ICR: PHASE II OF THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM STORM WATER PROGRAM July 19, 1999 Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Wastewater Management 401 M Street S. W. Washington, D. C. 20460 Prepared by Science Applications International Corporation 11251 Roger Bacon Dr. Reston, VA 20190 EPA Contract Number 68 C4 0034 EPA Work Assignment Number IM 4 4 ( P) SAIC Project Number 01 0833 08 6232 008 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 SHORT CHARACTERIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 CHAPTER 2 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.1 NEED AND AUTHORITY FOR THE COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.2 PRACTICAL UTILITY AND USES OF THE INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 CHAPTER 3 NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1 NONDUPLICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2 PUBLIC NOTICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.3 CONSULTATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.4 EFFECTS OF LESS FREQUENT COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.5 GENERAL GUIDELINES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.6 CONFIDENTIALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.7 SENSITIVE QUESTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 CHAPTER 4 THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1 INDUSTRIAL NO EXPOSURE RESPONDENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1.1 Information Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1.2 Data Items, Including Recordkeeping Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1.3 Respondent Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.2 NPDES AUTHORIZED STATES AND TERRITORIES RESPONDENTS . . . . . . . . 8 4.2.1 Information Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.2.2 Data Items, Including Recordkeeping Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2.3 Respondent Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 CHAPTER 5 THE INFORMATION COLLECTED: AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT . . . . . 11 5.1 AGENCY ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.2 COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.3 SMALL ENTITY FLEXIBILITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.4 COLLECTION SCHEDULE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 CHAPTER 6 ESTIMATING THE BURDEN & COST OF THE COLLECTION PER ACTIVITY . 13 6.1 ESTIMATING RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6.1.1 Industrial No Exposure Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6.1.2 NPDES Authorized States and Territories Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.2 ESTIMATING THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.2.1 Industrial No Exposure Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.2.2 NPDES Authorized States and Territories Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.3 ESTIMATING AGENCY ( EPA) BURDEN AND COST PER ACTIVITY . . . . . . . . 15 6.4 ESTIMATING THE AGENCY UNIVERSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6.5 ESTIMATING THE RESPONDENT TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN AND COSTS . 16 6.5.1 Industrial No Exposure Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6.5.2 NPDES Authorized States and Territories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6.6 ESTIMATING THE AGENCY TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN AND COSTS . . . . . . 18 6.7 BOTTOM LINE BURDEN HOURS AND COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6.8 REASON FOR CHANGE IN BURDEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6.9 BURDEN STATEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 APPENDIX A  No Exposure Certification Form LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 6 1. No Exposure Average Annual Total Burden and Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Exhibit 6 2. NPDES Authorized States Average Annual Total Burden and Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . 17 Exhibit 6 3. Agency Average Annual Total Burden and Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Exhibit 6 4. Total Estimated Respondent and Agency Burden and Cost Summary ( Bottom Line Totals) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Storm Water Phase II Rule ICR July 19, 1999 Page 1 CHAPTER 1 SHORT CHARACTERIZATION EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) Permitting Program, as authorized by the Clean Water Act ( CWA), establishes regulations for the discharge of pollutants or combinations of pollutants to waters of the United States. Through the NPDES Program, EPA regulates a variety of different types of discharges. In response to the need for comprehensive NPDES requirements for discharges of storm water, Congress amended the CWA in 1987 to require the EPA to establish phased NPDES storm water permitting requirements. The first phase of the regulatory development effort applied to eleven categories of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity and to discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems located in municipalities with a population of 100,000 or more ( i. e., Phase I sources). These permitting regulations were promulgated on November 16, 1990 ( 55 FR 47990).

This Information Collection Request ( ICR) addresses the new regulations for Phase II of the NPDES storm water program. This ICR only covers the first three year period after the effective date of the final rule. Under the Phase II rule, EPA is regulating storm water discharges from construction sites with activities disturbing equal to or greater than one acre and less than five acres of land, and small municipal separate storm sewer systems ( MS4s) located in Bureau of the Census designated " urbanized areas" ( additional construction sites and small MS4s may be designated by the NPDES permitting authority). NPDES permits provide the mechanism for establishing appropriate controls on these Phase II sources. The Phase II rule also includes a provision that allows industrial facilities regulated under Phase I of the NPDES storm water program to obtain an exclusion from NPDES permitting requirements if they can certify to a condition of " no exposure" on their site.

