         Supporting Statement Draft for Information Collection Request
                 EPA ICR No. 2566.01, OMB Control No. 2050-New
1.        IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION
1(a) Title of the Information Collection:
The 2017 Survey About Hazardous Substance Handling and Storage Procedures and Associated Costs
1(b) Short Characterization:
The Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 311(j)(1)(C) directs the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue regulations "establishing procedures, methods, and equipment and other requirements for equipment to prevent discharges of ... hazardous substances ... from non-transportation related onshore facilities, and to contain such discharges."  In addition, Section 304(e) of the Act authorizes the Administrator to publish regulations to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, and drainage from raw material storage... which may contribute significant amounts of toxic and hazardous pollutants to jurisdictional waters.
EPA proposed requirements to prevent the discharge of designated Clean Water Act hazardous substances (CWA HS; 40 CFR116.4) from facilities subject to permitting requirements under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) of the Clean Water Act in 1978 (43 Fed. Reg. 39276), but the regulations were never finalized.   The proposed rule was published concurrently with the regulations under section 402 of the Act (SPCC Plans; 40 CFR Part 125, Subpart L).
On July 21, 2015, several parties filed a lawsuit against EPA for failing to establish regulations of hazardous substances under CWA 311(j)(1)(C).  According to a settlement agreement reached in that case and filed with the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, on February 16, 2016, EPA is required to sign a proposed rulemaking no later than June 16, 2018; this date is partly based on a 10-month extension to account for EPA publishing a Federal Register Notice regarding the collection of information.
2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION
2(a)	Need/Authority for the Collection
Numerous types of facilities (e.g., chemical manufacturing, consumer products, metals industry, textiles) produce CWA hazardous substances or use them as raw materials to generate more complex chemicals and products used by industry and consumers.  The EPA is developing a proposed regulatory action to address CWA hazardous substances under CWA 311(j)(1)(C), and additional information is needed regarding procedures, methods and equipment and other requirements (e.g., best management practices) to prevent and contain discharges of CWA hazardous substances from non-transportation-related onshore and offshore facilities landward of the coastline.  Additional information about impacts of historic CWA hazardous substances discharges (e.g., fish kills, drinking water system impacts) is also needed to augment impacts data available in the USCG National Response Center (NRC) database. This information will be used to support decisions and cost benefit analyses required for a rulemaking. Thus, it is necessary to collect specific information reported to states, tribes, and territories (e.g., State Emergency Response Commissions (SERCs)) by facilities that produce, use, process, store, or distribute CWA hazardous substances to assess regulatory approaches. The survey instrument will collect information necessary to assist EPA in verifying and refining the universe of facilities potentially affected by a proposed regulatory action. It is also necessary to collect data and information pertaining to impacts (e.g., to downstream drinking water intakes, fish kills) caused by CWA HS discharges, since these impacts are not typically documented in available sources like the NRC database.
2 (b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data
This collection will be used to support a regulatory action under CWA 311(j)(1)(C). EPA will use the information to refine an estimate of the number of potentially regulated facilities and to more accurately estimate the potential costs and benefits of a regulatory action. EPA also intends to identify and evaluate existing state requirements to prevent discharges of hazardous substances to surface waters, to identify facilities/equipment subject to these state requirements and to help inform any regulatory action. This information will also be used to identify regulatory controls that may need to be addressed by the proposed rule and assist in estimating the regulated universe.
3.  NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATION, & OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA
3(a) Non-duplication
One of the major goals of this survey is to ensure that any proposed regulation by the agency minimizes duplication of existing regulatory requirements related to prevention and control of discharges of hazardous substances to CWA 311 jurisdictional waters.  As part of this effort, we are requesting information on existing spill prevention programs and spill impacts at the state level that otherwise are not available to EPA. This will assist the agency in conducting analyses that help identify facilities/equipment subject to these state requirements, to assist in estimating the potentially regulated universe, and to better identify regulatory controls that may need to be addressed by the proposed rulemaking.
Much of the information requested is available only to states, tribes, and territories, and is not routinely provided to the federal government. For example, EPCRA section 304 requires follow up reports to be submitted directly to states, to provide additional information about emergency releases reported to the NRC. These reports may contain information about the impacts of CWA HS discharges, which could allow EPA to better quantify impacts from these events and, for example, improve the cost benefit analysis for the CWA 311(j)(1)(C) rulemaking.
State, tribal, and territorial agencies may have other information and reports submitted under their respective jurisdictional authorities, which would be helpful to EPA. Due to the voluntary nature of the survey and the flexibility of the survey language, states, tribes, and territories have the discretion to provide only information not already available to EPA, which would be useful to EPA in conducting the rulemaking.
3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR submission to OMB
This ICR is being submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and the subsequent rule issued by the OMB on August 29, 1995 (60 FR 44978). In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Agency has notified the public of the proposed ICR through the Federal Register on September 21, 2017 (Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 182) [EPA - HQ - OLEM - 2017 - 0444; FRL - 9967 - 75 - OLEM] (Attachment 1)
3(c) Consultations
To estimate the respondent burden associated with this ICR, EPA contacted a random sample of seven states that have collection authority for Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) Tier II ("Tier II") facility data under Section 312. The selected states (listed below) were given the proposed information collection request instrument.  The complete list of state/territorial contacts are detailed at https://www.epa.govepcra/state-tier-ii-reporting-requirements-and-procedures
1. California (R9)	2.  Connecticut (R2)	3. Delaware (R3)
4. Massachusetts (R1)	5.  Maryland (R3)	6. North Dakota (R8)
7.Texas (R6)
3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection
This effort reflects a one-time collection via a voluntary survey requesting that the state, territorial, or tribal agency with Tier II collection authority respond to EPA's information request on the number and type of Tier II facilities, the CWA HS associated with them, and the recent history of impacts from accidental discharges to surface waters. This information is critical to better understanding and quantifying the universe of potentially affected facilities that may produce, store, or use CWA HS, as well as the extent of the impacts caused by recent discharges of CWA HS to surface waters. Because this is a one-time information collection, the agency could not consider potential impacts of less frequent information collection.
3(e) General Guidelines
This ICR adheres to the guidelines for Federal data requestors, as provided at 5 CFR 1320.6.
3(f) Confidentiality
All information submitted to the agency in response to the ICR surveys will be managed in accordance with applicable laws and EPA's regulations governing treatment of confidential business information at 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B. Any information determined to constitute a trade secret will be protected under 18 U.S.C. § 1905.
3(g) Sensitive Questions
Security issues related to Tier II data (e.g., in the context of potential threats to facility security) will increase the likelihood that States will provide data that is not aggregated (e.g. Tier II facility data may not have associated location (GIS) data). They may also decide not to respond, or to only provide partial data since this survey is voluntary. The former will result in an overestimate of the potentially affected facilities as it will increase uncertainty associated with the number of potentially regulated facilities based on proximity to jurisdictional waters since facility location is unknown, whereas the latter will impact the accuracy of agency's estimate of the facility universe requiring a surrogate measure rather than a direct count from a state, territory, or tribe that does not respond.
4.	RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
4(a) Identification of Potentially Affected Facilities/Respondents
Methodology:
The Agency has designated Emergency Response Commissions (ERC) for states, territories, and tribes (SERCs and TERCs) as respondents for the purposes of the ICR. A SERC is an ERC in any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and US territories (the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, and the Northern Marianas Islands). A TERC (or tribal SERC) is an ERC for an Indian Tribe under whose jurisdiction facilities on tribal lands must report. The chief executive officers of federally recognized Tribes appoint Tribal Emergency Response Commissions (TERCs), responsible for carrying out the provisions of EPCRA in the same manner as State Emergency Response Commissions (SERCs). In the absence of a SERC for a State or Indian Tribe, the Governor or the chief executive officer of the tribe, respectively, shall be the SERC or TERC (55 FR 30632). Alternatively, Tribal leaders can join a Tribal Coalition which functions as the TERC, or establish a Memorandum of Understanding with a state to participate under the SERC. Where there is a cooperative agreement between a state and a tribe, the SERC shall be the entity identified in the agreement. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2016-title40-vol30/pdf/CFR-2016-title40-vol30-part355-appA.pdf
EPCRA reporting requirements are established in 40 CFR part 370 for providing the public with information on the hazardous chemicals (including all CWA HS) in their communities.  EPCRA Section 312 requires SERCs and TERCs to collect and disseminate information (to the public) detailing the amounts, storage conditions, and locations of hazardous chemicals and extremely hazardous substances (EHS) from facilities that produce, store, or use these chemicals in excess of reportable quantities. All CWA hazardous substances in 40 CFR § 116.4 are also EHS under EPCRA (40 CFR 355 Appendices A and B), and must be reported to a SERC or TERC if reporting thresholds are exceeded.
