[Federal Register: January 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 20)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 5471-5480]
[DOCID:fr30ja08-20]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 147

[EPA-R08-OW-2007-0153; FRL-8522-5]

Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes in Montana; Underground
Injection Control (UIC) Program; Proposed Primacy Approval and Minor
Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve an application from the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes
in Montana under Section 1425 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to
implement an underground injection control (UIC) program for Class II
(oil and gas-related) injection wells. EPA is also proposing minor
revisions to regulations that are not specific to the Fort Peck Tribes'
application. EPA requests public comment and has scheduled a public
hearing on this application, the proposed rule, and EPA's supporting
documentation. EPA will consider comments received at the public
hearing and during the public comment period before taking final
action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 29, 2008. The
public hearing will be held at the Fort Peck Community College
Auditorium located at 605 Indian Avenue in Poplar, Montana at 7 p.m. on
Monday, February 25, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OW-2007-0153, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, 8P-W-GW, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver your comments to Douglas Minter,
Environmental Protection Agency, 8P-W-GW, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
CO 80202-1129, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OW-2007-0153. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation: Monday through Friday, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., excluding
legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OW-
2007-0153. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site

is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly

to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail

address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit EPA's Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional

instructions on submitting comments, go to I.B of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy in the Ground Water

Program, EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129. This
Docket Facility is open Monday through Friday, between 8 a.m. and 4
p.m., excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is 303-312-
6079.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Minter, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 8P-W-GW, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129.
Phone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Regulated Entities

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                North American
                                                                                Industry
                   Category                       Examples of potentially regulated entities     Classification
                                                                                System
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State, Local, and Tribal Governments.........  State, local, and Tribal governments that own              924110
                                                and operate Class II injection wells within
                                                the boundaries of the Fort Peck Indian
                                                Reservation.
Industry.....................................  Private owners and operators of Class II                   221310
                                                injection wells within the boundaries of the
                                                Fort Peck Indian Reservation.
Municipalities...............................  Municipal owners and operators of Class II                 924110
                                                injection wells within the boundaries of the
                                                Fort Peck Indian Reservation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. If you have questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

1. Submitting CBI
    Do not submit this information to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov
 or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the

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

II. Introduction

    The Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of Montana (the ``Fort
Peck Tribes'') have applied to EPA under Sections 1422 and 1425 of the
Safe Drinking Water Act (``SDWA''), 42 U.S.C. 300h-1 and 300h-4, for
approval of the Fort Peck Tribes' program regulating Class II (oil and
gas-related) underground injection wells on the Fort Peck Indian
Reservation in Montana. Because the Fort Peck Tribes have sought
primacy only for the Class II UIC program, EPA proposes to approve
their program under SDWA section 1425. EPA's proposal is based on a
careful and extensive legal and technical review of the Tribes'
application. As a result of this review, EPA has determined that the
Fort Peck Tribes meet all requirements of section 1451 of the SDWA,
including that the Tribes have demonstrated adequate jurisdictional
authority over all Class II injection activities on the Reservation,
including those conducted by nonmembers. EPA has also determined that
the Tribes' program meets all applicable requirements for approval
under SDWA section 1425, and that they are capable of administering an
effective UIC Class II program in a manner consistent with the terms
and purposes of the SDWA and all applicable regulations.

III. Legal Authorities

    These regulations are being proposed under authority of sections
1422, 1425, 1450 and 1451 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C.
300h-1, 300h-4, 300j-9 and 300j-11.

A. Requirements for State UIC Programs

    Section 1421 of the SDWA requires the Administrator of EPA to
promulgate minimum requirements for effective State UIC programs to
prevent underground injection activities that endanger underground
sources of drinking water (``USDWs''). Sections 1422 and 1425 of the
SDWA establish requirements for States seeking EPA approval of State
UIC programs.
    For States that seek approval for UIC programs under Section 1422
of the SDWA, EPA has promulgated a regulation setting forth the
applicable procedures and substantive requirements. This regulation has
been codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR part 145). It
includes requirements for State permitting programs (by reference to
certain provisions of 40 CFR parts 124 and 144), compliance evaluation
programs, enforcement authority, and information sharing.
    For States that seek approval under Section 1425 of the SDWA, which
provides an alternative set of requirements for Class II programs, EPA
has published interim guidance in the Federal Register (46 FR 27333-
27339, May 19, 1981), describing how States may apply for program
approval under Section 1425 and setting forth the criteria EPA will use
in approving or disapproving applications under this provision. By
demonstrating that its program represents an effective program to
prevent endangerment of USDWs and meets the more general statutory
requirements of Section 1421(b)(1)(A) through (D), a State may obtain
primacy for a Class II UIC program.

B. Tribal UIC Programs

    Section 1451 of the SDWA and 40 CFR 145.52 authorize the
Administrator of EPA to treat an Indian Tribe in the same manner as a
State for purposes of the UIC program if the Tribe demonstrates that:
(1) It is recognized by the Secretary of the Interior; (2) it has a
governing body carrying out substantial governmental duties and powers
over a defined area; (3) the functions to be exercised by the Tribe are
within an area of the Tribal government's jurisdiction; and (4) the
Tribe is reasonably expected to be capable, in the EPA Administrator's
judgment, of implementing a program consistent with the terms and
purposes of the SDWA and applicable regulations.
    Under Section 1451 of the SDWA and 40 CFR part 145, Subpart E, EPA
is authorized to treat Indian Tribes similarly to States and may
approve Tribal UIC programs. Tribes may apply for primacy under either
or both Sections 1422 and 1425 of the SDWA, and the references in 40
CFR part 145 and EPA's May 19, 1981 interim guidance to ``State''
programs are also construed to include eligible ``Tribal'' programs.
(See 40 CFR 145.1(h), which provides that all requirements of parts
124, 144, 145, and 146 that apply to States with UIC primacy also apply
to Indian Tribes except where specifically noted.)

