Surveys to Determine the Effectiveness of No Discharge Zones for Vessel Sewage and Marine Sanitation Devices Prepared by the Office of Water June 19, 2003 2 Surveys to Determine the Effectiveness of No Discharge Zones for Vessel Sewage and Marine Sanitation Devices Table of Contents Subject Page Part A Introduction 6 Organization of Information Collection Request Statement 7 Approach Taken in this Information Collection Request 7 Section 1: Identification of the Information Collection 9 1( a) Title of Information Collection 9 1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract 9 Section 2: Need for Use of the Collection 12 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection 12 2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data 14 Section 3: Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria 16 3( a) Nonduplication 16 3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB 17 3( c) Consultations 17 3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection 18 3( e) General Guidelines 18 3( f) Confidentiality 18 3( g) Sensitive Questions 19 Section 4: The Respondents and Information Requested 19 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes 19 4( b) Information Requested 20 ( i) Data items, including recordkeeping requirements 20 Data items 20 Recordkeeping 22 Section 5: The Information Collected   Agency Activities, 22 Collection Methodology, and Information Management 5( a) Agency Activities 22 3 5( b) Collection Methodology and Management 23 5( c) Small Entity Flexibility 25 5( d) Collection Schedule 27 Section 6: Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection 27 6( a b) Estimating Respondent Burden and Costs 27 6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost 29 6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs 29 6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables 30 6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden 30 6( g) Burden Statement 30 Part B Section 1: Survey Objectives, Key Variables, and 38 Other Preliminaries 1( a) Survey Objectives 38 1( b) Key Variables 40 1( c) Statistical Approach 40 1( d) Feasibility 41 Section 2: Survey Design for the Statistical Approach 42 2( a) Target Population and Coverage 42 2( b) Sample Design 44 2( b)( i) Sampling Frame 44 2( b)( ii) Sample Size 46 2( b)( iii) Stratification Variables 48 2( b)( iv) Sampling Method 48 2( c) Precision Requirements 2( c)( i) Precision Targets 49 2( c)( ii) Nonsampling Errors 49 2( d) Questionnaire Design 52 2( d)( i) Boater Operators Survey 53 2( d)( ii) Marina Owner/ Operator Survey 61 2( d)( iii) State/ Local Survey 69 2( d)( iv) Marine Sanitation Device ( MSD) 71 Manufacturer Survey 2( d)( v) Marine Sanitation Device ( MSD) Testing 72 Laboratory Survey Section 3: Pretests and Pilot Tests 72 Section 4: Collection Methods and Follow up 73 4( a) Collection Methods 73 4 4( b) Survey Response and Follow up 76 Section 5: Analyzing and Reporting Survey Results 77 5( a) Data Preparation 77 5( b) Analysis 88 5( c) Reporting Results 82 References 82 Appendices A. Section 312 of Clean Water Act 84 B. EPA Marine Sanitation Device Regulations 90 C. Coast Guard Marine Sanitation Device Regulations 94 D. 1st Federal Register Notice   Surveys to Determine the 99 Effectiveness of No Discharge Zones and Marine Sanitation Devices E. Response to Comments 102 F. Survey Text 136 5 Tables Table # Page 1. Average Annual Respondent Burden and 32 Costs   Boat Owners and Operators 2. Average Annual Respondent Burden and 32 Costs Marina Owners and Operators 3 Average Annual Respondent Burden and 33 Costs   U. S. Coast Guard Accepted Independent Laboratories 4 Average Annual Respondent Burden and Costs   U. S. 33 Coast Guard Accepted Independent Laboratories 5 Average Annual Respondent Burden and Costs   State and 34 Local Government Officials 6 Average Annual Respondent Burden and Costs   Agency 35 7 Average Annual Respondent Burdens and Costs Composite 36 8 Average Annual Burdens and Costs Composite   All Entities 37 6 Surveys to Determine the Effectiveness of No Discharge Zones for Vessel Sewage and Marine Sanitation Devices EPA ICR # 2107.01 Part A Introduction This document responds to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 ( P. L. 96 511) are to: ( 1) minimize the Federal paperwork burden for small businesses, State and local governments, and other individuals; ( 2)

minimize the Federal government's cost of collecting, maintaining, using, and disseminating information; and 3) maximize the usefulness of information collected by Federal agencies.

This application is made by the Oceans and Coastal Protection Division of the Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds in the Office of Water of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). As will be demonstrated in this application, the proposed information collection activities are accomplished by the least burdensome and costly means; are not duplicated by other sources; and are pivotal to EPA's responsibilities in designating no discharge zones ( NDZs) for treated or untreated vessel sewage and for establishing standards for marine sanitation devices ( MSDs) under the Clean Water Act ( CWA) § 312. 7 Organization of Information Collection Request Statement This document follows the format for Information Collection Requests ( ICR) outlined in the Information Collection Review Handbook ( Office of Management and Budget, 1989) and the Instructions for Standard Form 83 ( revised version dated September 1983). No exceptions to this format are taken. Those topics identified in the Information Collection Review Handbook that are not relevant to this application are noted, and the basis for this determination stated. EPA's Information Resources Management Policy Manual ( July 1987), Regulation Development in EPA ( September 1992), and EPA's ICR Handbook ( February 1999) also guided the development of this document.

Approach Taken in this Information Collection Request Some of the information collection and record keeping requirements under this activity are " borderline" relative to the requirements to prepare and submit an ICR as defined in the ICR Handbook. However, a conservative approach ( i. e., overstate potential burden and costs) has been taken throughout this analysis, and all information collection and record keeping requirements associated with conducting the surveys have been described, regardless of the magnitude of the burden.

This ICR was developed based on program office knowledge of the process, a review of selected ICRs that have applications and survey strategies similar to those being called for under 8 this ICR, a review of Coast Guard certification data, a review of U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Clean Vessel Act grant pumpout facility information, interviews with Federal and local officials working on vessel discharge issues, and by soliciting the expertise of organizations that have instituted such information collections in the past ( e. g., Battelle, Eastern Research Group, Inc.). 9 Surveys to Determine the Effectiveness of No Discharge Zones for Vessel Sewage and Marine Sanitation Devices SECTION 1: Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Title of Information Collection Surveys to Determine the Effectiveness of No Discharge Zones for Vessel Sewage and Marine Sanitation Devices 1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract This information collection request ( ICR) is for a series of surveys to be conducted to determine the effectiveness of no discharge zones ( NDZs) for vessel sewage and of marine sanitation devices ( MSDs) in removing harmful pollutants from the waste stream of the device.

This ICR requests approval to collect information from boat owners and operators, marina owners and operators, and State and local government officials regarding the effectiveness of NDZs. This information will be gathered from MSD manufacturers and U. S. Coast Guard accepted independent laboratories. The information collected from the surveys will be used to assess the overall effectiveness of NDZs for vessel sewage established under Clean Water Act Section 312( f)( 3) and MSDs to help determine if modifications to the program are needed. 10 The survey developed for boat owners and operators will address the boater's experience with using pump out or dump facilities in NDZs. The survey will collect general information regarding the respondent's boating activity. It will seek information on whether the pump out or dump facilities were working or not working when the boater attempted to use them. It will address whether the boater would use the facilities if they were available and how often the boaters actually use the facilities. It will also seek information on the boater's knowledge about NDZs. Respondents will be selected from North Atlantic States, Mid Atlantic States, South

Atlantic States, California, and the Great Lakes. Approximately 1400 respondents from the geographical regions will be selected for response. EPA predicts to receive completed surveys from 1200 boat owners and operators. The information collection will be voluntary and will not include confidential business information ( CBI).

The survey developed for marina owners and operators located in NDZs will seek general information on pump out and dump facility operations, the downtime of these facilities, and their use by boaters. It will seek information regarding the marina owner/ operator's knowledge of NDZs. Respondents will be selected from North Atlantic States, Mid Atlantic States, South

Atlantic States, California, and the Great Lakes. Approximately 100 marina owners or operators from the geographical regions will be selected for response. EPA predicts to receive completed surveys from 75 marina owners and operators in total. The information collection will be voluntary and will not include CBI.

Also, a survey will be developed for State and local government officials to determine if 11 the designation of NDZs has been effective in addressing water quality issues, State roles and responsibilities associated with the NDZ, and if boaters comply with NDZ requirements.

Respondents will be selected from North Atlantic States, Mid Atlantic States, South Atlantic States, California, and the Great Lakes. Approximately 80 respondents from the geographical regions will be selected for response. EPA predicts 54 State and local government officials will complete the survey in total. The information collection will be voluntary and will not include CBI.

An additional survey will be developed to review current MSD technology. The information on MSDs that will be requested includes effluent constituents and their concentrations; bacteria eradication processes and suspended solids removal; and cost and installation. This information will be used to help determine the effectiveness of the current MSD technologies. This information may be used in future decisions regarding the effectiveness of the MSD standards. It will particularly be important in determining if revisions to the MSD standards or if other program modifications are necessary. This information may also be used to assist EPA in promulgating regulations implementing Title XIV: Certain Alaskan Cruise Ship Operations.

Approximately 60 MSD manufacturers and 8 U. S. Coast Guard accepted independent laboratories will be selected for response. EPA predicts that 30 MSD manufacturers and 7 U. S.

Coast Guard accepted independent laboratories will complete the survey. Responding to the collection of information would be voluntary. Any information covered by a CBI claim will be treated in accordance with the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 12 EPA estimates that the respondent total burden and costs associated with this ICR is 474 hours reflecting $ 13,053. The Agency burden and cost is estimated at 6,672 hours reflecting $ 282,642 SECTION 2. Need for and Use of the Collection This section describes the statutory and regulatory authorities associated with this information collection. It also summarizes the use of the information.

2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection EPA's Office of Water is responsible for protecting and maintaining the quality of the nation's waters. In order for EPA to make effective policy decisions, policy makers need information on how the current programs are working to protect human and animal health and the aquatic and wildlife environments.

EPA desires to obtain information on the effectiveness of NDZs and MSDs to implement its statutory and regulatory requirements. The statutory requirements are under Clean Water Act Sections 312( a m), and the regulatory requirements are under 40 CFR 140 and 33 CFR 159.

Section 312 of the Clean Water Act and 40 CFR 140.3 require the use of MSDs on all vessels with installed toilets. There are three types of MSDs. Type I and Type II MSDs provide treatment of sewage that is to be discharged, and rely on a variety of different technologies for treatment prior to discharge including maceration, chlorination, heating, filtering, and biological processing. Type III MSDs are holding tanks that provide minimal sewage treatment and can be 13 installed on vessels of any size ( 33 CFR 159). Installed toilets on vessels of 65 ft. or less in length may be equipped with any of the three types of MSDs ( 33 CFR 159). Type I MSDs, which may only be used on vessels up to 65 ft. in length ( 33 CFR 159), are required to produce an effluent with a fecal coliform bacteria count less than or equal to 1000 bacteria per 100 ml of seawater,

and with no visible floating solids. For vessels greater than 65 ft., all installed toilets must be equipped with either Type II or Type III MSDs ( 33 CFR 159). The Type II MSDs are required to produce effluent with a fecal coliform count less than or equal to 200 bacteria per 100 ml of seawater and suspended solids less than or equal to 150 mg/ l. Type III MSDs are holding tanks that are designed to prevent overboard discharge of any sewage.

