[Federal Register: November 21, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 223)]
[Notices]
[Page 70087-70088]
[DOCID:fr21no05-67]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1611-DR]

Northern Mariana Islands; Major Disaster and Related
Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (FEMA-
1611-DR), dated November 8, 2005, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective November 8, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated November 8, 2005, the President declared a major disaster under
the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands resulting from Typhoon
Nabi on August 30-September 1, 2005, is of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.
5121-5206 (the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that such a major
disaster exists in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance and Hazard
Mitigation in the designated areas, and any other forms of
assistance under the Stafford Act you may deem appropriate.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs. If Other Needs Assistance under
Section 408 of the Stafford Act is later requested and warranted,
Federal funding under that program will also be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs. You are authorized to make
adjustments as warranted to the non-Federal cost shares as provided
under the Insular Areas Act, 48 U.S.C. 1469a(d).
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Acting Director, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Woodrow Goins, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.
    I do hereby determine the following areas of the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands to have been affected adversely by this
declared major disaster:

    The islands of Rota, Saipan, and Tinian for Public Assistance.
    The islands of Rota, Saipan, and Tinian in the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands are eligible to apply for assistance
under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034,
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049,
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050,
Individuals and Households Program--Other Needs; 97.036, Public
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

R. David Paulison,
 Acting Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 05-22961 Filed 11-18-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES August 18, 2004 Dear Stakeholder:

The Agency recently received a number of letters from grower groups requesting changes to the mitigation proposed in the diazinon IRED, which was signed in 2002. Specifically, these requests pertained to grapes and Brussels sprouts. The purpose of this letter is to acknowledge receipt of these public comments and address them.

Five growers submitted comments regarding the Agency's decision to remove from the label foliar applications of diazinon to Brussels sprouts. The dominant message in all of these letters was that there is a need for diazinon late in the growing season for control of aphids, because diazinon is the only material with a short PHI that has fuming activity. The growers argue that loss of foliar applications of diazinon would require the use of slower acting preventative treatments and disrupt well established late season IPM programs for aphid control. Several of the growers specified that they use diazinon in combination with other 7 day PHI materials.

EPA acknowledges this comment; however, the Agency believes that there are enough effective alternatives to diazinon for aphid control. Acetamiprid, imidacoprid, and pymetrozine also have short PHIs and endosulfan and fenpropathrin have longer PHIs. The Agency's database and an informal survey done with Agency entomologists do not support the need for diazinon for foliar treatment of Brussels sprouts. The importance of diazinon for its fuming properties is unclear, since the benefits of foliar use of diazinon on vegetables are low compared to the risks. Therefore, the Agency stands by its decision to cancel foliar treatment of Brussels sprouts with diazinon.

In addition, a grower group representing wine grape growers submitted a letter requesting that EPA allow grapes to remain on diazinon labels for control against the Glassy Winged Sharpshooter and the Vine Mealybug. The group stated that continued pressures exist from Glassy Winged Sharpshooters and that recently increased pressures exist from Vine Mealybugs. The group argued that the grape industry has a limited array of resources to use for control of these insect species, and that a widespread infestation could result if farmers do not have access to diazinon.

EPA would like to point out that because neither the Glassy Winged Sharpshooter nor the Vine Mealybug is currently on diazinon labels, allowing use of diazinon on grapes to continue would not necessarily result in availability for use against these two pests. In addition, there are effective alternatives available for control of the Vine Mealybug, namely, chlorpyrifos, imidacloprid, buprofezin, and horticultural oil. Therefore, the Agency also stands by its decision to cancel diazinon use on grapes.

If you have further questions on these issues, please contact Stephanie Plummer of my staff at ( 703) 305 0076 or plummer. stephanie@ epa. gov. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Debra Edwards, Ph. D. Director Special Review and Reregistration Division


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 71 (Friday, April 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21934-21937]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08597]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD12-12-000]

Coordination Between Natural Gas and Electricity Markets;
Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference

    As announced in the Notice issued on March 5, 2013,\1\ the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) staff will hold a technical
conference on Thursday, April 25, 2013 from 9:00 a.m. to approximately
5:00 p.m. to discuss natural gas and electric scheduling, and issues
related to whether and how natural gas and electric industry schedules
and practices could be harmonized in order to achieve the most
efficient scheduling systems for both industries. The conference will
be held at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE., Washington, DC 20426. The agenda and list of roundtable
participants for this conference are attached. This conference is free
of charge and open to

the public. Commission members may participate in the conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Coordination between Natural Gas and Electricity Markets,
Docket No. AD12-12-000 (Mar. 5, 2013) (Notice of Technical
Conference) (http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/File_list.asp?document_id=14095482).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If you have not already done so, those who plan to attend the
technical conference are strongly encouraged to complete the
registration form located at: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/nat-gas-elec-mkts-form-04-25-13.asp. There is no deadline
to register to attend the conference.
    The technical conference will not be transcribed. However, there
will be a free webcast of the conference. The webcast will allow
persons to listen to the technical conference, but not participate.
Anyone with Internet access who wants to listen to the conference can
do so by navigating to the Calendar of Events at www.ferc.gov and
locating the technical conference in the Calendar. The technical
conference will contain a link to its webcast. The Capitol Connection
provides technical support for the webcast and offers the option of
listening to the meeting via phone-bridge for a fee. If you have any
questions, visit www.CapitolConnection.org or call<PHONE_NUMBER>.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The webcast will continue to be available on the Calendar of
Events on the Commission's Web site www.ferc.gov for three months
after the conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notice is also hereby given that the discussions at the conference
may address matters at issue in the following Commission proceeding(s)
that are either pending or within their rehearing period: East
Tennessee Natural Gas, L.L.C., Docket No. RP13-676-000; Gulf South
Pipeline Company, LP, Docket No. RP13-294-001; ISO New England Inc. and
New England Power Pool, Docket No. ER13-895-000, -001; Saltville Gas
Storage Company L.L.C., Docket No. RP13-677-000; Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Company, L.L.C., Docket No. RP12-514-000; Trailblazer Pipeline Company
LLC, RP13-240-000; and Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC, Docket No.
RP13-404-001.
    Information on the technical conference will be posted on the Web
site http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/electric-coord.asp, as well as the Calendar of Events on the Commission's Web
site, http://www.ferc.gov, prior to the conference.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a FAX to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    For more information about the technical conference, please
contact:

Elizabeth Topping (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and
Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Anna Fernandez (Legal Information), Office of General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sarah McKinley (Logistical Information), Office of External Affairs,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: April 3, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN12AP13.001

Coordination between Natural Gas and Electricity Markets

Docket No. AD12-12-000

April 25, 2013

Agenda

9:00-9:20 a.m. Welcome and Opening Remarks

    The purpose of this technical conference is to further explore
concerns regarding gas-electric scheduling conflicts, consider whether
adjustments to scheduling or capacity release rules or practices are
needed, and identify specific areas in which additional guidance or
regulatory changes could be considered. The conference will explore
whether potential modifications in these areas would facilitate more
efficient use of existing electric or natural gas infrastructure.

9:20-9:35 a.m. Opening Staff Presentation

    Staff will make a presentation on the gas and electric days, the
gas scheduling timeline and electric scheduling timelines.

