° Support from the Respondent Population. This is a national survey of infrastructure needs for drinking water systems. These systems, as well as all national organizations representing these systems, understand the importance of the survey results. All national organizations have endorsed the survey and have communicated the importance of a high response rate to their members. As discussed in Section B. 2. c ( above), organizations have provided access to their newsletters and magazines to publicize and endorse participation in the survey.

° Follow up by States and Respondent Peer Groups. Abt Associates Inc., our survey subcontractor for this effort, is experienced in standard follow up procedures for mail surveys. Since the vast majority of participating States have indicated their willingness to participate in follow up activities, these procedures will be implemented by State personnel, most of whom are personally familiar with the respondents. Procedures that States will use include reminder letters and telephone follow up. In States that elect not to participate in follow up, the EPA contractor will conduct these activities. If the follow up fails after three attempts ( one reminder letter plus two telephone follow ups), we will shift to a second approach: peer group follow up by members of a trade association, such as AWWA. Procedures to be used by the association include a reminder letter followed by telephone calls. Such involvement is likely to improve the survey's response rate. ICR for the 2003 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey September 2002 64 B. 5 ANALYZING AND REPORTING SURVEY RESULTS B. 5. a Data Preparation State personnel will check all cost data and documentation to ensure that it is consistent with State and national standards. States will then send the completed and reviewed data collection instruments to EPA for a second round of review by EPA contractor staff.

Once data have been checked, the contractor will key and verify the data. Senior data entry staff will be used for the verification process to improve quality control. Editing will include automated logic and range checks, and checks for missing data. Missing cost data will be modeled, using other information provided by the respondents on the data collection instrument. When modeling is insufficient, missing data will be imputed using the standard methods such as cell means and regression. The sample of CWSs will be weighted so that stratum estimates can be summed to prepare state level estimates.

B. 5. b Analysis EPA will prepare a report that tabulates the results of the survey and explains the precision of the State level estimates of total capital needs. Examples of statistics that will be produced include:

° Eligible capital needs by State and by " types of need."

° Total capital needs by State and by types of need.

° Total capital needs by domains within the total population, e. g., systems serving populations greater than 50,000.

° Mean and median statistics on total capital needs ( by type of need) for systems of various sizes. ( These statistics will be of particular interest to participating respondents who will receive a short summary of these statistics.)

° Standard errors will be calculated for key statistics.

The analysis will be similar to that done for the 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and previous Clean Water Needs Surveys. ICR for the 2003 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey September 2002 65 B. 5. c Reporting Results The survey results will be made available to EPA and the public through:

° A printed report that is submitted to Congress on drinking water infrastructure needs. This report will be distributed to all participants in the survey and all interested offices at EPA.

° Micro computer access to State data ( each State can access only its own data).

° Micro computer access to the entire database ( EPA only).

A report containing all technical information ( data collection instrument, sampling plan, response rates, and variances) will be prepared and distributed. Record layouts, codes, and complete file documentation will be developed for data users ( both micro computer and mainframe users). ICR for the 2003 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey September 2002 66 This page intentionally left blank. ICR for the 2003 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey September 2002 67 Appendix A Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB ICR for the 2003 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey September 2002 68 This page intentionally left blank. ICR for the 2003 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey September 2002 69 ICR for the 2003 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey September 2002 70 ICR for the 2003 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey September 2002 71 Appendix B Data Collection Instrument and Lists of Codes ICR for the 2003 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey September 2002 72 This page intentionally left blank. 2003 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 OMB No.:

Approval Expires:

Federal PWSID No.:

Please verify or correct the following information: Check if Correct as Printed Corrected Information ( Fill in only if pre printed information is missing or incorrect)

Name of System ( Community):

Name of Contact:

Street Address:

City, State, and Zip:

Ownership Type: Check All That Apply: Public Investor owned/ Private Native American Federal Government Population Served ( if seller, include population of systems sold to):

Number of Connections:

Total Design Capacity:

Source: Check All That Apply: Ground Surface/ GWUDI Purchased Ground Purchased Surface/ GWUDI Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 4 hours per response. This estimate includes time for reviewing the instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the information collection. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by person 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; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, OPPI, Regulatory Information Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 1804A), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460; and Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, N. W., Washington, DC 20503.

State Use Only State Reviewer: Telephone Number: ICR for the 2003 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey September 2002 74 Information provided for this survey can be requested by the public; however, it is our experience that this information is rarely requested. 09 19 02 draft 2003 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey Overview What is the Purpose of the Survey?

$ The 2003 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey captures the 20 year ( January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2022) infrastructure needs of public water systems eligible for Drinking Water State Revolving Fund ( DWSRF) monies. The DWSRF provides loans and other forms of financial assistance to water systems. Infrastructure needs are those that would preserve the physical integrity of a water system and protect public health. The results of this survey will document the total national and State specific infrastructure need for drinking water systems.

$ The results of the survey are used to allocate DWSRF monies to the States for fiscal years 2006 through 2009. Your participation is critical to the success of the survey and to your State's DWSRF allotment.

How Does the Survey Work?

$ Over 4,000 of the 55,000 community water systems across the country have been selected to participate in the survey. Their infrastructure needs will be used to statistically represent the total national need and the proportional needs of their State.

$ The 20 year need for each participating system is extrapolated to represent the total need for each State.

What is My Role?

$ Please record infrastructure projects to meet the needs of current water users over the 20 year survey period. Each project must be documented or described to show it would address a current or future water quality and/ or quantity deficiency. Please provide project costs,

if cost documentation is available. For projects without documented costs, please provide design parameters ( e. g., length and diameter of pipe needed) so EPA can model the costs.

How is the Questionnaire Organized?

$ The questionnaire consists of three separate tables on which water system projects are recorded. The tables address the categories of the type of projects listed below:

 Transmission and Distribution Projects.

 Source, Treatment, Finished or Treated Water Storage, Pumping,

and Other Projects.

 Backflow Prevention Devices/ Assemblies, Flushing Hydrants,

Service Lines, Valves, and Water Meter Projects.

$ Examples of typical projects and how they would be recorded on the questionnaire are provided for each category of need.

$ Some projects may fall into more than one of these categories. If so, please record each component of a project in the appropriate table. For example: a project to replace distribution mains and install a new elevated storage tank would include the pipe and appurtenances on the Transmission and Distribution Projects table ( page 4) and the tank on the Source,

Treatment, Storage, Pumping, and Other Projects table ( page 8). If a documented cost is provided, please divide the cost between each project component based on their proportional contribution to the total cost. How is Project Information Recorded?

$ Please record individual infrastructure projects on the questionnaire using the " Instructions and Lists of Codes" ( purple booklet) included in the questionnaire packet. The booklet provides instructions for each column on the tables and provides the appropriate codes.

Projects with multiple parts should be presented in separate entries on the appropriate project tables ( e. g., a project with a storage tank and 8 inch and 12 inch distribution mains would have one entry in the Source, Treatment, Storage, Pumping, and Other Projects table and two entries in the Transmission and Distribution Projects table).

$ Supplemental sheets for each table are included in the questionnaire packet. These blank sheets may be copied and included with the appropriate section if additional pages are necessary to list all projects. Each project category has an associated numbering system ( indicated in each section of the questionnaire). Please assign sequential numbers to projects if additional pages are used. There is a box at the bottom of each project table that should be marked to indicate supplemental sheets are included with additional projects.

What Types of Projects Should Be Included?

$ Infrastructure projects should be included that are needed now as well as projects needed through calendar year 2022 to provide adequate water quality and quantity to current users. " List 1  Type of Need"

in the accompanying booklet, " Instructions and Lists of Codes," lists codes for typical projects. Scanning this list may help clarify the types of projects to be included.

$ Examples of typical projects are provided as an introduction to each table in the questionnaire. Brief project descriptions are also provided as examples of adequate documentation/ descriptions of project need.

$ Projects may be for new construction or to upgrade/ rehabilitate existing infrastructure. However, projects are recorded only once during the 20 year survey period, even if they will occur more than once within that time frame ( such as for a tank rehabilitation that may occur every 10 15 years).

