.  For the Manifest ICR (ICR No. 801), the O&M costs
are associated with postage for sending and returning copies of the
manifest form.6(e)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and CostsRespondent TallyIn
Exhibit 2, EPA presents the total annual respondent burden and cost for
both new and existing paperwork requirements associated with the rule.
As described specifically in Section 6(d) above, these new and existing
paperwork requirements apply to generators of F019 sludge using the zinc
phosphating process.  As shown in Exhibit 2, the total annual respondent
burden for these new paperwork requirements is approximately 35 hours,
at an annual cost of approximately $2,600.  As also shown in Exhibit 2,
the total annual respondent burden savings under the existing paperwork
requirements, which are associated with two existing EPA ICRs, is
approximately 960 hours, at annual cost savings of approximately
$69,900.  In the same Exhibit 2, EPA then combines the burden and cost
impacts under both new and existing paperwork requirements and estimates
the total annual respondent burden savings for all information
collection activities at approximately 920 hours and an annual cost
savings of approximately $67,300.The bottom line respondent burden hours
saved over the three-year period covered by this ICR is approximately
2,760 hours, at a total cost savings of $201,900.6(f)	Reasons for Change
In Burden In finalizing the conditional exclusion for the F019 listing
at 40 CFR 261.31, EPA will relieve generators of F019 sludge using the
zinc phosphating process from existing RCRA Subtitle C regulations for
that waste.  These generators will only need to comply with the landfill
disposal conditions contained in the F019 listing description in order
to manage these wastes.6(g)	Burden StatementThe annual public reporting
and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated
to average 0.6 hours per response.  However, in addition to the new
paperwork requirements in the rule, the Agency also estimated the annual
respondent burden savings that  generators could expect as a result of
no longer having to follow information collection requirements under two
existing EPA ICRs (Biennial Report ICR and Manifest ICR).  Taking both
the new proposed and existing RCRA information collection requirements
into account, EPA expects the rule would result in a net reduction in
annual reporting and recordkeeping burden of 68 hours 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 existing systems 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 Agencys
need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden
estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden,
including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has
established a public docket for this ICR under  Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-RCRA-2004-0019, which is available for online viewing at
www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the OSWER Docket in the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue,
NW, Washington, D.C.  The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>,
and the telephone number for the OSWER Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An
electronic version of the public docket is available at
www.regulations.gov.  This site can be used to submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket,
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically.  When in the system, select search, then key in the
Docket ID Number identified above.  Also, you can send comments to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC  20503, Attention: Desk
Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-RCRA-2004-0019 and OMB Control Number 2050-0053 in any
correspondence. 	Exhibit 1 - Estimated Annual Respondent (Facility)
Burden and Cost
 Hours and Costs per Respondent (per Facility)
                                                        Total Hours and
CostsINFORMATION
ACTIVITYLeg.$114/HrMgr.$89/HrTech.$59/HrCler.$31/HrRespon. Hours/YrLabor
Cost/YrCapital/Startup CostO & M CostNumber of
Respondents(Facilities)Total Hours/YrTotal Cost/YrUnderstanding the F019
Listing AmendmentRead the
rule<IP_ADDRESS>0.000.50$38.00$0.00$0.006834$2,584.00Facilities Claiming
Conditional Exclusion from the F019 Listing Keep Records of
Shipments0000.10.1$3.10$0.00$0.00141.4$43.40Total<IP_ADDRESS>0.10.60$41.
10$0.00$0.00Varies35.4$2,627.40Agency Data Sources:Wage Rate Data:
Economics Background Document - Estimate of Potential Economic Impacts
for USEPAs Proposed Amendment to the RCRA Hazardous Wastecode F019 to
Exclude Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industries.Supporting Statement for
Information Collection Request Nr. 801.15: Requirements for Generators,
Transporters, & Waste Management Facilities Under the RCRA Hazardous
Waste Manifest System.Labor Hours:		Supporting Statement for EPA
Information Collection Request 1189.17: Revision of RCRA Wastewater
Treatment Exclusions for Hazardous Waste Mixtures.Supporting Statement
for Information Collection Request Number 1189.11: Zinc Fertilizers Made
from Recycled Hazardous Secondary Materials.	Exhibit 2 - Estimated
Annual Respondent (Facility) Burden for Existing ICRS (Including Net
Impact from F019 Listing Amendment ICR)ICR NameICR
NumberRespondents(Facilities)Total Labor HoursTotal Labor CostTotal O&M
CostTotal Annual CostBiennial Report ICR97614# Facilities x Hours/Yr per
Facility14 x (0.3) = -4.2-$307.00# Facilities x O&M Cost/Yr per
Facility14 x ($0.02) = -$0.28     -$307.28Manifest ICR80114# Facilities
x Hours/Yr per Facility14 x (68) = -952-$69,615.00# Facilities x O&M
Cost/Yr per Facility14 x ($0.06) = -$0.84-$69,615.84	Subtotal Other ICRs
-956.2-$69,922.00-$1.12-$69,923.12F019 Listing Amendment
ICR1189.18Varies 35.4   $2,627.40 $0.00   $2,627.40
             Net Impact (F019 ICR + Other ICRs) =
                 -920.8-$67,294.60-$1.12-$67,295.72 Agency Data Sources:

Labor Hours & Cost:	“Economics Background Document - Estimate of
Potential Economic Impacts for USEPA’s Proposed Amendment to the RCRA
Hazardous Wastecode F019 to Exclude Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Industries.”

O&M Cost:		“Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection
Request 1189.17: Revision of RCRA Wastewater Treatment Exclusions for
Hazardous Waste Mixtures.”

>

?

…

†

ž

Ÿ

¾

¿

û

ü

!

"

‡

À

Á

Â

ý

-

)

<-

(

)

—

˜

Ø

萏̪葞̪

萑̪葠̪摧剨ó

$

䠁Ē

萑̪葠̪

萑̪葠̪

FfÈ

ü

ü

ü

ò

 s Proposed Amendment to the RCRA Hazardous Wastecode F019 to Exclude
Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industries.”

 PAGE

 PAGE  12


[Federal Register: April 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 65)]
[Notices]
[Page 15739]
[DOCID:fr07ap09-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0664]

Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on May 20, 2009, from 8
a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: Hilton Washington DC/Silver Spring, The Ballrooms, 8727
Colesville Rd., Silver Spring, MD. The hotel phone number is 301-589-
5200.
    Contact Person: Kristine T. Khuc, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research (HFD-21), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane (for
express delivery, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1093), Rockville, MD 20857,
301-827-7001, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER>
in the Washington, DC area), code<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please call the
Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting. A notice
in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a
previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be
published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the agency's Web site and call the appropriate
advisory committee hot line/phone line to learn about possible
modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: The committee will discuss the safety and efficacy of new
drug application (NDA) 22-336 REZONIC, (casopitant mesylate) tablets,
GlaxoSmithKline, in combination with other antiemetic agents for the
proposed indications of prevention of acute and delayed nausea and
vomiting associated with initial and repeat courses of highly
emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), prevention of nausea and vomiting
associated with initial and repeat courses of moderately emetogenic
chemotherapy (MEC), and prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting
(PONV).
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/acmenu.htm, click on
the year 2009 and scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before May
6, 2009. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between
approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those desiring to make formal oral
presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief
statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish
to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an
indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation
on or before April 28, 2009. Time allotted for each presentation may be
limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater
than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public
hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers
for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will
notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by April 29,
2009.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Kristine T. Khuc at
least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/oc/advisory/
default.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee
meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: March 30, 2009.
Randall W. Lutter,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-7863 Filed 4-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S