9:35-12:30 p.m. Coordination of Gas and Electric Schedules

    The morning roundtable will address how to best align the gas and
electric schedules, including whether and on what geographic footprint
an ``energy day'' \3\ and the scheduling for that day should be
pursued, and whether there is a need for interregional or regional gas
or electric scheduling modifications. This roundtable session will
address whether and to what extent the electric and natural gas
scheduling practices need to be aligned, what scheduling practices need
to be revised (gas, electric or both), and whether alignment should be
national, regional, or interconnection-wide. Recognizing that the
electric markets vary by region, this roundtable session will also
explore how electric markets are responding to the needs of gas-fired
generators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``energy day'' in this context refers to a
simultaneous 24-hour time period when gas flow and electric
generator commitments are effective. Currently, the ``day'' for
purposes of measuring natural gas flows begins at 9:00 a.m. Central
time; however, the ``day'' for purposes of measuring electricity
flows begins at midnight local time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Roundtable panelists should be prepared to discuss the following:
     What would be the consequences of implementing a single
``energy day'' that combines the gas and electric days and the
scheduling for that day?
     If an interregional or regional approach to harmonizing
gas or electric scheduling would improve efficient use of existing
infrastructure, how could the different gas and electric geographic
footprints be reconciled? How would this work for organized and
bilateral electric markets?
     Some have proposed to integrate gas and electric
scheduling on an interregional basis through a coordinated Eastern
Interconnection gas and electric schedule and a coordinated Western
Interconnection gas and electric schedule. What are the consequences of
such a proposal?
     How could such interregional electric schedules be
harmonized with the natural gas schedule?
     Would coordination of the gas nomination and electric
bidding and commitment schedules on an interregional basis result in
more efficient use of existing infrastructure?
     If gas or electric schedules were adjusted on a regional
basis, should the adjustments be limited to day-ahead schedules, or
also include changes to intraday (gas) and real-time (electric)
schedules? What are the benefits and costs to each approach?
     Given technological advances, are there opportunities to
reduce the time between electric offers and resource commitment? What
would the benefits and costs be to implementing such a change?
     Given the increasing reliance on gas-fired generation, are
there changes

required to the current schedules used in wholesale electric markets to
commit gas-fired generation in the Day-Ahead market?
     Is there a need to sequence the timing of electric market
clearing across adjacent wholesale electric markets? If so, how can the
market clearing in adjacent regions be sequenced to promote efficient
use of infrastructure? What are the costs and benefits of adjusting the
electric market scheduling timeline across adjacent wholesale markets?
     Could electric scheduling modifications allow gas-fired
generators to make or adjust gas commitments to avoid periods of gas
illiquidity?
     Should electric system operators provide an opportunity
for generators to adjust their offers after commitments have been
posted or during the operating day to account for changes in gas or
transportation costs?

12:30-1:30 p.m. Lunch

1:30-4:30 p.m. Natural Gas Pipeline Flexibility and Potential
Scheduling Adjustments

    The afternoon roundtable will address suggestions regarding
incremental changes to gas scheduling and explore the services already
provided by pipelines, marketers and capacity release markets and
whether these services could be expanded to provide additional use of
existing infrastructure.
    Roundtable panelists should be prepared to discuss questions
including:
     As some parties have suggested, should additional natural
gas nomination opportunities be provided within the scheduling
timeline? For example, would an additional nomination period during the
night or early morning provide flexibility that would be used by
shippers? What are the costs and benefits of doing so?
     Is it sufficient to permit enhanced pipeline nomination
opportunities by individual pipelines given the need to coordinate such
nominations with upstream and downstream parties?
     Given technological advances, are there opportunities to
reduce the time between gas nominations and confirmations for intraday
nominations? What would be the benefits and costs of implementing such
a change?
     The current business practice standards (NAESB Standard
1.3.80) permit shippers with scheduled gas past the point of a
constraint to sell or transfer that gas supply to others without the
need to reschedule. How do pipelines implement this requirement? What
revisions, if any, are needed to provide more flexibility? How can
marketers use this standard to help transfer gas?
     Should the no-bump rule be eliminated or the timing
adjusted if additional nomination period(s) are added?
     Do changes need to be made to Commission policies to
permit third parties to offer virtual storage or other balancing
services? What are the advantages or disadvantages of such a change?
     What tools and services do generators use to manage
procuring gas and transportation outside the common trading periods and
over weekends? Could existing tools be expanded? Are any additional
tools needed to manage difficulties with fuel supply arrangements
outside standard trading periods?
     Pre-arranged capacity release transactions can be
scheduled at every nomination opportunity on a pipeline. Are there any
changes to the capacity release program that would make capacity
release more efficient?
     To what extent and how do shippers use redirect options
and flexible delivery point nominations? How might this be improved?

4:30-5:00 p.m. Closing

     Recap of what staff heard throughout the day
     Participant feedback
     Areas for further consideration, including issues outside
of scheduling

Roundtable Participants

Morning Session

Robert Hayes, Vice President, Physical Trading and Operation, Calpine
Corporation
Georgia Carter, Senior Vice President, Rates & Regulatory Affairs,
Columbia Pipeline Group
Jim Ginnetti, Senior Vice President, EquiPower Resources Corp.
Lin Franks, Senior Strategist, RTO, FERC & Compliance Initiatives,
Indianapolis Power & Light Company
Scott Rupff, Vice President, Marketing, Development & Commercial
Operations, Iroquois Pipeline Operating Company
Peter Brandien, Vice President of System Operations, ISO-NE
Ray Miller, Vice President, Pipeline Management, Kinder Morgan
Wes Yeomans, Vice President, Operations/Kelli Joseph, Gas & Electric
Analyst, NYISO
Joe Gardner, Vice President, Forward Markets & Operations Services
Midwest ISO
Michael Frey, Vice President, Gas Supply & Operations, Municipal Gas
Authority of Georgia
James Stanzione, Director of Federal Regulatory National Grid Policy
Donald Sipe, Attorney (On behalf of American Forest & Paper
Association), PretiFlaherty
Todd Snitchler, Chairman, Public Utilities Commission of Ohio
Doug Rephlo, Senior Wholesale Originator, Shell Energy North America
(U.S.), L.P.
Greg Lander, President, Skipping Stone
Carl Haga, Gas Services Director, Southern Company
Bruce Rew, Vice President, Operations, Southwest Power Pool
Richard Kruse, Vice President, Regulatory, Spectra Energy

Afternoon Session

Daniel Buckner, Director of Fuels Origination and Strategic
Development, ACES
John Fortman, Director, Commercial Services, AGL Resources
Patrick Dinkel, Vice President, Resource Management, Arizona Public
Service Company
Mark Evans, Vice President, North America Gas and Power Market, BG
Energy Merchants, LLC
Kathy Kirk, Senior VP, Marketing & Origination/Adina Owen, Corporate
Counsel, Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP
Tina Burnett, Senior Energy Analyst (On behalf of Process Gas Consumers
Group), The Boeing Corporation
Kevin Holder, Senior Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer,
Cardinal Gas Storage Partners
Chris Ditzel, Division Vice President, Commercial Operations,
CenterPoint Energy
John Rudiak, Senior Director, Energy Supply, CT Natural Gas & So. CT
Gas
Mary Nelson, Devon Energy Corporation
Brad Holmes, Vice President, Market Services, Energy Transfer
Michelle Thiry, Director Energy Management Organization, Entergy
Jim Ginnetti, Senior Vice President, EquiPower Resources Corp.
Gene Nowak, Vice President, Transportation & Storage Services, Kinder
Morgan
Rick Smead, Director (On behalf of America's Natural Gas Alliance),
Navigant Consulting
Jim Dauer, Director, Natural Gas Trading, NRG Energy, Inc.
Doug Rephlo, Senior Wholesale Originator, Shell Energy North America
(U.S.), L.P.
Richard Kruse, Vice President, Regulatory, Spectra Energy
Valerie Crockett, Senior Program Manager Regulatory Policy, TVA

Curt Dallinger, Director Gas Resource Planning, Xcel Energy

[FR Doc. 2013-08597 Filed 4-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 113 (Monday, June 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35847-35849]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12720]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2021-0109; Notice No. 2022-10]

Hazardous Materials: Frequently Asked Questions--Applicability of
the Hazardous Materials Regulations; Extension of Comment Period and
Notice of Public Informational Webinar

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice; extension of comment period and informational webinar
announcement.

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

SUMMARY: On March 22, 2022, PHMSA announced an initiative to convert
historical letters of interpretation applicable to the Hazardous
Materials Regulations (HMR) that have been issued to specific
stakeholders into broadly applicable frequently asked questions on its
website. PHMSA requested comment on the initiative and input on the
prioritization of future sets of frequently asked questions. In this
notice, PHMSA is extending the comment period from May 23, 2022, until
July 22, 2022. In addition, PHMSA plans to host a webinar to discuss
the process and intent of this initiative with stakeholders on June 27,
2022.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
July 22, 2022. Comments received after that date will be considered to
the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Docket Number
PHMSA-2021-0109 by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management System; U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Routing
Symbol M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Docket Management System; Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
Docket Number (PHMSA-2021-0109) for this notice. To avoid duplication,
please use only one of these four methods. All comments received will
be posted without change to the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)
and will include any personal information you provide.
    Docket: For access to the dockets to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or DOT's Docket
Operations Office (see ADDRESSES).
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public. DOT posts these comments, without edit,
including any personal information the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Confidential Business Information (CBI): CBI is commercial or
financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as
private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5
U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments
responsive to this notice contain commercial or financial information
that is customarily treated

as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or
responsive to this notice, it is important that you clearly designate
the submitted comments as ``CBI.'' Please mark each page of your
submission containing CBI as ``PROPIN.'' Submissions containing CBI
should be sent to Arthur Pollack, Standards and Rulemaking Division,
(202) 366-8553, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Any commentary that PHMSA receives which is
not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket
for this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arthur Pollack, Standards and
Rulemaking Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Webinar Details and Public Participation

    The webinar will take place on June 27, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. EST and
will be open to the public. Attendees must register on the meeting
website at https://opsweb.phmsa.dot.gov/hm_seminars/faq_webinar.asp.

