1 SECTION I: PART A OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1 ( a) TITLE OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION " Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program"

1 ( b) SHORT CHARACTERIZATION ( ABSTRACT)

The information collection activities will occur primarily at the program level through the State " Capitalization Grant Agreement / Intended Use Plan" and " Biennial Report." The information on the Intended Use Plan ( IUP) is needed annually to describe how the State intends to use available Drinking Water State Revolving Fund ( DWSRF) funds for the year to meet the objectives of the Safe Drinking Water Act ( SDWA) and to further the goal of protecting public health. The Biennial Report is needed to provide detailed information on how the State has met its goals and objectives of the previous two fiscal years as stated in the IUP and grant agreement. The SDWA requires this information to ensure the national accountability, adequate public review and comment, fiscal integrity, and consistent management needed to achieve public health and SDWA compliance objectives.

The individual information collections are described as follows:

a. Capitalization Grant Agreement / IUP The Capitalization Grant Agreement is the principal instrument by which the State commits to manage its revolving fund program in conformity with the requirements of the SDWA. The grant agreement contains or incorporates by reference the IUP, application materials, payment schedule, required certifications, Operating Agreement ( if used), and other documentation required by the Regional Administrator. Information on set asides and disadvantaged community assistance, environmental indicators, core measurements, and work plans can be found in the IUP and is needed for input into the DWSRF National Information Management System. The agreement is a general instrument to legally commit the State and the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) to execute their responsibilities under the SDWA.

b. Biennial Report The Biennial Report indicates how the State has met its goals and objectives of the previous two fiscal years as stated in the grant agreement and, more specifically, in the IUP. The Report provides information on loan recipients, loan amounts, loan terms, project categories of eligible costs, and similar data on other forms of assistance. The Report also describes the extent to which the existing DWSRF financial operating policies, alone or in combination with other State financial assistance programs, will provide for the long term fiscal health of the Fund and carry out other provisions as specified in a State's drinking water 2 strategy. Financial information from the Biennial Report may be entered into the DWSRF National Information Management System.

c. State Audit A State must comply with the provisions of the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996. Best management practices suggest and EPA recommends that a State conduct an annual independent audit of its DWSRF program ( including setasides The Audit must contain an opinion on the financial condition of the DWSRF program, a report on its internal controls, and a report on compliance with applicable laws and the SDWA. Therefore, a State may voluntarily agree to conduct annual independent audits. Financial information on assistance provided that is found in the voluntary independent audit report may be used for input into the DWSRF National Information Management System.

d. Reviewing Applications for DWSRF Financing Assistance Community and nonprofit non community public water systems are eligible for assistance from the State. These water systems may be publicly owned ( such as a community or a county) or privately owned ( such as an investor owned utility or non profit homeowner association). Local respondents are responsible for preparing and submitting applications for DWSRF assistance to their respective State agency that manages the DWSRF program. The State has the sole responsibility for reviewing the applications, entering into loan and other financing arrangements with applicants, and otherwise managing the operations of the DWSRF program.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2 ( a) NEED / AUTHORITY FOR THE COLLECTION The SDWA Amendments of 1996 ( Pub. L. 104 182) authorize a DWSRF program to assist public water systems to finance the costs of infrastructure needed to achieve or maintain compliance with SDWA requirements and to protect public health. Section 1452( a)( 1) authorizes the Administrator of EPA to award capitalization grants to States, which in turn can provide low cost loans and other types of assistance to eligible systems. The information collection activities are addressed in the DWSRF Interim Final Rule found in 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart L ( August 2000).

The 1996 Amendments declare that the DWSRF program shall be administered by an instrumentality of the State and is subject to the requirements of the Act. This means that each State is responsible for administering its revolving fund and must make certain assurances regarding its plans to carry out its administrative duties.

In general, the information collections are required to ensure compliance with Section 1452 of the SDWA and to ensure that self sufficient DWSRF programs are established. 3 These data also provide the accountability needed to detect and remedy situations of waste, fraud, and abuse of Federal funds.

2 ( b) USE / USERS OF THE DATA In order for a State to receive a capitalization grant, it must enter into an agreement ( Capitalization Grant Agreement) with EPA. State responsibilities include:

a. Contributing 20 percent matching funds; b. Committing funds expeditiously; c. Jointly establishing a payment schedule with the Federal government; d. Ensuring that enforceable requirements are fulfilled before assistance is provided to recipients for other purposes; e. Monitoring assistance recipient compliance with program requirements and other Federal cross cutting authorities during the period of the assistance agreement; and f. Supplying work plans detailing how set aside funds will be expended.

EPA recommends that States have their DWSRF funds audited on an annual basis in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards ( GAGAS).

The information to be provided to EPA by the States includes:

a. IUP / Capitalization Grant Agreement and Application; b. Biennial Report; and c. Most recent Audit.

Upon approval of the Capitalization Grant Application, each State may begin awarding project funds and using set aside funds after work plans are approved. Once the DWSRF program is operational, the State will receive and review applications for DWSRF financing assistance. The State will review the applications for conformance with the IUP, environmental impacts, and financial capabilities of the applicant. For those projects and activities funded with monies in an amount equal to the Federal capitalization grant ( including set asides), the State will also review the proposed projects and activities for consistency with Federal cross cutting authorities as described in the DWSRF Interim Final Rule. The specific procedures for preparation and review of assistance application materials will be developed by each State. If an application is acceptable, the State will prepare the appropriate loan agreement documents.

Although EPA oversees the general operations of the DWSRF program as part of its Annual Review process, the Agency does not have any responsibility for reviewing or approving individual applications for DWSRF financial assistance.

3. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 4 3 ( a) RESPONDENTS / SIC CODES The respondents for this request are state and local governments ( SIC Code # 99). Community and nonprofit non community public water systems are eligible for assistance from the State. These water systems may be publicly owned ( such as a community or a county) or privately owned ( such as an investor owned utility or nonprofit homeowner association).

3 ( b) INFORMATION REQUESTED ( i) Data Items The following information elements provide the accountability needed to detect and remedy situations of waste, fraud, and abuse of Federal funds.

a. IUP / Capitalization Grant Agreement The Capitalization Grant Application is made on EPA Standard Form ( SF) No. 424 ( OMB No. 2020 0020). The minimal increase in State burden associated with use of this form is being handled separately by the Grants Administration Division in their information collection budget request.

The DWSRF Management Manual includes a model IUP and SF 424. This should improve program efficiency and reduce the burden on the States and the EPA Regions.

b. Biennial Report Section 1452( g)( 4) of the SDWA requires each participating State to submit a Biennial Report at the end of every other fiscal year that identifies the accomplishments of the previous two years under the IUP. The Biennial Report provides the dates, amounts, recipients, and terms of loans and other types of financial assistance from Respondent Activities.

To reduce the burden on the States, EPA has developed a model Biennial Report that is included in the DWSRF Management Manual.

c. State Audit A State must comply with the provisions of the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996. EPA recommends that States conduct voluntary annual independent audits that contain an opinion on the financial condition of the DWSRF program, a report on its internal controls, and a report on compliance with both applicable laws and SDWA requirements.

d. Reviewing Applications for DWSRF Financial Assistance Section 1452( a) of the SDWA and the DWSRF Final Guidelines outline the eligibilities under the DWSRF program in terms of potential recipients, types of projects and activities that may receive DWSRF assistance, and the types of financial assistance which may be provided. The SDWA provides significant flexibility to the States regarding the development of specific procedures for 5 reviewing and approving applications for DWSRF assistance and for managing the DWSRF program.

Specific reporting requirements, which are statutorily based, relate only to the relationship between the State as recipient of the Federal capitalization grant and the Agency as the grantor. The DWSRF Management Manual and other DWSRF program materials provide limited guidance or direction to the States regarding the development of application materials or specific procedures for the processing and disposition of applications for DWSRF assistance.

