--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB CONTROL NO. 2050-0068
	"Underground Storage Tanks: Technical and Financial Requirements, and State Program Approval Procedures"

Note: This is a draft of the supporting statement and the complete version will be made available at the next public comment period.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SHORT CHARACTERIZATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Subchapter IX of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), as amended (more commonly known as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. § 6991 et seq., as amended, requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop standards for underground storage tank systems (USTs), as may be necessary, to protect human health and the environment, and procedures for approving state programs in lieu of the federal program. RCRA sections 9002, 9003, and 9004, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6991a, 6991b, 6991c), specify statutory requirements for new and existing tanks. RCRA Subtitle I directs EPA to develop performance standards covering:

 Program scope and interim prohibition.
 UST systems: design, construction, installation, and notification.
 General operating requirements.
 Release detection.
 Release reporting, investigation, and confirmation.
 Release response and corrective action for UST systems containing petroleum or hazardous substances.
 Out-of-service UST systems and closure.
 Financial responsibility.

EPA promulgated technical and financial responsibility requirements for owners and operators of USTs in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) Part 280 in 1988.

      In 2015, EPA revised (40 CFR) Part 280 to establish key requirements related to secondary containment and operator training that are similar to the Energy Policy Act of 2005, add operation and maintenance requirements, provide for other changes to improve release prevention and detection and program implementation, and make general updates to the regulations. In addition, the 2015 revisions removed deferrals from UST systems with field-constructed tanks (FCTs) and airport hydrant fuel distribution systems (AHFDSs) and require that they meet specified regulations at 40 CFR Part 280. The revisions also removed the release detection deferral from emergency generator tanks, or EGTs (i.e., fuel storage tanks used by emergency power generators).

      Under the authority of section 9004 of RCRA, EPA developed procedures for states to use when applying for approval to implement a state program in lieu of the federal program. The following subparts contain information collection requirements:

 Components of a program application (Subpart B);
 Adequate enforcement of compliance (Subpart D);
 Approval procedures (Subpart E); and
 Withdrawal of approval of state programs (Subpart F).

EPA promulgated state program approval procedures in 40 CFR Part 281 in 1988 and revised them in 2015 to reflect revisions made to 40 CFR Part 280 in 2015.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
information.

	The ICR covers all aspects of management of USTs, owner and operator duties, and states submitting their own programs for approval, to be administered in lieu of the federal UST program. This data collection is needed to help detect releases from leaking UST systems, spills and overfills. The UST reporting and recordkeeping requirements are intended to yield valuable information on UST systems and to ensure prompt action when releases are detected.

ADD Link to regs.  Note: This is a draft of the supporting statement and the complete version will be made available at the next public comment period.

(1)	Owner and Operator Respondents

      RCRA Subtitle I, as amended, contains UST statutory requirements. RCRA section 9002, 42 U.S.C. § 6991a directs EPA to promulgate notification requirements for new USTs. Submitted notifications help EPA track the number and location of USTs and their design specifications. EPA needs to collect this information to ensure that USTs meet requirements.

      RCRA section 9003, 42 U.S.C. § 6991b directs EPA to promulgate technical regulations for all USTs. The regulations include, but are not limited to, requirements for maintaining records of any monitoring or leak-detection system, and requirements for ensuring equipment is working properly, requirements for reporting releases and corrective actions taken in response to an UST release, and requirements for the closure of tanks. EPA requires this reporting and recordkeeping to facilitate prompt detection of releases and to prevent future releases of regulated substances into the environment.

      RCRA section 9003(d), 42 U.S.C. § 6991b(d), requires that EPA promulgate regulations for demonstrating financial responsibility for taking corrective action and compensating third parties for bodily injury and property damage caused by sudden and non-sudden accidental releases from USTs. To comply with the regulations, private owners and operators and local government owners and operators must demonstrate financial responsibility using one or a combination of the mechanisms specified at 40 CFR Part 280, Subpart H. The need for financial responsibility for corrective action and third-party liability is shown by numerous instances of environmental damage resulting from releases of regulated substances from tanks. EPA requires this reporting and recordkeeping to ensure the financial ability of owners and operators of USTs to remediate or pay for damages resulting from releases.

(2)	State Agency Respondents

      RCRA subtitle I allows state UST programs approved by EPA to operate in lieu of the federal program. RCRA section 9004, 42 U.S.C. § 6991c, specifies procedures for states to gain approval to implement their own UST programs in lieu of the federal program. To receive approval, a state must demonstrate that its program is no less stringent than the federal UST program and provides adequate enforcement of its regulations.

      EPA needs to collect this information to determine whether a state program can sufficiently protect human health and the environment. A state must prove that it can enforce its UST regulations relating to tank management and operations as well as releases. Once approved, EPA has the authority to request that states with approved state programs furnish to EPA, at any time, information in state files on the administration of the program, including data on enforcement and compliance under §281.40. EPA needs this information to determine whether a state program continues to meet state program approval requirements.

      Owners and operators in states that have an approved UST program do not have to deal with two sets of statutes and regulations (state and federal) that may be conflicting. Even for states without state program approval, EPA enters into grant/cooperative agreements with state programs, and the state program is designated as the primary implementing agency.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received from the current collection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1)	Owner and Operator Respondents

      Owners, operators, and implementing agencies will use the data collected about new and existing UST system operations and financial responsibility. Data maintained in records are used to monitor results of testing, inspections, and operations of UST systems, as well as to demonstrate compliance with regulations.

      Implementing agencies use the notifications and submitted information to monitor compliance with UST regulations. Implementing agencies also use the financial responsibility information in the event of a release to decide whether funds from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund will be used to pay for corrective action.

(2)	State Agency Respondents

      EPA uses state program applications to determine whether to approve a state program.  Before granting approval, EPA must determine that programs will be no less stringent than the federal program and contain adequate enforcement mechanisms. EPA uses each part of the program application to determine how the state program corresponds to the federal program, how the state will administer the program, and how to define and coordinate efforts between EPA and the state. Once approved, EPA may request that states submit files on the administration of the program, including data on enforcement and compliance under §281.40. EPA will use this information to determine whether a state program continues to meet state program approval requirements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	Tbd.  Note: This is a draft of the supporting statement and the complete version will be made available at the next public comment period.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Item 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
above.

