[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 53 (Monday, March 19, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15966-15969]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6563]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL-9646-5]

Ohio: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is granting Ohio final authorization of the changes to its
hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). The agency published a proposed rule on September 14, 2011
at

76 FR 56708 and provided for public comment. The public comment period
ended on October 14, 2011. We received no comments. No further
opportunity for comment will be provided. EPA has determined that these
changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final
authorization. We now make a final decision to authorize Ohio's changes
through this final action.

DATES: The final authorization will be effective on March 19, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R05-RCRA-2011-0530. All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the
index, some of the information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information 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 at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy. You may
view and copy Ohio's application from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the following
addresses: U.S. EPA Region 5, LR-8J, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois, contact: Gary Westefer<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency, Lazarus Government Center, 50 West
Town Street, Suite 700, Columbus, Ohio, contact: Kit Arthur (614) 644-
2932.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Westefer, Ohio Regulatory
Specialist, U.S. EPA Region 5, LR-8J, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Why are revisions to state programs necessary?

    States which have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA
section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste
program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent
than the federal program. As the federal program changes, States must
change their programs and request EPA to authorize the changes. Changes
to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or
regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur.
Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to
EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124,
260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.

B. What decisions have we made in this rule?

    We conclude that Ohio's application to revise its authorized
program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements
established by RCRA. Therefore, we propose to grant Ohio final
authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes
described in the authorization application. Ohio has responsibility for
permitting treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) within
its borders (except in Indian Country) and for carrying out the aspects
of the RCRA program described in its revised program application,
subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
of 1984 (HSWA). New federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by
federal regulations that EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA
take effect in authorized states before they are authorized for the
requirements. Thus, EPA will implement those requirements and
prohibitions in Ohio, including issuing permits, until the state is
granted authorization to do so.

C. What is the effect of this authorization decision?

    The effect of this decision, once finalized, is that a facility in
Ohio subject to RCRA would have to comply with the authorized state
requirements instead of the equivalent federal requirements in order to
comply with RCRA. Ohio has enforcement responsibilities under its state
hazardous waste program for RCRA violations, but EPA retains its
authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which
include, among others, authority to:
    1. Do inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses or
reports; and
    2. Enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits
    3. Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the state has
taken its own actions
    This action will not impose additional requirements on the
regulated community because the regulations for which Ohio is being
authorized are already effective, and will not be changed by EPA's
final action.

D. Proposed Rule

    On September 14, 2011 (76 FR 56708), EPA published a proposed rule.
In that rule we proposed granting authorization of changes to Ohio's
hazardous waste program and opened our decision to public comment. The
agency received no comments on this proposal. EPA found Ohio's RCRA
program to be satisfactory.

E. What has Ohio previously been authorized for?

    Ohio initially received final authorization on June 28, 1989,
effective June 30, 1989 (54 FR 27170) to implement the RCRA hazardous
waste management program. We granted authorization for changes to their
program on April 8, 1991, effective June 7, 1991 (56 FR 14203) as
corrected June 19, 1991, effective August 19,1991 (56 FR 28088); July
27, 1995, effective September 25, 1995 (60 FR 38502); October 23, 1996,
effective December 23, 1996 (61 FR 54950); January 24, 2003, effective
January 24, 2003 (68 FR 3429); January 20, 2006, effective January 20,
2006 (71 FR 3220), and October 29, 2007, effective October 29, 2007 (72
FR 61063).

F. What changes are we proposing with today's action?

    On May 9, 2011, Ohio submitted a final complete program revision
application, seeking authorization of their changes in accordance with
40 CFR 271.21. We now make a final decision, that Ohio's hazardous
waste program revision satisfies all of the requirements necessary to
qualify for final authorization. Therefore, we are granting Ohio final
authorization for the following program changes (a table with the
complete state analogues is provided in the September 14, 2011 proposed
rule):

Amendments to Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third Scheduled
Wastes Checklist 50.1, February 27, 1989 (54 FR 8264);
Changes to Part 124 Not Accounted for by Present Checklists, Checklist
70, April 1, 1983 (48 FR 14146); June 30, 1983 (48 FR 30113); July 26,
1988 (53 FR 28118); September 26, 1988 (53 FR 37396); January 4, 1989
(54 FR 246);
NESHAPS: Final Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous
Waste Combustors; Technical Corrections, Checklist 188.1, May 14, 2001
(66 FR 24270);
NESHAPS: Interim Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous
Waste Combustors (Interim Standards Rule), Checklist 197, February 13,
2002 (67 FR 6792);
NESHAPS: Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste
Combustors; Final Rule, Checklist 198, February 14, 2002 (67 FR 6968);
Hazardous Waste Management System; Definition of Solid Waste; Toxicity
Characteristic, Checklist 199, March 13, 2002 (67 FR 11251);

