From: Elin Peltz <  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>

Date: May 17, 2012 3:07:26 PM EDT

To: "Lorie Schmidt/DC/USEPA/US (  HYPERLINK <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>)" <  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>, "  HYPERLINK <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>" <  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>

Cc: Kevin Price <  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>, "Janet Anderson (  HYPERLINK <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>)" <  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>

Subject: Beet Sugar Processors Boiler MACT Proposal

Lorie, Arvin –

Attached is a proposal which we developed after our meeting last week with you and your technical staff.  We have tried to respond to concerns raised in the meeting regarding EPA’s legal authority to allow beet sugar processors to comply with work practice standards, similar to those granted to the cane processing industry, with whom we compete in the domestic sugar market.

We would be happy to meet with you again to discuss this proposal or respond to any questions you might have in the meantime.  We are also open to any thoughts or approaches you might offer in order to achieve our objectives.

Thanks again for your time and attention to our concerns, as we try to work toward a mutually acceptable accommodation.

Elin

Elin Peltz

Vice President

U.S. Beet Sugar Association

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> 202-296-4820 (p)

202-331-2065 (f)

USBSA Boiler MACT White Paper 5.17.12.docx


Note to Docket EPA HQ OPPT 2005 0049 March 27, 2006 On March 14, 2006, staff from EPA Region 10 provided an overview briefing on the Agency's Proposed Rule: Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program to the 2nd Puget Sound Regional Round Table in Federal Way, Washington. The briefing was conducted using the presentation entitled " Lead Based Paint Renovation, Repair, and Painting; Overview of Proposed Rule; February 2006." A copy of this briefing has been inserted into the docket.

The meeting was attended by the attached list of attendees. The purpose of the briefing was to familiarize the attendees with the rule so that they may provide useful comment on the proposal. Attendees were encouraged to submit any comments they have in writing for the Agency's consideration during the public comment period.


[Federal Register: February 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 30)]
[Notices]
[Page 7760-7761]
[DOCID:fr14fe06-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 9184-013]

Flambeau Hydro, LLC; Notice of Application Ready for
Environmental Analysis and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Terms
and Conditions, and Prescriptions

February 7, 2006.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric license application
has been filed with the Commission and is available for public
inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Subsequent License.
    b. Project No.: P-9184-013.
    c. Date Filed: June 10, 2005.
    d. Applicant: Flambeau Hydro, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Danbury Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: Located on the Yellow River in Burnett County,
Wisconsin. This project does not occupy federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Scott Klabunde, North American Hydro, Inc.,
P.O. Box 167, Neshkoro, WI 54960;<PHONE_NUMBER> ext. 14.
    i. FERC Contact: Timothy Konnert,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. Deadline for filing comments, recommendations, terms and
conditions, and prescriptions: 60 days from the issuance date of this
notice; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this
notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    Comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions
may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See CFR 385.2001
(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov
) under the ``eFiling'' link.

    k. This application has been accepted, and is ready for
environmental analysis at this time.
    l. The existing Danbury Project consists of: (1) A 35-foot-high
concrete dam with a 48-foot-wide spillway with three sections, each of
which is equipped with 7-foot-high slide gates; (2) a 300-foot-long
earthen dike connecting to the right side of the concrete dam; (3) a
powerhouse (Plant 1) integral to the dam containing a 176-kW turbine
generating unit and a 300-kW turbine generating unit; (4) a 255-acre
reservoir with a negligible net storage capacity at a water surface
elevation of 929.21 feet NGVD from April through October and 928.11
feet NGVD from November through March; (5) a 2,500-foot-long power
canal that

conveys water to; (6) a second powerhouse (Plant 2) containing a single
600-kW turbine generating unit; and (7) appurtenant facilities. The
applicant estimates that the total average annual generation is 3,844
megawatt-hours. The dam and existing project facilities are owned by
Flambeau Hydro, LLC.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``e-Library''

link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in item h. above.
    All filings must: (1) Bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS'', ``REPLY COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS'', ``TERMS AND
CONDITIONS'', or ``PRESCRIPTIONS''; (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, or prescriptions must
set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be
accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service
list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with
18 CFR 4.34(b), and 385.2010.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm
 to be notified via e-mail of new filings and

issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    n. Procedural schedule: The Commission staff proposes to issue an
Environmental Assessment (EA) rather than issuing a draft and final EA.
Staff intends to allow at least 30 days for entities to comment on the
EA, and will take into consideration all comments received on the EA
before final action is taken on the license application. The
application will be processed according to the following schedule, but
revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate:
    Issue Notice of availability of the EA: May 30, 2006.
    Ready for Commission decision on the application: July 31, 2006.
    Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-2035 Filed 2-13-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 96)]
[Notices]
[Page 28087]
[DOCID:fr18my07-123]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.

Extension:
    Form 15; OMB Control No. 3235-0167; SEC File No. 270-170.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Form 15 (17 CFR 249.232) is a certification of termination of a
class of security under Section 12(g) or notice of suspension of duty
to file reports pursuant to Sections 13 and 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.). We estimate that
approximately 3,000 issuers file Form 15 annually and it takes
approximately 1.5 hours per response to prepare for a total of 4,500
annual burden hours.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o
Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: May 11, 2007.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-9574 Filed 5-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62815-62817]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24662]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70670; File No. SR-Topaz-2013-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Topaz Exchange, LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Schedule of Fees

