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

May 13, 2004

OMB Submittal

TABLE OF CONTENTS

  TOC \w \x \t "TCHeading 1,1, TCHeading 2,2, TCHeading 3,3, TCHeading 1
NoNumbering,1, Heading 1,1, Heading 2,2, Heading 3,3"  1.	IDENTIFICATION
OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION	  PAGEREF _Toc149009861 \h  2

	l(a)	Title and Number of the Information Collection	  PAGEREF
_Toc149009862 \h  2

	l(b)	Short Characterization and Abstract	  PAGEREF _Toc149009863 \h  2

2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION	  PAGEREF _Toc149009864 \h  2

	2(a)	Need and Authority for the Collection	  PAGEREF _Toc149009865 \h
2

	2(b)	Practical Utility and Users of the Data	  PAGEREF _Toc149009866 \h
 3

3.	NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA
PAGEREF _Toc149009867 \h  3

	3(a)	Non-duplication	  PAGEREF _Toc149009868 \h  3

	3(b)	Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB	  PAGEREF
_Toc149009869 \h  5

	3(c)	Consultations	  PAGEREF _Toc149009870 \h  5

	3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection	  PAGEREF _Toc149009871 \h  5

	3(e)	General Guidelines	  PAGEREF _Toc149009872 \h  5

	3(f)	Confidentiality	  PAGEREF _Toc149009873 \h  6

	3(g)	Sensitive Questions	  PAGEREF _Toc149009874 \h  6

4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED	  PAGEREF _Toc149009875
\h  6

	4(a)	Respondents and SIC Codes	  PAGEREF _Toc149009876 \h  6

	4(b)	Information Requested	  PAGEREF _Toc149009877 \h  6

(i) Data Items, Including Recordkeeping Requirements	  PAGEREF
_Toc149009878 \h  6

(ii)	Respondent Activities	  PAGEREF _Toc149009879 \h  7

5.	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED – AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT	  PAGEREF _Toc149009880 \h  8

	5(a)	Agency Activities	  PAGEREF _Toc149009881 \h  8

	5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management	  PAGEREF _Toc149009882 \h
9

	5(c)	Small Entity Flexibility	  PAGEREF _Toc149009883 \h  9

	5(d)	Collection Schedule	  PAGEREF _Toc149009884 \h  9

6.	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION	  PAGEREF
_Toc149009885 \h  10

	6(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden	  PAGEREF _Toc149009886 \h  10

	6(b)	Estimating Respondent Costs	  PAGEREF _Toc149009887 \h  11

	6(c)	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost	  PAGEREF _Toc149009888 \h  13

	6(d)	Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs
PAGEREF _Toc149009889 \h  14

	6(e)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs	  PAGEREF _Toc149009890 \h  14

	6(f)	Reasons for Change in Burden	  PAGEREF _Toc149009891 \h  16

	6(g)	Burden Statement	  PAGEREF _Toc149009892 \h  16

APPENDIX A - Phone-Log Summaries	  PAGEREF _Toc149009893 \h  18

EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1

Unit Burden Hours for Reporting a Typical Release to the NRC	10

Exhibit 2

Unit Cost for Reporting a Typical Release to the NRC	12

Exhibit 3

Agency Burden Hours and Costs for Processing a Telephone Notification	13

Exhibit 4

Estimated Annual Burden Hours and Costs Incurred by Industry	14

Exhibit 4a

Estimated Annual Burden Hours and Costs Incurred by Industry

(Exhibit 4 from ICR supporting statement 1049.09)	14

Exhibit 4b

Estimated Annual Burden Hours and Costs Incurred by Industry

(Corrected Exhibit 4 from ICR supporting statement 1049.09)	15

Exhibit 5

Estimated Annual Burden Hours and Costs for Information

Collection Under CERCLA Section 103(a) and CWA Section 311	15

Exhibit 6

Summary of Total Burden Hour Change

Between This ICR and the Previous ICR	16

IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

	l(a)	Title and Number of the Information Collection

Notification of Episodic Releases of Oil and Hazardous Substances - EPA
No. 1049.10.

	l(b)	Short Characterization and Abstract

This information collection request (ICR) addresses the reporting and
recordkeeping activities required to comply with the release
notification requirements for hazardous substances and oil specified in
section 103(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended, and
section 311 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended.  These reporting
requirements are codified at 40 CFR parts 110, 117, and 302.  This ICR
renews the collection activity previously approved under OMB No.
2050-0046 and applies to the period September 1, 2003 through August 31,
2006.  Estimates of the burden placed on industry and the government to
comply with the release notification requirements are presented on an
annual basis.

CERCLA section 103(a) and CWA section 311 require the person in charge
of a facility or vessel to immediately notify the National Response
Center (NRC) of a hazardous substance release into the environment if
the release quantity equals or exceeds the substance’s reportable
quantity (RQ) level and an oil discharge into U.S. waters.  The
regulated community is expected to:

•	Gather necessary release data, such as the time, quantity, and
source of the release;

•	Notify the facility manager of the release;

•	Consult with the environmental compliance expert regarding the
release;

•	Report the release to the NRC; and

•	Keep a log of release data such as the time, date, and circumstances
of the release.  (This information is expected, but not required under
the regulations.)

There are no recordkeeping requirements specified under CERCLA section
103(a), CWA section 311, or their implementing regulations.  The person
in charge of the facility or vessel, however, may elect to maintain a
log detailing the time, date, and circumstances associated with the
reported release.  The purpose of maintaining a log of reported releases
is to track correspondence with response authorities and to document
compliance with release notification requirements under CERCLA and the
CWA.  Because it is assumed the respondent will maintain a log of
reported releases, burden and cost estimates associated with
recordkeeping are included in the ICR.

During the three-year period covered by this ICR (1049.10), it is
estimated that the NRC will receive 24,082 release notifications (i.e.,
hazardous substance release and oil discharge notifications) per annum.
Assuming 24,082 release notifications per annum, the total annual burden
to respondents is estimated to be approximately 98,736 hours, at a cost
of $7,230,537.  The total annual burden to the government associated
with 24,082 release notifications is estimated to be approximately
24,082 hours, at a cost of $950,998.

NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

	2(a)	Need and Authority for the Collection

The reporting activity required under 40 CFR parts 110, 117, and 302 is
authorized under CERCLA sections 103(a) and 104(e), and CWA sections 311
and 308.  The regulations implementing CERCLA section 103(a) (40 CFR
part 302) require the person in charge of a facility or vessel to
immediately notify the NRC of a hazardous substance release if the
release quantity equals or exceeds the substance’s RQ.  The specific
information provided in the notification required under CERCLA section
103(a) is authorized under CERCLA section 104(e).  Section 104(e)
authorizes the collection of release information, entry and inspection
of the release site, and sampling activities at the release site for the
purposes of  “determining the need for response, or choosing or taking
any response action under [CERCLA].”  The release information
collected is the minimum information needed to determine if a Federal
response action is required to control or mitigate any potential adverse
effects associated with a release.

In addition to the CERCLA notification requirements, the regulations
implementing CWA section 311 (40 CFR part 110) require immediate
notification to the NRC of any release of oil into U.S. navigable waters
that causes a sheen, violates applicable water quality standards, or
causes a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the
water or upon adjoining shorelines.  The information required to be
provided under CWA section 311 is authorized by CWA section 308, which
allows for the collection of release information and entry, monitoring,
inspection and sampling activities at the release site for the purpose
of ensuring that the objectives of the CWA are satisfied.  The Federal
government needs to be notified of releases of oil in order to determine
if a response action is necessary to mitigate or prevent damage to
public health or welfare or the environment.

	2(b)	Practical Utility and Users of the Data

The hazardous substance and oil release information collected pursuant
to CERCLA section 103(a) and CWA section 311 has a variety of different
uses.  Federal response authorities, such as EPA and United States Coast
Guard On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs), use the information to evaluate the
environmental and human health risks attributable to a reported release
and to determine if a Federal response action is necessary to mitigate
or prevent any adverse effects associated with the release.  Any
reportable hazardous substance release or discharge of oil into the
environment warrants a timely evaluation of its source, emission rate,
chemical form, media affected, and quantity released to ensure the
proper protection of public health and welfare and the environment.
Responses to hazardous substance and oil release notifications by
Federal authorities may take a variety of forms, including monitoring
and overseeing cleanup activities conducted by the responsible party,
evacuating surrounding populations, and directing the actual cleanup
operation.

