1 INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR NATIONAL HEALTH PROTECTION SURVEY OF BEACHES EXTENSION OF CURRENT ICR OMB CONTROL NO. 2040 0189 { NON REGULATORY}

NOVEMBER 22, 1999 U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OFFICE OF WATER OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS AND APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION 401 M. STREET, S. W. WASHINGTON D. C. 20460 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Identification of the Information Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1( a) Title of the Information Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Need for and Use of the Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Non duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3( a) Non duplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3( c) Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3( e) General Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3( f) Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3( g) Sensitive Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. The Respondents and the Information Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4( b) Information Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5. The Information Collected   Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5( a) Agency Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5( b) Collection Methodology and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5( c) Small Entity Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5( d) Collection Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs . . . . . . . . . . 24 6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6( g) Burden Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 7. Response to OMB'S " Terms of Clearance": . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 APPENDIX A 3 Relevant Sections of Statutes, Regulations, or Judicial/ Administrative Decrees Enabling the Collection of Information for the National Health Protection Survey of Beaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 APPENDIX B Report on the National Health Protection Survey of Beaches 1998   1999 . . . . . . . . . . 29 APPENDIX C " Recent Accomplishments of the BEACH Watch Program: 1998 Update" ( EPA 823 F 98 012) and " EPA's BEACH Watch Program: 1999 Update" ( EPA 823 F 99 04). . . 30 APPENDIX D Federal Register Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 APPENDIX E National Health Protection Survey of Beaches Survey Instrument for Year 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4 1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Title of the Information Collection National Health Protection Survey of Beaches 1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract The National Health Protection Survey of Beaches is an integral component of several key environmental assessment activities. This survey is one of the first key actions under the Clean Water Action Plan. In February 1998, President Clinton announced the Clean Water Action Plan to protect public health and restore the Nation's waterways by providing states, tribes, and communities with appropriate tools and resources. Under the Clean Water Action Plan, EPA began to implement a series of key actions to ensure that beaches are safe for swimming. In April 1999 the Agency released a more detailed description of activities EPA's Action Plan for Beaches and Recreational Waters to assist state, tribal, and local authorities in strengthening programs that protect users of beaches and other recreational waters.

Water quality in bathing beach areas is a critical concern to EPA. Bacterial and other microbiological contaminants continue to pose potentially serious human health problems for the Nation's recreational waters, including bathing beaches. These adverse effects have been one of EPA's long standing concerns. They are directly related to such Clean Water Act responsibilities as water quality standards and surface water quality, and to the Agency's efforts to ensure that the waters of the United States are " fishable" and " swimmable." In 1986, EPA formally issued a revision to its recommendations for bacteriological ambient water quality criteria to protect persons participating in body contact recreation. Since that time, few states have adopted the revised criteria and the use of the criteria has varied greatly from one location to the next. In addition, recent studies have confirmed the adverse health effects resulting from bathing in contaminated waters. Advisories and closings continue to be posted at beaches to limit exposure to potential pathogens.

EPA believes there is a need to improve the overall quality and availability of public information about health protection activities at beaches, which include but are not limited to water quality standards, monitoring and assessment activities, and beach closing. Many organizations share responsibility for these activities. Consequently, EPA's Office of Water began conducting a voluntary annual beach survey in 1998 ( OMB Control No. 2040 0189). The purpose of the survey is to determine compliance with water quality standards, to assess public health risks, and to determine what steps EPA should take next, if any. A questionnaire that could be answered either on paper or electronically via the Internet was sent to environmental health officials from state, tribal, county, and city agencies. The questionnaire was used to obtain and verify information on the location and condition of swimming beaches and the agencies and persons responsible for maintaining and issuing advisories or closings for those beaches at freshwater sites ( the Great Lakes and others) and saltwater sites ( estuarine and coastal) around the Nation. EPA assembled the information into an electronic database and graphic formats that can be readily analyzed and shared with responsible parties ( e. g., EPA program and regional offices and other federal, state, tribal, county, and city agencies), as well as the public. Survey 5 results have been distributed in reports and fact sheets, and are available on the Internet at EPA's " BEACH Watch" Web site ( http:// www. epa. gov/ OST/ beaches). Information from this survey has stimulated nationwide dialogue on beach water quality involving agencies and the public and is being used to identify and clarify issues that will lead to the development of national guidance on standards, monitoring, and closures to protect human health.

The nationwide collection of information began with a survey of Great Lakes and other selected coastal and inland beaches involving approximately 300 potential respondents. The survey will continue to phase in additional beaches over the 3 year period of this ICR ( 2000 2002). EPA estimates 350 questionnaires will be sent out the first year, 500 the second year, and 750 the third year. The actual cost for a respondent to complete the questionnaire is anticipated to decrease each year, since respondents will be requested to provide only information that has changed during the year. When the survey is fully implemented, the total annual respondent cost under this ICR is estimated to be $ 47,748 ( 1,800 hours per year at an average labor rate of $ 25.59 per hour per respondent).

The average total annual respondent cost for the three year period of the ICR is estimated to be $ 33,954 ( 1,280 hours per year at an average labor rate of $ 25.59 per hour per respondent).

2. Need for and Use of the Collection 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection EPA needs this information to determine for swimming beaches throughout the Nation, whether swimmers are at risk of contracting diseases as the result of exposure to bacterial and other microbiological contaminants in the water. The survey will provide data on potential sources of contaminants at each beach, whether the beach is monitored to identify such contaminants, what bacterial standards or other indicators are used to determine the level of risk at the beach, and whether the beach has been closed to swimming due to concerns about such contaminants during the past year.

This survey is one of the first key actions under the Clean Water Action Plan. In February 1998, President Clinton announced the Clean Water Action Plan to protect public health and restore the Nation's waterways by providing states, tribes, and communities with appropriate tools and resources. Under the Clean Water Action Plan, EPA is implementing a series of key actions to ensure that beaches are safe for swimming. In April 1999, the Agency released EPA's Action Plan for Beaches and Recreational Waters ( known as the Beach Action Plan) to assist state, tribal, and local authorities in strengthening programs that protect users of beaches and other recreational waters. The Beach Action Plan is a multiyear strategy for reducing the risks of infection to recreational water users through improved water quality programs, risk communication, and scientific advances. The Beach Action Plan outlines EPA's activities to accomplish two primary objectives: enabling consistent management of recreational water quality programs and improving the science that supports recreational water monitoring programs. The national survey is central to EPA's efforts to assess and improve existing programs nationwide, and provide important public health information. 6 EPA is collecting this information under the authority of Clean Water Act ( CWA) § 104, which provides for the collection of information to be used to protect human health and the environment.

Copies of the relevant section of the CWA and the Beach Action Plan are provided in Appendix A.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data EPA uses information collected in the National Health Protection Survey of Beaches to address issues in four specific areas for the Beaches Environmental Assessment, Closure, and Health ( BEACH) Program:

Enhancing the public's right to know about the safety of the water at local beaches by establishing and making available a national beach contamination database.

Improving the scientific and policy foundations in support of state, tribal, and local actions.

Providing improved test methods and indicators to better protect the health of beachgoers in a more timely and comprehensive manner.

Developing better predictive models to help notify the public of potential risks.

The information collected in this survey will be compiled in a database. The information will be analyzed to determine the status and nature of microbiological contamination at the Nation's swimming beaches, the level of effort directed by jurisdictions to monitor and evaluate bacterial indicators of water quality at those beaches, and the extent of beach advisories and closures issued each year. EPA will use the analysis to plan more effective research and policies to reduce risk to the health of beach users.

The Office of Water is and will continue to use the information, especially the state and national summary data, to examine the success of current programs, for example, in water quality standards, risk analysis, and Total Maximum Daily Loads, pertaining to microbiological contamination of recreational waters. The Office of Water will share this information with other program offices, such as the Office of Research and Development and the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, to evaluate scientific research needs and policy implications. EPA Regions will use the information to address concerns regarding beach closures and monitoring programs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other federal agencies will also be able to use this information. The information compiled in this survey will permit state, tribal, and local agencies, such as public health and recreation departments, to easily review cumulative information on monitoring programs and beach closures and advisories for the purpose of developing public information materials and prioritizing resources to address water quality concerns. 7 Summary and individual beach data will also be made available to nongovernmental organizations and to the public. By accessing the data through the Internet, beach goers will be able to readily determine whether the beach they wish to visit has a monitoring program and whether the beach has been closed or an advisory issued.