Permits will not be required for small construction sites and regulated small MS4s during the first three years of the program. The data collection efforts during this first three year period will consist of the submission and review of no exposure certifications and the designation of additional MS4s outside of urbanized areas by the NPDES permitting authorities.

After general permits are issued ( approximately three years after the Phase II rule is final), the NPDES permitting authorities intend to use the data contained in storm water permit applications, construction waiver certifications, storm water pollution prevention plans ( SWPPPs), no exposure certifications, records, and reports ( as required by the Phase II regulation) to set appropriate permit conditions, track discharges covered by a storm water permit, and assess permit compliance. In addition to the NPDES permitting authorities, EPA's Office of Wastewater Management ( Office of Water), the Office of Enforcement and Compliance ( OECA), and environmental groups will most likely use the information collected to assess the regulated community's level of compliance and to measure the overall effectiveness of the NPDES storm water program. These will be covered in a subsequent ICR.

It is expected that the no exposure certifications will be submitted in hard copy form and then placed into a computer database, while the original document is filed. The information will be submitted by the respondents directly to each NPDES authorized State or Territory, or to the Notice of Intent ( NOI) Processing Center in areas where EPA is the NPDES permitting authority.

The calculations performed for this ICR during the first three years of Phase II program implementation cover the burden and costs for the Agency ( EPA) and two types of respondents: 1) industrial " no exposure" facilities, and 2) NPDES authorized States and Territories. The combined annual totals for both respondent types are 36,421 respondents performing 3 information collection activities resulting in 56,369 burden hours at a cost of $ 2,151,305. The Agency's annual totals have been estimated as 2 activities performed for 6,180 respondents resulting in 4,087 burden hours at a cost of $ 115,948. Storm Water Phase II Rule ICR July 19, 1999 Page 2 Storm Water Phase II Rule ICR July 19, 1999 1 EPA defines a point source as " any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to, any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, landfill leachate collection system, vessel or other floating craft from which pollutants are or may be discharged. This term does not include return flows from irrigated agriculture or agricultural storm water runoff" ( 40 CFR 122.2).

Page 3 CHAPTER 2 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2.1 NEED AND AUTHORITY FOR THE COLLECTION The purpose of the CWA is " to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters" ( Section 101( a)). CWA Section 402 establishes the NPDES program to regulate the discharge of any pollutant or combination of pollutants from point sources1 into waters of the United States. Section 402( a), as amended, authorizes the EPA Administrator ( Administrator) to issue permits for the discharge of pollutants if those discharges meet the following requirements:

All applicable requirements of CWA Sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, and 403

Any conditions the Administrator determines are necessary to carry out the provisions and objectives of the CWA.

Section 402( a) empowers the Administrator to issue permits regulating discharges. Section 402( p) authorizes the Administrator to issue permits for storm water discharges, in particular. Storm water regulations are found in 40 CFR Part 122.. 26.

CWA Section 308 authorizes the Administrator to require the owner or operator of any point source to maintain records, submit reports, conduct monitoring and/ or sampling, and provide any other information reasonably necessary to carry out the objectives of the Act. Under this authority, the Agency occasionally requests information that supplements information it obtains from permit applications. EPA calls this information request a Section 308 Request, or a request for supplemental information.

The information collection and reporting activities covered in this ICR include those activities required during the first three years of the NPDES storm water Phase II program.

EPA and NPDES permitting authorities need the information in order to:

Identify the facilities that are applying for no exposure certification

Identify new pollutants in existing discharges

Issue NPDES storm water permits with appropriate limitations and conditions that will protect human health and the environment

Assist NPDES permitting authorities in identifying proper controls ° Assist NPDES permitting authorities in determining compliance with no exposure ° Assist the public in determining compliance with no exposure certification in conjunction with complaints

Update EPA's databases, in particular in order to calculate national permit issuance, backlog, and compliance statistics

Evaluate national water quality

Assist EPA in program management to ensure national consistency in permitting ° Assist EPA in prioritizing permit issuance activities

Assist EPA in policy development and budgeting ° Assist EPA and NPDES permitting authorities in performing cost benefit analyses Storm Water Phase II Rule ICR July 19, 1999 2 These " gaps" are unregulated areas that are surrounded by areas regulated under Phase I of the storm water program. The existence of these gaps is due to the nature of the definition of a Phase I MS4, which was based solely on population.