The hazardous substance and oil release information collected under
CERCLA section 103 and CWA section 311 also is used by EPA program
offices and other Federal agencies to evaluate the potential need for
additional regulations, new permitting requirements for specific
substances or sources, or improved emergency response planning.

In addition, release notification information, which is stored in the
national Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) data base, is
used by State and local government authorities, the regulated community,
and the general public.  State and local government authorities and the
regulated community use release information to help inform local
emergency response planning.  The public use release information to
become aware of the releases that have occurred in their communities and
throughout the nation and to learn of actions, if any, that are being
taken to protect public health and welfare and the environment.  The
public has access to release information, statistics, and fact sheets
through the Freedom of Information Act and the NRC’s website (
HYPERLINK "http://(http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/index.html)."
http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/nrchp.html ).

NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

	3(a)	Non-duplication

The information required to be provided in the telephone call to the NRC
is the minimum information necessary to evaluate a hazardous substance
release or discharge of oil.  Direct notification to the NRC, as opposed
to notification to multiple Federal response authorities, helps to
ensure a coordinated Federal response effort and that unnecessary delays
in requesting assistance do not occur.  One call to the NRC fulfills the
requirement to report releases of hazardous substances under CERCLA and
several other regulatory programs, including the CWA, the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act.  When the NRC receives a notification, the NRC
watchstander immediately notifies the appropriate Federal OSC, who
evaluates the circumstances surrounding the release and determines the
need for a government response action.  The Federal government has
extensive resources, expertise, and authority under CERCLA to formulate
response actions, ensuring a timely and coordinated field response with
State, local, and private organizations, if needed.

EPA analyzed possible areas of overlap with other regulations, and
concluded that there are limited areas of overlap with reporting
requirements under other statutes and provisions.  For example, there
may be limited duplication with the reporting requirements specified in
CERCLA section 103(a) and in certain permitting regulations.  Permitting
regulations often require reports if the permit level is exceeded.
Thus, if a release of a hazardous substance exceeds its permit level and
the substance’s RQ, the release must be reported to both the
applicable Federal or State permitting authority and NRC.  However, the
purpose and timing of the two reports often differ.  Violations of
permit regulations are reported to EPA Regional permitting offices or to
State permitting authorities in order to maintain proper permit
enforcement records or to evaluate ambient conditions over time. In
contrast, Federal officials use release information provided to the NRC
to evaluate the release situation and determine if a government response
is necessary.   Thus, the notification in monthly monitoring reports
that a permit is exceeded is not timely for response purposes.

In addition to a possible overlap between CERCLA reporting and certain
permitting regulations, there may be some overlap with respect to the
reporting requirements specified in section 304 of the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), which requires
immediate reporting of releases of CERCLA hazardous substances equal to
or above an RQ to State and local response officials.  Reporting to the
NRC as well as to the appropriate State Emergency Response Commission
(SERC) and Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC), as required under
EPCRA section 304, is appropriate, however, because it ensures that the
Federal government is alerted to releases that may require a Federal
field response.  Although the SERCs and LEPCs are notified of the
releases under EPCRA section 304, some SERCs and LEPCs may not possess
the resources necessary for a proper response action.  Notification to
the NRC allows for a timely response in the event of an emergency.
Furthermore, reporting to the NRC, SERC, and LEPC provides for a
coordinated effort among Federal, State, and local response officials,
which helps ensure that an efficient response action is taken.  When
Congress enacted EPCRA section 304, it was aware that releases of
hazardous substances were already reported to the NRC; Congress
determined that it was necessary and appropriate for such potentially
hazardous releases to be reported immediately to all potentially
affected government jurisdictions.  The requirements under EPCRA,
however, are separate from those under CERCLA, and are outside the scope
of this ICR (1049.10).  The statutory requirements under CERCLA and
EPCRA are clear and distinct; the Federal response system, as well as
the State and local response systems, must be immediately alerted to
potentially dangerous releases of hazardous substances that may pose a
threat to public health or welfare or the environment.

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

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.),
EPA requested comment from the public through the Federal Register
notice on the renewal of this ICR (1049.10).  The public EDocket Number
for the notice is SFUND-2000-0009, and can be accessed at (  HYPERLINK
"http://(http://www.epa.gov/edocke"  http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ ).
There were no comments received.

	3(c)	Consultations

EPA consulted with a number of Federal and State government agencies in
the development of the information collection activities described in
this ICR (1049.10).  Workgroups were used to develop all RQ adjustment
regulations as well as the oil discharge regulation.  These Workgroups
consisted of representatives from various EPA program offices, the ten
EPA Regions, and the NRC.  Participation of these parties in the
Workgroups was sufficient to address and resolve all outstanding issues.
 The comments received on the proposed rules were addressed in the
relevant Response to Comments Documents and in the preambles to the
respective final rules.

In addition to Workgroup activities, EPA sponsored many workshops and
training sessions throughout the country for industry and Federal,
State, and local government response officials on the release
notification requirements under CERCLA and the CWA.  The workshops were
held to educate the regulated community as well as those Federal and
State agencies required to implement the regulations.  In addition, the
workshops provided an opportunity for the public to ask questions about,
and comment on, the implementation of the reporting regulations under
CERCLA and the CWA.

For this renewal, several individuals (fewer than 9) responsible for
making notifications to the NRC were consulted regarding the burden this
collection imposes.  Brief summaries of those consultations are
contained in Appendix A to this renewal supporting statement.

	3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

The information required under the regulations implementing CERCLA
section 103(a) and CWA section 311 is not collected at any specified
frequency; rather, it is collected when reportable releases occur.  The
information collected under the regulations, such as the source,
quantity, and type of material released and the environmental medium
affected, is critical to evaluating the threat posed by the release and
the need for a response action.  The regulatory requirements evaluated
in this ICR (1049.10) represent EPA’s efforts to ensure that the NRC
is notified immediately of those hazardous substance and oil releases
for which a Federal response action may be necessary to protect public
health and welfare and the environment.

	3(e)	General Guidelines

The regulations implementing CERCLA section 103(a) and CWA section 311
adhere fully to OMB’s general guidelines concerning the collection of
information and the control of paperwork burdens on the public.

	3(f)	Confidentiality

The regulations implementing CERCLA section 103(a) and CWA section 311
do not require the submittal of any proprietary, trade secret, or other
confidential information.

	3(g)	Sensitive Questions

The regulations implementing CERCLA section 103(a) and CWA section 311
do not require the submission of any sensitive business information.  In
addition, the information collection requested under these regulations
is in compliance with the Privacy Act of 1974 and OMB Circular A-108.

THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

	4(a)	Respondents and SIC Codes

This section is not applicable.  The use and release of hazardous
substances and oil are pervasive throughout industry.  EPA expects a
number of different industrial categories to report hazardous substance
and oil releases pursuant to the requirements specified in CERCLA
section 103(a) and CWA section 311.  No one industry sector or group of
sectors or size of facility is affected disproportionately by the
information collection burden.

	4(b)	Information Requested

Data Items, Including Recordkeeping Requirements

Notification under CERCLA section 103(a) and CWA section 311 is intended
to ensure that Federal authorities receive prompt notification of
hazardous substance and oil releases for which a timely response may be
necessary to protect public health or welfare or the environment.  The
information provided in the telephone call to the NRC serves to notify
government authorities of the release and provides them with a
description of the circumstances surrounding the release.  The following
information is requested from all callers:

•	The name and location of the individual reporting the release, the
name and type of organization (e.g., general public, industrial
facility, or Federal, State, or local government) with which the
individual reporting the release is affiliated, and the telephone number
of the person reporting the release;

•	The name and location of the releaser, the type of organization
responsible for the release, and the telephone number of the releaser;

•	The location of the release;

•	The date and time of the release;

•	The name and type of material involved in the release, and the
quantity of the substance released;

•	The source of the release, the vehicle identification or carrier
number, if applicable, and a brief description of the source;

•	The environmental medium affected by the release (e.g., air, land,
water, or ground water);

•	The cause of the incident (e.g., transportation accident,
operational error, natural phenomenon), and a brief description of the
release scenario denoting any unusual circumstances associated with the
release;

•	Information on damages that occurred as a result of the release,
including the number of injuries, number of deaths, and any property
damage;

•	A description of the response actions taken at the release site, if
any;

•	The name(s) and type of organization(s) that the caller has already
notified; and

•	Any additional comments or information regarding the release.

