RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS and PETITIONS TO MODIFY THE LIST OF REGULATED SUBSTANCES UNDER SECTION 112( r) OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT ( RENEWAL)

EPA # 1656.12 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title of the Information Collection Request Risk Management Program Requirements and Petitions to Modify the List of Regulated Substances under Section 112( r) of the Clean Air Act ( Renewal).

1( b) Short Characterization This information collection request ( ICR) renews an previously approved ICR ( 1656.11), OMB No. 2050 0144, expiring October 31, 2005, for 130,803 annual burden hours.

This information collection request ( ICR) addresses the following information requirements:

( 1) Documenting sources' risk management programs and submitting a source risk management plan ( RMP) under CAA Section 112( r)( 7)

The regulations include requirements for covered sources to implement and maintain documentation for a risk management program and submit an RMP ( including information on a source's hazard assessment, prevention program, and emergency response program) to EPA. EPA has assumed responsibility for maintaining a database of submitted RMPs, which will be made available electronically to the implementing agency, states, local governments, and ( except for the Offsite Consequence Analysis data) to the public. EPA has developed an electronic submission system ( RMP* Submit   ) that is available to sources on a diskette and is also available on EPA's internet site.

( 2) Collecting and submitting information to support petitions to modify the list of regulated substances under CAA Section 112( r)( 3)

The regulations include requirements for a petitioner to submit sufficient information in support of a petition to scientifically support the request to add or delete a chemical from the list of regulated substances. The Agency will use this information in making the decision to grant or deny a petition. All the information collected requesting modification of the chemical listings is stored in a docket created for that purpose.

CAA section 112( r)( 7) required EPA to promulgate reasonable regulations and appropriate guidance to provide for the prevention and detection of accidental releases and for responses to such releases. EPA issued the final rule on June 20, 1996 ( 61 FR 31668). The regulations include requirements for submittal of an RMP, including source registration, to EPA. The RMP includes information on a source's hazard assessment, prevention program, and emergency response program. The RMP requirements have been amended few times since the 1996 final rule. The regulations are codified in 40 CFR part 68. The rule requires sources to submit their RMPs every five years beginning June 21, 1999. 2 The first submissions of RMP were received in June 1999. Sources submitted their second submissions on June 21,2004.

The final rule establishing the list of regulated substances and threshold quantities under CAA section 112r was published on January 31, 1994 ( 59 FR 4478), which also includes provisions and procedures for submitting a petition to add or delete a substance.

Part 68 provides for tiering of the regulatory requirements to take into consideration differences between various types and classes of sources, as well as the risk posed by the different sources. The regulatory program consists of three tiers of risk management programs. Sources are classified into program tiers based on the degree of risk posed by potential releases and coverage by OSHA= s Process Safety Management ( PSM) standard. Sources with processes classified as Program 1 pose little risk and face minimal compliance requirements. Sources with processes classified as Program 2 must implement a streamlined list of prevention program requirements. Sources with processes classified in Program 3 must complete a prevention program identical to that required by the OSHA PSM Standard ( 29 CFR 1910.119).

The compliance schedule for the Part 68 requirements, established by rule on June 20, 1996, requires the implementation of the source risk management programs and the submission of initial RMPs by June 21, 1999, and every five years after the initial submission. After the initial submission, few sources re submitted their RMPs because they had some changes to their processes or changes in the thresholds. These sources were then assigned a five year compliance deadline based on the date of their revised plan submission. EPA received the second submissions on June 21, 2004. EPA expects that some sources may submit their revised RMP before the next compliance deadline, June 21, 2009. This may result in a new compliance deadline for these sources based on each source's submission date. Since the next submission is only due June 21, 2009, this ICR only accounts for ongoing program implementation costs and compliance costs for new sources that may become subject to the regulations. Specifically, the costs to sources in this ICR include the following: Compliance costs for new sources; ° Submissions of revised RMPs for those sources required to update their RMPs; ° Documentation of ongoing program implementation activities;

Because of the schedule for certain activities established in Part 68, some costs do not occur in the three year time period covered by this ICR. For example, most sources will not have to revise their RMPs or update their process hazard analyses, hazard reviews, and offsite consequence analyses until June 2009, the next five year submission deadline. Consequently, the record keeping and reporting costs for part 68 will fluctuate considerably from ICR to ICR. The Office of Management and Budget approved the current ICR without Terms of Clearance.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection Risk Management Plans Information collection for on site documentation is authorized by CAA sections 112( r)( 7)( B)( i) and ( ii), which state that " The Administrator shall promulgate reasonable regulations and appropriate guidance 3 to provide ... for the prevention and detection of accidental releases of regulated substances....

and AThe regulations ... shall require the owner or operator ... to prepare and implement a risk management plan to detect and prevent or minimize accidental releases." Information collection for submitting an RMP is authorized under CAA section 112( r)( 7)( B)( iii), which states in relevant part that AThe owner or operator of each stationary source... shall register a risk management plan... with the Administrator before the effective date of the regulations... in such form and manner as the Administrator shall, by rule, require... and shall be available to the public under section 114( c)." Information collection for on site documentation and submittal of RMPs is also authorized by CAA 114( a)( 1). The list and thresholds promulgated under CAA section 112( r)( 3) determine which sources must comply with the accident prevention regulations; a source must comply with the CAA section 112( r)( 7) regulations if it holds more than a threshold quantity of a listed substance in a process. State and local authorities will use the information in RMPs to modify and enhance their community response plans. The agencies implementing the RMP rule will use RMPs to evaluate compliance with part 68 and identify sources for inspection because they may pose significant risks to the community. Citizens may use RMPs to assess and address chemical hazards in their communities.

Petitions This information collection is authorized under CAA section 112( r)( 3), which states in relevant part that " The Administrator shall establish procedures for the addition and deletion of substances from the list established under this paragraph consistent with those applicable to the list in subsection ( b).

The information collected during the petition process will provide the primary basis for EPA to determine if it is appropriate to add or delete a chemical. To be consistent with the petition process under CAA section 112( b), EPA is required to consider and respond to petitions to modify the list of regulated substances within 18 months of submission of the petition; complete data supporting the petition are necessary to allow EPA to finish its review within that time period.

2( b) Use/ Users of the Data Risk Management Plans. The information collected in the RMP 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 would be used by state and local emergency planners to prepare or modify community response plans and to identify hazards to the community and provide a basis for working with sources to prevent accidents.

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, providing the basis for other rule elements.

Petitions. The information collected in support of a petition to modify the list of regulated substances is to be used by EPA to determine whether to grant or deny a petition to add or delete a chemical from the list.

3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3( a) Nonduplication 4 Risk Management Plans. Some sources may have submitted information to EPA Headquarters or Regions under other regulations ( i. e., Form R or RCRA Biennial Reports) that is similar to the information requested in the registration form under these regulations. ( EPCRA Section 312 Tier II forms, which include similar information, are submitted only to states and local planning authorities, not EPA.) The information available through Form R and RCRA Biennial Reports is scattered, unorganized, and incomplete for the requirements of the Act. In addition, most sources covered by this rule are neither manufacturers ( Form R) nor are permitted under RCRA ( Biennial Report), and thus have not previously submitted this information. For EPA to best comply with the Act, it is most beneficial if the information requested for registration is submitted in a concise and organized format, using the RMP form.

Confidential Business Information. Some sources may have submitted substantiation of CBI claims for chemical identity or other information to EPA Headquarters or Regions under other regulations that is similar to the information requested under these regulations. For EPA to best comply with the Act and most effectively evaluate such claims, it is most beneficial if the CBI substantiation accompanies the submission of the RMP.

3( b) Consultations Prior to developing this ICR, the Agency contacted a few sources to develop estimates on burden hours and costs associated with this ICR. Some of the sources contacted have re submitted the RMP between the two reporting periods ( June 21, 1999 and 2004) for changes in their processes or changes in their worst case scenario or alternative scenario. Others had re submitted only minor changes to their previous RMPs. Since the sources that were contacted vary in sizes and the processes, the Agency developed the estimates using a weighted average. The following sources were contacted.