Page 4

Assist EPA in responding to Congressional and public inquiries.

2.2 PRACTICAL UTILITY AND USES OF THE INFORMATION It is expected that EPA will use the information collected from industrial facilities to allow for comprehensive management of pollutant sources. Information from certain small MS4s outside of urbanized areas will be used to apply designation criteria developed by the NPDES permitting authority in order to identify where water quality problems from storm water exist.

The Phase I storm water rule ( 55 FR 47990, November 16, 1990) does not regulate all sources of storm water discharges known to contribute pollutants. As such, the overall effectiveness of the storm water program can be greatly enhanced by the adoption of the limited additional controls on additional sources required by Phase II. Controlling storm water runoff from construction sites that disturb equal to or greater than one but less than five acres of land complements the Phase I construction permit program, which regulates sites disturbing five acres or greater of land. Similarly, regulating small MS4s that may contribute pollutant discharges to already regulated MS4s will allow for enhanced storm water control and pollutant reduction for the entire urbanized area. A principle aim of the Phase II rule's regulation of small MS4s is to fill in the unregulated gaps that exist at present in many of the Nation's metropolitan areas. 2 Such current regulatory inequity results in uncontrolled discharges of storm water runoff to rivers, lakes, and streams, thus reducing the probability of attaining water quality standards.

All entities covered under the Phase II rule are required to submit some information. However, this information will vary in its detail and scope. Information can be categorized into two sets: general information such as name, location, and description of the permit applicant's operations; and site specific information related to the applicant's discharges. The NPDES permitting authorities will use the collected information in the ways discussed below.

General Information: Identification, Location, and Description of Operations NPDES permitting authorities will use information such as the name, location, and description of operations to identify the applicants who are seeking coverage under the no exposure provision. EPA expects that those seeking coverage will use the no exposure certification form ( Appendix A) to provide such information. EPA will store the information submitted on a central database, referred to as EPA's NOI Database, housed at EPA's NOI Processing Center. The NOI Database will provide EPA with an  inventory of storm water permit holders and industries applying for the no exposure exclusion. EPA Headquarters can use the information contained in the NOI Database to develop reports on permit issuance, backlog, and compliance rates. The Agency also expects to use the information to respond to public and Congressional inquiries, develop and guide its policies, formulate its budgets, and manage its programs to ensure national consistency in permitting. Authorized governmental entities are expected to use the information submitted to them in similar ways to manage their individual programs.

Information Related to Discharges The operators of Phase I industrial facilities who seek to obtain the " no exposure" exclusion from permitting requirements will need to submit detailed site information as requested in a no exposure certification form ( see Appendix A for EPA's No Exposure Certification for Exclusion from NPDES Storm Water Phase II Rule ICR July 19, 1999 Page 5 Storm Water Permitting). This form allows operators of Phase I industrial facilities to characterize their storm water discharge. Storm Water Phase II Rule ICR July 19, 1999 Page 6 CHAPTER 3 NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3.1 NONDUPLICATION EPA has examined all other reporting requirements contained in the CWA 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:

The EPA Information Systems Inventory;

The EPA Inventory of Information Collection Requests; and

The Federal Information Locator System.

Examination of these databases revealed no duplicate requirements. EPA has concluded that no government information collection activity duplicates the information requested by the Phase II rule and, therefore, it has no other way to obtain the information addressed in this ICR.

3.2 PUBLIC NOTICE The ICR was published as part of the proposed rule notice in the Federal Register on January 9, 1998. The notice included a request for comments on the content and impact of the proposed rule on the regulated community. Comments received during this period were used partly to substantiate or refute the burden estimates for respondents.

3.3 CONSULTATIONS EPA finalized the requirements addressed in this ICR after receiving comments from the public and the regulated community. EPA allowed 90 days for comments to be submitted on the ICR for the proposed Phase II rule. In addition, the Agency actively sought comment and input as it developed the regulations. EPA chartered a Federal Advisory Committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act ( FACA) that included a Storm Water Phase II Subcommittee to provide direction, input and comment throughout the development of the Phase II regulations. The Subcommittee consisted of a variety of interested stakeholders including industry and trade organizations, environmental groups, environmental justice representatives, and municipal, State, and public works associations.

