INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST

SUPERFUND SITE EVALUATION AND HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM (RENEWAL)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation

State, Tribe, and Site Identification Branch

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20460

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 TOC \f

1.	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION	1

1(a)	Title of the Information Collection	1

1(b)	Short Characterization/Abstract	1

2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION	2

2(a)	Need/Authority for the Collection	2

2(b)	Practical Utility/Users Of The Data	4

3.	NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA	5

3(a)	Non-duplication	5

3(b)	Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB	5

3(c)	Consultations	6

3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection	6

3(e)	General Guidelines	6

3(f)	Confidentiality	6

3(g)	Sensitive Questions	7

4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED	7

4(a)	Respondents Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes	7

4(b)	Information Requested	7

5.	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED - AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT	11

5(a)	Agency Activities	11

5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management	11

5(c)	Small Entity Flexibility	13

5(d)	Collection Schedule	13

6.	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION	14

6(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden	14

6(b)	Estimating Respondent Costs	15

6(c)	Estimating Agency Burden and Costs	16

6(d)	Estimating Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs	17

6(e)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs	17

6(f)	Reasons for Change in Burden	17

6(g)	Burden Statement	17

7.	REFERENCES	19

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1. Major Components of EPA’s Superfund Site Assessment Process
1

Exhibit 2. Use and Users of the Site Assessment Data	5

Exhibit 3. Detailed Site Assessment Activities and Data Collected	8

Exhibit 4. EPA’s Integrated Assessment Process	13

Exhibit 5. Annual Respondent Burden	14

Exhibit 6. Site Assessment Screening Process	15

Exhibit 7. Annual Respondent Burden and Costs	16

Exhibit 8. Annual Agency Burden and Cost	16

Exhibit 9. Total Estimated Respondent Burden and Cost Summary	17

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

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

This Information Collection Request (ICR) is number 1488.07 (OMB control
number 2050-0095) and is titled, “Superfund Site Evaluation and Hazard
Ranking System (Renewal).”  It is a revised version of the current ICR
for the Superfund site assessment process.

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

In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) to address threats posed to
human health and the environment by uncontrolled releases of hazardous
substances into the environment.  Section 105 of CERCLA required EPA to
establish criteria for determining priorities among releases or
threatened releases of hazardous substances for the purpose of taking
remedial action.  In response, EPA developed a model to systematically
rank hazardous waste sites with regard to their relative threat to human
health and the environment.  This model, the Hazard Ranking System
(HRS), was adopted by EPA in 1982 and later revised in December 1990.
The HRS criteria take into account the population at risk, the hazard
potential of the substances, as well as the potential for contamination
of drinking water supplies, direct human contact, destruction of
sensitive ecosystems, damage to natural resources affecting the human
food chain, contamination of surface water used for recreation or
potable water consumption, and contamination of ambient air.

The Superfund site evaluation process uses a series of progressively
more complex site assessment phases to determine and implement the
appropriate responses to releases of hazardous substances to the
environment.  Exhibit 1 outlines the major components of the site
assessment process.

At the conclusion of each phase of the site assessment process, the HRS
model is applied to derive a preliminary site HRS score.  The HRS score
is crucial since it is the primary mechanism used to determine whether a
site is eligible to be included on the National Priorities List (NPL).
The NPL is a list of those sites that are priorities for long-term
evaluation and remedial response.  Sites with HRS scores of 28.50 or
greater are eligible for placement on the NPL. Only sites on the NPL are
eligible for Superfund-financed remedial actions.  Sites with HRS scores
below 28.5 generally require no further Superfund site evaluation.
Uniform application of the HRS by the EPA, States and Tribes enables EPA
to identify and prioritize hazardous waste sites that warrant further
investigation.

Under this ICR, the States (including U.S. Territories) and Tribes will
apply the HRS by collecting and documenting HRS data needs required for
each site assessment phase conducted.  EPA Regions work with States and
Tribes to determine which sites will receive each type of assessment.
The HRS data collected by States and Tribes during site assessment
activities are derived from the sources described in this information
collection, including conducting field reconnaissance, taking samples at
the site, and reviewing available reports and documents.  States and
Tribes conclude each site assessment phase by completing and submitting
the appropriate site assessment report to EPA.  The number and type of
assessment reports to be conducted by States and Tribes is a function of
available funding, site assessment backlogs, Superfund site assessment
goals, and site assessment priorities; therefore, the type of
information collected under this ICR is considered to be a periodic
report.  The States and Tribes are reimbursed 100 percent of their costs
to develop these reports, except for record maintenance.

EPA Regions review each site assessment report submitted by States and
Tribes for accuracy and completeness, and to ensure conformance with
Superfund site assessment guidance.  EPA Regions then use this
information to make a decision regarding next Superfund steps for a
site.  EPA Regions also enter summary information about each report and
the associated decision on next steps into the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS).  EPA maintains reports submitted by States and Tribes in site
files.

The annual burden incurred by States and Tribes for collecting
information necessary to move a site through the site assessment process
is a function of the average estimated hours and dollars per site
assessment activity, the estimated number of assessment activities
completed per year, and State/Tribal infrastructure costs supporting
these assessment activities.  In order to calculate the burden for this
ICR, EPA Regions provided annual average estimates of site assessment
activities to be completed by States and Tribes from FY08 through FY10.
EPA Regions also provided estimated average hours and dollars incurred
by States and Tribes to complete each type of site assessment activity,
along with estimated infrastructure costs used by States and Tribes to
perform Superfund work.

Projected FY08-FY10 data provided by EPA regions show that the estimated
annual hour and cost burden to State and Tribal respondents for
performing site assessment activities is approximately 148,873 hours and
$11,740,260, respectively.  However, one hundred percent of the
respondent cost ($11,740,260) is reimbursed by the EPA through
cooperative agreements (CAs) as set forth by Section 104(d) of CERCLA,
thus state and tribal respondents do not effectively bear any cost
burden.  Section 6.0 of this document, Estimating the Burden and Cost of
Collection, provides a more detailed discussion of the burden to
respondents.

This ICR is prepared using the guidance contained in EPA’s ICR
Handbook revised November, 2005.  This document is the most recent
document for preparing an ICR and follows the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. §1320) and the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) guidelines.  It can be found on the EPA website at
www.epa.gov/icr.

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

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

CERCLA’s passage in 1980 launched the Superfund program that provided
EPA the authority needed to respond to threats posed by the uncontrolled
releases of hazardous substances into the environment.  The fundamental
purpose of the Superfund program is to address threats and protect human
health and the environment from releases or potential releases of
hazardous substances from abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste
sites.  The HRS is a crucial part of EPA’s Superfund program because
its application enables EPA to evaluate the relative threats of
hazardous waste sites.  Collecting uniform information during the site
assessment process enables EPA to consistently apply the HRS model.
Consistent application of HRS by respondents enables EPA to identify and
classify those releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances
that warrant further investigation in anticipation of corrective
actions.

EPA submitted the Agency's 2006 - 2011 Strategic Plan  to Congress on
September 29, 2006, as required under the Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA) of 1993.  EPA’s strategic plan includes a target
for making a cumulative total of 40,491 final Superfund site assessment
decisions by the end of FY 2011.  The site assessment reports submitted
by States and Tribes as described under this ICR are used to assist EPA
in determining whether a final Superfund site assessment decision has
been made.

CERCLA establishes the legal authority to perform site assessment and
NPL listing activities.  Specifically:

Section 105 of CERCLA required that the National Oil and Hazardous
Substance Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) be amended to include the
following:

“[C]riteria for determining priorities among releases throughout the
United States for the purpose of taking remedial action... Criteria and
priorities... shall be based upon relative risk or danger to public
health, welfare, or the environment... taking into account... the
population at risk, the hazard potential of the hazardous substances...
the potential for contamination of drinking water supplies, the
potential for direct human contact, the potential for destruction of
sensitive ecosystems... and other appropriate factors.”

