[Federal Register: June 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 124)]
[Notices]
[Page 36771-36773]
[DOCID:fr28jn06-74]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0371; FRL-8073-1]

Ethephon; Tolerance Reassessment Decision for Low Risk Pesticide;
Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's Tolerance
Reassessment Decision (TRED) for the pesticide ethephon, and opens a
public comment period on this document, related risk assessments, and
other support documents. EPA has reviewed this pesticide ethephon
through a modified, streamlined version of the public participation
process that the Agency uses to involve the public in developing
pesticide tolerance reassessment and reregistration decisions. Through
the tolerance reassessment program, EPA is ensuring that all pesticides
meet current health and food safety standards.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 28, 2006.

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0371, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2004-0371. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The Federal regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made
available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The hours of operation
of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wilhelmena Livingston, Special Review
and Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER> fax number:
(703) 308-8005; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1.  Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2.  Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA has reassessed the uses of ethephon, reassessed 45 existing
tolerances or legal residue limits, and on June 15, 2006, reached a
tolerance reassessment decision for this pesticide. Ethephon (an
organophosphonate) is a plant growth regulator. It regulates phases of
plant growth and development by application at various growth stages
and sites. Ethephon is used to promote fruit ripening, abscission,
flower induction, breaking of apical dominance (inhibition of the
growth of lateral buds by the terminal bud of a shoot), and other plant
responses. Ethephon is registered on a number of terrestrial food,
feed, and nonfood crops, greenhouse nonfood crops, and outdoor plants.
    The Agency is now issuing for comment the resulting Report on Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Tolerance Reassessment and Risk
Management Decision for ethephon, known as a TRED, as well as related
risk assessments and technical support documents.
    EPA developed the ethephon TRED through a modified, streamlined
version of its public process for making tolerance reassessment and
reregistration eligibility decisions. Through these programs, the
Agency is ensuring that pesticides meet current standards under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended by
FQPA. EPA must review tolerances and tolerance exemptions that were in
effect when the FQPA was enacted, to ensure that these existing
pesticide residue limits for food and feed commodities meet the safety
standard established by the new law. Tolerances are considered
reassessed once the safety finding has been made or a revocation
occurs. EPA has reviewed and made the requisite safety finding for the
ethephon tolerances included in this notice.
    EPA is applying the principles of public participation to all
pesticides undergoing reregistration and tolerance reassessment. The
Agency's Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration; Public
Participation Process, published in the Federal Register of May 14,
2004 (69 FR 26819) (FRL-7357-9) explains that in conducting these
programs, the Agency is tailoring its public participation process to
be commensurate with the level of risk, extent of use, complexity of
issues, and degree of public concern associated with each pesticide.
EPA can expeditiously reach decisions for pesticides like ethephon,
which pose no risk concerns and require no risk mitigation. Once EPA
assesses uses and risks for such pesticides, the Agency may go directly
to a decision and prepare a document summarizing its findings, such as
the ethephon TRED.
    The tolerance reassessment program is being conducted under
Congressionally mandated time frames, and EPA recognizes the need both
to make timely decisions and to involve the public in finding ways to
effectively mitigate pesticide risks. Ethephon, however, poses no risks
that require mitigation. The Agency therefore is issuing the ethephon
TRED, its risk assessments, and related support documents
simultaneously for public comment. The comment period is intended to
provide an opportunity for public input and a mechanism for initiating
any necessary amendments to the TRED. All comments should be submitted
using the methods in ADDRESSES, and must be received by EPA on or
before the closing date. These comments will become part of the Agency
Docket for ethephon. Comments received after the close of the comment
period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these
late comments.
    EPA will carefully consider all comments received by the closing
date. If any comment significantly affects the document, EPA also will
publish an amendment to the TRED in the Federal Register. In the
absence of substantive comments requiring changes, the decisions
reflected in the TRED will be implemented as presented.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 408(q) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(q), requires EPA to
review tolerances and exemptions for pesticide residues in effect as of
August 2, 1996, to determine whether the tolerance or exemption meets
the requirements of section 408(b)(2) or (c)(2) of FFDCA. This review
is to be completed by August 3, 2006.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: June 20, 2006.
Debra Edwards,
Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 06-5854 Filed 6-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST FOR WATER QUALITY STANDARDS REGULATION Staff Draft March 2005 EPA ICR Number 0988.09 OMB Control Number 2040 0049 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water/ Office of Science and Technology 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D. C. 20460 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 TITLE OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 SHORT CHARACTERIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1 NEED AND AUTHORITY FOR THE COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2 USE AND USERS OF INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1 NON DUPLICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2 PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED PRIOR TO ICR SUBMISSION TO OMB . . . . . . . 8 3.3 CONSULTATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.4 EFFECTS OF LESS FREQUENT COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.5 GENERAL GUIDELINES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.6 CONFIDENTIALITY AND SENSITIVE QUESTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.1 CHARACTERIZATION OF RESPONDENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.2 INFORMATION REQUESTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.3 RESPONDENT ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED   AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.1 AGENCY ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.2 COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.3 COLLECTION SCHEDULE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6.1 ESTIMATING RESPONDENT BURDEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6.2 ESTIMATING RESPONDENT COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 6.3 ESTIMATING AGENCY BURDEN AND COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 6.4 TOTAL BURDEN AND COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6.5 REASONS FOR CHANGE IN BURDEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6.6 BURDEN STATEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Water Quality Standards Regulation ICR 1The Regulation defines the term " State" to mean the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and specific Territories including Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

1 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1.1 TITLE OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION The title of this Information Collection Request ( ICR) is Information Collection Request for the Water Quality Standards Regulation. This ICR revises the existing estimates of burden and costs to States and Indian Tribes presented in the ICR entitled Information Collection Request for Water Quality Standards Regulation ( EPA ICR Number 0988.08, OMB Control Number 2040 0049), which expires on August 31, 2005. This ICR incorporates the water quality standards components of the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance Reporting Requirements ICR ( Prior to 2002, EPA ICR Number 1639.04, OMB Control Number 2040 0180).

1.2 SHORT CHARACTERIZATION Water quality standards are provisions of State1, Tribal, or Federal law which consist of designated uses for waters of the United States, water quality criteria to protect those uses, and an antidegradation policy. Water quality standards are established to protect public health or welfare, protect and enhance the quality of water, and serve the purposes of the Clean Water Act. Such standards serve the dual purposes of establishing the water quality goals for water bodies, and serving as a regulatory basis for establishing water quality based treatment controls and strategies beyond technology based treatment required by sections 301 and 306 of the Act. At a minimum, water quality standards must contain use designations for waterbodies, water quality criteria that protect the use designations, and an antidegradation policy that protects existing uses and high quality waters.

Designated uses are those water uses specified in water quality standards for each waterbody or segment. These uses are to be achieved and protected even if they are not presently being attained. The use classifications of State and Tribal waters must take into consideration the use and value of the waters for public water supplies; protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife; recreation in and on the water; and agricultural, industrial and other purposes including navigation. Waste transport is not a valid designated use for any water of the United States.

Water quality criteria are those elements of water quality standards that specify the quality of water needed to that protect a particular designated use. Criteria are expressed as constituent concentrations, parameter levels, or narrative statements. Under section 304( a) of the Clean Water Act, EPA develops recommended water quality to aid the States and Tribes in developing appropriate criteria. EPA's guidance is based on scientific information regarding the effect of constituent concentrations on aquatic life and/ or human health. Water Quality Standards Regulation ICR 2 In 1998, EPA conducted an internal survey which indicated that an average of 76 water quality standards revisions are submitted to EPA annually for review and approval/ disapproval and as drafts for comment by the Regional offices.

2 State and Tribal water quality standards must also contain an antidegradation policy designed to maintain and protect existing uses and water quality, provide protection for higher quality waters, and provide protection for Outstanding National Resource Waters ( ONRWs). States and Tribes must also identify methods for implementing the antidegradation policy.