( ii) Respondent Activities As a condition of receiving Federal funds, State respondents must prepare and submit the following documents to apply for Federal financial assistance:

IUP / Capitalization Grant Agreement;

Biennial Report; and

Most recent Audit. Local respondents must submit applications for DWSRF financing assistance.

4. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED   AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION, METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 4 ( a) AGENCY ACTIVITIES The Agency reviews the submissions from the State and analyzes the data provided on the Capitalization Grant Agreement / IUP in order to support the State's management of the program. The Agency also reviews Biennial Reports and State Audits from each State to ensure that the intended financial and programmatic objectives of the national program are being met.

4 ( b) COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT The DWSRF Management Manual includes a model grant agreement that draws from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund ( CWSRF) Grant Agreement. Using this example should reduce the information burden on States and EPA Regions.

Section 1452( b) of the SDWA requires States to prepare a plan identifying the intended uses of funds in the DWSRF program to meet the objectives of the SDWA and further the goal of protecting public health. The State must prepare the IUP, after providing for public review and comment, and submit it to the Regional Administrator as part of its Capitalization Grant Application. In the IUP, the State must include specific details on how it will use all funds available, including both funds allocated to the Fund and those that will be allocated to the set aside programs. In addition to uses for the Fund, specified percentages of the Capitalization Grant funds can be used as set asides to: ( 1) administer the DWSRF program and provide technical assistance to public water systems ( max 4 6 percent); ( 2) supplement State drinking water management programs ( max 10 percent); ( 3) provide technical assistance to small systems ( max 2 percent); and ( 4) provide assistance for source water protection and capacity development activities ( max 15 percent). A State has the option to develop the IUP in a two part process with one part identifying the distribution and uses of the funds among the various set asides and the other part dealing with project assistance from the Fund. The two part process allows States the flexibility to submit a Capitalization Grant Application for a portion of the funds before it completes all of its specific funding decisions. In this situation, a State would have to conduct two rounds of public review and comment. One round addresses the use of set aside funding, and the other deals with assistance for projects on the project priority list.

Under Section 1452( b), the IUP must contain a list of projects, description of the projects, expected terms of financial assistance, size of the community served, criteria and methods established for the distribution of the funds, and a description of the financial status of the Fund and the short term and long term goals of the Fund. The IUP should provide to the maximum extent practicable: ( 1) priority for the use of the funds to be given to projects that address the most serious risk to human health; ( 2) priority for projects that are necessary to ensure compliance with the requirements of the SDWA; and ( 3) priority for projects that assist drinking water systems most in need, on a per household basis, according to State affordability criteria.

Under Section 1452, States are required to provide assurances in the Capitalization Grant Agreement / IUP on how it will comply with requirements. Some of the fifteen assurances that follow require the State to simply agree or certify in the grant application that it will comply with them. Some of the fifteen assurances require the State to furnish documentation on the procedures by which the State plans to ensure compliance with them. The State must include this documentation with its Capitalization Grant Application, except when noted. The following fifteen assurances are necessary to establish a loan fund that complies with Federal requirements:

1. Section 1452( a)( 1)( B)   State certification that the state has the authority to establish a DWSRF program and that it may legally bind itself to the terms of the Capitalization Grant Agreement.

2. Section 1452( a)( 1)( G)   Assurance that the State is eligible to receive full allotment of funds by complying with the requirements of capacity development and operator certification provisions.

3. Section 1452( g)( 3)   Assurance that the State will comply with State statutes and regulations.

4. Section 1452( a)( 1)   Assurance that the State has the technical capability to operate the DWSRF program. 7 5. Section 1452( g)( 3)   Assurance that the State will accept capitalization grant funds in accordance with a payment schedule and the State will receive Federal funds in accordance with the provisions of the EPA Automated Clearing House or Automated Standard Application for Payments.

6. Section 1452( a)( 1)( B)   Assurance that the State will deposit all capitalization grant funds in the Fund, including repayment of principal and interest and any other funds, except for those portions of the grant that the State intends to use for set aside purposes authorized under the SDWA.

7. Section 1452( e)   Assurance the State will deposit an amount at least equal to 20 percent of the capitalization grant ( State match) in the Fund and deposit any required match for set aside activities in a non project account.

8. Section 1452( g)( 2)   Assurance that the State will provide a dollar for dollar match up to 10 percent of the funds the State uses for the State program management set aside.

9. Section 1452( g)( 3)   Assurance that the State will use generally accepted accounting principles. The State must agree to establish fiscal controls and accounting principles, as promulgated by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, that are sufficient to account for and report DWSRF program activities.

10. Section 1452( f)( 1)( C)   Assurance that the State will adopt policies and procedures to assure that borrowers have a dedicated source of revenue ( or in the case of privately owned systems, assure that there is adequate security) of all loans to be repaid.

11. Section 1452( g)( 3)( A)   Assurance that the State will disburse loans as efficiently as possible and in an expeditious and timely manner.

12. Section 1452( g)( 3)( A)   Assurance that the State will commit and expend all DWSRF Fund monies as efficiently as possible and will enter into binding commitments with recipients of Fund assistance equal to the combined amount of each quarterly grant payment and match within one year of the grant payment.

13. Section 1452( b)   Assurance that funds will be used in accordance with the IUP. The State must agree to expend DWSRF program funds in accordance with an IUP that has undergone public review and comment.

14. Section 1452( g)( 4)   Assurance that the State will provide EPA with a Biennial Report, which includes the most recent Audit of the Fund and the entire State allotment. 8 15. Section 1452( g)( 3)   Assurance that the State will comply with all Federal crosscutting authorities.

States must also assure that, as a condition of receiving Federal financial assistance, they will comply with the provisions of the Single Audit Act of 1996.

Section 1452 requires the State to prepare a Capitalization Grant Agreement, which is the principal instrument by which the State commits to manage its revolving fund program and to ensure that it conforms with the requirements of the SDWA Amendments of 1996. The Capitalization Grant Agreement contains, or incorporates by reference, the following parts of the agreement: the IUP; the application materials; the payment schedule; required certifications; the Operating Agreement, if used; and other documentation required by the Regional Administrator. In addition to these requirements, the Capitalization Grant Agreement will define the types of oversight responsibilities that are required to determine compliance with Section 1452.

In order to lessen the burden of the annual Capitalization Grant Application process, the State and EPA may develop an Operating Agreement that covers parts of the DWSRF program that are not expected to change from year to year.

Section 1452( g)( 4) requires the State to submit a Biennial Report to the Regional Administrator reporting on its program activities, including the findings of the most recent Audit of the Fund and the entire State allotment. The report should be submitted according to the schedule established in the grant agreement. The report will contain detailed information on progress toward meeting the goals and objectives of the previous two fiscal years as stated in the IUP and grant agreement. The report will provide information on actual assistance provided, including: loan recipients; loan amounts; loan terms; project categories of eligible cost; and similar details on other forms of assistance. The information is provided in a format and a manner that is consistent with the needs of the EPA Regional Office. The report will describe the extent to which the existing DWSRF financial operating policies, alone or in combination with other State financial assistance programs, will provide for the long term fiscal health of the Fund, attain and maintain compliance with the SDWA, and carry out other provisions specified in the legislation.

The State must submit detailed financial statements as part of the Biennial Report. At a minimum, this should include the financial statements and footnotes required under generally accepted accounting principles ( GAAP) to present fairly the financial condition and results of operation. These financial statements will measure and demonstrate the DWSRF program's ability to maintain its contributed capital. The financial report will follow generally accepted accounting principles and will follow enterprise fund reporting standards. Financial information from financial reports may be used in the DWSRF National Information Management System.