Under Section 312( f) of the Clean Water Act ( CWA) and 40 CFR 140.4, with EPA's approval, States may designate a portion or all of their waters as NDZs, making all vessel sewage discharges illegal. The establishment of NDZs provides State and local governments with additional protection of waters from treated or untreated vessel sewage discharges, which is one of many types of water pollution. States may designate their waters as a NDZ for vessel sewage to achieve any of the following objectives: ( 1) to protect aquatic habitats; ( 2) to protect special aquatic habitats or species such as coral reefs and shellfish beds; and ( 3) to safeguard human health by protecting drinking water intake zones. Under Section 312( f)( 3) of the CWA and 40 CFR 140.4( a), States designate NDZs for their waters by demonstrating to EPA that safe and adequate pump out and toilet dump facilities are available. Currently about 95% of the NDZs have been designated under this provision. At a State's request, under CWA Sections 312( f)( 4)( A) and ( B) and 40 CFR 140.4( b) and ( c), NDZs for special aquatic habitats and 14 drinking water intake zones, respectively, also can be established by regulation by EPA if it is determined that additional protection of the aquatic environment is required. NDZs established by EPA regulation do not require the availability of pump out or dump facilities. Currently, about 5% of the NDZs for vessel sewage have been designated by regulations promulgated by EPA.

Also, under 40 CFR 140.3( a)( 1), water bodies that do not support the ingress or egress of vessels subject to these regulations or do not support interstate traffic are NDZs.

This information collection request will focus on the effectiveness of NDZs for vessel sewage designated by States under Clean Water Act Section 312( f)( 3) and 40 CFR 140.4( a). It will also address the effectiveness of current MSD technologies. The standards for the MSDs can be found at 40 CFR 140.3. The relevant sections of the CWA are included in Appendix A and the relevant sections of the implementing regulations, 40 CFR 140, are included in Appendix B.

Included in Appendix C are the U. S. Coast Guard implementing regulations for MSDs. The Coast Guard is responsible for certifying MSDs and enforcing the NDZ requirements.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of NDZs and of MSDs in removing harmful pollutants from the waste stream of the device.

EPA will determine the effectiveness of NDZs by collecting information from boaters,

marina owners and operators, and State and local government officials. This information will be analyzed statistically. 15 The information collected from boaters will be used to evaluate awareness of the NDZ rules, probable level of compliance, and experience with availability of pump out facilities.

Specifically, the information from boaters will include:

° Their experience using pump out or dump facilities in NDZs;

° Whether pump out or dump facilities were working when the boater attempted to use them; and ° Whether the boater would use the facilities if they were available and how often the boater actually uses the facilities.

Additional information will be collected from marina owners and operators through another survey. This information will include:

° The size of the marina;

° Whether the marina obtained Clean Vessel Act ( CVA) funding ( which provides money for pump out facilities;

° The downtime of pump out and dump facilities at the marinas located in the NDZs;

° The reason for the downtime;

° The use of pump out and dump facilities by boaters; and ° Whether boaters are in compliance with NDZ requirements.

A survey will be conducted seeking information from State and local government officials addressing whether the designation of NDZs has been effective in reducing pollution impacts on aquatic environments from sewage in the NDZs. Specifically, the information includes: 16 ° Whether beach closures, shellfish bed health, or other water quality data indicate a change in the water quality of the NDZ since its designation;

° Whether there are promotional or advertising activities associated with the NDZ; and ° How the requirements of the NDZ are enforced.

Also, information regarding the performance of MSDs will be collected from MSD manufacturers and U. S. Coast Guard accepted independent laboratories and will not be analyzed statistically. This information includes the effluent constituents and their concentrations; bacteria eradication processes and suspended solids removal; and cost and installation. This information will be used to determine the effectiveness of current MSD technology. This information may be used in future decisions regarding the effectiveness of the MSD standards. It will particularly be important in determining if revisions to the MSD standards or other program modifications are necessary. Also, this information may be used to support EPA's current promulgation of regulations implementing Title XIV: Certain Alaskan Cruise Ship Operations.

SECTION 3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria 3( a) Nonduplication This information collection will target boaters, marina owners and operators, State and local government officials, MSD manufacturers, and U. S. Coast Guard accepted independent laboratories. It will gather information that will be used to determine the effectiveness of NDZs and of MSDs in removing harmful pollutants from the waste stream of the device. Under Section 17 312( c)( 1)( A), EPA has the authority to revise the NDZ requirements and MSD standards. In order for EPA to do this, NDZ effectiveness and MSD performance information, at the national level, is needed. This ICR characterizes how EPA plans to get that information, and this effort has not been duplicated at the national level before.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB An announcement of a public comment period for this ICR was made in the Federal Register on March 27, 2003 ( Volume 68, Number 59), see Appendix D. EPA received 20 sets of comments. None of the comments recommended that EPA should not conduct the surveys. The vast majority of comments provided information regarding the potential questions that the surveys should ask, some provided information regarding the effectiveness of the current NDZs and MSDs, and additional comments provided recommendations on how EPA should modify its current vessel sewage discharge program. EPA prepared a response to comment document that is available at the Water Docket. A copy of the document can be found in Appendix E.

3( c) Consultations Several EPA workgroups were formed to assist in the design of the surveys. One workgroup included members of the EPA's Oceans and Coastal Protection Division in the Office of Water. Another workgroup included all EPA Regional staff responsible for implementing the vessel sewage discharge program. A third workgroup consisted of members of other EPA offices that have peripheral interests in and concerns regarding NDZs and MSDs. 18 EPA consulted with persons outside the agency on a regular basis throughout the design and testing of these surveys. Because of cross program issues, EPA consulted with staff from the U. S. Coast Guard ( responsible for enforcement of NDZs and certifying that MSDs meet the EPA standards) of the Department of Homeland Security and the Fish and Wildlife Service ( implements the Clean Vessel Act grant program, which provides funding for education, and the installation and maintenance of pump out facilities at marinas) of the Department of Interior regarding the design and delivery of the surveys. EPA also consulted with representatives from the Marina Operators Association of America and the Virginia Clean Marina Program.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection This is a one time data collection exercise for the respondent.

3( e) General Guidelines Information will be collected according OMB guidelines in 5 CFR 1320 and EPA's Quality Assurance Guidance. Information to be disseminated will comply with EPA's Information Quality Guidelines which were developed for implementing OMB's Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies.

3( f) Confidentiality The survey will fully conform to federal regulations   specifically the Privacy Act of 1974 ( 5 U. S. C. 552a) and the Hawkins Stafford Amendments of 1988 ( P. L. 100 297). The respective 19 respondents will be informed that their participation in each survey is voluntary, and their identities will be kept confidential and not associated with their responses. Neither EPA nor any other agency will have access to the names of the respondents, and no identifying information will be included in the final survey data provided to EPA except for the State surveys. EPA believes that the information gathered from the State and local government survey will not include confidential business information. The surveys are designed to gather reports and information that is already available to the public. If instances occur where the information should be treated confidentially, it will be treated in accordance with the procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2,

Subpart B. Information gathered from MSD manufacturers and U. S. Coast Guard accepted independent labs could potentially contain confidential business information and will be treated in accordance with the procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B..

3( g) Sensitive Questions There are no questions on sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private or sensitive in these survey instruments.

SECTION 4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes The following is a list of respondents ( including their North American Industry Classification System identification number) affected by this information collection request:

° Boat owners and/ or operators ( 532411, 532292, 487210);

° Marina owners and/ or operators ( 713930); 20 ° State and local government officials responsible for implementing the requirements of NDZs in their waters or are familiar with such implementation;

° Marine sanitation device manufacturers ( 541330, 336612, 3366); and ° U. S. Coast Guard accepted independent laboratories ( 926120).

4( b) Information Requested ( i) Data items, including recordkeeping requirements.

Data Items.

Respondents will be asked to complete only one survey. The surveys developed for boat and marina owners and operators and State and local government officials will be part of a statistical study addressing the effectiveness of NDZs. The surveys for MSD manufacturers and Coast Guard accepted independent laboratories are designed to gather MSD performance data to be used to help determine the current capabilities of MSDs and provide information for determining if revisions to the MSD standards or other program modifications are necessary, and in support of regulations implementing Title XIV: Certain Alaskan Cruise Ship Operations.

The text of the surveys appears in Appendix F. The surveys will be conducted as face

toface interviews, phone interviews, and mail solicitations. The specific information gathering will be conducted as follows:

° Boat and marina owners and operators will be interviewed face to face.

° State and local government officials will be interviewed over the phone.

° MSD manufacturers and U. S. Coast Guard accepted independent laboratories will be 21 contacted via mail.

The first section of the survey for boat owners and operators seeks information regarding the size of their boat and if there is an installed toilet on it. The next section addresses the boating activity of the respondent and whether there were functional pump out facilities available. Lastly, the survey seeks information regarding boater awareness of NDZs, and if the boater believes there has been a water quality change since the water body was designated an NDZ.

The survey for marina owners and operators will gather information regarding the size of the marina and the services it provides; pump out facility operations and capacity; roles and responsibilities of the marina in advertizing that the water body associated with the marina is a NDZ; whether the marina has enforcement responsibilities; what role the State in which the marina is located has in the implementation of the NDZ; and if the marina owner/ operator has observed water quality changes since the water body was designated an NDZ.

The survey for State and local government officials seeks water quality data associated with the NDZ. It also addresses roles and responsibilities of the State in implementing the NDZ.

The survey for the MSD manufacturers and U. S. Coast Guard accepted independent laboratories seeks information on the type of device manufactured or certified, its pretreatment and primary treatment processes, and the performance of the device in removing particular 22 constituents. The MSD manufacturers and labs will be asked to gather and provide data for each device manufactured or tested.

Recordkeeping.

This is a one time information collection effort. There will be no need for any of the respondents to maintain records or submit proprietary trade secrets. For boat owners and operators, this request seeks information regarding the boater's behavior and their understanding of the requirements of the NDZ. The marina owners and operators survey seeks information characterizing the particular marina, the availability of pump out facilities and services, and their awareness of the NDZ requirements. Neither of these entities are required to produce or provide records. Even though the information requested from State and local governments and the MSD manufacturers and U. S. Coast Guard Labs include reports and other data, that information should already be available. This request does not require these entities to develop reports.

SECTION 5. The Information Collected   Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 5( a) Agency Activities Agency activities associated with Surveys to Determine the Effectiveness of No Discharge Zones for Vessel Sewage and Marine Sanitation Devices include:

° Development of Federal Register notices;

° Development of survey instruments; 23 ° Development of ICR;

° Review by OEI;

° Training of surveyors;

° Execution of surveys;

° Input and maintenance of the gathered data;

° Analysis of the data gathered during the surveys;

° Preparation of a Report; and ° Presentation of findings to EPA and other interested parties.

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management The data collection for this project will be accomplished by a number of approaches depending on the entities targeted for the particular survey. The surveys will be conducted as face to face interviews, phone interviews, and mail solicitations as follows:

° Boat and marina owners and operators will be interviewed face to face. The interviewer will ask the questions and collect the responses. In certain instances where the respondent is unavailable or refuses to participate in an interview, the respondent will be allowed to write his/ her own responses. Those surveys will be identified to reflect they were completed by the boater without the interviewer being present. These surveys will either be mailed in or returned by the respondent at a later time. The interviews will be conducted over a weekend ( between Saturday morning and Sunday evening). 24 ° State and local government officials will be interviewed over the phone. The interviewer will ask the questions and collect the responses. In some cases, the respondent will be asked to provide additional information either by email or regular mail at a later date. The interviewer will continue to call potential respondents until he/ she has the appropriate individual. Followup phone calls may be conducted to remind the respondent to complete the survey.

° MSD manufacturers and U. S. Coast Guard accepted independent laboratories will be contacted via mail. The questionnaire will be completed by the respondent, and he/ she will be given a finite period of time to complete the questionnaire. Followup phone calls may be conducted to remind the respondent to complete the survey.

The following process is being used to ensure that the data are of the quality that supports this statistically valid study.

° Each survey instrument has been reviewed by EPA staff familiar with the vessel sewage discharge program, by EPA staff that have peripheral interest in the issues associated with the program, and other Agency staff with particular expertise in designing and analyzing data from this type of survey. These reviews will ensure that the surveys are clear and unambiguous, and that they will elicit the information intended to be collected.

° The survey instruments and sampling protocols were carefully designed to ensure that the process results in a statistically valid sample that addresses EPA's information needs.

