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 i TABLE OF CONTENTS 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2( b) Practical Utility/ Users Of The Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3( a) Non duplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3( b) Public Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3( c) Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3( e) General Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3( f) Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3( g) Sensitive Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4( a) Respondents Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4( b) Information Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED  AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5( a) EPA Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5( b) Collection Methodology and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5( c) Small Entity Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5( d) Collection Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 6( d) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 6( e) Reasons for Change in Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 6( f) Burden Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7. REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 ii LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1. Major Components of EPA's Superfund Site Assessment Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Exhibit 2. Use and Users of the Site Assessment Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Exhibit 3. Detailed Site Assessment Activities and Data Collected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Exhibit 4. EPA's Integrated Assessment Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Exhibit 5. Annual Respondent Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Exhibit 6. Site Assessment Screening Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Exhibit 7. Annual Respondent Burden and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Exhibit 8. Annual Agency Burden and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 1 55 Federal Register 51532 ( 12/ 14/ 90) as codified in 40 CFR part 300, http:// uscode. house. gov/ download/ title_ 42. php. 2 USEPA, Improving Site Assessment: Pre CERCLIS Screening Assessments, OSWER 9375.2 11FS, October 1999. 3 USEPA, Guidance for Performing Site Inspections Under CERCLA, Interim Final, OSWER 9345.1 05, September 1992.

1 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title of the Information Collection This Information Collection Request ( ICR) is number 1488.06 and is entitled, " 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 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. Uniform application of the HRS by the EPA, States, Tribes, and their contractors enables EPA to identify and prioritize hazardous waste sites that warrant further investigation. 1 EPA uses a multi phase evaluation to determine and implement the appropriate responses to releases of hazardous substances to the environment. Each site undergoes a minimal screening process ( CERCLIS pre screening) 2 to determine whether the CERCLA site assessment process is appropriate for the site or if another option is more appropriate. Once a hazardous waste site is identified as appropriate for the site assessment process, EPA enters information about the site in a database called the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System ( CERCLIS). Sites listed in CERCLIS generally go through the site assessment process. During the site assessment process, EPA and States or Tribes collect data to identify, evaluate, and rank hazardous waste sites based on HRS criteria.

Throughout the site assessment process, the HRS is used as a screening tool for determining whether a site should 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 scoring 28.50 or greater are eligible for placement on the NPL. 3 A more detailed explanation of how data collected during the site assessment process are used by the Superfund program is provided in Section 2.2, Use and Users of the Data.

The site assessment process includes three primary screening activities: Preliminary Assessment ( PA), Site Inspection ( SI), and HRS scoring package development. During the PA, EPA collects and reviews readily available information ( i. e., site history, drinking water sources, surrounding populations) about a site to determine whether a threat or potential threat exists and to decide if further investigation is needed. During an SI, EPA further evaluates the extent to which a site presents a threat to human health or the environment by performing fieldwork to determine whether hazardous substances are present at the site 4 USEPA, Hazard Ranking System Guidance Manual, Interim Final, OSWER 9345.1 07, November 1992.

2 Pre CERCLIS Screen/ Site Discovery Preliminary Assessment ( PA) Site Inspection ( SI) Hazard Ranking System ( HRS) National Priorities List ( NPL)

Removal Actions May Occur At Any Time NFRAP and Deferred ( Information provided to states & other regulatory agencies) and are migrating to the surrounding environment. There also is an effort to review data when it first comes to EPA's attention. Through pre CERCLIS screening EPA can ensure that uncontaminated or lightly contaminated sites are not arbitrarily entered into CERCLIS for Superfund financed cleanup, evaluation, or oversight activities. Low cost mechanisms are used to determine whether the site is already being addressed by another party and to define EPA's role/ potential role at the site. At the conclusion of each phase of the site assessment process, EPA applies the HRS model to derive a preliminary site score. The site score is used to determine whether further investigation is necessary or whether the site should receive a " No Further Remedial Action Planned" ( NFRAP) designation. A NFRAP designation means that further remedial assessment under the Federal Superfund program is not planned, although Superfund removal assessment and/ or action may still take place. Aside from the NFRAP designation, sites are subject to several other outcomes. Sites that present an immediate danger to human health and the environment may be referred to the removal program for emergency response. Sites can also be referred to the State or to other programs for further consideration ( i. e., deferral to RCRA Corrective Action Authorities). 4 Exhibit 1 outlines the major components of the site assessment process from pre CERCLIS screening/ site discovery to NPL listing. More detailed information on the general activities performed and data collected during the Superfund site assessment process is provided in Section 4( b) Information Requested.

