[Federal Register: February 6, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 25)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 6861-6863]
[DOCID:fr06fe08-13]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2007-0143]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Oceanside Harbor, California

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes a temporary safety zone within the
navigable waters of the Pacific Ocean in Oceanside Harbor, California
for the Ford Ironman 70.3 California Triathlon. This temporary safety
zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants
(swimmers), crew, spectators, and other vessels and users of the
waterway. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into,
transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated representative.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before March 3, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2007-0143 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.

    (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call Petty Officer Kristen Beer, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast
Guard Sector San Diego at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any

personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the
Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management
Facility. Please see DOT's ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2007-0143), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each
comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address,
an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have

questions regarding your submission. You may submit your comments and
material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket
Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; but please submit
your comments and material by only one means. If you submit them by
mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/
2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you
submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the
Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during
the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov at

any time. Enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2007-0143)
in the box under ``Search'', and click ``Go''. You may also visit the
Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of
Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov
.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that
one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place
announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    The Ford Ironman 70.3 California Triathlon is sponsored by North
American Sports, Inc. The proposed event would consist of twenty-two
hundred (2,200) participants. The waterside swim course begins in South
Oceanside Harbor, with a turn-around in the vicinity of Oceanside
Channel buoy 3, thence to the Oceanside Harbor Launch Ramp for a
transition to the bicycle portion of the event. The 1.2 mile swim
course would require a safety zone while swimmers are on the course,
thus restricting all vessel traffic within Oceanside Harbor for three
(3) hours. There will be six (6) to eight (8) kayaks, two (2) to four
(4) paddle boards, fifteen (15) surfboards, and two (2) motorboats
provided by the sponsor to enforce the safety zone.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish one (1) safety zone that will
be enforced from 6:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Saturday, March 29, 2008 for
the Ford Ironman 70.3 California Triathlon. This temporary safety zone
is necessary for the safety of participant swimmers and the staff
members of the race and will affect use of the waterway during the
period of the event. The event will last for one day. The event is
anticipated to draw fairly large crowds and the safety zone is
established to ensure their safety. The limits of this temporary safety
zone are the waters of Oceanside Harbor, California, including the
entrance channel.
    The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone. The Coast Guard may
be assisted by other federal, state, or local agencies, including the
Coast Guard Auxiliary. Section 165.23 of Title 33, Code of Federal
Regulations, prohibits any unauthorized person or vessel from entering
or remaining in a safety zone. Vessels or persons violating this
section will be subject to both criminal and civil penalties.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.
    This determination is based on the size and location of the safety
zone within the water. Commercial and recreational vessels will not be
allowed to transit through the designated safety zone during the
specified times.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The factual basis for this certification is
as follows:
    (1) This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit or anchor in the portion of the Oceanside Harbor,
California and the entrance channel from 6:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. on
March 29, 2008.
    (2) This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons.
This rule would be in effect for only three (3) hours early in the day
when vessel traffic is low. Although the safety zone would apply to the
entire width of the harbor, traffic would be allowed to pass through
the zone with the permission of the Coast Guard patrol commander.
Before the effective period, we would publish local notice to mariners
(LNM) before the safety zone is enforced.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact Petty Officer Kristen Beer,
Waterways Management, U. S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego at (619) 278-
7233. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the
Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive
5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is not likely to
have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary
``Environmental Analysis Check List'' supporting this preliminary
determination is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.

Words of Issuance and Proposed Regulatory Text

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295; 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

    2. Add new Sec.  165.T11-002 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-002  Safety zone; Oceanside Harbor, California.

    (a) Location. The Coast Guard proposes establishing a temporary
safety zone for the Bluewater Ford Ironman 70.3 California Triathlon.
The limits of this temporary safety zone are the waters of Oceanside
Harbor, California, including the entrance channel.
    (b) Effective Period. This section is effective from 6:30 a.m. to
9:30 a.m. on March 29, 2008.
    (c) Regulations. Entry into, transit through or anchoring within
this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port of San Diego or his designated on-scene representative. Mariners
requesting permission to transit through the safety zone may request
authorization to do so from the Patrol Commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM
may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16.