      Most of the information required by the UST regulations is available only from the respondents. To avoid duplicating previous work, respondents may draw upon similar analyses in compiling data for UST monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and testing requirements, provided the information meets the requirements specified in the regulations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe any
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
methods used to minimize burden.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      In promulgating the UST regulations covered under this ICR, EPA attempted to minimize the reporting and recordkeeping burden for small businesses. For instance, EPA did not require any retrofits of equipment to lessen the burden on owners and operators, especially small businesses. In addition, EPA made as many requirements as possible recordkeeping rather than reporting requirements to minimize the burden on small businesses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
reducing burden.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      EPA has carefully considered the burden imposed upon the regulated community by the information collection requirements covered in this ICR. EPA is confident that those activities required of respondents are necessary; to the extent possible, the Agency has attempted to minimize the burden imposed. If the minimum information collection requirements specified under the revisions are not met, neither the facilities nor EPA can ensure that UST systems are being managed in a manner protective of human health and the environment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
conducted in a manner:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
requiring respondents to report information to the agency more often than quarterly;
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a collection of information in fewer than 30 days after receipt of it;
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any document;
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
requiring respondents to retain records, other than health, medical, government contract, grant-in-aid, or tax records, for more than three years;
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in connection with a statistical survey, that is not designed to produce valid and reliable results that can be generalized to the universe of study;
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
requiring the use of a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and approved by OMB;
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that includes a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by authority established in statute or regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and data security policies that are consistent with the pledge, or which unnecessarily impedes sharing of data with other agencies for compatible confidential use; or
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 requiring respondents to submit proprietary trade secrets, or other confidential information unless the agency can demonstrate that it has instituted procedures to protect the information's confidentiality to the extent permitted by law.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      This ICR adheres to 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2)), with some exceptions. UST owners or operators are required to provide a written response in fewer than 30 days when reporting suspected releases (§280.50) and reporting spills and overfills (§280.53). In several instances, Part 280 requires owners and operators of USTs to maintain records for more than 30 days. Section 4(b) describes the duration of these recordkeeping requirements. In addition, an owner or operator must notify the implementing agency within 10 days if the owner or operator fails to obtain alternative financial assurance within 150 days of discovering, or within 30 days of being notified by the implementing agency, that he or she no longer meets the financial test. UST owners and operators and providers of financial assurance must also adhere to notification requirements regarding bankruptcy or other incapacities within 10 days after commencement of bankruptcy proceedings (§280.114). These requirements enable EPA and the implementing agency to ensure that owners and operators are managing their UST systems in a manner protective of human health and the environment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publication in the
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in response to
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Describe efforts to consult with persons outside the agency to obtain their views on the
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instructions and recordkeeping,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
reported.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consultation with representatives of those from whom information is to be obtained or those
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
who must compile records should occur at least once every 3 years - even if the collection of
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
information activity is the same as in prior periods. There may be circumstances that may
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
preclude consultation in a specific situation. These circumstances should be explained.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	The Federal Register Notice required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on this collection of information was published in the Federal Register (88 FR 131) on July 11, 2023, and the comment period closes on September 11, 2023.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Under 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), OMB requires agencies to consult with potential ICR respondents and data users about specific aspects of ICRs before submitting an original or renewal ICR to OMB for review and approval. Most of the underlying assumptions in this ICR (e.g., burden hour estimates) are based on EPA consultations with industry and states conducted during the renewal of previous UST ICRs. Some assumptions are based on EPA consultations with UST experts, undertaken through its consultant Industrial Economics, Inc., to assess the benefits and costs of the 2015 revisions. As part of this ICR renewal, EPA consulted with industry and state agencies. EPA asked industry representatives to review estimates of hourly labor rates for facility staff and contractors, as well as estimates of the time required for facility staff and contractors to perform various tasks required under 40 CFR Part 280. EPA consulted the Idaho and Oklahoma state UST programs regarding the time and cost burden estimates for states seeking program approval under 40 CFR Part 281. EPA sought out states that had obtained state program approval relatively recently. The burden hour estimates in this ICR reflects the feedback EPA received from industry and states.

              Organizations Consulted as Part of the ICR Renewal
                                 Organization
Circle K Stores, Inc.
Kwik Trip
Speedway
7-Eleven, Inc.
Burns & McDonnell Environmental
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
Oklahoma Corporation Commission

Section 3007(b) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B, which define 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 for all or part of the requirements covered in this ICR. If such a claim were asserted, EPA must and will treat the information in accordance with the regulations cited above. EPA will also ensure that this information collection complies with the Privacy Act of 1974 and OMB Circular A-130.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
of contractors or grantees.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      No payments or gifts are used in association with the collection activities for this program.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy. If the collection requires a systems of
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
records notice (SORN) or privacy impact assessment (PIA), those should be cited and
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
described here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      This collection does not include any data or information of a sensitive nature and does not require a SORN or PIA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      This collection does not include any data or information of a sensitive nature.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information. The statement should:
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden, and an explanation of how the burden was estimated. Unless directed to do so, agencies should not conduct special surveys to obtain information on which to base hour burden estimates. Consultation with a sample (fewer than 10) of potential respondents is desirable. If the hour burden on respondents is expected to vary widely because of differences in activity, size, or complexity, show the range of estimated hour burden, and explain the reasons for the variance. Generally, estimates should not include burden hours for customary and usual business practices.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If this request for approval covers more than one form, provide separate hour burden estimates for each form and aggregate the hour burdens.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provide estimates of annualized cost to respondents for the hour burdens for collections of information, identifying and using appropriate wage rate categories. The cost of contracting out or paying outside parties for information collection activities should not be included here. Instead, this cost should be included under `Annual Cost to Federal Government'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Table 1 lists the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) sectors associated with industries most likely affected by the information collection requirements covered in this ICR. Other sectors anticipated to be affected by the information collection requirements not shown in Table 1 include local, state, and federal governments. This ICR does not include the burden on UST facilities owned by the federal government, in keeping with the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Update al Table and Exhibit numbers.... Note: This is a draft of the supporting statement and the complete version will be made available at the next public comment period.

(1)	Owner and Operator Respondents

Regulations in 40 CFR Part 280 contain technical and financial responsibility requirements for owners and operators of USTs. This ICR summarizes the information collection requirements of the revisions to Part 280, and associated data items and respondent activities, in the order in which they would appear in Part 280.

 (b)	Subpart B:  UST Systems:  Design, Construction, Installation, and Notification

	Upgrading of Existing UST Systems
      §280.21 describes the requirements for upgrading existing UST systems.  The revisions will require owners and operators to close lined tanks that are no longer performing in accordance with original design specifications and cannot be repaired according to a code of practice.  EPA estimates that 5323 facilities will 6 burden hours per respondent for a cost of $1919 per respondent for performing lining inspections every five years under 280.21 and 26,616 respondents will have to maintain records for a burden of 10 minutes per respondent and cost of $2.86 per respondent.

      Notification Requirements
      §280.22 describes the notification requirements for UST systems. All of the information in sections I through XI of the notification form (see the latest notification form on EPA's website, https://www.epa.gov/ust/notification-forms-underground-storage-tanks), or similar state forms used in lieu of the federal form, must be filled out completely (§280.22(a)).  In addition, any person who assumes ownership of a regulated UST system must, within 30 days of acquisition, submit a notice of the ownership change to the implementing agency (§280.22(b)) (see the latest notification of ownership change form on EPA's website, https://www.epa.gov/ust/notification-forms-underground-storage-tanks). Lastly, any person selling an UST must notify the purchaser of such tanks of the owner's notification obligations under §280.22(a). EPA estimates the following associated burden hours and costs for 280.22 requirement: to prepare and submit forms will require 3650 respondents for .75 burden hours per respondent for a cost to each respondent of $43.53, to notify purchasers of an UST of owners notification obligations will require 53,233 respondents 1 burden hour each at a cost of $29.23 per respondent and to prepare and submit the notification form within 30 days of assuming ownership will cost 19,840 respondents .25 burden hours each for a cost of $16.76 per respondent.

 (c)	Subpart C:  General Operating Requirements

      Operation and Maintenance of Corrosion Protection
      Owners and operators with cathodically protected steel UST systems must periodically inspect their systems and have a qualified cathodic protection tester conduct periodic tests.  §§280.31(d)(1) and (2) require owners and operators to maintain records that demonstrate compliance with performance standards for UST systems using cathodic protection. EPA estimates that 91,826 respondents will spend .25 burden hours each at a cost of $317 per respondent to have a qualified tester conduct inspection for CP as required.  265,182 respondents will have to spend .25 burden hours each at a cost of $12.16 per respondent to conduct inspection for impressed current. 224,417 respondents will have to maintain records at a cost of .10 burden hours each and a cost of $2.86 per respondent.