For the purposes of this ICR, the respondent universe will consist of SERCs located in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the five recognized U.S. territories (Puerto Rico, Guam, USVI, American Samoa, and the Marianas Islands), and 31 tribal "ERCs" for a total of 87 potential respondents.
There are currently 573 Indian tribes that are federally recognized and eligible for funding and services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). However, it is unknown if any of these tribes have established TERCs individually, through tribal coalitions or through MOUs with states allowing SERCs to act on their behalf.  Thirty-one tribes have requested that they receive information and updates periodically issued by EPA to SERCs and TERCs related to implementation of EPCRA. EPA used this number (31) to estimate the burden on tribes for response to this voluntary survey.  Also, SERCs may not have direct access to spill impact information related to fish kills or drinking water intakes requested on the ICR, and may have to contact other state agencies for this information. For the purposes of burden calculation associated with this ICR, EPA assumes that the SERC will facilitate contact with the appropriate state agency to get the information, and will provide it, if available. Burden estimates associated with facilitation and responses by other state agencies were collected from 3 of the 7 respondent states as part of the consultation and are incorporated into respondent burden estimates below.
4(b) Information Requested
The information requested in the ICR is intended to help accomplish three objectives: first, a conservative estimate of the universe of potentially affected facilities; second, assessment of recent CWA hazardous substance discharge history and impacts to health and the environment, and third, an assessment of existing state spill prevention programs.
 Questions 1-2 request facility and chemical information (private and government-owned facilities) available in state Tier II reporting databases.
 Questions 3-6 request information regarding CWA hazardous substances discharge occurrence and impacts (i.e., drinking water supply and fish kills) and will assist the agency in developing impact analyses.
 Questions 7-8 request spill prevention and existing state program information which will assist the agency in refinement of cost/benefit and existing regulatory coverage analyses.
A majority of the information requested is expected to be readily available from agency records, however, agency respondents may need to gather responses to various questions not contained in databases. They may also need to coordinate with other state/tribal/territorial agencies depending on where information resides, particularly information on impacts of chemical releases (e.g. water supply, fish kills), which may be available in agencies other than SERCs or TERCs.
Respondent Activities.  The activities a respondent will undertake to fulfill the requirements of the information collection are presented in Table 3 in Appendix 1. These include:
 read survey instructions;
 respond to survey questions about facilities and CWA HS;
 if necessary, research various aspects of survey questions that may not be easily accessed through state databases;
 perform final review of the compiled information, and
 submit information to the EPA through electronic survey instrument.
5.	AGENCY ACTIVITIES, METHODS, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
5(a) Agency Activities
A list of activities that will be required of EPA is provided in Table 2 in Appendix 1. These include: i) develop electronic questionnaire/reporting form; ii) answer respondent questions; and iii) review and analyze responses.
5(b) Collection Methodology and Management
EPA will collect responses electronically or on paper, at the respondent's convenience. In collecting and analyzing the information associated with this ICR, EPA (or its contractors) will use personal computers, Microsoft Excel(C) based analysis. The EPA will review each submittal for accuracy, completeness, and relevance to the regulatory action, to the extent possible. The information collected pursuant to this ICR will be maintained electronically on secure EPA servers.
5(c) Small Entity Flexibility
EPA does not believe that this survey will impact small entities. To the extent that a territorial or tribal ERC might be considered a small entity, this is a voluntary survey, so the tribe or territory would be free to determine if responding to the ICR would cause undue burden.
5(d) Collection Schedule
5(d)(1) Notice of Intent
On September 21, 2017, the EPA published a notice in the Federal Register notifying the public of its intent to submit an information collection request (ICR), "Survey on Clean Water Act Hazardous Substances and Spill Impacts" (EPA ICR No. 2566.01, OMB Control No. 2050-New) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). EPA provided a 60-day public comment period in the notice, consistent with process guidance. At the close of the public comment period on November 20, 2017, EPA had received comments from 11 commenters, including five industry organizations, four anonymous commenters, one set of comments from a collaborative of 12 non-governmental organizations, and one set of comments from a consortium of state, tribal and local emergency response agencies.
Several commenters characterized the regulatory action this ICR is supporting as an expansion of the SPCC program and noted that SPCC provided adequate regulatory coverage for facilities associated with oil and gas production and storage. Two commenters thought that the ICR was valuable for obtaining information that could be used to improve the regulatory process, whereas several commenters thought that the information sought on the ICR was already available to EPA and therefore the collection would be duplicative. One commenter suggested several changes to the language of the questions to ensure that information collected was characterized appropriately. Some commenters suggested that EPA should ask more questions related to state spill prevention programs. EPA has developed written responses to the comments received (Attachment 3), and has made certain changes in response to recommendations received during the public comment period, reflected in an updated draft survey instrument (Attachment 2).
5(d)(2)
EPA anticipates issuing a notice in the Federal Register (FR) in February 2018 notifying the public that the survey is being reviewed by OMB. If OMB approves the survey, EPA will then issue another FR Notice notifying the public of the availability of the survey. The FR notice will request the voluntary participation of state, tribal, and territorial government agencies that collect data from facilities that produce, use, or distribute reportable quantities of designated CWA hazardous substances to complete and submit the survey within 45 days of receipt.
6.	ESTIMATING BURDEN AND COST
6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden
The one-time burden estimate for reporting and recordkeeping requirements are presented below in Appendix 1, Table 1. These numbers were derived from estimates received during consultation with states during July-August 2017, and are based on the staff time needed to collect, sort, and transmit the data and information required for the eight questions making up the survey by the seven states consulted for this ICR.
6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs
EPA used labor rates (hourly salary) reported by state agency respondents during the consultation process to estimate costs. Staff with EPCRA Tier II data collection authority, as well as staff from state water programs (e.g., drinking water and fish kill investigations) were queried since they collect or have access to the data necessary to most efficiently and effectively respond to the questions in the ICR. These rates were loaded using an overhead factor of 110%, consistent with other ICRs. The resulting loaded hourly mean rates for state agency staff ranged from $20.00 - $26.53 (mean - $21.65).  These values were taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics Survey Web site and reflect the latest values available (May 2016). To avoid underestimation of respondent burden, the highest reported hourly labor rate by any respondent was used.
6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost
The costs the Federal Government would incur are presented in Appendix 1, Table 2 below. Labor rates and associated costs are based on the estimated 2015 loaded hourly rates (labor rate plus 60% for overhead) of $88.30 for management personnel (GS- 15, step 5); $53.42 for technical personnel (GS- 12, step 5); and $30.11 for clerical personnel (GS-7, step 5). These labor categories and burden estimates were selected to be consistent with other ICRs.
6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs
The potential respondent universe consists of 50 states and the District of Columbia, five territories, and up to 573 federally recognized tribes with EPCRA Tier II collection authority. EPA expects response rates to be above average (>50%) among state respondents since they are co-regulators. The response rates from tribal and territorial respondents is uncertain, although EPA will ensure these entities are informed about the release of the ICR through normal communication channels. A lower response rate may impact the potential to generalize results from respondents as representative of all potentially affected facilities. The burden hours associated with completion of the survey will vary depending on the availability and format of the data available at the state agency. The consultation results from up to nine states will be used to provide an estimate of the burden hours for the remainder of the states and territories.
6(e) Burden Statement
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. This ICR does not include any requirements that would cause the respondents to incur either capital or start-up costs. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required or requested to respond to, a collection of information request 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 part 15.
6(f) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables
      (i)	Respondent Tally
      The total estimated respondent burden hours and costs, presented in Table 1, Appendix 1, are calculated by summing the person-hours column and by summing the cost column.   The one-time burden and cost per state/territorial or tribal agency is estimated to be 87 hours and $1,835.00.  The total burden for respondents is calculated by first summing the total number of potential respondents from states/DC (51), territories (5) and tribes (573), and then multiplying the total by the consultation response rate (78%) is 490 respondents.  The total burden hours are calculated by multiplying the hours per survey by the total number of entities expected to respond to the survey equals 42,630 hours.  The total cost is calculated by multiplying the cost per survey by the total number of entities expected to respond to the survey equals $899,150.00
      (ii)	The Agency Tally:  The total line Agency burden and cost, presented in Table 2 of Appendix 1 is calculated in the same manner as the industry burden and cost. The estimated burden and cost is 260 hours and $18,354.00.
      (iii)	Variations in the Annual Bottom Line:  This section does not apply as this is a one-time collection.
6(g) Reasons for Change in Burden
This is a one-time, voluntary information collection; therefore, this section does not apply.