October 11, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on October 1, 2013, the Topaz Exchange, LLC (d/b/a ISE Gemini)
(the ``Exchange'' or ``Topaz'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Topaz is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to increase Maker
Rebates for Market Makers that achieve the Tier 4 ADV threshold, to
permit Topaz to exclude from its ADV calculations any trading day on
which the Exchange is closed for trading due to a market-wide trading
halt, to adopt a definition of ``affiliate'' for the purpose of
calculating affiliated Member ADV, and to make other related clarifying
changes. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Internet Web site at http://www.ise.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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange 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 these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries,
set forth in Sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects
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 increase Maker Rebates for Market Makers
\3\ that achieve the Tier 4 average daily volume (``ADV'') threshold,
to permit Topaz to exclude from its ADV calculations any trading day on
which the Exchange is closed for trading due to a market-wide trading
halt, to adopt a definition of ``affiliate'' for the purpose of
calculating affiliated Member ADV, and to make other related clarifying
changes to its Schedule of Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term Market Maker refers to ``Competitive Market
Makers'' and ``Primary Market Makers'' collectively. Market Maker
orders sent to the Exchange by an Electronic Access Member are
assessed fees and rebates at the same level as Market Maker orders.
See footnote 2, Schedule of Fees, Section I and II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 3, 2013 the Exchange filed with the Commission an
immediately effective rule filing (the ``initial filing'') \4\ that
established volume-based tiered rebates for adding liquidity on the
Exchange (``Maker Rebate''). The Exchange is now proposing to increase
the Tier 4 Maker Rebate applicable to Market Makers. Currently, Market
Makers that achieve Tier 4 receive a Maker Rebate for Regular Orders in
Standard Options of $0.37 per contract for Penny Symbols, $0.39 per
contract for SPY, and $0.46 per contract for Non-Penny Symbols. For
Regular Orders in Mini Options, the Tier 4 Maker Rebate is $0.037 per
contract for Penny Symbols, $0.039 per contract for SPY, and $0.046 per
contract for Non-Penny Symbols. The Exchange is proposing to increase
the Tier 4 Maker Rebate by $0.01 per contract in Standard Options and
$0.001 per contract in Mini Options. As such, the new Tier 4 Maker
Rebate for Market Makers in Standard Options will be $0.38 per contract
for Penny Symbols, $0.40 per contract for SPY, and $0.47 per contract
for Non-Penny Symbols. For Mini Options the new Tier 4 Maker Rebate for
Market Makers will be $0.038 per contract for Penny Symbols, $0.040 per
contract for SPY, and $0.047 per contract for Non-Penny Symbols. The
Exchange believes that increasing the Maker Rebate applicable to Market
Makers that achieve the ADV threshold for Tier 4 will incentivize
Market Makers to increase order flow to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70426 (Sept. 17,
2013), 78 FR 58359 (Sept. 23, 2013) (SR-Topaz-2013-04).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is further proposing to modify its Schedule of Fees to
permit the Exchange to exclude from its ADV calculation, when
determining applicable rebate tiers, any day that the market is not
open for the entire trading day. This would allow the Exchange to
exclude days where the Exchange declares a trading halt in all
securities or honors a market-wide trading halt declared by another
market.\5\ For example, this would have allowed the Exchange to exclude
August 22, 2013 when trading was halted in Nasdaq-listed securities for
three hours across all exchanges.\6\ The Exchange will provide a
notice, and post it on the Exchange's Web site, to inform Members of
any day that is to be excluded from its ADV calculations in connection
with this proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange will not be excluding days on which the
Exchange closes early for holiday observance from its ADV
calculation.
    \6\ Trading in Nasdaq-listed securities was halted across all
markets on August 22, 2013 due to a systems issue experienced by the
NASDAQ UTP SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the Exchange did not have the ability to exclude aberrant low
volume days when calculating ADV for the month, as a result of the
decreased trading volume, the numerator for the calculation (e.g.,
trading volume) would be correspondingly lower, but the denominator for
the threshold calculations (e.g., the number of trading days) would not
be decreased. This could result in an unintended cost increase. Absent
the authority to exclude days that the market is not open for the
entire trading day. Members will experience an effective decrease in
rebates. The artificially low volumes of trading on such days could
reduce the trading activity of Members both daily and monthly.
Accordingly, excluding such days from the monthly calculation will
diminish the likelihood of an effective increase in the cost of trading
on the Exchange, a result that is unintended and undesirable to the
Exchange and its Members.
    As stated in the initial filing, the Exchange will aggregate the
trading activity of affiliated members in determining ADV.\7\ For
example, a firm with market making and agency desks housed in different
entities will be