As mentioned previously, there are no recordkeeping requirements
specified under CERCLA section 103(a), CWA section 311, or their
implementing regulations.  The person in charge of the facility or
vessel, however, may elect to maintain a log detailing the time, date,
and circumstances associated with the reported release.  The purpose of
maintaining a log of reported releases is to track correspondence with
response authorities and to document compliance with release
notification requirements under CERCLA and the CWA.  Because the
respondent will in all likelihood maintain a reported release log,
burden and cost estimates associated with recordkeeping are included in
this ICR (1049.10).

Respondent Activities

To comply with the notification requirements specified in the
regulations implementing CERCLA section 103(a) and CWA section 311, the
regulated community is expected to perform the following activities:

•	Gather necessary release data, such as the time, quantity, and
source of the release;

•	Notify the facility manager of the release;

•	Consult with the environmental compliance expert regarding the
release;

•	Report the release by telephone to the NRC; and

•	Keep a log of release data such as the time, date, and circumstances
of the release.  (This information is expected but not required under
the regulations.)

These five general steps have been verified through conversations with
environmental compliance experts at facilities that reported releases of
hazardous substances to the NRC during 1992, 1993, and 1994.  Each
environmental compliance manager at these facilities was asked about the
internal activities that are likely to occur between the time a release
of a hazardous substance is discovered and the time a call is made to
the NRC.  The burden hours associated with reporting a release were in
part based upon these findings.

THE INFORMATION COLLECTED – AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY,
AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

	5(a)	Agency Activities

Every hazardous substance and oil release reported by the regulated
community to the NRC must be evaluated by Federal authorities.  The
appropriate Federal On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) is notified of a release
by a telephone call from the NRC.  The NRC conveys all the relevant
information regarding the release to the OSC, including whether the
release is to air, soil, water, etc., the source of the release, and the
type of substance released.  The telephone call from the NRC to the OSC
must occur within 15 minutes of the original release notification.  The
OSC is responsible for evaluating the circumstances surrounding the
release to determine whether government monitoring and/or a Federal
response action may be necessary.

NRC personnel are also responsible for entering release information into
the NRC data base.  The release data are stored in the NRC data base,
ERNS, a national data base that stores release information by facility.
The data can be accessed through the NRC web site:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/foia.htm."  http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/foia.html.
 The primary activity of the Federal government under the regulations
implementing CERCLA section 103(a) and CWA section 311 is processing and
recording the reported release information, and responding to releases
that may pose a significant hazard to public health or welfare or the
environment.

With respect to OMB’s Terms of Clearance (ICR 1049.09), EPA was
directed to promptly make any necessary adjustments to the ICR if and
when any changes are made to the definition of “federally permitted
releases.”  No changes to that definition were made by EPA.

	5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management

For purposes of reporting releases under the regulations implementing
CERCLA section 103(a) and CWA section 311, a person in charge of a
facility or vessel that experiences a reportable release must telephone
the NRC.  The NRC notifies the appropriate EPA Region or United States
Coast Guard Office, the affected State, and any other Federal agency
that may be able to lend support to a potential response action.

To manage the hazardous substance and oil release information submitted
in accordance with CERCLA section 103(a) and CWA section 311, EPA uses
the ERNS data base.  When a hazardous substance or oil release is
reported to the NRC, it is immediately entered into the NRC data base.
The ERNS data base allows EPA to document, analyze, and maintain data
gathered under the CERCLA and CWA notification process.

For Federal response authorities, the ERNS data base reduces the cost
and time associated with processing and documenting release reports.
For other EPA program offices, State and local response officials, and
the public, ERNS provides for easy access to release data.

	5(c)	Small Entity Flexibility

The notification requirements apply equally to all facilities or
vessels, regardless of size, that have reportable releases of CERCLA
hazardous substances or oil.  The regulations do not impose any general
information collection or recordkeeping requirements on small
businesses.  EPA believes that the notification requirements specified
under these regulations represent the minimum level of information
necessary for Federal response officials to determine if a government
response action is needed to prevent or mitigate any damage to public
health or welfare or the environment.  The regulatory requirements are
satisfied by a toll-free telephone call to the NRC.  A reduction in
these reporting requirements for small businesses is not possible
without jeopardizing the Federal government’s ability to evaluate the
threat posed by a release and determine if a Federal response is
necessary.

	5(d)	Collection Schedule

Information is not collected at any specified frequency; rather, it is
collected when reportable releases occur.  Under CERCLA section 103(a),
a release of a hazardous substance is reportable when it equals or
exceeds its RQ.  Pursuant to CWA section 311, a discharge of oil into
navigable waters is reportable whenever the discharge causes a sheen,
violates applicable water quality standards, or causes a sludge or
emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the water or upon
adjoining shorelines.

ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

	6(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden

Under CERCLA section 103(a) and CWA section 311, the person in charge of
a facility or vessel that experiences a reportable release is expected
to perform the following activities: (1) gather necessary release data,
such as the time, date, quantity, and source of the release; (2) notify
the facility manager of the release; (3) consult with the environmental
compliance expert regarding the release; (4) report the release by
telephone to the NRC; and (5) keep a log of release data such as time,
date, and circumstance of the release.  (A respondent is not required to
keep a log of release data under the episodic release notification
regulation, however EPA assumes respondents will keep a log of release
data.)  Cost and burden estimates associated with completing these
activities assume that respondents will telephone the NRC with 24,082
release notifications per annum between September 1, 2003 through August
31, 2006.

Exhibit 1 presents a summary of the unit burden hours associated with
reporting a typical release to the NRC.  The burden associated with the
first collection activity in Exhibit 1, “Initial Telephone Call to the
NRC,” includes the burden of gathering of data on the release,
notifying the facility manager of the release,  and consulting with an
environmental compliance expert regarding the release.  EPA has
estimated that the respondent’s burden hours for reporting a typical
release is 4.1 hours.

Exhibit 1

Unit Burden Hours for Reporting a Typical Release to the NRC

Collection Activity

Burden Hours

Total Burden Hours

Managerial

Technical

Clerical

Initial Telephone Call to the NRC

1.0

1.0

0.0

2.0

Recordkeeping

0.1

1.0

1.0

2.1

Total

1.1

2.0

1.0

4.1

Initial Telephone Notification

In estimating the burden to industry that the regulations implementing
CERCLA section 103(a) and CWA section 311 may impose, EPA has assumed
that the respondent’s initial telephone  notification to the NRC
regarding a release requires approximately one hour of technical
personnel time and one hour of managerial time.  Therefore, in this ICR
(1049.10), as in the previous ICR (1049.09), EPA assumes two burden
hours for the initial telephone notification.  This burden-hour estimate
was confirmed through telephone conversations with facilities that
reported releases to the NRC.  Facilities generally agreed that the time
required to evaluate a release will vary, depending on the nature of the
release.  Most of the facilities stated that the evaluation was
relatively straightforward, requiring well under one hour.  One facility
stated that evaluating a release and determining if the release should
be reported to the NRC could require as many as four hours of a single
technical expert’s time.  Other facilities responded that it would
probably take 15 minutes to ½ hour of managerial time to determine
whether a call to the NRC was required.  In general, most facilities
agreed that, on average, two to three person-hours was a reasonable
estimate for the time required to determine the need to report the
release to the NRC.  Therefore, in this ICR (1049.10), as in the
previous ICR (1049.09), the assumption is made that the burden of the
telephone call for each reportable release is two hours (composed of one
hour of management’s time and one hour of technician’s time),
regardless of the environmental medium affected and the substance
released.