° Interviewer training sessions designed specifically for this project will be held to ensure 25 consistent and accurate data gathering that corresponds to the survey design.

° The contractor is experienced in data analysis, problem specification, and output interpretation.

° The contractor will provide necessary support to ensure data quality and survey objectives are met.

° Return postage will be paid by EPA for the surveys that are mailed and must be returned to the contractor by mail.

The data collected from the surveys will be stored in various databases. Data from the boat and marina owners and operators and the State and local government surveys will be stored in a database and analyzed statistically to determine the effectiveness of NDZs. Data from the MSD surveys will be stored in a separate database and used to analyze the current performance of MSDs for potential future MSD standards modifications and for current promulgation of regulations implementing Title XIV: Certain Alaskan Cruise Ship Operations.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility Information will be collected from small businesses. EPA believes that the small businesses will consist of the MSD manufacturers, U. S. Coast Guard accepted independent laboratories, and marinas. EPA will minimize the burden on MSD manufacturers, and U. S. Coast Guard accepted independent laboratories by requesting only available data in the format in which it is maintained. That is, EPA will not ask the respondents to collect new information or re work existing data into an EPA specified format. EPA is designing the surveys to be clear and easy to 26 follow. Most of surveys require a multiple choice or " yes/ no" selection. Survey questions that require additional information, EPA will accept that information in any form that the respondent wishes to submit it. At this time, EPA is uncertain how many small businesses there might be among MSD manufacturers or U. S. Coast Guard accepted independent laboratories. However,

EPA will seek to limit the burden on those respondents by tailoring each MSD manufacturer questionnaire package to identify MSDs that may be manufactured by that company. Each laboratory questionnaire package will include a copy of the U. S. Coast Guard equipment list.

That list will provide the labs with an inventory of those devices that have been certified. This list may help them determine which devices they may have provided data for during the device's certification by the U. S. Coast Guard. Return postage will be paid by EPA for the surveys that are to be returned to EPA.

EPA will minimize the burden on marinas by designing the surveys to be clear and easy to follow. Most of surveys require a multiple choice or " yes/ no" selection. Survey questions that require additional information, EPA will accept that information in any form that the respondent wishes to submit it. The surveys will be conducted face to face. The respondents will not have to read them ( except for those instances were the respondent could not participate in a face

toface survey but wanted to participate otherwise). Also, return postage will be paid by EPA for the surveys that are to be returned to EPA. Maps depicting where the NDZs are located will be provided to marinas if appropriate. 27 5( d) Collection Schedule The proposed timeline for the data collection is as follows. The marina and boat owner and operator surveys will be conducted over weekends in late August through September, 2003.

These surveys will be conducted face to face except for those that will be either returned later that day or mailed in. EPA will not accept marina or boat owner and operator surveys after one month from the date that the respondent received it. The MSD manufacturer, U. S. Coast Guard accepted independent lab, and State surveys will be sent to the potential respondents in late August, 2003. The respondents will be asked to return the completed surveys within one month,

thus, EPA expects to have all of them by late October, 2003. Analysis of the information will began in November, 2003 and will be completed in February.

SECTION 6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection 6( a b) Estimating Respondent Burdens and Costs This information collection does not involve any special equipment, thus respondents will not incur any capital or operation and maintenance ( O & M) costs. All hourly rates are based on the " Total Compensation, all workers, all civilian, 2003," U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation. It includes employer costs of all employee benefits.

The boat owner and operator survey is designed to take less than 10 minutes to complete.

It was pre tested among EPA staff and was completed in under 10 minutes consistently. It will be pre tested using actual boaters to establish a more realistic completion time. As illustrated in 28 Table 1, EPA conservatively estimates that it will take an average of 15 minutes to complete the survey. With a total of 1200 respondents, this involves a total of 300 hours. Based on an average hourly rate of $ 23.66, EPA expects that the average per respondent cost of the survey will be $ 5.92 and the corresponding one time total cost for all boating respondents will be $ 7098.

Table 2 illustrates the average annual respondent burden and costs for marina owners and operators to complete the survey. This survey was pre tested among EPA staff and was completed in under 10 minutes consistently, and it will be pre tested with actual marina owners and operators to establish a more realistic completion time. EPA conservatively estimates that it will take an average of 15 minutes to complete the survey. With a total of 75 respondents, this involves a total of 19 hours. Based on an average hourly rate of $ 23.66, EPA expects that the average per respondent cost for this survey will be $ 5.92 and the corresponding one time total cost for all marina owner/ operator respondents will be $ 444.

Tables 3 and 4 illustrate the average annual respondent burden and costs for MSD manufacturers and U. S. Coast Guard accepted independent laboratories. EPA estimates that the average completion time for these surveys will be 2 hours. With a total of 30 respondents for the manufacturers and 7 respondents for the labs, this will involve a total of 60 and 14 hours,

respectively. Based on an hourly rate of $ 29.42, EPA expects that the average per respondent cost for these surveys will be $ 58.84. EPA estimates that the corresponding one time total cost for the MSD manufacturers and the labs will be $ 1,765 and $ 412, respectively.

The average annual respondent burden and costs for the completion of the survey for 29 State and local government officials is provided in Table 5. EPA estimates that the average completion time for this survey will be 1.5 hours. With a total of 54 respondents for the State and local government officials, EPA estimates that it will involve a total of 81 hours. Based on an hourly rate of $ 41.17, EPA expects that the average per respondent cost for this survey will be $ 61.76, and the one time total cost for all State and local government respondents will be $ 3335.

6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Costs Survey implementation will be conducted through a contractor. The burden and costs associated with the Agency's responsibilities in implementing the surveys include: Federal Register development, survey design, ICR development, surveyor training, survey implementation, data input and storage, data analysis, report preparation, and findings dissemination.

Table 6 illustrates the average annual respondent burden and cost for EPA to develop and implement all of the surveys. The total burden for this effort will be 7,146 hours resulting in a total cost of $ 281,642. EPA estimates that the total cost will include startup/ capital and operations and maintenance costs of $ 500 each, for a total of $ 1,000. These costs are for the developing the database and purchasing and operating the software to analyze the data.

6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs EPA expects completed surveys from 1,366 respondents. Table 7 illustrates the total 30 burden of 474 hours and a total cost of $ 13,053 for all respondents.

6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables The bottom line burden and cost is illustrated in Table 8. The total burden for this effort is 7,146 hours with a total cost of $ 295,696.

6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden Not applicable 6( g) Burden Statement The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 21 minutes per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal Agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions, develop, acquire,

install and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;

adjust the existing ways to comply with any previous 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 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 current valid OMB number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. 31 To receive comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OW 2003 0014 , 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. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is 566 2426. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, to access the index listing or the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search," then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No.( OW 2003 0014) in any correspondence. 32 Table 1. Average Annual Respondent Burden and Costs   Boat Owners and Operators Hours and Costs Per Respondent Estimated Total Hours and Cost Respondent Hourly Rate ($ 23.66 / hour) Respondent Time Burden ( Hours / year) Labor Cost ( Dollars /

year) Capital /

Startup Cost ($) O & M Cost ($) Number of Respondents Total Time Burden ( Hours /

year) Total Cost ( Dollars /

year)

Complete Questionnaire 23.66 .25 5.92 0 0 1,200 300 7,098 Table 2. Average Annual Respondent Burden and Costs Marina Owners and Operators Hours and Costs Per Respondent Estimated Total Hours and Cost Respondent Hourly Rate ($ 23.66/ hour) Respondent Time Burden ( Hours/ year) Labor Cost ( Dollars/ y ear) Capital/

Startup Cost ($) O & M Cost Number of Respondents Total Time Burden ( Hours/ year) Respondent Hourly Rate ($ 23.66 /

hour)

Complete Questionnaire 23.66 .25 5.92 0 0 75 19 444 Table 3. Average Annual Respondent Burden and Costs   U. S. Coast Guard Accepted Independent Laboratories 33 Hours and Costs Per Respondent Estimated Total Hours and Cost Respondent Hourly Rate ($ 29.42/ hour) Respondent Time Burden ( Hours/ year) Labor Cost ( Dollars/ ye ar) Capital/

Startup Cost ($) O & M Cost ($) Number of Respondents Total Time Burden ( Hours/ year ) Total Cost ( Dollars / year)

Read Questionnaire 29.42 0.16 4.71 0 0 30 4.8 141 Gather data for each device 29.42 1.25 36.78 0 0 30 37.5 1103 Complete Questionnaire 29.42 0.59 17.36 0 0 30 17.7 521 Total 2.00 58.84 0 0 30 60 1,765 Table 4. Average Annual Respondent Burden and Costs   U. S. Coast Guard Accepted Independent Laboratories Hours and Costs Per Respondent Estimated Total Hours and Cost Respondent Hourly Rate ($ 29.42/ hour) Respondent Time Burden ( Hours/ year) Labor Cost ( Dollars/ y ear) Capital/

Startup Cost ($) O & M Cost ($) Number of Respondents Total Time Burden ( Hours/ year ) Total Cost ( Dollars / year)

Read Questionnaire 29.42 .16 4.71 0 0 7 1.12 33 Gather Data for Each Device 29.42 1.25 36.78 0 0 7 8.75 257 Complete Questionnaire 29.42 .59 17.36 0 0 7 4.13 122 Total 2.00 58.84 0 0 7 14 412 34 Table 5. Average Annual Respondent Burden and Costs   State and Local Government Officials Hours and Costs Per Respondent Estimated Total Hours and Cost Respondent Hourly Rate ($ 41.17/ hour) Respondent Time Burden ( Hours/ year) Labor Cost ( Dollars/ y ear) Capital/

Startup Cost ($) O & M Cost ($) Number of Respondents Total Time Burden ( Hours/ year ) Total Cost ( Dollars / year)

Read Questionnaire 41.17 0.16 6.59 0 0 54 8.64 356 Gather Data for Each NDZ 41.17 0.50 20.59 0 0 54 27.00 1112 Complete Questionnaire 41.17 0.84 34.58 0 0 54 45.36 1867 Total 41.17 1.50 61.76 0 0 54 81 3,335 35 Table 6. Average Annual Respondent Burden and Costs   Agency Hours and Costs Per Respondent Estimated Total Hours and Cost Time ( hours) EPA Hours Survey Researcher Hours Computer Hours Capital/

Startup Cost ($) O & M Cost ($) Number of Respondents Total Hours/ year Total Cost ( Dollars / year)

EPA Cost ($ 53.82 / hour) Researcher Cost ($ 42.56 / hour) Computer Cost ($ 42.38 / hour)

Develop 1st FR 12 12 0 0 0 0 1 12 646 645.80 0 0 Design Survey 320 160 160 0 0 0 1 320 15,421 8611.20 6809.60 0 Develop ICR 300 120 180 0 0 0 1 300 14,119 6458.40 7660.80 0 OEI Review 80 80 0 0 0 0 1 80 4,306 4305.6 0 0 Develop 2nd FR 40 40 0 0 0 0 1 40 2,153 2152.80 0 0 Train Surveyors 120 80 40 0 0 0 1 120 6,008 1291.68 1021.44 0 Implement Survey 4000 200 3,800 0 0 0 1 4000 172,492 1291.68 70479.36 0 36 Input and Store Data 200 0 0 200 500 500 1 200 9,476 0 0 8476 Analyze Data 800 120 400 280 0 0 1 800 35,349 6,458 17,024 11,866 Prepare Report 700 100 350 250 0 0 1 700 30,873 5,382 14,896 10,595 Disseminate Findings 100 60 40 0 0 0 1 100 4,932 3229 1702 0 Totals 6672 972 4970 730 500 500 1 6672 282,642 39,181 211,523 30937 Table7. Average Annual Respondent Burdens and Costs Composite Entity Number of Respondents Hours Costs ($)

Boaters 1,200 300 7,098 Marinas 75 19 444 MSD Manufacturers 30 60 1,765 MSD US Coast Guard Accepted Independent Labs 7 14 412 State and Local Government Officials 54 81 3,335 Totals 1,366 474 13,053 37 Table 8. Average Annual Burdens and Costs Composite   All Entities Entity Affected Entities Hours Costs ($)

Boaters 1,200 300 7,098 Marinas 75 19 444 MSD Manufacturers 30 60 1,765 MSD US Coast Guard Accepted Independent Labs 7 14 412 State and Local Government Officials 54 81 3,335 EPA 1 6,672 282,642 Totals 1,367 7,146 295,696 38 Part B SECTION 1: Survey Objectives, Key Variables, and Other Preliminaries 1( a) Survey Objectives EPA regulates vessel sewage discharge under Clean Water Act ( CWA) Section 312. The statute mandates that EPA set standards for the performance of marine sanitation devices ( MSDs)   on board equipment for treating and discharging or storing sewage   on all commercial and recreational vessels. Section 312 also provides for the designation of no discharge zones ( NDZs), where the discharge of sewage from vessels, whether treated or not, is prohibited. Three types of NDZ may be established under the statute:

° Under CWA Section 312( f)( 3), a State may establish an NDZ if it determines that the protection and enhancement of the quality of such waters require greater environmental protection. In order for a State NDZ to be effective, EPA must determine that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage are reasonably available.