$ Projects must not have begun construction prior to January 1, 2003.

If construction has begun by January 1, 2003 phases of the project should be included if their construction begins at a later date.

What Types of Projects Should Not Be Included?

$ Do not include the following types of projects:

 Projects solely for fire flow, fire protection, or ISA ratings  Projects solely to meet demand of expected future growth  Projects to encourage future expansion or development that do not also serve existing customers  Projects for land acquisition not associated with siting of an infrastructure component ( e. g., land purchase to locate a tank would be eligible)

 Projects that do not construct infrastructure ( e. g., studies,

watershed control programs, staff, operations and maintenance costs, monitoring costs)

 Projects for dams or raw water reservoirs $ If existing documentation implies projects are for one of the above reasons, additional or replacement documentation or project descriptions may be used to clarify that the project would address a water quality, water quantity, or physical integrity deficiency.

If you have any questions, refer to Page 12 ( last page) to see who to call for help. Transmission and Distribution Projects Transmission and distribution projects are the piping needs of a water system. Projects for valves, hydrants, and meters that are not part of a transmission or distribution project listed in this table should be recorded in the table on page 11.

To ensure all potential projects are considered, it may be helpful to complete this simple inventory for your system's existing piping needs ( a rough estimate is acceptable):

Inventory Needing Replacement Needing Upgrading or Rehabilitation Needing New Pipe Total Length of Existing Transmission Mains: Feet Miles Transmission mains are any mains that transport raw water to the treatment plant,

or treated water from the plant to the distribution system grid. Percentage or Length of Existing Transmission Mains:

( e. g., installation of pipe in new area or replacement of existing pipe) Percentage or Length of Existing Transmission Mains:

( e. g., pigging or lining) Does your system have needs for additional transmission mains to meet the needs of current customers ( e. g., provide a second main to an isolated area)? ( check one) Yes No If yes, what additional lengths and sizes are needed?

Total Length of Existing Distribution Mains: Feet Miles Distribution mains are any mains that transport water through a piping grid serving customers. Percentage or Length of Existing Distribution Mains:

( e. g., installation of pipe in new area or replacement of existing pipe) Percentage or Length of Existing Distribution Mains:

( e. g., pigging or lining) Does your system have needs for additional distribution mains to meet the needs of current customers ( e. g., to eliminate dead end mains)?( check one) Yes No If yes, what additional lengths and sizes are needed?

Examples of Projects for the Transmission and Distribution Project Table:

$ Example 1 is for 18,000 feet of old and deteriorated 12 inch diameter distribution mains which need to be rehabilitated now. No cost is available. A brief description of the need and extent of the project, such as the first sentence of this example, is submitted by the system.

$ Example 2 is for 20,000 feet of old 8 inch diameter pipe which needs to be replaced now to continue to provide water to the users. Cost is from the CIP.

$ Examples 3 and 4 are for installation of 15,200 feet of new 12 inch diameter transmission pipe and 2,000 feet of 8 inch transmission pipe to connect existing nearby homes without a supply of safe drinking water. Although this is considered one project by the utility, it is recorded as two entries on the project table.

Project Number Project Name Type of Need ( List 1) Reason for Need ( List 2) New or Upgrade Current or Future Regulation ( List 3) Diameter of Pipe ( Inches) Length of Pipe ( Feet) Cost Estimate Date of Cost Estimate ( Month/ Year) Documentation ( List 4)

Example 1 Pigging Mains M1 A1 U C N/ A 12 18,000 N/ A N/ A 10 Example 2 Replace Galvanized Pipe M1 A1 N C N/ A 8 20,000 $ 1,200,000 06/ 00 1 Example 3 Connect existing homes 8" X2 A11 N C N/ A 8 2,000 N/ A N/ A 10 Example 4 Connect existing homes 12" X2 A11 N C N/ A 12 15,200 N/ A N/ A 10 ICR for the 2003 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey September 2002 78 Transmission and Distribution Project Table Using the completed simple inventory, capital improvement plans, or other existing planning documents and resources, please identify and document projects on the table below.

Project Number Project Name Type of Need ( List 1) Reason for Need ( List 2) New or Upgrade Current or Future Regulatio n ( List 3) Diameter of Pipe ( Inches) Length of Pipe ( Feet) Cost Estimate Date of Cost Estimate ( Month/ Year) Documentation ( List 4)

1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 If you have more transmission or distribution projects check this box and continue on a supplemental sheet. Project numbers for these projects are 1000 1999, and should be numbered in sequence.

EPA needs documentation of all data provided. Applicable types of documentation are presented in List 4 of the Lists of Codes. Use only existing documentation of cost. We do not expect you to develop new cost estimates. Source, Treatment, Storage, Pumping, and Other Projects Source projects are all projects related to collecting and pumping raw water. This includes wells, surface water intakes, springs, off stream raw water storage, pumps, and well houses.

Treatment projects are all projects related to disinfection, filtration, or other treatment processes for ground or surface water sources, or for treatment applied in the distribution system.

Storage, pumping, and other projects are related to finished or treated water storage, booster pump stations, and miscellaneous items such as emergency generators and SCADA or telemetry projects.

To ensure all potential projects are considered, it may be helpful to complete this simple inventory for your system's sources, treatment, storage,

and pumping facilities:

Source Water Inventory Needing Replacement Needing Upgrading or Rehabilitation Needing New Source Water Capacity Total Number of Existing Wells or Springs: Wells ( including pumps): Wells or Springs ( including pumps): Does your system have additional source water capacity needs to meet the needs of current users? ( check one)

Yes No Total Number of Existing Surface Water Intakes: Existing Surface Water Intakes ( excluding pumps): Existing Surface Water Intakes ( excluding pumps): If yes, how many additional sources are necessary?

Existing Pumps ( but not wells): Existing Pumps ( but not wells):

Existing Raw Water Pumps: Existing Raw Water Pumps:

Treatment Inventory Needing Replacement Needing Upgrading or Rehabilitation Needing New Treatment Capacity For the sources identified above, enter the number of locations where the following treatment is applied:

Disinfection Disinfection Disinfection Does your system have additional treatment needs for provision of additional public health protection or for aesthetic concerns? ( check one) Yes No Filtration Filtration Filtration If yes, what additional treatment is necessary?

Chemical removal Chemical removal Chemical removal Storage and Pump Stations Inventory Needing Replacement Needing Upgrading or Rehabilitation Needing New Storage and/ or Pumping Capacity Total Number of Existing Elevated or Ground Level Storage Tanks: Number of Existing Elevated or Ground

Level Storage Tanks: Number of Existing Elevated or Ground

Level Storage Tanks: Does your system have additional storage capacity and/ or booster pumping needs to meet the needs of current users? ( check one) Yes No Total Number of Existing Booster Pump Stations: Number of Existing Booster Pump Stations: Number of Existing Booster Pump Stations: If yes, how much additional finished water storage or booster pumping capacity is necessary?

Examples of Source Projects:

$ Example 1 is for a 0.5 MGD well ( and pump) that must be rehabilitated now to continue to provide safe water. No cost is available so EPA would model a cost for this need. ( Note that if the system has more than one well, a separate project line is required for each well even if the project information is identical. A brief description of the need and extent of the project, such as the first sentence of this example, is submitted by the system).

$ Example 2 is for a new 0.5 MGD well needed to meet current user demands. Cost documentation developed in 1999 is provided.

$ Example 3 is for upgrading/ rehabilitating the existing deteriorated 2 MGD surface water intake. This project is not needed for several years and a cost is not available. The need was identified in the sanitary survey, a copy of which is submitted by the system.

Examples of Treatment Projects:

$ Example 4 is for upgrade and rehabilitation of a 5.0 MG conventional water treatment plant. The upgrade is needed now to maintain compliance with the Surface Water Treatment Rule. The cost is provided from a preliminary engineering report.