The information to be collected from all respondents includes the name, address, and other contact information for the agency responsible for each beach and the name of the person or persons responsible for issuing advisories and answering public or technical inquiries. These references provide a means for obtaining current beach information, as well as professional networking resources and referrals for improving water quality at our nation's beaches.

A Report on the 1998 1999 survey implementation and results is presented in Appendix B. Copies of two fact sheets distributed to the public are provided in Appendix C.

3. Non duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria 3( a) Non duplication The comprehensive nationwide information requested from respondents under this ICR is not currently available from any other sources. Several survey efforts have taken place in the past. For example, a limited survey of beach conditions, monitoring programs, and beach closings has been performed annually since 1980 by EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office ( GLNPO) under a previously approved ICR ( OMB Control No. 2090 0003, EPA ICR No. 0994.06). In 1995 EPA's Gulf of Mexico program produced a one time Gulf wide report on state and local recreational water quality monitoring programs and monitoring practices. A nongovernmental organization, the Natural Resources Defense Council ( NRDC), has conducted an annual survey of swimming beaches, limited to beaches on the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Great Lakes. However, in the past the federal government has not reviewed the NRDC survey for accuracy and comprehensiveness.

EPA has examined the information collected for each of these surveys and determined that none of them address the Agency's needs to inventory the locations of the Nation's swimming beaches and compile nationwide information on water quality monitoring and assessment, potential sources of microbiological contaminants, and beach closings and advisories issued for each beach. To reduce respondent burden and eliminate duplication, EPA worked with both GLNPO and NRDC to develop the questionnaire for the national survey and has cooperated with those organizations to share data pertaining to swimmers' health to support their programs. EPA anticipates no change in the survey's ability to meet the needs of the federal government and other interested parties, including NRDC. In addition, EPA anticipates that it will prevent duplicative data gathering efforts in the future by state and regional programs.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB 8 The notice was published in the Federal Register on September 10, 1999 and the comment period closed on November 9, 1999 ( Volume 64, Number 175), pages 49180 49181. A copy of the notice is provided in Appendix D.

3( c) Consultations Prior to the renewal ICR for the survey, EPA described the survey approach and contents at numerous public forums. These forums included various water quality standards meetings, interagency meetings, and conferences. Examples of consultations with non EPA representatives are provided below.

1. Renewal Federal Register Notice The renewal Federal Register notice was published on September 10, 1999, as noted above. No inquiries, objections, or comments were received.

2. Questionnaire Preparation and Consultation To develop the initial questionnaire, EPA reviewed all similar questionnaires of which the Agency was aware. Specifically, EPA reviewed the questionnaire used by EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office ( noted above), a recent beach survey of local health departments conducted by the Massachusetts Department of Health, and the annual survey by NRDC.

To prepare the 2000 survey and the ICR renewal request, EPA reviewed results and respondent comments from EPA's 1998 and 1999 surveys; the analysis was used to refine the questionnaire to encourage greater respondent participation, reduce respondent burden, and improve data analysis and interpretation. Discussions have been held with state and local representatives from California and other states. EPA has consulted with GLNPO, NRDC, and others. The final EPA questionnaire is based on these reviews, detailed consultation with these parties, internal EPA discussions, and other considerations.

Contacts:

Ms. Sara Chassis Natural Resources Defense Council 212 727 4424 Ms. Elaine Kruger Massachusetts Department of Public Health 617 624 5777 Ms. Robin McCraw California State Water Resources Control Board 916 657 1270 3. Regional Conferences 9 At two regional conferences in FY 99, EPA discussed the continuation of the survey and its utility as a means to assist jurisdictions in disseminating information to the public and to identify issues of national concern. No objections were raised to plans for continuing the survey.

Specifically, EPA sponsored a West Coast Regional Beach Conference ( August 31   September 1, 1999) in San Diego, California, and held an East Coast Regional Beach Conference in Tampa, Florida October 18   19, 1999. Approximately 200 representatives attended each meeting; many different groups attended, including state, local, and international public health and environmental agencies, beach related industries, EPA and other federal agencies, academia, environmental groups, and others. Experts presented topic overviews and case studies. Separate breakout sessions allowed attendees the opportunity to discuss pertinent issues and identify needs for EPA's information collection and national guidance for protecting swimmers' health.

4. Great Lakes Commission The Great Lakes Commission is an eight state compact agency founded in state and federal law with a long standing interest in water quality and human health. The commission is composed of senior state agency officials, state legislators, and governors' appointees. In a letter dated October 24, 1997, to EPA Assistant Administrator Robert Perciasepe, the Executive Director of the Great Lakes Commission, Dr. Michael Donahue, expressed an interest in working collaboratively with EPA on beach health issues. During the 1999 survey, EPA worked with the Commission and GLNPO to cooperatively distribute the survey and assist respondents. The Commission continues to support these efforts.

Contact:

Dr. Mike Donahue, Executive Director Great Lakes Commission 313 665 9135 3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Less frequent or irregularly scheduled reporting of monitoring and beach closings is not sufficient to obtain information for this survey. Extended lag times between reports, or unequal periods of reporting would decrease the value of the information obtained. Furthermore, respondents might have more difficulty completing the questionnaire if past yearly records were archived.

The survey will be sent to respondents once per year in early winter. An annual survey is needed to provide information on monitoring and beach closings during the immediate past swimming season for most temperate waters. Jurisdictions responsible for beach maintenance and monitoring usually record this information on a swimming season basis. ( EPA recognizes that subtropical and tropical waters in the Nation have continuous water recreation.) Because pollution sources and other circumstances change regularly, it is important to document these changes before the beginning of each swimming season. Regular annual collection of this information over a period of several years will permit the evaluation of water quality standards 10 compliance and pollution problems occurring at beaches, so that trends at each beach can be identified and resources allocated to deal with the problems of greatest concern.

3( e) General Guidelines This survey adheres to OMB's general guidelines for information collection.

3( f) Confidentiality Information sought is maintained for public record by the county public health agencies or other entities, and no sensitive material is involved.

3( g) Sensitive Questions No questions concerning sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, or other matters usually considered private are included in this information collection.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes The following categories of respondents will be surveyed:

County ( or other entity) Health Departments 9431 Administration of Public Health Programs ( Administration of Public Health Programs: categorical health program administration government, communicable disease program administration government, environmental health programsgovernment public health agencies nonoperating)

County ( or other entity) Environmental Protection Agencies 9511 Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management ( Administration of Environmental Quality: water control and quality agencies government, environmental protection agencies government)

County ( or other entity) Recreation Departments, U. S. National Park Service 9512 Land, Mineral, Wildlife, and Forest Conservation ( Administration of Environmental Quality: recreational program administration government)

4( b) Information Requested ( i) Data items, including recordkeeping ( 1) General Information on Beaches Within the Jurisdiction 11

Overall responsibility for the swimming beaches in jurisdiction

Name, address, and phone number of respondent

Establishment of water quality standards for bacteria

Monitoring program implementation and costs

Beach closing or advisory program implementation and costs

Responsibility for issuing advisories or closings

Public notification procedures for advisories or closings

Availability of Internet access, Web sites, and GIS data or coverage ( expanded since last clearance to develop better respondent agency profiles and support beach mapping efforts)

( 2) Specific Information on Each Beach Within Jurisdiction ( records to be maintained by the jurisdiction for the public record at least two years following completion of the questionnaire each year that the survey is conducted)

Name, location, and type of beach and water ( fresh, estuarine, salt)

How many people use the beach at various times of the year

Known sources of pollution and type of pollution that might affect the beach

Implementation of water quality monitoring program for pathogens

Advisories or closings issued for this beach during the past year and reasons

Implementation of improvements to reopen beaches closed during the past year A copy of the survey instrument is included as Appendix E.

( ii) Respondent activities The following activities are required for respondents to assemble and submit the above data items:

Review the instructions and questions.

Make copies of " Section 2: Beach Specific Information" of the questionnaire for each beach within jurisdiction ( not needed for electronic/ Internet completion of survey).

