[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 238 (Monday, December 13, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77598-77602]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31151]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2010-0003; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1167]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual-chance)
Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed BFE modifications for the
communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to
seek general information and comment regarding the proposed regulatory
flood elevations for the reach described by the downstream and upstream
locations in the table below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are a part of
the floodplain management measures that the community is required
either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to
qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, these elevations, once
finalized, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate
appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the
contents in those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before March 14, 2011.

ADDRESSES: The corresponding preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each community is available for
inspection at the community's map repository. The respective addresses
are listed in the table below.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1167, to
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500
C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (e-mail)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for
each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR
67.4(a).
    These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must
change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by
other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations
are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and
also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium
rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final,
and for the contents in those buildings.
    Comments on any aspect of the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM, other
than the proposed BFEs, will be considered. A letter acknowledging
receipt of any comments will not be sent.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This proposed rule is
categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10,
Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not
been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. This
proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria
of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This proposed rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule
meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

    Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 67--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.

Sec.  67.4  [Amended]

    2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  67.4 are
proposed to be amended as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  * Elevation in feet
                                                                 (NGVD) + Elevation in
                                                                 feet (NAVD)
                                       Location of referenced     Depth in feet above
         Flooding source(s)                 elevation **       ground [caret] Elevation    Communities affected
                                                                    in meters (MSL)
                                                              --------------------------
                                                                Effective     Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              St. Charles County, Missouri, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baltic Creek........................  At the confluence with          +472         +470  City of Cottleville,
                                       Dardenne Creek.                                    City of St. Peters,
                                                                                City of Weldon Spring,
                                                                                Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of St. Charles County.
                                      Approximately 0.7 mile          +494         +492
                                       upstream of the
                                       confluence with
                                       Tributary 7.

Boschert Creek......................  At the confluence with          +443         +441  City of St. Charles,
                                       Cole Creek.                                        Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of St. Charles County.
                                      Approximately 0.6 mile          +522         +532
                                       upstream of Sibley
                                       Street.
Cole Creek..........................  Approximately 0.4 mile          +442         +443  City of St. Charles.
                                       upstream of the
                                       confluence with
                                       Boschert Creek.
                                      Approximately 800 feet          +528         +529
                                       upstream of Graystone
                                       Drive.
Crooked Creek.......................  At the confluence with          +476         +475  City of Cottleville,
                                       Dardenne Creek.                                    City of O'Fallon, City
                                                                                of Weldon Spring,
                                                                                Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of St. Charles County.
                                      Approximately 0.7 mile          None         +574
                                       upstream of I[dash]64.
Cunningham Branch...................  At the confluence with          +538         +535  City of O'Fallon,
                                       Dardenne Creek.                                    Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of St. Charles County.
                                      Approximately 1,250             None         +644
                                       feet upstream of State
                                       Highway D.
Dardenne Creek......................  Approximately 400 feet          +443         +444  City of Cottleville,
                                       downstream of Norfolk                              City of O'Fallon, City
                                       Southern Railroad.                                 of St. Peters, Town of
                                                                                Dardenne Prairie,
                                                                                Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of St. Charles County.
                                      Approximately 2.3 miles         +752         +748
                                       upstream of Oberhelman
                                       Road.
East Branch.........................  At the confluence with          +456         +458  City of St. Peters.
                                       Spencer Creek.
Spencer Creek.......................  Just downstream of              +499         +503
                                       Boone Hills Drive.
East Branch.........................  At the confluence with          +481         +480  City of Cottleville,
                                       Dardenne Creek.                                    City of O'Fallon,
                                                                                Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of St. Charles County.
Tributary B.........................  Approximately 150 feet          +516         +525
                                       upstream of State
                                       Highway K.
East Cole Creek.....................  At the confluence with          +454         +457  City of St. Charles.
                                       Cole Creek.
                                      Approximately 600 feet          +487         +478
                                       upstream of Canary
                                       Lane.
Kraut Run...........................  At the confluence with          +505         +506  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       Dardenne Creek.                                    St. Charles County.
                                      Approximately 1,000             None         +607
                                       feet upstream of
                                       Wilson Road.
Lake Sainte Louise..................  Entire shoreline within         None         +546  City of Lake St. Louis,
                                       community.                                         Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of St. Charles County.
Little Dardenne Creek...............  At the confluence with          +553         +554
                                       Dardenne Creek.
                                      Approximately 0.9 mile          None         +719
                                       upstream of Morrison
                                       Lane.
Oday Creek..........................  At the confluence with          +504         +505  City of Lake St. Louis,
                                       Dardenne Creek.                                    City of O'Fallon, City
                                                                                of St. Charles,
                                                                                Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of St. Charles County.
                                      Approximately 425 feet          None         +587
                                       upstream of State
                                       Highway N.
Old Dardenne Creek..................  At the confluence with          +485         +486  City of O'Fallon, City
                                       Dardenne Creek.                                    of St. Charles, Town
                                                                                of Dardenne Prairie,
                                                                                Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of St. Charles County.
                                      Approximately 350 feet          None         +502
                                       upstream of U.S. Route
                                       40/61.
Peruque Creek.......................  Approximately 0.3 mile          +532         +530  City of Foristell, City
                                       downstream of State                                of Wentzville,
                                       Highway Z.                                         Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of St. Charles County.
                                      Approximately 1.3 miles         None         +630
                                       upstream of State
                                       Highway T.
Peruque Creek.......................  At the confluence with          None         +613  City of Foristell,
                                       Peruque Creek.                                     Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of St. Charles County.
Tributary 2.........................  Approximately 600 feet          None         +734
                                       upstream of State
                                       Highway T.