$ Example 5 is for a new chlorinator for a 0.5 MGD well. The existing chlorinator is expected to last another 5 years before the replacement is needed. A cost is not provided so the capacity of the well to be treated is entered as the design capacity for the chlorination system. Disinfection of the well is not required, but it is applied by the system voluntarily so a regulation code does not apply.

Examples of Finished or Treated Water Storage, Pumping and Other Projects:

$ Example 6 is for a new 0.25 MG elevated storage tank that is needed now to correct low pressure problems in part of the service area. No cost is available.

$ Example 7 is for rehabilitation of an existing 1 MG standpipe storage tank that needs sand blasting and repainting in about 5 years. No cost is available.

$ Example 8 is for replacement of an old 0.25 MGD Booster Pump Station. No cost is available.

Project Number Project Name Type of Need ( List 1) Reason for Need ( List 2) New or Upgrade Current or Future Regulation ( List 3) Design Capacity ( MG,

MGD, kW) Cost Estimate Date of Cost Estimate ( Month/ Year) Documentation ( List 4)

Example 1 Rehab Well 1 R1 A1 U C N/ A 0.5 N/ A N/ A 10 Example 2 New Well # 2 R1 A2 N C N/ A 0.5 43,000 11/ 99 1 Example 3 Rehab WTP Intake R6 A1 U F 1A 2.0 N/ A N/ A 8 Example 4 Rehab Treatment Plant T10 A1, A8 U C 1A 5.0 $ 6,027,000 12/ 01 2 Example 5 Well 2 Chlorinator T1 A10 N F N/ A 0.5 N/ A N/ A 10 Example 6 New Tank S1 A4 N C N/ A 0.25 N/ A N/ A 10 Example 7 Rehab. Main St. Tank S2 A1 U F N/ A 1.0 N/ A N/ A 10 ICR for the 2003 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey September 2002 Project Number Project Name Type of Need ( List 1) Reason for Need ( List 2) New or Upgrade Current or Future Regulation ( List 3) Design Capacity ( MG,

MGD, kW) Cost Estimate Date of Cost Estimate ( Month/ Year) Documentation ( List 4)

82 Example 8 Replace Pump Station P2 A1 N C N/ A 0.25 N/ A N/ A 10 Source, Treatment, Storage, Pumping and Other Project Table Using the completed simple inventory, capital improvement plans, or other existing planning documents and resources, please identify and document projects on the following table.

Project Number Project Name Type of Need ( List 1) Reason for Need ( List 2) New or Upgrade Current or Future Regulatio n ( List 3) Design Capacity ( MG,

MGD, kW) Cost Estimate Date of Cost Estimate ( Month/ Year) Documentation ( List 4)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 EPA needs documentation of all data provided. Applicable types of documentation are presented in List 4 of the Lists of Codes. Use only existing documentation of cost. We do not expect you to develop new cost estimates. Source, Treatment, Storage, Pumping and Other Project Table, cont.

Project Number Project Name Type of Need ( List 1) Reason for Need ( List 2) New or Upgrade Current or Future Regulatio n ( List 3) Design Capacity ( MG,

MGD, kW) Cost Estimate Date of Cost Estimate ( Month/ Year) Documentation ( List 4)

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 If you have more source, treatment, storage, pumping or other related projects check this box and continue on a supplemental sheet.

Project numbers for these projects are 2000 2999, and should be numbered in sequence.

EPA needs documentation of all data provided. Applicable types of documentation are presented in List 4 of the Lists of Codes. Use only existing documentation of cost. We do not expect you to develop new cost estimates. Backflow Prevention Devices/ Assemblies, Flushing Hydrants, Service Lines, Valves, and Water Meter Projects Although these needs may fit into the other categories of the questionnaire, projects for backflow prevention devices and assemblies, hydrants used to flush water mains, service line replacement, and other items such as valves, hydrants, and meters are recorded in this section to accommodate entries of multiple identical items on one line in the project table.

To ensure all potential projects are considered, it may be helpful to complete this simple inventory for your system's existing needs:

Inventory Needing Replacement Needing Upgrading or Rehabilitation Please do not list any component that is included in a pipe replacement or rehabilitation project listed on the Transmission and Distribution Project Table. If you listed any pipe replacement or rehabilitation project without a cost, EPA will assign a cost using a model that includes all these components.

Total Number of Existing Valves ( gate, butterfly, PRVs, altitude, etc.): Number of Valves: Number of Valves Total Number of Existing Water Meters: Number of Water Meters: Number of Water Meters:

Total Number of Existing Flushing Hydrants: Number of Flushing Hydrants: Number of Flushing Hydrants:

Total Number of Lead Service Lines: Number of Lead Service Lines: Number of Lead Service Lines:

Total Number of Backflow Prevention Devices/ Assemblies: Number of Backflow Prevention Devices/ Assemblies: Number of Backflow Prevention Devices/ Assemblies:

Examples of Projects for the Backflow Prevention Devices/ Assemblies, Flushing Hydrants, Service Lines, Valves and Water Meter Project Table:

$ Example 1 is for 25, 12 inch diameter valves that will need to be replaced due to deterioration before the end of 2022. They are not part of an existing distribution or transmission project. No cost estimate is provided. A description of the need and extent of the project is submitted by the system.

$ Example 2 is for replacement of 100 lead service lines. The cost is from the CIP. Because they are lead lines, the Lead and Copper Rule applies. No diameter is needed for service lines.

Project Number Project Name Type of Need ( List 1) Reason for Need ( List 2) New or Upgrade Current or Future Regulation ( List 3) Size ( Diameter in Inches) Number Needed Cost Estimate Date of Cost Estimate ( Month/ Year) Documentation ( List 4)

Example 1 Replace Valves M5 A1 N F N/ A 12 25 N/ A N/ A 10 Example 2 Replace Lead Service Lines M2 A7 N C 1D NA 100 100,000 5/ 01 1 Backflow Prevention Devices/ Assemblies, Flushing Hydrants, Service Lines, Valves, and Water Meter Project Table Using the completed simple inventory, capital improvement plans, or other existing planning documents and resources, please identify and document projects on the table below. Please do not list any component that is included in a pipe replacement or rehabilitation project listed on the Transmission and Distribution Project Table. If you listed any pipe replacement or rehabilitation project without a cost, EPA will assign a cost using a model that includes all these components.

Project Number Project Name Type of Need ( List 1) Reason for Need ( List 2) New or Upgrade Current or Future Regulatio n ( List 3) Size ( Diameter in Inches) Number Needed Cost Estimate Date of Cost Estimate ( Month/ Year) Documentation ( List 4)

3000 3001 3002 3003 3004 3005 3006 3007 3008 If you have more of these projects check this box and continue on a supplemental sheet. Project numbers for these projects are 3000 3999,

and should be numbered in sequence. EPA needs documentation of all data provided. Applicable types of documentation are presented in List 4 of the Lists of Codes. Use only existing documentation of cost. We do not expect you to develop new cost estimates.

Respondent Information Please provide the following information in case we need to contact you for clarification or additional explanation of any of your responses.

Contact Person ( Person who completed this questionnaire):

Signature:

Name ( please print):

Title: Mailing Address:

( Street Address) Telephone Number:

Fax Number:

E mail Address:

Best Time to Reach You:

If you have any questions, contact { State Contact} at { State Contact Phone Number} or e mail to { State Contact EMail or call the U. S. EPA toll free Needs Survey Helpline at 1 877 XXXXXXX.

CLOSING: Thank you for your help. Did you remember to:

Attach to the questionnaire all additional project tables.

Identify by project number, available documentation for all needs and costs reported above.

Put the questionnaire and the documentation in the pre paid, pre addressed Federal Express Pak provided and return this questionnaire and the documentation to the address below. ( See the pink enclosure for further return instructions.)

Jane Q. Official Division of Water ICR for the 2003 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey September 2002 88 State Environmental Department One Capital Street Capital, XX 99999 LIST 4   DOCUMENTATION Code For Need and/ or Cost Documentation 1 Capital Improvement Plan or Master Plan: The plan must address why the project is needed.

