[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 241 (Monday, December 17, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 64569]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27173]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC19-33-000.
    Applicants: West Penn Power Company.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act, et al. of West Penn Power Company.
    Filed Date: 12/7/18.
    Accession Number: 20181207-5234.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:
    Docket Numbers: EG19-32-000.
    Applicants: Coolidge Power LLC.
    Description: Coolidge Power LLC Notice of Self-Certification of
Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 12/10/18.
    Accession Number: 20181210-5095.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/31/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER16-1804-002.
    Applicants: Deepwater Wind Block Island, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Deepwater
Wind Block Island, LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/7/18.
    Accession Number: 20181207-5247.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2415-002.
    Applicants: Pilesgrove Solar, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Tariff Records to Reflect
Settlement to be effective 10/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/10/18.
    Accession Number: 20181210-5158.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/31/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-89-002.
    Applicants: Frenchtown I Solar, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Tariff Records to Reflect
Settlement to be effective 10/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/10/18.
    Accession Number: 20181210-5155.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/31/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-90-002.
    Applicants: Frenchtown II Solar, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Tariff Records to Reflect
Settlement to be effective 10/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/10/18.
    Accession Number: 20181210-5156.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/31/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1899-003.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2018-12-10_Compliance re Pro Forma
Pseudo-Tie Agreement to be effective 8/29/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/10/18.
    Accession Number: 20181210-5177.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/31/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2397-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2018-12-10_Deficiency response to
Order 844 compliance to be effective 1/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/10/18.
    Accession Number: 20181210-5109.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/31/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-503-001.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Errata Filing to Notice of
Termination of Proxima Solar E&P Agreement to be effective 12/3/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/7/18.
    Accession Number: 20181207-5222.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-520-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Balancing Accounts Update
2019 (TRBA, RSBA, ECRBA, TACBA) to be effective 3/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/7/18.
    Accession Number: 20181207-5221.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-521-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Clean-up to OATT, Schedule
12-Appendix (BGE) re: cost allocation for b1016 to be effective 6/1/
2017.
    Filed Date: 12/10/18.
    Accession Number: 20181210-5046.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/31/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-522-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of WMPA SA
No. 3392; Queue No. Y1-045 to be effective 10/15/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/10/18.
    Accession Number: 20181210-5056.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/31/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-523-000.
    Applicants: Essential Power Rock Springs, LLC, PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Essential Power submits
revisions to Att. H-23 re: Transmission Rate Update to be effective 2/
8/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/10/18.
    Accession Number: 20181210-5124.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/31/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-524-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Att Q. re RPM
Credit Reduction for Planned GCR and QTU to be effective 2/8/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/10/18.
    Accession Number: 20181210-5150.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/31/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-525-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: First Revised ISA, SA No.
2132; Queue No. AC2-130 to be effective 11/20/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/10/18.
    Accession Number: 20181210-5154.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/31/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 10, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-27173 Filed 12-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 48)]
[Notices]
[Page 13007-13008]
[DOCID:fr11mr08-79]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2007-0004]

Random Drug Testing Rate for Covered Crewmembers

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of minimum random drug testing rate.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has set the calendar year 2008 minimum random
drug testing rate at 50 percent of covered crewmembers.

DATES: The minimum random drug testing rate is effective January 1,
2008 through December 31, 2008. Marine employers must submit their 2007
Management Information System (MIS) reports no later than April 15,
2008.

ADDRESSES: Annual MIS reports may be submitted to Commandant (CG-545),
U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW., Room 2404,
Washington, DC 20593-0001 or by electronic submission to the following
Internet address: http://homeport.uscg.mil/Drugtestreports.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this notice,
please contact Mr. Robert C. Schoening, Drug and Alcohol Program
Manager, Office of Investigations and Casualty Analysis (CG-545), U.S.
Coast Guard Headquarters, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions
on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 46 CFR 16.230, the Coast Guard
requires marine employers to establish random drug testing programs for
covered crewmembers on inspected and uninspected vessels.
    Every marine employer is required by 46 CFR 16.500 to collect and
maintain a record of drug testing program data for each calendar year,
and submit this data by 15 March of the following year to the Coast
Guard in an annual MIS report. Marine employers may either submit their
own MIS reports or have a consortium or other employer representative
submit the data in a consolidated MIS report.
    The purpose of setting a minimum random drug testing rate is to
assist the Coast Guard in analyzing its current approach for deterring
and detecting illegal drug abuse in the maritime industry. The testing
rate for calendar year 2007 is 50 percent.
    The Coast Guard may lower this rate if, for two consecutive years,
the drug test positive rate is less than 1.0 percent, in accordance
with 46 CFR 16.230(f)(2).
    Since 2006 MIS data indicates that the positive rate is greater
than one percent industry-wide (1.31 percent), the Coast Guard
announces that the minimum random drug testing rate will continue at 50
percent of covered employees for the period of January 1, 2008 through
December 31, 2008 in accordance with 46 CFR 16.230(e).
    Each year, the Coast Guard will publish a notice reporting the
results of random drug testing for the previous calendar year's MIS
data and the minimum annual percentage rate for random drug testing for
the next calendar year.

    Dated: March 3, 2008.
James A. Watson,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Prevention Policy.
 [FR Doc. E8-4800 Filed 3-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 33400]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14085]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Filed the Week Ending May 7,
2011

    The following Agreements were filed with the Department of
Transportation under Sections 412 and 414 of the Federal Aviation Act,
as amended (49 U.S.C. 1382 and 1384) and procedures governing
proceedings to enforce these provisions. Answers may be filed within 21
days after the filing of the application.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2011-0090.
    Date Filed: May 5, 2011.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: TC31 South West Pacific--TC1 (except Canada, USA).
Composite Resolution 017c e-Tariffs, 4-22 April 2011 (Memo 1618).
Intended Effective Date: 1 July 2011.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2011-0091.
    Date Filed: May 5, 2011.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: TC31 South West Pacific--TC1 (except Canada, USA),
Resolution 012p--Glossary of Termse-Tariffs, 4-22 April 2011 (Memo
0229). Intended Effective Date: 1 July 2011.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2011-0094.
    Date Filed: May 5, 2011.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: Mail Vote 677--Resolution 010m, TC3 between South East
Asia and Japan, Korea Special Passenger Amending Resolution between
China (excluding Hong Kong SAR and Macao SAR) and Japan (Memo 1429).
Intended Effective Date: 15 June 2011.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2011-0095.
    Date Filed: May 5, 2011.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: Mail Vote 676, TC1 Caribbean, Longhaul, Within South
America. Composite Resolutions e-Tariffs, 4-22 April 2011 (Memo
1620). Intended Effective Date: 1 July 2011.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2011-0096.
    Date Filed: May 5, 2011.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport
Association.Subject: Mail Vote 634, TC31 South Pacific South West
Pacific--TC1, (except Canada, USA) Composite Resolution 011be-
Tariffs 8-23. March 2010 (Memo 1613).
    Intended Effective Date: for travel on/after 1 July 2011.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2011-14085 Filed 6-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 203 (Wednesday, October 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63797-63799]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26673]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2007-D-0372]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Adverse Event Reporting and Recordkeeping for Dietary
Supplements as Required by the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription
Drug Consumer Protection Act

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by our Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information and to allow 60 days for public comment. This notice
solicits comments on the collection of information associated with
adverse event reporting and recordkeeping for dietary supplements as
required by the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer
Protection Act (the DSNDCPA).