Chris Harden Morgan Walker Anheuser Busch, Inc. ( FTE = 1000) Bayway Refinery ( FTE = 850) 15800 Roscoe Rd 1400 Park Avenue Van Nuys CA 91406 Linden, NJ 07036 ( 818) 908 5593 ( 908) 523 6288 Kevin Halligan Harold Demmer Borden & Remington ( FTE = 40) Formosa Plastics ( FTE = 383) 106 Ferry Street End of GSU Rd. Falls River, MA 02722 Baton Rouge, LA 70821 ( 508) 675 0096 ( 225) 356 3341 Jocelyn Manship John Cote Elan Inc. ( FTE = 80) Chem Design Corp. ( FTE = 86) 268 Doremus Avenue 99 Development Road Newark, NJ 07105 Fitchburg, MA 01420 ( 973) 344 8014 ( 978) 345 9999 Ralph Werling Guy Miller Daikin America Inc. ( FTE = 250) Heico Chemicals Inc. ( FTE = 45) State Docks Road Rt. 611 Adjacent DW Fire Co. 5 Decatur, AL 35601 Delaware Water Gap, PA 18327 ( 256) 306 5000 ( 570) 420 3900 Stephen Adams City of Loveland WTP ( FTE = 11) 920 South Boise Avenue Loveland, CO 80537 ( 970) 962 3559 3( c) Public Notice In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), the Agency notified the public through the Federal Register notice on the renewal of this ICR on June 2, 2005 ( 70 FR 32325). EPA received only one comment. The comment is not related to the burden developed in this ICR nor the method of collection.

The commenter requested that substances should not be taken off the list, in fact, more should be added to the list. The Agency is not revising the list at present time. When we decide to revise the list of substances regulated under section 112( r) of the CAA, the public will be given an opportunity to submit comments.

3 ( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Sources are required to register and submit an RMP only once every five years, unless there are significant changes in the information provided. There is a statutory requirement for sources to register, submit, and update an RMP.

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 PHAs and hazard assessments every five years. Thus, sources are required to maintain such documentation for five years, which is greater than the three years specified in OMB's general guidelines.

3( f) Confidentiality and Sensitive Questions ( i) Confidentiality Some of the elements mandated in the regulation for the risk management plan may require the submittal of data viewed as proprietary, trade secret, or confidential. As described above, EPA has adopted procedures for sources to claim certain information as confidential business information.

( ii) Sensitive Questions No questions of a sensitive nature are included in any of the information collection requirements. The information submitted in an RMP includes information on a source's hazard assessment, prevention 6 program, and emergency response program, and the information submitted in support of a petition to modify the list of regulated substances includes toxicity data and accident history data. This information is not private. The information collection requested under the EPA rulemaking is in compliance with the Privacy Act of 1974 and OMB Circular A 108.

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 4( a) Respondents/ NAICS Codes Risk Management Programs and Plans The accidental release prevention program under the CAA was developed for sources that manufacture, react, mix, store, or use regulated substances in processes that require equipment designed, constructed, installed, operated, or maintained in specific ways to prevent accidental releases and ensure safe operations. The CAA requires sources to comply with the regulations if they have more than a threshold quantity of a listed regulated substance. Based on submissions of RMPs, the rule applies to manufacturers ( i. e., sources categorized in North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS) codes 31 33), as well as some non manufacturers, including federal sources, utilities ( NAICS code 221: electric utilities, drinking water systems, wastewater treatment works), warehouses, large ammonia refrigeration systems ( e. g. food processors and distributors), wholesalers, ammonia retailers, and gas processors.

Based on the RMP submissions in 2004, approximately 15,305 sources are subject to the RMP rule. RMPs are due every five years; the first one was due in June 1999. The second submission were received in June 2004. Based on the two reporting years, 1999 and 2004, approximately 332 new facilities may come into compliance each year. Facilities that already submitted RMPs may revise their RMPs from time to time. Based on the data of most of the updates that EPA received, approximately 1,050 RMPs will be re submitted each year during the period covered by this ICR.

During the period covered by this ICR, approximately 15 states may obtain delegation to implement the RMP program. These 15 states are expected to carry out their implementing functions each year covered by this ICR.

Although we have received RMPs from approximately 15,305 sources in June 2004, we don't expect all these sources to re submit their RMPs until the next compliance deadline, which is June 2009. So, for the period covered by this ICR, EPA expects that 332 new sources will submit their RMP, and 1,050 sources will re submit their RMPs due to process changes or handling new chemicals. Total number of annual respondents for this ICR is 1,397 ( 4,191 for three years) including the state implementing agencies.

Petitions Any person may petition EPA to modify, by addition or deletion, the list of regulated substances. Potential petitioners are likely to include environmental groups, industry, and state and local agencies. Due to the nature of their activities, the chemical manufacturing sector is likely to be the primary industry producing, using, or storing listed regulated substances affected by the petition process. Since the list rule was promulgated in January 1994, however, only one petition has been submitted to EPA; this petition was withdrawn. Based on this record, EPA assumes that no additional petitions will be submitted in the period 7 covered by this ICR.

4( b) Information Requested Data requirements and respondent activities vary by program level. Program 1 requires the least amount of data and time from respondents, while Program 3 requires the most. Sources with Program 3 processes are those that do not meet Program 1 but subject to OSHA's PSM standard, or those with any of the nine NAICS codes listed in section 68.10( d)( 1). Program 2 processes are those that do not meet Program 1 or 3 eligibility requirements. See section 68.10 for more detailed description of each Program.

All sources are required to update and submit every five years an RMP that includes basic facility data, an executive summary, five year accident history, data on the worst case release scenarios ( at least one for toxics and one for flammables), and data on emergency response regardless of their program classification. In addition, Program 2 and 3 sources must also submit data on alternative release scenarios ( one for each toxic and one for flammables) and their prevention programs ( by process). If a change at the source ( e. g., a substantial change in the quantity held, a major modification of a source) leads to a change in certain data submitted in the previous RMP or requires an update to add a new process, the RMP must be revised and resubmitted. Depending on the event that triggers the need for an update, the source must resubmit the revised RMP either before the change is implemented ( e. g., the addition of a new regulated substance) or within six months of the change ( e. g., a major process modification).

( i) Data Items Risk Management Plans Registration. Sources must submit the following information to EPA in the registration section of the RMP:

° Name and location of the stationary source, and latitude and longitude, as well as the method used to determine the latitude and longitude and an indication of the specific location at the source that it represents;

° The name, telephone number, and mailing address of the owner/ operator of the source;

° Name and title or position of the person responsible for RMP implementation at the source;

° Name, title, phone number, 24 hour telephone number and the email address of the emergency contact at the source; ° ° Name, the mailing address, and the telephone number of the contractor who prepared the RMP ( if any);

° The source's ( and parent company= s, if applicable) Dun and Bradstreet number, which is a common identifier for sources and would allow EPA to cross reference the data with other EPA databases; 8 ° For each covered process, the names, CAS numbers, and quantities ( to two significant digits) of all regulated substances and the applicable NAICS code( s);

° Number of full time employees at the source;

° Whether the source is covered under the OSHA PSM program and EPCRA 302;

° The sources CAA Title V permit number ( if applicable); and ° The type of and reason for any changes being made to a previously submitted RMP;

Voluntary data elements that may be provided as part of the registration include the LEPC for the planning district in which the source is located and, to support communication with the public, a public contact phone number for the source, the WWW homepage address of the source or its parent company, and the e mail address of the source.

Program 1. Sources with Program 1 processes are required to prepare an executive summary and include a five year accident history and emergency response data in their RMP. In addition, for Program 1 processes, owners/ operators are required to document the worst case release in the RMP and certify that:

( 1) Their worst case release would not reach any public receptors;

( 2) The process has had no accidents in the previous five years that resulted in certain impacts offsite; and ( 3) Public emergency responders will not enter within certain distances except as previously arranged.

Programs 2 and 3. Sources with Program 2 and Program 3 processes are required to submit an RMP that includes the following information: ° An executive summary;

° A five year accident history for each incident that caused specific on site or offsite impacts from a release of a regulated substance held above its threshold in a covered process;

° The results of the offsite consequence analysis ( OCA) ( worst case and alternative release scenarios);

° Information concerning the prevention program and process hazards, controls, mitigation systems, and detection systems identified during the PHA or hazard review for each covered process;

° Information concerning emergency response steps and coordination with the LEPC plan; and ° Certification of the accuracy of the information submitted. 9 The requested information in the RMP is critical in assisting government agencies in assessing the quality and thoroughness of a source's prevention, detection, and response program. The information will assist agencies in identifying sources that should be visited to ensure safe source operations.

Deregistration. Sources that are no longer subject to Part 68 are required to notify EPA in writing within six months of the date on which they are no longer covered.