Peruque Creek.......................  Approximately 1.0 mile          None         +505  City of Lake St. Louis,
Tributary 8.........................   upstream of the                                    City of Wentzville.
                                       confluence with
                                       Peruque Creek.
                                      Approximately 0.6 mile          None         +546
                                       upstream of I[dash]70.
Peruque Creek.......................  Approximately 1.0 mile          +504         +505  City of Lake St. Louis,
Tributary 9.........................   upstream of the                                    Unincorporated Areas
                                       confluence with                                    of St. Charles County.
                                       Peruque Creek.
                                      Approximately 0.4 mile          None         +539
                                       upstream of Henke Road.
Peruque Creek.......................  At the confluence with          +472         +471  City of St. Paul,
Tributary 12........................   Peruque Creek.                                     Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of St. Charles County.
                                      Approximately 0.4 mile          None         +527
                                       upstream of Meadow
                                       Farm Lane.
Peruque Creek.......................  Approximately 0.2 mile          None         +464  City of O'Fallon,
Tributary 14........................   upstream of the                                    Unincorporated Areas
                                       confluence with                                    of St. Charles County.
                                       Peruque Creek.
                                      Approximately 1,000             None         +512
                                       feet upstream of Civic
                                       Park Drive.
Peruque Creek.......................  Approximately 900 feet          None         +464  City of O'Fallon.
Tributary 15........................   upstream of the
                                       confluence with
                                       Peruque Creek.
                                      Approximately 1,300             None         +507
                                       feet upstream of Main
                                       Street.
Sandfort Creek......................  Just downstream of              +443         +442  City of St. Charles,
                                       Norfolk Southern                                   Unincorporated Areas
                                       Railroad.                                          of St. Charles County.
                                      Approximately 350 feet          None         +497
                                       downstream of Muegge
                                       Road.
Schote Creek........................  At the confluence with          +482         +481  City of O'Fallon, Town
                                       Dardenne Creek.                                    of Dardenne Prairie,
                                                                                Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of St. Charles County.
                                      Approximately 1.6 miles         None         +583
                                       upstream of U.S. Route
                                       40/61.
Spencer Creek.......................  Approximately 365 feet          +443         +444  City of St. Peters,
                                       upstream of the                                    Unincorporated Areas
                                       railroad.                                          of St. Charles County.
                                      Approximately 1,200             +525         +526
                                       feet upstream of
                                       Millwood Drive.
Tributary A.........................  At the confluence with          +470         +469  City of St. Peters,
                                       Dardenne Creek.                                    Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of St. Charles County.
                                      Approximately 500 feet          +533         +536
                                       upstream of Starlight
                                       Drive.
Tributary No. 1.....................  At the confluence with          +461         +464  City of St. Peters,
                                       Dardenne Creek.                                    Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of St. Charles County.
                                      Approximately 400 feet          None         +473
                                       upstream of Harris
                                       Drive.
Tributary No. 2.....................  Just upstream of Ohmes          +466         +465  City of St. Peters.
                                       Road.
                                      Approximately 0.5 mile          None         +478
                                       upstream of Ohmes Road.
Tributary No. 3.....................  At the confluence with          +470         +469  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       Tributary A.                                       St. Charles County.
                                      Approximately 0.8 mile          None         +503
                                       upstream of St. Peters-
                                       Howell Road.
Tributary No. 4.....................  At the confluence with          +470         +469  City of St. Peters,
                                       Tributary A.                                       Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of St. Charles County.
                                      Approximately 1,150             None         +509
                                       feet upstream of
                                       Woodstream Drive.
Tributary No. 7.....................  At the confluence with          +483         +482  City of St. Peters,
                                       Baltic Creek.                                      City of Weldon Spring.
                                      Approximately 0.8 mile          None         +504
                                       upstream of Pitmann
                                       Hill Road.
Tributary No. 9.....................  At the confluence with          +479         +480  City of Weldon Spring,
                                       Crooked Creek.                                     Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of St. Charles County.
                                      Approximately 0.5 mile          +496         +497
                                       upstream of Guthermuth
                                       Road.
Tributary No. 13....................  At the confluence with          +485         +486  City of O'Fallon, Town
                                       Dardenne Creek.                                    of Dardenne Prairie.
                                      Approximately 700 feet          +509         +508
                                       upstream of McClure
                                       Road.

