Document ID: EPA-HQ-OECA-2003-0013-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-03-11T05:00Z

i
Table
of
Contents
SUPPORTING
STATEMENT
for
Information
Collection
Requirements
under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.
Proposed
Rule
to
Amend
40
CFR
Part
8
Environmental
Impact
Assessment
of
Nongovernmental
Activities
in
Antarctica
January
2001
Page
1.
Identification
of
the
Information
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1(
a)
Title
of
the
Information
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1(
b)
Abstract
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
Environmental
Documentation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
Coordination
of
Review
of
Information
Received
from
Other
Parties
to
the
Treaty
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
2.
Need
for
and
Use
of
the
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
2(
a)
Need/
Authority
for
the
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
2(
b)
Practical
Utility/
Users
of
the
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
Role
of
the
Information
in
Regulatory
Decisions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
Users
of
the
Information
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
3.
Nonduplication,
Consultations,
and
Other
Collection
Criteria
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
3(
a)
Nonduplication
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
3(
b)
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
to
OMB
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
3(
c)
Consultations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
3(
d)
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
3(
e)
General
Guidelines
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
3(
f)
Confidentiality
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
3(
g)
Sensitive
Questions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
4.
The
Respondents
and
the
Information
Requested
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
4(
a)
Respondents/
SIC
and
NAICS
Codes.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
4(
b)
Information
Requested
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
Data
items,
including
recordkeeping
requirements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
Respondent
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
5.
The
Information
Collected­­
Agency
Activities,
Collection
Methodology,
and
Information
Management
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
5(
a)
Agency
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
5(
b)
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
5(
c)
Small
Entity
Flexibility
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
5(
d)
Collection
Schedule
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
ii
6.
Estimating
the
Burden
and
Cost
of
the
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
6(
a)
Estimated
Annual
Respondent
Burden
and
Cost
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
6(
b)
Estimated
Annual
Federal
Government
Burden
and
Cost
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
29
6(
c)
Model
for
Federal
Government
Review
of
IEEs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
36
6(
d)
Estimated
Annual
Aggregate
Burden
and
Cost
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
40
Exhibit
1A:
PERMs
­
Estimated
Respondent
Burden
and
Cost
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
42
Exhibit
1B:
IEEs
­
Estimated
Respondent
Burden
and
Cost
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
43
Table
1.
IEEs
­
Total
Estimated
Potential
Burden
and
Cost
.
.
.
.
.
44
Exhibit
1C:
CEEs
­
Estimated
Respondent
Burden
and
Cost
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
45
Exhibit
1D:
Reporting
for
Emergencies
­
Estimated
Respondent
Burden
and
Cost
46
Exhibit
2A:
PERMs
­
Estimated
Federal
Government
Burden
and
Cost
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
47
Exhibit
2B:
IEEs
­
Estimated
Federal
Government
Burden
and
Cost
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
48
Table
2.
IEEs
­
Total
Estimated
Potential
Burden
and
Cost
.
.
.
.
.
49
Exhibit
2C:
CEEs
­
Estimated
Federal
Government
Burden
and
Cost
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
50
Exhibit
2D:
Reporting
for
Emergencies
­
Estimated
Federal
Government
Burden
and
Cost
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
51
Exhibit
2E:
Coordinating
Review
of
Information
Received
from
Other
Parties
­
Estimated
Federal
Government
Burden
and
Cost
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
52
Exhibit
3:
Summary
­
Estimated
Respondent/
Federal
Government
Burden
and
Cost
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
53
Part
B:
Statistical
Survey
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
54
Part
C:
Response
to
Public
Comments
on
the
Proposed
ICR
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
C­
1
List
of
Attachments
Attachment
1:
40
CFR
Part
8,
Environmental
Impact
Assessment
of
Nongovernmental
Activities
in
Antarctica;
Interim
Final
Rule,
Federal
Register,
Vol.
62,
No.
83,
Wednesday,
April
30,
1997,
23538­
23549.

Attachment
2:
16
U.
S.
C.
2403a.

Attachment
3:
Intent
to
Prepare
an
Environmental
Impact
Statement
for
the
Final
Rule
for
Environmental
Impact
Assessment
of
Nongovernmental
Activities
in
Antarctica;
Notices,
Federal
Register,
Vol.
62,
No.
90,
Friday,
May
9,
1997,
21611­
25613.

Attachment
4:
International
Association
of
Antarctica
Tour
Operators
(
IAATO),
Membership
Directory
at:
http://
www.
iaato.
org/
members_
list.
html.
1The
Proposed
Rule
would
amend
40
CFR
Part
8
by
replacing
the
Interim
Final
Rule.
The
Proposed
Rule
is
based
on
the
Interim
Final
Rule
with
the
following
modifications:
(
1)
make
necessary
technical
modifications
and
edits
including
changing
the
effective
date
of
the
rule,
changing
the
mailing
address
to
be
used
for
submitting
EIA
documentation,
removing
the
schedule
for
CEEs
for
the
1998­
1999
season
(
Section
8.8(
b)(
1)),
and
updating
the
paperwork
projections
(
Preamble
VII);
(
2)
add
a
provision
allowing
operators
to
submit
multi­
year
EIA
documentation
to
address
proposed
expeditions
for
a
period
of
up
to
five
consecutive
austral
summer
seasons;
and
(
3)
add
a
definition
that
establishes
a
threshold
for
"
more
than
a
minor
or
transitory
impact."

1
Proposed
Rule
to
Amend
40
CFR
Part
8
Environmental
Impact
Assessment
of
Nongovernmental
Activities
in
Antarctica
January
2001
SUPPORTING
STATEMENT
for
Information
Collection
Requirements
under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.

1.
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
1(
a)
TITLE
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION:
"
Environmental
Documentation
and
Associated
Reporting
for
the
Proposed
Rule
to
Amend
40
CFR
Part
8,
Environmental
Impact
Assessment
of
Nongovernmental
Activities
in
Antarctica"

1(
b)
SHORT
CHARACTERIZATION/
ABSTRACT:
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
has
proposed
a
rule
to
amend
40
CFR
Part
8,
the
regulations
for
Environmental
Impact
Assessment
of
Nongovernmental
Activities
in
Antarctica.
These
regulations
are
being
proposed
in
accordance
with
the
Antarctic
Science,
Tourism,
and
Conservation
Act
of
1996
(
Act),
16
U.
S.
C.
2401
et
seq.,
as
amended,
16
U.
S.
C.
2403a,
which
implements
the
Protocol
on
Environmental
Protection
(
Protocol)
to
the
Antarctic
Treaty
of
1959
(
Treaty).
The
proposed
regulatory
action
would
amend
40
CFR
Part
8
by
replacing
the
Interim
Final
Rule
that
was
promulgated
by
EPA
on
April
30,
1997
(
Attachment
1).
For
purposes
of
this
Supporting
Statement,
the
proposed
amendment
to
40
CFR
Part
8
is
herein
referred
to
as
the
"
Proposed
Rule."
1
As
with
the
Interim
Final
Rule,
the
Proposed
Rule
would
provide
for
assessment
of
the
environmental
impacts
of
nongovernmental
activities
in
Antarctica,
including
tourism,
for
which
the
United
States
is
required
to
give
advance
notice
under
Paragraph
5
of
Article
VII
of
the
Treaty,
and
for
coordination
of
the
review
of
information
regarding
environmental
impact
assessments
received
from
other
Parties
under
the
Protocol.
The
requirements
of
the
Proposed
Rule
would
apply
to
operators
of
nongovernmental
expeditions
organized
in
or
proceeding
from
the
territory
of
the
United
States
to
Antarctica
and
include
commercial
and
non­
commercial
expeditions.
Expeditions
may
include
ship­
based
tours;
yacht,
skiing
or
mountaineering
expeditions;
privately
funded
research
expeditions;
and
other
nongovernmental
or
nongovernmental­
sponsored
activities.
The
Proposed
Rule
would
not
apply
to
individual
U.
S.
citizens
or
groups
of
citizens
planning
to
travel
to
Antarctica
on
an
expedition
for
which
they
are
not
acting
as
an
operator.
(
Operators,
for
example,
typically
acquire
use
of
2Article
3(
4),
of
Annex
I
of
the
Protocol
requires
that
draft
CEEs
be
distributed
to
all
Parties
and
the
Committee
for
Environmental
Protection
120
days
in
advance
of
the
next
Antarctic
Treaty
Consultative
Meeting
(
ATCM)
at
which
the
CEE
may
be
addressed.
For
example,
CEEs
to
be
considered
at
the
May
2002
ATCM
for
expeditions
during
the
2002­
2003
austral
season
would
have
to
be
distributed
by
January
2002.

3For
example,
such
information
could
include,
as
appropriate
and
to
the
best
of
the
operator's
knowledge:
identification
of
the
number
of
tourists
put
ashore
at
each
site,
the
number
and
location
of
each
landing
site,
the
total
number
of
tourists
at
each
site
per
ship
and
for
the
season;
the
number
of
times
the
site
has
been
visited
in
the
past;
the
number
of
times
the
site
is
expected
to
be
visited
in
the
forthcoming
season;
the
times
of
the
year
that
visits
are
expected
to
occur
(
e.
g.,
before,
during,
or
after
the
penguin
breeding
season);
the
number
of
visitors
expected
to
be
put
ashore
at
the
site
at
any
one
time
and
over
the
course
of
a
particular
visit;
what
visitors
are
expected
to
do
while
at
the
site;
verification
that
guidelines
for
tourists
are
followed;
description
of
any
tourist
exceptions
to
the
landing
guidelines;
and
description
of
any
activity
requiring
mitigation,
the
mitigative
actions
undertaken,
and
the
actual
or
projected
outcome
of
the
mitigation.

2
vessels
or
aircraft,
hire
expedition
staff,
plan
itineraries,
and
undertake
other
organizational
responsibilities.)

Environmental
Documentation.
Persons
that
would
be
subject
to
the
Proposed
Rule
would
need
to
prepare
environmental
documentation,
as
appropriate,
to
support
the
operator's
determination
regarding
the
level
of
environmental
impact
of
the
proposed
expedition.
Environmental
documentation
would
include
a
Preliminary
Environmental
Review
Memorandum
(
PERM),
an
Initial
Environmental
Evaluation
(
IEE),
or
a
Comprehensive
Environmental
Evaluation
(
CEE).
The
environmental
documentation
would
be
submitted
to
the
Office
of
Federal
Activities
(
OFA).
If
the
operator
were
to
determine
that
an
expedition
would
have:
(
1)
less
than
a
minor
or
transitory
impact,
a
PERM
would
need
to
be
submitted
no
later
than
180
days
before
the
proposed
departure
to
Antarctica;
(
2)
no
more
than
minor
or
transitory
impacts,
an
IEE
would
need
to
be
submitted
no
later
than
90
days
before
the
proposed
departure;
or
(
3)
more
than
minor
or
transitory
impacts,
a
CEE
would
need
to
be
submitted.
Operators
who
anticipate
such
activities
would
be
encouraged
to
consult
with
EPA
as
soon
as
possible
regarding
the
date
for
submittal
of
the
CEE.
2
The
Protocol
and
the
Proposed
Rule
would
also
require
an
operator
to
employ
procedures
to
assess
and
provide
a
regular
and
verifiable
record
of
the
actual
impacts
of
an
activity
which
would
proceed
on
the
basis
on
an
IEE
or
CEE.
The
record
developed
through
these
measures
would
need
to
be
designed
to:
(
a)
enable
assessments
to
be
made
of
the
extent
to
which
environmental
impacts
of
nongovernmental
expeditions
are
consistent
with
the
Protocol;
and
(
b)
provide
information
useful
for
minimizing
and
mitigating
those
impacts
and,
where
appropriate,
on
the
need
for
suspension,
cancellation,
or
modification
of
the
activity.
Moreover,
an
operator
would
need
to
monitor
key
environmental
indicators
for
an
activity
proceeding
on
the
basis
of
a
CEE.
An
operator
may
also
need
to
carry
out
monitoring
in
order
to
assess
and
verify
the
impact
of
an
activity
for
which
an
IEE
would
be
prepared.
For
activities
that
would
require
an
IEE,
an
operator
should
be
able
to
use
procedures
currently
being
voluntarily
utilized
by
operators
to
provide
the
required
information.
3
Should
an
activity
require
a
CEE,
the
operator
should
consult
with
EPA
to:
(
a)
identify
the
monitoring
regime
appropriate
to
that
activity,
and
(
b)
determine
4During
the
time
the
Interim
Final
Rule
has
been
in
effect
(
e.
g.,
the
1997­
1998
through
the
2000­
2001
austral
summer
seasons),
there
were
no
emergencies
requiring
notification
by
U.
S.
operators.

3
whether
and
how
the
operator
might
utilize
relevant
monitoring
data
collected
by
the
U.
S.
Antarctic
Program.
OFA
would
consult
with
the
National
Science
Foundation
and
other
interested
Federal
agencies
regarding
the
monitoring
regime.

In
cases
of
emergency
relating
to
the
safety
of
human
life
or
of
ships,
aircraft,
equipment
and
facilities
of
high
value,
or
the
protection
of
the
environment
which
would
require
an
activity
to
be
undertaken
without
completion
of
the
documentation
procedures
set
out
in
the
Proposed
Rule,
the
operator
would
need
to
notify
the
Department
of
State
within
15
days
of
any
activities
which
would
have
otherwise
required
preparation
of
a
CEE,
and
provide
a
full
explanation
of
the
activities
carried
out
within
45
days
of
those
activities.
4
Environmental
documents
(
e.
g.,
PERM,
IEE,
CEE)
would
be
submitted
to
OFA
and
may
include
electronic
copy
for
ease
in
providing
documentation
to
the
public
via
the
World
Wide
Web
at:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
oeca/
ofa.
Environmental
documentation
would
be
reviewed
by
OFA,
in
consultation
with
the
National
Science
Foundation
and
other
interested
Federal
agencies,
and
would
also
be
made
available
to
other
Parties
and
the
public,
including
tour
operators
and
environmental
groups,
as
required
under
the
Protocol
or
otherwise
requested.
EPA
anticipates
that
the
types
of
nongovernmental
activities
currently
being
carried
out
(
e.
g.,
ship­
based
tours
and
privately
funded
research
expeditions)
will
typically
be
unlikely
to
have
impacts
that
are
more
than
minor
or
transitory,
thus
an
IEE
should
be
the
typical
level
of
environmental
documentation
submitted.
In
fact,
during
the
time
the
Interim
Final
Rule
has
been
in
effect,
all
respondents
submitted
IEEs.
Paperwork
reduction
provisions
in
the
Interim
Final
Rule
that
were
used
by
the
operators
included:

a)
incorporation
of
material
into
the
environmental
document
by
referring
to
it
in
the
IEE;
b)
inclusion
of
all
proposed
expeditions
by
one
operator
within
one
IEE;
and
c)
use
of
one
IEE
to
address
expeditions
being
carried
out
by
more
than
one
operator.

The
Proposed
Rule
includes
these
paperwork
reduction
provisions
and
also
includes
an
additional
paperwork
reduction
provision
that
would
allow
operators
to
submit
multi­
year
environmental
documentation
to
address
proposed
expeditions
for
a
period
of
up
to
five
consecutive
austral
summer
seasons.

Coordination
of
Review
of
Information
Received
from
Other
Parties
to
the
Treaty.
The
Proposed
Rule
would
also
provide
for
the
coordination
of
review
of
information
received
from
other
Parties
and
the
public
availability
of
that
information
including:
(
1)
a
description
of
national
procedures
for
considering
the
environmental
impacts
of
proposed
activities;
(
2)
an
annual
list
of
any
IEEs
and
any
decisions
taken
in
consequence
thereof;
(
3)
significant
information
obtained
and
any
action
taken
in
consequence
thereof
with
regard
to
monitoring
from
IEEs
and
CEEs;
and
(
4)
information
in
a
final
CEE.
This
provision
would
fulfill
the
United
States'
obligation
to
meet
the
4
requirements
of
Article
6
of
Annex
I
to
the
Protocol.
The
Department
of
State
would
be
responsible
for
coordination
of
these
reviews
of
drafts
with
interested
Federal
agencies,
and
for
public
availability
of
documents
and
information.
This
portion
of
the
Proposed
Rule
does
not
impose
paperwork
requirements
on
any
nongovernmental
person
subject
to
U.
S.
regulation.

2.
NEED
FOR
AND
USE
OF
THE
COLLECTION
2(
a)
NEED/
AUTHORITY
FOR
THE
COLLECTION:
The
basis
for
the
Proposed
Rule
is
the
United
States
Code
as
amended:
16
U.
S.
C.
2401
et
seq.,
as
amended,
16
U.
S.
C.
2403a
(
Attachment
2).

The
Proposed
Rule,
proposed
pursuant
to
the
Antarctic
Science,
Tourism,
and
Conservation
Act
of
1996,
would
provide
nongovernmental
operators
with
the
specific
requirements
they
would
need
to
meet
in
order
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
Article
8
and
Annex
I
to
the
Protocol
on
Environmental
Protection
to
the
Antarctic
Treaty
of
1959
and
would
provide
for
the
environmental
impact
assessment
of
nongovernmental
activities,
including
tourism,
for
which
the
United
States
is
required
to
give
advance
notice
under
paragraph
5
of
Article
VII
of
the
Antarctic
Treaty
of
1959.

The
Proposed
Rule
would
also
provide
for
coordination
of
the
review
of
information
regarding
environmental
impact
assessment
received
by
the
United
States
from
other
Parties
under
the
Protocol.
This
provision
of
the
Proposed
Rule
would
include
Federal
agency
requirements,
but
would
not
impose
paperwork
requirements
on
any
nongovernmental
person
subject
to
U.
S.
regulation.

The
procedures
in
the
Proposed
Rule
are
designed
to:
ensure
that
nongovernmental
operators
identify
and
assess
the
potential
impacts
of
their
proposed
activities,
including
tourism,
on
the
Antarctic
environment;
that
operators
consider
these
impacts
in
deciding
whether
or
how
to
proceed
with
proposed
activities;
and
that
operators
provide
environmental
documentation
pursuant
to
the
Act
and
Annex
I
of
the
Protocol.
These
procedures
would
be
consistent
with
and
implement
the
environmental
impact
assessment
provisions
of
Article
8
and
Annex
I
to
the
Protocol
on
Environmental
Protection
to
the
Antarctic
Treaty.

2(
b)
PRACTICAL
UTILITY/
USERS
OF
THE
DATA:

Role
of
the
Information
in
Regulatory
Decisions:
The
Office
of
Federal
Activities
would
use
environmental
impact
assessment
information
and
any
associated
assessment
and
verification
information
to
ensure
that
nongovernmental
operators
identify
and
assess
the
potential
impacts
of
their
proposed
activities,
including
tourism,
on
the
Antarctic
environment;
that
operators
consider
these
impacts
in
deciding
whether
or
how
to
proceed
with
proposed
activities;
and
that
operators
provide
environmental
documentation
pursuant
to
the
Act
and
Annex
I
of
the
Protocol.
The
procedures
in
the
Proposed
Rule
would
be
consistent
with
and
implement
the
environmental
impact
assessment
provisions
of
Article
8
and
Annex
I
to
the
Protocol.
The
provisions
of
the
5The
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
Section
3502,
states:

"(
13)
the
term
"
recordkeeping
requirement"
means
a
requirement
imposed
by
or
for
an
agency
on
persons
to
maintain
specified
records,
including
a
requirement
to
­
°
(
A)
retain
such
records;
°
(
B)
notify
third
parties,
the
Federal
Government,
or
the
public
of
the
existence
of
such
records;
°
(
C)
disclose
such
records
to
third
parties,
the
Federal
Government,
or
the
public;
or
°
(
D)
report
to
third
parties,
the
Federal
Government,
or
the
public
regarding
such
records;
..."
[
Underline
added
for
emphasis.]

"
Burden"
is
defined
in
the
Preamble
to
the
Proposed
Rule,
Section
VII,
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
as
"...
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.
..."
[
Underline
added
for
emphasis.]

5
Proposed
Rule
are
intended
to
ensure
that
potential
environmental
effects
of
nongovernmental
activities
undertaken
in
Antarctica
are
appropriately
identified
and
considered
by
the
operator
during
the
planning
process
and
that
to
the
extent
practicable,
appropriate
environmental
safeguards
which
would
mitigate
or
prevent
adverse
impacts
on
the
Antarctic
environment
are
identified
by
the
operator.

EPA
received
comment
on
the
Supporting
Statement
for
the
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
for
the
Interim
Final
Rule
questioning
why
the
assessment
and
verification
reports
were
included
in
the
burden
estimates.
Like
the
Interim
Final
Rule,
the
Proposed
Rule
would
address
measures
to
assess
and
verify
environmental
impacts
but
would
not
set
schedule
requirements
for
submittal
of
assessment
and
verification
reports.
Like
the
Interim
Final
Rule,
under
the
Proposed
Rule,
all
proposed
activities
for
which
an
IEE
or
CEE
would
be
prepared
would
need
to
include
procedures
designed
to
provide
a
regular
and
verifiable
record
of
the
impacts
of
these
activities.
Like
the
Interim
Final
Rule,
the
Preamble
to
the
Proposed
Rule
states
that
operators
should
be
able
to
use
the
annual
procedures
currently
being
voluntarily
utilized
by
operators
to
provide
the
information.
Because
measures
to
assess
and
verify
environmental
impacts
for
all
proposed
activities
for
which
an
IEE
or
CEE
has
been
prepared
were
required
by
the
Interim
Final
Rule
and
would
also
be
required
under
the
Proposed
Rule,
and
because
of
the
recordkeeping
requirements
of
and
burden
definition
in
the
PRA,
EPA
has
included
this
information
as
an
element
for
the
operators
for
which
burden
and
costs
were
calculated.
Because
operators
are
currently
voluntarily
providing
the
information
to
the
government,
the
burden
and
cost
of
review
of
this
information
was
also
included
in
the
government's
costs.
In
this
case,
EPA
believes
the
PRA,
Section
3502(
13)
clearly
supports
the
view
that
recordkeeping
requirements
must
be
considered
inclusively
in
developing
the
ICR
budget.
5
As
with
the
Interim
Final
Rule,
the
purpose
of
the
Proposed
Rule
would
be
to
ensure
that
the
United
States
has
the
ability
to
implement
its
environmental
impact
assessment
obligations
for
nongovernmental
operators
under
the
Protocol.
Like
Section
8.9(
b)
of
the
Interim
Final
Rule,
this
section
in
the
Proposed
Rule
would
require
that
operators
have
"
procedures
designed
to
provide
a
regular
and
verifiable
record
of
the
impacts
of
these
activities."
The
EPA
believes
that
this
establishes
a
requirement
that
the
information
be
available
to
EPA.
Otherwise,
there
would
6
be
no
way
to
know
if
an
operator
was
in
compliance
with
this
requirement
in
the
regulation.
As
stated
in
the
Preamble
to
the
Proposed
Rule,
it
is
EPA's
view
that,
at
a
minimum,
an
IEE
is
the
appropriate
level
of
environmental
documentation
for
proposed
activities
and,
for
activities
requiring
an
IEE,
an
operator
should
be
able
to
use
procedures
currently
being
voluntarily
utilized
by
operators
to
provide
the
required
information.
For
the
1997­
1998
season,
the
International
Association
of
Antarctica
Tour
Operators
(
IAATO)
carried
out
a
pilot
test
of
a
post­
visit
reporting
form,
and
this
information
was
made
available
to
Treaty
Parties.
The
operators
currently
provide
post­
visit
reports
to
Antarctic
Treaty
Parties.
Currently,
the
National
Science
Foundation
receives
the
information
voluntarily
submitted
by
the
tour
operators
and
uses
the
information
to
prepare
summary
reports.
EPA
assumes
this
voluntary
process
of
post­
visit
reporting
would
continue.
EPA
intends
to
review
the
information
voluntarily
submitted,
and
to
maintain
files.
Because
operators
are
currently
voluntarily
providing
the
informational
reports
to
the
government
and
because
EPA
anticipates
that
this
practice
will
continue,
EPA
included
the
burden
and
cost
of
review
of
this
information
in
the
government's
costs.

