[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 15 (Monday, January 25, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4072-4074]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01304]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Office of the Secretary

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request; Simplification of Disclosure Requirements for
Emerging Growth Companies and Forward Incorporation by Reference on
Form S-1 for Smaller Reporting Companies

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') has
submitted the sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled,
``Simplification of Disclosure Requirements for Emerging Growth
Companies and Forward Incorporation by Reference on Form S-1 for
Smaller Reporting Companies,'' to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and clearance under the emergency processing
procedures in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub.
L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) (``PRA'') and 5 CFR 1320.13. OMB
approval has been requested by January 19, 2016. In addition, this
notice solicits comment on the three-year extension of the same
information collection under 5 CFR 1320.12.

ADDRESSES: A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation,
including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency
of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge
from the RegInfo.gov Web site at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
    OMB Control Numbers 3235-0065 (Form S-1) and 3235-0258 (Form F-1)
    Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities
and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') is requesting that OMB authorize emergency processing
of the submission of collection of information for ``Simplification of
Disclosure Requirements for Emerging Growth Companies and Forward
Incorporation by Reference on Form S-1 for Smaller Reporting
Companies.'' This request should also serve to notify the public that
the Commission is seeking PRA approval from OMB on an emergency basis
for the collections of information associated with the interim final
rule amendments to Form S-1 and Form F-1 adopted by the Commission on
January 13, 2016 \1\ to implement Sections 71003 and 84001 of the
Fixing America's Surface Transportation (``FAST'') Act, which was
enacted on December 4, 2015.\2\ In addition, the Commission is
providing notice of the three-year extension under 5 CFR 1320.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Release No. 33-10003 [81 FR 2743].
    \2\ Public Law 114-94.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As adopted, the amendments implement Sections 71003 and 84001 of
the FAST Act, which require that the Commission revise Forms S-1 and F-
1, OMB Control Numbers, 3235-0065 (Form S-1) and 3235-0258 (Form F-1),
to permit emerging growth companies to omit financial information for
certain historical periods and revise Form S-1 to permit forward
incorporation by reference for smaller reporting companies.
    Form S-1 (17 CFR 239.11) is the form used by domestic issuers to
register the offer and sale of securities under the Securities Act of
1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) when no other form is authorized or
prescribed, and Form F-1 (17 CFR 239.31) is the corresponding form used
by foreign private issuers. Item 512 of Regulation S-K (17 CFR 229.512)
describes the undertakings that an issuer must include in a
registration statement.
    The amendments revise Form S-1 and Form F-1 to make them conform to
the requirements in Sections 71003 and 84001 of the FAST Act. Section
71003 of the FAST Act allows an emerging growth company that is filing
a registration statement (or submitting the registration statement for
confidential review) on Form S-1 or Form F-1 to omit financial
information for historical periods otherwise required by Regulation S-X
if it reasonably believes the omitted information will not be required
to be included in the filing at the time of the contemplated offering,
so long as the issuer amends the registration statement prior to
distributing a preliminary prospectus to include all financial
information required by Regulation S-X at the time of the amendment.
The amendments revise the general instructions to Form S-1 and Form F-1
to reflect this self-executing change, as directed by Section 71003.

    Section 84001 of the FAST Act requires the Commission to revise
Form S-1 to permit a smaller reporting company to incorporate by
reference into its registration statement any documents filed by the
issuer subsequent to the effective date of the registration statement.
The amendments add a new paragraph to Item 12 of Form S-1 and make a
conforming change to Item 512(a) of Regulation S-K to effect this
provision.
    The Commission, for good cause, found that notice and comment were
unnecessary because the amendments merely conform the specified forms
to the requirements of a newly enacted statute, the FAST Act. The
amendments revised the Commission's forms to make them consistent with
the provisions of the FAST Act pertaining to simplified disclosure
requirements for emerging growth companies and forward incorporation by
reference for smaller reporting companies on Form S-1 and therefore did
not involve the exercise of Commission discretion. Section 71003 of the
FAST Act was effective 30 days after enactment, and Section 84001
required the Commission to revise Form S-1 within 45 days of enactment.
The Commission also found there was good cause for the amendments to
take effect on January 19, 2016 because without the amendments the
Commission's applicable forms did not conform to the requirements of
Sections 71003 and 84001 of the FAST Act. Additionally, the Commission
found that the amendments relieve restrictions in the Commission's
forms.
    This information collection is subject to the PRA. A federal agency
generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and
the public is generally not required to respond to an information
collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any
other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to
penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the
collection of information does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The SEC obtains OMB approval for this
information collection under OMB ICR Reference Numbers<PHONE_NUMBER>-039
(Form S-1) and<PHONE_NUMBER>-008 (Form F-1).
    Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB,
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in
the ADDRESSES section within 15 days of publication of this notice in
the Federal Register. In order to help ensure appropriate
consideration, comments should reference OMB Control Numbers 3235-0065
(Form S-1) and 3235-0258 (Form F-1). The OMB is particularly interested
in comments that:
     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;
     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;
     Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
     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.
    For purposes of the PRA, we estimate the total annual decrease in
the paperwork burden for all affected issuers to comply with our
collection of information requirements to be approximately 70,214 hours
of company personnel time and the reduction in cost to be approximately
$84,256,400 for the services of outside professionals. These estimates
include the time and cost of preparing and reviewing disclosure, filing
documents, and retaining records. We estimate that 25% of the burden of
preparation is carried by the issuer internally and is reflected in
hours, and that 75% of the burden is carried by outside professionals
retained by the issuer at an average cost of $400 per hour.\3\ Our
methodologies for deriving the above estimates are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Consistent with other recent rulemakings, we estimate an
average hourly rate of $400 for hiring outside professionals to
assist issuers in preparing disclosures and conducting registered
offerings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Omission of Financial Information for Historical Periods by Emerging
Growth Companies

    For purposes of the PRA, we estimate that the amendment to allow
emerging growth companies to omit financial information for historical
periods that the issuer reasonably believes will not be required to be
included in the Form S-1 or F-1 at the time of the contemplated
offering would reduce incrementally the annual paperwork burden by
approximately 17,089 hours of issuer personnel time and by a cost of
approximately $20,506,400 for the services of outside professionals.
The estimate reflects the reduction in disclosure preparation time
resulting from the omission of one year of audited financial statements
\4\ multiplied by the average number of Forms S-1 and F-1 filed by
emerging growth companies over a three-year period.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ We estimated the audit fee for emerging growth companies by
using the median audit fee of $46,300 for smaller reporting
companies. See John Pakaluk, Audit Fees for Smaller Reporting
Companies, AUDIT ANALYTICS (Feb. 26, 2015), http://www.auditanalytics.com/blog/audit-fees-for-smaller-reporting-companies.
    \5\ The number of responses equals the average number of Forms
S-1 or Form F-1, respectively, filed by emerging growth companies
(EGCs) during a three-year period. In 2012, EGCs filed 295 Forms S-
1; in 2013, EGCs filed 404 Forms S-1; and in 2014, EGCs filed 504
Forms S-1. In 2012, EGCs filed 25 Forms F-1; in 2013, EGCs filed 31
Forms F-1; and in 2014, EGCs filed 65 Forms F-1.
    \6\ We estimate that $46,300 divided by $400, or 116 hours,
represents the cost of services of outside professionals, or 75% of
the burden, and we estimate that the reduction in burden hours for
the issuer equals 39 hours, or 25% of the burden. These estimates
were rounded up to nearest whole hour.

    Table 1--Revised PRA Burden Under the Amendment Permitting Emerging Growth Companies To Omit Financial Information for Certain Historical Periods
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Incremental        Total
                                                             Number of     burden hours     incremental     25% company         75%        Professional
                                                             responses       \6\/form      burden hours                    professional        costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     (A)             (B)     (C) = (A) *     (D) = (C) *  E = (C) * 0.75     (F) = (E) *
                                                                                (B)            0.25                            $400
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Form S-1................................................             401           (155)        (62,155)        (15,539)        (46,616)   $(18,646,400)
Form F-1................................................              40           (155)         (6,200)         (1,550)         (4,650)    $(1,860,000)
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total...................................................  ..............  ..............        (68,355)        (17,089)  ..............   $(20,506,400)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Forward Incorporation by Reference on Form S-1 by Smaller Reporting
Companies

    For purposes of the PRA, we estimate that all smaller reporting
companies will take advantage of the election to forward incorporate by
reference. We estimate that the amendments to permit smaller reporting
companies to incorporate by reference into the prospectus contained in
the registration statement on Form S-1 all documents subsequently filed
by the issuer with the Commission after the effective date of the
registration statement would reduce incrementally the annual paperwork
burden by approximately 53,125 hours of issuer personnel time and by a
cost of approximately $63,750,000 for the services of outside
professionals. The estimate reflects the decrease in disclosure
preparation time by eliminating the need to file certain post-effective
amendments when that information is disclosed in Exchange Act filings
after the effectiveness of the Form S-1. We estimate that forward
incorporation by reference would reduce the paperwork burden in Form S-
1 for smaller reporting companies by 212,500 hours on the assumption
that the burden to complete a Form S-1 that incorporates by reference
would be the same as the burden currently imposed by Form S-3 (472
hours). Therefore, the amount of time eliminated for each Form S-1 that
incorporates by reference would be 500 hours (972 hours for a Form S-1
that does not incorporate information by reference minus 472 hours for
a Form S-1 that does incorporate information by reference).