3.4 EFFECTS OF LESS FREQUENT COLLECTION The storm water regulations require permitted entities ( including industrial facilities claiming no exposure) to reapply for coverage under NPDES storm water permits before their existing permits expire, generally once every five years. The CWA prohibits NPDES permits to have terms longer than five years. Less frequent permit renewal would not provide the NPDES permitting authority with sufficiently current data to establish effective permit conditions. Less frequent permit issuance would also hinder the ability of EPA and the regulated community to take advantage of technological improvements as they occur, or to track long term water quality trends.

3.5 GENERAL GUIDELINES This information collection complies with Paperwork Reduction Act guidelines 5 CFR 1320.5 ( d)( 2). Requests for supplemental information for the purposes of emergency response or enforcement activities are exempt from the Paperwork Reduction Act requirements. Storm Water Phase II Rule ICR July 19, 1999 Page 7 3.6 CONFIDENTIALITY Although highly unlikely, 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 § 308( b) specifically states that effluent data may not be treated as confidential.

3.7 SENSITIVE QUESTIONS No exposure certification requirements addressed in this ICR do not include sensitive questions. Storm Water Phase II Rule ICR July 19, 1999 3 Found in the original introductory paragraph of 40 CFR § 122.26( b)( 14). The Phase II rule revised this paragraph so that it no longer addresses the no exposure exemption for category ( xi) facilities. The no exposure " exemption" is now a no exposure " exclusion" found in the revised § 122.26( g) and is available to all industrial categories with a condition of no exposure.

Page 8 CHAPTER 4 THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED This chapter discusses the information requested by the rule for the following respondents: Phase I industrial facilities with no exposure and all NPDES authorized States and Territories. As described earlier, this ICR covers only the initial three year period of the rule. Information requested from small construction and regulated small MS4s will be collected after this initial three year period and therefore are not included herein as respondents. Section 4.1 describes the Phase I industrial facilities that are eligible to certify to " no exposure" and the information required to be submitted in order to qualify for the no exposure exclusion. Section 4.2 describes the universe of NPDES authorized States and Territories and their information collection responsibilities under the rule.

4.1 INDUSTRIAL NO EXPOSURE RESPONDENTS The Phase II rule deleted the sentence regarding a " no exposure" exemption for the category ( xi) facilities at 40 CFR § 122.26( b)( 14) and added a new section at § 122.26( g), Conditional Exclusion for No Exposure of Industrial Activities and Materials to Storm Water. Unlike the old no exposure provision3 which only applied to category ( xi), " light industry" facilities, the new no exposure provision applies to all classes of industrial activities discharging storm water that are defined at § § 122.26( b)( 14)( i)( xi), except for construction activity defined at § 122.26( b)( 14)( x) or industrial sources individually designated by the NPDES permitting authority, that can certify to a condition of no exposure. The rule allows Phase I regulated industrial facilities that can certify that they have no exposure of industrial activities, materials and product handling equipment to storm water to be excluded from the NPDES industrial permitting requirements as long as they maintain a condition of no exposure.

Six of the eleven categories of industrial activity provide narrative descriptions of the industrial activity, and five of the categories are identified by SIC code. The affected categories include:

$ Category ( i): Facilities subject to storm water effluent limitations guidelines, new source performance standards, or toxic pollutants effluent standards under 40 CFR, Subchapter N $ Category ( ii): 24 ( except 2434), 26 ( except 265 and 267), 28 ( except 283and 285), 29, 311, 32 ( except 323), 33, 3441, and 373 $ Category ( iii): 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 $ Category ( iv): Hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities, including those that are operating under interim status or a permit under Subtitle C of RCRA $ Category ( v): Landfills, land application sites, and open dumps that receive or have received any industrial wastes including those that are subject to regulation under Subtitle D of RCRA $ Category ( vi): 5015 and 5093 $ Category ( vii): Steam electric power generating facilities, including coal handling sites $ Category ( viii): Transportation facilities classified as 40, 41, 42 ( except 4221 45), 43, 44, 45, and 5171 which have vehicle maintenance shops, equipment cleaning operations, or airport deicing operations $ Category ( ix): Treatment works treating domestic sewage or any other sewage sludge or wastewater treatment device or system [ for further details see 40 CFR 122.26( b)( 14)( ix)] Storm Water Phase II Rule ICR July 19, 1999 Page 9 $ Category ( xi): 20, 21, 22, 23, 2434, 25, 265, 267, 27, 283, 285, 30, 31 ( except 311), 323, 34 ( except 3441), 35, 36, 37 ( except 373), 38, 39, 4221, 4222, and 4225 [ Facilities in these SIC codes are included only if have exposure of industrial activities and materials to storm water].

