Total Cost Analysis

Revised 40 CFR Part 6

The Agency is amending its procedures for implementing the requirements of the CEQ Regulations for NEPA.  Those subject to the final NEPA rule include EPA employees who must comply with NEPA and certain grant or permit applicants who must submit environmental information documentation to EPA for their proposed projects.  The final NEPA regulations would consolidate and standardize the environmental review process applicable to all EPA actions subject to NEPA.  Three different levels of documentation exist: CE, EA/FONSI, and EIS/ROD.  This documentation is project-specific and is a one-time submission.

We estimate the following for each type of documentation using the final rule, using $75/hour for contractor costs:

RESPONDENT	CE	EA/FONSI	EIS/ROD

Grant Applicant	Hours	Cost	Hours	Cost	Hours	Cost

Contractor Hrs/Cost	40	$3,000 	200	$15,000 	2,400	$300,000

Direct Hrs/Labor Cost	5	275	60	3,300	440	24,200

O&M

17

40

280

TOTAL	45	$3,292 	260	$18,340 	2,840	$324,480

(1 per 3-yrs)

Permit Applicant	Hours	Cost	Hours	Cost	Hours	Cost

Contractor Hrs/Cost	None	None	400	$50,000 	2,400	$300,000

Direct Hrs/Labor Cost	None	None	60	3,900	440	28,600

O&M	None	None

40

280

TOTAL	None	None	460	$53,940 	2,840	$328,880

*The EIS/ROD cost for grant applicants can be annualized at $108,160.

EPA anticipates that approximately 300 grants will be awarded annually.  Under the final rule, we estimate that about 60% of these projects will be documented with a CE, and 40% with an EA/FONSI.  EPA also estimates that one project will have an EIS/ROD completed during a three-year period.  EPA estimates that permit applicants will have about 11 projects documented with an EA/FONSI, and 1 project documented with an EIS/ROD.  We do not expect that any permit applicants will use a CE to document their project.

Using this information, we calculate the following figures for each type of documentation for each applicant:

Grant applicant:	180 CEs  x  $3,292	=	   $592,560

			120 EAs  x  $18,340	=	$2,200,800

			1 EIS       x  $108,160	=	   $108,160

Permit applicant:	11 EAs    x  $53,940	=	   $593,340

			1 EIS       x  $328,880	=	   $328,880

TOTAL AMOUNT				=	$3,823,740

Under the previously approved collection burden, the individual cost for each type of documentation is the same.  However, in that burden, we estimated that 50% of the grants for projects were documented with a CE, and 50% were documented with an EA/FONSI.  There was still 1 EIS/ROD per three-year period, and project estimates for permit applicants were approximately the same (11 projects documented with an EA/FONSI; 1 project documented with an EIS/ROD).  This leads to the following total burden under the previously approved collection burden:

Grant applicant:	150 CEs  x  $3,292	=	   $493,800

			150 EAs  x  $18,340	=	$2,751,000

			1 EIS	    x  $108,160	=	   $108,160

Permit applicant:	11 EAs    x  $53,940	=	   $593,340

			1 EIS       x  $328,880	=	   $328,880

TOTAL AMOUNT				=	$4,275,180

Accordingly, the final rule would decrease the total annual amount spent on documentation from $4,275,180 to $3,823,740, which is a yearly savings of $451,440.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 RFA/SBREFA Screening Analysis of Impacts on Small Entities

for the Final Rule at 40 CFR Part 6:

“Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and

Assessing the Environmental Effects Abroad of EPA Actions"

Table of Contents

												Page

1.  	Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	    1

2.  	Background Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	    1

	2(a)	Title of This Screening Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	    1

	2(b)	Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	    1

	2(c)	Need/Authority for EPA’s Implementing Procedures and Final Rule…..	    3

	2(d)	Actions Typically Subject to EPA’s Part 6 Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	    3

	2(e)	Entities Typically Subject to EPA’s Part 6 Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	    5

	2(f)	Environmental Information Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	    6

3. 	Definitions of Small Entities Used in This RFA/SBREFA Screening Analysis . . .	  10

	3(a)	Small Business Definition for This Screening Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	  10

	3(b)	Small Government Definition for This Screening Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . .	  11

	3(c)	Small Organizations Definition for This Screening Analysis . . . . . . . . . .	  12

4.  	RFA/SBREFA Screening Analysis of Impacts on Small Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . .	  13

	4(a)	Screening Analysis Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	  13

	4(b)	Estimating the One-Time Cost for Entities  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	  15

5.	Screening Analysis of Economic Impacts on Small Businesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	  21

	5(a)	Small Businesses Considered in This Screening Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . .	  21

	5(b)	Calculation of Estimated One-Time Cost Impact on Small Businesses . .	  27

	5(c)	Summary of Small Businesses Experiencing an Economic Impact

		Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	  28

6.	Screening Analysis of Economic Impacts on Small Governments . . . . . . . . . . . .	  30

	6(a)	Small Governments Considered in This Screening Analysis  . . . . . . . . . .	  30

	6(b)	Calculation of Estimated One-Time Cost Impact on Small Governments   30

	6(c)	Summary of Small Governments Experiencing an Economic Impact

		Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	  33

7.	Small Entity Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	  34

8.	Statement of Impact on Small Entities Experiencing an Economic Impact

	Condition and Finding of No Significant Impact on a Substantial Number

	of Small Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	  37

Part B.	Statistical Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	              43

Tables

Table 1.	Summary of Information Submitted by Applicants for CEs, EAs/FONSIs,

		and EISs/RODs

Table 2.	Anticipated Business Types, NAICS Codes and Small Business Designations

Table 3.	Annual Total STAG Grants Awarded, Fiscal Years1992 Through 2004

Table 4.	Summary of Estimated Contractor Costs for Permit and Grant Applicants

		and Estimated Number of Projects

Table 5.	One-Year and Out-Year Total Annual Estimated Contractor Costs and

		Hours for Permit Applicants and Grantees

Table 6.	One-Time Estimated Cost for a Permit Applicant or Grantee

Table 7.	Summary of Estimated One-Time Total Costs for a Year

Table 8.	Business Size by Number of Employees and NAICS Size Definition for

		Code 211111 (Gas and Oil Exploration)

Table 9.	Business Size by Number of Employees and NAICS Size Definition for

		Code 212221, 212222, 212231 and 212234 (Hardrock Mining)

Table 10.	Business Size by Dollar Amount of Revenues/Sales and NAICS Size

		Definition for Code 112120 (Dairy Milk and Cheese Production)

Table 11.	Business Size by Number of Employees and NAICS Size Definition for

		Code 311712 (Seafood Production)

Table 12.	Business Size by Dollar Amount of Revenues/Sales and NAICS

		Size Definition for Codes 112310, 112320, 112330, 112340, 112112,

		112210 (CAFOs)

Table 13.	Summary of Business Types With Anticipated Small Businesses

Table 14.	One-Time Estimated Costs for Special District Grant Applicants

Attachments

Attachment 1.	Exemptions from NEPA for Certain EPA Actions and EPA’s

		Voluntary NEPA Policy

Attachment 2.	Estimates of Contractor Costs and Hours for Grantees and Permit Applicants

Attachment 3.	STAG Projects for 2002 Through 2004 - Summary of Active Projects

		and SBA Size Designation

Attachment 4.	STAG Projects for 2002 Through 2004 - “Income Test” Estimate of

		Cost Impact on Small Governments

Acronyms

aka			Also known as

BP			British Petroleum

CAFOs		Concentrated animal feeding operations

CE			Categorical exclusion

CEQ Regulations	Council on Environmental Quality Regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508

CCR			Central Contractor Registration

CSO			Combined sewer overflow

D&B			Dun and Bradstreet

EA			Environmental assessment

EID			Environmental information document

EIS			Environmental impact statement

EPA			Environmental Protection Agency

GP			General permit

HQ			Headquarters

FONSI			Finding of no significant impact

MPRSA		Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act

MS4			Municipal separate storm sewer system

NAICS		North American Industry Classification System

NEPA			National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NPDES		National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

O&M			Operation and maintenance

Part 6			40 CFR Part 6

RFA			Regulatory Flexibility Act

RFA/SBREFA	Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996

ROD			Record of Decision

SAAPP		Special Appropriations Act Projects and Program

SBA			Small Business Administration

SBREFA	 	Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996

STAG			State and Tribal Assistance Grants

U.S.C.			United States Code

Screening Analysis of Impacts on Small Entities

for the Final Rule at 40 CFR Part 6:

“Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and

Assessing the Environmental Effects Abroad of EPA Actions"

1.  	Introduction

 	The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (RFA/SBREFA, 5. U.S.C. 601 et seq.), generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.  Small entities include small businesses, small governments, and small organizations.

	The RFA/SBREFA requirements to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis or a certification of no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities applies to proposed rules subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute, and final rules promulgated under the notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.  It is EPA’s policy to make an assessment of the rule’s impact on any small entities, to engage the potentially regulated entities in a dialog regarding the rule, and minimize the impact to the extent feasible.  However, in view of the requirements of SBREFA, a regulatory flexibility analysis as specified by the RFA is not required simply because the rule has some impact on some number of small entities.  Instead, such analyses are required only in cases where the Agency cannot certify that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

2.  	Background Information

	2(a)	Title of This Screening Analysis. “Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and Assessing the Environmental Effects Abroad of EPA Actions”

	2(b)	Abstract.  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is amending its procedures for implementing the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).  The final rule also includes minor, technical amendments to the Agency’s procedures for implementing Executive Order 12114, “Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions.”

	EPA’s Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act.  The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, establishes the federal government’s national policy for protection of the environment.  The Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (CEQ Regulations) at 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508 establish procedures implementing the national policy.  The CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1505.1) require federal agencies to adopt and, as needed, revise their own implementing procedures to supplement the CEQ Regulations and to ensure their decision-making processes are consistent with NEPA.

	The Agency is amending its procedures for implementing the requirements of the CEQ Regulations for NEPA.  The final rule amends EPA’s NEPA implementing procedures by:  (1) consolidating and standardizing the procedural provisions and requirements of the Agency’s environmental review process under NEPA; (2) clarifying the general procedures associated with categorical exclusions, consolidating the categories of actions subject to categorical exclusion, amending existing and adding new categorical exclusions, and consolidating and amending existing and adding new extraordinary circumstances; (3) consolidating and amending the listing of actions that generally require an environmental impact statement; (4) clarifying the procedural requirements for consideration of applicable environmental review laws and executive orders; and (5) incorporating other proposed revisions consistent with CEQ’s Regulations.

	Those subject to the final NEPA rule include EPA employees who must comply with NEPA and certain grant or permit applicants who must submit environmental information documentation to EPA for their proposed projects.  The final NEPA regulations consolidate and standardize the environmental review process applicable to all EPA actions subject to NEPA, including those actions now specifically addressed in the regulations and other actions subject to NEPA but not specifically addressed in the regulations (e.g., certain grants awarded for special projects authorized by Congress through the Agency’s annual Appropriations Act).1

	Compliance with the NEPA regulations is the responsibility of EPA's Responsible Officials.  For applicant-proposed actions, certain procedures apply to applicants (that is grantees and permit applicants) who must submit environmental information to EPA as part of the environmental review process.  The EPA Responsible Official is responsible for the environmental review process, including any categorical exclusion determination or the scope, accuracy, and contents of a final environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS) and any supporting documents.  The applicant contributes by submitting environmental information to EPA as part of the environmental review process.

	For actions subject to NEPA, the Responsible Official may determine that the proposed action does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and may, therefore, be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.  If the proposed action is not categorically excluded, the Responsible Official may prepare an EA in order to determine whether to prepare an EIS or a finding of no significant impact (FONSI).  If necessary, the Responsible Official must prepare an EIS if the proposed action will have a significant effect on the human environment.  For applicant-proposed actions, the applicant may submit information to the Responsible Official regarding the applicability of a categorical exclusion and request a determination by the Responsible Official.  Unless the applicant-proposed action is categorically excluded, the Responsible Official may gather the information and prepare the NEPA documents without assistance from the applicant, or have the applicant prepare an environmental information document (EID) or a draft EA and supporting documents or implement a third-party contract agreement with the applicant.