Risk Management Programs Prevention Program Documentation All previously covered sources with Program 2 or 3 processes will need to conduct a compliance audit within the three year period of this ICR. All previously covered sources are assumed to incur costs for accident investigation. Other on going costs for documentation for Program 2 processes are for keeping the safety information and operating procedures up to date. For Program 3 processes, the on going costs include keeping Process Safety Information ( PSI) and Standard Operating Procedures ( SOPs) up to date, documenting refresher training, training of new employees, maintenance, and management of change. Any source that has an emergency response plan is subject to OSHA HAZWOPER; all costs for updating the plan accrue to the OSHA rule. Only chemical wholesalers are expected to change their OCAs over the three year period. The documentation for those costs is considered in the RMP costs.

Program 1. New Program 1 sources will need to maintain only on site records of their worst case release analysis, and their simplified RMP. Maintaining copies of these submissions is expected to require no additional effort by these sources.

Program 2. New Program 2 sources will need to maintain on site records supporting the contents of their RMP and compliance with other rule requirements. These sources must also maintain records of any compliance audits performed and any accident investigation reports.

The on site documentation associated with the risk management program for Program 2 sources consists of information that will be generated automatically during the development of the hazard assessment, the SOPs, compliance audits, and safety information. Each required data item is an integral element of a good program; maintenance of these data on site will allow EPA or state or local authorities to conduct effective source audits without requiring submittal of sensitive business information. Under the requirements, Program 2 sources must maintain the following specific on site documentation:

  Records of the hazard assessment, including data and assumptions used, and descriptions of alternative and worst case release scenarios ( updated once every five years);

  Applicable parameters and other documentation associated with the safety information requirements;

  Written operating procedures for each Program 2 process; 10   Hazard review report using models, checklists, or What Ifs ( updated once every five years);

  Compliance audit reports;

  The emergency response plan, including procedures for warning employees and the public, a list of response personnel and equipment, and response action procedures.

Program 3. EPA's risk management program identifies specific information that Program 3 sources are required to maintain on site, as well as specific information to be included in the RMP. Most Program 3 processes are covered by OSHA's PSM program. Therefore, these sources are expected to incur the costs of maintaining on site documentation for only those activities performed for processes and substances not already covered under OSHA's PSM program.

The on site documentation consists of information that will be generated automatically during the development and performance of the hazard assessment, the PHA, safety information, the SOPs, the maintenance and training programs, compliance audits, management of change, accident investigations, and emergency response. On site documentation for Program 3 sources will include the following:

  Records of the hazard assessment, including data and assumptions used, and descriptions of alternative and worst case release scenarios ( updated once every five years);

  Chemical and process information, including equipment specifications, and diagrams of equipment, piping, pumps, valves, controls, and instrumentation ( P& IDs) for each Program 3 process;

  The process hazard analysis report and management steps to address identified hazards ( updated once every five years);

  Written operating procedures for each Program 3 process;

  Records of all training programs;

  Records of the maintenance program, including inspection and testing schedules;

  Procedures for conducting pre startup reviews;

  Procedures used for managing changes in processes, operations, and procedures;

  Compliance audit reports;

  Accident investigation procedures; and   The emergency response plan, including procedures for warning employees and the public, a list of response personnel and equipment, and response action procedures. 11 All information cited above is integral to an efficient and effective risk management program. Sources and processes covered by OSHA's rule are already required to maintain all of this information ( except the hazard assessment) on site and are assumed to incur only the additional costs to maintain onsite records of the hazard assessment. For example, there are assumed to be no additional costs associated with developing pre startup review and management of change procedures because all Program 3 sources are already required to have such procedures in place under the OSHA PSM program.

Confidential Business Information Section 68.210 provides that information will be available to the public under CAA section 114( c), which provides for protection of trade secrets. To clarify procedures for submitting RMPs that contain confidential business information ( CBI), EPA added two sections to the rule. In general, however, the rules governing CBI that already exist in 40 CFR part 2 will also apply and provide procedures for determining the appropriateness of CBI claims as well as the substantive criteria that must be met to assert such claims. About 35 CBI claims were submitted for reporting year 2004.

To qualify for CBI protection, the substantive criteria set forth at 40 CFR 2.301 must be met. These criteria generally require that the data not be available to the public through other means, that the source take appropriate steps to prevent disclosure, and that disclosure of the data would be likely to cause substantial harm to the source's competitive position.

To assert a CBI claim, a source is required to submit a sanitized version of its RMP, which would then become part of the RMP database. The sanitized version will identify each data element, except chemical identity, claimed as CBI by the notation " CBI" in the data field. For chemical identity, the source is required to provide a generic chemical category or class name in lieu of the actual chemical name. At the same time, the source is also required to submit to EPA the data claimed as confidential on a separate, paper form. The source must also substantiate why each item claimed as CBI meets CBI criteria. Substantiation information may be claimed as CBI; if all or part of the substantiation is claimed as CBI, a sanitized version of substantiation must also be filed with EPA. Review of the CBI claims will be handled as provided for in 40 CFR part 2.

Claiming data as CBI must be done at the time of submittal. The source's owner, operator, or senior official is required to certify the accuracy of the CBI substantiation claims.

Petitions Any person may petition the Administrator to modify, by addition or deletion, the list of regulated substances in 40 CFR 68.130. Based on the information presented by the petitioner, EPA may grant or deny a petition. Under § 68.120( g), all petitions must contain the following information:

  Name and address of the petitioner and a brief description of the organization( s) that the petitioner represents, if applicable;

  Name, address, and telephone number of a contact person for the petition; 12   Common chemical name( s), common synonym( s), Chemical Abstract Service ( CAS) number( s), and chemical formula and structure;

  Action requested ( addition or deletion of a substance);

  Rationale supporting the petitioner's position C how the substance meets the criteria for addition or deletion. A short summary of the rationale must be submitted along with a more detailed narrative; and   Supporting data C the petition must include sufficient information to scientifically support the request to modify the list. EPA believes that the information required to be submitted in support of a petition is the minimum information that would enable the Agency to determine whether to grant or deny a petition within the 18 month time frame. The information must include:

 A list of all supporting documents;

 Documentation of literature searches conducted, including, but not limited to, identification of the database( s) searched, the search strategy, dates covered, and printed results;

 Effects data ( animal, human, and environmental test data) indicating the potential for death, injury, or serious adverse human and environmental impacts from acute exposure following an accidental release. Printed copies of the data sources, in English, should be provided; and  Exposure data or previous release accident history data indicating the potential for serious adverse human health or environmental effects from accidental releases. These data might include, but are not limited to, physical and chemical properties of the substance ( such as vapor pressure); modeling results ( including data and assumptions used and model documentation); and historical accident data, citing data sources.

( ii) Respondent Activities Rule Familiarization All newly affected sources are expected to spend time to read and understand the requirements when they first become subject to part 68. Burden for currently covered sources for rule familiarization was included in previous ICRs.

Risk Management Programs and Plans Deregistration. Any source that is no longer subject to Part 68 is required to notify EPA in writing within six months of the date on which they are no longer covered. 13 Program 1. Burden for new sources to prepare and submit a RMP is in this ICR. Burden for existing program 1 sources that may revise their RMP is included in this ICR. Existing sources with Program 1 processes are not expected to incur any recordkeeping burden during the period covered by this ICR.

Program 2. Program 2 sources incur the burden of preparing or revising an RMP and maintaining specific on site documentation of the items listed in the previous section. The burden estimates for preparing the RMP and maintaining on site documentation for sources with Program 2 processes are presented in section 6( a) of this ICR.

Program 3. Program 3 sources will incur the burden of assembling information for the purpose of maintaining on site documentation and preparing and revising an RMP. The burden estimates for sources submitting an RMP for Program 3 processes are presented in section 6( a) of this ICR.

Confidential Business Information Based on the CBI claims received for reporting years 1999 and 2004, EPA believes that sources with processes in Program 2 and Program 3 may seek to claim certain RMP information as confidential business information. The activities required for such sources include the preparation of a sanitized RMP ( estimated as described above for all sources) and a substantiation of the claim for each data element ( and potentially the substantiation itself) claimed as confidential, the list of unsanitized data elements and the submission of these documents to EPA at the time of the submission of the RMP. Burden estimates for these activities are presented in section 6( a) of this ICR.

Petitions To submit a petition to modify the list of regulated substances, a petitioner would be expected to perform the following activities:

  Read EPA guidance document and consult with EPA;   Plan activities;   Prepare literature search;   Conduct literature search;   Process information;   Review and focus information;   Write petition;   Review and edit petition; and   Submit petition to EPA and file.

The burden estimates developed for these activities are presented in section 6( a) of this ICR.