      Compatibility
      Owners and operators must notify the implementing agency at least 30 days prior to storing fuels containing more than 10 percent ethanol or more than 20 percent biodiesel, or any other regulated substance identified by the implementing agency. Owners and operators also must maintain records to demonstrate compatibility of the UST system when storing the following fuels: greater than 10 percent ethanol, greater than 20 percent biodiesel, or any other substance identified by the implementing agency. Owners and operators must maintain these records for as long as the UST system is used to store the regulated substance. (§280.32(b)). For USTs storing greater than 10% ethanol or greater than 20% biodiesel EPA estimates 213 respondents will have to spend .10 burden hours per respondent and $2.91 each to maintain records to demonstrate compatibility.

      Maintenance of Repair Records
      §280.33(d) requires tightness testing of UST systems with secondary containment within 30 days following the completion of repairs to the secondary containment areas. All other repairs to tanks and piping must be tightness tested within 30 days following the completion of the repair, except as provided in §§280.33(d)(1) through 280.33(d)(3). Repaired spill or overfill prevention equipment must be tested or inspected within 30 days to ensure it is operating properly §280.33(f). §280.33(g) requires owners and operators to maintain records of each repair until the UST system is permanently closed or undergoes a change-in-service. EPA estimates 17,780 respondents will have to spend .10 burden hours each and $209 per respondent to test UST systems with secondary containment within 30 days of a repair and maintain those records.

        EPA estimates 13,308 respondents will have to spend .10 burden hours each and $398 per respondent to test spill prevention equipment within 30 days after a repair and maintain those records. EPA estimates 10,647 respondents will have to spend .10 burden hours each and $439 per respondent to inspect overfill prevention equipment within 30 days of a repair and maintain those records. EPA estimates 26,616 respondents will have to spend 1.10 burden hours each and $38.43 per respondent to gather information on each repair and maintain those records. Finally, EPA estimates that 5323 respondents will have to conduct tightness testing 30 days after a repair at a cost of .65 burden hours each and $635 per respondent.

      Periodic Testing/Inspection of Spill and Overfill Prevention Equipment and Containment Sumps Used for Interstitial Monitoring of Piping

§280.35 requires owners and operators test/inspect spill and overfill prevention equipment and containment sumps used for interstitial monitoring of piping to ensure the equipment is operating properly and will prevent releases to the environment. These components must be tested/inspected at least once every three years. Records for testing or inspection must be maintained for three years. EPA estimates that 159,699 respondents will have to spend .10 burden hours each and $398 per respondent to test spill prevention equipment every 3 years and maintain those records. EPA estimates that 32,472 respondents will have to spend .10 burden hours each and $731 per respondent to test containment sumps used for interstitial monitoring of piping every three years and maintain those records. EPA estimates 177,443 respondents will have to spend .10 burden hours each and $439 per respondent to inspect overfill every three years and maintain those records.

      Periodic Operation and Maintenance Walkthrough Inspections

§280.36 requires owners and operators conduct a walkthrough inspection of equipment: every 30 days for the items listed in §280.36(a)(1)(i) and annually for the items listed in §280.36(a)(1)(ii).  Records must be maintained for one year (§280.36(b)).  EPA estimates 196,431 respondents will have to spend 6.2 burden hours each and $19 per respondent to conduct walkthroughs of equipment every 30 days and maintain those records.

 	Subpart D:  Release Detection

      General Requirements for All UST Systems
      §280.40 requires that owners and operators of UST systems provide a method of release detection that is operated and maintained in accordance with manufacturer's instructions, a code of practice developed by a nationally recognized association or independent testing laboratory, or requirements developed by the implementing agency. In addition, §280.40 will require that a test of the proper operation be performed at least annually. EPA estimates 244,871 respondents will have to do ATG operability testing at a burden of 1.5 hours and $57 per respondent. EPA estimates 100,078 respondents will have to do operability testing for Interstitial monitoring at a burden of .25 hours and $10 per respondent. EPA estimates 23,955 respondents will have to do operability testing for groundwater and vapor monitoring at a burden of .25 hours and $10 per respondent. EPA estimates 146,664 respondents will have to do operability testing for line leak detectors at a burden of 1.5 hours and $57 per respondent.

      §280.40 also provides that, when a release detection method indicates that a release may have occurred, owners and operators must notify the implementing agency in accordance with Subpart E.

      Data items and respondent activities associated with release detection requirements are covered under §§280.43, 280.44, 280.45, and Subpart K. Data items and respondent activities associated with the reporting of suspected releases are covered in the subsequent section, "Release Reporting, Investigation, and Confirmation" (40 CFR Part 280, Subpart E).

      (d2)	Release Detection for Tanks
      §280.43 specifies methods that UST owners and operators may use to meet the release detection requirements for tanks at §280.41(a). Additional information on each method is listed below. Owners and operators are required to record results of measurements or tests indicating whether a release has or has not occurred.

      For those facilities using inventory control owners and operators are required to keep records of inventory control according to §280.43(a). EPA estimates this requirement will not include any respondents during this period. §280.43(a) also requirement tightness testing for those systems using inventory control EPA estimates 1065 respondents will have a burden of 0.65 hours and $633 per respondent.

      For those facilities using manual tank gauging weekly are required but EPA estimates there will not be burden for this period. EPA estimates 3194 respondents using manual tank gauging will have a burden of 0.65 hours and $633 pre respondent for completing the required tightness testing required under §280.43(c).

      For those facilities using vapor monitoring EPA estimates 4533 respondents will have a burden of 1.67 hours and $797 per respondent to prepare the required monthly records of vapor monitoring within soil gas of the excavation zone under §280.43(e).

      For those facilities using groundwater monitoring EPA estimates 4302 respondents will have a burden of 1.67 hours and $533 per respondent to maintain the required monthly records of groundwater monitoring required by §280.43(f).

      For those facilities using Interstitial Monitoring EPA estimates 103,272 respondents will have a burden of .6 hours and $407 per respondent to maintain the required monthly records of interstitial monitoring under §280.43(g).

      Release Detection for Piping
      §280.44 specifies methods that UST owners and operators may use to meet the release detection requirements for piping at §280.41(b). Owners and operators are required to conduct annual test of the operation of the automatic line leak detector and records the results. EPA estimates 438,852 respondents will have a burden of .3 hours and $11 per respondent to meet this requirement. Facilities must also conduct an annual line tightness test and record the results.  EPA estimates 177,904 respondents will have 1.52 hours burden and $58 per respondent to meet this requirement.

      Release Detection Recordkeeping
      §280.45 requires that owners and operators maintain records that contain information about each release detection system in place at an UST system. EPA estimates 196,431 respondents will have 1 hour of burden and $27 per respondent to maintain these records.

 Subpart E:  Release Reporting, Investigation, and Confirmation

      Reporting of Suspected Releases and Cleanups of Spills and Overfills
      §280.50 requires owners and operators to report within 24 hours to the implementing agency if a release is suspected and the release exceeds 25 gallons (or for hazardous substances that exceed the reportable quantity), or if a smaller release cannot be cleaned up within 24 hours.

      §§280.53(a) through (b) require owners and operators to immediately contain and clean up a spill or overfill, and to report certain releases. Owners and operators must report to the implementing agency within 24 hours, or another reasonable period specified by the implementing agency, in the following cases:

 Spill or overfill that results in a release to the environment exceeding 25 gallons or another reasonable amount as specified by the implementing agency, or that causes a sheen on nearby surface water (§280.53(a)(1)).
 Spill or overfill of a hazardous substance that equals or exceeds its reportable quantity under CERCLA (40 CFR Part 302) (§280.53(a)(2)).

      In addition, owners and operators must contain and immediately cleanup a spill or overfill of petroleum that is less than 25 gallons or another reasonable amount specified by the implementing agency, and a spill of a hazardous substances that is less than the reportable quantity.