	EPA’s Procedures for Implementing Executive Order 12114.  Part 6 also includes EPA’s procedures, “Assessing the Environmental Effects Abroad of EPA Actions,” that implement Executive Order 12114, “Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions" (see 46 FR 3364).  EPA’s Executive Order 12114 procedures further the purpose of NEPA and provide that EPA may be guided by its NEPA procedures to the extent they are applicable.2  Therefore, when EPA conducts an environmental assessment pursuant to its Executive Order 12114 procedures, the Agency generally follows its NEPA procedures.  As with EPA’s current Executive Order 12114 implementing procedures, compliance with the procedures would be the responsibility of EPA’s Responsible Officials and, for applicant-proposed actions, applicants may be required to provide environmental information to EPA as part of the environmental review process.  For this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis, the entity burden, including small entities, for applicant-proposed actions subject to either NEPA or Executive Order 12114 is addressed through the NEPA process.

	2(c)	Need/Authority for EPA’s Implementing Procedures and Final Rule.  The CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1505.1) require federal agencies to adopt and, as needed, revise their own implementing procedures to supplement the CEQ Regulations.  The purpose of the final rule is to meet the procedural requirements of the CEQ Regulations for NEPA.  The final regulations also include minor, technical amendments to EPA’s environmental review procedures implementing Executive Order 12114.  EPA is collecting information from certain applicants as part of the process of complying with either NEPA or Executive Order 12114.

	2(d)	Actions Typically Subject to EPA’s Part 6 Regulations.  EPA’s NEPA regulations apply to the actions of EPA that are subject to NEPA in order to ensure that environmental information is available to the Agency’s decision-makers and the public before decisions are made and before actions are taken.  This includes actions such as wastewater treatment construction grants under Title II of the Clean Water Act, EPA’s issuance of new source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, certain research and development projects, EPA actions involving renovations at or new construction of EPA facilities, and certain grants awarded for special projects authorized by Congress through the Agency’s annual Appropriations Act.  EPA actions subject to NEPA that are based on applicant proposals may include any of these except EPA actions for construction of special purpose facilities or facility renovations of EPA facilities.

	The Part 6 regulations also include EPA’s procedures implementing Executive Order 12114.  These procedures ensure that environmental information is available to the Agency’s decision-makers and other appropriate Federal agencies and officials for actions subject to Executive Order 12114.  EPA actions typically subject to Executive Order 12114 include major EPA actions which affect the environment of a foreign nation or the global commons and may include:  major research or demonstration projects, ocean dumping activities carried out under section 102 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), major permitting or licensing of facilities by EPA,3 Wastewater Treatment Construction Grant Program under section 201 of the Clean Water Act when activities addressed in the facility plan would have environmental effects abroad, and other activities as determined by EPA.

	Wastewater Treatment Construction Grants Program facilities or new source NPDES permits to be issued by EPA for facilities in the U.S. bordering Mexico or Canada are subject to EPA’s NEPA implementing procedures.  If these facilities could have significant environmental effects abroad, generally they would also be subject to EPA’s procedures implementing Executive Order 12114.  In addition, EPA has determined that certain grants awarded for special projects identified in the STAG account authorized by Congress through the Agency’s annual Appropriations Act are subject to NEPA.  STAG special projects in the U.S. bordering Mexico or Canada and that could have significant environmental effects abroad generally would also be subject to EPA’s procedures implementing Executive Order 12114.

	Further, certain actions subject to EPA’s Executive Order 12114 implementing procedures are not subject to EPA’s NEPA implementing procedures (see Attachment 1).  EPA’s Executive Order 12114 implementing procedures (with only minor, technical amendments) provide that: (a) for ocean dumping activities, the information submitted under 40 CFR part 221 is sufficient to satisfy the environmental assessment requirements; and (b) for permits issued under section 3005 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, section 402 of the Clean Water Act, and section 165 of the Clean Air Act, the information submitted by applicants for such permits or approvals under the applicable consolidated permit regulations (40 CFR parts 122 and 124) and Prevention of Significant Deterioration regulations (40 CFR part 52) satisfy the environmental document requirements of Executive Order 12114.

	In summary, the applicant costs for any applicant-proposed actions, including permitting or licensing, under these authorities are already addressed under these programs and are not further addressed in this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis.  However, the applicant costs for any EPA action subject to NEPA and/or Executive Order 12114 that are based on an applicant proposal, including Wastewater Treatment Construction Grants Program facilities, STAG actions subject to NEPA and new source NPDES permits issued by EPA, are addressed in this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis.  EPA’s Executive Order 12114 implementing procedures further the purpose of NEPA and provide that EPA may be guided by the CEQ Regulations to the extent they are applicable.  Therefore, when EPA conducts an environmental assessment pursuant to its Executive Order 12114 implementing regulations, the Agency generally follows the CEQ Regulations and the procedures in EPA’s NEPA implementing regulations.  For these reasons, for applicant-proposed actions subject to either NEPA or Executive Order 12114 (and that are not addressed in other EPA programs), the remainder of this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis will evaluate the entity costs, including small entities, only with regard to EPA’s NEPA implementing procedures.

	2(e)	Entities Typically Subject to EPA’s Part 6 Regulations.  Those subject to the final rule include EPA employees who must comply with NEPA or Executive Order 12114, and certain grant or permit applicants who must submit environmental information documentation to EPA for their projects.  “Applicants” (e.g., grant or permit applicants) are the entities that may provide such environmental information to EPA, including small businesses and small governmental jurisdictions.  For purposes of this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis, EPA considers entities to be two types of applicants:

Grant applicants applying to EPA for funding of special projects authorized by Congress through the Agency’s annual Appropriations Act.  These applicants are generally governmental jurisdictions.4

Permit applicants applying to EPA for issuance of new source NPDES permits under §402 of the CWA.  EPA issues new source NPDES permits only in states and U.S. territories that have not assumed authority for this program (i.e., New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Puerto Rico, New Mexico, Oklahoma (for concentrated animal feeding operations only), Alaska, and Idaho), the District of Columbia, off-shore waters (e.g., the inter-continental shelf for Texas, all outer-continental shelf areas, all deep-water port areas), and on federally-recognized Indian tribal lands.  These permit applicants are not limited to a specific business sector.  EPA has permitted, and anticipates continued permit activity, with projects typically involving:  oil and gas extraction from off-shore waters, hardrock mining (recently gold, silver, lead and zinc, and copper), dairy cattle and milk production, seafood processing, and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), including poultry, cattle, hogs and pigs.

										NAICS Code5

	Crude petroleum and natural gas extraction				211111

	Hardrock mining

		Gold ore mining						212221

		Silver ore mining						212222

		Lead ore and zinc ore mining					212231

		Copper ore and nickel ore mining				212234

	Dairy cattle and milk production					112120

	Seafood fresh and frozen processing					311712

	Poultry and egg production

		Chicken egg production					112310

		Broilers and other meat type chicken production		112320

		Turkey production						112330

		Poultry hatcheries						112340

	Cattle feedlots								112112

	Hog and pig farming							112210

	2(f)	Environmental Information Required.  For EPA actions subject to NEPA, the Responsible Official may determine that the proposed action does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and may, therefore, be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.  If the proposed action is not categorically excluded, the Responsible Official may prepare an EA in order to determine whether to prepare an EIS or a FONSI.  The Responsible Official prepares an EIS if the proposed action will have a significant effect on the human environment.  For EPA actions subject to NEPA that are based on applicant proposals, the Responsible Official may gather the information and prepare the NEPA documents without environmental information submitted by the applicant, or have the applicant prepare an EID, or a draft EA and supporting documents, or implement a third-party agreement with the applicant.6, 7

	The level of NEPA documentation and the project-specific information the Responsible Official needs for decision-making is determined by the potential for environmental impact of the action, or the facility to be permitted or the project to be funded by the action rather than the dollar amount of the project or whether the applicant is a grantee or permit applicant.8  Table 1 summarizes the information to be submitted by an applicant for a categorical exclusion (CE) determination, an EA and FONSI, and an EIS and Record of Decision (ROD).

Table 1.  Summary of Information Submitted by Applicants for CEs, EAs/FONSIs, and EISs/RODs

Categorical Exclusion (CE) means a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and have been found by EPA to have no such effect.  To find that a proposed action is categorically excluded, the Responsible Official needs to determine that the proposed action fits within a categorical exclusion that is listed in the regulations, and the proposed action does not involve any extraordinary circumstances as listed in the regulations.  “Extraordinary circumstances” are those circumstances in which a normally excluded action may have a significant environmental effect.  Based on review of information in the applicant’s application and other available information, the Responsible Official notifies the applicant if the action is categorically excluded, or if EPA needs additional information to support the application of a categorical exclusion.

Information Submitted by Applicant:  The applicant may provide statements or documents to the Responsible Official to verify that the proposed action would not involve any of the listed extraordinary circumstances.

For example, the applicant might submit information to support a categorical exclusion determination for an action that meets the criteria for “Actions in unsewered communities relating to the use of proposed wastewater on-site technologies where such technologies replace existing systems.”  If the project area is known to be near a property with nationally significant historic value, the applicant would likely enclose a letter from the State Historic Preservation Officer that confirms the proposed project will not have a significant environmental effect on the historic property.  The applicant letter may also verify there are no wetlands in the project area.

Environmental Assessments (EAs) need to include sufficient information and analysis for the Responsible Official to determine whether to prepare an EIS or to issue a FONSI.

Information Submitted by Applicant: The applicant submits an EID of sufficient scope to enable the Responsible Official to prepare an EA, and then determine whether to issue a FONSI or prepare an EIS.  At the discretion of the Responsible Official, the applicant may prepare a draft EA and supporting documents in lieu of an EID.

 An EID for an EA, or a draft EA and supporting documents, generally will:  (1) include brief discussions of the need for the proposed action; the alternatives, including the no action alternative; description of the affected environment; and the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives; (2) include a listing or summarize any coordination or consultation undertaken with any federal agency, state or local government, or federally-recognized Indian tribe, including compliance with applicable laws and executive orders; (3) identify and describe any mitigation measures that must be considered, including any mitigation measures that must be adopted to ensure the action will not have significant impacts; and (4) incorporate documents by reference.

Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) are generally prepared for major actions that may significantly affect the quality of the human environment, or when an EA indicates that significant impacts may occur that cannot be reduced or eliminated by changes to or mitigation of the proposed action.  A Record of Decision (ROD) documents the decision of the Responsible Official.

Information Submitted by Applicant: The applicant submits an EID of sufficient scope to enable the Responsible Official to prepare an EIS and ROD.  In lieu of submitting documentation, the Responsible Official and the applicant may enter into a third-party contract agreement.  The information needed for an EIS parallels the information needed for an EA with a focus on assessment of significant environmental issues and alternatives.

 An EID for an EIS generally will: (1) provide EPA with information the Agency will use to prepare an EIS; (2) analyze all reasonable alternatives and the no action alternative; (3) describe the potentially affected environment including, as appropriate, the size and location of new and existing facilities, land requirements, operation and maintenance requirements, auxiliary structures such as pipelines or transmission lines, and construction schedules; (4) summarize any coordination or consultation undertaken with any federal agency, state or local government, or federally-recognized Indian tribe, including compliance with applicable laws and executive orders; (5) the draft EIS must summarize any public meetings during the scoping process, and the final EIS must summarize the public participation process held after publication of the draft EIS; (6) the draft EIS must consider substantive comments received during the scoping process, and the final EIS must summarize all comments on the draft EIS and respond to any substantive comments and explain any changes to a revised draft EIS or the final EIS and the reasons for the changes; and (7) include the names and qualifications of the persons primarily responsible for preparing the EIS including significant background papers.

	Under the rule, applicants submit project-specific information only for applicant-proposed actions that are subject to EPA’s NEPA implementing procedures.  The information compiled is a one-time submission in narrative text format from applicants for grant assistance for specific projects subject to NEPA, or for new source NPDES permits to be issued by EPA.  There are no ongoing reporting, recordkeeping or file-maintenance requirements for applicants.9

	Whether the NEPA documents are based on environmental information developed by the Responsible Official or submitted by the applicant, the NEPA review and resulting documents generally rely on the use of existing data and information, including data and information from other federal agencies, state or local governments, or federally-recognized Indian tribes with jurisdiction by law or special expertise.

	Whether the NEPA documents are prepared directly by the Responsible Official or based on environmental information submitted by the applicant, the quality of the information provided by an applicant must be sufficient to enable the Responsible Official to make a decision.  This is accomplished under EPA’s NEPA implementing procedures through:  (1) early coordination and cooperation with federal agencies, state and local governments, and federally-recognized Indian tribes with jurisdiction by law or special expertise (see final rule § 6.202); and (2) the public participation process associated with actions other than those categorically excluded10 (see final rule § 6.203).11  When the environmental information is provided by the applicant, the Responsible Official is responsible for the statements, analyses, and conclusions of the EA or EIS and any supporting documents.