To meet these requirements, the HRS was adopted and enacted as part of
the revised NCP in July 1982.  Section 105(8)(B) of CERCLA requires the
NCP to include a “list.... of national priorities among the known
releases or threatened releases throughout the United States...”
Application of the HRS determines whether an uncontrolled hazardous
waste site may be eligible for inclusion on the NPL.  Each State is also
required to “establish and submit for consideration by the President
priorities for remedial action among known releases and potential
releases in that State based upon the criteria” in Section 105(8)(A).

In 1986, CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA).  EPA modified the HRS in 1990 so that, “to
the maximum extent feasible, [it] accurately assesses the relative
degree of risk to human health and the environment posed by sites and
facilities subject to review.”  Section 105 of SARA mandates that the
HRS take into account, to the extent possible, the following:

(	Human health risks associated with the contamination or potential
contamination of surface water that is or can be used for recreation or
potable water consumption;

(	Damage to natural resources that may affect the food chain; and

(	Contamination or potential contamination of the ambient air, which is
associated with the release or threatened release.

Section 118 of CERCLA requires that a high priority be given to
facilities where the release of hazardous substances or pollutants has
resulted in the closing of drinking water wells or a principal drinking
water supply.

Section 125 of CERCLA requires the HRS to assess sites containing a
substantial volume of waste as described in Section 3001(b)(3)(A)(I) of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act.  These wastes include fly ash wastes,
bottom ash wastes, slag wastes, and flue gas emission control wastes
generated primarily from the combustion of coal or other fossil fuels.
Section 125 of CERCLA requires EPA to consider each of the following
site-specific characteristics:

Degree of risk to human health and the environment;

(	Quantity, toxicity, and concentrations of hazardous constituents; and

(	Extent of and the potential for the release of hazardous constituents
into the environment.

The specific sections of CERCLA cited above can be found at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title42/chapter103_subchapteri_.html"
http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title42/chapter103_subchapteri_.html .

2(b)	Practical Utility/Users of the Data tc \l2 "2(b)	Practical
Utility/Users Of The Data

The data collected through the site assessment process described in this
ICR are used to support a site decision regarding the need for further
Superfund action.  The various data elements gathered, which relate to
the HRS criteria, are used to complete the HRS score.  All of this
information is used within the Superfund program to:

(	Identify sites that pose a potential threat to human health and the
environment;

(	Determine if sites pose a potential hazard and whether further action
is necessary;

(	Refer sites to EPA’s removal program if removal actions may be
needed;

(	Develop preliminary and final HRS scores;

(	Set priorities for further assessment work;

(	Allocate resources (e.g., money, staff); and

(	Evaluate Superfund program performance.

In addition, EPA Headquarters’ staff use the information collected to
aid in the general management and oversight of the Superfund program.
Currently, EPA uses the information to assess resource needs; allocate
funds; prepare site assessment guidance materials; list NPL sites;
conduct quality assurance (QA) reviews of HRS packages; and track
Regional and State Superfund performance.  Headquarters also uses the
information to respond to information requests, and perform analyses for
EPA management, OMB, Congress, and the general public.

Staff at the ten EPA Regions use Superfund site assessment data for
purposes similar to Headquarters, including: developing operating
budgets and program plans; allocating resources; tracking State-by-State
performance; responding to information inquiries under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA); and supplying input to CERCLIS.  Regions must
also respond to inquiries from EPA Headquarters.  As a function of their
program authority, EPA Regions also have the responsibility for
overseeing site assessments and generating HRS scores.

State and Tribal use of site assessment data is more site-specific.
These authorities use the data to perform site assessments; generate HRS
scores; maintain site files; track site status; and respond to
information inquiries under FOIA.  They also use the information
gathered to maintain their own site files.  Exhibit 2 summarizes the use
and users of site assessment and HRS information.

Exhibit 2: Use and Users of the Site Assessment Data

EPA HEADQUARTERS

List NPL sites

QA HRS packages

Prepare site assessment guidance manuals

Establish national Superfund budget

Track Regional and State Superfund performance

Respond to Congress

Respond to information inquiries (FOIA)

EPA REGIONS

Oversee site assessment

Review HRS scores

Supply input to Congress

Track site status

Coordinate with other programs

Maintain site files

Respond to information inquiries (FOIA)

STATES/TRIBES

Perform site assessment

Generate HRS scores

Track site status

Coordinate with other environmental programs

Maintain site files

Respond to information inquiries (FOIA)

3.	NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA tc \l1
"3.	NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION 		CRITERIA

3(a)	Non-duplication tc \l2 "3(a)	Non-duplication

The primary sources of data required to complete site assessments and
prepare HRS packages are Federal, State, and local government agencies
and private parties.  Data are gathered through the performance of
actual on-site investigations (e.g., samples, on-site measurements).
Much of the information (i.e., site history, population surrounding the
site, location of drinking water supplies) is collected from readily
available public information sources, thereby minimizing the amount of
collection of this primary information.  The field data gathered during
the site assessment activities covered under this ICR are not generally
collected by any other Federal agency.

Through pre-CERCLIS screening, EPA screens out sites being addressed by
other parties to prevent duplication of assessment activities.
Generally, the SI is the first investigation to collect and analyze
waste and environmental samples.  In instances where prior sampling has
been completed and analytical data has been collected, performance of
additional sampling may not be necessary.

3(b)	Public Notice Required Prior to Submission to OMB tc \l2 "3(b)
Public Notice

A notice stating this ICR was up for renewal was published in the
Federal Register on September 4, 2007 (72 FR 50679).  This initiated a
60-day comment period which closed on November 5, 2007.  No comments
were received during the comment period.

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

In order to calculate the burden of site assessment activities on the
States and Tribes and present the results in this report, State and
Tribal burden information was based on average annual site assessment
activity projections for FY 2008 through FY 2010.  As part of obtaining
the State and Tribal burden information, EPA Regions were contacted to
determine the nature of site assessment activities performed by States
and Tribes in each respective Region and the costs (dollars and hours)
associated with these activities.  EPA Regions reviewed cooperative
agreement progress reports submitted by States and Tribes as necessary
to gather the State and Tribal data for this ICR.

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

Site assessment information collection does not occur on a regularly
scheduled basis.  Yearly collection activities associated with the site
assessment process are based on the number of sites discovered, the
number of sites in the CERCLIS inventory needing assessment work, the
amount of available Superfund funding, and Superfund site assessment
goals and priorities.  The frequency of collection is driven by the
schedule established in Section 116(b) of CERCLA.  Section 116(b)
requires an HRS evaluation (if warranted) within four years of the
site's entry into CERCLIS.  For sites brought to EPA’s attention via a
citizen’s petition, Section 105(d) of CERCLA requires completion of a
Preliminary Assessment (PA), or an explanation of why a PA is not
appropriate, within one year after receiving the petition.  Less
frequent collection of site assessment reports may compromise EPA’s
ability to comply with statutory schedules and could negatively impact
EPA’s progress towards achieving the strategic target for making final
site assessment decisions.

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

The reporting frequency guideline set forth in 5 CFR 1320.6 of the
Paperwork Reduction Act Guidelines may not be met depending on the
nature of new sites discovered and urgency of assessment work needed.
Collection of information occurs continually as new sites are
identified.  EPA is currently operating NPL development activities so
that as sites with higher priorities are identified, the information is
forwarded to the appropriate office for review and validation.

States and Tribes have at least 30 days in which to respond to any
information requests specified in the NCP.  This time frame is in
compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act guidelines.  The record
retention period for administrative records is not specified in the
National Contingency Plan.  The site records are to be maintained for
the duration of the assessment and any subsequent remediation at sites
and for as long as necessary for litigation purposes.  Responsibility
for these files will continue beyond the three year ICR period, as
assessment and, if necessary, remediation may take more than three
years.

