### 1

RENEWAL OF INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OIL POLLUTION ACT FACILITY RESPONSE PLAN REQUIREMENTS (40 CFR PART 112)

(EPA # 1630. 10 ) 

### 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1(a) Title of the Information Collection Renewal of In formation Collection Request (ICR) for the Implementation of the Oil Pollution Act Facility Response Plan Requirem ents (40 CFR Part 112) . EPA ICR #1630. 10 . 1(b) Short Characterization T his information collection request (ICR) renewal pertains to EPA ’ s Facility Response Plan (FRP) requirements as codified in 40 CFR 112.20 and 112.21 . This regulation implements requirements mandated by

the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990. The FRP rule incorporates requirements of Clean Water Act (CWA) section 311(j)(5), which was added by OPA section 4202 . The regulation requires that owners and operators of facilities that could cause “substantial harm” to the environment by discharging oil into or on the navigable water s or adjoining shorelines prepare plans for responding, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst case discharge of oil, and to a substantial threat of such a discharge . Each FRP must be submitted to EPA , and the Agency reviews the plans from facilities identified as having the potential to cause “substantial harm” to the environment from oil discharges . In accordance with OPA statutory requirements, EPA reviews and approves plans for certain F RP - regulated facilities that have the potential to cause “ significant and substantial harm . ” While EPA’s FRP rule addresses preparedness requirements for non - transportation facilities, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) has authority to establish requirements to prevent and contain discharges of oil from vessels and marine transportation - related (MTR) facilities, and the Department of Transportation (DOT) Office of Pipeline Safety, which is part of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) , regulates many onshore pipelines. Some facilities must meet the requirements of two or more federal agencies, becau se they engage in activities that fall under the jurisdiction of those agencies ; these facilities are called “complexes.” F acilities regulated under the FRP rule represent a subset of facilities covered by the Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure ( SPCC ) regulation at 40 CFR part 112. EPA amended the SPCC

### 2

rule on December 5, 2008 and November 13, 2009, but these amendments did not affect the FRP rule. ( see 7 3 FR 74236 and 74 FR 58784 ) . Additionally, EPA finalized a rule on October 14, 2010 that required SPCC facilities subject to the FRP rule to amend existing plans, if necessary, to ensure compliance with the SPCC rule by November 10, 2010. For facilities subject to the SPCC rule that became operational between August 16, 2002 through November 1 0, 2010, these facilities were required to prepare and implement an SPCC plan by November 10, 2010. (see 75 FR 63093). This final rule did not affect the compliance dates in the FRP rule. S ince the last ICR, EPA has continued performed a review of inform ation regarding facilities that have submitted an FRP to their EPA Regional Administrator (RA) . The information was collected from each of EPA’s ten regions and compiled into a national inventory of FRP - regulated facilities. The inventory was updated in Ap ril 20 10 and reflects the number of planholders currently in operation at that time . For the last ICR renewal, t he national inventory

of FRP planholders compiled by EPA in April 2007 indicate d that owners and operators of 4,132 facilities had developed an d are maintaining FRPs. Information available about individual plan holders, however, shows that about 4 .6 percent of active FRP facilities were owned and operated by the federal government (e.g., military installations). These federal facilities are excluded from the burden estimate analysis, given that they are not considered “persons” under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Consequently, the burden analysis uses 3,942 as the number of existing non - governmental facilities that are maintaining an FRP as of 200 7. E PA project ed that between 200 7 and 2010 , approximately 28 6 new facilities will become subject to FRP requirements over the three ye ar period , or approximately 9 5 new facilities each ye ar. This estimate is based on annual industryspecific growth rate s used to project the number of new SPCC facilities . These 9 5 new FRP facilities represent approximately 0.5 percent of new facilities subject to the SPCC regulation annually . The remaining 99.5 percent of the estimated number of new SPCC facilities ( 18, 444 facilities) will only complete a certification form because they do not meet the “ substantial harm” criteria. Based on the latest update to the FRP planholder universe dated April 2010, there are 4,341 active FRP facilities, which is within the projec ted growth range for this period. The universe of FRP facilities is not anticipated to change substantively for the next ICR renewal period. Thus, the burden estimates for this ICR renewal have not been adjusted. The total burden on the entire FRP regul ated community over a three - ye ar period is estimated to be 1, 297 , 880 hours (adjusted for burden attributable to compliance with other Federal regulations and burden that overlaps with State - level response planning requirement s). 1 T he total burden is estim ated to result in

1 See section 6(d) for further details.

### 3

approximately

$ 88 , 449 in capital costs and $52, 283 , 484 in total costs (including labor costs associated with facility

and contractor personnel) . EPA does not anticipate that FRP facilities will incur operating and maintenance (O&M) costs since there are no anticipated costs associated with hard copy or electronic document storage. 

### 2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection In 1990, Congress enacted the Oil Pollution Act (OPA, Pub ic Law 101 - 380) to help prevent ma jor oil spills and ensure efficient, effective responses to spills when they occur . OPA contained significant modifications to many

provisions of section 311 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) . OPA section 4202(a)(6) added CWA section 311(j)(5) to require the o wner or operator of a facility to prepare and submit “ a plan for responding, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst case discharge, and to a substantial threat of such a discharge, of oil... ” This requirement applied to any onshore facility

that, “ because of its location, could reasonably

be expected to cause substantial harm to the environment by discharging into or on the navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or the exclusive economic zone. ” 2 Certain offshore facilities are also affected by

OPA. EPA incorporated OPA facility response planning requirements into an existing regulation, 40 CFR part 112 as §§112.20 and 112.21 and Appendices C through F on July 1, 1994 ( see 59 FR 34070) . Subparts A through C of the regulation establishes procedures for the preparation and implementation of SPCC Plans to help “ minimize the potential for oil discharges. ” Owners and operators of a subset of facilities that meet the FRP applicability criteria must also prepare F RPs . EPA amended the FRP rule on June 30, 2000, to modify

the requirements for an owner or operator of a facility handling, storing, or transporting animal fat or vegetable oil (see 65 FR 40775). The response plan requirements enhance EPA ’ s ability to protect navigable waters, adjoining shoreline s, fish and wildlife , and sensitive environments when oil discharges occur and reduce the cost of oil discharges to the regulated community and society . Response planning efforts reduce such costs by

2 The President has delegated the auth ority to regulate non - transportation - related onshore facilities under sections 311(j)(1)(C) and 311(j)(5) of the CWA to EPA. (See Executive Order (E.O.) 12777, section 2(b)(1), 56 F R 54757 (October 22, 1991), superseding E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243.) By

this same E.O., the President has delegated similar authority over transportation - related onshore facilities, deepwater ports, and vessels to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and authority over other offshore facilities, including associated pipelin es, to the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). A 1994 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among EPA, DOI, and DOT has redelegated the responsibility

to regulate certain offshore facilities located in and along the Great Lakes, rivers, coastal wetlands, an d the Gulf Coast barrier islands from DOI to EPA. Coast Guard vessels and marine transportation - related facility activities have

### 4

ensuring that discharges are controlled and cleaned up swiftly and efficiently . Facilities that are prepared to respond to incidents are more likely to contain the spread of a spill before it reaches navigable waters and to mitigate the effects of a spill on the environment. A recent GAO report notes that th e effectiveness of spill response can impact the cost of spill cleanup: “ The longer it takes to assemble and conduct the spill response, the more likely

it is that the oil will move with changing tides and currents and affect a greater area, which can increase costs. Some officials also stated that the level of experience of those involved in the incident command is critical to the effectiveness of spill response, and they can greatly

affect spill costs. For example, poor decision making during a spill re sponse could lead to the deploy ment of unnecessary

response equipment, or worse, not enough equipment to respond to a spill . " 3 2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data The FRP facility

owners and operator s are the primary user s of the data collected under this ICR . Facility- specific response plans help facility owners and operators develop a response organization and identify the necessary

resources to adequately

respond to an oil spill in a timely manner . Successful plans are scenario -based and developed throu gh the preparation of risk analyses of the areas in question (a model format for the plan is presented in Appendix F to 40 CFR part 112 ) . Specifically, FRPs must include: identification of small, medium and worst case discharge scenarios ; development of s trategies to respond to each scenario; and identification and provision of resources necessary to respond to each scenario per Appendix E of 40 CFR part 112 . When FRP are implemented, they can aid in reducing the impact of oil spills. EPA reviews all respo nse plans submitted under 40 CFR part 112. Additionally, EPA reviews and approves response plans for those facilities whose discharges may cause “significant and substantial harm” to the environment, in order to ensure that facilities believed to pose the highest risk have adequate resources and procedures in place to respond to a spill . EPA promulgate d FRP facility requirements so that facility owners and operators plan for adequate resources to respond to oil spills . EPA also uses the facility- specific information provided in the response plans to update Area Contingency Plans (ACPs) as required by

OPA . Certain plan information, such as provisions for adequate response capability to respond to a worst case discharge, helps EPA and other government agenci es to better understand the distribution and capacity

of the spill response industry and more appropriately

allocate government resources to complement existing private - sector capacity . been moved to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 3 GAO report number GAO - 07 - 1085: “Maritime Transportation: Major Oil Spills Occur Infrequently, but Risks to the F ederal Oil Spill Fund Remain”, September 7, 2007, page 27.