3. 	Definitions of Small Entities Used in This RFA/SBREFA Screening Analysis

	The RFA/SBREFA defines small entities as including:

	• small businesses

	• small governments, and

	• small organizations.

	The RFA/SBREFA further defines each type of small entity as detailed below.  These are the definitions used by EPA in this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis.

	3(a)	Small Business Definition for This Screening Analysis.  The RFA/SBREFA references the definition of “small business” found in the Small Business Act, which authorizes the Small Business Administration (SBA) to define “small business” by regulation.  The SBA’s “small business” definitions are codified at 13 CFR 121.201 by category of business using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes.12  The SBA definition of a “small business” applies to a firm’s parent company and all affiliates as a single entity.

	The NAICS codes for business types that have previously applied to EPA for new source NPDES permits and the small business designation for each business type are listed in Table 2.  For purposes of this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis, EPA assumes these are the same business types likely to apply to EPA in the out-years for new source NPDES permits and, under the final rule, EPA will conduct environmental reviews for these actions directly or with applicant assistance through submission of environmental information or draft EAs or EISs and supporting documents (see Section 2(f) and Attachment 2).

Table 2.  Anticipated Business Types, NAICS Codes and Small Business Designations13

Anticipated Business Typesa	NAICS Codes	Small Business Designations

Crude petroleum and natural gas extraction	211111	500 Employees

Hardrock mining

     Gold ore mining

     Silver ore mining

     Lead ore and zinc ore mining

     Copper ore and nickel ore mining

212221

212222

212231

212234

500 Employees

500 Employees

500 Employees

500 Employees

Dairy cattle and milk production	112120	$750,000

Seafood fresh and frozen processing	311712	500 Employees

Poultry and egg production

     Chicken egg production

     Broilers and other meat type chicken production

     Turkey production

     Poultry hatcheries

112310

112320

112330

112340

$11,500,000

$750,000

$750,000

$750,000

Cattle feedlots	112112	$2,000,000

Hog and pig farming		112210	$750,000

aBecause there is no set universe of permit applicants, this is a representative rather than an exhaustive list.

	3(b)	Small Government Definition for This Screening Analysis.  The RFA/SBREFA defines “small governmental jurisdiction” as the government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000.  For purposes of this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis and as stated in Section 2(e), grant applicants applying to EPA for funding of special projects authorized by Congress through the Agency’s annual Appropriations Act are one of the two types of entities that would submit environmental information to EPA under the regulations.  As further stated, these entities are generally governmental jurisdictions and are, therefore, the governmental jurisdiction entities for this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis.  Based on information on the number of STAG projects awarded for the period 1992 through 2004 as presented in Table 3 (also see footnote 4), EPA assumes governmental entities are likely to continue to be the applicants for these projects in the out-years and, under the proposed rule, EPA will conduct environmental reviews for these actions without applicant assistance or with applicant assistance through submission of environmental information or draft EAs or EISs and supporting documents.

Table 3.  Annual Total STAG Grants Awarded, Fiscal Years 1992 Through 200414

Year	Number of Awards	Year	Number of Awards	Year	Number of Awards

1992		17

1993		24

1994		  9

1995		52	1996		  28

1997		  40

1998		104

1999		144	2000		232

2001		256

2002		298

2003		308

2004		206

	For the three-year period, 2002 through 2004, EPA has had approximately 600 active STAG grants in its 10 Regional offices (see Attachments 3 and 4).15  The governmental jurisdictions (e.g., entities) include:  boroughs, cities, counties, parishes, special districts, towns, townships, and villages as identified through the U.S. Census Bureau.16

	3(c)	Small Organizations Definition for This Screening Analysis.  The RFA/SBREFA defines “small organizations” as any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.  Each year, EPA awards approximately $4 billion in grants.  Of that amount, approximately 89% is awarded to states, federally-recognized Indian tribes, and local governments for STAG projects and implementation of environmental programs.17  About 6% are awarded to non-profit organizations and special interest groups and about 4% to educational institutions for a broad range of purposes including, for example, community outreach and education, workshops and conferences, training, and cooperative agreements to non-profit senior organizations to support EPA’s Senior Environmental Employee program.  These grants are generally awarded under specific statutory authorities that are exempt from NEPA (see Attachment 1).  For purposes of this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis, a small organization is not likely to receive a grant from EPA for an action subject to NEPA under EPA’s regulations; therefore, small organizations are not included in this screening analysis.

4.  	RFA/SBREFA Screening Analysis of Impacts on Small Entities

	4(a)	Screening Analysis Considerations.  The purpose of this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis is to determine if the final rule may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.  EPA’s regulations are applicable to EPA actions subject to NEPA, including those proposed by applicants.  Because the projects are proposed by the applicants, including small businesses and small governments, EPA does not know what projects will be proposed, when they will be proposed, or what level of NEPA review will be required for each individual project.  In this regard, EPA’s NEPA review process is reactive to an applicant’s request.  These factors are built into this screening assessment, including assumptions about the entities likely to be subject to the regulations, the types of projects they are likely to propose, and the degree of possible economic impact based on the NEPA review process and the three levels of environmental documentation possible under this process.

	As discussed in Section 3, this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis assesses the economic impact on small businesses and small governments.  The screening analyses for these small entities include, but are not limited to, the following considerations:

! EPA’s NEPA implementing regulations apply to the actions of EPA that are subject to NEPA.  Compliance with the regulations is the responsibility of EPA’s Responsible Officials.  For EPA actions subject to NEPA that are based on applicant proposals, permit applicants or grantees must submit environmental information to EPA as part of the environmental review process unless the Responsible Official decides to prepare the NEPA documents without assistance from the applicant.18

! As summarized in Table 1, the Responsible Official may determine that the action is categorically excluded, or prepare an EA in order to determine whether to prepare an EIS or issue a FONSI, or prepare an EIS and ROD.  The level of NEPA documentation and the project-specific information the Responsible Official needs for decision-making is determined by the potential for environmental impact of the action, or the facility to be permitted or the project to be funded by the action rather than the dollar amount of the project or whether the applicant is a permit applicant or a grantee (see footnote 8).

! As stated in Section 2(f), whether the NEPA documents are based on environmental information developed by the Responsible Official or submitted by the applicant, the NEPA review and resulting documents generally rely on the use of existing data and information, including data and information from other federal agencies, state or local governments, or federally-recognized Indian tribes with jurisdiction by law or special expertise.  Also, the quality of the information provided by an applicant must be sufficient to enable the Responsible Official to make a decision, and is accomplished through:  (1) early coordination and cooperation with other federal agencies, state and local governments, and federally-recognized Indian tribes with jurisdiction by law or special expertise; and (2) the public participation process associated with actions other than those categorically excluded.

! When environmental information is provided by the applicant, the Responsible Official is responsible for the statements, analyses, and conclusions of the EA or EIS and any supporting documents.

! The environmental information submitted by permit applicants and grantees for their actions that are subject to NEPA is project-specific, one-time only, and does not involve repeated submission of compliance-related or other information by the regulated entities.

Permit applicants are those applying to EPA for issuance of new source NPDES permits under §402 of the CWA.  EPA issues NPDES permits only in states and U.S. territories that have assumed authority for this program, the District of Columbia, off-shore waters, and on federally-recognized Indian tribal lands (where the tribe has not assumed this authority).  Permit applicants are not limited to a specific business sector(s), and EPA anticipates continued permit activity with projects typically involving:  oil and gas extraction from off-shore waters, hardrock mining, dairy cattle and milk production, seafood processing, and CAFOs.

Grant applicants are those applying to EPA for special projects identified in the STAG account authorized by Congress through the Agency’s annual Appropriations Act.  These applicants are generally governmental jurisdictions.

! The content of the environmental information submitted by an applicant for a draft EA and supporting documents and an EID for a draft EA and supporting documents is similar.  There may be a financial difference for grantees in that EPA financial assistance generally may be used to prepare an EID but not to prepare a draft EA and supporting documents.19  New source NPDES permit applicants are not eligible for EPA financial assistance.  The applicant may also enter into a third-party agreement whereby the applicant engages and pays for the services of a contractor to prepare the EA and supporting documents on behalf of EPA.  EPA’s experience with applicants has generally been that they contract directly for preparation of an EID or a draft EA and supporting documents.20  Therefore, for purposes of estimating the maximum costs to entities, the calculations will be based on preparation of a draft EA by a contractor whose services will be paid for by the applicant.  See Attachment 2.

! The content of the environmental information submitted by an applicant for a draft EIS and supporting documents and an EID for a draft EIS and supporting documents is similar.  For grantees, third-party contractor costs may be eligible for cost reimbursement (see footnote 19).  New source NPDES permit applicants are not eligible for EPA financial assistance.  Although an applicant may contract for preparation of an EID for a draft EIS, because EISs are generally more complex than EAs in terms of the issues to be addressed and the associated analyses, it has generally been EPA’s experience that applicants will enter into a third-party agreement with EPA for preparation of the EIS and supporting documents.  Therefore, for purposes of estimating the maximum costs to entities, EPA assumes the applicant will enter into a third-party agreement for the environmental review process and preparation of the documents for the project.21  See Attachment 2.

	4(b)	Estimating the One-Time Cost for Entities.  For purposes of this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis, EPA has estimated the one-time cost to entities for preparing and submitting environmental documentation to the Responsible Official for use in the environmental review of the applicant’s proposed project.  The screening analysis also estimates the likelihood of a project being documented with one of the three levels of documentation, a CE or an EA/FONSI or an EIS/ROD.  These estimates are based on information from EPA’s Regional Office NEPA practitioners and their experience working with grantees and permit applicants, and is summarized in Attachment 2.

	For an applicant-proposed action, the applicant would generally submit information to the EPA Responsible Official as part of the environmental review process as delineated in Section 2(f), Table 1.  As discussed in Section 4(a), EPA assumes the applicant will use a contractor to compile and prepare the environmental information to be submitted to the Responsible Official.  For the applicant, this includes the time and costs needed to:

	1. Procure contractor services.

2. Review instructions (such as the regulations and any program-specific guidelines the

    Responsible Official may also provide) and/or meet with the Responsible Official.

	3. Research data sources.

	4. Complete and review the collection of environmental information.

	5. Transmit the information to the Responsible Official.

	6. Meet with the Responsible Official on the need for any revisions to the environmental

    information, and prepare and submit any necessary revisions to the information.

	In summary, EPA assumes an applicant would expend time and incur contractor costs to submit:  (1) information to support application of a categorical exclusion with environmental information prepared directly by the applicant’s contractor, or (2) a draft EA and supporting documents prepared directly by the applicant’s contractor, or (3) a draft and final EIS and supporting documents prepared by the applicant’s contractor under a third-party agreement with EPA.

	Entities include permit applicants applying to EPA for issuance of new source NPDES permits under §402 CWA.  EPA issues these permits only in states and U.S. territories that have not assumed authority for this program.  Because most states have now assumed the NPDES program, few new source NPDES permits are issued by EPA.  Regions 4, 6 and 10 currently handle the majority of these projects.  As presented in Section 2(e), most projects involve oil and gas extraction in off-shore waters areas, hardrock mining, concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), dairy farming, and seafood processing.  None of these projects have been documented with a CE, and EPA does not anticipate any projects will be documented initially with a CE.  Further, EPA anticipates that annually, about 11 projects will be documented with EAs/FONSIs.  In addition, EPA anticipates one project will have an EIS/ROD completed annually.  EPA’s estimates of a permit applicant’s contractor costs and permit applicant hours, the estimated number of projects, and other assumptions, are presented in Attachment 2 and are summarized in Table 4 for submission of environmental information for EA/FONSI and EIS/ROD documentation.