Gather information needed to complete the questions. ( information requested is maintained by county public health agencies or other entities for the public record).

Fill in the answers for the questionnaire ( either by writing on the paper copy provided or by typing the answers on the electronic/ Internet questionnaire, if respondent can easily do this; no respondent will be required to develop, acquire, install, or utilize technology and systems for the purpose of disclosing and providing information for this survey).

Return completed questionnaire ( not needed for Internet version). 12 5. The Information Collected   Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 5( a) Agency Activities Agency activities associated with the collection of information by this survey consist of the following:

Prepare mailing list and survey tracking database.

Develop the questionnaire, instructions, transmittal letter, reminder postcard, and thank you postcard.

Set up a database for storing and analyzing the information collected and Internet option for the questionnaire.

Distribute the questionnaire, instructions, and transmittal letter to respondents, answer respondent questions.

Record receipt of completed questionnaires; distribute reminder postcards to respondents, if needed, and thank you postcards when completed survey materials are received; review questionnaires for completeness and correctness of responses; contact respondents to obtain or clarify information.

Enter information from the questionnaires into the database ( not needed for Internet submissions); review/ verify data entries.

Perform data analysis.

Prepare summary report of information obtained from the survey.

Distribute results of the survey ( paper and electronic).

Store the questionnaire data.

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management To collect and analyze the information associated with this ICR, EPA will continue to use a paper questionnaire, an optional electronic questionnaire, personal computers, and applicable database and digitizing software.

Each potential respondent in the mailing list database will be sent a uniquely numbered copy of the paper questionnaire. Previous survey participants will also be sent a hard copy printout of the past year's questionnaire. They only need to review and update this information and provide beach advisory and closing information for the previous swimming season. The transmittal letter accompanying the materials will explain the purpose of the survey and provide a 13 password to permit those respondents having access to the Internet to complete the questionnaire electronically if they wish. Based on limited comparisons between the two years of the survey completed thus far, use of the Internet version should decrease respondent burden. More respondents are choosing to use this option. The respondent is requested to return the completed paper questionnaire to EPA. A single reminder postcard will be sent to those respondents who have not returned their surveys ( by mail or electronically) within 30 days.

EPA will ensure the accuracy and completeness of collected information by reviewing each submittal. Data received on the Internet version of the questionnaire will be reviewed for completeness. Completed paper copies of the questionnaire will be manually entered into the Internet version and verified for accuracy. The data will then be directly transferred from the Internet to the database. A hard copy of data from each electronic questionnaire will be printed and maintained with copies of all correspondence with the respondent.

Data analyses will be performed through queries and simple compilations of summary statistics ( e. g., number of beaches reported that have monitoring programs in place, mean frequency of monitoring sample collection, number of beaches closed during the past year, and number of beaches closed due to different categories of pollutants). The results of the survey are considered public information. In keeping with this public right to know, data will be made available after EPA has reviewed the information for completeness and accuracy. Specific data will be provided to GLNPO regarding agencies and beaches in the Great Lakes region to avoid duplicate surveys. Backup copies of the data will be made regularly during the survey and maintained in a separate location for at least 2 years following the survey.

Summary results of the survey will be printed, and a copy will be posted on EPA's BEACH Watch Web page ( http:// www. epa. gov/ ost/ beaches). An individual report for each beach in the survey will be accessible to the public through this Web site.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility No alternatives have been found to be more cost effective than direct solicitation of the county public health agencies or other entities responsible for each beach that generate the data as a matter of public information. No additional gathering of information is required by the county public health agencies or other entities responsible for each beach since beach closing decisions and records are their public health responsibilities. " Small Governmental Jurisdictions" ( defined for the purpose of this information collection as a government of counties, cities, towns, or tribes having a population of less than 50,000) may be included in this survey.

The completion of the survey is voluntary. Thus, smaller entities that cannot provide the staff and resources to complete the survey are not required to do so. Identification of such smaller entities that do not initially respond will permit the development of options to assist the smaller entities in completing the survey, such as permitting more time for responding or simplifying the response procedures. These options were implemented during the initial ICR and have reduced respondent burden and increased respondent participation. The option of completing the questionnaire electronically using the Internet will be offered, which should 14 provide an easier and more effective means of transmitting and receiving the information, provided the entities have access to the World Wide Web.

5( d) Collection Schedule The survey materials will be sent to the respondent in early winter to obtain information on the previous year's beach conditions, monitoring programs, and closings or advisories. If the completed survey materials have not been returned within 30 days, a reminder postcard will be mailed to the respondent. If the completed survey materials have not been returned within 60 days, the survey will be considered to be unobtainable; however, late returns will be processed and entered into the database. After the data collected through the end of April have been analyzed, beach specific and summary information will be made available to the public by the end of May each year.

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The primary sources of EPA's burden estimates were actual estimates of the burden obtained from a sample of the respondents during the 1998 and 1999 surveys. EPA also reviewed burden estimates for the earlier GLNPO surveys.

Based on this information, EPA makes the following assumptions in determining respondent burden. The burden table presented reflects the liberal estimates of the average annual labor hours and costs that might occur during the 3 year OMB approved period of this ICR.

Labor hours are based on initial assumptions that 350 potential respondents nationwide will be asked to participate in the survey during the first year, 500 the second year, and 750 the third year. The total number of surveys that might be processed during this ICR is 1,600 over the 3 year approval period. The average number of surveys per year is 533.

Senior level managers ( e. g., director, chief) are most likely to receive the survey materials; however, it is anticipated that a lower level technical staff member would actually fill out the questionnaire. Thus, it is estimated that both the manager and the technical staff person could spend 0.25 hour each year reviewing the instructions and questions.

( 0.25 manager hour + 0.25 technician hour) = 0.5 respondent hour/ year

The number of swimming beaches present in a jurisdiction is likely to affect the amount of time needed to fill in the questionnaire. Respondents completing the paper version of the questionnaire need to make copies of " Section 2: Beach Specific Information" of the questionnaire for each beach within their jurisdiction, which is estimated to require 0.25 clerical hour per year. Respondents who choose to 15 complete the Internet version of the survey will not incur this burden. EPA estimates that 25 percent of respondents will use the Internet version each year, although this is probably a conservative assumption. For the purpose of the calculation, the estimated time was reduced to 0.20 clerical hours for the total number of respondents.

All information requested should already be compiled and readily available to the jurisdiction as part of the public record. EPA estimates that 0.5 hour will be needed each year to gather this information.

The first year a jurisdiction participates in the survey, respondents need to complete the entire questionnaire. In subsequent years, respondents will receive a copy of the information previously submitted and will need to report only information that has changed. The amount of time needed to complete subsequent questionnaires should therefore be reduced. Based on the estimated time spent completing and returning the questionnaire provided by a sample of respondents during the first 2 years of the survey, EPA estimates the average time to fill in the questionnaire is approximately one technician hour per year.

The paper questionnaires will need to be mailed back to EPA each year. EPA estimates that 0.20 clerical hour will be needed to complete this task. Respondents who choose to complete the Internet version of the survey will not incur this burden.

6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs The following resources were assumed and other assumptions were made to estimate respondent costs for this information collection:

( i) Estimating Labor Costs

Labor rates for state and local government workers were obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Trends ( Internet address http:// stats. bls. gov/ news. release/ ecec. t04. htm).

Manager ( white collar: executive, administrative, and managerial) $ 24.58 per hour Technical ( white collar) $ 15.70 per hour Clerical ( administrative support, including clerical) $ 11.91 per hour A benefits/ overhead multiplication factor of 1.6 was used to obtain the total labor cost for county ( or other entity) respondents.

( ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs

No capital/ start up costs are anticipated for the jurisdictions participating in the survey since they already collect the information requested for the public record. Internet access is not required for participating in the survey. 16

The only operations and maintenance ( O& M) cost required for this information collection by the respondent is the preparation of copies of Section 2 of the questionnaire for each beach. Return postage for the survey will be provided by EPA.

EPA used an estimate of 10 beaches per respondent and $ 0.10 per page for three pages ( Section 2) to obtain an estimate of $ 3.00 per year for photocopying charges. Respondents who choose to complete the Internet version of the survey will not incur this burden.