NESHAPS: Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste
Combustors--Corrections, Checklist 202, December 19, 2002 (67 FR
77687);
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Recycled Used Oil Management Standards, Checklist 203,
July 30, 2003 (68 FR 44659);
Hazardous Waste--Nonwastewaters From Production of Dyes, Pigments, and
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Colorants; Mass Loadings-Based Listing; Final
Rule, Checklist 206, February 24, 2005 (70 FR 9138);
Hazardous Waste--Nonwastewaters From Production of Dyes, Pigments, and
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Colorants; Mass Loadings-Based Listing;
Correction, Checklist 206.1, June 16, 2005 (70 FR 35032);
Hazardous Waste Management System, Modification of the Hazardous Waste
Manifest System; Final Rule, Checklist 207, March 4, 2005 (70 FR
10776);
Hazardous Waste Management System, Modification of the Hazardous Waste
Manifest System; Correction, Checklist 207.1, June 16, 2005 (70 FR
35034);
Waste Management System; Testing and Monitoring Activities; Final Rule:
Methods Innovation Rule and SW-846 Final Update IIIB, Checklist 208,
June 14, 2005 (70 FR 34538);
Waste Management System; Testing and Monitoring Activities; Final Rule:
Methods Innovation Rule and SW-846 Final Update IIIB; Correction,
Checklist 208.1, August 1, 2005 (70 FR 44150);
Revision of Wastewater Treatment Exemptions for Hazardous Waste
Mixtures; (``Headworks Exemptions''), Checklist 211, October 4, 2005
(70 FR 57769);
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Final
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors
(Phase I Final Replacement Standards and Phase II), Checklist 212,
October 12, 2005 (70 FR 59402);
Hazardous Waste and Used Oil; Corrections to Errors in the Code of
Federal Regulations, Checklist 214, July 14, 2006 (71 FR 40254);

                   Equivalent State Initiated Changes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Description of       Sections affected
       Ohio amendment                change          and effective date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule Review per 119.032.....  ....................  OAC 3745-50-31; 3745-
                                                     50-47; 3745-54-56;
                                                     3745-54-77.
                                                    Effective May 13,
                                                     2007.
Housekeeping Rules Set I....  ....................  OAC 3745-50-10; 3745-
                                                     50-11; 3745-50-40
                                                     3745-50-51; 3745-50-
                                                     235; 3745-51-03;
                                                     3745-51-04; 3745-51-
                                                     05; 3745-51-20;
                                                     3745-51-22; 3745-51-
                                                     24; 3745-51-30;
                                                     3745-51-35; 3745-51-
                                                     38; 3745-52-10;
                                                     3745-52-21; 3745-52-
                                                     27; 3745-52-32;
                                                     3745-52-33; 3745-52-
                                                     34; 3745-52-41;
                                                     3745-52-54; 3745-53-
                                                     20; 3745-53-21;
                                                     3745-54-18; 3745-54-
                                                     71; 3745-54-72;
                                                     3745-54-98; 3745-55-
                                                     47; 3745-55-90;
                                                     3745-55-99; 3745-57-
                                                     14; 3745-57-83;
                                                     3745-57-91; 3745-65-
                                                     72; 3745-66-41;
                                                     3745-66-90; 3745-67-
                                                     73; 3745-68-14;
                                                     3745-68-40; 3745-
                                                     256-100; 3745-266-
                                                     80; 3745-266-103;
                                                     3745-266-106; 3745-
                                                     270-01; 3745-270-
                                                     40; 3745-270-48;
                                                     3745-279-44; 3745-
                                                     279-53; 3745-279-
                                                     55; 3745-279-63.
                                                    Effective February
                                                     16, 2009.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Which revised state rules are different from the federal rules?

    Ohio has excluded the non-delegable federal requirements at 40 CFR
268.5, 268.6, 268.42(b), 268.44, and 270.3. EPA will continue to
implement those requirements. In this action, because Ohio has not
received statutory authority for Subparts AA, BB and CC of 40 CFR Part
264, they have not adopted the rules for the 40 CFR Subpart BB portion
in checklist 212 (located in the table above). This will be added at a
later date. Checklist 214 in the above table appeared in the Federal
Register on July 14, 2006 (71 FR 40254) as a Federal regulation that
corrected numerous errors that had appeared in the Code of Federal
Regulations over several years. Not all of the amendments in the July
14 Federal Register are reflected in this Ohio rules effective date or
in the current Authorization Revision Application. Since the July 14
Federal Register includes several hundred amendments, it was broken
into several rule-makings in Ohio. This is the first of these rule-
makings. Subsequent rule-makings will address the balance of the
corrections. A number of these federal corrections had already been
made in the state rules, so not all the federal changes made in the
July 14 FR resulted or will result in Ohio rule amendments attributable
to the July 14 FR. Ohio has corrected the errors in the sections cited
in Checklist 214 above, additional corrections will be noted in future
Federal Registers as State Initiated Changes to Checklist 214.

H. Who handles permits after the authorization takes effect?

    Ohio will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is
authorized and will administer the permits it issues. EPA will continue
to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits
which we issued prior to the effective date of this authorization until
they expire or are terminated. We will not issue any more new permits
or new portions of permits for the provisions listed in the Table above
after the effective date of this authorization. EPA will continue to
implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Ohio is not
yet authorized.

I. How does today's action affect Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in
Ohio?

    Ohio is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program in
``Indian Country,'' as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. Indian Country
includes:
    1. All lands within the exterior boundaries of Indian Reservations
within or abutting the State of Ohio;
    2. Any land held in trust by the U.S. for an Indian tribe; and
    3. Any other land, whether on or off an Indian reservation that
qualifies as Indian Country.
    Therefore, EPA retains the authority to implement and administer
the RCRA program in Indian Country.