Users
of
the
Information:
The
procedures
in
the
Proposed
Rule
would
include
procedures
for
environmental
documentation,
any
associated
assessment
and
verification
information,
and
any
reporting
in
cases
of
emergency.
This
information
would
be
used
as
follows:

°
By
operators
to
identify
and
assess
the
potential
impacts
of
their
proposed
activities,
including
tourism,
on
the
Antarctic
environment;
to
consider
these
impacts
in
deciding
whether
or
how
to
proceed
with
proposed
activities;
and
to
provide
environmental
documentation
pursuant
to
the
Act
and
Annex
I
of
the
Protocol.
For
a
CEE,
any
decision
by
the
operator
on
whether
a
proposed
activity
should
proceed
in
either
its
original
or
modified
form
must
be
based
upon
the
final
CEE
as
well
as
other
relevant
considerations,
and
the
information
provided
in
an
evaluation
should
allow
the
operator
to
make
decisions
based
on
sound
understanding
of
factors
relevant
to
the
likely
impact
of
the
proposed
activity.

°
By
OFA,
in
consultation
with
other
interested
federal
agencies,
to
ensure
that
nongovernmental
operators
identify
and
assess
the
potential
impacts
of
their
proposed
activities,
including
tourism,
on
the
Antarctic
environment,
and
that
operators
consider
these
impacts
in
deciding
whether
or
how
to
proceed
with
proposed
activities.
OFA
would
also
make
the
environmental
documentation
and
any
associated
assessment
and
verification
information
available
to
other
Parties
to
the
Treaty
and
the
public,
including
tour
operators
and
environmental
groups,
as
required
under
the
Protocol
or
as
otherwise
requested.
OFA
may
use
the
assessment
and
verification
information
for
such
things
as
tracking
Antarctic
tourism
trends
and
activities.

3.
NONDUPLICATION,
CONSULTATIONS,
AND
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA
3(
a)
NONDUPLICATION:
The
information
that
would
be
requested
from
6Alternately,
under
the
paperwork
reduction
provisions
of
the
Interim
Final
Rule,
and
now
the
Proposed
Rule,
operators
could
choose
to
incorporate
it
by
referring
to
it
since
it
is
reasonably
available
to
EPA.
Practice
has
been
that
the
operators
have
included
a
copy
in
their
EIA
documentation.

7
respondents
under
this
ICR
is
required
by
statute
and
is
not
available
from
other
sources.
The
Act
requires
these
regulations
to
be
consistent
with
Annex
I
to
the
Protocol,
and
the
Proposed
Rule
would
provide
nongovernmental
operators
with
the
specific
requirements
they
would
need
to
meet
in
order
to
comply
with
the
Protocol.
Most
Antarctica
tour
operators
currently
provide,
on
an
informal
basis,
information
to
the
National
Science
Foundation
prior
to
each
Antarctic
season.
Operators
also
provide
an
advance
notice
to
the
U.
S.
Department
of
State.
This
information
is
similar
to
the
basic
information
requirements
for
preparation
of
environmental
documentation
under
the
Proposed
Rule.
However,
like
the
Interim
Final
Rule,
the
Proposed
Rule
would
ensure
that
nongovernmental
operators
identify
and
assess
the
potential
impacts
of
their
proposed
activities,
including
tourism,
on
the
Antarctic
environment,
and
that
operators
consider
these
impacts
in
deciding
whether
or
how
to
proceed
with
proposed
activities.
Even
the
lowest
level
of
environmental
documentation,
the
PERM,
would
direct
that
the
assessment
process
include
assessment
of
the
potential
direct
and
reasonably
foreseeable
indirect
impacts
on
the
Antarctic
environment
of
the
proposed
expedition
in
sufficient
detail
to
assess
whether
the
proposed
activity
may
have
less
than
a
minor
or
transitory
impact,
a
requirement
that
leads
to
consistency
with
Article
8
and
Annex
I
of
the
Protocol.
Operators
can,
and
under
the
Interim
Final
Rule
usually
did,
include
a
copy
of
the
advance
notice
as
part
of
their
EIA
documentation.
6
However,
as
with
the
Interim
Final
Rule,
simply
providing
a
copy
of
the
advance
notice
submitted
to
the
Department
of
State
as
the
environmental
documentation
would
not
meet
the
requirements
of
Article
8
and
Annex
I
of
the
Protocol
or
the
provisions
of
the
Proposed
Rule.

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

The
Office
of
Federal
Activities
published
in
the
Preamble
to
the
Proposed
Rule
at
Section
VII,
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
a
request
for
public
comments
on
the
ICR.
OFA
has
mailed
a
copy
of
the
Proposed
Rule,
including
the
Preamble
with
the
ICR
notice,
to
all
persons
who
have
expressed
interest
in
this
project
and
are
listed
on
the
project's
mailing
list.
The
Preamble
information
contains
the
burden
estimates
for
the
Proposed
Rule.

3(
c)
Consultations:
The
Office
of
Federal
Activities
held
a
public
scoping
meeting
on
July
8,
1997,
to
provide
an
overview
of
the
Interim
Final
Rule
and
to
take
public
comment
on
environmental
and
regulatory
issues
EPA
should
consider
in
developing
the
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Statement
(
EIS)
for
the
Proposed
Rule
and
alternatives,
and
to
address
the
environmental
and
regulatory
issues
raised
by
interested
agencies,
organizations,
groups
and
individuals.
One
of
the
issues
specifically
listed
in
the
"
Notice
of
Intent"
for
the
EIS
(
Federal
Register/
Vol.
62,
No.
90/
Friday,
May
9,
1997,
25611­
25613
(
Attachment
3),
was
the
paperwork
projection
in
the
Interim
Final
Rule.
Attendees
at
the
public
scoping
meeting
included:
7IAATO
is
the
principle
representative
of
the
tour
industry
and
U.
S.­
based
IAATO­
member
operators
are
the
primary
respondents
that
would
be
subject
to
the
Proposed
Rule.

8The
Antarctica
Project
(
TAP)
is
the
northern
hemisphere
secretariat
for
the
Antarctic
and
Southern
Ocean
Coalition
(
ASOC)
which
is
composed
of
various
environmental
organizations
with
interests
in
preserving
the
Antarctic
environment.

9Under
the
Interim
Final
Rule,
the
interested
Federal
agencies
included
those
on
EPA's
regulation
development
workgroup.
Although
active
on
EPA's
workgroup
to
develop
the
Proposed
Rule,
certain
of
these
agencies
would
not
routinely
take
part
in
the
document
reviews
under
the
Proposed
Rule
thus
they
are
not
included
in
the
estimated
burden
for
the
Federal
government
for
the
Proposed
Rule.

8
°
the
Executive
Secretary
and
legal
counsel
for
IAATO;
7
°
IAATO­
member
tour
operators
and
other
tour
operators;
°
the
Director
of
The
Antarctica
Project/
Antarctic
and
Southern
Coalition
(
TAP/
ASOC);
8
°
academics
with
Antarctic/
international
law
and
environmental
regulation
interests;
and
°
the
general
public.

None
of
the
meeting
participants
offered
comments
on
the
ICR
for
the
Interim
Final
Rule.
However,
in
comments
received
on
the
Supporting
Statement
for
the
ICR,
IAATO
indicated
that
EPA's
assumptions
about
the
information
collection
process
were
generally
correct
and
that
the
estimates
of
burden
(
costs
and
time)
were
essentially
accurate.
Thus,
for
purposes
of
the
Proposed
Rule,
EPA
has
estimated
the
burden
using
the
same
general
process.

The
Proposed
Rule
provides
that
EPA,
in
consultation
with
other
interested
Federal
agencies,
would
review
environmental
documents.
These
other
interested
Federal
agencies
have
been
identified
and
are
included
in
the
estimate
of
burden
for
the
Federal
government.
9
In
addition,
the
Department
of
State
agrees
with
its
responsibilities
under
the
Proposed
Rule
at
Section
8.12,
Coordination
of
reviews
from
other
Parties.

3(
d)
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection:
Like
the
Interim
Final
Rule,
the
Proposed
Rule
would
require
environmental
documentation
for
each
operator
for
each
nongovernmental
expedition
to
Antarctica.
Nongovernmental
activities
are
likely
to
be
limited
to
seasonal
tours
during
the
austral
summer
season
and
operators
would
report
annually
on
their
proposed
expeditions,
including
tourism
expeditions.
Operators
with
one­
time
only
expeditions
would
report
only
during
the
season
for
which
their
expedition
is
planned.
In
order
to
minimize
paperwork
and
to
implement
the
regulations
without
undue
burden
on
operators,
the
Proposed
Rule
would
provide
that:
(
1)
material
may
be
incorporated
by
referring
to
it
in
the
environmental
document
when
it
is
reasonably
available
to
EPA;
(
2)
more
than
one
proposed
expedition
by
an
operator
may
be
included
within
one
environmental
document;
(
3)
one
environmental
document
may
also
be
used
to
address
expeditions
being
carried
out
by
more
than
one
operator;
and
(
4)
operators
may
submit
multi­
year
environmental
documentation
to
address
proposed
expeditions
for
a
period
of
up
to
five
consecutive
austral
summer
seasons.
Once
environmental
documentation
has
been
prepared
for
a
season,
EPA
anticipates
that
an
operator
would
resubmit
10The
multi­
year
documentation
provision
was
recommended
to
EPA
during
the
scoping
process
for
the
EIS
and
was
considered
in
the
EIS
prepared
by
EPA
that
considered
the
alternatives
for
the
Proposed
Rule.

9
the
same
document
for
subsequent
seasons
provided
the
level
and
intensity
of
the
activities
are
not
unchanged
and
that
relevant
updates
are
included.
Updates
are
likely
to
include
such
items
as:
dates
of
expeditions
and
changes
in
landing
locations.
The
operator
would
revise
the
document
to
address
modifications
to
the
expedition's
activities
that
could
have
environmental
consequences.
Most
operators
are
likely
to
employ
the
multi­
year
provision
thereby
further
reducing
their
annual
reporting
burden.
Under
this
new
paperwork
reduction
provision
in
the
Proposed
Rule,
operators
may
submit
multi­
year
environmental
documentation.
10
This
provision
would
allow
operators
to
specifically
identify
and
assess
expeditions
on
a
multi­
year
basis
thus
eliminating
the
need
for
annual
submission
of
environmental
documentation
with
the
exception
of
an
annual
advance
notice
and
confirmation
that
the
information
provided
in
the
multi­
year
document
is
unchanged.

The
Protocol
and
the
Proposed
Rule
would
also
require
an
operator
to
employ
procedures
to
assess
and
provide
a
regular
and
verifiable
record
of
the
actual
impacts
of
any
activity
which
proceeds
on
the
basis
of
an
IEE
or
CEE.
For
activities
requiring
an
IEE,
an
operator
should
be
able
to
use
the
annual
procedures
currently
being
voluntarily
utilized
by
operators
to
provide
the
information.

3(
e)
General
Guidelines:
The
information
collections
associated
with
the
Proposed
Rule
follow
OMB's
guidelines.
Section
II.
F.
of
the
Preamble,
Submission
of
Environmental
Documents,
indicates
that
an
operator
would
submit
five
copies
of
its
environmental
documentation,
along
with
an
electronic
copy
in
HTML
format,
if
available.
EPA
would
coordinate
review
of
the
document
with
other
interested
Federal
agencies
and
would
make
documents
received
available
to
the
other
Federal
agencies
and
the
public.
EPA
believes
that
five
copies
(
total)
would
not
place
undue
burden
on
the
operator
and
would
enable
EPA
to
distribute
copies
to
the
reviewing
agencies
in
a
timely
manner,
particularly
in
light
of
the
timing
requirements
for
document
submission
and
review
prior
to
departure
for
the
expedition.

3(
f)
Confidentiality:
The
Proposed
Rule
does
not
require
submittal
of
confidential
information,
nor
does
EPA
anticipate
that
operators
would
submit
confidential
information
as
part
of
their
environmental
documentation.

3(
g)
Sensitive
Questions:
The
Proposed
Rule
does
not
require
response
to
sensitive
questions
(
e.
g.,
questions
concerning
sexual
behavior
or
attitudes,
religious
beliefs,
or
other
matters
usually
considered
private).

4.
THE
RESPONDENTS
AND
THE
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
4(
a)
RESPONDENTS/
SIC
AND
NAICS
CODES:
The
requirements
of
the
Proposed
Rule
would
apply
to
operators
of
nongovernmental
expeditions
organized
in
or
proceeding
from
the
territory
of
the
United
States
to
Antarctica
for
which
the
United
States
is
11The
SIC
Code
for
Tour
Operators
is
4725
and
the
NAICS
Code
is
561520.

10
required
to
give
advance
notice
under
Paragraph
5
of
Article
VII
of
the
Treaty
and
includes
commercial
and
non­
commercial
expeditions.
11
Expeditions
could
include
ship­
based
tours;
yacht,
skiing
or
mountaineering
expeditions;
privately
funded
research
expeditions;
and
other
nongovernmental
or
nongovernmental­
sponsored
activities.
The
Proposed
Rule
would
not
apply
to
individual
U.
S.
citizens
or
groups
of
citizens
planning
to
travel
to
Antarctica
on
an
expedition
for
which
they
are
not
acting
as
an
operator.
(
Operators,
for
example,
typically
acquire
use
of
vessels
or
aircraft,
hire
expedition
staff,
plan
itineraries,
and
undertake
other
organizational
responsibilities.)
Further,
the
Act
is
specific
for
nongovernmental
activities,
thus
governmental
jurisdictions
would
not
be
subject
to
these
regulations.

4(
b)
INFORMATION
REQUESTED:

Data
items,
including
recordkeeping
requirements:
The
Proposed
Rule
would
provide
nongovernmental
operators
with
the
specific
environmental
documentation
requirements
they
would
need
to
meet
in
order
to
comply
with
relevant
portions
of
the
Protocol.
Nongovernmental
operators,
including
tour
operators,
conducting
expeditions
to
Antarctica
would
be
required
to
submit
environmental
documentation
to
EPA
that
evaluates
the
potential
environmental
impact
of
their
proposed
activities.
The
type
of
environmental
document
required
would
depend
upon
the
nature
and
intensity
of
the
environmental
impacts
that
could
result
from
the
activity
under
consideration.
Like
the
Interim
Final
Rule,
under
the
Proposed
Rule
environmental
documentation
would
include
a
Preliminary
Environmental
Review
Memorandum
(
PERM),
an
Initial
Environmental
Evaluation
(
IEE),
or
a
Comprehensive
Environmental
Evaluation
(
CEE).
If
the
operator
were
to
determine
that
an
expedition
would
have:
(
1)
less
than
a
minor
or
transitory
impact,
a
PERM
would
need
to
be
submitted
no
later
than
180
days
before
the
proposed
departure
to
Antarctica;
(
2)
no
more
than
minor
or
transitory
impacts,
including
the
cumulative
impacts
of
the
proposed
activity
in
light
of
existing
and
known
proposed
activities,
an
IEE
would
need
to
be
submitted
no
later
than
90
days
before
the
proposed
departure;
or
(
3)
more
than
minor
or
transitory
impacts,
including
the
cumulative
impacts
of
the
proposed
activity
in
light
of
existing
and
known
proposed
activities,
a
CEE
would
need
to
be
submitted.

The
Protocol
and
the
Proposed
Rule
would
also
require
an
operator
to
employ
procedures
to
assess
and
provide
a
regular
and
verifiable
record
of
the
actual
impacts
of
an
activity
which
proceeds
on
the
basis
on
an
IEE
or
CEE,
including
monitoring
of
key
environmental
indicators
for
an
activity
proceeding
on
the
basis
of
a
CEE,
or,
if
necessary,
an
IEE.
For
activities
that
would
require
an
IEE,
an
operator
should
be
able
to
use
procedures
currently
being
voluntarily
utilized
by
operators
to
provide
the
required
information.
For
activities
that
would
require
a
CEE,
OFA
would
consult
with
the
National
Science
Foundation
and
other
interested
Federal
agencies
regarding
the
monitoring
regime
that
would
be
appropriate
to
the
activity
proposed,
and
with
regard
to
possible
utilization
of
relevant
monitoring
data
collected
by
the
U.
S.
Antarctic
Program.

Environmental
documentation
would
be
submitted
to
EPA
by
an
operator
prior
to
an
11
expedition.
For
most
respondents,
including
tour
operators,
EPA
assumes
this
would
be
an
IEE
and,
as
provided
in
the
Proposed
Rule
at
Section
8.4,
an
operator
may:
(
1)
include
more
than
one
proposed
expedition
within
one
environmental
document,
and
(
2)
one
environmental
document
may
also
be
used
to
address
expeditions
being
carried
out
by
more
than
one
operator.
An
operator
could
also
submit
multi­
year
documentation
to
address
proposed
expeditions
for
a
period
of
up
to
five
consecutive
austral
summer
seasons
thus
eliminating
the
need
for
annual
submission
of
environmental
documentation
with
the
exception
of
an
annual
advance
notice
and
confirmation
that
the
information
provided
in
the
multi­
year
documentation
is
unchanged.
Operators
would
not
be
required
to
retain
the
environmental
documentation
submitted
to
EPA.
There
is
nothing
in
the
Proposed
Rule,
however,
that
precludes
an
operator
from
submitting
a
previous
year's
documentation,
with
appropriate
updates,
for
a
subsequent
year's
expedition(
s).

In
cases
of
emergency
relating
to
the
safety
of
human
life
or
of
ships,
aircraft,
equipment
and
facilities
of
high
value,
or
the
protection
of
the
environment
which
would
require
an
activity
to
be
undertaken
without
completion
of
the
documentation
procedures
set
out
in
the
Proposed
Rule,
the
operator
would
notify
the
Department
of
State
within
15
days
of
any
activities
which
would
have
otherwise
required
preparation
of
a
CEE,
and
provide
a
full
explanation
of
the
activities
carried
out
within
45
days
of
those
activities.

Enforcement
action
could
proceed
pursuant
to
the
Proposed
Rule,
Section
8.1l,
against
an
operator
who
would
violate
any
provision
of
the
Proposed
Rule.
Enforcement
actions
are
not,
however,
subject
to
the
requirements
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act.

Respondent
Activities:
The
EPA
considered
the
definition
of
"
burden"
developed
for
the
PRA
and
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget's
(
OMB's)
final
rules
on
implementing
the
PRA.
EPA
used
a
ship­
based
tour
operator
as
its
model
respondent
since
most
U.
S.­
based
nongovernmental
activities
covered
by
the
Proposed
Rule
are
activities
associated
with
ship­
based
tourism
as
summarized
in
Figure
1.
12
Nine
IAATO­
member
operators
submitted
one
IEE
for
their
Peninsula
area
expeditions
but
one
of
the
operators
did
not
proceed
with
its
planned
tours
during
the
season;
this
operator
plans
to
continue
its
operations
in
the
out­
years.
One
non­
IAATO
operator
also
submitted
an
IEE
for
the
2001­
2002
austral
season
which
is
not
included
in
the
figures
listed
for
the
2000­
2001
season.

12
Figure
1.
Numbers
of
Respondents
Submitting
Environmental
Documentation
Under
the
Interim
Final
Rule
and
the
Level
of
Documentation
Submitted
Season
Respondents
Documentation
Submitted
1997­
1998
9
4
total
IEEs
submitted
including:
°
1
IEE
submitted
on
behalf
of
five
IAATO­
member
operators
for
expeditions
to
the
Peninsula
area
°
1
IEE
submitted
by
two
IAATO­
member
operators
for
their
expeditions
to
the
Ross
Sea
area
°
2
IEEs
submitted
by
non­
IAATO
operators
1998­
1999
10
4
total
IEEs
submitted
including:
°
1
IEE
submitted
on
behalf
of
seven
IAATO­
member
operators
for
expeditions
to
the
Peninsula
area
°
1
IEE
submitted
by
one
IAATO­
member
operator
for
its
expeditions
to
the
Ross
Sea
area
°
2
IEEs
submitted
by
non­
IAATO
operators
1999­
2000
12
6
total
IEEs
submitted
including:
°
1
IEE
submitted
on
behalf
of
eight
IAATO­
member
operators
for
expeditions
to
the
Peninsula
area
°
1
IEE
submitted
by
one
IAATO­
member
operator
for
its
expeditions
to
the
Ross
Sea
area
°
4
IEEs
submitted
by
non­
IAATO
operators
including
a
one­
time
only
filming
expedition
and
a
one­
time
only
cruise­
only
expedition
2000­
2001
13
12
5
total
IEEs
submitted
including:
°
1
IEE
submitted
on
behalf
of
nine
IAATO­
member
operators
for
expeditions
to
the
Peninsula
area
°
1
IEE
submitted
by
one
IAATO­
member
operator
for
its
expeditions
to
the
Ross
Sea
area
°
3
IEEs
submitted
by
non­
IAATO
operators
including
a
one­
time
only
trekking
expedition
The
EPA
burden
and
cost
estimate
is
based
on
the
following
activities
which
EPA
assumes
a
respondent
would
carry
out
to
prepare
and
submit
the
environmental
documentation
and
undertake
as
assessment
and
verification
procedures.

Assumed
Operator
Activities
Associated
With:

1.
Preparing
and
Submitting
Environmental
Documentation:
1.
Read
the
regulations
and
evaluate
business
operations
and
the
expedition(
s)
activities
relative
to
the
regulatory
provisions
of
the
Proposed
Rule
and
determine
the
level
of
13EPA
will
routinely
consult
with
the
Department
of
State
(
DOS)
and
the
National
Science
Foundation
(
NSF).
EPA
may
consult
with
other
agencies
when
appropriate
for
specific
activities.
These
may
include:
U.
S.
Coast
Guard
(
USCG),
Marine
Mammal
Commission
(
MMC),
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration
(
NOAA,
including
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service),
and
the
Department
of
Justice
(
DOJ).