Appendix 1.  Burden Estimate Calculations for Survey Respondents and EPA
Table 1:  One-Time Burden and Unit Costs for All Required Information Collection Activities from State, Tribal, and Territorial Agencies (Post-Consultation Estimate)

                                  Activity[1]
                                  Technical[2]
                                    $21.65
                                Supervisory[3]
                                    $26.53
                              Total Burden Hours
                         Total Cost/Task[4] (Agency)
                                  Total Cost
1.Read survey instructions
                                     0.25
                                     0.25
                                      0.5
                                    $12.04
                                     $941
2. Compile requested information and complete survey question 1.
                                      1.2
                                       0
                                      1.2
                                    $25.98
                                    $2,260
3. Compile requested information and complete survey questions 2[5].
                                See Footnote 5

                                       0

                                       0
4. Compile requested information and complete survey questions 3
                                      23
                                       0
                                     19.3
                                    $417.85
                                    $36,352
5. Compile requested information and complete survey question 4.
                                      50

                                      10
                                    $216.50
                                  $15,533[6]
6. Compile requested information and complete survey question 5.
                                     19.5
                                       0
                                      22
                                    $422.18
                                    $36,729
7. Compile requested information and complete survey question 6.
                                     27.9

                                      28
                                    $606.20
                                    $52,739
8. Compile requested information and complete survey question 7.
                                       1

                                       1
                                    $21.65
                                    $1,883
9. Compile requested information and complete survey question 8.
                                       1

                                       1
                                    $21.65
                                    $1,883
5. Review compiled survey responses
                                       2
                                       1
                                       3
                                    $69.83
                                    $6,075
6. Submit information
                                       1
                                       0
                                       1
                                    $21.65
                                    $1,883
Burden Hours (per respondent)
                                                                             87

TOTAL Burden Hours
                                                                          7,569

Unit Cost Per Survey
                                                                         $1,835

TOTAL COST ICR
                 Assumes 100% Response Rate for 87 respondents
                                                                       $159,645

1 Responses to questions are broken out as activities since the unit time to respond to each question is highly variable depending on the availability and its format.  For activity 2 and 4, it is assumed that the respondents will submit databases for further EPA analysis.  Activity 3 will likely require some level of cross-referencing state databases that contain the information requested by the ICR.
[2][,3] Respondents for this survey are state, tribal and territorial agencies with Emergency Response Commission (ERC) authority.  These
 agencies vary from emergency management to environmental management agencies.  Certain questions may need to be addressed by other agencies within a respective jurisdiction (e.g. Department of Natural Resources RE: fish kills) Based on this variability, the occupational descriptions and salaries of staff and managers vary.  For state agency technical staff level positions/labor rates, the Environmental Science and Protection Technician (19-4091; $21.43), and the Environmental Engineering Technician (17-3025; 23.97) were considered.  At the supervisory level, the Environmental Engineer (17-2081; $36.78), and the Emergency Management Director (11-9161; $31.06) was considered representative.  For the purposes of this supporting statement, the average labor rate was used for the technical staff category, since the salary range was small.  All agency labor rates include a multiplier of 1.6 to account for overhead and fringe benefit costs.
[4] Cost per task reflects the mean cost for each task based on the mean of the salaries reported by each respondent for each survey question.   The costs reported are slightly different because not all of the states that were consulted responded to each question.
[5][,6] A detailed summary of the consultation burden estimate is provided in Appendix 2
[6] Six of the seven states that were consulted responded to this question; 1 state (TX) provided a burden estimate; 3 states indicated that they expected EPA or its contractor would obtain that information as part of the analysis for question 3 or an associated analysis; and 2 states indicated that the response would be covered by the state level of effort in answering question 3.  The burden estimate for this question is based on the total (50 hrs. X 21.65 = $1093 X 87 respondents = $95091.  We then adjusted this estimate cost by accounting for the proportion of respondents consulted that provided a burden estimate (1/6) = $95091 X 0.166 = $15785.

Table 2. One-Time Burden and Unit Costs for All Required Information Collection Activities:  EPA.
Survey Development Activities
                                 Agency Burden

                           (Hourly Wage1 and Hours2)
                       Total Response Hours per Activity
                         Total Labor Cost per Activity

                                   Technical
                                  Managerial

                                    $62.70
                                    $103.65

Publish FR Notice on ICR and Comment Response
                                      30
                                       1
                                      31
                                    $1,985
Develop Questionnaire
                                      40
                                       1
                                      41
                                    $2,612
Upload/Send Questionnaire
                                       2
                                       0
                                       2
                                     $125
Review & Analyze Responses3
                                      174
                                       0
                                      174
                                    $10,910
Tabulate Responses & Report Out
                                      20
                                       1
                                      21
                                    $1,358
Respondent Support Activities4
Answer Respondent Questions pertaining to survey
                                     21.75
                                       0
                                     21.75
                                    $1,364
Total

                                      260
                                    $18,354
 Labor rates for EPA personnel were used for all public-sector personnel, including employees of State agencies. Source for EPA labor rates: Department of Personnel Management, "Salary Table 2017-GS," https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2017/GS_h.pdf. For the managerial labor rate, level GS-15, step 5 was used; for the technical labor rate, level GS-12, step 5 was used. All agency labor rates include a multiplier of 1.6 to account for overhead and fringe benefit costs.  Contractor labor rates were assumed to be equivalent to EPA technical staff labor rates.
     For survey development activities (except survey review), management hours are assumed to be approximately 5 percent of technical hours.
     This estimate assumes that contractors will perform approximately 80% of the analysis of survey responses, with EPA technical staff performing approximately 20%.   The maximum number of surveys that EPA will receive is 87 based on survey participation form all respondents (50 states, the District of Columbia, 5 territories and 31 tribal ERCs).  EPA estimates it will take approximately 2 hours per respondent to review surveys.
 The Agency assumes that the average respondent (87 respondents) will have one question. A response to each question is estimated to require 0.25 technical hours, on average.