2 Facilities Plan or Preliminary Engineering Report: Excerpts from the plan or report are acceptable if project specific.

3 Grant or Loan Application Form: An application form is acceptable if it specifically describes a problem requiring capital expenditures.

4 Engineer's Estimate: The estimate must provide costs that are projectspecific and be accompanied by an explanation of why the project is needed.

Code For Need Documentation Only 5 Intended Use Plan/ State Priority List: These are acceptable forms of documentation if they include a description of why the project is needed ( costs from IUPs will not be used  modeling parameters or other cost document must be provided).

6 Indian Health Service Sanitary Deficiency System Printout: For use by Native American public water system projects only.

7 Comprehensive Performance Evaluation ( CPE) Results: The results of a CPE may be used to justify need if the State concurs with the results.

8 Sanitary Survey: A sanitary survey by the State or a party approved by the State may be used to justify need if the sanitary survey report describes a problem that must be solved through capital improvement.

9 Monitoring Results: Monitoring results can demonstrate a need for treatment or system upgrade when accompanied by documentation indicating that the project is necessary.

10 Other Need Document: Use this code if none of the codes listed above ( 1  9) apply, and include a signed and dated brief explanation of why the project is needed and the extent of the project. Be specific. ( Example explanation: This project is for 18,000 feet of old and deteriorated 12 inch diameter distribution mains which need to be rehabilitated now. No cost is available.)

Code For Cost Documentation Only 11 Cost of Previous Comparable Construction: This may be used to justify costs if the costs are project specific. It must include documentation of how the costs were derived.

12 Other Cost Document: Use this code if none of the cost documentation codes listed above ( 1  4, 11) apply. Include documentation of how the costs were derived. 7 ICR for the 2003 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey September 2002 90 Use these instructions and lists of codes when you fill out the Needs Survey questionnaire. Please be sure to include project descriptions. Also include copies of the breakdown of cost estimates, if available.

Instructions and Lists of Codes 9 19 02 draft Instructions for Each Column on the 2003 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey Questionnaire The following instructions apply to columns on all tables in the questionnaire.

Column Title Instructions Project Number Number the projects in each category in sequence, using the range of numbers specified for each category of need.

Project Name Write a brief description of each project. Examples of possible projects are provided on the questionnaire for each category of need.

Type of Need Refer to List 1 in the Lists of Codes and enter the code( s) that best describes the project. More than one code may apply to a project.

Reason for Need Refer to List 2 in the Lists of Codes and enter the code( s) that best justifies the project. More than one code may apply to a project.

New or Upgrade If the project is to:

° Install new or replace old infrastructure, enter ` N'

( will have all new infrastructure)

or ° Upgrade or rehabilitate existing infrastructure, enter ` U'

( will keep some of the old infrastructure in place)

Current or If the project is:

Future ° Needed now, enter ` C'

( even if you cannot start construction now)

or ° Not needed now, enter ` F'

( but will be necessary before 12/ 31/ 2022)

Regulation If the project is needed to maintain or obtain compliance with a regulation, secondary MCL or State requirement refer to List 3 in the Lists of Codes and enter the code that applies. Enter N/ A if not applicable.

Cost Estimate Enter the cost estimate ( if known) for this project. Use only existing cost estimates. If no cost estimate is provided and modeling parameters are recorded, EPA will use models to estimate the cost.

Date of Cost Enter the month and year of the cost estimate. EPA will Estimate adjust cost estimates to current year dollars.

Documentation Refer to List 4 in the Lists of Codes and enter the code( s) that applies to the type of documentation provided that explains why the project is needed. If a cost estimate is provided, also list the code that applies to the type of cost documentation. Please enclose the appropriate pages of need and cost documentation, identified by project number. 1 ICR for the 2003 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey September 2002 92 LIST 3   REGULATION OR REQUIREMENT Code Regulation or Requirement EXISTING SDWA REGULATIONS 1A Surface Water Treatment Rule 1B Total Coliform Rule 1C Nitrate or Nitrite Standard 1D Lead and Copper Rule 1E Total Trihalomethanes ( for compliance with the 100 µ g/ l standard)

1F Other Regulated VOCs/ SOCs/ IOCs/ Rads/ Arsenic ( for compliance with Arsenic at a 50 µ g/ l standard)

1G Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule ( for systems serving > 10,000 people that are not meeting turbidity requirements of 0.3 NTU)

OTHER REQUIREMENTS 2A Secondary Contaminants ( e. g., MTBE, iron, taste and odor, and color)

2B State Requirements POTENTIAL AND RECENTLY PROMULGATED SDWA REGULATIONS ( Use these codes only if the project is solely for compliance with a potential or recently promulgated regulation or requirement and none of the other codes in List 3 apply)

3A Stage 1 and/ or Proposed Stage 2 Disinfectants/ Disinfection Byproducts Rule ( use 1E if system is not meeting the 100 µ g/ l TTHM standard.)

3B Arsenic Rule ( for compliance with the new Arsenic standard of 10 µ g/ l if the system is meeting the 50 µ g/ l Arsenic Standard)

3C Ground Water Rule 3D Radon Rule 3E Radionuclides Rule ( other than Radon)

3F Filter Backwash Recycling Rule 3G Long Term 1 and/ or Proposed Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule 3H Other ( Please include an explanation)

6 LIST 2   REASON FOR NEED Code Reason the Project is Needed A1 Project is for existing infrastructure that is, or will be by 12/ 31/ 2022, old or deteriorated ( e. g., leaking, broken).

A2 Project is to correct a deficiency in source water quantity caused by current user demand.

A3 Project is to correct a deficiency in storage capacity caused by current user demand.

A4 Project is to correct existing pressure problems not related to fire flow.

A5 Project is solely to meet demand of expected future growth.

A6 Project is solely for fire flow, fire protection, or ISA ratings.

A7 Project is to obtain compliance with an existing regulation ( enter regulation code from List 3 in the Lists of Codes in the regulation column,

and for chemical and radiological contaminants provide the level detected in the project description/ documentation).

A8 Project is to maintain compliance with an existing regulation ( enter regulation code from List 3 in the Lists of Codes in the regulation column,

and for chemical and radiological contaminants provide the level detected in the documentation).

A9 Project is solely for compliance with a potential or recently promulgated regulation ( enter regulation code from List 3 in the Lists of Codes in the regulation column, and ensure an alternate code does not apply).

A10 Project is for consolidation with and/ or connection to an existing public water system.

A11 Project is for providing service to existing homes without adequate water quantity or quality.

A12 Use this code if codes A1 A11 do not apply. A description of the project including the reason it is needed must be provided and clearly identified by project number.

Important Note: A description of each project or a copy of the documentation must also be clearly identified by project number and submitted with the completed questionnaire.

5 The following instructions apply to columns on specific tables in the questionnaire.

Column Title Instructions Design Capacity On the Source, Treatment, Finished or Treated Water Storage,

Pumping, and Other project table enter the design capacity when applicable   millions of gallons per day ( MGD) for source,

treatment, and pumping; millions of gallons ( MG) for storage; and kilowatts ( kW) for emergency power. For this survey, " design capacity" is the flow that can be produced when all components of the project are operating.

Diameter of Pipe On the Transmission and Distribution project table enter the diameter of pipe ( in inches) that must be installed or rehabilitated.

Use a separate line for different sizes of pipe.

Length of Pipe On the Transmission and Distribution project table enter the feet of pipe that must be installed or rehabilitated for each diameter identified in the previous column.

Size On the Backflow Prevention Devices/ Assemblies, Flushing Hydrants, Service Lines, Valves, and Water Meter project table enter the diameter ( in inches) for backflow prevention devices/ assemblies, flushing hydrants, valves, and water meters that must be installed or rehabilitated. Use a separate line for different diameters of the same type of need. Diameter is not needed for service line projects.

Number Needed On the Backflow Prevention Devices/ Assemblies, Flushing Hydrants, Service Lines, Valves, and Water Meter project table indicate the total number of individual components included where more than one identical component is recorded on one line. For example, a future project to install 4 identical meters would include data for one of the meters and the number 4 would be entered as the number needed.