### 5

Regional, State, and local response authorities also benefit from information contained in FRPs . OPA requires that response plans be consistent with the requirements of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) and ACPs . Area Committees, which are established by OPA section 4202, make use of the FRPs in preparing and updating ACPs . Local Emergency Planning Committees under the direction of the State Emergency Planning Committee also use facility- specific information to help develop local contingency plans required under SARA Title III Communit y Right - to Know provisions . This information allows local and regional response authorities to better understand the potential hazards and response capabilities in their area, thus reducing risk to communities . 

### 3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER CO LLECTION CRITERIA 3(a) Nonduplication A substantial number of facilities that handle, store, or transport hazardous substances are subject to emergency

planning requirements under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), other Federal statutes, and state requirements . OPA response plans are intended to supplement, not duplicate, these other plans by specifically

focusing on oil . EPA coordinat ed with the U SCG , DOT, and DOI ’ s Minerals Management Service (MMS) throughout the 1994 and 2000 rulemaking s in order to promote consistency with response plan requirements mandated by other Federal agencies . Presently , EPA develops interagency contingency plans and then organizes interagency Area Planning Drills alongside Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP) drills and exercises with other Federal, State and local agencies. EPA is committed to minimizing regulatory overlap and allows facility owners and operators to build upon, or draw from, the format and content of other response plans to develop their FRPs under 40 CFR part 112 . For example, facility owners and operators of onshore sites or installations that have both transportation - related and non - transportation - related components (i.e., complexes) are permitted to prepare one response plan with separate sections that address each component. Integrated Contingency Plans (ICPs) prepared in accordance with the notice published on June 5, 199 6 provide an acceptable format for such consolidation (see 61 FR 28642 ) . Owners or operators of facilities that are subject to more than one OPA jurisdiction, for example transportation - related and non - transportation related onshore facilities that are part of the same complex, may satisfy all requirements by

submitting a copy

of the ICP to each program in the agency

that has review authority for specific regulations . In addition to related federal

### 6

planning requirements, numerous States and the District o f Columbia have their own regulations that require varying degrees of response planning . Because EPA is flexible on the format of the required response plans, owners or operators of certain facilities may be able to modify

versions of their existing respo nse plans to comply with the FRP rule . However, if another response plan is used, it must meet the requirements of the FRP rule, be equally stringent, be cross - referenced to the response plan format included in Appendix F to 40 CFR part 112 , and include a self - contained Emergency

Response A ction Plan (ERAP) section . 3(b) Public Notice Required to Prior Submission to OMB Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq .), EPA is notif ying the public through today ’s Federal Register of this renewal ICR and is soliciting public comment concerning the burden estimates for respondents. EPA is specifically requesting comments on the Agency ’ s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimiz ing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques. . 3(c) Consultations For the prior ICR renewal request, EPA consulted nine FRP facilities to verify that the burden assumption is reasonable. EPA contacted facilities of various sizes, geographical location , and industry sectors , including facilities involved in extraction and production of crude oil and facilities that handle non -petroleum oils. Facility respondents provided information regarding the facility ’s ICR burden , fre quency and basis of plan amendments, format of FRP submittals to EPA , and overall comments and suggestions on the FRP program . The responses generally confirm ed the reasonableness of the FRP ICR burden and unit costs estimates. The names, companies, and telephone numbers of the representatives of those facilities are given below. Ercole Pagano, Rensselaer Terminal, (518) 436 - 1289; Mike Schatz, Astoria Gas Turbine Operations Inc., (718) 274 - 8204; Quinton Hancock, Eden Brewery, (336) 627 - 2592; Doug Maska, Western Wisconsin Energy, (715) 643 - 2602; Darryl Pierce, Clam Lake Production Facility, (814) 726 - 2130; Denise Jett, Borger Refinery, (806) 275 - 1507; Rodney Fenske, South Dakota Soy bean Processors, (605) 627 - 9240; Paul D. Fritz, Sinclair Oil Corp. - Sinclair, Wyoming Refinery, (307) 328 - 3543; Mr. John Kwietniak, Tesoro Alaska , (907) 776 - 3569 .

### 7

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Initial FRP preparation and submission is a one - time event . After FRPs are prepared, OPA section 4202 requires that they

be reviewed periodically and be consistent with the applicable ACP and NCP . Additionally, the owner or operator of a facility determined to have the potential to cause significant and substantial harm to the environment must resubmit revised portions of the plan to EPA after each material change . Material changes include changes in the amount or location of oil storage, changes in spill prevention equipment and capabilities, and other changes that affect the response to a discharge causing “substantial harm” to th e environment . Less frequent collection of this information would not meet regulatory

requirements and could jeopardize a facility owner ’ s or operator ’ s ability to respond appropriately

to a significant oil spill. As required by

40 CFR 112.20(g)(2), owner s or operators of substantial harm facilities must review relevant portions of the NCP and the applicable ACP annually and update their FRP as appropriate . Also, FRPs should be revised based on evaluations of drills and exercises, as applicable. 3(e) G eneral Gu idelines The information collection activities discussed in this ICR comply with all Paperwork Reduction Act regulatory

guidelines (5 CFR 1320.6), with the exception that the retention period for records extends beyond three years . According to 40 CFR 112 .20 (c)(4), the EPA Regional Administrator (RA) will review plans periodically on a schedule established by the RA provided that the period between plan reviews does not exceed five years . In addition, some facilities must meet the response planning requirements of two or more federal agencies, because they

engage in activities that fall under the jurisdiction of those agencies . If a facility owner or operator should file an ICP to fulfill both the FRP requirements and the requirements of another agency , that plan would be subject to the inspection requirements of both agencies . For example, a plan that fulfills both the EPA ’ s FRP requirements and the U SCG’s response planning requirements would be subject to Coast Guard review every 5 years . In an effort to maintain consistency with the USCG requirements, EPA plans periodic reviews on a schedule similar to the USCG ’ s five - ye ar review . Therefore, the records related to this information collection must be retained for at least five years. The retention of rec ords for at least five years is also necessary to maintain consistency

with the Federal statute of limitations on assessment of civil penalties for violations of the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation.

### 8

3(f) Confidentiality None of the information collected un der the FRP rule is believed to be confidential . One of the criteria necessary

for information to be classified as confidential (40 CFR 2.208) is that a business must show that it has previously taken reasonable measures to protect the confidentiality of the information and that it intends to continue to take such measures . EPA has no evidence of such actions on the part of affected facilities; thus, EPA has provided no assurances of confidentiality to facility

owners or operators when they

file their FRPs. 3(g) Sensitive Questions The information collection activities discussed in this document do not involve any sensitive questions. 

### 4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE CHANGE IN INFORMATION REQUESTED 4(a) Respondents/NAICS Codes The industries that are likely to be affected by

the requirements in the FRP regulation fall into many North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) categories, including those associated with petroleum production, processing (refining), distribution and marketing, and consumption . The FRP rule requires that all SPCC - regulated facility representatives conduct an initial screen using the flowchart in Appendix C of 40 CFR part 112 as a guide to determine whether their facility is subject to the response plan requirements at §§ 1 12.20 and 112.21 . EP A has found that only small percentages (approximately 0.5 percent) of the 18,540 new facilities that EPA estimates become regulated under SPCC each year meet the screening criteria and as a result must develop an FRP . The six industrial categories containing the greatest number of respondents required to develop an FRP are presented in Exhibit 1 . The estimate of the total number of facility representatives required to prepare response plans is presented in section 6(a).

### 9 EXHIBIT 1 Primary Industry Secto rs and NAICS Codes Covered by the FRP Regulation CATEGORY NAICS Codes Petroleum and Petroleum Products Wholesalers 4227 Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution 2211 Petroleum and coal products manufacturing 3241 Other Commercial Faci lities miscellaneous Heating Oil Dealers 454311 Manufacturing 31 - 33 4(b) Information Requested (i) Data Items, Including Recordkeeping Requirements Only those facilities that could cause “substantial harm” to the environment must prepare and submit response plans . Representatives of newly regulated facilities that are subject to the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation are asked to refer to the flowchart shown in Appendix C of 40 CFR part 112 to determine whether they

meet the “substantial harm” criteria . In add ition, the RA has the authority to require the owner or operator of any facility subject to the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation to prepare a response plan . Under the FRP rule, facilities are screened as “substantial harm” if one or both of the following criteria are met: (1) The facility ’ s total oil storage capacity is greater than or equal to 1 million gallons, and any of the following is true: 

###  The facility

lacks adequate secondary containment for any

aboveground storage tank area. 