13
environmental
documentation
needed;
2.
Search
reference
sources
for
existing
information
on
environmental
conditions
at
proposed
expedition
site(
s)
and
compile
basic
information
from
company
records
for
use
in
preparation
of
the
environmental
documentation
for
the
proposed
expedition(
s);
3.
Prepare
the
environmental
impact
assessment
(
EIA)
documentation
(
e.
g.,
PERM,
IEE
or
CEE),
or
review
a
contractor­
prepared
document,
and
submit
to
EPA;
and
4.
Revise
documentation
if
necessary,
or
operator
decides
to
prepare
higher
level
EIA
documentation,
in
response
to
EPA's
comments
and
submit
to
EPA.

2.
Post­
Expedition
Assessment
and
Verification
Procedures:
1.
Prepare
assessment
and
verification
information.

3.
Reporting
for
Cases
of
Emergency,
if
necessary:
1.
Notify
the
Department
of
State
of
any
activities
which
would
have
otherwise
required
preparation
of
a
CEE
within
15
days.
2.
Provide
a
full
report
to
the
Department
of
State
within
45
days
The
Proposed
Rule
does
NOT
require
or
contemplate
the
need
for
respondents
to:

1.
Acquire,
install,
or
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purpose
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information;
2.
Develop,
acquire,
install,
or
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purpose
of
processing
and
maintaining
information;
3.
Develop,
acquire,
install,
or
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purpose
of
disclosing
and
providing
information;
or
4.
Adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements.

5.
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTED­­
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY,
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
5(
a)
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES:
The
EPA
would
consult
with
the
Department
of
State,
the
National
Science
Foundation,
and
other
interested
Federal
agencies13
for
activities
associated
with
the
Proposed
Rule.
This
would
enable
government
agencies
with
specific
Antarctic
interests
and
expertise
to
be
involved
with
the
review
of
the
environmental
documentation
for
proposed
nongovernmental
expeditions,
as
appropriate,
including
coordination
of
appropriate
information
relative
to
the
U.
S.
Antarctic
Program.
Further,
violation
of
the
provisions
of
the
Proposed
Rule
could
result
in
enforcement
and
penalties
pursuant
to
the
Antarctic
Conservation
Act,
as
14
amended,
as
undertaken
by
the
National
Science
Foundation
and/
or
the
Department
of
Justice.
Finally,
the
Department
of
State
would
have
specific
responsibilities
under
the
Proposed
Rule,
Section
8.12,
Coordination
of
reviews
from
other
Parties,
and
for
circulating
a
CEE
that
would
be
prepared
in
accordance
with
the
Proposed
Rule
at
Section
8.8,
along
with
any
decisions
by
the
operator
relating
thereto,
to
all
Parties.
Activities
associated
with
the
Proposed
Rule
for
the
EPA
and
other
Federal
agencies
consist
of
the
following.

EPA
and
Other
Federal
Agencies
Activities
Associated
With:

1.
Processing
and
Reviewing
Environmental
Documentation
Received
from
Operators:
1.
Post
receipt
of
environmental
documents
on
OFA's
World
Wide
Website,
and
provide
copies
to
other
Federal
agencies
and
the
public,
if
requested.
2.
Prepare
and
publish
Federal
Register
notice
of
receipt
of
draft
CEEs
and
notice
of
availability
for
Final
CEEs.
3.
Review
environmental
documents,
including
any
appropriate
public
comments,
and
provide
comments
to
the
operator.
4.
Consult
with
operators
on
the
comments,
or
any
other
elements
associated
with
the
environmental
documentation
requirements.
5.
Circulate
to
interested
Federal
agencies
and
review
the
revised
or
final
document
submitted
by
the
operator,
and
notify
the
operator,
if
necessary,
if
the
environmental
documentation
does
not
meet
the
requirements
of
the
Protocol
and
the
provisions
of
the
Proposed
Rule.
6.
Notify
the
Parties
and
provide
copies
to
the
Committee
for
Environmental
Protection
of
the
annual
list
of
IEEs,
draft
CEEs
and
final
CEEs.
7.
Maintain
files.

2.
Processing
and
Reviewing
Post­
Expedition
Assessment
and
Verification
Information:
1.
Review
assessment
and
verification
information
submitted
by
operators.
2.
Maintain
files.

3.
Processing
and
Reviewing
Reports
for
Cases
of
Emergency,
if
necessary:
1.
Notify
Parties
to
the
Protocol
when
activities
taken
in
cases
of
emergency
are
reported
by
operators
which
required
the
operator
to
undertake
any
activities
which
would
have
otherwise
required
preparation
of
a
CEE.
2.
Forward
the
operator's
full
explanation
of
the
activities
carried
out
to
the
Parties.
3.
Review
assessment
and
verification
information
submitted
by
operator.
4.
Maintain
file.

4.
Processing
and
Reviewing
Environmental
Documentation
Received
from
Other
Parties:
1.
Prepare
and
publish
Federal
Register
notice
of
receipt
of
a
draft
CEE
from
another
Party
and
provide
copies
to
other
interested
Federal
agencies
and
the
public,
if
requested.
2.
Review
draft
CEE
and
transmit
inter­
agency
response
to
the
Party
that
circulated
the
CEE.
14
For
example,
Sweden
has
a
specific
form,
and
the
United
Kingdom
has
a
permit
system.
For
purposes
of
the
Proposed
Rule,
an
operator
could
submit
environmental
documentation
prepared
for
another
country
as
long
as
all
the
elements
required
by
the
rule
are
addressed.

15Information,
including
quoted
material,
taken
from:
"
Program
Office
Responsibilities
for
ICRs
for
Rules,"
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
icr/
rule.
htm.

15
3.
Provide
copies
of
other
environmental
documents
to
interested
Federal
agencies
and
the
public,
if
requested.
Other
environmental
documents
may
include:
a)
a
description
of
national
procedures
for
considering
the
environmental
impacts
of
proposed
activities;
b)
an
annual
list
of
any
IEEs
and
any
decisions
taken
in
consequence
thereof;
c)
significant
information
obtained
and
any
action
taken
in
consequence
thereof
with
regard
to
monitoring
from
IEEs
and
CEEs;
and
d)
information
on
a
final
CEE.
4.
Post
receipt
of
significant
monitoring
information
on
OFA's
World
Wide
Website.
5.
Maintain
files.

5(
b)
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY
AND
MANAGEMENT:
The
environmental
documentation
that
would
be
required
by
the
Proposed
Rule
would
be
submitted
by
operators
in
accordance
with
the
deadlines
in
the
regulations.
These
documents
would
be
submitted
in
hard
copy
and
could
also
be
submitted
electronically.
The
Proposed
Rule
would
mandate
specific
information
to
be
included
in
the
document,
but
would
not
require
a
specific
format.
Since
the
information
requirement
is
the
same
as
that
in
the
Protocol,
this
would
allow
flexibility
for
operators
who
have
multiple
international
documentation
requirements.
14
EPA
would,
in
consultation
with
other
interested
Federal
agencies,
review
the
environmental
documentation
relative
to
the
general
requirements
(
e.
g.,
Proposed
Rule,
Section
8.4)
and
the
specific
requirements
for
each
level
of
documentation
(
e.
g.,
Proposed
Rule,
Section
8.6
for
PERMs,
Section
8.7
for
IEEs,
and
Section
8.8
for
CEEs).
EPA
would
provide
its
comments
to
the
operator,
and
the
operator
would
then
prepare
revised
documentation,
if
necessary.
Following
the
final
response
from
the
operator,
EPA
would,
with
the
concurrence
of
the
National
Science
Foundation,
make
a
finding
that
the
documentation
submitted
does
not
meet
the
requirements
of
Article
8
and
Annex
I
of
the
Protocol
and
the
provisions
of
the
regulations.
EPA
would
provide
copies
of
environmental
documents
to
all
interested
Federal
agencies,
and
the
public
would
be
informed
of
receipt
of
environmental
documents
through
notice
on
OFA's
Homepage
on
the
World
Wide
Web,
and
through
the
Federal
Register
for
CEEs.

5(
c)
SMALL
ENTITY
FLEXIBILITY:
15
The
PRA
incorporated
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA)
into
it.
The
RFA
requires
EPA
to
prepare
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
for
any
rule
that
has
a
"
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities."
As
part
of
the
certification
requirement,
the
EPA
must
show
that
the
collection:

"
reduces
to
the
extent
practicable
and
appropriate
the
burden
on
persons
who
shall
16
provide
information
to
or
for
the
agency,
including
with
respect
to
small
entities,
as
defined
in
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
5
U.
S.
C.
601(
6)),
the
use
of
such
techniques
as:
"(
1)
establishing
differing
compliance
or
reporting
requirements
or
timetables
that
take
into
account
the
resources
available
to
those
who
are
to
respond;
"(
2)
the
clarification,
consolidation,
or
simplification
of
compliance
and
reporting
requirements;
or
"(
3)
an
exemption
from
coverage
of
the
collection
of
information,
or
any
part
thereof;

The
requirements
of
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(
SBREFA,
5
U.
S.
C.
601
et
seq.)
must
also
be
considered.
The
Small
Business
Administrations'
size
eligibility
provisions
and
standards
are
codified
at
13
CFR
Part
121.
Section
601
of
the
RFA
defines
a
"
small
entity"
to
include
"
small
business,"
"
small
organization,"
and
"
small
governmental
jurisdiction."
These
terms
are
defined
as
follows:

°
A
"
small
business"
is
defined
as
any
business
that
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
not
dominant
in
its
field
as
defined
by
the
Small
Business
Administration
regulations
under
Section
3
of
the
Small
Business
Act.

°
A
"
small
organization"
is
defined
as
any
not­
for­
profit
enterprise
that
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
not
dominant
in
its
field
(
e.
g.,
private
hospitals
and
educational
institutions).

°
A
"
small
governmental
jurisdiction"
is
defined
as
governments
of
cities,
counties,
towns,
townships,
villages,
school
districts,
or
special
districts
with
a
population
of
less
than
50,000.
The
definition
of
a
small
governmental
jurisdiction
may
also
include
Indian
Tribes,
in
keeping
with
the
President's
Federal
Indian
Policy.

For
purposes
of
assessing
the
impacts
of
the
Proposed
Rule
on
small
entities,
small
entity
has
been
defined
as:
(
1)
a
small
business
as
defined
by
the
Small
Business
Administration
with
the
North
American
Industry
Classification
System
(
NAICS)
code
for
"
Tour
Operators"
(
NAICS
code
561520)
with
annual
maximum
receipts
of
$
5.0
million
(
13
CFR
Part
121);
(
2)
a
small
governmental
jurisdiction
that
is
a
government
of
a
city,
county,
town,
school
district
or
special
district
with
a
population
of
less
than
50,000;
and
(
3)
a
small
organization
that
is
any
not­
forprofit
enterprise
which
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
is
not
dominant
in
its
field.
Note
that
under
the
Antarctic
Science,
Tourism,
and
Conservation
Act
of
1996,
governmental
jurisdictions
are
not
subject
to
this
rulemaking.

In
determining
whether
a
rule
has
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities,
the
impact
of
concern
is
any
significant
adverse
economic
impact
on
small
entities,
since
the
primary
purpose
of
the
regulatory
flexibility
analyses
is
to
identify
and
address
regulatory
alternatives
"
which
minimize
any
significant
economic
impact
of
the
proposed
rule
on
small
entities."
5
U.
S.
C.
Sections
603
and
604.
Thus,
an
agency
may
certify
that
a
rule
will
not
have
a
17
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities
if
the
rule
relieves
regulatory
burden,
or
otherwise
has
a
positive
economic
effect
on
all
of
the
small
entities
subject
to
the
rule.
EPA
believes
that
because
this
Proposed
Rule
only
requires
assessment
of
environmental
impacts
the
effects
on
any
small
entities
will
be
limited
primarily
to
the
cost
of
preparing
such
an
analysis
and
that
the
requirements
are
no
greater
than
necessary
to
ensure
that
the
United
States
will
be
in
compliance
with
its
international
obligations
under
the
Protocol
and
the
Treaty.
The
costs
are
likely
to
be
minimal
because
it
is
EPA's
view
that
the
types
of
activities
currently
being
carried
out
will
typically
be
unlikely
to
have
impacts
that
are
more
than
minor
or
transitory
assuming
that
activities
will
be
carried
out
in
accordance
with
the
guidelines
set
forth
in
the
ATCM
Recommendation
XVIII­
1,
Tourism
and
Non­
Governmental
Activities,
the
relevant
provisions
of
other
U.
S.
statutes,
and
Annexes
II­
V
to
the
Protocol.
Therefore,
most
activities
will
likely
need
only
IEE
documentation,
the
cost
of
which
is
minimal
as
shown
in
Section
6
of
this
Supporting
Statement
and
as
presented
in
the
Preamble
to
the
Proposed
Rule,
Section
VII,
Paperwork
Reduction
Act.
As
shown
in
Section
6
of
this
document
and
Exhibit
1B,
the
average
cost
per
respondent
to
prepare
and
submit
environmental
documentation
for
the
first
year
is
estimated
at
$
2,668
to
$
13,405,
and
the
average
cost
per
respondent
to
prepare
and
submit
environmental
documentation
for
subsequent
years
is
estimated
at
$
1,844
to
$
14,117,
depending
on
the
anticipated
level
of
environmental
documentation
and
the
paperwork
reduction
provisions
employed
by
the
respondent.
For
any
small
business,
this
represents
a
cost
of
less
than
1%.
Further,
EPA
has
included
provisions
in
the
Proposed
Rule
which
are
available
to
all
respondents,
including
small
entities,
which
will
have
a
positive
effect
by
minimizing
the
cost
of
such
an
analysis.
It
has
been
EPA's
experience
that
respondents
used
the
paperwork
reduction
provisions
in
the
Interim
Final
Rule.
EPA
anticipates
that
respondents
will
continue
to
use
these
provisions
and
the
new
provision
that
would
allow
submission
of
environmental
documentation
on
a
multiyear
basis.
The
paperwork
reduction
provisions
in
the
Proposed
Rule
include:
(
1)
material
may
be
incorporated
by
referring
to
it
in
the
environmental
document
with
its
content
briefly
described
when
the
cited
material
is
reasonably
available
to
the
EPA;
(
2)
more
than
one
proposed
expedition
by
an
operator
may
be
included
within
one
environmental
document
and
may,
if
appropriate,
include
a
single
discussion
of
components
of
the
environmental
analysis
which
are
applicable
to
some
or
all
of
the
proposed
expeditions;
(
3)
one
environmental
document
may
also
be
used
to
address
expeditions
being
carried
out
by
more
than
one
operator,
provided
that
the
environmental
documentation
includes
the
names
of
each
operator
for
which
the
environmental
documentation
is
being
submitted
pursuant
to
obligations
under
these
regulations;
and
(
4)
one
environmental
document
may
be
submitted
by
one
or
more
operators
for
proposed
expeditions
for
a
period
of
up
to
five
consecutive
austral
summer
seasons,
provided
that
the
conditions
of
the
multi­
year
environmental
document,
including
the
assessment
of
cumulative
impacts,
are
unchanged
and
that
the
operator,
or
operators,
also
submit
an
annual
advance
notice
and
confirmation
that
the
information
provided
in
the
multi­
year
document
is
unchanged.

In
order
to
provide
for
"
establishing
differing
compliance
or
reporting
requirements
or
timetables
that
take
into
account
the
resources
available
to
those
who
are
to
respond"
(
above)
and
in
consideration
of
the
timing
requirements
associated
with
the
need
to
assist
new
operators
who
are
unfamiliar
with
the
regulations
and
its
schedules,
or
to
assist
operators
who
have
16For
the
four
austral
seasons
the
Interim
Final
Rule
has
been
in
effect,
operators
have
used
all
of
the
available
paperwork
provisions
available
under
the
Interim
Final
Rule
which
included:
a)
incorporation
of
material
by
referring
to
it
in
the
IEE;
b)
inclusion
of
all
proposed
expeditions
within
one
IEE;
and
c)
submission
of
IEEs
that
addressed
expeditions
being
carried
out
by
more
than
one
operator.

18
unanticipated
amendments
to
their
EIA
documentation
for
a
particular
year,
the
Proposed
Rule
at
Section
8.5(
b)
would
provide
EPA
may
waive
or
modify
the
deadlines
of
the
Proposed
Rule
if
EPA
would
determine
an
operator
is
acting
in
good
faith
and
that
circumstances
outside
the
control
of
the
operator
created
delays,
provided
that
environmental
documentation
fully
meets
deadlines
under
the
Protocol.

In
order
to
provide
for
"
the
clarification,
consolidation,
or
simplification
of
compliance
and
reporting
requirements"
(
above),
the
Proposed
Rule
at
Section
8.4
would
provide
for:
(
1)
incorporation
of
information
by
citing
and
briefly
describing
information
reasonably
available
to
EPA,
(
2)
consolidation
of
environmental
documentation
including
more
than
one
proposed
expedition
by
an
operator
and/
or
expeditions
being
carried
out
by
more
than
one
operator
in
a
single
environmental
document,
and
(
3)
submission
of
multi­
year
EIA
documentation
to
address
proposed
expeditions
for
a
period
of
up
to
five
consecutive
austral
summer
seasons
with
the
exception
of
an
annual
advance
notice
and
confirmation
that
the
information
provided
in
the
multi­
year
EIA
document
is
unchanged.
16
The
Proposed
Rule
does
not
provide
"
an
exemption
from
coverage
of
the
collection
of
information,
or
any
part
thereof"
(
above).
This
is
because
the
Proposed
Rule
would
only
require
assessment
of
environmental
impacts
that
is
limited
to
the
cost
of
preparing
such
an
analysis
and
the
requirements
would
be
no
greater
than
necessary
to
ensure
that
the
United
States
will
be
in
compliance
with
its
international
obligations
under
the
Protocol
and
the
Treaty.

5(
d)
COLLECTION
SCHEDULE:
The
schedule
for
submittal
of
environmental
documentation
would
depend
on
the
document
to
be
submitted
as
described
below.
An
operator
could
submit
environmental
documentation
prior
to
these
deadlines.
In
all
cases,
however,
documents
would
need
to
be
submitted
such
that
the
schedule
requirements
for
submitting
draft
CEEs
to
the
Parties
can
be
met
by
the
United
States.

Preliminary
Environmental
Review
Memorandum
(
PERM):
In
accordance
with
the
Proposed
Rule
at
Section
8.6,
a
PERM
would
need
to
be
submitted
to
EPA
no
less
than
180
days
before
the
proposed
departure
of
the
expedition.
°
EPA,
in
consultation
with
other
interested
Federal
agencies,
would
provide
its
comments
to
the
operator
within
15
days
of
receipt.
°
The
operator
would
then
have
75
days
to
revise
the
PERM
or
prepare
an
IEE,
if
necessary.
If
an
IEE
is
prepared
and
submitted
within
the
75
day
response
period,
it
would
be
reviewed
under
the
time
frames
for
an
IEE
(
see
below).
If
a
CEE
is
prepared,
it
would
be
reviewed
under
the
time
frames
for
a
CEE
(
see
below.)
°
Within
30
days,
if
appropriate,
EPA
would,
with
the
concurrence
of
the
National
17See:
Proposed
Rule,
Preamble,
Section
II.
D.
3(
c).
Article
3(
4),
of
Annex
I
of
the
Protocol
requires
that
draft
CEEs
be
distributed
to
all
Parties
and
the
Committee
for
Environmental
Protection
120
days
in
advance
of
the
next
Antarctic
Treaty
Consultative
Meeting
(
ATCM)
at
which
the
CEE
may
be
addressed.
For
example,
for
the
2002­
2003
season,
any
operator
who
plans
an
activity
which
would
require
a
CEE
would
need
to
submit
the
draft
to
EPA
by
December
1,
2001,
in
order
to
ensure
time
for
its
distribution
to
all
Parties
and
the
Committee
120
days
in
advance
of
the
ATCM.
Operators
who
anticipate
such
activities
would
be
encouraged
to
consult
with
EPA
as
soon
as
possible
regarding
the
date
for
submitting
the
CEE.
In
fact,
there
were
no
CEEs
submitted
during
the
four
seasons
the
Interim
Final
Rule
has
been
in
effect.

19
Science
Foundation,
provide
notice
to
the
operator
that
the
environmental
documentation
does
not
meet
the
requirements
of
the
Protocol
and
the
provisions
of
the
Proposed
Rule.

Initial
Environmental
Evaluation
(
IEE):
In
accordance
with
the
Proposed
Rule
at
Section
8.7,
an
IEE
would
need
to
be
submitted
no
fewer
than
90
days
before
the
proposed
departure
of
the
expedition.
°
EPA,
in
consultation
with
other
interested
Federal
agencies,
would
provide
its
comments
to
the
operator
within
30
days
of
receipt.
°
The
operator
would
then
have
45
days
to
revise
the
IEE
or
prepare
a
CEE,
if
necessary.
If
a
CEE
is
prepared,
it
would
be
reviewed
under
the
time
frames
for
a
CEE
(
see
below).
°
Within
15
days
of
receiving
the
final
IEE
from
the
operator
or,
if
the
operator
does
not
provide
a
final
IEE,
within
60
days
following
EPA's
comments
on
the
original
IEE,
if
appropriate,
EPA
would,
with
the
concurrence
of
the
National
Science
Foundation,
provide
notice
to
the
operator
that
the
environmental
documentation
does
not
meet
the
requirements
of
the
Protocol
and
the
provisions
of
the
Proposed
Rule.

Comprehensive
Environmental
Evaluation
(
CEE):
In
accordance
with
the
Proposed
Rule
at
Section
8.8(
b),
operators
would
need
to
submit
a
CEE.
17
°
Within
15
days
of
receipt,
EPA
would:
(
1)
send
it
to
the
Department
of
State
for
circulation
to
the
Parties
and
Committee
for
Environmental
Protection;
and
(
2)
publish
notice
of
receipt
and
request
for
comments
in
the
Federal
Register.
°
EPA
would
accept
public
comments
for
90
days
following
the
published
notice.
°
EPA,
in
consultation
with
other
interested
Federal
agencies,
would
provide
its
comments
to
the
operator
within
120
days
following
the
Federal
Register
notice.
°
The
operator
would
then
need
to
submit
a
final
CEE
75
days
before
commencement
of
the
proposed
activity
in
the
Antarctic
Treaty
area.
°
Within
15
days
of
receiving
the
final
CEE
from
the
operator
or,
if
the
operator
does
not
provide
a
final
CEE,
within
60
days
prior
to
departure
of
the
expedition,
if
appropriate,
EPA
would
provide
notice
to
the
operator
that
the
environmental
documentation
does
not
meet
the
requirements
of
the
Protocol
and
the
provisions
of
the
Proposed
Rule.
°
If
EPA
does
not
provide
such
notice,
the
operator
would
have
met
all
requirements
provided
that
procedures,
which
may
include
appropriate
monitoring,
are
put
in
place
to
assess
and
verify
the
impact
of
the
activity.
°
No
later
than
60
days
before
commencement
of
the
proposed
activity
in
the
Antarctic
Treaty
area,
EPA
would:
(
1)
transmit
the
CEE,
along
with
notice
of
any
decisions
by
the
18For
the
four
austral
summer
seasons
the
Interim
Final
Rule
has
been
in
effect,
environmental
documentation
was
submitted
primarily
by
ship­
based
tour
operators
and
one
privately
funded
researcher;
most
of
the
U.
S.­
based
tour
operators
are
members
of
IAATO.
(
See
Attachment
4,
IAATO
Membership
Directory.)
Full
Members
are
experienced
for­
profit
companies
that
organize
and/
or
operate
travel
programs
to
the
Antarctic;
Associate
Members
are
other
organizations
and
individuals
interested
in
or
promoting
travel
to
the
Antarctic.
(
From:
IAATO
Bylaws,
Article
III:
Membership,
Section
A)

20
operator,
to
the
Department
of
State
for
circulation
to
the
Parties,
and
(
2)
publish
notice
of
availability
of
the
final
CEE
in
the
Federal
Register.