J. What is codification and is EPA codifying Ohio's hazardous waste
program as authorized in this rule?

    Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and
regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste
program into the Code of Federal Regulations. We do this by referencing
the authorized state rules in 40 CFR part 272. Ohio's rules, up to and
including those revised June 7, 1991, as corrected August 19, 1991,
have previously been codified through the

incorporation-by-reference effective February 4, 1992 (57 FR 4162) . We
reserve the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart KK for the
codification of Ohio's program changes until a later date.

K. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This rule only authorizes hazardous waste requirements pursuant to
RCRA 3006 and imposes no requirements other than those imposed by state
law (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, Section A. Why are revisions to
state programs necessary?). Therefore, this rule complies with
applicable executive orders and statutory provisions as follows:

1. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from its
review under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821 January 21, 2011).

2. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).

3. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This rule authorizes state requirements for the purpose of RCRA
3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those required by
state law. Accordingly, I certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) does not apply
to this rule because it will not have federalism implications (i.e.,
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).

6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) does not
apply to this rule because it will not have tribal implications (i.e.,
substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, or 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.)

7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant as defined
in Executive Order 12866 and because the EPA does not have reason to
believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to children.

8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action as defined
in Executive Order 12866.

9. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    EPA approves state programs as long as they meet criteria required
by RCRA, so it would be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, in
its review of a state program, to require the use of any particular
voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that meets
requirements of RCRA. 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 to this rule.

10. Executive Order 12988

    As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729,
February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary
steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential
litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct.

11. Executive Order 12630: Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of
Unanticipated Takings

    EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 18,
1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance
with the Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation
of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings issued under the
executive order.

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

    Because this rule authorizes pre-existing State rules and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law and there
are no anticipated significant adverse human health or environmental
effects, the rule is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994).

13. Congressional Review Act

    EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other information
required by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) to the
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to publication in the Federal
Register. A major rule cannot take effect until sixty (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 final authorization will be
effective March 19, 2012.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous materials transportation,
Hazardous waste, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:  This action is issued under the authority of
sections 2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).

    Dated: February 29, 2012.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2012-6563 Filed 3-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 66)]
[Notices]
[Page 17529]
[DOCID:fr06ap06-109]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53567; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the
Exposure Period for Crossing Orders in the Hybrid Trading System

March 29, 2006.
    On January 30, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE'' or ``Exchange''), filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ to decrease the exposure period for
crossing orders in its Hybrid Trading System (``Hybrid'') from 10
seconds to 3 seconds. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on February 22, 2006.\3\ The Commission
received no comments on the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\  See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53278 (February 13,
2006), 71 FR 9184.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act \4\ and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a
national securities exchange,\5\ and in particular with Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act.\6\ The Commission believes that, in the electronic
environment of Hybrid, reducing the exposure period to 3 seconds could
facilitate the prompt execution of orders, while providing participants
in Hybrid with an adequate opportunity to compete for exposed bids and
offers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\7\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2006-09) is hereby
approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-5034 Filed 4-5-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 33 (Friday, February 17, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10325-10330]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03434]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R08-OW-2019-0404; FRL-10648-01-R8]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Filter
Adoption Survey Renewal

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an
information collection request (ICR) ``Filter Adoption Survey'' (EPA
ICR No. 2615.02, OMB Control No. 2008-0003) to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Before doing so, EPA is soliciting
public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information
collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR
which is currently set to expire on 9/30/23. 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.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 18, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OW-2019-0404, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically 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. The 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 www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Docket: All documents in the docket are
listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and
Radiation Division, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8,
1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The EPA requests that
if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the
docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday,
8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Parker, Section Chief, Drinking
Water Section B, Water Division, 8WD-SDB, Environmental Protection
Agency Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register
document to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: Denver Water is a public water system which must comply
with applicable requirements of the lead and copper rule (LCR). On
September 6, 2019 Denver Water submitted to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region 8 office a request for a variance from the
optimal corrosion control treatment requirements under the Safe
Drinking Water Act's LCR (2019 Variance). The request included a multi-
pronged approach to result in at least as efficient lead removal to
orthophosphate, the designated optimal corrosion control treatment.
Three of those prongs of the variance request are: pH and alkalinity
adjustments to reduce corrosivity of the water; accelerated lead
service line removal; and a filter program where Denver Water will
distribute pitcher filters to consumers with confirmed, likely, and
unlikely lead service lines. Under section 1415(a)(3) of the Safe
Drinking Water Act, on December 16, 2019, the U.S. EPA granted Denver
Water a variance from the definition of ``optimal corrosion control
treatment'' in 40 CFR 141.2. The 2019 Variance contains requirements to
determine the efficacy of the filter program. On November 30, 2022, EPA
issued a new variance (Variance) because the 2019 Variance was set to
expire in 2023. Denver Water, EPA and CDPHE agreed that a survey that
would be conducted every two years (rather than annually) beginning in
2025 would be sufficient to determine efficacy of the filter program.
EPA will continue to use the 2025 survey results that Denver Water
collects, to determine the consumer filter adoption rate, and to
confirm whether customers are using and maintaining the filters
correctly, and per manufacturer's instructions. Every second year, the
filter adoption survey will be sent by Denver Water via postal mail to
an estimated 20,000 statistically representative number of consumers
that have confirmed, likely, and unlikely lead service lines. Surveys
will be sent via direct mailings and will