###  The facility

is locate d at a distance (as calculated using the appropriate formula in Appendix C of 40 CFR part 112 or a comparable formula) such that a discharge from the facility could cause injury

to fish and wildlife and sensitive environments, as described in Appendices I, II, and III of the Department of Commerce’s “Guidance for Facility and Vessel Response Plans: Fish and Wildlife and Sensitive Environments” (59 FR 14713, March 29, 1994) and the applicable Area Contingency Plan. 

###  The facility

is located at a distance (as calculated using the appropriate formula in Appendix C of 40 CFR part 112 or a comparable formula) such that a discharge from the facility would shut down a public drinking water intake.

### 10

 The facility

has experienced a reportable oil spill in an amount greater than or equal to 10,000 gallons within the last five years. (2) The facility

has a total oil storage capacity greater than or equal to 42,000 gallons and transfers oil over water to or from vessels. Under the FRP rule, the Agency requires the preparation o f facility- specific response plans by “substantial harm” facilities . As required by section 311(j)(5)(c) of the CWA, which was added by section 4202(a) of the OPA, the response plan shall:

 Be consistent with the requirements of the NCP and A CPs .  Identify

the qualified individual having full authority to implement removal actions, and require immediate communications with Federal officials and other response personnel.  Identify, and ensure by contract or other means, private personnel and equipment necessary to remove, to the maximum extent practicable, a worst case discharge and to mitigate or prevent a substantial threat of such a discharge.  Describe the training, equipment testing, periodic unannounced drills, and response actions of persons at the facilit y under the plan.  Be updated periodically . In order to fulfill the above requirements, the regulation requires that the response plan include the following elements:

 An emergency

response action plan that consists of the information most pertinent to condu cting an actual response, such as contact and equipment lists [§ 112.20(h)(1) ] .  Information about the facility ’ s location, owner, operator, and qualified individual having full authority

to implement removal actions [§ 112.20(h)(2) ] .  Information about emergency response, including: notification procedures, equipment, personnel, evacuation plans, and duties of the qualified individual [ § 112.20(h)(3) ] .  Evidence of availability of private personnel and equipment necessary to remove, to the maximum extent practic able, a worst case discharge and to mitigate or prevent a substantial threat of such a discharge [ § 112.20(h)(3)(i) and (ii) ] .  An evaluation of potential oil spill hazards at the facility [ § 112.20(h)(4) ] .  A discussion of specific oil spill scenarios and the steps facility personnel would follow to mitigate and respond to the spill described in each scenario [ § 112.20(h)(5) ] .  Descriptions of the discharge detection systems, human or automated, in use at the facility [ § 112.20(h)(6) ] .

### 11

 Information on plan implementation, including: response actions to be carried out by facility or contracted personnel, disposal plans for contaminated cleanup materials, and measures to provide adequate containment and drainage of spilled oil [ § 112.20(h)(7) ] .  Information on facility self - inspection, drills/exercises, and response training, including descriptions of training and drill/exercise programs and documentation of tank inspections, equipment inspections, training meetings, training sessions, and drills/exercises [ § 112.20(h)(8 ) ] .  Diagrams , including the site plan and the drainage plan [ § 112.20(h)(9) ] .  A description of facility security systems [ § 112.20(h)(10) ] . EPA has included a model response plan in Appendix F to 40 CFR part 112 . The model response plan was developed with the input of EPA’s On - Scene Coordinators (OSCs) and others actively engaged in oil spill response and covers those elements judged critical to an effective response. The response plan was based on Hazardous Materials Emergency Planning Guides NRT - 1 and NRT - 1A and the Handbook of Chemical Haz ardous and Analysis Procedures. The model plan provides a depiction of the level of detail and organization for an effective response plan and provides sufficient flexibility to include certain items that are required b y the CWA as amended by the OPA, the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation, and other Federal regulations . As n ote d, c ertain facilities may be regulated by

more than one Federal agency (i.e., USCG and EPA) . As discussed in section 3(a), owners or operators may avoid duplicating the work required under other regulations by preparing one response plan that covers the entire facility and referencing which sections meet the regulatory requirements of various agencies. (ii) Respondent Activities Owners or operators o f all facilities affected by the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation must determine whether their facility meets the “substantial harm” criteria . EPA provides a flowchart included in Appendix C to 40 CFR part 112 (Attachment C - I) to assist in this determin ation . According to 40 CFR part 112 , Appendix C , Section 3 .0 , owners or operators of facilities that do not meet the “substantial harm” criteria must complete and maintain at the facility, the certification form , Attachment C - II provided in Appendix C to 40 CFR part 112 . Owners or operators of facilities that do meet the “substantial harm” criteria must prepare and submit a response plan, which involves the following steps:

 Understand ing the rule by reading and interpreting the rule, as well as reviewing available guidance on preparing response plans;

### 12

 Collecting the required information, performing a hazard analysis, developing spill scenarios, and ensuring the capability to respond to a worst case discharge;  Organizing the information into a format consis tent with the model plan included in Appendix F of 40 CFR part 112;  Mail ing the response plan to EPA;  Implementing the response plan;  Reviewing and updating the response plan periodically ; and  Maintain ing records. In preparing a response plan, facility personnel must gather background information such as the location, quantities, and ty pes of material stored and a geographic description of the site (maps, schematic diagrams, and latitude and longitude) . Much of this information should exist in the facilit y ’ s SPCC Plan . Such information will be used in the development of hazard assessments and response strategies . The response plan also must include a discussion of detection and notification procedures at the facility as well as a list of response equipment . A facility response coordinator will be chosen to meet the OPA requirement that the FRP designate a qualified individual who will have full authority to implement response actions . Roles and responsibilities of other members of the response team (bot h facility responders and outside parties) must also be clearly established . A facility

owner or operator may

wish to enter into an arrangement with an outside response contractor . If so, that contractor ’ s role during a spill response must be clearly

def ined. The facility

owner or operator must perform a hazard evaluation , which involve s identif ying potential hazards based on facility- specific information, determining the vulnerability of the surrounding area given the hazard s , and assess ing the risk of an oil discharge . The results of the hazard evaluation will then be used to develop spill scenarios . For the worst case scenario, the facility owner or operator will calculate the volume of a worst case discharge and will identify means to implement an eff ective response to such a discharge . All aspects of an effective response must be included in the response plan, including containment, countermeasure, and mitigation procedures for different ty pes of incidents, and the provision for proper cleanup and di sposal of contaminated material . The response plan is ty pically a written document sent to EPA and also kept at the facility . Once a plan is developed, it must be exercised on a regular basis through a facility program of self

- inspections, drills or e xercises, and personnel training that follows PREP or an equivalent approved by EPA [see §112.21(c)] .

### 13

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED - AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5(a) Agency Activities The Agency

activities related to FRPs are as follows:

 Log submitted response plans into a tracking database, sends postcards , emails or letters acknowledging receipt, and stores these plans on file at Regional offices.  Review substantial harm facility FRPs.  Identify

for review and approval the facility response plans of facilities that could cause

“ significant and substantial harm” and notify facilities of this determination.  Review, approve, and maintain FRPs for significant and substantial harm facilities based on guidance developed by EPA.  Noti fy

facilities of approval.  Provide a list of deficiencies to those facility owners and operators whose plans are not approved.  Inspect facilities to verify compliance. 5(b) Collection Methodology and Management As noted, the primary

beneficiaries of the facilit y response planning requirements are the facilities themselves . EPA estimates that representatives from 99 .5 percent of SPCC - regulated facilities have determined that their facility could not “ reasonably

be expected to cause substantial harm” based on the criteria outlined in the flowchart in Attachment C - I of 40 CFR part 112 . Consequently , the representatives of these facilities do not have to prepare response plans . On average, the owners or operators of an estimated 18,54 0 newly SPCC - regulated facilitie s will be required to perform the initial screening process using the flow chart in Appendix C of 40 CFR part 112 each year . Of these newly regulated facilities, approximately 9 5 ( 0 .5 percent) facilities are expected to meet the substantial harm criteria a nd be required to prepare an FRP. Response plans, submitted by the owners or operators who determined that their facilities meet the “substantial harm” criteria, are sent to the appropriate EPA Regional office for Agency review . A copy

of the FRP is kept at the facility to be used in the event of an oil spill response or drill . FRPs for facilities that meet the “significant and substantial harm” criteria must be reviewed and approved by

the EPA Regional office . The response plan review and approval proc ess is directed by