         Table 2--Revised PRA Burden Under the Amendment Permitting Smaller Reporting Companies To Forward Incorporate by Reference on Form S-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Incremental        Total
                                                             Number of     burden hours/    incremental     25% company         75%        Professional
                                                           responses \7\       Form        burden hours                    professional        costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     (A)             (B)     (C) = (A) *      (D) = (C)*  E = (C) * 0.75     (F) = (E) *
                                                                                (B)            0.25                            $400
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Form S-1................................................             425           (500)       (212,500)        (53,125)       (159,375)   $(63,750,000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title of Collection: Simplification of Disclosure Requirements for
Emerging Growth Companies and Forward Incorporation by Reference on
Form S-1 for Smaller Reporting Companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The number of responses equals the average number of Forms
S-1 filed by smaller reporting companies (SRCs) during a three-year
period. In 2012, SRCs filed 394 Forms S-1; in 2013, SRCs filed 432
Forms S-1; and in 2014, SRCs filed 448 Forms S-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB Control Numbers: 3235-0065 (Form S-1) and 3235-0258 (Form F-1).
    Type of Review: Emergency.
    Requested Duration of Authorization: 6 Months.

    Dated: January 19, 2016.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-01304 Filed 1-22-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Informal Notification for a Small Business Advocacy Review ( SBAR) Panel Title of Action: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( NPRM): Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase III Existing Facilities Start Action Number: 3444 Tentative Schedule: August 2002 Outreach to potential SERs September 2002 Conference call with potential SERs September 2002 Pre Panel meeting with SBAR Panel October 2002 Begin SBAR Panel December 2002 Complete SBAR Panel Projected NPRM: June 15, 2003 ( judicial date)

Description:

This rulemaking will address technology based standards for cooling water intake structures. These standards will address adverse environmental impacts by reducing the impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms.

Section 316( b) of the Clean Water Act requires EPA to ensure that the location, design, construction and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impacts. For many years this provision has been implemented without federal standards in place, on a resource intensive, site by site basis. Pursuant to a court ordered consent decree, EPA is now developing national standards in three phases: Phase I for new facilities, Phase II for existing electric generating plants that use large amounts of cooling water ( design intake flow at least 50 million gallons per day), and Phase III for all other types of facilities not covered by Phase I and Phase II standards.

Phase III will cover existing facilities, for the most part. In the Phase III rule, EPA will also address new offshore and coastal oil and gas extraction facilities, as defined at 40 CFR 435.10 and 40 CFR 435.40. When taking final action on the Phase I rule, EPA deferred regulation of these facilities due to the unique engineering, cost, and economic issues associated with offshore and coastal drilling rigs, ships, and platforms.

EPA is conducting this rulemaking under the terms of an Amended Consent Decree in Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Whitman, U. S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 93 Civ. 0314 ( AGS). A phase III regulatory proposal must be signed by June 15, 2003, and final action must be taken by December 15, 2004.

Background on the Regulated Community:

The rulemaking will apply largely to existing facilities which are not regulated under the Phase II rule. EPA anticipates that a majority of these facilities will fall into the following major categories of economic activity: electricity producers with design intake flows less than 50 million gallons per day; industrial chemicals; pulp & paper; primary metals ( iron and steel, aluminum); petroleum refining. EPA conducted a questionnaire survey of these major industrial sectors. Of the survey respondents ( facilities) that might be affected by the Phase III requirements, there were 140 electricity producers ( 94 utilities and 46 non utilities) and 288 in other economic sectors. Based on the survey, EPA will be able to estimate the national population of facilities potentially affected by the phase III rule.

The survey respondents potentially subject to the Phase III rulemaking include 288 facilities that are not primarily electric generators and that are engaged in economic activities like manufacturing or primary production (" manufacturers"), 94 utility electric generators (" utilities") and 46 non utility electric generators (" non utilities"), a total of 428 facilities. Of the 288 manufacturing facilities, 33 are owned by small entities. Of the 94 utility plants, 12 are owned by small entities and for one the ownership has yet to be determined. Of the 46 utility plants, 1 is owned by a small entity and for 10 the ownership has yet to be determined. EPA is now working diligently to determine the SBA size status for all facilities.

The Oil & Gas Extraction category was not represented in the 316( b) survey. Information provided in comments on the Phase I regulatory proposal prompted EPA to consider this category in its analyses for existing facilities ( as well as new facilities, see above). The category contains a large number of facilities and it presents unique engineering, cost, and economic issues associated with drilling rigs, ships, and platforms. EPA is acquiring current industry surveys and commercial databases that will identify offshore and coastal oil & gas extraction facilities in the Gulf of Alaska, California, and the Gulf of Mexico. EPA also has experience with and data for this category obtained during the rulemaking for Synthetic Based Drilling Fluids ( Final Rule published in January 2001; see http:// www. epa. gov/ ost/ guide/ sbf/). At the present time, based on that experience, EPA believes that a great majority of the owner entities are large businesses.

Potential Small Entity Representatives:

In an effort to locate potential small entity representatives ( SERs), OST is consulting with industry associations, EPA regional offices, permitting authorities, and individuals who have attended stakeholder meetings. OST expects that the eventual list of SERs will be representative, to the extent possible, of entities that may be impacted by a phase III rule. The major organizations representing firms that might be affected by a phase III rule include:

American Public Power Association National Rural Electric Cooperative Association American Forest and Paper Association American Chemistry Council American Petroleum Institute American Iron and Steel Institute The Aluminum Association Outreach Activities:

During the development of the proposed phase I and phase II rules ( 1998 2002), EPA conducted extensive outreach activities to inform State and local officials and industry about the three phases of 316( b) rulemaking.

EPA made presentations on the section 316( b) rulemaking effort in general at numerous professional and industry association meetings. EPA also conducted three public meetings in June and September of 1998 and May of 2001. In September 1998 and April 1999, EPA also participated in technical workshops sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute on issues. EPA staff have participated in other industry conferences, met on numerous occasions with industry representatives and with representatives of environmental groups., and participated in roundtables sponsored by the Small Business Administration, all on matters related to 316( b) rulemaking.

These outreach activities, conducted during Phase I and Phase II rulemaking, reached industry organizations and persons representing both large and small businesses in a wide range of economic activities.

EPA will continue outreach activities for the Phase III rulemaking targeted at audiences and organizations that represent small business interests.

Program Contact: John Fox Office of Science & Technology ( Mail Code 4303T) US Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 phone: 202 566 1040 fax: 202 566 1053 email: fox. john@ epa. gov


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 8, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76331-76332]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30841]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 49

[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0683; FRL-9235-3]

Extension of Public Comment Period and Postponement of Public
Hearings for Source Specific Federal Implementation Plan for
Implementing Best Available Retrofit Technology for Four Corners Power
Plant: Navajo Nation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of extended public comment period and postponed public
hearings.

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

SUMMARY: On October 19, 2010, EPA published in the Federal Register our
proposed determination of the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
for the Four Corners Power Plant and requested comment by December 20,
2010. EPA is extending the public comment period until March 18, 2011,
for our proposed BART determination. EPA is also postponing the open
houses and public hearings announced in the Federal Register on
November 12, 2010 and will provide additional notice and details of the
rescheduled hearings at a later time.

DATES: Comments must be submitted no later than March 18, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2010-0683, by one of the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions.
    E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Mail or deliver: Anita Lee (Air-3), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions please contact
Anita Lee, EPA Region IX,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 19, 2010, the Region 9 Office of
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a
Source Specific Federal Implementation Plan to implement the Best
Available Retrofit Technology for Four Corners Power Plant, located on
the Navajo Nation (75 FR 64221). The Clean Air Act's Regional Haze Rule
requires the use of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) at older
coal-fired power plants to reduce haze and improve visibility.
    On November 12, 2010, EPA published in the Federal Register (75 FR
69373) a notice of three sets of open houses and public hearings to be
held at three locations in the Four Corners Area on December 6-9, 2010.
EPA is postponing the open houses and public hearings and will provide
additional notice and details of the rescheduled hearings at a later
time.
    EPA published notices of open houses and public hearings, to be
held December 7-9, 2010 in Shiprock, NM, Farmington, NM, and Durango,
CO, in the Farmington Daily Times and the Durango Herald on November 3,
2010 and the Navajo Times on November 4, 2010. Notice of these hearings
was additionally published in the Federal Register on November 12, 2010
(75 FR 69373). On Thursday, November 11, 2010, EPA published notice in
the Navajo Times of an additional open house and public hearing to be
held at the Nenahnezad Chapter House in Fruitland, NM. The public
comment period for the proposal was scheduled to close on December 20,
2010.
    EPA proposed requiring the Four Corners Power Plant to meet a
plant-wide limit of 0.11 lb/MMBtu, representing an 80% reduction in
emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) to achieve cleaner,
healthier air while improving the visibility at sixteen of our most
pristine national parks and wilderness areas. EPA's proposal can be
achieved by installing and operating selective catalytic reduction
(SCR) on all five units. EPA is also proposing a particulate matter
(PM) emission limit of 0.012 lb/MMBtu for the three smaller units that
will require additional controls for fine particles, and is also
requesting comment on whether BART can be met on the three smaller
units by requiring an emission limit of 0.03 lb/MMBtu with a 20%
opacity limit. Reduction of fine particles may help reduce the visible
secondary plume that is often emanating from these three units. For the
two larger units at Four Corners Power Plant, EPA is proposing an
emission limit of 0.015 lb/MMBtu, achievable with proper operation of
the existing baghouses.
    On November 9, 2010, EPA met with representatives from Arizona
Public Service (APS), co-owner and operator of FCPP. APS discussed an
alternative proposal that calls for shutting down Units 1-3 at FCPP by
2014 and installing SCR on Units 4 and 5 by 2018. APS claims this plan
will result in larger emissions reductions than EPA's proposal without
layoffs at the facility. A record of this meeting has been posted to
the docket for this proposed rulemaking. APS plans to submit their
alternative proposal and supporting analysis to EPA shortly. EPA will
make this submittal from APS available from our docket when it is
received. The link to the docket can be reached at the following Web
site: http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/navajo/index.html#proposed or from
http://www.regulations.gov, identified by EPA Docket Number: EPA-R09-
OAR-2010-0683.
    EPA is extending the public comment period for our proposal to
March 18, 2011 and postponing the scheduled open houses and public
hearings to allow EPA and the public time to assess the alternative
proposal submitted by APS. EPA may supplement our proposal with
additional information following our analysis of APS' submission. If
EPA supplements our original proposal, we will publish the supplement
in the Federal Register and provide supporting documentation in our
docket. The dates for the rescheduled open houses and public hearings
have