( i) State and Tribal Water Quality Standards Adoptions and Revisions All States and authorized Indian Tribes are required by the CWA to adopt water quality standards and to review and, if necessary, revise their standards every three years2. This triennial review process of reviewing, revising, and adopting water quality standards entails several activities. All States and 24 Indian Tribes presently have water quality standards effective under the Clean Water Act that are subject to the triennial review requirement.

The Water Quality Standards Regulation ( 40 CFR part 131 and portions of part 132) governs national implementation of the water quality standards program. The Regulation describes requirements and procedures for States and authorized Tribes to develop, review, and revise their water quality standards, and EPA procedures for reviewing and approving the water quality standards.

When States or Tribes adopt new or revised water quality standards, the Regulation requires that they provide an opportunity for at least one public hearing for the purpose of receiving public input on the review and proposed revisions to the standards. Based on the record developed according to the State's or Tribe's administrative procedure requirements, the State or Tribe adopts those changes deemed justified.

EPA review ( performed at the Regional office) ensures that the State and Tribal water quality standards meet the requirements of the Act and the Regulation. If the new or revised standards do not meet the requirements, the Regional Administrator disapproves them. If the State/ Tribe does not make necessary changes to the standards within 90 days, EPA may propose to promulgate a Federal regulation to replace the disapproved standards.

For triennial reviews, the Water Quality Standards Regulation allows States and authorized Tribes to establish procedures for identifying and reviewing the standards on specific water bodies in detail. In these procedures, States and Tribes must reexamine any water body with standards not consistent with the section 101( a)( 2) goals of the Act every 3 years, and if new information indicates that section 101( a)( 2) goal uses are attainable, revise its standards to reflect those uses. They may also set priorities for specific standards provisions or for specific water bodies to receive a detailed standards review, such as standards for waters where combined sewer Water Quality Standards Regulation ICR 3 Section 101( a)( 2) of the Clean Water Act reads as follows: "( 2) it is the national goal that wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water be achieved by July 1, 1983". 33 USC 1251( a)( 2)

3 overflow decisions are pending, where TMDLs or water quality based permits are scheduled to be issued or reissued, where toxics have been identified that may be interfering with designated uses, or where there may be potential impacts on threatened or endangered species.

In some cases, States and Tribes may be required to develop a use attainability analysis. Use attainability analysis is a structured scientific assessment of the factors affecting the attainment of the use. A State or Tribe must conduct a use attainability analysis whenever the State or Tribe designates or has designated waterbody uses that do not include the " fishable/ swimmable" uses specified in section 101( a)( 2) of the Act, 3 or if the State or Tribes wishes to remove a designated use that is specified in section 101( a)( 2) of the Act or to adopt subcategories of uses specified in section 101( a)( 2) of the Act which require less stringent criteria. The use attainability analysis must demonstrate that attaining the designated use is not feasible because of one of six factors specified in the Regulation, including naturally occurring conditions, humancaused conditions that cannot be remedied, certain dams or other hydrologic modifications, physical conditions, or substantial and widespread economic and social impact.

States and Tribes also adopt new or revised water quality criteria to meet the designated uses. For example, criteria may need updating to reflect the latest scientific recommendations. Where toxic pollutants are present that could reasonably be expected to interfere with designated uses, the State or Tribe must add the appropriate criteria to their water quality standards. In some cases, States or Tribes may adopt site specific criteria modifications in accordance with the Regulation and EPA's technical guidance to reflect local chemistry, biology, and physical features.

The nature of this process, including site specific analyses, requires the production of a unique document for a specific purpose. No other State or Tribal document could suffice under the statutorily established system.

( ii) Tribal Application for Administering the Water Quality Standards Program If an Indian Tribe seeks authorization for administering its own water quality standards program, the Tribe is required to submit an application to EPA under section 518( e) of the Clean Water Act. This provision allows qualified Tribes to be treated in the same manner as a State for the purposes of specific sections of the Act, including the water quality standards provisions in section 303( c). Under EPA's regulations, applications must be submitted separately for each program. For example, a Tribe that receives approval from EPA to receive section 106 program grants in the same manner as a State needs to submit a separate application to administer the water quality standards program. Water Quality Standards Regulation ICR 4 ( iii) Requests for Dispute Resolution Where a dispute arises between an authorized Tribe and a State over a water quality standard on a common waterbody, the Tribe or the State may request EPA to initiate a formal dispute resolution action. If the request is justified, EPA will implement one or a combination of the following options: mediation, where the Regional Administrator may appoint a mediator to mediate the dispute; arbitration, where the Regional Administrator may appoint an arbitrator or arbitration panel to arbitrate the dispute; or a dispute resolution default procedure for situations where one or more parties refuse to participate in either the mediation or arbitration dispute resolution processes.

To initiate the formal dispute resolution mechanism, the Tribe or State is required to submit a written request to the lead Regional Administrator. The written request must include: ( 1) a concise statement of the unreasonable consequences that are alleged to have arisen because of differing water quality standards; ( 2) a concise description of the actions which have been taken to resolve the dispute without EPA involvement, ( 3) a concise indication of the water quality standards provision which has resulted in the alleged unreasonable consequences, ( 4) factual data to support the alleged unreasonable consequences; and ( 5) a statement of the relief sought from the alleged unreasonable consequences. EPA will use the submitted information to determine if initiation of a formal EPA dispute resolution action is justified under section 518( e) of the Act and the Regulation ( 40 CFR 131.7). The regulation ( iv) Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance This ICR includes the water quality standards burden and costs associated with the implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance ( 40 CFR part 132). The Guidance establishes minimum water quality criteria, implementation procedures, and antidegradation provisions for the Great Lakes system.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2.1 NEED AND AUTHORITY FOR THE COLLECTION Since the passage of the Water Quality Act in 1965, the States have been required by Federal law to establish water quality standards. These requirements were expanded by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or Clean Water Act ( CWA), in 1972. Currently, CWA Section 303( c) of the CWA ( 33 U. S. C. 1313( c)) governs the water quality standards program. Section 303( c) requires the Tribes that have received EPA authorization to administer the water quality standards program and States to review and revise their water quality standards at least once every three years and to submit to EPA the results and revisions resulting from the reviews. These Congressionally required triennial reviews, together with applications by Tribes to administer water quality standards programs described below, are the basis for the primary Water Quality Standards Regulation ICR 5 information collection activities of the water quality standards regulation. EPA then reviews each State or Tribal submission for approval or disapproval.

For the purposes of the CWA, States include the fifty ( 50) States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Indian Tribes include those Tribes that EPA determines qualify to administer the water quality standards program. As of December 31, 2004, thirty ( 30) Tribes have received EPA authorization to administer the water quality standards program. Of these twenty four Tribes, twenty ( 24) have had their water quality standards approved by EPA.

The Water Quality Standards Regulation ( 40 CFR part 131 and portions of part 132) is the EPA regulation governing the implementation of the water quality standards program. The Water Quality Standards Regulation describes the requirements and procedures for the States and Tribes to develop, review, and revise their water quality standards and for EPA to review and approve the water quality standards. Section 131.6 establishes the following minimum requirements for a water quality standards submission: ( a) use designations consistent with Section 101( a)( 2) and 303( c)( 2) of the Act, ( b) methods used and analyses conducted to support water quality standards revisions, ( c) water quality criteria sufficient to protect the designated uses, ( d) an antidegradation policy consistent with 40 CFR 131.12, ( e) certification by the State Attorney General or other appropriate State or Tribal legal authority that the water quality standards were duly adopted pursuant to State or Tribal law, and ( f) general information which will aid the EPA in determining the adequacy of the scientific basis of the standards which do not include the uses specified in Section 101( a)( 2) of the Act as well as information on general policies applicable to State standards which may affect their application and implementation.