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED C AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5( a) Federal, State, and Local Government Activities 14 Burden to State and Local Agencies and Others The burden and cost estimates developed for the following state and local government activities are presented in section 6( b) of this ICR. Sources are described in Exhibit 1.

Program Management Approximately 12 states have been approved to serve as the implementing agencies for part 68. Three more states have requested delegation. So, during the period of this ICR, there will be a total of 15 states that may have obtained delegation to implement part 68. These states will be required to implement and enforce the program for all or some of the sources in their states. Implementing agencies will need to keep records of reviews, audits, and inspections conducted, any administrative and legal actions taken, and other correspondence between the agency and sources, other agencies, EPA, and the public. Implementing agencies will also need to document their budgets, for internal purposes, and any agreements they reach with other state, local, or federal agencies. To receive delegation of the program from EPA, a state must be able to show that it has the personnel and other resources to perform these tasks.

During the period covered by this ICR, we expect that all 15 states will be implementing the program each year.

Burden to the Federal Government The burden estimates developed for the following federal government activities are presented in section 6( d) of this ICR.

Federal Program Management EPA will serve as the implementing agency for any state that does not seek or is not granted delegation. EPA will need to keep records of reviews, audits, and inspections conducted, any administrative and legal actions taken, and other correspondence between the agency and sources, other agencies, and the public. EPA will also need to document its budgets, for internal purposes, and any agreements it reaches with other state, local, or federal agencies.

Risk Management Plans EPA has developed and made available a software suite of applications which perform various functions to assist with the RMP program. They include RMP* Submit, the software application that creates an electronic file for submission. RMP* Submit includes pick lists for certain data elements, chemical names, LEPCs from which a source may choose. EPA has posted the software and accompanying documentation on its web site. ( Note: RMPs are required in electronic format. A waiver may be obtained for filing on paper if necessary.)

Other RMP software applications allow processing of the RMPs and creation of a database, functions to be performed by contractors who operate the RMP Reporting Center to which facilities mail their RMPs. The suite of applications also includes RMP* Info, a database formerly on the EPA website, with extracts from the main RMP database and query functions; and RMP* Review, software to assist in querying the database. 15 The Agency performs the following activities:

° Make the RMP software and forms available; ° Process the RMPs submitted by sources into a database and make the information available through various means; ° Answer any questions from sources concerning the process; ° Process any claims of confidential business information; ° Notify each submitter of the status of their RMP ( complete or incomplete); ° Store RMP submissions and retrieve information; ° Provide technical assistance to sources; and ° Maintain the RMP database.

RMPs are mailed on disks or CDs to a contractor operating the reporting center that EPA has established. The reporting center processes RMPs submitted on disks and CDs and manually enters RMPs submitted on paper. The center also responds to questions from sources and handles any CBI information. EPA in 2004 made available a web based application in its Central Data Exchange, operated by the reporting center contractor, for facilities who must report RMPs; the CDX web tool allows submission of a limited number of RMP data elements through the web. EPA is working to further develop this web tool to allow for more data submission and for web access to the database by state and local officials and by the facilities themselves. The reporting center also supports the maintenance of and development of updates for the RMP software.

Petitions For each petition submitted under 40 CFR 68.120, EPA would perform the following activities:

  Answer respondent's questions;   Review petition for completeness;   Publish notice of petition receipt and request for comments;   Review data submissions;   Record or enter the data submissions;   Store the data; and   Prepare and publish the final decision.

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management Respondents complete an RMP electronically or on paper. EPA manages the data as discussed above.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility The rule includes several measures to reduce the burden to small entities. Most sources subject to Program 3 requirements are already required to comply with the OSHA PSM program. All other sources face reduced requirements under Programs 1 and 2. In addition, the quantity of information submitted in the RMP and the associated burden varies with the size of the source ( i. e., smaller sources would have a 16 lower burden). EPA has developed industry specific guidance documents to help smaller sources comply with the rule. Therefore, the RMP regulations do not impose a disproportionate burden of compliance on small sources.

5( d) Collection Schedule Risk Management Plans. Sources with more than a threshold quantity of a listed substance in a process are required to be in compliance with the risk management program beginning June 21, 1999, and every five years after. After submitting an RMP, a source must update it by the time it adds a new ( to the source) listed substance in a process above threshold quantity. Also, if certain other information provided in the RMP becomes inaccurate at any time after submission, the source is required to submit an amended RMP within six months of the change. Otherwise, sources are required to resubmit their RMP within five years of their last submittal even if other RMP data change during the five year period ( e. g., RMPs need not be updated in cases such as change in number of employees, contact names etc.).

Petitions. Each petitioner need only submit information once in support of a petition.

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION Because the burden for many of the activities varies based on the size and complexity of the source, weighted averages for unit burden and unit cost were developed for each category of source for each item. Total annual burden hours are in Exhibit 8.

6( a) Respondent Burden Respondent Burden for Rule Familiarization ( New Sources)

The burden associated with rule familiarization was estimated in previous ICRs for those sources that are currently subject to the regulations. This ICR only estimates burden for any new sources that may be subject to regulations during the period covered by this ICR. Between 2001 to 2003 ( between the two mandatory deadline 1999 and 2004), an average of 332 sources became subject to the regulations. EPA assumes this same growth each year covered by this ICR.

New sources were mainly in the non manufacturing sectors. There were also a few in the chemical and non chemical manufacturing sectors ( small/ medium size sources). The unit burden is estimated to range from 20 to 40 hours for the various sectors covered by the regulations ( see Exhibit 4). The total annual burden for all sectors to become familiar with the rule is estimated to be 8,040 hours at a cost of $ 304,134 dollars ( 24,120 hours at a cost of $ 912,402 for three years.)

Respondent Burden for Initial RMP Preparation and Submission ( New Sources)

Exhibit 4 presents the estimated unit burden hours for preparing and submitting an RMP for sources that will be subject to the regulations during the period covered by this ICR. As stated above, based on the RMPs submitted between the two reporting years, 1999 and 2004, about 332 new sources will submit RMPs annually. The sources ( Exhibit 1) are mainly in the non manufacturing sectors. There are a few in the manufacturing sectors as mentioned above. The average unit burden to prepare and submit an RMP ranges from 10 to 30 hours for the various sectors covered by the regulations. The total annual 17 burden for new sources for preparing and submitting an RMP is estimated to be 4,340 hours at a cost of $ 160,905 dollars ( 13,020 hours at a cost of $ 482,715 dollars for three years).

Respondent Burden for Prevention Program ( New Sources)

New sources also have costs for developing documentation for prevention program elements. Estimates of the respondent burden hours for maintaining on site documentation vary, depending on the size of the source and the complexity of the on site processes as well as on whether the source is already covered by OSHA PSM rule. Based on recent new RMPs received, there are 150 of the new sources that will not be subject to the OSHA PSM standard. As stated in section 4( b)( i) of this document, these sources are expected to incur the costs of maintaining on site documentation for only those activities performed for processes and substances not covered under OSHA's PSM program. The estimated unit burden for prevention program for the new sources ranges from 70 to 95 hours ( see Exhibit 5). The total annual burden for the 150 non PSM sources is estimated to be 10,820 hours at a cost of $ 331,213 dollars ( 32,460 hours at a cost of $ 993,639 dollars for three years).

Respondent Burden for Confidential Business Information ( CBI) Claims The requirement that substantiation for CBI claims be submitted with the claims will impose costs on those sources making the CBI claims. See Exhibit 6.

Previous ICRs estimated that the time required to develop and submit CBI substantiation is 9.5 hours per claim. EPA is assuming the same in this ICR. EPA received 34 claims for the reporting year 1999 and 35 claims for reporting year 2004. Based on the CBI submissions received for these reporting years, EPA assumes that we may receive 35 CBI submissions each year covered by this ICR. We assume that only new sources that may be required to comply with part 68 during this ICR period may submit claims. As a result, for the estimated 35 sources preparing and submitting CBI claims, the estimated industry annual burden is 324 hours at cost of $ 14,673 dollars ( 969 hours at a cost of $ 14,673 dollars for three years).

RMP Resubmission Initial RMPs were submitted in June 1999. Since the initial submission and before the five year mandatory deadline in June 2004, many sources resubmitted their RMP. These sources were then assigned a new five year submission deadline. Adding new processes or other activities at these sources were the result of the revision and the re submission of the RMP.