not yet been determined, but EPA will provide notice of the rescheduled
open houses and hearings in local newspapers, in our docket, and on our
Web site at least 30 days prior to the events.
    EPA's proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on
October 19, 2010 (75 FR 64221) and can be accessed the following Web
site: http://www.epa.gov/region9/airnavajo/index.html#proposed. EPA has
established a public docket for the proposed rulemaking under the
docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0683.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). Due to building security procedures, to inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment at least 24 hours in
advance during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    Dated: November 22, 2010.
Deborah Jordan,
Air Division Director, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2010-30841 Filed 12-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13061-13063]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4468]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0866; Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-065-AD;
Amendment 39-16586; AD 2011-03-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited
Model 427 Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    Tail rotor driveshaft hanger bearing bracket part number (P/N)
427-044-223-101 has been found cracked due to fatigue. It has been
determined that the fatigue cracking was initiated by a tooling mark
left during manufacture.
    The existence of tooling marks on the bracket could lead to
bracket failure, loss of tail rotor drive and, consequently, loss of
control of the helicopter.

We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective April 14, 2011.
    On April 14, 2011, the Director of the Federal Register approved
the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this
AD.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell
Helicopter Textron, Inc., P.O. Box 482, Fort Worth, TX 76101;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at http://www.bellhelicopter.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Miles, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Rotorcraft Directorate, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August 30, 2010 (75
FR 52912). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Tail rotor driveshaft hanger bearing bracket part number (P/N)
427-044-223-101 has been found cracked due to fatigue. It has been
determined that the fatigue cracking was initiated by a tooling mark
left during manufacture.
    The existence of tooling marks on the bracket could lead to
bracket failure, loss of tail rotor drive and, consequently, loss of
control of the helicopter.

    The MCAI requires you to rework the tail rotor driveshaft hanger
bearing bracket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a Note within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 30 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 4 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S.
operators to be $10,200 or $340 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
require parts costing $5,034, for a cost of $5,034 per product. We have
no way of determining the number of products that may need these
actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2011-03-03 Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited: Amendment 39-
16586; Docket No. FAA-2010-0866; Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-065-
AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective April
14, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited
Model 427 helicopters, all serial numbers (SNs), certificated in any
category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 65: Tail
Rotor Drive.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    Tail rotor driveshaft hanger bearing bracket part number (P/N)
427-044-223-101 has been found cracked due to fatigue. It has been
determined that the fatigue cracking was initiated by a tooling mark
left during manufacture.
    The existence of tooling marks on the bracket could lead to
bracket failure, loss of tail rotor drive and, consequently, loss of
control of the helicopter.

The MCAI requires you to rework the tail rotor driveshaft hanger
bearing bracket.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Applicable to SNs 56001 through 56073, and 56077: Within 30
days after April 14, 2011 (the effective date of this AD), inspect
both sides of the hanger bracket, P/N 427-044-223-101, for cracks
following Bell Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin No. 427-09-29, REV
A, dated November 17, 2009.
    (i) If no cracks are found during the inspection required by
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, rework both
sides of the hanger bracket, P/N 427-044-223-101, following Bell
Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin No. 427-09-29, REV A, dated
November 17, 2009.
    (ii) If cracks are found during the inspection required by
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, replace the
hanger bracket, P/N 427-044-223-101, with a new hanger bracket, P/N
427-044-223-101, that has been reworked following Bell Helicopter

Alert Service Bulletin No. 427-09-29, REV A, dated November 17,
2009.
    (2) Applicable to all SNs: As of April 14, 2011 (the effective
date of this AD), you may not install replacement tail rotor
driveshaft hanger bracket, P/N 427-044-223-101, unless the bracket
has been inspected and found free of cracks and has been reworked
following Bell Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin No. 427-09-29, REV
A, dated November 17, 2009.

FAA AD Differences

    Note:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Sharon Miles, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Rotorcraft Directorate, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any
approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your
appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards
District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information
subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless
that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI Transport Canada AD No. CF-2010-17, dated June
2, 2010; and Bell Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin No. 427-09-29,
REV A, dated November 17, 2009, for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use Bell Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin No. 427-
09-29, REV A, dated November 17, 2009, to do the actions required by
this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell
Helicopter Textron, Inc., P.O. Box 482, Fort Worth, TX 76101;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at http://www.bellhelicopter.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the referenced service information
at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. For information on
the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference for this AD at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 13, 2011.
Kim Smith,
Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-4468 Filed 3-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 158)]
[Notices]
[Page 50756-50757]
[DOCID:fr17au10-41]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

August 6, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1048-000.
    Applicants: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation.
    Description: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation submits Second
Revised Sheet No 408 to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 2, to
be effective 9/3/10.
    Filed Date: 08/04/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100805-0201.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 16, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1049-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC submits tariff filing
per 154.204: Negotiated Rate Agreement 8-1-2010--Colonial, to be
effective 8/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 08/05/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100805-5036.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 17, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1050-000.
    Applicants: Portland General Electric Company.
    Description: Portland General Electric Company submits its baseline
tariff filing Original Volume 1, to be effective 8/5/2010.
    Filed Date: 08/05/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100805-5101.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 17, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1051-000.
    Applicants: Central Kentucky Transmission Company.
    Description: Central Kentucky Transmission Company submits tariff
filing per 154.203: Baseline Filing to be effective 8/5/2010.
    Filed Date: 08/05/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100805-5104.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 17, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1052-000.
    Applicants: Mojave Pipeline Company.
    Description: Mojave Pipeline Company submits tariff filing per
154.204: Update Company Name to be effective 9/6/2010.
    Filed Date: 08/05/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100805-5129.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 17, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1053-000.
    Applicants: Dominion South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Dominion South Pipeline Company, LP submits tariff
filing per 154.203: DSP-2010 Report of Penalty Revenues.
    Filed Date: 08/06/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100806-5017.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 18, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1054-000.
    Applicants: Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, LLC submits tariff
filing per 154.203: MNUS Baseline Filing, to be effective 8/6/2010.
    Filed Date: 08/06/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100806-5023.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 18, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1055-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC submits
tariff filing per 154.501: Report of Refund Transco's GSS LSS Customers
Share of DTI Penalty Revenue.
    Filed Date: 08/06/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100806-5024.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 18, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1056-000.
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company submits
tariff filing per 154.203: Compliance Filing for Sheet 686 (Section 3.1
Version 0.1.0) to be effective 7/22/2010.
    Filed Date: 08/06/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100806-5039.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 18, 2010.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies

of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-20269 Filed 8-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 89)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 25507-25508]
[DOCID:fr07my08-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 529

Certain Other Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; Sevoflurane

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Final rule.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal
drug regulations to reflect approval of an abbreviated new animal drug
application (ANADA) filed by Minrad, Inc. The ANADA provides for the
use of sevoflurane inhalant anesthetic in dogs.

DATES:  This rule is effective May 7, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  John K. Harshman, Center for
Veterinary Medicine (HFV-104), Food and Drug Administration, 7500
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Minrad, Inc., 836 Main St., 2nd floor,
Buffalo, NY 14202, filed ANADA 200-438 that provides for use of PETREM
(sevoflurane) inhalant anesthetic in dogs. Minrad, Inc.'s PETREM is
approved as a generic copy of SEVOFLO, sponsored by Abbott
Laboratories, under NADA 141-103. The ANADA is approved as of April 3,
2008, and the regulations are amended in Sec.  529.2150 to reflect the
approval.
    In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR
part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and
effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of
this application

may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and
Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
    The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(1) that this action
is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
    This rule does not meet the definition of ``rule'' in 5 U.S.C.
804(3)(A) because it is a rule of ``particular applicability.''
Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements
in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 529

    Animal drugs.

0
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 529 is
amended as follows:

PART 529--CERTAIN OTHER DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 529 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 360b.

0
2. In Sec.  529.2150, revise paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  529.2150   Sevoflurane.