### 14

EPA ’ s RA’s based on national criteria and local conditions and considerations . EPA regional offices notify each owner or operator directly of the status of the facility ’s response plan (i.e., approved or deficient) . For deficient respo nse plans, a list of these deficiencies is ty pically sent to the facility to be addressed prior to EPA ’s approval of the plan . The review and approval process is tracked by the EPA Regional office. 5(c) Small Entity Flexibility Based on the Regulatory

Flexibil ity

Analysis presented in the Regulatory Impact Analysis to the 1994 FRP rule, small facilities generally do not meet the “substantial harm” criteria and, therefore, generally are not required to prepare response plans, except at the discretion of the RA [ see §112.20(b)(1)] . 5(d) Collection Schedule The FRP regulation currently does not require a specific collection schedule . Development and submission of FRPs by

owners or operators of facilities that have the potential to cause substantial harm is a one - time ev ent . However, facility owners or operators are required to review and update their FRPs periodically

to reflect changes at the facility . Certain plan revisions for facility changes that materially affect the response to a worst case discharge must be submitted to EPA for review and incorporation into the FRPs on file with the Agency . The Agency reviews all plans and plan revisions when they are submitted and periodically thereafter. 

### 6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 6(a) Respondent Burden This s ection presents estimates of the burden respondents incur when they undertake the information collection activities contained in the FRP rule. The burden to regulated facilities is estimated in terms of the time (in hours) spent by facility personnel to review the FRP regulation and complete a certification form or prepare an FRP and maintain the plan on an annual basis . Data from EPA regional offices were used to determine the number of facilities that are currently subject to the FRP requirements as well as estimates for facilities that are expected to meet the substantial harm screening criteria over the three - ye ar ICR period . As section 3(c) explains, the current ICR (approved March 31 2008 ) estimates the time it takes the owners or operators of facilities to complete the compliance activities based on consultations with facility engineers familiar with Oil Pollution Prevention program compliance , EPA Regional staff involved in the implementation of the program , and owners and operators of FRP - regulated facilities. Interviews

### 15

conducted to support the ICR approved in 2004, and again for 200 8 ICR renewal request, revealed that b urden estimates were comparable (within the same order of magnitude ) . Further, the consultations conducted in 2004 and 2007 did not reveal any information regarding significant sources of burden not captured in prior ICR renewal requests (such as unaccounted for recordkeeping costs or other time consuming tasks associated with FRP regulatory compliance) . EPA recognizes that the in formation from interviews with a limited number of individuals is not statistically representative of the burden experienced by all FRP facilities . Nevertheless, the results of the most recent consultations conducted in 2007 suggest that EPA ’ s burden estimates appear to adequately capture industry

practices . Therefore, this renewal ICR does not change the hour or capital cost burden estimates used in the prior ICR renewal request . Classification of Respondent Facilities Subject to the Information Collecti on FRP - regulated facilities are a subset of the SPCC facility universe . As described in the FRP rule, owners or operators of facilities are required to prepare and maintain FRPs if they can reasonably

be expected to cause substantial harm to the environment by discharging oil into or on navigable waters or adjoining shorelines . Example characteristics of a facility that could cause it to be considered a “substantial harm” facility are that: it transfers oil over water to or from vessels and has a total oi l storage capacity greater than or equal to 42,000 gallons; its total oil storage capacity is greater than or equal to one million gallons and it does not have secondary containment for each aboveground storage area sufficiently large to contain the capacity of the largest aboveground oil storage tank , or it is located such that a discharge could cause injury to fish, wildlife or sensitive environments, or would shut down a public drinking water intake , or has had a reportable oil discharge in an amount gre ater than or equal to 10,000 gallons within the last five years . There is a wide variety of facility

ty pes and sizes among those that fit these characteristics. Because the costs of compliance activities associated with FRPs depend largely on the physical and operating characteristics of the facility, the 200 7 FRP renewal ICR supporting statement include d burden and cost estimates based on a representative facility approach that classifies facilities by size (storage capacity

in gallons) and facility

ty pe . This ICR renewal supporting statement follows the same approach. Three FRP facility size categories were defined as follows:

 F acilities having total storage capacity greater than 1,320 gallons, but less than or equal to 42,000 gallons)  Facilities having total storage capacity greater than 42,000 gallons but less than or equal to one million gallons  F acilities having total storage capacity greater than one million gallons

### 16

Because FRP regulations apply only to facilities with an oil storage capacity of ov er one million gallons, or over 42,000 gallons if the facility transfers oil over water to or from vessels, the FRP burden analysis only

considers facilities in the second and third facility categories . The FRP facility

ty pe categories were based on how oi l is used at the facility . Facilities were classified as using oil in one of three ways:
 Storage/consumption facilities: consumption of oil as a raw material or end -use product  Storage/distribution facilities: marketing and distribution of oil as a wholesale or retail  Production facilities: extracting oil from the ground as part of exploration or production activities Based on these size and ty pe characteristics, a total of six FRP model facilities were defined . For purposes of this analysis, the universe of regulated facilities is also divided into existing and new facilities, to reflect the differences in compliance activities among these two groups . Existing FRP regulated facilities include facilities that initiated operations prior to the approval of this ICR revision . This analysis focuses on existing facilities for which owners or operators have prepared FRPs and are assumed to have incurred all burden and costs associated with the initially preparing their FRPs, but are expected to incur annual maintenance burden and costs including occasional major revisions. 4 New FRP facilities include those facilities that will initiate operations during the ICR approval period or prepare an FRP for the first time . New facility owners or operators are required to review the FRP rule, make a determination, and complete certification or prepare an FRP . New facility owners or operators required to prepare FRPs will incur first - ye ar burden for plan preparation as well as subsequent - ye ar burden for maintaining FRPs . P eriodic information collected from each of EPA’s ten regional offices provides a n inventory of facilities that have submitted and are currently maintaining an FRP. As of April 20 10 , there were approximately 4, 341 such FRP facilities nationally . Informatio n available about individual planholders shows that 81 FRP facilities were owned and operated by the federal government (e.g., military installations). These federal facilities are excluded from the burden estimate analysis, given that they are not considered “persons” under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Since the FRP universe has not changed substantively

since the last ICR renewal , the burden analysis for this ICR renewal uses 3,942 as the number of existing non - governmental facilities that are maintainin g an FRP as of 2007 ( 4,130 as a three ye ar average ) . This number represents approximately 0. 7 percent of the estimate of facilities regulated

4 Note that facilities may

downsize their oil storage capacity and effectively “ drop - out ” of the F RP regulations. EPA does not attempt to characterize the number of existing facilities that will downsize over this renewal ICR period.

### 17

under the SPCC rule ( 596, 097 facilities). 5 Using annual industry- specific growth rate s, EPA is estimating that the annual number of new FRP facilities is approximately 9 5 , or 0.5 percent of the number of new SPCC facilities. The remaining 18,44 4 new SPCC facilities ( 9 9 .5 percent) are not subject to F RP requirements and will complete the Attachment C - II certification f orm indicating that they

are not substantial harm facilities . EPA estimates the total number of respondents (as a three - ye ar average) at 22,574, of which 4,130 facilities are FRP - regulated and 18,444 facilities are not subject to FRP requirements. The Agency identified state and local government owned entities based on the facility description available for individual FRP holders. As a result, EPA estimates 22,509 private and 65 state/local respondents. Exhibit 2 provides estimates of the number of existin g and new facilities subject to FRP requirements over the three - ye ar period covered by the ICR . Exhibit 3 presents the distribution of regulated facilities by

category . T he number of facilities in each cross - tabulated category reflects the 2007 estimated total number of existing facilities, apportioned to each category based on assumptions used in prior ICRs regarding the proportions of facilities within each industry sector and size category

within the overall universe of facilities as well as facility- l evel data in the April 20 10 FRP database . It should be noted that the estimate of FRP facilities in this supporting statement reflect a net decrease since the 2004 estimate because the 2007 and 2010 number s are based on the actual number of FRPs submitted to EPA, rather than a fixed fraction of the SPCC universe , as was assumed in 2004 .

5 EPA used data obtained from state agencies to estimate the number of SPCC - regulated oil storage facilities (e.g, manufacturing; retail trade; construction; wholesale tra de; etc) and federal sources such as EIA and USDA to estimate the number oil production facilities and farms. Fo r detail, see the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 2006 F inal SPCC Rule, November 2006.

