Comment Info: =================

General Comment:A 75 day comment period is insufficient time for the vaping industry and the wider vaping community to comment on the proposed deeming regulations. Not to mention that there haven't even been conclusive studies on the matter. I would respectfully request that the period for comment be extended to 180 days.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 112 (Tuesday, June 11, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 34892]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13759]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0394]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Elizabeth River, Eastern Branch,
Norfolk, VA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the draw of the Norfolk Southern
5 Railroad Bridge, across the Elizabeth River Eastern Branch,
mile 1.1, Norfolk, VA. This deviation is necessary to facilitate
thermite welding on rail joints on the Norfolk Southern 5
Railroad drawbridge. This temporary deviation allows the drawbridge to
remain in the closed to navigation position.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 11 a.m. on July 8, 2013 to 1
p.m. July 16, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2013-0394] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Jim Rousseau, Bridge
Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard; telephone (757) 398-
6557, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
reviewing the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket
Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Norfolk Southern Corporation, who owns
and operates this drawbridge, has requested a temporary deviation from
the current operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.5 to facilitate
thermite welding on the rails.
    Under the regular operating schedule, the Norfolk Southern
5 Railroad Bridge, mile 1.1, in Norfolk, VA, the draw must
open promptly and fully for the passage of vessels when a request or
signal to open is given. The draw normally is open and only closes for
train crossings or periodic maintenance. The Norfolk Southern
5 Railroad Bridge, at mile 1.1, across the Elizabeth River
(Eastern Branch) in Norfolk, VA, has a vertical clearance in the closed
position to vessels of 6 feet above mean high water.
    Under this temporary deviation, the drawbridge will be maintained
in the closed to navigation position from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. on July 8,
9, 10, 15 and 16, 2013 the bridge will operate under normal operating
schedule at all other times. The bridge normally operates in the open
position with several vessels transiting a week and only closes when
trains transit. Emergency openings cannot be provided. There are no
alternate routes for vessels transiting this section of the Elizabeth
River Eastern Branch but vessels may pass before 11 a.m. and after 1
p.m.
    The Elizabeth River Eastern Branch is used by a variety of vessels
including military, tugs, commercial, and recreational vessels. The
Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with these
waterway users. The Coast Guard will also inform additional waterway
users through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the closure
periods for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to
minimize any impacts caused by the temporary deviation. Mariners able
to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time
and are advised to proceed with caution.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period.
    This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under
33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: May 30, 2013.
Waverly W. Gregory, Jr.,
Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2013-13759 Filed 6-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


                           STATEMENT SUPPORTING THE
INFORMATION REQUEST FOR THE ACCIDENTAL RELEASE PREVENTION REQUIREMENTS: RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT; SAFER COMMUNITIES BY CHEMICAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION
                1.	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION
1(a)	Title of the Information Collection Request
	Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act; Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention, EPA ICR No. 2725.01, OMB Control No. 2050-NEW.
1(b) 	Short Characterization
      This information collection request (ICR) accounts for requirements in the Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act; Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention proposed rule. The proposed revisions seek to improve chemical process safety, assist in planning, preparedness, and responding to RMP accidents, and improve public awareness of chemical hazards at regulated sources. To accomplish this, these proposed provisions include several changes to the accident prevention program requirements, enhancements to the emergency preparedness requirements, increased public availability of chemical hazard information, and several other changes to certain regulatory definitions or points of clarification.

      This ICR estimates burden for existing and new sources that are required to comply with the proposed RMP revisions.
2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

2(a)	Need/Authority for the Collection

Risk Management Plans

	The proposed changes to the current RMP rule would improve safety at facilities that use and distribute hazardous chemicals. EPA believes that the RMP regulations have been effective in preventing and mitigating chemical accidents in the United States and that the proposed revisions, by giving special consideration to concerns about climate change and environmental justice and building on lessons learned from the current regulatory program, could further protect human health and the environment from chemical hazards through advancement of process safety. These revisions are informed by EPA's review of the current RMP rule and information EPA gathered from public listening sessions held in June and July 2021.

 	The statutory authority for this action is provided by section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended (42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)). Each modification of the RMP rule that EPA proposes in this document is based on EPA's rulemaking authority under CAA section 112(r)(7) (42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7)). When promulgating rules under CAA section 112(r)(7)(A) and (B), EPA must follow the procedures for rulemaking set out in CAA section 307(d) (see CAA sections 112(r)(7)(E) and 307(d)(1)(C)). Among other things, CAA section 307(d) sets out requirements for the content of proposed and final rules, the docket for each rulemaking, opportunities for oral testimony on proposed rulemakings, the length of time for comments, and judicial review. The agencies implementing the Risk Management Program rule use RMPs to evaluate compliance with the Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions in 40 CFR part 68 and to identify sources for inspection that may pose significant risks to the community. Citizens may use the information to assess and address chemical hazards in their communities and to respond appropriately in the event of a release of a regulated substance.

2(b)	Use/Users of the Data

Risk Management Plans

	The information collected in the risk management plans (RMPs) is critical for assisting government agencies in assessing the quality and thoroughness of a source's hazard assessment, prevention program, and emergency response program. The information also is used by State and local emergency planners to prepare or modify community response plans, identify hazards to the community and provide a basis for working with sources to prevent accidents. The public uses the information to understand the risks posed by accidental releases and to respond to warnings and advice should a release occur.

Risk Management Programs

	Documentation of the implementation of risk management programs is necessary to assist government agencies in determining whether a source has complied with the regulations. In some cases (e.g., safety information and operating procedures), the documentation is a critical requirement of the rule and provides the basis for other rule elements. The documentation also is important to provide a basis for the facility's ability to ensure implementation (e.g., training and maintenance records), to audit compliance, and to review past activities. Furthermore, records of past analyses can limit the burden of updates by reducing the need to repeat analyses for elements that are unchanged since the previous review.

3.	NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

3(a)	Nonduplication

   	In the United States, the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) was enacted in 1986 to promote community emergency planning and preparedness and provide local responders and the public with information about the chemical hazards in their community (42 U.S.C. 11002 et seq.). In 1990, sections 112(r) and 304 of the CAA were enacted to help prevent severe chemical facility accidents. Section 304 required the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) to publish a chemical process safety standard (Process Safety Management, or PSM standard) to prevent accidental releases of chemicals that could pose a threat to employees. Section 112(r) required the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to publish Accidental Release Prevention Program regulations to prevent chemical releases or minimize their consequences if they occur. CAA section 112(r) requires the owner or operator of an affected facility to develop and file a Risk Management Plan with EPA, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) (also established under the section), the State, and local response agencies. OSHA adopted its PSM standard (codified at 29 CFR 1910.119) in 1992 (57 FR 6403, Feb. 24, 1992). However, not all the information in the RMP registration section, and almost none of the information in the prevention program and hazard assessment sections of the RMP, is submitted to EPA under other regulations. The EPCRA section 312 Tier II forms, which also include some information similar to that in the RMP registration form, are submitted only to States and local planning authorities, not to EPA.