Tributary No. 15....................  At the confluence with          +496         +495  City of O'Fallon, Town
                                       Dardenne Creek.                                    of Dardenne Prairie,
                                                                                Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of St. Charles County.
                                      Approximately 300 feet          None         +567
                                       upstream of Keystone
                                       Crossing Drive.
Tributary No. 17....................  Approximately 0.8 mile          None         +522  City of O'Fallon,
                                       upstream of the                                    Unincorporated Areas
                                       confluence with                                    of St. Charles County.
                                       Dardenne Creek.
                                      Approximately 900 feet          None         +895
                                       upstream of Hopewell
                                       Road.
Tributary No. 19....................  Approximately 1,300             +504         +505  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       feet upstream of the                               St. Charles County.
                                       confluence with
                                       Dardenne Creek.
                                      Approximately 2.1 miles         None         +573
                                       upstream of the
                                       confluence with
                                       Dardenne Creek.
West Branch Spencer Creek...........  At the confluence with          +453         +450  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       Spencer Creek.                                     St. Charles County.
                                      Approximately 400 feet          None         +510
                                       upstream of Willott
                                       Road.
West Branch Tributary B.............  At the confluence with          +491         +489  Town of Dardenne
                                       East Branch Tributary                              Prairie.
                                       B.
                                      Approximately 150 feet          None         +622
                                       upstream of Bryan Road.
West Sandfort Creek.................  At the confluence with          +451         +450  City of St. Charles,
                                       Sandfort Creek.                                    Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of St. Charles County.
                                      Approximately 1,400             +466         +459
                                       feet upstream of Harry
                                       S. Truman Boulevard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES

City of Cottleville
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 5490 5th Street, Cottleville, MO 63338.

City of Foristell
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 121 Mulberry Street, Foristell, MO 63348.

City of Lake St. Louis
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 200 Civic Center Drive, Lake St. Louis, MO 63367.

City of O'Fallon
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 100 North Main Street, O'Fallon, MO 63366.

City of St. Charles
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 200 North 2nd Street, St. Charles, MO 63301.

City of St. Paul
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 2300 Saint Paul Road, St. Paul, MO 63366.