2 LIST 1   TYPE OF NEED Code Type of Need RAW/ UNTREATED WATER SOURCE R1 Well ( including pump and appurtenances, not including a well house)

R2 Well Pump R3 Well House ( may include a chemical feed room)

R4 Eliminate Well Pit R5 Abandon Well R6 Surface Water Intake R7 Raw Water Pump R8 Dam/ Reservoir R9 Off Stream Raw Water Storage R10 Spring Collector R11 De stratification R12 Aquifer Storage and Recovery Well TREATMENT: Disinfection T1 Chlorination T2 Chloramination T3 Chlorine Dioxide T4 Ozonation T5 Mixed Oxidant Type Equipment T6 Ultraviolet Disinfection T7 Contact Basin for CT T8 Dechlorination of Treated Water T9 Chlorine Gas Scrubber TREATMENT: Filtration ( surface or ground water)

T10 Conventional Filter Plant ( complete plant; includes CAC technologies)

T11 Direct or In line Filter Plant ( complete plant)

T12 Presedimentation Basin T13 Chemical Feed T14 Sedimentation/ Flocculation T15 Filters T16 Slow Sand Filter Plant ( complete plant)

T17 Diatomaceous Earth Filter Plant ( complete plant)

T18 Membrane Technology for Particulate Removal ( complete plant)

T19 Cartridge or Bag Filtration Plant ( complete plant)

T20 Streaming Current Monitors T21 Particle Counters T22 Turbidity Meters T23 Chlorine Residual Monitors TREATMENT: Other Treatment Needs T30 Powdered Activated Carbon T31 Granular Activated Carbon T32 Sequestering for Iron and/ or Manganese T33 Manganese Green Sand ( or other oxidation/ filtration technology complete plant) T34 Ion Exchange ( complete plant) 3 ICR for the 2003 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey September 2002 95 LIST 1   TYPE OF NEED ( cont.)

Code Type of Need T35 Lime Softening ( complete plant)

T36 Reverse Osmosis ( complete plant)

T37 Electrodialysis ( complete plant)

T38 Aeration T39 Activated Alumina ( complete plant)

T40 Corrosion Control ( chemical addition)

T41 Waste Handling/ Treatment: Mechanical ( not included in another project)

T42 Waste Handling/ Treatment: Nonmechanical or Connection to a Sanitary Sewer ( not included in another project)

T43 Zebra Mussel Control T44 Fluoride Addition T45 Chemical Storage Tank T46 Type of Treatment Unknown T47 Other ( Please include an explanation)

TRANSMISSION: ( Considered any mains that transport raw water to the treatment plant, or treated water from the plant to the distribution system grid)

X1 Raw Water Transmission X2 Finished Water Transmission DISTRIBUTION M1 Distribution Mains ( Considered any mains that transport water through a piping grid serving customers see " transmission" above)

M2 Lead Service Lines M3 Service Lines ( other than lead service lines)

M4 Flushing Hydrants M5 Valves ( gate, butterfly, etc.)

M6 Control Valves ( PRVs, altitude, etc.)

M7 Backflow Prevention Devices/ Assemblies M8 Water Meters FINISHED/ TREATED WATER STORAGE S1 Elevated Finished/ Treated Water Storage S2 Ground level Finished/ Treated Water Storage S3 Hydropneumatic Storage S4 Cisterns S5 Cover for Existing Finished/ Treated Water Storage PUMP STATION AND FINISHED WATER PUMP P1 Finished Water Pump P2 Pump Station ( booster or raw water pump station includes clearwell, pumps,

and housing)

OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS W1 Laboratory Capital Costs for Labs Owned by the System W2 Computer and Automation Costs ( SCADA) W3 Pump Controls/ Telemetry W4 Emergency Power ( enter design capacity as kilowatts)

W5 Security ( must be used in conjunction with another Type of Need code)

W6 Other ( Please include an explanation)

4 ICR for the 2003 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey September 2002 96 Appendix C Response to Comments Received on First Federal Register Notice ICR for the 2003 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey September 2002 97 This page intentionally left blank. ICR for the 2003 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey September 2002 98 In response to the first Federal Register document published July 16, 2002, EPA received three sets of comments. The National Association of Water Companies ( NAWC) recommended that the survey form include an ownership field to distinguish between publicly owned and privately owned systems. EPA concurred and changed the form to include an ownership field.

The American Water Works Association ( AWWA) suggested including a separate category for security capital improvements on the survey form, in addition to a separate security code in the " Type of Need" section of the List of Codes. EPA noted that security projects involving capital improvements are presently eligible for Drinking Water State Revolving Fund ( DWSRF) assistance. As with the two previous surveys, systems may enter security related projects on the survey form. While creating a separate category for security needs would unduly complicate the form, including a separate security code would serve to capture the security investment needs of water systems. EPA believes that this information would prove useful in understanding the infrastructure needs of the nation's water systems. EPA thus concurred with AWWA on its second recommendation and changed the List of Codes to include a security code.

AWWA also suggested revising the loaded hourly rate for respondents from large water systems. AWWA commented that engineering and construction management staff would likely complete the survey form for large systems. These staff have a higher loaded hourly rate than the treatment plant operator rate which EPA used to estimate the burden cost. AWWA recommended using the rate provided in the SOC Code for Local Government   Engineering and Construction Staff. EPA concurred and adjusted the loaded hourly rate of large system respondents, though we used the SOC Environmental Engineer rate as it more closely reflects the wage of water system management staff.

The Association of State Drinking Water Administrators ( ASDWA) cited the increased costs of new regulations that will be borne by small systems as a reason for EPA to develop a method for surveying the needs of these systems. As with the previous two surveys, EPA will use the Economic Analyses ( EAs) that accompany the publication of proposed and final rules to model the costs of potential or recently promulgated regulations. The EAs are the most accurate means for estimating these costs. Many systems have not yet identified the infrastructure needs to comply with potential or recently promulgated regulations, and thus conducting a survey to collect the costs of these regulations would significantly understate the true need.

ASDWA also expressed concern that the duration of the data collection period would not allow states adequate time to respond to information posted by EPA. States will have nearly one year in which to provide data, followed by two to four months of follow up during which states can provide additional data in response to EPA's review. This schedule should afford ample time for the states to submit their data.

ASDWA submitted several comments relating to the survey form. ASDWA suggested adding a section for source water protection. Source water protection needs are funded through a special set aside under the DWSRF and, therefore, these needs are not collected as part of the survey.

ASDWA recommended adding a question on chemical addition to the treatment section on page 6 of the form. Most of the chemical addition projects involve chlorination, and thus including a chemical addition question along with a chlorination question might confuse respondents.

ASDWA suggested adding hydropneumatic storage to the storage section on page 6 of the form. As most of the medium and large sized systems in the sample would not use hydropneumatic tanks, adding this question would increase burden to the respondent without yielding useful information. ICR for the 2003 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey September 2002 99 ASDWA recommended adding a non lead service line question to page 10 of the form. EPA determined that the replacement of lead service lines could be prompted by a system's efforts to obtain compliance with the federal lead standard. EPA, therefore, emphasizes these projects in the survey. The portion of the service line from the main to the curb stop generally falls under the ownership of the water systems, and therefore the survey also includes the needs for these lines. The costs for these non lead lines typically are included in the cost estimates provided by the system for distribution improvements and in the cost models that EPA uses to assign costs for distribution projects lacking cost documentation. Thus, a separate question for non lead service lines is not necessary.

ASDWA commented that some respondents might not assign the correct code to a project needed for compliance with the new arsenic standard, as the Lists of Codes includes a code both for the previous standard and the new standard. The code for the new arsenic standard includes the contaminant level for which the code applies. This reference, in addition to discussing the issue with states at training sessions, should ensure that systems and states apply the correct code for arsenic remediation projects.