IV. Fort Peck Tribes' Application

    On December 18, 1995, the Fort Peck Tribes submitted an initial
application for primacy for all Class II wells on all lands within the
exterior boundaries of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation (the
``Reservation''). On April 22, 1996, EPA determined that the Fort Peck
Tribes' application was complete. On September 12, 1997, EPA published
a notice in the Federal Register (62 FR 48086-48087) requesting initial
comments and scheduling a public hearing on the application. A similar
public notice was also published in newspapers in Great Falls,
Billings, and Poplar, Montana. A public hearing was held on October 16,
1997, in Poplar, Montana. On February 12, 1998, EPA provided a set of
formal comments to the Fort Peck Tribes for incorporation into their
application. In response, the Fort Peck Tribes submitted a revised
application on July 27, 1999, stating that the Fort Peck Tribal
Executive Board had formally adopted underground injection control
provisions in the Tribal Code and requesting primacy under both
Sections 1422 and 1425 of the SDWA.

V. EPA's Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the Fort Peck Tribes' Class II UIC
program. Under EPA's proposed approval of the Fort Peck Tribes'
application, the Fort Peck Tribes would assume primary enforcement
authority (except for the authority that EPA would retain to take
criminal actions: (1) Against non-Indians; and (2) against Indians
where the potential fine required is greater than $5,000 or where the
penalty would require imprisonment for more than one year, in
accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1302) for regulating all Class II injection
activities on all lands within the exterior boundaries of the
Reservation.
    EPA's proposed Decision Document in support of EPA's proposed
approval is part of the public record and is now available for public
review and comment. The proposed Decision Document includes findings
that the Fort Peck Tribes meet all requirements of section 1451 of the
SDWA, including that the Tribes have demonstrated adequate
jurisdictional authority over all Class II injection activities on the
Reservation, including those conducted by nonmembers, and that the Fort
Peck Tribes' program meets all applicable requirements for approval
under section 1425 of the SDWA.
    If approved as proposed, the Fort Peck Tribes would administer and
enforce their Class II program with respect to all Class II injection
wells on the Reservation. Upon approving the Fort Peck Tribes' Class II
program, EPA would amend 40 CFR part 147 as proposed in this notice to
revise the reference to the EPA-administered program for Class II
injection wells on the Reservation to refer to the Fort Peck Tribes'
Class II program. EPA would continue to administer its UIC program for
Class I, III, IV, and V wells on the Reservation. (Although the Tribal
Code prohibits injection in Class I, III, and IV wells, these
prohibitions are separate from the Class II program that EPA proposes
to approve in this action.) As noted above, EPA would also retain Class
II-related criminal enforcement authority against non-Indians on the
Reservation, and against Indians on the Reservation where the potential
fine required is greater than $5,000 or where the penalty would require
imprisonment for more than one year.
    EPA would oversee the Fort Peck Tribes' administration of the Class
II program on the Reservation. Part of EPA's oversight responsibility
would include requiring quarterly reports of non-compliance and annual
UIC program performance reports pursuant to 40 CFR 144.8. The
Memorandum of Agreement between EPA and the Fort Peck Tribes would
require, among other things, that EPA review all permits associated
with aquifer exemptions not previously approved by EPA.
    The provisions of the Tribal Code that contain standards,
requirements, and procedures applicable to owners or operators of Class
II wells on the Reservation would be incorporated by reference into 40
CFR part 147. Any provisions incorporated by reference, as well as all
Tribal permit conditions or permit denials issued pursuant to such
provisions, would be enforceable by EPA pursuant to section 1423 of the
SDWA and 40 CFR 147.1(e).

    Although the Program Description submitted with the Fort Peck
Tribes' application indicates that the Fort Peck Tribes requested an
aquifer exemption for the Dakota Sand formation, the Fort Peck Tribes
have decided not to pursue this exemption at this time.

VI. Public Comments Received to Date

    In connection with the public comment period and hearing that the
Fort Peck Tribes held on September 20, 1995, members of the public
asked questions about or commented on several aspects of the proposed
Tribal program. The Fort Peck Tribes' written and verbal answers to
these questions and comments are given in detail in the Fort Peck
Tribes' application, which, along with the other contents of the
application and related documentation, are available for public review
as described in this proposed rule. The general areas of the comments
and summaries of the Fort Peck Tribes' answers are presented briefly
below. EPA concurs with the answers that the Fort Peck Tribes have
provided.
    In addition, during EPA's 1997 public comment period on the Fort
Peck Tribes' complete application, EPA received comments on the Fort
Peck Tribes' proposed program, which are incorporated below.

A. Transition From EPA to Tribal Permits

    Well operators asked various questions about how the Tribal permit
program would be administered. In response to questions about Tribal
re-permitting for existing wells, the Fort Peck Tribes stated that all
EPA-issued permits remain in full effect and Tribal permits will be
issued upon review of the EPA permit. The Fort Peck Tribes will charge
a fee of $200 per year per well. If the Fort Peck Tribes deny an
application for a permit, permit renewal, or permit modification,
operators would not be able to obtain permits, permit renewals, or
permit modifications from EPA. The Tribal program will apply on all
land within the exterior boundaries of the Reservation, including land
owned in fee by non-members.

B. Requirement To Obtain a Permit

    An operator recommended that some wells should be authorized by
rule to operate until a permit application is either granted or denied.
The Fort Peck Tribes replied that they would not change their
regulation or the need to obtain a permit before operating wells. EPA
takes the position that States and Tribes are free to promulgate
requirements more stringent than the minimum Federal requirements for
UIC primacy, and the SDWA does not prevent the Fort Peck Tribes from
requiring permits for all wells.

C. Reporting Requirements

    Some commenters suggested reducing the reporting requirements by,
for example, eliminating the requirement to notify the Fort Peck Tribes
within 24 hours of any well workover, suggesting alternative
notification requirements, eliminating the monthly reporting
requirement, and using monthly rather than daily data. The Fort Peck
Tribes elected to retain their reporting requirements, stating, for
example, that daily monitoring would reduce the potential to endanger
underground sources of drinking water and that monthly reporting makes
compliance easier to achieve.
    A comment addressed to EPA stated that the Fort Peck Tribes'
proposed requirement for monthly and annual injection fluid reports may
be too stringent, recommending quarterly reporting instead. In
response, EPA notes that section 302(b)(11) of the Tribal Code
incorporates the requirements of 40 CFR 144.51, 144.54 and 146.23(b)
for reporting and monitoring, with certain additional monitoring
requirements, which EPA finds to be reasonable in helping ensure that
USDWs are being protected. EPA has determined more frequent monitoring
and reporting improves the operator's and the Tribes' ability to
promptly identify problems and reduce the potential for violations.