City of St. Peters
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 1 Saint Peter Centre Boulevard, St. Peters, MO 63376.

City of Weldon Spring
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 5401 Independence Road, Weldon Spring, MO 63304.

City of Wentzville
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 310 West Pearce Boulevard, Wentzville, MO 63385.

Town of Dardenne Prairie
Maps are available for inspection at the Town Hall, 2032 Hanley Road, Dardenne Prairie, MO 63368.

                                   Unincorporated Areas of St. Charles County
Maps are available for inspection at the St. Charles County Administrative Building, 201 North 2nd Street, St.
 Charles, MO 63301.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: December 3, 2010.
Sandra K. Knight,
Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator, Mitigation,
Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-31151 Filed 12-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R03-CBP-2009-0500; FRL-       ]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment
Request; Chesapeake Registry; EPA ICR No. 2365.01, OMB Control No.
200908-2003-001

AGENCY:	Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:	Notice.

SUMMARY:	In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this
document announces that EPA is planning to submit a request to renew an
existing, approved Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).  EPA prepared the ICR, “Chesapeake
Registry,” on behalf of the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) partnership.
Before submitting the ICR renewal request to OMB for review and
approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed
information collection as described below.

DATES:  Comments must be submitted on or before [insert date 60 days
after publication in the Federal Register].

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-R03-CBP-2009-0500, by one of the following methods:

  HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov : Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

Mail:  Chesapeake Registry, Attn:  Marguerite Duffy, Chesapeake Bay
Program Office, 410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109, Annapolis, Maryland 21403

Hand Delivery:  Chesapeake Registry, Attn:  Marguerite Duffy, EPA
Chesapeake Bay Program Office, 410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109, Annapolis,
Maryland 21403.  Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s
normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays), and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions:  Direct your comments to Docket ID No.
EPA-R03-CBP-2009-0500.  EPA's policy is that all comments received will
be included in the public docket without change and may be made
available online at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
www.regulations.gov , including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.  Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov.  The
HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov  website is
an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment.  If you submit a disk or CD-ROM, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment.  If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment.  Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA’s public docket visit
the EPA Docket Center homepage at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm .

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Marguerite Duffy, USEPA Region III -
Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis City Marina, 410 Severn Avenue
Suite 109 (3CB10), Annapolis, MD 21403; telephone number: (410)
267-5764; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How Can I Access the Docket and/or Submit Comments?

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No.
EPA-R03-CBP-2009-0500, which is available for   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
online viewing at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
www.regulations.gov ,   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 or in person viewing at  the
EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office, 410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109,
Annapolis, Maryland 21403.  Materials are available for viewing  SEQ
CHAPTER \h \r 1  from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An electronic
version of the public docket is available at:    HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov .   This site can be
used to obtain a copy of the draft information collection request,
submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents
of the docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that
are available electronically.  Once in the system, select “search,”
then key in the docket ID number identified in this document
(EPA-R03-CBP-2009-0500).

What Information is EPA Particularly Interested in?

Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits
comments and information to enable it to:

	(i) evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;

	(ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of
the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;

(iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and

	(iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

What Should I Consider when I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:

    	1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.

    	2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

    	3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.

    	4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.

    	5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.

    	6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.

    	7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does this Apply to?

Affected entities:  Entities potentially affected by this action are
state and local governments and non-government organizations within the
Chesapeake Bay watershed.

Title:  Chesapeake Registry (formerly called Activity Integration Plan)

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2365.01, OMB Control No.<PHONE_NUMBER>-001

ICR status:  This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on 02/28/2010.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable.  The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

Abstract:  In 2008, EPA’s Region III Chesapeake Bay Program Office and
its partners developed the Chesapeake Action Plan (CAP) to strengthen
and expand partnerships in the watershed, enhance coordination of
restoration activities, and increase the collective accountability for
protecting the Chesapeake Bay.  One component described in the CAP is a
Web-enabled reporting system known as the Activity Integration Plan now
titled Chesapeake Registry.  Through this reporting system,
participating organizations provide data about the activities in which
they are currently engaged, or plan to be engaged in, to protect and
restore the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed.  The ability to capture
and account for Bay-wide implementation activities was developed in
response to recommendations by the Government Accountability Office and
directives of the Explanatory Statement of the FY 2008 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161).  CBPO conducted its first activity
data call in 2008 that included 10 federal agencies, 7 states, and 2
local organizations.