° EPA estimates that 25 percent of respondents will use the Internet version each year, although this is probably a conservative assumption. For the purpose of calculating O& M cost the total number of respondents was multiplied by 25 percent and then multiplied by $ 3.00 per year photocopying charges.

( iii) Capital/ Start up vs. Operating and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs

It is believed that the capital/ start up and O& M costs have been appropriately derived for this information collection.

( iv) Annualizing Capital Costs

No capital costs are anticipated for this information collection. The Internet version of the questionnaire is offered as an option, not a requirement. Completion of either the paper or Internet version is voluntary. 17 Annual Respondent Burden and Cost Information Collection Activity Hours and Costs Per Respondent ( Years 1 3) Total Hours and Costs ( Year 1) Total Hours and Costs ( Year 2) Total Hours and Costs ( Year 3)

Mgr.

Hours at $ 24.58/

Hour Tech.

Hours at $ 15.70/

Hour Cler.

Hours at $ 11.91/

Hour Resp. Hours Labor Cost1 Capital Start up Cost O& M Cost Number of Respon. Total Respond.

Hours Total Respond.

Cost3 Number of Respon. Total Respond.

Hours Total Respond.

Cost3 Number of Respon. Total Respond.

Hours Total Respond.

Cost3 Review instructions and the questions 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.50 $ 16.11 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 350 175.00 $ 5,639.20 500 250.00 $ 8,056.00 750 375.00 $ 12,084.00 Make copies of " Section 2:

Beach Specific Information" for each beach within jurisdiction2 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 $ 3.81 $ 0.00

$ 3.00 350 263 70.00 $ 2,122.50 500 375 100.00 $ 3,030.00 750 563 150.00 $ 4,546.50 Gather information needed to complete the questions 0.00 0.5 0.00 0.5 $ 12.56 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 350 175.00 $ 4,396.00 500 250.00 $ 6,280.00 750 375.00 $ 9,420.00 Fill in the answers for the questionnaire either by writing on the paper copy provided or by typing the answers on the electronic/ Interne t questionnaire ( optional) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 $ 25.12 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 350 350.00 $ 8,792.00 500 500.00 $ 12,560.00 750 750.00 $ 18,840.00 Return completed questionnaire2 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 $ 3.81 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 350 70.00 $ 1,333.50 500 100.00 $ 1,905.00 750 150.00 $ 2,857.50 Subtotals 0.25 1.75 0.40 2.40 $ 61.41 $ 0.00 $ 3.00 varies 840.00 $ 22,283.20 varies 1,200.00 $ 31,831.00 varies 1,800.00 $ 47,748.00 1 Labor cost includes a benefits/ overhead multiplication factor of 1.6.

2 EPA estimates that 25 percent of respondents will use the Internet version of the questionnaire and will not have to perform this step. For the purpose of this calculation, the number of 18 6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost Agency burden is estimated based on the assumption that approximately 10 percent of the labor hours per year for each activity will be work done by EPA and approximately 90 percent of the labor hours per year will be work done by a contractor. In addition, management oversight of work performed by technical and clerical staff is estimated to require 20 percent of the labor hours for each activity.

Federal employee rates were obtained from the 1999 OPM General Schedule salary table for the Washington, DC, area ( Internet address http:// www. opm. gov/ oca/ 99tables/ GShrly/ html/ 99SALHR. TXT), and the following categories were used:

Manager ( GS 15) $ 38.65 Technical ( GS 13) $ 27.80 Clerical ( GS 7) $ 13.18 A benefits/ overhead multiplication factor of 1.6 was used to obtain the total labor cost for EPA.

No capital/ start up costs are anticipated for the Agency.

Operations and maintenance ( O& M) costs include the costs of contractor services ( including printing survey materials and computer time) and outgoing and return postage for each survey each year.

Three tables are presented in this section, and the following resources and assumptions were used to prepare the burden estimate for each activity:

Preparation of the mailing list and survey tracking database is estimated based on initial assumptions that the number of potential respondents nationwide will be 350 the first year, 500 the second year, and 750 the third year. Agency labor includes identifying potential respondents and sources for contact information ( name, agency, address) and is estimated to take 0.03 hour per respondent, O& M costs include contractor services to develop the database and enter and verify contact information, based on approximately 0.15 hour per respondent, with an estimated rate of $ 70.00/ hour ( labor, overhead, and other direct costs). Agency labor and contractor services estimates are based on an estimated 100 edits to respondent contact names and/ or addresses each year. An additional 150 and 250 respondents will be added to the database for the second and third years, respectively.

To revise the existing questionnaire, instructions, transmittal letter, reminder postcard, and thank you postcard requires an estimated 0.02 hour of Agency time per 19 respondent. Fixed O& M costs include 40 contractor hours per year to modify survey materials.

EPA estimates that 0.02 hour per respondent will be needed for revisions to the existing database for storing and analyzing the information collected and the Internet forms for data collection. Fixed O& M costs include 40 contractor hours per year to modify the database and Internet option.

Each year, the Agency will submit the survey materials to respondents. ( The materials to be submitted will likely change from a blank questionnaire to the previous completed questionnaire with the request that only information that has changed be recorded.) EPA oversight of this activity is estimated to be 0.02 hour per respondent. Contractor services required to conduct this activity included 0.1 hour per respondent per year to prepare the materials and answer respondents' questions about the survey. O& M costs also include outgoing and return postage paid by the Agency ($ 2.00 per survey x 2).

Survey operations include recording receipt of completed questionnaires; submitting reminder postcards to each nonrespondent, if needed, and thank you postcards when completed survey materials are received; and reviewing survey materials for completeness and correctness of responses. EPA estimates that the Agency will not be involved in these operations except for minor oversight ( 0.01 hour per respondent per year). Contractor services to perform these operations are based on 0.5 hour per respondent per year.

Information from the questionnaires needs to be entered into the database and all data entries reviewed and verified ( including Internet submissions). EPA estimates that the Agency will not be involved in these operations except for minor oversight ( 0.01 hour per respondent per year). Contractor services to perform these operations are based on 1.0 hour per respondent per year. Information for respondents who use the Internet option does not need to be manually entered into the database and therefore Internet submissions are not reflected in the data entry cost for this task.

Data analyses will be performed to obtain summary statistics for inclusion in the Beach Health Report. The Agency will provide technical direction to a contractor to perform the analyses and discuss and review the results, estimated at 0.02 hour per respondent per year. Contractor services will require 0.03 hour per respondent per year for the analyses.

EPA will prepare a summary report of information obtained from the survey ( the Beach Health Report). The Agency will provide technical direction to a contractor to prepare the report and review drafts and the final report, estimated at 0.02 hour per respondent per year. It is anticipated that the contractor will require 0.03 hour per 20 respondent per year to produce the report, including a hard copy and an electronic version suitable for posting on the BEACH Watch Web site.

EPA will distribute the summary results of the survey ( Beach Health Report) in a paper version, and an electronic version will be posted on the BEACH Watch Web site. The Agency will provide technical oversight of the publication process, estimated at 0.01 hour per respondent per year. Fixed O& M costs here include estimated Government Printing Office costs of $ 3.00 per paper report x 10,000 copies and postage of $ 1.00 per copy ( total = $ 40,000). The Internet version of the questionnaire and database will be designed so that the public can automatically view the questionnaire information pertaining to particular beach( es) of interest. O& M costs also include funds for contractor services to maintain the database and perform troubleshooting, if needed, estimated at $ 500 per year.

Data obtained from the survey questionnaire will be stored in appropriate media. The Agency will provide technical oversight to ensure that data storage meets EPA requirements and program objectives. Labor is estimated at .02 hour per respondent per year. Fixed O& M costs include an estimate for computer equipment maintenance for this task of $ 500 per year. 21 Agency Burden and Cost ( Year 1)

Information Collection Activity Hours and Costs Per Respondent Total Hours and Costs Mgr.

Hours at $ 38.65/

Hour Tech.

Hours at $ 27.80/

Hour Cler.