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by December 21, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2007-D-0372 for the information collection request entitled,
``Adverse Event Reporting and Recordkeeping for Dietary Supplements as
Required by the DSNDCPA.''
    Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for
those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at
http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, we are publishing this notice of the proposed
collection of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, we invite
comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions,
including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the
accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on respondents, including through the use of
automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of
information technology.

Adverse Event Reporting and Recordkeeping for Dietary Supplements as
Required by the DSNDCPA, 21 U.S.C. 379aa-1(b)(1) OMB Control Number
0910-0635--Extension

    The DSNDCPA (Pub. L. 109-462) amends the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) with respect to serious adverse event
reporting and recordkeeping for dietary supplements and non-
prescription drugs marketed without an approved application. Section
761(b)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379aa-1(b)(1)) requires the
manufacturer, packer, or distributor whose name under section 403(e)(1)
of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 343(e)(1)) appears on the label of a dietary
supplement marketed in the United States to submit to us all serious
adverse event reports associated with the use of a dietary supplement,
accompanied by a copy of the product label. The manufacturer, packer,
or distributor of a dietary supplement is required by the DSNDCPA to
use the MedWatch form (Form FDA 3500A) when submitting a serious
adverse event report to FDA. In addition, under section 761(c)(2) of
the FD&C Act, the submitter of the serious adverse event report
(referred to in the statute as the ``responsible person'') is required
to submit to FDA a follow up report of any related new medical
information the responsible person receives within 1 year of the
initial report.
    Section 761(e)(1) of the FD&C Act requires that responsible persons
maintain records related to the dietary supplement adverse event
reports they receive, whether or not the adverse event is serious.
Under the statute, the records must be retained for a period of 6
years.
    As required by section 3(d)(3) of the DSNDCPA, we issued guidance
to describe the minimum data elements for serious adverse event reports
for dietary supplements. In the Federal Register of July 14, 2009 (74
FR 34024), we announced the availability of guidance entitled
``Guidance for Industry: Questions and Answers Regarding Adverse Event
Reporting and Recordkeeping for Dietary Supplements as Required by the
Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act.''
The guidance discusses how, when, and where to submit serious adverse
event reports for dietary supplements and followup reports. The
guidance also provides our recommendation on records maintenance and
access for serious and non-serious adverse event reports and related
documents.
    The guidance recommends that the responsible person document their
attempts to obtain the minimum data elements for a serious adverse
event report. Along with these records, the guidance recommends that
the responsible person keep the following other records: (1)
Communications between the responsible person and the initial reporter
of the adverse event and between the responsible person and any other
person(s) who provided information about the adverse event; (2) the
responsible person's serious adverse event report to us with
attachments; (3) any new information about the adverse event received
by the responsible person; (4) any reports to us of new information
related to the serious adverse event report.
    We estimate the annual reporting burden of this collection of
information as follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of                        Average
        21 U.S.C. section            Number of     responses per   Total annual     burden per      Total hours
                                    respondents     respondent       responses       response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 U.S.C. 379aa-1(b)(1)--serious             170              17           2,860               2           5,720
 adverse event reports for
 dietary supplements............
21 U.S.C. 379aa-1(c)(2)--                     42              17             715               1             715
 followup reports of new medical
 information....................
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           6,435
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    This estimate is based on our experience with similar adverse event
reporting programs and the number of serious adverse event reports and
followup reports received in the past 3 years. All dietary supplement
manufacturers, packers, or distributors are subject to serious adverse
event mandatory reporting.
    We received 2,435 initial serious adverse event reports in fiscal
year (FY) 2012, 3,414 in FY2013, and 2,745 in FY2014. We averaged these
figures (2,860 rounded to the nearest 10) as a basis for our estimated
number of annual reports. We also used an average of the number of
firms filing reports (170 rounded to the nearest 10). Finally, we
estimate that it will take respondents an average of 2 hours per report
to collect information about a serious adverse event associated with a
dietary supplement and report the information to us on Form FDA 3500A.
Thus, the estimated burden associated with submitting initial dietary
supplement serious adverse event reports is 5,720 hours (2,860
responses x 2 hours) as shown in row 1 of Table 1.
    If a respondent that has submitted a serious adverse event report
receives new information related to the serious adverse event within 1
year of submitting the initial report, the respondent must provide the
new information to us in a followup report. We estimate that 25 percent
of serious adverse event reports related to dietary supplements will
have a followup report submitted, resulting in approximately 715
followup reports submitted annually (2,860 x 0.25 = 715). Dividing the
annual number of reports among the 170 firms reporting results in
approximately 17 reports for 42 respondents. We estimate that each
followup report will require an hour to assemble and submit, including
the time needed to copy and attach the initial serious adverse event
report as recommended in the guidance. Thus the estimated burden for
followup reports of new information is 715 hours (715 responses x 1
hour) as shown in row 2 of Table 1.

                                                   Table 2--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Number of
             21 U.S.C. section                 Number of       records per      Total annual       Average burden  per recordkeeping       Total hours
                                             recordkeepers     recordkeeper       records
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dietary supplement adverse event records             1,700               74          125,800   0.5 (30 minutes)........................          62,900
 (21 U.S.C. 379aa-1(e)(1)).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    All dietary supplement manufacturers, packers, or distributors are
subject to serious adverse event recordkeeping. We estimate that there
are 1,700 such respondents, based on the figure 1,460 as provided in
our final rule of June 25, 2007 (72 FR 34751) on the ``Current Good
Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Packaging, Labeling, or
Holding Operations for Dietary Supplements,'' and factoring a two
percent annual growth rate. Estimating that each recordkeeper will keep
approximately 74 records per year results in an annual burden of
125,800 records. Estimating that assembling and filing these records,
including any necessary photocopying, will take approximately 30
minutes, or 0.5 hours, per record, results in an annual burden of
62,900 hours (125,800 records x 0.50 hours = 62,900 total hours.
    Once the documents pertaining to an adverse event report have been
assembled and filed in accordance with the safety reporting portal, we
expect the records retention burden to be minimal, as we believe most
establishments would normally keep this kind of record for at least
several years after receiving the report, as a matter of usual and
customary business practice.