3(b)	Public Notice

		In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Agency will notify the public of the proposed ICR through publication of a Federal Register notice. EPA will address any comments it receives in response to the Federal Register notice.

3(c)	Consultations

Under 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), OMB requires agencies to consult with potential ICR respondents and data users about specific aspects of the ICRs before submitting an original or renewal ICR to OMB for review and approval. EPA held virtual public listening sessions on June 16 and July 8, 2021, and had an open docket for public comment (86 FR 28828; May 28, 2021). In the request for public comment, the Agency asked for information on the adequacy of revisions to the RMP regulations completed since 2017, incorporating consideration of climate change risks and impacts into the regulations and expanding the application of environmental justice. EPA received a total of 27,828 public comments in response to the request for comments. This includes 27,720 received at regulations.gov, 35 provided during the listening session on June 16, 2021, and 73 provided during the listening session on July 8, 2021. Most of the comments received in the docket were copies of form letters related to four different form letter campaigns. The remaining comments included 302 submissions containing unique content. Of the 302 unique submissions, a total of 163 were deemed to be substantive (i.e., the commenters presented both a position and a reasoned argument in support of the position). Information collected through these comments has informed this proposed information collection.

3(d) 	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

	Sources are required to comply with RMP requirements, included those proposed herein if ultimately promulgated. Less frequent collection than that specified in the rule may result in outdated emergency response contact information, personnel unacquainted with emergency response requirements, and poor response capability at the time of an accidental release.

3(e)	General Guidelines
      CAA section 112(r)(7)(B)(iii) requires that sources update their RMPs periodically. To maintain consistency with OSHA PSM requirements, EPA's implementing rule requires sources to update process hazard analyses (PHAs) and hazard assessments every five years. Thus, sources are required to maintain such documentation for five years (and in the case of the PHA, for the life of the covered process), which is greater than the three years specified in OMB's general guidelines.

3(f)	Confidentiality and Sensitive Questions

 Confidentiality

      Certain elements mandated in the regulation for the RMP may require the submittal of data viewed as proprietary, trade secret, or confidential (e.g., confidential business information, or CBI). EPA has adopted procedures for sources to claim certain information as CBI.

 Sensitive Questions

      No questions of a sensitive nature are included in any of the information collection requirements covered in this ICR. The information collection requested complies with the Privacy Act of 1974 and OMB Circular A-108.

4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

4(a)	Respondents

	The total number of respondents for this ICR renewal period is 14,226 (i.e., 11,740 sources + 13 State/local agencies + 2,473 Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs)). A more detailed discussion of the respondent universe for this ICR period is provided in section 6(d).

4(b)	Information Requested

   Data requirements and respondent activities vary by program level. Program 1 requires the smallest amount of data and respondent time, while Program 3 requires the most. Sources with Program 3 processes are those that do not meet Program 1 but are subject to OSHA's PSM Standard, or those in any of the ten North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes listed in 40 CFR 68.10(d)(1). Program 2 processes are those that do not meet Program 1 or 3 eligibility requirements.

 Data Items

New Prevention Program Provisions

Safer Technology and Alternatives Analysis (STAA)
      Under the proposed rule, facilities with Program 3 processes in NAICS code 324 and 325, located within one mile of another facility with a process in NAICS code 324 or 325, would be required to conduct a STAA. Because EPA is proposing to require STAA only in industries with the most frequent and severe documented and continuing accidents, EPA expects the total burden of the STAA provision to be lower than the total burden that would have been imposed by the 2017 amendments rule's proposed STAA provision, which applied more broadly.

Backup Power for Perimeter Monitors
      The proposed rule would require perimeter monitoring equipment associated with prevention and detection of RMP-regulated substances to have standby or backup power. Currently, many facilities voluntarily have backup power installed for perimeter monitors. This proposed provision would require backup power where perimeter monitors are already in place.

Emergency Response Activities

Community Notification of RMP Accidents
	The proposed rule would require all facilities with Program 2 or 3 processes to provide accidental release notification and data to local responders and ensure that a community notification system is in place. EPA assumes all facilities with Program 2 or 3 processes will have to take some additional steps to coordinate with local responders to ensure a process is in place to transfer accidental release notification and data to local responders and ensure the ability to use a community notification system.

Information Availability

Information Availability
   	The proposed rule would require all facilities to disclose certain chemical hazard information to the public residing within 6 miles of the facility in the language requested by the requester. These are new information availability requirements, not currently required. The facility or its parent company, if applicable, also would have to provide ongoing notification that the information is available upon request for those members of the public. This could include a company website stating that information is available, providing notification at public libraries, in local papers, or via other means appropriate for particular communities and facilities.

	The information to be disclosed includes:
 Names of regulated substances at the facility
 Safety Data Sheets (SDS)
 Accident history information
 Emergency response program information
 LEPC or local response agency contact information.

 Respondent Activities

Rule Familiarization

      RMP facility staff will spend time to review the final rule and determine which provisions apply to their facility. Most of the proposed provisions revise current requirements rather than introducing completely new provisions. Many of the provisions are straightforward, e.g., those regarding Information Availability. Others apply only after an RMP-reportable accident, e.g., root cause analysis. Still others, such as the STAA, are expected to take time to understand -- however they apply to a limited number of facilities.

Prevention Program Provisions

Safer Technology and Alternatives Analysis (STAA)
      Facilities with Program 3 processes in NAICS code 324 and 325, located within one mile of another facility with a process in NAICS code 324 or 325, would be required to conduct a STAA.  All facilities in NAICS 324 using hydrofluoric acid (HF) in an alkylation unit, regardless of proximity to another NAICS 324- or 325-regulated facility, would also be required to conduct a STAA. The STAA requirement includes two parts: the initial analysis to identify alternatives, and a practicability study to determine the costs and assess the reasonableness of implementing technology alternatives.

Root Cause Analysis
	Facilities in Programs 2 and 3 that have had an RMP-reportable accident determine the underlying causes as part of their incident investigation. A root cause analysis is a structured process led by a person trained in the methodology. The time required may vary considerably based on the complexity of the processes involved.