Exhibit 1. Major Components of EPA's Superfund Site Assessment Process 5 USEPA, Guidance for Performing Site Inspections Under CERCLA, Interim Final, OSWER 9345.1 05, September 1992. 6 USEPA, Site Inspection Prioritization Guidance, OSWER 9345.1 15FS, August 1993. 7 Section 104 of CERCLA can be found in http:// uscode. house. gov/ download/ title_ 42. php 3 Sites investigated by EPA range in complexity; therefore the site assessment process is designed to adapt investigations to expedite site decisions. Some sites may require that specialized field data gathering techniques such as ground water monitoring well installation be used to adequately assess the risks. In such cases, an Expanded Site Inspection ( ESI) may be needed to produce reliable HRS data. ESIs test hypotheses developed during the SI by collecting additional data beyond that collected in the SI. 5 A Site Inspection Prioritization ( SIP) was established by EPA as a temporary intermediate step in the site assessment process to collect additional information for sites that were placed on hold prior to publication of the HRS final rule in December 1990. Additional information was needed for these sites in order to meet the data requirements of the revised HRS. 6 EPA authorized SIPs only for sites that had an SI performed prior to August 1992.

In an effort to reduce the amount of time and money spent on a given site, some phases of the site assessment process may be combined. For example, a single combined PA/ SI investigation instead of the two separate investigations may be performed. In some cases, removal site evaluation activities can be coordinated with site assessment activities to form a single investigation called an Integrated Removal and Remedial Site Evaluation ( Integrated Assessment). When applicable, Integrated Assessments reduce duplicative efforts, saving both time and money for all parties involved. In addition, an ESI/ Remedial Investigation ( RI) may be performed on a site. An ESI/ RI combines the data gathering activities that are common to both the ESI and the RI,. and are recommended at sites where conditions indicate that the HRS score will be above 28.50. ESI/ RIs do not necessarily replace RIs because the characteristics of a site may not be known prior to completion of an ESI/ RI. Occasionally, new information on sites previously assessed is identified. In these cases, a Site Reassessment may be performed as a supplement to the previous assessment work.

State and Tribal involvement in the Superfund program has grown over time. States are now involved in virtually every phase of the Superfund decision making process. CERCLA requires EPA to coordinate with States and Tribes when the Federal government leads or oversees the site response.

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 per site assessment activity multiplied by the average number of sites assessed per year. In order to calculate the burden for this ICR, EPA Regions provided information on the burden of site assessment activities on State and Tribal respondents.

Projected FY04 data provided by EPA Headquarters and Regional information from the States and Tribes show that the estimated annual hour and cost burden to State and Tribal respondents for performing site assessment activities is approximately 150,285 hours and $ 13,580,375, respectively. One hundred percent of the respondent cost ($ 13,580,375) is reimbursed by the EPA through cooperative agreements ( CAs) as set forth by Section 104( d) of CERCLA. 7 Section 6.0 of this document, Estimating the Burden and Cost of Collection, provides a more detailed discussion of the burden to respondents. 4 This ICR is prepared using the guidance contained in the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation's ( OPPE's) February 1999 ICR Handbook. 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.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 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.

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 should be included on the NPL. Each State or Tribe 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 5 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 in Http:// uscode. house. gov/ download/ title_ 42. php.

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;

Respond to sites where removal actions are warranted;

Rank sites based on the HRS;

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 maintain the CERCLIS database, respond to information requests, and perform analyses for EPA management, OMB, Congress, and the general public. 6 Staff at the ten EPA Regions use Superfund site assessment data for purposes similar to Headquarters  to develop operating budgets and program plans; allocate resources; track State by State performance; respond to information inquiries under the Freedom of Information Act ( FOIA); and supply input to CERCLIS. Regions must also respond to inquiries by 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 State 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 $ Maintain CERCLIS $ 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 $ Perform site assessment $ Generate HRS scores $ Track site status $ Coordinate with other environmental programs $ Maintain site files $ Respond to information inquiries ( FOIA) 7 3. NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 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.

Except for federal facilities, the field data gathered during the site assessment process are not generally collected by any other Federal agency. In the case of federal facilities, the appropriate federal agency collects the necessary data, prepares the assessment report ( e. g., PA, SI), and submits the report to EPA for review. Since EPA only reviews these reports, there is no duplication of effort.

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 A notice stating that this ICR was up for renewal was published in the Federal Register on June 21, 2004 ( 69 FR 34346). This initiated a 60 day comment period which closed on August 21, 2004. No comments were received during the comment period.