    Dated: October 15, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-26673 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: March 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 56)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 12551-12553]
[DOCID:fr25mr09-5]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2008-1095]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Chehalis, Hoquiam, and Wishkah
Rivers, Aberdeen and Hoquiam, WA, Schedule Change

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing the drawbridge operation
regulation for the Washington State drawbridges across the Chehalis,
Hoquiam, and Wishkah Rivers at Grays Harbor, Washington. The change
reduces staffing requirements during the night when openings are
infrequent. The rule does this by modifying the number of hours of
advance notice required for draw openings and establishing the
telephone as the only means of initial contact for openings at night.

DATES: This rule is effective April 24, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Comments and related materials received from the public, as
well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the
docket, are part of docket USCG-2008-1095 and are available online at
http://www.regulations.gov. This material is also available for
inspection or copying at two locations: The Docket Management Facility
(M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays and Commander (dpw), Thirteenth Coast Guard District, 915
Second Avenue, Room 3510, Seattle, WA 98174-1067, between 8 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call Austin Pratt, Chief, Bridge Section, Waterways Management Branch,
Thirteenth Coast Guard District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have
questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On November 26, 2008, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Chehalis, Hoquiam, and
Wishkah Rivers, Aberdeen and Hoquiam, WA, Schedule Change in the
Federal Register (73 FR 229). Two responses were received from the
public. No public hearing was requested, and none was held.

Background and Purpose

    This rule enables the Washington State Department of
Transportation, the owner of the drawbridges across the Chehalis,
Hoquiam, and Wishkah Rivers at Grays Harbor, Washington, to reduce the
staffing of the Chehalis Bridge, which currently maintains a radio
watch during the night hours when advance notice is required for
openings of the draws of all of those bridges.
    One-hour notice is currently required for openings of the Chehalis
River Bridge from one hour after sunset to one hour before sunrise and
for all openings of the Simpson Avenue Bridge, Hoquiam River mile 0.5,
the Riverside Avenue Bridge, Hoquiam River mile 0.9, the Heron Street
Bridge, Wishkah River mile 0.2, and the Wishkah Street Bridge, Wishkah
River, mile 0.4.
    The reduction in staffing is appropriate because the draws of those
bridges rarely have to been opened during the period affected. In fact,
during the entire year of 2007 only 50 openings were requested for the
bridges between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m., which equates to an average of less
than one opening per week during those hours. Furthermore, most of the
requests were made by telephone. Whenever operators are at the Chehalis
River Bridge a normal radio watch will be maintained.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    Two comments were received from parties affected by this rule. Both
comments appeared to misunderstand some of the provisions of the rule.
Specifically, the rule requires notice of one hour rather than four
hours as one commenter believed. Another commenter appeared to believe
that a radio watch would never be maintained under the rule, but the
rule provides for a normal radio watch to be maintained whenever
operators are present. The commenters' objections were resolved as
noted and no changes were made to the rule based on the comments
received.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a
full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. We reached this conclusion
because the draws of the bridges rarely have to been opened during the
period affected, the draws will still be opened in a reasonable amount
of time, and most vessel operators already use the telephone to request
openings of the draws.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a

substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels
needing to transit the bridges during the period affected. This action
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities, however, because the bridges rarely have to been opened
during the period affected, the draws will still be opened in a
reasonable amount of time, and most vessel operators already use the
telephone to request openings of the draws.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 0023.1 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have
made a preliminary determination that this is one of a category of
actions which, individually or cumulatively, is not likely to have a
significant effect on the human environment because it simply
promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. We
seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Revise Sec.  117.1031 to read as follows:

Sec.  117.1031  Chehalis River.

    The draw of the SR 101 highway bridge, mile 0.1, at Aberdeen shall
open on signal from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m., except that from 7:15 a.m. to
8:15 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. to 5:15 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays, the draw need not open for vessels of less than 5000
gross tons. At all other times, the draw shall open on signal if at
least one hour notice is given by telephone to the Washington State
Department of Transportation. The opening signal is one prolonged blast
followed by one short blast.

0
3. In Sec.  117.1047 revise paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.1047  Hoquiam River.

* * * * *
    (c) The draw of the Simpson Avenue Bridge, mile 0.5, at Hoquiam,
shall open on signal if at least one hour notice is given by telephone
to the Washington State Department of Transportation. The opening
signal is two prolonged blasts followed by one short blast.
    (d) The draw of the Riverside Avenue Bridge, mile 0.9, at Hoquiam,
shall open on signal if at least one hour notice is given by telephone
to the Washington State Department of Transportation. The opening
signal is two prolonged blasts followed by two short blasts.

0
4. In Sec.  117.1065 revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.1065  Wishkah River.

* * * * *
    (c) The draws of the Heron Street Bridge, mile 0.2 and the Wishkah
Street Bridge, mile 0.4, at Aberdeen, shall open on signal if at least
one hour notice is given by telephone to the Washington State
Department of Transportation. The opening signal for both bridges is
one prolonged blast followed by two short blasts.

    Dated: March 9, 2009.
J. P. Currier,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. E9-6627 Filed 3-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register: September 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 176)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 52584-52591]
[DOCID:fr10se08-6]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 35

[EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0765; FRL-8712-7]
RIN 2040-AE99

NPDES Voluntary Permit Fee Incentive for Clean Water Act Section
106 Grants; Allotment Formula

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule revises the allotment formula contained in
EPA's Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 106

Water Pollution Control grant regulations to include a financial
incentive for States to voluntarily collect adequate National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit fees. EPA is amending its
existing CWA Section 106 grant allotment. This amendment provides the
Agency with the flexibility to annually allot separately an amount up
to three percent of the FY 2008 base funds allocated to States from CWA
Section 106 grants appropriated by Congress. This rule will begin in FY
2009. The incentive will not impact the FY 2008 base funds. It will be
set-aside for allotment only if funds allotted to the States are
greater than the amount allotted in FY 2008.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 10, 2008.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0765. All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g. , CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket, EPA/
DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robyn Delehanty, Office of Water,
Office of Wastewater Management, 4201M, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

    Affected Entities: State Agencies that are eligible to receive
grants under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act (CWA).