Appendix 2:  Summary of State Consultations:
EPA randomly selected 9 states for consultation; 7 states were able to participate in the timeframe selected for the consultation (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, North Dakota, and Texas) for consultation based on best professional judgement as permitted by the ICR process (Paperwork Reduction Act) to obtain burden estimates for time and costs to respondents participating in the upcoming ICR.  The participation rate for states was ~ 78%; by extension, one would expect approximately 38 states to participate in the voluntary information collection request. Tribes and U.S. territories were not selected to participate in the consultation, so the response rate for these entities is uncertain.
EPA worked with Regional EPCRA Tier II program contacts to obtain State Agency points of contact (POCs) (Appendix 4) to initiate the consultation process with states. The ICR survey questions were distributed to the states, followed by a short informational call to explain the consultation process, and answer questions prior to initiating the consultation. EPA initiated consultation with selected states on July 10th, 2017 and completed information collection on August 8th 2017.
EPA received at least partial information on burden estimates for the eight ICR questions from seven states. Two states (KY and OH) declined to participate in the consultation process.
Summary of Information Received:
Facilities with CWA hazardous substances
1) How many EPCRA Tier II (40 CFR Part 312) facilities in your state/territory reported having CWA HS onsite at some point throughout calendar year 2016 (or most recent year for which the state has final (QA/QC completed) data? Which CWA HS did each facility report?
Please provide the names/address or GIS data/facility ID/CWA HS reported (i.e., chemical name, CAS, maximum weight onsite.) If possible, please provide this information by submitting a database (or url if available via the internet), or a portion of a database with the relevant information, in electronic format (e.g., Excel)
State Summary:
5/7 states provided burden estimates and/or data (EPCRA Tier II databases) for this question.
4/5 states just provided the data with the expectation that EPA or its contractor would perform assessment to filter out the data necessary to respond to the question.  If states just provided database, a default assumed burden of 30 min (0.5 hrs) was assumed for accessing database and sending it to EPA electronically or via mail (disk provided).
Burden Estimate:
Time  -  Mean = 1.2 hrs (0.5  -  4 hrs)*
Cost  -  Mean = $23.27/hr ($20.00  -  $26.53)
*Massachusetts provided a database, but indicated that it would take approximately 30 staff hours to filter data and provide EPA with a response if done at the agency.
2).  Based on the list of facilities provided in question # 1, are any of these facilities owned/operated by state or local governments?
State Summary:
6/7 states responded to this question; 2 indicated that the response would be covered by the LOE in answering question 1, whereas the other 4 states indicated that EPA would be able to obtain that information as part of the analysis for question 1 or an associated analysis
Burden Estimate:
Time and Cost covered through LOE response to #1, or borne by EPA/contractor in database filtering process.
Accident History
3) Do you have an accident reporting database that contains information about accidental discharges of CWA HS to waterways in your state or territory?
[If no, then skip to Question 5]
[If yes, then] Please provide a copy of this database and skip to question 5
[If respondent has a database and chooses not to provide it] Please provide the following information:
State Summary:
6/7 states provided burden estimates and/or data (spill databases) for this question.
3/6 states just provided the data with the expectation that EPA or its contractor would perform assessment to filter out the data necessary to respond to the question.  If states just provided database, a default assumed burden of 30 min (0.5 hrs.) was assumed for accessing database and sending it to EPA electronically or via mail (disk provided).
Burden Estimate:
Time  -  Mean = 23 hrs. (0.5  -  60 hrs.)
Cost  -  Mean = $20.93/hr. ($20.00  -  $21.86)
4)  How many discharges to water of CWA HS were reported in each calendar year for the past 10 years (2007-2016)?  For all discharges please list the CWA HS(s) involved and the (estimated) amount, if documented.
State Summary:
6/7 states responded to this question; 1 state (TX) provided a burden estimate, 3 states indicated that they expected EPA/contractor would be able to obtain that information as part of the analysis for question 3 or an associated analysis, and 2 states indicated that the response would be covered by the LOE in answering question 3.
Burden Estimate:
Time  -  50 hrs
Cost  -  $21.86/hr
5) What is the number of times that a public water system intake has been affected (e.g., alert or advisory issued, shut down, etc.) in your state or territory due to a discharge of a CWA HS to surface waters? Please provide annual numbers by calendar year from 2007-2016. For each occurrence, please list the CWA HS(s) involved, the (estimated) amount, if documented, and any impacts/actions taken.
State Summary:
4/7 states provided burden estimates to this question.
Burden Estimate:
Time  -  Mean = 19.5 hrs. (2  -  50 hrs.)*
Cost  -  Mean = $20.93/hr. ($20.00  -  $21.86)
6) How many fish kills have been attributed to a discharge of a CWA HS to surface waters?  Please provide any reports available from 2007-2016. For all fish kills, please list the CWA HS(s) involved and the (estimated) amount, if documented.
State Summary:
6/7 states provided burden estimates to this question.
Burden Estimate:
Time  -  Mean = 27.9 hrs. (2  -  80 hrs)*
Cost  -  Mean = $21.29/hr. ($20.00  -  $22.00)
Regulatory Controls/Provisions
7) Does your state have regulations/provisions relating to spill prevention requirements for CWA hazardous substances? If so, please provide a citation to these requirements and a link. [If no, end survey]
State Summary:
1/7 states provided burden estimates to this question.
Burden Estimate:
Time  -  1 hr.
Cost  -  $21.65
8) If you have a database of facilities or equipment subject to the requirements in question 7, please provide a copy.
State Summary:
1/7 states provided burden estimates to this question.
Burden Estimate:
Time  -  1 hr.
Cost  -  $21.65
Average Estimate Cost Method:
To determine the most realistic estimate of burden to respondents for this survey, EPA averaged the burden estimates provided by respondents for each question.  EPA also averaged responses for hourly salary to calculate an average hourly salary cost. EPA used this method particularly for questions 1-4, since over 50% of the respondents consulted informed EPA that they would provide EPA with the raw data with the expectation that EPA would do the data reduction and analysis necessary to complete the response, effectively transferring the burden to EPA.
Question		Average (Range) Time Burden	Average/(Range) Hourly Salary
Read Survey		0.5 hrs					21.65
1			1.08 (0.5*  -  4.0) hours		$21.65	($20.00 - $26.53)
2			0.5**					$21.65 (No salary info provided)
3			19.3 (0.5  -  60)				$21.65	($20.00 - $21.86)
4			10 (0.5  -  60)				$21.65	($21.86)
5			22 (2  -  60)				$21.65 ($20.00 - $21.86)
6			28 (2  -  80)				$21.65 ($20.00 - $22.00)
7			1					$21.65 (No salary info provided)
8			1					$21.65 (No salary info provided)
In addition 3 hrs./respondent were allocated to internal review of the submission, and 1 hr./respondent to facilitate delivery of survey response(s) to EPA.
* Several states provided raw data for questions 1 (4/7) and 3 (3/7).  The assumed default burden for providing a database in this analysis is 0.5 hrs.
** For question two, 6/7 respondents stated that the level of effort (burden) to respond to this question would be part of the burden for the response to # 1; 5/7 states responded similarly to question #4, with respect to the burden for the response being incorporated in the response to question # 3.
Calculation of total estimated burden and cost for this ICR:
Calculate total average estimated burden/survey:  sum average time estimates recorded for each of 8 questions

∑(0.5 + 1.2 + 0 + 19.3 + 10 + 22 + 28 + 1 + 1 + 3 +1) = 87 hrs/survey

Calculate Total Estimated Burden:  multiply average time/survey x total number respondents (states and territories)

87 hrs./survey X 87 respondents (50 states/Washington DC, 31 tribal ERCs and 5 territories) = 7569 hrs.

Calculate average cost/survey: multiply total hours X average hourly cost

87 hrs. X $21.65/hr. = $1,883.55/respondent.  Round to $1,883.00/respondent.

Calculate Total Cost:  multiply average cost/survey x total number respondents (states and territories)

$1,883/survey X 87 respondents = $163,821.00.

Appendix 3.  State and Territorial Agency Point of Contact List
State1
Phone
Tier II Administration
Website & POC/Email
Alabama
334-260-2700
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>http://www.adem.state.al.us/MoreInfo/saraIII.cnt
Alaska
907-465-5242
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
https://ready.alaska.gov/SERC/Tier     Jason Seifert<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Arizona
602-771-4065
Arizona Emergency Response Commission
https://tier2.azserc.org/?ReturnUrl=%2Fdashboard                                                           Chris Nutter<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Arkansas
501-683-6753
Arkansas Department of Emergency Management
http://www.adem.arkansas.gov
California
(916) 445-8348
California Emergency Management Agency
http://www.caloes.ca.gov/FireRescueSite/Pages/HazMat-Business-Plan.aspx               Ben Ho<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Colorado
303-692-3641
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/tier-ii-hazardous-chemical-inventory-reporting                                   Kendra Appelman-Eastvedt<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Connecticut
860-424-3373
State Emergency Response Commission
http://www.ct.gov/serc/site/default.asp<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mr. Mark DeCaprio, SERC Administrator Office:<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Delaware
302-739-9405
Emergency Prevention and Response Branch, DNREC
http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/SERC/Services/Pages/HazardousChemicalInventoryReporting.aspx
District of Columbia
202-481-3169
Homeland Security & Emergency Management Agency
http://hsema.dc.gov                                  Patrice White<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Florida
850-413-9970
Florida Division of Emergency Management
http://www.floridadisaster.org/hazmat/SERC/EPCRA.htm                                                 Sam Brackett<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Georgia
770-387-4900
Georgia Environmental Protection Division
http://epd.georgia.gov/                                 Jerry R. Campbell<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Guam
671 300-4788
Guam EPA