Third-party Audits
	The current rule requires Program 2 and Program 3 facilities to conduct a compliance audit at least once every three years. The proposed rule would require Program 2 and Program 3 facilities that have had two RMP-reportable accidents within the past five years, or facilities with a Program 3 process in NAICS codes 324 or 325 within one mile of another facility with a process in NAICS codes 324 or 325, to contract with an independent third-party to conduct the next required audit.

Employee Participation Plan
	The proposed rule would require that the employee participation plan include and ensure effective methods are in place so that employees and their representatives have authority to refuse to perform a task when doing so could reasonably result in a catastrophic release and to recommend to the operator in charge of a unit that an operation or process be partially or completely shut down based on the potential for a catastrophic release.

Emergency Backup Power for Perimeter Monitors
   	EPA is proposing to require perimeter monitoring equipment associated with prevention and detection of accidental releases from RMP-regulated processes to have standby or backup power to ensure compliance with the intent of the rule. Facilities with perimeter monitoring equipment that do not have backup power would need to acquire backup power. Many continuous emissions monitoring systems have low power requirements. EPA assumes that affected facilities will implement backup power using a small generator at a total cost of $1,000 for their monitoring equipment.

      The burden estimates are presented in section 6(a) of this ICR.

Emergency Response Activities

Community Notification of RMP Accidents
	The proposed rule would require all facilities with Program 2 or 3 processes to provide accidental release notification and data to local responders and ensure that a community notification system is in place. EPA assumes all facilities with Program 2 or 3 processes will have to take some additional steps to coordinate with local responders to ensure a process is in place to transfer accidental release notification and data to local responders and ensure the ability to use a community notification system. The burden estimates for community notification of RMP accidents are presented in section 6(a) of this ICR.

Information Availability

      The proposed rule would require facilities to make certain information available upon request to community members living within 6 miles of a facility either through file sharing, providing information at a public library or other public offices, or providing it via e-mail or on the facility's website. The burden estimates for information availability are presented in section 6(a) of this ICR.

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

5(a)	Federal, State, and Local Government Activities

Burden to State and Local Agencies and Others

      The proposed rule would affect State and local government entities including entities that own RMP facilities, 2,473 LEPCs, and 13 States with delegated implementing agencies. The proposed rule would impose both direct and indirect costs. Direct costs are associated with activities required by RMP facilities owned by government entities. Indirect costs are associated with (1) RMP facilities owned by government entities, LEPCs, and State implementing agencies reviewing the proposed rule and (2) LEPCs coordinating with facilities regarding community notifications.

Burden to the Federal Government

	There is no expected additional burden to the Federal government.

5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management

      The information required by STAA will be collected in a STAA clearinghouse.

5(c)	Small Entity Flexibility

	For most small entities, EPA is not proposing additional regulatory requirements beyond what already exist in the RMP regulations. EPA is proposing adding regulatory text to emphasize that natural hazards and loss of power are among the hazards that must be addressed in hazard reviews and PHAs.

5(d)	Collection Schedule

	For STAA, by 3 years after the effective date of the final rule, the owner or operator of a source with a regulated RMP process involving HF alkylation, or a source with a process in NAICS code 324 or 325, located within 1 mile of another NAICS code 324 or 325 RMP facility process, must have completed or updated their PHA to include a STAA.

	For incident investigation root cause analysis, the owner or operator of a source that experiences any RMP-reportable accident more than 3 years after the effective date of the rule must conduct a root cause analysis for their incident investigation of the accident.

	For third-party compliance audits, the owner or operator of a source where a second RMP-reportable accident occurs within 5 years -- or of a source where one reportable accident in an RMP-regulated process in NAICS code 324 or 325, located within 1 mile of another source's RMP-regulated NAICS code 324 or 325 process, occurs after 3 years of the effective date of the final rule -- must obtain a third-party audit for their next required compliance audit.

	For employee participation, by 3 years after the effective date of the final rule, the owner or operator of a source must have updated or developed -- and begun implementing -- an employee participation plan that addresses employee consultation when resolving PHA, compliance audit, and incident investigation recommendations and decisions; stop work authorities; and RMP accident and non-compliance reporting.

	For emergency response, by 3 years after the effective date of the final rule, the owner or operator of a non-responding source must have onsite documentation of emergency response public notification procedures. Also, by 3 years after the effective date of the final rule, owners or operators of non-responding and responding sources must have the means to ensure that a community notification system is in place to warn the public of releases. In addition, for any RMP-reportable accident occurring more than 3 years after the effective date of the final rule, sources must provide appropriate and timely data and information to local responders detailing their current understanding and best estimates of the nature of the release. Finally, by 3 years after the effective date of the rule, emergency exercise evaluation reports must include documentation of specific exercise elements.

	For information availability, this means that by 3 years after the effective date of the final rule, the owner or operator must make the required chemical hazard information available to the public upon request and provide notification to the public that the information is available.

6.	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

      6(a)	Respondent Burden

      This section of the document presents the respondent burden for each of the information collection activities covered in the ICR. The source-level (unit) burden applied to various types of sources and sectors is based on the size of the source and on the number and complexity of the processes at the sources in each sector.

Familiarization with the Regulations

	EPA has adopted a methodology that assigns labor estimates based on facility types to reflect that certain facilities will have to dedicate more time to familiarize themselves with rule provisions that apply only to them. EPA projects that the time facilities spend to review the final rule and determine which provisions apply will be consistent with the time they spent to review the 2017 amendments rule because the number and content of provisions are similar. EPA projects that all facilities with simple processes would need four hours to review the rule as would the few complex facilities in Program 1 and Program 2. Complex facilities in Program 3 are projected to spend 292 hours reviewing the rule. LEPC's are projected to spend five hours reviewing the rule. Delegated State and local implementing agencies are projected to spend four hours reviewing the rule.

Prevention Program Rule Provisions

Safer Technology Alternatives Analysis (STAA)
      An initial analysis and documentation is required of all facility processes. EPA believes that some facilities may already have conducted such analyses but has taken the conservative approach of assuming that all facilities subject to the STAA provision will conduct them for all processes as a result of the proposed rule. Following the initial analysis, EPA is proposing that a practicability assessment be conducted if the initial analysis determines the existence of inherently safer alternatives. EPA expects a practicability assessment to occur only when warranted by the outcome of an initial analysis. EPA also anticipates that some facilities will conduct practicability studies to address alternatives considered in multiple initial analyses. Consequently, some complex firms are assumed to conduct practicability studies that address up to 12 different alternatives. EPA is retaining the estimates of the hours required to conduct an initial analysis from the 2017 amendments rule RIA and updating the costs to 2020 dollars. For large complex facilities, EPA estimates that a total of 738 engineering hours will be required, for Small/Medium facilities, a total of 130 hours will be required (20 hours of management, 0.5 hours of corporate management, 3.5 hours of attorney time, 82.5 hours of engineering, and 23.5 hours of production staff support).