EPA's review of State and Tribal submissions is implemented through Section 131.5 of the Regulation. The review criteria are: ( a) whether the State or Tribe has adopted uses which are consistent with the requirements of the Act, ( b) whether the State or Tribe has adopted criteria to protect the designated water uses, ( c) whether the State or Tribe has followed its legal procedures for revising or adopting standards, ( d) whether the water quality standards which do not include uses specified in Section 101( a)( 2) of the Act are based on appropriate technical and scientific data and analyses, and ( e) whether the submission meets the minimum elements from section 131.6 ( above).

In 1987, through the Water Quality Act ( P. L. 100 4), Congress made substantial additions to the Clean Water Act. Directly affecting the standards program, the Water Quality Act added Section 518( e) which requires EPA to promulgate regulations specifying how Indian Tribes would qualify to administer the CWA Section 303 water quality standards program, and to establish a mechanism for resolution of disputes which arise between States and Tribes over water quality standards on common water bodies. EPA published such regulations in 1991. The revisions do not require Tribes to apply for administering the water quality standards program, nor do they require Tribes/ States to request EPA assistance in resolving State/ Tribal disputes. However, where Tribes desire to be authorized to administer the water quality standards program, Water Quality Standards Regulation ICR 6 or where Tribes/ States desire a formal EPA dispute resolution action, some information collection is necessary in order for EPA to fulfill the Agency's responsibilities under CWA Section 518( e) in a reasonable and timely manner.

The Regulation specifies four criteria for an Indian Tribe to qualify to administer a water quality standards program ( 40 CFR 131.8): The Tribe must be Federally recognized, the Tribe must have a governing body carrying out substantial governmental duties and powers, the water quality standards program must be administered for water resources within the borders of an Indian reservation or legal equivalent, and the Tribe must be reasonably expected to be capable of carrying out the functions of an effective water quality standards program under the Act. Specifically, an interested Tribe must submit: ( 1) a statement that the Tribe is recognized by the Secretary of the Interior, ( 2) a descriptive statement demonstrating that the Tribal governing body is currently carrying out substantial governmental duties and powers over a defined area, ( 3) a descriptive statement of the Indian Tribe's authority to regulate water quality, and an identification of the surface waters for which the Tribe proposes to establish water quality standards, ( 4) a narrative statement describing the capability of the Indian Tribe to administer an effective water quality standards program, and ( 5) any additional documentation required by the Regional Administrator to support the application. Where a Tribe has previously qualified for " treatment in the same manner as a state" under another program, the Tribe need only provide the required information which has not been submitted in a previous application.

Section 101 of the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act ( CPA) amends Section 118 of the CWA and directs EPA to publish water quality guidance for the Great Lakes system. The Great Lakes water quality standards components included in this ICR are bioassays to support water quality criteria, antidegradation demonstrations, and regulatory relief requests, consistent with the requirements in the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance ( 40 CFR part 131).

2.2 USE AND USERS OF INFORMATION ( i) Water Quality Standards Water quality standards serve as the foundation for one of the two basic types of regulatory requirements and approaches for controlling pollutant discharges. The other type of regulatory requirement is the technology based controls approach. The water quality standards program provides the regulatory basis for water quality based treatment controls which must be implemented where technology based controls do not enable the water quality standards to be met.

Water quality standards serve as the basis for determining which waters are not in attainment under section 303( d) of the Clean Water Act, for establishing total maximum daily loads ( TMDLs) for non attainment waters under section 303( d), for water quality based effluent limitations in NPDES permits for point source dischargers ( including publicly owned treatment works and industrial facilities) under sections 301( b)( 1)( C) and 402 of the Act, and for certifications under section 401. They also help Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments Water Quality Standards Regulation ICR 7 develop water quality management plans and objectives, and help State and local governments plan for and protect water supplies.

If these activities were not carried out, explicit requirements of the Clean Water Act would be violated, TMDLs could not be developed where needed, and Federal or State permit writers would be unable to establish permit limits to protect water quality where technology based controls are not adequate to comply with water quality standards.

( ii) Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance In order to implement State, Tribal, or EPA promulgated provisions consistent with the Guidance, information on bioassays may be necessary to support the development of water quality criteria, antidegradation policy/ demonstrations, and regulatory relief options ( e. g., variances from water quality criteria). This information may be used to ensure compliance with provisions consistent with the Guidance and to re evaluate existing permit conditions and monitoring requirements.

3. NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3.1 NON DUPLICATION ( i) State and Tribal Review Process State and Tribal water quality standards reviews and revisions are a unique component of the water quality management process, with EPA having the exclusive authority to review and approve/ disapprove the standards. However, the States and Tribes primarily use existing data and information from other programs in analyzing their water quality standards. Some key programs which provide data and other information on sources of pollution, characteristics of pollutant discharges, ambient water quality conditions, cause and effect relationships, etc., include:

The NPDES permitting and enforcement program, including information from " NPDES Permits and the Sewage Sludge Management Permits" ( OMB No. 2040 0086); " NPDES Modification and Variance Requests" ( OMB No. 2040 0068); " NPDES and Sewage Sludge Monitoring Reports" ( OMB No. 2040 0004); and, the Permit Compliance System ( PCS) which is an automated database of discharger data.

The ambient water monitoring and water quality management programs, including: National Water Quality Inventory Reports ( CWA sections 305( b), 303( d), 314( a), and 106( e)); OMB Control No. 2040 0071; and, the STORET ( short for STOrage and RETrieval) automated database of ambient water quality data ( contains much of the ambient water quality data gathered by the States, EPA, and other Federal agencies) other discharger or ambient water quality data the States voluntarily collect ( much of these data are included in STORET). Water Quality Standards Regulation ICR 8 Respondents collect additional data in support of water quality standards reviews only to fill gaps where existing information is lacking. Historically, States typically design and conduct water quality studies with multiple objectives in mind ( e. g., general water quality assessment, use attainability, site specific criteria development, wasteload allocation). EPA works with the States and Tribes to minimize any duplication of data collection efforts.

EPA considered alternative data sources for the water quality standards program. The data needed for this program are found primarily in State and Tribal water quality management and planning programs and generally cannot be purchased or otherwise obtained from private sources.

( ii) Tribal Applications to Administer the Water Quality Standards Program To avoid requiring submission of duplicate information, EPA will accept information previously submitted by a Tribe ( e. g., information included in an application for administering another Clean Water Act or Safe Drinking Water Act program) in evaluating whether a Tribe meets the criteria for program authorization.

( iii) State/ Tribal Dispute Resolution Requests Because each dispute over water quality standards will be unique, and the information required to be submitted pertains solely to the dispute, it is very unlikely that Tribes or States will be required to re submit information which was previously provided to EPA.

( iv) Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance EPA has examined all the reporting requirements contained in the Clean Water Act and 40 CFR Parts 122, 123, 124, 125, 403, 501, and 503. The Agency also has consulted the following sources of information to determine if similar or duplicate information is available elsewhere: EPA's Information Systems Inventory, EPA's Inventory of Information Collection Requests, Federal Information Locator System, Comprehensive Assessment Information Rule ( 53 CFR 51698), and EPA's Toxics Release Inventory. Examination of these databases revealed no duplicate requirements.

3.2 PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED PRIOR TO ICR SUBMISSION TO OMB In compliance with the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act, EPA solicited comments for a 60 day period prior to submission of the ICR to OMB. Comments were requested on [ insert date of Federal Register Notice] at [ insert FR citation]. The comment period expired on [ insert date specified in FR notice]. No comments were received by EPA during the comment period. [ revise based if necessary based on comment received]. A copy of the Federal Register Notice soliciting public comments was submitted to OMB on [ insert date]. Water Quality Standards Regulation ICR 9 3.3 CONSULTATIONS When EPA revised the Water Quality Standards Regulation in 1983, EPA made a substantial effort to involve the public. The process began in 1978 with the publication of an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( ANPRM). The ANPRM resulted in comments from 110 individuals, public agencies, organizations, and interest groups. EPA developed ideas for revisions to the existing regulation from the comments. EPA also began a dialogue with States and with the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators ( ASIWPCA). The States and ASIWPCA continued their involvement until publication of the proposed rule through discussions with EPA and review of drafts of the proposed rule. None of the State comments complained about reporting requirements in the then existing rule or in the proposal. The final rule was published in November 1983.