EPA contacted a few sources that resubmitted RMP between reporting years 1999 and 2004 in order to develop an estimate on the burden imposed to revise and re submit RMPs See Section 3( b) of this document. In addition to calculating burden for new facilities that may become subject to part 68, this ICR only accounts burden for re submission and on site documentation for sources that are currently subject to the regulations. EPA only contacted those sources that re submitted RMPs between the two reporting years. Based on the number of re submitted RMPs received between the two reporting years, EPA estimates that approximately 1,050 RMPs may be re submitted annually. The sources that were contacted by EPA reported that it took approximately between 2 to 40 hours to resubmit the RMP. To be conservative, EPA is assuming that it will take approximately 10 to 40 hours for various sectors covered by the regulations to re submit their RMP. Sources contacted were of different sizes in various sectors. 18 Each had various reasons to re submit the RMP.

The total number of hours for the three year period is 13,300 hours annually at a cost of $ 434,795 dollars ( 39,900 hours at cost of $ 1,304,382 dollars for three years).

Prevention Program ( On Site Documentation) ( on going for currently covered sources)

As above, estimates of the respondent burden hours for maintaining on site documentation vary, depending upon the size of the source and the complexity of on site processes as well as on whether the source is already covered by the OSHA PSM rule. Burden hour estimates were developed for previous ICRs are also used in this ICR.

All sources with Program 2 or 3 processes will need to conduct a compliance audit within the three year period of this ICR. The cost of the audit documentation is the cost of producing the audit report. All sources are assumed to incur costs for accident investigation. The only other on going costs for documentation for Program 2 processes are for keeping the safety information and operating procedures up to date. For Program 3 processes, the on going costs include keeping PSI and SOPs up to date, documenting refresher training, training of new employees, maintenance, and management of change.

The estimated unit burden ranges from 3 to 146 hours ( see Exhibit 7) for the various sectors covered by the regulations. Total annual on site documentation is 55,518 hours at a cost of $ 2,024,754 dollars ( 166,140 hours at a cost of $ 6,074,262 dollars for three years).

Respondent Burden for Petitions Since the list of chemicals was published in 1994, EPA only received one petition to remove a chemical from the list. EPA does not expect to receive any petition during the period covered by this ICR. Therefore, we did not account any burden for filing petitions.

De registration Based on the number of letters we received between 1999 and 2004, we estimate that approximately 100 sources will submit de registration letters to EPA annually. The form letter is available on the RMP information website that sources will be able to download or sources can create their own letter to be sent in to EPA. We estimate that it takes 1 hour for the technical staff to produce the letter. The total annual hours for this activity is 100 hours at a cost of $ 3,784 ( 300 hours at a cost of $ 11,352 for three years).

6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs ( Sources & State Implementing Agencies)

( i) Estimating Labor Costs Sources Although EPA contacted few industries to develop the burden included in this ICR, EPA used estimates from previous ICRs, which were more conservative. The burden reported by the industries 19 contacted was lower than EPA estimates. The estimated costs of documenting risk management program activities and submitting an RMP are a function of the time expended by the respondent. Respondents include both Industry and those states that are implementing the RMP program.

The estimated unit costs for private firms were based on three categories of labor ( legal, managerial, and technical) and wage rates reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS), in its November 2003 edition of Occupational Employment and Wages. The annual salaries for these categories were broken out by four facility sub categories ( chemical manufacturers, other manufacturers, nonmanufacturers and wholesalers) to account for differences in wages rates among the affected facilities. The wage rates include benefits, based on BLS data. Exhibit 2 provides the wage rates for various industries affected.

The estimated labor and wage rates for state and federal employees were based on three categories of labor ( attorney, environmental engineer, and clerical) and wage rates as reported by BLS's, Employer Cost for Employee Compensation, data query based on 4th quarter 2004 costs for state employees and the Federal Office of Personnel Management ( OPM) Salary Table, effective January 2005, for the Rest of U. S. Federal wage rates are based on a GS 15, step 5 Attorney, GS 13 step 5 Environmental Engineer, and a GS 5, step 5 Clerk. Exhibit 3 provides the wage rates for state and federal employees of the implementing agencies.

Implementing Agency Costs Although EPA does not require states to obtain delegation to implement Part 68 program, to date there are 12 states that obtained delegation to implement the program. Since EPA will not be granting funds to states as part of the delegation process, the burden and cost that the states will incur is added to the respondent burden in this ICR. For the states that do not obtain delegation of the program, EPA will be the implementing agency.

Three more states have requested delegation, so there will be 15 states that have obtained delegation during the period covered by this ICR. These 15 states are expected to carry out the implementation duties during each year covered by this ICR. EPA will serve as the implementing agency for all other states. Implementing agencies are expected to review RMPs, audit RMPs, inspect sources, provide technical assistance, and conduct standard program management activities ( e. g., developing budgets, filing administrative orders and enforcement actions). Initial reviews, which are first checks of the RMPs to identify any problems ( e. g., clear inconsistencies in reported data, failure to list obvious hazards such as flammability for a listed flammable) are estimated to require one to five hours, depending on the number and complexity of processes covered in the RMP. Audits are assumed to be detailed reviews of the RMPs, requiring from two to twelve hours per RMP; audits require technical staff capable of identifying data that may indicate safety problems ( e. g., failure to report chemical or process hazards, which could indicate an inadequate PHA, or lack of normal process controls, which could indicate either an incomplete RMP or inadequate safety practices). Audits may be totally offsite or may include a site visit to review documentation and other aspects of the program. The results of the audits will help select sources that may require inspection to determine whether the source is in compliance with the rule and operating safely. Inspections are site visits to review the activities and documentation. Inspections are estimated to take 8 to 50 hours. Implementing agencies are expected to review all RMPs over five years. Frequency of audits varies by sector, with chemical companies being audited every five to ten years and all others audited every 10 years. Inspections are estimated to occur every five to fifteen years, depending on the sector,. 20 Technical assistance estimates are based on the assumption that every covered source will call once, with calls from the manufacturing sources taking one hour and calls from non manufacturers taking half that time. The assumption of every source calling is conservative and recognizes that not all sources will seek help, but that those that do may take more than the time estimated. Program management is assumed to involve three experienced staff per state and per region, one fifth of an FTE for an attorney, and one tenth of an FTE of clerical time.

Recordkeeping related to these activities is assumed to take 10 percent of the total time required, except for inspection reports, which are assumed to take 12.5 percent of the total time for inspections. The estimated total annual burden for recordkeeping related to these activities is 6,157 hours at a cost of $ 301,446 ( 18,471 hours at a cost of $ 904,338 for three years) ( Exhibit 10).

( ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs Capital Costs ( State and Local agencies)

Because RMPs will be available electronically and EPA will provide them to anyone who does not have Internet access, state and local agencies are expected to incur no capital costs related to RMPs. Implementing agencies will incur limited capital costs to maintain documents on program implementation. The paper files associated with these programs will be limited and will vary with the size of the regulated community overseen. Previous ICRs have calculated the required amount of file cabinets for the states. File cabinets are expected to last for at least 15 years. Therefore, the Agency will not be accounting costs for any file cabinets in this ICR.

Operating & Maintenance Costs ( Sources)

This section considers capital or startup costs, annual operating and maintenance costs, or costs for services, such as consultant services, incurred by respondents for the collection of information.

Sources are not required or expected to use consultants to prepare and submit their RMP or their on site documentation. The RMP program has been specifically designed, by simplifying the requirements and allowing sources to use prepared forms and models, to eliminate the need for sources to use consultants to meet the requirements of this program.

There are expected to be no significant resources expended by sources to acquire, install, or use additional technology or computer systems to prepare and submit the RMP and maintain on site documentation by sources. Sources with computers will be encouraged to submit the data electronically on disk. EPA has developed software required to submit the RMP electronically and made it available on line, at no cost to participants. Most sources already have access to the Internet; therefore, the connection charge associated with Internet access is not applied to this rule.

All sources will need to mail new or revised RMPs, whether on disk or in hardcopy form, to EPA. Based on the estimates presented in previous sections in this document, about 996 sources are expected to submit new RMPs; 3,150 sources may submit revised RMPs via mail over the three year period covered by this ICR ( 332 new RMP submissions and 1050 revised RMP submissions annually). Each of these sources will incur the cost of mailing at approximately $ 5.00 per submission. Using this unit cost 21 estimate, the total cost to respondents for mailing the RMPs ( new and revised) is estimated to be $ 20,730 dollars for the three years covered by this ICR ( or $ 6,910 dollars annually).

6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost EPA will bear costs for three sets of activities: EPA will serve as the implementing agency for part 68 regulations in any state that does not seek and obtain delegation; EPA will oversee programs delegated to states; and EPA will collect and make available RMPs.