      If cleanup cannot be accomplished within 24 hours, or another reasonable period specified by the implementing agency, owners and operators must immediately notify the implementing agency. EPA estimates that 10,000 respondents will have to gather information and report the suspected release under subpart E. Each respondent will have a burden of 56.2 hours and $5352 to meet these requirements.

 Subpart F:  Release Response and Corrective Action for UST Systems Containing Petroleum or Hazardous Substances

      Initial Response
      Upon confirmation of a release in accordance with §280.52 or another procedure, owners and operators must conduct initial response actions within 24 hours of a release or within another reasonable period determined by the implementing agency. The initial response is a release report, which may be submitted to the implementing agency by telephone or electronic mail (§280.61(a)). EPA estimates that 6000 respondents will have a burden of one hour and $51 each to meet the requirements of §280.52.

      Initial Abatement Measures Report and Site Check
      §280.62(b) requires owners and operators to submit within 20 days, or another reasonable period determined by the implementing agency, a report summarizing initial abatement steps taken and any resulting information or data in accordance with §280.62(a). EPA estimates that 6000 respondents will have to gather information during initial abatement, prepare and submit summary report of initial abatement steps and prepare and submit summary report of initial abatement steps. EPA estimates that each respondent will have a burden of 51 hours and $3449 to meet these requirements.

      Initial Site Characterization
      §280.63 requires owners and operators to assemble information about the site and the nature of the release, including information from initial abatement measures in §§280.60 and 280.61. Under §280.63(b), the information collected must be submitted to the implementing agency within 45 days of the release confirmation or another reasonable period of time determined by the implementing agency, in a manner that demonstrates its applicability and technical adequacy, or in a format and according to the schedule required by the implementing agency. EPA estimates that 6000 respondents will have to gather information for initial site characterization and prepare and submit information per instructions to meet the requirements of §280.63. EPA estimates that each respondent will have a burden of 100 hours and $8290 to meet these requirements.

      Free Product Removal
      §280.64 requires owners and operators to remove free product to the maximum extent practicable if investigations under §280.62(a)(6) indicate removal is warranted. Under §280.64(d), owners and operators must assemble information and prepare and submit a free product removal report within 45 days after confirmation of a release. EPA estimates 1200 respondents will have to gather information for the free product removal report and prepare and submit the report to meet the requirements of §280.64. EPA estimates that each respondent will have a burden of 69.25 hours and $3334 to meet these requirements.

	Investigations for Soil and Groundwater Cleanup
      §280.65 requires owners and operators to conduct investigations of soil and groundwater if any of the following conditions exist: (1) there is evidence that groundwater wells have been affected; (2) free product is found; (3) there is evidence of contaminated soils in contact with groundwater; or (4) there are potential effects of soil or groundwater on nearby surface water and groundwater resources. Under §280.65(b), owners and operators must submit information covering the release, the release site and the area affected by the release after investigating the impacts of the release on the soils and groundwater. The information must be collected and submitted within a reasonable time established by the implementing agency if the conditions in §§280.65(a)(1) through (4) exist. EPA estimates that 4500 respondents would have to gather information for the investigation report and submit this information. EPA estimates each respondent would have a burden of 114.25 hours and $7897 to meet these requirements.

	Corrective Action Plan
      §280.66 specifies corrective action requirements for USTs. The implementing agency may require owners and operators to submit additional information or a corrective action plan for responding to contaminated soils or groundwater. Upon approval, owners and operators must implement the plan and report the results of implementation. In addition, to keep contamination at a site to a minimum, owners and operators may begin cleanup prior to plan approval by notifying the implementing agency of the intention to begin cleanup and including the cleanup measures in the corrective action plan, provided they comply with any conditions imposed by the implementing agency and incorporate self-initiated cleanup measures into the corrective action plan. EPA estimates 3600 respondents would have to prepare and submit corrective action plan or additional information and report results of implementing plan to meet the requirements of §280.66. EPA estimates each respondent would have a burden of 210 hours and $10,654 to meet these requirements. In addition, EPA estimates 360 respondents will notify the implementing agency of early cleanup at a burden of .5 hours and $34 per respondent to meet this requirement.
 Subpart G:  Out-of-Service UST Systems and Closure

      Permanent Closure and Changes-in-Service Notification
      §280.71(a) requires that owners and operators notify the implementing agency of any decision to permanently close or make a change-in-service at an UST system. The notification must be made at least 30 days prior to beginning permanent closure or change-in-service actions.  The notification can be made using the general notification form, available on EPA's website (https://www.epa.gov/ust/notification-forms-underground-storage-tanks). After notification, but before completing a closure or change-in-service, the owner or operator must complete an excavation zone assessment under §280.72(a). EPA estimates 10,047 respondents will have to notify the implementing agency of permanent closure or change-in-service and conduct site assessment of excavation zone to meet the requirements of §280.71(a) and §280.72(a).  EPA estimates each respondent will have a burden of 67 hours and $5520 to meet these requirements.

      Closure Records
      §280.74 requires owners and operators to maintain records in accordance with section 280.34 that can show compliance with closure requirements. Owners and operators also are required to maintain results of the excavation zone assessment required in section 280.72 for at least three years after completion of permanent closure or change-in-service. EPA estimates 10,047 respondents will have to maintain records after permanent closure or change-in-service for at least three years. Each respondent will have a burden of .10 hours and $2.86 to meet this requirement. In addition, EPA estimates 2475 respondents will have to mail records to implementing agency because the records cannot be maintained on site. Each of these respondents will have a burden of .5 hours and $19.75.

 Subpart H:  Financial Responsibility

      Financial Responsibility Mechanisms
      40 CFR Part 280, Subpart H financial responsibility requirements apply to all owners and operators of petroleum USTs, except those exempted in §280.90(d).

      Owners and operators may use any one or a combination of the mechanisms listed in §§280.95 through 280.103 to demonstrate financial responsibility. In addition to these options, a local government operator may use any one or a combination of the mechanisms listed in §§280.104 through 280.107. Each of these options is described in detail below.

	Cancellation or Nonrenewal by a Provider of Financial Assurance
      A provider of financial assurance may cancel or fail to renew an assurance mechanism according to the procedures outlined in §280.109. The data item associated with such an action is a notice of termination, which is submitted to the UST owner or operator. If alternate financial coverage is not obtained within 60 days of being notified of the termination, owners or operators must inform the implementing agency of the failure to obtain coverage. EPA estimates 3929 respondents will have to prepare and submit a notice of termination of financial assurance. Each respondent will have a burden of 1 hour and $63 to meet this requirement. In addition, EPA estimates that 393 respondents will have to prepare and submit notice of failure to obtain alternative coverage within 60 days. Each respondent will have a burden of 1.75 hours and $79 to meet this requirement.

	Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
      §280.110 establishes financial responsibility reporting requirements for owners and operators who: (1) identify a reportable UST release; or (2) fail to obtain alternative coverage. §280.111(b)(11) requires an owner or operator to maintain an updated copy of a certification of financial responsibility, as worded in §280.111(b)(11)(i). The individual reporting and record keeping requirement burden estimates are listed below for the various requirements.

	Financial Test of Self Assurance - §280.95 outlines the procedures for a financial test of self-assurance as a means of satisfying the financial responsibility requirements. Owners and operators have the option of meeting the criteria specified in either §280.95(b) or 280.95(c).

	Guarantee - §280.96 outlines the procedures for obtaining a guarantee as a means of satisfying the financial responsibility requirements.

	Insurance and Risk Retention Group Coverage - §280.97 outlines the procedures for obtaining liability insurance as a means of satisfying the financial responsibility requirements.

	Surety Bond - §280.98 outlines the procedures for obtaining a surety bond as a means of satisfying the financial responsibility requirements.