II. Background

    Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5101 et
seq.) directs the Secretary of Transportation (``the Secretary'') to
establish regulations for the safe and secure transportation of
hazardous materials in commerce. The Secretary is authorized to apply
those regulations to (1) persons who transport hazardous materials in
commerce, (2) persons who cause hazardous materials to be transported
in commerce, (3) persons who manufacture or maintain a packaging or a
component of a packaging that is represented, marked, certified, or
sold as qualified for use in the transportation of a hazardous material
in commerce, (4) persons who indicate by marking or other means that a
hazardous material being transported in commerce is present in a
package or transport conveyance when it is not, and (5) persons who
tamper with a package or transport conveyance used to transport
hazardous materials in commerce or a required marking, label, placard,
or shipping description.
    In 49 CFR 1.97, the Secretary delegated authority to issue
regulations for the safe and secure transportation of hazardous
materials in commerce to the PHMSA Administrator. The PHMSA
Administrator issues the HMR under that delegated authority. The HMR
prescribes requirements for the safe transportation in commerce of
hazardous materials, including provisions for classification,
packaging, and hazard communication.
    To facilitate its safety mission and promote better awareness of
its programs and compliance requirements, the Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety (OHMS) periodically issues agency guidance in the
Federal Register and on its publicly available website \1\ for use by
the regulated community, PHMSA staff, and federal, state, and local
partners. This information is non-binding material given to the public
pertaining to information and resources useful to comply with the HMR
and is also used to make the public aware of safety issues or best
practices. PHMSA issues this information through posted frequently
asked questions (FAQs), advisory bulletins, publications, and policy
manuals. PHMSA also answers questions from stakeholders through its
staff and the Hazardous Materials Information Center (HMIC) \2\ and by
issuing letters of interpretation (LOIs). As provided in 49 CFR 105.20
(Guidance and Interpretations), a member of the public may request
information and answers to questions on HMR compliance by contacting
the OHMS Standards and Rulemaking Division or the HMIC.\3\ OHMS
receives an average of 250 requests for LOIs each year. Some of these
requests for interpretations have previously been asked, answered, and
published on PHMSA's Online Code of Federal Regulations (oCFR) website
at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/standards-rulemaking/hazmat/phmsas-online-cfr-ocfr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/guidance?keywords=security&issued_date_from=&field_issued_date_value_1=.
    \2\ The HMIC can be reached at 1-800-467-4922 and
[email protected]. For additional information visit: https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/standards-rulemaking/hazmat/hazardous-materials-information-center.
    \3\ To request a formal letter of interpretation, persons may
also write to: Mr. Shane Kelley, Director, Standards and Rulemaking
Division, U.S. DOT/PHMSA (PHH-10), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, East
Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590. To obtain information and
answers pertaining to statute compliance and preemption, persons
must, as prescribed by 49 CFR 105.20(b), contact the office of the
Chief Counsel at: Office of the Chief Counsel, U.S. DOT/PHMSA (PHC-
10), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, East Building, Washington, DC 20590,
or at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the FAQ initiative is to optimize the effectiveness,
reach, and impact of the OHMS LOI process. Through publishing FAQs,
PHMSA will memorialize in broadly applicable guidance its historical
LOIs for, and applicable to, specific stakeholders regulated by the
HMR. Specifically, this initiative adapts currently available
stakeholder engagement functions to more directly appeal to a broader
regulated community, develop a systematic process in managing/curating
agency information that can be incorporated conveniently into existing
workflows, and create helpful tools for current stakeholders. The
success of this initiative will be measurable by monitoring PHMSA's
website engagement, the rate of incoming calls to the HMIC, and the
volume of incoming LOI requests. A successful project should see an
increase in website engagement with either static or reduced rates of
calls to the HMIC and a reduced volume of incoming LOI requests. In
addition, the interpretation workflow should reflect more efficient
processing and productivity.

III. Federal Register Notice

    On March 22, 2022, PHMSA published Notice No. 2022-02 [87 FR 16308]
announcing an initiative to publish FAQs on its website to facilitate
better public understanding and awareness of the hazardous materials
regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171 through 180). The FAQs in the notice
are intended to clarify, explain, and promote better understanding of
the HMR. FAQs are not substantive rules, and do not create legally
enforceable rights, assign duties, or impose new obligations not
otherwise contained in the existing regulations and standards, but are
provided to help the regulated community understand how to comply with
the regulations.
    PHMSA is creating a repository of these questions, which will
reduce the need for issuing duplicative LOIs to multiple stakeholders
and will assist PHMSA in streamlining the use of its resources by
significantly reducing frequently asked LOIs. This initiative will
provide additional value to PHMSA's oCFR tool found at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/standards-rulemaking/hazmat/phmsas-online-cfr-ocfr.
The oCFR tool is an interactive web-based application that allows users
to navigate with a single click between all content, including LOIs
connected to an HMR citation. The oCFR tool includes the ability to
sort, filter, and export search results.
    PHMSA expects this initiative to ultimately allow the agency to
devote resources to other hazardous materials transportation safety
projects such as petitions for rulemakings, public

outreach and engagement, and regulatory and policy improvements.

IV. Comment Period Extension

    PHMSA initially provided a 60-day comment period for the March 22,
2022, Federal Register notice with a May 23, 2022, closing date. In
response to a request to extend the comment period from the Dangerous
Goods Advisory Council, PHMSA is extending the comment period an
additional 60 days. The comment period will now close on July 22, 2022.
This extension provides the public additional time to provide comment
on the FAQ initiative. In addition, PHMSA will host a webinar to
provide detailed information on the process and intent of the FAQ
initiative. The webinar will be held on June 27, 2022.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on June 8, 2022, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
William S. Schoonover,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2022-12720 Filed 6-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title and Number of the Information Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1( b) Short Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2( b) Use/ Users of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3 NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3( a) Non duplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3( c) Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3( e) General Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3( f) Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3( g) Sensitive Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4 RESPONDENTS AND INFORMATION REQUESTED 4( a) Respondents/ NAICS Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4( b) Information Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4( b)( i) Data Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4( b)( ii) Respondent Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5 INFORMATION COLLECTED  AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5( a) Agency Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5( b) Collection Methodology and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5( c) Small Entity Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5( d) Collection Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6 ESTIMATING BURDEN AND COST OF COLLECTION 6( a) Respondent Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6( a)( i) Burden to Public Water Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6( a)( ii) Burden to Primacy Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6( b) Respondent Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6( b)( i) Cost to Public Water Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6( b)( ii) Cost to Primacy Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6( c) Agency Burden and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6( d) Estimating Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6( g) Burden Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 ii LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: PN Requirements for PWSs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Exhibit 2: PN Requirements for Primacy Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Exhibit 3: Annual PWS Burden and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Exhibit 4: Annual Primacy Agency Burden and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Exhibit 5: Bottom Line Annual Burden and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Exhibit 6: Adjustments to Burden Hours from the 2000 PN ICR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Exhibit 7: Adjustments to Annual Burden Hours for the PWSS Program ICR . . . . . . . . . 23 APPENDICES Appendix A 2000 Information Collection Request for the Public Water System Supervision Program Public Notification Requirements Appendix B Federal Register Notice Soliciting Comments on the Public Notification Amendment to the PWSS Program ICR Appendix C PN Burden and Cost Spreadsheets iii ACRONYMS ASDWA Association of State Drinking Water Administrators BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics CCR Consumer Confidence Report CFR Code of Federal Regulations CWS Community Water System DBPR Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule EPA Environmental Protection Agency FBRR Filter Backwash Recycling Rule FR Federal Register FTE Full Time Equivalent FY Fiscal Year ICR Information Collection Request IESWTR Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule LCR Lead and Copper Rule MCL Maximum Contaminant Level MRDL Maximum Residual Disinfection Level NAICS North American Industry Classification System NCWS Noncommunity Water System NPDWR National Primary Drinking Water Regulation NTNCWS Nontransient Noncommunity Water System O& M Operation and Maintenance OGWDW Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water OMB Office of Management and Budget PN Public Notification PRA Paperwork Reduction Act PWS Public Water System PWSS Public Water System Supervision SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System SIC Standard Industrial Classification SMCL Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level SWTR Surface Water Treatment Rule TNCWS Transient Noncommunity Water System TT Treatment Technique V/ E Variance and Exemption PWSS Program ICR: PN Amendment March 14, 2002 1 This number is derived from actual FY2000 SDWIS violation data and from violation estimates for Stage 1 DBPR, IESWTR, FBRR, and the Radionuclides Rule. For the new rules ( Stage 1 DBPR, IESWTR, FBRR, and Radionuclides Rule),

each violation was assumed to occur at a different PWS.