Table 4. Summary of Estimated Contractor Costs for Permit and Grant Applicants and Estimated Number of Projects

	CE Documents Project

Current	 Out-Yr Period	EA/FONSI Documents Project

Current	     Out-Year Period	EIS/ROD Documents Project

Current		Out-Year Period

Permit Applicant	None	        None

	$20-75,000	$50,000*

not estimated	60 hours

66 per 6-years	11 per year

* Contractor: $125/hour

$125/hr x 400 hrs = $50,000	$0-300,000-1M	$300,000*

not estimated	440 hours

1 per year	1 per year

*Contractor: $125/hour

$125/hr x 2400 hrs = $300,000

Grant Applicant	$1-4,000        $3,000*

1-5 hours       5 hrs

265	        300 total

50%	        60% = 180

*Contractor:  $75/hour

$75/hr x 40 hrs = $3,000	$5-25,000	$15,000*

not estimated	60 hrs

265	              300 total

50%		40% = 120

*Contractor: $75/hour

$75/hr x 200 hrs =  $15,000	$200-300,000	$300,000*

not estimated	440 hrs

1 per 3 yrs	1 per 3 yrs

*Contractor: $125/hour

$125/hr x 2400 hrs = $300,000

	Entities also include grant applicants applying to EPA for funding of special projects identified in the STAG account authorized by Congress through the Agency’s annual Appropriations Act.  These applicants are generally governmental jurisdictions.  The number of such grants authorized by Congress, and subsequently awarded by EPA, has generally been increasing annually with about 25 awarded in 1993, about 100 awarded in 1998, and about 300 awarded each year in 2002 and 2003 as presented in Table 3; for the 3-year period 2002 through 2004, about 800 have been awarded by EPA.  Recognizing that the number of STAG grant awards has been increasing annually, for purposes of this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis, EPA anticipates that approximately 300 STAG grants will be awarded annually.  Under the previous rule, EPA estimated that about 50% of the STAG projects were documented with a CE, and about 50% with an EA/FONSI.  Under this final rule, EPA anticipates that the STAG projects documented with CEs may increase 5% to 10%.  Thus, based on EPA’s experience, under the final rule, EPA anticipates there will be approximately 300 grantee projects annually with about 60% of these projects documented with a CE, and about 40% with an EA/FONSI.  In addition, EPA estimates that one project (less than one percent of the total annual grantee projects) will have an EIS/ROD completed during a 3-year period.  EPA’s estimates of a grantee’s contractor costs and applicant hours, the estimated number of projects, and other assumptions, are presented in Attachment 2 and are summarized in Table 4.

	EPA does not anticipate any applicant capital or start up costs.22  Operating and maintenance (O&M) costs are the recurring dollar amount of cost associated with O&M or purchasing services.  EPA assumes the O&M costs associated with the paperwork requirements for entities would be costs for photocopying and mailing the compiled environmental information for a CE, EA or EIS.  For a CE, EPA assumes up to 20 pages may be copied at 10¢ per page, or $2.00.  For maximum cost estimate purposes, EPA assumes the documentation is express mailed at a cost of $15.00, for a total cost of $17.00 per CE.  For an EA, EPA assumes 100 pages will be submitted at a cost of $10.00 for copying and $30.00 for express mail for a total cost of $40.00 per EA.  For an EIS, EPA assumes 800 pages will be submitted (4 x 200 pages per EIS - preliminary draft EIS, draft EIS, preliminary final EIS, final EIS) at a cost of $80.00 for copying and $200.00 for express mail (4 x $50 per draft) for a total cost of $280.00 per EIS.  See Attachment 2.

	Based on the above assumptions and estimates for permit applicants and grantees, Table 5 lists the estimated out-year annual contractor costs and hours, and hours, direct labor and O&M costs for permit applicants and grantees.  The direct labor rate, including benefits, for civilian worker (professional) applicants is assumed to be $43; loaded at 50% for other non-benefits overhead and including profit, this rate is about $65.  Permit applicants are assumed to be civilian worker applicants.  The direct labor rate, including benefits, for state and local government applicants is assumed to be $44; loaded at 25% for other non-benefits overhead, this rate is $55.  The direct labor rate for federally-recognized Indian tribe applicants is assumed to be the same as for state and local government applicants.  Grantee applicants are assumed to be state and local governments and federally-recognized Indian tribes.  (Labor rates, including benefits, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation - September 2005,” http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.toc.htm.)

Table 5. One-Year and Out-Year Total Annual Estimated Costs and Hours for Permit Applicants and Grantees

Entities	CE Projects	EA/FONSI Projects	EIS/ROD Projects	Annual Totals

Permitees

Number of Projects

Contractor Hours

Contractor Costs

Permitee Hours

Permitee Labor Costs

O&M Costs

Totals on One-Time Proj. Basis

None

None

None

None

None

None

(None)

11 projects/year

11 proj x 400 hrs/proj =

4,400 hours

11 proj x $50,000/proj = $550,000

11 proj x 60 hrs/proj =

660 hours

660 hours x $65/hour =

$42,900

11 proj x $40/proj = $440

400 + 60 = 460 hours

$50,000 + ($65 x 60) + $40 = $53,940

1 project/year

1 proj x 2,400 hrs/proj =

2,400 hours

1 proj x $300,000/proj = $300,000

1 proj x 440 hrs/proj =

440 hours

440 hours x $65/hour =

$28,600

1 proj x $280/proj = $280

2,400 + 440 = 2,840 hrs

$300,000 + ($65 x 440) + $280 = $328,880

12 projects

6,800 hours

$850,000

1,100 hours

$  71,500

$       720

Grantees

Number of Projects

Contractor Hours

Contractor Costs

Grantee Hours

Grantee Labor Costs

O&M Costs

Totals on One-Time Proj. Basis

60% x 300 proj = 180projects

180 proj x 40 hrs/proj = 7,200 hours

180 proj x $3,000/proj = $540,000

180 proj x 5 hrs/proj

= 900 hours

900 hours x $55/hr

= $49,500

180 proj x $17/proj = $3,060

40 + 5 = 45 hrs/proj

$3,000 + ($55 x 5) + $17 = $3,292/project

40% x 300 proj =

120 projects

120 proj x 200 hrs/proj

= 24,000 hours

120 proj x $15,000/proj = $1,800,000

120 proj x 60 hr/proj

= 7,200 hours

7,200 hours x $55/hr

= $396,000

120 proj x $40/proj =

$4,800

200 + 60 = 260 hrs/proj

$15,000 + ($55 x 60) + $40 = $18,340/project

(None annually, one per 3-yrs; 3-yr costs spread to estimate annual costs)

(1proj x 2,400hrs/proj)/3

= 800 hours annually

(1proj x $300,000/proj)/3 = $100,000 annually

(1proj x 440hrs/proj)/3

= 147 hours annually

147 hours x $55/hr

= $8,085 annually

(1proj x $280/proj)/3 = $97

2400+440=2,840 hr/proj

$300,000 + ($55 x 440) + $280 = $324,480

300 projects

(+ one/3yrs)

32,000 hrs

$2,440,000

8,247 hours

$   453,585

$       7,957

	The estimated one-time cost, including contractor costs and hours, direct labor costs and hours, and O&M costs, for a permit applicant or grantee submitting environmental information to EPA’s Responsible Official for a CE determination or an EA/FONSI or an EIS/ROD is summarized in Table 6.

Table 6.  One-Time Estimated Cost for a Permit Applicant or Grantee

Entities	CE Projects	EA/FONSI Projects	EIS/ROD Projects

Permitees

Grantees	None

$3,292/project

45 hours/project

60% of 300 projects	$53,940/project

460 hours/project

11 projects/year

$18,340/project

260 hours/project

40% of 300 projects	$328,880/project

2,840 hours/project

1 project/year

$324,480/project

2,840 hours/project

1 project/3-year period

	The information submitted by entities is one-time only for applicant-proposed actions.  Based on EPA’s experience, under this final rule, EPA anticipates there will be approximately 300 grantee projects annually with about 60% of these projects documented with a CE, and about 40% with an EA/FONSI.  In addition, EPA estimates that one project (less than one percent of the total annual grantee projects) will have an EIS/ROD completed during a three-year period.  For permit applicants, EPA anticipates there will be approximately 12 projects annually with about 11 of the projects documented with an EA/FONSI.  In addition, EPA anticipates one project will have an EIS/ROD completed annually.  None will be documented initially with a CE.  Table 7 summarizes the estimated one-time total cost that may be incurred during any given year (e.g., annually) by an estimated 312 applicants, including contractor costs and hours, direct labor costs and hours, and O&M costs.

Table 7.  Summary of Estimated One-Time Total Costs for a Year

	Entities and One-Time Total Costs for a Year

     Contractor Cost

     Direct Labor Cost

     O&M

     Number of Projects

Sub-Totals

Annualized EIS Cost*

Totals	Permit Applicant Costs	Grant Applicant Costs

$    850,000			$2,340,000

        71,500			     445,500

             720			         7,860

12			300

$    922,220			$2,793,360

                                                                                $108,160

312 Projects	$3,823,740

*Approximately 1 EIS/ROD will be completed every 3 years; the annualized cost for this has been included.

5.	Screening Analysis of Economic Impacts on Small Businesses.

	5(a)	Small Businesses Considered in This Screening Analysis.  To assess the potential impacts of the rule on small businesses, EPA assessed the potential impacts the final rule may have on small businesses that may apply for a new source NPDES permit to be issued by EPA.  EPA anticipates the business types described in Section 2(e) are the same business types likely to apply to EPA in the out-years for new source NPDES permits, and that EPA will conduct NEPA reviews for these actions without applicant assistance or with applicant assistance through submission of environmental information or draft EAs and supporting documents or an EIS prepared by a contractor under a third-party agreement with EPA.  Regions 4, 6 and 10 currently handle the majority of these projects and EPA anticipates this will continue to be the case in the out-years.  Projects are anticipated to continue to involve crude oil and natural gas extraction in off-shore waters areas, hardrock mining, dairy farming, seafood processing, and CAFOs.

	EPA anticipates continued NPDES permit activity for crude oil and natural gas extraction in off-shore waters for energy development purposes.  Based on past experience, businesses are likely to include:  Chevron Corporation, Shell Exploration and Production (a subsidiary of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies), Exxon Mobil Corporation, and BP (British Petroleum).  Because of the nature of the business operations, any other businesses are expected to be generally of the same size.

The “small business” definition for NAICS code 211111, crude petroleum and natural gas extraction, is 500 employees.  An Internet search of these companies, summarized in Table 8, shows that none of these businesses are small businesses.  For purposes of this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis, EPA assumes there will not be any small businesses in this category applying to EPA for a new source NPDES permit in the out-years.

Table 8.  Business Size by Number of Employees and NAICS Size Definition for Code 211111

Business	Number of Employees and Internet Reference	NAICS Size Definition

Chevron Corporation

(second-largest US integrated oil company (behind Exxon Mobil): From hoovers.com website)	56,000 employees (2004)

http://www.hoovers.com/chevron-corporation

500 employees

Shell Exploration and Production

(excludes the other four core businesses of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies)	28,500 employees (2005)

http://www.shell.com “Welcome to Shell Exploration and Production”

500 employees

Exxon Mobil Corporation

(ten core companies worldwide; largest energy resource base of any non-government company: From exxonmobil website)

(second-largest integrated oil company ahead of Royal Dutch/Shell but behind BP: From hoovers.com website)	85,900 employees (2004)

http://www.hoovers.com/exxon-mobil

120,000 employees world-wide  (1998 news figures in http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/)

http://www2.exxonmobil.com/corporate/

500 employees

BP (British Petroleum)	102,900 employees (December 2004)

http://www.bp.com “BP Facts and Figures”

500 employees

	EPA anticipates continued NPDES permit activity for hardrock mining in Alaska and Idaho.  Based on past experience, businesses are likely to include:  Coeur Alaska (a subsidiary of Coeur d’Alene Mines Corporation), Teck Resources (now merged with Cominco Ltd. to form Teck Cominco Limited), and Kennecott Minerals Corporation (a subsidiary of Rio Tinto Group).  Because of the nature of the business operations, any other businesses are expected to be generally of the same size.

	The “small business” definition is 500 employees for NAICS codes 212221, gold ore mining; 212222, silver ore mining; 212231, lead ore and zinc ore mining; and 212234, copper ore and nickel ore mining.  An Internet search of these companies, summarized in Table 9, shows that none of these businesses are small businesses.  For purposes of this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis, EPA assumes there will not be any small businesses in this category applying to EPA for a new source NPDES permit in the out-years.

Table 9.  Business Size by Number of Employees and NAICS Size Definition for Codes 212221, 212222, 212231 and 212234

Business	Number of Employees and Internet Reference	NAICS Size Definition

Coeur Alaska, a subsidiary of Coeur d’Alene Mines Corporation

(world’s largest primary silver producer and a significant low-cost gold producer)	837 employees (2004; Coeur d’Alene Mines Corporation and its subsidiaries)

Coeur d’Alene Mines Corporation 2004 Annual Report at: http://www.coeur.com “Investor Relations”

500 employees

Teck Resources, merged with Cominco Ltd. to form Teck Cominco Limited

(zinc and lead mining)	6,710 employees (2004)

http://www.hoovers.com/teck-cominco/

500 employees

Kennecott Minerals Corporation, a subsidiary of Rio Tinto Group

(copper mining)	652 employees (in partnership with Placer Dome U.S.)

http://www.kennecottminerals.com/KMC-Glance.htm

33,000 employees (2004) Rio Tinto Group

http://www.hoovers.com/rio-tinto

500 employees

	EPA anticipates continued NPDES permit activity for dairy cattle farming CAFOs and milk and cheese production operations in New Mexico, Oklahoma (for CAFO-related operations only), Alaska and Idaho.  Based on past experience and because of the nature of the business operations, EPA anticipates any future businesses seeking new source NPDES permits are likely to be generally of the same size as those permitted in the past.  These businesses have included:  dairy farms in New Mexico operated by Jones Dairy, Rio Vista Dairy (aka Real Vista Dairy), Wright Farms, Opportunity Dairy, and H.A.W. Farms; and West Farm Foods and Sorrento Lactalis in the Northwest.