In addition, the State must address in its Biennial Report that it has: 9

Reviewed all DWSRF program funded projects and activities in accordance with the approved State Environmental Review Procedures;

Deposited its match on or before the date when each grant payment was made;

Made binding commitments in an amount equal to the amount of each grant payment and accompanying State match that is deposited into the Fund within one year after receiving the grant payment;

Managed the Fund in a fiscally prudent manner and adopted policies and processes which promote the long term financial health of the Fund;

Complied with Agency grant regulations ( 40 CFR Part 31) and specific conditions of the grant;

Complied with Federal cross cutting authorities that apply to the State as a Federal grantee and those that flow through to assistance recipients;

Provided assistance only to eligible water systems and for eligible purposes under Section 1452; and

Funded only the highest priority projects listed on the IUP, according to their priority and readiness to proceed, and complied with any procedures for bypassing priority projects outlined in the IUP.

States are encouraged to conduct an annual financial and compliance audit of the DWSRF program and its operations. The State may designate an independent auditor of the State to carry out its audit or may contractually procure the service. Under Section 1452( g)( 4), the Administrator shall periodically audit all State loan funds established by, and other amounts allotted to, the States pursuant to Section 1452 in accordance with procedures established by the Comptroller General. If needed, a financial and compliance audit of the DWSRF program for a State will be conducted by the Office of the Inspector General ( OIG). The OIG has developed an audit guide for SRFs, which should reduce the burden on States and improve the efficiency of EPA reviews.

Sections 1452( a)( 2) and 1452( f) of SDWA outline the eligibilities under the DWSRF program in terms of potential recipients and the types of financial assistance that the DWSRF may provide. The DWSRF Interim Final Rule identifies types of projects and activities that may receive DWSRF assistance. The SDWA provides significant flexibility to the States regarding the development of specific procedures for reviewing and approving applications for DWSRF assistance and for managing the DWSRF program.

Specific reporting requirements that are statutorily based relate only to the relationship between the State as recipient of the Federal capitalization grant and the Agency as grantor. Similarly, the DWSRF Interim Final Rule, Management Manual, and other 10 DWSRF program materials do not provide guidance or direction to the States regarding the development of application materials or specific procedures for the processing and disposition of applications for DWSRF assistance to eligible recipients.

Generally, State programs require that applications for DWSRF assistance provide the following information:

Project description;

Project cost estimate;

Estimated construction schedule;

Projected disbursement schedule;

Description of environmental impacts;

Estimation of cost impacts on users;

Identification of repayment source;

Description of community;

Financial, technical, and managerial capability; and,

Certain projects, certifications, and demonstrations regarding compliance with Federal cross cutting authorities.

Because the DWSRF is a new program, EPA has undertaken many activities to support the Regions and the States with implementation. EPA has provided training on the program and prepared model documents relating to IUPs, Capitalization Grant Agreements, and Biennial Reports. EPA Regional personnel are regularly in contact with their State counterparts and are currently working to determine efficient ways to communicate needed information and reduce the burden on respondents.

4 ( c) SMALL ENTITY FLEXIBILITY Respondents are the States, usually within the State Department of Health, Environmental Department, and/ or Finance Agency. Although information collection activities do not directly affect small businesses or organizations as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U. S. C. Sections 601 ( 3) and ( 4), States might have activities that require information from small businesses or organizations. Local respondents, which include community water systems, both privately and publicly owned, and nonprofit non community water systems are eligible for Fund assistance from State programs.

4 ( d) COLLECTION SCHEDULE The information collection activities will occur primarily at the program level through the State IUP and the Biennial Report. The information is needed annually to implement Section 1452 of the SDWA. The Act requires this information to ensure national accountability, adequate public comment and review, fiscal integrity, and consistent management directed to achieve environmental objectives. 11 5. NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 5 ( a) NON DUPLICATION The information collection elements are specific to Section 1452, established under the SDWA Amendments of 1996. The information in the IUP, Biennial Report, and the State Audit is unique to each State participating in the DWSRF program. Therefore, there is no duplication of the effort. The information collection activities herein are based on program specific State sources that are not duplicated anywhere else.

5 ( b) CONSULTATIONS The information requirements were subjected to the same reviews as the other requirements and procedures contained in the DWSRF Interim Final Rule. The DWSRF Interim Final Rule was commented on by State officials, representatives of local government, private concerns involved with municipal finance, EPA Regional and Headquarters offices, and the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB).

5 ( c) EFFECTS OF LESS FREQUENT COLLECTION The SDWA requires information to be provided annually. EPA is not requesting the information more frequently than the Act requires, although a State may submit information more frequently.

Local respondents are only required to apply for DWSRF assistance from States if the local respondent wishes to receive financial assistance. In view of anticipated funding availability at the State level, a limited number of local respondents will likely receive assistance in a particular year. The impact on local respondents is generally considered limited.

5 ( d) GENERAL GUIDELINES The data collections covered by this ICR are in compliance with the OMB General Guidelines for information collections.

5 ( e) CONFIDENTIALITY AND SENSITIVE QUESTIONS ( i) Confidentiality No confidential data is collected.

( ii) Sensitive Questions Financial information, such as income tax records and financial statements, may be required from private water systems for assessing financial capability during the loan application process. 12 6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 6 ( a) ESTIMATING RESPONDENT BURDEN The respondent burden estimates are based on the incremental effort associated with the information collection activity. As program activity increased at the local and State level, the burden associated with the preparation and review of local respondent applications for DWSRF assistance increased.

The respondents may use DWSRF administrative monies to pay the costs of the annual State Audit. Section 1452( g)( 2) of the SDWA allows each State to set aside up to 4 percent of the funds allotted to it to cover the reasonable costs of administering the DWSRF program. The estimation of the State respondents' burden for the four information collections is shown below:

a. IUP/ Capitalization Grant Agreement EPA estimates that each State will spend an average of 400 hours per year to prepare the IUP and Capitalization Grant Agreement for submission to EPA. Information on set asides, disadvantaged community assistance, environmental indicators, core measurements, and work plans can be found in the IUP and can be used for input into the DWSRF National Information Management System. Table 1 represents the total national burden from the IUP/ Capitalization Grant Agreement for 50 states and Puerto Rico.

Table 1: IUP/ Capitalization Grant Agreement National Burden Hours Year Number of States ( A) Preparation Hours ( B) Burden Hours ( A x B)

2006 51 400 20,400 2007 51 400 20,400 2008 51 400 20,400 b. Biennial Report EPA estimates that, over the 3 year period covered by this ICR, each State will spend an average of 275 hours per year in years during which a report is due to compile each Biennial Report. The Report is required every two years. This ICR assumes that approximately half of the States will submit a Report in 2006 and 2008 ( having last submitted a Report in 2004), while the other half will submit a Report in 2007 ( having last submitted a Report in 2005). The Biennial Report includes similar information elements found on the IUP and for input into the DWSRF National Information Management System. Table 2 shows the total national burden from the Biennial Report. 13 Table 2: Biennial Report National Burden Hours Year Number of States ( A) Preparation Hours ( B) Burden Hours ( A x B) 2006 26 275 7,150 2007 25 275 6,875 2008 26 275 7,150 c. State Audit The estimated average burden for each State Audit is 80 hours per year. States are required to comply with the provisions of the Single Audit Act. This estimate reflects the extra increment of effort required of the States for this program in meeting the Federal requirements. States may build on audit work done under the Single Audit Act to complete the separate audit required for this program. Financial information from State Audits can be used for input into the DWSRF National Information Management System.

Table 3 shows the total national burden from the State Audit.

Table 3: State Audit National Burden Hours Year Number of States ( A) Preparation Hours ( B) Burden Hours ( A x B)

2006 51 80 4,080 2007 51 80 4,080 2008 51 80 4,080 d. Assistance for Application Preparation and Review States have responsibility for reviewing and approving local applications for assistance from the DWSRF program. EPA estimates that the States will spend an average of 40 hours reviewing and approving each assistance application. Based on historical data, EPA estimates that, on average, a state will receive 27 applications for review each year. Table 4 represents the total national State burden from processing DWSRF assistance applications.