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

Application of the HRS does not typically require collection of
information that is considered confidential.  EPA handles instances
where confidentiality claims are asserted by private parties on a
case-by-case basis.  States and Tribes (the respondents) have been
informed that any confidential information submitted to document an HRS
score must be marked clearly as such and sent under separate cover so
that it is properly handled.

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

Sensitive questions are not associated with the information collection
activities performed during site assessment and HRS score preparation.

4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

4(a)	Respondents Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes tc \l2
"4(a)	Respondents Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes

Activities conducted as part of the Superfund site assessment process
require that information be gathered from Federal, State, and local
government agencies.  While the performance of the various phases of
site assessment will require the involvement of State and local
agencies, identification of the particular State or local agency
involved is not possible until a site has been identified.  SIC codes
associated with environmental protection agencies (governmental) are
classified in Division J, Public Administration; Major Group 95,
Administration of Environmental Quality and Housing Programs; Industry
Group 951, Administration of Environmental Quality; and 9511 Air and
Water Resource and Solid Waste Management.  The corresponding North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 924110:
Administration of Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management
Programs.

4(b)	Information Requested tc \l2 "4(b)	Information Requested

The data collection requirements associated with the various phases of
the site assessment process are designed to enable the consistent
application of the HRS.  Information gathering activities are intended
to help EPA determine whether hazardous substances are present at the
site, and whether they are migrating to the surrounding environment.
Data required for the site assessment process and HRS score preparation
are often collected from readily available public information sources
such as State and local government offices, Regional EPA offices, and
potentially responsible parties (PRPs).  The amount of data collected
during the site assessment process and the activities associated with
collection vary from site to site depending on the level of proposed
threat.  Data collection activities also vary from phase to phase of the
site assessment process based on the type of information needed to
satisfy the HRS requirements such as waste characterization and target
assessments.  Although reporting activities (e.g., data collection,
report preparation) comprise the majority of the site assessment effort,
approximately 13 percent of the total effort can be attributed to
recordkeeping activities (e.g., developing and maintaining databases,
entering data, and filing).

This section provides a detailed description of the type of data that
needs to be collected to complete a site assessment and the activities
associated with this collection process.    It also provides estimates
of the average annual projections of number of respondent activities
from FY 2008 through FY 2010.  State and Tribal respondents submit a
site assessment report to EPA for each activity conducted.   EPA enters
key information contained in these reports into CERCLIS.

Collection activities are discussed for the major phases of site
assessment including: Pre-CERCLIS Screening, Preliminary Assessment,
Site Inspection, and HRS Package Preparation.  Other assessment
activities are also described, including: Integrated Removal/Remedial
Evaluation (Integrated Assessment), Expanded Site Inspection and Site
Reassessment.

Exhibit 3 provides an overview of the activities performed and data
items collected for the various phases of site assessment.  It also
illustrates where the sub-phases may be utilized and the various
outcomes that can occur.  Section 6.0, Estimating the Burden and Cost of
Collection, provides the estimated average hours associated with each of
the phases of the site assessment process.

Pre-CERCLIS Screening

Pre-CERCLIS screening is the process of reviewing data on a potential
hazardous waste site brought to EPA’s attention to determine whether
it should be entered into CERCLIS for further evaluation or response
action.   Pre-CERCLIS screening is intended to be a low-cost effort to
ensure uncontaminated or lightly contaminated sites are not arbitrarily
entered into CERCLIS for Superfund-financed evaluation, cleanup, or
oversight activities.  The process can be initiated through the use of
several mechanisms, such as a phone call or referral by a State or other
Federal agency.  Following notification of a potential site to EPA,
Regions generally contact State, Tribal, or other appropriate Federal
staff to determine whether the site is already being addressed by
another party and to define EPA’s role at the site.  From FY 2008
through FY 2010, EPA projects an annual average of 342 Pre-CERCLIS
screenings will be performed by States or Tribes.

Preliminary Assessment

The preliminary assessment (PA) is a relatively rapid, low-cost
compilation of readily available information pertaining to the site and
its surroundings.  From FY 2008 through FY 2010, EPA projects an annual
average of 111 PAs will be performed by States or Tribes to identify
target populations and other targets that may be affected by
contamination at sites.  The scope of the PA must be sufficient to
complete several activities, including:

Reviewing existing information about the site;

Conducting a site and environmental reconnaissance;

(	Collecting information about the site, with the emphasis on target
information;

(	Evaluating all information and developing a preliminary HRS score; and

(	Preparing a brief site summary report and site characteristics form.

Data collected during PA activities include: site-specific data,
historical site information, potential contamination sources, types of
hazardous waste, target information, and location of drinking water
supplies.  Sampling activities are not performed during this phase of
site assessment.

In certain situations, an Abbreviated PA (APA) may be conducted in lieu
of a full PA.   APAs are appropriate when the following conditions
exist:

A site has been inappropriately listed in CERCLIS because it is either
not eligible or it could be deferred to another response program;

A site can be addressed as part of another site already in CERCLIS;

Available information allows EPA to make an early decision to undertake
a Site Inspection (SI); or

A NFRAP designation can be made without completing a full PA.

For such sites, the typical PA reporting requirements are abbreviated.

Site Inspection

SIs build upon and supplement the information collected during the PA.
The primary purpose of the SI is to gather enough information to
determine whether further Superfund action is warranted as a result of a
significant threat to human health and the environment.  From FY 2008
through FY 2010, EPA projects an annual average of 75 SIs will be
performed by States or Tribes.  During the SI, the respondent will
collect data to determine whether the site is an NPL candidate or if it
should receive a NFRAP or other decision (i.e., deferral to RCRA,
further assessment needed).  The SI consists of five major activities:

(	Reviewing available information including analytical data;

(	Organizing the project team and developing an SI work plan, sample
plan, health and safety plan, and investigation-derived wastes (IDW)
plan;

(	Performing field work to visually inspect the site and collect
samples;

(	Evaluating all information and developing a site score based on the
HRS; and

(	Preparing a site summary report.

Data collected during the SI could include additional non-sampling data
(e.g., field observations, site-specific information) and sampling data
collected during the on-site reconnaissance.

Integrated Removal/Remedial Evaluations (Integrated Assessments)

Site assessment and removal assessment activities may be combined into a
single Integrated Assessment activity if the appropriate site conditions
exist.  Integrated Assessments further reduce repetitive tasks and costs
on site characterization.  The two most common types of Integrated
Assessments include: Integrated Removal Assessment & PA; and Integrated
Removal Assessment & SI.  From FY 2008 through FY 2010, EPA projects an
annual average of 7 Integrated Assessments will be performed by States
or Tribes.  The stand-alone requirements from the site assessment and
removal assessment activities must be met even though the data will be
integrated.

Expanded Site Inspection

The ESI further investigates critical hypotheses proposed in the SI
regarding the nature and extent of contamination at a site.  ESIs
typically include additional site sampling, which in some cases, may
require specialized techniques or equipment (e.g., installation of
monitoring wells, geophysical surveys).  Data generated are used to
modify the preliminary HRS score developed during the SI.  An ESI report
is the final product of this phase.  ESI activities should include:

(	Organizing the project team and developing ESI work plan, sample plan,
health and safety plan, and IDW plan;

(	Investigating and documenting critical new hypotheses or assumptions;

(	Collecting samples to attribute hazardous substances to site
operations;

(	Collecting samples to establish representative background levels;

(	Collecting other missing non-sampling data for pathways of concern;
and

(	Preparing a site summary report.

The data collected during the ESI may be used to support previous
documentation or references, and fulfill remaining HRS data requirements
for pathways of concern.  From FY 2008 through FY 2010, EPA projects an
annual average of 30 ESIs will be performed by States or Tribes.