Recordkeeping

Although neither CERCLA nor the CWA requires that records of releases be
kept, EPA assumes that a facility will keep a log of any calls made to
government organizations.  Such a log will be useful for managers in
establishing that the notification requirements of CERCLA section 103(a)
and CWA section 311 have been met.  The log may include a description of
the incident and its cause, the NRC/ERNS report number, a brief account
of any conversations with Federal officials, and a description of the
outcome of the incident, including any cleanup action taken.  The burden
associated with internal recordkeeping is estimated at one technical
hour and one clerical hour per release.  Further, a ratio of one-tenth
managerial hour to each hour of clerical time is also assumed.
Therefore, in this ICR (1049.10), as in the previous ICR (1049.09), EPA
assumes 2.1 burden hours per release for recordkeeping.

Response Actions

Under section 103(a) of CERCLA and section 311 of CWA facilities and
vessels responsible for a release are required to take appropriate
action to clean up the release.  However, because there is no paperwork
burden associated with these response actions, the capital and labor
costs associated with response actions are not within the scope of this
ICR (1049.10).

	6(b)	Estimating Respondent Costs

 TA \s "Exhibits" \c 0 Estimating Labor Costs

The estimated cost to a respondent for evaluating a release and calling
the NRC regarding the release are a function of the time expended by
respondent personnel (i.e., the burden estimates presented in section
6(a)), and the hourly wage rates for the appropriate categories of
labor.  The hourly wage rates used for industry in this ICR are from
June 2003 and were obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  For
purposes of this analysis, EPA estimates an average hourly respondent
labor cost of $43.74 for managerial staff, $30.18 for technical staff,
and $19.22 for clerical staff.

These rates reflect employer cost for employee compensation in the
United States as of June 2003 and include both employer costs for
legally required benefits (e.g., social security, worker’s
compensation, and unemployment insurance), other important fringe
benefit categories (e.g., insurance, paid leave, retirement and
savings), and overhead and general and administrative costs.

 TA \s "Exhibits" \c 0 Estimating Capital and Operation & Maintenance
Costs

Capital costs usually include any produced physical good needed to
provide the needed information, such as machinery, computers, and other
equipment.  EPA does not anticipate that respondents will incur capital
costs in carrying out the information collection requirements of this
regulation.

Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs are those costs associated with
paperwork requirements incurred continually over the life of the ICR.
EPA does not anticipate that respondents will incur O&M costs in
carrying out the information collection requirements of the proposed
rule.

Costs associated with the burden hours presented in section 6(a) of this
ICR (1049.10) are shown in Exhibit 2.

 TA \s "Exhibits" \c 0 Exhibit 2

Unit Cost for Reporting a Typical Release to the NRC

Collection Activity

Burden Hours

Unit Capital/Start Up Cost

Unit O&M Cost

Total Unit Cost

Managerial

($43.74/Hour)

Technical

($30.18/Hour)

Clerical

($19.22/Hour)

Initial Telephone Notification to the NRC

1.0

1.0

0.0

$0.00

$0.00

$73.92

Recordkeeping

0.1

1.0

1.0

$0.00

$0.00

$53.77

Total

1.1

2.0

1.0

$0.00

$0.00

$127.69

For a typical release, EPA has estimated that it costs the respondent
$127.69 to report the release to the NRC and record the release data in
the respondent’s log.

	6(c)	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

Federal government authorities are expected to perform the following
activities under the episodic release notification regulation:  (1)
process respondent telephone notifications of a release; (2) monitor
cleanup activities; and (3) conduct field response actions.  EPA
estimates that only the first Federal government activity listed above,
“process telephone notifications,” will involve the processing of
submitted paperwork.  Estimated unit burden hours and costs and total
annual burden hours and costs for the “process telephone
notifications” activity are presented in Exhibit 3.  For the period
covered by this ICR (1049.10), EPA has assumed that the Federal
government average hourly labor cost is $39.49.

 TA \s "Exhibits" \c 0 Exhibit 3

Agency Burden Hours and Costs for Processing a Telephone Notification

Collection Activity

Number of Reportable Releases/Year

Unit Burden Hours

Unit Capital/Start Up Cost

Unit O&M Cost

Total Unit Cost

Total Annual Burden Hours

Total Annual Cost

Processing Telephone Notification

24,082

1.0

$0.00

$0.00

$39.49

24,082

$950,998

Processing Telephone Notification

The total burden of processing a telephone notification of a release
consists of the time the NRC uses to (1) communicate with the
respondent, (2) record and enter the information provided in the
telephone call into the NRC data base, and (3) contact the predesignated
EPA or Coast Guard OSC or other parties by telephone.  EPA has estimated
that one hour is needed to complete all the activities associated with
processing an initial telephone notification.  Therefore, the unit cost
associated with processing an initial telephone call is $39.49 (1 hour x
$39.49 per hour = $39.49).

Response Activities

For some percentage of releases, the information provided in the
telephone notification will prompt EPA to monitor cleanup activities.
Monitoring a cleanup will allow EPA to directly assess and evaluate the
circumstances surrounding the release, and the population and
environment potentially affected by the release.  In a small percentage
of cases, the owner/operator will be unable to respond to the release or
cleanup activities will appear unsatisfactory, requiring EPA to conduct
its own field response actions to ensure that all potential hazards have
been addressed and that the release has been thoroughly cleaned up.
However, as these actions are not directly related to the processing of
submitted paperwork, the costs and burden hours associated with these
actions are not covered under this ICR (1049.10).

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

ERNS data from 2000, 2001, and 2002 were used to estimate the number of
releases that will be reported to the NRC during the period of September
1, 2003 through August 31, 2006. The exhibits in this section show
projected annual release reports, burden hours, and costs.

The total cost and total burden estimates presented in this ICR
(1049.10) are the aggregate annual costs and burden hours associated
with reporting all hazardous substances and oil releases pursuant to
CERCLA section 103(a) and CWA section 311.

Annual respondent burden hours are equal to the number of releases
reported to the NRC in a year multiplied by the unit burden hours
associated with reporting a release.  Annual cost is equal to the number
of releases reported to the NRC in a year multiplied by the unit cost of
reporting a release.  Exhibit 4 presents the annual total annual burden
hour and cost estimates for respondents.

 TA \s "Exhibits" \c 0 Exhibit 4

Estimated Annual Burden Hours and Costs Incurred by Industry

Collection Activity

Number of Reportable Releases / Year

Unit Burden Hours

Unit Cost

Burden Hours

Annual Cost

Telephone Notification

24,082

2.0

$73.92

48,164

$3,560,283

Recordkeeping

24,082

2.1

$53.77

50,572

$2,719,256

Total

24,082

4.1

$127.69

98,736

$6,279,539

	6(e)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs

Exhibits 3 and 4 present the annual burden hours and costs incurred by
the government and respondents, respectively, for all information
collection requirements covered in this ICR (1049.10).  Exhibit 5
summarizes the bottom-line burdens and costs incurred by both
respondents and government.  The bottom-line burden to respondents is
approximately 98,736 hours per year, at a cost of $6,279,539.  The
bottom line burden to the government is approximately 24,082 hours per
year, at a cost of $950,998.

It appears that there is a significant increase in the bottom-line cost
burden to respondents from the previous ICR (1049.09).  In that ICR
(1049.09), the bottom-line cost to respondents was estimated at,
$3,962,005.  Unfortunately there was a calculation error in that
estimate that was identified and corrected for this ICR (1049.10).  The
following Exhibit 4a is a reprint from the previous ICR (1049.09):

Exhibit 4a

Estimated Annual Burden Hours and Costs Incurred by Industry

(Exhibit 4 from ICR supporting statement 1049.09)

Collection Activity

Number of Reportable Releases / Year

Unit Burden Hours

Unit Cost

Burden Hours

Annual Cost

Telephone Notification

23,726

2.0

$95.39

47,452

$2,263,223

Recordkeeping

23,726

2.1

$71.60

49,825

$1,698,782

Total

23,726

4.1

$166.99

97,277

$3,962,005

Note that the calculation for annual cost multiplied the “Number of
Reportable Releases/Year” by the “Unit Cost” instead of “Unit
Cost” by “Burden Hours.”  The corrected Exhibit 4b appears below:

Exhibit 4b

Estimated Annual Burden Hours and Costs Incurred by Industry

(Corrected Exhibit 4 from ICR supporting statement 1049.09)

Collection Activity

Number of Reportable Releases / Year

Unit Burden Hours

Unit Cost

Burden Hours

Annual Cost

Telephone Notification

23,726

2.0

$95.39

47,452

$4,526,446

Recordkeeping

23,726

2.1

$71.60

49,825

$3,567,470

Total

23,726

4.1

$166.99

97,277

$8,093,916

The estimated annual burden cost should have been reported as
$8,093,916, rather than the $3,962,005 actually reported for the
previous ICR (1049.09).