      The technical practicability assessment considers the extent of process redesign, its engineering implications, and possible costs. To estimate the cost of the practicability study, referred to in some literature and comments as a feasibility study, EPA maintains the approach developed for the amendments rule RIA. That approach is to identify "reference" STAA projects for the sectors affected by the provision, estimate costs of the reference projects, and apply a percentage to the project cost to calculate the practicability study cost.  EPA adopts the same 1.2 percent of project costs that was estimated for the amendments rule RIA. . EPA then applies the 1.2 percentage estimate to project costs to estimate the practicability study cost (see the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the proposed rule for additional detail; Section 4.4).

      Exhibit 1 displays the hours and costs assumed for each task by labor category and type of facility, and the resulting per facility cost estimates.

        Exhibit 1: Hourly Labor and Unit Costs for STAA (2020 dollars).
                                     Sector
                                              Labor Hours
                                  Facility Cost

                                    Manager
                                   Corporate
                                     Mgmt.
                                   Attorneys
                                   Engineers
                                   Production

                                               Initial Analysis
 Refineries
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                      738
                                       0
                                    $74,000
 Chemical Manufacturers
                                       20
                                      0.5
                                      3.5
                                      82.5
                                      23.5
                                    $13,000
                                             Sector
                                 Facility Cost
                                                                      Practicability Analysis
                                   Refineries
                                         $2.5 million
                             Chemical Manufacturers
                                            $30,000

Root Cause Analysis
      Facilities in Programs 2 and 3 that have had an RMP-reportable accident would be required to determine the underlying causes as part of their incident investigation. A root cause analysis is a structured process led by a person trained in the methodology. The time required may vary considerably based on the complexity of the processes involved.

      In the baseline, facilities are already required to conduct incident investigations. Management time is expected to be devoted primarily to decisions concerning resolution of corrective actions arising from the investigation. EPA assumes that these activities would require roughly the same amount of time whether corrective actions relate to root causes or other contributing causes. For simple facilities, EPA assumed that labor for root cause analyses would require management time and additional time evenly distributed between production staff and engineers. For complex facilities, in addition to facility management, EPA estimated that due to the facility's size and complexity, attorney hours would be required, along with the acknowledgment of corporate management, requiring 0.5 hours of corporate manager time. EPA also estimated that multiple hours of engineering and production staff would be required to conduct the analysis.

   	Complex facilities are estimated to require 132.5 total hours (68 hours of management, 0.5 hours of corporate management, 6 hours of attorneys, 30 hours of engineers, and 28 hours of production staff) for a root cause analysis and simple facilities are estimated to require 14 total hours (6 hours of management, 4 hours of engineering, and 4 hours of production). These hour estimates apply to root cause analyses of RMP-reportable accidents and reflect the additional time required for root cause analyses over and above incident investigation.

Third-party Audits
   	The current rule requires Program 2 and Program 3 facilities to conduct a compliance audit at least once every three years. The proposed rule would require Program 2 and Program 3 facilities that have had two RMP-reportable accidents within the past five years, or facilities with a Program 3 process in NAICS codes 324 or 325 that have had one accident and are located within one mile of another facility with a process in NAICS codes 324 or 325, to contract with an independent third-party to conduct the next required audit. The amendments rule RIA estimated the cost of hiring a third-party to conduct an audit. The audit required under this proposed rule would have the same estimated cost, so the estimated costs in the ICR are based on the unit costs and labor hours estimated under the amendments rule, updated to 2020 dollars (see Exhibit 2).

Exhibit 2: Hourly Labor and Unit Costs for Hiring Third-party Auditors (2020 dollars).
                                 Facility Type
                      Total Hours for Contracting Process
                              Facility Labor Cost
                                  Auditor Fee
                              Total Facility Cost

                                    Mgm't

                                   Attorneys

                                   Engineers

 Simple w/
  0-19 FTEs
                                      64
                                       8
                                       0
                                     $7,653
                                     $32,602
                                     $40,255
 Simple w/
 20-99 FTEs
                                      88
                                       8
                                      36
                                     $12,622
                                     $32,602
                                     $45,224
 Simple w/ 100+ FTEs
                                       60
                                       8
                                        112
                                     $15,004
                                     $32,602
                                     $47,606
 Complex w/ 0-19 FTEs
                                       64
                                       8
                                       0
                                     $9,943
                                    $86,939
                                     $96,882
 Complex w/ 20-99 FTEs
                                       88
                                       8
                                        36
                                     $16,814
                                    $86,939
                                    $103,753
 Complex w/ 100+ FTEs
                                       60
                                       8
                                        112
                                     $20,648
                                    $86,939
                                    $107,587
 Small Government
                                       60
                                       0
                                        50
                                     $9,649
                                     $32,602
                                     $42,252
 Large Government
                                      120
                                       0
                                        78
                                     $24,109
                                     $86,939
                                    $111,048

Employee Participation Plan
   	Facilities with Program 2 processes currently are not required to have an employee participation plan. Therefore, they would need to develop an employee participation plan. Training employees on the employee participation plan or the updated plan is assumed to be covered by ongoing training related to the prevention program. Therefore, EPA estimates the cost for Program 2 facilities to develop a new employee participation plan and Program 3 facilities to make minor adjustments to current employee participation plans.

      EPA assumes that the development of an employee participation plan for a facility with Program 2 processes is a comparable burden to that for developing an employee participation plan for a facility with Program 3 processes. The 1996 RMP RIA did not include costs for employee participation plans for facilities with Program 3 processes, based on the assumption that those costs were already adequately accounted for under the OSHA PSM program. EPA therefore relied on the 1992 OSHA PSM RIA as the basis for the costs for employee participation plans for facilities with Program 2 processes. Facilities with Program 3 processes will need to update current employee participation plans. EPA assumes that this would be a minimal effort, and that regardless of facility complexity, 0.5 hours for an engineer and 0.5 hours for a production level staff would be required (see Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4).