### 18 EXHIBIT 2 Estimate of Existing and New Facilities Subject to the SPCC and FRP Rules 1 Facility Type/ Year FRP Facilities Year 1 (200 7 ) Existing Facilities 3,942 New Fac ilities 2 91 Year 2 (200 8 ) Existing Facilities 4,03 4 New Facilities 2 95 Year 3 (200 9 ) Existing Facilities 4,1 2 8 New Facilities 2 100 1 Numbers exclude facilities owned and operated by the Federal government. 2 The number of new facilities subject to the FRP regulations includes facilities that have initiated operations over the period covered by the renewal supporting statement . Source: EPA inventory of FRP facilities compiled from regional data . EXHIBIT 3 Number of Facilities in 20 10 Subject t o the FRP Requirements MODEL FACILITY CATEGORY FACILITY SIZE TOTAL 2 SMALL 1 ME DIUM LARGE Storage/Consumption 0 12 8 1,427 1,5 5 5 Storage/Distribution 0 427 1,893 2,3 20 Producti on 0 119 40 159 TOTAL 3 0 674 3, 3 60 4, 03 4 1 EPA assumes that no small facilities currently regulated under 40 CFR part 112 are affected by response planning requirements. 2 The total includes facilitie s existing at the start of 20 10 and facilities that become FRP - regulated over the course of the year (3,942 + 91 = 4,033 in Exhibit 2) 3 The total n

umber of facilities in this table may differ slightly in other tables due to rounding. Source: EPA inventory of FRP facilities compiled from regional data. Estimated Annual Burden per Respondent The owners or operators of all SPCC - regulated facilities must determine whether they are subject to FRP requirements based on the substantial harm flowchart (Attachment C - I in Appendix C to 40 CFR

### 19

part 112 ) . EPA assumes that the owners or operators of all existing SPCC - regulated facilities have completed the screening and that only new facilities will need to review the substantial harm flowchart . Owners or operators at facilities that meet the “substantial harm” criteria will need to prepare FRPs . In addition, facility owners or operators that already have prepared an FRP will be required to maintain their plan. The total burden of the information collection on the regulated community is determined by combining average per- facility ( “ unit” ) burden estimated for each facility category with the total number of affected facilities in that category . Unit burdens are based on estimates of the labor required to adequately perform the necessary

activities . Unit burden estimates include facility personnel in the following labor categories: management, technical, clerical, foreman, and laborer. As discussed previously, EPA assumes that the owners or operators of 99 .5 percent of all new SPCC - regulated facilities will only review the “substantial harm” flowchart to determine and certify that they are not subject to the requirements of the FRP rule . Unit burden estimates for these new facilities are presented in Exhibit 4 for smal l, medium, and large facilities . Owners or operators of SPCC - regulated facilities that are not required to prepare a response plan will have a minimal rule familiarization burden since the information considered in the flowchart is readily available in th e facility ’s SPCC Plan . Owners or operators of facilities that fall below the total oil storage capacity thresholds (i.e., below 42,000 gallons , and therefore also below 1 million gallons) will need only to review the flowchart and prepare a certification form, requiring, on average, an estimated 15 minutes of management time . 6 The certification form will be retained at the facility with the SPCC Plan . Owners or operators of larger facilities that have either 42,000 gallons or more or 1 million gallons or more in oil storage capacity will have to examine the criteria in greater detail to make the determination of whether they need to prepare an FRP, requiring an estimated 1.5 and 6.5 hours, respectively . For other facilities, unit burden and cost estimates for preparing FRPs are based on a model facility approach . The response plan requirements include both a first - ye ar burden to prepare the plan and a smaller, subsequent year burden to maintain the plan . Response plans must ensure that facility owners or operators have the equipment, personnel, information, and procedures needed to respond to a worst- case discharge as well as spills of smaller quantities . Compliance activities to prepare the FRP consist mostly of personnel time to collect and organize inf ormation about the facility and its operations; develop scenarios and response strategies ; and implement the measures described in the plan . In subsequent years for plan maintenance, owners or operators of facilities may update the response plan, including keeping logs of

6 EPA views this burden estimate, which was used in th e 200 7 renewal ICR supporting statement , to be conservative .

### 20

response training and exercises . EPA assumes that the owners or operators of most facilities currently subject to FRP rule requirements have already developed FRPs (i.e., they have already

incurred the initial burden of plan preparation) and are now maintaining those plans. EPA estimates that owners and operators of 3,942 existing facilities will be required to maintain FRPs in 20 10 (see Exhibit 2 ) . EPA estimates that owners or operators of an additional 28 6 facilities will be required to develop and maintain plans over a three - ye ar period. Unit burden and cost estimates for plan development and maintenance (unadjusted for overlap with other Federal and State requirements ) are shown in Exhibits 5 and 6 for new and existing facilities, respectively . The first - ye ar burdens to a new “substantial harm” facility for rule familiarization and preparation of an FRP are shown in Exhibit 5 for facilities in each of the six model facility categories . EPA estimates that a consumption, distribution, or production facility with between 42,000 gallons and 1 million gallons in oil storage capacity

(and which transfers oil over water to and from vessels) will need 165, 181, or 145 hours of labor (including facility and contractor labor), respectively, to p repare an FRP . EPA assumes that response planning for a consumption or distribution facility with 1 million gallons or more in total oil storage capacity

(and that meets other substantial harm criteria) will require 341 , 384 , or 304 hours, respectively . EPA does not have an estimate of the preparation burden associated with large production facilities . Instead, this analysis assumes that half the number of large production facility owners or operators required to prepare an FRP for the first time are included in the estimate of new consumption facilities, and will therefore incur the consumption facility preparation burden . The other half will incur the distribution facility

preparation burden. The subsequent - ye ar burdens to an existing “substantial harm” facility for plan maintenance are shown in Exhibit 6 for facilities in each of the five model facility categories (medium and large consumption and distribution facilities; medium production facilities) . EPA estimates that consumption, distribution, or pro duction facility with between 42,000 gallons and 1 million gallons in oil storage capacity will need 54, 55, or 54 hours of labor, respectively, to maintain an FRP . EPA assumes that response planning for a consumption or distribution facility with 1 millio n gallons or more in oil storage capacity will require 154 , 171 , or 154 hours, respectively . These labor- hour estimates include facility and contractor labor hours.

### 21 EXHIBIT 4 Burdens and Costs of Rule Fam iliarization and Certification f or SPCC Facilitie s Not Required to Prepare FRPs Size Category of Facility Hours Required to Read Rule, Make

Determination, and Complete Certification Unit Cost Number of Facilities Total Burden (hours) Total Cost Managem ent Technical Clerical Total Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 3 - Year Total Small 0.25 0 0 0.25 $15 13,48 5 16,01 5 19,59 3 49,09 3 12,27 3 $747,849 Medium 1 0 0.5 1.5 $74 1,686 2,003 2,452 6,14 1 9,21 2 $455,1 71 Large 2 4 0.5 6.5 $344 1 6 3 1 52 99 64 4 $33,948 TOTAL 15,18 7 18,049 22,097 55,3 3 3 22,12 9 $1,236, 96 8

### 22 EXHIBIT 5 Estimated Total Burden and Total Cost for New Facilities Required to Prepare FRPs Size Model Facility

Category Unit

Burden (hours) Facility

Labor Cost O&M Costs Capital Cost Total

Unit Cost Number of Facilities Total Bu rden (hours) Total

O&M Costs Total

Capital Cost Total Cost Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Medium Consumption 165 $7,901 $0 $245 $8,146 3 3 3 1,4 16 1 $0.00 $2,1 00 $69 , 822

Distribution 181 $8,750 $0 $250 $9,000 9 10 10 5,180 $0.00 $7, 165 $257 , 953 Production 145 $6,897 $0 $240 $7,137 4 6 9 2,817 $0.00 $4,6 54 $138 ,4 19 Large Consumption 341 $15,497 $0 $452 $15,949 31 32 33 32,677 $0.00 $43,314 $1,528 , 3 7 3

Distribution 2 384 $17,782 $0 $463 $18,245 4 1 4 2 4 3 48,816 $0.00 $58,859 $2,319 ,4 27 Production 2 304 $13,643 $0 $443 $14,08 6 3 2 3 1,964 $0.00 $2,862 $91,054 TOTAL 91 95 10 1 92 , 871 $0.00 $118 , 95 4 $4,4 05 , 04 8

1 Values presented in this table and other tables of this document are calculated based on the estimated number of facilities and burden hours, before rounding. Values in the tables, however, show rounded results . E stimating the total burden using rounded values presented in the table may not correspond to the total repo rted. F or example, as shown in Exhibit 5, using the rounded values presented in the table suggests a total burden (hours) of 1 65*(3+3+3) = 1,485 for medium/consumption facilities , while the estimated total burden (hours) is actually calculated as 165.25*( 2.79+2.86+2.92) = 1,416. 2 This analysis assumes that half the number of large production facility owners or operators required to prepare an FRP for th e first time are included in the estimate of new consumption facilities and will therefore incur the co nsumption facility preparation burden . The other half will incur the distribution facility preparation burden.