D. Operating Requirements

    A commenter questioned the need for the requirement to maintain
pressure gauges on the tubing and annulus. The Fort Peck Tribes
responded that pressure gauges allowed for agency field inspectors to
observe instantaneous wellhead pressures, that several operators on the
Reservation already had such pressure gauges, and that this requirement
had been developed from protocols used by the State of North Dakota.

E. Financial Responsibility Requirements

    A commenter suggested that a company's size and financial stability
should be considered in deciding what type of mechanism, if any, to
require for demonstrating financial integrity. The Fort Peck Tribes
responded that requiring a surety bond is an easy way to enforce
financial responsibility, and that a financially sound company should
have no difficulty securing one. The Tribes also responded that part of
a company's capability to maintain and operate an injection well safely
is demonstrated in securing a surety bond. EPA has determined that
requiring a surety bond prior to well operation is reasonable since it
eliminates the need to require annual financial statements from a
company. Review of annual financial statements creates an ongoing
compliance monitoring workload and creates the potential for associated
violations for failure to submit such documentation.

F. Mechanical Integrity Requirements

    Two commenters suggested that mechanical integrity tests should be
run at pressures no higher than 500 psi (according to one commenter) or
1,000 psi (according to another commenter), instead of up to the
``maximum permitted injection pressure.'' In response, the Fort Peck
Tribes said that they would require mechanical integrity tests to be
run at the higher of: (1) 300 psi above the average operational
injection pressure; or (2) the highest operational injection pressure
recorded during the past year. The Tribes also stated that the testing
pressure required would never be higher than the ``maximum permitted
injection pressure.'' The Tribes recognized that a ``maximum permitted
injection pressure'' much higher than actual operating pressures can be
requested by operators in order to avoid the need for subsequent permit
modifications. EPA has determined the Tribes' requirement will help
ensure that mechanical integrity is maintained up to the ``maximum
permitted injection pressure,'' and that operators should keep this
requirement in mind when requesting such pressure limits in their
permits.
    A commenter suggested requiring cement bond logs only in special
cases. The Fort Peck Tribes replied that this was an important tool in
determining external mechanical integrity and indicated that some
States require cement bond logs as a demonstration of mechanical
integrity.

G. Conflict of Interest

    Some commenters were concerned that the Fort Peck Tribes would not
only regulate injection wells themselves but also own or operate them.
They made various suggestions to avoid what they perceived as a
conflict, such as having the State of Montana regulate all Class II
wells in Montana, including those on the Reservation, having EPA rather
than the Tribal court handle appeals for non-Indian operators, and
having some mediation process for disputes between the Fort Peck Tribes
and permittees.

    In response, the Fort Peck Tribes explained that the Tribal Office
of Environmental Protection, which would administer and enforce the
Fort Peck Tribes' regulatory Class II program, is a regulatory body
within the Tribal government separate from the entities within the Fort
Peck Tribes that own or operate injection wells. The Tribal program
would be no different from a State UIC program in which one State
department regulates injection activities but another State department
maintains mineral holdings. In addition, the Fort Peck Tribes indicated
that all surface and royalty agreements relating to mineral leasing and
development on the Reservation are required to be approved by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs after negotiation by the Fort Peck Tribes. In
this sense, the Tribal program would be no different from an approved
State UIC program in which appeals would be heard in State court.
    The Fort Peck Tribes also cited legal authority in support of their
civil jurisdiction over non-Indians on Reservation land, concluding
that providing appeals to be heard by a Federal Agency instead of the
Tribal courts would be inconsistent with the Fort Peck Tribes'
governmental authority.

H. Permitting Fee

    Some comments addressed to EPA questioned the annual $200
permitting fees. In response, EPA notes that this fee is intended to
help the Fort Peck Tribes cover a portion of the anticipated expense
associated with administering their Class II UIC program. The Fort Peck
Tribes have estimated annual implementation costs of approximately
$55,000, which is considerably more than the amount likely covered by
EPA's UIC grant funds to the Tribes. Other UIC programs, such as the
program administered by the Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation,
impose a similar fee on Class II well operators. Although the Fort Peck
Tribes expect that the present injection well fee will help cover
program administration costs, they will retain the flexibility to raise
or lower this fee if appropriate.

VII. Other Changes to UIC Regulations

    This proposed rule includes some minor revisions to 40 CFR 147.1
that are not specific to the Fort Peck Tribes. As a convenience to the
reader, EPA has included the full text of 40 CFR 147.1 in this
proposal. However, this proposal solicits comments only on the specific
amendments proposed, which are: (1) To revise 40 CFR 147.1 to include
specific references to Tribal programs in light of the fact that EPA is
proposing in this notice to approve its first Tribal UIC program; and
(2) to reserve 40 CFR 147.1(f), because it duplicates 40 CFR 9.1. It is
important and necessary that EPA's regulations codifying approved UIC
programs account for the fact that such programs may be run by Tribes.

VIII. Generalized Findings

    As described earlier, EPA's proposed decision to approve the Fort
Peck Tribes to implement a Class II UIC program includes findings that
the Tribes meet all requirements of section 1451 of the SDWA, including
that the Tribes have demonstrated adequate jurisdictional authority
over all Class II injection activities on the Reservation, including
those conducted by nonmembers. With regard to authority over nonmember
activities on nonmember-owned fee lands, EPA is proposing to find that
the Tribes have demonstrated such authority under the test established
by the United States Supreme Court in Montana v. United States, 450
U.S. 544 (1981) (Montana test). Under the Montana test, the Supreme
Court held that absent a Federal grant of authority, Tribes generally
lack inherent jurisdiction over the activities of nonmembers on
nonmember-owned fee lands. However, the Court also found that Indian
Tribes retain inherent sovereign power to exercise civil jurisdiction
over nonmember activities on nonmember-owned fee lands within the
reservation where: (1) Nonmembers enter into ``consensual relationships
with the Tribe or its members, through commercial dealing, contracts,
leases, or other arrangements'' or (2) ``* * * [nonmember] conduct
threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity, the
economic security or the health or welfare of the Tribe.'' Id. at 565-
66. In analyzing Tribal assertions of inherent authority over nonmember
activities on Indian reservations, the Supreme Court has reiterated
that the Montana test remains the relevant standard. See e.g., Strate
v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438, 445 (1997) (describing Montana as
``the pathmarking case concerning Tribal civil authority over
nonmembers''); Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353, 358 (2001) (``Indian
Tribes'' regulatory authority over nonmembers is governed by the
principles set forth in [Montana]'').
    As part of the public record available for review and comment,
EPA's proposed Decision Document, and Appendix A thereto, sets forth
the Agency's specific factual findings relating to the Tribes'
demonstration of inherent authority over the UIC Class II activities of
nonmembers under the Montana test and, in particular, the potential for
direct effects of nonmember UIC activities on the Tribes' health,
welfare, political integrity, and economic security. In addition, EPA
is proposing the general findings set forth below regarding the effects
of underground injection activities. These general findings provide a
foundation for EPA's analysis of the Tribes' assertion of authority
under the Montana test and, in effect, supplement the Agency's factual
findings specific to the Tribes and to the Fort Peck Reservation.