permitted to aggregate ADV across both entities in determining the
applicable rebate tiers. To provide more clarity on what ``affiliated''
means in this context the Exchange is now adopting a definition for
this term. In particular, the Exchange will aggregate the trading
activity of separate Members in calculating ADV provided there is at
least 75% common ownership between the firms as reflected on each
firm's Form BD, Schedule A. The Exchange believes that aggregating
volume across Members that share at least 75% common ownership will
allow Members to continue to execute trades on the Exchange through
separate broker-dealer entities for different types of volume, while
receiving rebates based on the aggregate volume being executed across
such entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Aggregation is necessary and appropriate because certain
Members conduct customer and market maker trading activity through
separate but related broker-dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also adopting clarifying text to its Schedule of
Fees to reflect how Maker Rebates are currently provided on the
Exchange. This clarifying text merely explains in the Schedule of Fees
items already discussed in the initial filing, and does not make any
substantive changes to the rebates being offered. In particular, the
Exchange wants to clarify in the text of the Schedule of Fees that
Total Affiliated Member ADV includes all volume in all symbols and
order types, including both maker and taker volume, and that the
highest tier threshold attained by a Member applies retroactively only
in the given month. The Exchange is also changing a reference to
``client categories'' to instead refer to ``market participants'' as
that term is used elsewhere in the Schedule of Fees and is therefore
clearer. The Exchange believes that adopting this new text in the
Schedule of Fees itself will decrease confusion among its Members.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general, and Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it is designed to provide
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among its members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to increasing the Tier 4 Maker Rebate for Market
Makers, the Exchange believes that the price differentiation between
Market Makers and other market participants is appropriate and not
unfairly discriminatory because Market Makers have different
requirements and obligations to the Exchange that other market
participants do not (such as quoting requirements). The Exchange
believes that increasing the Maker Rebate applicable to Market Makers
that achieve Tier 4, which is the highest volume tier, will incentivize
Market Makers to increase order flow to the Exchange.
    The Exchange notes that it has determined to charge fees and
provide rebates in Mini Options at a rate that is 1/10th the rate of
fees and rebates the Exchange provides for trading in Standard Options.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable and equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to assess lower fees and rebates to provide market
participants an incentive to trade Mini Options on the Exchange. The
Exchange believes the proposed rebates are reasonable and equitable in
light of the fact that Mini Options have a smaller exercise and
assignment value, specifically 1/10th that of a standard option
contract, and, as such, is providing rebates that are 1/10th of those
applicable to Standard Options.
    The Exchange believes that it is equitable and reasonable to permit
the Exchange to eliminate from the calculation days on which the market
is not open the entire trading day because it preserves the Exchange's
intent behind adopting volume-based pricing. The proposed change is
non-discriminatory because it applies equally to all Members and to all
volume tiers.
    The language permitting aggregation of volume amongst corporate
affiliates for purposes of the ADV calculation is intended to avoid
disparate treatment of firms that have divided their various business
activities between separate corporate entities as compared to firms
that operate those business activities within a single corporate
entity. By way of example, many firms that are Members of the Exchange
operate several different business lines within the same corporate
entity. In contrast, other firms may be part of a corporate structure
that separates those business lines into different corporate
affiliates, either for business, compliance or historical reasons.
Those corporate affiliates, in turn, are required to maintain separate
memberships with the Exchange in order to access the Exchange. The
Exchange believes that corporate affiliates should continue to be
aggregated and is adopting a definition of affiliate to clarify when
Members will be considered affiliated. The Exchange notes that the
proposed definition of ``affiliate'' to be used to aggregate affiliated
Member ADV is consistent with definitions used by other options
exchanges, including the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc.
(``CBOE'') and the MIAX Options Exchange (``MIAX'').\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See CBOE Fee Schedule, Volume Incentive Program (VIP); MIAX
Fee Schedule, Transaction Fees, Exchange Fees, Priority Customer
Rebate Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes that it is appropriate to add the
clarifying text to the Schedule of Fees in order to make it more
transparent to Members and investors.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\11\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on intermarket or intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to Tier 4 Maker Rebates for Market Makers, the
Exchange believes that the fee change will not impose any unnecessary
burden on intramarket competition because, while it only applies to
Market Maker orders, Market Makers take on a number of obligations and
responsibilities that other market participants are not required to
undertake. The proposed increase to the Tier 4 Maker Rebate applicable
to Market Makers is intended to attract increased order flow to the
Exchange from Market Makers, which will provide increased volume and
greater trading opportunities for all market participants. The Exchange
believes the proposed fee change does not impose a burden on inter-
market competition because it is consistent with fees charged by other
exchanges.\12\ The proposed rebates, which the Exchange believes are
comparable to those provided by its competitors for similar orders,
will encourage competition and continue to attract additional order
flow to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For example, NYSE Arca Options (``Arca'') provides a rebate
in Standard Options to market makers that achieve their ``Super
Tier'' of $0.37 per contract for Penny Pilot Issues (except SPY),
and $0.39 per contract in SPY. See Arca Fees and Charges, Trade
Related Charges for Standard Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to ADV calculations for rebates, the Exchange notes
that there are very few instances where the rule will actually be
invoked, and when invoked, the Exchange believes the rule will have
little or no impact on trading decisions or execution quality. To the
contrary, the Exchange believes that the proposed modification to its
ADV calculation is pro-competitive and will result in lower total costs
to end users, a positive outcome of competitive

markets. Moreover, other options exchanges have adopted rules that are
substantially similar to the change in ADV calculation being proposed
by the Exchange.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 70472
(Sept. 23, 2013) (PHLX-2013-93); 70470 (Sept. 23, 2013) (NASDAQ-
2013-117).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also notes that other exchanges have substantially
similar requirements for aggregating affiliated Member ADV in
determining applicable tiered rebates. As provided in the initial
filing, the Exchange currently aggregates affiliated Member ADV in
calculating rebate tiers, and this proposed rule change merely explains
the how affiliate status is determined for that purpose, which will
have no competitive impact.
    Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the clarifying text being
added to the Schedule of Fees is non-substantive, and therefore does
not impact the competition analysis.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which
market participants can readily direct their order flow to competing
venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review,
and consider adjusting, its fees and rebates to remain competitive with
other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed fee changes reflect this competitive environment.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\14\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\15\ because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by Topaz.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \15\ 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 to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

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 No. SR-Topaz-2013-08 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Topaz-2013-08. 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 such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal offices 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 No. SR-Topaz-2013-08, and should be
submitted on or before November 12, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-24662 Filed 10-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 5 (Monday, January 9, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 1284]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00172]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4671-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

Puerto Rico; Amendment No. 16 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (FEMA-4671-DR), dated September 21, 2022,
and related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued November 21, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated November 21, 2022, the President amended the cost-sharing
arrangements regarding Federal funds provided under the authority of
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''), in a letter to Deanne
Criswell, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as
follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico resulting from Hurricane Fiona during
the period of September 17 to September 21, 2022, is of sufficient
severity and magnitude that special cost sharing arrangements are
warranted regarding Federal funds provided under the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.
5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act'').
    Therefore, I amend my declarations of September 21, 2022, and
October 20, 2022, to authorize Federal funds for all categories of
Public Assistance at 90 percent of total eligible costs, except
assistance previously approved at 100 percent.
    This adjustment to state and local cost sharing applies only to
Public Assistance costs and direct Federal assistance eligible for
such adjustments under the law. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act specifically prohibits a similar
adjustment for funds provided for Other Needs Assistance (Section
408) and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (Section 404). These
funds will continue to be reimbursed at 75 percent of total eligible
costs.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-00172 Filed 1-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


              Statement Supporting the Renewal of the Information
Collection Request for Emergency Planning and Release Notification Requirements

1.	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

      1(a)	Title of the Information Collection

      Emergency Planning and Release Notification Requirements (EPCRA Sections 302, 303, and 304) (Renewal) - EPA No. 1395.09, 2050-0092.