Site Reassessment

The Site Reassessment represents the gathering and evaluation of new
information on a site previously assessed under the Federal Superfund
program to determine whether further Superfund attention is needed.  The
scope of work for a Site Reassessment activity is flexible, but will
usually represent a component of PA or SI activities.  As such, it
serves as a supplement to previous assessment work, and not as a
substitute for an initial PA or SI.  From FY 2008 through FY 2010, EPA
projects an annual average of 84 site reassessments will be performed by
States or Tribes.

HRS Package Preparation

The final phase in the site assessment process is HRS package
preparation.  The primary activities associated with this phase of site
assessment are:

(	File review;

(	Determining site score;

(	Revising site score; and

(	Preparing the documentation record and supporting information.

After completion of the site evaluation, compiled data are used to score
a site using scoresheets based on the HRS model.  Under the HRS,
numerical values are assigned to a site based on various aspects of the
site and its immediate surroundings through the evaluation of four
pathways: (1) ground water migration; (2) surface water migration; (3)
soil exposure; and (4) air migration.  The scoring system for each
pathway is based on a number of individual factors grouped into three
factor categories:  (1) likelihood of release or, for the soil exposure
pathway, likelihood of exposure; (2) waste characteristics; and (3)
targets (i.e., potentially affected populations, etc.).  Individual
factors are evaluated and the factor values are calculated to produce
four category values.  An example of the scoresheets used during HRS
package preparation can be found at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/superfund/training/hrstrain/htmain/3path.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/training/hrstrain/htmain/3path.htm .

From FY 2008 through FY 2010, EPA projects an annual average of 7 HRS
packages will be performed by States or Tribes.

THE INFORMATION COLLECTED - AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY,
AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT tc \l1 "THE INFORMATION COLLECTED - AGENCY
ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

5(a)	EPA Activities tc \l2 "5(a)	EPA Activities

EPA region offices review and manage sites assessed under Superfund by
States and Tribes, and provide oversight for State and Tribal site
assessment cooperative agreements.  EPA generally performs the following
duties for each of the site assessment activities covered under this
ICR:

Coordinate site specific work and review draft documents and reports;

Prepare summary reports and decision documents;

Identify stakeholders and communicate site assessment plans and
progress;

Respond to information requests; and

Perform data management activities to record and track assessments.

5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management tc \l2 "5(b)	Collection
Methodology and Management

Data gathered during the site assessment process fall into three main
categories:  historical; field related; and HRS related.  At each phase
of assessment, data from these broad categories are collected and
analyzed in order to screen out sites that do not need to be addressed
by the Superfund program.  As a site moves from one phase to another in
the site assessment process, it must satisfy an increasing number of
data requirements for the HRS model.  Sites may be screened out of the
site assessment process based on a Pre-CERCLIS screening to determine
whether a potential hazardous waste site should be added into CERCLIS
for further evaluation or response.  In addition, sites may also be
screened out based on the HRS score generated; a referral to other
Federal and State programs; or a referral to the removal program.

Following entry of a site discovery into CERCLIS, the PA process is
initiated.  During the PA, professional judgment is used to make
assumptions for unavailable data.  Information collection at this phase
is accomplished mostly from the desktop by reviewing historical
documents and conducting telephone interviews.  The majority of the data
collected is historical information and target information for the HRS
model.  A site drive-by may also be conducted to verify the site
location and status.  During the PA, the HRS is applied through
development of a preliminary HRS score.  A PA report is the final
product of this phase.  Information collected during the PA is
incorporated into subsequent work.

A site that is recommended for continued Superfund evaluation after PA
completion proceeds to the SI phase.  Data collection goals for this
phase are similar in scope to the PA with the addition of detailed field
data (e.g., site samples).  During this phase, a field team conducts an
on-site visit and sampling.  Site sampling is limited in scope;
generally, about 15 samples are collected per site.  The media selected
for sampling depends on the perceived threat and may include all or some
of the following: ground water, surface water, sediment, soil, and air.
Source samples may also be taken when deemed necessary.  Detailed
chemical analysis and data validation is performed on each sample taken.
 During the SI, the HRS model is applied by revising the preliminary HRS
score developed during the PA.  An SI report is the final product of
this phase.  Information collected during the SI is incorporated into
subsequent assessment work.

A site that is recommended for continued investigation may have an ESI
performed.  At this stage, specific information is usually gathered for
the pathway of greatest concern.  The goal of this investigation is to
test remaining theories about the nature and extent of contamination
proposed in the SI.  Additional field data that are collected usually
require specialized techniques or equipment (e.g., installation of
monitoring wells, geophysical surveys).  Data generated are used to
modify the preliminary HRS score developed during the SI.  An ESI report
is the final product of this phase.  Information collected during the
ESI is incorporated into subsequent assessment work.

A site that generates a preliminary HRS score of 28.50 or greater after
all assessment work is complete is eligible for proposal to the NPL,
although additional factors are considered before EPA moves forward with
proposing a site.  To propose a site, a detailed and defensible HRS
Scoring Package must be prepared.  This phase of data collection brings
together all of the information collected during the site assessment
process.  The HRS Package is thoroughly and meticulously referenced.
The final product of this phase is the final HRS score.  A public docket
for a proposed site is maintained by EPA to provide an opportunity for
all interested parties to examine and comment on the HRS Package before
it is finalized in the Federal Register.

In order to expedite the data management effort and minimize the burden,
EPA developed “Quickscore” software for use as an automated site
scoring tool under the revised HRS.  Quickscore includes a user’s
manual, help screens, HRS score sheet calculation package, and a
computerized option for site score generation.

In addition, EPA has sought to minimize the burden of data collection
requirements by making substantial resources available to the
respondents through the use of EPA contractors.  EPA will continue to
provide training to States and Tribes on a yearly basis through a
national training program.  To facilitate the HRS scoring effort, EPA
has, wherever possible, included tables to minimize the level of effort
necessary for data collection.

EPA’s assessment process allows for the integration of traditional
site assessment activities to facilitate continuous assessment for
high-priority sites until all the necessary data are collected.
Combining some phases of the site assessment process will often reduce
the level of effort expended on the duplication of similar
data-gathering activities.  Exhibit 4 presents EPA’s Integrated
Assessment process.  This integrated approach provides:

(	Prompt risk reduction through early action (removal or cleanup
activities);

(	Continuous process for assessing site-specific conditions and the need
for action;

(	Appropriate cleanup of long-term environmental problems;

(	Cross-program coordination of response planning;

(	Early initiation of enforcement activities; and

(	Early public notification and participation.

The Site Reassessment represents the gathering and evaluation of new
information on a site previously assessed under the Federal Superfund
Program to determine whether further Superfund attention is needed.  The
scope of work for a Site Reassessment activity is flexible, but will
usually represent a component of a traditional site assessment action.
As such, it serves as a supplement to previous assessment work, and not
as a replacement for traditional assessment activities (e.g., PA, SI).

All data collection activities require the maintenance of file
information.  The final report for each phase of the site assessment
process is only part of the documentation of a site.  All relevant site
information collected or generated during the investigations should be
securely stored and accurately tracked for future reference.  This
information is critical for the preparation of any final HRS packages
and for future site disposition.  Each agency performing site
assessments or involved in the decision-making process of a site should
maintain a file of site data.

5(c)	Small Entity Flexibility tc \l2 "5(c)	Small Entity Flexibility

Except in circumstances where a small business is a potentially
responsible party (PRP) or may provide some original information about a
specific site, small businesses are not burdened by the collection of
data for this program.

5(d)	Collection Schedule tc \l2 "5(d)	Collection Schedule

	The site assessment process is intended to be a flexible method for
determining priorities among releases or threatened releases of
hazardous substances for the purpose of determining if further
investigation is necessary.  Site assessment information collection does
not occur on a regularly scheduled basis.  The frequency of collection
is driven by the schedule established in Section 116(b) of CERCLA.
Section 116(b) requires an HRS evaluation (if warranted) within four
years of the site's entry into CERCLIS.  For sites brought to EPA’s
attention via a citizen’s petition, Section 105(d) of CERCLA requires
completion of a PA, or an explanation of why a PA is not appropriate,
within one year after receiving the petition.