Information
to
Assess
and
Verify
Impacts:
There
would
be
no
set
schedule
requirements
in
the
Proposed
Rule
for
submitting
information
on
measures
to
assess
and
verify
environmental
impacts.
It
is
assumed
tour
operators
would
continue
to
provide
the
information
on
the
same
schedule
they
have
voluntarily
following
under
the
Interim
Final
Rule
in
providing
information
to
the
National
Science
Foundation,
and
that
any
other
operators
would
also
voluntarily
provide
information.
Under
the
Interim
Final
Rule,
operators
often
specified
this
schedule
within
the
environmental
document
for
the
expedition.

Reporting
for
Cases
of
Emergency:
In
accordance
with
the
Proposed
Rule
at
Section
8.10,
within
15
days
in
cases
of
emergency,
an
operator
would
need
to
report
notice
of
any
activities
which
would
have
otherwise
required
preparation
of
a
CEE
to
the
Department
of
State,
and
within
45
days
of
those
activities,
a
full
explanation
of
the
activities
carried
out.

6.
ESTIMATING
THE
BURDEN
AND
COST
OF
THE
COLLECTION
6(
a)
ESTIMATED
ANNUAL
RESPONDENT
BURDEN
AND
COST
Exhibits
1A,
1B
(
including
Table
1),
and
1C
present
the
estimated
respondent
(
e.
g.,
operator)
burden
and
cost
for
the
three
possible
levels
of
environmental
documentation
(
e.
g.,
PERM,
IEE,
CEE)
and
associated
post­
expedition
assessment
and
verification
procedures.
Exhibit
1D
presents
the
estimated
respondent
burden
and
cost
for
reporting
for
cases
of
emergency.
Respondent
burden
tables
were
prepared
for
each
type
of
environmental
documentation
since
the
effort
should
increase
as
an
increasing
level
of
environmental
documentation
is
required;
e.
g.,
from
PERM
to
IEE
to
CEE
.

The
model
respondent
used
in
the
estimates
is
a
nongovernmental,
U.
S.­
based
Antarctic
tour
ship
operator.
18
The
estimated
burden
and
cost
for
operators
is
based
on
the
assumption
that
most
environmental
documentation
submitted
by
operators
will
be
IEEs.
As
stated
in
the
Preamble
to
the
Proposed
Rule
(
Section
II.
D.
3(
b)),
at
a
minimum,
an
IEE
is
typically
the
appropriate
level
of
environmental
documentation
for
proposed
activities.
It
is
EPA's
view
that
the
types
of
nongovernmental
activities
that
are
currently
being
carried
out
will
typically
be
unlikely
to
have
impacts
that
are
more
than
minor
or
transitory
assuming
that
activities
will
be
carried
out
in
accordance
with
the
guidelines
set
forth
in
the
ATCM,
Recommendation
XVIII­
1,
Tourism
and
Non­
Governmental
Activities,
the
relevant
provisions
of
other
U.
S.
statutes,
and
21
Annexes
II­
V
to
the
Protocol.
In
fact,
during
the
four
austral
summer
seasons
the
Interim
Final
Rule
has
been
in
effect,
IEEs
have
been
submitted
by
operators
as
summarized
in
Figure
1.

The
following
elements
further
discuss
the
assumptions
factored
into
the
estimated
respondent
burden
and
cost.

1.
Number
of
Respondents:
Based
on
EPA's
experience
during
the
four
austral
summer
seasons
the
Interim
Final
Rule
has
been
in
effect
(
see
Figure
1),
the
total
number
of
respondents
is
estimated
as
fourteen
and
the
number
of
IEEs
likely
to
be
submitted
as
five
as
delineated
in
Figure
2.

FIGURE
2.
Estimated
Respondents
and
Anticipated
Level
of
EIA
Documentation
Considering
EPA's
Experience
Under
the
Interim
Final
Rule
Operators
No.
Operators
No.
IEEs
U.
S.­
based
IAATO­
member
tour
operators
9
Peninsular
Area
1
U.
S.­
based
IAATO­
member
tour
operators
1
Ross
Sea
Area
1
U.
S.­
based
non­
IAATO
member
tour
operators
2
1
U.
S.­
based
privately
funded
researcher
1
1
U.
S.­
based
other
possible
respondent
1
1
(
e.
g.,
one­
time
expedition,
one
per
season)
TOTAL
ESTIMATED
14
5
2.
Basis
for
Personnel
Cost
Estimates:
The
cost
estimates
are
based
on
consideration
of
assumed
comparable
estimated
costs
for
EPA
personnel,
except
for
the
Attorney
rate
which
is
an
estimate
of
the
commercial
rate.
The
EPA
estimated
rates
used
in
the
calculations
are
fully
loaded,
that
is,
they
incorporate
overhead
and
fringe
benefits.
(
See:
Section
6(
b).)

3.
PERM
Model
for
Respondent
Submittals:
For
PERMs,
the
estimated
burden
and
cost
is
based
on
the
estimated
time
to
comply
with
the
Proposed
Rule
at
Section
8.4,
preparation
of
environmental
documents,
generally,
and
Section
8.6,
preliminary
environmental
review.
The
estimate
assumes
one
week
at
40
hours
per
week
including
revisions
in
response
to
any
EPA
comments.
Assessment
and
verification
procedures
are
not
required
at
the
PERM
level
of
activity
and
documentation.
Although
one
respondent
per
year
is
estimated
for
purposes
of
the
cost
calculations
in
Exhibit
1A,
EPA
anticipates
that
the
actual
number
of
nongovernmental
expeditions
with
activities
that
will
likely
proceed
with
less
than
minor
or
transitory
impacts
may
well
be
reduced
to
less
than
one
respondent
per
year.
In
fact,
during
the
four
austral
summer
seasons
the
Interim
Final
Rule
has
been
in
effect,
there
have
not
been
any
PERMs
submitted
as
the
final
documentation
for
an
expedition.

4.
IEE
Model
for
Respondent
Submittals:
EPA
has
developed
three
models
for
IEEs
that
incorporate
the
estimated
time
to
comply
with
the
Proposed
Rule
at
Section
8.4,
preparation
19For
the
four
IEEs
submitted
in
1997­
1998,
the
approximate
number
of
pages,
including
the
"
core"
document
plus
supplemental
documentation,
was:
215
(
5­
operator
Peninsular
Area),
208
(
2­
operator
non­
PA),
43
(
non­
IAATO
member
operator),
and
20
(
privately­
funded
researcher).
The
supplemental
information
submitted
by
the
5
operators
for
the
Peninsular
Area
IEE,
which
included
tour
brochures,
averaged
about
23
pages
per
operator.
The
privately­
funded
researcher
incorporated
by
reference
selected
information
from
three
previously
published
reports.
During
the
subsequent
three
years
the
Interim
Final
Rule
was
in
effect,
the
annual
submissions
averaged
closer
to
50
pages
due,
in
large
part,
to
the
use
of
the
paperwork
reduction
provisions
of
the
Interim
Final
Rule.
This
"
preparation"
burden
is
actually
less
when
the
fact
that
tour
brochures
for
the
current
season
prepared
for
commercial
purposes
and
a
copy
of
the
advance
notice
submitted
to
the
Department
of
State
were
submitted
by
the
tour
operators
as
part
of
the
IEE
documentation.
However,
for
purposes
of
maximum
cost
burden,
the
1997­
1998
figures
are
used
in
the
burden
calculations.

20The
estimate
for
preparation
of
supplemental
information
excludes
any
time
associated
with
preparing
travel
brochures
and/
or
major
reports
referenced
in,
and
submitted
along
with,
an
IEE
(
e.
g.,
researcher
reports
such
as
those
prepared
by
Oceanites,
Inc.,
and
submitted
as
referenced
attachments
with
the
IEE).

22
of
environmental
documents,
generally,
and
Section
8.7,
initial
environmental
evaluation.
The
model
also
considers
the
experience
with
IEE
documents
received
during
the
four
austral
summer
seasons
the
Interim
Final
Rule
has
been
in
effect
and
IAATO's
comments
on
the
process
used
and
burden
estimates
in
the
Supporting
Statement
for
the
ICR
for
the
Interim
Final
Rule.
The
assumptions
for
EPA's
IEE
model
include
the
following:

°
Figure
2
lists
the
potential
respondents
and
the
number
of
IEEs
likely
to
be
submitted.
°
The
maximum
length
for
an
IEE
is
about
200
pages
including
supplemental
information.
19
°
IEEs
consist
of
"
core"
information
with
supplemental
expedition­
specific
or
other
project­
specific
information
(
e.
g.,
dates,
landing
sites,
number
of
tours,
etc.)
attached
or
referenced.
°
For
initial
preparation
of
the
"
core"
IEE,
the
estimate
assumes
four
weeks,
on
average,
at
40
hours/
week,
or
about
160
hours,
including
revisions
in
response
to
EPA
comments.
This
estimate
assumes
a
full
time
effort
during
the
four
weeks,
and
that
information
will
be
incorporated
by
reference
when
appropriate.
°
The
estimate
assumes
five
hours
for
an
operator
to
prepare
and/
or
compile
supplemental
information.
20
°
If
appropriate,
EPA
anticipates
operators
will
submit
the
"
core"
IEE
in
subsequent
years
with
any
necessary
revisions
(
discussed
below).
An
estimated
one
week
at
40
hours/
week
is
estimated
to
prepare
this
"
revised"
IEE
for
submittal
in
subsequent
years.
The
estimate
of
5
hours
for
preparation
and/
or
compilation
of
supplemental
information
remains
the
same.
°
If
appropriate,
EPA
anticipates
operators
will
submit
"
multi­
year"
IEE
documentation.
In
the
initial
year,
this
is
anticipated
to
consist
of
a
"
revised"
IEE
with
an
estimated
40
hours
associated
preparation
time
and
5
hours
for
preparation
and/
or
compilation
of
supplemental
information.
For
the
subsequent
four
consecutive
years
the
"
multi­
year"
IEE
could
be
submitted
by
an
operator,
5
hours
are
estimated
for
preparation
and/
or
compilation
of
the
supplemental
information
including
the
advance
notice
and
other
21For
activities
requiring
an
IEE,
an
operator
should
be
able
to
use
procedures
currently
being
voluntarily
utilized
by
operators
to
provide
the
required
information.

22If
a
new
IEE
is
submitted
by
another
U.
S.­
based
operator,
the
hourly
burden
estimate
for
this
IEE
is
the
same
as
for
an
initially
prepared
"
core"
IEE.

23
information
needed
to
confirm
the
information
provided
in
the
"
multi­
year"
IEE
is
unchanged.
°
The
IEE
level
of
documentation
requires
assessment
and
verification
(
A/
V)
procedures;
20
hours
are
estimated
for
preparation
and/
or
compilation
of
this
information.
21
IEE
Model
1
­
"
Core"
IEE:
The
following
estimate
is
based
on
EPA's
experience
for
the
1997­
1998
austral
summer
season
,
the
initial
year
the
Interim
Final
Rule
was
in
effect,
and
is
pertinent
because
it
considers
the
paperwork
reduction
options
employed
by
the
operators.
The
operator
hourly
burden
for
preparation
of
a
"
Core"
IEE
is
estimated
as
follows:

Prepare
"
core"
IEE:
160
hrs/
IEE
x
4
IEEs
=
640
hours
Prepare
supplemental
information:
5
hrs/
operator
x
9
operators
=
45
hours
A/
V
procedures:
20
hrs/
operator
x
9
operators
=
180
hours
TOTAL
HOURS
=
865
hours
TOTAL
HOURS
PER
IEE
(
4
IEEs)
=
216
hours
TOTAL
HOURS
PER
OPERATOR
(
9
operators)
=
96
hours
IEE
Model
2
­
"
Revised"
IEE:
For
subsequent
years,
EPA
assumes
that
the
present
operators
(
ship­
based
tour
operators
and
privately­
funded
researcher)
will
remain
the
same,
and
that
these
operators
will
revise
their
initial
IEEs
for
subsequent
seasons
with
any
necessary
updates
and
revisions.
Updates
are
likely
to
include
such
items
as:
dates
of
expeditions
and
changes
in
landing
locations.
Revisions
could
address
items
such
as:
the
potential
impacts,
including
cumulative
impacts,
of
modifications
to
the
planned
activities
and
any
associated
mitigation
measures,
or
a
reassessment
of
overall
impacts
for
the
expedition.
Thus,
for
subsequent
seasons,
EPA
assumes
a
reduced
number
of
hours
would
be
required
for
revision
of
the
"
core"
IEE,
and
the
hours
for
preparation
of
supplemental
information
will
remain
the
same.
22
The
model
for
estimating
respondent
hourly
burden
for
a
"
Revised"
IEE
is
based
on
EPA's
experience
under
the
Interim
Final
Rule
for
the
three
years
subsequent
to
the
initial
year
which
is
pertinent
because
this
considers
the
paperwork
reduction
options
employed
by
the
operators.
The
operator
hourly
burden
for
preparation
of
a
"
Revised"
IEE
is
estimated
as
follows:

Prepare
"
Revised"
IEE:
40
hrs/
IEE
x
5
IEEs
=
200
hours
Prepare
supplemental
information:
5
hrs/
operator
x
14
operators
=
70
hours
A/
V
procedures:
20
hrs/
operator
x
14
operators
=
280
hours
TOTAL
HOURS
=
550
hours
TOTAL
HOURS
PER
IEE
(
5
IEEs)
=
110
hours
TOTAL
HOURS
PER
OPERATOR
(
14
operators)
=
39
hours
24
Model
3
­
"
Multi­
Year"
IEE:
Under
the
Proposed
Rule,
operators
may
choose
to
submit
multi­
year
IEE
documentation.
Under
this
model,
EPA
assumes
the
operators,
as
applicable,
will
submit
a
"
Revised"
IEE
in
the
initial
year
and
in
subsequent
years,
an
annual
submission
of
the
advance
notice
and
confirmation
that
the
information
provided
in
the
multi­
year
EIA
documentation
is
unchanged.
Based
on
experience
under
the
Interim
Final
Rule,
EPA
assumes
that
13
of
the
14
estimated
operators
would
likely
submit
four
of
the
five
anticipated
IEEs
and
would
employ
this
provision
in
the
Proposed
Rule.
EPA
estimates
40
hours
for
a
"
Revised"
IEE
and
5
hours
for
the
annual
submission
in
subsequent
years
(
e.
g.,
same
as
supplemental
information).
The
operator
hourly
burden
for
preparation
of
a
"
Multi­
Year"
IEE
is
estimated
as
follows:

Initial
Year:
Prepare
"
Revised"
IEE:
40
hrs/
IEE
x
4
IEEs
=
160
hours
Prepare
supplemental
information:
5
hrs/
operator
x
13
ops
x
1
year
=
65
hours
A/
V
procedures:
20
hrs/
operator
x
13
ops
x
1
year
=
260
hours
Four
Subsequent
Years
for
a
Total
of
Five
Consecutive
Years:
Prepare
supplemental
information:
5
hrs/
operator
x
13
ops
x
4
years
=
260
hours
A/
V
procedures:
20
hrs/
operator
x
13
ops
x
4
years
=
1040
hours
TOTAL
HOURS
for
5­
Year
Period
of
"
Multi­
Year"
IEE
=
1785
hours
TOTAL
HOURS
PER
YEAR
(
5
Years)
PER
IEE
(
4
IEEs)
=
89
hours
TOTAL
HOURS
PER
YEAR
(
5
Years)
PER
OPERATOR
(
13
operators)
=
27
hours
5.
CEE
Model
for
Respondent
Submittals:
For
CEEs,
the
estimated
burden
and
cost
is
based
on
the
estimated
time
to
comply
with
the
Proposed
Rule
at
Section
8.4,
preparation
of
environmental
documents,
generally,
and
Section
8.8,
comprehensive
environmental
evaluation,
and
assumes
an
increased
effort
from
that
required
for
an
IEE.
The
estimate
assumes
six
(
6)
weeks
at
40
hours
per
week,
or
240
hours,
including
time
for
revisions
in
response
to
EPA's
comments.
The
estimate
assumes
60
hours
to
prepare
assessment
and
verification
information
associated
with
the
CEE
level
of
activity
and
documentation.
Further,
although
one
respondent
per
year
is
estimated
for
purposes
of
the
cost
calculations
in
Exhibit
1C,
EPA
anticipates
that
the
actual
number
of
nongovernmental
expeditions
with
activities
that
will
likely
proceed
with
more
than
minor
or
transitory
impacts
may
well
be
reduced
to
less
than
one
respondent
per
year.
In
fact,
there
were
no
CEEs
submitted
during
the
four
austral
summer
seasons
the
Interim
Final
Rule
has
been
in
effect.

6.
Emergency
Reporting
Model:
Reporting
for
Cases
of
Emergency
is
based
on
the
Proposed
Rule
at
Section
8.10,
Cases
of
emergency,
which
would
require
notice
and
reporting
for
activities
taken
in
cases
of
emergency
which
would
have
otherwise
required
the
preparation
of
a
CEE.
The
estimate
is
based
on
reporting
requirements
only,
not
the
actual
cost
of
the
emergency
response
action.
The
burden
and
cost
estimate
assumes
one
such
emergency
per
10
years.
In
fact,
there
were
no
such
incidents
during
the
four
austral
summer
seasons
the
Interim
Final
Rule
has
been
in
effect.
23One­
time
capital/
start­
up
costs
usually
include
any
produced
physical
good
needed
to
provide
the
necessary
information.
Start­
up
capital
must
be
purchased
for
the
specific
purpose
of
satisfying
EPA's
reporting
or
recordkeeping
requirements.
Capital
goods
include
computers,
machinery,
or
equipment.
Start­
up
capital
costs
are
usually
incurred
at
the
beginning
of
an
information
collection
period
and
are
usually
incurred
only
once.
(
From:
"
ICR
Handbook,
EPA's
Guide
to
Writing
Information
Collection
Requests
Under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
of
1995,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Policy,
Planning,
and
Evaluation,
Regulatory
Information
Division,
revised
12/
96.)

24O&
M
costs
are
the
recurring
dollar
amount
of
cost
associated
with
O&
M
or
purchasing
services.
For
example,
when
respondents
are
required
to
submit
reports
or
information,
O&
M
costs
may
include
costs
for
file
storage,
photocopying,
and
postage.

25For
Exhibits
1
and
2,
costs
are
rounded
down
to
the
nearest
dollar
for
$
0.01
to
$
0.49,
and
rounded
up
to
the
nearest
dollar
for
$
0.50
to
$
0.99.

25
7.
Capital/
Start
Up
Costs:
The
EPA
does
not
anticipate
any
capital
or
start
up
costs
on
the
part
of
respondents
to
comply
with
the
provisions
of
the
Proposed
Rule.
23
8.
O&
M
Costs:
The
EPA
estimates
the
following
operating
and
maintenance
(
O&
M)
costs
associated
with
the
paperwork
requirements
for
respondents
to
comply
with
the
provisions
of
the
Proposed
Rule.
24
Assumptions
and
calculations
used
in
EPA's
O&
M
estimate
for
the
three
levels
of
environmental
documentation
are
as
follows:

PERMs.
The
assumptions
used
for
the
O&
M
estimates
include:

°
PERMs
are
estimated
to
average
25
pages
including
any
supplemental
information.
°
One
PERM
submitted
per
year
by
one
operator.
In
fact,
during
the
four
austral
summer
seasons
the
Interim
Final
Rule
has
been
in
effect,
there
have
not
been
any
PERMs
submitted
as
the
final
documentation
for
an
expedition.
°
Five
copies
of
each
PERM
should
be
submitted.
°
Although
not
required,
the
model
assumes
operators
will
use
express
mail
to
submit
PERM
packages
(
e.
g.,
original
PERM
and
5
copies).
°
PERMs
do
not
require
assessment/
verification
procedures.
°
The
Proposed
Rule
does
not
require
file
storage
or
audits.
°
Copying
and
mailing
charges
have
been
increased
to
reflect
inflation.

The
estimated
O&
M
costs
for
a
PERM
are
calculated
as
follows:
25
(
1)
Copying:
25
pages/
PERM
x
5
copies
x
$
0.10/
page
=
$
12.50
(
2)
Mailing:
1
PERM
package
x
$
25/
package
=
25.00
Exhibit
1A
incorporates
double
these
estimated
O&
M
costs
in
the
estimated
respondent
burden
26Three
years
are
used
in
these
calculations
because
that
is
the
period
of
time
the
ICR
is
in
effect
before
it
must
be
renewed.

26
and
costs
for
PERMs
for
a
three
year
period26
based
on
the
assumption,
for
purposes
of
maximum
cost
calculation,
the
initial
submittal
will
be
revised
and
resubmitted.

IEEs.
The
assumptions
used
for
the
O&
M
estimates
include:

°
Figure
2
lists
the
potential
respondents
and
the
number
of
IEEs
likely
to
be
submitted.
°
The
maximum
length
for
an
IEE
is
200
pages
including
supplemental
information.
(
See
above:
"
IEE
Model
for
Respondent
Submittals")
°
Five
copies
of
each
IEE,
including
supplementary
information,
should
be
submitted.
°
Although
not
required,
the
model
assumes
operators
will
use
express
mail
to
submit
IEE
packages
(
e.
g.,
original
IEE
and
5
copies).
°
Assessment/
verification
(
A/
V)
information
is
estimated
as
25
pages
per
operator.
°
Five
copies
of
each
A/
V
information
package
may
be
submitted.
°
Although
not
required,
the
model
assumes
operators
will
use
express
mail
to
submit
A/
V
information
packages
(
e.
g.,
original
and
5
copies).
°
The
Proposed
Rule
does
not
require
file
storage
or
audits.
°
Copying
and
mailing
charges
have
been
increased
to
reflect
inflation.