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 FY 2004 site assessment projections. As part of obtaining the State and Tribal burden information, EPA Regional offices were contacted to determine the nature of site assessment activities performed by States and Tribes in that Region and the costs ( dollars and hours) associated with these activities.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Yearly collection activities associated with the site assessment process are based on the number of sites discovered and the number of sites in the CERCLIS inventory needing assessment work. The application of various guidance documents and other directives allows for the combination of several stages of the site assessment process that result in a minimization of the data collection burden. In addition, pre CERCLIS screening avoids the discovery of sites that are not appropriate for the CERCLA site assessment process. 8 As stated in the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation's ( OPPE's) February 1999 ICR Handbook, sensitive questions are those concerning sexual behavior, attitudes, religious beliefs, or matters usually considered private.

8 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 due to the following circumstances: frequency of site discoveries; time required for site evaluation and scoring; and the number of NPL update proposals performed during a given year. 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 3 year ICR period, as assessment and, if necessary, remediation may take more than 3 years.

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 caseby 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 Sensitive questions are not associated with the information collection activities performed during site assessment and HRS score preparation. 8 4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 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. 9 Based on actual LOE and clerical figures related to site evaluation activities over a five year period.

9 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 ( i. e., 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). 9 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 annual burden incurred by States and Tribes for collecting information necessary to move a site through the site assessment process. In order to determine this burden, the EPA Regions provided information about State and Tribal site assessment activities and FY04 projections of number of activities, average hours, and average dollars.

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: Combined Preliminary Assessment/ Site Inspection, Integrated Removal/ Remedial Evaluation, Site Inspection Prioritization, Expanded Site Inspection, and Expanded Site Inspection/ Remedial Investigation.

Exhibit 3 provides an overview of the activities performed and data items collected for the various phases of site assessment and illustrates where the sub phases may be utilized and the various outcomes. 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. In FY04, EPA 10 projects that 607 Pre CERCLIS screenings will be performed, of which approximately 501 will be State/ Tribal lead ( i. e., a State or Tribe is conducting the activity). 11 Pre CERCLIS Screening Assessment PA SI Combined PA/ SI SIP Integrated Removal Assessment/ Remedial Evaluation ESI HRS Package Preparation ESI/ RI

Non sampling data colllection

Report Preparation

Work Plan Preparation

Non Sampling data collection

Site Reconnaissance

PA Scoresheets completion

PA Score generation

Report peneration

Work plan preparation

Sample plan preparation

Health and safety plan preparation

Non sampling data collection

Site reconnaissance

Sample Collection

Data Validation

SI Scoresheet completion

SUPER Sreen generation

Report preparation Site Reassessment

Work plan preparation

Sample plan preparation

Non sampling data collection

Focused sample collection

Score update

Report generation

File review

Draft score

Revise score

Prepare Docket

Site name, location

Superfund eligibility

CERCLIS entry decision

Site name, location and mailing address

Historical site information

Current/ past owners & operators

Identification of potential sources

Location of drinking water supplies

Samples

Additional site history

Information on environmental setting

Samples

Additional field data

Pathways

Likelihood of release

Waste characteristics

Targets AUTHORITY/ REGULATION CERCLA / NCP ( HRS RULE) SITE ASSESSMENT RESPONDENT SITE ACTIVITIES DATA ITEMS Exhibit 3. Detailed Site Assessment Activities and Data Collected Preliminary Assessment The PA is a relatively rapid, low cost compilation of readily available information pertaining to the site and its surroundings. In FY04, EPA projected that 227 PAs will be performed, of which approximately 133 will be State/ Tribal lead. Data collection activities performed during the PA emphasize 10 USEPA, Guidance for Performing Preliminary Assessments Under CERCLA, OSWER 9345.0 01A, September 1991. 11 USEPA, Improving Site Assessment: Abbreviated Preliminary Assessments, OSWER 9375.2 09FS, October 1999 12 USEPA, Guidance for Performing Site Inspections Under CERCLA, Interim Final, OSWER 9345.1 05, September 1992.

12 identifying target populations and other targets that may be affected by contamination at the site. The scope of the PA investigation must be sufficient to complete several activities:

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. 10 Sampling activities are not performed during this phase of site assessment.

In certain situations, an Abbreviated PA ( APA) 11 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;

$ Available information allows EPA to make an early decision to undertake a Combined PA/ SI, and SI, or another Superfund investigation; 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. Looking ahead to FY04, 129 SIs are projected to be performed nationally, of which approximately 68 will be State/ Tribal lead 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. 12 13 USEPA, Improving Site Assessment: Combined PA/ SI Assessments, OSWER 9375.2 10FS, October 1999 14 USEPA, Site Inspection Prioritization Guidance, OSWER 9345.1 15FS, August 1993. 15 USEPA, Improving Site Assessment: Integrating Removal and Remedial Site Evaluations, OSWER 9360.0 39FS, April 2000.