Exhibit 3: Hourly Labor and Unit Costs for Employee Participation Plan Development:
              Facilities with Program 2 Processes (2020 dollars).
                                 Facility Type
                                     Mgr.
                                  Corp. Mgr.
                                     Atty.
                                     Eng.
                                  Prod. Staff
                                 Facility Cost
                              Simple (<20 FTE)
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       1
                                      0.5
                                      $89
                               Simple (20+ FTE)
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       3
                                      0.5
                                     $228
                             Complex (<20 FTE)
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       1
                                      0.5
                                     $129
                               Complex (20+ FTE)
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       3
                                      0.5
                                     $330

Exhibit 4: Hourly Labor and Unit Costs for Employee Participation Plan Update (2020 dollars).
                                 Facility Type
                                     Mgr.
                                   Corp Mgr.
                                     Atty.
                                     Eng.
                                  Prod. Staff
                                 Facility Cost
Simple
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                      0.5
                                      0.5
                                      $55
Complex
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                      0.5
                                      0.5
                                      $79

Emergency Backup Power for Perimeter Monitors
      EPA is proposing to require perimeter monitoring equipment associated with prevention and detection of accidental releases from RMP-regulated processes to have standby or backup power to ensure compliance with the intent of the rule. Facilities with perimeter monitoring equipment that do not have backup power would need to acquire backup power. Many continuous emissions monitoring systems have low power requirements. EPA assumes that affected facilities will implement backup power using a small generator at a total cost of $1,000 for their monitoring equipment.

6(b)	Estimating Respondent Costs (Sources, Local Responders, and State Implementing Agencies)

 Estimating Labor Costs

      The Agency used the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) May 2020 Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates to construct a weighted wage rate for different occupational categories. For all rule provisions, labor hours were assumed to be distributed across six general labor categories: Management, Corporate Management, Attorneys, Engineers, Production Staff, and Local Responders. The weighted wage rates for complex facilities (NAICS 324 and 325) were estimated separately from simple facilities because wages paid by these facilities are higher than in wholesale and government sectors, which dominate the simple facilities category. For each of the NAICS codes representing industries in the simple facilities category that are affected by the rule provisions (Food and Beverage, Agricultural Facilities, etc.), standardized BLS Occupation Titles were identified to correspond to the six general labor categories. BLS wages were then adjusted to account for fringe benefits and overhead. Fringe benefits includes payments to cover items such as paid leave, supplemental pay, insurance, and retirement. Overhead includes resources to cover items such as office space and administrative personnel issues. Applying the June 2020 national average benefit ratio of 0.46 and an overhead cost ratio not inclusive of benefits of 0.3, the Agency multiplied the wage rates for each BLS Occupation Title by a factor of 1.76 to create a fully loaded wage rate. After loaded wage rates were established for each industry, they were combined to form a weighted average based on the prominence of each industry within its universe of facilities, either simple or complex. Exhibit 5 presents the wage rates the Agency used in the analysis.

      Exhibit 5: Weighted-Average Loaded Hourly Wage Rates (2020 Dollars)
 Labor Category
                               Simple Facilities
                               Complex Facilities
 Management
                                    $103.06
                                    $135.63
 Corporate Management
                                    $105.24
                                    $134.46
 Attorneys
                                    $132.14
                                    $157.85
 Engineers
                                     $69.31
                                    $100.43
 Production Staff
                                     $39.69
                                     $56.61
 Local Responders
                                     $71.19
                                     $71.19
	Sources: https://www.bls.gov/oes/2020/may/oes_nat.htm and http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm.

 Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs

      Capital Costs

      The analysis includes the capital cost associated with acquiring a generator to provide backup power for perimeter monitoring. The costs of equipment purchased for facilities required to implement backup power are not amortized. Although individual equipment items are relatively low cost, some facilities may choose to finance equipment purchases to spread the costs over several years, while others may treat them as an operating expense and pay them in a single year. By not amortizing equipment costs in this analysis, EPA is making the conservative assumption that facilities will pay these initial costs in a single year (year 1), which EPA believes is likely given the assumption that the generator for backup power cost will cost $1,000 and that each facility will purchase only one generator that will last for the entire 10-year period of analysis and beyond.

      Operating & Maintenance (O&M) Costs

      The analysis used an ongoing cost when costs for years 2 and 3 of the ICR period (and beyond) were different from the initial cost components. If costs for years 2 and 3 were the same as the initial year (with some variation based on the annual frequency), then multiplying the initial cost by the annual frequency accounted for any continuing costs.

6(c)	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

	There are no expected additional burden estimates to the Federal government.

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

      In this section, EPA first describes the estimated respondent universe. EPA then estimates the annual burden to respondents under the information collection requirements covered in this ICR.

 Respondent Universe

Current RMP Facilities

   	Exhibit 6 presents the numbers of facilities according to RMP reporting as of December 31, 2020, by industrial sector and chemical use.

  Exhibit 6: Number of Affected Facilities by Sector as of December 31, 2020
                                    Sector
                                  NAICS Codes
                             Number of facilities
                                 Chemical Uses
Administration of environmental quality programs (i.e., governments, government owned water)
                         92, 2213 (Government- owned)
                                     1,449
Use chlorine and other chemicals for water treatment
Agricultural chemical distributors/wholesalers
                          11, 424 (except 4246, 4247)
                                     3,315
Store ammonia for sale; some in NAICS 111 and 115 use ammonia as a refrigerant
Chemical manufacturing
                                      325
                                     1,502
Manufacture, process, store
Chemical wholesalers
                                     4246
                                      317
Store for sale
Food and beverage manufacturing
                                   311, 312
                                     1,571
Use (mostly ammonia) as a refrigerant
Oil and gas extraction
                                      211
                                      719
Intermediate processing (mostly regulated flammable substances and flammable mixtures)
Other
   21 (except 211), 23, 44, 45, 48, 491, 54, 55, 56, 61, 62, 71, 72, 81, 99
                                      246
Use chemicals for wastewater treatment, refrigeration, store chemicals for sale
Other manufacturing
                          313, 314, 315, 326, 327, 33
                                      375
Use various chemicals in manufacturing process, waste treatment
Other wholesale
                                 421, 422, 423
                                      39
Use (mostly ammonia) as a refrigerant
Paper manufacturing
                                   321, 322
                                      55
Use various chemicals in pulp and paper manufacturing
Petroleum and coal products manufacturing
                                      324
                                      156
Manufacture, process, store (mostly regulated flammable substances and flammable mixtures)
Petroleum wholesalers
                                     4247
                                      367
Store for sale (mostly regulated flammable substances and flammable mixtures)
Utilities/Water/Wastewater
                       221 (non-government-owned water)
                                      519
Use chlorine (mostly for water treatment) and other chemicals
Warehousing and storage
                                      493
                                     1,110
Use (mostly ammonia) as a refrigerant
Total

                                    11,740

Implementing Agencies

	EPA estimates that during the period covered by this ICR, 13 State and local agencies will maintain a delegation of authority from EPA to implement the RMP program in their States.