The EPA, on behalf of the partnership, intends to expand the data call
to more than 10 non-federal agencies and organizations to strengthen the
information base on which to support implementation decisions and more
recently, to support Executive Order (EO) 13508, signed by President
Barack Obama on May 12, 2009.  Section 203(d) of the EO directs EPA to
identify the “mechanisms that will assure that governmental and other
activities, including data collection and distribution, are coordinated
and effective, relying on existing mechanisms where appropriate.”
Section 204 further directs that “Federal actions to protect and
restore the Chesapeake Bay are closely coordinated with actions by State
and local agencies in the watershed and that the resources, authorities,
and expertise of Federal, State, and local agencies are used as
efficiently as possible.”  The Chesapeake Registry and associated data
calls provide a mechanism for coordinated data collections among federal
and non-federal entities protecting and restoring the Bay and its
watershed, and the information necessary to adaptively manage the
program in support of these mandates.

The Chesapeake Registry includes detailed information about the
activities and funding conducted and planned by partner organizations.
The organizations provide project information on the nature of the
activity, responsible organization, organizational point of contact,
resource levels, geographic location, and major milestones on progress
towards Chesapeake Bay protection and restoration efforts.  Funds
reported in the Chesapeake Registry are linked to an organization’s
own resource base so that data associated with a set of funds is entered
only by the originator of the funding.  The information is organized by
programmatic goal and desired result, which aligns activities to the
goals of the program and helps to provide an accurate depiction of
restoration activities, progress, and results.  The information
collection, as envisioned, will be conducted annually.  Summary level
information from the Chesapeake Registry is available at   HYPERLINK
"http://cap.chesapeakebay.net"  http://cap.chesapeakebay.net .

Each reporting organization is assigned a user ID and password.
Security measures have been established to protect data that have been
entered, including maintaining the data on a secure server on a secure
network, and confirming the data with each reporting organization.
Participants in the information collection are able to search the
reporting system database application and view standard reports.
Partners will use the enhanced and expanded data to update performance
management dashboards that summarize and synthesize information so the
program partners can understand, at a glance, the progress being made in
key program areas.  The dashboards include measures of progress,
information about resources and strategic analyses of what needs to be
done to improve implementation.  In addition, EPA anticipates that some
of the partners will use the reporting system as a tool for their own
management and planning efforts.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden
for this collection of information is estimated to average 64.8 hours
per response for state and local government agencies and 11.5 hours per
response for non-government organizations.  Burden means the total time,
effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal
agency.  This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.   The ICR provides a
detailed explanation of the Agency’s estimate, which is only briefly
summarized here:

	Estimated total number of potential respondents:  50 (30 state and
local governments, 20 non-government organizations) initially but will
likely increase over time.

	Frequency of response:  Annual.

	Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:  1.

	Estimated total annual burden hours:  2,1740.0 (64.8 hours per response
for state and local governments, 11.5 hours per response for
non-government organizations).

	Estimated total annual costs:  $104,974.20.   This includes an
estimated burden cost of $104,974.20 and an estimated cost of $0.00 for
capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

Are There Changes in the Estimates from the Last Approval?

EPA anticipates an annual, gradual change in the total estimated
respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently
approved by OMB.

What is the Next Step in the Process for this ICR?

EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate.  The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12.  At that time, EPA will
issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv)
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.  If you have any questions about this
ICR or the approval process, please contact the technical person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Dated: 10/13/09____________     			____/s/____________________

							James Edward

							Deputy Director,

Chesapeake Bay Program Office

							Region III.