	Letter of Credit - §280.99 outlines the procedures for obtaining a letter of credit as a means of satisfying the financial responsibility requirements.

	Use of State-Required Mechanisms - §280.100 allows UST owners and operators in states without program approval to satisfy the requirements of §280.93 by using a state-required financial mechanism, if approved by EPA. The owner or operator, state, or any other party may request approval.

	State Fund or Other State Assurance - §280.101 allows UST owners and operators in states without program approval to satisfy the requirements of §280.93 by using a state fund or other state assurance, if approved by EPA. To satisfy the requirements of §280.93, the owner or operator must obtain a letter or certificate from the state.

	Trust Fund - §280.102 outlines the procedures for using a trust fund as a means of satisfying the financial responsibility requirements.

	Standby Trust Fund - §280.103 outlines the procedures for using a standby trust fund as a means of satisfying the financial responsibility requirements. Owners and operators using mechanisms described in §280.96, §280.98, and §280.99 must establish a standby trust fund in addition to satisfying the other requirements of those sections.

	Local Government Bond Rating Test - §280.104 states that a general-purpose local government owner or operator and/or a local government as a guarantor may satisfy the requirements of §280.93 by having outstanding issues of bonds of $1 million or more.

	Local Government Financial Test - §280.105 states that a local government UST owner or operator may satisfy the requirements of §280.93 by passing a financial test.

	Local Government Guarantee - A local government owner or operator may satisfy the requirements of §280.93 by obtaining a guarantee as specified in §280.106.  The guarantor must be the state in which the local government owner or operator is located or a local government having a "substantial governmental relationship" with the owner or operator.

	Local Government Fund - §280.107 states that a local government owner or operator may satisfy the requirements of §280.93 by establishing a dedicated fund account.  The fund is dedicated to pay for corrective action and for compensating third parties in the event of accidental releases from petroleum USTs.

	Substitution of Financial Assurance Mechanisms by the Owner or Operator -§280.108(b) states that an owner or operator may cancel a financial assurance mechanism after obtaining alternate financial assurance.

EPA estimates 6000 respondents will have to gather and submit forms listed in Section 280.110(a)1 to the implementing agency documenting current evidence of financial responsibility per 289.110(b) as a result of a release. Each respondent will have a burden of .25 hours and $8.76 to meet this requirement. EPA estimates 196,431 respondents will have to obtain and keep on file proof of financial responsibility. Each respondent will have a burden of .35 hours and $12.47 to meet this requirement. EPA estimates 49,108 respondents will have to update certification if financial assurance mechanism is modified. Each respondent will have a burden of .75 hours and $26 to meet this requirement.

	Bankruptcy or Other Incapacity
      §280.114 sets forth notification requirements regarding bankruptcy or other incapacities for UST owners and operators, and providers of financial assurance. Data items associated with these requirements must be submitted within 10 days after commencement of bankruptcy proceedings. EPA estimates 1964 respondents will have to prepare and submit notification of commencement of bankruptcy procedures. Each respondent will have a burden of 1.5 hours and $113 to meet this requirement. EPA estimates that 196 respondents will have to prepare and submit notice of inability to obtain alternative coverage within 30 days. Each respondent will have a burden of 1.75 hours and $79 to meet this requirement.

 Subpart J:  Operator Training
      40 CFR Part 280, Subpart J requires that all owners and operators of UST systems designate Class A, Class B, and Class C operators for each facility. Operators must complete a training program or an examination.  §280.245 requires owners and operators to maintain records verifying that training and retraining, as applicable, have been completed. EPA estimates 45,772 respondents will have to complete a Class A operator training program or an examination per 280.242. Each respondent will have a burden of 10 hours and $836.  EPA estimates 45,772 will also have to complete a Class B operator training program or an examination per 280.242. Each respondent will have a burden of 10 hours and $580 to meet this requirement. EPA estimates 237,293 respondents will have to complete a Class C operator training program or an examination per 280.242. Each respondent will have a burden of 4 hours and $120 to meet this requirement.

 Subpart K:  Field-Constructed Tanks and Airport Hydrant Fuel Distribution Systems
      Subpart K requires owners and operators of field-constructed tanks (FCTs) and airport hydrant fuel distribution systems (AHFDSs) comply with Subparts A through H and J, with certain exceptions. The information collection requirements of Subparts A through H and J are described under those respective subparts.

      In addition, Subpart K also requires owners of FCTs and AHFDSs to submit a one-time notice of tank system existence within one year of the effective date of the revised regulations. EPA estimates that 3 number of facilities will need to submit this one-time notification. EPA estimates associated burden for this requirement to be .5 hours and $50 per respondent.

(2)	State Agency Respondents

      Regulations at 40 CFR Part 281 contain state program approval procedures for states that wish to administer their own UST programs in lieu of the federal program. A state must obtain approval for its program from EPA. Part 281 is divided into six subparts (i.e., Subparts A through F), four of which contain information collection requirements. This ICR summarizes the information collection requirements and the associated data items and respondent activities, in the order in which they appear in Part 281, in the following subparts:

 Components of a program application (Subpart B);
 Adequate enforcement of compliance (Subpart D);
 Approval procedures (Subpart E); and
 Withdrawal of approval of state programs (Subpart F).

 Components of a Program Application

	Transmittal Letter
      §281.20(a) states that any state seeking to administer its own UST program must submit in its application a transmittal letter from the governor of the state requesting program approval (§281.20(a)). EPA estimates that 2 states will have to obtain a transmittal letter from the Governor's office and transmit it to the agency. EPA estimates associated burden to be 25.5 hours and $2011 per respondent

	Description of State Program
      §§281.20(b) and 281.21 outline that any state seeking to administer its own UST program must submit in its application a description of the program that the state plans to implement in place of the federal program. EPA estimates that 2states will have to prepare a submit a description of the state program. EPA estimates associated burden to be 90.5 hours and $6585 per respondent.

	Procedures for Adequate Enforcement
      §281.22 states that any state seeking to administer its own UST program must submit in its application a description of compliance monitoring and enforcement policies and procedures, including judicial review procedures (§§281.22 and 281.20(c)). EPA estimates that 2 states will have to gather and submit information on compliance monitoring and enforcement procedures. EPA estimates associated burden to be 90.5 hours and $6026 per respondent.

	Memorandum of Agreement
      §281.24 states that any state seeking to administer its own UST program must negotiate areas of coordinated effort and responsibilities with EPA. EPA estimates that 2 states will have to negotiate an MOA with EPA and prepare and submit written MOA with SPA application.  EPA estimates associated burden to be 15.5 hours and $1312 per respondent.

	Attorney General's Statement
      §281.25 states that any state seeking to administer its own UST program must submit a written demonstration from the attorney general stating that the laws of the state are sufficiently stringent to enforce the state program proposed. The statement must include citations to statutes, regulations, judicial decisions, and analysis of any state authority to regulate USTs on Indian lands (§§281.25 and 281.20(f)). EPA estimates that 2 states will draft and submit statement from the attorney general. EPA estimates associated burden to be 225 hours and $16,739 per respondent.

	Copies of Statutes and Regulations
      §281.20(g) states that any state seeking to administer its own UST program must submit in its application copies of all applicable state statutes and regulations (§281.20(g)). EPA estimates that 2 states will have to research and gather statutes and regulations and submit copies as a part of the application to EPA. EPA estimates associated burden to be 94 hours and $6744 per respondent.

 Adequate Enforcement and Compliance

      §281.43(a) requires states with approved programs to furnish to EPA, at any time, information in state files on the administration of the program, including data on enforcement and compliance under section 281.40. This includes information submitted to the state with or without a claim of confidentiality (§281.43(a)). EPA estimates that 42 states will have to maintain files and current information on program administration. EPA estimates associated burden to be 59 hours and $4324 per respondent. EPA estimates that 2 states will also have to submit information to EPA. EPA estimates associated burden to be .10 hours and $26 per respondent.