    (a) Specifications. Sevoflurane liquid.
    (b) Sponsors. See Nos. 000074 and 060307 in Sec.  510.600(c) of
this chapter.
* * * * *

    Dated: April 28, 2008.
Bernadette Dunham,
Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. E8-10153 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


System Category Population Served Number of Systems Average Service Connections/ System < 500 31,688 86 501 3,300 14,149 505 3,301 10,000 4,458 1,958 10,001 100,000 3,416 8,619 > 100,000 353 110,258 54,064 1,608 < 500 17,598 7 501 3,300 2,839 31 3,301 10,000 96 147 10,001 100,000 23 152 > 100,000 3 32 20,559 11 < 500 90,391 7 501 3,300 2,632 32 3,301 10,000 130 38 10,001 100,000 54 7 > 100,000 3 59 93,210 8 Exhibit C 1 CWS NTNCWS Total Public Water System Inventory TNCWS Total Source: SDWIS, September 2000 frozen inventory. Total System Category Population Served TCR MCL ( A) TCR Fecal MCL ( B) TCR Confirmation Sample ( C)=( A)* 1% Nitrate MCL ( D) Nitrate Special Notices ( NCWSs)

( E)=( D)* 10% Nitrite MCL ( F) N+ N MCL ( G) Nitrate/ Nitrite Conf. Sample ( H)=( D+ F+ G)* 5% Tier 1 SWTR TT ( I) Outbreaks/ Emergencies ( J) Total Tier 1 Violations ( K)= Sum ( B: J) Total Systems with Tier 1 Violations < 500 2,508 390 25 235 24 1 30 13 28 4.25 750 395 501 3,300 807 106 8 130 13 1 8 7 21 0.50 295 128 3,301 10k 268 20 3 12 1  1 1 7 0.13 44 23 10,001 100k 189 8 2 8 1   0 7 0.25 27 12 > 100k 11 5 0 1 0   0 1 0.13 8 6 3,783 529 38 386 39 2 39 21 64 5.26 1,123 564 < 500 976 123 10 55 6  9 3 6 0.13 211 136 501 3,300 133 23 1 9 1  2 1 0 0.13 37 20 3,301 10k 7 2 0        2 1 10,001 100k 2  0        0 0 > 100k            0 1,118 148 11 64 6  11 4 6 0.26 251 157 < 500 3,961 358 40 213 21 3 78 15 9 5.38 742 560 501 3,300 112 9 1 5 1  2 0 0  18 13 3,301 10k 8 2 0      0  2 2 10,001 100k 5  0 1 0   0 0  1 1 > 100k            0 4,086 369 41 219 22 3 80 15 9 5.38 764 576 8,987 1,046 90 669 67 5 130 40 79 10.90 2,137 1,297 Sources:

Notes: Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding.

Total for All Systems Exhibit C 2 ( J) Estimate of waterborne disease outbreaks/ emergencies from biennial " Surveillance for Waterborne Disease Outbreaks   United States" reports prepared by the Center for Disease Control ( CDC).

( C) Rate of failure to take TCR confirmation samples ( 1%) based on EPA estimate ( carried forward from previous ICR).

( E) Number of Nitrate special notices for NCWSs ( 10% of Nitrate MCL violations) based on EPA estimate ( carried forward from previous ICR).

( H) Rate of failure to take Nitrate/ Nitrate confirmation samples ( 5%) based on EPA estimate ( carried forward from previous ICR).

Subtotal ( I) SWTR single exceedance of turbidity limit TT violations elevated to Tier 1 ( 5% of all SWTR TT violations) based on EPA estimate ( carried forward from previous ICR).

Derivation of Annual Tier 1 Violation Estimates for Existing Rules ( A, B, D, F, and G) SDWIS, September 2000 frozen inventory and FY 2000 4th Quarter violations tables.

CWS NTNCWS Subtotal Subtotal TNCWS M/ R Violations SDWIS Total ( A) 1976 Rads ( B) TTHM ( C) Total Tier 2 ( D)=( A)( B+ C) SDWIS Total ( E) SWTR Total ( F) SWTR Tier 2 ( G)=( F)* 95% Total Tier 2 ( H)=( E)( F)+( G) Total Tier 2 ( I)=( Tier 3 M/ R)* 5%

< 500 2,318 167  2,151 1,638 550 523 1,611 1,593 5,355 2590 501 3,300 845 130  715 864 420 399 843 324 1,882 1018 3,301 10k 281 25  256 250 133 126 243 82 581 345 10,001 100k 233 25 20 188 294 146 139 287 81 555 311 > 100k 10   10 48 27 26 47 6 63 28 3,687 347 20 3,320 3,094 1,276 1,212 3,030 2,086 8,436 4,292 < 500 897   897 713 116 110 707 724 2,329 1157 501 3,300 114   114 118 3 3 118 112 344 188 3,301 10k 5   5 4   4 4 13 8 10,001 100k 2   2 2   2 0 4 3 > 100k         0 0 0 1,018   1,018 837 119 113 831 841 2,690 1,356 < 500 3,603   3,603 246 178 169 237 1,131 4,971 3236 501 3,300 103   103 8 4 4 8 28 139 97 3,301 10k 6   6 3 3 3 3 2 10 8 10,001 100k 5   5 1 1 1 1  6 4 > 100k           0 3,717   3,717 258 186 177 249 1,160 5,126 3,345 8,422 347 20 8,055 4,189 1,581 1,502 4,110 4,087 16,252 8,993 Sources: Notes: Total Systems with Tier 2 Violations Figures for 1976 Radionuclides and TTHM Rules are subtracted out and analyzed separately since each is superceded by a more recent regulation.

Exhibit C 3 Derivation of Annual Tier 2 Violation Estimates for Existing Rules ( A, B, C, E, and F) SDWIS, September 2000 frozen inventory and FY 2000 4th Quarter violations tables.

CWS NTNCWS Subtotal Subtotal TNCWS ( I) Tier 3 violations elevated to Tier 2 ( 5% of all M/ R violations) based on EPA estimate ( carried forward from previous ICR).

Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding. TT Violations Population Served ( G) SWTR single exceedance of turbidity limit TT violations elevated to Tier 1 ( 5% of all TT violations) based on EPA estimate. All remaining SWTR TT violations are considered to be Tier 2. Total Tier 2 ( All Types)

( J)=( D+ H+ I)

Total for All Systems Subtotal System Category MCL Violations Population Served SDWIS M/ R Total ( A) 1976 Rads ( B) TTHM ( C) Total Tier 3 ( D)=(( A)( B+ C))*. 95 SDWIS M/ R Total ( E) 1976 Rads ( F) TTHM ( G) Total Tier 3 ( H)=( E)( F+ G)

< 500 32,134 265  30,276 9,933 218  9,715 501 3,300 6,537 48  6,165 2,473 36  2,437 3,301 10k 1,640 10  1,549 690 10  680 10,001 100k 1,665 3 49 1,532 504 3 49 452 > 100k 120  1 113 42  1 41 42,096 326 50 39,634 13,642 267 50 13,325 < 500 14,489   13,765 4,264   4,264 501 3,300 2,234   2,122 566   566 3,301 10k 82   78 34   34 10,001 100k 6   6 5   5 > 100k 1   1 1   1 16,812   15,971 4,870   4,870 < 500 22,611   21,480 13,371   13,371 501 3,300 564   536 315   315 3,301 10k 32   30 16   16 10,001 100k

> 100k

23,207   22,047 13,702   13,702 82,115 326 50 77,652 32,214 267 50 31,897 Sources:

Notes: Exhibit C 4 Figures for 1976 Radionuclides and TTHM Rules are subtracted out and analyzed separately since each is superceded by a more recent regulation.

Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding.

Violation Data System Category System Data ( E H) Burden for Tier 3 violations is calculated on a per system basis since multiple violations at one system are likely to be reported in a single report.

( D) Tier 3 violations elevated to Tier 2 ( 5% of all M/ R violations) based on EPA estimate ( carried forward from previous ICR).

Tier 3 M/ R totals include Flouride MCL violations and UCMR reporting requirements.

Derivation of Annual Tier 3 Violation Estimates for Existing Rules ( A, B, C, E, F, and G) SDWIS, September 2000 frozen inventory and FY 2000 4th Quarter violations tables.

CWS NTNCWS Subtotal Subtotal TNCWS Total for All Systems Subtotal Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 < 500 375 2,677 4,858 750 5,355 9,715 750 5,355 9,715 750 5,355 9,715 501 3,300 147 941 1,219 295 1,882 2,437 295 1,882 2,437 295 1,882 2,437 3,301 10k 22 290 340 44 581 680 44 581 680 44 581 680 10,001 100k 13 278 226 27 555 452 27 555 452 27 555 452 > 100k 4 31 21 8 63 41 8 63 41 8 63 41 561 4,218 6,663 1,123 8,436 13,325 1,123 8,436 13,325 1,123 8,436 13,325 < 500 106 1,164 2,132 211 2,329 4,264 211 2,329 4,264 211 2,329 4,264 501 3,300 19 172 283 37 344 566 37 344 566 37 344 566 3,301 10k 1 7 17 2 13 34 2 13 34 2 13 34 10,001 100k 0 2 3 0 4 5 0 4 5 0 4 5 > 100k  0 1  0 1  0 1  0 1 125 1,345 2,435 251 2,690 4,870 251 2,690 4,870 251 2,690 4,870 < 500 371 2,485 6,686 742 4,971 13,371 742 4,971 13,371 742 4,971 13,371 501 3,300 9 70 158 18 139 315 18 139 315 18 139 315 3,301 10k 1 5 8 2 10 16 2 10 16 2 10 16 10,001 100k 1 3  1 6  1 6  1 6

> 100k

382 2,563 6,851 764 5,126 13,702 764 5,126 13,702 764 5,126 13,702 1,068 8,126 15,949 2,137 16,252 31,897 2,137 16,252 31,897 2,137 16,252 31,897 Sources: Notes:

Total for All Systems Existing Violations Tables ( Exhibits C 2, C 3, and C 4). Exhibit C 5 Figures for 1976 Radionuclides and TTHM Rules are not included in totals. Violations under these rules are analyzed separately since each is superceded by a more recent regulation.

Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding.

Year 1 figures represent 50% of totals from Exhibits C 2, C 3, and C 4.