The
estimated
O&
M
costs
for
the
three
IEE
models
are
calculated
as
follows:

"
Core"
IEE:
(
1)
Copying:
200
pages/
Core
IEE
x
5
copies/
IEE
x
$
0.10/
page
=
$
100.00
10
pages/
Supplemental
Info.
x
5
copies
x
$
0.10/
page
=
5.00
25
pages/
A/
V
information
x
5
copies
x
$
0.10/
page
=
12.50
(
2)
Mailing:
1
"
Core"
IEE
package
x
$
25/
package
=
25.00
1
Supplemental
Information
package
x
$
10/
package
=
10.00
1
A/
V
information
package
x
$
15/
package
=
15.00
"
Revised"
IEE:
(
1)
Copying:
200
pages/
Revised
IEE
x
5
copies/
IEE
x
$
0.10/
page
=
100.00
10
pages/
Supplemental
Info.
x
5
copies
x
$
0.10/
page
=
5.00
25
pages/
A/
V
information
x
5
copies
x
$
0.10/
page
=
12.50
(
2)
Mailing:
1
"
Revised"
IEE
package
x
$
25/
package
=
25.00
1
Supplemental
Information
package
x
$
10/
package
=
10.00
1
A/
V
information
package
x
$
15/
package
=
15.00
"
Multi­
Year"
IEE:
(
1)
Copying:
200
pages/
Revised
IEE
x
5
copies/
IEE
x
$
0.10/
page
=
100.00
10
pages/
Supplemental
Info.
x
5
copies
x
$
0.10/
page
=
5.00
25
pages/
A/
V
information
x
5
copies
x
$
0.10/
page
=
12.50
27Three
years
are
used
in
these
calculations
because
that
is
the
period
of
time
the
ICR
is
in
effect
before
it
must
be
renewed.

27
(
2)
Mailing:
1
Revised
IEE
package
x
$
25/
package
=
25.00
1
Supplemental
Information
package
x
$
10/
package
=
10.00
1
A/
V
information
package
x
$
15/
package
=
15.00
Exhibit
1B,
including
Table
1B,
incorporates
these
estimated
O&
M
costs
in
the
estimated
respondent
burden
and
costs
for
IEEs
a
three
year
period
based
on
an
average
of
the
estimated
costs
over
the
total
three­
year
period
as
summarized
in
Table
3.27
The
O&
M
costs
are
doubled
for
the
core
and
revised
IEE
submittals
based
on
the
assumption,
for
purposes
of
maximum
cost
calculation,
the
initial
submittal
will
be
revised
and
resubmitted.

Table
3.
Summary
of
the
3­
Year
Average
O&
M
Costs
for
a
PERM,
the
Three
IEE
Models,
and
a
CEE
PERM
"
Core"
IEE
"
Revised"
IEE
"
Multi­
Year"
IEE
CEE
Copying:
$
25
Mailing:
$
50
TOTAL
$
75
Copying:
$
218
Mailing:
$
75
TOTAL
$
293
Copying:
$
218
Mailing
$
75
TOTAL
$
293
Copying:
$
30
Mailing:
$
26
TOTAL
$
56
Copying:
$
300
Mailing:
$
75
TOTAL
$
400
NOTE:
The
O&
M
costs
for
the
"
Multi­
Year"
IEE
are
averaged
over
a
3­
year
period
for
13
operators
with
a
revised
IEE
in
the
initial
year
and
supplemental
information
in
the
subsequent
two
years;
A/
V
information
included
for
13
operators
for
three
years.

CEEs.
The
assumptions
used
for
the
O&
M
estimates
include:

°
CEEs
are
estimated
to
average
300
pages
including
any
supplemental
information.
°
One
CEE
submitted
per
year
by
one
operator.
In
fact,
there
were
no
CEEs
submitted
during
the
four
austral
summer
seasons
the
Interim
Final
Rule
has
been
in
effect.
°
Five
copies
of
each
CEE
should
be
submitted.
°
Although
not
required,
the
model
assumes
operators
will
use
express
mail
to
submit
CEE
packages
(
e.
g.,
original
CEE
and
5
copies).
°
Assessment/
verification
(
A/
V)
information
is
estimated
as
50
pages
per
operator.
°
Five
copies
of
each
A/
V
information
package
should
be
submitted.
°
Although
not
required,
the
model
assumes
operators
will
use
express
mail
to
submit
A/
V
information
packages
(
e.
g.,
original
and
5
copies).
°
The
Proposed
Rule
does
not
require
file
storage
or
audits.
°
Copying
and
mailing
charges
have
been
increased
to
reflect
inflation.

The
estimated
O&
M
costs
for
a
CEE
are
calculated
as
follows:

(
1)
Copying:
300
pages/
CEE
x
5
copies
x
$
0.10/
page
=
$
150.00
28Three
years
are
used
in
these
calculations
because
that
is
the
period
of
time
the
ICR
is
in
effect
before
it
must
be
renewed.

29Three
years
are
used
in
these
calculations
because
that
is
the
period
of
time
the
ICR
is
in
effect
before
it
must
be
renewed.

28
50
pages/
A/
V
information
x
5
copies
x
$
0.10/
page
=
25.00
(
2)
Mailing:
1
CEE
package
x
$
30/
package
=
30.00
1
A/
V
information
package
x
$
15/
package
=
15.00
Exhibit
1C
incorporates
these
estimated
O&
M
costs
in
the
estimated
respondent
burden
and
costs
for
CEEs
for
a
three
year
period.
28
The
O&
M
costs
are
doubled
for
the
CEE
submittal
based
on
the
assumption,
for
purposes
of
maximum
cost
calculation,
the
initial
submittal
will
be
revised
and
resubmitted.

Reporting
for
Cases
of
Emergency.
The
assumptions
used
for
the
O&
M
estimate
include:

°
Emergency
Reports
are
estimated
to
average
300
pages
including
supplemental
information.
°
The
model
assumes
assessment
and
verification
procedures
will
be
undertaken
with
50
pages
submitted.
°
Five
copies
of
the
assessment
and
verification
information
should
be
submitted.
°
Although
not
required,
the
model
assumes
operators
will
use
express
mail
to
submit
Emergency
Reports
and
assessment
and
verification
information.
°
The
O&
M
costs
are
first
calculated
to
indicate
the
annual
cost
assuming
one
such
emergency
per
10
years.
(
See:
Item
6,
above,
Emergency
Reporting
Model)
°
The
Proposed
Rule
does
not
require
file
storage
or
audits.
°
Copying
and
mailing
charges
have
been
increased
to
reflect
inflation.

(
1)
Copying:
Emergency
Report
300
pages/
report
x
5
copies
x
$
0.10/
page
=
$
150.00
A/
V
Information
50
pages/
package
x
5
copies
x
$
0.10/
page
=
25.00
(
2)
Mailing:
Emergency
Report
1
Emergency
Report
x
$
30/
report
=
30.00
A/
V
Information
1
A/
V
package
x
$
15/
package
=
15.00
O&
M
for
Emergency
Reporting
in
one
year
=
220.00
Averaged
annual
Emergency
Reporting
assuming
one
emergency
per
10
years
=
22.00
Exhibit
1D
incorporates
these
estimated
O&
M
costs
in
the
estimated
Emergency
Response
respondent
burden
and
costs
for
years
one
through
three.
29
30There
is
no
respondent
burden
or
cost
associated
with
Section
8.12.

31See:
Exhibits
2A
through
E,
the
Federal
government
estimates
for
burden
and
cost.
For
example,
technical
activities
associated
with
Environmental
Documentation
include:
review
of
environmental
documents,
including
any
public
comments,
and
providing
comments
to
the
operator;
consultation
with
operators;
and
review
of
the
revised/
final
document
submittals
and
notification
of
the
operator,
if
necessary.
Other
activities
listed
under
Environmental
Documentation,
such
as
posting
document
receipt
on
the
WWW,
are
administrative.

29
6(
b)
ESTIMATED
ANNUAL
FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT
BURDEN
AND
COST
Exhibits
2A,
2B
(
including
Table
2),
and
2C
present
the
estimated
Federal
government
burden
and
cost
for
processing
and
reviewing
the
three
possible
levels
of
environmental
documentation
(
e.
g.,
PERM,
IEE,
CEE)
and
associated
post­
expedition
assessment
and
verification
information.
Exhibit
2D
presents
the
estimated
Federal
government
burden
and
cost
for
activities
associated
with
reporting
for
cases
of
emergency,
and
Exhibit
2E
presents
the
estimated
Federal
government
burden
and
cost
for
coordinating
the
review
of
information
received
from
other
Parties.
30
The
Proposed
Rule
does
not
involve
or
otherwise
impact
governmental
jurisdictions
including
state,
local
or
tribal
governments.

Federal
government
burden
tables
were
prepared
for
each
type
of
environmental
documentation
since
the
effort
should
increase
as
an
increasing
level
of
environmental
documentation
is
required;
e.
g.,
from
PERM
to
IEE
to
CEE.
As
with
the
respondents,
the
model
used
for
the
Federal
government
estimates
is
a
nongovernmental,
U.
S.­
based
ship­
based
tour
operator,
and
the
estimated
burden
and
cost
for
the
Federal
government
is
based
on
the
assumption
that
most
environmental
documentation
submitted
by
operators
will
be
IEEs.

The
following
assumptions
were
factored
into
the
hourly
burden
and
cost
estimates
for
the
Federal
government:

1.
Number
of
Respondents:
The
Federal
government
estimates
are
consistent
with
the
respondent
(
i.
e.,
operators)
estimates
with
regard
to
the
number
of
respondents
and
the
projected
numbers
of
environmental
documents
that
may
be
submitted.
(
See:
Section
6(
a).)

2.
Basis
for
Personnel
Cost
Estimates:
The
cost
estimates
are
based
on
consideration
of
a
"
model"
government
employee
for
activities
associated
with
the
Proposed
Rule.
Two
Federal
employee
"
models"
were
developed:
(
1)
"
Federal
Model
1"
is
used
for
costing
activities
more
technical
in
nature,
and
(
2)
"
Federal
Model
2"
is
used
for
costing
activities
that
are
more
administrative.
31
"
Federal
Model
1"
­
Technical
Activities:
The
skill
mix
used
for
technical
activities
includes
Managers,
Technical
Staff
(
such
as
scientists,
environmental
protection
specialists,
and
other
such
technical
classifications),
Attorneys,
and
Clerical
Support.
Relative
hours
are
listed
in
whole
hour
increments.
The
development
of
the
cost
per
hour
for
"
Federal
Model
1"
is
as
32For
the
"
Technical
staff,"
the
model
uses
the
GS­
14
level
rates,
and
assumes
that
the
technical
staff
may
actually
be
composed
of
GS­
13
through
GS­
15
level
staff.
For
the
"
Attorney,"
the
model
uses
the
GS­
14
level
rates,
and
assumes
that
the
attorneys
may
actually
be
composed
of
GS­
14
and
GS­
15
level
staff.
The
model
uses
rates
that
are
fully
loaded,
that
is,
they
incorporate
overhead
and
fringe
benefits.

30
follows:
32
FIGURE
3.
Federal
Model
1
Job
Estimate
of
Estimated
time
Pay
Rate
Classification
Relative
Hours
Per
Hour
(
Based
on
GS­
Level)
Cost/
Hour
Manager
2
0.16
$
75.99
for
GS
15
$
12.16
Technical
8
0.68
64.60
for
GS
14
43.93
Attorney
1
0.08
64.60
for
GS­
14
5.17
Clerical
1
0.08
26.84
for
GS­
07
2.15
__________
___________
__________
12
hours
1.00
hour
$
63.41/
hour
"
Federal
Model
2"
­
Administrative
Activities:
The
skill
mix
used
for
administrative
activities
includes
Managers,
Technical
Staff
(
such
as
scientists,
environmental
protection
specialists,
and
other
such
technical
classifications),
Attorneys,
and
Clerical
Support.
Relative
hours
are
listed
in
whole
hour
increments.
The
development
of
the
cost
per
hour
for
"
Federal
Model
2"
is
as
follows:

FIGURE
4.
Federal
Model
2
Job
Estimate
of
Estimated
time
Pay
Rate
Classification
Relative
Hours
Per
Hour
(
Based
on
GS­
Level)
Cost/
Hour
Manager
1
0.20
$
75.99
for
GS
15
$
15.20
Technical
1
0.20
64.60
for
GS
14
12.92
Attorney
0
0.00
64.60
for
GS­
14
0.00
Clerical
3
0.60
26.84
for
GS­
07
16.10
__________
___________
__________
5
hours
1.00
hour
$
44.22/
hour
3.
PERM
Model
for
Review
of
Submittals:
For
PERMs,
the
respondent
would
need
to
comply
with
the
Proposed
Rule
at
Section
8.4,
preparation
of
environmental
documents,
generally,
and
Section
8.6,
preliminary
environmental
review.
The
hourly
burden
for
Federal
government
review
of
a
PERM
is
estimated
to
be
25%
of
the
respondent's
time
to
prepare
a
PERM,
or
10
hours,
plus
an
additional
2
hours
for
administrative
activities.
Assessment
and
verification
procedures
are
not
required
at
the
PERM
level
of
activity
and
documentation.
33See
Proposed
Rule
at
Section
8.10.
Emergency
reporting
would
be
required
for
emergency
activities
which
would
have
otherwise
required
the
preparation
of
a
CEE.
The
estimate
is
based
on
reporting
requirements
only,
not
the
actual
cost
of
the
emergency
response
action.
The
burden
and
cost
estimate
assumes
one
such
31
Although
one
respondent
per
year
is
estimated
for
purposes
of
the
cost
calculations
in
Exhibit
2A,
EPA
anticipates
that
the
actual
number
of
nongovernmental
expeditions
with
activities
that
will
likely
proceed
with
less
than
minor
or
transitory
impacts
may
well
be
reduced
to
less
than
one
respondent
per
year.
In
fact,
there
were
no
PERMs
submitted
during
the
four
austral
summer
seasons
the
Interim
Final
Rule
has
been
in
effect.

4.
IEE
Model
for
Review
of
Submittals:
For
IEEs,
the
respondent
would
need
to
comply
with
the
Proposed
Rule
at
Section
8.4,
preparation
of
environmental
documents,
generally,
and
Section
8.7,
initial
environmental
evaluation.
Based
on
experience
under
the
Interim
Final
Rule
over
the
past
four
austral
summer
seasons
(
see
Figure
1),
EPA
assumes
operators
would
submit
IEEs.
Under
the
Proposed
Rule,
operators
could
choose
to
submit
a
"
Core"
or
a
"
Revised"
or
a
"
Multi­
Year"
IEE
as
discussed
for
the
respondents
in
Section
6(
a).
Based
on
experience
under
the
Interim
Final
Rule,
EPA
assumes
that
13
of
the
14
estimated
operators
would
likely
submit
four
of
the
five
anticipated
IEEs
and
would
employ
the
multi­
year
provision
in
the
Proposed
Rule.
Under
the
"
Multi­
Year"
IEE
model,
EPA
assumes
the
operators,
as
applicable,
would
submit
a
"
Revised"
IEE
in
the
initial
year
and
for
the
subsequent
four
years,
an
annual
submission
of
the
advance
notice
and
confirmation
that
the
information
provided
in
the
multi­
year
EIA
documentation
is
unchanged.
EPA
has
developed
a
model
for
Federal
government
review
of
the
three
models
for
IEEs.
A
detailed
discussion
of
the
"
Model
for
Federal
Government
Review
of
IEEs"
is
presented
Section
6(
c),
below.

5.
CEE
Model
for
Review
of
Submittals:
For
CEEs,
the
respondent
would
need
to
comply
with
the
Proposed
Rule
at
Section
8.4,
preparation
of
environmental
documents,
generally,
and
Section
8.8,
comprehensive
environmental
evaluation.
The
hourly
burden
for
Federal
government
review
of
a
CEE
is
estimated
to
be
50%
of
the
respondent's
time
to
prepare
a
CEE,
or
120
hours,
plus
an
additional
15
hours
for
administrative
activities.
The
hourly
burden
for
review
of
assessment
and
verification
information
is
estimated
to
be
50%
of
the
respondent's
time
to
prepare
the
assessment
and
verification
information,
or
30
hours.
Although
one
respondent
per
year
is
estimated
for
purposes
of
the
cost
calculations
in
Exhibit
2C,
EPA
anticipates
that
the
actual
number
of
nongovernmental
expeditions
with
activities
that
will
likely
proceed
with
more
than
minor
or
transitory
impacts
may
well
be
reduced
to
less
than
one
respondent
per
year.
In
fact,
there
were
no
CEEs
submitted
during
the
four
austral
summer
seasons
the
Interim
Final
Rule
has
been
in
effect.

6.
Reviewing
Emergency
Reports:
Reporting
for
Cases
of
Emergency
is
based
on
the
Proposed
Rule
at
Section
8.10,
Cases
of
Emergency,
which
would
require
operator
notice
and
reporting
for
activities
taken
in
cases
of
emergency
which
would
have
otherwise
required
the
preparation
of
a
CEE.
The
estimated
hourly
burden
for
Federal
government
review
of
an
Emergency
Report
is
estimated
to
be
50%
of
the
respondent's
time
to
prepare
a
CEE,
33
or
120
emergency
per
10
years.
(
See:
Respondent
Assumption
6.)

34Three
years
are
used
in
these
calculations
because
that
is
the
period
of
time
the
ICR
is
in
effect
before
it
must
be
renewed.

32
hours,
and
50%
of
the
respondent's
time
to
prepare
the
assessment
and
verification
information
for
an
emergency,
or
30
hours,
for
review
of
this
information.
An
additional
15
hours
are
assumed
for
notifying
the
Parties
and
for
administrative
activities.
As
with
the
respondents,
the
Federal
government
burden
and
cost
estimate
assumes
one
such
emergency
per
10
years.

7.
Capital/
Start
Up
Costs:
The
EPA
does
not
anticipate
any
capital
or
start
up
costs
on
the
part
of
the
Federal
government
to
comply
with
the
provisions
of
the
Proposed
Rule.

8.
O&
M
Costs:
The
EPA
estimates
the
following
operating
and
maintenance
(
O&
M)
costs
associated
with
the
paperwork
requirements
for
the
Federal
government
to
comply
with
the
provisions
of
the
Proposed
Rule.
Assumptions
and
calculations
used
in
EPA's
O&
M
estimate
for
the
three
levels
of
environmental
documentation
are
as
follows:

PERMs.
The
assumptions
used
for
the
O&
M
estimates
include:

°
PERMs
are
estimated
to
average
25
pages
including
any
supplemental
information.
°
One
PERM
submitted
per
year
by
one
operator.
In
fact,
during
the
four
austral
summer
seasons
the
Interim
Final
Rule
has
been
in
effect,
no
PERMs
were
submitted
as
the
final
environmental
documentation.
°
Six
copies
of
each
PERM
are
needed
for
Federal
government
reviewers.
°
PERMs
do
not
require
assessment/
verification
procedures.
°
File
storage
and
maintenance
is
estimated
at
$
10
per
PERM.
°
Copying
and
file
storage
and
maintenance
charges
have
been
increased
to
reflect
inflation.

The
estimated
O&
M
costs
for
a
PERM
are
calculated
as
follows:

(
1)
Copying:
25
pages/
PERM
x
6
copies
x
$
0.10/
page
=
$
15.00
(
2)
File
Storage:
1
PERM
package
x
$
10/
package
=
10.00
Exhibit
2A
incorporates
these
estimated
O&
M
costs
in
the
estimated
Federal
government
burden
and
costs
for
PERMs
for
a
three
year
period.
34
The
O&
M
cost
for
copying
is
doubled
based
on
the
assumption,
for
purposes
of
maximum
cost
calculation,
that
the
initial
submittal
will
be
revised
and
resubmitted
for
Federal
government
review.

IEEs.
The
assumptions
used
for
the
O&
M
estimates
include:
35Three
years
are
used
in
these
calculations
because
that
is
the
period
of
time
the
ICR
is
in
effect
before
it
must
be
renewed.

33
°
Figure
2
lists
the
potential
respondents
and
the
number
of
IEEs
likely
to
be
submitted.
°
The
maximum
length
for
an
IEE
is
200
pages
including
supplemental
information.
(
See:
Section
6(
a)).
°
Six
copies
of
each
IEE
are
needed
for
Federal
government
reviewers.
°
Assessment/
verification
(
A/
V)
information
packages,
are
estimated
as
25
pages
per
operator.
°
Six
copies
of
each
A/
V
information
package
is
needed
for
Federal
government
reviewers.
°
File
storage
and
maintenance
is
estimated
at
$
10
including
storage
for
an
IEE
package
and
the
associated
A/
V
information.
°
Copying
and
file
storage
and
maintenance
charges
have
been
increased
to
reflect
inflation.

The
estimated
O&
M
cost
for
the
three
IEE
models
are
calculated
as
follows:

"
Core"
IEE:
(
1)
Copying:
200
pages/
Core
IEE
x
6
copies/
IEE
x
$
0.10/
page
=
$
120.00
10
pages
Supplemental
Info.
x
6
copies
x
$
0.10/
page
=
6.00
25
pages/
A/
V
information
x
6
copies
x
$
0.10/
page
=
15.00
(
2)
File
Storage:
1
IEE
package
x
$
10/
package
=
10.00
"
Revised"
IEE:
(
1)
Copying:
200
pages/
Revised
IEE
x
6
copies/
IEE
x
$
0.10/
page
=
$
120.00
10
pages
Supplemental
Info.
x
6
copies
x
$
0.10/
page
=
6.00
25
pages/
A/
V
information
x
6
copies
x
$
0.10/
page
=
15.00
(
2)
File
Storage:
1
IEE
package
x
$
10/
package
=
10.00
"
Multi­
Year"
IEE:
(
1)
Copying:
200
pages/
Revised
IEE
x
6
copies/
IEE
x
$
0.10/
page
=
$
120.00
10
pages
Supplemental
Info.
x
6
copies
x
$
0.10/
page
=
6.00
25
pages/
A/
V
information
x
6
copies
x
$
0.10/
page
=
15.00
(
2)
File
Storage:
1
IEE
package
x
$
10/
package
=
10.00
Exhibit
2B,
including
Table
2B,
incorporates
these
estimated
O&
M
costs
in
the
estimated
Federal
government
burden
and
costs
for
IEEs
for
a
three
year
period
based
on
an
average
of
the
estimated
costs
over
the
total
three­
year
period
as
summarized
in
Table
4.35
The
O&
M
costs
for
copying
the
core
and
revised
IEE
submittals
are
doubled
based
on
the
assumption,
for
purposes
of
maximum
cost
calculation,
the
initial
submittal
will
be
revised
and
resubmitted
for
Federal
government
review.
34
Table
4.
Summary
of
the
3­
Year
Average
O&
M
Costs
for
a
PERM,
the
Three
IEE
Models,
and
a
CEE
PERM
"
Core"
IEE
"
Revised"
IEE
"
Multi­
Year"
IEE
CEE
Copying:
$
30
File
Storage:
$
10
TOTAL
$
40
Copying:
$
261
File
Storage:
$
10
TOTAL
$
271
Copying:
$
261
File
Storage
:
$
10
TOTAL
$
271
Copying:
$
28
File
Storage:
$
4
TOTAL
$
32
Copying:
$
390
File
Storage:
$
10
FedReg:
$
290
TOTAL
$
690
NOTES:
(
1)
The
O&
M
costs
for
the
"
Multi­
Year"
IEE
are
averaged
over
a
3­
year
period
for
13
operators
with
a
revised
IEE
in
the
initial
year
and
supplemental
information
in
the
subsequent
two
years;
A/
V
information
included
for
13
operators
for
three
years.
(
2)
The
O&
M
for
copying
does
not
include
the
estimated
$
1,800
needed
to
provide
draft
and
final
copies
of
a
CEE
to
the
Parties
and
the
Committee.