[Federal Register: May 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 105)]
[Notices]
[Page 31162-31164]
[DOCID:fr30my08-94]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57852; File No. SR-Amex-2008-41]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Regarding Position and Exercise Limits for Options on the DIAMONDS
Trust

May 22, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 16, 2008, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Exchange'' or
``Amex'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange.
The Exchange has designated this proposal as non-controversial under
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to increase the position
and exercise limits applicable to options on the DIAMONDS Trust, Series
1 (``DIA''). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.amex.com), at the offices of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to amend its rules pertaining to position
and exercise limits for options on DIA. The Exchange proposes to
increase position and exercise limits for options on DIA to 300,000
contracts on the same side of the market. The Commission previously
approved a similar proposal by the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc.
(``CBOE'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47346 (February 11,
2003), 68 FR 8316 (February 20, 2003) (SR-CBOE-2002-26) (approving
an increase in the position limits and exercise limits to 300,000
for DIA options). The Commission stated that ``given the
surveillance capabilities of the [CBOE] and the depth and liquidity
in both the DIA options and the underlying cash market in DIAs, the
Commission believes it is permissible to significantly raise
position and exercise limits for DIA options without risk of
disruption to the options or underlying cash markets.'' The
Commission also stated that ``financial and reporting requirements *
* * should allow [CBOE] to detect and deter trading abuses arising
from the increased position and exercise limits, and will also allow
[CBOE] to monitor large positions in order to identify instances of
potential risk and to assess additional margin and/or capital
charges, if deemed necessary.''

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

    The Exchange also recently made permanent its increased position
and exercise limits for certain equity options on the Amex which were
in effect on a pilot basis.\6\ The Exchange stipulated, as part of its
proposal for such permanent approval, that ``its surveillance
procedures and options reporting procedures, in conjunction with the
financial requirements and risk management review procedures generally
in place at the clearing firms and the Options Clearing Corporation,
will serve to adequately address any concerns the Commission may have
with respect to account(s) engaging in any manipulative schemes or
assuming too high a level of risk exposure.'' \7\ These representations
also apply to the current proposal to increase the position and
exercise limits for options on DIA. The Exchange now seeks to increase
the position and exercise limits for options on DIA on the Amex to the
level that such limits are in effect on the CBOE and other options
exchanges (300,000 contracts on the same side of the market).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57415 (March 3,
2008), 73 FR 12479 (March 7, 2008) (SR-Amex-2008-16).
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange asserts that the justifications behind the
Commission's approval of the CBOE proposal should support the same
increased position and exercise limits on options on DIA on the Amex.
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the ``structure of the DIA
options and the considerable liquidity of both the underlying cash and
options market for DIA options lessen the opportunity for manipulation
of this product and disruption in the underlying market that a lower
position limit may protect against.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47346, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the reporting requirements imposed under
the Exchange's rules will help protect against potential
manipulation.\9\ Additionally, the Exchange believes that such an
increase in position and exercise limits on options on DIA on the Amex
is required for competitive purposes as well as for purposes of
consistency and uniformity among the competing options exchanges. This,
taken in conjunction with the permanent establishment of other
increased position and exercise limits for certain equity options on
Amex, supports the Exchange's proposal to increase the position and
exercise limits applicable to DIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Amex Rule 906.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act \10\ in general, and Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \11\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest. Specifically, the Exchange believes that the structure of the
DIA options and the considerable liquidity of the market for DIA
options diminishes the opportunity for manipulation of this product and
disruption in the underlying market that a lower position limit may
protect against.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will impose no
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received by the Exchange on
this proposal.

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

    The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one that:
(1) Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the
public interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on
competition; and (3) does not become operative for 30 days from the
date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Therefore, the foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule
19b-4 thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission
with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change,
along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has fulfilled this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the operative delay
to permit the proposed rule change to become operative prior to the
30th day after filing. The Exchange states that waiving the operative
delay will allow the Exchange to match the position and exercise limits
for the options on DIA that currently exist at other options exchanges.
Because of the competitive nature of this proposal, the Exchange
believes good cause exists to waive the 30-day operative delay. The
Exchange notes that the Commission recently granted a waiver of the
operative delay to a similar proposal by the ISE.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57736 (April 29,
2008), 73 FR 25070 (May 6, 2008) (SR-ISE-2008-35).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay of
the Exchange's proposal is consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest.\15\ Therefore, the Commission designates the
proposal to be operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-Amex-2008-41 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2008-41. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-Amex-2008-41 and should be
submitted on or before June 20, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-12032 Filed 5-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 150 (Friday, August 5, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48068-48071]
[FR Doc No: 2022-16843]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2018-0190]

Aviation Consumer Protection Advisory Committee; Notice of Public
Meeting

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation
(DOT).

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice announces the public meeting of the Aviation
Consumer Protection Advisory Committee (ACPAC), to be held virtually on
the topic of airline ticket refunds and related consumer protection
matters.

DATES: The virtual meeting will be held on Monday, August 22, 2022,
from 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time. The meeting is
open to the public, subject to any technical and/or capacity
limitations. Requests to attend the meeting must be submitted to
https://usdot.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_e_B-NtXfT8KlqgoNCH3f7w.
We encourage interested parties to register by Monday, August 15, 2022.
Communication Access Real-time Translation (CART) and sign language
interpretation will be provided during the meeting. Requests for
additional accommodations because of a disability must be received at
[email protected] by August 15, 2022. If you wish to speak
during the meeting, you should submit a request at
[email protected] no later than August 15, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The virtual meeting will be open to the public and held via
the Zoom Webinar Platform. Virtual attendance information will be
provided upon registration. An agenda will be available on the
Department's Office of Aviation Consumer Protection website at https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/ACPAC in advance of the meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To register and attend this virtual
meeting, please use the link: https://usdot.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_e_B-NtXfT8KlqgoNCH3f7w. Attendance is open to the public
subject to any technical and/or capacity limitations. For further
information, please contact Cristina Draguta, Attorney-Advisor, by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The ACPAC evaluates the Department of Transportation's current
aviation consumer protection programs and provides recommendations to
the Secretary for improving them, as well as recommending any
additional consumer protections that may be needed.
    The subject of airline ticket refunds was discussed in an ACPAC
meeting held on December 2, 2021. The Department planned for the ACPAC
to continue its discussion on airline ticket refunds after issuance of
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on Airline Ticket Refunds and
Consumer Protections (RIN 2105-AF04). On August 2, 2022, the Department
issued the NPRM, which is available at https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/latest-news. The Department is now scheduling a meeting to
provide the ACPAC further opportunity to discuss issues related to
airline ticket refunds, particularly the proposals in the Department's
NPRM.

II. Agenda

    During the August 22, 2022, meeting, the Department will provide an
opportunity for public input and continue the discussion on airline
ticket refunds and related consumer protection matters. Regarding
airline ticket refunds, the Department's NPRM proposes, pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 41712, which prohibits U.S. air carriers, foreign air carriers,
and ticket agents from engaging in unfair practices in the sale of air
transportation, to require carriers and ticket agents to provide
requested refunds to passengers when a carrier cancels or significantly
changes a flight to, from, or within the United States. The
Department's existing rule has not defined the terms ``significant
change'' and ``cancellation'' in regulation or statute. The Department
proposes to clarify and codify that, under the Department's rule
requiring airlines to provide prompt refunds when ticket refunds are
due and its rule requiring ticket agents to make refunds promptly when
service cannot be performed as contracted, carriers and ticket agents
must provide prompt ticket refunds to passengers when a carrier cancels
or makes a significant change to a flight. The NPRM further proposes to
define cancellation and significant change, including addressing
whether new itineraries involving delayed arrivals or early departures
of a certain length or additional stops constitute a significant change
requiring a refund. The NPRM also addresses protections for consumers
who are restricted or prohibited from traveling or determine not to
travel consistent with public health guidance related to a serious
communicable disease. Comments on the NPRM may be submitted into the
rulemaking Docket (DOT-OST-2022-0089) at any time during the public
comment period, including before and after the ACPAC meeting. This
meeting will allow the ACPAC to hear from all interested stakeholders
regarding the Department's proposals and what ACPAC should consider as
it determines what recommendations, if any, to make to the Secretary on
this topic.