	The “small business” definition for NAICS code 112120, dairy cattle and milk production, is $750,000 in revenues/sales.  A Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) and an Internet search of these companies, summarized in Table 10, shows that Jones Dairy, H.A.W. Farms, West Farm Foods and Sorrento Lactalis (a subsidiary of France’s Groupe Lactalis) are not small businesses; D&B verified that Rio Vista Dairy (aka Real Vista Dairy), Wright Farms, Inc., and Opportunity Dairy LLC are small businesses.  In the out-years, EPA anticipates it is possible that other businesses such as any of those evaluated could apply to EPA for a new source NPDES permit.  For purposes of this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis, EPA assumes there may be at least one small business in this category applying to EPA for a new source NPDES permit.

Table 10.  Business Size by Dollar Amount of Revenues/Sales and NAICS Size Definition for Code 112120

Business	Revenues/Sales and Reference	NAICS Size Definition

 Jones Dairy	$58.0 million  Sales

http://www.hoovers.com/jones-dairy-farm 	$750,000 Rev/Sales

Rio Vista Dairy

(aka Real Vista Dairy)	$700,000  Sales

Dun & Bradstreet: 87-720-0204

http://www.hoovers.com	$750,000 Rev/Sales

Wright Farms, Inc.	$60,000 Sales

Dun & Bradstreet: 18-833-3330

http://www.hoovers.com	$750,000 Rev/Sales

Opportunity Dairy LLC	$130,000 Sales

Dun & Bradstreet: 18-393-9482

http://www.hoovers.com	$750,000 Rev/Sales

H.A.W. Farms	$1,400,000  Sales

Dun & Bradstreet: 03-342-7720

http://www.hoovers.com	$750,000 Rev/Sales

West Farm Foods	$1.1 billion  Sales

http://www.darigold.com/at_a_glance.asp 	$750,000 Rev/Sales

Sorrento Lactalis, Inc.

(Acquired by France’s Groupe Lactalis in 1992)	$800.00 million  Revenue (2004)

http://biz/yahoo.com.ic/112/112876.html

$1,437,517,800 Sales   (Groupe Lactalis)

Dun & Bradstreet: 39-180-3186

http://www.hoovers.com	$750,000 Rev/Sales

	EPA anticipates continued NPDES permit activity for seafood processing operations in Alaska and Idaho.  Based on past experience and because of the nature of the business operations, EPA anticipates any future businesses seeking new source NPDES permits are likely to be generally of the same size as those permitted in the past.  These businesses have included: Alaska Glacier Seafood Company (a subsidiary of Alaska Glacier Seafoods, Inc.) and Kwikpak Fisheries, LLC.

	The “small business” definition for NAICS code 311712, seafood fresh and frozen processing, is 500 employees.  A Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) and an Internet search of these companies, summarized in Table 11, indicates that both Alaska Glacier Seafoods Company and Kwikpak Fisheries, LLC, are small businesses; Alaska Glacier Seafoods Company is a subsidiary of Alaska Glacier Seafoods, Inc.  In the out-years, EPA anticipates it is possible that other businesses such as these could apply to EPA for a new source NPDES permit.  For purposes of this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis, EPA assumes there may be at least one small business in this category applying to EPA for a new source NPDES permit.

Table 11.  Business Size by Number of Employees and NAICS Size Definition for Code 311712

Business	Number of Employees and Internet Reference	NAICS Size Definition

Alaska Glacier Seafoods Company, a subsidiary of Alaska Glacier Seafoods, Incorporated	10 employees Branch and HQ

Dun & Bradstreet: 07-330-0720 (Branch) and 01-102-2345 (HQ)

http://www.hoovers.com	500 employees

Kwikpak Fisheries, LLC	About 120 employees (2004)

From: “Kwikpak Employment” chart, Yukon Delta Fisheries Development Association, Fourth Quarter 2004 Report, October 1, 2004 - December 31, 2004; http://www.dced.state.ak.us/bsc/CDQ/pub/CDQ_YDFDA_Qtr4_Report_04.pdf

Company Website located - employee information not located on Website

http://kwikpakfisheries.com , nor on http://www.coopamerica.org/ppubs/greenpages/  Search keyword: kwikpak fisheries	500 employees

	EPA anticipates continued NPDES permit activity for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).  CAFOs, including cattle, hogs, pigs and chickens, are covered under a general permit in Alaska and Idaho; individual NEPA reviews are not required.  Based on past experience and because of the nature of the business operations, EPA anticipates any future businesses seeking new source NPDES permits are likely to be generally of the same size as those permitted in the past.  These businesses have included: Tyson Foods, Inc., for chicken and hog CAFOs in Oklahoma and operations related to dairy farms in New Mexico and Oklahoma (see above discussion of dairy cattle farming CAFOs and milk and cheese production operations).

	The “small business” definition for NAICS code 112310, chicken egg production is $11,500,000 in revenues/sales, and for codes 112320, 112330, and 112340, broilers, turkey production and poultry hatcheries, the definition is $750,000 in revenues/sales.  For code 112112, cattle feedlots, the definition is $2,000,000 in revenue/sales, and for code 112210, hog and pig farming, the definition is $750,000 in revenues/sales.  A Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) and an Internet search of these companies, summarized in Table 12, shows that Tyson Foods, Inc., Jones Dairy, West Farm Foods and Sorrento Lactalis (a subsidiary of France’s Groupe Lactalis) are not small businesses; D&B verified that H.A.W. Farms, Rio Vista Dairy (aka Real Vista Dairy), Wright Farms, Inc., and Opportunity Dairy LLC are small businesses when considered as CAFOs as the primary business operation rather than dairy farming and milk production as their primary operation.  In the out-years, EPA anticipates it is possible that other businesses such as any of those evaluated could apply to EPA for a new source NPDES permit.  For purposes of this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis, EPA assumes there may be at least one small business in this category applying to EPA for a new source NPDES permit.

Table 12.  Business Size by Dollar Amount of Revenues/Sales and NAICS Size Definition for

Codes 112310, 112320, 112330, 112340, 112112, 112210

Business	Revenues/Sales and Reference	NAICS Size Definition

Tyson Foods, Incorporated

(Worlds largest processor and marketer of chicken, beef and pork; Tyson is the second-largest food company in Fortune 500)	$26.4 billion  Sales (2004)

http://ir.tysonfoodsinc.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=65476&p=irol-irhome (September 12, 2005)	$11,500,000 Rev/Sales

(egg production)

$2,000,000 Rev/Sales

(cattle feedlots)

$750,000 Rev/Sales

(all other codes)

Jones Dairy	$58.0 million  Sales

http://www.hoovers.com/jones-dairy-farm 	$2,000,000 Rev/Sales

(cattle feedlots)

Rio Vista Dairy

(aka Real Vista Dairy)	$700,000  Sales

Dun & Bradstreet: 87-720-0204

http://www.hoovers.com	$2,000,000 Rev/Sales

(cattle feedlots)

Wright Farms, Inc.	$60,000 Sales

http://www.hoovers.com	$2,000,000 Rev/Sales

(cattle feedlots)

Opportunity Dairy LLC	$130,000 Sales

http://www.hoovers.com	$2,000,000 Rev/Sales

(cattle feedlots)

H.A.W. Farms	$1,400,000  Sales

Dun & Bradstreet: 03-342-7720	$2,000,000 Rev/Sales

(cattle feedlots)

West Farm Foods	$1.1 billion  Sales

http://www.darigold.com/at_a_glance.asp	$2,000,000 Rev/Sales

(cattle feedlots)

Sorrento Lactalis, Inc.

(Acquired by France’s Groupe Lactalis in 1992)	$800.00 million  Revenue (2004)

http://biz/yahoo.com.ic/112/112876.html

$1,437,517,800 Sales (Groupe Lactalis)

http://www.hoovers.com	$2,00,000 Rev/Sales

(cattle feedlots)

	In summary, this screening analysis considered five types of business operations that have previously applied to EPA for new source NPDES permits; these five business types encompass 13 NAICS codes with hardrock mining including four NAICS codes and CAFOs including six NAICS codes.  The Agency anticipates these will continue to be the types of businesses applying to EPA for NPDES permits in the out-years.  Although these are one-time actions23 for NEPA review purposes, EPA believes that in the out-years the types of businesses will be the same as the business types analyzed in this screening analysis.  Table 13 summarizes the RFA/SBREFA screening analysis for small businesses.

Table 13.  Summary of Business Types With Anticipated Small Businesses

Business Type(s) and NAICS Code(s)	NAICS Size Definition	Small Businesses Anticipated in Out-Yearsa

Crude oil and natural gas extraction

211111 - Crude petroleum and natural gas extraction

500 employees	4 of 4 businesses - not small businesses

EPA assumes there will not be any small businesses in this category in the out-years

Hardrock mining (recently gold/silver)

212221 - Gold ore mining

212222 - Silver ore mining

500 Employees	3 of 3 businesses - not small businesses

EPA assumes there will not be any small businesses in this category in the out-years

Milk and cheese production operations

112120 - Dairy cattle and milk production

$750,000 Revenue/Sales	4 of 7 businesses - not small businesses

3 of 7 businesses - small business

EPA assumes there will be at least one small business in this category in the out-years

Seafood processing operations

311712 - Seafood fresh and frozen processing

500 Employees	2 of 2 businesses - small businesses

EPA assumes there will be at least one small business in this category in the out-years

Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs)

112310 - Chicken egg production

112320 - Broilers and other meat type

                chicken production

112330 - Turkey production

112340 - Poultry hatcheries

112112 - Cattle feedlots

112210 - Hog and pig farming

(Also see 112120 - Dairy cattle and milk production)

$11,500,000 Rev/Sales

$750,000 Revenue/Sales

$750,000 Revenue/Sales

$750,000 Revenue/Sales

$2,000,000 Rev/Sales

$750,000 Revenue/Sales	4 of 8 businesses - not small businesses

4 of 8 businesses - small business

EPA assumes there will be at least one small business in this category in the out-years

aFor purposes of this screening analysis, EPA assessed a total of 24 businesses representing five types of businesses that may require an environmental review of an new source NPDES permit to be issued by EPA.  Of these 24 businesses, nine are small businesses.  Assuming approximately 12 permit assessments annually, EPA estimates approximately four of this 12 will be small businesses.

	5(b)	Calculation of Estimated One-Time Cost Impact on Small Businesses.  Permit applicants apply to EPA for initial new source NPDES permits when necessary based on their business operation needs.  There is no set universe of initial permit applicants.  Further, the level of NEPA documentation and the project-specific information the Responsible Official needs for decision-making is determined by the potential for environmental impact of the action, or the facility to be permitted or the project to be funded by the action rather than the dollar amount of the project or whether the applicant is a permit applicant or a grantee.  Thus, EPA cannot assume the level of NEPA documentation that would be required for a specific project.  However, based on past years’ experience, EPA assumes that there will be approximately 12 new source NPDES permit applications annually with about 11 of these projects documented with EAs/FONSIs.  In addition, EPA anticipates one project will have an EIS/ROD completed annually.  None will be documented initially with a CE.

	Based on consideration of permit applicants in previous years, EPA assumes that for approximately 12 annual projects, about eight will be for large business permit applicants and about four will be for small business permit applicants.  Based on analysis of grant applicants in previous years (see Section 6), EPA assumes that of approximately 300 annual grants, about 90 will be for large governments, about 170 for small governments, and about 40 for special districts.  Thus, for a total of approximately 312 annual projects, the total estimated annual number of small entities is about 174.