CEEs.
The
assumptions
used
for
the
O&
M
estimates
include:

°
A
Federal
Register
Notice
of
Availability
must
be
published
for
receipt
of
each
draft
and
final
CEE;
publication
costs
are
estimated
at
$
145
per
column
and
two
columns
are
assumed
to
be
needed.
°
CEEs
are
estimated
to
average
300
pages
including
any
supplemental
information.
°
One
CEE
submitted
per
year
by
one
operator.
In
fact,
during
the
four
austral
summer
seasons
the
Interim
Final
Rule
has
been
in
effect,
no
CEEs
were
submitted.
°
Six
copies
of
each
CEE
are
needed
for
Federal
government
reviewers.
°
Thirty
copies
of
each
CEE
are
needed
for
distribution
to
Parties
and
the
Committee
for
Environmental
Protection.
°
Assessment/
verification
(
A/
V)
information
is
estimated
as
50
pages
per
operator.
°
Six
copies
of
each
A/
V
information
package
is
needed
for
Federal
government
reviewers.
°
File
storage
and
maintenance
is
estimated
at
$
10
including
storage
for
a
CEE
package
and
associated
A/
V
information.
°
Copying,
Federal
Register
publication,
and
file
storage
and
maintenance
charges
have
been
increased
to
reflect
inflation.

The
estimated
O&
M
costs
for
a
CEE
are
calculated
as
follows:

(
1)
Copying:
300
pages/
CEE
x
6
copies
x
$
0.10/
page
=
$
180.00
300
pages/
CEE
x
30
copies
x
$
0.10/
page
=
900.00
50
pages/
A/
V
information
x
6
copies
x
$
0.10/
page
=
30.00
(
2)
FR
Publication:
1
CEE
x
$
145/
column
x
2
columns
=
290.00
(
3)
File
Storage:
1
CEE
package
x
$
10/
package
=
10.00
Exhibit
2C
incorporates
these
estimated
O&
M
costs
in
the
estimated
Federal
government
burden
36Three
years
are
used
in
these
calculations
because
that
is
the
period
of
time
the
ICR
is
in
effect
before
it
must
be
renewed.

37Three
years
are
used
in
these
calculations
because
that
is
the
period
of
time
the
ICR
is
in
effect
before
it
must
be
renewed.

35
and
costs
for
CEEs
for
a
three
year
period.
36
The
O&
M
cost
for
copying
is
doubled
based
on
the
assumption,
for
purposes
of
maximum
cost
calculation,
that
the
initial
submittal
will
be
revised
and
resubmitted
for
Federal
government
review
and
that
both
the
draft
and
final
CEEs
will
also
be
provided
to
the
Parties.

Reporting
for
Cases
of
Emergency.
The
assumptions
used
for
the
O&
M
estimates
include:

°
Emergency
Reports
are
estimated
to
average
300
pages
including
supplemental
information.
°
Six
copies
of
each
report
are
needed
for
Federal
government
reviewers.
°
Thirty
copies
of
each
report
are
needed
for
distribution
to
Parties
and
the
Committee
for
Environmental
Protection.
°
Assessment/
verification
(
A/
V)
information
is
estimated
as
50
pages
per
incident.
°
Six
copies
of
each
A/
V
information
package
needed
for
Federal
government
reviewers.
°
The
O&
M
costs
are
first
calculated
to
indicate
the
annual
cost
assuming
one
such
emergency
per
10
years.
°
File
storage
and
maintenance
is
estimated
at
$
10
including
storage
for
the
emergency
report
package
and
associated
A/
V
information.
°
Copying
and
file
storage
and
maintenance
charges
have
been
increased
to
reflect
inflation.

(
1)
Copying:
300
pages/
report
x
6
copies
x
$
0.10/
page
=
$
180.00
300
pages/
report
x
30
copies
x
$
0.10/
page
=
900.00
50
pages/
A/
V
information
x
6
copies
x
$
0.10/
page
=
30.00
(
2)
Store
File:
1
report
package
x
$
10/
package
=
10.00
Exhibit
2D
incorporates
these
estimated
O&
M
costs
in
the
estimated
Federal
government
burden
and
costs
for
emergency
reports
for
a
three
year
period.
37
9.
Coordinating
Review
of
Other
Parties'
Documents:
In
accordance
with
the
Proposed
Rule
at
Section
8.12,
the
Department
of
State
would
be
responsible
for
the
coordination
of
the
review
of
documents
received
from
other
Parties.
There
is
no
respondent
burden
or
cost
associated
with
Section
8.12.
Exhibit
2E
provides
the
hourly
burden
and
cost
estimate
based
on
Employee
Model
1
and
the
O&
M
assumptions
and
estimates
below.
It
is
not
possible
to
predict
what
may
be
received
from
another
Party
in
any
given
year,
and
since
there
is
no
respondent
burden
associated
with
Section
8.12,
burden
and
costs
for
a
three
year
period
are
not
provided
38Three
years
are
used
in
these
calculations
because
that
is
the
period
of
time
the
ICR
is
in
effect
before
it
must
be
renewed.

36
beyond
those
estimates
listed
in
Exhibit
2E.
38
The
assumptions
used
for
the
O&
M
estimates
include:

°
A
Federal
Register
Notice
of
Availability
must
be
published
for
receipt
of
each
draft
CEE;
publication
costs
are
estimated
at
$
145
per
column
and
two
columns
are
assumed
to
be
needed.
°
Draft
and
Final
CEEs
received
from
other
Parties
are
estimated
to
average
300
pages
including
supplemental
information.
°
Other
documents
(
e.
g.,
description
of
national
procedures,
significant
monitoring
information)
received
from
other
Parties
are
estimated
to
average
50
pages.
°
Annual
lists
of
IEEs
are
estimated
to
average
10
pages.
°
Six
copies
of
each
document
are
needed
for
Federal
government
reviewers
and
four
copies
for
the
public.
°
File
storage
and
maintenance
is
estimated
at
$
10
including
storage
for
the
sum
total
of
any
such
documents
received.
°
Copying
and
file
storage
and
maintenance
charges
have
been
increased
to
reflect
inflation.

(
1)
Copying:
300
pages/
draft
CEE
x
10
copies
x
$
0.10/
page
=
$
300.00
300
pages/
final
CEE
x
10
copies
x
$
0.10/
page
=
300.00
50
pages/
other
x
10
copies
x
$
0.10/
page
=
50.00
10
pages/
IEE
list
x
10
copies
x
$
0.10/
page
=
10.00
(
2)
FR
Pub:
1
CEE
x
$
145/
column
x
2
columns
=
290.00
(
3)
Store
File:
1
set
of
reports
from
Parties
x
$
10/
set
=
10.00
6(
c)
MODEL
FOR
FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT
REVIEW
OF
IEEs
As
noted
in
the
assumptions
above
for
both
the
respondents
and
the
Federal
government,
EPA
assumes
that
most
environmental
documentation
that
will
be
submitted
under
the
Proposed
Rule
would
be
IEEs.
Based
on
experience
during
the
four
austral
summer
seasons
the
Interim
Final
Rule
has
been
in
effect,
and
the
assumption
that
operators
would
continue
to
employ
the
paperwork
reduction
provisions
in
the
Proposed
Rule,
including
the
provision
for
multi­
year
documentation,
EPA
has
developed
a
model
for
Federal
government
review
of
IEEs
based
on
three
types
of
IEE
documentation:
(
1)
"
Core"
IEE,
(
2)
"
Revised"
IEE,
and
(
3)
multi­
year
IEE.

The
hourly
estimates
for
activities
associated
with
Environmental
Documentation
in
Exhibit
2B
are
based
on
experience
during
the
four
austral
summer
seasons
the
Interim
Final
Rule
has
been
in
effect
and
the
anticipated
degree
of
consultation
with
other
interested
Federal
agencies.
The
calculations
include
the
estimated
technical
review
time
for
the
three
IEE
models,
37
the
estimated
technical
hours
per
Federal
review,
and
the
Federal
agencies
participating
in
the
review
process
and
their
relative
level
of
participation.

1.
Estimated
Hours
for
Technical
Review
of
an
IEE:
This
estimate
includes
the
following
assumptions
consistent
with
those
in
the
respondents'
estimated
burden
(
Section
6(
a),
above)
and
consideration
of
the
experience
under
the
four
austral
summer
seasons
the
Interim
Final
Rule
has
been
in
effect:

°
Section
6(
a),
including
Figure
2,
lists
the
potential
respondents
and
the
documentation
likely
to
be
submitted.
°
The
maximum
length
for
an
IEE
is
about
200
pages
including
supplemental
information.
°
An
IEE
consists
of
"
core"
information
with
supplemental
expedition­
specific
(
e.
g.,
dates,
landing
sites,
number
of
tours,
etc.)
or
other
project­
specific
information
attached
or
referenced.
°
The
core
information
requires
a
"
Core
IEE"
review,
and
certain
of
the
supplemental
information
not
considered
to
be
part
of
the
"
core"
document
(
e.
g.,
supplemental
expedition­
specific
information
for
individual
tour
operators),
requires
a
"
Supplemental
Information"
review.
A
"
Core
IEE"
review
is
estimated
to
be
50%
of
the
respondent's
time
to
prepare
a
"
core"
IEE,
or
80
hours,
and
a
"
Supplemental
Information"
review
is
estimated
to
be
25%
of
the
respondent's
time
to
prepare
the
information,
or
about
1
hour
per
supplemental
package
of
information
not
considered
to
be
part
of
the
"
core"
document.
Review
time
for
supplemental
information
considered
to
be
part
of
the
"
Core
IEE"
and
included
by
reference
is
included
in
the
review
time
for
the
"
Core
IEE."
°
The
time
to
review
a
"
Revised
IEE"
is
estimated
to
be
25%
of
the
respondent's
time
to
prepare
a
"
core"
IEE,
or
40
hours,
and
a
"
Supplemental
Information"
review
to
take
1
hour
per
supplemental
package
of
information
not
considered
to
be
part
of
the
"
revised"
document.
°
Operators
may
employ
the
multi­
year
provision
whereby
multi­
year
IEE
documentation
will
be
submitted
initially
with
a
subsequent
annual
advance
notice
and
confirmation
that
the
information
provided
in
the
multi­
year
document
is
unchanged.
Review
of
the
initial
multi­
year
document
is
assumed
to
be
the
same
as
review
of
a
"
Revised
IEE,"
e.
g.,
40
hours
for
the
"
Revised
IEE"
and
1
hour
per
supplemental
package
of
information.
For
the
subsequent
four
years,
the
annual
advance
notice
and
confirmation
that
the
conditions
of
the
multi­
year
document
are
unchanged
is
estimated
to
take
10
hours
per
IEE.

IEE
Model
1
­
"
Core"
IEE:
The
following
estimate
is
based
on
EPA's
experience
for
the
1997­
1998
austral
summer
season
,
the
initial
year
the
Interim
Final
Rule
was
in
effect,
and
is
pertinent
because
it
considers
the
paperwork
reduction
options
employed
by
the
operators.
The
operator
hourly
burden
for
preparation
of
a
"
Core"
IEE
is
estimated
as
follows:

IEEs
Submitted
in
1997­
1998
Core
IEE
Review
Sup.
Info.
Review
Peninsular
Area
(
PA)
for
5
IAATO
tour
operators
1
5
Non­
PA
for
2
IAATO
tour
operators
1
2
39If
a
new
IEE
is
submitted
by
another
U.
S.­
based
operator,
the
hourly
burden
estimate
for
this
IEE
is
the
same
as
for
an
initially
prepared
"
core"
IEE.

38
Non­
IAATO
member
tour
operator
1
1
Privately
funded
researcher
1
1
TOTAL
4
9
4
Core
IEE
Reviews
x
80
hrs/
review
=
320
hours
9
Supplemental
Information
Reviews
x
1
hr/
review
=
9
hours
TOTAL
HOURS
329
hours
TOTAL
HOURS
PER
IEE
(
4
IEES)
=
82
hours
TOTAL
HOURS
PER
OPERATOR
(
9
OPERATORS)
=
36
hours
IEE
Model
2
­
"
Revised"
IEE:
For
subsequent
years,
EPA
assumes
that
the
present
operators
(
ship­
based
tour
operators
and
privately­
funded
researcher)
will
remain
the
same,
and
that
these
operators
will
revise
their
initial
IEEs
for
subsequent
seasons
with
any
necessary
updates
and
revisions.
Updates
are
likely
to
include
such
items
as:
dates
of
expeditions,
changes
in
landing
locations,
and
other
modifications
to
the
expedition's
activities
that
could
have
environmental
consequences.
Revisions
could
address
items
such
as:
the
potential
impacts,
including
cumulative
impacts,
of
modifications
to
the
planned
activities
and
any
associated
mitigation
measures,
or
a
reassessment
of
overall
impacts
for
the
expedition.
Thus,
for
subsequent
seasons,
EPA,
estimates
the
government
review
time
to
be
25%
of
the
respondent's
time
to
prepare
a
"
core"
IEE,
or
40
hours,
and
the
hours
for
review
of
supplemental
information
will
remain
the
same.
39
The
model
for
estimating
respondent
hourly
burden
for
a
"
Revised"
IEE
is
based
on
EPA's
experience
under
the
Interim
Final
Rule
for
the
three
years
subsequent
to
the
initial
year
which
is
pertinent
because
this
considers
the
paperwork
reduction
options
employed
by
the
operators.
The
operator
hourly
burden
for
preparation
of
a
"
Revised"
IEE
is
estimated
as
follows:

"
Revised"
IEE
Reviews
4
IEEs
x
40
hrs/
review
=
160
hours
Supplemental
Information
Reviews
9
operators
x
1
hr/
review
=
9
hours
TOTAL
HOURS
169
hours
TOTAL
HOURS
PER
IEE
(
4
IEES)
=
42
hours
TOTAL
HOURS
PER
OPERATOR
(
9
OPERATORS)
=
19
hours
Model
3
­
"
Multi­
Year"
IEE:
Under
the
Proposed
Rule,
operators
may
choose
to
submit
multi­
year
IEE
documentation.
Under
this
model,
EPA
assumes
the
operators,
as
applicable,
will
submit
a
"
Revised"
IEE
in
the
initial
year
and
for
the
subsequent
four
years,
an
annual
submission
of
the
advance
notice
and
confirmation
that
the
information
provided
in
the
multi­
year
EIA
documentation
is
unchanged.
Based
on
experience
under
the
Interim
Final
Rule,
EPA
assumes
that
13
of
the
14
estimated
operators
would
likely
submit
four
of
the
five
anticipated
IEEs
and
would
employ
this
provision
in
the
Proposed
Rule.
Review
includes
the
initial
multi­
year
document
and
subsequent
annual
review
of
the
advance
notice
and
confirmation
documentation.
39
EPA
assumes
the
operators
employing
this
provision
will
submit
an
IEE
the
initial
year
that
will
require
review
at
the
"
Revised
IEE"
level
of
review;
e.
g.,
40
hours,
and
1
hour
per
supplemental
package
of
information.
In
subsequent
years,
the
annual
advance
notice
and
confirmation
that
the
information
provided
in
the
multi­
year
document
is
unchanged
is
estimated
to
take
10
hours
per
IEE.
At
the
end
of
this
5­
year
cycle,
the
review
process
would
begin
again
with
a
"
Revised"
IEE.
The
Federal
government
hourly
burden
is
estimated
as
follows
for
review
of
"
Multi­
Year"
IEEs:

Initial
Year
Under
Multi­
Year
Documentation
Provision:
"
Revised"
IEE
Reviews
4
IEEs
x
40
hrs/
review
=
160
hours
Supplemental
Info
Reviews
13
ops
x
1
hr/
review
=
13
hours
TOTAL
HOURS
=
173
hours
Subsequent
Years
(
up
to
4
years)
Under
Multi­
Year
Documentation
Provision:
Annual
Advance
Notice
and
Confirmation
4
IEEs
x
10
hrs/
review
x
4
yrs
=
160
hours
Supplemental
Info
Reviews
13
ops
x
1
hr/
review
=
13
hours
Total
Hours
Spread
Over
the
5­
Year
Period
for
Multi­
Year
Documents:
TOTAL
HOURS
=
346
hours
TOTAL
HOURS
ANNUALLY
(
5­
year
period)
=
69
hours
TOTAL
HOURS
ANNUALLY
PER
IEE
(
4
IEEs)
=
17
hours
TOTAL
HOURS
ANNUALLY
PER
OPERATOR
(
13
operators)
=
5
hours
2.
Estimated
Technical
Hours
by
Federal
Agency
for
Review
of
an
IEE:
EPA
has
used
and
would
continue
to
use
a
"
Principal
Reviewer/
Associate
Reviewer"
process
to
review
environmental
documentation
submitted
by
operators.
OFA
would
serve
as
the
Principal
Reviewer.
Associate
Reviewers
may
include
representatives
from
program
offices
within
EPA
and
other
Federal
agencies
with
an
interest
in
Antarctica.
The
interested
Federal
agencies
are
listed
in
Section
5(
a),
above.
Based
on
experience
during
the
four
austral
summer
seasons
the
Interim
Final
Rule
has
been
in
effect
and
the
anticipated
consultation
needs
under
the
Proposed
Rule,
the
following
calculations
spread
the
82
total
hours
per
"
Core"
IEE
review,
the
42
total
hours
per
"
Revised"
IEE
review,
and
the
17
total
hours
per
"
Multi­
Year"
IEE
amongst
the
Federal
agencies.

"
Core"
IEE
"
Revised"
IEE
"
Multi­
Year"
IEE
Federal
Agency
Relative
Time/
Hr
x
82
Hrs
Hrs
Relative
Time/
Hr
x
42
Hrs
Hrs
Relative
Time/
Hr
x
17
Hrs
Hrs
EPA
NSF
DOS
Others
0.45
0.35
0.15
0.05
x
82
x
82
x
82
x
82
37
29
12
4
0.50
0.35
0.15
0.00
x
42
x
42
x
42
x
42
21
15
6
0
0.50
0.40
0.10
0.00
x
17
x
17
x
17
x
17
8
7
2
0
Totals
1.00
82
1.00
42
1.00
17
"
Others"
may
include:
USCG,
NOAA,
MMC,
DOJ
and
CEQ
40
The
model
further
assumes
that
2/
3
of
the
time
for
review
of
each
document
applies
to
the
draft
IEE,
and
1/
3
of
the
time
to
the
final
IEE:

"
Core"
IEE
"
Revised"
IEE
"
Multi­
Year"
IEE
Review
Hours
per
Draft
55
28
11
Review
Hours
per
Final
27
14
6
Total
Hours
82
42
17
The
hours
are
then
spread
amongst
the
Federal
agencies
as
follows:

"
Core"
IEE
"
Revised"
IEE
"
Multi­
Year"
IEE
Draft
Final
Draft
Final
Draft
Final
EPA
NSF
DOS
Others
.45
.35
.15
.05
25
19
8
3
12
10
4
1
.50
.35
.15
.00
14
10
4
0
7
5
2
0
.50
.40
.10
.00
6
4
1
0
3
3
0
0
Totals
55
27
28
14
11
6
The
Hours/
Agency
for
technical
activities
associated
with
Environmental
Documentation
are
spread
across
the
Federal
agencies
in
Exhibit
2B,
Estimated
Annual
Federal
Government
Burden
and
Cost,
on
an
hours/
IEE
or
hours/
operator
basis,
as
appropriate,
and
costs
are
calculated
at
the
"
Federal
Model
1"
(
technical)
rate
for:
review
of
environmental
documents,
including
any
public
comments,
and
providing
comments
to
the
operator;
consultation
with
operators;
review
of
the
revised/
final
document
submittals
and
notification
of
the
operator,
if
necessary;
and
review
of
assessment
and
verification
information.
The
costs
for
the
administrative
activities
listed
under
Environmental
Documentation
are
calculated
at
the
"
Federal
Model
2"
rate.

3.
The
estimated
hourly
burden
for
review
of
assessment
and
verification
information
is
estimated
to
be
75%
of
the
respondent's
time
to
prepare
the
assessment
and
verification
information,
or
15
hours
per
information
package
for
activities
associated
with
an
IEE.

6(
d)
ESTIMATED
ANNUAL
AGGREGATE
BURDEN
AND
COST
Exhibit
3
is
the
aggregate
hourly
burden
and
cost
for
respondents
and
the
Federal
government
that
compiles
the
subtotals
from
the
respondent
(
Exhibits
1A,
1B
including
Table
1,
1C,
and
1D)
and
Federal
government
(
Exhibits
2A,
2B
including
Table
2,
2C,
and
2D)
tables
for
the
most
likely
documentation
scenario,
submission
of
multi­
year
environmental
documentation,
and
represented
in
Figures
5
and
6,
below.
In
addition,
Exhibit
2E
summarizes
the
Federal
government
burden
and
cost
for
coordinating
review
of
information
received
from
other
Parties
and
is
not
further
summarized
since
it
is
not
possible
to
predict
what
may
be
received
from
another
Party
in
any
given
year,
and
there
is
no
associated
respondent
burden
or
costs.
Exhibit
3
40Three
years
are
used
in
these
calculations
because
that
is
the
period
of
time
the
ICR
is
in
effect
before
it
must
be
renewed.