Hours at $ 13.18/

Hour Agency Hours/

Resp. Labor Cost/ Resp. Capital/

Start up Cost Fixed O& M Cost Non Fixed O& M Cost1 Number of Respon. Total O& M ( Fixed and Non Fixed) Total Agency Hours Total Agency Cost Prepare mailing list and survey tracking database 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 $ 1.27 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 10.50 100 $ 1,050.00 3.00 $ 1,177.41 Develop survey materials 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 $ 1.01 $ 0.00 $ 2,800.00 $ 0.00 350 $ 2,800.00 7.00 $ 3,151.87 Set up database for storing and analyzing the information collected and Internet option for the questionnaire 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 $ 1.24 $ 0.00 $ 2,800.00 $ 0.00 350 $ 2,800.00 7.00 $ 3,232.88 Submit survey materials to respondents; answer respondents' questions 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 $ 1.06 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 10.00 350 $ 3,500.00 7.00 $ 3,872.12 Record receipt of completed survey materials; perform follow up and quality control activities 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 $ 0.62 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 35.00 350 $ 12,250.00 3.50 $ 12,466.40 Enter information from survey materials into the database, if needed; review/ verify data entries2 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 $ 0.44 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 70.00 263 $ 18,410.00 2.63 $ 18,526.90 Perform data analysis 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 $ 1.06 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 2.10 350 $ 735.00 7.00 $ 1,107.12 Prepare summary report of information obtained from the survey 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 $ 1.06 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 2.10 350 $ 735.00 7.00 $ 1,107.12 Distribute results of the survey 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 $ 0.44 $ 0.00 $ 40,500.00 $ 0.00 350 $ 40,500.00 3.50 $ 40,655.68 Store the questionnaire and beach location data 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 $ 0.66 $ 0.00 $ 500.00 $ 0.00 350 $ 500.00 7.00 $ 729.49 Subtotals 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.18 $ 8.87 $ 0.00 $ 46,600.00 $ 129.70 varies $ 83,280.00 54.63 $ 86,027.11 1 Includes costs of contractor services and postage 2 EPA estimates that 25 percent of respondents will use the Internet version of the questionnaire. The number of respondents was therefore reduced by 25 percent for this step. 22 Agency Burden and Cost ( Year 2)

Information Collection Activity Hours and Costs Per Respondent Total Hours and Costs Mgr.

Hours at $ 38.65/

Hour Tech.

Hours at $ 27.80/

Hour Cler.

Hours at $ 13.18/

Hour Agency Hours/

Resp. Labor Cost/ Resp. Capital/

Start up Cost Fixed O& M Cost Non Fixed O& M Cost1 Number of Respon. Total O& M ( Fixed and Non Fixed) Total Agency Hours Total Agency Cost Prepare mailing list and survey tracking database 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 $ 1.27 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 10.50 250 $ 2,625.00 7.50 $ 2,943.52 Develop survey materials 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 $ 1.01 $ 0.00 $ 2,800.00 $ 0.00 500 $ 2,800.00 10.00 $ 3,302.67 Set up database for storing and analyzing the information collected and Internet option for the questionnaire 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 $ 1.24 $ 0.00 $ 2,800.00 $ 0.00 500 $ 2,800.00 10.00 $ 3,418.40 Submit survey materials to respondents; answer respondents' questions 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 $ 1.06 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 10.00 500 $ 5,000.00 10.00 $ 5,531.60 Record receipt of completed survey materials; perform follow up and quality control activities 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 $ 0.62 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 35.00 500 $ 17,500.00 5.00 $ 17,809.20 Enter information from survey materials into the database, if needed; review/ verify data entries2 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 $ 0.44 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 70.00 375 $ 26,250.00 3.75 $ 26,416.80 Perform data analysis 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 $ 1.06 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 2.10 500 $ 1,050.00 10.00 $ 1,581.60 Prepare summary report of information obtained from the survey 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 $ 1.06 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 2.10 500 $ 1,050.00 10.00 $ 1,581.60 Distribute results of the survey 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 $ 0.44 $ 0.00 $ 40,500.00 $ 0.00 500 $ 40,500.00 5.00 $ 40,722.40 Store the questionnaire and beach location data 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 $ 0.66 $ 0.00 $ 500.00 $ 0.00 500 $ 500.00 10.00 $ 827.84 Subtotals 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.18 $ 8.87 $ 0.00 $ 46,600.00 $ 129.70 varies $ 100,075.00 81.25 $ 104,135.63 1 Includes costs of contractor services and postage 2 EPA estimates that 25 percent of respondents will use the Internet version of the questionnaire. The number of respondents was therefore reduced by 25 percent for this step. 23 Agency Burden and Cost ( Year 3)

Information Collection Activity Hours and Costs Per Respondent Total Hours and Costs Mgr.

Hours at $ 38.65/

Hour Tech.

Hours at $ 27.80/

Hour Cler.

Hours at $ 13.18/

Hour Agency Hours/

Resp. Labor Cost/ Resp. Capital/

Start up Cost Fixed O& M Cost Non Fixed O& M Cost1 Number of Respon. Total O& M ( Fixed and Non Fixed) Total Agency Hours Total Agency Cost Prepare mailing list and survey tracking database 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 $ 1.27 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 10.50 350 $ 3,675.00 10.50 $ 4,120.93 Develop survey materials 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 $ 1.01 $ 0.00 $ 2,800.00 $ 0.00 750 $ 2,800.00 15.00 $ 3,554.00 Set up database for storing and analyzing the information collected and Internet option for the questionnaire 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 $ 1.24 $ 0.00 $ 2,800.00 $ 0.00 750 $ 2,800.00 15.00 $ 3,727.60 Submit survey materials to respondents; answer respondents' questions 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 $ 1.06 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 10.00 750 $ 7,500.00 15.00 $ 8,297.40 Record receipt of completed survey materials; perform follow up and quality control activities 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 $ 0.62 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 35.00 750 $ 26,250.00 7.50 $ 26,713.80 Enter information from survey materials into the database, if needed; review/ verify data entries2 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 $ 0.44 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 70.00 563 $ 39,410.00 5.63 $ 39,660.42 Perform data analysis 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 $ 1.06 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 2.10 750 $ 1,575.00 15.00 $ 2,372.40 Prepare summary report of information obtained from the survey 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 $ 1.06 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 2.10 750 $ 1,575.00 15.00 $ 2,372.40 Distribute results of the survey 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 $ 0.44 $ 0.00 $ 40,500.00 $ 0.00 750 $ 40,500.00 7.50 $ 40,833.60 Store the questionnaire and beach location data 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 $ 0.66 $ 0.00 $ 500.00 $ 0.00 750 $ 500.00 15.00 $ 991.76 Subtotals 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.18 $ 8.87 $ 0.00 $ 46,600.00 $ 129.70 varies $ 126,585.00 121.13 $ 132,644.31 1 Includes costs of contractor services and postage 24 6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs The respondent universe for this ICR is calculated based on initial assumptions that 350 potential respondents nationwide will be asked to participate in the survey during the first year, 500 the second year, and 750 the third year. The total number of questionnaires that might be processed during this ICR is 1,600 over the 3 year approval period. The number of respondents involved in each activity varies because some respondents will elect to use the Internet option to complete the questionnaire, thereby eliminating the need to complete certain steps. EPA estimates that 25 percent of potential respondents will use this option.

6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables ( i) Respondent Tally Only one respondent table was prepared for this ICR.

Total Estimated Respondent Burden and Cost Summary Technical and Financial Requirements Number of Respondents Number of Activities Total Hours Total Labor Cost Total Capital Costs Total O& M Costs Total Costs Year 1 350 5 840.00 $ 21,494.20 $ 0.00 $ 789.00 $ 22,283.20 Year 2 500 5 1,200.00 $ 30,706.00 $ 0.00 $ 1,125.00 $ 31,831.00 Year 3 750 5 1,800.00 $ 46,059.00 $ 0.00 $ 1,689.00 $ 47,748.00 TOTAL 1,600 5 3,840.00 $ 98,259.20 $ 0.00 $ 3,603.00 $ 101,862.20 AVERAGE 533 5 1,280.00 $ 32,753.07 $ 0.00 $ 1,201.00 $ 33,954.07 ( ii) Agency Tally The Agency and contractor burdens and costs are summarized in the following table.