include an online completion option (the survey questions are included
below). Direct mailings will be sent with a unique QR code to track
which addresses responses have been received from. Surveys will be sent
out in both English and Spanish. Additionally, Denver Water will
conduct, in-person surveys at a minimum of 50 locations in use by
customers enrolled in the filter program every six months. Information
being collected is information on if, and how, consumers use the filter
(e.g., for drinking, cooking, or making infant-fed formula), whether
the customers are using and maintain the filters correctly (e.g.
washing, replacing the filters per manufacturer's instructions), as
well as demographic information to inform filter adoption rate by
neighborhood or demographic group so Denver Water's health equity and
environmental justice principles set forth in their variance request
can be evaluated.
    Form numbers: 6700-009.
    Respondents/affected entities: 2,000 people (estimated).
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.
    Estimated number of respondents: 2,000 (estimated).
    Frequency of response: 2025 and every second year after that.
    Total estimated burden: 423 hours.
    Total estimated cost: $33,421 in 2025.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN17FE23.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN17FE23.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN17FE23.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN17FE23.006

    Dated: February 10, 2023.
Sarah Bahrman,
Chief, Safe Drinking Water Branch.
[FR Doc. 2023-03434 Filed 2-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C


[Federal Register: May 25, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 101)]
[Notices]
[Page 30412-30415]
[DOCID:fr25my11-136]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64524; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2011-30]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Its Fee
Schedule With Respect to Electronic Complex Order Executions

May 19, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on May 11, 2011, NYSE Amex LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Amex'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been

prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Options Fee Schedule (the
``Schedule'') to (1) reinstitute the standard marketing charges for
electronic complex order executions that had been temporarily waived,
(2) eliminate the fee charged to Customers (other than Professional
Customers) for electronic complex order executions and (3) provide that
the per contract fee for electronic complex order executions will no
longer be capped for Specialists, e-Specialists and Market Makers even
though such executions and the related fees will count toward existing
thresholds in the Schedule applicable to such participants that will
otherwise still cap their per contract fees on other types of
executions. The proposed changes will be operative on May 11, 2011.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange,
the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.nyse.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to reinstitute the standard marketing
charges \3\ for electronic complex order executions that had been
temporarily waived in July 2010 pending the enabling of directed order
functionality for executions in the complex matching engine. The pool
of monies from the collection of marketing charges on electronic public
Customer orders from market makers who trade with such orders is
available for distribution as payment for order flow under the
Exchange's rules. The Exchange is still intending to develop directed
order functionality; however, the implementation is taking longer than
anticipated. In the interim, the Exchange has heard from several order
flow providers and liquidity providers that the absence of marketing
charges for Customer executions in the complex order book is hindering
their ability to route and/or attract complex order flow to the
Exchange, particularly since competing exchanges do allow for the
collection of marketing charges on complex orders.\4\ Consequently, the
Exchange therefore proposes to resume its prior practice of treating
electronic complex orders in the same manner as any other orders for
the purpose of assessing payment for order flow charges in order to
remain competitive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The standard marketing charges are $0.25 per contract for
any electronic Customer order in a Penny Pilot option that trades
with a market maker and $0.65 per contract for any electronic
Customer order in a non-Penny Pilot option that trades with a market
maker.
    \4\ Chicago Board Options Exchange (``CBOE''), NASDAQ OMX PHLX
(``PHLX''), and International Securities Exchange (``ISE'') all
assess marketing charges against market makers who trade with
customer complex orders. PHLX and ISE except their ``make/take''
symbols from the collection of marketing charges, but all other
options are included.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further proposes to eliminate the fees charged to
Customers (other than Professional Customers) for electronic complex
order executions. Currently, Customers trade without a charge for non-
complex order executions as provided in the Schedule, and the Exchange
is proposing to extend that treatment to complex order executions. With
this change, the execution of Customer electronic complex orders will
be priced identically with the execution of any other Customer order,
complex or otherwise, in the Exchange's system. The Exchange notes that
other competing exchanges also have a $0.00 per contract rate charge
for non-professional customers for the execution of complex orders.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See ISE Schedule of Fees, ``Rebates and Fees for Adding and
Removing Liquidity'' on page 16 of 17 at http://www.ise.com/assets/
documents/OptionsExchange/legal/fee/feeschedule.pdf; see also CBOE
Fees Schedule, ``Options Transaction Fees: Equity Options'' on page
1 of 15 at http://www.cboe.com/publish/feeschedule/
CBOEFeeSchedule.pdf,which includes complex orders even though there
is no separate pricing for such orders on the CBOE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes that the per contract fee for
electronic complex order executions will no longer be capped for
Specialists, e-Specialists and Market Makers even though such
executions and the related fees will still count toward existing dollar
and volume thresholds in the Schedule applicable to such participants
that will otherwise still cap their per contract fees on other types of
executions. For example, the Schedule currently provides that the fees
of a Market Maker will be aggregated and capped at $250,000 per month
for all types of executions, so a Market Maker that has reached this
level would not be charged a fee for additional order executions,
including electronic complex order executions, until a volume level of
2,500,000 contracts is reached for that month. In the latter instance,
the Market Marker would only be charged a fee of $0.01 per contract for
executions in excess of the 2,500,000 contact level, including
electronic complex order executions. With the elimination of the
current $0.05 per contract fee that is charged to Customers for
electronic complex order executions, the Exchange could be in the
position of receiving either no revenue at all or only $0.01 per
contract for electronic complex order executions in which a Market
Maker trades with a Customer. Consequently, it is proposed that the
current fee caps will no longer be applicable to electronic complex
order executions, which would continue to incur a fee of $0.05 per
contract on the Market Maker's side of a trade regardless of whether
either or both of the foregoing monthly thresholds have been met. Such
executions would, however, still count toward meeting those threshold
levels and could therefore impact the fees paid on other types of
executions by such a Market Maker.
    The proposed changes will be operative on May 11, 2011.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\6\ in general, and Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ in
particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and other persons using its facilities. The marketing charges
that will be reinstituted to fund payment for order flow for electronic
complex order executions are charges that were previously in effect on
the Exchange. The Exchange believes that these charges are reasonable
and equitable because they are identical to the marketing charges
assessed by