### 23 EXHIBIT 6 Estimated Burden and Unit Cost for Existing Facilities Required to Maintain FRPs Size Model Facility

Category Unit

Burden (hours ) Facility

Labor Cost O&M Costs Capital Cost Total

Unit Cost Number of Facilities Total Burden (hours) Total

O&M Costs Total Capital Cost Total Cost Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Medium Consumption 54 $2,259 $0 $0 $2,259 12 5 128 13 0 20,678 $0. 00 $0.00 $8 64 , 976

Distribution 55 $2,311 $0 $0 $2,311 417 427 436 70,418 $0.00 $0.00 $2,959 , 146 Production 54 $2,259 $0 $0 $2,259 115 119 125 19,406 $0.00 $0.00 $811 ,7 66 Large Consumption 154 $5,991 $0 $0 $5,991 1,395 1,4 27 1,459 659 , 254 $0.00 $0.00 $25,647 , 941

Distribution 171 $6,846 $0 $0 $6,846 1,851 1,893 1,935 971,114 $0.00 $0.00 $38 , 880 , 606 Production 154 $5,991 $0 $0 $5,991 38 40 42 18,447 $0.00 $0.00 $717 , 688 TOTAL 3,94 1 4,0 3 4 4,12 7 1,7 59 , 317 $0.00 $0.00 $69 , 882 , 12 3 4

### 24

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs (i) Estimating Facility Labor Costs To determine the per- facility costs for ty

pical new and existing respondents in each size category, the unit time estimates for compliance activities are multiplied by the hourly

wage rates for the appropriate categories of labor conducting these activities . The labor wage rates for private industry were derived from the March 2007 U.S. Department of Labor’s Employ ment Cost Indexes and Levels. 7 The 200 7 wage rates include wages and salaries; benefit costs, including paid leave, supplemental pay, insurance, retirement and savings, legally

required benefits, severance pay, and supplemental unemploy ment benefits. These wage rates reflect private in dustry averages, which were estimated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) based on a survey

of 35,600 occupations within 8,200 establishments in the private sector . These wage rates reflect industry

averages, which may

under - or overestimate the actual wages received by some FRP regulated facility

personnel. EPA further adjusted these rates to reflect overhead costs of 17 percent. 8 Average wage rates could underestimate the actual wage rates received by some FRP - regulated facility personnel, but may

ov erestimate the actual wage rate received by other facility

personnel . The estimated wage rates used in this analysis are: (ii) Facility Total Compensation Hourly Wage Rates Management: $ 60.93 Technical: $ 52.35 Clerical: $ 26.35 Foreman: $34.01 Laborer: $ 27.54 Multiplying these wage rates by the corresponding unit time estimates yields the total facility labor unit cost for each facility

in each model category

presented in Exhibits 4 , 5 , and 6 . The BLS data provides generally accepted information on indust ry base wage rates and fringe benefits . Overhead rates can be calculated using various formulas . The reasons for using a 17 percent overhead rate are described in footnote 8 . EPA has also evaluated the impact of alternative overhead

7 United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, June 2007. 8 Overhead costs were computed separately from BLS data and were assumed to be an additional 17 percent of the total wage rate, which is composed of direct wages and salaries and employee benefits, as reported by BLS.

### 25

loading rate assumptions on the total costs of this ICR . Specifically, EPA considered recommendations in an EPA document entitled Estimating Costs for the Economic Benefits of RCRA Noncompliance (September 1997) . This document suggests that labor overhead and profit can be estimated at 50 to 100 percent of the base salary and fringe benefit costs . EPA estimated that raising the overhead rate to 50 percent would increase the wages listed above by 28 percent. If a 100 -percent overhead rate were us ed, these wages would increase by 71 percent. The 50 percent and 100 percent alternatives may be high because the rates include profit as well as overhead . Nevertheless, EPA reports the impact of these alternative rates in section 6(d), under the discuss ion of total respondent costs. (iii) Estimating Costs of Operating and Maintenance (O& M) In prior ICR renewal requests , EPA assumed that O&M costs were negligible , as was confirmed by consultations with facility representatives in 2004, which indicated that planholders incurred no additional cost due to hard copy storage (e.g., in existing file cabinets) or electronic storage (e.g., on a facility ’ s computer network) . This renewal ICR assumes O&M costs continue to be negligible. (iv) Estimating Capital/Startup Costs In addition to labor costs, facilities are expected to incur additional capital costs and direct costs including expenses for telephone calls, postage, photocopying, and other direct costs for FRP preparation . These costs are one - time startup costs required to prepare and submit an FRP, and as such are included with capital costs . Costs vary by model facility

category and are also presented in Exhibits 5 and 6 . The estimated capital costs to maintain FRPs are negligible. Adding O&M costs and capital costs to the labor costs for facility personnel yields the total annual compliance cost per model facility, as presented in Exhibits 5 and 6 . Preparation of an FRP is expected to cost a consumption, distribution, or production facility having between 42,000 gal lons and 1 million gallons in total oil storage capacity $ 8 , 146 , $ 9 , 00 0 , or $ 7 , 137 , respectively . EPA estimates that the total cost to a c onsumption/

production or distribution/production facility having 1 million gallons or greater in total oil storage cap acity will be $ 15, 949 , $ 1 8 , 245 , or $ 1 4 , 085 , respectively . 9 As shown in Exhibit 6 , EPA

9 These estimates include the burden of copying and submitting a plan to EPA. EPA estimated burden time required to reproduce the Plan and submit it to EPA at one - half hour of clerical and one - half hour of managerial time. Source: Regulatory

Impact Analysis of proposed revisions to the Oil Pollution Prevention Regulation (40 CF R Part 112), F ebruary 1993. Additionally, EPA assumed that an owner/operator of an average medium size facility spends approximately

$50 on compiling, copying, and postage fees and that the owner/operator of an average large size facility spends about $100. Source: F acility

Response Plans: Info rmation Collection Request Burden Study . December 2003.

### 26

assumes that maintaining plans will cost the smaller capacity facilities $ 2,259, $ 2,311, or $2,259 annually , respectively, and will cost the larger capacity facilities $ 5,991 , $ 6,846 , or $ 5,991 annually , respectively . 6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Costs This section summarizes the estimated burden and cost of the revised ICR to the Agency . Burden estimates are based on input from EPA regional staff involved directly with the implementation of 40 CFR part 112 . EPA will incur burdens and costs to receive, process, review, and approve submitted response plans . The number of response plans for existing facilities is estimated to be 3,942 . Processing submitted FRPs includes entering information into EPA ’ s tracking system , filing the plan for review or for use during an unannounced exercise, and review for required elements per Appendix F . . EPA must also approve plans from facilities which are deemed as of significant and substantial harm facilities per §112.20(f)(3). Exhibit 7 shows the unit burden and labor cost to EPA for processing FRPs and for reviewing for approval response plans from certain facilities . Based on program experience, processing submitted plans is estimated to consist of approximately 20 minutes of technical time . A substantial amount of government resources is required to comprehensively evaluate the adequacy

of each response plan submitted by a facility representative. 10 Program staff estimate that reviewing and approving a response plan, including a site visit when necessary, requires 38 hours of technical EPA staff time and 2 hours of management time. For this revised ICR, Agency labor costs are based on the 2007 General Schedule (GS) pay schedule . EPA es timates an average hourly labor cost (labor plus overhead) of $ 59.23 for managerial staff (GS - 13, Step - 5), and $ 41.55 for technical staff (GS - 11, Step - 5) . To derive hourly estimates, EPA divided annual compensation estimates by 2,080, which is the number o f hours in the Federal work year . EPA then multiplied hourly

rates by the standard government overhead factor of 1.6 . Unit costs are unit time estimates multiplied by

the hourly

labor rates for EPA personnel . For example, the labor burden to EPA for revi ew and approval of each FRP is estimated to require two hours of management time (2 x $ 59.23 = $ 118. 46 ) and 38 hours of technical time (38 x $ 41.55 =$ 1,578.90 ) for a total of 40 hours per plan at a cost of approximately $1, 698 each. 11

10 Fo r previous ICRs, a survey of EPA regional offices was conducted to estimate the average burden (per plan) required to receive, process, review, and approve submitted response plans. 11 A fraction of these plans will be judged inadequate and require revision before being approved. The estimated cost to EPA reflects this possibility .