      1(b)	Short Characterization

      This information collection request (ICR) was previously approved as OMB No. 2050-0092 through December 31, 2015.  The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) establishes authorities for emergency planning and preparedness, emergency release notification reporting, community right-to-know reporting, and toxic chemical release reporting.

      Under the emergency planning provisions of EPCRA, codified in 40 CFR part 355 requires any facility where an extremely hazardous substance (EHS) is present in an amount at or in excess of the threshold planning quantity (TPQ) to notify the state emergency response commission (SERC) and local emergency planning committee (LEPC) by May 17, 1987.  This activity has been completed; the section 302 costs and burden hours for this ICR, therefore, reflect only the estimate of the cost and burden incurred by new facilities that have an EHS in excess of the TPQ during the period covered by this ICR.

      EPCRA section 303 requires LEPCs to prepare emergency plans for facilities that have EHSs in excess of the TPQs in their local planning district.  Facilities are required to provide local planners with information necessary for the preparation of emergency plans.  In addition, the facilities are required to inform LEPCs of any relevant changes in chemical use or production that may affect the emergency plans.  Section 303 requires LEPCs to complete their emergency plans by October 17, 1988.  This ICR therefore reflects the costs attributable to the requirement of annually updating the local emergency response plans required under section 303(a).

      Emergency release notification provisions under EPCRA section 304, codified in 40 CFR part 355 requires facilities to report to SERCs and LEPCs releases in excess of quantities established by EPA.  Facilities are required to report releases above the reportable quantity (RQ) of any EHS or hazardous substance defined under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) section 101.  Notice of release must be given to both the LEPC and SERC.  In addition, facilities must provide a written follow-up report providing additional information on the release, its impacts, and any actions taken in response.

      EPA estimates that 95,000 facilities (23,750 manufacturers and 71,250 non-manufacturers) are subject to reporting under EPCRA section 302 and 3,556 SERCs and LEPCs are subject to section 303.  EPA estimates that approximately 10,000 release notifications are made annually under section 304 to the SERC and LEPC.  The total burden to facilities over the three year information collection period is estimated to be 436,500 hours for three years (145,500 hours annually), at a cost of $27.3 million $(9.1 million annually), with an associated state and local burden of 329,868 hours for three years (109,956 hours annually), at a cost of $15.0 million for three years (4.4 million annually).

2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

      2(a)	Need/Authority for the Collection

      The authority for these requirements is EPCRA sections 302, 303, and 304 (42 U.S.C. 11002, 11003, and 11004).

      Section 302 of EPCRA required the EHS list to be "the same list as the list published in November 1985 by the Administrator in Appendix A of the `Chemical Emergency Preparedness Program Interim Guidance'."  The section further required EPA to "publish an interim final regulation establishing a threshold planning quantity for each substance on the list..."  If EPA failed to publish the interim final rule, "the threshold planning quantity for the substance shall be 2 pounds until such time as the Administrator publishes regulations establishing a threshold for the substance."

      The interim final rule was published in the Federal Register on November 17, 1986 (51 FR 41570), followed by a final rule published on April 22, 1987 (52 FR 13378).  The EHS list consisted at that time of 406 chemicals, and the TPQs ranged from one pound to ten thousand pounds.  There are currently 355 chemicals on the EHS list.

      The EHS list along with the TPQs is used to designate facilities for initial screening for the local emergency planning process.  Section 303 of EPCRA requires facilities that have to provide the notification under section 302 to designate a facility coordinator to the LEPC and to "promptly provide information to [the LEPC] necessary for developing and implementing the emergency plan."  In this manner, the LEPC determines the potential scope of a response and, therefore, the amount of effort necessary for emergency planning.  The LEPC will review its plan annually and incorporate any changes or additions.  These emergency plans increase the local response and preparedness capability by allowing local planners to work with industry in their community, to determine the level of preparedness necessary for a response if a release should occur.

      Under section 304, respondents are required to notify the LEPC and SERC of releases of EHSs or hazardous substances (as identified under CERCLA) above the reportable quantity.  The purpose of the reporting is to allow response agencies to determine whether their assistance is needed in handling the response action.  The facility must provide a written follow-up report.

      2(b)	Practical Utility/Users of the Data

      The information provided by facilities under sections 302, 303, and 304 is provided to the SERCs and LEPCs.  Individuals can obtain the information by contacting the SERCs and LEPCs.  The information provided under sections 302 and 303 is used to increase the community's level of preparedness to respond to releases of chemicals in their community.  The information is also made available to the public to allow individuals to practice their "right-to-know" about the hazards posed by chemicals in their community.

      The information provided under section 304 is the trigger to activate the community's chemical emergency response system.  The written follow-up report is to update and clarify the information provided in the initial call.  It is also made available to the public so that the community can understand what happened during the release.

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

      3(a)	Non-Duplication

      Currently, there are no federal reporting requirements comparable to sections 302, 303, and 304 of EPCRA.  Release reporting under CERCLA section 103 is an emergency notification to the National Response Center (NRC), while release reporting under section 304 is directly to local and state entities.  The follow-up report required under section 304 is also unique.