	It has been EPA’s experience (see Attachment 2) that EISs/RODs are generally required for new source NPDES permit actions associated with crude oil and natural gas extraction in off-shore waters and with hardrock mining in Alaska and Idaho.  As summarized in Table 13, none of the permit applicants considered in this screening analysis, or anticipated in the out-years, are small businesses.  Therefore, the estimated cost of $328,880 for an EIS (see Table 6) (or even an estimated one-time cost of over a million dollars for new EISs for a mining project or an oil and gas extraction project with multiple complex issues that EPA understands permit applicants may have experienced) would not be a significant economic impact on a small business.

	It has been EPA’s experience (see Attachment 2) that EAs/FONSIs are generally required for new source NPDES permit actions associated with milk and cheese production, seafood processing, and CAFOs.24  As summarized in Table 13, small business permit applicants were  identified, and EPA assumes there will be at least one small business in these business types in the out-years.  Small businesses incurring a one-time cost of $53,940 (see Table 6) for submission of environmental documentation to EPA for its use in preparing an EA/FONSI experience an economic impact condition of greater than 3% if this cost is taken only in the first business year incurred, and an economic impact condition between 1% and 3% when this cost is spread over a three or five year business period.  The estimated one-time only economic impact on a small business with annual revenues/sales of $750,000 would be:25

		($53,940/$750,000) x 100	=	7.2% of the revenues/sales for the one year in which the permit action is undertaken at the applicant’s request

		Spreading this one-time $53,940 cost over a 3- or 5-year business period:

		($53,940/($750,000 x 3 years) x 100 =	2.4% of the 3-year revenues/sales

		($53,940/($750,000 x 5 years) x 100 =	1.4% of the 5-year revenues/sales

It has been EPA’s experience that EAs/FONSIs document these types of business operations and EPA anticipates this will continue in the out-years.  However, for purposes of this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis, should an EIS be required for the NPDES permit for the business operation, the estimated one-time only economic impact on a small business with annual revenues/sales of $750,000 would be greater than 3% whether this expense is taken in the initial year or spread over a three or five year business period:

		($328,880/$750,000) x 100	=	44% of the revenues/sales for the one year in which the permit action is undertaken at the applicant’s request

		Spreading this one-time $328,880 cost over a 3- or 5-year business period:

		($328,880/($750,000 x 3 years) x 100 =	15% of the 3-year revenues/sales

		($328,880/($750,000 x 5 years) x 100 =	8.8% of the 5-year revenues/sales

	5(c)	Summary of Small Businesses Experiencing an Economic Impact Condition.

	In summary, this screening analysis considered the five types of business operations that have previously applied to EPA for new source NPDES permits; these five business types encompass 13 NAICS codes with hardrock mining including four NAICS codes and CAFOs including six NAICS codes.  The Agency anticipates these will continue to be the types of businesses applying to EPA for NPDES permits in the out-years, and that the majority of this permit activity will occur in EPA Regions 4, 6 and 10.  Two of these business types, crude oil and natural gas extraction, and hardrock mining, do not involve small business permit applicants.  The small businesses that could be impacted are those involved with milk and cheese production, seafood processing, and CAFOs.  For the 10 distinct businesses included in this screening analysis involved with these business types, five are large businesses and five are small businesses.  The economic impact of the compliance costs (e.g., submission of environmental documentation for EPA’s use in preparing a CE determination or an EA/FONSI or an EIS/ROD) to small business entities (e.g., permit applicants) was evaluated.  Based on analysis of permit applicants in previous years, EPA assumes that for approximately 12 annual projects, about eight will be for large business permit applicants and about four will be for small business permit applicants.26

	CE Determination:  To date, EPA has never determined that a new source NPDES permit initially meets the criteria for categorical exclusion.  EPA believes the NEPA documentation for new source NPDES permits initially issued by EPA will continue to be EAs/FONSIs or EISs/RODs.

	EA/FONSI Documentation:  Based on analysis of previous businesses that have applied to EPA for new source NPDES permits, assuming approximately 12 permit applications annually with about 11 of these documented with an EA/FONSI, and assuming that similar types and numbers of businesses may apply in the out-years, EPA believes that approximately four small businesses could experience a one-time economic impact condition of 3% or greater for the one-time costs associated with submitting environmental information to EPA for an EA/FONSI.

	EIS/ROD Documentation: Based on analysis of previous businesses that have applied to EPA for new source NPDES permits, assuming approximately 12 permit applications annually with about one of these documented with an EIS/ROD, and assuming that similar types and numbers of businesses may apply in the out-years, EPA anticipates that EIS-level documentation would likely not be required for any small businesses.  However, for purposes of this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis, should an EIS be required for the NPDES permit for at least one but no more than four small businesses, these small businesses could experience a one-time economic impact condition of 3% or greater for the one-time costs associated with submitting environmental information to EPA for an EIS/ROD.

6.	Screening Analysis of Economic Impacts on Small Governments

	6(a)	Small Governments Considered in This Screening Analysis.  To assess the potential impacts of the final rule on small governments, EPA assessed the potential impacts the final rule may have on small governments that may apply to EPA for STAG grants for actions subject to NEPA (see Sections 2(e) and 4(a), and footnote 4).  EPA assumes that the government types listed as grant applicants in EPA’s Special Appropriations Act Projects and Program (SAAPP) database system (maintained by EPA’s Office of Water) will remain the same in the out-years.  These grants have been, and are anticipated to continue to be, issued to government entities in all 10 EPA Regions.  As discussed in Section 3(b), a “small governmental jurisdiction” is the government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000.

	Grant applicants apply to EPA generally for STAG grants the government jurisdictions have identified to Congress through the Congressional appropriations process and that are subsequently listed in EPA’s Appropriations Act.  There is no set universe of grant applicants.  Further, the level of NEPA documentation and the project-specific information the Responsible Official needs for decision-making is determined by the potential for environmental impact of the action, or the facility to be permitted or the project to be funded by the action rather than the dollar amount of the project or whether the applicant is a permit applicant or a grantee.  Thus, EPA cannot assume the level of NEPA documentation that would be required for a specific project.  However, based on past years’ experience, under the final rule, EPA anticipates there will be approximately 300 grantee projects annually with about 60% of these projects documented with a CE, and about 40% with an EA/FONSI.  In addition, EPA estimates that one project (less than one percent of the total annual grantee projects) will have an EIS/ROD completed during a three-year period.

	Based on analysis of grant applicants in previous years (see Attachment 4), EPA anticipates that of approximately 300 annual grantees, about 90 will be large governments, about 170 small governments, and about 40 special districts.  Based on analysis of permit applicants in previous years (see Section 5), EPA anticipates that for approximately 12 annual projects, about eight will be for large business permit applicants and about four will be for small business permit applicants.  For a total of approximately 312 annual projects, the total estimated annual number of small entities is about 174.

	6(b)	Calculation of Estimated One-Time Cost Impact on Small Governments.  For purposes of this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis, EPA used the information in the SAAPP system for the three-year period, 2002 through 2004.  Within this time-frame, EPA first identified the active grants, eliminating those that are inactive or closed out.  In order to identify individual grant actions, EPA then combined years for which funding was appropriated for the same type of project (e.g., wastewater, drinking water, CSO (combined sewer overflow), MS4 (municipal separate storm sewer system), other, or not classified27).  Individual projects were thus identified on this basis.  This methodology also identifies government entities receiving grants for multiple projects and for which individual NEPA reviews would be required.  The U.S. Census Bureau website (http://www.census.gov) was the source of the population information, including total population, household population,28 average household size, and median household income.  Population statistics are not available for special districts.  The Census Bureau’s annual “general revenue” information for special districts was used in this screening analysis.  Approximately 600 projects were identified as managed by EPA’s Regions for this three-year period with about 178 large government grantees, about 339 small government grantees, and about 82 special districts.  These were then annualized to approximately 300 projects with about 90 large government grantees, about 170 small government grantees, and about 40 special districts.

	Attachment 3 lists the grantee name, the government type, the population and SBA size designation, the grant amount, and project type by year.  EPA notes, however, that the NEPA environmental review is not dependent on the dollar amount of the project but rather the potential for environmental impacts.  Attachment 4 lists the grantees on the basis of combined years for which funding was appropriated for the same project type (as described above).  EPA recommends either a “Revenue Test” (annualized compliance costs as a percentage of annual government revenues) or an “Income Test” (annualized compliance costs to household (per capita) as a percentage of median household (per capita) income) for evaluating the economic impact of a rule on small governments.  Revenues were not available on an individual government entity basis; therefore, for this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis, EPA used the “Income Test.”  As noted above, household population and average household size are available for all government entities on the Census Bureau website, except for special districts.  These numbers were used to calculate number of households (e.g., household population/average household size = number of households).  The estimated one time cost was then calculated for the government entities based on their submission to EPA of environmental documentation for EPA’s use in preparing a CE determination or an EA/FONSI or an EIS/ROD.  The specific type of NEPA documentation for each listed project is not known (e.g., the NEPA process may not yet have been initiated for some of the projects, or an EA that is underway may lead to either a FONSI or the need for an EIS), nor is it necessary for this screening analysis.  What does need to be determined is the potential for small government entities to experience an economic impact condition.  By calculating the estimated cost for each of the three types of NEPA documentation (e.g., the compliance cost) per household as a percentage of median household income, EPA determined the likelihood of a small government entity experiencing an economic impact condition.

(Cost for CE or EA or EIS-related documentation)   x 100	= Documentation cost as a % of

(No. Households) x (Median Household Income)		    per capita median income

Whether or not a small government entity experiences an economic impact condition related to the one-time submission of environmental documentation for any of the three levels of NEPA review is dependent on the relative relationship between the number of households and the median household income (e.g., there is not a defined limit on either; if one is high, the other may be low with no impact, but a low number of households and low median household income is more likely to result in an economic impact condition).  Attachment 4 lists the results of these calculations for the three-year period 2002 through 2004, and annualization of these results, for governmental entities.

	Household statistics are not available for special districts.  However, general revenue information is available on an annual basis for certain years.  To determine whether special districts may be experiencing an economic impact condition, EPA used the general revenues information available on the Census Bureau website for the year 2002.  During the 2002 through 2004 time-frame, 30 special district projects were initially active in 2002 (30 in 2002, 33 in 2003 and 19 in 2004; 82 total projects).  For the year 2002, EPA calculated the one-time compliance costs for special districts as follows assuming that in the year 2002, a special district’s general revenues were $63,859,780.  In the out-years, EPA assumes a special district’s general revenues will increase to about $65,000,000.  Based on these assumptions, Table 14 summarizes the estimated one-time compliance costs for special districts for the three levels of NEPA documentation for 2002 and for an out-year.  (Assuming maximum costs, EPA used the same document costs for both sets of calculations.  In 2002, about 50% of projects were documented with CEs, and 50% with EAs/FONSIs.  One EIS/ROD was completed in a 3-year period.  In the out-years, EPA anticipates 60% of the projects will be documented with CEs, and 40% with EAs/FONSIs.  EPA anticipates one EIS/ROD will be completed in a three-year period.)  For both the 2002 and the out-year projection, special districts experience an economic impact condition less than 1% for submitting information to EPA for its use in preparing any of the three levels of NEPA documentation.

Table 14. One-Time Estimated Costs for Special District Grant Applicants

Year	CE Determination	EA/FONSI Determination	EIS/EA Determination

2002	    $3,292      x 100 = 0.0052%

$63,859,780 	    $18,340    x 100 = 0.029%

$63,859,780	   $324,480   x 100 = 0.51%

$63,859,780

Out-Year	    $3,292      x 100 = 0.0051%

$65,000,000	    $18,340    x 100 = 0.028%

$65,000,000	    $324,480  x 100 = 0.50%

$65,000,000

	Based on EPA’s experience, in any given year, EPA anticipates there may be approximately 300 projects undergoing environmental review for government entities of which about 90 are large governments, about 170 are small governments, and about 40 are special districts.  Review of Attachment 4 and Table 14 shows that for governmental entities:

None of the governmental entities, including small governments, experienced an economic impact condition equal to or greater than 1% for one-time submission of environmental documentation related to a CE determination.

EPA estimates that possibly two small governments may experience an economic impact condition equal to or greater than 1%, but less than 3%, if required to submit one-time environmental documentation for EPA’s use in preparing an EA/FONSI.  However, this needs to be considered in the context that in the out-years:  for an anticipated 300 annual projects, 60% of these projects are anticipated to be documented with a CE and 40% documented with an EA/FONSI.  Further, these two grantees represent approximately 1.1% of all small entities (about 4 small businesses and about 170 small governments, or approximately 174) subject to the final rule.