1 1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title and Number of the Information Collection Title: Information Collection Request for the Public Water System Supervision Program: Public Notification Amendment OMB Control Number: 2040 0090 EPA Tracking Number: 0270.41 This Information Collection Request ( ICR) amends the Public Water System Supervision ( PWSS) Program ICR, which was approved on November 28, 2001, by adding updated burden estimates for the Public Notification ( PN) Rule.

1( b) Short Characterization Section 114 of the Safe Drinking Water Act ( SDWA) of 1996, enacted on August 6, 1996, amends Section 1414( c)( 1) and ( c)( 2) of the Act. The amendments affect the form, manner, frequency, and content of notices provided by public water systems ( PWSs). Since 1978, EPA's drinking water regulations have required PWSs to notify the persons served by those systems about violations of applicable national drinking water standards, including maximum contaminant levels ( MCLs), treatment technique ( TT) requirements, and monitoring and testing procedure requirements. PWSs that have been granted a variance or an exemption ( V/ E) from the primary drinking water regulations are also required to provide notice that they are operating under a variance or exemption. Additionally, public notification is required for any failure to comply with a variance or exemption. The regulations are codified in 40 Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR) 141.32 and Subpart Q.

The 2000 PN Rule revised the minimum requirements that PWSs must meet regarding the form, manner, frequency, and content of the public notification. Public water systems must give notice to all persons served for all violations of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations ( NPDWRs) and for other situations posing a risk to public health from the drinking water.

Section 141.2 of 40 CFR defines a PWS as " a system for the provision to the public of water for human consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances, if such system has at least fifteen service connections or regularly serves at least 25 individuals daily at least 60 days out of the year." For this PN Amendment, an estimated 44,262 of the 168,302 PWSs will have one or more NPDWR violations. 1 Overall, the 44,262 PWSs with violations were estimated to commit 96,041 violations annually. Though not all violations require a separate public notice, each violation requires the PWS to comply with the PN requirements. PWSS Program ICR: PN Amendment March 14, 2002 2 The form, manner, and frequency of the public notice is determined by the tier to which the violation or situation is assigned. EPA divides the public notice requirements into three tiers:

Tier 1 Public Notice, for violations and situations with significant potential to have serious adverse effects on human health as a result of short term exposure. Tier 1 public notices are required for the presence of E. coli or fecal coliform in the distribution system, violation of the MCL for nitrate, nitrite, or combined nitrate and nitrite, exceedance of the nitrate MCL in a noncommunity water system ( NCWS), violation of the maximum residual disinfection level ( MRDL) for chlorine dioxide, violation of the turbidity MCL, occurrence of waterborne disease outbreak or other waterborne emergency, and other violations or situations as determined by the primacy agency.

Tier 2 Public Notice, for other violations and situations with potential to have serious adverse effects on human health. Tier 2 public notices are required for all MCL, MRDL, and TT violations that do not require Tier 1 notification, monitoring and testing procedure violations determined by the primacy agency, and noncompliance with requirements of a variance or exemption.

Tier 3 Public Notice, for all other violations and situations requiring a public notice and not included in Tier 1 and Tier 2. Tier 3 public notices are also required for operation under a variance or exemption, availability of unregulated contaminant monitoring results, and exceedance of the fluoride secondary MCL.

This ICR Amendment was prepared in accordance with the February 1999 version of EPA's Guide to Writing Information Collection Requests Under the Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA) of 1995 ( hereafter, the " ICR Handbook") prepared by EPA's Office of Environmental Information, Office of Information Collection, Collection Strategies Division. The ICR Handbook provides the most current instructions for ICR preparation to ensure compliance with the 1995 PRA amendments and Office of Management and Budget's ( OMB's) implementing guidelines.

This ICR Amendment includes all information collection requirements contained in the 2000 PN Rule and will become part of the PWSS Program ICR, which was approved by OMB in November 2001. Since the PWSS Program ICR estimates burden for calendar years 2002 through 2004, this ICR Amendment estimates burden and costs for the remainder of calendar year 2002 ( beginning July 1, 2002) and all of calendar years 2003 and 2004. This non traditional method of estimating burden will help to simplify the ICR process by synchronizing the three year ICR accounting periods for the PWSS Program ICR and the PN Amendment. Future renewals of the PWSS Program ICR will include PN burden for the entire three year ICR renewal period.

This ICR Amendment updates the burden and cost estimates provided in the 2000 PN ICR, which expires on June 30, 2002 ( see Appendix A). As explained in Section 2( a), this ICR Amendment includes all reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the PN Rule. PN burden estimates for several new drinking water rules are included in the burden estimate for this ICR Amendment. These new rules include the Filter Backwash Recycling Rule ( FBRR) and the 2000 Radionuclides Rule. Section 6( f) summarizes the changes in burden from the 2000 PN ICR. PWSS Program ICR: PN Amendment March 14, 2002 3 The total annual respondent burden associated with this ICR Amendment is estimated to be approximately 0.78 million hours per year. The total annual respondent cost associated with this ICR Amendment is estimated to be approximately $ 23.82 million. The distribution of annual burden between PWSs and primacy agencies is approximately 0.74 million hours and 0.04 million hours, respectively. The distribution of annual costs between PWSs and primacy agencies is approximately $ 22.59 million and $ 1.23 million, respectively. There are no EPA costs or burden associated with this ICR Amendment.

Approximately $ 4.73 million of the $ 22.59 million annual cost to PWSs is for operation and maintenance ( O& M) activities. Primacy agencies do not incur any O& M costs associated with the PN Rule. This $ 4.73 million represents the " cost burden" as reported in the OMB inventory. Note that these costs are for O& M only; there are no capital costs associated with the activities covered by this ICR Amendment.

The total number of respondents for this ICR Amendment is 44,319; 57 of these respondents are primacy agencies and the balance are PWSs ( 44,262). The total annual number of responses for these respondents is 250,606 ( 109,721 for PWSs and 140,885 for primacy agencies). PWSS Program ICR: PN Amendment March 14, 2002 4 2 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection This section identifies the regulatory or statutory authority for the information collection activities covered in this ICR Amendment and describes why EPA needs the information. Section 4 contains a summary of the public notification recordkeeping and reporting requirements covered by this ICR Amendment.

Section 114 of the 1996 SDWA Amendments required the EPA Administrator to develop and issue new regulations for public notification of PWS failure to comply with applicable national drinking water standards. Regulations mandating the form, manner, frequency, and content of public notification are codified under 40 CFR Part 141, Subpart Q. Sections 1414( c)( 2)( C)( ii) and 1414( c)( 2)( D)( ii) of the 1996 Amendments require that notices must provide a clear and understandable explanation of the violation, the potential adverse health effects, and the steps that the system is taking to seek alternative water supplies until the violation is corrected. This ICR Amendment presents burden and costs for all aspects of the preparation and delivery of these notices.

2( b) Use/ Users of the Data EPA's public notification regulations require PWSs to give notice of violations to " all persons served" so that consumers are aware of potential health risks. The PN information is also used to aid in understanding the quality of drinking water, to make regulatory enforcement decisions, to oversee State programs, and to make decisions regarding EPA grants. This section summarizes the use and users of the data by activity   The public notifications published or distributed under the PN Rule are used for the following purposes:

To notify PWS customers if violations occur.