Mr. Walter S. Leon Guerrero<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Hawaii
808-586-4249
Office of Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response
http://eha-web.doh.hawaii.gov/eha-cma/Leaders/HEER/right-to-know-(hepcra)-compliance<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Idaho
208-258-6549
Idaho Office of Emergency Management
https://ioem.idaho.gov/Pages/HazardousMaterials/TierII.aspx<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Illinois
217-558-0559
Illinois Emergency Management Agency
https://www.illinois.gov/iema/Preparedness/SERC/Pages/serc_tier2.aspx<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Indiana
855-246-0065
Indiana Department of Homeland Security
http://in.gov/dhs/3893.htm<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Iowa
515-725-0302
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
http://www.iowadnr.gov/Environmental-Protection/Land-Quality/Emergency-Planning-EPCRA/Chemical-Inventory-Reporting                                                           Ms. Elonda Bacon<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Kansas
785-296-1688
Kansas Division of Health and Environment
Marla Oestreich<EMAIL_ADDRESS> http://www.kdheks.gov/radiation/indexRTK.html
Kentucky
502-607-5712
Kentucky Emergency Management (KYEM)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>http://kyem.ky.gov/Who%20We%20Are/Pages/KERC.aspx
Louisiana
225-925-6113
Louisiana State Police / Right-to-Know Unit
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>http://www.dps.louisiana.gov/lcnweb.nsf
Maine
207-624-4440
Maine Emergency Management Agency
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>http://www.maine.gov/mema/serc/serc_library.shtml
Maryland
410-537-3800
Maryland Department of the Environment
Patricia S. Williams<EMAIL_ADDRESS>http://mde.maryland.gov/programs/BusinessInfoCenter/Community%20Right%20To%20Know/Pages/BusinessInfoCenter/crtk/index.aspx  Patricia S. Williams<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Massachusetts
508-820-2001
Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency
http://www.mass.gov/eopss/agencies/mema/resources/serc/
Nicholas J. Child MA MPA E-Mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                            (617) 574-6847  Office<PHONE_NUMBER>  Cell
Michigan
517-284-7272
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
http://www.michigan.gov/sara<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Minnesota
651-201-7416
Minnesota Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) Program
https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/hsem/epcra/Pages/default.aspx                                          Steve Tomlyanovich<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mississippi
601-933-6369
Mississippi Emergency Management
http://www.msema.org/library-forms/tier-two-instructions/<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Missouri
800-780-1014
Missouri Emergency Response Commission
https://hazmat.dps.mo.gov/                        Paul Kirchhoff<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Montana
406-444-4096
Montana Department of Environmental Quality
http://deq.mt.gov/DEQAdmin/Emergency/EmergencyResponseMark Hall<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Nebraska
402-471-4251
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
http://deq.ne.gov/NDEQProg.nsf/OnWeb/NEPCRA                                                            Mark Lohnes<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Nevada
775-687-7524
Nevada State Fire Marshal and State Emergency Response Commission
http://fire.nv.gov/bureaus/FPL/Hazmat/
New Hampshire
603-271-2231
NH Homeland Security and Emergency Management
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>New Jersey
609-292-1305
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Kelly Rzuczek http://www.nj.gov/dep/enforcement/opppc.html
New Mexico
505-476-0617
New Mexico Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
http://www.nmdhsem.org/Tier2.aspx   Daniela Bowman<EMAIL_ADDRESS>New York
518-292-2302
New York State Emergency Response Commission
http://www.dhses.ny.gov/oem/disaster-prep/index.cfm
North Carolina
919-436-2746
North Carolina Division of Emergency Management
http://www.ncdps.gov/hazardous-materials<EMAIL_ADDRESS>North Dakota
701-328-8112
North Dakota Division of Homeland Security
https://www.nd.gov/DES/planning/haz-chem/default.asp                                              Ray DeBoer<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ohio
614-644-2269
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
http://epa.ohio.gov/dapc/serc.aspx     Jeffery Beattie<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Oklahoma
405-702-1013
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
http://www.deq.state.ok.us/LPDnew/saratitleiii/tierii.htm                                                 Tom Bergman<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Oregon
503-378-6835
Hazard Substances Information Survey, Office of State Fire Marshal, Community Right to Know Unit
http://www.oregon.gov/OSP/SFM/Pages/CR2K_Home.aspx<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Pennsylvania
717-783-5099
Department of Labor and Industry
http://www.dli.pa.gov/Individuals/Labor-Management-Relations/bois/tier-ii/Pages/Tier-II-(PATTS)-System.asp          Carol Freeman<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Puerto Rico
787-767-8181 ext. 3231
Puerto Rico State Emergency Response Commission (PR SERC)
http://www2.pr.gov/agencias/jca/areasprogramaticas/AreaRespuestaEmergenciasAmbientales/Pages/default.aspx<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Rhode Island
401-222-1360 x 7128
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/emergencyresponse/epcra.php<EMAIL_ADDRESS>South Carolina
803-896-4113
DHEC
SCSERC EPCRA Reporting Point
http://www.scdhec.gov/Environment/AirQuality/ComplianceandReporting/TierII/Forms_Lists_Instructions/<EMAIL_ADDRESS>South Dakota
800-433-2288
South Dakota Dept. Environment and Natural Resources
http://denr.sd.gov/des/gw/SARATitleIII/Sara_Title_III.aspx                                                     Trish Kindt<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tennessee
615-253-3157
Tennessee Emergency Response Council
https://erplan.net/eplan/home.htm<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Texas
512-239-5060
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
https://www.tceq.texas.gov/permitting/tier2/<EMAIL_ADDRESS> (Hoyt Henry)
Utah
801-536-4100
Utah Division of Environmental Response and Remediation
http://www.deq.utah.gov/ProgramsServices/programs/cercla/emergencyplanning/tier2/index.htm
Vermont
802-479-7586
Tier II Compliance Program
Division of Fire Safety
http://demhs.vermont.gov/programs/epcra Todd Cosgrove<EMAIL_ADDRESS>US Virgin Islands
340-773-8050

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Virginia
804-698-4000
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Air/AirQualityPlanningEmissions/SARATitleIII/SARA%C2%A7311%C2%A7312CommunityRighttoKnow.aspx<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Washington
800-633-7585
Community Right-to-Know Unit
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/epcra/<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Sadie Whitener (swhi461@ecy.wa.gov).
West Virginia
304-558-5380
West Virginia Office of Emergency Services
http://www.dhsem.wv.gov/SERCTIERII/Pages/Tier-II-Reporting-.aspx                             Melissa Buckley<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Wisconsin
608-242-3215
Wisconsin Emergency Management EPCRA Program Resources
https://whoprs.wisconsin.gov/submit/<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Wyoming
307-777-4906
Wyoming Office Homeland Security
http://wyohomelandsecurity.state.wy.us/serc.aspx<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                         Mr. Rick Lopez<EMAIL_ADDRESS>[1] Consultation States are bolded


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 172 (Thursday, September 3, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 55007]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19485]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD20-25-000]

Electronic Document Management System (eLibrary) Enhancements;
Notice Announcing Release of Modernized Elibrary System

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), hereby gives
notice announcing upcoming enhancements to its Electronic Document
Management System (eLibrary), that will be available the week of August
31. These enhancements have been undergoing further refinement since
the Commission issued its notice announcing the release of its
modernized eLibrary system on July 31, 2020. The Commission plans to
upgrade its existing system with newer, more robust and user-friendly
technology. Ultimately, the new system will provide users with an
improved user interface, more reliable search capabilities and greater
system stability.
    This version includes, but is not limited to the following
enhancements:

 A modern look and feel to the eLibrary site
 Improved navigation and consolidated search screens
 Removal of redundant features
 Improved search accuracy and relevance
 On-Demand PDF generation for files in an accession
 Multiple file zip and download from the search results
 Improved reliability
    Please see https://www.ferc.gov/ for additional details on FERC's
modernized eLibrary system, including additional information on file
formats, text searchable versus image formats, file names, security, et
al.

    Dated: August 28, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-19485 Filed 9-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR APPROVAL OF

STATE COASTAL NONPOINT POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAMS

1.	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

	1(a) TITLE OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

Approval of State Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs

	OMB Control Number 2040-0153; EPA ICR Number 1569.06 (Renewal)

	1(b) SHORT CHARACTERIZATION

	This ICR renewal explains reporting requirements that coastal States
and Territories (referred to as States) must fulfill in order to obtain
final approval of their Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs
(referred to hereafter as “Coastal Nonpoint Programs”) under Section
6217 (Protecting Coastal Waters) of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments of 1990 (CZARA).  This ICR renewal also assesses whether
State program requirements for management measure implementation will
impose any reporting of record-keeping requirements on affected
entities.

	Section 6217 requires coastal States and Territories with
Federally-approved coastal zone management programs to develop Coastal
Nonpoint Programs.  The Program Development and Approval Guidance for
Section 6217 coastal nonpoint pollution control programs was prepared by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).  The document implements Section
6217, providing guidance to States on the development and content of
their Coastal Nonpoint Programs.

	Section 6217 addresses persistent coastal pollution problems by
improving coordination of Federal and State coastal zone management
programs and water quality programs. In the past, there was limited
integration of State Nonpoint Source Management Programs approved by EPA
under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and State Coastal Zone
Management Programs approved by NOAA under Section 306 of the Coastal
Zone Management Act (CZMA).  Section 6217 formalizes coordination of the
Section 319 and Section 306 programs by requiring EPA and NOAA to
oversee preparation and review of the State Coastal Nonpoint Programs.

	The program guidance describes the contents that each coastal State
must include in the Coastal Nonpoint Program documentation and the
criteria for program approval.  Rather than create an independent
program, the Section 6217 program guidance encourages States to
implement their Coastal Nonpoint Programs through changes to existing
Section 319 and Section 306 programs. States failing to submit
satisfactory Coastal Nonpoint Programs face reductions in Federal grants
issued under CWA Section 319 and under Section 306 of the CZMA.

	Section 6217 requires States with approved coastal management programs
to submit Coastal Nonpoint Programs within 30 months of the publication
of the final program guidance (January 1993).  Twenty-nine States and
five Territories have submitted their Coastal Nonpoint Programs to the
Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Assessment and Watershed Protection
Division, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds (OWOW), Office of
Water, within EPA, and to the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management within NOAA.  The two agencies have jointly reviewed the
State Coastal Nonpoint Programs as required by Section 6217.

	EPA and NOAA have approved programs from 13 States and four
Territories, and conditionally approved programs from 16 States and one
Territory.  The conditional approvals require States and Territories to
submit additional information in order to obtain final program approval.
 CZARA Section 6217 requires States and Territories to obtain final
approval of their Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs in order
to retain their full share of funding available to them under CWA
Section 319 and under Section 306 of the CZMA.

2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

	2(a) NEED/AUTHORITY FOR THE COLLECTION

	Section 6217(g)(1) of CZARA required EPA to issue guidance for coastal
nonpoint source pollution control:

“The Administrator [of EPA], in consultation with the Secretary [of
Commerce, overseeing NOAA] and the Director of the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service and other Federal agencies, shall publish (and
periodically revise thereafter) guidance for specifying management
measures for sources of nonpoint pollution in coastal waters.”