EPA estimates that possibly about 57 small governments may experience an economic impact condition equal to or greater than 1% but less than 3%, and about 22 small governments may experience an economic impact condition equal to or greater than 3% if required to submit one-time environmental documentation for EPA’s use in preparing an EIS/ROD.  However, only one EIS/ROD per three-year period is anticipated (less than one percent of the total annual grantee projects), so the impact potential needs to be considered in the total context of approximately 300 annual projects spread over large governments, small governments, and special districts and the likelihood of any small government having such a project during a three-year time period.  Further, the 57 grantees represent about 33% and the 22 grantees represent about 13% of all small entities (about 4 small businesses and about 170 small governments, or approximately 174) subject to the final rule.

	6(c)	Summary of Small Governments Experiencing an Economic Impact Condition.  In summary, this screening analysis considered the active STAG grants and the government entity grantees within the time-frame 2002 through 2004.  During this three-year period, there have been approximately 600 active STAG grants in EPA’s 10 Regional Offices.  Of these, 178 are large government grantees, 339 are small government grantees, and 82 are special district grantees.  On an annual basis in the out-years, EPA anticipates there will be approximately 300 STAG grants, with about 90 for large government grantees, about 170 for small government grantees, and about 40 for special districts.  As described in Section 6(b), an “Income Test” was used to calculate the economic impact for large and small governments, and a “Revenue Test” for the year 2002 and for an out-year projection for special districts.  An economic impact condition was considered to exist at 1% or greater, or 3% or greater, using these tests.  The economic impact of the compliance costs (e.g., submission of environmental documentation to EPA as part of the environmental review process for a CE determination or an EA/FONSI or an EIS/ROD) to small government entities (e.g., STAG grant applicants) was evaluated.

	CE Determination:  Under the final rule, EPA anticipates that 60% of approximately 300 projects annually will be documented with a CE determination.  Based on analysis of previous government entities that have applied to EPA for STAG grants, the economic impact for all government entities was less than 1% for submission of environmental information in support of a CE determination.

	EA/FONSI Determination:  Under the final rule, EPA anticipates that 40% of approximately 300 projects annually will be documented with an EA/FONSI.  Based on analysis of previous government entities that have applied to EPA for STAG grants and assuming approximately 300 projects annually with similar types and numbers of governments applying in the out-years, EPA estimates two small governments could experience an economic impact condition of greater than 1%, but less than 3%, for the one-time costs associated with submitting environmental information to EPA for an EA/FONSI.

	EIS/ROD Determination:  Under the final rule, EPA anticipates that an EIS/ROD may be prepared for one project (less than one percent of the total annual grantee projects) during a three-year period.  Based on analysis of previous government entities that have applied to EPA for STAG grants and assuming approximately 300 projects annually with similar types and numbers of governments applying in the out-years, EPA estimates that for environmental documentation submitted one time to EPA for its use in preparing an EIS/ROD, 57 small governments could experience an economic impact condition greater than 1% but less than 3%, and 22 small governments could experience an economic impact condition greater than 3%.  However, only one EIS/ROD per three-year period is anticipated, so rather than this potential impact being on about 79 small governments, the impact potential needs to be considered in the total context of approximately 300 projects annually spread over large governments, small governments, and special districts.

	7.  Small Entity Flexibility.

	The purpose of the RFA/SBREFA is “to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the business, organizations and governmental jurisdictions subject to the regulation” where appropriate and applicable.  The RFA/SBREFA does not require an agency to necessarily minimize a rule’s impact on small entities if there are legal, policy, factual or other reasons for not doing so.  The RFA/SBREFA requires only that agencies determine, to the extent feasible, the rule’s economic impact on small entities, explore regulatory options for reducing any significant economic impact on a substantial number of such entities, and explain their ultimate choice of regulatory approach.

	As part of this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis that demonstrates the final rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA also considered the NEPA documentation procedures applicable to small entities in terms of the RFA’s directive that a rule:

“reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601(6)), the use of such techniques as:

(1) establishing differing compliance and reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond;

Environmental information must be submitted by an applicant only for EPA actions subject to NEPA that are based on applicant proposals unless EPA will prepare the NEPA documents without assistance from the applicant.  The information to be submitted is required only when an applicant applies for a new source NPDES permit to be issued by EPA or for a grant for an action subject to NEPA, a one-time application process.  The Responsible Official, however, may ask the applicant to provide additional information if the Responsible Official needs it to prepare the EA or EIS.  There are no schedules in the regulations for this information submission process.

		(2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or

EPA believes that because the final rule requires one-time NEPA assessment of environmental impacts of the applicant’s proposed action, the effects on any small entities will be limited to the cost of preparing the documentation to support this assessment.  Further, the documentation requirements are no greater than necessary to ensure that the Responsible Official can prepare the level of NEPA documentation necessary for decision-making commiserate with the potential for environmental impacts associated with the project.  Based on EPA’s experience, EPA anticipates that most entities’ projects will require either a CE determination or EA/FONSI documentation.  Also based on EPA’s experience, EPA anticipates that an EIS/ROD may be required for one new source NPDES permit action each year for an action proposed by a business entity, and that one EIS/ROD may be required once every three years for a STAG project for a governmental entity.

		(3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof.”

The environmental information submitted by an applicant under the final rule is one-time only for applicant-proposed actions; e.g., actions proposed by grantees seeking funding assistance from EPA or for an NPDES permit application initiated by the permit applicant.  In either case, EPA assumes the action will directly benefit the applicant (such as a grantee seeking STAG funding for renovation of a community drinking water system, or a permit applicant seeking an NPDES permit from EPA to further the applicant’s business interests).  Nonetheless, if the applicant cannot afford to provide the required environmental information to EPA, then EPA would undertake the environmental review without input from the applicant.29  Further, grantees may be grant-eligible for certain costs associated with providing environmental information to EPA.30  Permit applicants are not eligible for EPA financial assistance.

	Although this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities.  EPA has attempted to reduce the cost to all entities, including small entities, through the following provisions of the final rule:

Section 6.300:  An EID is not required when the action is categorically excluded, or the applicant will prepare a draft EA and supporting documents.  The Responsible Official may prepare the NEPA documents without environmental information submitted by the applicant.

Section 6.302:

The Responsible Official may prepare generic guidance for categories of actions involving a large number of applicants; and must ensure early involvement of applicants, consult with the applicant and provide guidance describing the scope and level of environmental information required, and provide guidance on a project-by-project basis to any applicant seeking assistance.

The Responsible Official must consider the extent to which the applicant is capable of providing the required information, may not require the applicant to gather data or perform analyses that unnecessarily duplicate either existing data or the results of existing analyses available to EPA, and must limit the request for environmental information to that necessary for the environmental review.

Section 6.303:  An applicant may enter into a third-party agreement with EPA.  For grantees, third-party contractor costs may be eligible for cost reimbursement.  (New source NPDES permit applicants are not eligible for EPA financial assistance.)

	In summary, EPA’s regulations are applicable to EPA actions subject to NEPA, including certain entity-proposed projects.  Because the projects are proposed by the entities, including small businesses and small governments, EPA does not know what projects will be proposed, when they will be proposed, or what level of NEPA review will be required for each individual project.  In this regard, EPA’s NEPA review process is reactive to an applicant’s request.  These factors are built into this screening assessment, including assumptions about the entities likely to be subject to the regulations, the types of projects they are likely to propose, and the degree of possible economic impact based on the NEPA review process and the three levels of environmental documentation possible under this process using available historical information as future indicators.

8.	Statement of Impact on Small Entities Experiencing an Economic Impact Condition and Finding of No Significant Economic Impact on a Substantial Number of Small Entities

	The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is amending its procedures for implementing the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).  The final rule also includes minor, technical amendments to the Agency’s procedures for implementing Executive Order 12114, “Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions.”

	Certain applicants must submit environmental information to EPA as part of the process of complying with either NEPA or Executive Order 12114.  EPA’s Executive Order 12114 procedures further the purpose of NEPA and provide that EPA may be guided by these procedures to the extent they are applicable.  Therefore, when EPA conducts an environmental assessment pursuant to its Executive Order 12114 procedures, the Agency generally follows its NEPA procedures.

	Those subject to the final NEPA rule include EPA employees who must comply with NEPA and certain grant and permit applicants who must submit environmental information to EPA for their proposed projects.  The EPA Responsible Official is responsible for the environmental review process, including any categorical exclusion determination or the scope, accuracy, and contents of a final environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS) and any supporting documents.  The applicant contributes by submitting environmental information to EPA as part of the environmental review process.  There is no set universe of grant or permit applicants.  The information submitted by grant or permit applicants is one-time only on a per-project basis for EPA actions subject to NEPA that are based on applicant proposals.  Grantees (primarily grants for special projects identified in EPA’s State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account) or permit applicants (for new source NPDES permits issued by EPA) are required to provide environmental information to EPA as part of the environmental review process unless the EPA Responsible Official decides to prepare the NEPA documents without assistance from the applicant.  If the applicant cannot afford to provide the required environmental information to EPA, then EPA would undertake the environmental review without input from the applicant.  Further, certain grantees may be grant-eligible for certain costs associated with providing environmental information to EPA; permit applicants are not eligible for EPA financial assistance.

	The NEPA review for a project may result in a categorical exclusion (CE), or an EA documented with a finding of no significant impact (EA/FONSI), or an EIS documented with a record of decision (EIS/ROD).  (EPA assumes a project may be documented with a CE only for grantee-proposed projects.  EPA does not anticipate that an initial new source NPDES permit application would be documented with a CE.)  For any specific project, only one of these levels of documentation is generally prepared.  Applicants may submit an environmental information document (EID) to EPA as part of the environmental review process.  Alternately, an applicant may submit a draft EA or a draft EIS and supporting documents.  Applicants may prepare and submit the information directly, or may enter a third-party contract agreement with EPA for preparation of an EA or EIS and supporting documentation.  For purposes of determining the maximum costs to applicants, EPA assumed that grant and permit applicants would expend time and incur contractor costs to submit:  (1) information to support application of a CE with environmental information prepared directly by the applicant’s contractor; or (2) a draft EA and supporting documents prepared directly by the applicant’s contractor; or (3) a draft and final EIS and supporting documents prepared by the applicant’s contractor under a third-party agreement with EPA.

	Businesses, including small businesses, are applicants applying to EPA for a new source NPDES permit under §402 of the CWA.  EPA issues new source NPDES permits only in states and U.S. territories that have not assumed authority for this program, the District of Columbia, off-shore waters, and on federally-recognized Indian tribal lands (where the tribe has not assumed this authority).  Permit applicants are not limited to a specific business sector.  EPA has permitted, and anticipates continued permit activity, with projects typically involving:  oil and gas extraction from off-shore waters, hardrock mining (recently gold, silver, lead and zinc, and copper), dairy cattle and milk production, seafood processing, and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) including poultry, cattle, hogs and pigs.

	EPA used the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) “small business” definitions codified at 13 CFR 121.201 by category of business using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes; a “small business” applies to a firm’s parent company and all affiliates as a single entity.  EPA used the NAICS codes for business types that have previously applied to EPA for new source NPDES permits and the SBA small business designation for each business type because EPA anticipates these are the same business types likely to apply to EPA in the out-years for new source NPDES permits.

	Governments, including small governments, are grant applicants applying to EPA for funding of STAG grants and include state and local governments, federally-recognized Indian tribes and special districts.  Approximately 75% of EPA’s grants are under the STAG appropriations account.  Certain line items in the STAG appropriations account are not subject to NEPA.  Grantee actions subject to NEPA are predominately under the STAG appropriations account, including consideration of the Wastewater Treatment Construction Grants Program and other actions subject to NEPA, including those under the Agency’s Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) account.  EPA used the RFA/SBREFA definition of a “small governmental jurisdiction,” the government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; EPA also included federally-recognized Indian tribes that applied for STAG grants in the analysis.

	The RFA/SBREFA defines “small organizations” as any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.  Each year, EPA awards approximately $4 billion in grants.  Of that amount, approximately 89% is awarded to states, federally-recognized Indian tribes, and local governments for STAG projects and implementation of environmental programs; most of these grants are awarded to governmental jurisdictions for special projects identified in the STAG account.  About 6% are awarded to non-profit organizations and special interest groups and about 4% to educational institutions for a broad range of purposes including, for example, community outreach and education, workshops and conferences, training, and cooperative agreements to non-profit senior organizations to support EPA’s Senior Environmental Employee program.  These grants are generally awarded under specific statutory authorities that are exempt from NEPA (see Attachment 1).  A small organization is not likely to receive a grant from EPA for an action subject to NEPA under EPA’s regulations; therefore, small organizations were not included in EPA’s small entity impact analysis.