Total Estimated Agency Burden and Cost Summary Technical and Financial Requirements Number of Respondents Number of Activities Total Agency Hours Total Labor Cost Total Capital Costs Total O& M Costs Total Costs Year 1 350 10 54.63 $ 2,747.11 $ 0.00 $ 83,280.00 $ 86,027.11 Year 2 500 10 81.25 $ 4,060.63 $ 0.00 $ 100,075.00 $ 104,135.63 Year 3 750 10 121.13 $ 6,059.31 $ 0.00 $ 126,585.00 $ 132,644.31 TOTAL 1600 10 257.01 $ 12,867.04 $ 0.00 $ 309,940.00 $ 322,807.04 AVERAGE 533 10 85.67 $ 4,289.01 $ 0.00 $ 103,313.33 $ 107,602.34 25 ( iii) Variations in the Annual Bottom Line No change in collection activities or burden and costs per respondent is anticipated during the course of this ICR.

6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden The new calculated burden estimate ( Section 6 ) of 2.4 hours ( 2.33 hours in the initial ICR) reflects eliminating one task and very minor modifications to the time estimates for completing two of the remaining five tasks. The actual burden may be somewhat lower as indicated by measured burdens from a sample of respondents after the 1998 and 1999 surveys. These measurements indicated that the average reported time to complete the questionnaire had decreased from 1.6 hours in 1998 to 1.3 hours in 1999. More detail is provided in the Report on the National Health Protection Survey of Beaches ( Appendix B). These actual findings support the use of the new calculated burden estimate of 2.4 hours. EPA anticipates that the actual respondent burden will continue to decrease as more respondents use the electronic format.

6( g) Burden Statement The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2.4 hours per response annually. 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. For this survey, the burden includes the time needed to review instructions, make copies of the beach specific questions and Answer Table for each beach, gather the information needed to complete the questionnaire, fill in the answers to the survey questions, and mail the questionnaire back to EPA. 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), 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 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. 26 7. Response to OMB'S " Terms of Clearance":

OMB COMMENT: EPA should prepare a report presenting basic information on response rate, summary statistics, and any conclusions based on the survey.

EPA Response: For each of the two years that the National Health Protection Survey of Beaches was conducted, approximately 320 surveys were sent to state and county environmental and public health officials. The response rate in 1999 was 60 percent, up from 46 percent in 1998. The surveys displayed a wide variety of water quality parameters used across the states and counties, and showed high variability in beach monitoring ( ranging from no monitoring to frequent monitoring) and inconsistent approaches to beach notification ( i. e., when to post an advisory or closing). More detail is provided in the Report on the National Health Protection Survey of Beaches ( Appendix B) and in the fact sheet " EPA's BEACH Watch Program: 1999 Update" ( Appendix C).

OMB COMMENT: EPA should reevaluate the burden estimate and present its findings in the report.

EPA Response: EPA's new calculated burden estimate ( Section 6) of 2.4 hours ( revised from 2.33 hours in the initial ICR) reflects the elimination of one task and very minor modifications to the time estimates for completing two of the remaining five tasks. To help verify whether this calculated burden was reasonable and to improve the initial burden estimate, EPA requested that some of the respondents estimate how long it actually took them to complete the questionnaire for the 1998 and 1999 surveys.

The average reported time to complete the questionnaire decreased from 1.6 hours in 1998 to 1.3 hours in 1999. In 1999, 70 percent of this sample of respondents took 1 hour or less to complete the questionnaire. As would be expected, particularly for a new survey, there was significant variability in the time needed to complete it. For the 1998 survey, 79 respondents took between 15 minutes and 10 hours to complete all of the tasks. In 1999, 24 respondents reported estimates of 15 minutes to 4 hours. The high variability is due to several factors, including the number of beaches in the jurisdiction and the ability of the respondent to efficiently locate the necessary data.

Given these estimates, we conclude that our calculated burden is reasonable and may slightly overestimate the burden for many participants.

More detail is provided in the Report on the National Health Protection Survey of Beaches ( Appendix B). These actual findings support the use of the new calculated burden estimate of 2.4 hours. EPA anticipates that the actual respondent burden will continue to decrease as more respondents use the electronic format instead of the paper survey. 27 APPENDIX A Relevant Sections of Statutes, Regulations, or Judicial/ Administrative Decrees Enabling the Collection of Information for the National Health Protection Survey of Beaches Clean Water Act § 104, as printed in U. S. Environmental Laws, 1991 edition., W. E. McClain, Jr. ( ed.), The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington, DC.

EPA's Action Plan for Beaches and Recreational Waters ( the Beach Action Plan)

28 29 APPENDIX B Report on the National Health Protection Survey of Beaches 1998   1999 30 APPENDIX C " Recent Accomplishments of the BEACH Watch Program: 1998 Update" ( EPA 823 F 98 012) and " EPA's BEACH Watch Program: 1999 Update" ( EPA 823 F 99 04). 31 APPENDIX D Federal Register Notice Agency Information Collection Activities: Continuing Collection; Comment Request; National Health Protection Survey of Beaches Statement of Comments Received and Actions Taken: No inquiries, objections, or comments were received. 32 APPENDIX E National Health Protection Survey of Beaches Survey Instrument for Year 2000


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71023-71026]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29602]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0898; FRL-9326-7]

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel; Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: There will be a 3-day meeting of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP) to
consider and review Common Effects Assessment Methodology developed in
the Office of Pesticide Programs and Office of Water.

DATES: The meeting will be held on January 31, 2012 to February 2,
2012, from 9 a.m. to approximately 5:30 p.m.
    Comments. The Agency encourages that written comments be submitted
by January 17, 2012 and requests for oral comments be submitted by
January 24, 2012. However, written comments and requests to make oral
comments may be submitted until the date of the meeting, but anyone
submitting written comments after January 17, 2012 should contact the
Designated Federal Official (DFO) listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. For additional instructions, see Unit I.C. of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Nominations. Nominations of candidates to serve as ad hoc members
of FIFRA SAP for this meeting should be provided on or before November
30, 2011.
    Webcast. This meeting may be webcast. Please refer to the FIFRA
SAP's Web site, http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/SAP for information on how
to access the webcast. Please note that the webcast is a supplementary
public process provided only for convenience. If difficulties arise
resulting in webcasting outages, the meeting will continue as planned.
    Special accommodations. For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, and to request accommodation of a
disability, please contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT at least 10 days prior to the meeting to give EPA as much time
as possible to process your request.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Conference Center, Lobby Level, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA 22202.
    Comments. Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0898, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2011-

0898. If your comments contain any information that you consider to be
CBI or otherwise protected, please contact the DFO listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT to obtain special instructions before
submitting your comments. EPA's policy is that all comments received
will be included in the docket without change and may be made available
on-line at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
regulations.gov or email. The regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. 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 not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Nominations, requests to present oral comments, and requests for
special accommodations. Submit nominations to serve as ad hoc members
of FIFRA SAP, requests for special seating accommodations, or requests
to present oral comments to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharlene R. Matten, Office of Science
Coordination and Policy (7201M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-0130; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to persons who are or may be required to
conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), FIFRA, and the Food Quality Protection Act of
1996 (FQPA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the DFO
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