A. General Finding on Political, Economic and Human Health and Welfare
Impacts

    In enacting part C of the SDWA, Congress generally recognized that
if left unregulated or improperly managed, underground injection wells
have the potential to cause serious and substantial, harmful impacts on
political and economic interests and human health and welfare.
Specifically, as stated in legislative history of the SDWA:

    [U]nderground injection of contaminants is clearly an increasing
problem. Municipalities are increasingly engaging in underground
injection of sewage, sludge, and other wastes. Industries are
injecting chemicals, byproducts, and wastes. Energy production
companies are using injection techniques to increase production and
to dispose of unwanted brines brought to the surface during
production. Even government agencies, including the military, are
getting rid of difficult to manage waste problems by underground
disposal methods. Part C is intended to deal with all of the
foregoing situations insofar as they may endanger underground
sources of drinking water (USDWs).\1\

    \1\ See H.R. Report No. 93-1185, 93rd Congress, 2nd Session
(1974), reprinted in ``A Legislative History of the Safe Drinking
Water Act,'' February, 1982, by the Government Printing Office,
Serial No. 97-9, page 561.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the problem of the substantial risks inherent in
underground injection activities, Congress enacted section 1421 of the
SDWA `` to assure that drinking water sources, actual and potential,
are not rendered unfit for such use by underground injection of
contaminants.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Ibid., page 560.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In enacting part C of the SDWA, Congress more specifically found
that mismanaged underground injection activities could have serious and
substantial, harmful impacts on the public's economic and political
interests, as well as its health and welfare. For example, Congress
found that:

    Federal air and water pollution control legislation have increased
the pressure to dispose of waste materials on or below land, frequently
in ways, such as subsurface injection, which endanger drinking water
quality. Moreover, the national economy may be expected to be harmed by
unhealthy drinking water and the illnesses which may result
therefrom.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Ibid., page 540.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress specifically noted several economic and political
consequences that can result from the degradation of good quality
drinking water supplies, including: (1) Inhibition of interstate
tourism and travel; (2) loss of economic productivity because of
absence from employment due to illness; (3) limited ability of a town
or region to attract workers; and (4) impaired economic growth of a
town or region, and, ultimately, the nation.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Ibid., page 540.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Agency charged by Congress with implementing part C of the
SDWA and assuring implementation of effective UIC programs throughout
the United States, EPA agrees with these Congressional findings. EPA
finds that underground injection activities, if not effectively
regulated, can have serious and substantial, harmful impacts on human
health, welfare, economic, and political interests. In making this
finding, EPA recognizes that: (1) The underground injection activities,
currently regulated as five distinct classes of injection wells as
defined in the UIC regulations, typically emplace a variety of
potentially harmful organic and inorganic contaminants (e.g., brines
and hazardous wastes) into the ground; (2) these injected contaminants
have the potential to enter USDWs through a variety of migratory
pathways if injection wells are not properly managed; and (3) once
present in USDWs, these injected contaminants can have harmful impacts
on human health and welfare, and political and economic interests, that
are both serious and substantial.
    In 1980, EPA issued a document entitled, ``Underground Injection
Control Regulations: Statement of Basis and Purpose,'' which provides
the rationale for the Agency in proposing specific regulatory controls
for a variety of underground injection activities. These controls, or
technical requirements (e.g., testing to ensure the mechanical
integrity of an injection well), were promulgated to prevent release of
pollutants through the six primary ``pathways of contamination,'' or
well-established and recognized ``ways in which fluids can escape the
well or injection horizon and enter USDWs.'' \5\ EPA has found that
USDW contamination from one or more of these pathways can occur from
underground injection activity of all classes (I-V) of injection wells.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Underground Injection Control Regulations: Statement of
Basis and Purpose,'' EPA (May, 1980), page 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The six pathways are:
    1. Migration of fluids through a leak in the casing of an injection
well and directly into a USDW;
    2. Vertical migration of fluids through improperly abandoned and
improperly completed wells in the vicinity of injection well
operations;
    3. Direct injection of fluids into or above a USDW;
    4. Upward migration of fluids through the annulus, which is the
space located between the injection well's casing and the well bore.
This can occur if there is sufficient injection pressure to push such
fluid into an overlying USDW;
    5. Migration of fluids from an injection zone through the confining
strata over or underlying a USDW. This can occur if there is sufficient
injection pressure to push fluid through a stratum, which is either
fractured or permeable, and into the adjacent USDW; and
    6. Lateral migration of fluids from within an injection zone into a
portion of that stratum considered to be a USDW. In this scenario,
there may be no impermeable layer or other barrier to prevent migration
of such fluids.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Underground Injection Control Regulations: Statement of
Basis and Purpose,'' EPA, (May, 1980), pp. 7-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, consistent with EPA's findings, the U.S. Department of
the Interior has recognized the ability of injection wells to
contaminate surface waters that are hydrogeologically connected to
contaminated ground water.\7\ Such contamination of surface waters
could further cause negative impacts on human health and welfare, and
economic and political interests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Federal Water Quality Administration's Order COM 5040.10
(1970), as referred to in H.R. Report No. 93-1185, 561.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, EPA finds that, given the common presence of contaminants
in injected fluids, serious and substantial contamination of ground
water and surface water resources can result from improperly regulated
underground injection activities. Moreover, such contamination has the
potential to cause correspondingly serious and substantial harm to
human health and welfare, and political and economic interests. EPA
also has determined that Congress reached a similar finding when it
enacted part C of the SDWA, directing EPA to establish UIC programs to
mitigate and prevent such harm through the proper regulation of
underground injection activities.