II. Background

    Section 106 of the CWA authorizes the EPA to provide grants to
State and interstate agencies \1\ to administer programs for the
prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution, including
the development and implementation of groundwater protection
strategies. Section 106(b) of the CWA directs the EPA Administrator to
make allotments ``in accordance with regulations promulgated by him on
the basis of the extent of the pollution problem in the respective
States.'' EPA's regulations implementing Section 106 can be found at 40
CFR 35.160 et seq. EPA's current allotment formula for Section 106
grants includes an allotment ratio for each State based on six
components selected to reflect the extent of the water pollution
problem in the respective States. These six components are surface
water area, ground water use, water quality impairment, potential point
sources, nonpoint sources, and the population of urbanized areas. 40
CFR 35.162(b)(1)(i). By including a component related to point sources,
EPA recognizes the important role they play in determining the extent
of pollution in a State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CWA Sections 106 and 518 authorize EPA to award such grants
to eligible Indian Tribes, but this rule does not affect those
grants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposed this rule amending the CWA Section 106 allotment
formula on January 4, 2007 (72 FR 293) and requested comments from
interested parties. EPA received 717 comments on the proposed rule. A
summary of the significant public comments and the Agency's responses
are included in this preamble in Section III below. This preamble also
summarizes the two changes to the final rule which EPA determined
necessary. These changes involve delaying implementation of this rule
until FY 2009 and changing the base fiscal year which the Agency will
use to determine if an allotment for this purpose should be made. EPA's
responses to all comments received on this rulemaking are included in
the docket described above.
    This final rule amends the State allotment formula to incorporate
financial incentives for States to implement adequate NPDES fee
programs. The Agency recognizes the importance of States' flexibility
in program management. Therefore, this final rule is purely an
incentive; it is voluntary and will not impact State's base funds. This
rule will only be invoked if there is an increase above the FY 2008
level in the total amount of funds allotted to States under 40 CFR
35.162(b).
    The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of any pollutant from
point sources except in compliance with other provisions of the
statute. 33 U.S.C. 1311(a). One of these provisions is CWA Section 402,
under which pollutant discharges can be authorized by an NPDES permit.
33 U.S.C. 1342(a). EPA oversees the NPDES program and also approves
applications from States to administer and enforce the NPDES program in
those States. Currently, 45 States are authorized by EPA to administer
all or some parts of the NPDES program.
    State water quality programs are funded with a mixture of State and
federal dollars. The growing complexity of water quality issues has
prompted more States to implement NPDES permit fee programs. An
estimated 41 States currently have permit fee programs in place, with
such fees paying for all or a portion of the cost of the State's permit
program.
    A number of States still operate their permit programs with little
or no reliance on permit fees. States can address permit program budget
shortfalls through the implementation of permit fee programs that
collect funds to cover the cost of issuing and administering permits.
Funding permit programs with the support of permit fees allows States
to use CWA Section 106 funds for other critical water quality programs,
which address the prevention, reduction, and elimination of water
pollution.
    EPA is committed to making State surface water protection programs
more sustainable through better resource management. As State agencies
carry out most of the day-to-day aspects of water quality functions,
their responsibilities are expanding while they are simultaneously
facing increasingly severe funding constraints. As a nation, billions
of federal funds under the Water Pollution Control grants, together
with State resources, have been spent to establish and maintain
adequate measures for the prevention and control of surface and
groundwater resources. Federal and State governments cannot carry out
this responsibility alone. EPA is committed to finding effective and
efficient solutions to maintaining sustainable State water pollution
control programs that continue to provide this nation with clean and
protected water. All levels of government and the private sector must
share in this commitment.
    The purpose of this rule is to encourage States to voluntarily
collect NPDES permit fees adequate to meet their program costs. This
amendment to the allotment formula is designed to provide an incentive
for States to voluntarily move toward greater sustainability in the way
they manage