 Approval Procedures

      §281.50(b) specifies that before submitting an application to EPA for approval of a state program, states must provide an opportunity for public notice and comment. EPA estimates that 2 states will have to issue public notice of the development of underground storage tank program and receive and review public comments. EPA estimates associated burden to be 52 hours and $4386 per respondent.

      §§281.52(a) through (b) specifies program revision requirements that may be initiated by either EPA or the approved state.  EPA estimates that 4 states will have to collect and submit information on changes in regulations or shifts in responsibilities and prepare and submit revised application to EPA.  EPA estimates the associated burden to be 694 hours and $50,849 per respondent.

Table 4 summarizes the total annual hour and cost burden to UST owners and operators and to states.  As shown in the exhibit, EPA estimates the annual respondent burden to be approximately 8,332,870 hours and $699 million.  The bottom-line burden to respondents over three years is estimated to be approximately 25 million hours and approximately $2.0 billion.

Estimating Respondent Costs

      EPA estimates respondent costs for all activities covered in this ICR in Tables 2 and 3.  These costs are based on the cost of labor, capital, and operation and maintenance (O&M) activities.

	Labor Costs

      Table 5 shows the estimated average hourly labor cost (including overhead and fringe), by labor category, for facilities/contractors, commercial AHFDS facilities, and states. These labor rates were used to calculate the labor cost to all respondents in conducting the reporting and recordkeeping activities covered in this ICR, as shown in Tables 2 and 3.

      For all labor categories, EPA obtained the labor costs from the previously approved ICR and updated the labor rates to 2022 levels using Employment Cost Indexes developed by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

13. Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers
resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden
already reflected on the burden worksheet).
 The cost estimate should be split into two components: (a) a total and start-up cost component (annualized over its expected useful life) and (b) a total operation and maintenance and purchase of services component. The estimates should take into account costs associated with generating, maintaining, and disclosing or providing the information. Include descriptions of methods used to estimate major cost factors including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, the discount rate(s), and the time period over which costs will be incurred. Capital and start-up costs include, among other items, preparations for collecting information such as purchasing computers and software; monitoring, sampling, drilling, and testing equipment; and record storage facilities.
 If cost estimates are expected to vary widely, agencies should present ranges of cost burdens and explain the reasons for the variance. The cost of purchasing or contracting out information collections services should be a part of this cost burden estimate. In developing cost burden estimates, agencies may consult with a sample of respondents (fewer than 10), utilize the 60-day pre-OMB submission public comment process and use existing economic or regulatory impact analysis associated with the rulemaking containing the information collection, as appropriate.
 Generally, estimates should not include purchases of equipment or services, or portions thereof, made: (1) prior to October 1, 1995, (2) to achieve regulatory compliance with requirements not associated with the information collection, (3) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the government, or (4) as part of customary and usual business or private practices.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      See Item 12 for explanatory text.  Note: This is a draft of the supporting statement and the complete version will be made available at the next public comment period.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                        Number of Respondent Activities

                             Total Hours Per Year

                         Total O&M Costs Per Year
Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)  -  Private Sector

                                       $
USTs  -  State, Local, Tribal Governments

                                       $
Region 9 Private UST Owners

                                       $

TOTAL

                                       $
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Provide estimates of annualized costs to the Federal government. Also, provide a description
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agencies may also aggregate cost estimates from Items 12, 13, and 14 in a single table.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      EPA estimates the Agency hour and cost burden associated with all information collection requirements covered in this ICR in Tables 6 and 7. EPA estimates an average hourly labor cost of $117 for legal staff (GS-15, Step 5), $74 for managerial staff (GS-13, Step 1), $52 for technical staff (GS-11, Step 1), and $32 for clerical staff (GS-6, Step 1). To derive these hourly estimates, EPA referred to unloaded (base) hourly rates for various labor categories in the federal government from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. EPA then applied the standard government loading factor of 60 percent, which includes fringe benefits and overhead.

      The table below summarizes the total annual Agency hour and cost burden associated with the requirements covered in this ICR.  As shown in the exhibit, EPA estimates the annual Agency burden to be approximately 412,845 hours and $26.9 million. The bottom-line burden to the Agency over three years is estimated to be approximately 1.2 million hours and $80 million.

             Total Estimated Annual Agency Hour and Cost Burden Summary
Information Collection Activity

                               Total Hours/Year

                                  Labor Cost

                             Capital/Startup Cost

                                 O&M Cost

                                Total Cost/Year
Technical and Financial Requirements

                                    412,588

                                  $26,869,482

                                      $0

                                    $14,605

                                  $26,884,087
State Program Approval

                                      257

                                    $19,838

                                      $0

                                      $8

                                    $19,846
TOTAL
                                    412,845
                                  $26,889,320
                                      $0
                                    $14,613
                                  $26,903,933
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      *Due to rounding, figures may not sum exactly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported on the burden worksheet (in hour or cost burden.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 	This ICR presents a comprehensive description of the total annual respondent burden for all information collection activities related to the UST program. In renewing this ICR, EPA has updated its respondent universe and burden estimates based on updated data from the Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) and the regulated community. The total number of active USTs continues to decline as it has for decades. There is a decrease of 389,322 hours in the total estimated respondent burden hours compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. There is a total decrease in burden hours because the overall number of underground storage tanks continues to decrease while the requirements for each tank owner remained the same. In addition, during the last ICR EPA approved thirty states for state program approval but only expects to approve 12 during this ICR.

                      Change in Burden from Previous ICR

                              Previously Approved
                                    Change
                                   Requested
Responses
                                    415,610
                                    -13,481
                                    402,129
Hours
                                   8,722,192
                                   -389,322
                                   8,332,870
Cost
                                 $424,720,745
                                 $265,019,541
                                 $689,740,286

16. For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.

	In collecting and analyzing the information associated with this ICR, the implementing agency uses electronic equipment such as personal computers and database and modeling software, as applicable. The implementing agency ensures the accuracy and completeness of the collected information by reviewing each submittal.

(1)	Owner and Operator Respondents

The implementing agency will collect information from UST owners and operators on a one-time, ongoing, or special circumstance basis. The implementing agency collects various types of data according to the following schedules:

 One-time collections:  notification forms, closure records, and change-in-service forms.

 Ongoing collections:  performance of release detection, records to demonstrate compatibility with biofuels, maintenance of repair and release detection records.

 Special circumstance collections:  release reporting and response information, including site information, chemical property and health information, financial responsibility records, and testing release prevention equipment after repairs.

(2)	State Agency Respondents

States applying for program approval submit most of their information in a one-time application, but also must submit additional information if requested by EPA. EPA collects all submitted information according to the following frequency:

 One-time collections:  Complete program application and associated information and revised application.

 Special circumstance collections:  Withdrawal of approval of state program information, transfer of program information, and plans for the transfer of program responsibilities.

17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

      Not seeking to not display the expiration date.

18. Explain each exception to the topics of the certification statement identified in "Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions."

	No exception to the topics of the certification statement.


1 Oxamyl Oxamyl Charge to the HSRB Charge to the HSRB Similar to aldicarb and methomyl, oxamyl is a member of the N methyl carbamate ( NMC) common mechanism group based on its ability to inhibit acetylcholinesterase via carbamylation and is thus included in the NMC cumulative risk assessment.