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

6(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden tc \l2 "6(a)	Estimating Respondent
Burden

EPA estimates an annual average of 60 States and Tribes will conduct the
site assessment activities described in this ICR.  The annual burden for
respondents is a function of the number of State- and Tribal-lead
activities performed each year.  The estimated total annual burden for
State and Tribal authorities to conduct these activities is
approximately 148,873 hours.  This estimate was calculated by
multiplying the estimated average annual number of State- and
Tribal-lead activities projected from FY 2008 through FY 2011 by the
average hours needed to perform each activity.  Exhibit 5 provides
detailed information on the estimated annual respondent burden
(calculated as a weighted average based on information provided by EPA
regions).

Exhibit 5: Annual Respondent Burden

Respondent Activities

Estimated Hours

Per Activity1 	Estimated Annual Number of State/Tribal Activities1	Total
Annual National Hours by Activity

Pre-CERCLIS Screening

99.08

342

33,885

Preliminary Assessment (PA)

200.34

111

22,238

Site Inspection (SI)

596.40

75

44,730

Integrated Assessment (IA)

565.14

7

3,956

Expanded Site Inspection (ESI)

702.56

30

21,077

Site Reassessment

214.25

84

17,997

HRS Package

712.86

7

4,990

TOTAL

656

148,873

1 Weighted average based on activity hours provided by the EPA Regions

To reduce the burden on respondents, EPA has streamlined the process of
screening sites to ensure that sites are assessed as efficiently and
inexpensively as conditions allow.  Sites not requiring Federal action
are screened out of the process early, thus avoiding lengthy and more
expensive evaluations.  For example, only about four percent of the
sites in the site assessment process have been listed on the NPL.

Exhibit 6 provides an illustration of the site assessment screening
process.  The process is portrayed as a funnel to show how the number of
respondent activities performed generally decreases as sites progress
down the funnel and are screened out of the process.  Depending upon how
far a particular site progresses through the site assessment process,
the burden per site may range on average from 99 hours (average for
conducting pre-CERCLIS screening and no other work) to 2,311 hours
(cumulative average for conducting pre-CERCLIS screening, PA, SI, ESI,
and HRS package work).

Exhibit 6: Site Assessment Screening Process

*Historically includes about four percent of all sites in the CERCLIS
site assessment inventory.

6(b)	Estimating Respondent Costs tc \l2 "6(b)	Estimating Respondent
Costs

The costs incurred by State and Tribal respondents for conducting site
assessment activities equals the estimated average cost per activity
(including laboratory costs) multiplied by the number of State/Tribal
lead activities.  In addition to activity-specific costs, the States and
Tribes incur infrastructure costs associated with developing and
maintaining a State or Tribal site assessment program.  These
infrastructure costs include such items as training, developing standard
operating procedures, administrative support, and computers and
automated data processing (ADP) support.

The total estimated annual respondent cost is $11,740,260, however both
activity-specific costs and infrastructure costs are reimbursed by the
EPA, thus the effective respondent cost is $0.

Exhibit 7 provides detailed information on the estimated annual
respondent burden and costs as calculated based on projected FY 2008
through FY 2010 activity data.  Depending upon how far a particular site
progresses through the site assessment process, the respondent cost per
site may range from $5,226 (average for conducting pre-CERCLIS screening
and no other work) to $152,848 (cumulative average for conducting
pre-CERCLIS screening, PA, SI, ESI and HRS package work).

Exhibit 7: Annual Respondent Burden and Costs

Respondent

Activities

Estimated

Cost per

Activity1

Estimated Annual Number of State/Tribal Activities1

Total Annual

National Cost

by Activity

Pre-CERCLIS Screening

$5,226

342

$1,787,385

Preliminary Assessment (PA)

$8,938

111

$992,084

Site Inspection (SI)

$36,214

75

$2,716,035

Integrated Assessment (IA)

$25,043

7

$175,300

Expanded Site Inspection (ESI)

$52,521

30

$1,575,635

Site Reassessment

$14,072

84

$1,182,066

HRS Package

$49,949

7

$349,642

State/Tribal Infrastructure

	$2,962,113

SUBTOTAL

656

$11,740,260

Less Federal Reimbursement

	-$11,740,260

TOTAL

656	$0

1 Weighted average based on activity costs provided by the EPA Regions

6(c)	Estimating Agency Burden and Costs tc \l2 "6(c)	Estimating Agency
Burden and Costs

The EPA Regional offices review and manage sites assessed under
Superfund by States and Tribes, and provide oversight for State and
Tribal site assessment cooperative agreements.  Based on average annual
projections from FY 2008 through FY 2010, the estimated average annual
burden to the EPA for reviewing and managing site assessment activities
conducted by States and Tribes under Superfund is 49,669 hours at an
estimated cost of $4,529,813. Reimbursement of state costs brings the
total Agency cost to $16,270,073. Exhibit 8 provides detailed
information on the estimated annual Agency burden and costs as
calculated based on projected FY 2008 through FY 2010 activity data.
Based on the 2007 GS pay schedule, EPA estimates an average hourly
Regional labor cost of $57, excluding the impact of benefits, to review
and manage the work covered under this ICR.  To derive hourly estimates,
EPA divided annual compensation estimates by 2,080 which is the number
of hours in the Federal work year.  EPA uses a multiplication factor of
1.6 to derive hourly estimates inclusive of benefits.  Taking into
account benefits, the average hourly rate is $91.20 ($57 x 1.6).

Exhibit 8: Annual Agency Burden and Cost

Respondent Activity	Estimated Hours per Activity 1	Estimated Cost per
Activity	Estimated No. Activities	Total Hours by Activity	Total Costs by
Activity

Review/Manage Pre-CERCLIS Screening	23	$2,098 	106	7,805	$711,816

Review/Manage Preliminary Assessment	58	$5,290 	94	6,469	$589,973

Review/Manage Site Inspection	274	$24,989 	61	20,556	$1,874,707

Review/Manage Integrated Assessment 	98	$8,938 	3	684	$62,381

Review/Manage Expanded Site Inspection	138	$12,586 	38	4,138	$377,386

Review/Manage Site Reassessment 	92	$8,390 	76	7,767	$708,350

Review/Manage HRS Package	321	$29,275 	25	2,250	$205,200

SUBTOTAL	 	 	656	49,669	$4,529,813

Reimbursement of State Costs	 	 	 	 	$11,740,260

TOTAL	 	 	656	49,669	$16,270,073

1 Weighted average based on activity hours provided by the EPA Regions

Approximately 61 regional EPA staff review and manage the Superfund site
assessment work carried out by states and tribes.  In addition to
reviewing site assessment reports submitted by states and tribes, EPA
staff conduct site management, oversight and quality assurance
activities.  Oversight activities include: reporting and recordkeeping
activities such as establishing and maintaining a master database;
answering respondent questions; auditing and reviewing data submissions;
recording and entering data submissions; analyzing requests for
confidentiality and providing confidentiality protection; reformatting
and distributing data; and storing data.

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

EPA estimates that an annual average of 60 States (including U.S.
Territories) and Tribes will perform the site assessment activities
described in this ICR.  The estimated annual burden to these respondents
for performing these activities is approximately 148,873 hours at a cost
of approximately $11,740,260.  One hundred percent of the respondent
cost ($11,740,260) is reimbursed by the EPA through cooperative
agreements.  On average, EPA estimates each respondent will complete and
submit approximately 11 assessment reports per year.

6(e)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs

Total annual average estimated respondent burden hours and costs are
shown in Exhibit 9 below.  Exhibit 9 combines information in Exhibit 5
(respondent hours burden) and Exhibit 7 (respondent cost burden) into a
single table.   Total Agency burden hours and costs are shown in Exhibit
8 above.