Additionally, EPA published an ANPRM for the WQS Regulation in 1998 to begin a structured public dialogue with States, Tribes, dischargers, and other interested parties on whether and what changes, if any, are needed in the water quality standards program to improve the effectiveness of water quality standards. EPA also held meetings to assist stakeholders in reviewing and developing their positions/ comments on the ANPRM. The information received from written comments and from the public meetings has been useful to EPA in managing the standards program, and has helped EPA develop guidance, and assistance to States and Tribal standards programs.

To facilitate communications, EPA has continued to maintain routine contact and meet with States and Tribes regarding water quality standards activities and reviews. This included participation by the States to help EPA develop the Strategy for Water Quality Standards and Criteria, published by the Office of Science and Technology in August 2003, and available at http:// www, epa. gov/ waterscience.

The final Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System ( Guidance) was published in the Federal Register on March 23, 1995, ( 60 FR 15366). It is the result of a six year effort begun by the eight Great Lakes States and EPA in 1989 to develop more consistent water quality standards in the Great Lakes Basin. To stay abreast of public expectations for the final Guidance, EPA met with State, Local, and Tribal government officials, financial officials and co regulators, the regulated community and environmental interests to listen and openly discuss their concerns. During the post proposal process, EPA participated in more than 40 such meetings with over 1,000 stakeholder representatives. The comments and issues raised by the various stakeholders were considered in EPA's option selection process and regulatory impact analysis for developing the final Guidance.

The final Guidance establishes minimum water quality criteria ( including for the first time criteria to specifically protect wildlife), antidegradation policies, and implementation procedures using an ecosystem approach for waters of the Great Lakes Basin within the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin, including waters within the jurisdiction of Indian Tribes. All eight of the Great Lakes States have adopted criteria, Water Quality Standards Regulation ICR 10 methodologies, policies, and procedures consistent with the final Guidance that were approved by EPA, and are currently implementing these requirements in their State.

3.4 EFFECTS OF LESS FREQUENT COLLECTION ( i) State and Tribal Review Process The information collection schedule is pursuant to the mandates of Section 303( c) of the CWA for the States and Tribes to review their water quality standards once every three years and thus is not adjustable by the EPA. Additionally, if water quality standards were reviewed less frequently, they would be more likely to be based on out of date information regarding existing stream uses, attainability of designated uses, pollutants of concern, and appropriate water quality criteria values. A triennial review cycle ensures that the latest scientific and other information are reflected in the standards.

( ii) Tribal Applications to Administer the Water Quality Standards Program Application by Indian Tribes to administer the water quality standards program is a one time collection of information per respondent, initiated voluntarily by interested Tribes.

( iii) State/ Tribal Dispute Resolution Requests Requests for dispute resolution will be a one time collection of information per respondent, initiated voluntarily by a Tribe or State interested in EPA's assistance.

( iv) Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance Permitted facilities must reapply for NPDES permits before their existing permits expire, generally once every five years. The Clean Water Act prohibits issuance of NPDES permits with terms longer than five years. Less frequent permit applications would not provide the permitting authority with sufficiently current data to establish effective limitations or conditions when issuing permits. Since permittees will decide whether or not to apply for regulatory relief ( e. g., modifications to water quality criteria, or discharge variances) from provisions implementing the Guidance, and since pursuing relief is generally a one time effort for the permittee, EPA has no discretion to allow less frequent information collection.

3.5 GENERAL GUIDELINES A review of the information collection guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5( d)( 2) indicates the EPA's Water Quality Standards ( WQS) Regulation may be inconsistent with paragraph ( f) because it may require keeping records for more than 3 years. The Water Quality Standards Regulation requires that existing uses be maintained, and defines " existing uses" to be any uses that have existed on or after November 28, 1975, which is the date that the first regulation for water quality standards was promulgated by EPA. In order to be able to implement this Water Quality Standards Regulation ICR 11 provision, States and Tribes will need to maintain information that would enable them to know the " existing uses." In those situations, the records maintained may include monitoring data and data summaries to demonstrate continued compliance with EPA's requirements. EPA provides a computerized system, STORET, which States and Tribes may use that minimizes the burden to maintain records.

These regulatory requirements are based on EPA's interpretation of the statutory mandate that water quality standards "... protect the public health or welfare, enhance the water quality of water and serve the purposes of this Act." ( 33 U. S. C. 1313( c)( 2)). The loss of existing beneficial uses would be inconsistent with this mandate.

3.6 CONFIDENTIALITY AND SENSITIVE QUESTIONS Permit applications may contain confidential business information. If this is the case, the respondent may request that such information be treated as confidential. All confidential data will be handled in accordance with 40 CFR § 122.7, 40 CFR Part 2, and EPA's Security Manual Part III, Chapter 9, dated August 9, 1976. However, CWA Section 308( b) specifically states that effluent data may not be treated as confidential.

No requested information is of a sensitive nature.

3.7 Small Entity Flexibility The 1995 PRA incorporated the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA) into it. The RFA requires that the EPA prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that has a " significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities." As part of the certification requirement, the Agency must show that the collection:

" reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( 5 U. S. C. 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as: "( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;"

The requirements of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act ( SBREFA) of 1996 must also be considered. Special consideration of small entities is required because such individuals generally cannot devote staff resources to follow regulatory developments and often are less likely to have their interests represented by lobbyists and associations. In addition, smaller entities may be less able to bear the burden of an information collection because of their smaller staff and resources. Water Quality Standards Regulation ICR 12 The Small Business Administrations' size eligibility provisions and standards are codified at 13 CFR Part 121. The RFA also provides some guidance for defining a small entity. Section 601 of the RFA defines a " small entity" to include " small business," " small organization," and " small governmental jurisdiction." These terms are defined as follows:

 A " Small Business" is defined as any business that is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field as defined by the Small Business Administration ( SBA) regulations under Section 3 of the Small Business Act.

 A " Small Organization" is defined as any not for profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field ( e. g., private hospitals and educational institutions).

 A " Small Governmental Jurisdiction" is defined as governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with a population of less than 50,000. The definition of a small governmental jurisdiction may also include Indian Tribes, in keeping with the President's Federal Indian Policy.

EPA may also develop regulation specific definitions of small entities when the above definitions are not appropriate. Appendix D of the EPA Guidelines for Implementing the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( as revised April 1992) suggests that categories of affected entities be defined based on size and type ( size is generally based on number of employees, annual revenues, assets, or population size). The quantitative cutoff point for defining small entities should be selected based on the following criteria ( as provided in the EPA Guidelines):

( a) The point at which the economic impact appears to rise or fall substantially ( e. g., higher costs);

( b) The point in the range of size segments that most closely approximates SBA's definitions;

( c) The point at which the regulation effectively includes a large number of regulated entities without covering a large portion of the pollution problem;

( d) The presence of significantly different requirements or impacts below specific size, population, production, geographic, or other factors.

If an Economic Analysis ( EA) has been prepared in conjunction with the ICR, it should provide a definition of a " small entity" as affected under the rulemaking that can be used for the information collection. The EA might also provide an estimate of the information costs for small entities. Otherwise, the ICR should define a " small entity" as discussed above, and calculate the burden to such entities for the information collection. Water Quality Standards Regulation ICR 13 The water quality standards programs will have no primary impact on small businesses as the primary impact will be on State, Local and Tribal Government. There may be a secondary impact on businesses and federal government entities. Towards that endpoint, the Agency has instituted several efforts to minimize the impact on businesses as a whole, and on small businesses, specifically.

EPA holds regular meetings that serve as opportunities for small businesses to communicate concerns about paperwork burden issues directly with senior Agency officials. For example, EPA's Small Business Division facilitates semi annual meetings between the EPA Deputy Administrator, senior management, and industry to give small business representatives the opportunity to meet with high level EPA managers and give the Agency the opportunity to hear first hand the concerns of small businesses.