Local Emergency Planning Committees

	During the period covered by this ICR, 2,473 LEPCs will participate in coordination activities and emergency exercises.

Summary

      Based on the above information, the total number of respondents for this ICR period is 14,226 (i.e., 11,740 sources + 13 implementing agencies + 2,473 LEPCs).
 Annual Respondent Burden and Costs

Familiarization with the Regulations

EPA analyzed the cost of rule familiarization, which, while not a provision of the proposed rule, is an activity that occurs under every rulemaking. See Exhibit 7.

                Exhibit 7: Rule Familiarization (2020 dollars)
                                 Facility Type
                                   Unit Cost
                                   Facilities
                        Total Cost (incurred in Year 1)
 Simple
                                      $412
                                     10,082
                                   $4,156,336
 Program 1 and Program 2 Complex
                                      $543
                                      131
                                    $71,070
 Program 3 Complex
                                    $26,874
                                     1,527
                                  $41,036,980
 LEPCs
                                      $515
                                     2,473
                                   $1,274,378
 Delegated Implementing Agencies
                                      $412
                                       13
                                     $5,359
                                          Total

                                     14,226
                                  $46,544,124

Prevention Program Rule Provisions

Safer Technology Alternatives Analysis (STAA)
   	EPA believes RMP facilities located in States with existing requirements similar to the proposed STAA requirement are likely already conducting activities that would satisfy EPA's proposed requirement. EPA also believes this cost would be reduced over 10 years after the first five-year PHA cycle because after the initial PHA, EPA requires owner/operators to update and revalidate a PHA to ensure that the PHA is consistent with the current processes. This is a much less costly activity than conducting the initial PHA and STAA. In order to estimate costs conservatively, EPA estimates this cost as identical in both the first and second year cycles in the period of analysis. EPA is not proposing to require implementation of any particular alternative technologies identified in the STAA. Exhibit 8 presents the estimated costs for the provision.

    Exhibit 8: Estimated Annualized Costs for STAA Provision (2020 dollars)
                                  Facility Type
                                     Annual
                                   Frequency
                                   Unit Cost
                                   Processes
                                Total Annualized
                                      Cost
  Initial Phase Analysis
  Refineries
                                      0.2
                                    $74,115
                                      796
                                  $11,799,138
  Chemical Manufacturers
                                      0.2
                                    $12,881
                                      826
                                   $2,127,881
  Total

                                     1,622
                                  $13,927,019
  Practicability Analysis
  Refineries
                                      0.2
                                   $2,549,389
                                       67
                                  $35,072,025
  Chemical Manufacturers
                                      0.2
                                    $29,994
                                      470
                                   $2,819,429
  Total

                                      537
                                  $37,891,454
  Grand Total

                                  $51,818,473
     *Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Root Cause Analysis
   	The total costs of this provision are provided in Exhibit 9.

Exhibit 9: Total Undiscounted Costs for Root Cause Incident Investigation (2020 dollars)
                                 Facility Type
                                   Unit Cost
              Avg. Annual Number of Accidents (2016-2020) per year
                                Total Annualized
                                      Cost
 P2 Accident - Simple
                                                                         $2,141
                                                                           12.8
                                                                        $27,406
 P2 Accident - Complex
                                                                        $14,835
                                                                            0.2
                                                                         $2,967
 P3 Accident - Simple
                                                                         $2,141
                                                                           40.2
                                                                        $86,073
 P3 Accident - Complex
                                                                        $14,835
                                                                           41.2
                                                                       $611,205
                                     Total

                                                                           94.4
                                                                       $727,651

Third-party Audits

   	The analysis projects that the annual number and distribution of accidents among types of facilities will remain the same and that in any one year, the number of facilities conducting a third-party audit will be equal to the number of active facilities with two or more accidents, or one accident at a facility with a NAICS 324 or 325 Program 3 process within 1 mile of another facility with a 324 or 325 process within a five-year period. That is, although the approximately 109 third-party audits for the Program 2 and Program 3 facilities that had two or more reportable accidents (and facilities with a Program 3 NAICS 324 or 325 process that had one reportable accident) from 2016 to 2020 may occur up to three years after the five-year period of releases, depending on when the previous audit occurred, the analysis projects over time that 109 facilities would conduct such an audit each year. The breakout for total costs is shown in Exhibit 10.

Exhibit 10: Total Annual Undiscounted Costs for Third-party Audits (2020 dollars)
                                 Facility Type
                                Annual Frequency
                                   Unit Cost
                                   Facilities
                               Total Initial Cost
 Simple w/ 0-19 FTEs
                                       1
                                                                        $40,255
                                                                              5
                                                                       $201,276
 Simple w/ 20-99 FTEs
                                       1
                                                                        $45,224
                                                                              4
                                                                       $180,896
 Simple w/ 100+ FTEs
                                       1
                                                                        $47,606
                                                                             11
                                                                       $523,668
 Complex w/ 0-19 FTEs
                                       1
                                                                        $96,882
                                                                              3
                                                                       $290,646
 Complex w/ 20-99 FTEs
                                       1
                                                                       $103,753
                                                                             13
                                                                     $1,348,783
 Complex w/ 100+ FTEs
                                       1
                                                                       $107,587
                                                                             70
                                                                     $7,531,114
 Small Government
                                       1
                                                                        $42,252
                                                                              2
                                                                        $84,503
 Large Government
                                       1
                                                                       $111,048
                                                                              1
                                                                       $111,048
 Total

                                                                            109
                                                                    $10,271,934

Employee Participation Plan
   	The RMP rule currently requires only facilities with Program 3 processes to develop an employee participation plan. The proposed rule would require all facilities with a Program 2 process to newly develop an employee participation plan, in addition to facilities with Program 3 processes. These newly developed employee participation plans, as well as all facilities with Program 3 processes which already have an employee participation plan, would need to include newly explicit language for reporting RMP-reportable accidents or other related RMP non-compliance issues. Exhibit 11 presents the costs for the provision.