EPA will oversee part 68 programs implemented by state and local agencies. Such oversight will include reviewing submissions from states and local agencies, providing assistance to these agencies, and working with them on issues. EPA estimates that oversight will require 1.1 FTE per region ( one senior staff member plus a tenth of the time of a clerical staff member), plus three staff members at EPA headquarters. The total annual burden for EPA for this activity is 4,840 hours at a cost of $ 302,935 ( 14,520 hours at a cost of $ 908,805 for three years). See Exhibit 11.

EPA has developed a software system for submission of RMPs ( RMP* Submit), a secure database with complete RMP data ( RMP* Review) for states and local agencies, and a public database without OCA data ( RMP* Info) that will be used to make RMPs available to the public. EPA has established a records center to handle RMPs and answer questions from the public. The center staff will be responsible for entering RMPs that are submitted on paper into the system and handling RMPs that arrive on disk. The cost of operating the records center is estimated to be $ 2.7 million over three years ($ 900,000 annually). This cost includes hardware, software, systems support; quality assurance; error notices and mail outs. The cost changes slightly every year due to the number of RMPs that need to be processed, the costs increase during the reporting year.

The total annual cost to the Agency for implementing the program for states that have not obtained delegation and for receiving RMPs and processing is $ 1,202,935.

6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs Currently, there are 14,150 RMPs on the RMP* Info database. This number changes weekly and sometimes daily depending on how many new sources come into compliance, the number of RMP revisions and on how many sources de register. Considering any non compliance rate, de registration, new sources coming into compliance, EPA estimates that there are about 15,305 sources subject to RMP program regulations. Since the compliance deadline is every five years since 1999 and the next deadline is June 2009, the number of annual respondents during this ICR period only include new sources, sources that may re submit RMPs and the state implementing agencies. The total annual respondents for this ICR period is 1,397 ( 4,191 sources for three years). Next ICR renewal will include compliance costs for all sources subject to the regulations.

Although not all15,305 sources submit their RMPs annually during this ICR period, they are required to maintain on site documentation. The burden hours and costs are developed for new sources to get familiar with the regulations, prepare and submit RMPs, develop prevention program documentation, and CBI submissions. For existing sources, we have estimated burden hours and costs for revising their RMPs ( some of the sources) and maintaining documentation for prevention programs. The total annual burden for sources is 92,442 hours at a cost of $ 3,274,258 ( or 277,326 hours at a cost of $ 9,822,774 for 22 three years). See Exhibits 8 and 9.

In addition, during the period covered by this ICR, EPA estimates that approximately 15 states will have obtained delegation to implement the RMP program in their states. We assume that these 15 states will carry out their functions every year covered by this ICR. The total annual burden for states to implement the program is 6,157 hours at a cost of $ 301,446 ( or 18,471 hours at a cost of $ 904,338 for three years). See Exhibit 10.

For industry and implementing states combined, there are 98,599 burden hours per year, at a combined labor cost of $ 3,575,704 annually.

6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs Exhibits 8 and 9 present the estimated total hours and costs for all sources. The total annual estimated costs to sources for all activities and for the state implementing agencies is $ 3.6 million. Total annual burden for industry sources and states is 98,599 hours ( or 295,797 hours for three years).

The total annual estimated cost to EPA for all activities is estimated to be $ 1.2 million. Most of the burden incurred by EPA is for managing RMPs.

6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden This ICR estimates a total decrease in the burden of 32,204 hours ( from 130,803 to 98,599 hours) for all sources and states. This decrease is mainly due to the RMP submission schedule. The last submission of RMPs by all sources was in June 2004. The next compliance deadline is June 2009, which is after this ICR period. This ICR only accounts for compliance burden for new sources that may become subject to the regulations, any revised RMP that may be submitted by existing sources and on site documentation for existing sources. The burden may increase in the next ICR renewal since the next deadline for all sources to submit RMPs will fall within the next ICR period.

6( g) Burden Statement The public reporting burden will depend on the regulatory program tier into which sources are categorized. In this ICR, the public reporting burden for rule familiarization for new sources is estimated to range from 20 to 40 hours per source. The public reporting burden to prepare and submit a RMP for new sources is estimated to range from 10 to 30 hours. The public reporting burden for new sources to develop prevention program is estimated to range from 70 to 95 hours per source. The public reporting burden for CBI claims is estimated to be 9.5 hours per source. Burden for RMP revisions is estimated to range from 10 to 40 hours per source. The public record keeping burden to maintain on site documentation for currently covered sources is estimated to range from 3 hours to 146 hours. The total annual public reporting burden for new sources to become familiar with the rule, develop and submit an RMP, develop prevention program, substantiate claims for confidential business information, submit a revised RMP, and develop on site documentation for existing sources is about 92,442 hours at a cost of $ 3,274,258 ( 277,326 hours over three years). The total annual burden estimated for 15 states that may be implementing Part 68 programs, is 6,157 hours at a cost of $ 301,446 ( 18,471 hours for three years). Therefore, the total annual burden for all sources and states is estimated to be 98,599 hours for a cost of $ 3,575,704 ( 295,797 hours for three years). 23 Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OAR 2003 0052, which is available for public viewing at the Air Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is ( 202) 566 2426. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search," then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. ( OAR 2003 0052) and OMB control number ( 2050 0144) in any correspondence. 24 APPENDIX EXHIBIT 1 NUMBER OF SOURCES Total Sources Sources not Subject to OSHA PSM Sources Re submitting RMPs Source s De register New Sources New Sources not subject to OSHA PSM Small/ medium chemical 1490 196 80 20 32 6 Large high complexity chemical 385 18 50 30   *   *

Other manufacturers 2080 258 180 15 38 4 Non manufacturer 6640 2735 400 20 162 58 Wholesale 4710 4155 340 15 100 83 Total 15,305 7,362 1,050 100 332 150 * Note: Based on the most recent data of new sources that submitted RMPs, EPA does not expect any large complex chemical companies to submit RMPs for the period covered by this ICR.

EXHIBIT 2 WAGE RATES  Sources ( including benefits)

Legal Management Technical Source Chemical Manufacturers $ 100.00 $ 59.77 $ 47.07 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages, Nov. 2003.

Other Manufacturers $ 100.00 $ 59.77 $ 40.03 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages, Nov. 2003.

Non Manufacturers $ 100.00 $ 59.77 $ 24.41 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages, Nov. 2003.

Wholesale $ 100.00 $ 59.77 $ 23.27 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages, Nov. 2003. 25 EXHIBIT 3 WAGE RATES  STATE AND FEDERAL State Wage Loaded Rate Attorney $ 30.90 $ 49.44 Environmenta l Engineer $ 30.60 $ 48.96 Clerical office clerk general $ 15.24 $ 24.38 Federal Attorney $ 54.38 $ 87.01 Environmenta l Engineer $ 39.12 $ 62.59 Clerical office clerk general $ 14.97 $ 23.95 Federal: Office of Personnel Management, Salary Table, January 2005, Rest of U. S.

State: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Cost for Employee Compensation, data query for 4th quarter 2004.

EXHIBIT 4 RESPONDENT UNIT BURDEN HOURS Rule Familiarization and RMP Preparation New Sources Rule Familiarization RMP Preparation Management Technical Management Technical Small/ Medium Chemical 10 30 5 25 Large high Complexity Chemical

Other Manufacturers 10 30 3 17 Non Manufacturers 5 15 2 8 Wholesale 5 15 2 8 30 90 12 58 26 Exhibit 5 UNIT BURDEN FOR PREVENTION PROGRAM DOCUMENTATION New Sources Management Technical Total Unit Burden per Source Small/ Medium Chemical 15 80 95 Large Complex Chemical

Other Manufacturers 15 80 95 Non Manufacturers 10 60 70 Wholesale 10 60 70 Note: Based on the most recent data of new sources that submitted RMPs, EPA do not expect any large complex chemical companies to submit RMPs for the period covered by this ICR. EXHIBIT 6 RESPONDENT UNIT BURDEN HOURS Confidential Business Information ( CBI)

Legal Management Technical 1 3 5.5 27 EXHIBIT 7 UNIT BURDEN FOR PREVENTION PROGRAM DOCUMENTATION ( on going for currently covered non PSM sources)

( Technical Hours)

Non PSM Sources Unit Burden Small/ medium chemical 196 122 Large high complexity chemical 18 146 Other manufacturers 258 11 Non manufacturers 2735 5 Wholesale 4155 3 EXHIBIT 8 TOTAL BURDEN HOURS FOR RMP BY SECTOR  Annual ( Sources)