	Based on EPA’s experience, under the final rule, EPA anticipates that annually there will be approximately 300 grantee projects with about 60% of these projects documented with a CE, and about 40% with an EA/FONSI.  In addition, EPA estimates that one project (less than one percent of the total annual grantee projects) will have an EIS/ROD completed during a three-year period.  For permit applicants, EPA anticipates there will be approximately 12 projects annually with about 11 of the projects documented with an EA/FONSI.  In addition, EPA anticipates one project will have an EIS/ROD completed annually.  None will be documented initially with a CE.  EPA estimated the one-time costs for applicants to prepare the environmental documentation by including contractor hours and costs, direct labor hours and costs, and O&M for documentation submitted to EPA to support a CE determination, or an EA/FONSI, or an EIS/ROD.  For a grantee, EPA estimates an applicant’s one-time costs for submitting environmental information will be: $3,292 for CE documentation, or $18,340 for EA/FONSI documentation, or $324,480 for EIS/ROD documentation.  For a permit applicant, EPA estimates an applicant’s one-time costs for submitting environmental information will be:  $53,940 for EA/FONSI documentation, or $328,880 for EIS/ROD documentation.  These figures may vary depending on the complexity of issues associated with the project and the availability of relevant information, particularly for EISs.  (For example, EPA’s experience with a limited number of EISs has included one-time costs ranging from nominal for information submitted by letter to supplement an existing oil and gas extraction EIS  to over a million dollars for new EISs for a mining project and an oil and gas extraction project with multiple complex issues.)  EPA believes these calculations are representative of most projects.

	Under the final rule, the total annual cost for applicants to submit environmental information to EPA is estimated at $3,823,740 for contractor hours and costs, direct labor hours and costs, and O&M costs.  This cost reflects the annual submission of documentation for an anticipated 312 applicant-proposed projects that may be documented with a CE, or an EA/FONSI, or an EIS/ROD.  Based on EPA’s experience, under the final rule, EPA anticipates that annually there will be approximately 300 grantee projects with about 60% of these projects documented with a CE, and about 40% with an EA/FONSI.  In addition, EPA anticipates that one project (less than one percent of the total annual grantee projects) will have an EIS/ROD completed during a three-year period.  For permit applicants, EPA anticipates there will be approximately 12 projects annually with about 11 documented with an EA/FONSI.  In addition, EPA anticipates one project will have an EIS/ROD completed annually.  None will be documented initially with a CE.

	EPA’s analysis of the five types of business operations that have previously applied to EPA for new source NPDES permits was considered representative of out-year projects and business entities.  EPA found there have been no small businesses involved with oil and gas extraction or hardrock mining, nor are any anticipated in the out-years because of the nature of these businesses.  These projects are generally documented with an EIS/ROD.  The small businesses that could be impacted are those involved with dairy cattle and cheese production, seafood processing, and CAFOs.  Based on EPA’s experience, new source NPDES permit projects for these types of businesses are generally documented with EAs/FONSIs.  For environmental documentation submitted by a permit applicant to EPA for its use in preparing an EA/FONSI, EPA estimates that one or more small businesses could experience a one-year, one-time economic impact condition of 3% or greater.  For environmental documentation submitted by a permit applicant to EPA for its use in preparing an EIS/ROD, EPA estimates that one or more small businesses could experience a one-year, one-time economic impact condition of 3% or greater.

	EPA’s analysis considered the active STAG grants and grantees within the time-frame 2002 through 2004 as representative of out-year projects and governmental entities.  During this three-year period, about 57% of the grantees were small government jurisdictions (other jurisdictions: about 30% large governments, and about 14% special districts).  An “Income Test” was used to determine if any small governments (excluding special districts) may experience an economic impact condition, and a “Revenue Test” for the year 2002 and for an out-year projection was used for special districts.  An economic impact condition was considered to exist at 1% or greater using these tests.  The economic impact for all government entities was less than 1% for submission of environmental documentation in support of a CE determination.  For environmental documentation submitted to EPA for its use in preparing an EA/FONSI, EPA estimates that possibly two small governments may experience an economic impact condition equal to or greater than 1%, but less than 3%, if required to submit one-time environmental documentation for EPA’s use in preparing an EA/FONSI.  However, this needs to be considered in the context that in the out-years:  for an anticipated 300 annual projects, 60% of these projects are anticipated to be documented with a CE and 40% documented with an EA/FONSI.  Further, these two grantees represents approximately 1.1% of all small entities (e.g., about 4 small businesses and about 170 small governments, or approximately 174) subject to the final rule.

	Based on EPA’s experience, under the final rule, EPA anticipates that an EIS/ROD may be prepared for one project (less than one percent of the total annual grantee projects) during a three-year period.  EPA estimates that for environmental documentation submitted one time to EPA for its use in preparing an EIS/ROD, 57 small governments could experience an economic impact condition greater than 1% but less than 3%, and 22 small governments could experience an economic impact condition greater than 3%.  However, only one EIS/ROD per three-year period is anticipated, so rather than this potential impact being on about 79 small governments, the impact potential needs to be considered in the total context of approximately 300 projects annually spread over large governments, small governments, and special districts.

	EPA believes the final rule reduces to the extent practicable the burden on entities, including small entities, through certain provisions in the proposed rule and other considerations.  Environmental information must be submitted by an applicant only for applicant-proposed actions subject to NEPA unless EPA will prepare the NEPA documents directly without assistance from the applicant.  The information to be submitted is required only when an applicant applies for a new source NPDES permit to be issued by EPA or for a grant for an action subject to NEPA, a one-time application process.  The Responsible Official, however, may ask the applicant to provide additional information if the Responsible Official needs it to prepare the EA or EIS.  There are no schedules in the regulations for this information submission process.  EPA anticipates that because the final rule requires one-time NEPA assessment of environmental impacts of the applicant’s proposed action, the effects on any small entities will be limited to the cost of preparing the documentation to support this assessment.  Further, the documentation requirements are no greater than necessary to ensure that the Responsible Official can prepare the level of NEPA documentation necessary for decision-making commiserate with the potential for environmental impacts associated with the project.  Based on EPA’s past experience, EPA anticipates that most entities’ projects will require either CE or EA/FONSI level documentation.  EPA anticipates that an EIS/ROD may be required for one new source NPDES permit action each year for a business entity, and that one EIS/ROD may be required once every three years for a STAG grant project for a governmental entity.  The environmental information submitted by an applicant under the final rule is one-time only for applicant-proposed actions; e.g., actions proposed by grantees seeking funding assistance from EPA or for an NPDES permit application initiated by the permit applicant.  In either case, EPA assumes the action will directly benefit the applicant (such as a grantee seeking STAG funding for renovation of a community drinking water system, or a permit applicant seeking an NPDES permit from EPA to further the applicant’s business interests).  Nonetheless, if the applicant cannot afford to provide the required environmental information to EPA, then EPA would undertake the environmental review without input from the applicant.  (Applicants would normally be requested to demonstrate financial hardship, including inability to provide the requested environmental information.)  Further, grantees may be grant-eligible for certain costs associated with providing environmental information to EPA.  Permit applicants are not eligible for EPA financial assistance.

	Although this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities.  EPA has also attempted to reduce the cost on all entities, including small entities, through the following provisions of the rule:  Section 6.300 provides that an EID is not required when the action is categorically excluded, or the applicant will prepare a draft EA and supporting documents.  The Responsible Official may prepare the NEPA documents directly without assistance from the applicant.  Section 6.302 provides that the Responsible Official may prepare generic guidance for categories of actions involving a large number of applicants; and must ensure early involvement of applicants, consult with the applicant and provide guidance describing the scope and level of environmental information required, and provide guidance on a project-by-project basis to any applicant seeking assistance.  This Section also provides that the Responsible Official must consider the extent to which the applicant is capable of providing the required information, may not require the applicant to gather data or perform analyses that unnecessarily duplicate either existing data or the results of existing analyses available to EPA, and must limit the request for environmental information to that necessary for the environmental review.  Section 6.303 provides that an applicant may enter into a third-party agreement with EPA.  For grantees, third-party contractor costs may be grant-eligible.  Permit applicants are not eligible for EPA financial assistance.

	EPA certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.  Based on EPA’s experience, EPA anticipates that annually there will be approximately 170 small governments applying to EPA for STAG grants for projects subject to NEPA, and four small businesses applying to EPA for new source NPDES permits for a total of approximately 174 small entities out of approximately 312 total entities.  Of the 174 small entities possibly affected by this rule, we have determined that the economic impact of submitting one-time environmental documentation to support a CE determination would be less than 1% of annual revenues for all small entities; and that six small entities (3.4%) could experience an economic impact of 1-3%, and up to four small entities (2%) could experience an economic impact of greater than 3% for the one-time costs associated with submitting EA-related environmental documentation.  Additionally, we have also determined that approximately 57 of the 174 small entities (33%) could experience an economic impact of 1-3%, and up to 26 of the 174 small entities (15%) could experience an economic impact of greater than 3% for the one-time costs associated with submitting EIS-related environmental documentation.  In all, these approximately 83 small entities represent about 48% of the estimated 174 total number of small entities that could experience an one-time economic impact of 1-3% or greater of annual revenues.  Of these 83 small entities, 79 are likely to be governmental grant applicants and could be grant-eligible for EPA financial assistance with only one EIS anticipated per three years with this likelihood spread over 300 total grant applicants, including small and large governments, including federally-recognized Indian tribes, and special districts.

PART B OF THE SCREENING ANALYSIS

STATISTICAL SURVEY

	This RFA/SBREFA screening analysis does not use or is otherwise based on a statistical survey.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO THE SCREENING ANALYSIS

Exemption from NEPA for Certain EPA Actions and

EPA's Voluntary NEPA Policy and Procedures

Exemptions from NEPA for Certain EPA Actions

	Certain EPA actions are exempt from the procedural requirements of NEPA, including the CEQ Regulations.  Congress has provided specific statutory exemptions for certain EPA actions taken under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and all EPA actions taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).  Specifically, under CWA Section 511(c)(1), EPA is exempt from preparing EISs for all actions taken under the CWA except for issuance of NPDES permits under CWA Section 402 for  “new sources” as defined in Section 306, and for Federal financial assistance provided for assisting construction of publicly owned treatment works under CWA Section 201 (33 U.S.C. 1371(c)).  Under the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 793(c)(1)), all actions taken under the CAA are deemed not to be major federal actions significantly affecting the environment.

	Further, the courts have exempted certain EPA actions from the procedural requirements of NEPA through the functional equivalence doctrine.  Under the functional equivalence doctrine, courts have found EPA to be exempt from the procedural requirements of NEPA for certain actions under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA).  The courts reasoned that EPA actions under these statutes are functionally equivalent to the analysis required under NEPA because they are undertaken with full consideration of environmental impacts and opportunities for public involvement.  See, e.g., EDF v. EPA, 489 F.2d 1247 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (FIFRA); State of Alabama v. EPA, 911 F. 2d 499 (11th Cir. 1990) (RCRA); Warren County v. North Carolina, 528 F. Supp. 276 (E.D. N.C. 1981) (TSCA); Western Nebraska Resources Council v. US EPA, 943 F.2d 867 (8th Cir. 1991) (SDWA); Maryland v. Train, 415 F. Supp. 116 (D. Md. 1976) (MPRSA).

	Agency actions exempt from the requirements of NEPA remain exempt under this final rule.  If a question arises regarding the applicability of the NEPA requirements to certain actions, the Responsible Official should consult with the NEPA Official and the Office of General Counsel.

EPA's Voluntary NEPA Policy and Procedures

	In 1974, EPA Administrator Russell Train determined that the Agency could voluntarily prepare EISs for certain regulatory activities that were exempt from NEPA.  In 1998, Administrator Carol Browner amended this policy to permit the preparation of non-EIS NEPA documents for certain EPA regulatory actions.  The Agency’s current "Notice of Policy and Procedures for Voluntary Preparation of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents" (see 63 FR 58045) sets out the policy and procedures EPA uses when preparing environmental review documents under the Voluntary NEPA Policy.  This final rule does not make any changes to the voluntary NEPA policy and procedures.  However, the final rule can serve as a framework for the preparation of voluntary NEPA documents.

ATTACHMENT 2 TO THE SCREENING ANALYSIS

Estimates of Contractor Costs and Hours for Grantees and Permit Applicants

Background Information

	The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is amending its procedures for implementing the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).  The final rule also includes minor, technical amendments to the Agency’s procedures for implementing Executive Order 12114, “Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions.”31