C. How may I participate in this meeting?

    You may participate in this meeting by following the instructions
in this unit. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that
you identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0898 in the subject line
on the first page of your request.
    1. Written comments. The Agency encourages that written comments be
submitted, using the instructions in ADDRESSES, no later than January
17, 2012, to provide FIFRA SAP the time necessary to consider and
review the written comments. Written comments are accepted until the
date of the meeting, but anyone submitting written comments after
January 17, 2012 should contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. Anyone submitting written comments at the meeting
should bring 30 copies for distribution to FIFRA SAP.
    2. Oral comments. The Agency encourages that each individual or
group wishing to make brief oral comments to FIFRA SAP submit their
request to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no
later than January 24, 2012, in order to be included on the meeting
agenda. Requests to present oral comments will be accepted until the
date of the meeting and, to the extent that time permits, the Chair of
FIFRA SAP may permit the presentation of oral comments at the meeting
by interested persons who have not previously requested time. The
request should identify the name of the individual making the
presentation, the organization (if any) the individual will represent,
and any requirements for audiovisual equipment (e.g., overhead
projector, 35 mm projector, chalkboard). Oral comments before FIFRA SAP
are limited to approximately 5 minutes unless prior arrangements have
been made. In addition, each speaker should bring 30 copies of his or
her comments and presentation slides for distribution to the FIFRA SAP
at the meeting.
    3. Seating at the meeting. Seating at the meeting will be open and
on a first-come basis.
    4. Request for nominations to serve as ad hoc members of FIFRA SAP
for this meeting. As part of a broader process for developing a pool of
candidates for each meeting, FIFRA SAP staff routinely solicits the
stakeholder community for nominations of prospective candidates for
service as ad hoc members of FIFRA SAP. Any interested person or
organization may nominate qualified individuals to be considered as
prospective candidates for a specific meeting. Individuals nominated
for this

meeting should have expertise in one or more of the following areas:
Aquatic toxicity estimation tools, aquatic plant toxicity, aquatic
animal toxicity, statistics, species sensitivity distributions, and
application of toxicity data to development of aquatic life criteria.
Nominees should be scientists who have sufficient professional
qualifications, including training and experience, to be capable of
providing expert comments on the scientific issues for this meeting.
Nominees should be identified by name, occupation, position, address,
and telephone number. Nominations should be provided to the DFO listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT on or before November 30, 2011.
The Agency will consider all nominations of prospective candidates for
this meeting that are received on or before this date. However, final
selection of ad hoc members for this meeting is a discretionary
function of the Agency.
    The selection of scientists to serve on FIFRA SAP is based on the
function of the panel and the expertise needed to address the Agency's
charge to the panel. No interested scientists shall be ineligible to
serve by reason of their membership on any other advisory committee to
a Federal department or agency or their employment by a Federal
department or agency except the EPA. Other factors considered during
the selection process include availability of the potential panel
member to fully participate in the panel's reviews, absence of any
conflicts of interest or appearance of lack of impartiality,
independence with respect to the matters under review, and lack of
bias. Although financial conflicts of interest, the appearance of lack
of impartiality, lack of independence, and bias may result in
disqualification, the absence of such concerns does not assure that a
candidate will be selected to serve on FIFRA SAP. Numerous qualified
candidates are identified for each panel. Therefore, selection
decisions involve carefully weighing a number of factors including the
candidates' areas of expertise and professional qualifications and
achieving an overall balance of different scientific perspectives on
the panel. In order to have the collective breadth of experience needed
to address the Agency's charge for this meeting, the Agency anticipates
selecting approximately 10 to12 ad hoc scientists.
    FIFRA SAP members are subject to the provisions of 5 CFR part 2634,
Executive Branch Financial Disclosure, as supplemented by the EPA in 5
CFR part 6401. In anticipation of this requirement, prospective
candidates for service on the FIFRA SAP will be asked to submit
confidential financial information which shall fully disclose, among
other financial interests, the candidate's employment, stocks and
bonds, and where applicable, sources of research support. The EPA will
evaluate the candidate's financial disclosure form to assess whether
there are financial conflicts of interest, appearance of a lack of
impartiality or any prior involvement with the development of the
documents under consideration (including previous scientific peer
review) before the candidate is considered further for service on FIFRA
SAP. Those who are selected from the pool of prospective candidates
will be asked to attend the public meetings and to participate in the
discussion of key issues and assumptions at these meetings. In
addition, they will be asked to review and to help finalize the meeting
minutes. The list of FIFRA SAP members participating at this meeting
will be posted on the FIFRA SAP Web site at http://epa.gov/scipoly/sap
or may be obtained from the OPP Regulatory Public Docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

II. Background

A. Purpose of FIFRA SAP

    FIFRA SAP serves as the primary scientific peer review mechanism of
EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) and is
structured to provide scientific advice, information and
recommendations to the EPA Administrator on pesticides and pesticide-
related issues as to the impact of regulatory actions on health and the
environment. FIFRA SAP is a Federal advisory committee established in
1975 under FIFRA that operates in accordance with requirements of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act. FIFRA SAP is composed of a permanent
panel consisting of seven members who are appointed by the EPA
Administrator from nominees provided by the National Institutes of
Health and the National Science Foundation. FIFRA, as amended by FQPA,
established a Science Review Board consisting of at least 60 scientists
who are available to the SAP on an ad hoc basis to assist in reviews
conducted by the SAP. As a peer review mechanism, FIFRA SAP provides
comments, evaluations and recommendations to improve the effectiveness
and quality of analyses made by Agency scientists. Members of FIFRA SAP
are scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications,
including training and experience, to provide expert advice and
recommendation to the Agency.

B. Public Meeting

    Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of
Pesticide Programs (OPP) and the Office of Water (OW) assess the
effects of pesticides on aquatic ecosystems using approaches that
afford a high degree of protection for aquatic life. EPA's stakeholders
have identified differences in the approaches that the OW and the OPP
use to evaluate possible effects from pesticides on fish, other aquatic
organisms, and aquatic plants. While there are differences in the
effects characterization approaches used by EPA under the Clean Water
Act (CWA) and FIFRA, both were developed with high quality data using
rigorously peer-reviewed assessment methodologies. In characterizing
pesticide effects, both programs consider acute effects as well as
chronic and sub-lethal effects on growth, survival, and reproduction in
their risk assessments.
    EPA is now exploring how to build on the substantial high quality
science already developed by both programs to develop additional
toxicity estimation tools and approaches to support a consistent and
common set of effects characterization methods using best available
information. EPA's goal in this effort is to develop tools, methods,
and approaches that:
     Continue to be based upon sound science and utilize
available data,
     Are legally defensible under our statutory mandates,
     Are based upon methodologies that are as consistent and
practical as possible,
     Are implementable at the Federal and State levels,
     Are developed as quickly and efficiently as possible, and
     Reflect stakeholder input and comments.
    In order to characterize potential adverse effects of chemicals in
the aquatic environment, EPA uses available toxicity data from studies
involving individual test species, which serve as surrogates for
untested species. These data are collected for individual organisms
exposed to chemicals (e.g., pesticides) and are then frequently
extended to represent effects to populations of the same species,
populations of similar genera/taxa, or to aquatic ecosystems. The focus
of the current efforts is to examine how limited test results can best
be used to characterize adverse effects on aquatic animals and plants.
To that end, EPA is exploring two general types of methods that may be
used to extrapolate from

toxicity test results to taxa-specific and community-based measures of
effects relevant to the regulatory needs of OPP and OW, as well as the
ability of predictive tools to augment in data limited situations.
These methods include sensitivity distributions and assessment factors
(AFs) both of which may be used to account for uncertainty,
particularly in situations where toxicity data are limited. A portion
of this work will address the derivation of an ``Aquatic Life Screening
Value'' (ALSV) that is related to the fifth percentile in a sensitivity
distribution. ALSVs may be used to screen concentrations of pesticides
and effluents in ambient waters and may be used by States and Tribes in
the development of water quality standards. Other portions of this work
will address other percentiles in sensitivity distributions that can be
used to evaluate concentrations of pesticides in ambient water in other
ways.
    EPA is requesting the SAP provide advice on several proposed tools
and methods to characterize the toxicity and effects of chemical
stressors on aquatic animals and plants.
    1. Use of Predictive Toxicology Tools in Characterizing Effects of
Chemical Stressors to Aquatic Animals;
    2. Use of Assessment Factors (AF) in Characterizing Acute Effects
of Chemical Stressors on Aquatic Animals;
    3. Use of Species Sensitivity Distributions (SSD) in Characterizing
Acute Effects of Chemical Stressors on Aquatic Animals;
    4. Evaluation of Chronic Toxicity Data and the Estimation of Acute
to Chronic Ratios (ACR) in Characterizing Chronic Effects of Stressors
on Aquatic Animals;
    5. Methods for Characterizing Effects of Chemical Stressors to
Aquatic Plants; and
    6. Approaches for Characterizing Effects of Chemicals with Limited
Data.