13 Combined PA/ SI If site conditions warrant, these two site assessment processes ( PA and SI) may be performed simultaneously as a Combined PA/ SI13. The product will be one report that incorporates all the requirements of PAs and SIs. In FY01, EPA projects that 73 Combined PA/ SIs will be performed, and of those 43 will be State/ Tribal lead. As with the separate PA and SI assessments, a combined PA/ SI is performed to determine what steps, if any, need to occur next at the site.

Site Inspection Prioritization A SIP is a temporary intermediate step in the site assessment process designed to update SIs that were performed before publication of the September 1992 Guidance for Performing Site Inspections Under CERCLA. Changes in SI guidance were made in response to revisions to the HRS in December 1990. During the SIP, additional data are gathered to make screening decisions on the discrete universe of sites using minimal resources. Data gathering activities conducted for a SIP depend on the amount of additional information necessary to update existing SIs in accordance with current guidance and the revised HRS. Typical SIP activities include:

Reviewing available information including analytical data;

Organizing the project team and developing a SIP work plan;

Collecting non sampling data;

Performing limited sampling if needed;

Evaluating all information and updating the SI score based on the revised HRS; and

Preparing a brief site summary report ( usually in the form of a memo).

Data gathered during the SIP may include correcting additional site information ( e. g., historical site use) and target information ( e. g., wells within four miles, surface water intakes, fisheries and sensitive environments within 15 miles downstream). Limited samples may also be collected during the SIP if it is required for a screening decision. 14 While the SIP backlog has been essentially completed, this activity may be appropriate at some older sites requiring reassessment if and when new information is identified. In FY04, EPA projects that 15 SIPs will be performed, and of those none will be State/ Tribal lead.

Integrated Removal/ Remedial Evaluations Site assessment and removal assessment activities may be combined into a single Integrated Assessment activity if the appropriate site conditions exist. 15 Integrated Assessments further reduce repetitive tasks and costs on site characterization. The three most common types of Integrated Assessments include: Integrated Removal Assessment & PA; Integrated Removal Assessment & SI; and Integrated Removal Assessment & Combined PA/ SI. In FY04, EPA projects that 26 Integrated Removal/ Remedial Evaluations will be performed, and of those 12 will be State/ Tribal lead. The stand alone requirements 16 USEPA, Superfund Program Implementation Manual Fiscal Year 2002/ 2003, EPA 9200.3 14 1G P, April 2001. 17 USEPA, Guidance for Performing Site Inspections Under CERCLA, Interim Final, OSWER 9345.1 05, September 1992. 18 USEPA, Superfund Program Implementation Manual Fiscal Year 2002/ 2003, EPA 9200.3 14 1G P, April 2001. 19 USEPA, Superfund Program Implementation Manual Fiscal Year 2002/ 2003, EPA 9200.3 14 1G P, April 2001.

14 from the site assessment and removal assessment activities must be met even though the data will be integrated. 16 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. 17 In FY04, EPA projects that 81 ESIs will be performed, and of those 43 will be State/ Tribal lead.

Expanded Site Inspection/ Remedial Investigation The ESI may be combined with a remedial investigation to produce an ESI/ RI. An RI uses site characterization data to develop and evaluate effective remedial alternatives. It also provides assessments of risk to human health and the environment. During the ESI/ RI, site characterization data common to both ESI and RI activities are collected. It is recommended to perform ESI/ RIs on sites where conditions indicate that the HRS score will be greater than 28.50 and remediation will be necessary. In FY04, EPA projects that two ESI/ RIs will be performed, and one of those will be State/ Tribal lead. A separate RI is performed subsequent to this step, however the RI can now be more specific and accurate by utilizing the site characterization data obtained through the ESI/ RI. 18 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 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). 19 In FY04, EPA projects that 158 Site Reassessments will be performed, and of those 82 will be State/ Tribal lead. 15 HRS Package Preparation The final phase in the site assessment process is HRS package preparation. It is projected that 19 sites will have HRS packages prepared in FY04; of those, two will be State/ Tribal lead. 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 in http:// www. epa. gov/ superfund/ resources/ hrstrain/ htmain/ 3path. htm.