 TA \s "Exhibits" \c 0 Exhibit 5

Estimated Annual Burden Hours and Costs for Information

Collection Under CERCLA Section 103(a) and CWA Section 311

Economic Sector

Burden Hours

Cost

Industry

98,736

$6,279,539

Government

24,082

$950,998

Total

122,818

$7,230,537

	6(f)	Reasons for Change in Burden

Compared to the previous ICR (1049.09), unit burden hours for industry
and the government have not changed in this ICR (1049.10).  However,
total annual burden hours for industry and government have increased in
this ICR (1049.10) because the projected number of release notifications
per annum in this ICR (1049.10) is higher than the projected number of
release notifications per annum in the previous ICR (1049.09).  The
previous ICR (1049.09) projected 23,726 releases would be reported to
the NRC annually, while this renewal ICR (1049.10) projects 24,082
releases will be reported to the NRC annually.  Therefore, comparing
this ICR (1049.10) to the previous ICR (1049.09), total annual burden
hours for industry increase by 1,459 hours and for EPA by 356 hours.

Although this ICR (1049.10) projects an increase in the number of
releases reported to the NRC annually, decreases in the unit costs to
responders for managerial, technical and clerical labor categories
results in an overall reduced cost burden for industry.  The previous
ICR (1049.09) estimated the cost-burden to industry as $8,093,916, this
renewal estimates the cost-burden to industry will be $7,230,537 or
$863,379 less than the previous estimate.  The estimated government unit
cost increased and therefore the cost burden for government is projected
to increase, from $854,136 to $950,998 an increase of $96,862.

 TA \s "Exhibits" \c 0 Exhibit 6

Summary of Total Burden Hour Change

Between This ICR and the Previous ICR

This ICR

Previous ICR

Difference

Number of Releases Projected to be Reported to NRC Over Three-Year
Period

72,246

71,178

1,068

Annual Industry Burden Hours

98,736

97,277

1,459

Annual Government Burden Hours

24,082

23,726

356

	6(g)	Burden Statement

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection
of information is estimated to average approximately 4.1 hours per
response, which includes 2.0 hours of reporting and 2.1 hours per
response.  Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply
with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.  An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations are
listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No.
SFUND-2000-0009, which is available for public viewing at the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response Docket in the EPA Docket Center
(EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington,
DC. 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 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An electronic version of the public docket is
available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket.
Use EDOCKET 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.  Once in the
system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified
above.  Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street,
NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA.  Please
include the EPA Docket ID No.  (SFUND-2000-0009) and OMB control number
(2050-0046) in any correspondence.

APPENDIX A - Phone-Log Summaries

The following calls were made between April 27, 2004 and May 12, 2004.
The companies were selected from the universe of facilities for which a
release of a hazardous substance at or above an RQ to the NRC was
reported.  Persons responsible for making notifications were queried
about the internal process and procedures taken at the facility between
the time a release is observed and a call is made to the NRC.  Because
the reporting party is not public information, the information
summarized below is about the suspected responsible party.  Additional
information about the reported incident can be obtained through the
NRC’s web site, specifically at:    HYPERLINK
"http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/wdbcgi/wdbcgi.exe/WWWUSER/WEBDB.foia_query.show
_parms"
http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/wdbcgi/wdbcgi.exe/WWWUSER/WEBDB.foia_query.show_
parms .

BP Chemicals

Private Enterprise

Lima, OH

Incident Report #712468

On February 5, 2004, BP Chemicals accidentally released 100 pounds of
acrylonitrile.  On May 13, 2004, spoke with the person responsible for
developing procedures for reporting releases.  The facility has
procedures in place and believes EPA’s burden estimates are
reasonable.  The company spokesperson did not have any questions about
the reporting process.

Wayne Farms LLC

Private Enterprise

Jack, AL

Incident Report #716028

On March 15, 2004, Wayne Farms, LLC accidentally released an unknown
amount of anhydrous ammonia due to equipment failure (power failure). As
soon as the actual amount (later that day) of the substance was known,
that information was sent via written report.  On May 11, 2004, spoke
with the person responsible for consolidating communications for the
company.  The company has a crisis action system in place to address
regulatory requirements.  The company keeps records of who they talk to
with regard to submitting reports.  The company spokesperson confirmed
that EPA’s burden estimates were reasonable.

Sarah Lee Bakery

Private Enterprise

Tarboro, NC

Incident Report #715999

Left message, call returned April 28, 2004

On March 15, 2004, Sarah Lee Bakery accidentally released 20 pounds of
anhydrous ammonia due to a faulty gasket on a 3 way valve.  On April 28,
2004, spoke with the person responsible for making the report to the
NRC.  Generally, most plants are running as trim as possible.  When
there is a leak or release, the first priority is to stop it.  Having to
stop to report the release is an issue.  Little nuisance leaks are
problematic because they have to report.  Responder said that he reports
releases within 15 minutes.

Westlake Vinyls, Inc

Private Enterprise

Calvert City, KY

Incident Report #716614

On March 21, 2004, a release of an unknown amount of ethylene dichloride
was reported from the facility.  On May 11, 2004, spoke with the
individual responsible for making the notification regarding
notification procedures and burden estimates.  Burden estimates are
reasonable.  The facility has plans in place to report episodic releases
to the NRC with followup reports to the state and local authorities.
The individual did not have any questions.

 The estimate for the number of release notifications received by the
NRC per annum is based on the number of notifications received by the
NRC in the years 2000, 2001, and 2002.   The source of the number of NRC
release notifications is, NRC Statistics - Incident Types, and can be
found at: http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/incident97-02.html.  For the purposes
of this ICR (1049.10), the following incident types are included in the
totals for release notifications: fixed, unknown sheen, vessel, storage
tank, railroad, aircraft, and unknown.  The NRC received 22,817 release
notifications in 2000, 25,644 in 2001, and 23,784 in 2002.  Therefore,
assuming the years 2000, 2001, and 2002 are representative of the period
covered by this ICR (1049.10), the NRC is estimated to receive, on
average, 24,082 release notifications per annum between September 1,
2003 through August 31, 2006.  In the previous ICR (1049.09) the per
annum estimate for the number of release notifications received by the
NRC was 23,726.

This verification was not repeated for this ICR.  It is assumed to
remain the same.

 Bureau of Labor Statistics’ news release dated, August 26, 2003,
entitled, “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation - June 2003”
listed hourly compensation (wages and salaries plus fringe benefits)
rates for civilian managerial, technical, and clerical workers.
Therefore the wage rates used in this ICR (1049.10) include salaries,
fringe benefits, overhead costs and general and administrative costs as
of June 2003.

 This hourly wage estimate was calculated by summing the basic hourly
wage rate for a GS-12 step 1 government employee in 2003 ($24.68) and
the hourly monetary value of the representative employee’s fringe
benefits (assumed to be the basic hourly wage rate multiplied by 60
percent).

See corrected calculation in Exhibit 4b.

OMB SUBMITTAL***May 13, 2004

Page  PAGE  19


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 233 (Monday, December 6, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75619-75621]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30402]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 233 / Monday, December 6, 2010 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 431

Waiver of Acceptable Mission Risk Restriction for Reentry and a
Reentry Vehicle

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of waiver.