and budget for environmental programs and to shift part of the
financial burden to those who benefit from NPDES permits. No State is
required to collect permit fees under this rule. To ensure that no
States receive a reduction from their current allotment amount, no
funds will be set aside for this permit fee incentive unless funds
designated for distribution in FY 2009 and subsequent fiscal years
under 40 CFR 35.162(b) are greater than $171 million, which is the
amount of funds set aside under 40 CFR 35.162(b) in FY 2008. If 40 CFR
35.162(b) funds in FY 2009 or later fiscal years are not greater than
$171 million, then EPA will not be able to invoke the permit incentive.
This rule is intended to increase overall available funding for CWA 106
eligible activities.
    The amount of any permit fee incentive allotment set-aside would be
limited to three percent of the funds allotted under 40 CFR 35.162(b)
in FY 2008, or $5.1 million. And, in order to ensure that the incentive
to each qualifying State is modest, the rule caps the maximum share of
the incentive at 50% of the amount a State received under 40 CFR
35.162(b) in the previous year. As a result of this rule, beginning in
FY 2009, EPA would allot the State and interstate CWA 106 grant funds
in the following order: 2.6 percent will be set aside for allotment to
the eligible interstate agencies in accordance with the existing
interstate allotment formula in 40 CFR 35.162(c); next, funds may be
allotted for specific water pollution control elements under 40 CFR
35.162(d); next, funds may be allotted to States in accordance with the
permit fee incentive allotment formula under 40 CFR 35.162(e), which
requires that ``there is an increase above the FY 2008 level in the
total amount of funds allotted to States under subsection (b)''; and
finally, the balance will be allotted to the States in accordance with
the existing allotment formula under 40 CFR 35.162(b).
    The only States which will be eligible for this set-aside are those
States which have been authorized by EPA to implement the NPDES program
by the first day of the fiscal year, October 1, for which funds are
appropriated by Congress. Under this rule, these States must also
submit annually a certification to EPA (to the attention of the
Regional Administrator). For FY 2009, the certification must be
postmarked by November 14, 2008. For every year thereafter, the
required certification must be postmarked by October 1. The
certification must meet the following two requirements. First, the
certification must include the total NPDES State program costs, the
percentage of NPDES program costs recovered by the State through permit
fee collections during the most recently completed State fiscal year,
and a statement that the amount of permit fees collected is used by the
State to defray NPDES program costs. This rule defines NPDES program
costs as all activities relating to permitting, enforcement, and
compliance. Second, the certification must include a statement that
State recurrent expenditures for water quality programs have not
decreased from the previous State fiscal year, or indicate that a
decrease in such expenditures is attributable to a non-selective
reduction of the programs of all executive branch agencies of the State
government. The concept of non-selective reduction is derived from the
statutory requirements related to maintenance of effort from Clean Air
Act Section 105 grants and EPA's implementing regulations found at 40
CFR 35.146. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is prohibited from awarding
grants to air pollution control agencies if State recurrent
expenditures are not at least equal to such expenditures during the
preceding State fiscal year. EPA can still award a grant even if there
are decreases in such expenditures if EPA determines that the reduction
is attributable to a non-selective reduction of all State programs.
This situation would occur, for example, when a State legislature
enacts budget cuts across all State agencies and does not target the
air program. EPA is adopting a similar approach in this rulemaking.
    After EPA determines the number of eligible States which have met
the certification requirements, each State will be able to receive up
to a full share of the set-aside amount. EPA will determine the amount
of a full share by dividing the set-aside amount by the number of
eligible States which have met the certification requirements. A full
share will be the same amount for each State. The percent of a full
share that each State will receive, however, will be determined by the
following formula, based on the certification information described
above.
    (A) A State will receive 25 percent of a full share if that State
has collected permit fees which equal or exceed 75 percent of total
State NPDES program costs; or
    (B) A State will receive 50 percent of a full share if that State
has collected permit fees which equal or exceed 90 percent of total
State NPDES program costs; or
    (C) A State will receive a full share if that State has collected
permit fees which equal 100 percent of total State NPDES program costs.
    In other words, in its certification, a State must inform EPA of
its total NPDES program costs and the percentage of which are recovered
through permit fees. EPA would use the information from this
certification to determine any additional amount a State would receive
in its Section 106 grant based on this financial incentive allotment
formula. If, for example, there is an increase in Section 106 funding
of $5.1 million and EPA has verified that 5 States will qualify for the
Permit Fee Incentive, the first step would be to determine the value of
a full share. This would be calculated by dividing $5.1 million by 5
states with a full share equaling $1.02 million. Next, based on the
State's certification, the percent of fees collected will be used to
calculate the amount of the incentive for each qualifying state. For
example; State A collects 75% of their NPDES permit program costs,
State B collects 90%, State C collects 75%, State D collects 100%, and
State E collects 75%. Once again a full share equals $1.02 million.
State A will receive 1/4 of $1.02 million which calculates to be
$255,000. State B will receive 1/2 of $1.02 million or $510,000. State
C will receive 1/4 of $1.02 million or $255,000. State D will receive a
full share, $1.02 million and finally, State E will receive 1/4 of
$1.02 million or $255,000. A total incentive of $2,295,000 will be
distributed to the 5 States with a remaining balance of $2,805,000.
Since 100% of the incentive pool was not allotted per 40 CFR 35.162(f)
(e.g., because some or all qualifying States do not cover 100% of their
NPDES program costs with fees), then the remainder of the incentive
pool will be allotted per the formula under 40 CFR 35.162 (b). A more
simplified example would be if a State's total NPDES program costs are
$1 million, and the State collected $750,000 in NPDES permit fees, a
State would receive 25% of a full share in addition to the grant amount
allotted to it under the current CWA Section 106 allotment formula. It
should be noted that the rule caps the maximum share of the incentive
at 50% of the amount a State received under 40 CFR 35.162(b) in the
previous year. States receiving the incentive, either in part or in
full, are free to allocate those funds per the individual State's water
quality program priorities, which address the prevention, reduction,
and elimination of water pollution and are eligible under CWA Section
106.

III. Response to Comments

A. EPA's Authority To Issue This Rule

    Multiple commenters questioned the Agency's authority to create the
incentive program for various reasons. The Agency maintains that it
clearly has the legal authority to establish conditions for the
distribution of grant funding consistent with the approach reflected in
the rule. Section 106(b) of the CWA states: ``From the sums
appropriated in any fiscal year, the Administrator shall make
allotments to the several States and interstate agencies in accordance
with regulations promulgated by him on the basis of the extent of the
pollution problem in the respective States.'' 33 U.S.C. 1256(b). EPA
complies with this statutory requirement and makes allotments on the
basis of the extent of the pollution problem in the States. EPA has
codified this basis at 40 CFR 35.162(b)(1), which lists six components
the agency takes into account to determine this allotment: Surface
water area, ground water use, water quality impairment, potential point
sources, nonpoint sources, and population of urbanized areas. We also
list associated elements, sub elements, and supporting data for each
component. This is not, however, the only basis the agency uses to make
allotments to the States, and we do not read the above statutory
provision as requiring that the extent of pollution be the only basis
for the allotment process. Section 106(b) does not state that
allotments shall be made only on the basis of the extent of pollution.
Thus, we do not read this language to prohibit other bases for the
overall allotment of Section 106 grant funds. Further, the statutory
language includes the phrase ``[f]rom the sums appropriated, the
Administrator shall make allotments [emphasis added] * * *'' implying
that not all of the funds appropriated must be allotted on this basis.
    In fact, EPA has promulgated other bases for allotting 106 funds.
For example, our regulation at 40 CFR 35.162(b)(2) imposes a funding
floor; 40 CFR 35.162(b)(4) includes an inflation adjustment; 40 CFR
35.162(b)(5) imposes a cap on funding increases; and 40 CFR
35.162(b)(6) imposes a cap on the component ratio of the six elements.
In addition, we allot to the interstate agencies based on a percentage
of funds appropriated for Section 106 purposes (40 CFR 35.162(c)).
Finally, we also have the ability to use an alternative allotment
formula when the appropriations process indicates that some of the
Section 106 funds should be used for specific water pollution control
elements (40 CFR 35.162(d)).
    Other language in Section 106 also lends support to our
interpretation of our authority. Section 106(c) authorizes the
Administrator to pay States for their water quality programs two
different ways, whichever is the lesser: Either the allotment under
106(b) or ``the reasonable costs as determined by the Administrator of
developing and carrying out a [State] pollution program * * *'' Section
106(g) allows EPA to reallot any sums allotted under 106(b) when funds
originally allotted are not paid to the State. This reallotment is not
required to be conducted in accordance with 106(b). Both of these
provisions indicate to EPA that Congress gave the Agency flexibility to
allot to the States and interstates not only on the basis of the extent
of pollution in the States but also on the basis of other factors.
Further, because the permit fee rule is related to fees charged to
dischargers, it does, in fact, fit within the extent of pollution basis
used in the current allotment formula. Under the current allotment
formula found at 40 CFR 35.162(b), one of the six components evaluated
is the number of potential point sources. Similarly, the incentive
allotment is based in part on evaluating the number of point sources in
a State and collection of fees from dischargers. Finally, no State has
challenged the allotment formulae summarized above that have been
implemented by EPA for several years.
    Two commenters, citing 40 CFR 35.162(d), stated that EPA lacks the
authority to engage in the rulemaking absent Congressional
authorization and that we failed to consult with States as required
under this provision. We disagree. No Congressional action is required
to execute this rulemaking (see discussion above). The President's FY
2007 Budget Request for EPA did include language directing EPA to
promulgate this rule, but that language was never enacted into statute.
As stated above, EPA has the statutory authority to promulgate this
rule under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act. In addition, EPA will
submit the final rule to Congress in accordance with the Congressional
Review Act.
    Regarding the applicability of 40 CFR 35.162(d), this rule does not
fall within the scope of that provision because this rule does not
allot a portion of the funds for a specific water pollution control
element, such as assessment of impaired water bodies. (See, Table 1 of
40 CFR 35.162, Formula Component No. 3). The provision at 40 CFR
35.162(d) was promulgated to address a situation like that which
occurred in FY 2006 in which both the President's Budget Request and
EPA's Appropriation targeted Section 106 grants funds to support
enhanced water quality monitoring efforts. As EPA stated when it
promulgated 40 CFR 35.162(d), the application of 35.162(d) is limited
to ``situations where the appropriations process has indicated that
funds should be used for a specific purpose'' (71 FR 17, January 3,
2006). Because this rule does not fall within this situation, any
consultation requirement is not applicable.