Federal Facility Reviews EPA plays an advisory role when it comes to PAs, SIs, and ESIs at Federal Facilities. EPA is limited to reviewing PA, SI, and ESI reports developed and submitted by the Federal Agencies responsible for a given Federal Facility. Upon reviewing the PA, SI, or ESI for completeness, and working with the other Federal Agency to address any deficiencies, EPA then determines what next steps are appropriate with respect to NPL listing. It is projected that 45 sites will have Federal Facility reviews in FY04, of which 20 reviews will be State/ Tribal lead. 16 5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED  AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5( a) EPA Activities The EPA Regions conduct site assessment activities, as well as providing oversight for State and Tribal site assessment cooperative agreements. The EPA Regions utilize contractors to support the completion of the site assessment activities specified in Exhibit 3.

In addition to overseeing the activities of the Regional and State offices, EPA Headquarters performs the following functions in conjunction with the activities associated with site assessment and HRS score generation:

Audits and reviews data submissions;

Maintains CERCLIS database; and

Answers respondent questions.

EPA Headquarters is responsible for ensuring national consistency for site assessment and placement of sites on the NPL. A quality assurance review is conducted by EPA Headquarters on each HRS package prepared by the Regions, States or Tribes. EPA Headquarters uses a contractor to support activities relating to site assessment, HRS scoring, and NPL listing.

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 the use of PA Score Sheets, PA Score software, or other suitable methods to generate 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 20 USEPA, Superfund Program Implementation Manual Fiscal Year 2002/ 2003, EPA 9200.3 14 1G P, April 2001. 21 Ibid.

17 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 through the use of SI Scoresheets or the SUPERScreen software package generating a preliminary HRS score. An SI report is the final product of this phase. Information collected during the SI is incorporated into subsequent assessment work.

Regions can combine PA and SI activities where warranted by site conditions to reduce repetitive tasks and ultimately costs. The combining of PA and SI activities is known as a Combined PA/ SI Assessment. A Combined PA/ SI may be contained in one physical report, as long as it contains all of the elements that would have been addressed under separate PA and SI reports. As with the separate PA and SI assessments, a Combined PA/ SI is performed to determine what steps, if any, need to occur next at the site. 20 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.

When site conditions indicate that it is likely to score 28.50 or above and an RI will be needed, an ESI/ RI may be performed to save the time and cost of characterizing the site on different occasions. An ESI/ RI is an integrated assessment consisting of an ESI and an RI. The ESI/ RI is used to expedite remedial response by gathering site characterization data common to both ESI and RI activities in one step. 21 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 has developed an automated site scoring tool for the revised HRS, called " SUPERScreen" ( formerly known as PREScore). SUPERScreen includes a user's manual, help screens, HRS scoresheet calculation package, and documentation for the Quality Assurance process. SUPERScreen assists individuals who perform site assessments by providing a computerized option for site score generation. A second computer program, " PA Score," is available to facilitate application of the HRS at the PA stage. PA Score uses a number of 18 Report Received/ Release Identified Initial Screening for Emergency Eligibility File Search ( if time allows) Initial Field Investigation ( Recon) Review Data/ Decision on Further Action Complete the PA and Report Classic Emergency Response Do Removal Time Critical Removal? Sampling Needed? Integrated Sampling Plan SI/ Removal Assessment sampling Report Do Removal Regional Decision Team No Further Action Sample ( Optional) No Further Action < 28.50 Definitely > 28.50 May be > 28.50 No > 28.50 default values for information not normally available at the PA stage of the site assessment process so that a preliminary assessment of the threats posed by the site can be determined.

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 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.

Exhibit 4. EPA's Integrated Assessment Process 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 22 Section 116 of CERCLA as amended by SARA can be found in http:// uscode. house. gov/ download/ title_ 42. php.

19 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 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 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. 22 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 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The annual burden for respondents is a function of the number of State lead activities performed per year. The estimated annual burden for State and Tribal authorities for site evaluation activities is approximately 150,285 hours. This estimate was calculated by multiplying the estimated number of State/ Tribal activities projected for FY04 by the average hours needed to perform each activity and summing the totals for all Regions. Exhibit 5 provides detailed information on the estimated annual respondent burden ( calculated as a weighted average). 23 Figure provided by EPA Headquarters.