To provide information for protecting human health.

To notify the primacy agency and EPA of violations.

To update the Safe Drinking Water Information System ( SDWIS) and other databases as well as program reports with current violation information.

As specified in Section 141 Subpart Q, the PWS and primacy agency must maintain records of public notifications made. Subpart Q does not specify information collection or maintenance requirements for EPA . PWSS Program ICR: PN Amendment March 14, 2002 5 Primary users of the information collected under this ICR Amendment are persons served by PWSs. Other users include Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water ( OGWDW) staff, PWS managers, and primacy agencies, which include State regulators, Indian Tribes, and, in some instances, EPA Regional Administrators. Additional occasional users of PN information include

Staff from other EPA programs ( such as Superfund, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance)

Federal Emergency Management Administration

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Military bases

Farmers Home Administration

Department of Interior

Department of Housing and Urban Development

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers

White House Task Forces

American Water Works Association

Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies

National Rural Water Association

National Association of Water Companies

Association of State Drinking Water Administrators ( ASDWA)

Natural Resources Defense Council

Consumers Federation of America

News organizations PWSS Program ICR: PN Amendment March 14, 2002 6 3 NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3( a) Non duplication When violations of NPDWRs occur, the public notification provisions of the 1996 SDWA Amendments require specific information to be distributed by PWSs to all persons served. Similar information ( e. g., violations, health effects) is made available to persons served by community water systems ( CWSs) through the Consumer Confidence Reports ( CCRs) required by regulations issued under a related SDWA provision ( 40 CFR Part 141, Subpart O). Violation information is also made available to consumers from SDWIS, based on quarterly reporting to EPA from States under primacy regulations ( 40 CFR Part 142.15). In most cases, these other sources of similar information are not suitable for meeting the public notice requirements under the statute and EPA regulations because the form, manner, content, and frequency of the information does not meet the minimum statutory public notice obligation. To avoid duplication with the CCR, however, EPA has included a provision in the PN regulation to allow CWSs to use the CCR to meet the PN requirements for specific situations. When estimating burden, this ICR Amendment accounts for this contingency to avoid double counting of burden and cost.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB To comply with the 1995 Amendments to the PRA, EPA has solicited public comment on this ICR Amendment for a 60 day period before it was submitted to OMB. Specifically, EPA has published a notice in the Federal Register ( FR) requesting comment on the estimated respondent burden and other aspects of this ICR Amendment ( 67 FR 585 586, January 4, 2002) ( See Appendix B). An additional Federal Register notice will be published prior to submission of this ICR Amendment to OMB. The public comment period for this additional notice is 30 days.

3( c) Consultations When drafting the 2000 PN Rule, EPA solicited from a variety of sources input regarding the preparation and distribution of public notices. States were involved early in the regulatory development process, through attendance at meetings held in June 1997. Representatives of primacy agencies were included in the PN Rule Working Group that developed the regulatory requirements. Consultations were held with stakeholders, drinking water primacy agencies, ASDWA, and private firms providing information dissemination services. The following meetings were held during the consultation process:

Stakeholders meeting sponsored by OGWDW, EPA Region 3, and ASDWA.

Stakeholders meeting sponsored by EPA Region 10 and the Washington State Department of Health.

Stakeholders meeting sponsored by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. PWSS Program ICR: PN Amendment March 14, 2002 7

Meeting with the Washington Drinking Water Advisory Committee.

State drinking water staff " Early Involvement" meeting, sponsored by ASDWA.

Several EPA regulatory workgroup meetings, which included four State representatives.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection EPA has carefully considered the burden imposed upon the regulated community in distributing public notifications and is confident that those activities required of respondents are necessary. EPA, to the extent possible, has attempted to minimize the burden imposed. Any less frequent reporting is not possible because the 1996 SDWA Amendments require public notice for the most serious violations to be distributed within 24 hours and notices for all other violations to be distributed as soon as practicable based on the seriousness of the violation, but in no case later than one year after the violation. The statute also requires EPA to tailor the frequency of the notice to the seriousness of the violation.

3( e) General Guidelines This ICR Amendment was prepared in accordance with the ICR Handbook prepared by EPA's Office of Environmental Information, Office of Information Collection, Collection Strategies Division. The ICR Handbook provides the most current instructions for ICR preparation to ensure compliance with the 1995 PRA amendments and OMB's implementing guidelines.

3( f) Confidentiality No confidential information will be collected as a result of this ICR Amendment.

3( g) Sensitive Questions No questions of a sensitive nature are included in any of the information collection requirements. PWSS Program ICR: PN Amendment March 14, 2002 8 4 RESPONDENTS AND INFORMATION REQUESTED 4( a) Respondents/ NAICS Codes Data associated with this ICR Amendment are collected and maintained at the PWS, State, and Federal levels. Respondents include

Owners/ operators of PWSs, who issue public notices and consult with the primacy agency.

Primacy agencies that must consult with PWSs regarding violations and notifications.

The North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS) code for PWSs is 22131. The NAICS code for State agencies that include drinking water programs are classified as 92411 ( Administration of Air and Water Resources and Solid Waste Management Programs) or 923312 ( Administration of Public Health Programs). Ancillary systems ( i. e., those that supplement the function of other establishments like factories, power plants, mobile home parks, etc.) cannot be categorized in a single NAICS code. For ancillary systems, the NAICS code is that of the primary establishment or industry.

4( b) Information Requested This ICR Amendment covers requirements set forth in Section 1414( c)( 1) and ( c)( 2) of the 1996 SDWA amendments. Regulations under 40 CFR Part 141, Subpart Q contain requirements for public notification. This ICR Amendment summarizes the information collection requirements and associated data items and respondent activities that are contained in the PN Rule. Exhibits 2 and 3 summarize the respondent information collection requirements covered by this ICR Amendment. PWSS Program ICR: PN Amendment March 14, 2002 9 Exhibit 1 PN Requirements for PWSs REQUIREMENT REGULATORY CITATION REPORT FREQUENCY/ MINIMUM RETENTION TIME Public Notification Notify persons served by a PWS if certain violations and situations occur.* 40 CFR 141.201( a)&( c) As necessary Notify persons served within 24 hours of learning of a violation which requires Tier 1 public notification. 40 CFR 141.202( b)( 1) As necessary, within 24 hours Consult with the primacy agency within 24 hours of learning of a violation which requires Tier 1 public notification. 40 CFR 141.202( b)( 2) As necessary, within 24 hours Comply with any additional notification requirements for Tier 1. 40 CFR 141.202( b)( 3) As necessary Notify persons served within 30 days of a violations that requires Tier 2 public notification. 40 CFR 141.203( b)( 1) As necessary, within 30 days Provide repeat notices for unresolved violations every three months, unless the primacy agency determines a different frequency. 40 CFR 141.203( b)( 2) As necessary, every 3 months Consult with the primacy agency if a violation of the turbidity MCL or SWTR/ IESWTR TT requirements for single exceedances of turbidity limits occurs. 40 CFR 141.203( b)( 3) As necessary, within 24 hours Notify persons served within one year of learning of a violation or situation that requires Tier 3 notification. 40 CFR 141.204( b)( 1) As necessary, within 1 year Provide repeat notices annually for unresolved Tier 3 violations/ situations. 40 CFR 141.204( b)( 1) As necessary, annually Notify new customers of ongoing violations/ situations prior to or at the time service begins.* 40 CFR 141.206 As necessary Notify persons served of the availability of the results of unregulated contaminant monitoring. 40 CFR 141.207 As necessary, within 12 months of receiving results Provide special notice to persons served for an exceedance of the fluoride secondary MCL ( SMCL). 40 CFR 141.208 As necessary, within 12 months of exceedance Provide repeat notice of a fluoride SMCL exceedance, if unresolved. 40 CFR 141.208 As necessary, annually Notify persons served by NCWSs if the primacy agency grants permission to exceed the nitrate MCL 40 CFR 141.209 As necessary, within 24 hours Reporting Submit a copy of each notice provided ( Tiers 1, 2, and 3 and any repeat notices) and a certification that all PN requirements were met. 40 CFR 141.31( d) and 141.201( c)( 3) As necessary, within 10 days after completing notification requirements Recordkeeping Retain copies of all notices and certifications. 40 CFR 141.33( e) 3 years PWSS Program ICR: PN Amendment March 14, 2002 10 * Content requirements for notices are described in 40 CFR 141.205, 141.207, and 141.208.