 PAGE

 PAGE   8


Meeting Summary

Topic:	Diazinon

Date:		October 23, 2008

Location:     Potomac Yard 1, 9th floor conference room 9100

Participants:

Makhteshim Agan of North America, Inc. (MANA):  Leanne Pruett

American Mushroom Institute: Laura Phelps

Ollinger Consulting: Janet Ollinger

LR Risk Consulting: Leah Rosenheck

EPA:

Laura Parsons, Barbara Madden, Danette Drew, Jeff Dawson, Jude Andreasen

Summary:

The American Mushroom Institute (AMI) requested the meeting to discuss
two issues.  The first was the AMI’s pursuit of a pending new use for
diazinon on mushrooms.  They will be submitting the application for the
new use and a new worker risk assessment to Registration Division in the
future.  The second issue was the Agency’s immediate revocation of the
diazinon tolerance on mushrooms through the FRN published September 10,
2008 (73 FR 52607).  The AMI provided the Agency with slides summarizing
the new risk assessment and photographs illustrating how diazinon is
used in mushroom houses.  AMI reiterated the comments they had submitted
to the docket regarding diazinon’s benefits.

Attachments: American Mushroom Institute presentation slides


Several commenters supported lowering the dust-lead hazard standards and modifying the definition of lead-based paint.  One specifically noted that it is confusing for trainees to distinguish between EPA/HUD hazard levels and the OSHA threshold of "any detectable concentration of lead in paint."

While not part of this rulemaking, in October 2009, EPA granted a petition requesting a re-evaluation of EPA's dust-lead hazard standards and the regulatory definition of lead-based paint.

Miscellaneous Comments

Some contractors argued that EPA does not have the authority to promulgate work practice standards for RRP activities.  According to these commenters, in enacting Section 402(c) of TSCA, Congress was very careful to distinguish between lead-based paint activities and RRP activities, and the subsection does not explicitly authorize EPA to promulgate regulations affecting the work practice standards for RRP activities, e.g., requiring clearance testing.  The commenters mention TSCA Section 402(c)(1), which authorizes EPA to "promulgate guidelines for the conduct of such renovation and remodeling activities which may create a risk of exposure to dangerous levels of lead."  The commenters further note that Section 402(c)(3) requires EPA to revise the regulations developed for abatement and other lead-based paint activities to apply to renovation and remodeling activities.  However, the commenters argue that Congress intended that EPA would apply appropriate certification requirements developed in connection with lead-based paint activities to RRP contractors but that work practice standards  -  including clearance testing requirements  -  would remain the subject of guidelines, not regulations.

EPa is not reopening or reconsidering this issue.  Nonetheless, EPA disagrees with these commenters.  EPA's interpretation of TSCA Section 402(c)(3) is that Congress intended EPA to revise the entire set of lead-based paint activities regulations to apply to renovation and remodeling activities that create lead-based paint hazards.  Indeed, one possible interpretation is that Congress directed EPA to simply revise the lead based paint regulations by expanding them to apply to renovation and remodeling activities.  Nonetheless, EPA has interpreted the directive to "revise" the lead-base paint activities regulations as allowing EPA to make common sense changes to the lead-based paint activities regulations to address a the differences between renovators and abatement contractors.  In addition, EPA disagrees with the commenters' interpretation that 403(c)(1) somehow precludes EPA from regulating renovation activities and establishing lead safe work practices.  Indeed, EPA believes that the commenters' interpretation of section 402(c) makes little sense.  Under section 402(a), Congress first directed EPA to promulgate, within 18 months, regulations concerning lead-based paint activities, i.e., activities designed to remove known lead-based paint hazards.  At the same time, under section 402(c), Congress expressed a concern about renovation activities generally and directed EPA to first issue guidelines (also within 18 months) for renovation activities that "may" create a risk of exposure to dangerous levels of lead.  In the context of section 402(c), these guidelines are best understood as an interim step because Congress then gave EPA more time (a total of 30 months) to study renovation activities to determine, among other things, the extent to which renovation activities create a lead-based paint hazard.  As a final step, Congress directed EPA to regulate renovation activities that EPA (after the studying the issue) has determined create lead-based paint hazards.  No reasonable reading of 402(c) suggests that Congress merely intended EPA to issue guidelines and thereafter to study the extent to which renovation activities create lead-based paint hazards but then  to revise the TSCA § 402(a) regulations to address activities that create lead-based paint hazards without regard to work practice standards governing those activities.