competing exchanges CBOE and ISE, as referenced herein, and slightly
less than the marketing charge of $0.70 per contract assessed by
competing exchange PHLX for an electronic customer order in a non-Penny
Pilot option that trades with a market maker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes that the re-imposition of marketing
charges on market makers who trade with electronic Customer orders in
the complex order book is reasonable and equitable because it is based
on the need to attract additional Customer complex order flow to the
Exchange, which will benefit all market participants. The Exchange
notes that reinstituting marketing charges as proposed will simplify
the fee schedule, thereby making it easier for market makers in
particular to factor these charges into the models that [sic] use to
make trading decisions. Finally, the Exchange believes that
reinstituting marketing charges as proposed is not unfairly
discriminatory because it means that electronic complex orders will be
treated in the same manner as any other orders for the purpose of
assessing payment for order flow charges.
    The preferential rate of $0.00 proposed to be charged to Customers
(other than Professional Customers) is reasonable and equitable because
it will extend to electronic complex order executions the same fee
treatment that the Exchange currently provides to Customers for non-
complex order executions. The Exchange also notes that, as discussed
above, competing exchanges have extended the same preferential
treatment to customer fees for the execution of complex orders and the
Exchange believes it is reasonable and equitable to adjust its fees
accordingly to remain competitive with the fees charged by other
venues. The Exchange notes that historically Customers have been
afforded preferential treatment such as priority at a price over non-
Customers \8\ and preferential fees. This is in exchange for forsaking
the ability to place orders on both sides of the market in the same
series \9\ and for being subject to generally higher margin
requirements as compared to non-Customers.\10\ On this basis, the
Exchange feels that this change is not unfairly discriminatory. The
reduction of such fees is expected to attract additional Customer
complex order flow to the Exchange, which will benefit all market
participants. Additionally, by making this change, the fee schedule is
being simplified, making it easier for market participants to make
trading decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See NYSE Amex Rule 964NY Display, Priority, and Order
Allocation--Trading Systems.
    \9\ See NYSE Amex Rule 995NY Prohibited Conduct.
    \10\ See NYSE Amex Rule 462 Minimum Margins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the removal of the cap applicable to Specialists, e-
Specialists and Market Makers as it applies to the execution of
electronic complex orders effectively removes a ``tier'' for such
market participants in the fees applicable to such orders, thereby
instituting a $0.05 per contract side fee that is equally applicable to
all types of market participants, other than Customers, for the same
trade. This change will further simplify the Schedule as it applies to
the execution of electronic complex orders. The Exchange believes that
the removal of the cap currently applicable to the aforementioned
market participants is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory as it relates to those market participants because, even
though they will be paying $0.05 per contract for executions that
previously would have cost them $0.01 or $0.00 per contract under the
cap, they will have the opportunity to interact with the additional
complex order flow attracted to the Exchange by the elimination of the
Customer rate charge. In addition, the new rate of $0.05 per contract
for those executions is fair and equitable in that it is not a large
increase and it will continue to be less than those same market
participants are charged for electronic executions outside of the
complex order book, which can be as much as $0.17 per contract.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market comprised of
nine U.S. options exchanges in which sophisticated and knowledgeable
market participants can readily send order flow to competing exchanges
if they deem fee levels at a particular exchange to be excessive or
discriminatory. The Exchange believes that the complex order fees and
rebates it assesses must be competitive with fees and rebates assessed
on other exchanges. The Exchange believes that this competitive
marketplace impacts the fees and rebates present on the Exchange today
and influences the proposals set forth above.