Exhibit 2 PN Requirements for Primacy Agencies REQUIREMENT REGULATORY CITATION REPORT FREQUENCY/ MINIMUM RETENTION TIME Public Notification Primacy agencies may exercise flexibility in the following areas as long as they establish enforceable procedures:

Requiring PWSs to notify persons served for violations or situations other than those requiring notice under the PN rule. Allowing PWSs to limit distribution of a notice to the portion of the distribution system that is out of compliance. Elevating violations/ situations from Tiers 2 or 3 to Tier 1. Requiring additional notification for Tier 1 as a result of the 24 hour consultation. Requiring or permitting a different form of delivery than is required in the PN rule for Tiers 1, 2, or 3. Elevating monitoring/ testing procedure violations from Tier 3 to Tier 2. Granting extensions for distribution of Tier 2 notices. Allowing less frequent repeat notification for Tier 2. Consulting with PWS within 24 hours for exceedance of turbidity limits. Determining the need for multilingual content in a notice. 40 CFR 142.16( a) If necessary Consult with PWSs within 24 hours for Tier 1 violations/ situations. 40 CFR 141.202( b)( 2) As necessary, within 24 hours Consult with PWSs within 24 hours for exceedances of turbidity MCL or violations of turbidity single exceedance limits. 40 CFR 141.203( b)( 3) As necessary, within 24 hours May give the required public notice on behalf of the PWS. 40 CFR 141.210 If necessary Reporting Report violations of the PN Rule to EPA. 40 CFR 142.15( a)( 1) Quarterly Recordkeeping Retain copies of certification and notices submitted by PWSs. Also keep records of determinations of alternative requirements made under 40 CFR 142.16. 40 CFR 142.14( f) 3 years PWSS Program ICR: PN Amendment March 14, 2002 11 4( b)( i) Data Items Sections 1414( c)( 2)( C)( ii) and 1414( c)( 2)( D)( ii) of the 1996 Amendments require notices that provide a clear and understandable explanation of the violation or situation, the potential adverse health effects, and the steps that the system is taking to seek alternative water supplies until the violation is corrected. Under the rule, PWSs must include the following information in the notice:

A description of the violation or situation.

When the violation or situation occurred.

Potential health effects.

Any at risk populations.

Whether alternative water supplies should be used.

Any action consumers should take to further protect their health.

Steps the PWS is taking to correct the violation or situation.

When the PWS expects to return to compliance.

The PWS contact name, address, and phone number.

Standard distribution language.

The regulation also requires that part or all of the public notice be multilingual, if appropriate.

4( b)( ii) Respondent Activities Public Water Systems To comply with the PN regulations, PWSs must complete the following activities:

Prepare the notice ( § § 141.201, 141.205, 141.206, 141.207, and 141.208).

Distribute the notice to all persons served within the applicable time frame ( § § 141.202,141.203, and 141.204).

If the violation or situation requires public notification within 24 hours, consult with primacy agency within the 24 hour period to determine subsequent actions ( § 141.202( b)( 2)). Consultation is also required for exceedances of the maximum allowable turbidity level ( § 141.203( b)( 3)).

If a violation is unresolved, prepare an updated notice for repeat distribution ( § § 141.205, 141.206, 141.207, and 141.208).

Distribute the updated notice ( § § 141.202,141.203, and 141.204).

Take any additional actions required by the primacy agency ( § § 141.201 and 141.202). PWSS Program ICR: PN Amendment March 14, 2002 12

Submit certification to the primacy agency along with copies of all public notifications that were distributed. Primacy Agencies The PN Rule requires primacy agencies to consult with the violating PWS to determine appropriate followup actions. Additionally, the primacy agencies must receive and review PN certifications submitted by PWSs. Primacy agencies must submit quarterly reports of PN Rule violations to EPA.

Primacy agencies may give notice on behalf of a PWS ( § 141.210). However, no data is available for estimating the burden incurred by this practice. For the purposes of this ICR, the burden for preparing and distributing public notification is assumed to be incurred by the PWS. PWSS Program ICR: PN Amendment March 14, 2002 2 These definitions were taken from Section 601 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

13 5 INFORMATION COLLECTED   AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT The following section discusses how EPA or the implementing agency will collect and manage the information received from respondents. This section also includes a discussion of how EPA has taken steps to ensure that the information collections are not overly burdensome to small entities.

5( a) Agency Activities The information required of PWSs is intended to provide all persons served with a notice of any violations in a manner, form, content, and frequency which allows informed health related decision making. PWSs are required to send copies of public notices to the primacy agency. Since there is no requirement to send the public notices to EPA, the Agency does not review individual public notices.

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management EPA does not receive public notices issued by the PWSs under the PN Rule. EPA has no role or responsibility in collecting, managing, distributing, or storing the public notification information required under the PN Rule.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility In developing this ICR Amendment, EPA considered the requirement of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act ( SBREFA) to minimize the burden of information collections on small entities. Small entities include " small businesses," " small organizations" and " small government jurisdictions." These terms are defined below. 2

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

A small organization is any non profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field.

A small governmental jurisdiction is the government of a city, county, town, township, village, school district or special district that has a population of fewer than 50,000. This definition may also include Indian Tribes. PWSS Program ICR: PN Amendment March 14, 2002 14 The major requirement under SBREFA is a regulatory flexibility analysis of all rules that have a " significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities." This ICR Amendment is not associated with new rules and, therefore, is not subject to the SBREFA. However, EPA realizes that some PWSs are small entities; therefore, systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons are afforded several options for delivering public notices, such as hand delivery and posting in a prominent location.

5( d) Collection Schedule PWSs that experience violations are required to distribute public notices to all persons served within one of three schedules ( tiers). Notices for violations that pose the greatest potential threat are required within 24 hours, with repeat notices required as deemed appropriate by the primacy agency. Notices for less severe, but still serious, violations are required within 30 days ( with extension to three months if allowed by the primacy agency), with repeat notices required quarterly. Notices of minor and non health related violations must be distributed within one year, with repeat notices annually. PWSS Program ICR: PN Amendment March 14, 2002 15 6 ESTIMATING BURDEN AND COST OF COLLECTION This ICR Amendment includes all information collection requirements of the 2000 PN Rule and will become part of the PWSS Program ICR, which was approved by OMB in November 2001. Since the PWSS Program ICR estimates burden for calendar years 2002 through 2004, this ICR Amendment estimates burden and costs for the remainder of calendar year 2002 ( beginning July 1, 2002) and all of calendar years 2003 and 2004 to synchronize the threeyear ICR accounting periods for the PWSS Program ICR and the PN Amendment. All burden and cost calculations, on which the estimates for this ICR Amendment were based, are for July 1, 2002, through December 31, 2004.

6( a) Respondent Burden 6( a)( i) Burden to Public Water Systems The average annual respondent burden ( in labor hours) per PWS is summarized in Exhibit 3. Appendix C provides a detailed breakout of the annual estimated respondent burden for PWSs. EPA estimates that the total respondent burden to PWSs for preparation and distribution of initial and repeat notices by systems experiencing violations is 743,140 hours.

Only PWSs with one or more violations during the year incur a burden. ( PWSs with no violations have no requirements under this rule.) The information collection burden for systems that do experience a violation is estimated to average 16.8 hours per respondent per year ( 743,140 hours divided by 44,262 systems in violation). This estimate includes time for preparing, copying, mailing, submitting, or posting public notices, as well as time for maintaining records of PN activities.

In preparing this ICR Amendment, EPA assumed that each PWS will deliver a public notice to persons served. A " person served" is defined as an individual who normally receives water provided by the PWS. Under the statute, PWSs are required to reach persons served, including those who ordinarily do not receive water bills ( e. g., residents of apartment buildings, students and staff at schools, etc.).