Annual average violations represent total from all years divided by the period covered by this ICR ( i. e., sum of violations for years 1 to 3/ 2.5 years).

Summary of Annual Violation Estimates for Existing Rules System Category Population Served NTNCWS Subtotal TNCWS Subtotal Total Violations  Year 3 ( Jan. 1  Dec. 31, 2004) Annual Average Violations CWS Subtotal Total Violations  Year 1 ( Jul. 1  Dec. 31, 2002) Total Violations  Year 2 ( Jan. 1  Dec. 31, 2003) Tier 1 Chlorine Dioxide ( B) TTHM Rule MCL Rate ( C) Large TTHM ( D)=( C* 2) Small TTHM ( E) Large HAA5 ( F)=( C* 3) Small HAA5 ( G) Large Residuals ( H) Small Residuals ( I) Large Bromate ( J) Small Bromate ( K) Chlorite Systems ( L) Large Chlorite ( M) Small Chlorite ( N) Large TT ( O)=( C* 2) Small TT ( P) Large M/ R ( Q)=( A* 1%*

5%) Small M/ R ( R)=( A* 1%*

5%) Large M/ R ( S)=( A* 1%*

95%) Small M/ R ( T)=( A* 1%* 9 5%)

< 500 21,063  N/ A N/ A 256 N/ A 385 N/ A 13 N/ A 6 2,115 N/ A 1 N/ A 256 N/ A 11 N/ A 200 501 3,300 11,909  N/ A N/ A 145 N/ A 217 N/ A 7 N/ A 4 3,779 N/ A 2 N/ A 145 N/ A 6 N/ A 113 3,301 10k 3,874  N/ A N/ A 47 N/ A 71 N/ A 2 N/ A 1 1,927 N/ A 1 N/ A 47 N/ A 2 N/ A 37 10,001 100k 3,286 1 20 40 N/ A 60 N/ A 2 N/ A 1 N/ A 2,009 1 N/ A 40 N/ A 2 N/ A 31 N/ A > 100k 342   4 N/ A 6 N/ A  N/ A  N/ A 290  N/ A 4 N/ A 0 N/ A 3 N/ A 40,475 1 20 44 449 66 673 2 22 1 11 10,120 1 4 44 449 2 18 34 350 < 500 6,890  N/ A N/ A 84 N/ A 126 N/ A 4 N/ A 2 302 N/ A 0 N/ A 84 N/ A 3 N/ A 65 501 3,300 1,164  N/ A N/ A 14 N/ A 21 N/ A 1 N/ A 0 183 N/ A 0 N/ A 14 N/ A 1 N/ A 11 3,301 10k 48  N/ A N/ A 1 N/ A 1 N/ A 0 N/ A 0 22 N/ A 0 N/ A 1 N/ A 0 N/ A 0 10,001 100k 14   0 N/ A 0 N/ A  N/ A  N/ A 10  N/ A 0 N/ A 0 N/ A 0 N/ A > 100k 2   0 N/ A 0 N/ A  N/ A  N/ A 1  N/ A 0 N/ A 0 N/ A 0 N/ A 8,118   0 99 0 148  5  2 518  0 0 99 0 4 0 77 < 500 33,945  N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 501 3,300 1,067  N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 3,301 10k 68  N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 10,001 100k 28  N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A > 100k 1  N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 35,109  N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 83,702 1 20 44 547 67 821 2 27 1 14 10,638 1 4 44 547 2 22 35 427 Sources: Notes: Exhibit C 6 Tier 2 System Category Population Served Total Systems ( A) Derivation of Stage 1 DBPR Violation Estimates Tier 3 ( C) SDWIS, September 2000 frozen inventory and FY 2000 4th Quarter violations tables.

CWS NTNCWS Subtotal Subtotal TNCWS Total for All Systems Subtotal ( A, L) Stage 1 DBPR inventories of systems taken from the 2001 DBP/ Chem/ Rads ICR inventory tables.

( B, D, F, H, J, M, and O) Annual Stage 1 DBPR violations for large systems based on EPA estimates.

( Q, R, S, and T) Annual Stage 1 DBPR M/ R violations ( 1% of all systems) and Tier 3 violations elevated to Tier 2 ( 5% of all M/ R violations) based on EPA estimates ( carried forward from previous ICR).

( E, G, I, K, N, and P) Annual Stage 1 DBPR violations for small and very large (> 100k) systems estimated based on large system ( 10,001 100k) violations multiplied by the ratio of small and very large to large systems in each size category.

Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding. Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 < 500        928 200  371 80 501 3,300        526 113  210 45 3,301 10k        172 37  69 15 10,001 100k 1 73 16 1 146 31 1 146 31 1 146 31 > 100k  7 2  15 3  15 3  15 3 1 80 17 1 160 34 1 1,786 385 1 811 174 < 500        303 65  121 26 501 3,300        51 11  21 4 3,301 10k        2 0  1 0 10,001 100k  0 0  1 0  1 0  1 0 > 100k  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  1 0  358 77  143 31 < 500

501 3,300

3,301 10k

10,001 100k

> 100k

1 81 17 1 161 35 1 2,144 462 1 954 205 Sources:

Notes: Exhibit C 7 Summary of Annual Violation Estimates for the Stage 1 DBPR System Category Population Served Total Violations  Year 1 ( Jul. 1  Dec. 31, 2002) Total Violations  Year 2 ( Jan. 1  Dec. 31, 2003) Total Violations  Year 3 ( Jan. 1  Dec. 31, 2004) Annual Average Violations CWS Subtotal NTNCWS Subtotal TNCWS Subtotal Total for All Systems Stage 1 DBPR Violations Table ( Exhibit C 6).

Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding.

Year 1 figures represent 50% of totals from Exhibit C 6.

Annual average violations represent total from all years divided by the period covered by this ICR ( i. e., sum of violations for years 1 to 3/ 2.5 years).

Due to differing implementation schedules, violations represent only large systems until 2004. Tier 1 Tier 3 Elevated Single Exceedances ( B)=( C* 5%) Total Turbidity ( C) Tier 2 Turbidity ( D)=( C* 95%) Failure to Take Corrective Action ( E)=( A* 2%) M/ R ( F)=( G* 1%* 5%) M/ R ( G)=( A* 1%* 95%)

< 500 N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 501 3,300 N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 3,301 10k N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 10,001 100k 1,043 2 40 38 21 1 10 > 100k 185 0 7 7 4 0 2 1,228 2 47 45 25 1 12 < 500 N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 501 3,300 N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 3,301 10k N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 10,001 100k 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 100k

3 0 0 0 0 0 0 < 500 N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 501 3,300 N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 3,301 10k N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 10,001 100k 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 100k

10 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,241 2 48 45 25 1 12 Sources: Notes: Exhibit C 8 ( B and D) Single exceedance of turbidity limit TT violations elevated to Tier 1 ( 5% of all turbidity violations) based on EPA estimate ( carried forward from previous ICR).

( C) Number of turbidity violations estimated at 2 times the TTHM MCL violation rate.

( E) Rate of failure to take corrective action ( 2% of all systems) based on EPA estimate ( carried forward from previous ICR).

( F and G) Annual IESWTR M/ R violations ( 1% of all systems) and Tier 3 violations elevated to Tier 2 ( 5% of all M/ R violations) based on EPA estimates ( carried forward from previous ICR).

( A) IESWTR inventory of systems taken from the 2001 Microbial ICR inventory tables.

CWS TNCWS Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding. Tier 2 Derivation of IESWTR Violation Estimates Total Systems ( A)

Total for All Systems Subtotal Population Served System Category NTNCWS Subtotal Subtotal Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 < 500

501 3,300

3,301 10k

10,001 100k 1 30 5 2 59 10 2 59 10 2 59 10 > 100k 0 5 1 0 11 2 0 11 2 0 11 2 1 35 6 2 70 12 2 70 12 2 70 12 < 500

501 3,300

3,301 10k

10,001 100k 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 100k

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 < 500

501 3,300

3,301 10k

10,001 100k 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 > 100k

0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 35 6 2 71 12 2 71 12 2 71 12 Sources:

Notes: Exhibit C 9 Summary of Annual Violation Estimates for the IESWTR System Category Population Served Total Violations  Year 1 ( Jul. 1  Dec. 31, 2002) Total Violations  Year 2 ( Jan. 1  Dec. 31, 2003) Total Violations  Year 3 ( Jan. 1  Dec. 31, 2004) Annual Average Violations CWS Subtotal NTNCWS Subtotal TNCWS Subtotal Total for All Systems IESWTR Violations Table ( Exhibit C 8).

Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding.

Year 1 figures represent 50% of totals from Exhibit C 8.

Annual average violations represent total from all years divided by the period covered by this ICR ( i. e., sum of violations for years 1 to 3/ 2.5 years). Tier 3 TT ( B)=( A* 2%) M/ R ( C)=( A* 1%* 5%) M/ R ( D)=( A* 1%* 95%)

< 500 363 7 0 3 501 3,300 684 14 0 6 3,301 10k 528 11 0 5 10,001 100k 626 13 0 6 > 100k 116 2 0 1 2,317 46 1 22 < 500 207 4 0 2 501 3,300 104 2 0 1 3,301 10k 12 0 0 0 10,001 100k 3 0 0 0 > 100k

325 6 0 3 < 500 363 7 0 3 501 3,300 82 2 0 1 3,301 10k 23 0 0 0 10,001 100k 10 0 0 0 > 100k

478 10 0 5 3,119 62 2 30 Sources:

Notes: Exhibit C 10 Derivation of FBRR Violation Estimates ( A) FBRR system inventory taken from the 2001 FBRR ICR inventory tables. CWS NTNCWS Subtotal Subtotal TNCWS Total for All Systems Subtotal Total Systems ( A) System Category ( B) FBRR TT violations ( 2% of all systems) based on EPA estimate.

Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding. Tier 2 Population Served ( C and D) Annual FBRR M/ R violations ( 1% of all systems) and Tier 3 violations elevated to Tier 2 ( 5% of all M/ R violations) based on EPA estimates ( carried forward from previous ICR). Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 < 500        4 2  1 1 501 3,300        7 3  3 1 3,301 10k        5 3  2 1 10,001 100k        6 3  3 1 > 100k        1 1  0 0        24 11  9 4 < 500        2 1  1 0 501 3,300        1 0  0 0 3,301 10k        0 0  0 0 10,001 100k        0 0  0 0 > 100k

       3 2  1 1 < 500        4 2  1 1 501 3,300        1 0  0 0 3,301 10k        0 0  0 0 10,001 100k        0 0  0 0 > 100k

       5 2  2 1        32 15  13 6 Sources:

Notes: Exhibit C 11 CWS Subtotal Subtotal NTNCWS Subtotal TNCWS Total Violations  Year 3 ( Jan. 1  Dec. 31, 2004) Annual Average Violations Summary of Annual FBRR Violation Estimates Total Violations  Year 1 ( July 1  Dec. 31, 2002) Total Violations  Year 2 ( Jan. 1  Dec. 31, 2003)

System Category Population Served Annual average violations represent total from all years divided by the period covered by this ICR ( i. e., sum of violations for years 1 to 3/ 2.5 years).

Total for All Systems FBRR Violations Table ( Exhibits C 10).

Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding. Existing MCL ( B) Uranium MCL ( C)=( B*. 5) Existing M/ R ( D)=( F* 5%) Uranium M/ R ( E)=( F* 5%) Total Existing M/ R ( F) Existing M/ R ( G)=( F)* 95% Uranium M/ R ( H)=( F*. 5)* 95%

< 500 31,688 167 84 13 13 265 252 126 501 3,300 14,149 130 65 2 2 48 46 23 3,301 10k 4,458 25 13 1 1 10 10 5 10,001 100k 3,416 25 13 0 0 3 3 1 > 100k 353

54,064 347 174 16 16 326 310 155 < 500 N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 501 3,300 N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 3,301 10k N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 10,001 100k N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A > 100k N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A < 500 N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 501 3,300 N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 3,301 10k N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 10,001 100k N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A > 100k N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 54,064 347 174 16 16 326 310 155 Sources: Notes: Exhibit C 12 Population Served System Category Tier 2 Derivation of Radionuclides Violation Estimates Total Systems ( A) Tier 3 ( A) Radionuclides inventory of systems taken from the 2001 DBP/ Chem/ Rads ICR inventory tables.

CWS NTNCWS Subtotal Subtotal TNCWS Total for All Systems Subtotal ( B and F) SDWIS, September 2000 frozen inventory and FY 2000 4th Quarter violations tables.

( C and H) Number of additional violations due to uranium requirements estimated to be half the number of existing violations under the 1976 Radionuclides Rule.

( D, E, G, and H) Tier 3 violations elevated to Tier 2 ( 5% of all M/ R violations) based on EPA estimates ( carried forward from previous ICR).

Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding. Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 < 500  90 126  180 252  277 378  219 302 501 3,300  66 23  132 46  200 68  159 55 3,301 10k  13 5  26 10  39 14  31 11 10,001 100k  13 1  25 3  38 4  30 3 > 100k

 182 155  363 310  553 465  439 372 < 500

501 3,300

3,301 10k

10,001 100k

> 100k

< 500

501 3,300

3,301 10k

10,001 100k

> 100k

 182 155  363 310  553 465  439 372 Sources: Notes: Exhibit C 13 Total Violations  Year 3 ( Jan. 1  Dec. 31, 2004) Annual Average Violations Summary of Annual Radionuclides Violation Estimates Total Violations  Year 1 ( July 1  Dec. 31, 2002) Total Violations  Year 2 ( Jan. 1  Dec. 31, 2003)

System Category Population Served CWS Subtotal Subtotal NTNCWS Subtotal TNCWS Year 1 figures represent 50% of totals from Exhibit C 12.

Total for All Systems Radionuclides Violations Table ( Exhibit C 12).

Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding.

Annual average violations represent total from all years divided by the period covered by this ICR ( i. e., sum of violations for years 1 to 3/ 2.5 years) Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 < 500 375 2,768 4,983 750 5,535 9,967 750 6,564 10,294 750 5,947 10,098 501 3,300 147 1,007 1,241 295 2,015 2,483 295 2,615 2,622 295 2,255 2,538 3,301 10k 22 303 345 44 606 690 44 796 734 44 682 707 10,001 100k 15 393 248 30 786 496 30 805 500 30 793 498 > 100k 4 44 23 8 88 46 8 89 47 8 88 46 563 4,515 6,840 1,126 9,030 13,681 1,126 10,869 14,197 1,126 9,766 13,887 < 500 106 1,164 2,132 211 2,329 4,264 211 2,634 4,330 211 2,451 4,291 501 3,300 19 172 283 37 344 566 37 396 578 37 364 571 3,301 10k 1 7 17 2 13 34 2 15 35 2 14 34 10,001 100k 0 3 3 0 5 5 0 5 5 0 5 5 > 100k  0 1  0 1  0 1  0 1 125 1,345 2,435 251 2,690 4,870 251 3,051 4,949 251 2,835 4,902 < 500 371 2,485 6,686 742 4,971 13,371 742 4,974 13,373 742 4,972 13,372 501 3,300 9 70 158 18 139 315 18 140 315 18 139 315 3,301 10k 1 5 8 2 10 16 2 11 16 2 11 16 10,001 100k 1 3 0 1 7 0 1 7 0 1 7 0 > 100k

382 2,563 6,851 764 5,127 13,702 764 5,132 13,704 764 5,129 13,703 1,070 8,423 16,127 2,140 16,847 32,253 2,140 19,051 32,850 2,140 17,729 32,492 Sources:

Notes: Exhibit C 14 Total for All Systems Sum of all schedule tables ( Exhibits C 5, C 7, C 9, C 11, and C 13).

Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding.

Annual average violations represent total from all years divided by the period covered by this ICR ( i. e., sum of violations for years 1 to 3/ 2.5 years).

CWS Subtotal Subtotal NTNCWS Subtotal TNCWS Total Violations  Year 3 ( Jan. 1  Dec. 31, 2004) Annual Average Violations Summary of Annual Violation Estimates ( All Rules)

Total Violations  Year 1 ( July 1  Dec. 31, 2002) Total Violations  Year 2 ( Jan. 1  Dec. 31, 2003)

System Category Population Served Labor Capital/ O& M Number of Total Labor Capital/ SU/