	In response to Section 6217(g)(1), EPA convened a work group to prepare
a technical document specifying management measures for controlling
nonpoint source pollution in coastal waters.  The draft technical
guidance document was issued in June 1991; the final technical guidance
document was issued in January 1993.  EPA and NOAA proposed program
guidance in October 1992 for preparing the State Coastal Nonpoint
Programs, which document State efforts to implement the management
measures described in the technical guidance.  This document was issued
in final form in January 1993.

	EPA and NOAA issued the program guidance to explain how States should
prepare their Coastal Nonpoint Programs in order to comply with CZARA
Section 6217(a):

	“Not later than 30 months after the date of the publication of final
guidance under subsection (g), each State for which a management program
has been approved pursuant to Section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management
Act of 1972 shall prepare and submit to the Secretary and the
Administrator a Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program for approval
pursuant to this section.  The purpose of the program shall be to
develop and implement management measures for nonpoint source pollution
to restore and protect coastal waters, working in close conjunction with
other State and local authorities.”

	Section 6217(b) of CZARA specifies the contents of the Coastal Nonpoint
Programs, which are incorporated into the program guidance requirements.
 Table 1 presents a summary of the program contents required by Section
6217(b).  Additional justification for each reporting item is provided
in section 3(b) of this supporting statement.

	In addition, Section 306(d)(16) of CZARA requires State Coastal
Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs to include enforceable policies and
mechanisms to implement the applicable requirements of Section 6217.

	Subsequent to the publication of the program and technical guidance,
EPA and NOAA provided further program clarification in a January 6,
1995, letter and a March 16, 1995, document entitled Flexibility for
State Coastal Nonpoint Programs.  These actions provided greater
flexibility to States in prioritizing their activities; extended the
implementation period for Section 6217(g) management measures from three
years to eight years; and clarified a range of enforceable policies and
mechanisms that could be used by States to implement their programs.

	In April 1997, NOAA, EPA, the States and other interested parties began
discussions regarding the progress made to date in developing and
implementing State coastal nonpoint programs and the significant
impediments to further progress. Based on these discussions, EPA and
NOAA drafted a set of proposed administrative changes the agencies would
use to guide future implementation of the CZARA program and made them
available for a 60 day public comment period beginning March 11, 1998.
After reviewing and responding to public comments on the proposed
changes, NOAA and EPA issued final administrative changes to the program
guidance, reflecting the comments received.  In some cases, the
administrative changes impacted previous findings and conditions on
State Coastal Nonpoint Programs.  In such cases, EPA and NOAA reviewed
those findings and conditions and made adjustments (including, where
appropriate, elimination of conditions).

	At this time, EPA and NOAA have approved programs from 13 States and
four Territories, conditionally approved 16 States and one Territory.
In order for conditionally approved programs to gain final approval,
certain conditions must be met within a specified time frame (usually
five years).  Such conditions could include the completion of a
particular program element or the development of additional authority to
ensure implementation of certain management measures.  This ICR renewal
is needed so that the remaining States may complete development and
obtain final approval of their programs.

	2(b) PRACTICAL UTILITY/USERS OF THE DATA

	EPA and NOAA will use the Coastal Nonpoint Program submittals to
determine whether to grant final approval of the State Coastal Nonpoint
Programs.  States not receiving final approval may lose a portion of
both their CWA Section 319 and CZMA Section 306 funds under the penalty
provisions of CZARA.  The requested information will ensure the
efficient distribution of Federal funds to States with comprehensive
plans for controlling coastal water pollution.  EPA and NOAA will also
use the requested information to ensure that State recipients of Federal
funds provide adequate opportunities for public participation during
program development.  States will use the information requested as part
of management measure implementation in conformity with EPA’s
technical guidance.

	Table 1.  Statutory Requirements in CZARA §6217

CZARA Citation	Statutory Requirements for Coastal Nonpoint Programs

§6217(b)	Specify general management measures to protect coastal waters.

§6217(b)(1)	Identify land uses which contribute significantly to the
degradation of coastal waters.

§6217(b)(2)	Identify critical coastal areas adjacent to impaired or
threatened coastal waters, where the general management measures will be
insufficient to maintain water quality standards and/or designated uses.

§6217(b)(3)	Identify additional management measures needed to attain or
maintain water quality standards under CWA §303 and designated uses in
the critical coastal areas identified in §6217(b)(2).

§6217(b)(4)	Provide technical assistance to local governments and the
public for implementing the additional management measures identified in
§6217(b)(3).

§6217(b)(5)	Designate opportunities for public participation in all
aspects of the coastal nonpoint program.

§6217(b)(6)	Establish mechanisms for coordinating State and local
agency implementation of the coastal nonpoint programs.

§6217(b)(7)	Propose modified coastal zone boundary, as the State deems
necessary, so that the State has adequate geographic jurisdiction to
implement the management measures (NOAA reviewed the adequacy of
existing boundaries for each coastal management program and recommended
changes where necessary).

3.	NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

	3(a) NONDUPLICATION

	Under the original ICR, the EPA Assessment and Watershed Protection
Division consulted with OPPE Desk Officer Harold Woodley and Masi
Okasaki of NOAA to ensure that the information requested in the Section
6217 program guidance could not be acquired from other sources.  EPA
reviewed existing ICRs prepared by EPA’s Office of Water and NOAA’s
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management to identify possible
duplications of reporting requirements.

	Upon reviewing ICR Number 1560.1 (EPA National Water Quality Inventory
Reports), EPA recognized similarities between the reporting requirements
for the biennial State Section 305(b) reports and those in the Section
6217 program guidance.  The Section 305(b) program guidance requires
States and Territories to summarize total impaired estuarine and ocean
waters and the sources of impairment in their 305(b) reports.  We
anticipate that States will be able to conduct monitoring activities
associated with the Section 6217 program guidance through their existing
Section 305(b) processes.

	3(b) PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED PRIOR TO ICR SUBMISSION TO OMB

	EPA published a Federal Register notice on May 16, 2006 on pages 28319
– 28320 to announce the renewal of this ICR.  No comments were
received.

	3(c) CONSULTATIONS

	Under the original ICR, NOAA and EPA held regional meetings to acquire
respondent input during the initial development of the Section 6217
program guidance.  The regional meetings were attended	by
representatives of State coastal management programs, State water
quality control programs, the Coastal States Organization (CSO), and the
Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control
Administrators (ASIWPCA).  EPA and NOAA also distributed options papers
and requested comments from each of the approved State coastal
management programs.

	NOAA and EPA issued proposed program guidance in October 1992 and
provided a 60 day public comment period.  The agencies held a series of
focus group meetings with representatives from State coastal management
and water quality agencies and began a second series of regional
meetings with States and EPA regional offices during the summer of 1992.
 The State respondents expressed concern about flexibility to tailor
their Coastal Nonpoint Programs to specific water quality problems in
their coastal zones.  EPA and NOAA have provided flexibility by allowing
respondents to propose alternative management measures to those included
in the technical guidance.  The respondents must document that the
alternative management measures are as effective as the pre-approved
management measures in the technical guidance prepared by EPA.

	The final program guidance was published in January 1993.  In response
to State concerns about potential burden requirements, EPA and NOAA made
every effort to integrate components of existing CWA Section 319 and
CZMA Section 306 programs into the Coastal Nonpoint Program
requirements.  In order to minimize respondent burden, States may
satisfy some reporting requirements contained in Section 6217 by
identifying existing program activities that already meet Coastal
Nonpoint Program objectives.

	EPA issued proposed management measures guidance in June 1991 and
provided a six-month comment period on the management measures guidance.
 EPA convened technical workgroups composed of Federal and State experts
in preparing both the proposed and the final management measures
guidance.  In addition, EPA held focus group meetings with various
industry groups (agriculture, forestry, and marinas, in particular).
The final technical guidance was published in January 1993.

	In 1993 and 1994, EPA and NOAA worked closely with States to assist
them in developing their programs.  This assistance included highly
detailed reviews of draft State Coastal Nonpoint Programs, as well as
extensive meetings with individual States.  Subsequently, on January 6,
1995, EPA and NOAA wrote letters to the State organizations that
represent State nonpoint source and coastal zone management agencies to
provide increased flexibility to the States with respect to criteria for
program approval and schedules for implementation.

	In April 1997, NOAA, EPA, the States, and other interested parties
began discussions regarding the progress made to date in developing and
implementing State Coastal Nonpoint Programs and the significant
impediments to further progress.  Both the States and Federal agencies
recognized that while the goals of CZARA remain valid, the program and
schedules originally conceived by NOAA and EPA were extremely ambitious,
and additional flexibility would be needed to enable the States to
successfully implement their programs.  Based on this understanding, the
parties proceeded to discuss in detail the specific aspects of the
program that would require modification while maintaining the overall
objective that States implement management measures needed to protect
coastal waters.