B. EPA's Rulemaking Process

    Commenters also questioned whether the Agency complied with all
applicable statutory and executive order reviews relating to the
rulemaking process. EPA maintains we met all of our obligations and
have even gone beyond that which is required.
    Some commenters asserted that EPA did not adequately consult with
the states on the details of the rulemaking as required in Executive
Order 13132, ``Federalism''. We disagree that this rule has federalism
implications that would trigger the requirements of Executive Order
13132. Actions that have ``federalism implications'' are defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations and regulatory policies that
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.''
This rule is a voluntary incentive that does not have substantial
direct compliance costs on States. Nor will this rule substantially
impact the relationship between the national government and the States
or the distribution of power between the national government and the
States, as contemplated under the Executive Order.
    These commenters also suggested that EPA failed to consult under
Executive Order 13132. Although this Executive Order is not applicable,
EPA, in fact, took several steps to ensure that input from the States
was solicited and considered. State representatives nominated by the
Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control
Administrators (ASIWPCA) and the Environmental Council of the States
were provided an opportunity to provide input at the outset of rule
development. EPA held a series of work group teleconferences in 2006
and discussed the proposed rule with attendees at the 2006 annual
ASIWPCA meeting. EPA carefully considered feedback received during work
group meetings prior to the publication of the proposed rule. As a
result of the comments received from the States and

other entities prior to publication of the proposed rule, the proposal
was modified significantly.
    Some commenters asserted that EPA did not comply with Executive
Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 13258 and Executive Order
13422. We disagree. EPA disagrees with assertions that the rule will
have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities. However, upon further consideration, the Agency has
determined that the rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 because it raises novel policy issues. Therefore,
this rule will be submitted to OMB for review.
    Additionally, some commenters asserted that this rule does not meet
the ``compelling public need'' test included in Executive Order 12866.
EPA disagrees that Executive Order 12866 contains a test that mandates
Agency rules have a compelling public need. The requirements of the
Executive Order are clearly distinct from the ``Statement of Regulatory
Philosophy and Principles'' that contains the compelling public need
language. However, EPA has complied with the Agency responsibilities
included in Section 6 of Executive Order 12866.
    A few commenters contended that EPA has not complied with the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act (SBREFA). We disagree. By its terms, the RFA only applies to
rulemakings which require notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C.
553(b) or any other statute. Grant rules are expressly excluded from
the coverage of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) by the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a).
Similarly, UMRA applies to ``federal mandates,'' which exclude
``conditions of Federal assistance.'' 2 U.S.C. 658(5), (6) & (7).
Because this is a grant rule, by definition this rule is not subject to
the RFA or Sections 202 and 205 of UMRA. Additionally, UMRA generally
excludes from the definition of ``Federal intergovernmental mandate''
duties that arise from participation in a voluntary federal program,
such as the fee incentive program established by this rule.

C. Financial Impact of Proposed Rule

    Many commenters expressed concerns regarding the potential
financial impact of the proposed rule. Commenters' concerns included:
That the costs of working to qualify for the incentive would exceed the
value of the incentive, that increased permit fees would adversely
impact small communities and businesses, and that States may see a
decline in general revenue funding from their legislatures if they
begin collecting permit fees. Many of the comments drew conclusions
based on the premise that EPA was requiring States to impose permit
fees on point source-dischargers.
    The incentive program is voluntary. It is designed to encourage
States to consider establishing or expanding permit fee programs.
However, States are under no obligation to apply for these funds. Each
State should continue to make their permit fee decisions based on sound
economic and programmatic information.
    As a result of comments received during the development of the
proposed rule, EPA did make changes prior to the proposal of the rule
to promote responsible decision making regarding permit fees and
participation in the incentive program. EPA established the pool at a
modest amount (no more than three percent of FY 2008 core program
funding). The Agency considers the incentive pool to be sufficient to
generate State interest but not large enough to significantly impact
the amount of core Section 106 funding available. The incentive pool
will not be taken from existing core program funding but will only be
created from State grant increases above FY 2008 levels. No State will
receive reduced funding as a result of this rule. The total incentive
will never exceed approximately $5.1 million. Future increases in
Section 106 funding above FY 2008 levels may be distributed through the
current distribution mechanism using the allotment formula found at 40
CFR 35.162.
    Some comments also focused on the challenges that States may
potentially encounter in attempting to comply with the rule, including
collection and reporting of cost information to EPA in a timely manner.
EPA will work with the States to provide assistance in applying for a
share of the incentive. As necessary, EPA will provide any
clarifications on the application process, including guidance and Q&A
documents. The Agency postponed rule implementation until FY 2009 to
provide States additional time to establish new or expand existing
permit fee programs.
    Multiple commenters objected to the use of grant ``set-asides.''
The comments suggested that designating funds for specific purposes
eliminates State flexibility to use the funding to address the highest
State priorities. As use of approximately 85 percent of State grant
funding is still at the discretion of the States (with EPA approval),
EPA has ensured that States continue to have wide latitude in targeting
funding according to State priorities. EPA has designated the remaining
funding to address Administration priorities and to ensure that the
funds are used as Congress intended. In addition, States receiving the
incentive, either in part or in full are free to allocate those funds
per the individual State's water quality program priorities.
Furthermore, recovering permit program costs through fees will make
resources available for other water quality program activities,
creating a net increase in the amount of funds that States can devote
to addressing their water quality priorities.