Exhibit 11: Estimated Costs for Employee Participation Plan Provision (2020 dollars)
                                      Facility Type
                                     Annual
                                   Frequency
                                   Unit Cost
                                   Facilities
                                     Total
                                      Cost
 Program 2 requirement to develop new employee participation plan
 Simple 0-19 FTEs
                                       1
                                                                            $89
                                                                          3,415
                                                                       $304,476
 Simple 20+ FTEs
                                       1
                                                                           $228
                                                                            496
                                                                       $112,982
 Complex 0-19 FTEs
                                       1
                                                                           $129
                                                                             29
                                                                         $3,733
 Complex 20+ FTEs
                                       1
                                                                           $330
                                                                             35
                                                                        $11,536
 Total

                                                                          3,975
                                                                       $432,726
Program 3 requirement to update current employee participation plan
 Simple
                                       1
                                                                            $55
                                                                          5,578
                                                                       $304,009
 Complex
                                       1
                                                                            $79
                                                                          1,527
                                                                       $119,898
 Total

                                                                          7,105
                                                                       $423,906
                                       Grand Total

                                                                         11,080
                                                                       $856,633
     *Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Emergency Backup Power for Perimeter Monitors
	The proposed rule's backup power provision would require facilities with processes that have perimeter monitors and have identified power loss as a major hazard to implement emergency backup power for their perimeter monitors. Among these facilities, those that have not yet implemented emergency backup power will incur a cost to purchase and install a backup generator for their perimeter monitors. EPA assumes the life of the backup generator to be longer than the 10-year time frame of analysis. EPA makes the conservative assumption that facilities will pay for the backup generator in a lump sum in year 1. Exhibit 12 presents the costs for the provision.

Exhibit 12: Total Undiscounted Costs for Backup Generator for Perimeter Monitors at Facilities with a Perimeter Monitor Process and Power Loss Hazard without Backup Power (2020 Dollars)
                                      Facility Type
                                   Unit Cost
                                   Facilities
                        Total Cost (incurred in Year 1)
                                     Total
                                    $1,000
                                      392
                                    $392,000

Emergency Response

Community Notification of RMP Accidents
	The RMP rule currently requires only responding Program 2 and 3 facilities to have procedures in place for informing the public and the appropriate Federal, State, and local emergency response agencies about accidental releases. The proposed rule would require both responding and non-responding Program 2 and 3 facilities to ensure a community notification system is in place. This analysis assumes that facilities are coordinating annually with LEPCs to ensure a community notification system is used to communicate information about RMP-reportable accidents. Exhibit 13 presents the cost for this provision.

   Exhibit 13: Costs for Coordinating Community Notification (2020 dollars)
  Facility Type
                                Annual Frequency
                                   Unit Cost
                                   Facilities
                                   Total Cost
 Facility Burden
 Simple P2/3
                                       1
                                      $206
                                     9,288
                                   $1,914,504
 Complex P2/3
                                       1
                                      $543
                                     1,792
                                    $972,199
 Total

                                     11,080
                                   $2,886,703
 LEPC Burden
 Simple P2/3
                                       1
                                      $71
                                     9,288
                                    $661,231
 Complex P2/3
                                       1
                                     $142
                                     1,792
                                    $255,152
 Total

                                     11,080
                                    $916,383
 Facility + LEPC BURDEN
 Grand Total

                                   $3,803,086

Information Availability to the Public

   	The RMP rule currently does not require facilities to conduct information availability activities. The proposed rule would require all facilities, including those with Program 1 processes, to make information related to RMP compliance available upon request in a manner that is easily accessible to community members living within 6 miles of the facility. The information would include the names and Safety Data Sheets of regulated substances used at the facility, the facility's accident history, emergency response program information, and LEPC contact information. The assumption is that each facility receives 1 request per year from a community member residing within 6 miles of the facility. The breakout of costs related to Information Availability is in Exhibit 14. EPA does not consider the costs to the public in requesting this information but expects these costs to be minimal.

Exhibit 14: Costs for Information Availability Information Sharing Provision (2020 dollars)
                                 Facility Type
                                     Annual
                                   Frequency
                                   Unit Cost
                                   Facilities

                             Total Annualized Cost
 Simple
                                       1
                                      $172
                                     10,082
                                    $868,953
 Small Complex
                                       1
                                      $472
                                     1,050
                                    $247,860
 Large Complex
                                       1
                                     $6,279
                                      608
                                   $1,908,780
  Total

                                     11,740
                                   $3,025,593

6(e)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs
 Respondent Tally
      Exhibit 15 presents the annual average and three-year total for respondent burden and cost.
    Exhibit 15: Annual Average and Three-Year Total Burdens (2020 dollars)
                                    Element
                                Annual Average
                               Three-year Total
Estimated Total Burden Hours
                                                                        797,642
                                                                      2,392,926
Estimated Hours per Source*
                                                                             56
                                                                            168
Average Hourly Rate
                                                                         $95.72
                                                                         $95.72
Estimated Total Cost
                                                                    $79,248,522
                                                                   $237,745,566
                                                                    Labor Costs
                                                                    $76,352,215
                                                                   $229,056,645
                                               Operations and Maintenance Costs
                                                                     $2,817,907
                                                                     $8,453,721
                                                                  Capital Costs
                                                                        $78,400
                                                                       $235,200
* The number of sources is 14,226
      Exhibit 16 summarizes the total cost associated with all the requirements covered in this ICR. As shown in the exhibit, EPA estimates the first year's cost of this ICR to be $117.4 million and the following years, including years 2 and 3 of this ICR period, to be $70.5 million each.

Exhibit 16: Summary of Estimated Undiscounted Yearly Costs (millions, 2020 dollars)
 Cost Elements
                                 Year 1 Costs
                                 Undiscounted
                                 Years 2 and 3
                               Costs (per year)
                                 Undiscounted
 Rule Familiarization
                                     $46.5
                                       $0
 Safer Technology Alternatives Analysis
                                     $51.8
                                     $51.8
 Root Cause Analysis
                                      $0.7
                                      $0.7
 Third-party Audits
                                     $10.3
                                     $10.3
 Employee Participation Plan
                                      $0.9
                                      $0.9
 Backup Power for Perimeter Monitors
                                      $0.4
                                       $0
 Community Notification System
                                      $3.8
                                      $3.8
 Information Availability
                                      $3.1
                                      $3.1
    Total Cost*
                                     $117.4
                                     $70.5
   *Totals may not sum due to rounding.

 Agency Tally
	There are no expected additional burden estimates to the Federal government.

6(f)	Reasons for Change in Burden
      There is no change in burden as this information collection document incremental, new collection activities being proposed by the Agency.

6(g)	Burden Statement
      The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 56 hours per response. The total annual public reporting burden for all sources is 797,642 hours (2,392,926 hours for three years).

	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-OLEM-2022-0174, which is available for online viewing 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 EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, or to OMB via email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.