° Under CWA Section 312( f)( 4)( A), EPA may establish an NDZ by regulation upon the request of a State if EPA determines that the protection and enhancement of the quality of such waters require such a prohibition. Adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage are not required for such an NDZ to be effective.

° Under CWA Section 312( f)( 4)( B), EPA may establish a drinking water intake zone by regulation upon the request of a State and prohibit the discharge of sewage from vessels within that zone. Adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage are not required for such an NDZ to be effective. 39 Since 1976, 50 NDZs have been designated nationwide; 47 of these have been designated under CWA 312( f)( 3); 2 have been designated under 312( f)( 4)( A); and 1 has been designated under 312( f)( 4)( B).

This Information Collection Request includes three statistical surveys to gather information on the effectiveness of NDZs established by States under CWA Section 312( f)( 3),

and two census surveys to gather information on MSD performance.

Three aspects of NDZ effectiveness will be evaluated. The first aspect is awareness of and compliance with NDZ requirements. The second aspect is effectiveness of NDZs in addressing water quality issues. The third aspect is enforcement of NDZ requirements. For an NDZ to be effective, boat owners and operators must comply with the no discharge requirement, and marina owners and operators must supply pumpout services. EPA will ask boat owners/ operators and marina owners/ operators about their experience with NDZs and pumpout facilities. EPA will also request NDZ water quality data already collected by State and local governments.

Surveys will also be sent to all MSD manufacturers and independent testing laboratories to evaluate MSD performance. These surveys will help to identify the current universe of MSDs and gather performance data ( i. e., removal or pathogens, suspended solids, and other pollutants) on all MSDs certified for use on U. S. waters. Because these surveys are designed to gather information on all MSDs from all manufacturers, these are not statistical surveys, and will not be discussed in the remainder of this section. 40 1( b) Key Variables For our assessment of NDZ effectiveness, key variables differ according to whether the respondent is a boat owner/ operator, a marina owner/ operator, or a State/ local government.

Accordingly, EPA developed a unique survey instrument for each group. The survey variables,

discussed in detail in Section 2( d), are designed to address the issue of whether NDZs established under CWA section 312( f)( 3) are effective at keeping vessel sewage out of the water by evaluating three key questions:

° Are adequate pumpout facilities available in NDZs, and if not, why not?

° Are boaters using available pumpout facilities in NDZs, and if not, why not?

° Are NDZs effective in addressing water quality issues based on indicators such as shellfish bed health, beach closures, water quality monitoring data, or other appropriate measures?

1( c) Statistical Approach EPA evaluated two options other than a statistical approach for information collection on NDZ effectiveness. EPA rejected the first alternative   anecdotal evidence   because of a potential for bias, e. g., anecdotes are given only when there are difficulties in complying with NDZ requirements. EPA considered a second alternative   a census of all boaters living within a certain distance of an NDZ   but discarded the approach because the Agency could identify no method of stratifying the boat owner/ operator population by whether they boated in an NDZ or not. In addition, while a census approach would provide more complete information, such an approach is prohibitively expensive. EPA therefore determined that a statistically designed sample survey would result in inferences and analyses that are as unbiased and as precise as practicable. 41 These surveys have been designed and will be implemented with the assistance of a contractor. Battelle will provide assistance under EPA Contract No. 68 C 03 041 through its subcontractor ERG, Inc. ( 110 Hartwell Avenue, Lexington, Massachusetts 02421 3136). ERG is also responsible for compiling the data collected in the boat owner/ operator and marina owner/ operator surveys into electronic form and tabulating the data. For the State/ local government survey, ERG will perform telephone interviews and request available water quality data.

1( d) Feasibility The survey instrument( s) have been carefully designed and will be pre tested on boat owners/ operators and marina owners/ operators prior to initiating the full survey effort. The sampling methods   personal and telephone interviews   have been chosen to maximize the response and completion rates, and to ensure that the data are collected within the available time frame.

° EPA designed the surveys to be clear and easy to follow. Most of surveys require a multiple choice or " yes/ no" selection. For surveys that request additional information,

EPA will accept that information in any form that the respondent wishes to submit it.

Most often this may be copies of developed reports. Where appropriate, maps will be provided so that the respondent will know where the area of interest ( i. e., the NDZ) is located. Return postage will be paid by EPA for the surveys that are mailed. The boater and marina owner/ operator surveys will be conducted face to face. The respondents will not have to read them ( except for those instances were the respondent wishes to write in 42 responses).

° EPA has sufficient funding to complete the surveys.

° EPA has designed the surveys to be executed during the late Summer and early Fall of 2003. This schedule was chosen because the experiences of boaters and marina owners and operators during the recent boating season would most likely be captured. We anticipate that the analysis will be completed during the winter of 2003/ 2004. Therefore,

potential program modification decisions may be made or announced prior to the next boating season.

SECTION 2: Survey Design for the Statistical Approach This information collection request includes three separate but related questionnaire instruments that are part of the statistical design: ( 1) boat owners/ operators survey; ( 2) marina owners/ operators survey; and ( 3) States/ local governments survey. The procedures for collecting information associated with each instrument are detailed below.

2( a) Target Population and Coverage The purpose of these surveys is to assess the effectiveness of NDZs established under CWA section 312( f)( 3) by evaluating whether adequate pumpout facilities are available and whether boaters are using available pumpout facilities. In order to do this, we will survey boat owners/ operators, marina owners/ operators, and State and local government officials. The target populations are: 43 ° Boat owners/ operators who own boats with toilets ( MSDs) and who must comply with NDZ requirements ( i. e., who boat in at least one NDZ);

° Marina owners and operators located in NDZs who supply the pumpout services that allow boaters to meet the no discharge requirements; and ° State and local government officials that designate NDZ( s), collect information about water quality associated with the NDZ( s), enforce NDZ prohibitions, and/ or develop outreach materials to promote NDZ( s).

There are 47 NDZs established under CWA section 312( f)( 3). Due to resource constraints, we will be interviewing boater owners/ operators, marina owners/ operators and State/ local government officials at 14 of these NDZs. In order to ensure adequate geographic coverage, two NDZs will be chosen from each of the following regions:

° Northern Atlantic A ( Massachusetts, New Hampshire),

° Northern Atlantic B ( Rhode Island),

° Mid Atlantic ( New York, New Jersey),

° South Atlantic A ( Maryland, Virginia),

° South Atlantic B ( North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida),

° California, and ° Great Lakes ( Michigan).

These regions have been chosen based on their coastal tidal and Great Lakes locations.

The majority of NDZs are located on the East Coast and off the coast of California. There are 44 very few in the Gulf of Mexico.

Because we are also interested in any potential differences between older and newer NDZs, we will be choosing one " old" NDZ ( established more than 10 years ago) and one " new"

NDZ ( established between 1 and 10 years ago) from each region. In other words, for each region, all NDZs will be identified and will be categorized as " old" or " new;" then one NDZ from each age category in each region will be randomly chosen for assessment.

For each NDZ chosen for assessment, we will be interviewing 5 randomly chosen marinas,

and at least 72 boaters ( spread across all 5 marinas; see Sample Design below for details). While we may interview up to 4 State/ local government officials to collect information, there will only be one State/ local government summary survey response for each NDZ chosen for assessment.

NDZs can also be designated under CWA Section 312( f)( 4). Only three such zones have been designated, hence the population is too small to include within this sampling effort.

However, EPA will perform the three surveys at the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary as a case study.

2( b) Sample Design 2( b)( i) Sampling Frame The sampling frame is the set of potential respondents from which the sample will be drawn. 45 Boat owners/ operators The sampling frame for boat owners/ operators is all boat owners/ operators who have boats with toilets ( MSDs) and who operate their boats within one of the 14 NDZs chosen for assessment. Because there is no reliable list of such boaters, EPA is using an intercept sampling method ( i. e., interviewing boaters at marinas within the chosen NDZs) to identify such boaters.

Marina owners/ operators The sampling frame for marina owners/ operators is all owners/ operators of marinas that provide pump out services within each of the 14 NDZs chosen for assessment. We will compile these lists from the lists of marinas provided to EPA by States when the NDZs were established ( EPA requires States to provide a listing of such marinas in order to make its determination that adequate pumpout facilities are available), from personal knowledge of EPA regional staff and State staff, from lists available on State internet sites, and from books for vacationers.

State/ local Governments The sampling frame for State/ local governments is the State government that established the NDZ and any local governments that share responsibility with the States in collecting information about water quality associated with the NDZ( s), enforcing NDZ prohibitions, and/ or developing outreach materials to promote NDZ( s). The State government official for each NDZ is available from the original application materials for the NDZ; local government contacts will be requested from the State government officials. 46 2( b)( ii) Sample Size Boat owners/ operators The sample size for boat owners/ operators is at least 76 per NDZ for a total of at least 1064 respondents. In theory, choosing a sample size for use in a cluster sampling design like this requires taking into account variability at the sampling unit level ( e. g., boaters) and at the cluster levels ( e. g., marinas). There are well developed methods for choosing cluster sample sizes. All of these methods fit into the general sample selection framework: choose a sample size that meets certain criteria ( precision and confidence) while accounting for the relevant variability. The methods used to choose cluster sample sizes, however, require significant a priori information on the population and the clusters, including:

44. Variability among the population units ( boaters);

45. Variability within each cluster ( each marina); and 46. Variability between each cluster.

None of this information is available for the populations of interest in this case. However,

we can estimate sample size for a cluster design by estimating sample size for a simple random sample ( SRS) case, and then multiplying this value by a " design effect." The design effect for a cluster sample is the ratio of the variance from the cluster sample to the variance of an SRS for a given sample size. In other words, it tells you how much more variable a cluster sample of size N will be compared to a SRS of size N. Additionally, it can be shown mathematically that multiplying a SRS sample size by the design effect will result in a cluster sample size that has the same precision and confidence as the SRS sample size. 47 To estimate the minimum sample size for the SRS case, we assumed that the " test" case is where there is maximum variability. For a yes/ no question, maximum variability occurs when 50 % of the population would answer yes and 50 % would answer no. At a confidence level of 90 %, we would need a sample size of 38 to obtain a precision level of 10 percentage points ( i. e., the ratio of yes/ no answers in the sample being within 10 percentage points of the ratio of yes/ no answers in the population).

The design effect most commonly applied in cluster designs such as the one we are using is 2. Multiplying the SRS sample size of 38 by the design effect of 2 results in a minimum sample size of 76 boat owner/ operator surveys per NDZ.