Table 4: Application Review National Burden Hours Year Number of States ( A) Applications ( B) Preparation Hours ( B) Burden Hours ( A x B x C)

2006 51 27 40 55,080 2007 51 27 40 55,080 2008 51 27 40 55,080 States develop specific procedures and reporting and application materials for DWSRF assistance applicants. EPA estimates that local respondents ( including Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages) will spend an average of 80 hours collecting information and preparing each DWSRF assistance application. Table 5 14 represents the total national local respondent burden from preparing DWSRF assistance applications.

Table 5: Application Preparation Local Respondent Burden Hours Year Number of Local Respondents ( A) Preparation Hours ( B) Burden Hours ( A x B) 2006 1,377 80 110,160 2007 1,377 80 110,160 2008 1,377 80 110,160 SUMMARY OF RESPONDENT BURDEN HOURS Table 6 summarizes the State burden hours for the four individual information collection activities. Average burden hours per State and total hours for all States for the three years covered by this ICR are provided for each activity.

Table 6: Summary of State Burden Hours ( FY 2006  FY 2008) ICR Hours Per State Hours for All States IUP / Capitalization Grant Agreement 1,200 61,200 Biennial Report 415 21,175 State Audit 240 12,240 Application Review 3,240 165,240 Total Burden Hours ( FY 2006  FY 2008) 5,095 266,730 Table 7 illustrates burden hours for local respondents from preparing applications. EPA estimates that a total of 4,131 local respondents will spend 80 hours per application during the three years.

Table 7: Summary of Local Respondent Burden Hours ( FY 2006  FY 2008) ICR Local Respondents Hours per Local Respondent Hours for All Local Respondents Application Preparation 4,131 80 330,480 6 ( b) ESTIMATING RESPONDENT COSTS a. Costs to State Respondents The average annual State costs for the 3 year period is estimated to be $ 3,209,651.

Since these State costs are grant eligible, they can be paid for out of the DWSRF program. Under Section 1452( g)( 2), monies can be set aside and used for any reasonable costs related to administering the Fund, provided the amount does not exceed 4 percent of the State's allotment. Reasonable costs under this section can 15 include reasonable costs expended to establish a State loan fund and to provide technical assistance to public water systems within the State.

Under Section 1443( a), an additional 10 percent of the State's allotment may be used, in part, for: ( 1) supervising public water system programs; ( 2) administering or providing technical assistance through source water protection programs; ( 3) developing and implementing a capacity development strategy under Section 1420( c); and ( 4) developing an operator certification program for purposes of meeting the requirements of Section 1419.

The following tables ( Table 8.1  8.3) contain estimates of burden costs for the four individual activities involving information collections. The State salary cost of $ 36.10 per hour is based on an average full time equivalent ( FTE) cost of $ 75,088 ( including overhead), which equates to approximately $ 36.10 per hour. This hourly rate, which has been inflated to 2005 dollars, is based on the FTE cost ($ 65,255) suggested by a workgroup comprised of States that developed the State Workload Model in 2001 ( note: the State Workload Model is a spreadsheet model used by States to estimate resource needs for implementation of the SDWA).

Table 8.1: FY 2006 State Burden Costs Fiscal Year 2006 ICR # of States ( a) Hours ( b) Cost / Hour ( c ) Cost ( a x b x c) IUP / CGA   Initial Plan 51 332 $ 36.10 $ 611,245   Revised Plan 51 68 $ 36.10 $ 125,195 Biennial Report 26 275 $ 36.10 $ 258,115 State Audit 51 80 $ 36.10 $ 147,288 Application Review 51 1,080 $ 36.10 $ 1,988,388 Total Fiscal Year 2006 State Cost $ 3,130,231 16 Table 8.2: FY 2007 State Burden Costs Fiscal Year 2007 ICR # of States ( a) Hours ( b) Cost / Hour ( c) Cost ( a x b x c) IUP / CGA   Initial Plan 51 332 $ 36.10 $ 611,245   Revised Plan 51 68 $ 36.10 $ 125,195 Biennial Report 25 275 $ 36.10 $ 248,188 State Audit 51 80 $ 36.10 $ 147,288 Application Review 51 1,080 $ 36.10 $ 1,988,388 Total Fiscal Year 2007 State Cost $ 3,120,304 Table 8.3: FY 2008 State Burden Costs Fiscal Year 2008 ICR # of States ( a) Hours ( b) Cost / Hour ( c) Cost ( a x b x c) IUP / CGA   Initial Plan 51 332 $ 36.10 $ 611,245   Revised Plan 51 68 $ 36.10 $ 125,195 Biennial Report 26 275 $ 36.10 $ 258,115 State Audit 51 80 $ 36.10 $ 147,288 Application Review 51 1,080 $ 36.10 $ 1,988,388 Total Fiscal Year 2008 State Cost $ 3,130,231 SUMMARY OF STATE COSTS Total State Costs ( FY 2006  FY 2008): $ 9,380,766 Average Annual State Cost over 3 Year Period: $ 3,126,922 b. Costs to Local Respondents Local respondents ( including Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages) may incur costs in identifying and evaluating their drinking water quality problems. Local respondents may need to absorb costs related to the development and evaluation of alternative planning and engineering approaches for solving their water quality problems. These planning and design costs may be eligible for DWSRF assistance at a State's discretion. For the purposes of this information 17 collection, only the direct costs associated with the preparation of the application for DWSRF financial assistance are reported.

During the period of this information collection activity, the number of local respondents that will receive DWSRF financial assistance is expected to remain relatively constant. The number of local respondents in each State will vary significantly depending on the funding available, the types of projects to be assisted, the average cost and size of the projects, and other factors. The Agency estimates that the number of local respondents to receive DWSRF assistance during the period of this information collection will be 27 per State in per year. Table 9 illustrates the burden costs of application preparation for local respondents. The hourly rate of $ 33.88 for water system operators and professional personnel is taken from a 2003 EPA document Labor Costs for National Drinking Water Rules. The rate ( in 2003 dollars) was $ 31.26; this rate has been inflated to 2005 dollars using the Employment Cost Index.

Only local respondents that desire financial assistance from the DWSRF will prepare applications. Therefore, this information collection will pertain only to a limited number of local respondents. The specific requirements and complexity of application materials varies widely among the States that are responsible for DWSRF program implementation and management. The Agency estimates that, on average, local respondents will spend approximately 80 hours completing each DWSRF assistance application.

Table 9: Local Respondents Burden Costs ( FY 2006  FY 2008) ICR  Application Preparation Year # of Local Respondents ( a) Hours ( b) Cost / Hour ( c) Cost ( a x b x c) 2006 1,377 80 $ 33.88 $ 3,732,221 2007 1,377 80 $ 33.88 $ 3,732,221 2008 1,377 80 $ 33.88 $ 3,732,221 Total Local Respondent Costs ( FY 2006  FY 2008) $ 11,196,662 Average Annual Cost Over 3 Year Period $ 3,732,221 6 ( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost Estimation of the direct cost to EPA to implement the DWSRF program covers negotiation and analysis of the IUP, Capitalization Grant Agreement, Grant Application, and State performance and compliance through the Biennial Report and the State Audit.

The estimates in Tables 10.1  10.3 reflect Agency workload over the 3 year period covered by this information collection. The estimate of EPA costs is based on average hourly expenditures, including Regional and Headquarters personnel compensation and benefits. The estimates were based on participation by all States in the DWSRF program. 18 The estimated average hourly cost of $ 48.26 for EPA Headquarters and Regional personnel is based on the General Schedule ( GS) 12, Step 05 level. The hourly estimates were calculated by dividing the annual compensation of $ 62,740, from the 2006 GS pay schedule, by 2,080 hours in the Federal work year. The hourly rates were then multiplied by the standard government benefits multiplication factor of 1.6.