41
is
annualized
over
a
three
year
period
by
assuming
a
3.5%
escalation
rate
per
year,
the
assumed
Consumer
Price
Index
(
CPI)
escalation
rate.
40
Based
on
the
reporting
by
operators
for
the
four
austral
summer
seasons
during
the
time
the
Interim
Final
Rule
has
been
in
effect
under
an
OMB­
approved
ICR
and
EPA's
understanding
of
the
types
of
nongovernmental
activities
likely
to
continue
to
be
undertaken
by
U.
S.­
based
operators
in
Antarctica,
EPA
anticipates
that
the
most
likely
scenario
during
the
three­
year
period
this
information
collection
will
be
in
effect
consists
of
the
following:

°
During
the
initial
year
(
e.
g.,
2001,
for
the
2001­
2002
austral
summer
season),
four
"
Multi­
Year"
IEEs
will
likely
be
submitted
for
the
initial
year
of
the
5­
year
term
for
these
documents
on
behalf
of
thirteen
operators,
including
the
associated
assessment
and
verification
procedures.
One
additional
IEE
may
be
submitted
for
a
one­
time
only
expedition.
°
For
the
subsequent
two
years,
the
annual
advance
notice
and
confirmation
reports
will
be
submitted
on
behalf
of
thirteen
operators
for
the
four
"
Multi­
Year"
IEEs,
and
associated
assessment
and
verification
procedures
will
continue.
One
additional
IEE
may
be
submitted
for
a
one­
time
only
expedition
during
each
of
these
subsequent
years.
°
The
Consumer
Price
Index
(
CPI)
is
estimated
to
be
3.5%
for
the
subsequent
years
and
is
incorporated
into
the
cost
calculations
for
these
years.
°
No
PERMs
or
CEEs
have
been
submitted
as
the
final
documentation
under
the
Interim
Final
Rule,
and
none
are
anticipated
during
the
effective
period
for
this
ICR.
°
There
were
no
emergencies
requiring
emergency
reporting
during
the
four
austral
summer
seasons
the
Interim
Final
Rule
has
been
in
effect,
and
none
are
expected
to
occur
during
the
effective
period
for
this
ICR.
°
Other
than
receipt
of
the
annual
list
of
IEEs,
there
is
no
way
to
anticipate
receipt
of
environmental
documents
from
the
Parties
on
an
annual
basis
or
during
the
effective
period
for
this
ICR.
There
is
no
burden
or
cost
to
the
respondents
associated
with
receipt
of
documents
from
the
Parties.
Therefore,
there
are
no
costs
associated
with
coordinating
review
of
information
received
from
other
Parties
included
in
the
summary
of
burden
and
costs.

Based
on
the
above
assumptions,
the
estimated
hourly
burden
and
costs
for
the
respondents
and
the
Federal
government
are
summarized
in
Exhibit
3.
In
summary,
for
most
operators
submitting
environmental
documentation
under
the
Proposed
Rule,
the
estimated
3­
year
total
and
annual
average
respondent
burden
is
estimated
as
1,135
hours,
or
29
hours
per
operator
per
year;
and
the
3­
year
total
and
annual
average
respondent
cost
is
estimated
as
$
82,628
or
$
2,119
per
operator
per
year.
The
3­
year
total
and
annual
average
Federal
government
burden
is
estimated
as
792
hours,
or
20
hours
per
operator
per
year;
and
the
3­
year
total
and
annual
average
Federal
government
cost
is
estimated
as
$
52,825
or
$
1,355
per
operator
per
year.
42
Exhibit
1A:
PERMs
­
ESTIMATED
RESPONDENT
BURDEN
AND
COST
Legal
Manager
Technical
Clerical
Respondent
Labor
Capitol/
O
&
M
No.
of
Total
Total
ICR
Activity:
PERMs
$
230/
hr
$
76/
hr
$
65/
hr
$
27/
hr
Hrs/
Yr
Cost/
Yr
Startup
Cost
Cost
Respondents
Hrs/
Yr
Cost/
Yr
Environmental
Documentation
1.
Study
the
regulations
2.
Search
reference
sources
for
existing
information
and
compile
information
from
company
records
3.
Prepare
PERM
and
submit
4.
Revise
PERM
in
response
to
EPA's
comments
and
submit
3
$
690
1
230
1
230
1
230
3
$
228
1
76
1
76
1
76
3
$
195
5
325
12
780
5
325
0
$
000
0
000
2
54
1
27
9
7
16
8
_____

40
$
1,113
631
1,140
668
________

$
3,542
None
Copying
$
25
Mailing
50
_____________

$
75
1
40
$
3,542
75
_________

$
3,617
Post­
Expedition
Assessment
&

Verification
1.
Prepare
A/
V
information
and
submit
­
NOT
REQUIRED
FOR
PERMs
0
$
000
0
$
000
0
$
000
0
$
000
0
______

0/
yr
$
000
________

$
000/
yr
None
Copying
$
0
Mailing
0
____________

$
0
0
0
$
0
TOTAL
40
$
3,617
YEAR
ONE
40
$
3,617
YEAR
TWO
(
3.5%
estimated
CPI
escalation
rate
on
$
3617)
40
3,744
YEAR
THREE
(
3.5%
estimated
CPI
escalation
rate
on
$
3744)
40
3,875
TOTAL
ESTIMATED
POTENTIAL
BURDEN
and
COST:
120
$
11,236
AVERAGE
EST.
BURDEN
and
COST
PER
YEAR
PER
OPERATOR:
40
$
3,745
Assumptions:

1.
Exhibit
1A
represents
the
estimated
burden
and
cost
for
PERMs.
In
fact,
no
PERMs
were
submitted
during
the
four
austral
summer
seasons
the
Interim
Final
Rule
has
been
in
effect.
For
purposes
of
estimating
the
potential
maximum
burden
and
cost
estimate
associated
with
PERMs
over
the
three­
year
life
of
the
ICR,
the
three­
year
projection
assumes
submittal
of
one
PERM
per
year
for
each
of
the
next
three
years.
Although
one
respondent
per
year
is
estimated
for
purposes
of
the
cost
calculations,
EPA
anticipates
that
the
actual
number
of
nongovernmental
expeditions
with
activities
that
will
likely
proceed
with
less
than
minor
or
transitory
impacts
may
well
be
reduced
to
less
than
one
respondent
per
year.

2.
Estimates
for
preparation
of
a
PERM
are
based
on
estimated
time
that
would
be
needed
to
comply
with
the
Proposed
Rule
at
Section
8.4,
preparation
of
environmental
documents,
generally,
and
Section
8.6,
preliminary
environmental
review.

3.
The
cost
estimates
are
based
on
consideration
of
assumed
comparable
estimated
costs
for
EPA
personnel,
except
for
the
Attorney
rate
which
is
an
estimate
of
the
commercial
rate.
The
EPA
estimated
rates
used
in
the
calculations
are
fully
loaded,
that
is,
they
incorporate
overhead
and
fringe
benefits.
43
4.
Cost
and
burden
associated
with
preparation
of
higher
level
EIA
documentation,
if
necessary,
is
addressed
in
Exhibits
1B
(
IEEs)
and
1C
(
CEEs).
44
Exhibit
1B:
IEEs
­
ESTIMATED
RESPONDENT
BURDEN
AND
COST
Legal
Manager
Technical
Clerical
Respondent
Labor
Capitol/
O
&
M
No.
of
Total
Total
ICR
Activity:
IEEs
$
230/
hr
$
76/
hr
$
65/
hr
$
27/
hr
Hrs/
Yr
Cost/
Yr
Startup
Cost
Cost
Respondents
Hrs/
Yr
Cost/
Yr
Environmental
Documentation
MODEL
1:
"
Core"
IEE
1.
Study
the
regulations
2.
Search
reference
sources
for
existing
information
and
compile
information
from
company
records
3.
Prepare
Core
IEE
and
submit
4.
Revise
in
response
to
EPA's
comments
and
submit
3
$
690
1
230
2
460
1
230
3
$
228
2
152
3
228
2
152
3
$
195
12
780
85
5525
35
2275
0
$
000
0
000
5
135
3
81
9
15
95
41
_____

160
$
1,113
1,162
6,348
2,738
________

$
11,361
None
Copying
$
218
Mailing
75
_____________

$
293
See:
Table
1
See:
Table
1
$
11,361
293
__________

$
11,654
Environmental
Documentation
MODEL
2:
"
Revised"
IEE
1.
Study
the
regulations
2.
Search
reference
sources
for
existing
information
and
compile
information
from
company
records
3.
Prepare
Revised
IEE
and
submit
4.
Revise
in
response
to
EPA's
comments
and
submit
0
$
000
0
000
1
230
0
000
0
$
000
0
000
1
76
.5
38
2
$
130
5
325
20
1300
8
520
0
$
000
0
000
2
5
4
.5
14
2
5
24
9
_____

40
$
130
325
1,660
572
________

$
2,687
None
Copying
$
218
Mailing
75
_____________

$
293
See:
Table
1
See:
Table
1
$
2,687
293
__________

$
2,980
Supplemental
Information
1.
Prepare
and
submit
supplemental
information
0
$
000
.5
$
33
4
$
260
.5
$
14
5
$
312
None
Included
in
Cases
1
and
2,

above
See:
Table
1
See:
Table
1
$
312
45
Post­
Expedition
Assessment
&

Verification
1.
Prepare
A/
V
information
and
submit
1
$
230
2
$
152
15
$
975
2
$
54
20
______

20
$
1,411
________

$
1,411
None
Copying
$
13
Mailing
15
____________

$
28
See:
Table
1
See:
Table
1
$
1,411
28
_________

$
1,439
Assumptions:

1.
IEEs
would
need
to
comply
with
the
Proposed
Rule
at
Section
8.4,
preparation
of
environmental
documents,
generally,
and
Section
8.7,
initial
environmental
evaluation.

2.
A
"
Core"
IEE
and
associated
supplemental
information
comprises
the
IEE
package
for
the
initial
preparation
of
an
IEE
by
an
operator.

3.
A
"
Revised"
IEE
and
associated
supplemental
information
comprises
the
IEE
package
for
a
current
year's
submittal
developed
through
revision
of
a
previous
year's
submittal.

4.
A
"
Multi­
Year"
IEE
consists
of
a
"
Revised"
IEE
and
the
associated
supplemental
information
in
the
initial
year
and,
for
each
of
the
subsequent
four
years,
an
annual
submission
of
the
advance
notice
and
confirmation
that
the
information
provided
in
the
Multi­
Year
IEE
is
unchanged.

5.
Supplemental
information
for
purposes
of
the
costs
estimated
in
Exhibit
1B
and
Table
1
refers
to
supplemental
information
submitted
regarding
the
specifics
of
the
tours/
expedition
(
e.
g.,
dates,
number
of
tours,
etc.)
rather
than
supplemental
information
of
a
more
technical
nature
that
is
incorporated
into
the
"
Core"
or
"
Revised"
IEE
by
reference.

6.
The
cost
estimates
are
based
on
consideration
of
assumed
comparable
estimated
costs
for
EPA
personnel,
except
for
the
Attorney
rate
which
is
an
estimate
of
the
commercial
rate.
The
EPA
estimated
rates
used
in
the
calculations
are
fully
loaded,
that
is,
they
incorporate
overhead
and
fringe
benefits.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

TABLE
1.
IEEs
­
TOTAL
ESTIMATED
POTENTIAL
BURDEN
AND
COST
FOR
THE
THREE
IEE
MODELS,
3.5%
ESCALATION
RATE
"
Core"
IEE
for
One
Operator
and
One
IEE
"
Multi­
Year"
IEE
for
13
Operators
and
4
IEEs
­
COST
INITIAL
YEAR:

Core
IEE
$
11,654/
IEE
x
1
IEE
=
$
11,654
Revised
IEE
$
2,980/
IEE
x
4
IEEs
=
$
11,920
Supp.
Info.
312/
operator
x
1
op
=
312
Supp.
Info.
312/
operator
x
13
ops
=
4,056
A/
V
Info.
1,439/
operator
x
1
op
=
1,439
A/
V
Info.
1,439/
operator
x
13
ops
=
18,707
YEAR
ONE
TOTAL
ESTIMATE:
$
13,405
YEAR
ONE
TOTAL
ESTIMATE
for
13
operators
=
$
34,683
=

$
2,668/
operator
YEAR
TWO
(
3.5%
on
$
13,405)
=
$
13,874
YEAR
TWO
(
3.5%
of
$
4,056
+
18,707
=
$
22,763)
=
$
23,560
=
$
1,812/
operator
YEAR
THREE
(
3.5%
on
$
13,874)
=
$
14,360
YEAR
THREE
(
3.5%
of
$
23,560)
=
$
24,385
=
$
1,876/
operator
TOTAL
MAXIMUM
OVER
THREE
YRS
=
$
41,639
TOTAL
MAXIMUM
OVER
THREE
YEARS
=
$
82,628
AVERAGE
MAX.
PER
YEAR
PER
OP
=
$
13,880
AVERAGE
MAX.
OVER
3­
YEARS
PER
OP
=
$
6,356
AVERAGE
MAX.
PER
YEAR
PER
OPERATOR
=
$
2,119
=
$
2,119/
operator
"
Revised"
IEE
for
One
Operator
and
One
IEE
"
Multi­
Year"
IEE
for
13
Operators
and
4
IEEs
­
BURDEN
Revised
IEE
$
2,980/
IEE
x
1
IEE
=
$
2,980
INITIAL
YEAR:

Supp.
Info.
312/
operator
x
1
op
=
312
Revised
IEE
40
hrs/
IEE
x
4
IEEs
=
160
hours
46
A/
V
Info.
1,439/
operator
x
1
op
=
1,439
Supp.
Info.
5
hrs/
operator
x
13
ops
=
65
hours
YEAR
ONE
TOTAL
ESTIMATE:
$
4,731
A/
V
Info.
20
hrs/
operator
x
13
ops
=
260
hours
YEAR
ONE
TOTAL
ESTIMATE
for
13
operators
=
485
hours
=
37
hours/
operator
YEAR
TWO
(
3.5%
on
$
4,731)
=
$
4,896
YEAR
THREE
(
3.5%
on
$
4,896)
=
$
5,067
YEAR
TWO
(
65
hrs
+
260
hrs)
=
325
hours
=
25
hours/
operator
YEAR
THREE
(
65
hrs
+
260
hrs)
=
325
hours
=
25
hours/
operator
TOTAL
MAX.
OVER
THREE
YEARS
=
$
14,694
AVERAGE
MAX.
PER
YR
PER
OP
=
$
4,898
TOTAL
MAXIMUM
OVER
THREE
YEARS
=
1,135
hours
AVERAGE
MAX.
OVER
3­
YEARS
PER
OP
=
87
hours
AVERAGE
MAX.
PER
YEAR
PER
OPERATOR
=
29
hours
=
29
hours/
operator
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
47
Exhibit
1C:
CEEs
­
ESTIMATED
RESPONDENT
BURDEN
AND
COST
Legal
Manager
Technical
Clerical
Respondent
Labor
Capitol/
O
&
M
No.
of
Total
Total
ICR
Activity:
CEEs
$
230/
hr
$
76/
hr
$
65/
hr
$
27/
hr
Hrs/
Yr
Cost/
Yr
Startup
Cost
Cost
Respondents
Hrs/
Yr
Cost/
Yr
Environmental
Documentation
1.
Study
the
regulations
2.
Search
reference
sources
for
existing
information
and
compile
information
from
company
records
3.
Prepare
CEE
and
submit
4.
Revise
in
response
to
EPA's
comments
and
submit
3
$
690
1
230
3
690
2
460
3
$
228
2
152
5
380
5
380
3
$
195
25
1,625
127
8,255
46
2,990
0
$
000
0
000
10
270
5
135
9
28
145
58
_____

240
$
1,113
2,007
9,595
3,965
_________

$
16,680
None
Copying
$
300
Mailing
60
___________

$
360
1
240
$
16,680
360
__________

$
17,040
Post­
Expedition
Assessment
&

Verification
1.
Prepare
A/
V
information
and
submit
2
$
460
5
$
380
50
$
3,250
3
$
81
60
______

60
$
4,171
________

$
4,171
None
Copying
$
25
Mailing
15
_____________

$
40
1
60
$
4,171
40
__________

$
4,211
TOTALS
300
$
21,251
YEAR
ONE
300
$
21,251
YEAR
TWO
(
3.5%
estimated
CPI
escalation
rate
on
$
21,251)
300
21,995
YEAR
THREE
(
3.5%
estimated
CPI
escalation
rate
on
$
21,995)
300
22,765
TOTAL
ESTIMATED
POTENTIAL
BURDEN
and
COST:
900
$
66,011
AVERAGE
EST.
BURDEN
and
COST
PER
YEAR
PER
OPERATOR:
300
$
22,004
Assumptions:

1.
Exhibit
1C
represents
the
estimated
burden
and
cost
for
CEEs.
In
fact,
no
CEEs
were
submitted
during
the
four
austral
summer
seasons
the
Interim
Final
Rule
has
been
in
effect.
For
purposes
of
estimating
the
potential
maximum
burden
and
cost
estimate
associated
with
CEEs
over
the
three­
year
life
of
the
ICR,
the
three­
year
projection
assumes
submittal
of
one
CEE
per
year
for
each
of
the
next
three
years.
Although
one
respondent
per
year
is
estimated
for
purposes
of
the
cost
calculations,
EPA
anticipates
that
the
actual
number
of
nongovernmental
expeditions
with
activities
that
will
likely
proceed
with
less
than
minor
or
transitory
impacts
may
well
be
reduced
to
less
than
one
respondent
per
year.

2.
Estimates
for
preparation
of
a
CEE
are
based
on
estimated
time
that
would
be
needed
to
comply
with
the
Proposed
Rule
at
Section
8.4,
preparation
of
environmental
documents,
generally,
and
Section
8.8,
comprehensive
environmental
evaluation.

3.
The
cost
estimates
are
based
on
consideration
of
assumed
comparable
estimated
costs
for
EPA
personnel,
except
for
the
Attorney
rate
which
is
an
estimate
of
the
commercial
rate.
The
EPA
estimated
rates
used
in
the
calculations
are
fully
loaded,
that
is,
they
incorporate
overhead
and
fringe
benefits.
48
1D.
REPORTING
FOR
EMERGENCIES
­
ESTIMATED
RESPONDENT
BURDEN
AND
COST
Legal
Manager
Technical
Clerical
Respondent
Labor
Capitol/
O
&
M
No.
of
Total
Total
ICR
Activity:
Emergency
Reports
$
230/
hr
$
76/
hr
$
65/
hr
$
27/
hr
Hrs/
Yr
Cost/
Yr
Startup
Cost
Cost
Respondents
Hrs/
Yr
Cost/
Yr
Reporting
for
Cases
of
Emergency
1.
Initial
Report
2.
Full
Report
5
$
1,150
5
1,150
5
$
380
25
1,900
20
$
1,300
175
11,375
2
$
54
3
81
32
208
_______

240
$
2,884
14,506
________

$
17,390
None
Copying
$
150
Mailing
30
_____________

$
180
1
240
$
17,390
180
_________

$
17,570
Post­
Emergency
Assessment
&
Verification
1.
Prepare
A/
V
information
and
submit
2
460
5
380
50
3,250
3
81
60
______

60
$
3,791
________

$
3,791
None
Copying
$
25
Mailing
15
_____________

$
40
1
60
$
3,791
40
__________

$
3,831
TOTAL
300
$
21,401
There
were
no
emergencies
that
required
reporting
during
the
four
austral
summer
seasons
the
Interim
Final
Rule
has
been
in
effect.
An
incident
requiring
emergency
reporting
could
occur
in
the
subsequent
years.
The
following
cost
estimates
are
not
additive,
however,
since
only
one
such
emergency
in
10
years
is
estimated.

YEAR
ONE
1
$
21,401
YEAR
TWO
(
3%
estimated
CPI
escalation
rate
of
$
21,401)
1
22,150
YEAR
THREE
(
3%
estimated
CPI
escalation
rate
for
$
22,150)
1
22,925
Assumptions:

1.
Reporting
for
Cases
of
Emergency
is
based
on
the
Proposed
Rule
at
Section
8.10,
Cases
of
emergency,
which
requires
notice
and
reporting
for
activities
taken
in
cases
of
emergency
which
would
have
otherwise
required
the
preparation
of
a
CEE.
The
estimate
is
based
on
reporting
requirements
only,
not
the
actual
cost
of
the
emergency
response
action.
The
burden
and
cost
estimate
assumes
one
such
emergency
per
10
years.

2.
Only
one
incident
requiring
emergency
reporting
is
estimated
to
occur
over
a
10­
year
period.
In
fact,
there
was
no
emergency
reporting
during
the
four
austral
summer
seasons
the
Interim
Final
Rule
has
been
in
effect.

3.
The
cost
estimates
are
based
on
consideration
of
assumed
comparable
estimated
costs
for
EPA
personnel,
except
for
the
Attorney
rate
which
is
an
estimate
of
the
commercial
rate.
The
EPA
estimated
rates
used
in
the
calculations
are
fully
loaded,
that
is,
they
incorporate
overhead
and
fringe
benefits.
49
Exhibit
2A:
PERMs
­
ESTIMATED
FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT
BURDEN
AND
COST
EPA
NSF
DOS
Other
Govt.
Government
Labor
Capitol/
O
&
M
No.
of
Total
Total
ICR
Activity:
PERM
$
63
or
44/
hr
$
63
or
44/
hr
$
63
or
44/
hr
$
63
or
44/
hr
Hrs/
Yr
Cost/
Yr
Startup
Cost
Cost
Respondents
Hrs/
Yr
Cost/
Yr
PERMs
from
U.
S.­

Based
Operators:

1.
Post
PERM
receipt
on
WWW,
provide
copies
to
interested
Federal
agencies
and
public,
if
requested
2.
Review
PERM
and
any
public
comments,
provide
comments
to
and
consult
with
operator
3.
Provide
copies
of
revised/
final
PERM
to
interested
Federal
agencies,

review,
and
notify
operator,
if
necessary
4.
Maintain
file
1
$
44
4
252
2
126
1
44
0
$
0
2
126
0
0
0
0
0
$
0
1
63
0
0
0
0
0
$
0
1
63
0
0
0
0
1
8
2
1
_______

12
$
44
504
126
44
________

$
718
None
Copying
$
30
FR
Pub.
0
Store
Files
10
_____________

$
40
1
12
$
718
40
________

$
758
Post­
Expedition
Assessment
&

Verification
1.
Review
A/
V
information
­

NOT
REQUIRED
FOR
PERMs
0
$
000
0
$
000
0
$
000
0
$
000
0
_______

0/
yr
$
000
_______

$
000/
yr
None
None
0
0
$
000
TOTAL
12
$
758
YEAR
ONE
12
$
758
YEAR
TWO
(
3.5%
estimated
CPI
escalation
rate
on
$
758)
12
784
YEAR
THREE
(
3.5%
estimated
CPI
escalation
rate
on
$
784)
12
811
TOTAL
ESTIMATED
POTENTIAL
BURDEN
and
COST:
36
$
2,353
AVERAGE
EST.
BURDEN
and
COST
PER
YEAR
PER
OPERATOR:
12
$
784
Assumptions:

1.
Exhibit
2A
represents
the
estimated
burden
and
cost
for
PERMs.
In
fact,
no
PERMs
were
submitted
during
the
four
austral
summer
seasons
the
Interim
Final
Rule
has
been
in
effect.
For
purposes
of
estimating
the
potential
maximum
burden
and
cost
estimate
associated
with
PERMs
over
the
three­
year
life
of
the
ICR,
the
three­
year
projection
assumes
submittal
of
one
PERM
per
year
for
each
of
the
next
three
years.
Although
one
respondent
per
year
is
estimated
for
purposes
of
the
cost
calculations,
EPA
anticipates
that
the
actual
number
of
nongovernmental
expeditions
with
activities
that
will
likely
proceed
with
less
than
minor
or
transitory
impacts
may
well
be
reduced
to
less
than
one
respondent
per
year.