Exhibit 9: Total Estimated Respondent Burden and Cost Summary

Respondent Activity	Estimated Hours per Activity	Estimated Cost per
Activity	Estimated No. Activities	Total Hours by Activity	Total Costs by
Activity

Review/Manage Pre-CERCLIS Screening	99.08	$5,226 	342	33,885	$1,787,385

Review/Manage Preliminary Assessment	200.34	$8,938 	111	22,238	$992,084

Review/Manage Site Inspection	596.4	$36,214 	75	44,730	$2,716,035

Review/Manage Integrated Assessment 	565.14	$25,043 	7	3,956	$175,300

Review/Manage Expanded Site Inspection	702.56	$52,521 	30	21,077
$1,575,635

Review/Manage Site Reassessment 	214.25	$14,072 	84	17,997	$1,182,066

Review/Manage HRS Package	712.86	$49,949 	7	4,990	$349,642

State/Tribal Infrastructure 	 	 	 	 	$2,962,113

SUBTOTAL	 	 	656	148,873	$11,740,260

Less Federal Reimbursement	 	 	 	 	-$11,740,260

TOTAL	 	 	656	148,873	$0

6(f)	Reasons for Change in Burden tc \l2 "6(f)	Burden Statement

The estimated respondent burden presented in this ICR represents an
adjustment from the burden estimates of the previous ICR.  Respondent
burden is estimated to decline by 1,412 hours and by $1,840,115.  This
decrease is primarily due to a 28 percent decline in the number of total
activities to be performed by respondents combined with a 21 percent
decline in State/Tribal infrastructure costs.  The total hour burden
will decline by only one percent as respondents are expected to perform
a greater number of the more labor intensive ESI and HRS package
activities.

6(g)	Burden Statement tc \l2 "6(f)	Burden Statement

Depending on the number and type of activities performed, average burden
per Response is estimated as 226.9 hours.  Burden ranges from 99 to
2,311 hours per site.  The number of hours required to assess a
particular site depends on how far a site progresses through the site
assessment process.  Sites where only a pre-CERCLIS screening is
performed will on average  require approximately 99 hours (average for
conducting pre-CERCLIS screening and no other work), while sites that
progress to NPL listing may require approximately 2,311 hours
(cumulative average for conducting pre-CERCLIS screening, PA, SI, ESI
and HRS package work).  This burden estimate includes reporting
activities and minimal recordkeeping activities.

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

To comment on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID number
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0888, which is available online viewing at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov , or in person viewing
at the Superfund Docket in the EPA Docket enter (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, D.C.  The EPA Docket
Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
Superfund Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An electronic version of the public
docket is available at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
www.regulations.gov .  This site can be used to submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket,
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically.  When in the system, select “search,” then key in
the Docket ID Number identified above.  Also, you can send comments to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk
Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0888 and OMB Control Number2050-0095 in any
correspondence.

7.	REFERENCES tc \l1 "7.	REFERENCES

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Superfund
Remediation and Technology Innovation. Guidance for Performing
Preliminary Assessments Under CERCLA. OSWER 9345.0-01A.

EPA/540/G-91/013.  September 1991.

(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres)

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/)

United States Environmental Protection Agency.  Office of Superfund
Remediation and Technology Innovation.  Guidance for Performing Site
Inspections Under CERCLA,  Interim Final. OSWER 9345.1-05. EPA
540-R-92-021.  September 1992.

(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres)

United States Environmental Protection Agency.  Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response.  Hazard Ranking System Guidance Manual.  Interim
Final. Publication 9345.1-07. PB92-963377.  EPA 540-R-92-026.  November
1992.

(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres)

United States Environmental Protection Agency.  Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response.  USEPA, Superfund Program Implementation Manual
Fiscal Year 2008/2009, EPA 9200.3-14-1G-S, April 2007.

(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/process/spim08.htm)

42 US Code, Chapter 103, Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability.  January 1999.
(http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title42/chapter103_subchapteri_.html)

United States Environmental Protection Agency.  Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response.  Improving Site Assessment: Pre-CERCLIS
Screening Assessments.  9375.2-11FS, October 1999.
(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/fact/sascreen.pdf)

United States Environmental Protection Agency.  Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response.  Improving Site Assessment: Abbreviated
Preliminary Assessments.  9375.2-09FS, October 1999.
(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/fact/apa.pdf)

United States Environmental Protection Agency.  Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response.  Improving Site Assessment: Integrating Removal
and Remedial Site Evaluations.  9330.0-39FS, April 2000.
(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/fact/r&reval.pdf)

1  55 Federal Register 51532 (12/14/90) as codified in 40 CFR Part 300
at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/40cfr300_03.html.

  Section 104 of CERCLA can be found at
http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title42/chapter103_subchapteri_.html

  EPA’s 2006-2011 Strategic Plan can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/2006/entire_report.pdf

  Section 116 of CERCLA as amended by SARA can be found at
http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title42/chapter103_subchapteri_.html.

  As stated in EPA’s ICR Handbook, revised November 2005, sensitive
questions are those concerning sexual behavior, attitudes, religious
beliefs, or matters usually considered private.

6  USEPA, Improving Site Assessment: Pre-CERCLIS Screening Assessments,
OSWER 9375.2-11FS, October 1999.

  USEPA, Guidance for Performing Preliminary Assessments Under CERCLA,
OSWER 9345.0-01A, September 1991.

  USEPA, Improving Site Assessment: Abbreviated Preliminary Assessments,
OSWER 9375.2-09FS, October 1999

9  USEPA, Guidance for Performing Site Inspections Under CERCLA, Interim
Final, OSWER 9345.1-05, September 1992.

  USEPA, Improving Site Assessment: Integrating Removal and Remedial
Site Evaluations, OSWER-9360.0-39FS, April 2000.

  USEPA, Superfund Program Implementation Manual Fiscal Year 2008/2009,
EPA 9200.3-14-1G-S, April 2007.

  USEPA, Guidance for Performing Site Inspections Under CERCLA, Interim
Final, OSWER 9345.1-05, September 1992.

  USEPA, Superfund Program Implementation Manual Fiscal Year 2008/2009,
EPA 9200.3-14-1G-S, April 2007.

  Section 116 of CERCLA as amended by SARA can be found at
http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title42/chapter103_subchapteri_.html.

  Figure provided by EPA Headquarters.

 PAGE  ii

 PAGE   iii

 PAGE  18

 PAGE  5


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60946-60948]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25839]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0189]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Approval of a New
Information Collection Request: Truck and Bus Maintenance Requirements
and Their Impact on Safety

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its
review and approval and invites public comment. This new request titled
``Truck and Bus Maintenance Requirements and Their Impact on Safety''
will allow for a study that focuses on vehicle maintenance and aims to
determine the impact of vehicle maintenance requirements on overall
motor carrier safety. This information collection supports the DOT
Strategic Goal of Safety.

DATES: Please send your comments by December 27, 2018. OMB must receive
your comments by this date in order to act quickly on the ICR.

ADDRESSES: All comments should reference Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2018-0189. Interested persons are
invited to submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention
of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, and sent via electronic mail to
[email protected], or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW, Washington,
DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Quon Y. Kwan, Program Manager,
Technology Division, Department of Transportation, Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, 6th Floor, West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Email Address: [email protected]. Office hours are from 9 a.m. to 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Truck and Bus Maintenance Requirements and Their Impact on
Safety.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-00XX.
    Type of Request: New information collection.
    Respondents: Freight motor carriers and passenger carriers.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 578 respondents will complete the
Online Recruitment Survey. Of those 578 respondents, 289 will also
complete the Carrier Maintenance Manager Survey.
    Estimated Time per Response: Varies [Online Recruitment Survey: 5
minutes.