D. State Discretion and the Role of State Legislatures and General
Funds

    Commenters provided information regarding how States fund their
NPDES programs, and the restrictions that some States face in
implementing or expanding permit fee programs. Some noted that their
NPDES permits are funded through States' general revenue. Some
commenters expressed concerns that the proposed rule would interfere
with State discretion regarding how States manage and fund State water
quality programs. Commenters also noted that it may be difficult or
even impossible to receive legislative approval for implementation of a
permit fee system or increases in existing fees.
    EPA emphasizes that the incentive program is voluntary. The
incentive program promotes the use of permit fees as a mechanism for
funding water quality activities. EPA recognizes that there are a
number of revenue streams that States may employ to support State water
quality programs, including federal support, State general funds, and
revenue from those who benefit from the activity (permit fees). EPA
also recognizes that there may currently be limitations in place that
prevent States from increasing permit fees or implementing permit fee
programs in time to qualify for the incentive in FY 2009.
    Ultimately, States have the option to collect fees and apply for
the incentive funds or to choose other mechanisms for funding their
activities. States that do not qualify for the incentive during the
first year that it is available will not be precluded from receiving a
share of the incentive in future years.
    Recovering permit program costs through fees will make resources

available for other water quality program activities, creating a net
increase in the amount of funds that States can devote to addressing
their water quality priorities. A State may choose not to apply for
funds if State officials decide that meeting the qualifying threshold
is not in the best interest of the State. EPA intentionally limited the
size of the incentive pool to protect core funding for all States, in
recognition of the fact that not every State will qualify or attempt to
qualify for the incentive program.

E. Objective and Intent of Proposed Rule

    Many commenters stated that EPA has not clearly articulated the
objective of the rule or demonstrated that the incentive will serve the
intended purpose of shifting more of the financial burden for program
operation to NPDES permit holders. As stated above, the purpose of this
rule is to encourage States to voluntarily collect NPDES permit fees
adequate to meet their program costs. This rule is designed to provide
an incentive for States to move toward greater sustainability in the
way they manage and budget for environmental programs and to shift part
of the financial burden to those who benefit from NPDES permits.

F. Promoting Water Quality Protection

    Some commenters contended that the creation of an incentive pool
would limit funding to State water quality programs, thereby
potentially adversely impacting a State's ability to protect and
improve water quality. These comments were based on the belief that the
incentive pool represents a reduction in 106 funding and may signal
EPA's intent to eliminate all federal funding for State water quality
programs in the future. EPA has ensured that the rule creates an
incentive that is sufficient to encourage States to increase or
maintain the sustainability of their water quality programs while
protecting core 106 funding for those States that currently do not, or
choose not to, qualify for the incentive. The incentive pool will be
created only from program funding increases above FY 2008 funding
levels (up to three percent of FY 2008 core program funding) and can
only be applied to support Section 106 eligible activities. In
addition, following distribution of incentives to qualifying States,
all remaining incentive funds will be distributed to all States through
the existing formula (40 CFR 35.162(b)).
    Some commenters also stated that EPA has failed to demonstrate that
the incentive program will have a positive environmental impact. EPA
acknowledges that States which fail to qualify for the incentive will
receive fewer grant dollars than if all of the funds were distributed
through the existing formula. However, EPA does not believe that this
will negatively impact a State's ability to protect water quality or
unfairly penalize those States that are currently unable to qualify for
the incentive. Ultimately, the Agency believes that the new fee revenue
that States will generate, coupled with the incentive, may
significantly increase the available funding for water quality
programs, justifying EPA's decision to set aside a modest portion of
106 funding. EPA also believes that this increase in available funding
will allow States to build more sustainable water quality programs that
are better equipped to address water quality problems.

G. Impact on Non-Authorized States

    Some commenters expressed concern regarding the impact of the
proposed rule on non-authorized States. EPA reiterates that base grant
funding for State water quality programs is protected under this rule.
The incentive pool will be created only from future State Section 106
increases greater than FY 2008 funding. The total incentive will never
exceed approximately $5.1 million. Therefore, the amount of funding
diverted from any one State as a consequence of this rule will be
relatively modest, should not adversely impact a State's ability to
effectively implement their water quality program, and should not be a
pivotal factor in any State program approval decision.

H. Permit Fees for EPA-Regulated Dischargers

    Some commenters noted that the rule does not apply to federal
facilities, tribal lands, and other EPA-regulated dischargers in non-
authorized States. EPA reiterates that this rule is not solely intended
to collect fees. It is intended to support the implementation of high
quality NPDES programs in authorized States while at the same time
build more sustainable State water programs. EPA does not collect user
fees in non-authorized States. In addition, the distribution of permit
program responsibilities among the non-authorized States and EPA varies
by State. While none of the non-authorized States issue permits, many
carry out a number of permit program-related activities.

I. Resources Needs Gap

    A few commenters were concerned that EPA's focus on permit fees
detracts from efforts to address the resources needs gap identified in
the State Water Quality Management Resource Analysis Task Force's
Interim 2002 report. EPA agrees that action needs to be taken to
address the resource needs gap and believes that this rule responds
directly to the State Resource Analysis Report. The Agency asserts that
if States establish or expand permit fee programs to qualify for the
incentive funds established under this rule, they will ultimately
realize a net increase in the amount of funding available for their
water quality programs. EPA also believes that recovering all or most
of program costs through permit fees represents a more sustainable
approach to program management and budgeting.

J. Measuring the Success of NPDES Programs

    A few commenters stated that the success of NPDES programs should
be measured by improvements in water quality, rather than the amount of
permit fees a State generates. EPA agrees with this position and does
not consider the criteria set forth in today's rule regarding permit
program costs recovered to be an environmental measure of NPDES program
success or a measure of NPDES program adequacy. The purpose of this
rule is to encourage States to voluntarily collect NPDES permit fees
adequate to meet their program costs.