    Dated: January 25, 2008.
C.V. Strangfeld,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, San Diego.
[FR Doc. E8-2167 Filed 2-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

								OFFICE OF PREVENTION

PESTICIDES AND TOXIC

Date:  May 14, 2007						SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Recommendation to Establish a Tolerance for Fenbutatin-oxide in
Pistachio.

PC Code:  104601

DP Barcode:  328812

Decision #: 366094

Petition #: 6E7052

TO:		Barbara Madden, Chief

		Risk Integration Minor Use, and Emergency Response Branch

Registration Division (7505P)

Joseph Nevola

Program Services Branch

Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P)

FROM:	Tom Moriarty

		Registration Action Branch 2

Health Effects Division (7507P)

THROUGH:	Christina Swartz, Branch Chief

Registration Action Branch 2

Health Effects Division (7507P)

The Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4), on behalf of the
technical registrant Dupont, submitted a petition (petition no. 6E7052)
to request a tolerance of 0.5 ppm for residues of fenbutatin-oxide
(hexakis) in pistachio.  IR-4 requested that a tolerance of 0.5 ppm for
fenbutatin-oxide residues in pistachio be established on the grounds
that, in the future, the Agency intends to include pistachio in the
“tree nut” crop group, for which adequate data on the representative
crop (almond) exists.

HED recommends a tolerance of 0.5 ppm for residues of fenbutatin-oxide
in pistachio be established.  This tolerance will not result in
increased dietary exposure to fenbutatin-oxide since the dietary
exposure analysis for the Fenbutatin-oxide Tolerance Reassessment
Document  (TRED) issued May, 2002, included potential exposure from
residues in pistachio (Anticipated Residues and a Tier 3 Chronic Dietary
Exposure Assessment; Nov, 2001; D278567).

An acute dietary analysis was not conducted on fenbutatin-oxide because
a review of all available toxicity data did not identify an appropriate
endpoint attributable to a single oral dose.  Chronic dietary risk based
on existing uses and the proposed tolerance for residues in pistachio
was estimated at or below 1% of the cPAD.  Therefore, the establishment
of a tolerance for residues of fenbutatin-oxide in pistachio will not
increase aggregate exposure and risk for the general US population and
all relevant population subgroups.

Current tolerances for fenbutatin-oxide are listed in 40CFR 180.362.  As
part of the Agency’s implementation of the Fenbutatin-oxide RED, the
individual tree nut tolerances (almonds at 0.5 ppm; pecans at 0.5 ppm;
and, walnuts at 0.5 ppm) will be deleted and replaced with a single
“tree nut” group tolerance at 0.5 ppm (proposal notice issued August
4, 2004, (69 FR, 47051).  In the future, the Agency will include
pistachio in the “tree nut” crop grouping; however, currently
pistachio is separate.  Therefore, a pistachio tolerance must be
established in addition to the tolerances set for the other nuts in the
current “tree nut” crop group.  Until pistachio is officially
included in the “tree nut” crop group, a separate tolerance of 0.5
ppm for fenbutatin-oxide residues in pistachio is recommended.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 A B C Year Source Type Size input ( SDWIS 1998) input ( CWSS 1997) = C4* C5 input input ( SafeWaterXL) input ( SafeWater XL)

input ( BLS)

Proposed Monitoring Regime input input input input =(( 1 0.0543)* 0.4)* C18 = C4* C22 =(( 1 0.0543)* 0.4)* C17 = C4* C25 = C4( C23+ C26) =( C28* C5)

= C10* C20 =(( C29 C31)+( C26* C5))* C19 input input input input =( C35* C37)+( C36* C38)

input = C39+ C42 input input input = input* C12 = input* C12 = input* C12 = C47 = C48+ C49 = C50* C54 =( C51* C48)+( C52* C49)

= C54* C26 =( C55* C32)+(( 4*( C55))* C31)

= C57* C26 =(( C44+ C63)* C32)+(( 4*( C44+ C63))* C31)

= C62+ C63 = C65+ C66 Arsenic ICR National Cost Model MCL= 3, 5, 10 or 20 Total Number of Systems Average Number of Sites per System Total Number of Sites Average Number of Household per System Total Number of Systems Treating Total Number of Sites Treating CPI Inflation Factor ( May 1999)