Marina owners/ operators In order to account for variability among different marinas in an NDZ, we will attempt to sample five marinas per NDZ for a total of 60 marinas. As explained below, we will only interview boat owners/ operators at ( or nearby) marinas that agree to answer the marina owners/ operators survey. In this way, we will be better able to compare the results and identify problems regarding pumpout availability.

State/ local government officials While there will only be one State/ local government summary survey response for each NDZ chosen for assessment, we estimate that up to four State/ local government officials per NDZ may be contacted to gather the information, for a total of 56 contacts. 48 2( b)( iii) Stratification Variables Stratification is a method used to segment a population into homogeneous groups, often based on size or output. We will be stratifying NDZs by their age ( i. e., those established more than 10 years ago and those established between 1 and 10 years ago). There may be an effect of NDZ " age" on a number of factors, such as boater awareness of the NDZ ( e. g., more boaters may be aware of older NDZs because there has been more time for outreach and education) and availability of pump out facilities ( e. g., older NDZs may have fewer pump out facilities because more time has elapsed since the facilities were determined to be adequate).

2( b)( iv) Sampling Method The sampling method is the set of rules or procedures for selecting the individuals, or " sample," for the survey from the sampling frame. Multi stage sampling is a method for selecting the sample of respondents that employs more than one sample frame and sampling procedure.

In this case, we are using multi stage sampling. In the first stage, 14 NDZs will be chosen out of a total population of 47. In order to ensure adequate geographic coverage, two NDZs will be chosen from each of seven regions around the country ( see section 2( a) above). Because we are also interested in any potential differences between older and newer NDZs, we will be choosing one " old" NDZ ( established more than 10 years ago) and one " new" NDZ ( established between 1 and 10 years ago) from each region. In other words, for each region, all NDZs will be identified and will be categorized as " old" or " new;" then one NDZ from each age category in each region will be randomly chosen for assessment. 49 For each NDZ chosen for assessment, we will randomly choose 5 marinas to interview. If any of the 5 randomly chosen marinas do not agree to answer the survey questions, we will randomly resample the sampling frame until we have 5 marinas willing to answer the survey questions, or until all marinas on the NDZ have been exhausted.

We will ask each marina answering the survey questions if it will allow us to interview boaters at the marina. If the marina allows it, we will interview boaters on site. If the marina does not allow it, we will interview boaters at a nearby public location ( for which we will arrange permission).

Because there is no way to compile a reliable list of boaters in our sampling frame ( i. e.,

boaters with experience in an NDZ) from which to randomly choose potential survey respondents,

we will use an intercept sampling method to identify respondents. In other words, we will approach boaters at ( or near) marinas in each NDZ. This will ensure that boaters who answer the survey questions will have at least some experience boating in an NDZ. The intercept surveys will be performed over weekends to maximize the potential number of respondents. There will be a booth to attract boaters to answer the surveys; interviewers will also seek additional respondents throughout the marina. We will attempt to get at least 14 or 15 respondents per marina.

2( c) Precision Requirements 2( c)( i) Precision Targets EPA is performing the survey because the effectiveness of NDZs is not known. That is,

the " true" value of any variable within the survey is not known and, hence, it is difficult, if not 50 impossible to predict precision. However, many of the questions are in a binomial format ( e. g.,

" Yes/ No"). Maximum variability occurs when the " true" fraction of responses answering " yes" is equal to 0.5. With a sample size of 76 surveys per NDZ, we will be able to estimate the " true"

proportion of people answering " yes" within 10 percentage points precision at a confidence level of 90%.

2( c)( ii) Nonsampling Errors Nonsampling errors These types of errors will potentially arise in any survey, whether census based or statistical. The most common categories of nonsampling error are coverage error, nonresponse error, response error, and processing error. We have taken steps to reduce and minimize sources of nonsampling errors.

Coverage errors Coverage errors will be minimized by a well defined subset of a well defined target population. Because EPA must work with States when they establish NDZs, we can identify the complete population of NDZs. By using intercept sampling at marinas within NDZs, we can identify boaters with experience in an NDZ.

Nonresponse errors EPA minimized the potential for nonresponse errors by the methods used to conduct the survey. These methods rely on personal interaction either by personal interview for the marina owner/ operator survey and for the boat owner/ operator survey, and telephone interviews for the 51 States/ Local governments. The questions have been phrased to solicit information in a nonjudgemental nonthreatening manner. Each survey instrument is designed to gather the information of interest in the most straightforward and simple manner, and is designed to be as short as possible. While boaters who violate NDZ requirements are less likely to take time to respond to the survey, we will seek to minimize this potential source of nonresponse through language in the introductory paragraph and non judgmental wording of the questions.

Response error EPA will minimize the potential for incomplete or inaccurate responses using the following techniques:

° Use of an easily followed sequence of questions.

° Review of questions for ambiguity.

° Use of " yes/ no" responses for as many of the questions as possible.

° Provision of a limited number of carefully considered responses to each of the remaining questions.

° Provision of clear definitions of units for response, such as " feet" for " what is the length of your boat."

° Provision of instructions with the text of a question rather than in a separate part of the survey instrument.

° Provision of interviewers to answer any questions that arise when responding to the survey. 52 Processing error EPA will minimize processing error by using double entry data entry verification on all surveys.

2( d) Questionnaire Design The survey instruments appear in Appendix A. The boat owner/ operator instrument is administered as an intercept survey and the marina owner/ operator instrument is administered as an in person interview. The State/ Local government instrument is administered through a telephone survey. The remaining two questionnaires are mail surveys. Question design, selection,

and formatting follows the guidance and practices described in Converse and Presser ( 1986),

Dillman ( 2000), Foddy ( 1993) and EPA ( 2002).

Reliability and Usefulness of Information To ensure the reliability and usefulness of the information gathered with the surveys, all survey questions were reviewed by staff from EPA and other Federal Agencies. These staff include both individuals with expertise in the relevant subject matter and those with little experience in the relevant subject matter. In addition, comments on the federal register notice announcing the intent to perform this survey were received from individuals stakeholders representing states, industry groups, boating associations, and individuals. The surveys incorporate many of the suggestions received.

Rationale for choosing the format of the questions The majority of the questions are structured as yes or no questions. This format was 53 chosen to both minimize the burden on the respondent and to facilitate the analysis of the survey results. Some yes or no questions contain multiple parts. Each part of the yes or no question is intended to ask about a specific issue not addressed elsewhere in the survey. Multiple choice questions were used when a yes or no question would be ineffective. In general, fill in the blank questions were chosen when we wanted to solicit an exact value from the respondent rather than asking them what range the value fell in. EPA believes that this approach will minimize the burden on the respondent and still provide specific and useful information. Use of open ended questions was avoided in most cases. We included opportunities for open ended responses on some multiple choice questions so that respondents could provide answers that were not included among the choices.

2( d)( i) Boat Operators Survey Question 1. The question asks the respondent whether they own the boat they operate.

The response to this question will facilitate an assessment of the relative level of knowledge of owners vs. operators. The response to this question will also be compared with the responses to other survey questions that appraise the respondent's cognizance of, and familiarity with boat systems, no discharge zone requirements, and pump out systems and procedures. Question 1 is a yes or no question. This question format was chosen to minimize the burden on the respondent and to facilitate analysis.

Questions 2 and 3. These questions ask the respondent to describe the boat they operate in terms of length and draft. The responses are important because different sizes of vessels have different requirements for pump out facilities, and may be outfitted with vessel sewage processing 54 equipment of different types and capacities. In addition, length and draft, among other design features, will give insight into the primary use and operational profile of a given vessel, and the capability of pump out facilities to accommodate them. This information will support evaluation of the availability of pump out facilities for all vessels. States sometimes use assumptions such as " all boats less than x feet in length do not have installed or portable toilets" when estimating pump out capacity needed to support an NDZ designation. Collecting the length data in terms of a discreet measurement ( rather than in ranges) and combining it with the equipment information requested in Questions 6 and 7 allows EPA to examine and update such assumptions. Questions 2 and 3 are fill in the blank questions so that the respondent can provide the exact length and draft of the boat they operate.

Question 4. The question asks the respondent if the boat they operate is commercial or recreational. EPA believes that the experience of commercial and recreational boaters with NDZs and pump out facilities may be distinct. This question will allow EPA to distinguish between the responses operators of different types of vessels. Question 4 is a two part yes no question. This question format was chosen to minimize the burden on the respondent and to facilitate analysis.

Question 5. The question asks the respondent if the boat they operate is a powerboat or sailboat. Powerboats and sailboats have different levels of maneuverability and different requirements for equipment. Therefore, they may manage their sewage in different ways. EPA believes that the experience of sail and powerboats within NDZs and pump out facilities may be distinct. This question will allow EPA to distinguish between the responses operators of different 55 types of vessels. Question 5 is a two part yes or no question. This question format was chosen to minimize the burden on the respondent and to facilitate analysis.

Questions 6 and 7. These questions ask the respondent to characterize the equipment they use for treating or storing their sewage. The type of sewage treatment and storage equipment influences what type of pump out facilities are needed, which in turn will aid EPA in determining whether adequate pump out facilities are currently available. The responses will also provide information on how many boats have the capacity to store and treat sewage. Storage capacity may influence boaters' ability and willingness to abide by no discharge zone requirements. Questions 6 and 7 have two parts requesting a yes or no response. This question format was chosen to minimize the burden on the respondent and to facilitate analysis.

Question 8. Questions 8 asks the respondent about operation, maintenance, and performance of their boat's MSD. This question is important because existing anecdotal information suggests that MSDs do not continue to perform adequately once installed. One potential reason for the poor performance of MSDS is that the device is not correctly maintained after installation and use. The response to this question will be useful for evaluating this possibility. Question 8 is a: multiple part yes or no question. This question format was chosen to minimize the burden on the respondent and to facilitate analysis.

Question 9. The question asks the respondent how they operate their MSD while in NDZs. In order to minimize respondent confusion over the precise boundaries, the boater will be shown a map of the NDZ when being asked to respond. Responses to this question will be used 56 to determine how many boaters are storing sewage for later pump out. Responses will also determine whether the boater understands how to operate the device, and if the boater is closing the Y valve on their MSDs to ensure that sewage is not discharged into NDZs. The responses to this question will aid in determining the effectiveness of NDZs at preventing boater sewage from being discharged. Question 9 is a multiple choice question.

Qestion 10. The question asks the respondent how many days they have boated this season. The responses to this question, along with the responses to questions 21 25, will aid EPA in determining if boater knowledge of NDZ requirements is related to how often the respondent boats. How often the boat is used may correlate to how often it will need to pump out or dump.

This information will also be useful for determining how outreach and education efforts can be focused in the future. Question 10 is a multiple part yes or no question. This question format was chosen to minimize the burden on the respondent and to facilitate analysis.

Question 11. The question asks the respondent how many days they have boated in this NDZ this season ( A map depicting the subject NDZ will be shown, See discussion question 9 above). The responses to this question along with the responses to questions 21 25 will aid EPA in determining if boater knowledge of NDZ requirements is related how often the respondent boats in NDZs. This information will be useful for determining how outreach and education efforts can be focused in the future. Comparison of the responses to this question, with the responses to questions 15 will help evaluate compliance with NDZs requirements. In addition,

Questions 10 and 11 provides an indication of the proportion of trips that included transit into the NDZ at which the survey is administered. Responses with a high percentage of trips into the 57 NDZ provide better information about conditions at that NDZ than responses where most of the trips involve other areas. Question 11 is a fill in the blank question. A fill in the blank question was used so that the boater could provide the exact number of days they have boated this year in the NDZ they are being questioned about.

Question 12. The question asks the respondent if they used one of four different kinds of pump out facilities this boating season. The responses to this question will aid EPA in evaluating compliance with NDZ requirements and will provide information on what type of pump out facilities are being used. This information will directly support the analysis of the effectiveness of NDZ and potential barriers to compliance Question 12 is a yes or no question. This question format was chosen to minimize the burden on the respondent and to facilitate analysis.