The most recent meetings are described briefly below.

( i) At a September 14, 2001, meeting, Deputy Administrator Linda J. Fisher hosted discussions on EPA's regulatory review and SBREFA processes, New Source Review reform, MACT rules, the TRI Lead rule, MP& M and Arsenic rules, TMDLs, and waste requirements for wipers and shop towels.

( ii) At a May 10, 2002, meeting, Deputy Administrator Linda J. Fisher updated small business representatives on effluent guidelines for the metal products and machinery industry and the ongoing work on revising the Small Business Strategy, and heard feedback on the TRI Lead rule and EPA's Innovation Strategy.

( iii) At a June 9, 2003, meeting, Deputy Administrator Linda J. Fisher listened to industry representatives views and answered questions on EPA's partnership efforts, compliance assistance tools and incentives, and new Solid Waste and Emergency Response initiatives.

( iv) On March 30, 2004, Deputy Administrator Stephen Johnson's message was presented on collaboration, market incentives, and innovative technologies, and also featured a panel discussion on burden reduction ( TRI, RCRA, SBPRA) followed by updates on small business related initiatives.

In addition to these regular high level meetings with small business representatives, former Administrator Christine Todd Whitman hosted EPA's first National Summit on Small Business and the Environment on March 13, 2003. This Summit brought together key government and small business leaders to focus on the revised Small Business Strategy and demonstrate EPA's commitment to helping small businesses and the environment, promote strong support of State Small Business Assistance Programs, and stress the importance of partnerships among all stakeholders. Water Quality Standards Regulation ICR 14 Also, a Small Business Forum was held on October 6, 2004 to follow up on the completion of the Small Business Strategy and the recently completed Strategy Implementation Plan developed by a cross Agency workgroup. Deputy Administrator Stephen Johnson hosted this meeting that also featured panel discussions on E Government, early involvement of small businesses rulemaking, and planning for the second EPA Small Business Summit expected to be held in Spring, 2005.

Outreach to small businesses was an important theme throughout the Small Business Strategy. A key recommendation in the Implementation Plan is to expand interactions " with small business sectors to ensure early small business involvement in development of rules, policies and programs and to improve and simplify access to and exchange of information."

EPA= s Small Business Division ( SBD) maintains a website and a telephone hotline that small businesses can access with their questions about complying with environmental requirements. Small businesses are assisted by programs in the states, so partnerships between EPA and the states are essential. The Agency, pursuant to CAA section 507, has developed an extensive network with state Compliance Advisory Panels, Small Business Ombudsmen and Small Business Assistance Providers. SBD hosts an annual conference which provides an opportunity for state small business assistance providers, Compliance Advisory Panel members, trade association representatives, EPA and other federal agencies staff to learn and share information about helping the small business community. This event is key in helping States better coordinate their small business assistance delivery mechanisms. The EPA Small Business Ombudsman also periodically reports to Congress on the activities and progress of the state and territory Small Business Assistance Programs.

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 4.1 CHARACTERIZATION OF RESPONDENTS ( i) State/ Tribal Review Process ( 40 CFR 131)

The respondents affected by this collection activity are in SIC code # 9511  " Air and Water Resources and Solid Waste Management." The CWA and EPA's water quality standards regulation require reporting from 86 jurisdictions   56 States and Territories, and the 30 Indian Tribes that have received EPA authorization to administer the water quality standards program ( in accordance with Section 518 of the Clean Water Act).

( ii) Water Quality Standards Component of Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance ( 40 CFR 132)

The respondents affected by this collection activity are in SIC code # 9511  " Air and Water Resources and Solid Waste Management." Specifically, they are the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and 4 tribes in the Great Lakes basin authorized to administer water quality standards programs. Water Quality Standards Regulation ICR 15 NPDES permits are required any time there is a point source discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States, regardless of the type of discharger. Consequently, all point source dischargers must apply for an NPDES permit. Based on a review of lists that States generated and of permits issued since March 1991, EPA determined that 588 major and 3,207 minor point sources would be affected. The respondents affected by this collection activity are in the following SIC codes: Mining ( 10,14), Food ( 20), Pulp and Paper ( 26), Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing ( 281), Organic Chemical Manufacturing ( 28), Petroleum Refining ( 29), Metal Manufacturing ( 33), Metal Finishing ( 34 37), Steam Electric ( 4911), and Publically Owned Treatment Works ( 4952).

4.2 INFORMATION REQUESTED ( ii) State and Tribal Review Process At least once every three years, States and Tribes are required to submit to EPA for approval their triennial review analyses, their reviewed, revised, and adopted water quality standards, and any necessary supporting information.

( ii) Tribal applications to administer the Water Quality Standards Program Where an Indian Tribe desires to seek authorization for administering its own water quality standards program, the Tribe is required to submit an application containing sufficient information for EPA to determine if the Tribe is qualified, including: ( a) evidence that the Tribe is recognized by the Secretary of the Interior; ( b) a narrative statement that the Tribe is currently carrying out substantial governmental duties and powers over a Federal Indian reservation; ( c) a narrative statement of the Tribe's authority to regulate the quality of reservation waters; and, ( d) a narrative statement describing the capability of the Tribe to administer an effective water quality standards program.

( iii) State/ Tribal Dispute Resolution Requests Where a dispute arises between a Tribe and a State over a water quality standard on a common waterbody, and the Tribe or State desires EPA to initiate a formal dispute resolution action, the Tribe or State is required to submit a written request to EPA. Information that a State or Tribe must submit with the request includes: ( a) a statement of the alleged unreasonable consequences that have arisen due to the differing water quality standards; ( b) a description of the actions which have been taken to resolve the dispute without EPA involvement; and, ( c) an identification of the State/ Tribal water quality standards provision which has resulted in the unreasonable consequences, and a statement of the relief sought.

( iv) Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance Requirements necessitated by the Great Lakes Guidance include bioassay tests to support the development of water quality criteria, studies to identify and provide information on Water Quality Standards Regulation ICR 16 antidegradation control measures that will guard against the reduction of water quality in the Great Lakes system, and information collection and record keeping activities associated with analyses and reporting to request regulatory relief from Guidance requirements.

4.3 RESPONDENT ACTIVITIES ( i) State and Tribal Review Process Review of instructions, guidance and regulations This item includes only the time required to review documents necessary for the State/ Tribe to revise its standards. Time spent in the field, laboratory and office performing and documenting special water quality monitoring studies or surveys in connection with the Water Quality Standards Program is considered under other categories. The burden hours for this item varied greatly, apparently dependent on State or Tribal staff turnover rates ( thus, more individuals reviewing the same materials).

Identify issues and plan activities. Gather and analyze data and other information The activities considered within this category include identifying the standards issues to be addressed, prioritizing the standards issues based on EPA's and the State's or Tribe's internal policies, and planning the activities to be performed. Gathering the existing water quality data and waterbody use information and analyzing such data and information as necessary for these revisions are also within this category.

Prepare revised water quality standards package for submittal The activities considered here include determining changes to be made to the existing standards, preparing and reviewing the revised standards package, adopting the revised standards according to the State's/ Tribe's internal administrative procedures and EPA's public participation requirements, conducting a public hearing, and submitting the revised standards to EPA for approval. The time State or Tribal agency staff spend in consultation with the State legislature and legislative committees or Tribal Council, respectively, is also accounted for here.

Certification by the State Attorney General or other appropriate legal authority that Water Quality Standards were duly adopted according to State law Any time a State or Tribe makes a change to its water quality standards, the State/ Tribal Attorney General or other appropriate legal authority must certify that the change was adopted according to the unique provisions of State law. This certification is in the form of a letter to the EPA Regional Administrator. This certification is necessary because State and Tribal water quality standards are requirements of the Act enforced through the NPDES permits. Before approving State or Tribal water quality standards, EPA must be assured of their legal validity. Water Quality Standards Regulation ICR 17 Site specific criteria development studies conducted using acceptable methodologies for specific segments, basins, or States The Regulation encourages States and Tribes to adopt site specific criteria to reflect local conditions. The Section 304( a) criteria developed by EPA are laboratory derived and may not accurately reflect the effect of a pollutant locally because of local water quality characteristics or varying sensitivities of local aquatic communities. Certain compounds may be more or less toxic in some waters because of differences in hardness or organic matter content, and other parameters. Developing site specific criteria is a method of taking local conditions into account to ensure that the criteria will protect the designated use and not be more or less stringent than necessary.