The average annual Federal cost of $ 2,017,670 over the 3 year period was estimated as follows:

Table 10.1: FY 2006 EPA Burden Costs Fiscal Year 2006 ICR Hours Cost / Hour Agency Cost EPA HQ Review of IUP and Agreement Materials ( 15 hours per State submission) 765 $ 48.26 $ 36,919 EPA Regional Review of IUP and Agreement Materials ( 350 hours per State submission) 17,850 $ 48.26 $ 861,441 EPA HQ Oversight Review of Audit & Biennial Reports ( 40 hours per State submitting Biennial report; 25 hours per State only submitting Audit Report) 1,665 $ 48.26 $ 80,353 EPA Regional Oversight Review of Audit & Biennial Reports ( 500 hours per State submitting Biennial report; 445 hours per State only submitting Audit Report) 24,125 $ 48.26 $ 1,164,273 Total Fiscal Year 2006 Federal Cost $ 2,142,985 Table 10.2: FY 2007 EPA Burden Costs Fiscal Year 2007 ICR Hours Cost / Hour Agency Cost EPA HQ Review of IUP and Agreement Materials ( 15 hours per State submission) 765 $ 48.26 $ 36,919 EPA Regional Review of IUP and Agreement Materials ( 350 hours per State submission) 17,850 $ 48.26 $ 861,441 EPA HQ Oversight Review of Audit & Biennial Reports ( 40 hours per State submitting Biennial report; 25 hours per State only submitting Audit Report) 1,650 $ 48.26 $ 79,629 EPA Regional Oversight Review of Audit & Biennial Reports ( 500 hours per State submitting Biennial report; 445 hours per State only submitting Audit Report) 25,500 $ 48.26 $ 1,095,261 Total Fiscal Year 2007 Federal Cost $ 2,118,131 19 Table 10.3: FY 2008 EPA Burden Costs Fiscal Year 2008 ICR Hours Cost / Hour Agency Cost EPA HQ Review of IUP and Agreement Materials ( 15 hours per State submission) 765 $ 48.26 $ 36,919 EPA Regional Review of IUP and Agreement Materials ( 350 hours per State submission) 17,850 $ 48.26 $ 861,441 EPA HQ Oversight Review of Audit & Biennial Reports ( 40 hours per State submitting Biennial report; 25 hours per State only submitting Audit Report) 1,665 $ 48.26 $ 80,353 EPA Regional Oversight Review of Audit & Biennial Reports ( 500 hours per State submitting Biennial report; 445 hours per State only submitting Audit Report) 24,125 $ 48.26 $ 1,164,273 Total Fiscal Year 2008 Federal Cost $ 2,142,985 6 ( d) BOTTOM LINE BURDEN HOURS AND COSTS / BURDEN TABLES ( i) Respondent Burden ( FY 2006  FY 2008) Total State Burden Hours: 259,855 Total State Costs: $ 9,380,766 Annual State Burden Hours: 86,618 Annual State Costs: $ 3,126,922 Total Local Respondent Burden Hours: 330,480 Total Local Respondent Costs: $ 11,196,662 Annual Local Respondent Burden Hours: 110,160 Annual Local Respondent Costs: $ 3,732,221 Total Respondent ( State & Local) Burden Hours: 590,335 Total Respondent ( State & Local) Costs: $ 20,577,428 Annual Respondent ( State & Local) Burden Hours: 196,778 Annual Respondent ( State & Local) Costs: $ 6,859,143 ( ii) The Agency Burden ( FY 2006  FY 2008) Annual Headquarters Burden Hours: 2,425 Annual Headquarters Costs: $ 117,031 Annual Regional Burden Hours: 41,808 Annual Regional Costs: $ 2,017,670 ( iii) Variations in the Annual Bottom Line There are no significant variations in the annual bottom line. 20 6 ( e) REASONS FOR CHANGE IN BURDEN The net increase in total respondent burden hours from the previous ICR is attributed to the need for States to prepare a Biennial Report. The Report is required every two years. Approximately half the States will prepare a Biennial Report in both 2006 and 2008, while the other half will only prepare a report in 2007.

6 ( f) BURDEN STATEMENT The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1,698 hours per state and 80 hours per local respondent ( including Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages) annually. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing processes to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OW 2002 0059, which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. An electronic version of the public docket is available through www. regulations. gov.


[Federal Register: August 22, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 162)]
[Notices]
[Page 47104-47105]
[DOCID:fr22au07-163]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56254; File No. SR-ISE-2007-70]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to ISE Open/Close Trade Profile Fees

 August 15, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 13, 2007, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''
or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the ISE. The
ISE has designated the proposed rule change as ``non-controversial''
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) \3\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The ISE is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to adopt a
subscription fee for the sale of open and close volume data on ISE
listed options. As more fully described in Section II(A)(2), this
proposal is similar to a product offered by the Chicago Board Options
Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE''). The text of the proposed rule change
is available at the ISE, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
http://www.ise.com.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the ISE included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The ISE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The ISE currently creates volume data for each ISE listed option
that consists of opening buys and opening sells and closing buys and
closing sells.\5\ The ISE currently uses a subset of this data, the
customer ``opening only'' trade data, for its calculation of investor
sentiment, the ISE Sentiment Index[supreg] (ISEE[supreg]), and for ISEE
Select[supreg]. The ISE now proposes a broader market data offering
comprised of the entire opening and closing trade data of both
customers and firms for each ISE listed option. This collective market
data offering is referred to by the Exchange as the ISE Open/Close
Trade Profile. This new market data offering will be subdivided by
origin code (i.e., customer or firm) and the customer data is then
further subdivided by order size. The volume data will be summarized by
day and series (i.e., symbol, expiration date, strike price, call or
put). The ISE Open/Close Trade Profile will be a subscription service,
available to both members and non-members, and will enable subscribers
to create their own proprietary put/call calculations. The data will be
compiled and formatted by the ISE as an end of day file. The Exchange
proposes to charge both members and non-members $600 per month on a
subscription basis for this new market data offering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ An opening buy is a transaction that creates or increases a
long position and an opening sell is a transaction that creates or
increases a short position. A closing buy is a transaction made to
close out an existing position. A closing sell is a transaction to
reduce or eliminate a long position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the
requirement under Section 6(b)(4) \6\ that an exchange provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among
its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. In
particular, the proposed rule filing will provide members and non-
members with valuable market data. The Exchange has expended
considerable resources, i.e., internal development costs, purchase of
servers, etc., to bring this offering to market. The Exchange took
these costs into account when setting the fees proposed for the ISE
Open/Close Trade Profile. The ISE Open/Close Trade Profile offering is
similar to one that the CBOE recently introduced to the marketplace
called Open/Close Data.\7\ Further, the ISE's proposed fees for this
new offering are identical to the fees that CBOE currently charges for
its Open/Close Data offering.\8\ Finally, the Exchange notes that the
fees proposed by the ISE for this market data offering are not
discriminatory in that the Exchange proposes to charge both members and
non-members an identical fee to subscribe to this offering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55062 (January 8,
2007), 72 FR 2048 (January 17, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2006-88) (order
granting approval to proposed rule change to codify a fee schedule
for the sale of open and close volume data on CBOE listed options by
Market Data Express, LLC).
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
persons.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days after the date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission
may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule
19b-4 thereunder.\10\ As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\11\ the
ISE provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file
the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of
the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date
of the filing of the proposed rule change.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \12\ The Exchange initially filed this proposal in SR-ISE-2007-
63. The Exchange withdrew that proposal and subsequently filed the
present proposal pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6).