### 27 EXHIBIT 7 Estimated U nit Burden and Cost to EPA (2007) ACTIVITY UNIT BURDEN (hours) UNIT COST Managerial Technical Clerical Total Process and Store Submitted Response Plans 0 0.3 0 0.3 $12 Review and Approve Response Plans 2 38 0 40 $1,698 6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs (i) Estimated Total Annual Burden and Costs for All Respondents The total burden of the information collection is the combined total burdens of rule familiarization, substantial harm certification, and development of the fac ility response plan . Total burden is calculated by multiplying unit burden estimates by the number of facilities affected . Total cost is derived in a similar manner . The total burden and costs associated with the development of FRPs shown in Exhibits 5 and 6 must be adjusted to reflect both prior compliance with similar State regulations, since data collection efforts for compliance with similar State regulations may be useful in developing a facility response plan , and shared costs with overlapping Federal regulations . Numerous States have regulations requiring varying degrees of response planning . To the extent that these response plan requirements overlap with EPA’s FRP rule provisions, facility owners or operators may use the information already prepared for the State in their FRPs . Consequently , facility owners or operators that already have prepared response plans under State regulations may not incur all costs and burdens estimated in Exhibits 5 and 6 . State regulations vary significantly

both in terms of the level of response planning required and the ty pe of facilities covered . EPA evaluated the extent of commonality between State response planning requirements and those in the FRP rule to arrive at an estimated adjustment of 14 percent for State - related burden overlap. In addition, certain facility owners or operators may be required to prepare response plans pursuant to the regulations of more than one Federal agency as a result of the nature of their facilities . The owners or operators of th ese jointly regulated facilities are likely to prepare one response plan that fulfills the requirements of all Federal response planning regulations affecting them . Certain response planning activities and sections of the plan will be the same under all regulations and therefore , the costs associated with these activities are appropriately considered shared costs that should not be attributed to any single

### 28

regulation . For purposes of this ICR revision, the total burden and costs have been adjusted to refle ct that only one - half of all shared costs are attributed to the FRP rule. (ii) Adjustment to Reflect Overlap with Other Federal Requirements It is estimated that based on the presence of other Federal requirements, the following percentages of response planning burdens, by model facility

category, are not attributable to the FRP rule: 12 FIRST YEAR Medium consumption 0.0% Medium distribution 18.4% Medium production 12.5% Large consumption/production 0.0% Large distribution/production 23.4% SUB SEQUENT YEARS Medium consumption 0.0% Medium distribution 44.5% Medium production 24.9% Large consumption 0.0% Large distribution 32.6% The burdens and costs to facility owners or operators that prepare and maintain FRPs (presented in Exhibits 5 and 6 ) were adjusted to reflect State or other Federal requirements to obtain the estimates presented in Exhibits 8 and 9 . Percentage reductions were applied for prior State compliance and overlapping Federal regulations, as appropriate, for e ach model facility category . For example, the total burden to prepare FRPs for a production facility having between 42,000 gallons and 1 million gallons (medium category

) in total oil storage capacity, which is 145.25 hours, was adjusted by 24.7 percent [ 1 - ( 1 - 0.14) (1 - 0.125) where (1 - 0 . 14) accounts for the state - related burden overlap of 14 percent discussed in Section 6(d) (i) and (1 - 0.125) accounts for the overlap with other federal requirements as listed above yi elding an adjusted burden of 109.4 hours ] . A djustment factors for other model facility categories were

12 The methodologies for determining the extent of overlap with other F ederal regulations as well as the percentage of prior compliance with State regulations are described in more detail in Chapter 4 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis supporting the 1994 final rule.

### 29

similarly calculated using the 14 percent state - related burden overlap and the estimated burden overlap with other federal requirement listed above for each facility category . The total burd en and O&M and capital costs to the entire regulated community are presented in Exhibit 1 0 . The burdens and costs over three years are taken from Exhibits 4 , 8 , and 9 . The total adjusted burden on the regulated community over three years is estimated to be 1, 297 , 880 hours . The total adjusted O&M costs for the three year period is $0 and the total adjusted capital cost is $ 88 , 449 (see Exhibit 10) .

### 30 EXHIBIT 8 Adjusted Burden and Unit Cost for New Facilities Required to Prepare FRPs 1 Size Model

Facility Categ ory Adjusted

Unit Burden (hours) Facility

Labor Cost O&M

Costs Capital

Cost Total Unit Cost Number of Facilities Total Burden (hours) Total

O&M Costs Total

Capital Costs Total Cost Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Medium Consumption 142 $6,794 $0 $211 $7,005 3 3 3 1,218 $0 $1,8 06 $60, 047

Distribution 127 $6,143 $0 $176 $6,318 9 10 10 3,637 $0 $5,0 30 $18 1 , 083 Production 109 $5,194 $0 $181 $5,375 4 6 9 2,121 $0 $3,5 05 $104,230 Large Consumption2 293 $13,328 $0 $389 $13,716 31 32 33 28,102 $0 $37,250 $1,31 4, 400

Distribution 253 $11,718 $0 $305 $12,024 4 1 4 2 4 3 32,170 $0 $38 , 788 $1,528 , 502 Production2 220 $9,868 $0 $320 $10,188 1 2 3 1,420 $0 $2,070 $65 , 858 TOTAL 91 9 5 10 0 68 , 669 $ 0 $ 88 , 449 $3,2 54 , 120 1 Burdens and costs are adjusted to reflect prior compliance with State Regulations and overlapping Federal regulations (see Section 6(d)(ii)) . 2 This analysis assumes that half the number of large production facility ow ners or operators required to prepare an FRP for the first time are included in the estimate of new consumption facilities, and will therefore incur the consumption facility preparation burden . The other half will incur the distribution facility preparation burden.

### 31 EXHIBIT 9 Adjusted Burden and Unit Cost for Existing Facilities Required to Maintain FRPs 1 Size Model Facility

Category Adjusted

Unit Burden (hours) Facility

Labor Cost O&M Costs Capital

Cost Total

Unit Cost Number of Facilities Total Burden ( hours) Total

O&M Costs Total

Capital Costs Total Cost Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Medium Consumption 46 $1,943 $0 $0 $1,943 12 5 12 8 130 17,78 3 $0 $0 $743 ,8 80

Distribution 26 $1,102 $0 $0 $1,102 417 427 436 33,590 $0 $0 $1,411 ,513 Production 35 $1,459 $0 $0 $1,459 115 119 125 12,536 $0 $0 $524 , 401 Large Consumption 132 $5,153 $0 $0 $5,153 1,395 1,427 1,459 566,959 $0 $0 $22,057 , 229

Distribution 99 $3,971 $0 $0 $3,971 1,8 51 1,893 1,935 563 , 2 46 $0 $0 $22,550 , 751 Production 108 $4,213 $0 $0 $4,213 38 40 42 12 , 971 $0 $0 $504 , 624 TOTAL 3,94 1 4,03 4 4,12 7 1,2 07 , 08 5 $0 $0 $47,792,398 1 Burden and costs are adjusted to reflect prior compliance with State Regulations and overlapping Federal regulations. (See Section 6(d)(ii))

### 32 EXHIBIT 1 0 Total Burden and Costs Over Three Years Activity YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 TOTAL

Burden (hours) O&M

Cost Capital

Cost Burden

(hours) O&M

Cost Capital

Cost Burden

(hours) O&M

Cost Capita l

Cost Burden

(hours) O&M

Cost Capital

Cost Certification 1 6,00 4 $0 $0 7,20 8 $0 $0 8,91 5 $0 $0 22,1 2 7 $0 $0 Preparation 22,045 $0 $28, 298 22 , 839 $0 $29, 405 23,784 $0 $30, 746 68 , 669 $0 $8 8 , 449 Maintenance 393 , 317 $0 $0 4 02 ,2 56 $0 $0 411,512 $0 $0 1,207 , 084 $0 $0 TOTAL 421 , 366 $0 $28,298 432 , 303 $0 $29,405 444 , 211 $0 $30,746 1,29 7, 880 $0 $88 , 449 1 According to 40 CFR 112(App. C)(3.0), ow ners or operators of facilities that do not meet the “substantial harm” criteria must complete and maintain at the facility the certification form provided in Appendix C to 40 CFR part 112, Attachment C - II.