The Agency has previously completed the acute,

aggregate ( single chemical, multi route) risk assessment of oxamyl. The Agency is now considering the use of the oxamyl acute oral, human toxicity study to inform the inter species uncertainty factor in the cumulative risk assessment of the NMCs. 2 Oxamyl Oxamyl Charge to the HSRB Charge to the HSRB 1. Scientific considerations:

The Agency's WOE document and DER for oxamyl describe the study design and results of the oxamyl acute oral, human toxicity study. The WOE document also discusses the Agency's conclusions regarding the usefulness of the human study in the cumulative risk assessment for the NMCs. For oxamyl, the Agency has concluded that the human toxicity study is sufficiently robust for reducing the 10X inter species ( ie, animal to human) uncertainty factor in the cumulative risk assessment.

Please comment on the scientific evidence that supports this conclusion. 3 Oxamyl Oxamyl Charge to the HSRB Charge to the HSRB 2. Ethical considerations:

a. The Agency requests that the Board provide comment on the following:

 Whether inclusion in the protocol submitted to the ethics committee of a factually inaccurate statement regarding unavailability of data on accidental or incidental exposure to oxamyl should be considered significantly deficient relative to the ethical standards prevailing when the study was conducted; 4 Oxamyl Oxamyl Charge to the HSRB Charge to the HSRB 2. Ethical considerations:

a. cont'd. The Agency requests that the Board provide comment on the following:

 Whether the absence from the protocol of any discussion of the potential risks to subjects or benefits to society of conducting the proposed research ( as required by the Declaration of Helsinki, Principle # 5) should be considered significantly deficient relative to the ethical standards prevailing when the study was conducted; and 5 Oxamyl Oxamyl Charge to the HSRB Charge to the HSRB 2. Ethical considerations, cont'd:

b. The Agency asks that the Board provide comment on the following, taking into account all that is known about the ethical conduct of [ this/ each] study:

 OPP's conclusion that there is not clear and convincing evidence that the conduct of the research was fundamentally unethical.

 Whether there is clear and convincing evidence that the conduct of the study was significantly deficient relative to the ethical standards prevailing when the study was conducted


1 CONTACT REPORT From: Tom Holloway Date of Contact: July 11, 15 18, 22, 24 26, and 29; August 21, 2002 Company/ Agency: States of Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Illinois, South Dakota, California, Indiana, Virginia, Maryland, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Alabama, and Texas CONTACT SUMMARIES:

Massachusetts Called Donald Squires ( 617 292 5618) on 7/ 11/ 02 regarding BASF Corp. and KaO Infosystems Co. He said that he would check into it. Other contact, Robert Donaldson, is out until 7/ 17/ 02. Called Robert Donaldson ( 617 292 5630) on 7/ 24/ 02. He referred me to the Massachusetts regional offices and provided contact names and telephone numbers. Contacts included: Ed Braczyk ( 978 661 7645), or his boss Jim Belsky ( 978 661 7640), for BASF and John Winkler ( 508 946 2779) for KaO Infosystems. Called Mr. Belsky on 7/ 24/ 02; left message. Received message from Mun Wong ( 978 661 7652) for Mr. Belsky on same day. Called Mr. Wong back same day. He said that BASF closed about 10 years ago. Called Mr. Winkler on 7/ 24/ 02. He said that KaO Infosystems is closed.

New Jersey Called Permitting/ NSR ( 609 984 6721) on 7/ 11/ 02 regarding Fidelipac. Company is in their data base for site remediation, but there is no permit.

New York Called Bureau of Stationary Sources ( 518 402 8403) on 7/ 11/ 02 regarding Eastman Kodak Co. ( Buffalo Road plant) and Welch Allyn Inc. Referred me to Brad Shaw at same number; left message. Received message from Mr. Shaw on same day. Called Mr. Shaw back on same day; he will look into both plants ( Kodak and Welch Allyn). It may require a FOIA. Mr. Shaw called me back same day to say that Kodak is only plant with SIC code 3695, but he could not say whether the plant manufactures magnetic tape specifically; suggested I contact the plant directly.

North Carolina Called Laura Butler ( 919 715 6236) on 7/ 11/ 02 regarding Electronic Data Magnetics, Inc. ( EDM) and Sonopress Inc. Sent e mail to Ms. Butler on same day summarizing the information we need. She forwarded the e mail to the regional offices involved. Ms. Butler called me back same day and said that she has found no information about 2 EDM in their files. In response to e mail on same day, the Winston Salem regional office ( WSRO) indicated that it has had no contact with EDM but noted that EDM is listed in the telephone book. In her call, Ms. Butler said that Sonopress is a small synthetic source bought out by Shorewood and makes magnetic tape labels, which may be subject to the magnetic tape NESHAP. Called Bob Camby ( 828 255 5655) on 8/ 21/ 02 to confirm the status of Sonopress. He said that he had not visited the site in several years but thought that they made recording tapes. He forwarded me to others in the office, including Melanie Patrola, who said that Sonopress does not manufacture magnetic tape and never did.

Illinois Called Illinois ( 217 782 2113) on 7/ 11/ 02 regarding Rand McNally and XDP. Searched data base for permits and applications. Said that there were no plants permitted under Rand McNally, and no data for XDP either.

South Dakota Called South Dakota ( 605 773 3351) on 7/ 11/ 02 regarding Syncom Technology Inc. Said that Syncom has been shut down for many years.

California Called the Bay Area district ( 415 771 6000) on 7/ 15/ 02 regarding Seagate Tech. LLC and MMC Technologies, Inc. Said that neither makes magnetic tape   Seagate makes hard disks, and MMC makes rigid magnetic media. Called the district again on 7/ 17/ 02 regarding Memorex Technologies Inc. Referred me to Julian Elliott ( 415 749 4705), who is the engineer in charge of the plant; left message; no reply. Called Mr. Elliott again on 7/ 25/ 02; left message; no reply. Called South Coast district ( 916 396 2000) on 7/ 16/ 02 regarding Ricoh Electronics Inc. Referred me to Public Records ( 916 396 3700), who said that I would have to submit a form to get information. Called Sacramento district ( 916 874 4800) on 7/ 16/ 02 regarding Intermag Inc. Referred me to Jim Jester of Public Records ( 916 874 4817), who said that I would have to submit a FOIA to get information. Contacted EPA lead ( Vince Hellwig) on 7/ 17/ 02 about how to proceed with the South Coast and Sacramento districts. He said that he would make additional calls to these two districts. Sent him an e mail on 7/ 17/ 02 that included contact information for these districts. Called San Diego district ( 858 650 4700) on 7/ 17/ 02 regarding Datatape Inc. Spin Physics Facility. Referred me to Karen Campbell ( 858 650 4515); left message. Received message from Ms. Campbell on same day. Called Ms. Campbell on 7/ 18/ 02. She said that there are no permits at the Datatape address, and no record of a company with a permit at that address.

Indiana Called Wanda Stanfield ( 317 233 6864) on 7/ 15/ 02 regarding Sealtran and Digital Audio Disc Corp.; not in. Called back 7/ 16/ 02. Referred me to the Indiana regional offices and provided contact names and telephone numbers. Contacts included: D. J. Knotts   Wayne County 3 ( 317 232 8438) for Sealtran and Rob Harmon   Vigo County ( 812 462 3433) for Digital Audio Disc. Said that Digital Audio Disc was still in operation, and Mr. Harmon would let me know if it makes magnetic tape. Called Mr. Knotts same day, who said there was no permit for Sealtran. Called Mr. Harmon same day; left message. No response. Called Mr. Harmon again on 7/ 25/ 02, who said that Digital Audio Disc only makes CDs now. Said that the inspector would know for sure, but he is out this week. After speaking with his director, Mr. Harmon said that Digital Audio Disc only makes CDs and DVDs.