4.1.1 Information Requested In order to obtain the no exposure exclusion from permitting, the Phase II rule requires operators of industrial facilities identified in the categories under § 122.26( b)( 14) to submit to the NPDES permitting authority a written certification that no exposure conditions exist. The Phase II rule includes a form for this purpose entitled No Exposure Certification for Exclusion from NPDES Storm Water Permitting, which is included in this ICR as Appendix A. The certification must be re submitted once every five years. If conditions change during the five year period such that exposure exists, the operator must obtain an NPDES permit immediately.

Under the original Phase I no exposure provision, the operators of category ( xi) facilities with no exposure were not required to notify, or certify to, the NPDES permitting authority that no exposure conditions existed. They simply did not submit a permit application.

4.1.2 Data Items, Including Recordkeeping Requirements No Exposure Certification In order to obtain the no exposure exclusion, submission of a written certification of no exposure is required under revised § 122.26( g) of the Phase II rule. The following information, requested in the No Exposure Certification for Exclusion from NPDES Storm Water Permitting form ( Appendix A), is required to be submitted in the certification:

Name, address, phone number of facility operator

Name and address of facility

Whether the facility is located on Indian lands or is a Federal Facility

The latitude/ longitude location of the facility

The total size of the site associated with industrial activity

Whether the facility or site was previously covered by a NPDES permit and, if yes, the permit number

The SIC/ Activity codes for the facility

Whether any formerly exposed, pervious area has been paved or roofed over and, if so, how much ° Whether any of the following materials or activities are exposed to precipitation, now or in the foreseeable future:

 Using, storing or cleaning industrial machinery or equipment, and areas where residuals from using, storing or cleaning industrial machinery or equipment remain and are exposed to storm water  Materials or residuals on the ground or in storm water inlets from spills/ leaks  Materials or products from past industrial activity  Material handling equipment ( except adequately maintained vehicles)

 Materials or products during loading/ unloading or transporting activities  Materials or products stored outdoors ( except final products intended for outside use [ e. g., new cars] where exposure to storm water does not result in the discharge of pollutants  Materials contained in open, deteriorated or leaking storage drums, barrels, tanks, and similar containers Storm Water Phase II Rule ICR July 19, 1999 4 Both Florida and Texas have NPDES program authorization but have chosen not to administer the storm water portion of the NPDES program until 2000 ( until then, EPA is the permitting authority for the storm water program in these states). However, these two states are still included in the total count of NPDES authorized States for the purposes of this ICR because implementation of the Phase II rule will just be beginning by 2000.

Page 10  Materials or products handled/ stored on roads or railways owned or maintained by the discharger  Waste materials ( except waste in covered, non leaking containers [ e. g., dumpsters])

 Application or disposal of process wastewater ( unless otherwise permitted)

 Particulate matter or visible deposits of residuals from roof stacks and/ or vents not otherwise regulated ( i. e., under an air quality control permit) and in quantities detectable in the storm water outflow.

4.1.3 Respondent Activities The main respondent activity will be completion and submission of the no exposure certification. Respondent activities can vary substantially, depending on the size and number of activities occurring at an industrial site. However, any particular industrial no exposure respondent may be expected to engage in the following types of activities:

Preparing basic information. This can include reading instructions and regulations for no exposure requirements, consulting technical and legal staff, reviewing guidance materials, gathering general information, typing or completing forms, drafting letters, and mailing completed forms/ letters to the NPDES permitting authority and the operator of the MS4 that the industrial site discharges into.

Gathering detailed information. Detailed information gathered may include visual inspection information, an inventory of site activities and materials, or any information required by NPDES permitting authorities to be submitted with the no exposure certification.

Maintaining records. All NPDES permit applicants must keep records of the data used to complete their certifications for at least three years. Applicants may need to develop a recordkeeping system, enter data, train personnel, and file information.

4.2 NPDES AUTHORIZED STATES AND TERRITORIES RESPONDENTS Clean Water Act § 402( b) allows States and Territories to acquire authority for the NPDES program. There are 43 States and one Territory, the Virgin Islands, that have received NPDES program authorization. 4 In these NPDES authorized areas, the State or Territory acts as the NPDES permitting authority and administers the NPDES programs, including the storm water program. In the remaining nine States and Territories, EPA serves as the NPDES permitting authority.