      3(b)	Consultations

	EPA contacted the following facilities to develop an estimate for the burden for section 304 reporting.  The representatives were asked to estimate the time it took make their notifications to the  SERC and LEPC.  The burden associated with notifying NRC is accounted in ICR 1049.13.  In addition, if their release(s) required an EPCRCA section 304 follow-up report, an estimate of the effort required to produce that report.

	Hancock Foods					Louisville Gas and Electric
	Hancock NE					Louisville KY

	A. Duda & Sons, Inc.				Georgia Pacific Consumer Products
	Belle Glades FL				Crossett AR

	Linde LLC					Hill AFB Environmental Division
	Richmond CA					Hill AFB UT

	Shasta Beverages				Denver Cold Storage Inc.
	Miami FL					Denver PA

      3(c)	Public Notice

      In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.	), the Agency notified the public through a Federal Register notice on the re-submission of this ICR on 	June 19, 2015 (80 FR 35347).   EPA did not receive any comments.

      3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

      The reporting deadlines for sections 302, 303, and 304 are set by statute.  EPA has no authority to allow less frequent collection.

      3(e)	General Guidelines

      The collection activities specified in this renewal ICR adhere to the guidelines specified by OMB.

      3(f)	Confidentiality

      The respondent may claim specific chemical identities as trade secret in the notification to LEPC on information for developing and implementing the emergency response plan, under Section 303(d)(2) and (d)(3).  Such information must be submitted according to EPCRA sections 322 and 323 (40 CFR Part 350).
All trade secrecy claims submitted to EPA under EPCRA are handled and stored according to procedures set out in the Manual for Physical Handling, Security, and Protection of Files containing Trade Secret Claims Submitted under Sections 303, 311 and 312 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), December 2014. These procedures were developed expressly for EPCRA trade secrecy claims with the knowledge that these documents are sensitive.  Handling and review of documents containing EPCRA trade secret information is permitted only by persons who have obtained formal clearance to access the information based on a work-related need to engage in these activities.  When not being processed or reviewed by authorized individuals, the claim submissions containing trade secret information are stored in restricted access areas.  To ensure that appropriate handling procedures are activated and the confidentiality of EPCRA trade secret submissions is maintained, the Agency attaches a cover sheet to the top of each trade secret document and otherwise marks the document to clearly identify the document as EPCRA confidential.

      3(g)	Sensitive Questions

      The information gathering activities under this renewal ICR do not involve any sensitive questions.

4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

      4(a)	Respondents/NAICS Codes

      Sections 302, 303, and 304 are applicable to all facilities that either have present or release the regulated substances.  These sections apply to facilities in both the manufacturing and non-manufacturing sectors.

      Facilities in the following major group of NAICS codes may be subject to either or both implementing regulations under EPCRA section 302 and 304.  There may be other facilities covered by these regulations, but not listed.  Major group that may be subject are:  11 (Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting), 22 (Utilities), 31-33 (Manufacturing), 43 (Wholesale Trade), 44- 45 (Retail Trade), 48-49 (Transportation and Warehousing).

      4(b)	Information Requested

      4(b)(i)	Data Items

      Facilities newly subject to section 302 must notify their SERC and LEPC if the facility have any extremely hazardous substance (EHS) at or above its threshold planning quantity (TPQ) established in the regulations in 40 CFR part 355.  Under section 303, the facility must designate a facility emergency coordinator and provide "information to (the LEPC) necessary for developing and implementing the (LEPC's) emergency plan."  The amount of information necessary to fulfill this requirement is determined by the facility and the LEPC.  If a facility has very low likelihood of having a release that would impact the community, the LEPC would probably require very little information for emergency planning.  However, if the facility is a large chemical plant or is in close proximity to a populated area, the LEPC most likely will develop extensive planning (especially if the facility is anticipating an offsite response).  Information requested for the plan would likely include:

   * Names, hazards, quantities, and storage information for EHSs on-site;

   * Methods and procedures to be followed by facility owners and operators to respond to a release;

   * Description of emergency equipment;

   * Methods for determining the occurrence of a release, and the area or population likely to be affected by the release; and

   * Procedures to provide reliable, effective, and timely notification.

      LEPCs were required to have their plans completed by October 17, 1988 and they are required to review and update the plan annually.  Facilities newly subject to these requirements would have to provide emergency planning notification.  Facilities already subject would only have to update the LEPC if the information that they have already provided changes.

      Under section 304, respondents are required to notify the LEPC and SERC of releases of EHSs or hazardous substances (as identified in CERCLA section 101) above the reportable quantity.  The notice must include the following information, to the extent that it is known:

   * The chemical name or identity of any substance involved in the release;

   * An indication of whether the substance is on the list of EHSs;

   * An estimate of the quantity of any such substance that was released into the environment;

   * The time and duration of the release;

   * The medium or media into which the release occurred;

   * Any known or anticipated acute or chronic health risks associated with the emergency and, where appropriate, advice regarding medical attention necessary for exposed individuals;

   * Proper precautions to take as a result of the release, including evacuation (unless such information is readily available to the community emergency coordinator pursuant to the emergency plan); and

   * The name and telephone number of the person or persons to be contacted for further information.

The facility must also provide a written follow-up report that includes the information above and any updates.  Also, additional information must be given:

   * Actions taken to respond to and contain the release;

   * Any known or anticipated acute or chronic health risks associated with the release; and

   * Where appropriate, advice regarding medical attention necessary for exposed individuals.