EPA has developed guidance for deriving site specific criteria and has tested the guidance at field sites. These tests formed the initial basis for estimating the burden hours for developing site specific criteria. Since the development and pilot testing of the site specific criteria guidance, considerable experience has been gained by the States in developing site specific criteria. The actual experiences of the States form the primary basis of the burden calculation estimated in this ICR.

Because of the variability in site specific conditions and the range of complexity in any given case, the burden calculations in this category were divided into two subcategories. " Simple" cases are reflective of relatively easy studies where a single or possibly two dischargers are present, discharging few pollutants, and no appreciable nonpoint source impacts exist. " Complex" cases involve a water segment with several discharges and numerous pollutants, including nonpoint source impacts.

Use attainability analysis studies conducted to support a possible change in use designation Use attainability analyses are designed to assist States and Tribes in both refining use designations as well as providing a supporting analysis on whether the use designation is appropriate, and if not, provides a basis for lowering, raising, or retaining a use designation.

Because legitimate factors such as natural high water temperatures, physical impediments, or irreversible background pollutant levels may effectively prevent a use from being met, States and Tribes are encouraged to analyze the attainability of presently designated but non existing uses in their water quality standards. Although this particular analysis is optional, if a designated use is changed or modified to a lower use ( e. g., fish propagation versus stocked fishery), some type of analysis is required. The crux of such analysis is to demonstrate that attaining the higher designated use is not feasible. The information generated by the use attainability analysis should enable States to improve the scientific basis for their decision making process.

The use attainability analysis ( UAA), as defined in the Regulation, is a scientific analysis of the factors which determine the suitability of the waterbody to attain a use. These factors include Water Quality Standards Regulation ICR 18 the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the waterbody, its geographic setting, scenic qualities, and current uses.

If adequate data are available to conduct a UAA, a field survey of the waterbody is not necessary. If adequate data are not available, the State or Tribe performs a waterbody survey which helps pinpoint the water quality problems and determines present uses, uses impaired, and the reasons the uses are impaired. The survey should ensure that the UAA is sufficiently detailed to answer the following questions:

What is the use to be protected?

To what extent will control of pollution from point sources restore or enhance the use?

To what extent will control of nonpoint source pollution restore or enhance the use?

Because of the variability in the type and the level of complexity of the analysis to be performed, the burden calculations were divided into " simple" and " complex" subcategories. " Simple" cases are those involving a small water segment with only minor augmentation of physical, chemical and/ or biological data needed. Many of these studies are to support changes in subcategories because improper use classifications made earlier ( e. g., change in use from marginal cold water fishery to warm water fishery). " Complex" cases generally involve multiple dischargers on a large water segment with less existing physical, chemical, or biological data. The States and Tribes have gained considerable experience in conducting use attainability analyses since the finalization of the revised Water Quality Standards Regulation in 1983. EPA has developed a series of guidance documents to aid the States in performing such analyses. The actual experience of the State form the primary basis of the burden hours estimated in this ICR. This activity is water quality standards related and is in addition to the statutorily mandated triennial review. Such review of the standards usually includes an analysis of socioeconomic impacts. Under the provisions of the Act, such an impact must be considered. States usually review their standards as part of their standards review process ( addressed in burden item ( i)); however, some supplementary review time might be devoted to certain large or controversial projects. For purposes of this burden calculation, it was assumed that the States would devote some supplementary review time to significant or controversial UAAs.

( ii) Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance Respondents may be required to submit a variety of different information items for State, Tribal, or subsequent Federal implementation of the Guidance. In general, respondent activities will include the following:

Preparing Basic Information  This includes reading instructions or reviewing regulatory application requirements, gathering general information, typing or filling out forms, drafting letters, reviewing applications or other materials, and mailing completed submissions. Water Quality Standards Regulation ICR 19

Generating Detailed Information  Detailed information may include data on production levels, data on effluent characteristics, pollutant minimization programs, financial estimates, engineering data, socioeconomic data, or other information required by permitting authorities.

Sampling and Analyzing Discharges  This may involve pollutant analyses, biological toxicity testing, predicting in stream impacts, field monitoring, bioconcentration testing, or other scientific analyses.

Maintaining Records  All NPDES permittees must keep records of the data used to complete their applications and to demonstrate their compliance for at least three years. First time applicants may need to develop a record keeping system, enter data, train personnel, and file information. For existing facilities, record keeping entails collecting and filing raw data.

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED   AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5.1 AGENCY ACTIVITIES ( i) State and Tribal Review Process States and Tribes are required to review and, as appropriate, revise their water quality standards at least once every three years. The results of such review and revision must be submitted by the States and Tribes to EPA. EPA reviews the States' or Tribes' water quality standards for consistency with the CWA. If the water quality standards are inconsistent with the Act, EPA must promulgate replacement Federal standards. Activities associated with water quality standards review are as follows:

( a) Ongoing activities of managing the various aspects of the water quality standards program. This includes the transmission of policy and guidance to the States and Tribes as well as assisting States and Tribes in interpretation and implementation of new as well as existing policies and initiatives. Other activities include the coordination activities related to water quality standards revisions with bordering Regions and States for interstate and international waters, and with other federal agencies.

( b) Activities associated with the review for approval or disapproval of State or Tribal water quality standards revisions. The standards revisions are reviewed for consistency with the CWA, with downstream State's or Tribe's water quality standards, and with any standards for international waters. The activities include: review for approval or disapproval of State and Tribal water quality standards revisions, promulgation of standards when a State's or Tribe's standards are disapproved, and withdrawal of Federal standards when a State or Tribe corrects its standards. Water Quality Standards Regulation ICR 20 ( ii) Tribal applications to administer the Water Quality Standards Program After a Tribe submits an application to administer a water quality standards program, EPA will use the submitted information to determine if the Tribe meets the statutory criteria under CWA Section 518( e) and is qualified to administer the water quality standards program information submission requirements.

( iii) State/ Tribal Dispute Resolution Requests After a Tribe or State submits a written dispute resolution request to EPA, EPA reviews the submitted information to determine if initiation of a formal EPA dispute resolution action is justified under CWA Section 518( e).

( iv) Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance Specific Guidance program elements that may necessitate EPA review include: bioassays to support the development of water quality criteria, antidegradation demonstrations, and requests for regulatory relief ( e. g., variances).

5.2 COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT States and Tribes submit their revised water quality standards to their EPA Regional office, where the submittals are reviewed for consistency with the CWA, with downstream State's or Tribe's water quality standards, and with any standards for international waters. The Water Quality Standards staff in the Regional offices work closely with their respective States and Tribes on water quality standards issues, including the review of both draft and final submittals of water quality standards regulations, Tribal applications for the water quality standards program, and on requests for implementing the dispute resolution mechanism contained in the the Water Quality Standards Regulation. EPA's national water quality program provides support to the Regional offices in the review of these submittals/ requests. EPA approved State/ Tribal standards can be accessed at http:// www. epa. gov/ wqsdatabase/. EPA promulgated standards for States/ Tribes are located at http:// www. epa. gov/ waterscience/ standards/.

For Great Lakes information, EPA maintains some application data in the Agency's PCS and STORET databases. This technology reduces the burden to EPA Headquarters for gathering and analyzing national permit and water quality data. Because each information collection activity associated with implementation of the Guidance will contain unique information, and because permittees submit applications only once every 5 years, improved information technology may not be effective in further reducing respondent burden.