Virginia Called John Daniel ( 804 698 4311) on 7/ 16/ 02 regarding Rochester Button Co. and Audiopak Inc. He referred me to the Virginia regional offices and provided contact names and telephone numbers. Contacts included: Jed Brown ( 434 582 5120) for Rochester Button and Sharon Foley ( 540 574 7821) for Audiopak. Called Mr. Brown on same day. He said that Rochester Button was closed. They received a letter from them on 4/ 11/ 00. The shutdown was permanent as of that day. Called Ms. Foley on same day. She said that Audiopak shut down in 1999, but they did use to make magnetic tape.

Maryland Called Maryland ( 410 631 4433) on 7/ 16/ 02 regarding Schlumberger Malco Inc. Said that Schlumberger Malco is still open and still makes magnetic tape.

Georgia Called Geogia ( 404 363 7000) on 7/ 16/ 02 regarding Sony Music Entertainment Inc. Referred me to Jimmy Johnston ( 404 363 7022), who said that Sony closed sometime before 12/ 31/ 00.

Pennsylvania Called Doug Lesher ( 717 787 4325) on 7/ 17/ 02 regarding Wea Manufacturing. He referred me to regulatory office ( 570 826 2531)   Jerry Zerbolis or one of his people. Called Mr. Zerbolis same day; left message. Mr. Zerbolis called me back same day and said that Wea Manufacturing makes CDs, not magnetic tape.

Alabama Called Russell Kelly ( 334 271 7714) on 7/ 22/ 02 regarding four plants   Quantegy Inc., JVC Magnetics America Co., Sony Magnetics Products Inc. of America, and BASF Corp. Decatur Coatings Facility; left message. Rebecca Hall returned call for Mr. Kelly on same day. She asked me to send a request in writing ( e mail or fax) listing the plants and the information needed. E mail address is records@ adem. state. al. us. Sent e mail same day. She called me back same day, saying that they could not help with the information I needed. She gave me two options   come in and review files or call main line in Air Division to see if someone there could help. Decided to Call Air Division Called Ron Gore ( 334 271 7868), Chief of Air Division, on 7/ 24/ 02 regarding the four plants. He referred me to Larry Brown ( 334 271 7886) and Kevin Fullmer, who works with 4 those plants. Left message with Mr. Brown. Mr. Fullmer returned call on 7/ 25/ 02 for Mr. Brown. He said that BASF is a paint manufacturing company. He said that they could make copies of permit applications at $ 0.40/ page. He agreed to send me table of contents of the applications so that I could pick out what I needed. He said that they were very busy and did not have the time to dig through the files themselves for the information we needed. He said he did not know if any risk assessments had been done for the plants. Mr. Fullmer gave me a return call on 7/ 26/ 02. He confirmed that BASF is a paint manufacturing plant, and he doesn't deal with that. So there are only three magnetic tape manufacturing plants in Alabama. Mr. Fullmer said that the three plants submitted both CBI and non CBI permit applications, and the non CBI applications didn't have the information we wanted, so he won't be sending the table of contents. He said that information on chemicals used and in what proportions was one of the things considered CBI. Mr. Fullmer suggested that we contact the plants directly. He gave me contact names and telephone numbers for the three magnetic tape manufacturing plants. Contacts included: Bert Long   Quantegy ( 334 745 7643), Steve Perkra   JVC ( 205 556 7111), and Mark Farmer   Sony ( 334 793 7655). Regarding risk modeling, Mr. Fullmer said that they only look at new sources and new pieces of equipment. They don't look at existing equipment, so any data we get would be piecemeal, over many years and different people conducting the analyses. He suggested that I contact Chris Howard ( head meteorologist) for this type of information. The telephone number for Mr. Howard is the same as for Kevin Fullmer ( 334 271 7861). Ms. Hall called me back on 7/ 26/ 02 to see if there was anything else that they needed to do for me. I told her that Mr. Fullmer had said that the information I needed was CBI, and I would need to contact the plants directly. She said that she would file away my information request and would pull it out later if I contacted them again.

Texas Called Jesse Chacon ( 512 239 1570) of Operating Permits Section on 7/ 25/ 02 regarding permit status of three plants   eMag Solutions LLC, Tandy Magnetics, and Magnetic Ticket & Label; left message. Called Toxicology and Risk Assessment Section on 7/ 26/ 02 regarding risk assessment information for the three plants. Joann Wiersema ( 512 239 1782) was out of the office and Chet Clarke ( 512 239 2218) was also not in; Vincent Leopold will check into it; gave him my telephone number and e mail address. Mr. Leopold called me back same day and said he had sent a request to Steve Hagel of Air Permits Division with my contact information. He also asked anyone in toxicology section regarding review of permit applications. He said that there was a review of the eMag permit application in May 2002, which modeled the air concentrations. There was also another analysis in August 1994, when the company was called Graham Magnetics. He also contacted the air monitoring people, who said that there has been no mobile monitoring at any of the three plants. Mr. Leopold mailed me a package on 7/ 29/ 02 containing the results of the August 1994 and May 2002 analyses. Mr. Chacon called me back on 7/ 29/ 02, saying that eMag is the only facility on the list I provided that they have information on. He said that eMag does make magnetic tape.


[Federal Register: October 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 196)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 52398-52399]
[DOCID:fr13oc09-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0231; Airspace Docket No. 09-AAL-6]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Chuathbaluk, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final Rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace at Chuathbaluk, AK to
provide adequate controlled airspace to contain aircraft executing
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). One Standard
Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) is being developed for the
Chuathbaluk Airport at Chuathbaluk, AK. Also, this action makes a minor
correction to the geographic coordinates and text description for the
airport. This action establishes Class E airspace upward from 700 feet
(ft.) above the surface at Chuathbaluk Airport, Chuathbaluk, AK.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, December 17, 2009. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rolf, AAL-538G, Federal Aviation
Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587;

telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet address: http://www.faa.gov/about/
office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/fs/
alaskan/rulemaking/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On Monday, July 6, 2009, the FAA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking in the Federal Register to establish Class E airspace at
Chuathbaluk, AK (74 FR 31899). Subsequent to publication, the FAA found
an error in the geographic coordinates and textual description for
Chuathbaluk Airport. This action corrects these errors.
    Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments were received. The rule, with corrected coordinates, is
adopted as proposed.
    The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1,200 ft. transition
areas are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9T, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 27, 2009, and
effective September 15, 2009, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document
will be published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 establishes Class E airspace at
the Chuathbaluk Airport, AK. This Class E airspace is established to
accommodate aircraft executing a new instrument procedure, and will be
depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The intended
effect of this rule is to provide adequate controlled airspace for
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the Chuathbaluk Airport,
Chuathbaluk, AK.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Because this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart 1, Section 40103, Sovereignty and use of
airspace. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing
regulations to ensure the safe and efficient use of the navigable
airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because
it creates Class E airspace sufficient in size to contain aircraft
executing instrument procedures for the Chuathbaluk Airport and
represents the FAA's continuing effort to safely and efficiently use
the navigable airspace.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND
CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9T, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15, 2009, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Extending Upward From 700 Feet or
More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Chuathbaluk, AK [New]

Chuathbaluk, Chuathbaluk Airport, AK
    (Lat. 61[deg]34'45'' N., long. 159[deg]12'56'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.5-mile radius of the Chuathbaluk Airport, AK, and within
3.5 miles either side of the 286[deg] bearing from the Chuathbaluk
Airport, AK, extending from the 7.5 mile radius, to 10.3 miles west
of the Chuathbaluk, Airport, AK.
* * * * *

    Issued in Anchorage, AK, on September 18, 2009.
Anthony M. Wylie
Manager, Alaska Flight Services Information Area Group.
[FR Doc. E9-24228 Filed 10-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P