### 33

EPA also calculated costs based on alternative overhead loading rates on wages . Exhibit 1 1 shows a comparison of the annualized total cost for the rule using the selected 17 percent overhead loading rate on wages and costs based on two alternative overhead loading rate assumptions: 50 percent (Alternative 1) and 100 percent (Alternative 2) . Alternative 1 yields 28 percent higher total costs, while Alternative 2 increases total costs by

71 percent . EXHIBIT 11

Alternative Total Cost Measures Labor Capital O&M Total 17% Overhead $17, 398 , 345 $29, 483 $0 $17, 427 , 828 50% Overhead $22,269 , 882 $29,483 $0 $2 2,299 , 365 10 0% Overhead $29,751 , 170 $29,483 $0 $29,780,653 (iii) Estimated Total Annual Burden and Cost to EPA The total annual burden and cost to EPA are presented in Exhibit 12 . Total burden and costs are determined by

multiplying the unit burden and cost to EPA fo r each activity (see Exhibit 7 ) by

the number of plans processed, reviewed, and approved (shown in the second column in Exhibit 12 ) . EPA assumes it will receive on average of approximately 9 5 new FRPs each year . EPA estimates that the burden and cost for processing new FRPs will be approximately 29 hours and $ 1, 189 in labor costs per year . EPA also estimates that the burden and cost of reviewing the new FRPs of substantial harm facilities, as well as reviewing and approving the new FRPs of significant an d substantial harm facilities, will be approximately 3, 814 hours and $ 161 , 856 in labor costs per year. EPA will also incur costs in subsequent years to review and approve response plans from facilities that undertake a major modification to their FRP. 13 EP A estimates that of the 3,942 existing facilities with FRPs, approximately

one - fifth, or 788 undertake an FRP modification that triggers the need for EPA review and approval. 14 Annualized burden and cost to review and approve existing response plans are es timated to be 32 , 280 hours and $ 1, 369 , 906 in labor costs.

13 Actions such as personnel or title changes, phone number or contact address changes are not considered ma jor modifications and do not require further EPA review. 14 EPA believes this is a conservative estimate of the number of facilities in a region with a large number of facilities that undergo a major F RP modification. Some regional EPA personnel have state d that the owners or operators of as few as 5% of facilities in their region undertake a major FRP modification annually, while others in regions with fewer facilities or different ty

pes of facilities stated that approximately half of the F RP revisions ove r a seven month period could be considered major.

### 34

Total cost to EPA for processing, reviewing, and approving new and existing plans are estimated at 108 , 368 hours and $ 4, 598 , 851 in labor costs over three years . There are no capital or O&M costs to the Agency for this ICR . The annualized burden and cost to EPA over three years are 36 , 123 hours and $ 1, 532 , 950 .

### 35 EXHIBIT 12 Estimated Total Burdens and Costs to EPA ACTIVITY YEAR ONE YEAR TWO YEAR THREE TOTAL

Number of Plans Burden

(Hours) Cost Nu mber

of Plans Burden

(Hours) Cost Number

of Plans Burden

(Hours) Cost Burden

(Hours) Cost Annualized Cost Process and Store Newly Submitted Response Plans 91 27 $1,1 32 9 5 2 8 $1,1 84 10 0 30 $1,25 0 86 $ 3,5 66 $1, 189 Review and Approve New Response Plans 91 3,6 31 $154 , 078 95 3,800 $161 , 255 100 4,0 1 1 $170 , 234 11,442 $ 485 , 567 $161 , 856 Review and Approve Existing Response Plans 7 88 31,520 $1,337 , 653 807 32,280 $1, 369 , 906 826 33, 04 0 $1,40 2, 159 96 , 840 $ 4, 109 , 718 $1,369 , 906 Total N/A 35,178 $1,492 , 863 N/A 36,108 $1,53 2, 34 5 N/A 37,08 1 $1,573 , 643 108 , 368 $ 4,598 , 851 $1,532 , 95 1 Source: EPA regional personnel estimate.

### 36

6(e) Bottom Line Burden and Cost Tables Exhibit 10 summarizes the to tal estimated burden hours and cost incurred by all respondents (existing and new facilities) to comply with the FRP information collection requirements . The estimated burden hour and costs incurred by EPA are summarized in Exhibit 12 . Exhibit 13 below summarizes the total burden and cost incurred by both respondent facilities and government . The average annual burden to respondent s is 432 , 627 hours, there are no annualized O&M costs, and the annualized capital cost is $ 29 , 483 . EXHIBIT 13 Total Burden an d Cost Estimates Facilities EPA Total Burden (hours) Non - Labor Total Cost Burden (hours) Total Non Labor Cost Burden

(hours) Total Non Labor Cost O&M Cost Capital Cost Year 1 421 , 366 $0.00 $28, 298 35, 178 $0.00 456,544 $28, 298 Year 2 432 , 303 $0.00 $29,405 36,108 $0.00 468,411 $29,405 Year 3 444 , 2 11 $0.00 $30 , 746 37, 081 $0.00 481 , 292 $30,746 Total 1,297 , 880 $0 $88 , 449 108 , 36 7 $0.00 1,40 6, 247 $88 , 449 6(f) Reasons for the Change in Burden Differences in burden and costs from the previous ICR are attributed to adjustment changes . Adjustments are caused by updating information (e.g., number of affected facilities, burden estimates, and labor rates) in the absence of changes to the FRP regulatory requirements . Program changes , burden and cost effects directly

associated with revisions to the FRP rule are not applicable to this renewal ICR. Th e prior ICR renewal reflect ed a change in the number of affected facilities, due to the availability

of more detailed inventory of planho lders. This renewal ICR does not include and adjustments to the number of affected facilities , since the number of plan holders has not changed substantively since the last ICR approval . In 2006, EPA initiated an effort to compil e data from each of its t en regional offices on facilities that had submitted an FRP to update our knowledge of the FRP universe. The latest update to inform this ICR renewal was compl e ted in April 20 10 and contains the list of all 4, 341 active facilities that currently

maintain an FRP , including 4,260 facilities not owned and operated by the Federal government . Thus, the FRP universe is lower than the 6,183 FRP facilities presented in the 2004 renewal

### 37

ICR as it was based on a fixed proportion of the estimated number of facilitie s subject to SPCC. 15 To estimate the number of new facilities that will develop an FRP during the three - ye ar period of 2007 through 2009, EPA used annual industry- specific growth rates . EPA estimates that 28 6 new facilities will prepare FRPs during the three - ye ar period covered by this ICR. In total, the burden hours presented in th e last renewal ICR dec reased relative to the current OMB inventory (see Exhibit 14 ) . The burden estimate show ed an annualized de crease of 202 , 367 hours due to adjustments in th e estimated number of affected facilities since the last ICR approval (November 30 , 2004 ). No significant change in the burden estimate is anticipated for this ICR renewal. EXHIBIT 14 Estimated Annualized Burden and Costs Comparison

Annualized Burden (h ours) Annualized Capital and O&M Costs Prior OMB Burden Inventory 634,994 $ 20,716 Change in Burden ( 202 , 367 ) $ 8 , 768 Current Burden Estim ate 43 2 , 627 $ 29, 48 4 6(g) Burden Statement The public reporting and recordkeeping burden to all respondents are pre sented in Exhibit 15 . These burdens include the time required to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, estimate the information required and complete and review the collection of information . The average p ublic reporting and recordkeeping burdens to a newly regulated facilit

y where the owners or operators are not required to prepare FRPs (i.e., facilities where the owner or operators certify that they do not meet the “substantial harm” criteria) are estimated at 0.4 hours per year . The average annual reporting and recordkeeping burdens to a newly regulated facilit

y where the owners or operators are required to prepare FRPs (i.e., first- ye ar costs for plan development) are estimated at 240.1 hours per year . The average annual reporting and recordkeeping burdens to a facility where the owners or operators maintain FRPs (i.e., subsequent year costs for annual plan maintenance) are estimated at 99.7 hours . 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

15 In setting terms of clearance for the 2004 ICR request, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had requested that EPA provide a change worksheet, if applicable, updating the burden estimate for the FRP ICR to reflect revisions to the SPCC respondent universe. The current FRP burden estimate, however, considers the actual number of FRP planholders instead of a fixed proportion of SPCC respondents.

### 38

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 abl e 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 col lection 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 . EXHIBIT 15 Recordkeeping and Reporting Burden for Affected Facilities Total Average Annual Burden (hours) Number of Facilities per Year (Respondents) Average Annual Burden per Respondent (hours) Certification 1 7,37 6 18,44 4 0.4 Preparation 22 , 890 95 240.1 Maintenance 402 ,3 61 4,034 99.7 1 According to 40 CFR 11 2(App. C)(3.0), ow ners or operators of facilities that do not meet the “substantial harm” criteria must complete and maintain at the facility the certification form provided in Appendix C to 40 CFR part 112, Attachment C - II. To comment on the Agency's nee d 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. E P A - HQ SFUND - 2007 - 0559 , which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov , or in person viewing at the Office of Emergency

Prevention, Preparedness, and Response Oil Program Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA/DC 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 Office of Emergency

Prevention, Preparedness, and Response Oil Program Docket is 202 - 566 - 2426. Use www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, 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 .