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

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

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \11\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \12\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by NYSE Amex.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2011-30 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2011-30. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the

Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the NYSE's principal office, and on its Web site at http://
www.nyse.com. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov. All comments received will
be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2011-30 and should be submitted
on or before June 15, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2011-12963 Filed 5-24-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST FOR THE NATIONAL WASTEWATER OPERATOR TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM SECTION 104( g)( 1) OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT EPA ICR No. 1977.01 OMB Control No. 2040 NEW April 2001 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Wastewater Management Municipal Assistance Branch 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue ( 4202 M) ICC Building, 7th Floor Washington, D. C. 20460 Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1. a Title of the Information Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1. b Short Characterization/ Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2.0 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2. a Need and Authority for the Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. b Practical Utility of the Data and Users of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3.0 NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3. a Non duplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. b Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. c Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. d Effects of Less Frequent Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. e General Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. f Confidentiality and Sensitive Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. g Sensitive Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4.0 THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 4. a Respondents and SIC Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. b( i.) Information Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.( ii.) Respondent Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5.0 THE INFORMATION COLLECTED: AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5. a Agency Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. b Collection Methodology and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. c Small Entity Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. d Collection Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.0 ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 6. a Estimating Respondent Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. b Estimating Respondent Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. c Estimating Agency Burden and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. d Estimating Respondent Universe and Total Burden Hours and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. e Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. f Reasons for Change in Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. g Burden Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Page 1 1.0 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1. a Title of the Information Collection National Wastewater Operator Training and Technical Assistance Program Section 104( g)( 1) of the Clean Water Act.

EPA ICR No.: 1977.01 OMB Control No.: 2040 new 1. b Short Characterization/ Abstract In 1982 Congress recognized the need for wastewater operator training. Sections 104( g)( 1) and 308 of the Clean Water Act ( CWA) authorize this ICR regarding the Wastewater Operator Training and Technical Assistance Program, otherwise known as the 104( g) Program, for the purposes of providing an adequate supply of trained personnel to operate and maintain existing and future treatment works and related activities, and for the purposes of enhancing substantially the proficiency of those engaged in such activities. The statute calls upon U. S. EPA, in cooperation with state and interstate agencies, municipalities, educational institutes, and other organizations, to develop training and retrains people in the field of or who are entering into the field of operations and maintenance of treatment works and related activities.

2.0 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2. a Need and Authority for the Collection Sections 104( g)( 1) and 308 of the Clean Water Act provide the authority for the Wastewater Operator Training Program. The U. S. EPA has made the decision to collect information to track data pertaining to the 104( g) Program. The goal of this collection is to evaluate the outcomes and environmental benefits of the 104( g) Program's assistance activities. This information will also help assistance providers to improve the outreach activities that are provided through the 104( g) Program. Page 2 2. b Practical Utility of the Data and Users of the Data U. S. EPA uses the information collected to develop its 104( g) Program database which will contain information on the wastewater treatment plants that are assisted by the 104( g) Program. The database is used as a source of information to monitor the pollutant reduction progress, compliance status, and other environmental outcomes and benefits to the wastewater treatment plants assisted through the Program.

3.0 NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3. a Non duplication U. S. EPA has researched and discussed the data collection responsibilities with the Wastewater Operator Training and Technical Assistance Program's training centers. There are no other reporting requirements of this nature being conducted by these centers. Our research revealed no duplicative reporting requirements.

3. b Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB In compliance with the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act, any agency developing a non rule related ICR must solicit public comments for a 60 day period prior to submitting the ICR to OMB. The comments, which are used partly to determine realistic burden estimates for respondents, must be considered when completing the Supporting Statement that is submitted to OMB. EPA public noticed this ICR on January 30, 2001 ( FRL 6939 7; Volume 66, Number 20). EPA received no comments to this notice.

3. c Consultations Through E mail and sessions at the 16th and 17th Annual Wastewater Operator Trainers' Program Conference, held in June of 1999 and 2000, respondents to this information collection request were consulted and asked to comment on this information collection. Comments were also solicited from the U. S. EPA Regional Office 104( g) Program coordinators. All comments were taken into consideration and implemented where possible. A list of the all whom were consulted can be found at www. epa. gov/ owm/ tomm. htm under the headings States and State Training Centers and Regional Contacts. Page 3 3. d Effects of Less Frequent Data Collection Information will be collected three times a year for the Wastewater Operator Training and Technical Assistance Program ICR. The Office of Wastewater Management will require annual reporting for the database in May of each year. It is essential that pollution reduction information be provided to illustrate the environmental benefits of the Program. Semi annual spreadsheet reporting on the status of any given year's assistance projects is required mid fiscal year ( May) and the end of the fiscal year ( November). This is done to track the number of facilities assisted and the status of those projects. Mid fiscal year and end of the fiscal year reporting is required to ensure that the training center grantee's commitments are being met.

3. e General Guidelines This ICR is consistent with 5CFR 1320.5( D)( 2), and adheres to all guidelines for information collection requests.

3. f Confidentiality Where information submitted in conjunction with this ICR contains trade secrets or similar confidential business information, the respondent has the authority to request that this information be treated as confidential business information. All data so designated will be handled pursuant to 40 CFR Part 2. This information will be maintained according to procedures outlined in EPA's Security Manual Part III, Chapter 9, dated August 9, 1976. Pursuant to Section 308( b) of the CWA, effluent data may not be treated as confidential.

3. g Sensitive Questions The reporting requirements addressed in this ICR do not include sensitive questions.

4.0 THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 4. a Respondents and SIC Codes The following is a list of Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) codes associated with the Wastewater Operator Training Program:

9511  Environmental Protection Agencies  government; and 8221  Non profit Education Institutes. Page 4 4. b Information Requested 4. b( i) Data Items, including Record keeping Requirements Reporting:

1) Spreadsheet reporting categories: A.) Number of Facilities that have Completed Assistance: achieved compliance, maintained compliance, improved performance, and no improvement; and B.) Number of Facilities that are Continuing Assistance: achieved compliance, maintained compliance, improved performance, and no improvement.