	Based on these discussions, EPA and NOAA drafted a set of proposed
administrative changes the agencies would use to guide future
implementation of the CZARA program and made them available for a 60 day
public comment period beginning March 11, 1998.  After reviewing and
responding to public comments on the proposed changes, NOAA and EPA
issued final administrative changes to the program guidance, reflecting
the comments received.  In some cases, the administrative changes
impacted previous findings and conditions on State Coastal Nonpoint
Programs.  In such cases, EPA and NOAA reviewed those findings and
conditions and made adjustments (including, where appropriate,
elimination of conditions.)

	On October 25, 2002 (67 FR 65563), EPA sought comments on a previous
renewal of this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d).  On November 20, 2002
(67 FR 70070), EPA extended the comment period 30 days.  EPA received
one comment from NOAA, providing recommendations for adjusting the
Federal government burden hours to more accurately reflect the
assessment of hours incurred by the agencies’ review of State
programs.  EPA incorporated NOAA’s recommendations to increase the
estimate of the burden hours to the Federal government to more
accurately reflect actual burdens (see Table 3).

	NOAA and EPA have continued to consult with States and public interest
groups throughout the process of formulating strategies for final
approval and criteria for fulfilling conditions.

	3(d)  EFFECTS OF LESS FREQUENT COLLECTION

	The development and approval of State Coastal Nonpoint Programs is a
one-time collection activity.  Seventeen coastal States and Territories
have completed development and obtained conditional approval of their
Coastal Nonpoint Programs, and now need only to remove the existing
conditions to obtain final approval.

	3(e) GENERAL GUIDELINES

	The guidance does not include any information collection activities
that exceed the PRA-imposed guidelines contained in 5 CFR 1320.6.

	3(f) CONFIDENTIALITY

	The information collected under Section 6217 and this ICR renewal will
not require States and Territories to collect any confidential
information.

	3(g) SENSITIVE QUESTIONS

		Information to be reported is not of a sensitive nature.

4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

	4(a) RESPONDENTS/SIC CODES

	The respondent community consists of the 29 coastal States and five
coastal Territories with approved Coastal Zone Management Programs.  The
SIC Code for State respondents is 9511 (Administration of Environmental
Quality Programs: Air and Water Resources and Solid Waste Management).

	4(b) INFORMATION REQUESTED

	(i) Data Items, including Record Keeping Requirements

	The respondents have reported on the following items in their Coastal
Nonpoint Program submittals under Section 6217. (The CZARA section
requiring each item is listed in brackets.)  No record keeping
requirements are imposed on the respondents.

1.	Categories and subcategories of nonpoint sources that generally
impair or threaten coastal water quality within the respondent’s
jurisdiction [CZARA §6217(b)].

2.	Management measures selected from the CZARA §6217(g) technical
guidance to address each significant nonpoint source category and
subcategory identified above [CZARA §6217(b)].

3.	Alternative management measures and technical documentation.  (This
optional item is included to allow the States additional flexibility in
designing their Coastal Nonpoint Programs.)

4.	Coastal waters not maintaining water quality standards and coastal
waters threatened by increased pollution from new or expanding uses
[§6217(b)(1)].

5.	Land uses that are sources of nonpoint pollution entering impaired or
threatened coastal waters [§6217(b)(1)].

6.	Critical coastal areas adjacent to waters not maintaining water
quality standards [CZARA §6217(b)(3)].

7.	Additional management measures developed by the State or Territory to
address threats or impairments identified in #5 above and for
application in critical coastal areas [§6217(b)(3)].

8.	Plans for revising additional management measures [CZARA
§6217(b)(3)].

9.	Plans for providing technical assistance for implementing additional
management measures to local governments and the public [CZARA
§6217(b)(4) and §6217(b)(5)].

10.	The organization, structure, authority, and resources of lead
agencies selected to implement management measures.  (This information
is needed to ensure that implementation of the Coastal Nonpoint Program
is delegated to agencies with adequate authority and resources.)

11.	Schedules for implementation of management measures.  (This
information is needed to evaluate State progress towards implementing
their Coastal Nonpoint Programs.)

12.	Legislative and administrative authorities for implementing
management measures.  (This information is needed to ensure that the
State has the authority to implement the Coastal Nonpoint Program.)

13.	Mechanisms for coordinating State agency and local government
participation in the Coastal Nonpoint Programs [CZARA §6217(b)(6)].

14.	Procedures to ensure implementation of management measures including
operation and maintenance, inspection, and monitoring activities.  (This
information is needed to ensure that the State can implement selected
management measures in the Coastal Nonpoint Program.)

15.	Plans to modify coastal zone boundaries [CZARA §6217(b)(6)].

16.	Mechanisms for coordinating Coastal Nonpoint Programs with CWA
programs under Sections 208, 303, 319, and 320 [CZARA §6217(a)(2) and
§6217(b)(6)].

17.	Provisions for public participation [CZARA §6217(b)(5)].

	(ii) Respondent Activities

	Section 6217 required each respondent to prepare a one-time document
describing their Coastal Nonpoint Program.  The respondents have already
performed the following activities and submitted their coastal Nonpoint
Programs to NOAA and EPA in compliance with the program and technical
guidances:

	Reviewed the program and technical guidance documents describing the
contents required in the Coastal Nonpoint Programs and the management
measures for controlling nonpoint sources of water quality degradation
in coastal areas.

	Planned activities (i.e., delegate collection tasks, plan interagency
meetings, establish reviewers, and delegate writing activities) to
complete development of the Coastal Nonpoint Program.

	Collected information relevant to the data items listed above (e.g.,
lists of impaired coastal waters, lists of management measures to be
adopted, legal and geographical jurisdiction of agencies implementing
management measures).  The States acquired all of the information from
existing sources.

	Analyzed the information and constructed the Coastal Nonpoint Program,
including revising coastal zone boundaries and planning new or modified
State and local regulations to implement the Coastal Nonpoint Program.

	Wrote draft and final Coastal Nonpoint Programs, provided notice and
opportunity for public comment on their programs, and submitted the
programs to EPA and NOAA for approval.

	Under this ICR renewal, States that have received conditional approval
for their Coastal Nonpoint Programs will be required to submit
additional information to obtain final program approval.

5.	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED--AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY,
AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

	5(a) AGENCY ACTIVITIES

	EPA and NOAA activities under this ICR renewal will consist of the
review of Coastal Nonpoint Program amendments and/or informational
updates submitted by States to fulfill specified conditional approval
requirements necessary to obtain final program approvals.

	5(b) COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT

	The States will submit amendments to their Coastal Nonpoint Programs
when such amendments are required to fulfill and therefore remove the
conditions set out in the conditional approval and obtain final program
approval.

	5(c) SMALL ENTITY FLEXIBILITY

	This section is not applicable because respondents are States and
Territories, and are not small businesses or organizations as defined in
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. Sections 601(3) and (4).

	5(d) COLLECTION SCHEDULE

	There is no uniform schedule for the submission of State amendments to
Coastal Nonpoint Programs when such amendments are required to fulfill
conditions established in conditional approvals.  Rather, EPA and NOAA
have set forth specific schedules for completion of conditions tailored
to each State’s program.

6.	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

	6(a) ESTIMATING RESPONDENT BURDEN

	The burden hour estimates for the original ICR were based upon
discussions with Regional NOAA and EPA personnel who have direct contact
with State respondents and past experience with Coastal Nonpoint Program
submittal procedures.  Burden estimates for specific elements were also
acquired from a small sample of State respondents (Wisconsin, Maine,
North Carolina, and Washington).  The detailed breakdown of burden
estimates for each activity is presented in Table 2.

	Based on our analyses of State Coastal Nonpoint Programs that have been
submitted to EPA and NOAA under Section 6217, we have estimated that the
collection burden under this ICR renewal for the conditionally approved
programs will be approximately 15 percent of the burden estimated in the
original ICR.  This estimate is based on States’ successful completion
of the majority of program elements, and the additional work already
underway by many States to complete program elements that require
further development.  In addition, while States will submit information
under this ICR renewal more than once to address different aspects of
their Coastal Nonpoint Program that require additional work specified
under a conditional approval, other States may not submit any
information under this ICR renewal because the conditions in their
conditional approvals may be resolved through State rulemaking or
legislative processes as a result of other forces at work or as a result
of investigations conducted for other reasons that support exemptions to
existing conditions.  Therefore, the estimate of the collection burden
under this ICR renewal is an approximate prediction.

	6(b) ESTIMATING RESPONDENT COSTS

	The associated collection under this ICR renewal will have a moderate
financial impact on the respondents.

(i) Estimating Labor Costs

This respondent labor cost estimate under the original ICR was based
upon an average hourly rate and benefits comparable to a Federal GS
Grade 10, Step 7.  The total hourly rate, including benefits, was
estimated in the original ICR to be $33.  For this ICR renewal, the
estimated hourly rate was increased to $36 to account for inflation.
Table 2 presents a detailed breakdown of the labor cost estimates for
each activity.