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

    A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not
become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\13\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \14\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The ISE requests that the Commission
waive the 30-day operative delay, as specified in Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii),\15\ which would make the rule change effective and
operative upon filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest. The Commission notes that this proposal is
substantially similar to SR-CBOE-2006-88 \16\ previously approved by
the Commission for the CBOE. The Commission further notes that the CBOE
proposal was noticed for comment and no comments were received.
Accordingly, the Commission designates the proposed rule change
operative upon filing with the Commission.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ See supra note 7.
    \17\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the impact of the proposed rule on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in the furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-ISE-2007-70 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2007-70. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the ISE. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2007-70 and should be
submitted on or before September 12, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-16524 Filed 8-21-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 251 (Thursday, December 31, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 86919-86920]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28993]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10018-12-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Public Health Emergency Workplace Response
System (New)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Public Health Emergency Workplace
Response System (EPA ICR Number 2676.01, OMB Control Number 2030-NEW)
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a request for
emergency approval of a new collection. A fuller description of the ICR
is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Coogan, Office of Resource and
Business Operations, Office of Mission Support, Environmental
Protection Agency; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 3507(j) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), as implemented in the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320.13, EPA
is hereby requesting emergency processing of an information collection
necessary for contact tracing EPA employees, contractors and grantee
recipients that perform work in EPA facilities.

    Abstract: Because of the substantial risk to life, safety, or
health of the workforce and the public, EPA requests an emergency
approval to collect the necessary information from Federal employees,
detailees, interns, volunteers, grantee recipients and contractors that
perform work in EPA facilities to implement an effective COVID-19
Contact Tracing program.
    Each item of information requested is based on CDC and industry
best practice for Contact Tracing. This information is necessary to
identify individuals in the workforce who are COVID- 19 positive and to
notify and trace persons in the workforce who were in close contact
with the COVID-19 positive employee. Including contractors, interns,
grantees, and volunteers, enables EPA to capture the total workforce
and take appropriate action.
    The following information will be collected for COVID Contact
Testing:

--Name;
--Work location;
--Contact information;
--Supervisor;
--Health status;
--Close contacts (as defined by CDC) when in the office; and
--Building and floors visited during period of possible transmission
(as defined by CDC).

    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: EPA's Contract Tracing Program
participants, including detailees, interns, volunteers, grantee
recipients and contractors.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.
    Estimated number of respondents: 250 (total).
    Frequency of response: Once.
    Total estimated burden: 63 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $0 (per year), which includes annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: This is a new collection for information
necessary for contact tracing EPA employees, contractors and grantee
recipients that perform work in EPA facilities.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2020-28993 Filed 12-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 66 (Thursday, April 5, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20585-20590]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8202]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 131

[EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0095; FRL-9656-3]
RIN 2040-AF33

Proposed Withdrawal of Certain Federal Water Quality Criteria
Applicable to California, New Jersey and Puerto Rico

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to amend the federal regulations to withdraw
human health and aquatic life water quality criteria applicable to
certain waters of New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and California's San
Francisco Bay, now that those States have adopted and EPA has approved
relevant state criteria. EPA is seeking public comment on its action
with respect to those state criteria that are less stringent than the
federally promulgated criteria. The withdrawal of the federally
promulgated criteria will enable New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and
California to implement their EPA-approved water quality criteria.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 4, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2012-0095, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail to: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0095.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, EPA West Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW. Washington, DC 20004. Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0095. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2012-
0095. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (``CBI'') or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of

encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at two Docket Facilities. The
Office of Water (``OW'') Docket Center is open from 8:30 a.m. until
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER> and the Docket address is OW Docket,
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004.
The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Publicly available docket
materials are also available in hard copy at the U.S. EPA Region 2 and
U.S. EPA Region 9 addresses. Docket materials can be accessed from 9
a.m. until 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information with respect to New
Jersey, contact Wayne Jackson, U.S. EPA, Region 2, Division of
Environmental Planning and Protection, 290 Broadway, New York, New York
10007 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or email: jackson.wayne@epa.gov). For
information with respect to Puerto Rico, contact Izabela Wojtenko U.S.
EPA, Region 2, Division of Environmental Planning and Protection, 290
Broadway, New York, NY 10007 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or email:
wojtenko.izabela@epa.gov). For information with respect to California,
contact Diane E. Fleck, P.E. Esq., U.S. EPA Region 9, WTR-2, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email: fleck.diane@epa.gov). For general and administrative concerns,
contact Bryan ``Ibrahim'' Goodwin, U.S. EPA Headquarters, Office of
Science and Technology, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Mail Code 4305T,
Washington, DC 20460 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or email:
goodwin.bryan@epa.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. What entities may be affected by this action?
    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. Background
    A. What are the applicable federal statutory and regulatory
requirements?
    B. What are the applicable federal water quality criteria that
EPA is proposing to withdraw?
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and
Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments)
    G. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks)
    H. Executive Order 13211 (Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations)

I. General Information

A. What entities may be affected by this action?

    No one is affected by the proposed actions contained in this
notice. These proposed actions would merely serve to withdraw certain
federal water quality criteria that have been applicable to New Jersey,
Puerto Rico, and California now that these States have adopted criteria
that EPA has determined are consistent with the CWA and its
implementing regulations. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
identified in the preceding section entitled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

A. What are the applicable federal statutory and regulatory
requirements?

    In 1992, EPA promulgated the ``National Toxics Rule'' (``NTR'') to
establish numeric water quality criteria for 12 states and two
Territories, including New Jersey, Puerto Rico and parts of California
(hereafter ``States'') that had failed to comply fully with Section
303(c)(2)(B) of the Clean Water Act (``CWA'') (57 FR 60848, December
22, 1992). The criteria codified at 40 CFR 131.36 became the applicable
water quality standards in those 14 States for all purposes and
programs under the CWA effective February 5, 1993.
    On May 18, 2000, EPA then promulgated a final rule known as the
``California Toxics Rule'' (``CTR'') at 40 CFR 131.38 in order to
establish numeric water quality criteria for priority toxic pollutants
for the State of California that were not previously in the NTR, since
the State had not complied fully with Section 303(c) (2) (B) of the
Clean Water Act (CWA) (65 FR31682). At that time, any criteria
promulgated as part of the NTR for California were codified in the
criteria tables for the CTR at 40 CFR 131.38.

    The water quality standards program was developed with an emphasis
on state primacy. Although in the NTR and CTR EPA promulgated toxic
criteria for the certain States, EPA prefers that states maintain
primacy, revise their own standards, and achieve full compliance (see
57 FR 60860, December 22, 1992). As described in the preamble to the
final NTR and CTR, when a State adopts, and EPA approves, water quality
criteria that meet the requirements of the CWA, EPA will issue a rule
amending the NTR and/or CTR to withdraw the federal criteria applicable
to that State.
    Today, EPA is proposing to amend the federal regulations to
withdraw certain human health and aquatic life criteria applicable in
New Jersey and Puerto Rico, and the Agency does not anticipate public
comment on such action because the state-adopted, EPA-approved criteria
are no less stringent than the promulgated federal criteria. In
addition, EPA is proposing to amend the federal regulations to withdraw
certain other human health and aquatic life criteria applicable in New
Jersey and Puerto Rico, as well as California, and the Agency is
seeking public comment because such state-adopted, EPA-approved
criteria are less stringent than the federally promulgated criteria.