5.3 COLLECTION SCHEDULE The CWA requires States and Tribes to review their water quality standards at least every three years and provide the results to EPA. There are no scheduling requirements for Indian Water Quality Standards Regulation ICR 21 Tribes to apply for authorization to administer the water quality standards program or to request EPA dispute resolution.

The CWA requires permittees to reapply for permits at least every five years. Information collection associated with regulatory relief requests will occur only when a permittee decides to seek such relief. EPA presumes that the few relief requests expected will continue to take place at time of permit reissuance.

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 6.1 ESTIMATING RESPONDENT BURDEN EPA has estimated the total respondent burden to be 263,776 hours annually. Burden hours have been separated into the following categories:

State and Tribal Review Process ( 215,000 hours)

Tribal Applications to Administer the Water Quality Standards Program ( 200 hours)

State/ Tribal Dispute Resolution Requests ( 80 hours)

Development of Water Quality Criteria ( 37,678 hours)

Antidegradation Demonstration ( 2,508 hours)

Modification and Variance from Great Lakes Guidance Provisions ( 8,310 hours)

( i) State and Tribal Review Process The CWA and EPA's water quality standards regulation require reporting from 86 jurisdictions   50 States, the District of Columbia, 5 commonwealths and territories, and the 30 Indian Tribes that have received EPA authorization to administer the water quality standards program ( in accordance with Section 518 of the Clean Water Act).

This information collection request is for three years. Because of the methods used in constructing the annual estimated burden, EPA believes the burden estimated will be approximately the same for each of the three years covered by this request.

For the purposes of reviewing the reporting requirements placed on States and Tribes by the Water Quality Standards Regulation, EPA Headquarters has discussed the requirements and estimated reporting burdens with the voluntary assistance of eleven States. The States were selected to represent various geographical areas, differing levels of water quality management activities, and differing approaches to controlling priority toxic pollutants. Because of the limited time available to develop them, these estimates are considered " rough." For this reason, the lowest and highest estimates for each burden item were not considered in the calculation for the average burden per State per year ( that is, a modified mean was used). Water Quality Standards Regulation ICR 22 The average burden per State/ Tribe review per year was estimated to be 2,500 ( see Attachment A). The total annual burden hours = ( 86 jurisdictions)*( 2,500 hours) = 215,000 hours.

( ii) Tribal Applications to Administer the Water Quality Standards Program For Tribes applying to administer the water quality standards program, the following assumptions were utilized:

( a) 75% of all Tribes applying for treatment as a State for purposes of water quality standards will have already applied for authorization to administer one of the other SDWA or CWA programs. This assumption is conservative. Current practices indicate that Tribes are much more likely to apply for treatment as a State for purposes of the Section 106 water quality management grant program than for water quality standards. This means that Tribes are likely to have an opportunity to apply under the Section 106 program long before having an opportunity to apply under the Section 303 water quality standards program.

( b) 5 Tribes will apply to administer the water quality standards program per year. This assumption is based upon the actual pace of Tribal submittal of applications for the water quality standards program.

( c) Each Tribal application will require an average of 40 hours to complete.

Based on these assumptions, the total annual burden hours for Tribes = ( 5 Tribes)*( 40 hours/ application) = 200 hours.

( iii) State/ Tribal Dispute Resolution Requests When a Tribe or State desires EPA to initiate a formal dispute resolution action, the Tribe or State is required to submit a written request to EPA. EPA estimates that three Tribes/ States will request a formal dispute resolution action over a three year period ( one request per year). The estimated hour burden to a Tribe or State to develop a dispute resolution request is 80 hours.

( iv) Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance Three standards burden estimates are associated with the Great Lakes Guidance: 1) burden associated with studies to support the development of water quality criteria, 2) antidegradation policy burden, and 3) modification and variance burden.

EPA assumed that dischargers will conduct bioassays to support the development of water quality criteria for three human health and 11 aquatic life criteria each year. This results in 14 discharge responses per year. EPA has determined that these bioassays would take dischargers 34,204 hours to conduct and 760 hours to oversee for a total discharger burden of 34,964 hours. EPA assumed that the 14 studies to support the development of water quality criteria would be Water Quality Standards Regulation ICR 23 submitted to the States for review, resulting in 14 State responses. EPA estimated the State application burden associated with review and data collection to support the development of water quality criteria to be 2,714 hours.

An antidegradation demonstration must be performed to confirm that the permittee has evaluated options to reduce the extent of the need to lower water quality. In general, an antidegradation demonstration consists of first performing a pollution prevention alternatives analysis to identify prudent and feasible alternatives. If no pollution prevention alternatives are deemed prudent and feasible, then the permittee must identify alternative or enhanced treatment techniques. Finally, a permittee must demonstrate that the lowering of water quality is necessary to ensure social and economic development. EPA estimates that each antidegradation demonstration would take 50 hours to complete. EPA anticipates that 76 demonstration submissions per year. The permittee burden associated with antidegredation demonstrations = ( 76 demonstrations)*( 50 hours) = 3,800 hours. This burden estimate is split equally between standards and permits. The burden estimate for this ICR is 1,900 hours.

EPA determined that it would take a State about two days ( 16 hours) to review an antidegradation demonstration. Assuming 76 antidegradation policy demonstrations will be submitted annually, the State applications burden = ( 76 demonstrations)*( 16 hours) = 1,216 hours. This burden estimate is split equally between standards and permits. The burden estimate for this ICR is 608 hours.

To be granted relief from provisions adopted consistent with the Great Lakes Guidance, a permittee will need to perform additional monitoring or special studies, etc., to support its request. EPA estimates that 18 permittees per year will prepare requests for regulatory relief which will take a total of 15,036 hours to complete. This burden estimate is split equally between standards and permits. The burden estimate for this ICR is 7,518 hours. EPA estimated the State government burden associated with the 18 requests for regulatory regulation relief to be approximately 1,584 hours. This burden estimate is split equally between standards and permits. The burden estimate for this ICR is 792 hours.

6.2 ESTIMATING RESPONDENT COSTS EPA has estimated the total respondent cost to be $ 7,047,495 annually. Respondent costs are based on labor costs as these regulations do not involve capital or operation/ maintenance costs. In calculating costs, EPA assumed that the average annual salary for Federal and State employees is $ 56,371; this is equivalent to the salary of a GS 9, Step 10 Federal employee. At 2,080 labor hours per year, the hourly rate is $ 27.10. Overhead cost for Federal and State employees are expected to be 60 percent, or $ 16.26 per hour, yielding a total hourly rate of $ 43.36.

( i) State and Tribal Review Process Total annual cost per jurisdiction = ( 2,500 hours/ year)/($ 43.36/ hour) = $ 108,400 Total annual cost = ( 86 jurisdictions)*($ 108,400/ jurisdiction) = $ 9,322,400 Water Quality Standards Regulation ICR 24 ( ii) Tribal Applications to Administer the Water Quality Standards Program Cost per application = ( 40 hours/ application)*($ 43.36/ hour) = $ 1,734 Total annual cost = ( 5 Tribes)*($ 1,734/ application) = $ 8,670 ( iii) State/ Tribal Dispute Resolution Requests Cost per dispute resolution request = ( 80 hours/ request)*($ 43.36/ hour) = $ 3,469 Total annual cost = ( 1 request)*($ 3,468/ request) = $ 3,469 ( iv) Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance Cost to Dischargers According to the U. S. Department of Labor, the total compensation for an individual working in a professional speciality is $ 44.92 per hour. Assuming a 67 percent overhead and profit rate, the total private sector hourly rate is $ 75.02.

The average annual salary of a POTW employee is equivalent to that of a GS 7, Step 1 Federal employee. The annual salary of this worker is $ 35,452; the hourly rate is $ 17.04. Assumed overhead costs add an additional 50 percent to these costs. Thus, the average cost of a POTW worker is $ 53,178 per year, or $ 25.57 per hour.