TABLE 2.	ESTIMATE OF BURDEN TO STATE RESPONDENTS WITH CONDITIONALLY
APPROVED PROGRAMS, LABOR COSTS

Collection Activity	-A -

Burden hours per respondent	-B-

Number of respondents	-C-

Person-hours

C = A x B	-D-

Cost in Dollars

D = C x $36

1. Review documents

a. Program guidance

b. Technical guidance

 1

 4

17

17

   17

   68

    612

  2,448

2. Plan activities	16	17	 272	  9,792

3. Collect information

a. Identify general NPS categories and identify general management
measures

b. Technical documentation for alternatives

c. Identify impaired coastal waters

d. Identify land uses

e. Identify critical coastal areas

f. Identify supplemental management measures

g. Identify lead agencies

h. Schedule

i. Legislative/administrative authority

j. Coordination mechanisms

k. Operation & maint. procedures

l. Inspection procedures

m. Monitoring procedures

n. Coastal zone boundaries

o. Technical assistance options

p. Public participation mechanisms

70

10

 4

24

10

16

 4

12

15

15

 8

 8

26

 4

 4

 4

17

17

17

17

17

17

17

17

17

17

17

17

17

17

17

17

1,190

  170

    68

  408

  170

  272

    68

  204

  255

  255

  136

  136

  442

   68

   68

   68

 42,840

  6,120

  2,448

 14,688

  6,120

  9,792

  2,448

  7,344

  9,180

  9,180

  4,896

  4,896

 15,912

  2,448

  2,448

  2,448

4. Compile, review and analyze information

a. Develop State and local regulations

b. Revise coastal zone boundaries

c. Other analysis

60

 5

30

17

17

17

1,020

    85

  510

 36,720

  3,060

 18,360

5. Write Coastal Nonpoint Program

a. Draft program report

b. Final program report

10

15

17

17

  170

  255

  6,120

  9,180

6. Recordkeeping requirements	Not applicable	-	-	-

TOTAL: ALL BURDEN ITEMS	375	17	6,375	$229,500

(ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs

	No capital costs or operation and maintenance costs are associated with
this ICR renewal.

(iii) Capital/Start-up Operations and Maintenance Costs

	No capital/start-up operation and maintenance costs are associated with
this ICR renewal.

(iv) Annualizing Capital Costs

	As there are no capital costs associated with this ICR renewal, this
section is not applicable.

	6(c) ESTIMATING AGENCY BURDEN AND COST

	The agency burden in the original ICR was based on discussions with EPA
Regional 319 Coordinators and NOAA Regional personnel.  The cost was
based upon an average hourly rate of $33, which included salary and
benefits for a Federal employee Grade 10, Step 7.  The total number of
burden hours in the original ICR to the Federal government was estimated
to be 13,240, and the total cost was estimated to be $466,420.  Based on
comments received from NOAA in 2003, these figures were determined to be
underestimates.

	Under this ICR renewal, the Federal government burden will include the
burden associated with EPA and NOAA review of amendments submitted by
States to fulfill conditional approval requirements.  To calculate the
Federal government burden, the estimated hourly rate was increased to
$36 to account for inflation.  Table 3 presents a breakdown of the
burden and cost estimates for each agency.

TABLE 3.	ESTIMATE OF BURDEN TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Collection Activity	-A -

Burden hours

(person-hours)	-B-

Personnel Costs

A x $36.00	-C-

Other direct costs	-D-

Total Dollars

B + C

1. EPA review of amendments to State Coastal Nonpoint Programs	10,500
$378,000	-	$378,000

2. NOAA review of amendments to State Coastal Nonpoint Programs	13,000
468,000	-	468,000

TOTAL	23,500	$846,000	-	$846,000

6(d) ESTIMATING THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSE AND TOTAL BURDEN AND COSTS

The universe of respondents is precisely known to be comprised of the 17
States and Territories that remain conditionally approved with regard to
their Coastal Nonpoint Programs.

The total burden and costs for these 17 respondents are summarized in
6(e)(i), with detail provided in Table 2.

	6(e) BOTTOM LINE BURDEN HOURS AND COSTS/MASTER TABLES

	(i) The Respondent Tally

		States

	The one-time total burden to the respondents is:

	Total hours (375) X Number of Respondents (17) = 6,375 hours

		The one-time total cost to the respondents is:

	Total cost (6,375 X $36/hour) = $229,500

	The respondents will perform the burden items over the three-year ICR
renewal period.  Thus, the average annual burden/cost is equivalent to
the total one-time burden/cost divided by three years:

	Total burden (6,375 hours)/3 years = 2,125 hours/year

	Total cost ($229,500)/3 years = $76,500/year (for all respondents)

	Total cost per respondent per year = $76,500/17 respondents = $4,500

	The master table for respondent burden and costs is:

	Total Burden	Total

	Hours	Costs

Bottom Line	6,375 hours	$229,500

	(ii) The Agency Tally

	The total cost to the Federal government is estimated at 23,500 hours,
or $846,000.  The Federal government will perform the collection
activities over the three-year period of this ICR renewal.

EPA burden hours are estimated at approximately 3,500 hours per year
over three years, resulting in a total burden of 10,500 hours.

NOAA burden hours are estimated at approximately 4,333 hours per year
over three years, resulting in a total burden of 13,000 hours.

		Total Federal Agency Hours = 10,500 (EPA) + 13,000 (NOAA) = 23,500

	The average annual burden/cost is equivalent to the total burden/cost
divided by three years:

		Total burden (23,500 hours)/3 years = 7,833 hours/year

		Total cost at $36/hour = ($846,000)/3 years = $282,000

	The master table for agency burden and costs is:

	Total Burden	Total

	Hours	Costs

Bottom Line	23,500 hours	$846,000

	(iii) Variations in the Annual Bottom Line

For many reasons, variations for State respondents and for Federal
agencies are problematic to estimate.  Some of the factors that affect
these variations are described in section 6(a).  In general, activities
associated with Federal approvals of State Coastal Nonpoint Programs
have decreased over time, both for State respondents and for Federal
agencies, as more States have achieved full program approvals.  Indeed,
during the first several years of the Coastal Nonpoint Program
development period, there were comparatively higher levels of activity
among both the Federal partners (who developed program guidance and
conducted “threshold reviews” of initial State program submittals)
and the State respondents (who submitted materials for most or all 56
management measures specified in Congressionally-mandated program
guidance, as well as information on State enforceable policies and
mechanisms).  Since that initial start-up period, activity has declined.
 However, since at least 2003, activity levels for CZARA remain moderate
among both State respondents and Federal agencies.  Two factors seem to
account for this:

Five States joined the Coastal Nonpoint Program as late entrants:
Georgia, Minnesota, Ohio, Texas and Indiana.  Minnesota’s program was
recently approved (July 2006).

Among the 29 original participating States, the 13 States that remain
conditionally approved have challenging and unique obstacles that
account for their continued conditionally approved status, and these
States, along with the Federal partners (NOAA and EPA), are working with
due diligence to overcome the more difficult hurdles that remain.  So
while the number of conditions per State has greatly decreased, the few
conditions that remain are the most challenging to resolve, and thus
require disproportionately greater efforts.

	6(f) REASONS FOR CHANGE IN BURDEN

	The respondent burden in the original ICR is reduced under this ICR
renewal because States have already completed most activities in this
one-time CZARA Section 6217 requirement.

	6(g) BURDEN STATEMENT

	The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection of information is estimated to average 125 hours per
response.  Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply
with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.  An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are
listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

	To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0394, which is available for online viewing at
www.regulations.gov, or in-person viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue,
NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>,
and the telephone number for the Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An
electronic version of the public docket is available at
www.regulations.gov.  This site can be used to submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket,
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically.  Once in the system, select “search,” then key in
the Docket ID Number identified above.  Also, you can send comments to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk
Office for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number
(EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0394) and OMB Control Number (2040-0153) in any
correspondence.

NOTE:  The EPA Docket Center suffered damage due to flooding during the
last week of June 2006.  The Docket Center is continuing to operate.
However, during the cleanup, there will be temporary changes to Docket
Center telephone numbers, addresses, and hours of operation for people
who wish to make hand deliveries or visit the Public Reading Room to
view documents.  Consult EPA's Federal Register notice at 71 FR 38147
(July 5, 2006) or the EPA website at
http://www.epa.gov/epa/home/dockets.htm for current information on
docket operations, locations and telephone numbers.  The Docket
Center’s mailing address for U.S. mail and the procedure for
submitting comments to http://www.regulations.gov are not affected by
the flooding and will remain the same.

B.	COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS

	This section is not applicable because no statistical procedures are
employed for the data collection.

̍഍ഄ̍഍ഄ഍഍

഍

഍഍