Question 13. The question asks the respondent if they have a means to notify marina staff to pump out their sewage holding tanks during their absence. Along with information from questions 14 19, the responses to this question will aid EPA in determining if the availability of pump out operations while the boat operator is absent reduces problems accessing pump out facilities. Question 13 is a yes or no question.

Question 14. The question asks the respondent whether they have used a pump out facility in the subject NDZ ( illustrated by map) this season. A follow up subpart question asks the number of times a pump out was used. Responses to this question, in combination with the responses to questions 10 , 11, and 19, will be used to evaluate compliance with NDZ provisions.

If respondents have boated in NDZs, but not used pump out facilities or discharged beyond 3 58 miles, they are more likely to have discharged within NDZs. Question 14 is a fill in the blank question so that the boater can provide an exact number of times they have used the pump out facilities.

Question 15. The question asks the respondent if they have had trouble using pump out facilities this year. The responses to this question will support evaluation of whether or not problems with pump out facilities may be a hindrance to compliance with NDZ requirements.

EPA is particularly interested in identifying situations where a boater might not have been able to meet NDZ requirements. Troubles with these facilities may indicate an inability to comply with NDZ requirements. Question 15 is a two part question. This question format was chosen to minimize the burden on the respondent and to facilitate analysis. The second part requests a fillin the blank response so that the respondent can provide an exact number of times they have had trouble with pump out facilities.

Question 16. The question asks the respondent if they had trouble with pump out facilities on their last attempt within the subject NDZ. This question is included to minimize the problem of accurately recalling events over an extended period of time ( see Foddy, 1993, Chapter 7). The responses to this question will support evaluation of whether or not problems with pump out facilities may be a hindrance to compliance with NDZ requirements. Question 16 is a yes or no question. This question format was chosen to minimize the burden on the respondent and to facilitate analysis.

Question 17. The question asks the respondent if they have had occasions this season 59 when pump out facilities were not available. The responses to this question will support evaluation of whether or not boaters are not able to pump out their sewage holding tanks because pump out facilities are not available. Question 18 is a yes or no question. This question format was chosen to minimize the burden on the respondent and to facilitate analysis.

Question 18. The question asks the respondent if they have discharged sewage outside of the NDZ, and if so how many times. The responses to this question will help characterize how boaters manage their sewage in NDZs and, in combination with responses to questions 10 17 determine if boaters are discharging within the NDZ. The first part is a yes or no question. This question format was chosen to minimize the burden on the respondent and to facilitate analysis.

The second part is a fill in the blank so that the respondent can provide an exact number of times they have discharged outside NDZs Question 19. The question asks respondents to identify any of a number of conditions ( list provided) that they may have encountered at pump out or toilet dump facilities in the NDZ this boating season. The responses to this question will provide information about the specific kinds of problems encountered at pump out facilities within the subject NDZ, and will be illustrative of the responses from questions 15 18, and 20. The response may also specifically identify the reason for a boater's inability to perform the pump out operation. The question format is multiple choice,

with an open ended fill in the blank option for conditions not covered in the list.

Question 20. The question asks the respondent if he or she has been unable to perform pump out operations due to any of the conditions indicated in question 19, and if so, the number 60 of occurrences. The response will identify the specific cause of an incident that could lead to improper disposal of sewage in the NDZ. This question has multiple parts, yes no and fill in

theblank

Question 21. Question 21 asks the respondent if they are aware that discharging sewage in a no discharge zone is prohibited. The responses to this question will help determine if boaters lack of knowledge of the restrictions on sewage discharge in NDZs is a hindrance to compliance.

Question 21 is a yes or no question. This question format was chosen to minimize the burden on the respondent and to facilitate analysis.

Question 22. The question asks the respondent if they have received any information on NDZ requirements from numerous sources. The responses to this question will aid EPA and other entities in targeting future outreach and education efforts. It may also be useful for assessing the level of knowledge each boater has. This question is a multiple part yes or no question. This question format was chosen to minimize the burden on the respondent and to facilitate analysis.

Question 23. The question asks the respondent if they know who enforces the provisions of a NDZ. The responses to this question will help to characterize the level of knowledge about NDZ enforcement to determine if enforcement efforts provide a deterrent to discharging sewage in NDZs. This question is a multiple part yes, no, or don't know question. This question format was chosen to minimize the burden on the respondent and to facilitate analysis.

Question 24. The question asks the respondent if they are aware of any enforcement 61 actions against vessel sewage discharges in this area. The responses to this question will help EPA assess whether enforcement actions could be a deterrent to prohibited discharges in NDZs This question is a yes or no question. This question format was chosen to minimize the burden on the respondent and to facilitate analysis.

Question 25. The question asks the respondent if they have noticed a change in water quality since the NDZ was established. The responses to this question will assist EPA in evaluating the boaters perception of water quality changes since the designation of the NDZs.

Question 25 is a multiple choice question. This question format was chosen to minimize the burden on the respondent and to facilitate analysis.

2( d)( ii) Marina Owner/ Operator Survey Questions 1 6 are designed to generally describe the marina and its sewage collection facilities.

Question 1. The question is designed to collect information about the total number of boaters the marina can accommodate. The response to this question will contribute to the characterization of the facility and the potential demands on its service infrastructure. Question 1 is a fill in the blank with sub parts to elicit the marina owner/ operators knowledge of his own facility.

Question 2. The question requests the respondent's best estimate of the current occupancy of the marina. The response to this question will provide further characterization of the demand 62 on the marina's and local area's facilities. This question is a fill in the blank to illicit the owner/ operator's best estimate of the facility's occupancy as of the date of the survey. This information will provide a ` snapshot' of the number of people using the marina.

Question 3. The question is designed to determine the occurrence, type, and number of boat sewage pump out facilities at the marina. The response will further characterize the marina,

by determining the availability of sewage collection devices. For ease of administration and analyses, the question is structured with four sub parts, each with a yes or no response.

Affirmative responses are followed by a request for the number of that type of facility or device are located at the subject marina. If the marina has no sewage collection or storage facilities, the respondent is directed to the final section of the survey.

Question 4. The question requests information regarding other types of facilities or services that the marina may offer. The response contributes to the characterization of the facility and provides a description of features that may attract boaters to the marina. Question 4 has multiple sub parts corresponding to different facilities or services, requiring a simple yes/ no response.

Question 5. This question requests from those marinas with shore side facilities ( whether stationary or mobile) specific information regarding the manufacturer and age of the equipment being used. The information collected will provide EPA a baseline with which to track the brands and models of equipment used and their service age, which may be used to analyze trends in equipment functionality. EPA will correlate the answers with relative functionality ( Question 15) 63 to identify markedly well performing or poorly performing equipment. Question 5 is fill in

theblank to allow the respondent to provide sufficient information to briefly, but adequately characterize the equipment.

Question 6. The question requests information on the draft restrictions at the shore side facilities. The response will identify physical limitations to the use of these facilities by power and sailboats with specific draft ( water depth) requirements. The question is fill in the blank requesting the maximum vessel draft in feet.

Questions 7 9 request information about the costs associated with the operation of facilities, who bears which costs, and whether the marina has received specific Federal support.

Question 7. The question requests information about the receipt of dedicated outside funding ( i. e., The Clean Vessel Act) to facilitate the use of facilities. The response will provide information regarding potential regulatory compliance assistance for this facility. In addition, the responses will provide information on whether facilities receiving funding provide better services than those that do not. This is a yes no question which does not inquire about the amount received, or its allocation.

Question 8. The question requests the marina's fee structure for the use of its facilities or services. The response will provide information about the costs to boat owners of proper disposal, and could be used for comparison among surveyed facilities. This information will be helpful for evaluating whether cost is a significant barrier to using pump out facilities. The 64 question is fill in the blank to the nearest dollar, and may be expressed as a flat fee, at a specified rate per unit volume transferred, or some other formulation.

Question 9. The question requests the approximate annual costs to the marina owner or operator related to operation and maintenance of its facilities. The response will be used to examine the costs associated with providing these services to boat owners/ operators in the surveyed NDZs, and will be used for comparison between marinas. EPA will look for relationships between operation and maintenance expenditures and the availability of functional equipment to boaters in the NDZ. The question is fill in the blank with the response estimated to the nearest dollar.

Questions 10 15 are intended to gather information about equipment operations and training. EPA will attempt to correlate these responses to the results from subsequent questions regarding user experiences and functionality of the equipment, thus allowing comparisons among surveyed marinas.

Question 10. The question asks who operates the marina's facilities. The response will indicate whether the equipment is exclusively staff operated, self service for the boat owner/ operator, or some combination of the two. This information, in conjunction with responses to other questions, will help EPA determine if boater operated or staff operated facilities are more likely to be functional. The question is multiple choice with three possible answers: marina staff, boat owners/ operators, or both. 65 Question 11. This question inquires whether the marina has a training requirement for those staff involved in operation and/ or maintenance of their facilities. The responses to this question along with results from the boater survey will support evaluation of whether the level of staff training impacts the availability and access to pump out facilities. The question has a yes or no response.

Question 12. The question requests additional information regarding training of marina staff for operations. The response to this question indicates the number of hours of organized operations training each marina staff person is given, ranging from less than 30 minutes to more than 10 hours. The responses to this question along with results from the boater survey will support evaluation of whether the level of staff training impacts the availability and access to pump out facilities. The question is multiple choice with each choice representing a discrete training duration.

Question 13. The question further describes the nature of the training. The response to this question leads to a more detailed description of the marina's training program. The responses to this question along with results from the boater survey will support evaluation of whether the level of staff training impacts the availability and access to pump out facilities. The question is multiple choice with an array of five separate selections that address who will be administering the training, and its content.

Question 14. This question requests the marina's hours of operation. This response, taken in context with the answers to questions 15 and 16 will be used to evaluate the number of hours 66 the facilities are theoretically available for use. Determining the number of hours that marina services are available will aid in evaluating access to pump out facilities. The question is fill

inthe blank.

Question 15. The question asks for information on the schedule of operation for the marina's facilities. This response, taken in context with the answers to questions 14 and 16 will be used to evaluate the number of hours the facilities are theoretically available for use. This will provide information on access ( and lack of access) to pump out facilities. The response is fill

inthe blank.

Questions 16 19 are designed to explore the issues related to availability of facilities and the causes of the reported lack of functionality.

Question 16. The question asks the respondent to estimate the percentage of time the facilities are functional during the time when the facilities are theoretically available for use. In addition to a simple appraisal of facility availability, responses to this question may be compared to responses to Marina survey questions relating to staff training and hours of operation, and to Boater survey questions about perceived problems with availability and functionality. The question is multiple choice, each representing a range of percentage of availability of the equipment.

Question 17. This question seeks additional information about those incidences where facilities have been identified in Marina survey Question 16, or in the Boater survey as non 67 functional during operating hours during the current boating season. The potential responses are designed to identify the causes for the lack of availability. EPA can combine information to infer possible reasons for some of the responses, e. g., a correlation of marina staff performing the operation, marina staff training, and the lack of available marina staff. Question 17 is a yes no question with multiple sub parts for each potential reason. The question also contains an openended response in order to collect otherwise unidentified causes.

Question 18. This question is designed to determine whether a boater has been forced to wait for an extended period of time (> 15 minutes) to use a during the current boating season at this marina. This question will assist in determining how often long waiting times are potential barriers to using facilities. The question requires a simple yes no response.

Question 19. This question is the companion to question 18. It is designed to determine the frequency of extended waiting periods. The responses will assist EPA in determining how often waiting time may be a barrier to boater use of facilities.. The question is structured as multiple choice with 5 possible answers generally depicting frequency of occurrence.