2) Database reporting categories for each facility assisted: EPA Region, Facility Name, Facility Street Address, City/ Town, State, Zip Code, Start Assistance Date, Compliance Status at the Start, Compliance Achieved Date, Conclusion Assistance Date, Type of Facility, Top Five Performance Limiting Factors, Repeat Assistance Facility, If Repeat  Date of Last Assistance, Tribal Assistance, Design Size of the Plant, Comments, Other Benefits, Permit Number, Biological Oxygen Demand Average Start, Total Suspended Solids Average Start, Nitrogen Average Start, Biological Oxygen Demand Average End, Total Suspended Solids Average End, Nitrogen Average End, Longitude, Latitude, and Annual Average Flow.

U. S. EPA requires that the Wastewater Operator Training and Technical Assistance Program training center grantees report this information. It will be to the training center grantee's benefit to keep the requested information on hand after reporting, but it will not be required by the U. S. EPA. The reporting requirements covered by this ICR will be used by the 104( g) Program's trainers to determine an assisted facility's improvement and the subsequent environmental benefits of the assistance efforts.

4. b( ii) Respondent Activities The respondents will be required to submit status data on a semi annual basis on a spreadsheet which will be created by U. S. EPA, and will require data entry on the respondents' behalf. Information will be submitted electronically from the training center grantee to the corresponding U. S. EPA Regional Office, with a copy to U. S. EPA Headquarters. The information collected is based on the trainer's activity at the site in need of assistance. The trainer knows the status of the facility being assisted, no extraneous paper work will be required.

Also, the respondents will be required to submit the database information on an annual basis in the format established by U. S. EPA. This information will be submitted electronically from the training center grantee to the corresponding U. S. EPA Regional Office, with a copy to U. S. EPA Headquarters. The majority of the information collected here will be obtained while the trainers is at the facility in need of assistance. Pollution reduction information will be obtained either via an on site visit or the telephone. Page 5 5.0 THE INFORMATION COLLECTED: AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5. a Agency Activities In collecting and analyzing the information associated with Wastewater Operator Training Program ICR, the U. S. EPA will compile and maintain up to five years of data for a national master spreadsheet and a national master database. Report spread sheet forms and Program database format will be created by U. S. EPA and supplied to the Wastewater Operator Training and Technical Assistance Program's training center grantees. U. S. EPA will review the supplied information, and reports will be created and distributed to the training centers, U. S. EPA Headquarters, U. S. EPA Regional Offices, and customers.

5. b Collection Methodology and Management The U. S. EPA will ensure the accuracy and completeness of information collected by reviewing each submittal upon receipt. The data will be entered into the spreadsheet form and the database form by the 104( g) Program training centers, the information will be submitted electronically to the appropriate U. S. EPA Regional Office, with a copy to U. S. EPA Headquarters. The data will be stored on an all access drive at U. S. EPA Headquarters with a back up on the c:/ drive of the Wastewater Operator Training Program coordinator's desk top computer. The public may access the data upon request to U. S. EPA.

5. c Small Entity Flexibility The Wastewater Operator Training Program ICR does not have a " significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities," therefore this section does not apply to this ICR.

5. d Collection Schedule Information will be collected three times a year for the Wastewater Operator Training Program ICR. Annual reporting for the database information is required in May of each year. Semi annual reporting for the status of any given year's assistance projects in spreadsheet format is required mid fiscal year ( May) and the end of the fiscal year ( November). Page 6 6.0 ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION For the 48 104( g) PROGRAM TRAINING CENTER GRANTEE RESPONDENTS and U. S. EPA The total number of respondents is estimated to be the 48 104( g) Program training center grantees. The responses are collected three times per year. The projected combined annual cost of this ICR to all forty eight 104( g) training center grantee respondents and the federal government will be approximately $ 13,252.00. The average annual cost to each 104( g)( 1) training center will be $ 151.00, for a total cost of $ 7,268.00 per year. The average annual cost to EPA's Regional Offices and Headquarters will be $ 544.00, for a total cost of $ 5,984.00 per year. The projected combined annual burden hours of this ICR to all respondents will be approximately 512 hours. The average annual burden hours to each training center grantee will be 7 hours, for a total of 336 hours per year. The average annual burden hours to each EPA Regional Office and Headquarters will be 16 hours, for a total of 176 burden hours per year.

Data will be collected on an annual basis, in May of each year, for the database collection, and data for the spreadsheet information collection will be done on a semi annual basis, in May and November of each year. This information collection is mandatory; it is expected that 100% of the 104( g) training centers will respond to this collection request. All forty eight ( 48) training centers grantees and U. S. EPA have the necessary equipment, desk top computers with appropriate software to collect and manage this information. There will be no additional start up or maintenance costs associated with this project to perform this information collection request. 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.

Salaries for the 104( g) Program training center grantee staff are based on the Bureau of Labor statistics weekly earnings, March 2000. U. S. EPA salaries are based on the 2001 federal salary in Washington, D. C., GS level 13 step 5. Page 7 The cost imposed on the training center grantees to the requirements discussed in this ICR is a function of the burden placed on them for record keeping and reporting the information described above and the wages of a typical worker performing these activities.