III. Public Participation

    The August 22, 2022, meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. EST, and the
Department will provide time for opening remarks and present a summary
of the Department's relevant regulations, an overview of the December
ACPAC meeting, and an overview of the NPRM. The meeting will then
transition to input from participants, including members of the public.
There will be a lunch break and further input and discussion will
continue in the afternoon to help inform the ACPAC members on what they
should consider when making recommendations, if any, on this topic. To
inform and enable the public to provide input, the Department
summarizes the main proposals of the NPRM below and seeks information
on the following questions regarding these proposals:

1. Ticket Refunds Due to Airline Cancellations and Significant Changes
of Itineraries

a. Defining Significant Changes of Itineraries
    The Proposal:
    A ``significant change of flight itinerary'' is defined as a change
to a covered flight itinerary made by a covered carrier where:
    (1) the consumer is scheduled to depart from the origination
airport three hours or more for domestic itineraries and six hours or
more for international itineraries earlier than the original scheduled
departure time;
     (2) the consumer is scheduled to arrive at the destination airport
three hours or more for domestic itineraries and six hours or more for
international itineraries later than the original scheduled arrival
time;
    (3) the consumer is scheduled to depart from a different
origination airport or arrive at a different destination airport;
    (4) the consumer is scheduled to travel on an itinerary with more
connection points than that of the original itinerary;
    (5) the consumer is downgraded to a lower class of service; or
    (6) the passenger is scheduled to travel on a different type of
aircraft with

a significant downgrade of the available amenities and travel
experiences.
    Question 1(a)(i): Should the Department define a ``significant
change of flight itinerary'' that would result in a consumer being
entitled to a ticket refund or should the Department continue its
current practice to allow airlines to determine their own standards for
flight itinerary changes that lead to refund eligibility?
    Question 1(a)(ii): If the Department adopts a standard for
significant early departure or arrival delays that would result in
refund eligibility, should the standard be a set number of hours based
on domestic vs. international itineraries, as proposed in the NPRM, or
a tiered standard based on the total travel duration of an itinerary?
Is there any other objective benchmark that should be considered as the
basis of calculating whether a refund is due because of flight delays
and early departures?
    Question 1(a)(iii): Should the Department's rule consider the
change of origination or destination airport, or the increase of the
number of connections a significant change that would result in a
refund due?
    Question 1(a)(iv): What types of aircraft downgrade should be
considered as a basis for a consumer to request a refund? Should the
determination be made on a case-by-case basis? Are there certain types
of changes in amenities or air travel experience as the results of
aircraft downgrade that should automatically be considered significant
for purposes of requiring a refund be offered?
    Question 1(a)(v): Are there any other itinerary changes not
proposed in the NPRM that should be considered ``significant'' for
purposes of requiring a refund be offered?
b. Forms of Refund
    The Proposal:
     Airlines and ticket agents must refund passengers by
returning the money in the original form of payment or by providing the
refund in cash or a form of cash equivalent.
     Cash equivalent is defined as a form of payment that can
be used like cash, including but not limited to a check, a prepaid
card, funds transferred to the passenger's bank account, funds provided
through digital payment methods (e.g., PayPal, Venmo), or a gift card
that is widely accepted in commerce.
     Airlines and ticket agents may offer other compensation
choices such as travel credits or vouchers and store gift cards in lieu
of refunds but must first inform consumers that they are entitled to a
refund if that is the case.
     Airlines and ticket agents must disclose material
restrictions, conditions, and limitations on the compensation options
provided to the consumer.
    Question 1(b)(i): Should the Department's rule mandate that refunds
must be provided in the original form of payment, or should the
Department allow airlines and ticket agents to choose another form of
payment that is cash or cash equivalent?
    Question 1(b)(ii): How should the form of refund affect the refund
deadlines? For example, if a passenger purchased the ticket with a
credit card but agrees to accept the refund by a check, which refund
deadline (7 days or 20 days) should apply?
c. Obligations on Ticket Agents
    The Proposal:
     Ticket agents must provide prompt refunds to consumers
when an airline cancels or makes a significant change to a flight
itinerary that the ticket agents sold directly to consumers (i.e., the
ticket agents' identities are shown in the consumers' financial charge
statements).
     Ticket agents are permitted to deduct the service fee for
booking travel or issuing tickets from the refund or charge a fee for
issuing the refund, as long as the amount of the fee is based on a per-
passenger basis and the existence of the fee was clearly and
prominently disclosed to consumers at the time of ticket purchase.
    Question 1(c)(i): For an itinerary purchased from or through a
ticket agent, which entity (the ticket agent or the airline) should be
responsible for the refund when it is due? Is it reasonable to require
the entity that ``sold'' the itinerary (i.e., the entity that shows in
the consumer's financial charge statement) be responsible for the
refund?
    Question 1(c)(ii): When issuing a refund requires actions by both a
ticket agent and an airline, should the Department hold both entities
liable regardless of which entity ``sold'' the ticket?
    Question 1(c)(iii): If a ticket agent is relying on an airline to
confirm that the consumer is eligible for a refund, should the
Department allow the mandatory refund timeframes (7 days for credit
card refund and 20 days for other forms of refund) to start only when
the airline confirms refund eligibility?
    Question 1(c)(iv): When issuing a refund that is due, is it
reasonable to allow the ticket agents to retain the service charges for
issuing the original tickets as the service has already been provided?
Should the Department require that ticket agents clearly disclose such
a fee retention when consumers purchase tickets?

2. Providing Travel Vouchers to Consumers Who are Restricted or
Prohibited From Traveling, or Determine Not To Travel Due to Concerns
Related to a Serious Communicable Disease

a. Providing Travel Credits or Vouchers to Consumers Who Are Restricted
or Prohibited From Traveling or Who Determine Not To Travel Consistent
With Public Health Guidance Related to a Serious Communicable Disease
    The Proposal:
     Airlines and ticket agents must provide non-expiring
travel credits or vouchers to a consumer if, after purchasing the
tickets, a government order was issued to prohibit the consumer from
leaving the origination or entering into the destination or transition
point, or if the government order renders the consumer's travel
meaningless.
    Question 2(a)(i): Should the Department's consumer protection rule
cover only situations in which travel is made physically impossible by
a government restriction (e.g., stay-at-home order or border closure)
or should it also cover situations in which the restriction renders the
travel meaningless (e.g., a situation in which a consumer traveling to
attend an event would miss the event because of a mandatory quarantine
requirement at the destination)?
    Question 2(a)(ii): Should this requirement only apply during a
public health emergency or apply whenever a government restriction or
prohibition on travel related to a communicable disease is imposed?
    Question 2(a)(iii): What types of evidentiary documents should
airlines and ticket agents be permitted to request as a condition to
issue credits or vouchers under this requirement?
b. Providing Travel Credits or Vouchers to Consumers Who Are Advised by
a Medical Professional or Determine Consistent With Public Health
Guidance Not To Travel To Protect Themselves From a Serious
Communicable Disease During a Public Health Emergency
    The Proposal:
     Airlines and ticket agents must provide non-expiring
travel credits or vouchers to consumers who are advised by a medical
professional or determine consistent with public health guidance issued
by the CDC, comparable foreign agencies, or WHO not to travel by air to
protect themselves from a serious communicable disease during a public
health emergency.