B. What are the applicable federal water quality criteria that EPA is
proposing to withdraw?

New Jersey
    On August 4, 1994, New Jersey submitted to EPA Region 2 revisions
to its surface water quality standards (New Jersey Administrative Code
7:9B), including aquatic life and human health criteria. New Jersey
adopted aquatic life and human health criteria for many of the toxic
pollutants contained in the NTR and reorganized certain designated use
classifications and requirements pertaining to the Delaware River and
Bay. EPA Region 2 approved the State's criteria (with the exception of
the State's Polychlorinated biphenyl (``PCB'') human health criteria)
on March 17, 2000, because New Jersey's numeric criteria for the
protection of aquatic life and human health were consistent with the
CWA and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 131.11. EPA published
the final rule to remove these criteria in the Federal Register on
December 3, 2002 (67 FR 71843). However, this action did not address
all applicable EPA-promulgated numeric water quality criteria contained
in the 1992 NTR.
    Subsequently, On March 1, 2002, New Jersey submitted to EPA Region
2 revisions to its surface water quality standards (New Jersey
Administrative Code 7:9B), including aquatic life criteria for lead and
human health criteria for PCBs. EPA Region 2 approved the State's
criteria on August 16, 2002, because New Jersey's numeric criteria for
lead for the protection of aquatic life and for PCBs for the protection
of human health were consistent with the CWA and EPA's implementing
regulations at 40 CFR 131.11.
    In addition, on November 8, 2006, New Jersey submitted to EPA
Region 2 revisions to its surface water quality standards (New Jersey
Administrative Code 7:9B), including aquatic life and human health
criteria. New Jersey adopted aquatic life and human health criteria for
the remainder of the toxic pollutants contained in the NTR. EPA Region
2 approved the State's criteria on December 20, 2006, because New
Jersey's numeric criteria for the protection of aquatic life and human
health were consistent with the CWA and EPA's implementing regulations
at 40 CFR 131.11.
    For many of the pollutants covered in the 2002 and 2006 actions,
New Jersey adopted water quality criteria for aquatic life and human
health that are no less stringent than the promulgated federal
criteria. In addition, for certain pollutants covered in the 2002 and
2006 actions, New Jersey adopted water quality criteria for aquatic
life and human health that are less stringent than the promulgated
federal criteria, but that nonetheless meet the requirements of the CWA
and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 131.11. EPA approved the
State's criteria, although they are less stringent than the federally
promulgated criteria, because EPA determined that the State's criteria
were scientifically sound and protective of the designated use(s).
EPA's actions which approve New Jersey's adopted criteria (including a
rationale for approving criteria that are less stringent than the
federally promulgated criteria) can be accessed at OW docket number
EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0095.
    The following is a list of pollutants for which New Jersey adopted
criteria that are no less stringent than the promulgated federal
criteria covered in this proposal:
     Arsenic (aquatic life--freshwater (acute and chronic) and
marine water (acute and chronic)).
     Cadmium (aquatic life--freshwater (acute and chronic) and
marine water (acute and chronic)).
     Chromium III (aquatic life--freshwater (acute and
chronic))).
     Chromium VI (aquatic life--freshwater (acute and chronic)
and marine water (acute and chronic)).
     Copper (aquatic life--freshwater (acute and chronic))).
     Lead (aquatic life--freshwater (acute) and marine water
(acute)).
     Mercury (aquatic life--freshwater (acute) and marine water
(acute)).
     Nickel (aquatic life--freshwater (acute and chronic) and
marine water (acute)).
     Selenium (aquatic life--freshwater (acute and chronic) and
marine water (acute and chronic)).
     Silver (aquatic life--freshwater (acute) and marine water
(acute)).
     Zinc (aquatic life--freshwater (acute and chronic) and
marine water (acute and chronic)).
     Chlorodibromomethane (human health--organisms only).
     Fluorene (human health--organisms only).
     Hexachlorbutadiene (human health--organisms only).
     PCBs (human health--water & organisms and organisms only).
    EPA is proposing to withdraw the federally promulgated criteria for
these pollutants and does not anticipate public comment on such action
because the state-adopted, EPA-approved criteria are no less stringent
than the federally promulgated criteria.
    The following is a list of pollutants for which New Jersey adopted
criteria, and which EPA approved, that are less stringent than the
promulgated federal criteria, but that nonetheless meet the
requirements of the CWA and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR
131.11 covered in this proposal:
     Copper (aquatic life--marine (acute and chronic)).
     Lead (aquatic life--freshwater (chronic) and marine water
(chronic)).
     Mercury (aquatic life--freshwater (chronic) and marine
water (chronic)).
     Nickel (aquatic life--marine water (chronic)).
     1,1-Dichloroethylene (human health--organisms only).
     1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (human health--organisms only).
     1,1,2-Trichloroethane (human health--organisms only).
     Isophrone (human health--organisms only).
     gamma-BHC (human health--organisms only).
    As these criteria are less stringent than the federally promulgated
criteria, but nonetheless have been determined to meet the requirements
of the CWA and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 131, EPA is
seeking public comment before withdrawing the federally promulgated
criteria.

    The finalization of the proposed actions for New Jersey would
result in the complete removal of New Jersey from the NTR.
Puerto Rico
    On September 21, 1990 and March 28, 2003, respectively, Puerto Rico
submitted to EPA Region 2 revisions to its water quality standards,
including aquatic life and human health criteria. Puerto Rico adopted
aquatic life and human health criteria for many of the toxic pollutants
contained in the NTR. EPA Region 2 approved the Commonwealth's 1990 and
2003 criteria on March 28, 2002, and June 26, 2003, respectively,
because Puerto Rico's numeric criteria for the protection of aquatic
life and human health were consistent with the CWA and EPA's
implementing regulations at 40 CFR 131.11. EPA published the final rule
to remove those criteria that were no less stringent than the
promulgated criteria in the NTR in the Federal Register on October 29,
2004 (69 FR 63079). However, this action did not address all applicable
EPA promulgated numeric water quality criteria contained in the 1992
NTR.
    On May 5, 2010, Puerto Rico submitted to EPA Region 2 revisions to
its water quality standards, including aquatic life and human health
criteria. Puerto Rico adopted aquatic life and human health criteria
for the remainder of the toxic pollutants contained in the NTR. EPA
Region 2 approved the Commonwealth's criteria on August 4, 2010,
because Puerto Rico's numeric criteria for the protection of aquatic
life and human health were consistent with the CWA and EPA's
implementing regulations at 40 CFR 131.11. EPA approved the
Commonwealth's criteria, although they are less stringent than the
federally promulgated criteria, because EPA determined that the
Commonwealth's criteria were scientifically sound and protective of the
designated use(s). EPA's actions which approve Puerto Rico's adopted
criteria (including a rationale for approving criteria that are less
stringent than the federally promulgated criteria) can be accessed at
OW docket number EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0095.
    For many of the pollutants covered in the 2010 action, Puerto Rico
adopted water quality criteria for aquatic life and human health that
are no less stringent than the promulgated federal criteria. In
addition, for certain pollutants covered in the 2010 action, Puerto
Rico adopted water quality criteria for aquatic life and human health
that are less stringent than the promulgated federal criteria, but that
nonetheless meet the requirements of the CWA and EPA's implementing
regulations at 40 CFR 131.11.
    The following is a list of pollutants for which Puerto Rico adopted
criteria that are no less stringent than the promulgated federal
criteria covered in this proposal:
     Chromium VI (aquatic life--marine water (acute and
chronic)).
     Thallium (human health--water & organisms and organisms
only).
     Dioxin (human health--water & organisms and organisms
only).
     Dichlorobromomethane (human health--organisms only).
     Benzo(a)Anthracene (human health--organisms only).
     Benzo(a)Pyrene (human health--organisms only).
     Benzo(b)Flouranthene (human health--organisms only).
     Benzo(k)Flouranthene (human health--organisms only).
     Chrysene (human health--organisms only).
     Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene (human health--organisms only).
     Fluorene (human health--organisms only).
     Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (human health--organisms only).
     alpha-BHC (human health--water & organisms and organisms
only).
     beta-BHC (human health--water & organisms and organisms
only).
     gamma-BHC (aquatic life--freshwater (chronic)).
     alpha-Endosulfan (aquatic life--marine water (acute and
chronic)).
     beta-Endosulfan (aquatic life--marine water (acute and
chronic)).
     Endrin Aldehyde (human health--water & organisms and
organisms only).
     Heptachlor Epoxide (aquatic life--freshwater (acute and
chronic) and marine water (acute and chronic).
     PCBs (aquatic life--freshwater (chronic) and marine water
(chronic)) (human health--water & organisms and organisms only).
    EPA is proposing to withdraw the federally promulgated criteria for
these pollutants and does not anticipate public comment on such action
because the state-adopted, EPA-approved criteria are no less stringent
than the federally promulgated criteria.
    The following is a list of pollutants for which Puerto Rico adopted
criteria, approved by EPA, that are less stringent than the promulgated
federal criteria, but that nonetheless meet the requirements of the CWA
and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 131, covered in this
proposal:
     Mercury (aquatic life--freshwater (chronic) and marine
water (chronic)).
     Dichlorobromomethane (human health--water & organisms).
     Benzo(a)Anthracene (human health--water & organisms).
     Benzo(a)Pyrene (human health--water & organisms).
     Benzo(b)Flouranthene (human health--water & organisms).
     Benzo(k)Flouranthene (human health--water & organisms).
     Chrysene (human health--water & organisms).
     Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene (human health--water & organisms).
     Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (human health--water & organisms).
     Isophrone (human health--water & organisms and organisms
only).
     Endosulfan Sulfate (human health--water & organisms and
organisms only).
     Endrin (aquatic life--freshwater (chronic)).
     Heptachlor Epoxide (human health--water & organisms and
organisms only).
    As these criteria are less stringent than the promulgated federal
criteria, but nonetheless have been determined to meet the requirements
of the CWA and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 131.36, EPA is
seeking public comment before withdrawing the federally promulgated
criteria.
    The finalization of the proposed actions for Puerto Rico would
result in the complete removal of Puerto Rico from the NTR.
California
    This notice proposes to amend the federal regulations to withdraw
water quality criteria for cyanide applicable to San Francisco Bay,
California. On December 22, 1992, in the NTR, and on May 18, 2000, in
the CTR, EPA promulgated federal regulations establishing water quality
criteria for priority toxic pollutants for California. On February 28,
2008, California completed its adoption process to incorporate cyanide
aquatic life water quality criteria for San Francisco Bay. The State
calls these criteria site-specific water quality objectives or site-
specific objectives (``SSOs''). On May 28, 2008, the State submitted
the site-specific objectives to EPA Region 9 for review and approval.
On July 22, 2008, EPA approved an amendment to the Water Quality
Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Region (Basin Plan), which was
adopted under Resolution No. R2-2006-0086 and submitted to EPA by the
State. The amendment adopts site-specific marine aquatic life water
quality objectives for cyanide in San Francisco Bay. Since California
now has marine aquatic life site-specific objectives, effective under
the CWA, for cyanide for San Francisco Bay, EPA has