Hours @ Startup Costs Responses Hours Costs O& M Costs INFORMATION COLLECTION $ 24.03 Costs per per or per per per ACTIVITY per hour Activity Activity Activities Year Year Year Preparation of Notice TIER 1  Preparation CWS Systems serving < 500 8.5  $  $ 750 6,372 153,116 $  $ Systems serving 501  3,300 8.5  $  $ 295 2,503 60,157 $  $ Systems serving 3,301  10,000 8.5  $  $ 44 377 9,051 $  $ Systems serving 10,001  100,000 10.0  $  $ 30 296 7,122 $  $ Systems serving over 100,000 10.0  $  $ 8 81 1,945 $  $ NTNCWS Systems serving < 500 8.5  $  $ 211 1,797 43,177 $  $ Systems serving 501  3,300 8.5  $  $ 37 315 7,570 $  $ Systems serving 3,301  10,000 8.5  $  $ 2 18 423 $  $ Systems serving 10,001  100,000 10.0  $  $ 0 0 6 $  $ Systems serving over 100,000 10.0  $  $    $  $ TNCWS Systems serving < 500 8.5  $  $ 742 6,306 151,535 $  $ Systems serving 501  3,300 8.5  $  $ 18 154 3,711 $  $ Systems serving 3,301  10,000 8.5  $  $ 2 19 455 $  $ Systems serving 10,001  100,000 10.0  $  $ 1 13 305 $  $ Systems serving over 100,000 10.0  $  $    $  $ TIER 2  Preparation CWS Systems serving < 500 3.5  $  $ 5,947 20,813 500,147 $  $ Systems serving 501  3,300 3.5  $  $ 2,255 7,893 189,662 $  $ Systems serving 3,301  10,000 3.5  $  $ 682 2,388 57,386 $  $ Systems serving 10,001  100,000 3.5  $  $ 793 2,776 66,708 $  $ Systems serving over 100,000 3.5  $  $ 88 309 7,432 $  $ NTNCWS Systems serving < 500 3.5  $  $ 2,451 8,578 206,131 $  $ Systems serving 501  3,300 3.5  $  $ 364 1,276 30,656 $  $ Systems serving 3,301  10,000 3.5  $  $ 14 49 1,178 $  $ Systems serving 10,001  100,000 3.5  $  $ 5 18 427 $  $ Systems serving over 100,000 3.5  $  $ 0 0 11 $  $ TNCWS Systems serving < 500 3.5  $  $ 4,972 17,402 418,182 $  $ Systems serving 501  3,300 3.5  $  $ 139 488 11,719 $  $ Systems serving 3,301  10,000 3.5  $  $ 11 37 887 $  $ Systems serving 10,001  100,000 3.5  $  $ 7 23 553 $  $ Systems serving over 100,000 3.5  $  $    $  $ TIER 3  Preparation CWS Systems serving < 500 1.0  $  $ 10,098 10,098 242,651 $  $ Systems serving 501  3,300 1.0  $  $ 2,538 2,538 60,995 $  $ Systems serving 3,301  10,000 1.0  $  $ 707 707 16,992 $  $ Systems serving 10,001  100,000 1.0  $  $ 498 498 11,960 $  $ Systems serving over 100,000 1.0  $  $ 46 46 1,111 $  $ NTNCWS Systems serving < 500 3.5  $  $ 4,291 15,017 360,859 $  $ Systems serving 501  3,300 3.5  $  $ 571 1,997 47,992 $  $ Systems serving 3,301  10,000 3.5  $  $ 34 120 2,877 $  $ Systems serving 10,001  100,000 3.5  $  $ 5 18 435 $  $ Systems serving over 100,000 3.5  $  $ 1 4 85 $  $ TNCWS Systems serving < 500 3.5  $  $ 13,372 46,801 1,124,626 $  $ Systems serving 501  3,300 3.5  $  $ 315 1,103 26,506 $  $ Systems serving 3,301  10,000 3.5  $  $ 16 56 1,349 $  $ Systems serving 10,001  100,000 3.5  $  $ 0 0 10 $  $ Systems serving over 100,000 3.5  $  $    $  $ TOTAL  Preparation Total CWS Systems serving < 500 16,794 37,283 895,913 $  $ Systems serving 501  3,300 5,088 12,934 310,813 $  $ Systems serving 3,301  10,000 1,434 3,472 83,429 $  $ Systems serving 10,001  100,000 1,321 3,570 85,791 $  $ Systems serving over 100,000 143 436 10,488 $  $ TOTAL 24,779 57,696 1,386,435 $  $ Total NTNCWS Systems serving < 500 6,953 25,392 610,168 $  $ Systems serving 501  3,300 972 3,588 86,218 $  $ Systems serving 3,301  10,000 50 186 4,477 $  $ Systems serving 10,001  100,000 10 36 867 $  $ Systems serving over 100,000 1 4 96 $  $ TOTAL 7,987 29,206 701,826 $  $ Total TNCWS Systems serving < 500 19,086 70,509 1,694,342 $  $ Systems serving 501  3,300 473 1,745 41,936 $  $ Systems serving 3,301  10,000 29 112 2,692 $  $ Systems serving 10,001  100,000 8 36 869 $  $ Systems serving over 100,000    $  $ TOTAL 19,595 72,403 1,739,839 $  $ TOTAL 52,361 159,305 3,828,100 $  $ Note: Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding. Exhibit C 15 PN RULE ANNUAL ESTIMATED RESPONDENT BURDEN & COST ( PWS BURDEN)  PREPARATION OF NOTICES Labor Capital/ Avg. O& M Service Number of Total Labor Capital/ SU/

Hours @ Startup Costs Connections Responses Hours Costs O& M Costs INFORMATION COLLECTION $ 24.03 Costs per per per or per per per ACTIVITY per hour Activity Activity System Activities Year Year Year Distribution of Notice TIER 1  Distribution CWS Systems serving < 500 ( Posting and hand delivery) 12  $ 0.05 $ 86 750 8,996 216,163 $ 2,901 $ Systems serving 501  3,300 ( Mass Media) 12  $  $ 505 295 3,534 84,928 $  $ Systems serving 3,301  10,000 ( Mass Media) 12  $  $ 1,958 44 532 12,777 $  $ Systems serving 10,001  100,000 ( Mass Media) 12  $  $ 8,619 30 356 8,547 $  $ Systems serving over 100,000 ( Mass Media) 12  $  $ 110,258 8 97 2,334 $  $ NTNCWS Systems serving < 500 ( Posting and hand delivery) 12  $ 0.05 $ 7 211 2,537 60,956 $ 67 $ Systems serving 501  3,300 ( Posting and mass media) 12  $  $ 31 37 445 10,687 $  $ Systems serving 3,301  10,000 ( Posting and mass media) 12  $  $ 147 2 25 597 $  $ Systems serving 10,001  100,000 ( Posting and mass media) 12  $  $ 152 0 0 7 $  $ Systems serving over 100,000 ( Posting and mass media) 12  $  $ 32 0 0  $  $ TNCWS Systems serving < 500 ( Posting and hand delivery) 12  $ 0.05 $ 7 742 8,903 213,931 $ 234 $ Systems serving 501  3,300 ( Posting and mass media) 12  $  $ 32 18 218 5,240 $  $ Systems serving 3,301  10,000 ( Posting and mass media) 12  $  $ 38 2 27 643 $  $ Systems serving 10,001  100,000 ( Posting and mass media) 12  $  $ 7 1 15 366 $  $ Systems serving over 100,000 ( Posting and mass media) 12  $  $ 59 0 0  $  $ TIER 2  Distribution CWS Systems serving < 500 ( Posting and hand delivery) 9  $ 0.05 $ 86 5,947 53,520 1,286,091 $ 23,014 $ Systems serving 501  3,300 ( Mail or Bill Stuffer) 30  $ 0.22 $ 505 2,255 67,652 1,625,670 $ 244,843 $ Systems serving 3,301  10,000 ( Mail or Bill Stuffer) 30  $ 0.22 $ 1,958 682 20,470 491,883 $ 287,236 $ Systems serving 10,001  100,000 ( Mail or Bill Stuffer) 30  $ 0.19 $ 8,619 793 23,794 571,779 $ 1,298,865 $ Systems serving over 100,000 ( Mail or Bill Stuffer) 30  $ 0.19 $ 110,258 88 2,651 63,705 $ 1,851,238 $ NTNCWS Systems serving < 500 ( Posting and hand delivery) 9  $ 0.05 $ 7 2,451 22,058 530,052 $ 772 $ Systems serving 501  3,300 ( Posting and hand delivery) 9  $ 0.05 $ 31 364 3,280 78,830 $ 508 $ Systems serving 3,301  10,000 ( Posting and hand delivery) 9  $ 0.05 $ 147 14 126 3,028 $ 93 $ Systems serving 10,001  100,000 ( Posting and hand delivery) 9  $ 0.02 $ 152 5 46 1,098 $ 15 $ Systems serving over 100,000 ( Posting and hand delivery) 9  $ 0.02 $ 32 0 1 27 $ 0 $ TNCWS Systems serving < 500 ( Posting and hand delivery) 9  $ 0.05 $ 7 4,972 44,749 1,075,324 $ 1,566 $ Systems serving 501  3,300 ( Posting and hand delivery) 9  $ 0.05 $ 32 139 1,254 30,134 $ 201 $ Systems serving 3,301  10,000 ( Posting and hand delivery) 9  $ 0.05 $ 38 11 95 2,281 $ 18 $ Systems serving 10,001  100,000 ( Posting and hand delivery) 9  $ 0.02 $ 7 7 59 1,423 $ 1 $ Systems serving over 100,000 ( Posting and hand delivery) 9  $ 0.02 $ 59 0 0  $  $ TIER 3  Distribution CWS Systems serving < 500 ( Posting and Hand delivery) 9  $ 0.05 $ 86 10,098 90,880 2,183,858 $ 39,079 $ Systems serving 501  3,300 ( CCR and mail) 5  $ 0.11 $ 505 2,538 12,691 304,973 $ 137,796 $ Systems serving 3,301  10,000 ( CCR and mail) 5  $ 0.11 $ 1,958 707 3,536 84,961 $ 148,839 $ Systems serving 10,001  100,000 ( CCR) 0  $  $ 8,619 498 0  $  $ Systems serving over 100,000 ( CCR) 0  $  $ 110,258 46 0  $  $ NTNCWS Systems serving < 500 ( Posting and hand delivery) 9  $ 0.05 $ 7 4,291 38,615 927,923 $ 1,352 $ Systems serving 501  3,300 ( Posting and hand delivery) 9  $ 0.05 $ 31 571 5,136 123,408 $ 796 $ Systems serving 3,301  10,000 ( Posting and hand delivery) 9  $ 0.05 $ 147 34 308 7,398 $ 226 $ Systems serving 10,001  100,000 ( Posting and hand delivery) 9  $ 0.02 $ 152 5 46 1,117 $ 16 $ Systems serving over 100,000 ( Posting and hand delivery) 9  $ 0.02 $ 32 1 9 220 $ 1 $ TNCWS Systems serving < 500 ( Posting and hand delivery) 9  $ 0.05 $ 7 13,372 120,345 2,891,895 $ 4,212 $ Systems serving 501  3,300 ( Posting and hand delivery) 9  $ 0.05 $ 32 315 2,836 68,159 $ 454 $ Systems serving 3,301  10,000 ( Posting and hand delivery) 9  $ 0.05 $ 38 16 144 3,470 $ 27 $ Systems serving 10,001  100,000 ( Posting and hand delivery) 9  $ 0.02 $ 7 0 1 27 $ 0 $ Systems serving over 100,000 ( Posting and hand delivery) 9  $ 0.02 $ 59 0 0  $  $ TOTAL  Distribution Total CWS Systems serving < 500 16,794 153,396 3,686,112 $ 64,993 $ Systems serving 501  3,300 5,088 83,877 2,015,571 $ 382,639 $ Systems serving 3,301  10,000 1,434 24,537 589,622 $ 436,075 $ Systems serving 10,001  100,000 1,321 24,150 580,326 $ 1,298,865 $ Systems serving over 100,000 143 2,748 66,039 $ 1,851,238 $ TOTAL 24,779 288,709 6,937,671 $ 4,033,810 $ Total NTNCWS Systems serving < 500 6,953 63,210 1,518,931 $ 2,190 $ Systems serving 501  3,300 972 8,861 212,924 $ 1,304 $ Systems serving 3,301  10,000 50 459 11,023 $ 319 $ Systems serving 10,001  100,000 10 92 2,222 $ 31 $ Systems serving over 100,000 1 10 247 $  $ TOTAL 7,987 72,632 1,745,347 $ 3,845 $ Total TWS Systems serving < 500 19,086 173,997 4,181,151 $ 6,012 $ Systems serving 501  3,300 473 4,308 103,532 $ 654 $ Systems serving 3,301  10,000 29 266 6,394 $ 45 $ Systems serving 10,001  100,000 8 76 1,815 $ 1 $ Systems serving over 100,000 0 0  $  $ TOTAL 19,595 178,647 4,292,892 $ 6,713 $ TOTAL 52,361 539,988 12,975,910 $ 4,044,368 $ Note: Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding. Exhibit C 16 PN RULE ANNUAL ESTIMATED RESPONDENT BURDEN & COST ( PWS BURDEN)  DISTRIBUTION OF NOTICES Labor Capital/ Avg. O& M Service Number of Total Labor Capital/ SU/