Question 20. The question asks for the respondent's best estimate of the number of sewage collection operations, or the volume of sewage collected at this marina so far during the current boating season. The response could be used in conjunction with results from other surveys to estimate an average volume of sewage collected in the NDZ. This will support evaluation of the effectiveness of NDZ provisions. The question is fill in the blank in either number of operations, or gallons of transferred material. 68 Question 21. This question is designed to assess marina owner/ operator efforts to inform the boating public of their responsibilities in no discharge zones. The response will be used in conjunction with the results of the State and Local survey to learn about the types of outreach and education efforts that exist. Boaters cannot abide by no discharge requirements if they do not know what a No Discharge Zone is, how to tell when they are in one, or what specific requirements apply to their activities. This information may be used to tailor and focus future outreach and education efforts. The question format is yes no with three sub parts.

Questions 22 25 are designed to assess the marina owner/ operator's cognizance of nodischarge zone requirements and their enforcement.

Question 22. The question asks the respondent if they know who enforces the provisions of a NDZ. The responses to this question will help to characterize the level of knowledge about NDZ enforcement to determine if enforcement efforts provide a deterrent to discharging sewage in NDZs. The responses to this question will also aid EPA and other entities in targeting future outreach and education efforts. This question is a multiple part yes, no, or don't know question.

This question format was chosen to minimize the burden on the respondent and to facilitate analysis.

Question 23. The question asks the respondent if they are aware of any enforcement actions against vessel sewage discharges in this area. The responses to this question will help EPA assess whether enforcement actions could be a deterrent to prohibited discharges in NDZs This question is a yes or no question. This question format was chosen to minimize the burden on the 69 respondent and to facilitate analysis.

Question 24. The question is designed to test the respondent's knowledge and perception of the State government's responsibilities in a no discharge zone. The responses to this question will help to characterize marina operators understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the government entities administering the NDZs. This question is a multiple part yes, no, or don't know question, with an additional option to identify other State functions not listed.

Question 25. The question asks the respondent if they have noticed a change in water quality since the NDZ was established. The responses to this question will assist EPA in evaluating the impression that marina operators have of water quality changes in NDZs.

Question 25 is a multiple choice question. This question format was chosen to minimize the burden on the respondent and to facilitate analysis.

2( d)( iii) State/ Local Survey Question 1. Question 1 asks the respondent if their organization has records of beach closures, shellfish bed health or water quality data for 2000, 2001, or 2002. If this information is available, the person giving the survey will request a copy. In combination with the response to question 2, this data may provide information on how the water quality in the NDZ has changed.

This question is a multiple part yes or no question. This format was chosen to minimize the burden on the respondent and to facilitate analysis.

Question 2. This question asks the respondent if their organization has records of beach 70 closures, shellfish bed health or water quality data for the area before the designation of the NDZ.

In combination with the response to question 1, this data may provide information on how the water quality in the NDZ has changed. If this information is available, the person giving the survey will request a copy. This question is a multiple part yes or no question. This format was chosen to minimize the burden on the respondent and to facilitate analysis Question 3. Question 3 asks if their organization has any information on the NDZs the survey is focusing on. If this information is available, the person giving the survey will request a copy. The information gathered, in combination with the results from the boater and marina survey will help determine whether or not NDZs are effective. This question is a multiple part yes or no question. This format was chosen to minimize the burden on the respondent and to facilitate analysis Question 4. Question 4 asks the respondent if their organization has any published reports summarizing or interpreting data on beach closures, shellfish bed health or water quality data for 2000, 2001, or 2002. If this information is available, the person giving the survey will request a copy. The published reports solicited with this question will assist in interpreting information obtained in question 1 and may help to put the information in context.. This question is a multiple part yes or no question. This format was chosen to minimize the burden on the respondent and to facilitate analysis.

Question 5. Question 4 asks the respondent if their organization has any reports of beach closures, shellfish bed health or water quality data prior to the NDZ being designated. If this 71 information is available, the person giving the survey will request a copy. The information gathered will assist in interpreting data obtained in question 2. This question is a multiple part yes or no question. This format was chosen to minimize the burden on the respondent and to facilitate analysis.

Question 6. Question 6 asks the respondent who is responsible for enforcing NDZ requirements. The response to this question will be used by EPA to identify organizations to work with on enforcement issues. This question is a multiple part yes or no question. This format was chosen to minimize the burden on the respondent and to facilitate analysis.

Question 7. Question 7 asks the respondent to identify the role of their organization regarding NDZs. This information will be used by EPA to evaluate how active various organizations are in enforcing implementing NDZs. This question is a multiple part yes or no question. This format was chosen to minimize the burden on the respondent and to facilitate analysis.

Question 8. Question 8 asks the respondent to identify another individual if they are unable to provide the information requested in the rest of the survey. Persons identified with this question will be surveyed to get answers to the previous questions. This question asks the respondent to simply fill in a name and phone number for the person they designate.

2( d)( iv) Marine Sanitation Device ( MSD) Manufacturer Survey The marine sanitation device surveys will be sent to all marine sanitation device 72 manufacturers, therefore it is not a census survey. The results will not be statistically analyzed.

2( d)( v) Marine Sanitation Device ( MSD) Testing Laboratory Survey The Coast Guard certified labs survey will be sent to all Coast Guard certified labs,

therefore it is not a census survey. The results will not be statistically analyzed.

SECTION 3: Pretest and Pilot Tests The survey instruments have been designed to follow EPA guidance and state of the art survey design, see list of references given in Section 6. EPA incorporated comments and suggestions received in response to the Federal Register notice proposing the information collection activity ( FR 68: 14975, Marcy 27, 2003). EPA will develop materials for and conduct training for all interviewers administering the surveys.

EPA will pretest the boat owner/ operator, marina owner/ operator, state and local government, MSD manufacturer, and MSD testing laboratory survey instruments after the NDZ sample is drawn. The contractor will pretest the surveys on no more than 9 respondents in each category in compliance with Paperwork Reduction Act guidelines. EPA plans to draw the NDZ sample and perform the pre test during the 90 day review period for the questionnaire. Any problems in questionnaire design, e. g., poor phrasing or misinterpreted questions, can be identified and corrected prior to final OMB consideration.

Due to the relatively small number of participants, EPA does not plan to pilot test the survey instruments. 73 SECTION 4: Collection Methods and Follow up 4( a) Collection Methods EPA selected different collection methods for the different survey instruments. Each method was selected to reduce respondent burden and maximize the number of accurately completed surveys.

Boat Owner/ Operator EPA determined that personal interviews at marinas within an NDZ will be the principal method by which to effectively engage the target population of boat owner/ operators. Upon obtaining permission to operate on marina property, an interviewer will be stationed for a predetermined period of time at selected marinas within the NDZ. The plan is to administer the survey for eight hours each on a Saturday and Sunday, operating with the assumption that weekend marina use is higher than weekday use. The short, concentrated sampling effort is likely to maximize survey participation with lower implementation costs. Sampling will represent all hours of marina operation because users may differ during the day ( e. g., anglers leaving early in the morning and sun bathers leaving later in the day). Although one on one interaction with respondents is desirable to ensure thoughtful participation, the surveys were designed so that they could be completed by the boat owners/ operators themselves. Copies of the survey questions will be available for unassisted completion of the survey form if the interviewer is occupied with other respondents, or is otherwise unavailable. If no marina within an NDZ grants permission to EPA for conducting the survey on their property, EPA will obtain permission from local authorities to administer the survey on nearby public land where boaters are likely to congregate. 74 Ideally, the interviews will be conducted in person. Interviewers will identify potential respondents by walking around marina property and making direct contact. To encourage participation, the boaters would be offered refreshments at a central location and asked to complete the survey or answer a few questions. ( The current state of the art in survey design suggests offering incentives, but not to make receipt of the incentive dependent on survey completion; see Dillman, 2000) The survey instrument could be completed by the boat owners/ operators themselves or as an interview. In addition, the interviewer has blank index cards to collect anonymous anecdotal evidence of the effectiveness of NDZs should the boater choose to do so. The interviewers will be drawn from the contractor's staff. Interviewers will receive training on the goal of the survey, survey forms, and interviewing approaches.

By administering the survey at a marina in a selected NDZ, EPA collects information about boat owner/ operator experience with NDZ requirements. Respondent burden and coverage error are reduced because people who are not boat owners/ operators, or boat owners/ operators with no experience with NDZ requirements are not in the sample. The survey instrument can be completed by either the interviewer or the boat owner/ operator, according to the respondent's preference. The interviewer is immediately available to answer any questions the boat owner/ operator might have about interpreting the questions. The respondent does not have to take action to return the completed form; the interviewer collects it at the time it is completed.

The survey instruments will be printed on color coded paper where different colors will be used at different NDZs. Surveys on white paper will be used when and if the supply of surveys on colored paper for that NDZ is exhausted. After the interviewer has collected all of the surveys from the intercept sampling, he or she will attach previously printed stick on labels with the name 75 of the NDZ to each of the surveys on white paper. These features minimize respondent burden,

non response errors and response errors.

Marina Owner/ Operator EPA selected an in person interview preceded by telephone contact. The initial telephone call is to ( 1) explain the purpose of the survey, ( 2) review the questions for the marina survey to identify any that might not be able to be answered on a moment's notice, such as Question 7 ( how many times have pump out/ toilet dump services been used so far this season), ( 3) review the boat owner/ operator questions, if the marina owner/ operator prefers to do so, ( 4) obtain permission to administer the boat owner/ operator survey on their premises, and ( 5) arrange for a date and time for the in person and intercept surveys. The initial telephone contact and in person interviews will be performed by the same staff that receive the training for the intercept survey.

By administering the survey at marinas in a selected NDZ, EPA collects information about marina owner/ operator experience with NDZ requirements. Respondent burden and coverage error are reduced because marinas not located within an NDZ are not in the sample. The survey instrument is completed by the interviewer and the interviewer is immediately available to answer any questions the marina owner/ operator might have about interpreting the questions. The respondent does not have to take action to return the completed form; the interviewer collects it at the time it is completed. As with the boat owner/ operator surveys, the marina owner/ operator surveys will be on colored paper to distinguish surveys from different NDZs. These features minimize respondent burden, nonresponse errors and response errors. 76 States/ Local governments EPA selected a telephone interview approach to collect data from States and Local governments. EPA is seeking only data that the organization has already collected and the focus is on the ability to identify the person who can release the data to EPA. There is no need to elicit personal experience with NDZ requirements, hence, the need for on site person to person interactions is less than for the boat and marina owner/ operator surveys. The contractor that will perform the State/ Local government survey has many years of experience in finding and obtaining data from States and Local governments for EPA analysis.

4( b) Survey Response and Follow up Non response is difficult to define for an intercept survey. For example, a person who the interviewer approaches, or a potential respondent that encounters the refreshment inducement might decide not to complete the survey because he or she is not a boat owner/ operator. Second,

a boat owner/ operator that does not comply with NDZ requirements may decide not to participate in the survey prior to reading or hearing any of the questions. Third, potential respondents may not be encountered by the roaming interviewer or might walk by and not observe the sampling effort at all. It is not certain whether or how to classify these situations as non response.

However, by following state of the art guidance and the contractor's experience in administering surveys, EPA seeks to minimize non response to the boat and marina owner/ operator surveys.

EPA selected intercept survey and in person interview methods to meet a targeted completion rate of 100 percent for these surveys. The survey data are recorded on the forms provided in Appendix A, collected at the time of the survey, and transferred to the data entry 77 process. No follow up is required in these circumstances.

EPA selected a telephone interview approach to collect data from States and Local governments based on the success of similar previous data gathering efforts. For this survey, the need for follow up is minimized by accepting the data in whatever format they are maintained,

paying any necessary user fees, and paying for postage/ courier to transfer the data. Follow up efforts consist of weekly phone contacts once the anticipated due date for receipt of the data is past until the material has been sent.