B. General Finding on the Necessity of Protecting Safe Drinking Water
Supplies as a Necessary Incidence of Self-Government

    Consistent with the finding that improperly managed underground
injection activities can have direct harmful effects on human health
and welfare, and economic and political interests that are serious and
substantial, EPA has determined that proper management of such
activities serves the purpose of protecting these public health and
welfare, and political and economic interests, which is a core
governmental function whose exercise is integral to, and a necessary
aspect of, self-government. See 56 FR 64876, 64879 (December 12, 1991);
Montana v. EPA, 137 F.3d 1135, 1140-41 (9th Cir. 1998). EPA has
determined that Congress reached this conclusion in enacting the SDWA
and that Congress considered enactment of the SDWA to be a necessary
act of self-government, serving to protect essential and vital public
interests by ensuring that the public's essential drinking water
supplies are safe from contamination, including contamination caused by
underground injection activities.
    The above findings regarding the effects on public health and
welfare, and economic and political interests are generally true for
human beings and their communities, wherever they may be located. EPA
has determined that the above findings that underground injection
regulation is an integral and necessary incident of self-government is
generally true for any Federal, State and/or Tribal government having
responsibility for protecting public health and welfare. With specific
relevance to Tribes, EPA has long noted the relationship between proper
environmental management within Indian country and Tribal self-
government and self-sufficiency. Moreover, in the 1984 EPA Policy for
the Administration of Environmental Programs on Indian Reservations,
EPA determined that as part of the ``principle of Indian self-
government,'' Tribal governments are the ``appropriate non-Federal
parties for making decisions and carrying out program responsibilities
affecting Indian reservations, their environments, and the health and
welfare of the reservation populace,'' consistent with Agency standards
and regulations. (EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental
Programs on Indian Reservations,

Paragraph 2, November 8, 1984). EPA interprets section 1451 of the
SDWA, in providing for the approval of Tribal programs under the Act,
as authorizing eligible Tribes to assume a primary role in protecting
drinking water sources. These general findings provide a backdrop for
EPA's legal analysis of the Fort Peck Tribes' Application and, in
effect, supplement EPA's factual findings specific to the Fort Peck
Tribes and to the Fort Peck Reservation, contained in the proposed
Decision Document and Appendix A thereto, and the Fort Peck Tribes'
similar conclusions, contained in their Application, pertaining
specifically to the Fort Peck Tribes and the Fort Peck Reservation.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under the EO.
    The Class II injection wells the Tribes propose to regulate are
currently subject to EPA's regulatory program as described in 40 CFR
part 147, subpart BB. Additionally, the Tribes' proposed program is, in
many respects, identical to, and in some respects, more stringent than,
EPA's program.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
EPA has determined that there is no need for an Information Collection
Request under the Paperwork Reduction Act because this proposed rule
would not impose any new Federal reporting or record-keeping
requirements. Reporting or record-keeping requirements would be based
on the Tribal Code, and the Fort Peck Tribes are not subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act.
    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 previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that
is primarily engaged in crude petroleum and natural gas extraction as
defined by NAICS Code 211111 according to Small Business Administration
size standards for entities employing fewer than 500 employees; (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county,
town, school district or special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small
entities directly regulated by this proposed rule are owners or
operators of Class II wells, employing fewer than 500 employees. We
have determined that less than 7 small entities will experience an
impact of greater than 1% of annual revenues. These entities would be
subject to requirements substantially similar to the existing
requirements of EPA's program under 40 CFR 147.1351(a) and would not
incur significant new costs as a result of this proposed rule. For
example, the Tribes propose to charge an annual $200 permitting fee for
each Class II well on the Reservation. While this will impose a new
cost on a small entity, this cost will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities due to the few small
entities owning/operating the 23 Class II wells on the Reservation.
Moreover, in approving State UIC programs imposing similar fees on a
greater number of small entities, EPA determined that these new costs
did not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. The Fort
Peck Tribes' program is more stringent than the existing Federal
program in certain respects. For example, unlike the existing Federal
program, the Fort Peck Tribes' program requires permits for all Class
II wells, with no provision for authorization by rule. (See section
202(c) of the Tribal Code.) However, because all Class II wells now in
operation on the Reservation currently hold EPA permits, this more
stringent requirement will not impose a significant economic impact on
the owners or operators of these wells. Other requirements in the Fort
Peck Tribes' program that are more stringent than the existing Federal
program are identified in the proposed Decision Document available for
public review and comment and are mostly minor observation, recording,
and reporting requirements. These requirements also will not impose a
significant economic effect on the owners or operators of these wells.
    We continue to be interested in any potential impacts of the
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to any such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal Agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an
explanation why that alternative was not adopted.
    Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA, a
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    This proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under the
regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or
Tribal governments or the private sector because the rule imposes no
enforceable duty on any State, local, or Tribal governments or the
private sector. EPA's proposed approval of the Fort Peck Tribes'
program would not constitute a ``Federal mandate'' because there is no
requirement that Tribes establish UIC regulatory programs and because
the program, if finally approved, will be a Tribal, rather than a
Federal program. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    For the same reason, EPA has determined that this proposed rule
contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. Thus, this proposed rule is not
subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132--Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism''(64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on States, on the relationship between the national government
and States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government.''
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. If finalized, the proposed rule
would merely put in place a Tribal regulatory program that is identical
in many respects to the existing federal program and more stringent in
certain respects, as explained in more detail in the proposed Decision
Document. EPA will continue to administer its Class I, III, IV, and V
UIC programs on the Reservation. Authorizing the Fort Peck Tribes to
administer the Class II program will not substantially alter the
distribution of power and responsibilities among levels of government
or significantly change EPA's relationship with Montana. The
substitution of a Tribal Class II program in place of an EPA-
administered Class II program on the Fort Peck Reservation will impose
no additional costs on the State of Montana. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, EPA specifically solicits
comment on this proposed rule from State and local officials.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have Tribal implications.''
    EPA has concluded that this proposed rule will have Tribal
implications. However, it will neither impose substantial direct
compliance costs on Tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law. The
Fort Peck Tribes have voluntarily requested EPA authorization to
administer their own Class II UIC program and have voluntarily assumed
the Tribal share of the costs for doing so. Additionally, EPA is
proposing to approve the Tribes' application for UIC Class II primacy
and thus replace the existing Federal UIC Class II program for the Fort
Peck Indian Reservation with a Tribal program administered pursuant to
the laws of the Fort Peck Tribes. Thus, the requirements of sections
5(b) and 5(c) of the Executive Order do not apply to this proposed
rule.
    EPA consulted with Tribal officials early in the process of
developing this regulation to permit them to have meaningful and timely
input into its development. (See section IV, V, and VI for more
information.)
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, EPA specifically solicits
additional comment on this proposed rule from Tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health & Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks & Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to
any rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because
it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866,
and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. The proposed Fort Peck Tribes' Class
II UIC program is more stringent than the existing federal program; the
Tribal program requirements have been established to prevent
underground injection activities that endanger underground sources of
drinking water (USDWs). The Fort Peck Tribal Executive Board has
formally adopted underground injection control provisions in the Tribal
Code in their program to safeguard these resources for all potential
users, including but not limited to children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.