Rule Familiarization ( 332 new sources) RMP ( 332 new Sources) Prevention Program ( 150 New Sources) CBI Claims ( 35 New Sources) Revised RMPs ( Currently Covered 1,050 Sources) On Site Documentation ( Currently Covered Sources) De Registration Total Hours Small/ medium chemical 1,280 960 570 29 1,200 23,912 20 27,971 Large high complexity chemical     2,000 2,628 30 4,658 Other manufacturers 1,520 760 380 38 2,700 2,838 15 8,251 Non manufacturers 3,240 1,620 4,060 95 4,000 13,675 20 26,710 Wholesale 2,000 1,000 5,810 162 3,400 12,465 15 24,852 TOTAL 8,040 4,340 10,820 324 13,300 55,518 100 92,442 28 EXHIBIT 9 ESTIMATED TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN COSTS ( Sources)

Rule Familiarization ( new sources) RMPs ( new sources) Prevention Program ( new sources) CBI ( new sources) Revised RMPs ( currently covered sources) On Site Documentation ( currently covered sources) De registration Total Small/ medium chemical $ 64,318 $ 47,222 $ 27,975 $ 1,615 $ 56,488 $ 1,125,539 $ 941 $ 1,324,098 Large high complexity chemical     $ 94,146 $ 123,670 $ 1,412 $ 219,228 Other manufacturers $ 68,345 $ 32,672 $ 16,395 $ 1,998 $ 108,073 $ 115,670 $ 600 $ 343,753 Non manufacturers $ 66,508 $ 31,486 $ 171,194 $ 4,136 $ 93,080 $ 315,035 $ 465 $ 681,904 Wholesale $ 104,963 $ 49,525 $ 115,649 $ 6,924 $ 83,008 $ 344,840 $ 366 $ 705,275 TOTAL $ 304,134 $ 160,905 $ 331,213 $ 14,673 $ 434,795 $ 2,024,754 $ 3,784 $ 3,274,258 EXHIBIT 10 TOTAL ANNUAL HOURS AND COSTS OF PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION and DOCUMENTATION ( States)

Reviews RMP Audits Inspections Program Management Total Hours Hours 106 175 519 5,356 6,157 Costs $ 5,190 $ 13,758 $ 25,410 $ 262,230 $ 301,446 29 EXHIBIT 11 TOTAL ANNUAL HOURS AND COSTS OF PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTATION ( EPA)

Reviews RMP Audits Inspections Program Management Total Hours Hours 320 530 1,570 2,420 4,840 Costs $ 20,028 $ 33,173 $ 98,266 151,467 $ 302,935


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 42 (Friday, March 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 12835]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5107]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 3287-006]

American Land Company, LLC, Burnshire Hydroelectric, LLC; Notice
of Transfer of Exemption

    1. By letter filed February 14, 2012, American Land Company, LLC
informed the Commission that its exemption from licensing for the
Burnshire Dam Project No. 3287, originally issued September 22,
1982,\1\ has been transferred to Burnshire Hydroelectric, LLC. The
project is located on the North Fork, Shenandoah River in Shenandoah
County, Virginia. The transfer of an exemption does not require
Commission approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 20 FERC ] 62,512, Order Granting Exemption From Licensing of
a Small Hydroelectric Project of 5 Megawatts or Less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Burnshire Hydroelectric, LLC, located at 480 N Pifer Road, Star
Tannery, Virginia 22654 is now the exemptee of the Burnshire Dam
Project No. 3287.

    Dated: February 27, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-5107 Filed 3-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 132)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 39032-39035]
[DOCID:fr11jy06-29]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL-8195-4]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Delete the T. H. Agriculture and Nutrition
Site from the National Priorities List.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9 announces
the intent to delete the T. H. Agriculture and Nutrition site (``the
site'') from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public
comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40
CFR part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to
section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA and the State of
California, through the California Department of Toxic Substances
Control, have determined that the remedial action for the site has been
successfully executed.

DATES: Comments concerning the proposed deletion of this Site from the
NPL may be submitted on or before August 10, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1986-0005, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instruction

for submitting comments.
     E-mail the superfund docket center (specify docket ID
number)--e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax the docket center (specify docket number)--fax number:
202-566-0224
     Mail hardcopy to the docket center (specify docket number)
address:

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Superfund,
Mailcode 5202T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     For Fedex/Courier delivery, the following address should
be added (specify docket number): address: 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
EPA West Building, USEPA Docket Center, Reading Room B-102, Washington,
DC 20460.
    Hand deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours
of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1986-0005. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

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

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

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

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Publicly available docket
materials are available in hard copy at the EPA's Region 9 Superfund
Records Center, 95 Hawthorne Street, Suite 403S, San Francisco, CA
94105,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Available hours: by appointment, 8 a.m. to 5
p.m., M-F, excluding legal holidays. The deletion document is also
available for public viewing at the following local information
repositories for the site: Fresno County Library, Sunnyside Branch,
5562 E. Kings Canyon Rd., Fresno, CA 93727,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Available
hours: M-T, 9 a.m.-9 p.m.; F-Sat. 9-5 p.m.; Sun. 12-5, and California
Department of Toxic Substances Control, Clovis Office, File Room, 1515
Tollhouse Road, Clovis, CA 93612,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Available hours: by
appointment only, fax request to Barbara Doehring at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Suer, Remedial Project Manager,
U.S. EPA 9 (SFD-7-2), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,
(415) 972-3148, or 1-800-231-3075.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis of Intended Site Deletion

I. Introduction

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9 announces
its intent to delete the T. H. Agriculture and Nutrition Site, Fresno
County, California, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and
requests public comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes
Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to
section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA identifies sites
that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or
the environment and maintains the NPL as the list of these sites. EPA
and the State of California Cal/EPA Department of Toxic Substances
Control have determined that the remedial action for the site has been
successfully executed. EPA will accept comments on the proposal to
delete this site for thirty (30) days after publication of this
document in the Federal Register. Section II of this document explains
the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses the
procedures EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the T. H.
Agriculture and Nutrition site and explains how the site meets the
deletion criteria.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    Section 300.425(e)(1) of the NCP provides that releases may be
deleted from, or recategorized on the NPL where no further response is
appropriate. In making a determination to delete a release from the
NPL, EPA shall consider, in consultation with the state, whether any of
the following criteria have been met:
    (i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required; or
    (ii) All appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA have been
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
    (iii) The Remedial Investigation has shown that the release poses
no significant threat to public health or the environment and,
therefore, remedial measures are not appropriate.
    Even if a site is deleted from the NPL, where hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants remain at the site above levels that allow
for unlimited use and restricted exposure, EPA's policy is that a
subsequent review of the site will be conducted at least every five
years after the initiation of the remedial action at the site to ensure
that the site remains protective of public health and the environment.
If new information becomes available which indicates a need for further
action, EPA may initiate additional remedial actions. Whenever there is
a significant release from a deleted site from the NPL, the site may be
restored to the NPL without application of the Hazard Ranking System.
In the case of this site, the selected remedy is protective of human
health and the environment.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures were used for the intended deletion of
this site: (1) All appropriate response under CERCLA has been
implemented and no further action by EPA is appropriate; (2) The State
of California has concurred with the proposed deletion decision; (3) a
notice has been published in the local newspapers and has been
distributed to appropriate federal, state, and local officials and
other interested parties announcing the commencement of a 30-day public
comment period on EPA's Notice of Intent to Delete; and (4) all
relevant documents have been made available in the local site
information repositories.
    Deletion of the site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. The NPL is designed
primarily for informational purposes and to assist Agency management.
As mentioned in section II of this notice, Sec.  300.425(e)(3) of the
NCP states that the deletion of a

site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response
actions.
    For deletion of this site, EPA's Regional Office will accept and
evaluate public comments on EPA's Notice of Intent to Delete before
making a final decision to delete. If necessary, the Agency will
prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public
comments received.
    A deletion occurs when the Regional Administrator places a final
notice in the Federal Register. Generally, the NPL will reflect
deletions in the final update following the Notice. Public notices and
copies of the Responsiveness Summary will be made available to local
residents by the Regional Office.

IV. Basis of Intended Site Deletion

    The following site summary provides the Agency's rationale for the
proposal to delete this site from the NPL.