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

SUMMARY: This notice of waiver concerns two petitions for waiver
submitted to the FAA by Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX):
A petition to waive the requirement that a waiver petition be submitted
at least sixty days before the proposed effective date; and a petition
to waive the restriction that the combined risk to the public from the
launch and reentry of a reentry vehicle not exceed an expected average
number of 0.00003 casualties (Ec <= 30 x 10-6)
from debris. The first petition is unnecessary because, as explained
below, SpaceX demonstrated good cause for its late filing. The FAA
grants the second petition and waives the restriction that the combined
risk to the public from the launch and reentry of a reentry vehicle not
exceed an expected average number of 0.00003 casualties (Ec
<= 30 x 10-6) from debris.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this waiver, contact Philip Brinkman, Licensing Program Lead,
Commercial Space Transportation--Licensing and Safety Division, 800
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
7715; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For legal questions concerning
this waiver, contact Laura Montgomery, Senior Attorney for Commercial
Space Transportation, AGC-200, Office of the Chief Counsel, Regulations
Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On October 11, 2010, SpaceX submitted a waiver petition to the
Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) Office of Commercial Space
Transportation (AST) requesting two waivers with respect to a reentry
license for Dragon, a reentry vehicle, to be carried aboard Falcon 9
flight 002. First, SpaceX requested a waiver of 14 CFR 404.3(b)(5),
which requires that a waiver petition be submitted at least sixty days
before the proposed effective date of the waiver. Second, SpaceX
requested a waiver of 14 CFR 431.35(b)(1)(i),\1\ which prohibits a
mission involving a reentry vehicle when the total expected average
number of casualties (Ec) for that mission exceeds 30 x
10-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Even though Dragon is a reentry vehicle and not a reusable
launch vehicle, 14 CFR 435.35 incorporates and applies section
431.35 to all reentry vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA licenses the launch of a launch vehicle, reentry of a
reentry vehicle, and the operation of a launch or reentry site under
authority granted to the Secretary of Transportation in the Commercial
Space Launch Act of 1984, as amended, codified in 49 U.S.C. Subtitle
IX, chapter 701 (Chapter 701), and delegated to the FAA Administrator.
The Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation
exercises licensing authority under Chapter 701.
    SpaceX is a private commercial space flight company. It has entered
into a Space Act Agreement with the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) as part of NASA's Commercial Orbital
Transportation Services (COTS) program. The COTS program is designed to
stimulate efforts by the private sector to demonstrate safe, reliable,
and cost-effective space transportation to the International Space
Station.
    The petition addresses an upcoming demonstration flight that SpaceX
plans to undertake as part of the COTS program. At the time of the
filing of the petition, the launch was scheduled for November 8, 2010.
SpaceX's Falcon 9 launch vehicle will launch a reentry vehicle, named
Dragon, into orbit. Once Dragon is in orbit, it will be subjected to a
ground-implemented health check. The health check is designed to check
time-dependent variables to ensure the health and functionality of the
propellant, power, and avionics subsystems. If Dragon passes the health
check, a ground operator will issue a remote command to reenter, which
will initiate Dragon's reentry and ultimately result in Dragon
splashing down in the ocean off the coast of Southern California. If
Dragon fails the health check, the ground operator will issue a remote
command that will disable Dragon's reentry, leaving Dragon in orbit.
    While planning for this mission, SpaceX calculated that 21 x
10-6 is the expected average number of casualties
(Ec) to which the public will be exposed by vehicle or
vehicle debris impact hazards associated with the launch of Falcon 9
and reentry of Dragon. Because this Ec was less than the 30
x 10-6 limit imposed by 14 CFR 431.35(b)(1)(i), SpaceX
believed that it complied with the regulations.
    The FAA informed SpaceX that the FAA assessed the risk for the
launch of Falcon 9 and reentry of Dragon as 47 x 10-6. The
Ec for the launch of Falcon 9 is 19 x 10-6, and
by adding an Ec of 7 x 10-6 to account for the
nominal reentry of Dragon and an Ec of 21 x 10-6
to account for the possibility that Dragon will initiate a failed
attempt at reentry, the FAA obtained a total Ec value of 47
x 10-6 for the launch of Falcon 9 and reentry of Dragon.
Because the FAA's calculations resulted in a total Ec value
that exceeded the 30 x 10-6 limit imposed by section
431.35(b)(1)(i), the FAA informed SpaceX that it would need to obtain a
waiver.
    In response, SpaceX filed two petitions for a waiver. First, SpaceX
requested a waiver of the requirement that a petition be submitted at
least sixty days before the proposed effective date of the waiver.
Second, SpaceX requested a waiver of the restriction that the total
Ec for a launch and reentry not exceed 30 x 10-6.
In its waiver request, SpaceX emphasized that it had attempted to
ensure public safety by adopting the following risk mitigation measures
for Dragon:
    1. Dragon's thermal protection system has been modified so that if
it enters facing down it will burn and demise.

    2. Dragon can keep orbiting in order to increase the probability of
initiating a safe reentry.
    3. Dragon will automatically vent its propellants if it is not able
to reenter as planned. Venting occurs autonomously, but SpaceX has the
ability to issue a back-up command from the ground.
    4. In the case of a failed or degraded deorbit burn, Dragon
automatically drains propellants and subsequently deploys its
parachutes.
    5. A ground command received through one of three receivers and
through multiple RF links, via TDRSS and multiple ground stations, can
command the venting of any remaining fuel and the draining of battery
power to reduce the possibility of explosion or toxic fumes when Dragon
lands.
    6. Dragon has the ability to autonomously guide itself to a pre-
determined site located more than 780 km from the coastline.
    7. Dragon has the ability to monitor its safety-critical systems in
real-time.
    8. Dragon has over 100% margin on both power and propellant
budgets.
    9. Dragon has a space-grade Inertial Measurement Unit and space-
grade flight computer, both of which have extensive flight heritage
including use on the International Space Station.
    10. Dragon has redundant drogue parachutes and dual redundant main
parachutes.
    11. The vehicle's thrusters are plumbed such that Dragon can
deorbit and reenter with the loss of any two entire propulsion modules.
    12. The vehicle has backup capabilities within all of its major
subsystems.

Waiver Criteria

    Chapter 701 allows the FAA to waive a license requirement if the
waiver (1) will not jeopardize public health and safety, safety of
property, (2) will not jeopardize national security and foreign policy
interests of the United States, and (3) will be in the public interest.
49 U.S.C. 70105(b)(3) (2010); 14 CFR 404.5(b) (2010).

Section 404.3 Waiver Petition

    Section 404.3(b)(5) requires that a petition for a waiver be
submitted at least sixty days before the proposed effective date of the
waiver. However, this section also provides that a petition may be
submitted late if the petitioner shows good cause. Id. (b)(5).
    Here, SpaceX submitted its waiver petition on October 11, 2010,
which was less than sixty days from its planned November 8, 2010,
launch date. However, in its petition, SpaceX explained that it
initially calculated the risk for the launch of Falcon 9 and the
reentry of Dragon in a different manner than the FAA, and was not aware
that a waiver would be required until so informed by the FAA. Once the
FAA informed SpaceX that it needed to obtain a waiver, SpaceX proceeded
to apply for the waiver ``in a timely fashion.'' As such, the FAA has
found that SpaceX had good cause for submitting its waiver petition
less than sixty days from the planned November 8, 2010, launch date.
Therefore, SpaceX's late submission does not violate section
404.3(b)(5), and a waiver of that section is unnecessary.

Section 431.35(b)(1)(i) Waiver Petition

    Section 431.35(b)(1)(i) prohibits a launch and reentry mission if
the total Ec for that mission exceeds 30 x 10-6.
For reasons described below, the FAA waives this restriction to allow
SpaceX to conduct a mission whose total Ec is 47 x
10-6, where launch and reentry are each less than 30 x
10-6. In deciding whether or not to issue a waiver, the FAA
had to analyze whether the waiver: (1) Would jeopardize public health
and safety or safety of property; (2) would jeopardize national
security and foreign policy interests of the United States; and (3) was
in the public interest. See 49 U.S.C. 70105(b)(3); 14 CFR 404.5(b).