Carrier Maintenance Manager Survey: 45 minutes].
    Expiration Date: Three years after approval.
    Frequency of Response: Once.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 265 hours [Online Recruitment
Survey: 578 respondents x (5 minutes / 60 minutes) = 48 hours; Carrier
Maintenance Manager Survey: 289 respondents x (45 minutes / 60 minutes)
= 217 hours].

Background

    Background: FMCSA's core mission is to reduce crashes, injuries,
and fatalities involving large trucks and buses. To aid in
accomplishing this, the Agency uses the Compliance, Safety,
Accountability (CSA) enforcement program to prioritize and target
interventions of those motor carriers who are most likely to be
involved in a future crash. As part of the CSA program, the Agency
deploys the Safety Measurement System (SMS). SMS uses inspection,
crash, and investigation data captured in the Motor Carrier Management
Information System (MCMIS) to calculate a percentile for each motor
carrier. A motor carrier's SMS percentile is based on its past
compliance with a complete range of safety-based regulations (such as
driver safety, hours of service, driver fitness, and vehicle
maintenance, among others). The survey described in this notice focuses
on the vehicle maintenance component of those safety regulations. The
goal of the study is to determine what improvements, ranging from
better compliance interventions to better vehicle maintenance
requirements, would enhance motor carrier safety.
    In 2014, the John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center
(Volpe) conducted a study to assess the effectiveness of SMS in
identifying the highest risk motor carriers to be targeted for
interventions. One finding from the study was that motor carriers
targeted for intervention due to ``vehicle maintenance'' issues (i.e.,
violations) had a 65 percent higher crash rate compared to the national
average. These violations are based on Federal and State inspections of
components critical to the safe operation of the vehicle. It is
important to recognize that proper and regular preventative maintenance
(i.e., systematic maintenance programs) among carriers--rather than
Federal and State inspections, which are by nature limited to the most
visible or obvious safety-related components--should be the primary
activity applied to ensure safe equipment operation.
    While these initial findings are important, they raise additional
questions. One such question is prompted by the stipulation in 49 CFR
396.3(a), which states that every carrier must have a program to
``systematically inspect, repair, and maintain, or cause to be
systematically inspected, repaired, and maintained, all motor vehicles
and intermodal equipment subject to its control.'' Though this
regulation provides some direction, there is no supporting definition
of the word ``systematic,'' and because this term is subjective, it is
likely to vary from one carrier to another. The lack of specificity
regarding standard intervals for preventative maintenance makes it
difficult for Federal and State personnel to evaluate the effectiveness
of and compliance with a carrier's maintenance program. Furthermore,
the lack of specificity may make it difficult for carriers to ascertain
and therefore comply with the regulation's intent.
    The current research effort, augmented by the proposed survey, is
necessary to improve FMCSA's understanding of the safety impact of
preventative vehicle maintenance and to clarify the requirements of
section 396.3(a). The study objectives are as follows:
    1. Develop an operational definition of ``systematic maintenance.''
    2. Evaluate whether current regulations and the intervention
process could be modified to improve compliance with vehicle
maintenance requirements. Examples of such requirements include: (i)
Preventative maintenance intervals, (ii) preventative maintenance
inspections with adequately trained/equipped mechanics, and (iii)
adequacy of motor carriers' maintenance facilities. [However, the
results of the survey will be used only to explore what areas of
rulemaking and/or other areas, such as policy guidance and training,
might be useful in the future; the results of the survey will not be
used for rulemaking, per se.]
    3. Gather information to assist in establishing minimum standards
for inspection intervals, mechanic qualifications and training, and
certification of maintenance facilities.
    FMCSA is authorized to conduct this research under 49 U.S.C. 31108,
Motor Carrier Research and Technology Program. Under section
31108(a)(3)(C), FMCSA may fund research, development, and technology
projects that improve the safety and efficiency of commercial motor
vehicle operations through technological innovation and improvement.
This information collection supports the U.S. Department of
Transportation (USDOT) strategic goal of Safety.
    Under contract to FMCSA, the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute
(VTTI) at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (VT)
will use online surveys to obtain the data required to address the
study objectives. The information collection will be administered in
two phases:
    Phase I: Online Recruitment Survey. This voluntary, seven-question
survey will screen carriers and verify their eligibility for Phase II
participation. To be eligible for Phase II participation, carriers must
fall into one of two groups: (a) The Recommended Practices (RP) Group,
which includes carriers with the lowest Vehicle Maintenance and Crash
Indicator Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories (BASIC)
percentiles (i.e., less than or equal to the 33rd percentile); or (b)
the Intervention Effects (IE) Group, which includes carriers that have
experienced Federal or State interventions in the last 24 months due to
vehicle maintenance violations. The BASICs are Unsafe Driving, Crash
Indicator, Hours-of-Service (HOS) Compliance, Vehicle Maintenance,
Controlled Substances/Alcohol, Hazardous Materials (HM) Compliance, and
Driver Fitness. More information on the SMS methodology can be found at
https://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/Documents/SMSMethodology.pdf.
    Phase II: Carrier Maintenance Management Survey. This voluntary,
106-question survey will include questions about demographics;
maintenance practices, intervals, personnel, and facilities; and State
and Federal inspections, among other things. The Phase II survey will
employ branch logic; as such, carriers will be prompted to complete
different sections based on their survey group (and for one section,
carrier size). Consequently, no participating carrier will be asked to
complete all 106 questions.
    In the Phase II survey, carriers (of all sizes) in the RP Group
will be asked to provide additional information about maintenance
personnel and facilities (e.g., mechanic training levels, tools
required for adequate inspection, and certification of facilities) and
vehicle maintenance issues that may impact safety. Information from the
RP Group will seek to address Objective 1, relating to development of
an operational definition of ``systematic maintenance,'' Objective 2,
and Objective 3, relating to establishment of minimum standards for
inspection intervals, mechanic qualifications and training, and
certification of maintenance facilities.
    Carriers in the IE Group will be asked to complete the section on
intervention effects, which includes questions about

the status of active interventions or investigations; results of closed
interventions or investigations; interactions with State versus Federal
agencies; intervention activities experienced; the accuracy of
violations leading to interventions; actions taken in response to
interventions; changes in carrier vehicle maintenance practices as a
result of an intervention; significant benefits of interventions; and
ways the intervention process could be improved. Information provided
by the IE Group will address the portion of Objective 2 regarding
sufficiency of regulations and where interventions need to be improved
to facilitate complying with these regulations.
    Survey responses will be summarized and reported using plots,
tables, content analysis, and calculated summary statistics. Plots and
tables will provide a visual comparison of multiple choice and checkbox
survey responses for successful carriers (i.e., carriers in the RP
Group) and those receiving interventions in the last 24 months (i.e.,
carriers in the IE Group). These methods will also allow researchers to
summarize responses by carrier operation type (i.e., truck or bus) and
size. Bar charts will be used to plot responses to many survey
questions. Some survey responses may be summarized with tables with
rows for each of the carrier operation types (truck or bus) and each
carrier-size subgroup. To explore and summarize responses to open-ended
survey questions, researchers will use content analysis methods. An
illustration of an open-ended question in the survey is ``List examples
of critical safety-related maintenance activities for trailer vehicle
milestones.'' The goal of content analysis of open-ended questions will
be to identify common answers.
    The results of this information collection will be documented in a
technical report to be delivered to and published by FMCSA. In
addition, the results will be used to create a ``recommended best
practices'' report that will outline minimum standards for inspection
intervals, mechanic qualifications and training, and certification of
maintenance facilities. Finally, VTTI is required under the contract
with FMCSA to compile and analyze the collected information and develop
a public-use data set.
    This ICR is for a one-time data collection. If this data collection
does not take place, the truck and bus industry will continue to
operate with the uncertainty of what constitutes a ``systematic
maintenance'' program, as currently worded in section 396.3(a). This
term's ambiguous definition makes it difficult for Federal and State
inspectors to evaluate the effectiveness of a carrier's maintenance
program or its compliance with this provision. Furthermore, this
uncertainty may make it difficult for carriers to ascertain and
therefore comply with the regulation's intent.
    On July 16, 2018, FMCSA published a 60-day Federal Register notice
(83 FR 32950). The Agency received four comments. One anonymous comment
was unrelated to the ICR. Both the American Bus Association and the
American Trucking Associations voiced support for the ICR in their
comment letters. The National School Transportation Association also
voiced support for the ICR, but it requested that the survey instrument
include questions to identify the type of commercial motor vehicles
operated by the respondent. In response, the Agency reviewed and
revised three survey questions to better differentiate between various
types of passenger-carrying CMVs.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed
collection is necessary for FMCSA to perform its functions; (2) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for FMCSA to enhance the
quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information.