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

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
decrease the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment or lessen current environmental standards. If finalized,
this proposed rule would put in place a Tribal regulatory program that
is more stringent than the federal program and, therefore, would
increase the level of protection. For example, unlike the existing
federal program, the Fort Peck Tribes' program requires permits for all
Class II wells, with no provision for authorization by rule. Moreover,
in proposing to approve the Tribes' own Class II program, EPA is
enhancing the Tribes' ability to determine its own UIC affairs on its
Reservation.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 147

    Environmental protection, Indian-lands, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water supply,
Incorporation by reference.

    Dated: November 16, 2007.
Robert E. Roberts,
Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 8.

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

PART 147--STATE, TRIBAL, AND EPA-ADMINISTERED UNDERGROUND INJECTION
CONTROL PROGRAMS

    1. The authority citation for part 147 is revised to read as
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300h et seq.; and 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.

    2. Part 147 heading is revised as set forth above.

Subpart A--[Amended]

    3. Section 147.1 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  147.1  Purpose and scope.

    (a) This part sets forth the applicable Underground Injection
Control (UIC) programs for each of the States, territories, and
possessions identified pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
as needing a UIC program, including any Indian country geographically
located within those States, territories, and possessions.
    (b) The applicable UIC programs set forth in this part may be
State-administered programs approved by EPA, Tribally-administered
programs approved by EPA, or Federally-administered programs
promulgated by EPA. In some cases, the applicable UIC program for a
particular area may consist of a State-administered or Tribally-
administered program applicable to some classes of wells and a
Federally-administered program applicable to other classes of wells.
Approval of a State or Tribal program is based upon a determination by
the Administrator that the program meets the requirements of section
1422 or section 1425 of the SDWA, any other applicable provisions of
this subpart, and the applicable provisions of 40 CFR parts 124, 144,
145 and 146. A Federally-administered program is promulgated in those
instances where the State or Tribe has not submitted any program for
approval or where the submitted program does not meet the minimum
Federal statutory and regulatory requirements.
    (c) In the case of each State or Tribal program approved by EPA
pursuant to section 1422 of the SDWA, the relevant subpart describes
the major elements of that program, including the relevant State or
Tribal statutes and regulations, the Statement(s) of Legal Authority,
the Memorandum of Agreement, and the Program Description. State or
Tribal statutes and regulations that contain standards, requirements,
and procedures applicable to owners or operators have been incorporated
by reference pursuant to regulations of the Office of the Federal
Register. Material incorporated by reference is available for
inspection in the appropriate EPA Regional office, in EPA Headquarters,
and at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202)
741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
 Other State or Tribal

statutes and regulations containing standards and procedures that
constitute elements of a State or Tribal program but do not apply
directly to owners or operators have been listed but have not been
incorporated by reference.
    (d) In the case of any program promulgated under section 1422 for a
State or Tribe that is to be administered by EPA, the relevant State or
Tribal subpart makes applicable the provisions of 40 CFR parts 124,
144, 146, and 148, and any other additional requirements pertinent to
the specific State or Tribal program.
    (e) Regulatory provisions incorporated by reference (in the case of
approved State or Tribal programs) or promulgated by EPA (in the case
of EPA-administered programs), and all permit conditions or permit
denials issued pursuant to such regulations, are enforceable by the
Administrator pursuant to section 1423 of the SDWA.
    (f) [Reserved].

Subpart BB--[Amended]

    4. Section 147.1351 is amended by revising the first sentence of
paragraph (a) and by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  147.1351  EPA-administered program.

    (a) Contents. The UIC program in the State of Montana for Class I,
III, IV, and V wells, and for all Classes of wells in Indian country in
Montana, except for Class II wells on all lands within the exterior
boundaries of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, is administered by EPA.
* * *

    (b) Effective dates. The effective date for the UIC program for
Class I, III, IV, and V wells for all lands in Montana, including all
Indian country in Montana, and for Class II wells for all Indian
country in Montana other than the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, is June
25, 1984. The effective date for the EPA-approved State-administered
UIC Class II program for all lands in Montana, except for those in
Indian country, is provided in Sec.  147.1350.
    5. Subpart JJJ is added to read as follows:

Subpart JJJ--Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes

Sec.  147.3200  Fort Peck Indian Reservation: Assiniboine & Sioux
Tribes--Class II wells.

    The UIC program for Class II injection wells on all lands within
the exterior boundaries of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation is the
program administered by the Assiniboine and Sioux (Fort Peck) Tribes
approved by EPA pursuant to section 1425 of the SDWA. Notice of this
approval was published in the Federal Register on [DATE OF FINAL RULE
PUBLICATION]; the effective date of this program is [DATE OF FINAL RULE
PUBLICATION]. This program consists of the following elements as
submitted to EPA in the Fort Peck Tribes' program application:
    (a) Incorporation by Reference. The requirements set forth in the
Fort Peck Tribes' statutes, regulations, and resolutions cited in this
paragraph are hereby incorporated by reference and made part of the
applicable UIC program under the SDWA for the Fort Peck Indian
Reservation. This incorporation by reference was approved by the
Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and
1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained or inspected at the Fort Peck
Tribal Offices, 605 Indian Avenue, Poplar, Montana 59255, at the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-1129, or at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html
.

    (1) Tribal Code. Provisions of the Tribal Code listed in Appendix A
to this Subpart.
    (2) Tribal Government Resolution No. 1106-92-6.
    (b) Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The MOA between EPA and the Fort
Peck Tribes signed by EPA on July 31, 2007.
    (c) Statements of legal authority. Letters to EPA from Sonosky,
Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry, dated September 4, 2003 (attaching
a June 17, 2002 letter), March 27, 2001, July 19, 1999, March 13, 1995,
March 16, 1994, November 4, 1992, July 14, 1989, and April 13, 1989,
and letters submitted as part of the Fort Peck Tribes' application.
    (d) Program Description. The Program Description submitted as part
of the Fort Peck Tribes' application, and any other materials submitted
as part of the application or as a supplement to it.