MONITORING SCENARIOS Can Systems Apply for a Waiver ( 1= yes, 0= no) Do any Systems Have a Waiver ( 1= yes, 0= no) Is Annual or Triennial Sampling Required ( 1= yes, 0= no) Are Sites Exceeding MCL Required to Sample Quarterly ( 1= yes, 0= no)

P( System Has a Waiver) Number of Systems with Current Waivers P( System Receives Waiver) Number of Systems Receiving a Waiver P( System Using STP GFAA) Number of Systems not Eligible for a Waiver Number of Sites not Eligible for a Waiver Number of Sites Exceeding MCL Required to Sample Quarterly/ Begin Treatment Number of Sites Testing Annually/ Triennially ( Including Waivers at Start of Compliance Cycle)

LABORATORY ANALYSIS OPTIONS P( System Using GFAA) Per Unit Cost of STP GFAA Per Unit Cost of GFAA Average Laboratory Analysis Cost MISCELLANEOUS COSTS Cost of Shipping and Handling per Single Sample Total Laboratory Costs UNIT COSTS & BURDEN Number of Hours to Apply for Waiver per System Number of Hours to Take Single Sample Number of Hours to Report Results per Single Sample Hourly Rate to Apply for Waiver Hourly Rate to Take Single Sample Hourly Rate to Report Results per Single Sample Total Hour Burden to Apply for Waiver per System Total Hour Burden to Take and Report Results per Single Sample Cost to Apply for Waiver per System Cost to Take and Report Results per Single Sample NATIONAL COST & BURDEN Total Hour Burden to Apply for a Waiver Total Hour Burden to Conduct Annual/ Triennial Sampling TOTAL HOUR BURDEN FINAL COST Total Cost to Apply for a Waiver Toal Cost to Conduct Annual/ Triennial Sampling Appendix D  2 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 A B C State Burden UNIT COSTS & BURDEN Number of Hours to Review a Single Waiver Application input Number of Hours to Record Monitoring of a Single Sample Result input Number of Hours to Review a Single Permit input Hourly Rate to Review a Single Waiver Application = input* C12 Hourly Rate to Record Monitoring of a Single Sample Result = input* C12 Hourly Rate to Review a Single Permit = input* C12 Total Hour Burden to Review Single Waiver Application = C73 Total Hour Burden to Record Monitoring of a Single Sample Result = C74 Total Hour Burden to Review a Permit = C75 Total Cost to Review a Single Waiver Application = C80* C76 Total Cost to Record Monitoring of a Single Sample Result = C81* C77 Total Cost to Review a Permit = C82* C78 NATIONAL COST & BURDEN Total Hour Burden to Review Waiver Applications = C80* C26 Total Hour Burden to Record Monitoring =( C81* C32)+(( 4* C81)* C31) Total Hour Burden to Review Permits = C82* C31 Cost to Review Waiver Applications = C84* C26 Cost to Record Monitoring =( C85* C32)+(( 4* C85)* C31) Cost to Review Permits = C86* C31 TOTAL HOUR BURDEN = C90+ C91+ C92 FINAL COST = C94+ C95+ C96 Appendix D  3 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 A B C Existing Monitoring Regimen MONITORING SCENARIOS Is Annual or Triennial Sampling Required ( 1= yes, 0= no) input Are Systems Required to Conduct Three Additional Samples ( 1= yes, 0= no) input Number of Sites Treating/ Conducting Three Additional Samples During Month = C10* C105 Number of Sites Testing Annually/ Triennially =( C6 C107)* C104 LABORATORY ANALYSIS OPTIONS P( System Using STP GFAA) input P( System Using GFAA) input Per Unit Cost of STP GFAA input Per Unit Cost of GFAA input Average Laboratory Analysis Cost =( C111* C113)+( C112* C114)

MISCELLANEOUS ANALYSIS COSTS Cost of Shipping and Handling Single Sample input Total Laboratory Costs = C115+ C118 UNIT COSTS & BURDEN Number of Hours to Take Single Sample input Number of Hours to Report Results per Single Sample input Hourly Rate to Take Sample per Single Sample = input* C12 Hourly Rate to Report Results per Single Sample = input* C12 Total Hour Burden to Take and Report a Single Sample = C123+ C124 Cost to Take and Report a Single Sample =( C123* C125)+( C124* C126)