Site Background and History

    The T. H. Agriculture and Nutrition (THAN) site consists of an
approximately 5-acre parcel located at 7183 East McKinley Avenue,
approximately three miles northeast of the City of Fresno, California.
Between 1951 and 1981, several owners utilized the Site for the
formulation, packaging, and warehousing of agricultural chemicals
(i.e., pesticides). Successive owners included Ciba-Geigy Corporation,
Olin Corporation, De Pester Western, Inc. (Nevada), De Pester Western,
Inc. (California), and THAN (known as the Thompson-Hayward Chemical
Company prior to 1981). From 1959 until present, the Site has been
owned or operated by THAN. In 1981, THAN discontinued operations, and
the facility closed completely in 1983.
    In addition to the approximately 5-acre parcel, THAN currently owns
an adjacent 20-acre orchard parcel that borders on the south, east, and
west sides of the Site. Properties surrounding THAN's 25 acres of land
consist of farms, orchards, and low-density residential developments.
    Contamination at the site was discovered in 1980. Water sampling
from domestic wells located near the site, conducted by the Cal/EPA
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), then known as the
Department of Health Services, revealed low levels of agricultural
chemicals. Subsequently, DTSC, the Fresno County Health Department, and
the State of California Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control
Board (Regional Board) requested and supervised an investigation by
THAN to determine the extent of environmental contamination in soil and
groundwater related to the site. Based on results of this
investigation, the site was placed on the State Priority Ranking List
in 1985. EPA added the site to the National Priorities List (NPL) in
June 1986 (51 FR 21,054, June 10, 1986). Although EPA provides
technical assistance to DTSC concerning the site, DTSC remains the lead
agency.
    The risk assessment for the site identified several chemicals of
concern (COCs), including: organochlorine pesticides
(dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane [DDT], dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane
[DDD], dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene [DDE], dieldrin, lindane, and
toxaphene), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (chloroform, xylenes, and
ethylbenzene), and the nematocide Dibromochloropropane (DBCP). The COCs
in onsite and offsite groundwater included 1, 2-Dichloroethane (DCA),
carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, dieldrin, DBCP and 1,2,3-
trichloropropane (1,2,3-TCP). Lindane, alpha-benzenehexachloride (BHC),
and delta-BHC have also been historically detected.
    In the Fresno area, DBCP has been detected at elevated
concentrations in regional groundwater as a result of its regional
application to crops. Concentrations of DBCP in wells down-gradient of
the site are not significantly different from the range of regional
DBCP concentrations. Recent groundwater studies indicate that 1,2,3-TCP
is also a regional pollutant similar to DBCP.
    Remedial investigation activities revealed several onsite chemical
source areas, including the former landfill area, the former railroad
loading dock, the former south loading dock, certain former subsurface
drainage systems, and the former solvent storage area.
    Prior to implementation of the site remedial action, the primary
chemicals contributing to the cancer risk from exposure to soils were
toxaphene, DDT, and dieldrin. Dermal contact with soil was the most
significant exposure pathway. The primary chemicals contributing to
non-cancer health effects from exposure to soils were DDT, DDE, DDD,
and dieldrin.
    Prior to remedial action, cumulative cancer risks from exposure to
groundwater (combining ingestion, bathing, and swimming pathways)
ranged from 3 x 10-3 for future onsite adult residents to 4
x 10-5 for current offsite child residents. The primary
chemicals contributing to both cancer risk and non-cancer hazard from
exposure to groundwater were DBCP, chloroform, and dieldrin.
    The Remedial Action Plan (RAP), which is the State's equivalent to
EPA's Record of Decision, was adopted in 1999. EPA concurred with the
RAP and the Final Remedy. The construction activities for implementing
the Final Remedy were completed in early 2003, and all remedial actions
were fully implemented in 2005.

Response Actions

    Remedial activities occurred before and after adoption of the RAP.
Activities prior to 1999 RAP included excavation and off-site disposal
of more than 24,000 cubic yards of chemically-affected soil (1984 and
1989), demolition and removal of structures and chemically affected
debris and soil, installation and operation of a soil vapor extraction
system to treat soils, provision of alternative drinking water supplies
to nearby residents, and installation of groundwater monitoring wells.
    Activities to achieve Final Remedy, as established by the 1999 RAP,
included further demolition and removal of structures, excavation of
contaminated soils and incorporation beneath an engineered cap,
construction of composite cap and perimeter fence, re-vegetation of
engineered cap to prevent erosion, establishment of long-term
Operations, Maintenance and Monitoring Agreement, development of
contingency plan for action (e.g., groundwater extraction and/or
treatment), in the event that groundwater monitoring indicates that one
or more Contaminants of Concern (COCs) exceed Final Remediation Goals,
continued provision (and expansion, as appropriate) of alternative
water supply by connections to public water supply system, point-of-use
treatment, or bottled water, land use restriction, and financial
assurances to ensure long-term maintenance and operation of the Final
Remedy.
    Numeric Final Remediation Goals for Carbon tetrachloride,
chloroform, 1,2-DCA and dieldrin, were based on regulatory and health-
based criteria. Final Remediation Goals for 1,2,3 TCP and DBCP were
non-numeric, because the presence of these chemicals in groundwater is
regional.
    The Remedial Design, for implementing the Final Remedy, was
approved by DTSC in 2002 and the majority of the construction work was
completed by January 24, 2003, including construction of site access
restrictions (fence and signs). A Preliminary Close Out Report was
signed by U.S. EPA on June 24, 2004, documenting Construction
Completion. Implementation of the Final Remedy

was completed in 2005 with the execution of the Operation, Maintenance
and Monitoring (OM&M) Agreement between DTSC and THAN and recording of
the Deed Restriction, for which EPA is a third-party beneficiary. The
Deed Restriction, limiting the uses of the property, is the primary
institutional control for the site.

Cleanup Standards

    The remedial action cleanup activities at the T. H. Agriculture and
Nutrition Site are consistent with the objectives of the NCP and
provide protection to human health and the environment. Contaminated
soils were excavated and consolidated beneath a cap, and chemically
affected structures were demolished and removed. Groundwater monitoring
results indicate that concentrations of COCs in groundwater samples are
generally declining due to natural biological, chemical, and physical
attenuation processes that are likely to continue, and the site-
specific COCs have not exceeded Final Remediation Goals in any wells
since July 2002. Further, is likely that this trend will continue,
since receding groundwater levels reduce the chance that contaminated
soils beneath the cap will become saturated. In addition, provision
(and expansion, as appropriate) of alternative water supply by
connections to public water supply system, point-of-use treatment, or
bottled water ensures that humans are not exposed to contaminated
drinking water. Annual inspections have verified the integrity of the
cap and access controls.

Operation and Maintenance

    Operation, Maintenance and Monitoring (OM&M) activities were
generally outlined in the RAP, and further detailed and finalized in
the OM&M Plan and OM&M Agreement, approved and signed by DTSC and THAN
in 2005. DTSC is the oversight agency for the OM&M. OM&M activities are
groundwater monitoring, natural attenuation monitoring, contingent
groundwater treatment system monitoring, monitoring and maintenance of
the soil cap and access controls (e.g., fencing), maintenance of the
institutional controls (e.g., land use restrictions, as required by the
Deed Restriction).

Five-Year Review

    The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) requires a five-year review of all
sites with hazardous substances remaining above the health-based levels
for unrestricted use of the site. Since the cleanup of the T. H.
Agriculture and Nutrition site utilized containment of the hazardous
materials as the method to reduce the risk, the five-year review
process will be used to insure that the cap is still intact and
blocking exposure pathways for human health and the environment. EPA
will conduct the first statutory five-year review in 2007.

Community Involvement

    A Community Relations Plan was established in 1986 and updated in
1992. Numerous fact sheets and public announcements were mailed to the
surrounding community and other interested parties during various
phases of the site investigation and cleanup. In addition, at least
seven public meetings were held to receive input from community
stakeholders.
    A Community Advisory Committee (CAC) was formed in 1988 to provide
a forum for greater public input to the project decision making
process. This group consisted of concerned residents, community
activists, local and state government officials, and THAN
representatives. This group initially met on a monthly basis reducing
to bi-monthly in the early 1990s. The last formal meeting held by the
CAC was in January 1995.

Applicable Deletion Criteria/State Concurrence

    EPA has determined that all appropriate responses under CERCLA have
been completed and that no further response actions under CERCLA are
necessary, and institutional controls are in place. In a letter dated
March 27, 2006, the State of California through DTSC concurred with EPA
that all appropriate responses under CERCLA have been completed.
Therefore, EPA is proposing deletion of this site from the NPL.
Documents supporting this action are available from the docket.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Dated: June 22, 2006.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.
 [FR Doc. E6-10856 Filed 7-10-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P