    Issued under the authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87 on: November
20, 2018.
G. Kelly Regal,
Associate Administrator for Office of Research and Information
Technology.
[FR Doc. 2018-25839 Filed 11-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 6, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8507-8508]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02658]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: CP13-57-000
    Applicants: Dominion Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Application to Abandon Rate Schedules X-15 and X-58.
    Filed Date: 1/23/13
    Accession Number: 20130123-5200
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/5/13

    Docket Numbers: RP13-348-000
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C. submits Compliance
Filing to show an amended summary to the Operational Purchases and
Sales Report.
    Filed Date: 1/24/13
    Accession Number: 20130124-5155
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/5/13

    Docket Numbers: RP13-468-000
    Applicants: Trailblazer Pipeline Company LLC
    Description: Change Penalty Refund from Quarterly to Annually to be
effective 2/22/2013
    Filed Date: 1/22/13
    Accession Number: 20130122-5234
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/4/13

    Docket Numbers: RP13-469-000
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy--Mississippi River T
    Description: Fuel Adjustment Filing of CenterPoint Energy--
Mississippi River Transmission, LLC
    Filed Date: 1/22/13
    Accession Number: 20130122-5237
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/4/13

    Docket Numbers: RP13-470-000
    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy
    Description: Amendment No. 13 to be effective 12/27/2012
    Filed Date: 1/22/13
    Accession Number: 20130122-5243
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/4/13

    Docket Numbers: RP13-476-000
    Applicants: Black Marlin Pipeline Company
    Description: Petition of Black Marlin Pipeline Company under New
Docket for Extension of Exemptions from Certain Tariff Provisions
    Filed Date: 1/25/13
    Accession Number: 20130125-5160
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/6/13

    Docket Numbers: RP13-477-000
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: 01/25/13 Negotiated Rates--JP Morgan Ventures Energy
Corp (HUB) 6025-89 to be effective 1/24/2013
    Filed Date: 1/25/13
    Accession Number: 20130125-5166
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/6/13

    Docket Numbers: RP13-478-000
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. submits tariff
filing per 154.204: 01/25/13 Negotiated Rates--Tenaska Gas Storage
(HUB)--1175-89 to be effective 1/24/2013
    Filed Date: 1/25/13
    Accession Number: 20130125-5173
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/6/13

    Docket Numbers: RP13-479-000
    Applicants: Northwest Pipeline GP
    Description: NWP LS Rate Schedule Cleanup to be effective 2/25/2013
    Filed Date: 1/25/13
    Accession Number: 20130125-5189
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/6/13

    Docket Numbers: RP13-480-000
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC
    Description: Neg Rate 2013-01-25 Encana to be effective 2/1/2013
    Filed Date: 1/28/13
    Accession Number: 20130128-5098
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/11/13

    Docket Numbers: RP13-481-000
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company
    Description: 20121102 Waiver of Trial by Jury to be effective 2/28/
2013
    Filed Date: 1/28/13
    Accession Number: 20130128-5156
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/11/13

    Docket Numbers: RP13-482-000
    Applicants: Questar Overthrust Pipeline Company
    Description: Sec. 6.16 Request to Acquire Released Capacity to be
effective 3/1/2013
    Filed Date: 1/28/13
    Accession Number: 20130128-5191
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/11/13

    Docket Numbers: RP13-483-000
    Applicants: Questar Southern Trails Pipeline Company
    Description: Sec. 7.16 Request to Acquire Released Capacity to be
effective 3/1/2013
    Filed Date: 1/28/13
    Accession Number: 20130128-5192
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/11/13

    Docket Numbers: RP13-484-000
    Applicants: Questar Pipeline Company
    Description: Questar Pipeline Company submits tariff filing per
154.203: Negotiated Rate--Berry Petroleum to be effective 2/7/2013
    Filed Date: 1/28/13
    Accession Number: 20130128-5216

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/11/13

    Docket Numbers: RP13-485-000
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. submits tariff
filing per 154.204: 01/28/13 Negotiated Rates--Hess Corporation (HUB)--
1365-89 to be effective 1/27/2013
    Filed Date: 1/28/13
    Accession Number: 20130128-5217
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/11/13

    Docket Numbers: RP13-486-000
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. submits tariff
filing per 154.204: 01/28/13 Negotiated Rates--JP Morgan Ventures
Energy Corp (HUB)--6025-89 to be effective 1/26/2013
    Filed Date: 1/28/13
    Accession Number: 20130128-5220
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/11/13

    Docket Numbers: RP13-487-000
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. submits tariff
filing per 154.204: 01/28/13 Negotiated Rates--Sequent Energy
Management (HUB)--3075-89 to be effective 1/25/2013
    Filed Date: 1/28/13
    Accession Number: 20130128-5225
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/11/13

    Docket Numbers: RP13-488-000
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. submits tariff
filing per 154.204: 01/28/13 Negotiated Rates--United Energy Trading
(HUB)--5095-89 to be effective 1/25/2013
    Filed Date: 1/28/13
    Accession Number: 20130128-5226
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/11/13

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other
information, call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-
8659.

    Dated January 29, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-02658 Filed 2-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 228)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 73016-73017]
[DOCID:fr29no10-35]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0582; Airspace Docket No. 10-AEA-15]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Kenbridge, VA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E Airspace at
Kenbridge, VA, to accommodate the additional airspace needed for the
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) developed for Lunenburg
County Airport. This action would enhance the safety and airspace
management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: 0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before January 13,
2011.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001;
Telephone: 1-800-647-5527; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the
Docket Number FAA-2010-0582; Airspace Docket No. 10-AEA-15, at the
beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received
comments through the Internet at http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Horrocks, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire.
Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and
suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned
regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited
on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and
energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2010-0582; Airspace Docket No. 10-AEA-15) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov.
    Comments wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket
No. FAA-2010-0582; Airspace Docket No. 10-AEA-15.'' The postcard will
be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and
comments submitted through http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov. Recently
published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's
Web page at http:[sol][sol]www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_
traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, room 210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia
30337.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish Class E airspace at
Kenbridge, VA to provide controlled airspace required to support the
SIAPs developed for Lunenburg County Airport. Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface would be established
for the safety and management of IFR operations.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA order 7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,
2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document would be published
subsequently in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed 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. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would 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 I, 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 proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority
described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that
section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the
use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope
of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace at Lunenburg
County Airport, Kenbridge, VA.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

    1. The authority citation for 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]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,
2010, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward from 700
feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AEA VA E5 Kenbridge, VA [NEW]

Lunenburg County Airport, VA
    (Lat. 36[deg]57'37'' N., long. 78[deg]11'06'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.8-mile radius of the Lunenburg County Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on November 16, 2010.
Mark D. Ward,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2010-29897 Filed 11-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 146 (Monday, August 1, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 46956]
[FR Doc No: 2022-16423]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER22-2481-000]

Seven Cowboy Wind Project, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Seven Cowboy Wind Project, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is August 15, 2022.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 26, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-16423 Filed 7-29-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P