Bioassays to support development of water quality criteria Contractor costs = ( 34,204 hours)*($ 75.02/ hour) = $ 2,565,984 Discharger costs = ( 760 hours)*($ 25.57/ hour) = $ 19,433 Total bioassay costs = $ 2,585,417 Antidegradation demonstrations = ( 1,900 hours/ demonstration)*($ 25.57/ hour) = $ 48,583 Regulatory relief requests = ( 7,518 hours/ request)*($ 25.57/ hour) = $ 192,235 Total annual cost to dischargers = $ 2,826,235 Cost to State Governments Review of water quality criteria = ( 2,714 hours/ review)*($ 43.36/ hour) = $ 117,679 Review of antidegradation demonstrations = ( 608 hours/ review)*($ 43.36/ hour) = $ 26,363 Review of regulatory relief requests = ( 792 hours/ review)*($ 43.36/ hour) = $ 34,341 Total annual cost to State governments = $ 178,383 ( v) Total respondent costs State and Tribal review ($ 9,322,400) + Tribal applications ($ 8,670) + dispute resolution requests ($ 3,469) + Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance ($ 3,004,618) = $ 12,339,157.

6.3 ESTIMATING AGENCY BURDEN AND COST Water Quality Standards Regulation ICR 25 Annual costs to the Federal government are detailed below. All estimates assume that it will cost EPA $ 37.42 per hour to conduct reviews.

( i) Review of State/ Tribal Water Quality Standards ( Triennial Reviews)

Hours for review of State standards: ( 19 State submittals/ year)*( 400 hours/ submittal) = 7,600 hours Hours for review of Tribal standards: ( 10 Tribal submittals/ year)*( 120 hours/ submittal) = 1,200 hours Total annual hours for review of State/ Tribal Triennial Revisions = 8,800 hours Total annual costs for review of State/ Tribal Triennial Revisions: ( 8,800 hours)*($ 43.36/ hour) = $ 381,568 ( ii) Review of State/ Tribal Water Quality Standards ( Submissions other than Triennial Reviews)

Hours for review of State standards: ( 37 States submittals/ year)*( 120 hours/ submittal) = 4,440 hours Hours for review of Tribal standards: ( 20 Tribal submittals/ year)*( 60 hours/ submittal) = 1,200 hours Total annual hours for review of State/ Tribal Submissions ( excluding triennial reviews) = 5,640 hours Total annual costs for review of State/ Tribal submissions ( excluding triennial reviews):

( 5,640 hours)*($ 43.36/ hour) = $ 244,550 ( iii) Review of Tribal Applications to Administer the Water Quality Standards Program Total annual hours for review of Tribal applications: ( 5 Tribal applications/ year)*( 160 hours/ per application) = 800 hours Total annual costs for review of Tribal applications: ( 800 hours/ year)*($ 43.36/ hour) = $ 34,688 ( iv) Review of State/ Tribal Dispute Resolution Requests Total annual hours for review of dispute resolution requests: Water Quality Standards Regulation ICR 26 ( 1 request/ year)( 20 hours/ requests) = 20 hours Total annual costs for review of dispute resolution requests: ( 20 hours/ year)($ 43.36 dollars/ hour) = $ 867 ( v) Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance EPA estimated the annual Federal government burden to be approximately 400 hours and cost $ 17,344 to set up and maintain the water quality database to serve as the Information Clearinghouse. EPA estimated little additional Federal government applications burden or cost because all the Great Lakes States are delegated NPDES permitting authorities.

( vi) Total Agency Burden Hours and Costs Burden Hours: Review of State and Tribal triennial reviews ( 8,800) + Review of State and Tribal standards other than triennial reviews ( 5,640) + Review of Tribal applications ( 800) + Review of dispute resolution requests ( 20) + Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance ( 400) = 15,660 burden hours Costs: Review of State and Tribal triennial reviews ($ 381,568) + Review of State and Tribal standards other than triennial reviews ($ 244,550) + Review of Tribal applications ($ 34,688) + Review of dispute resolution requests ($ 867) + Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance ($ 17,344) = $ 679,017 Water Quality Standards Regulation ICR 27 6.4 TOTAL BURDEN AND COSTS States and Tribes Dischargers Total No. of Responses Burden Hours Labor Costs No. of Responses Burden Hours Labor Costs No. of Responses Burden Hours Labor Costs State/ Tribal Review 86 215,000 $ 9,322,400    86 215,000 $ 9,322,400 Tribal Applications to Administer Standards Program 5 200 $ 8,670    5 200 $ 8,670 Dispute Resolution Requests 1 80 $ 3,469    1 80 $ 3,469 Great Lakes Guidance 108 4,114 $ 178,383 108 44,382 $ 2,806,802 216 48,496 $ 2,592,840 Total 200 219,394 $ 9,512,922 108 44,382 $ 2,806,802 308 263,776 $ 12,319,724 Water Quality Standards Regulation ICR 28 6.5 REASONS FOR CHANGE IN BURDEN This ICR Supersedes the ICR developed in 2002 for the Water Quality Standards Regulation. The respondent burden has increased 25,000 hours due to an additional 10 Tribes receiving approval to administer water quality standards programs since 2002.

6.6 BURDEN STATEMENT The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 856 hours per response annually. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D. C. 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the EPA ICR number 0988.09 and OMB control number 2040 0049 in any correspondence. Water Quality Standards Regulation ICR 29 ATTACHMENT A Average Cost for State/ Tribal Review Process State Burden Hours Arizona 2,987 Arkansas 4,100 Connecticut 283 Florida 3,990 Missouri 81 Nebraska 860 New York 7,375 North Dakota 310 Ohio 6,800 Oklahoma 287 Pennsylvania 2,900 Average ( eliminating the lowest and highest burden hour estimates) 2,500


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 25 (Friday, February 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6706-6707]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02178]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0025; FRL-9921-95]

Pesticide Experimental Use Permit; Receipt of Application;
Comment Request

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's receipt of application 72500-EUP-G
from Scimetrics Ltd. Corp. requesting an experimental use permit (EUP)
for the chemical warfarin. The Agency has determined that the permit
may be of regional and national significance. Therefore, because of the
potential significance, EPA is seeking comments on this application.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 9, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0025, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lewis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. Although this
action may be of particular interest to those persons who conduct or
sponsor research on pesticides, the Agency has not attempted to
describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the
pesticide(s) discussed in this document, compared to the general
population.

II. What action is the agency taking?

    Under section 5 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S. C. 136c, EPA can allow manufacturers to
field test pesticides under development. Manufacturers are required to
obtain an EUP before testing new pesticides or new uses of pesticides
if they conduct experimental field tests on 10 acres or more of land or
one acre or more of water.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 172.11(a), the Agency has determined that the
following EUP application may be of regional and national significance,
and therefore is seeking public comment on the EUP application:
    Submitter: Scimetrics Ltd. Corp. (72500-EUP-G).
    Pesticide Chemical: Warfarin.
    Summary of Request: Applicant seeks permission to test the
effectiveness of baits of two concentrations of the anticoagulant
rodenticide warfarin for effectiveness in controlling populations of
feral hogs (Sus scrofa). Applicant requests use of up to 1.5 pounds
(lbs.) of the active ingredient in bait-dispenser applications on a
total area of up to 2,471 acres, divided into two plots of equal area
and located in Hall County, TX. One treated plot is to be baited with a
cracked-corn-based formulation containing warfarin at a concentration
of 0.005%. The other treated plot is to be treated with a 0.01%
warfarin cracked-corn bait. Applicant requests authority to use up to
10,000 lbs. of bait formulated at each of these concentrations. Treated
plots are proposed to include areas described as dry land row crops,
irrigated row crops, native pasture, and/or brushy washes. The bait
dispensers to be used in the proposed field trial are reported to deter
direct access to bait by species other than feral hogs.
    Following the review of the application and any comments and data
received in response to this solicitation, EPA will decide whether to
issue or deny the EUP request, and if issued, the conditions under
which it is to be conducted. Any issuance of an EUP will be announced
in the Federal Register.

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: January 27, 2015.
Susan T. Lewis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2015-02178 Filed 2-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P