20 Exhibit 5. Annual Respondent Burden Respondent Activities Estimated Hours Per Activity 1 No. FY2004 State/ Tribal Lead Activities1 Total Annual National Hours by Activity Pre CERCLIS Screening 56 501 28,129 PA 129 133 17,160 SI 494 68 33,587 Combined PA/ SI 551 43 23,703 SIP 0 0 0 Integrated Removal Assessment & PA 308 5 1,540 Integrated Removal Assessment & SI 536 3 1,608 Integrated Removal Assessment & Combined PA/ SI 588 4 2,350 ESI 655 43 28,170 ESI/ RI 2,500 1 2,500 Site Reassessment 103 82 8,438 HRS 550 2 1,100 Federal Facility PA Review 60 10 600 Federal Facility SI Review 140 10 1,400 Federal Facility ESI Review 0 0 0 TOTAL 905 150,285 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 five percent of the sites in the site assessment process are currently listed on the NPL. 23 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 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 56 hours ( average for conducting pre CERCLIS screening and no other work) to 1884 hours ( cumulative average for conducting pre CERCLIS screening, PA, SI, ESI, and HRS package work).

Exhibit 6. Site Assessment Screening Process * Historically includes five percent of the total sites in the CERCLIS inventory. 21 Pre CERCLIS Screenings Preliminary Assessments ( PA)

Site Inspections ( SI)

HRS Scoring Packages NPL Listing *

6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs The costs incurred by States and Tribes 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. Both activityspecific costs and infrastructure costs are reimbursed by the EPA. The total estimated annual respondent cost is $ 13,580,375. Exhibit 7 provides detailed information on the estimated annual respondent burden and costs as calculated based on projected FY04 activity data. Depending upon how far a particular site progresses through the site assessment process, the respondent cost per site may range from $ 3,431 ( average for conducting pre CERCLIS screening and no other work) to $ 119,510 ( cumulative average for conducting pre CERCLIS screening, PA, SI, ESI and HRS package work). 24 Based on information provided by EPA Headquarters and EPA Regions.

22 Exhibit 7. Annual Respondent Burden and Costs Respondent Activities Estimated Cost per Activity1 No. FY2004 State/ Tribal Lead Activities Total Annual National Cost by Activity Pre CERCLIS Screening 3,431 501 1,719,055 PA 7,951 133 1,057,499 SI 28,901 68 1,965,276 Combined PA/ SI 36,746 43 1,580,064 SIP 0 0 0 Integrated Removal Assessment & PA 13,350 5 66,748 Integrated Removal Assessment & SI 26,137 3 78,410 Integrated Removal Assessment & Combined PA/ SI 37,561 4 150,245 ESI 49,727 43 2,138,268 ESI/ RI 350,000 1 350,000 Site Reassessment 6,318 82 518,000 HRS 29,500 2 59,000 Federal Facility PA Review 3,600 10 36,000 Federal Facility SI Review 8,400 10 84,000 Federal Facility ESI Review 0 0 0 State/ Tribal Infrastructure 3,777,750 TOTAL 905 $ 13,580,375 1 Weighted average based on activity costs provided by the EPA Regions 6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Costs EPA Regional offices conduct site evaluation and HRS package preparation activities for EPAlead sites parallel to those conducted by State/ Tribal respondents for State/ Tribal lead sites. Based on FY04 projections, the estimated annual burden to the EPA for site assessment activities is $ 204,593 hours. 24 Based on Regional projections, estimated annual cost to the EPA is $ 24,953,255. Exhibit 8 provides detailed information on the estimated annual Agency burden and costs as calculated based on projected FY04 activity data. 25 Based on information provided by EPA Headquarters.

23 Exhibit 8. Annual Agency Burden and Cost Respondent Activity Estimated Hours per Activity 1 Estimated Cost per Activity1 Estimated No. FY2004 EPALead Activities Total Hours by Activity Total Costs by Activity Pre CERCLIS Screening 19 1,004 106 2,007 106,400 PA 150 9,521 94 14,137 895,020 SI 738 49,985 61 45,000 3,049,088 Combined PA/ SI 819 57,668 30 24,583 1,730,026 SIP 650 45,193 15 9,743 677,889 Integrated Removal Assessment & PA 326 16,333 3 978 48,999 Integrated Removal Assessment & SI 612 59,065 1 612 59,065 Integrated Removal Assessment & Combined PA/ SI 733 60,470 10 7,330 604,700 ESI 1,076 82,940 38 40,906 3,151,715 ESI/ RI 3,200 330,000 1 3,200 330,000 Site Reassessment 273 18,101 76 20,729 1,375,698 HRS 602 36,826 25 15,053 920,647 Federal Facility PA Review 32 2,197 15 475 32,950 Federal Facility SI Review 113 8,552 9 1,015 76,970 Federal Facility ESI Review 69 3,850 1 69 3,850 Other Costs 18,756 11,890,238 TOTAL 485 204,593 $ 24,953,255 1 Weighted average based on activity hours and costs provided by the EPA Regions The total burden includes costs for Regional contractors for each of the site assessment activities and Other Costs. Other Costs includes Headquarters HRS contractor costs, EPA Headquarters and Regional staffing costs, and lab costs associated with EPA's Contract Laboratory Program. Approximately 14 full time equivalents ( FTE) at EPA Headquarters and 90 FTE at EPA Regional offices perform oversight and quality assurance activities for all State, Tribal, and EPA lead sites. 25 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) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs The estimated annual burden to State and Tribal respondents for performing site assessment activities is approximately 150,285 hours and costs approximately $ 13,580,375. One hundred percent of the respondent cost ($ 13,580,375) is reimbursed by the EPA through cooperative agreements. 24 6( e) Reasons for Change in Burden The estimated respondent burden presented in this ICR represents an adjustment from the burden estimates of the previous ICR. Respondent burden decreased by 80,248 hours and by $ 4,795,987 million. The decrease is largely due to the decline in number of site assessment activities conducted nationally.