SECTION 5: Analyzing and Reporting Survey Results 5( a) Data Preparation Boat Owner/ Operator ERG, Inc. will deliver a complete database of the survey responses in a flat file format suitable for spreadsheet or database programs. Each row will contain an observation. That is, it will contain responses made by an individual respondent. EPA did not collect personal respondent information in the survey, such as name or address, hence the responses are anonymous and maintain the respondent's confidentiality. Columns in the database will contain the responses to each question as well as NDZ and sample block identifier ( date and time block).

ERG will provide EPA with a data dictionary to ensure that response categories for variables can be mapped back to the questionnaire and that proper definitions of the variables are used in the subsequent analysis. As mentioned in Section 2( c)( ii), double data entry procedures will be used to eliminate processing errors. 78 Marina Owner/ Operator ERG, Inc. will deliver a complete database of the survey responses in a flat file format suitable for spreadsheet or database programs. Each row will contain an observation. That is, it will contain responses made by an individual respondent. Columns in the database will contain the responses to each question as well as NDZ and marina identifier. ERG will provide EPA with a data dictionary to ensure that response categories for variables can be mapped back to the questionnaire and that proper definitions of the variables are used in the subsequent analysis. As mentioned in Section 2( c)( ii), double date entry procedures will be used to eliminate processing errors.

States/ Local governments The purpose of the State/ Local government survey is to obtain the data already collected by the organization. Due to the heterogenous nature of format and content of the data supplied by States and Local governments, EPA does not plan to create a single database from the supplied material. Instead, individual data files will be developed in support of individual analyses that can be formulated from the material. The data files will undergo quality control procedures for accurate data entry.

5( b) Analysis By designing the survey to collect information for different groups within an NDZ, i. e., the boaters that need to comply with no discharge requirements, the marinas that provide services to allow the boater to comply with the no discharge requirements, and the States and Local governments that collect water quality data to characterize the NDZ, EPA will be able to examine 79 all three data sources to produce a consistent narrative explaining the effectiveness or barriers to the effectiveness of NDZs with respect to water quality.

The responses to each question in the boat and marina owner/ operator surveys will be tabulated and presented in summary tables. We will develop descriptive statistics for each of the parameters, such as means, standard deviations, values at specific confidence limits, and precision estimates. We will perform exploratory data analysis to investigate multi modality, skewness, and other population characteristics. Objective are to produce a narrative and quantitative characterization of the boat and marina owner/ operator experience with NDZ requirements,

identify problems associated with meeting NDZ requirements, and infer possible causes for the problems.

For certain key questions from the boaters survey, we will examine the differences among regions and between old and new NDZs using a chi square test. These key questions include whether the boater is aware that the area is an NDZ, whether the boater has been able to successfully use a pumpout facility this season in the NDZ, and whether the boater has had trouble finding or using a pumpout facility this season in the NDZ.

For example, we can test the null hypothesis that boaters within an NDZ established fewer than 10 years ago ( new NDZs) are as aware as boaters within an NDZ established more than years ago ( old NDZs). The alternative hypothesis may be that boaters in old NDZs are more aware than those in new NDZs. To compute the chi square statistic we classify our data into the following two by two table: 80 Boater Awareness Age of NDZ New Old Aware Not Aware Before constructing the chi square statistic, we must estimate our cell frequencies and marginal frequencies in the above table. Our objective in a probability based sample survey is to take our sample data and make projections to the level of our survey universe. There may also be interest in making projections to the level of certain sub populations. Rather than using the frequencies from the sample, we would want to use our population projections of the number of boaters in each of the four cells and the row and column marginal frequencies. We calculate our population estimates or projections with the use of sampling weights. A sampling weight for a boater selected for the survey will be the reciprocal of the boater's chance of being selected for an interviewer. For a boater to be selected for participation in the survey, the marina that he or she uses must be selected in the second stage sampling of marinas. Furthermore, for the boater's marina to be selected, it must be within one of the 14 NDZs selected from the population. The selection probabilities at the stages of sample selection can be used to calculate an overall probability of selection for the surveyed boater. The inverse of the boater selection probability is the boater sampling weight. If the sampling weight for a boater was 28, then we could say that that boater represents 28 boaters in the survey universe.

Using the sampling weights we can estimate the number of boaters in the population in each of four cells of our table. Our chi square statistic can be computed by calculating for each of the four cells of our table: ( Actual frequency   Expected Frequency) / Expected Frequency.

Since the actual frequency and expected frequency are population estimates from a complex 81 survey design, we must account for the sampling variability present in our estimates of actual frequency and expected frequency. The variance of the test statistic can be computed reflecting the components of variance at the design stages, stratification, and the variability in the sampling weights. Note that in the proposed design there are three components of variance: ( 1) variability between NDZs within a regional/ age stratum; ( 2) variability between marinas within NDZs; and ( 3) variability among boaters within a marina. If the vector

' = (

11,

12,

21,

22) denotes the ratios involving the actual and expected frequencies, then it can be shown that the test statistic,

following a chi square distribution, for the hypothesis in this example is:

Q =

' (

)

= matrix of the variances and covariances of our

terms We will also cross tabulate awareness with a number of factors and look at the differences in awareness associated with the different cross tabulations. For example, we can cross tabulate awareness with different boat sizes to determine whether awareness varies by the size of boat operated. Significant differences could be determined by a chi square test for equal proportions across categories. Factors that we would consider include: boat size, type of on board toilet ( installed, portable), and number of boating trips.

These factors could then be combined in a logit or probit regression which has the advantage of controlling for other influences. For example, a significant coefficient on boat size with number of boating trips in the equation would indicate that boat size has an effect on awareness independent of the possibility that people with larger boats may make more trips. The influence of number of trips on awareness is controlled for by including it in the equation. 82 Similarly, a dummy variable for interviewer could control for an observed interviewer effect.

5( c) Reporting Results All findings will be presented on an aggregated basis; no marina will be identified in any of the reported results. The survey results will be presented in a publicly available report possibly placed on EPA's web site.

SECTION 6: References Converse, Jean M. and Stanley Presser. 1986. Survey Questions: Handcrafting the Standardized Questionnaire. Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences 07 073. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Dillman, Don A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. 2nd Edition.

New York, NY: John Wiley& Sons, Inc.

Foddy, William. 1993. Constructing Questions for Interviews and Questionnaires: Theory and Practice in Social Research. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. " ICR Handbook: EPA's Guide to Writing Information Collection Requests under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995." 83 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. " Guide for Measuring Compliance Assistance Outcomes." EPA 300 B 02 011. June. Available at < www. epa. gov/ compliance/ resources/ reports/ planning/ results/ cameasuring. pdf> 84 Appendix A Section 312 of Clean Water Act 85 86 87 88 89 90 Appendix B EPA Marine Sanitation Device Regulations 91 92 93 94 Appendix C Coast Guard Marine Sanitation Device Regulations 95 96 97 98 99 Appendix D 1st Federal Register Notice   Surveys to Determine the Effectiveness of No Discharge Zones and Marine Sanitation Devices 100 101 102 Appendix E Response to Comments 103 INTRODUCTION On March 27, 2003, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) published " Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Surveys to Determine the Effectiveness of No Discharge Zones for Vessel Sewage and Marine Sanitation Devices" in the Federal Register ( 68 FR 14975). In 68 FR 14975, EPA announced that the Agency was planning to submit the Information Collection Request ( ICR) entitled " Surveys to Determine the Effectiveness of No Discharge Zones for Vessel Sewage and Marine Sanitation Devices" ( EPA ICR No. 2107.01) to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB). Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA solicited comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection in 68 FR 14975. This document entitled, " Response to Comments on the March 27, 2003 Proposed Information Collection Request: Surveys to Determine the Effectiveness of No Discharge Zones for Vessel Sewage and Marine Sanitation Devices" presents the comments received and EPA's responses to those comments.

This ICR requests approval to collect information regarding the effectiveness of no discharge zones ( NDZs) from boat owners and operators, marina owners and operators, and State and local government officials. It also requests approval to collect information regarding the effectiveness of marine sanitation devices in removing harmful pollutants from the waste stream of the device. Section 312 of the Clean Water Act mandates the use of marine sanitation devices ( MSDs) on all vessels with installed toilets. There are three types of MSDs. Type I and Type II MSDs provide treatment of sewage that is to be discharged and rely on a variety of different technologies for treatment prior to discharge including maceration, chlorination, heating, filtering, and biological processes. Type III MSDs are holding tanks that provide minimal sewage treatment and can be installed on vessels of any size. Installed toilets on vessels of 65 ft. or less in length may be equipped with any of the three types of MSDs. Type I MSDs, which may only be used by vessels up to 65 ft. in length, are required to produce an effluent with a fecal coliform bacteria count equal to or less than 1000 bacteria per 100 ml of seawater with no visible floating solids. For vessels greater than 65 ft., all installed toilets must be equipped with either Type II or Type III MSDs. The Type II MSDs are required to produce an effluent with a fecal coliform count less than or equal to 200 bacteria per 100 ml of seawater and suspended solids less than or equal to 150 mg/ l. Type III MSDs are holding tanks that are designed to prevent overboard discharge of any sewage. Also under Section 312 of the Clean Water Act, with EPA's approval, States may designate a portion or all of their waters as NDZs making all vessel sewage discharges illegal. States designate their waters as no discharge zones for vessel sewage to achieve any of the following objectives: ( 1) to protect aquatic habitats where pump out facilities are available; ( 2) to protect special aquatic habitats or species, and the State does not have to show that there are reasonably available pump out or dump stations; and ( 3) to safeguard human health by protecting drinking water intake zones, and the State does not have to show that there are reasonably available pump out or dump stations. Under Section 312( f)( 3), States designate NDZs for vessel sewage by demonstrating to EPA that safe and adequate pump out and dump facilities are available. Currently about 95% of the no discharge zones designated have been done so under this provision. At a State's request, under Sections 312( f)( 4)( A) and ( B), NDZs for vessel sewage designations also can be established by regulation by EPA if the State demonstrates that additional protection of the aquatic environment is required to protect environmentally sensitive areas such as shellfish beds, coral reefs, fish spawning areas, or if the water body is a drinking 104 water source. No discharge zones established by regulations promulgated by EPA do not require the availability of pump out or dump facilities. Currently, about 5% of the NDZs for vessel sewage have been designated by regulations promulgated by EPA. This information collection request will focus on the effectiveness of NDZs for vessel sewage designated under Clean Water Act Section 312( f)( 3).

The EPA solicited comments on the development of the ICR to: ( i) evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; ( ii) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ( iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ( iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e. g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Following the review and incorporation of the comments received by the EPA, the ICR entitled, " Surveys to Determine the Effectiveness of No Discharge Zones for Vessel Sewage and Marine Sanitation Devices," ( EPA ICR No. 2107.01) was completed. A Federal Register notice will appear announcing EPA's submittal of ICR No. 2107.01 to the OMB.

EPA'S RESPONSES TO COMMENTS EPA received 20 sets of comments and has addressed them below. None of the comments suggested that EPA not conduct the proposed surveys. The comments were from States and a U. S. Territory, non governmental organizations, trade associations, a marine sanitation device ( MSD) manufacturer, a laboratory, and private citizens. The vast majority of comments provide information regarding the potential questions that the surveys should ask, some provided information regarding the perception of the effectiveness of the current no discharge zones( NDZs) and MSDs, and additional comments provided recommendations on how EPA should modify the current Vessel Sewage Discharge Program. Lastly, some offered their assistance in this effort. EPA would like to thank all of the individuals and organizations that provided comments on this ICR. These comments will assist the EPA in creating an ICR that will allow the Agency to better determine the effectiveness of no discharge zones for vessel sewage and marine sanitation devices.

Comment # 1: Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources May 23, 2003 RE: Surveys to Determine the Effectiveness of No Discharge Zones for Vessel Sewage and Marine Sanitation Devices.

To Whom It May Concern: 105 I totally agree with the proposed intention to survey the effectiveness of No Discharge Zones for Vessel Sewage and Marine Sanitation Devices.