      4(b)(ii)	Respondent Activities

      To determine if a facility is subject to section 302, the facility would need to review the EHS list to determine if it has any of the 355 chemicals on-site.  The facility would then need to look at the inventory of any EHSs it may have on-site and compare it to the TPQ.  If the facility has an EHS above the TPQ, the facility would need to contact their SERC and LEPC to notify them of their reporting obligation. (Note:  States may have specific requirements regarding the format for this notification under the state right-to-know regulations. Facilities are encouraged to contact their state.)

      To comply with section 303, the designated facility coordinator would have to work with the LEPC to ensure that the community has an adequate plan to respond to emergencies that would involve their facility.  Facility coordinators may be asked to serve as an industry representative to the LEPC.

      To comply with section 304, the facility would need to determine, when an EHS or a CERCLA hazardous substance is being released, if the quantity of the chemical released is greater than the reportable quantity established in the regulations in 40 CFR parts 302 and 355.  Information on the release needs to be provided in the initial telephone notification to the SERC and LEPC. The material safety data sheet (MSDS) or other information that the facility has would provide the health risks and medical information, as well as response information.

      The written follow-up notice needs to be filed "as soon as practical after a release." This notice documents and updates the information provided in the initial notification.  Because the initial notification should be provided immediately after the discovery of the release, the written follow-up notice allows the facility more time to determine with greater precision the information provided in the initial notification.  The facility may include a copy of its own internal report of the circumstances of the accident.

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

      5(a)	Agency Activities

      No information provided under sections 302, 303, and 304 is sent to EPA.  All of the information is kept at the state and local level.

      5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management

      EPA does not receive the data; therefore, EPA does not have any special data collection methodology and management.  However, to assist SERCs and LEPCs in their information management practices and emergency planning, EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have created the Computer Aided Management of Emergency Operations (CAMEO) database.

      5(c)	Small Entity Flexibility

      There are no special allowances made for small businesses in the regulations for sections 302, 303, and 304.  The burden hours for small businesses are considered to be smaller than those for large facilities because of the reduced number of chemicals and processes present at smaller facilities.

      5(d)	Collection Schedule

      The frequency of collection for these sections of EPCRA is required by statute.  Facilities are required to report any relevant changes when they occur.  Under section 304, releases of EHSs and CERCLA hazardous substances in excess of the reportable quantity must be reported "immediately" after the owner/operator has knowledge that they occurred.  The written follow-up notice is required "as soon as practicable after the release."

6.	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF COLLECTION

      6(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden

      EPA estimated the respondent burden hours and costs associated with all recordkeeping and reporting requirements covered in EPCRA sections 302, 303, and 304.  Unit burden and costs were estimated by labor category required for each of the tasks performed by facilities under Sections 302, 303 and 304 (codified in 40 CFR Part 355), and tasks performed by LEPCs under EPCRA section 303.

      Based on the data we received from EPA Regions for 45 states, we estimate that approximately 90,180 facilities would be subject to EPCRA Sections 302 and 303, which is lower than our estimate in the previous ICR.  However, to be conservative, we are using our previous estimate of 95, 000 facilities for the period covered by this ICR.  EPA estimates that approximately 25 percent of these facilities are manufacturers (23,750) and 71,250 facilities are non-manufacturers.  We do not expect any new facilities to be in compliance during this ICR period based on the data obtained from EPA Regions.

      The number of notifications under section 304 was based on the average number of CERCLA hazardous substance and EHS releases reported to the National Response Center for the past three years, approximately 10,000.

      Exhibit 1 presents the estimated unit burden by labor category required for each of the tasks performed by facilities under EPCRA Sections 302, 303 and 304 (40 CFR Part 355), and tasks performed by LEPCs under EPCRA section 303.

      Read and Understand Regulations

	EPA assumes that only newly regulated facilities incur the cost of reading and understanding regulations at 40 CFR Part 355.  As explained above, we do not expect any new facilities to come into compliance in the period covered by this ICR based on information we received from few SERCs.  Data from the Regions on the number of facilities subject to EPCRA Sections 302 and 303 is lower than the previous estimate probably due to facilities using chemicals that are less hazardous keeping inventory down.  Therefore, EPA did not estimate any burden for this activity for new facilities.  All currently regulated facilities are already familiar with the regulations and the burden for this activity was estimated in previous ICRs.

      Emergency Planning Notification by Facilities (EPCRA Section 302)

      All newly regulated facilities must first determine whether they have at least a threshold planning quantity of an EHS.  All newly regulated facilities are required to notify the SERC and designate a facility representative.  As mentioned above, we do not expect any new facilities to be in compliance in this ICR period.  Currently covered facilities already completed this activity.

	Because few facilities may have significant changes that would affect emergency planning, EPA estimates that only ten percent of all subject facilities will be required to inform LEPCs of any changes at the facility.  EPA assumes that only manufacturers may have changes occurring at the facilities which require notification to the LEPCs.

	In addition, because little information is required from facilities after the initial submittal, EPA also estimates that only five percent of all subject facilities will provide additional information to LEPCs either to develop or implement emergency plans.  The burden associated with providing local governments with updated information for planning purposes is assumed to be a small percentage of the initial burden for contributing to planning efforts.  EPA estimates that it may take 13.0 hours for currently covered facilities to inform LEPC of any changes relevant to emergency planning and to provide information to the LEPC requests to develop emergency response plans.  (See Exhibit 1).

      Emergency Release Notification by Facilities (EPCRA Section 304)

The number of annual reportable quantity (RQ) releases based on the average number of CERCLA hazardous substance and EHS releases reported in the National Response Center for the last three years is approximately 10,000.  EPA estimates 90 percent of these releases require notifying LEPCs and SERCs, and 10 percent require notifying the 911 operator regarding transportation related releases.  All reportable releases except transportation-related require a written follow-up report.