K. Self-Certification and Reporting Requirements

    Many commenters stated that the proposed rule would impose a
significant administrative burden on the States. Additionally, some
commenters indicated that the incentive would not be sufficient to
justify the expenses necessary to meet the certification requirements
of the proposed rule. In addition to ensuring the integrity of the
incentive program, EPA believes the reporting required under the
incentive program will help States to understand and document program
costs and identify more opportunities to ensure program sustainability.
    The rule provides for a modest incentive to further encourage
States to establish or expand their permit fee programs. EPA
anticipates that the additional revenue streams created from both the
extra fees and the incentive awards will provide sufficient revenue to
generate interest among States and cover the costs of creating or
expanding a permit fee program and meeting all accounting and reporting
requirements outlined in this rule. Since this rule establishes a
voluntary incentive program, EPA advises States to carefully analyze
all options before pursuing any fee strategy.

L. Defining NPDES Activities

    Some commenters requested clarification and definitions for several
terms used in the proposed rule, including ``NPDES program'' and an
``adequate'' NPDES fee program. As necessary, EPA will provide
additional guidance regarding those activities the Agency considers to
be included in the program's scope.

M. Current Status of State NPDES Programs

    Some commenters provided information regarding the current status
and structure of, and funding mechanisms for State NPDES programs. This
information is included in the comments which can be found in the
public docket, available at www.regulations.gov.

N. Alternatives to Proposed Incentive

    Some commenters suggested alternatives to the proposed rule. While
the Agency has determined that some of these suggestions are not
viable, others are not mutually exclusive of the rule we are finalizing
today. EPA commits to continue to work with the States on these ideas.

 Conclusion

    After careful evaluation of the comments received, the Agency has
decided to finalize this rule with only two minor modifications: (1)
Changing the implementation date of the rule from FY 2008 to FY 2009
(e.g., beginning October 1, 2008) and (2) changing the base fiscal year
the Agency will use to determine if a permit fee allotment is made from
FY 2006 to FY 2008.
    Statutory and Executive Order Reviews: Under Executive Order 12866
(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is a ``significant action''
because it involves novel policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted
this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
under Executive Order 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB
recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.
Because this rule is not subject to notice and comment requirements
under the Administrative Procedures Act or any other statute, it is not
subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title 2 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1999
(UMRA)) for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector
that would subject the rule to Sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA) (Pub.
L. 104-4). The rule imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or
Tribal governments or the private sector. In addition, this rule does
not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Although this
rule proposes to create new binding legal requirements, such
requirements do not substantially and directly affect Indian Tribes
under Executive Order 13175 (63 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). EPA
interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as
applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the
Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not
establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or
safety risks. This rule will not have federalism implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. EPA has determined
that this rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations
because it is a grant rule that does not affect the level of protection
provided to human health or the environment. This rule is not a
``significant energy action'' as defined in Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it
is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that this
rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects. This rule does
not involve technical standards; thus, the requirements of Section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an
additional information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The
Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides that
before certain actions may take effect, the agency promulgating the
action must submit a report, which includes a copy of the action, to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective on September 10, 2008.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 35

    Environmental protection, Administrative practices and procedures,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control.

    Dated: September 4, 2008.
Benjamin H. Grumbles,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.

0
EPA amends 40 CFR part 35 as follows:

PART 35--[AMENDED]

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
1. The authority citation for part 35, Subpart A continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 42
U.S.C. 300f et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.; 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.;
15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq.; Public Law 104-134,
110 Stat. 1321, 1321-299 (1966); Public Law 105-65, 111 Stat. 1344,
1373 (1997).

0
2. Section 35.162 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:

Sec.  35.162   Basis for allotment.

* * * * *
    (e) Permit fee incentive allotment formula. If there is an increase
above the FY 2008 level in the total amount of funds allotted to States
under subsection (b), EPA may award this increase as the permit fee
incentive allotment to eligible States in accordance with this section.
The amount of this annual allotment shall not be greater than three
percent of the funds allotted under paragraph (b) of this section in FY
2008, and any funds above this amount shall be allotted to States under
paragraph (b) of this section.
    (1) Each eligible State may receive up to a full share of this
allotment, as determined by the following formula. A full share is the
allotment amount divided by the number of eligible States:
    (i) A State will receive 25 percent of a full share if that State
has collected permit fees which equal or exceed 75 percent of total
State NPDES program costs; or
    (ii) A State will receive 50 percent of a full share if that State
has collected permit fees which equal or exceed 90 percent of total
State NPDES program costs; or
    (iii) A State will receive a full share if that State has collected
permit fees

which equal 100 percent of total State NPDES program costs.
    (2) The maximum share to any State under this subsection shall not
exceed 50 percent of the State's previous year's total Section 106
allotment determined under paragraph (b) of this section.
    (3) Any funds left remaining after all shares have been allotted
under this subsection will be re-allotted to the States under paragraph
(b) of this section.
    (4) In order for a State to be eligible for this incentive, a State
must: be authorized by EPA to implement the NPDES program by the first
day of the Federal fiscal year, October 1, for which the funds have
been appropriated; and submit to EPA a certification meeting the
requirements of paragraph (e)(5) of this section.
    (5) The certification required under paragraph (e)(4) of this
section must meet the following requirements:
    (i) The certification must be submitted annually to EPA (to the
attention of the Regional Administrator). For FY 2009, the
certification must be postmarked by November, 14, 2008. For every year
thereafter the certification must be postmarked by October 1; and
    (ii) The certification must include the total NPDES State program
costs and the percentage of NPDES program costs, as defined in
paragraph (e)(6) of this section, recovered by the State through permit
fee collections during the most recently completed State fiscal year,
and a statement that the amount of permit fees collected is used by the
State to defray NPDES program costs; and
    (iii) The certification must include a statement that State
recurrent expenditures for water quality programs have not decreased
from the previous State fiscal year or indicate that a decrease in such
expenditures is attributable to a non-selective reduction of the
programs of all executive branch agencies of the State government.
    (6) NPDES program costs are defined as all permitting, enforcement,
and compliance costs.

[FR Doc. E8-21046 Filed 9-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US

05/01/2008 12:33 PM

To

<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Robert Meyers/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jason Burnett/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, David Orlin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Charlotte Bertrand/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Mike Clark/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

Fw: 2 files IIE thru end preamble

Rule section to follow shortly, along with the DOT changes.

-----Forwarded by Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US on 05/01/2008 12:31PM -----

To: Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

From: Deirdre Murphy/RTP/USEPA/US

Date: 05/01/2008 12:30PM

Subject: 2 files IIE thru end preamble