Under the PN Rule, CWSs providing a Tier 1 notice are expected either to hand deliver the notice to all residences or to contact all electronic media outlets serving the affected community, including television and radio stations, and submit a press release to them. NCWSs providing a Tier 1 notice are likely to post the notice or hand deliver the notice to customers. All water systems are required to take other reasonably calculated steps to ensure all the persons served by the system receive the notice. Although the rule does not specify such actions, PWSs are assumed to place telephone calls to centers of sensitive populations, such as hospitals, nursing homes, and schools. Finally, water systems are expected to prepare a notice suitable for posting in rest areas, government owned buildings, libraries, and other facilities served by the water system.

Systems providing a Tier 2 or Tier 3 notice must mail or otherwise directly deliver one notice to each customer. The PN Rule also permits NCWSs to post the notice in lieu of direct PWSS Program ICR: PN Amendment March 14, 2002 16 delivery or mailing. All water systems must also take other reasonably calculated steps to reach other persons not reached by mail, direct delivery, or routine posting.

The burden estimate for mailing assumes that half the CWSs bill their customers less frequently than every month, or use postcards rather than envelopes to send bills. Therefore, if a system experiences a violation requiring a Tier 2 notice more than 30 days prior to a regular billing date, these CWSs are required to send a separate mailing specifically for the public notice. Water systems that bill on a monthly basis and do not use postcards, or those sending out other mailings to the customers, including annual CCRs, will be able to incorporate the notice as a stuffer in one of the system's other mailings. Because the mailing alone will not reach all persons served, the burden estimate includes other methods of information dissemination to ensure all persons served receive the notice.

6( a)( ii) Burden to Primacy Agencies The average annual respondent burden ( in labor hours) for primacy agencies is detailed in Exhibit 4. EPA estimates that the annual burden incurred by primacy agencies for activities associated with the Subpart Q regulation is approximately 42,450 hours. The information collection burden for primacy agencies is estimated to average 744.7 hours per primacy agency ( 42,450 hours divided by 57). This estimate includes costs of consulting with PWSs, costs of reviewing the PWS compliance certification and notice copies, costs of quarterly reports to EPA, and costs of filing and maintaining the PN records.

6( b) Respondent Costs 6( b)( i) Cost to Public Water Systems Exhibit 3 shows the total costs for PWSs over the ICR period, by size and type of system. Appendix C provides the detailed costs for each information collection activity. EPA estimates that the annual PWS cost for preparation and distribution of initial and repeat notices by systems experiencing violations is $ 22.59 million. Approximately $ 4.73 million annually is attributed to O& M costs; the remaining $ 17.86 million is attributed to labor costs.

Labor costs were calculated by multiplying the number of burden hours by the average hourly wage rate, including overhead. The average hourly wage rate is the rate quoted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS) for Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) Code 51 8031, " Local Government   Water and Liquid Waste Treatment Plant and System Operators." The quoted rate was $ 14.69 in 1999 dollars ( see http:// stats. bls. gov). For consistency, this rate has been inflated to September 2000 dollars using the Employment Cost Index. The inflated rate is $ 15.02. In addition, 60 percent overhead was assumed, bringing the loaded rate to $ 24.03 in September 2000 dollars.

PWSs are not expected to incur capital costs to meet the PN requirements. However, in addition to the labor costs, there are O& M costs associated with the PN Rule. These costs reflect non labor costs associated with printing, delivery, posting, and publishing public notices and vary depending on the size of the community served by the system. No copying or postage costs are assumed for the inclusion of a notice as part of an existing bill. The O& M costs were carried PWSS Program ICR: PN Amendment March 14, 2002 3 According to the ICR Handbook, an employee works an average of 2,080 hours in one year; therefore, the hourly rate is determined by dividing the average FTE ($ 60, 086) by 2,080 hours per year.

4 This model was designed to estimate the resources needed to fund State drinking water programs. It contains a comprehensive list of activities required to operate a drinking water program, including estimates of the number of systems impacted.

17 forward from the 2000 PN ICR, updated with current cost information ( e. g., postage rates), and adjusted for inflation. O& M costs and associated calculations are presented in greater detail in Appendix C.

6( b)( ii) Cost to Primacy Agencies Exhibit 4 shows the annual costs to primacy agencies, which are estimated at approximately $ 1.23 million. The costs are exclusively for the 42,450 labor hours estimated under this ICR Amendment. There are no capital, start up, or O& M costs associated with primacy agency information collection. The labor costs are based on an average full time equivalent ( FTE) cost of $ 60,086 including overhead, which equates to approximately $ 28.89 per hour. 3 This rate, which has been inflated to year 2000 dollars, is based on the rate ($ 55,000) suggested by the workgroup that developed the State Workload Model in 1997.4 PWSS Program ICR: PN Amendment March 14, 2002 18 Exhibit 3 Annual PWS Burden and Cost Information Collection Activity Annual Responses Annual Hours Annual Labor Costs Annual O& M Costs CWS Systems serving < 500 36,434 204,755 $ 4,920,266 $ 70,499 Systems serving 501 3,300 11,622 116,246 $ 2,793,397 $ 446,067 Systems serving 3,301 10,000 3,229 33,262 $ 799,292 $ 506,758 Systems serving 10,001 100,000 2,956 32,354 $ 777,460 $ 1,543,687 Systems serving > 100,000 316 3,634 $ 87,330 $ 2,153,173 TOTAL CWS 54,557 390,252 $ 9,377,745 $ 4,720,185 NTNCWS Systems serving < 500 13,906 88,602 $ 2,129,098 $ 2,190 Systems serving 501 3,300 1,944 12,449 $ 299,142 $ 1,304 Systems serving 3,301 10,000 101 645 $ 15,500 $ 319 Systems serving 10,001 100,000 21 129 $ 3,090 $ 31 Systems serving > 100,000 2 14 $ 343 $ 0 TOTAL NTNCWS 15,973 101,838 $ 2,447,173 $ 3,845 TNCWS Systems serving < 500 38,171 244,507 $ 5,875,493 $ 6,012 Systems serving 501  3,300 945 6,054 $ 145,468 $ 654 Systems serving 3,301 10,000 58 378 $ 9,086 $ 45 Systems serving 10,001  100, 000 16 112 $ 2,684 $ 1 Systems serving > 100,000 0 0 $ 0 $ 0 TOTAL TNCWS 39,190 251,050 $ 6,032,731 $ 6,713 TOTAL ALL PWS 109,721 743,140 $ 17,857,649 $ 4,730,742 Note: Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding. PWSS Program ICR: PN Amendment March 14, 2002 5 This is a simplifying assumption. Primacy activities for Wyoming and the District of Columbia are actually carried out by the respective EPA Regional offices.

19 Exhibit 4 Annual Primacy Agency Burden and Cost Information Collection Activity Number of Responses Hours per Response Annual Labor Hours Annual Labor Costs Tier 1 Consultation 2,140 3.0 6,421 $ 185,500 Tier 2 Consultation 17,729 1.1 19,502 $ 563,402 Tier 3 Consultation 32,492 0.1 3,249 $ 93,869 Review PN Certification 44,262 0.2 8,852 $ 255,746 File Reports 44,262 0.1 4,426 $ 127,873 TOTAL 140,885 0.3 42,450 $ 1,226,390 Note: Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding.

6( c) Agency Burden and Cost For this ICR Amendment, the incremental burden and cost for EPA information collection for implementing the PN Rule is assumed to be negligible. Neither PWSs nor primacy agencies send public notices to EPA. Agency burden and costs for general activities, such as compliance monitoring and enforcement and other oversight activities, are already included in the 2001 PWSS Program ICR. Agency burden and costs associated with direct implementation of the PN Rule in non primacy States ( Wyoming, Washington, D. C.) and Indian lands are included with the primacy agency estimates in section 6( a) and 6( b).

6( d) Estimating Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs Respondents for this ICR Amendment include both PWSs and primacy agencies. This ICR Amendment estimates that 44,262 PWSs must meet information collection requirements associated with public notification. All PWSs are not necessarily subject to each of the information collection requirements contained in this ICR Amendment. Appendix C describes in detail the total PWS universe that is expected to be subject to each requirement of the PN Rule.

In addition to the PWS respondents, this ICR Amendment assumes 57 primacy agencies ( 50 States plus the District of Columbia, U. S. territories, and the Navajo Nation). 5 Therefore, the total number of respondents is 44,319. The total costs and burden for these respondents are summarized in Exhibits 3 and 4. PWSS Program ICR: PN Amendment March 14, 2002 6 This represents the " cost burden" as reported in the OMB inventory. Note that there are no capital costs associated with this ICR Amendment.