      For this ICR, EPA contacted few facilities that reported releases of EHSs to determine the actual burden incurred to comply with initial notification and written follow-up requirements in Section 304 of EPCRA.  For initial notification, these facilities take an average of 10 to 15 minutes.  For the follow-up report these facilities take an average of 2 to 8 hours.  To be conservative, EPA will continue to use the same burden estimated in the previous ICRs.  The burden per respondent for initial notification is approximately 0.50 hours (30 minutes) and for written follow-up, it is approximately 8.0 hours.  EPA estimates that it takes approximately 0.25 hours (15 minutes) to report a transportation-related release to the 911 operator.

      Emergency Response Plan Development by LEPCs (EPCRA Section 303)

      Emergency Response Plans must be reviewed and updated annually.  EPA estimates that SERCs review all LEPC plans annually.  EPA contacted few LEPCs in previous ICR period to determine the burden associated with reviewing or updating their emergency response plan.   Based on information from LEPCs, the time required to update plans varies from 18 to 40 hours.  To develop an estimate, EPA assumed that the largest 120 LEPCs would spend 40 hours a year and the smaller LEPCs would spend 20 hours a year; a weighted average of 21 hours was obtained for the recordkeeping burden to keep records of all Emergency Response Plans.

      Similarly, a weighted average was developed for recordkeeping associated with release reports. The LEPC with a large concentration of chemical plants indicated that it spent a month on release notification; the other LEPCs indicated that this activity took five hours a year at most.  A weighted average of 10 hours was developed for the annual burden for each of the LEPCs (3,500) and SERCs (56).  This burden is same as what was estimated in the previous ICR.

                                   Exhibit 1
      Section 302, 303, and 304 Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
                        Estimated Unit Burden and Cost

                              Annual Hours Burden
                                  Total Hours

Information Collection Activity

                                  Management
                                   Technical
                                   Clerical
                                    Burden
                                  Annual Cost

EMERGENCY PLANNING  (Facilities)

Inform LEPC of changes to facility that may affect emergency planning

                                     0.50
                                     1.00
                                     0.50
                                     2.00
                                    $103.87

Provide information to LEPC, as required

                                     2.00
                                     8.00
                                     1.00
                                     11.00
                                    $628.52

EMERGENCY RELEASE NOTIFICATION (Facilities)

Determine if a release is an RQ

                                     0.10
                                     0.10
                                     0.00
                                     0.25
                                    $12.25

Notify LEPC and SERC of any RQ release

                                     0.50
                                     0.00
                                     0.00
                                     0.50
                                    $31.47

Develop and submit written follow-up notice

                                     1.50
                                     5.00
                                     1.50
                                     8.00
                                    $430.89

Notify 911 operator of transportation-related releases

                                     0.25
                                     0.00
                                     0.00
                                     0.25
                                    $15.74

EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANS (EPCRA section 303)

Update Emergency Response Plans (LEPCs)

                                     5.00
                                     15.00
                                     1.00
                                     21.00
                                   $1,084.38

Review Emergency Response Plans (SERCs)

                                     4.00
                                     12.00
                                     0.00
                                     16.00
                                   $842.88

Keep records and make them available to the public

                                     0.00
                                     0.00
                                     10.00
                                     10.00
                                    $307.80

      6(b)	Estimating Respondent Costs

Estimating costs to respondents on an annual basis is accomplished by multiplying the respondent burden estimates for each labor category by the corresponding labor rate for that category.  Unit costs for each respondent or activity are then multiplied by the number of respondents or activities performed on an annual basis to yield a total cost for each information collection activity in Section 6(d).  These costs are shown in Exhibit 1.

      EPA estimates an hourly respondent labor cost for manufacturing facility respondents of $67.15 for managerial staff, $49.65 for technical staff, and $24.16 for clerical staff, including wages and benefits. Hourly respondent labor costs for non-manufacturing facility respondents are estimated at $54.21 for managerial staff, $32.28 for technical staff, and $23.41 for clerical staff.

      EPA estimates an hourly respondent labor cost (including overhead) for LEPCs and SERCs of $53.49 for managerial staff, $52.51 for technical staff, and $30.78 for clerical staff.  EPA consulted Bureau of Labor and Statistics, June 2015 for wage and labor rates.

      Total burden hours and costs for the ICR are shown in Exhibit 2.

      Capital and O&M Costs

	Capital costs incurred by state and local agencies were estimated in the previous ICR.  Capital costs include the cost of space required to store information in filing cabinets.  Life expectancy for file cabinets is assumed to be 15 years.  Therefore, the Agency did not develop any cost for this since it was developed in the previous ICR.

	Operating and maintenance costs are limited to mailing costs.  Facilities are assumed to incur postage costs for the following activities:

   * Providing information to the LEPC as required under EPCRA section 303(d)(3).

   * Submitting written follow-up notice (assume about 4 pages per report)

	Facilities are expected to incur long distance charges when notifying SERCs and LEPCs that a release has occurred.  Long distance charges are estimated to be $4.00 per fifteen-minute call.

	LEPCs are assumed to incur postage costs for the following activities:

   * Submitting Emergency Response Plans to the SERCs for review.

   * Submitting Emergency Response Plans as requested by SERCs to federal regional response teams for review

	Postage is estimated to cost $0.49 for a first class letter and approximately $6.00 to submit a LEPC plan.  Operation and maintenance costs are shown in Exhibit 3.

      6(c)	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

      EPA estimates no annual Agency burden associated with this ICR.  Only state and local government entities implement the program in sections 302, 303, and 304 of EPCRA.

      6(d)	Estimating Total Annual Respondent Burden and Costs

      Exhibit 2 presents the respondent burden for each information collection activity and for the sum of all information collection activities performed by each respondent type.  The total average annual burden to facility respondents is 145,500 hours at a cost of $9.1 million (or 436,500 hours at a cost of $27.3 million for three years).  The total average annual respondent burden for state and local governments is 109,956 hours at a cost of $5.0 million (or 329,868 hours at a cost of $15.0 million for three years).  These burden estimates are summarized in Exhibit 2.