Placeholder: confidential business information item

Dow Agrosciences’ letter to EPA regarding 2009 Telone Production

For more information please contact Jeremy Arling by phone at
202-343-9055 or by email at   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 25 (Monday, February 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6555-6556]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02331]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77015; File No. SR-FINRA-2016-003]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change to Extend the Implementation Date of the ``No-
Remuneration'' Indicator

February 2, 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 27, 2016, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. 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 Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    FINRA is proposing to extend the implementation date of the No-
Remuneration indicator to July 18, 2016. The proposed rule change would
not make any changes to FINRA rules.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA 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, FINRA 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. FINRA 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
    On July 20, 2015, FINRA filed a proposed rule change to amend FINRA
Rule 6730 (Transaction Reporting), which governs the reporting of
eligible transactions to its Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine
(``TRACE'').\3\ Rule 6730 sets forth the requirements that apply to
firms when reporting transactions in TRACE-eligible securities,\4\ and
provides the specific items of information that must be included in a
TRACE trade report. Among other things, Rules 6730(c) and (d) require
that firms report the commission (total dollar amount) separately on
the TRACE trade report for agency transactions. FINRA then combines the
dollar amount that is reported as the commission with the amount that
is reported in the price field, and disseminates to the market this
aggregate amount as the transaction's price. For principal
transactions, Rule 6730(d)(1) provides that firms must report a price
that includes the mark-up/mark-down, and FINRA disseminates this price
to the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75588 (August 3,
2015), 80 FR 47546 (August 7, 2015) (Notice of Filing of File No.
SR-FINRA-2015-026).
    \4\ Rule 6710 generally defines a ``TRACE-eligible security''
as: (1) a debt security that is U.S. dollar-denominated and issued
by a U.S. or foreign private issuer (and, if a ``restricted
security'' as defined in Securities Act Rule 144(a)(3), sold
pursuant to Securities Act Rule 144A); or (2) a debt security that
is U.S. dollar denominated and issued or guaranteed by an ``Agency''
as defined in Rule 6710(k) or a ``Government-Sponsored Enterprise''
as defined in Rule 6710(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In SR-FINRA-2015-026, FINRA proposed to amend Rule 6730 to require
that firms use a ``No-Remuneration'' indicator to identify those
transactions for which a commission or mark-up/mark-down is not
reflected in a TRACE trade report. The Commission approved the
proposal, on October 16, 2015.\5\ In its filing, FINRA represented that
the implementation date of these amendments would be May 23, 2016.
FINRA has since determined to extend the implementation date for this
proposal to July 18, 2016 to provide members additional time to
complete systems changes necessary to comply with SR-FINRA-2015-026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76176 (October 16,
2015), 80 FR 64039 (October 22, 2015) (Order Approving File No. SR-
FINRA-2015-026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\6\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest, and Section 15A(b)(9) of the Act,\7\ which requires
that FINRA rules not impose any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes that the extension of the implementation date until
July 18, 2016, is consistent with the Act in that it would provide
members with additional time to complete the systems changes necessary
to comply with SR-FINRA-2015-026.

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
FINRA has satisfied this requirement.

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

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the 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 Number SR-FINRA-2016-003 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2016-003. 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 office of FINRA. 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-FINRA-2016-003, and should
be submitted on or before February 29, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-02331 Filed 2-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 141 (Friday, July 22, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43896-43898]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18595]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0573]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Kathleen Whelan Wedding Fireworks, Lake St. Clair,
Grosse Pointe Farms, MI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on
Lake St. Clair, Grosse Pointe Farms, MI. This zone is intended to
restrict vessels from a portion of Lake St. Clair during the Kathleen
Whelan Wedding Fireworks.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9:30 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July
23, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2011-0573 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-0573 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail LT Adrian Palomeque, Prevention
Department, Sector Detroit, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because waiting for a notice and comment
period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public
interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect
the public from the hazards associated with maritime fireworks
displays.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest
because it would inhibit the Coast Guard from ensuring the safety of
vessels and the public during the fireworks display.

Background and Purpose

    On July 23, 2011, a private party is holding a land based wedding
that will include fireworks launched from a point on Lake St. Clair.
The fireworks display will occur between 9:30 p.m. and 10 p.m., July
23, 2011. The Captain of the Port Detroit has determined that
waterborne fireworks pose serious risks to the boating public. Such
hazards include obstructions to the waterway that may cause marine
casualties, explosive danger of fireworks, debris falling into the
water that may cause death, serious bodily harm or property damage.

Discussion of Rule

    Because of the aforementioned hazards, the Captain of the Port
Detroit has determined that it a temporary safety zone is necessary to
ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the setup, loading,
and launching of the Kathleen Whelan Wedding Fireworks Display.
    The safety zone will encompass all waters on Lake St. Clair within
a 600 foot radius of the fireworks barge launch site located off the
shore of Grosse Pointe Farms, MI at position 42[deg]23[min]5[sec] N,
082[deg]53[min]37[sec] W from 9:30 p.m. until 10 p.m. on July 23, 2011.
All geographic coordinates are North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).
    All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on scene patrol
personnel. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone
is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit or
his designated on scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his
designated on scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. It is not ``significant'' under the
regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS).
    We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action
because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy,
will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the
budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel
legal or policy issues. The safety zone around the launch platform will
be relatively small and exist for only a minimal time. Thus,
restrictions on vessel movement within any particular area of Lake St.
Clair are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover,
vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the
Captain of the Port.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not

dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: the owners and operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor in this portion of Lake St. Clair between 9:30 p.m.
through 10 p.m. on July 23, 2011.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities because vessels can easily transit
around the zone. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via
Local Notice to Mariners that the regulation is in effect.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of
the Instruction because it involves the establishment of a temporary
safety zone. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical
exclusion determination will be available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record
keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add 165.T09-0573 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0573  Safety zone; Kathleen Whelan Wedding Fireworks,
Lake St. Clair, Grosse Pointe Farms, MI.

    (a) Location. The safety zone will encompass all U. S. navigable
waters on Lake St. Clair within a 600 foot radius of position
42[deg]23[min]5[sec] N, 082[deg]53[min]37[sec] W, location off shore of
Grosse Pointe Farms, MI. All geographic coordinates are North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).
    (b) Effective and Enforcement Period. This rule is effective and
will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 23, 2011.
    (c) Regulations.
    (1) In accordance with the general regulations in Sec.  165.23 of
this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone
is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit, or
his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated on-
scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port is
any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been
designated by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. The on-
scene representative of the Captain of the Port will be aboard either a
Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Captain of the Port or
his designated on scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Detroit or his on-scene
representative to obtain permission to do so.
    (5) Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the
safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the
Captain of the Port or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: July 12, 2011.
J.E. Ogden,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
[FR Doc. 2011-18595 Filed 7-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P