Estimates of civilian salaries associated with this information collection have been prepared using the Bureau of Labor's statistics for March 2000. This information is on the Bureau of Labor's web page at the following Internet address: http:// stats. bls. gov/ news. release/ ecec. t02. htm.

° This ICR estimates the average annual salary for a civilian administrative support employee is $ 25,480.00 per year, at the hourly rate of $ 12.25;

° This ICR estimates the average annual salary for a civilian professional employee is $ 53,248.00 per year, at the hourly rate of $ 25.60; and ° U. S. EPA estimates that the total annual civilian employee response cost is $ 7,268.00 for record keeping and reporting.

Estimates of the federal government respondent costs associated with this information collection have been prepared using the Federal Salary Table 2001 for Washington, D. C. This information is on the Office of Personnel Management's web page at the following Internet address: http:// www3. opm. gov/ oca/ 01tables/ GSannual/ html/ 2001gs. htm ° This ICR estimates the average annual salary for a federal employee is equivalent to a GS 13, Step 5 for Washington, D. C. and a salary of $ 71,642.00 per year, at the hourly rate of $ 34.00; and ° EPA estimates that the total annual federal employee response cost is $ 5,984.00 for record keeping and reporting. Page 8 6. a Estimating Respondent Burden for each Grantee Activity: Spreadsheet No. of Respondents No. of Person Hours Total Annual Hours Training center grantees, civilian administrative support staff; record keeping and reporting for the spreadsheet ( semi annual). 48 1 2 Training center grantees, civilian professional specialty and technical staff; record keeping and reporting for the spreadsheet ( semi annual). 48 1 2 Activity: Database No. of Respondents No. of Person Hours Total Annual Hours Training center grantees, civilian administrative support staff; record keeping and reporting for the database ( annual). 48 1 1 Training center grantees, civilian professional specialty and technical staff; record keeping and reporting for the database ( annual). 48 2 2 6. b Estimating Respondent Costs for each Grantee Page 9 Activity: Spreadsheet Cost Per Hour Total Annual Labor Cost Training center grantees, civilian administrative support staff; record keeping and reporting for the spreadsheet ( semi annual). $ 12.25 $ 24.50 Training center grantees, civilian professional specialty and technical staff; record keeping and reporting for the spreadsheet ( semi annual). $ 25.60 $ 51.20 Activity: Database Cost Per Hour Total Annual Labor Cost Training center grantees, civilian administrative support staff; record keeping and reporting for the database ( annual). $ 12.25 $ 12.25 Training center grantees, civilian professional specialty and technical staff; record keeping and reporting for the database ( annual). $ 25.60 $ 25.60 Page 10 6. c Estimating Agency Burden and Cost Activity: Spreadsheet No. of Respon dents No. of Person Hours Per Respondent Cost Per Hour Total Annual Hours Total Annual Labor Cost U. S. EPA staff; record keeping and reporting for the spreadsheet ( semi annual). 11 4 $ 34.00 88 $ 2,992.00 Activity: Database No. of Respon dents No. of Person Hours per Respondent Cost Per Hour Total Annual Hours Total Annual Labor Cost U. S. EPA staff; record keeping and reporting for the database ( annual). 11 8 $ 34.00 88 $ 2,922.00 ° Total annual hours per each EPA respondent is 16 hours. Page 11 6. d Estimating Respondent Universe and Total Burden Hours and Costs Activity: Spreadsheet No. of Respon dents No. of Person Hours Cost Per Hour Total Annual Hours Total Annual Labor Cost Training center grantees, civilian administrative support staff; record keeping and reporting for the spreadsheet ( semi annual). 48 1 $ 12.25 96 $ 1,766.00 Training center grantees, civilian professional specialty and technical staff; record keeping and reporting for the spreadsheet ( semi annual). 48 1 $ 25.60 96 $ 2,457.00 U. S. EPA staff; record keeping and reporting for the spreadsheet ( semi annual). 11 4 $ 34.00 88 $ 2,992.00 SUB TOTALS 280 $ 7,215.00 Activity: Database No. of Respon dents No. of Person Hours Cost Per Hour Total Annual Hours Total Annual Labor Cost Training center grantees, civilian administrative support staff; record keeping and reporting for the database ( annual). 48 1 $ 12.25 48 $ 588.00 Training center grantees, civilian professional specialty and technical staff; record keeping and reporting for the database ( annual). 48 2 $ 25.60 96 $ 2,457.00 U. S. EPA staff; record keeping and reporting for the database ( annual). 11 8 $ 34.00 88 $ 2,922.00 SUB TOTALS 232 $ 6,037.00 Page 12 6. e Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables No. of respondents includes the 48 grantees and the 10 EPA Regional Offices and EPA Headquarters Total Annual Hours Total Annual Labor Cost TOTALS: 59 512 $ 13,252.00 6. f Reasons for Change in Burden Information collection activity for the National Wastewater Operator Training and Technical Assistance Program currently has OMB approval for 512 burden hours. We predict that the burden for the next three years should remain the same.

6. g Burden Statement The public reporting burden for respondents is estimated to average 7 hours per response per year. For federal respondents, the reporting burden is estimated to average 16 hours per response per year. 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 are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D. C. 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Page 13 Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the EPA ICR number and OMB control number in any correspondence.