NATIONAL COST & BURDEN Total Hour Burden for Conducting Annual/ Triennial Sampling =( C128* C108)+(( 4* C108)* C107)

Total Cost for Conducting Annual/ Triennial Sampling =(( C120+ C130)* C108)+(( 4*( C120+ C130))* C107)

TOTAL HOUR BURDEN = C134 FINAL COST = C136 Appendix D  4 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 A B C State Burden UNIT COSTS & BURDEN Number of Hours to Record Monitoring of a Single Sample Result input Number of Hours to Review a Single Permit input Hourly Rate to Record Monitoring of a Single Sample Result = input* C12 Hourly Rate to Review a Single Permit = input* C12 Total Hour Burden to Record Monitoring of a Single Sample Result = C143 Total Hour Burden to Review a Permit = C144 Total Cost to Record Monitoring of a Single Sample Result = C143* C145 Total Cost to Review Permit = C144* C146 NATIONAL COST & BURDEN Total Hour Burden to Record Monitoring =( C148* C108)+(( 4* C148)* C107) Total Hour Burden to Review Permits = C149* C107 Cost to Record Monitoring =( C151* C108)+(( 4*( C152))* C107) Cost to Review Permits = C152* C107 TOTAL HOUR BURDEN = C156+ C157 FINAL COST = C159+ C160 Appendix D  5 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 A B C Net Costs and Burden Net Burden for Systems = C68 C138+ C194 Net Burden for States = C98 C162+ C206 Net Cost for Systems = C69 C139+ C195 Net Costs for States = C99 C163+ C207 Year input Discounted Net Cost For Systems ( 3%) 3% = C171/(( 1+ B174)^ C173) Discounted Net Cost For Systems ( 7%) 7% = C171/(( 1+ B175)^ C173) Discounted Net Cost For Systems ( Commercial Rate) 5% = C171/(( 1+ B176)^ C173) Discounted Net Cost for States ( 3%) 3% = C172/(( 1+ B177)^ C173) Discounted Net Cost for States ( 7%) 7% = C172/(( 1+ B178)^ C173)

Final Burden and Costs Estimates System Start Up Burden and Cost Hours for Reading and Understanding the Rule input Hours for Operator Training input Hourly Rate for Reading and Understanding the Rule = input* C12 Hourly Rate for Operator Training = input* C12 Total Burden Per Systems = C186+ C187 Total Cost Per Systems =( C186* C188)+( C187* C189)

Total Burden For All Systems = C191* C4 Total Cost For All Systems = C192* C4 State Start Up Burden and Cost Estimated FTE Burden for Regulation Adoption and Program Development ( CWS) input Estimated FTE Burden for System Training and Technical Assistance ( CWS & NTNC) input Estimated FTE Cost for Regulation Adoption and Program Development ( CWS) input Estimated FTE Cost for System Training and Technical Assistance ( CWS & NTNC) input Total Burden Per State = C198+ C199 Total Cost Per State =( C198* C200)+( C199* C201)

Total Burden For All States = C203* 56 Total Cost For All States = C204* 56 Final Cost and Burden Estimates Present Value Discounted Net Cost For Systems ( 3%) = SUM( C174: V174) Discounted Net Cost For Systems ( 7%) = SUM( C175: V175) Discounted Net Cost For Systems ( Commercial Rate) = SUM( C176: V176) Discounted Net Cost for States ( 3%) = SUM( C177: V177) Discounted Net Cost for States ( 7%) = SUM( C178: V178)

Annual Discounted Net Cost For Systems ( 3%) = PMT( 0.03,20, C211,0,0) Discounted Net Cost For Systems ( 7%) = PMT( 0.07,20, C212,0,0) Discounted Net Cost For Systems ( Commercial Rate) = PMT( 0.05,20, C213,0,0) Discounted Net Cost for States ( 3%) = PMT( 0.03,20, C214,0,0) Discounted Net Cost for States ( 7%) = PMT( 0.07,20, C215,0,0)

Appendix D  6