Hours @ Startup Costs Connections Responses Hours Costs O& M Costs INFORMATION COLLECTION $ 24.03 Costs per per per or per per per ACTIVITY per hour Activity Activity System Activities Year Year Year DEVELOPMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF REPEAT PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Preparation of Repeat Notice TIER 1  Preparation CWS  Nitrate Systems serving < 500 0.33  $  $ N/ A 266 89 2,131 $  $ Systems serving 501  3,300 0.33  $  $ N/ A 139 46 1,113 $  $ Systems serving 3,301  10,000 0.33  $  $ N/ A 13 4 104 $  $ Systems serving 10,001  100,000 0.33  $  $ N/ A 8 3 64 $  $ Systems serving over 100,000 0.33  $  $ N/ A 1 0 8 $  $ TIER 2  Preparation CWS  Coliform Systems serving < 500 0.33  $  $ N/ A 212 71 1,697 $  $ Systems serving 501  3,300 0.33  $  $ N/ A    $  $ Systems serving 3,301  10,000 0.33  $  $ N/ A    $  $ Systems serving 10,001  100,000 0.33  $  $ N/ A    $  $ Systems serving over 100,000 0.33  $  $ N/ A    $  $ CWS  MCL, not NO3 or Coliform Systems serving < 500 0.33  $  $ N/ A 945 315 7,568 $  $ Systems serving 501  3,300 0.33  $  $ N/ A 584 195 4,679 $  $ Systems serving 3,301  10,000 0.33  $  $ N/ A 168 56 1,345 $  $ Systems serving 10,001  100,000 0.33  $  $ N/ A 150 50 1,197 $  $ Systems serving over 100,000 0.33  $  $ N/ A 14 5 115 $  $ TOTAL  Preparation of Repeat Notice Total CWS Systems serving < 500 1,423 474 11,395 $  $ Systems serving 501  3,300 723 241 5,793 $  $ Systems serving 3,301  10,000 181 60 1,449 $  $ Systems serving 10,001  100,000 158 52 1,262 $  $ Systems serving over 100,000 15 5 123 $  $ TOTAL 2,500 833 20,022 $  $ Distribution of Repeat Notice TIER 1  Distribution CWS  Nitrate Systems serving < 500 ( Posting and hand delivery) 12  $ 0.05 $ 86 266 3,192 76,704 $ 1,029 $ Systems serving 501  3,300 ( Mass Media) 12  $  $ 505 139 1,668 40,082 $  $ Systems serving 3,301  10,000 ( Mass Media) 12  $  $ 1,958 13 156 3,749 $  $ Systems serving 10,001  100,000 ( Mass Media) 12  $  $ 8,619 8 96 2,307 $  $ Systems serving over 100,000 ( Mass Media) 12  $  $ 110,258 1 12 288 $  $ TIER 2  Distribution CWS  Coliform Systems serving < 500 ( Posting and hand delivery) 9  $ 0.05 $ 86 212 1,906 45,806 $ 820 $ Systems serving 501  3,300 ( Mail or Bill Stuffer) 30  $ 0.22 $ 505    $  $ Systems serving 3,301  10,000 ( Mail or Bill Stuffer) 30  $ 0.22 $ 1,958    $  $

Systems serving 10,001  100,000 ( Mail or Bill Stuffer) 30  $ 0.19 $ 8,619    $  $

Systems serving over 100,000 ( Mail or Bill Stuffer) 30  $ 0.19 $ 110,258    $  $ CWS  MCL, not NO3 or Coliform Systems serving < 500 ( Posting and hand delivery) 9  $ 0.05 $ 86 945 8,503 204,336 $ 3,656 $ Systems serving 501  3,300 ( Mail or Bill Stuffer) 30  $ 0.22 $ 505 584 17,525 421,138 $ 63,428 $ Systems serving 3,301  10,000 ( Mail or Bill Stuffer) 30  $ 0.22 $ 1,958 168 5,037 121,044 $ 70,684 $

Systems serving 10,001  100,000 ( Mail or Bill Stuffer) 30  $ 0.19 $ 8,619 150 4,485 107,775 $ 244,823 $

Systems serving over 100,000 ( Mail or Bill Stuffer) 30  $ 0.19 $ 110,258 14 432 10,390 $ 301,935 $ TOTAL  Distribution of Repeat Notice Total CWS Systems serving < 500 1,423 13,602 326,846 $ 5,506 $ Systems serving 501  3,300 723 19,193 461,220 $ 63,428 $ Systems serving 3,301  10,000 181 5,193 124,792 $ 70,684 $ Systems serving 10,001  100,000 158 4,581 110,081 $ 244,823 $ Systems serving over 100,000 15 444 10,679 $ 301,935 $ TOTAL 2,500 43,014 1,033,618 $ 686,375 $ Preparation and Distribution of Repeat Notice Total CWS Systems serving < 500 2,845 14,076 338,241 $ 5,506 $ Systems serving 501  3,300 1,446 19,435 467,012 $ 63,428 $ Systems serving 3,301  10,000 362 5,253 126,241 $ 70,684 $ Systems serving 10,001  100,000 315 4,634 111,343 $ 244,823 $ Systems serving over 100,000 31 450 10,802 $ 301,935 $ TOTAL 4,999 43,847 1,053,639 $ 686,375 $ Note: Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding. Exhibit C 17 PN RULE ANNUAL ESTIMATED RESPONDENT BURDEN & COST ( PWS BURDEN)  PREPARATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF REPEAT NOTICES PN RULE ANNUAL ESTIMATED RESPONDENT BURDEN & COST ( PWS BURDEN)  TOTAL BURDEN SUMMARY Number of Total Labor Responses Hours Costs O& M Costs INFORMATION COLLECTION or per per per ACTIVITY Activities Year Year Year TOTAL BURDEN SUMMARY Total CWS Systems serving < 500 36,434 204,755 4,920,266 $ 70,499 $

Systems serving 501  3,300 11,622 116,246 2,793,397 $ 446,067 $

Systems serving 3,301  10,000 3,229 33,262 799,292 $ 506,758 $

Systems serving 10,001  100,000 2,956 32,354 777,460 $ 1,543,687 $

Systems serving over 100,000 316 3,634 87,330 $ 2,153,173 $

TOTAL 54,557 390,252 9,377,745 $ 4,720,185 $

Total NTNCWS Systems serving < 500 13,906 88,602 2,129,098 $ 2,190 $

Systems serving 501  3,300 1,944 12,449 299,142 $ 1,304 $

Systems serving 3,301  10,000 101 645 15,500 $ 319 $

Systems serving 10,001  100,000 21 129 3,090 $ 31 $

Systems serving over 100,000 2 14 343 $

$

TOTAL 15,973 101,838 2,447,173 $ 3,845 $

Total TNCWS Systems serving < 500 38,171 244,507 5,875,493 $ 6,012 $

Systems serving 501  3,300 945 6,054 145,468 $ 654 $

Systems serving 3,301  10,000 58 378 9,086 $ 45 $

Systems serving 10,001  100,000 16 112 2,684 $ 1 $

Systems serving over 100,000 0 0

$

$

TOTAL 39,190 251,050 6,032,731 $ 6,713 $

TOTAL 109,721 743,140 17,857,649 $ 4,730,742 $

Note: Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding.

Exhibit C 18 Labor Capital/ Avg. O& M Number of Total Labor Capital/ SU/

Hours @ Startup Costs Responses Hours Costs O& M Costs INFORMATION COLLECTION $ 28.89 Costs per per or per per per ACTIVITY per hour Activity Activity Activities Year Year Year TOTAL BURDEN SUMMARY Total Primacy Agencies Consultation: Tier 1 3.0

$

$ 2,140 6,421 185,500 $

$

Consultation: Tier 2 1.1

$

$ 17,729 19,502 563,402 $

$

Consultation: Tier 3 0.1

$

$ 32,492 3,249 93,869 $

$

Receive/ Review PN Certification 0.2

$

$ 44,262 8,852 255,746 $

$

File Reports 0.1

$

$ 44,262 4,426 127,873 $

$

TOTAL 140,885 42,450 1,226,390 $

$

Note: Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding. Exhibit C 19 PN RULE ANNUAL ESTIMATED PRIMACY AGENCY BURDEN & COST  TOTAL BURDEN SUMMARY