determined that the federally promulgated saltwater cyanide aquatic
life criteria are no longer needed for San Francisco Bay. EPA approved
the State's criteria, although they are less stringent than the
federally promulgated criteria, because EPA determined that the State's
criteria were scientifically sound and protective of the designated
use(s) for San Francisco Bay. EPA's actions which approve California's
adopted objectives (including a rationale for approving objectives that
are less stringent than the federally promulgated criteria) can be
accessed at OW docket number EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0095.
    Described in detail herein under the heading ``Site-Specific
Aquatic Life Objectives for Cyanide'' are California's recently adopted
marine cyanide aquatic life site-specific objectives for the San
Francisco Bay, which EPA subsequently approved, including the
accompanying footnotes to the table. The footnotes also include a
description of which waters are included in the term ``San Francisco
Bay.''
    EPA-Approved Site-Specific Aquatic Life Objectives

              Table 3-3C--Marine \a\ Water Quality Objectives for Cyanide in San Francisco Bay \b\
                                             [Values in [micro]g/l]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyanide.............................................  Chronic Objective (4-day Average)......                2.9
Cyanide.............................................  Acute Objective (1-hour Average).......                9.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes to Table 3-3C:
\a\ Marine waters are those in which the salinity is equal to or greater than 10 parts per thousand 95 percent
  of the time, as set forth in Chapter 4 of the Basin Plan. For water in which the salinity is between 1 and 10
  parts per thousand, the applicable objectives are the more stringent of the freshwater and marine objectives.
\b\ These Objectives apply to all segments of San Francisco Bay, including Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta
  (within San Francisco Bay region), Suisun Bay, Carquinez Strait, San Pablo Bay, Central San Francisco Bay,
  Lower San Francisco Bay, and South San Francisco Bay.

    As these criteria are less stringent than the promulgated federal
criteria, but nonetheless have been determined to meet the requirements
of the CWA and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 131, EPA
is seeking public comment before withdrawing the federally promulgated
criteria. This proposal will result in the withdrawal of saltwater
aquatic life cyanide \1\ criteria for San Francisco Bay under the NTR
(with conforming changes to the CTR). However, other criteria for
cyanide for waters in California that are currently part of the NTR or
CTR will remain unchanged in the federal regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the regulatory text, saltwater criteria for Cyanide are
identified as Columns C1 and C2 of ``Compound 14'' in National
Toxics Rule at 40 CFR 131.36(b)(1), therefore, the proposed
withdrawal will remove Column C1- pollutant 14 and Column C2
``pollutant 14'' from the applicable criteria to ``Waters of San
Francisco Bay, at 40 CFR 131.36(d)(10)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and Executive
Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information-collection burden
because it is administratively withdrawing federal requirements that
are no longer needed in New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and California. It
does not include any information-collection, reporting, or
recordkeeping requirements. However, the Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') has previously approved the information-collection
requirements contained in the existing regulations 40 CFR Part 131
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2040-0049. The OMB control
numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'') generally requires an
agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject
to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute, unless the agency certifies that
the rule will not have significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this action on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (``SBA's'') regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (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-for-profit enterprise, which is independently owned and
operated and is not dominant in its field.
    This rule imposes no regulatory requirements or costs on any small
entity. Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA''), 2
U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or
tribal governments, or the private sector. Thus, this rule is not
subject to the requirements of UMRA Sections 202 and 205 for a written
statement and small government agency plan. Similarly, EPA has
determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments and is
therefore not subject to UMRA Section 203.

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 of August 4, 1999, entitled
``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This rule imposes no
regulatory requirements or costs on any state or local governments.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action
from state and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments)

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This rule
imposes no regulatory requirements or costs on any tribal government.
It does not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks)

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined
in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. The public is invited to submit
comments or identify peer-reviewed studies and data that assess effects
of early-life exposure to the toxic pollutants for which we are
soliciting comments.

H. Executive Order 13211 (Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use)

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law
or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore,
EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898--Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this rule will not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations because (1) New Jersey's, Puerto Rico's, and
California's criteria apply to all marine waters in the State, and thus
EPA does not believe that this action would disproportionately affect
any one group over another, and (2) EPA has previously determined,
based on the most current science and EPA's CWA Section 304(a)
recommended criteria, that New Jersey's, Puerto Rico's, and
California's adopted and EPA-approved criteria are protective of human
health and aquatic life.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control.

    Dated: March 30, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

     For the reasons set out in the preamble title 40, Chapter
I, part 131 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be
amended as follows:

PART 131--WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for part 131 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

Sec.  131.36  [Amended]

    2. Section 131.36 is amended as follows:
    a. Removing and reserving paragraph (d)(3).
    b. Removing and reserving paragraph (d)(4).
    c. Revising the table in paragraph (d)(10)(ii) as follows:
    (i) Under the heading ``Water and use classification'' add a new
first line to read as follows:
    Waters of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta within Regional Water
Board 5
    (ii) Under the heading ``Applicable criteria'' add a new first line
to read as follows:
    These waters are assigned the criteria in:
    Column C1--pollutant 14
    Column C2--pollutant 14
    (iii) Under the heading ``Applicable criteria'', opposite the entry
for ``Waters of San Francisco Bay upstream to and including Suisun Bay
and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta'', remove ``Column C1--pollutant
14'' and ``Column C2--pollutant 14''.

Sec.  131.38  [Amended]

    3. Section 131.38 is amended as follows:
    a. Revise footnote ``r'' in the ``Footnotes to Table in Paragraph
(b) (1)'' to read as follows:
    r. These criteria were promulgated for specific waters in
California in the NTR. The specific waters to which the NTR criteria
apply include: Waters of the State defined as bays or estuaries
including the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta within California Regional
Water Board 5, but excluding the San Francisco Bay. This section does
not apply instead of the NTR for these criteria.

[FR Doc. 2012-8202 Filed 4-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P