6( f) Burden Statement Depending on the number and type of activities performed, average burden per Response the is estimated as 166.1 hours. Burden ranges from 56 to 1,884 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 56 hours ( average for conducting pre CERCLIS screening and no other work), whereas sites that progress to NPL listing may require approximately 1,884 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.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U. S Environmental Protection Agency ( Mail Code 2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC. 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the EPA ICR number 1488.06 and OMB control number 2050 0095 in any correspondence.

Part B:

This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting this information. 25 REFERENCES United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Guidance for Performing Preliminary Assessments Under CERCLA. OSWER 9345.0 01A. EPA/ 540/ G 91/ 013. September 1991.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Guidance for Performing Site Inspections Under CERCLA, Interim Final. OSWER 9345.1 05. EPA 540 R 92 021. September 1992.

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.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Site Inspection Prioritization Guidance. Directive 9345.1 15FS. EPA/ 540/ F 93/ 037. August 1993.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Superfund Program Implementation Manual Fiscal Year 2002/ 2003, Volume 1. Directive 9200.3 14 1G P. EPA 540 R 01 004. April 2001. ( http:// www. epa. gov/ superfund/ action/ process/ spim. htm)

42 U. S. C. Chapter 103, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. January 1999. ( http:// uscode. house. gov/ download/ 42C103. DOC)

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/ programs/ siteasmt/ prefin. 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/ programs/ siteasmt/ apa. pdf)

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Improving Site Assessment: Combined PA/ SI Assessments. 9375.2 10FS, October 1999. ( http:// www. epa. gov/ superfund/ programs/ siteasmt/ pasifin. 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/ programs/ siteasmt/ intrem. pdf)


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 18 (Monday, January 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5794-5797]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01608]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF13-2-000]

Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Planned West Leg 2014 Expansion
Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of
Onsite Environmental Review

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the planned West Leg 2014
Expansion Project (Project) involving construction and operation of
facilities by Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) in Dakota and
Dodge Counties, Nebraska and Woodbury County, Iowa. The Commission will
use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the
project is in the public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project.

Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they
need to evaluate in the EA. Please note that the scoping period will
close on February 28, 2013. Further details on how to submit written
comments are in the Public Participation section of this notice.
    Environmental staff from the Commission's Office of Energy Projects
will be in the Project area to attend Northern's open houses for the
Project (February 4-6, 2013) and to conduct an onsite environmental
review on February 6, 2013. FERC staff, accompanied by Northern
representatives, will view the planned pipeline route from public
access points (primarily road crossings), visit locations for
aboveground facilities, and gather data for its environmental analysis
of the planned project. Interested parties may attend and should plan
to provide their own transportation. Those attending should meet
Commission staff at the following location and time: Wednesday,
February 6, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. CST, American Legion Hall, 901 Topaz
Drive, Sergeant Bluff, Iowa 51054.
    The site review will begin with project facilities in Iowa, and
continue west into Nebraska. FERC staff expects the site review will
take approximately two hours to complete.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this planned
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if
the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the
right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to
produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with
state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' is available for
viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet addresses
a number of typically-asked questions, including the use of eminent
domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.