2.
Estimates
for
review
of
a
PERM
is
estimated
as
25%
of
the
respondent's
time,
or
10
hours,
to
prepare
a
PERM
that
would
be
in
compliance
with
the
Proposed
Rule
at
Section
8.4,
preparation
50
of
environmental
documents,
generally,
and
Section
8.6,
preliminary
environmental
review,
and
two
hours
for
administrative
activities.

3.
Cost
and
burden
associated
with
preparation
of
higher
level
EIA
documentation,
if
necessary,
is
addressed
in
Exhibits
2B
(
IEEs)
and
2C
(
CEEs).
51
Exhibit
2B:
IEEs
­
ESTIMATED
FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT
BURDEN
AND
COST
EPA
NSF
DOS
Other
Govt.
Government
Labor
Capitol/
O
&
M
No.
of
Total
Total
ICR
Activity:
IEE
$
63
or
44/
hr
$
63
or
44/
hr
$
63
or
44/
hr
$
63
or
44/
hr
Hrs/
Yr
Cost/
Yr
Startup
Cost
Cost
Respondents
Hrs/
Yr
Cost/
Yr
Environmental
Documentation
MODEL
1:
"
Core"
IEE
1.
Post
IEE
receipt
on
WWW,

provide
copies
to
interested
Federal
agencies
and
public,
if
requested
2.
Review
IEE
and
any
public
comments,
provide
comments
to
and
consult
with
operator
3.
Provide
copies
of
revised/
final
IEE
to
interested
Federal
agencies,
review
,
and
notify
operator,
if
necessary
4.
Maintain
file
.5
$
22
25
1,575
10
630
1.5
66
0
$
0
29
1,807
0
0
0
0
0
$
0
12
756
0
0
0
0
0
$
0
4
252
0
0
0
0
.5
70
10
1.5
_______

82
$
22
7,812
630
66
________

$
8,530
None
Copying
$
261
File
Storage
10*
_____________

$
271
*
Includes
A/
V
Information
See:
Table
2
See:
Table
2
$
8,530
271
__________

$
8,801
Environmental
Documentation
MODEL
2:
"
Revised"
IEE
1.
Post
IEE
receipt
on
WWW,

provide
copies
to
interested
Federal
agencies
and
public,
if
requested
2.
Review
IEE
and
any
public
comments,
provide
comments
to
and
consult
with
operator
3.
Provide
copies
of
revised/
final
IEE
to
interested
Federal
agencies,
review,
and
notify
operator,
if
necessary
4.
Maintain
file
.5
$
22
17
1,071
2
126
1.5
66
0
$
0
15
945
0
0
0
0
0
$
0
6
378
0
0
0
0
0
$
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.5
38
2
1.5
_____

42
$
22
2,394
126
66
________

$
2,608
None
Copying
$
261
Store
Files
10*

___________

$
271
*
Includes
A/
V
Information
See:
Table
2
See:
Table
2
$
2,608
271
__________

$
2,879
Supplemental
Information
1.
Review
supplemental
information
1
$
63
0
$
0
0
$
0
0
$
0
1
$
63
None
Included
in
Cases
1
and
2,

above
See:
Table
2
See:
Table
2
$
63
52
Post­
Expedition
Assessment
&

Verification
1.
Review
A/
V
information
7
$
441
5
$
315
2
$
126
1
$
63
15
$
945
None
Copying
$
15
File
Storage
*
____________

$
15
*
Included
in
Cases
1
&
2
above
See:
Table
2
See:
Table
2
$
945
15
_________

$
960
Assumptions:

1.
IEEs
would
need
to
comply
with
the
Proposed
Rule
at
Section
8.4,
preparation
of
environmental
documents,
generally,
and
Section
8.7,
initial
environmental
evaluation.

2.
A
"
Core"
IEE
and
associated
supplemental
information
comprises
the
IEE
package
for
the
initial
submittal
of
an
IEE
by
an
operator.

3.
A
"
Revised"
IEE
and
associated
supplemental
information
comprises
the
IEE
package
for
a
current
year's
submittal
developed
through
revision
of
a
previous
year's
submittal.

4.
A
"
Multi­
Year"
IEE
consists
of
a
"
Revised"
IEE
and
the
associated
supplemental
information
in
the
initial
year
and,
for
each
of
the
subsequent
four
years,
an
annual
submission
of
the
advance
notice
and
confirmation
that
the
information
provided
in
the
Multi­
Year
IEE
is
unchanged.

5.
Supplemental
information
for
purposes
of
the
costs
estimated
in
Exhibit
2B
and
Table
2
refers
to
supplemental
information
submitted
regarding
the
specifics
of
the
tours/
expedition
(
e.
g.,
dates,
number
of
tours,
etc.)
rather
than
supplemental
information
of
a
more
technical
nature
that
is
incorporated
into
the
"
Core"
or
"
Revised"
IEE
by
reference.
The
one
hour
for
review
of
the
supplemental
information
is
assigned
to
EPA
to
simplify
the
model
and
calculations.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

TABLE
2.
IEEs
­
TOTAL
ESTIMATED
POTENTIAL
BURDEN
AND
COST
FOR
THE
THREE
IEE
MODELS,
3.5%
ESCALATION
RATE
"
Core"
IEE
for
One
Operator
and
One
IEE
"
Multi­
Year"
IEE
for
13
Operators
and
4
IEEs
­
COST
INITIAL
YEAR:

Core
IEE
$
8,530/
IEE
x
1
IEE
=
$
8,801
Revised
IEE
$
2,879/
IEE
x
4
IEEs
=
$
11,516
Supp.
Info.
63/
operator
x
1
op
=
63
Supp.
Info.
63/
operator
x
13
ops
=
819
A/
V
Info.
960/
operator
x
1
op
=
960
A/
V
Info.
960/
operator
x
13
ops
=
12,480
YEAR
ONE
TOTAL
ESTIMATE:
$
9,824
YEAR
ONE
TOTAL
ESTIMATE
for
13
operators
=
$
24,815
=

$
1,909/
operator
YEAR
TWO
(
3.5%
on
$
9,824)
=
$
10,168
YEAR
TWO
(
3.5%
of
$
819
+
12,480
=
$
13,299)
=
$
13,764
=
$
1,059/
operator
YEAR
THREE
(
3.5%
on
$
10,168)
=
$
10,524
YEAR
THREE
(
3.5%
of
$
13,764)
=
$
14,246
=
$
1,096/
operator
TOTAL
MAXIMUM
OVER
THREE
YRS
=
$
30,516
TOTAL
MAXIMUM
OVER
THREE
YEARS
=
$
52,825
AVERAGE
MAX
PER
YEAR
PER
OP
=
$
10,172
AVERAGE
MAX.
OVER
3­
YEARS
PER
OP
=
$
4,063
AVERAGE
MAX.
PER
YEAR
PER
OPERATOR
=
$
1,355
=
$
1,355/
operator
"
Revised"
IEE
for
One
Operator
and
One
IEE
Revised
IEE
$
2,879/
IEE
x
1
IEE
=
$
2,879
"
Multi­
Year"
IEE
for
13
Operators
and
4
IEEs
­
BURDEN
Supp.
Info.
63/
operator
x
1
op
=
63
INITIAL
YEAR:

A/
V
Info.
960/
operator
x
1
op
=
960
Revised
IEE
42
hrs/
IEE
x
4
IEEs
=
168
hours
YEAR
ONE
TOTAL
ESTIMATE:
$
3,902
Supp.
Info.
1
hrs/
operator
x
13
ops
=
13
hours
A/
V
Info.
15
hrs/
operator
x
13
ops
=
195
hours
53
YEAR
ONE
TOTAL
ESTIMATE
for
13
operators
=
376
hours
=
29
hours/
operator
YEAR
TWO
(
3.5%
on
$
3,902)
=
$
4,038
YEAR
THREE
(
3.5%
on
$
4,038)
=
$
4,179
YEAR
TWO
(
13
hrs
+
195
hrs)
=
208
hours
=
16
hours/
operator
YEAR
THREE
(
13
hrs
+
195
hrs)
=
208
hours
=
16
hours/
operator
TOTAL
MAX
OVER
THREE
YEARS
=
$
12,119
AVERAGE
MAX
PER
YR
PER
OP
=
$
4,040
TOTAL
MAXIMUM
OVER
THREE
YEARS
=
792
hours
AVERAGE
MAX.
OVER
3­
YEARS
PER
OP
=
61
hours
AVERAGE
MAX.
PER
YEAR
PER
OPERATOR
=
20
hours
=
20
hours/
operator
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
54
Exhibit
2C:
CEEs
­
ESTIMATED
FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT
BURDEN
AND
COST
EPA
NSF
DOS
Other
Govt.
Government
Labor
Capitol/
O
&
M
No.
of
Total
Total
ICR
Activity:
CEE
$
63
or
44/
hr
$
63
or
44/
hr
$
63
or
44/
hr
$
63
or
44/
hr
Hrs/
Yr
Cost/
Yr
Startup
Cost
Cost
Respondents
Hrs/
Yr
Cost/
Yr
CEEs
from
U.
S.­
Based
Operators:

1.
Post
CEE
receipt
on
WWW,

provide
copies
to
interested
Federal
agencies
and
public,
if
requested
2.
Prepare/
publish
FR
notices
for
receipt
of
draft
CEE
and
NOA
for
final
CEE;
copy
and
transmit
final
CEE
to
Parties
3.
Review
draft
CEE
and
any
public
comments,
provide
comments
to
and
consult
with
operator
4.
Provide
copies
of
revised/
final
CEE
to
interested
Federal
agencies
and
public,
if
requested,
and
to
Parties,

review,
and
notify
operator,
if
necessary
5.
Maintain
file
2
$
88
1
44
40
2,520
5
315
2
88
2
88
0
$
0
0
0
36
2,268
5
315
0
0
0
$
0
5
22
0
14
882
3
189
3
132
0
0
0
$
0
0
0
16
1,108
1
63
0
0
2
6
106
14
5
2
_______

135
$
88
264
6,678
882
220
88
________

8,220
None
Copying
$
2160
FR
Pub.
290
Store
Files
10*
_____________

$
2460*

*
Includes
CEE
and
A/
V
Information
1
135
$
8,220
2,460
________

$
10,680
Post­
Expedition
Assessment
&

Verification
1.
Review
A/
V
information
14
$
882
9
$
567
4
$
252
3
$
189
3
0
_______

3
0/
yr
$
1,890
_________

$
1,890/
yr
None
Copying
$
30
FR
Pub.
0
Store
Files
*
_____________

$
30
*
Included
above
1
30
$
1,890
30
________

$
1,920
TOTALS
165
$
12,600
YEAR
ONE
165
$
12,600
YEAR
TWO
(
3.5%
estimated
CPI
escalation
rate
on
$
12,600)
165
$
13,041
YEAR
THREE
(
35%
estimated
CPI
escalation
rate
on
$
13,041)
165
$
13,497
TOTAL
ESTIMATED
POTENTIAL
BURDEN
and
COST:
495
$
39,138
AVERAGE
EST.
BURDEN
and
COST
PER
YEAR
PER
OPERATOR:
165
$
13,046
Assumptions:

1.
Exhibit
2C
represents
the
estimated
burden
and
cost
for
CEEs.
In
fact,
no
CEEs
were
submitted
during
the
four
austral
summer
seasons
the
Interim
Final
Rule
has
been
in
effect.
For
purposes
of
estimating
the
potential
maximum
burden
and
cost
estimate
associated
with
CEEs
over
the
three­
year
life
of
the
ICR,
the
three­
year
projection
assumes
submittal
of
one
CEE
per
year
for
each
of
the
next
three
years.
Although
one
respondent
per
year
is
estimated
for
purposes
of
the
cost
calculations,
EPA
anticipates
that
the
actual
number
of
nongovernmental
expeditions
with
activities
that
will
likely
proceed
with
less
than
minor
or
transitory
impacts
may
well
be
55
reduced
to
less
than
one
respondent
per
year.

2.
Estimates
for
review
of
a
CEE
is
estimated
as
50%
of
the
respondent's
time,
or
120
hours,
to
prepare
a
CEE
that
would
be
in
compliance
with
the
Proposed
Rule
at
Section
8.4,
preparation
of
environmental
documents,

generally,
and
Section
8.8,
comprehensive
environmental
evaluation,
with
an
additional
15
hours
for
administrative
activities,
and
50%
of
respondent's
time
for
assessment
and
verification
procedures
for
review
of
the
information.

3.
EPA
would
publish
Federal
Register
notices
for
domestic
CEEs,
and
the
Department
of
State
would
publish
the
Federal
Register
notice
and
circulate
copies
of
CEEs
to
all
Parties
and
others
that
may
request
copies.
56
Exhibit
2D:
Reporting
for
Emergencies
­
Estimated
Federal
Government
Burden
and
Cost
EPA
NSF
DOS
Other
Govt.
Government
Labor
Capitol/
O
&
M
No.
of
Total
Total
ICR
Activity:
CEE
$
63
or
44/
hr
$
63
or
44/
hr
$
63
or
44/
hr
$
63
or
44/
hr
Hrs/
Yr
Cost/
Yr
Startup
Cost
Cost
Respondents
Hrs/
Yr
Cost/
Yr
Reporting
for
Cases
of
Emergency
1.
Notify
Parties
2.
Provide
initial
and
full
report
to
interested
Federal
agencies
and
review
3.
Provide
full
report
to
Parties
4.
Review
A/
V
information
5.
Maintain
files
0
$
0
25
1,575
0
0
10
630
1
44
0
$
0
25
1,575
0
0
10
630
0
0
25
$
1,575
14
882
15
945
4
252
4
176
0
$
0
26
1,638
0
0
6
378
0
0
25
90
15
30
5
_______

165
$
1,575
5,670
945
1,550
220
________

$
9,960
None
Copying
$
2160
FR
Pub.
0
Store
Files
10
_____________

$
2170
1
165
$
9,960
2,160
________

$
12,120
TOTAL
165
$
12,120
YEAR
ONE
165
$
12,120
YEAR
TWO
(
3.5%
estimated
CPI
escalation
rate
of
$
12,120)
165
12,544
YEAR
THREE
(
3.5%
estimated
CPI
escalation
rate
for
$
12,544)
165
12,983
Assumptions:

1.
Reporting
for
Cases
of
Emergency
is
based
on
the
Proposed
Rule
at
Section
8.10,
Cases
of
emergency,
which
would
require
notice
and
reporting
for
activities
taken
in
cases
of
emergency
which
would
have
otherwise
required
the
preparation
of
a
CEE.
The
estimate
is
based
on
reporting
requirements
only,
not
the
actual
cost
of
the
emergency
response
action.
The
burden
and
cost
estimate
assumes
one
such
emergency
per
10
years.

2.
Only
one
incident
requiring
emergency
reporting
is
estimated
to
occur
over
a
10­
year
period.
In
fact,
there
was
no
emergency
reporting
during
the
four
austral
summer
seasons
the
Interim
Final
Rule
has
been
in
effect.
An
incident
requiring
emergency
reporting
could
occur
in
the
subsequent
years.
The
cost
estimates
for
reporting
for
cases
of
emergency
are
not
additive
because
only
one
such
emergency
in
10
years
is
estimated.

3.
Estimates
for
review
of
an
Emergency
Report
is
estimated
as
50%
of
the
respondent's
time
to
prepare
the
Emergency
Report
that
would
be
in
compliance
with
the
Proposed
Rule
at
Section
8.10,
or
120
hours,
and
50%
of
respondent's
time
for
assessment
and
verification
procedures
for
review
of
the
information,
or
30
hours,
with
an
additional
15
hours
for
administrative
activities.

3.
The
Department
of
State
is
responsible
for
notification
of
Parties
and
follow­
up
coordination
with
the
Parties;
hours
have
been
allocated
to
the
DOS
accordingly.
57
Exhibit
2E:
Coordinating
Review
of
Information
Received
from
Other
Parties
­
Estimated
Federal
Government
Burden
and
Cost
EPA
NSF
DOS
Other
Govt.
Government
Labor
Capitol/
O
&
M
No.
of
Total
Total
ICR
Activity:
Other
Party
Docs.
$
63
or
44/
hr
$
63
or
44/
hr
$
63
or
44/
hr
$
63
or
44/
hr
Hrs/
Yr
Cost/
Yr
Startup
Cost
Cost
Respondents
Hrs/
Yr
Cost/
Yr
Coordinate
Review
of
Information
Received
from
Other
Parties
1.
Prepare
and
publish
FR
notice
of
receipt
of
draft
CEE,

provide
copies
to
interested
Federal
agencies
and
public,
if
requested
2.
Review
draft
CEE
and
provide
inter­
agency
response
to
Party
3.
Provide
copies
of
other
documents
(
including
final
CEEs,
annual
list
of
IEEs,

national
procedures,

significant
monitoring
information)
to
interested
Federal
agencies
and
public,
if
requested
4.
Post
receipt
of
significant
monitoring
information
on
WWW
and
provide
copies
to
interested
Federal
agencies
and
public,
if
requested
5.
Maintain
files
0
$
0
25
1,575
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$
0
25
1,575
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
$
378
26
1,638
5
315
6
378
3
132
0
$
0
14
882
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
90
5
6
3
______

110
$
378
5,670
315
378
132
_________

$
6,873
None
Copying
$
*

FR
Pub
290
Store
Files
10
____________

$
300
*
Copying
per
document:

Draft
CEE
$
360
Final
CEE
180
Other
doc.
50
IEE
list
10
See:
Assum.
2,

below
See:
Assum.
2,

below
See:
Assum.

2,
below
Assumptions:

1.
The
Department
of
State
would
be
responsible
for
compliance
with
the
Proposed
Rule
at
Section
8.12,
Coordination
of
reviews
from
other
Parties.

2.
The
calculations
in
Exhibit
2E
are
based
on
receipt
of
a
CEE
from
another
Party.
One
Draft
CEE
was
received
from
other
Parties
during
the
four
austral
summer
seasons
the
Interim
Final
Rule
has
been
in
effect
other
than
the
annual
list
of
IEEs.
There
is
no
way
to
anticipate
receipt
of
environmental
documents
from
the
Parties,
other
than
the
annual
list
of
IEEs,
on
an
annual
basis.
There
is
no
burden
or
cost
to
the
respondents
associated
with
receipt
of
documents
from
the
Parties,
therefore,
the
costs
are
not
further
defined.
58
Exhibit
3:
SUMMARY
­
ESTIMATED
RESPONDENT/
FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT
BURDEN
AND
COST
CHART
1:
Summary
for
Respondents
and
Federal
Government
­
Estimated
Total
and
Annual
Average
hourly
burden
and
cost
for
each
type
of
environmental
documentation
that
could
be
submitted
by
a
Respondent
under
the
Proposed
Rule
PERM
Core
IEE
Revised
IEE
Multi­
Year
IEE
CEE
Emergency
Reporting
Respondent
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
TOTAL
Annual
Average
40
$
3,617
40
$
3,744
40
$
3,875
120
$
11,236
40
$
3,745
185
$
13,405
185
$
13,874
185
$
14,360
555
$
41,639
185
$
13,880
65
$
4,731
65
$
4,896
65
$
5,067
195
$
14,694
65
$
4,898
37
$
2,668
25
1,812
25
1,876
87
$
6,356
29
$
2,119
300
$
21,251
300
$
21,995
300
$
22,765
900
$
66,011
300
$
22,004
300
$
21,401
300
$
22,150
300
$
22,925
Federal
Government
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
TOTAL
Annual
Average
12
$
758
12
$
784
12
$
811
36
$
2,353
12
$
784
98
$
9,824
98
$
10,168
98
$
10,524
294
$
30,516
98
$
10,172
58
$
3,902
58
$
4,038
58
$
4,179
174
$
12,119
58
$
4,040
29
$
1,909
16
$
1,059
16
$
1,096
61
$
4,063
20
$
1,355
165
$
12,600
165
$
13,041
165
$
13,497
495
$
39,138
165
$
13,046
165
$
12,120
165
$
12,544
165
$
12,983
TOTAL
Annual
Average
156
$
13,589
52
$
4,529
849
$
72,155
283
$
24,052
369
$
26,813
123
$
8,938
148
$
10,419
49
$
3,474
1395
$
105,149
465
$
35,050
CHART
2:
Summary
for
Respondents
and
Federal
Government
­
Estimated
Total
and
Annual
Average
hourly
burden
and
costs
based
on
the
anticipated
level
and
type
of
environmental
documentation
most
respondents
would
likely
submit
under
the
Proposed
Rule
Multi­
Year
IEE
Total
Hourly
Burden
3­
Year
Total
Annual
Average
Total
Cost
3­
Year
Total
Annual
Average
Respondent
(
13
of
14
operators)
1,135
hours
29
hrs
per
op
per
year
$
82,628
$
2,119
per
op
per
year
Federal
Government
792
hours
20
hrs
per
op
per
year
$
52,825
$
1,355
per
op
per
year
TOTALS
1,927
hours
49
hrs
per
op
per
year
$
135,453
$
3,474
per
op
per
year
NOTES:
1.
Average
Annual
is
the
average
per
year
per
respondent
2.
Chart
presents
the
maximum
burden
and
cost
for
a
respondent.
Chart
2
presents
the
maximum
burden
and
cost
based
on
59
the
anticipated
level
and
type
of
environmental
documentation
a
respondent
would
likely
submit
under
the
Proposed
Rule.
3.
The
burden
and
cost
estimates
for
Emergency
Reporting
assume
one
such
emergency
per
10
years.

PART
B
OF
THE
SUPPORTING
STATEMENT
STATISTICAL
SURVEY
This
collection
of
information
does
not
use
or
is
otherwise
based
on
a
statistical
survey.
PART
C
OF
THE
SUPPORTING
STATEMENT
RESPONSE
TO
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
ON
THE
PROPOSED
ICR
LIST
OF
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment
1:
40
CFR
Part
8,
Environmental
Impact
Assessment
of
Nongovernmental
Activities
in
Antarctica;
Interim
Final
Rule,
Federal
Register,
Vol.
62,
No.
83,
Wednesday,
April
30,
1997,
23538­
23549.

Attachment
2:
16
U.
S.
C.
2403a.

Attachment
3:
Intent
to
Prepare
an
Environmental
Impact
Statement
for
the
Final
Rule
for
Environmental
Impact
Assessment
of
Nongovernmental
Activities
in
Antarctica;
Notices,
Federal
Register,
Vol.
62,
No.
90,
Friday,
May
9,
1997,
21611­
25613.

Attachment
4:
International
Association
of
Antarctica
Tour
Operators
(
IAATO),
Membership
Directory
at:
http://
www.
iaato.
org/
members_
list.
html.