    Question 2(b)(i): Is it reasonable to require airlines and ticket
agents to issue travel credits or vouchers to consumers, who have
purchased their tickets before the declaration of a public health
emergency, because they have been advised by a medical professional or
determined, consistent with public health guidance, that they need to
postpone or cancel travel to protect themselves from a serious
communicable disease?
    Question 2(b)(ii): Should this requirement also cover consumers who
have purchased their tickets after the declaration of the public health
emergency but later find out that certain conditions (e.g., the
consumer's health condition) have changed and because of such change
they need to postpone or cancel travel?
    Question 2(b)(iii): Should this requirement cover only consumers
who have legitimate concerns about their own health conditions, or
should this requirement also cover:
     consumers who are reluctant to travel because of the risk
they may bring to others (e.g., family members they care for); and/or
     consumers who are unable to travel alone because their
travel companion decides not to travel due to health reasons (e.g., the
minor child of a consumer who decides not to travel to protect his or
her own health)?
    Question 2(b)(iv): What types of evidentiary documents should
airlines and ticket agents be permitted to request as a condition for
issuance of credits or vouchers under this requirement?
    The proposal:
     Regardless whether there is a public health emergency,
airlines and ticket agents must provide a non-expiring travel credit or
voucher to a consumer who is advised by a medical professional or
determines consistent with public health guidance issued by CDC,
comparable foreign agencies, or WHO not to travel by air because the
consumer has or may have contracted a serious communicable disease and
the consumer's condition is such that traveling on a commercial flight
would pose a direct threat to the health of others.
c. Providing Travel Credits or Vouchers to Consumers Who Have or May
Have a Serious Communicable Disease
    Question 2(c)(i): Is it reasonable to define a serious communicable
disease, for the purpose of requesting a travel credit or voucher, as a
communicable disease that is readily transmissible in the aircraft
cabin environment and would likely cause significant health
consequences?
    Question 2(c)(ii): Are there concerns about potential abuse of this
requirement? To prevent abuse, is it reasonable for airlines or ticket
agents to request a written statement by a medical professional for the
specific consumer requesting the credit or voucher?
    Question 2(c)(iii): Instead of issuing travel credits or vouchers,
are there other ways to protect the interests of affected consumes and
promote public health, such as requiring airlines and ticket agents to
waive the ticket change fees or keep the ticket open for future travel?
d. Type and Value of Travel Credits or Vouchers, Supporting
Documentation, and Service Fees
    The proposal:
     The travel vouchers or credits provided to eligible
consumers must be non-expiring.
     The value of the credit or voucher must be equal to or
greater than the fare (including taxes and fees and unused ancillary
service fees); ticket agents are allowed to deduct from the value any
service fees paid for the issuance of the original ticket.
     Carriers and ticket agents may not impose conditions,
limitations, and restrictions on the credits or vouchers that are
unreasonable and would materially reduce their value in comparison to
the original purchase prices.
     To determine whether a consumer is eligible for the travel
credit or voucher under this proposal, airlines and ticket agents may
require the consumer to present supporting documentation, as
appropriate, such as government travel restriction orders or a
statement from a medical professional.
     Airlines and ticket agents may impose a service fee for
issuing the credit or voucher; the existence of the fee must be
disclosed to consumers at the time of ticket sale.
    Question 2(d)(i): Is it reasonable to require airlines and ticket
agents to issue non-expiring travel credits or vouchers to consumers
who are restricted or prohibited from traveling, or advised by a
medical professional or determines consistent with public health
guidance not to travel due to concerns of a serious communicable
disease? Instead of non-expiring credits or vouchers, is it adequate
for consumer protection purpose to require the credit or vouchers be
transferrable but with a limited validity period? Should airlines and
ticket agents be required to allow multiple transfers?
    Question 2(d)(ii): What type of travel credits or vouchers would be
preferred by most consumers--credits or vouchers of the same or greater
value of the original ticket price, or credits or vouchers redeemable
for the same itinerary in the future regardless of the price?
    Question 2(d)(iii): Is it reasonable to allow carriers and ticket
agents to charge a service fee for issuing the travel credits or
vouchers?

3. Providing Refunds to Consumers Who Are Restricted or Prohibited From
Traveling, or Advised by a Medical Professional or Determine Consistent
With Public Health Guidance Not To Travel, Due to Concerns Related to a
Serious Communicable Disease During a Public Health Emergency if
Airlines or Ticket Agents Receive Significant Government Financial
Assistance

    The proposal:
     When there is a declaration of a public health emergency
and DOT has published a determination that a covered carrier or ticket
agent received significant government financial assistance as a result
of the public health emergency, the covered airline or ticket agent
must provide a requested refund to a consumer in lieu of the non-
expiring travel credit or voucher as required by the proposal.
     In order to receive the refund, an eligible consumer must
make a request from the carrier or ticket agent within 12 months of the
date that DOT publishes a determination that the government financial
assistance received by the carrier or ticket agent is significant.
     Airlines and ticket agents may charge a service fee for
issuing the refund and may require supporting documentation from
consumers to prove eligibility.
    Question (3)(a): Should airlines and ticket agents be required to
provide refunds, in lieu of travel credits or vouchers, to eligible
consumers who are restricted, prohibited, or advised not to travel
during a public health emergency due to concerns related to a serious
communicable disease if the airlines or ticket agents receive
significant government financial assistance related to that public
health emergency?
    Question (3)(b): For the purpose of this requirement, should the
Department consider not only Federal government financial assistance
provided to U.S. airlines and ticket agents, but also foreign central
government financial assistance provided to foreign airlines and ticket
agents selling air transportation to the United States?
    Question (3)(c): Is the process proposed in the NPRM to determine
what government financial assistance is ``significant'' reasonable
(i.e., for each

public health emergency, the Department would apply relevant factors in
the determination and seek public comments before finalizing the
threshold)?
    Question (3)(d): What factors should be considered when the
Department determines whether the amount of government financial
assistance provided to an airline or ticket agent is ``significant''?
Is it reasonable to consider the size of the entity (annual
enplanements for airlines, annual revenue and the number of employees
for airlines and ticket agents), year-over-year comparison of traffic
and revenue before and after the declaration of the public health
emergency, the among of government financial assistance accepted in
relation to the entity's annual revenue? Is it reasonable to also
consider a foreign carrier's annual enplanement to and from the United
States in addition to total enplanement globally? What other
considerations are relevant in this determination? Should there be
different standards for airlines and for ticket agents?
    Question (3)(e): Is it reasonable to require consumers, who have
not already requested a travel credit or voucher, to make a refund
request from the airlines or ticket agents within 12 months after a
determination has been made by the Department that the airline or
ticket agent has received ``significant'' government financial
assistance?
    At the August meeting, individual members of the public will have
an opportunity to make remarks. However, depending on the volume of
requests for oral comments that we receive and the time available, we
may not be able to hear from everyone who submitted a request. Any oral
comments presented must be limited to the objectives of the committee
and will be limited to three (3) minutes per person. Individual members
of the public who wish to present oral comments must notify the
Department of Transportation, no later than Monday, August 15, 2022,
via email at [email protected] that they wish to present oral
comments. The email should (1) identify (by the question number as
listed in this Notice) the specific question(s) on which you wish to
provide comments; (2) state the organization or entity you are
representing or that you are speaking as a member of the public; and
(3) provide a written summary of the oral comments you wish to present
at the meeting on the question(s). Due to the limited time during the
meeting, the Department will review all speaking request submissions
and notify those who are selected to speak in advance of the meeting.
If there is an interest in addressing a question not identified in this
Notice but related to airline ticket refunds, please identify that
topic in your request. All prepared remarks submitted on time will be
accepted and considered as part of the meeting's record.
    Members of the public who do not wish to speak at the meeting but
have comments that are specifically directed to the ACPAC members for
consideration may submit their written comments electronically at any
time prior to August 19, 2022, to the ACPAC Docket (DOT-OST-2018-0190).
In addition, any substantive comments on the NPRM to be considered by
the Department in the rulemaking should be submitted into the NPRM
Docket (DOT-OST-2022-0089) directly.

IV. Viewing Documents

    Documents associated with the ACPAC may be accessed in the ACPAC
Docket (DOT-OST-2018-0190). Documents associated with the NPRM on
Airline Ticket Refunds and Consumer Protections may be accessed in the
rulemaking Docket (DOT-OST-2022-0089). Dockets may be accessed at
https://www.regulations.gov. After entering the relevant docket number
click the link to ``Open Docket Folder'' and choose the document to
review.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on this 2nd day of August 2022.
John E. Putnam,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2022-16843 Filed 8-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P