A. Public Health and Safety and Safety of Property

    In order to determine whether granting a waiver would jeopardize
public health and safety or safety of property, the FAA considered: (1)
Whether section 431.35 requires that the Ec calculations
account for the possibility of a random uncontrolled reentry that
occurs as a result of a reentry vehicle ceasing to function upon
arrival in orbit; (2) whether granting a waiver would be consistent
with the safety rationale underlying section 431.35; and (3) whether
there were any other factors that would impact the waiver decision in
this case.
i. Random Uncontrolled Reentry
    At the outset, the FAA first addressed whether to account for
random uncontrolled reentry not associated with a licensed reentry.
Section 431.35 could apply to two types of random uncontrolled reentry:
(1) A random uncontrolled reentry occurring as a result of a failed
reentry attempt; and (2) a random uncontrolled reentry occurring as a
result of a reentry vehicle ceasing to function upon arrival in orbit.
    The preamble to the final rule provides ambiguous guidance on this
matter. Commercial Space Transportation Reusable Launch Vehicle and
Reentry Licensing Regulations, Final Rule, 65 FR 56618 (Sep. 19, 2000).
When discussing the possibility of requiring contingency abort
locations for reentries, the preamble states that an applicant would
have to show that an uncontrolled random reentry would not exceed
acceptable risk criteria for the mission. Id. at 56641. Another part of
the preamble states that risk to public safety from a reentry that is
``essentially random or otherwise non-nominal'' would be assessed as
part of the licensing process and an applicant would have to
demonstrate that such a reentry would not exceed acceptable risk
criteria for the mission. Id. at 56623 n.2. As a result of this waiver
petition, the FAA has had to address to which of the two possible
random reentry scenarios this assessment must apply.
    One possible interpretation of the preamble is that section 431.35
requires that the Ec calculations account for the
possibility of a random uncontrolled reentry that occurs as a result of
a reentry vehicle ceasing to function upon arrival in orbit. However,
this interpretation would be problematic because Chapter 701 limits the
FAA's licensing of reentry to scenarios involving purposeful reentry.
See 49 U.S.C. 70102(12) (defining ``reentry'' as a purposeful act); see
also 65 FR at 56624 (clarifying that, under Chapter 701, section 431.35
is intended to regulate scenarios in which ``survivability by design is
combined with the purposeful act of reentry''). Because a random
uncontrolled reentry arising out of a reentry vehicle ceasing to
function upon arrival in orbit is not purposeful and is thus not
licensed, an interpretation that section 431.35 applies to this type of
reentry would conflict with Chapter 701.
    The better approach is to limit the risk associated with a random
uncontrolled reentry to that caused by a failed reentry attempt.
Because an attempt at a reentry is a purposeful act and thus requires a
license, the FAA should account for the risk associated with a random
uncontrolled reentry that occurs as a result of a failed attempt. See
49 U.S.C. at 70102(12); 65 FR at 56624.
    Under the above rationale, the total Ec for the reentry
of Dragon is the Ec for nominal reentry (7 x
10-6) plus the Ec for the possibility of a failed
attempt at reentry (21 x 10-6), which results in a total
reentry Ec of 28 x 10-6. When the Ec
for the launch of Falcon 9 (19 x 10-6) is added to the
reentry Ec of Dragon, the combined Ec for the
Falcon 9 launch and Dragon reentry comes out to 47 x 10-6.

ii. Consistency With Rationale for Section 431.35
    The next matter that the FAA addressed was whether granting a
waiver in this case would be consistent with the safety rationale
underlying section 431.35. In the preamble to the notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM), the FAA explained that, when it was drafting section
431.35, it decided to use a single aggregate risk threshold for a
mission involving the launch and reentry of a reentry vehicle.
Commercial Space Transportation Reusable Launch Vehicle and Reentry
Licensing Regulations, NPRM, 64 FR 19626, 19635 (Apr. 21, 1999).
However, the FAA also acknowledged that there could be circumstances
where it would be appropriate to separate launch from reentry risk,
such as where different operators were involved and could be
apportioned allowable risk thresholds, or where intervening events or
time made reentry risks sufficiently independent of launch risks as to
warrant separate consideration. Id.
    Here, the health check of Dragon, a different vehicle than the
Falcon 9 launch vehicle, that will take place once Dragon is in orbit
is an intervening event that makes the launch risk associated with the
launch of Falcon 9 independent of the reentry risk associated with the
reentry of Dragon. The health check will permit SpaceX to reevaluate
Dragon's condition after the launch has taken place, and to make a
fresh determination about whether Dragon should be permitted to
reenter. If, after conducting a post-launch health check of Dragon,
SpaceX finds safety concerns associated with reentry, SpaceX will be
able to issue a command to disable Dragon's reentry. As such, because
the reentry of Dragon is based on the results of an in-orbit health
check that will be conducted independently of the launch, the risks
associated with the launch of Falcon 9 and reentry of Dragon are
sufficiently independent to warrant separate consideration in this
case.
    Evaluating these risks separately, the Ec for the launch
of Falcon 9 is 19 x 10-6, which is within the 30 x
10-6 limit imposed by section 431.35(b)(1)(i). Likewise, the
Ec for the reentry of Dragon is 28 x 10-6, which
is also within the 30 x 10-6 limit that the FAA applies to
launch hazards. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that granting a
waiver in this case would be consistent with the safety rationale
underlying section 431.35.
iii. Other Factors Impacting the Waiver Decision
    Dragon's mitigation measures were another factor that influenced
the FAA's analysis with regard to whether a waiver would jeopardize
public health and safety and safety of property. As stated above, the
Dragon capsule employs numerous risk mitigation measures to reduce the
risk to the public from the launch of Falcon 9 and reentry of Dragon.
    The FAA has taken particular notice of the way in which Dragon's
electrical power system (batteries), flight computer, and propulsion
system will reduce risk to the public. For instance, Dragon has more
than four times the propellant needed for a safe reentry in the target
area. The additional propellant increases the probability that Dragon
will land in its nominal target area instead of a population center.
Dragon also has three parachutes, which decrease risk to the public
because only one of these parachutes is necessary for a low impact
landing. The additional parachutes reduce the chance that Dragon will
crash into the ground while attempting to land.
    SpaceX has also designed the Dragon reentry vehicle to vent
propellants in the case of an aborted or off-nominal reentry. This
mitigation measure greatly reduces the risk to the public because it
allows Dragon to safely dispose of hazardous propellant materials if
something should go wrong with the mission.
    As a result of Dragon's mitigation measures, as well as the other
considerations discussed above, the FAA has determined that granting a
waiver in this case would not jeopardize public health and safety or
safety of property.

B. National Security and Foreign Policy Implications

    The FAA has identified no national security or foreign policy
implications associated with granting this waiver.

C. Public Interest

    Two of the public policy goals of Chapter 701 are: (1) To promote
economic growth and entrepreneurial activity through use of the space
environment; and (2) to encourage the United States private sector to
provide launch and reentry vehicles and associated services. 49 U.S.C.
70101(b)(1) and (2). Here, granting this waiver is consistent with the
public interest goals articulated by Chapter 701.
    A goal of the COTS program's mission is to ultimately develop the
capability to resupply the International Space Station. SpaceX's
demonstration launch of Falcon 9 and reentry of Dragon is a step toward
achieving that goal. This demonstration launch is important in light of
the fact that the U.S. Government is ending the Space Shuttle Program
and NASA plans to rely upon its COTS Program to develop a robust
domestic commercial space transportation capability. This capability
will provide the United States with the ability to resupply the
International Space Station. As such, granting SpaceX's waiver request
will be consistent with Chapter 701's policy goals by: (1) Promoting
SpaceX's entrepreneurial activity in the space environment; and (2)
encouraging a private U.S. company to develop and launch a launch
vehicle (Falcon 9) and a reentry vehicle (Dragon).

Summary and Conclusion

    A waiver will not jeopardize public health and safety or safety of
property because: (1) The risk associated with the launch of Falcon 9
and the risk associated with the reentry of Dragon are each under an
Ec of 30 x 10-6; and (2) the Dragon capsule
employs numerous risk mitigation measures including an in-orbit health
check. The waiver also will not jeopardize national security and
foreign policy interests of the United States. A waiver is in the
public interest because it furthers the statutory goals of Chapter 701.
For the foregoing reasons, the FAA has waived the restriction that the
combined risk to the public from the launch of Falcon 9 and reentry of
Dragon cannot exceed an expected average number of 0.00003 casualties
(30 x 10-6) from debris.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 30, 2010.
Kenneth Wong,
Commercial Space Transportation, Licensing and Safety Division Manager.
[FR Doc. 2010-30402 Filed 12-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 27, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4726-4728]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01668]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76969; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2016-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the
Exchange's Schedule of Fees and Charges To Define the Term ``Exchange
Traded Products'' and To Provide for the Proration of Annual Fees
Applicable to Exchange Traded Products That Have Liquidated