20 6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs The bottom line burden hours and costs appear in Exhibit 5. The annual bottom line information collection burden to PWSs and primacy agencies to meet the information collection requirements of the PN Rule is approximately 786,000 hours and $ 23.82 million. This includes approximately 740,000 hours and $ 22.59 million for PWSs and approximately 42,450 hours and $ 1.23 million for primacy agencies. O& M cost ( for PWSs only) are estimated at approximately $ 4.73 million. The costs to primacy agencies include labor costs only. These burden and cost estimates include PWS and primacy agency burden only because EPA is not expected to incur any PN specific burden or cost for the ICR period.

Exhibit 5 Bottom Line Annual Burden and Cost Number of Respondents 44,319 = 44,262 + 57 Existing PWSs Primacy agencies Total Annual Responses 250,606 = 109,721 + 140,885 PWS responses Responses from primacy agencies Number of Responses per Respondent 5.6 = 250,606 / 44,319 Total annual responses from above Total respondents from above Total Respondent Hours 785,590 = 743,140 + 42,450 PWS hours Primacy agency hours Hours per Response 3.1 = 785,590 / 250,606 Total annual hours from above Total responses from above Annual O& M Costs6 $ 4,731k = $ 4,731k Total PWS O& M costs Total Respondent Cost $ 23,815k = $ 22,588k + $ 1,226k For PWSs For primacy agencies Note: Detail may not add exactly to total due to independent rounding.

6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden In response to the PRA Amendments that required EPA to estimate third party notification burden, such as the burden associated with public notification, the PN ICR was prepared in 1995 as an amendment to the 1993 PWSS Program ICR. It added 1,276,735 burden hours for public notification activities, bringing the total inventory for the 1993 PWSS Program ICR to 12,491,282 hours. PWSS Program ICR: PN Amendment March 14, 2002 21 A 1999 change worksheet associated with the Lead and Copper Rule ( LCR) removed 321,544 hours of LCR burden associated with public notification and public education, leaving 955,191 hours for non LCR PN burden in the 1993 PWSS ICR inventory. In 2000, the PN Rule was revised and a new stand alone PN ICR ( OMB Control No. 2040 0209) was prepared. The 2000 PN ICR expires on June 30, 2002, and this ICR Amendment updates the PN burden and costs for the current PWSS Program ICR approval period. Since the 2000 PN ICR accounts for all PN burden, the 955,191 hours of PN burden remaining in the 1993 PWSS Program ICR were removed when the 2001 PWSS Program ICR was approved by OMB.

All existing rules with PN requirements were addressed in the 2000 PN ICR. This included the following rules that had been promulgated, but not yet implemented, at the time of ICR preparation: Variance and Exemption ( V/ E) Rule, Stage 1 Disinfectant/ Disinfection Byproducts Rule ( DBPR), and Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule ( IESWTR). Because these rules were not yet being implemented, actual data on the number of violations for these new rules were not available in the SDWIS database. The 2000 PN ICR estimated numbers of violations of these rules, based on data from ICRs for the Stage 1 DBPR and IESWTR, as well as best professional judgement. The annual burden estimated in the 2000 PN ICR is 748,811 hours ( the current PN inventory).

No other active ICRs contained PN burden estimates; therefore, the 2000 PN ICR does not double count burden. However, there is some overlap with other rules. The PN Rule was written to encourage the combination of public notification for minor violations with the CCR or in an annual report; therefore, the burden for PN is thought to be less than if all PN violations were reported separately.

Exhibit 6 details the changes in burden and cost estimates ( both to primacy agencies and to PWSs) from the 2000 PN ICR to this ICR Amendment. The following changes account for the difference in burden and cost estimates from the 2000 PN ICR:

For this ICR Amendment, burden and costs for new regulations ( i. e., the 2000 Radionuclides Rule and the 2001 FBRR) were added. Other new regulations will not be implemented until after the December 2004 expiration of this ICR Amendment.

Updated SDWIS data were derived from fourth quarter 2000 frozen inventory and violations tables. These data were used to update the number of systems and the number of violations for regulations that are currently being implemented. Overall, there were fewer violations in 2000; however, large systems had more violations. This shift in violations to larger systems resulted in higher burden and costs for PN distribution.

Additionally, the average number of households per system was updated using the 2000 SDWIS data and the 2000 Census data, which indicate the average number of people per household.

For new rules, violation estimates were derived from existing sources. For the 2000 Radionuclides Rule, uranium violations were estimated based on existing violation rates for other radionuclides. ( For other radionuclides, existing violation data under the 1976 PWSS Program ICR: PN Amendment March 14, 2002 22 Radionuclides Rule were used.) Violation rates for the 2001 FBRR were estimated in the same manner that violation rates for Stage 1 DBPR and IESWTR were estimated.

One average labor rate was used for estimating PWS labor costs. An hourly rate of $ 14.69 in 1999 dollars was estimated, based on BLS statistics for water treatment plant and wastewater treatment plant operators. For consistency, this rate was adjusted to $ 15.02 in September 2000 dollars, then loaded by 60 percent to account for overhead costs.

One average labor rate was used for estimating primacy agency labor costs. An hourly rate of $ 28.89 in 2000 dollars was estimated. This rate is already loaded to account for overhead costs.

Postage rates have increased to $ 0.34 for first class mailings and to $ 0.322 for pre sorted mail of greater than 500 pieces. These postage rates mirror those used to estimate the CCR burden in the 2001 PWSS Program ICR.

In estimating the preparation and delivery burden for public notices, existing estimates were used. However, the 2000 PN ICR used midpoint values to estimate an average burden across all categories. For this ICR Amendment, corresponding burdens were used for each size category.

In addition, where applicable, Tier 3 preparation and delivery burden was updated to mirror the burden used for CCR requirements in the 2001 PWSS Program ICR.

No primacy agency burden was included for primacy application activities, because those activities were assumed to be completed under the 2000 PN ICR. PWSS Program ICR: PN Amendment March 14, 2002 23 Exhibit 6 Adjustments to Burden Hours from the 2000 PN ICR PWSs and Primacy Agencies Activity 2000 Annual Burden Hours 2002 Annual Burden Hours Annual Change in Burden Hours Reason for Change in Burden Hours PWSs 690,390 743,140 52,750 A slight increase in burden results from implementation of the 2001 FBRR and 2000 Radionuclides Rule. Additionally, the updated SDWIS data contributes to the increased burden.

Primacy Agencies 58,420 42,450 ( 15,970) Though primacy agencies will see a slight increase in burden due to implementation of the 2001 FBRR and the 2000 Radionuclides Rule, the overall decrease in burden results from the completion of start up activities during the previous ICR period.

TOTAL 748,811 785,590 36,779 Total burden and change in burden after adjustments.

Note: Detail may not add exactly to total due to independent rounding.

The burden and cost estimates for this ICR Amendment will be added to the 2001 PWSS Program ICR. The affect of this is detailed in Exhibit 7 below.

Exhibit 7 Adjustments to Annual Burden Hours for the PWSS Program ICR PWSs and Primacy Agencies Action Annual Burden Hours Brief Explanation N/ A 1,836,258 Opening Inventory from 2001 PWSS Program ICR ( 2002 2004).

Add 785,590 This represents the estimated public notification annual burden that EPA proposes to add to the current inventory.

Total 2,621,848 Proposed PWSS Program ICR inventory hours, including public notification. PWSS Program ICR: PN Amendment March 14, 2002 24 6( g) Burden Statement The public reporting burden for collections included in this ICR Amendment is detailed above. The total annual respondent burden ( for July 1, 2002 through December 31, 2004) imposed by these collections is estimated to be 0.78 million hours, of which 0.74 million hours are attributable to PWSs and 0.04 million hours to primacy agencies. These estimates include time for gathering information, as well as developing and distributing public notices.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by people to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions, adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements, train personnel to respond to the information collection request, 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 request for information collection 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.

Please send comments on the Agency's need for this information, accuracy of the burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques to Director, Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2822T), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N. W., 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. Please include the EPA ICR number ( 0270.41) and OMB control number ( 2040 0090) in any correspondence.