Appendix A to Subpart JJJ of Part 147--Fort Peck Tribal Requirements
Incorporated by Reference in Subpart JJJ of Part 147 of the Code of
Federal Regulations

    The following is an informational listing of Fort Peck Tribal
requirements incorporated by reference in Subpart JJJ of part 147 of
the Code of Federal Regulations:

Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes

    (a) The statutory provisions include portions of the following
insofar as they pertain to Class II injection wells:
    Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribal Underground Injection
Control Code, adopted June 1999, Title 18:

Chapter 1. General Provisions
    Section 101. Purposes.
    Section 102. Administration.
    Section 103. Regulations, Criteria, and Standards.
    Section 104. Definitions.
    Section 105. Application.
Chapter 2. General Underground Injection Control Program
Requirements
    Section 201. Introduction.
    Section 202. Requirements.
Chapter 3. Underground Injection Control Permit Requirements
    Section 301. Introduction.
    Section 302. Requirements.
Chapter 4. UIC Permitting Procedures
    Section 401. Introduction.
    Section 402. Requirements.
Chapter 5. UIC Technical Criteria and Standards
    Section 501. Introduction.
    Section 502. Requirements.
    Section 503. Additional Requirements.
Chapter 6. Enforcement
    Section 601. Requirements for Compliance Evaluation Programs.
    Section 602. Administrative Enforcement.
    Section 603. Administrative Penalties.
    Section 604. Civil Penalties.
    Section 605. Criminal Violations.
    Section 606. Judicial Relief.
    Section 607. Public Participation in Office of Environmental
Protection Enforcement Process.
Chapter 7. Appeals
    Section 701. Judicial Review.
Chapter 8. Public Hearings
    Section 801. Public Hearings.
Chapter 9. Miscellaneous
    Section 901. Savings.
    Section 902. Effective Date.

    (b) The provisions of Tribal Government Resolution Number 1106-
92-6, adopted June 22, 1992, insofar as this resolution prohibits
injection by Class II wells into the Judith River formation.

 [FR Doc. E8-1667 Filed 1-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 83 (Monday, May 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23361-23362]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09245]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OGC-2021-0314; FRL-10023-24-OGC]

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA or the
Act), notice is given of a proposed consent decree in Center for
Biological Diversity, et al. v. Regan, No. 3:20-cv-05436-EMC (N.D.
Cal.). On August 6, 2020, Plaintiffs the Center for Biological
Diversity, the Center for Environmental Health, and the Sierra Club
(collectively, Plaintiffs) filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco
Division. On October 29, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
Plaintiffs alleged that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the
Agency) failed to perform certain non-discretionary duties in
accordance with the Act to: make timely findings that certain states
failed to timely submit required plan submissions for areas designated
as nonattainment for the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); timely respond to a state
implementation plan (SIP) submittal from the State of Illinois for the
Alton Township 2010 SO2 NAAQS nonattainment area; and make
timely determinations whether certain areas designated as nonattainment
for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS attained the standard by the
attainment date. The proposed consent decree would establish deadlines
for EPA to undertake certain actions.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by June 2, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OGC-2021-0314, online at https://www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred
method). Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
number for this action. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Additional Information
about Commenting on the Proposed Consent Decree'' heading under the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Out of an abundance
of caution for members of the public and our staff, the EPA Docket
Center and Reading Room are closed to the public, with limited
exceptions, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket
Center staff will continue to provide remote customer service via
email, phone, and webform. We encourage the public to submit comments
via https://www.regulations.gov, as there may be a delay in processing
mail and faxes. Hand-deliveries and couriers may be received by
scheduled appointment only. For further information on EPA Docket
Center services and the current status, please visit us online at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information
from the CDC, local area health departments, and our federal partners
so that we can respond rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Seidman, Air and Radiation Law
Office (7426Y), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining a Copy of the Proposed Consent Decree

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2021-0314) contains a copy of the proposed consent
decree.
    The electronic version of the public docket for this action
contains a copy of the proposed consent decree and is available through
https://www.regulations.gov. You may use https://www.regulations.gov to
submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the
contents of the official public docket, and access those documents in
the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select
``search.''

II. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    The proposed consent decree would establish deadlines for EPA to
take action pursuant to the CAA. First, the proposed consent decree
would establish a deadline for EPA to take action pursuant to CAA
section 110(k) on a SIP submission by the State of Illinois for Alton
Township, for the Alton Township portion of the Metropolitan St. Louis
Interstate Air Quality Control Region nonattainment area for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. The proposed consent decree would require EPA to
take action on the SIP submission by no later than March 1, 2022.
    Second, the proposed consent decree would establish deadlines for
EPA to take action pursuant to CAA section 179(c)(1) to determine
whether the following nonattainment areas for the

2010 SO2 NAAQS attained the standard by the attainment date:
Hayden (parts of Gila County and Pinal County, Arizona; Miami (part of
Gila County), Arizona; Muscatine (part of Muscatine County), Iowa; St.
Bernard Parish, Louisiana; Detroit (part of Wayne County), Michigan;
Jackson County (part), Missouri; Sullivan County (part), Tennessee; and
Rhinelander (part of Oneida County), Wisconsin. The proposed consent
decree would require EPA to make a determination for the areas in
Arizona, Michigan and Wisconsin by January 31, 2022 and make a
determination for the areas in Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri and Tennessee
by March 31, 2022.
    While the amended complaint also identified Southwest Indiana
(parts of Daviess County and Pike County), Indiana as an area for which
EPA was required to make a determination of whether the area attained
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS by the attainment date, on February 22,
2021, EPA signed a final rule redesignating the Southwest Indiana
nonattainment area to attainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
Final Rule, 86 FR 12107-12108 (March 2, 2021), mooting the claim as to
Southwest Indiana.
    Third, while the amended complaint included claims regarding EPA's
failure to make a finding of failure to submit a nonattainment SIP for
certain nonattainment areas for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS pursuant
to CAA section 110(k)(1)(B), on October 8, 2020, the EPA Principal
Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation
signed findings of failure to submit SIPs required for attainment of
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for the areas identified in the amended
complaint, and the findings were published in the Federal Register on
November 3, 2020, Final Rule, 85 FR 69504, 69506-69508 (November 3,
2020), mooting those claims.
    In accordance with section 113(g) of the CAA, for a period of
thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this document,
the Agency will accept written comments relating to the proposed
consent decree. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or
withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments
disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is
inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the
requirements of the Act.

III. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2021-
0314, via https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from this docket. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit to EPA's docket at https://www.regulations.gov any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. For additional information about submitting information
identified as CBI, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. Note that written
comments containing CBI and submitted by mail may be delayed and
deliveries or couriers will be received by scheduled appointment only.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other
contact information in the body of your comment. This ensures that you
can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to
contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your
comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of
a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the
official public docket and made available in EPA's electronic public
docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment.
    Use of the https://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments
to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments.
The electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
    Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.

Gautam Srinivasan,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2021-09245 Filed 4-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 93 (Monday, May 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28380-28381]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11499]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0251; FRL-9516-2]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Source Categories:
Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted below describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before June 13, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2011-0251, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB
at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia Williams, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:
(202) 564-4113; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On May 9, 2011 (76 FR 26900), EPA sought comments on this ICR
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional
comments on this ICR should be submitted to both EPA and OMB within 30
days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0251, which is available for public viewing
online at http://www.regulations.gov or in person viewing at the
Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov to either submit or view public comments, access
the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: NESHAP for Source Categories: Generic Maximum Achievable
Control Technology Standards (Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 1871.06, OMB Control Number 2060-0420.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2012. Under
OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the
collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
    Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General
Provisions of the NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, and any changes,
or additions to the Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY.
Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit initial
notification, performance tests, and periodic reports and results.
Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the
occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the
operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the
monitoring system is inoperative. Reports, at a minimum, are required
semiannually.
    These regulations apply to existing facilities and new facilities
of the following four categories: Polycarbonates (PC) Production,
Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers (AMF) Production, Acetal Resins (AR)
Production, and Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) Production. New facilities
include those that commenced construction or reconstruction after the
date of proposal. This information is being collected to assure
compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY.
    All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In
the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are
sent directly to the EPA regional office. This information is being
collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY, as
authorized in section 112 and 114(a) of the Clean Air Act. The required
information consists of emissions data and other information that has
been determined to be private.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are
identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 124
hours 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 previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Owners or operators of source
categories: Generic maximum achievable control technology standards for
acetal resin; acrylic and modacrylic fiber; hydrogen fluoride and
polycarbonate production.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 10.
    Frequency of Response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 3,718.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $554,916, which includes $424,571 in
labor costs, no capital/startup costs, and $130,345 in operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase in costs in the most
recently approved ICR. The increase in burden cost is due to
adjustments in labor rates. This ICR uses updated labor rates from the
Bureau of Labor Statistics to calculate burden costs.
    There is a decrease of 286 labor hours for the respondents related
to typographical error in the previous ICR. There is no change in the
estimation methodology for labor hours to the respondents. This is due
to two considerations: (1) The regulations have not changed over the
past three years and are not anticipated to change over the next three
years; and (2) the growth rate for respondents is very low, negative,
or non-existent.
    There is an increase in O&M costs to the respondents as compared to
the previous ICR. The O&M costs were updated based on comments received
during consultation with the affected entities, and the increase
reflects the costs associated with the maintenance and calibration of
emission controls and monitors.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2012-11499 Filed 5-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 48)]
[Notices]
[Page 13068-13069]
[DOCID:fr11mr08-125]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No.: NHTSA-2008-0044]

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements

AGENCY: National Highway

ACTION:  Request for public comment on proposed collections of
information.

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (PRA), before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must
solicit public comment on proposed collections of information,
including extensions and reinstatements of previously approved
collections. This document describes one collection of information or
which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 12, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to U.S. Department of
Transportation Dockets, W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurie Flaherty, Office of Emergency
Medical Services, NTI-140, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax (202) 366-
7721, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA, before an agency submits a
proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must first
publish a document in the Federal Register providing a 60-day comment
period and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected
agencies concerning each proposed collection of information. OMB has
promulgated regulations describing what must be included in such a
document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)), an agency must
ask for public comment on the following:
    (i) 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) 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) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected;
    (iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including 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.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public
comments on the following proposed collection of information:
     Title: Enhance 911 (E9-1-1) Grant Program.
     OMB Control Number:
     Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from the
approval date.
     Type of Request: New collection.

     Affected Public: Eligible applicants as defined by the E9-1-1 Act
of 2004.
     Form Number: HS-217.
     Abstract: U.S. Code Title 47, Chapter 8, Subchapter III, Section
942 authorizes the establishment of a joint grant program between the
Assistant Secretary of Commerce and the Administrator of the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Department of
Transportation to facilitate coordination among all parties involved in
the organization of E9-1-1 services and for the establishment of an E9-
1-1 Implementation Coordination Office (ICO). The ICO shall develop,
collect, and disseminate information concerning practices, procedures,
and technology used in the implementation of E9-1-1 services.
    Eligibility for a section 942 grant is based upon the entity's
ability to certify in its application the following: (1) The entity has
coordinated its application with the public safety answering points
(PSAP's); (2) The entity has designated a single officer or
governmental body to serve as the coordinator of implementation of E9-
1-1 services; (3) The entity has established a plan for the
coordination of and implementation of E9-1-1 services; (4) The entity
has integrated telecommunications services involved in the
implementation of E9-1-1 services; (5) No portion of any designated E9-
1-1 charges imposed by a State or other taxing jurisdiction within
which the applicant is located are being obligated or expected for any
purpose other than the purposes for which such charges are designated
during the period beginning 180 days immediately preceding the date of
application and continuing though the period which the grant funds are
available.
    The information collected for this grant program is to include
application submissions and the certification requirements. An
applicant that seeks to qualify must submit an application containing
information demonstrating that it satisfies the grant criteria. With
respect to each of the criteria selected, the proposed rule would
require certain supporting submissions from the State to demonstrate
that it meets grant criteria.
     Estimated Annual Burden: 5200 hours.
     Estimated Number of Respondents: 56.
     Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Issued on: March 6, 2008.
Marilena Amoni,
Associate Administrator for Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 08-1002 Filed 3-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-M