Summary of the Planned Project

    Northern plans to construct the following facilities to meet
customer requests for 90,430 dekatherms per day of natural gas:
     Approximately 6 miles of 20-inch-diameter pipeline,
referred to as ``New Greenfield Branch Line'' from Dakota County,
Nebraska to Woodbury County, Iowa;
     Two compressor stations, the Homer Compressor Station in
Dakota County, Nebraska and the Fremont Compressor Station in Dodge
County, Nebraska;
     A new metering station in Woodbury County, Iowa;
     A 0.4-mile tie-over between two pipelines and a valve site
in Woodbury County, Iowa; and
     Minor modifications to existing facilities in Ellsworth,
Ottawa and Otoe Counties, Kansas and Woodbury and Cherokee Counties,
Iowa.
    The general location of the Project facilities is shown in Appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the planned facilities would temporarily disturb
about 215 acres of land for construction of the aboveground facilities
and the pipeline. Following construction, Northern would maintain about
49 acres for permanent operation of the Project facilities. The
remaining 166 acres disturbed by construction would be restored and
revert to former uses.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\2\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as scoping. The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will
consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the planned project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     Land use;
     Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     Cultural resources;
     Vegetation and wildlife;
     Air quality and noise;
     Endangered and threatened species;
     Public safety; and
     Cumulative impacts.
    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned project
or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen
or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Although no formal application has been filed, we have already
initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process.
The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement
of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before
the FERC receives an application. As part of our pre-filing review, we
have begun to contact some federal and state agencies to discuss their
involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EA.
    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA
will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on
the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish
and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We
will consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations
to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and
address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the
Public Participation section beginning on Page 5.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law
and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues
related to this project to formally cooperate with us in the
preparation of the EA \3\. Agencies that would like to request
cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing
comments provided under the Public Participation section of this
notice. Currently, the following agencies have expressed their

intention to participate as a cooperating agency in the preparation of
the EA:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Sec.  1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Nebraska Game and Parks Commission;
     Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship;
     U.S. Army Corp of Engineers--Omaha District; and
     Natural Resource Conservation Service.

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s), and to solicit
their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian
tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic
properties.\4\ We will define the project-specific Area of Potential
Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO(s) as the project develops.
On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all
areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include construction
right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor stations, and
access roads). Our EA for this project will document our findings on
the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of
consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the Project. Your comments should focus on
the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and
measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific
your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so
that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before
February 28, 2013.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the
project docket number (PF13-2-000) with your submission. The Commission
encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available
to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature located on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for interested
persons to submit brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically using the eFiling
feature located on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments
in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address:

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
planned project.
    If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the
environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would
prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD
version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please
return the attached Information Request (Appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    Once Northern files its application with the Commission, you may
want to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are
located under the ``For Citizens'' link on the Commission's homepage,
by clicking on ``Get Involved''. Please note that the Commission will
not accept requests for intervenor status at this time. You must wait
until the Commission receives a formal application for the project.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., PF13-
2). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings. Information about the onsite environmental
review is posted on the Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Finally, Northern has posted additional information about the
Project on a dedicated Web site at www.northernnaturalgas.com/expansionprojects. From the drop-down menu, select ``West Leg 2014''.
Northern may be contacted directly at 1-888-367-6671 or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    Dated: January 18, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-01608 Filed 1-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 8, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 26)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 5944-5945]
[DOCID:fr08fe07-16]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 49 and 51

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0076, FRL-8276-8]
RIN 2060-AH37

Review of New Sources and Modifications in Indian Country

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; announcement of reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is announcing a reopening of the public comment period
on our proposed amendments for the Review of New Sources and
Modification in Indian Country (August 21, 2006). The EPA is reopening
the

comment period that originally ended on January 19, 2007. The reopened
comment period will close on March 20, 2007. The EPA is reopening the
comment period because of the number of requests we received in a
timely manner.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before March 20, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2003-0076, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions

for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0076, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West (Air Docket), 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest, Mailcode: 6102T, Washington, DC 20460.
Please include a total of 2 copies. In addition, please mail a copy of
your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC
20503.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
West (Air Docket), 1301 Constitution Avenue, Northwest, Room 3334,
Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0076.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0076. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site

is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The 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 Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-
1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information, contact
Jessica Montanez, Air Quality Policy Division, U.S. EPA, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (C504-03), Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile number (919)
541-5509, electronic mail e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of

the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information
identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS
Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park,
NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0076.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

B. Where Can I Get a Copy of This Document and Other Related
Information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this proposal will also be available on the World Wide Web (WWW).
Following signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of this notice
will be posted in the regulations and standards section of our NSR home
page located at http://www.epa.gov/nsr and on the tribal air home page at http://www.epa.gov/oar/tribal.

    Dated: January 30, 2007.
Jenny Noonan Edmonds,
Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. E7-2101 Filed 2-7-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P