C. FIFRA SAP Documents and Meeting Minutes

    EPA's background paper, related supporting materials, charge/
questions to FIFRA SAP, FIFRA SAP composition (i.e., members and ad hoc
members for this meeting), and the meeting agenda will be available in
early January 2012. In addition, the Agency may provide additional
background documents as the materials become available. You may obtain
electronic copies of these documents, and certain other related
documents that might be available electronically, at http://www.regulations.gov and the FIFRA SAP homepage at http://www.epa.gov/
scipoly/sap.
    FIFRA SAP will prepare meeting minutes summarizing its
recommendations to the Agency approximately 90 days after the meeting.
The meeting minutes will be posted on the FIFRA SAP Web site or may be
obtained from the OPP Regulatory Public Docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: November 3, 2011.
Frank Sanders,
Director, Office of Science Coordination and Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-29602 Filed 11-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 225 (Monday, November 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73028-73029]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29726]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76458; File No. SR-NSCC-2015-005]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Permit Trades in
Eligible Fixed Income Securities Scheduled To Settle on Day After Trade
Date To Be Processed for Settlement at National Securities Clearing
Corporation

November 17, 2015.
    On October 7, 2015, National Securities Clearing Corporation
(``NSCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2015-005 pursuant to
section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ to allow certain fixed-income securities
trades that that are scheduled to settle on the day after trade date
(``T+1'') to settle either through NSCC's Continuous Net Settlement
(``CNS'') system, or through its Balance Order Accounting Operation on
a trade-for-trade basis. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on October 15, 2015.\3\ The Commission
did not receive any comment letters on the proposed rule change. For
the reasons discussed below, the Commission is granting approval of the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76112 (October 8,
2015), 80 FR 62121 (October 15, 2015) (SR-NSCC-2015-005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The following is a description of the proposed rule change, as
provided by NSCC:
    The proposed rule change consists of amendments to NSCC's Rules &
Procedures (``Rules'') in order to permit trades in fixed income
securities (corporate and municipal bonds, and unit investment trusts,
collectively ``CMU'') that are T+1 to settle either through its CNS
system, as described below, or through its Balance Order Accounting
Operation on a trade-for-trade basis, as described below, when eligible
for settlement through these services.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Terms not defined herein are defined in the Rules, available
at http://dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/rules/
nscc_rules.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    CMU transactions that are effected in the over-the-counter markets
and submitted to NSCC directly by Members on a bilateral basis are
processed through NSCC's Real Time Trade Matching (``RTTM'') platform.
Within RTTM, the buy and sell sides of a transaction are validated and
matched, resulting in a compared trade that is reported to Members.
This process is called ``trade comparison.''
    Today, with the exception of CMU trades that are submitted to NSCC
to settle on a timeframe that is shorter than T+2,\5\ CMU trades
submitted to NSCC through RTTM are first compared within RTTM, and then
are processed into NSCC's Universal Trade Capture (``UTC'') system,
where they are checked for eligibility for settlement either through
NSCC's CNS system \6\ or through its Balance Order Accounting Operation
on a trade-for-trade basis.\7\ These CMU trades, those that are
scheduled to settle on a T+2 or longer timeframe, are then processed
for settlement through the settlement service for which they are
eligible, i.e. either the CNS system or the Balance Order Accounting
Operation on a trade-for-trade basis. If a CMU trade is not eligible
for settlement through either CNS or the Balance Order Accounting
Operation, or if it is marked as ``comparison-only'' when it is
submitted to NSCC, it is only processed for trade comparison through
RTTM and then it must settle away from NSCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The settlement timeframe of a trade, i.e. when the trade
will settle relative to the trade date, is determined by the
counterparties to that trade, and is indicated on the trade record
when the trade is submitted to NSCC.
    \6\ CNS and its operation are described in Rule 11 and Procedure
VII. Rules, supra note 4. To be eligible for CNS settlement, a
transaction must be in a security that is eligible for book-entry
transfer on the books of The Depository Trust Company, and must be
capable of being processed in the CNS system; for example,
securities may be ineligible for CNS processing due to certain
transfer restrictions (e.g., 144A securities) or due to the pendency
of certain corporate actions.
    \7\ The Balance Order Accounting Operation is described in
Procedure V. Rules, supra note 4. CMU trades that are processed
through the Balance Order Accounting Operation are processed on a
trade-for-trade basis, as described in Section B of Procedure V,
such that Receive and Deliver Orders, as defined in the Rules, are
created instructing the counterparties to the transaction to deliver
or receive a quantity of securities to or from their counterparty to
that transaction. These transactions are not netted and are not
subject to NSCC's risk management measures, as NSCC's central
counterparty guarantee does not attach to these trades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, all CMU trades submitted to NSCC through RTTM that are
scheduled to settle on T+1 are automatically processed as comparison-
only in RTTM, and must settle away from NSCC. T+1 CMU trades are
processed this way because, historically, NSCC's systems were not able
to adequately risk manage CMU trades that settled on this shortened
timeframe. NSCC has proposed to amend its Rules so that, following
trade comparison through RTTM, T+1 CMU trades will be processed into
UTC, where they will be checked for eligibility to settle through
either CNS or the Balance Order Accounting Operation on a trade-for-
trade basis. If eligible, these CMU trades will settle through the
settlement service for which they are eligible, i.e. either the CNS
system or the Balance Order Accounting Operation on a trade-for-trade
basis.
    Pursuant to Addendum K of the Rules, NSCC guarantees the completion
of CNS settling trades that have reached the later of midnight of T+1
or midnight of the day they are reported to Members, and guarantees the
completion of shortened process trades, such as same-day and next-day
settling trades, upon comparison or trade recording processing.\8\
Therefore, for those T+1 CMU trades that are eligible for settlement
through CNS, NSCC will guarantee the completion of these trades upon
comparison or trade recording processing. T+1 CMU trades that settle
through CNS will be subject to all appropriate risk management measures
and margining, pursuant to the existing risk management methodology and
policies and procedures, including the Specified Activity charge
component of its Clearing Fund charges, which applies to trades
settling at NSCC on a shortened processing cycle.\9\ NSCC estimates
that CMU trades that are designated to settle on T+1 and will be
eligible to settle through CNS represent less than half of a percent of
all CMU trades processed at NSCC, and less than 2% of the total value
of all CMU trades processed at NSCC.\10\ In order to

implement this proposed rule change, NSCC will amend Procedure II
(Trade Comparison and Recording Service). In particular, these
amendments will provide that CMU T+1 transactions will be handled in
the same manner as CMU T+2 trades and trades submitted for regular way
(or T+3) settlement. Procedure II will also be amended to remove
reference to CMU T+1 transactions from the section that identifies
those trades that are accepted by NSCC for comparison-only processing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ NSCC guarantees the completion of trades that settle through
CNS pursuant to Addendum K of the Rules. Rules, supra note 4.
    \9\ The components of NSCC's Clearing Fund are described in
Procedure XV, and the Specified Activity charge is described in
Section I(A)(1)(g) for trades settling through CNS. Rules, supra
note 4.
    \10\ Based on data from the first quarter of 2015, an
approximate daily average of 45,000 CMU trades are processed at
NSCC, with an approximate total daily value of an average of $8.3
billion. Of the approximate daily average of 45,000 CMU trades
processed at NSCC, an approximate daily average of 200 CMU trades
are designated to settle on T+1 and are in securities that are
eligible for settlement in CNS. Of the approximate daily value of an
average of $8.3 billion in CMU trades processed at NSCC, CMU trades
that are designated to settle on T+1 and are in securities that are
eligible for settlement in CNS have an approximate total daily value
of an average of $145 million. The average daily CMU transaction
volume is less than 1% of NSCC's overall daily volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation

    The effective date of the proposed rule change will be announced
via an NSCC Important Notice.

II. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \11\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and rules and regulations thereunder applicable
to such organization. The Commission believes the proposal is
consistent with section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, as well
as, in general, protect investors and the public interest.\13\ By
permitting T+1 CMU transactions to settle through CNS or the Balance
Order Accounting Operation, the transactions will receive the benefit
of NSCC's settlement services, including, in the case of CNS, a trade
guarantee. Thus, the proposal will protect investors and the public
interest by mitigating NSCC Members' settlement risk and counterparty
risk. As such, the Commission believes that the proposal is consistent
with section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id.
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in
particular with the requirements of section 17A of the Act \15\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2015-005 be, and hereby is,
approved.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \17\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-29726 Filed 11-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P