      6(e)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost

	See Exhibit 4, below.

      6(f)	Reasons for Change in Burden

      Based on the information we received from EPA Regions, the number of facilities subject to section 302 dropped.  However, we used the previous estimate as in the previous ICR.  Number of facilities fluctuates from year-to-year so we assumed the number of facilities to be the same as in the previous ICR.  There are no changes to the burden for activities related to section 302 reporting requirements.  Labor and wage rates are adjusted to the current data on BLS.

      The release notification calls to the National Response Center decreased by 1,900 from the previous ICR due to the reduction in the number of releases reported in the last three years.  This caused a decrease in the burden for facility respondents by 11,750 hours. Labor and wage rates are adjusted to the current data available on BLS.

       Burden incurred by LEPCs remain the same as in the previous ICR.  Labor and wage rates are adjusted to the current data available on BLS, June 2015.

      6(g)	Burden Statement

      As explained in the previous sections of this document, EPA do not expect any new facilities to come into compliance during this ICR period.  This ICR only covers periodic reporting or updates of information submitted previously by existing facilities under Section 302.  The average reporting burden for a limited number of existing facilities, to inform the LEPC of any changes at the facility that may affect emergency planning is 2.0 hours.  The average reporting burden for facilities to provide information to LEPC is 11.0 hours.  The average reporting burden for facilities reporting releases under EPCRA Section 304 is estimated to average approximately 9 hours per release, including the time for determining if the release is a reportable quantity, notifying the LEPC and SERC, or the 911 operator, and developing and submitting a written follow-up notice.  There are no record-keeping requirements for facilities under EPCRA Sections 302-304.  The total burden to facilities over three years is 436,500 hours at a cost of $27.3 million.

      The average burden for emergency planning activities is 21 hours per plan for LEPCs, and 16 hours per plan for SERCs.  Each SERC and LEPC is also estimated to incur an annual record keeping burden of 10 hours.  The total burden to LEPC and SERC over three years is 329,868 hours at a cost of $15.0 million.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average about 2 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 Number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2005-0008, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Superfund Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.  The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Superfund Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov.  This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When in the system, select "search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above.  Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2005-0008 and OMB Control Number 2050-0092 in any correspondence.

                                   Exhibit 2
      Section 302, 303, and 304 Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
                       Estimated Annual Burden and Cost

                                   Number of
                               Annual Hours Burden
                                  Total Hours

Information Collection Activity

                                  Respondents

Management
                                   Technical
                                   Clerical
                                    Burden
                                  Annual Cost
RULE FAMILIARIZATION (Facilities)

Read and understand regulations at 40 CFR Part 355
                                       0

                                       0
                                       0

                                       0
                                       0
                                         Subtotal

                                       -

                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       0
                                       0
EMERGENCY PLANNING (Facilities)

Calculate if chemicals meet/exceed TPQ
                                       0

                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0

Notify SERC that facility is subject to emergency planning
                                       0

                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0

Designate facility representative and notify LEPC
                                       0

                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0

Inform LEPC of facility changes that may affect emer. Planning
                                     9,500

                                     4,750
                                     9,500
                                     4,750
                                    19,000
                                   $986,755

Provide information to LEPC, as required
                                     4,750

                                     9,500
                                    38,000
                                     4,750
                                    52,250
                                  $2,895,470
                                        Subtotal

                                    71,250
                                  $3,972,225
EMERGENCY RELEASE NOTIFICATION  (Facilities)

Determine if release is an RQ
                                    10,000

                                     1,000
                                     1,000
                                       0
                                     2,000
                                   $122,500

Notify LEPC and SERC of any RQ release
                                     9,000

                                     4,500
                                       0
                                       0
                                     4,500
                                   $339,876

Develop and submit written follow-up notice
                                     9,000

                                    13,500
                                    45,000
                                     9,000
                                    67,500
                                  $4,653,612

Notify 911 operator of transportation-related releases
                                     1,000

                                      250
                                       0
                                       0
                                      250
                                    $18,888
                                       Subtotal

                                    74,250
                                  $5,134,876

Total (Facilities)
Total (Facilities)

EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANS (SERCs, LEPCs)

Update Emergency Response Plans (LEPCs)
                                     3,500

                                    17,500
                                    52,500
                                     3,500
                                    73,500
                                  $3,795,330

Review Emergency Response Plans (SERCs)
                                      56

                                      224
                                      672
                                       0
                                      896
                                   $147,201

Keep records and make them available to the public
                                     3,556

                                       0
                                       0
                                    35,560
                                    35,560
                                  $1,063,757
                                       Subtotal (SERCs and  LEPCs)

                                    109,956
                                  $5,006,288

                                   Exhibit 3

                      Capital/Start-up and O& M Costs
                                   (Annual)
                             Facilities and LEPCs

                                   Activity
                            Capital/Start-up Costs
                                O & M Costs
Provide information to LEPC, as required (Facilities)
                                      --
                                   $2,327.50
Notify LEPC and SERC of any RQ release (Facilities)
                                      --
                                  $43,200.00
Develop and submit written follow-up notice (Facilities)
                                      --
                                   $5,292.00
Submit Emergency Response Plans (LEPCs)
                                      --
                                  $18,000.00

                                   Exhibit 4

               Summary of Total Annual Burden and Cost Estimates

                                 Burden Hours
                                     Labor
                                   O & M

Facilities
                                    145,500
$4,107,101
                                  $50,819.50
SERCs and LEPCs
                                    109,956
$5,006.288
                                  $18,000.00
Total
                                    255,456
$9,113,389
                                  $68,819.50