Several commenters argued that EPA has not established that the activities regulated under the RRP rule create lead-based paint hazards.

EPA addressed this issue in the underlying RRP rule and is not reopening or reconsidering this issue.

Several commenters argue that EPA cannot regulate renovation, repair, and painting activities because the studies performed to determine whether such activities create lead-based paint hazards are flawed and do not establish a direct connection between renovation, repair, and painting activities and increased childhood or worker blood lead levels.

EPA has already addressed this argument in the preamble to the 2008 final RRP rule and is not reopening or reconsidering the issue here.

One commenter suggested that EPA focus its regulatory efforts on heavy metals in fish.

EPA agrees that there are many potential sources of lead that may contribute to the problem of childhood lead poisoning. However, this regulation is being issued pursuant to TSCA § 402(c)(3), and therefore only applies to renovation and remodeling activities. EPA notes, however that this regulation is only one piece of the Federal, State, and local efforts to reduce exposures to lead and eliminate childhood lead poisoning.

One commenter asked EPA to limit the amount that states can charge contractors for certification.

EPA does not have the authority to regulate state certification fees.

One commenter suggested that EPA allow building supply retailers to sell the Cleaning Verification Cards.

While EPA will take this commenter's suggestion under consideration, EPA produces and distributes the cleaning verification cards through accredited training providers and the National Lead Information Center because EPA believes that exercising sufficient quality control during card production is critical to the success of the RRP cleaning protocol after renovations.

One commenter requested that EPA clarify its interpretation of the test kit provisions, i.e., that EPA could approve kits before September 1, 2010 and allow their use until an improved kit is recognized.

The currently recognized test kits did not automatically lose their recognition on September 1, 2010.  As discussed in the 2008 RRP rule, prior to September 1, 2010, manufacturers seeking recognition of their test kit must meet only false negative response criterion, and that recognition of kits meeting this criterion will last until EPA publicizes its recognition of a kit that passes both the false negative and the false positive criteria.

One commenter argued that the model renovator training course spends too much time on the specifics of the rule and not enough on health effects, which would motivate workers to follow the lead-safe work practices.

EPA appreciates this commenter's concern.  EPA continues to monitor and evaluate the content of the course.  Given the skills and tasks required by the rule that must be covered in the course, EPA believes that the appropriate weight is being given to the health effects of lead.

One commenter thought training requirements should include more hands-on time, for example, the commenter noted that the Washington weatherization program requires 6 hours of hands-on training.

EPA disagrees with this commenter.  While hands-on training is beneficial, EPA believes that the hands-on skills required to be presented in the renovator course can adequately be covered in two hours.

One commenter contended that regulatory policy shouldn't address pets.

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act, EPA is charged with protecting human health and the environment.  Unfortunately, the effects of lead-based paint hazards are not limited to children or even just humans.  Lead poisoning from renovations has been documented in both cats and dogs.  This is often the first indicator that families have of human exposure as well.  Moreover, in our society pets can be highly valued.  Thus, in assessing the impacts of the rule, EPA has chosen not to ignore the concern over lead poisoning in pets from renovation activities.

Several commenters thought EPA should require homeowners to use contractors who follow RRP rules.

As discussed, EPA interprets the statutory directive to regulate remodeling and renovation activities found in TSCA section 402(c)(3) as applying to contractors and not a broader category of persons, such as homeowners.  Thus, the RRP rule does not include provisions directly applicable to homeowners, with the exception of homeowners who renovate rental property.

Replacement components for which documentation is available should be exempt from the rule.

The RRP rule provides a mechanism for this, by allowing certified inspectors and risk assessors to make determinations based on property records.  See 40 CFR 745.227(b)(2).   EPA believes that it would be difficult to establish criteria for documentation of replacement components that could be applied by certified renovators.  Renovators do not have training in identifying painting histories and making other judgments of what to test.