January 22, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 14, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.\3\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ The Exchange originally filed this proposed rule change on
December 23, 2015 under File No. SR-NYSEArca-2015-126, and the
Exchange subsequently withdrew that filing on January 5, 2016. The
Exchange refiled this proposed rule change on January 5, 2016 under
File No. SR-NYSEArca-2016-07. The Exchange subsequently withdrew
that filing on January 14, 2016 and filed this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Schedule of Fees and
Charges to define the term ``Exchange Traded Products'' and to provide
for the proration of Annual Fees applicable to Exchange Traded Products
that have liquidated. The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees and Charges for
NYSE Arca Equities listing fees (``Schedule'') to define the term
``Exchange Traded Products,'' to revise the Annual Fees paid by issuers
of Exchange Traded Products, and to make technical, non-substantive
changes to the Schedule.
    The term ``Derivative Securities Products'' is currently defined in
Footnote 3 of the Schedule to mean the securities described in NYSE
Arca Equities Rules 5.2(j)(3) (Investment Company Units); 8.100
(Portfolio Depositary Receipts); 8.200 (Trust Issued Receipts); 8.201
(Commodity-Based Trust Shares); 8.202 (Currency Trust Shares); 8.203
(Commodity Index Trust Shares); 8.204 (Commodity Futures Trust Shares);
8.300 (Partnership Units); 8.500 (Trust Units); 8.600 (Managed Fund
Shares), and 8.700 (Managed Trust Securities). The Exchange proposes to
replace the term ``Derivative Securities Products'' with the term
``Exchange Traded Products'' as a term that is more commonly used by
investors and the public with respect to the equity securities that
list and trade on the Exchange and distinguishes them from derivatives,
such as futures or swaps. To effect this change, the Exchange proposes
to amend footnote 3 of the Schedule and to replace the term
``Derivative Securities Products'' with the term ``Exchange Traded
Products'' throughout the Schedule.
    The Schedule includes ``Annual Fees'' payable by issuers of
Exchange Traded Products listed on the Exchange. Pursuant to Footnote 8
of the Schedule, issuers are subject to Annual Fees in the year of
listing, pro-rated based on days listed that calendar year. The Annual
Fees for Exchange Traded Products are billed in January for the
forthcoming

year. Currently, when an Exchange Traded Product liquidates, and as a
result, is delisted from the Exchange, the issuer is responsible for
the full year's Annual Fee as billed in January. The issuer receives no
refund for amounts paid or reduction of amounts payable even though the
Exchange Traded Product has liquidated.
    The Exchange proposes to amend Footnote 8 of the Schedule to
provide that the Annual Fees applicable to Exchange Traded Products
that have liquidated and as a result are delisted from the Exchange
will be prorated for the portion of the calendar year that such issue
was listed on the Exchange, based on days listed that calendar year.
Thus, for example, if the issuer of an Exchange Traded Product has paid
an Annual Fee of $20,000 as billed in January and such issue is
liquidated and then delisted from the Exchange on June 30, the issuer
would receive a refund of $10,000, which represents a pro rata credit
of Annual Fees owed for the year.
    Notwithstanding the proposed proration of the Annual Fees for
Exchange Traded Products, the Exchange will continue to be able to fund
its regulatory obligations.
    The Exchange also proposes non-substantive amendments to the
Schedule. First, the Exchange proposes to add the operative date to the
Schedule, which, for this filing, would be January 14, 2016. Second,
the Exchange proposes to delete the last two sentences of Commentary .4
to the Schedule, which refer to the transfer of securities from NYSE
Alternext US to NYSE Arca, which occurred in 2008, and therefore is
outdated text.
2. Statutory Basis
    NYSE Arca believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) \4\ of the Act, in general, and Section 6(b)(4) \5\ of the Act in
particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its issuers and other
persons using its facilities. In addition, the Exchange believes the
proposal is consistent with the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) \6\
that an exchange have rules that are designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that adding the operative date will clarify
the Schedule by specifying the date as of which the most recent changes
to the Schedule apply. Replacing the term ``Derivative Securities
Products'' with the term ``Exchange Traded Products'' will remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by
using a term commonly used by the public and investors to refer to the
products that are listed on the Exchange. The Exchange further believes
that using the term ``Exchange Traded Products'' will promote
transparency in Exchange rules by distinguishing the equity securities
that list and trade on the Exchange from derivatives, such as futures
or swaps. In addition, the deletion of the last two sentences of
Commentary .4 to the Schedule will eliminate outdated text.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed pro rata reduction
of the Annual Fees as a result of liquidation and termination of an
issue of Exchange Traded Products is equitable and does not unfairly
discriminate between issuers because it would apply uniformly to all
Exchange Traded Products and issuers of such products. The Exchange
believes such reduction is reasonable in that it constitutes a
potential reduction in Annual Fees for issues that are liquidated, and
therefore are no longer collecting a management fee to pay for such
expenses. Notwithstanding the proposed proration of the Annual Fees for
Exchange Traded Products, the Exchange will continue to be able to fund
its regulatory obligations.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The Exchange believes the
proposed rule change would promote competition because it will permit
the Exchange to better compete with other exchanges with respect to
fees charged in connection with listing Exchange Traded Products.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \7\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-
4 \8\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \9\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2016-13 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2016-13. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and

printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2016-13, and should
be submitted on or before February 17, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-01668 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 140 (Thursday, July 21, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47300-47302]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17177]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0241; FRL-9948-08-Region 9]

Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, El Dorado County Air
Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve a revision to the El Dorado County Air Quality
Management District (EDCAQMD) portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). We are approving a local emergency episode
plan that describes actions that EDCAQMD must take in the event of
dangerously high ambient ozone concentrations levels under the Clean
Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on September 19, 2016 without further
notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comments by August 22, 2016. If
we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2016-0241 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415)
947 4115<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What plan did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this plan?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted plan?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the plan?
    B. Does the plan meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What plan did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the plan addressed by this action with the date that
it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California
Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                             Table 1--Submitted Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Local agency                              Plan title                  Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDCAQMD....................................  Ozone Emergency Episode Plan.......        01/12/16        04/06/16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 21, 2016, the EPA determined that EDCAQMD's Ozone
Emergency Episode Plan submittal met the completeness criteria in 40
CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of this plan?

    There are no previous versions of this plan adopted by EDCAQMD or
approved by EPA in the SIP.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted plan?

    The CAA requires the EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for Ozone and five other pollutants that are harmful
to public health and the environment. Each state is required to submit
to the EPA, within three years after the promulgation of a primary or
secondary NAAQS, or any revision thereof, an infrastructure SIP
revision that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of such NAAQS. CAA section 110(a)(2) describes the contents
required of such a plan that constitute the ``infrastructure'' of a
state's air quality management program. The EDCAQMD Ozone Emergency
Episode Plan is intended to fulfill the CAA Sec.  110(a)(2)(G)
infrastructure SIP requirement.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the plan?

    SIPs must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)) and SIP
revisions are restricted in how they can relax approved SIPs. This plan
must also meet the infrastructure SIP requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(G) and EPA's implementing regulations found in 40 CFR part
51, subpart H (51.150 through 51.153).
    Guidance that we used to evaluate section 110(a)(2) CAA
requirements includes: ``Guidance Document for Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2)'', EPA (September 2013).

B. Does the plan meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe this plan is consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability, SIP relaxations and infrastructure
SIPs. The EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information
about this plan and our evaluation.

C. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully
approving the submitted plan because we believe it fulfills all
relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this
approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance.
However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are
simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted plan. If we
receive adverse comments by August 22, 2016, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct
final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in
a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive
timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective
without further notice on September 19, 2016. This will incorporate the
plan into the federally enforceable SIP.
    Please note that if the EPA receives adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph, or section of this plan and if that provision may
be severed from the remainder of the plan, the EPA may adopt as final
those provisions of the plan that are not the subject of an adverse
comment.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
EDCAQMD plan described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
available electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX (AIR4), 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, CA, 94105-3901.]

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 19, 2016. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed
Rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that the EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the
comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section
307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 13, 2016.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by add ing paragraph (c)(473) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (473) A new regulation for the following AQMD was submitted on
April 6, 2016 by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.

    (A) El Dorado County Air Quality Management District.
    (1) ``Ozone Emergency Episode Plan,'' adopted January 12, 2016.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-17177 Filed 7-20-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P