4.2.1 Information Requested The Phase II rule does not require information submitted to the authorized States and Territories to be forwarded to EPA, but they must process and review the data items submitted by industrial facilities with no exposure. They must also gather information for the designation of additional small MS4s outside of urbanized areas. After the initial three year period of this ICR, authorized States and Territories must process and review data items submitted by the operators of small construction sites and regulated small MS4s. Storm Water Phase II Rule ICR July 19, 1999 Page 11 The development of information collection forms by the NPDES authorized States and Territories has not been included in this ICR. EPA expects all necessary forms to be part of the final rule package and EPA Headquarter's implementation efforts. Furthermore, some forms have already been developed by the NPDES permitting authorities. Therefore, because the NPDES permitting authorities may simply adopt the EPA forms or use their pre existing forms with minor modifications, EPA estimates that the NPDES permitting authorities will not incur any additional burden for the development of forms.

Section 4.2.2 describes each data item submitted to the NPDES permitting authority and the designation of additional small MS4s, and section 4.2.3 describes the activities associated with each.

4.2.2 Data Items, Including Recordkeeping Requirements Small MS4 Program Designation of Additional Small MS4s The NPDES permitting authorities are required to assess small MS4s located outside of urbanized areas for possible inclusion in the Phase II storm water program. In doing so, they are required to develop designation criteria and apply them to all areas outside of Bureau of the Census urbanized areas that have a population of at least 10,000 and a population density of at least 1,000 in order to determine if a community's characteristics signal the need for storm water permit coverage. They must designate any small MS4s meeting the designation criteria. Such criteria may include some of the following: discharge to sensitive waters, high growth or growth potential, high population density, contiguity to an urbanized area, and significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the United States.

The NPDES permitting authorities must also designate any small MS4 that they find is contributing substantially to the pollutant loadings of a physically interconnected MS4 that is already regulated under the NPDES storm water program.

Industrial No Exposure No Exposure Certification Processing and Review The no exposure certification submitted to the NPDES permitting authority by the operators of industrial facilities will likely be placed into a database upon receipt. The NPDES permitting authorities must then review the certifications for completeness and compliance with the conditions of the no exposure provision in the Phase II rule.

4.2.3 Respondent Activities The two main respondent activities for NPDES Authorized States and Territories is the designation of additional MS4s and no exposure certification processing and review. Respondent activities can vary depending on the characteristics of the particular authorized State or Territory and the methodology, or approach, they chose in administering the program. However, any NPDES permitting authority may be expected to engage in the following types of activities:

Preparing basic information. This can include reading instructions and regulations for the Phase II storm water program, consulting technical/ legal/ political staff, reviewing guidance materials, gathering general information, typing or completing forms, and drafting letters.

Gathering detailed information. Detailed information gathered, particularly for designation purposes, may include visual inspection information, monitoring data, an inventory of industrial and commercial activities, information on the topography and geography of certain Storm Water Phase II Rule ICR July 19, 1999 Page 12 areas ( e. g., population, density, percent impervious, watershed characteristics, location of sensitive waters), data on local development patterns, or any other information that would aid in the determination of the impact of a small MS4 on receiving water quality.

Maintaining records. Respondents may need to develop a recordkeeping system, develop master databases for the data items received, train personnel, enter data, and distribute the information to interested parties, such as the reviewers and the enforcers.

° Reviewing submitted data items. This includes answering respondent questions and a careful review by technical staff to assess the completeness and compliance ( with the rule and/ or permit) of the no exposure certifications. They may also need to assess whether an applicant submitting a no exposure certification for exclusion should be permitted instead. Storm Water Phase II Rule ICR July 19, 1999 Page 13 CHAPTER 5 THE INFORMATION COLLECTED: AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5.1 AGENCY ACTIVITIES The Agency's activities as the NPDES permitting authority for nine States and Territories are exactly the same as those for the NPDES authorized States and one Territory's activities. See Section 4.2 for a profile of the NPDES authorized States and Territories activities under the rule.

5.2 COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT As each application or information collection activity contains unique information, and because respondents submit information infrequently ( once every five years), improved information technology would not reduce respondent burden in a cost effective manner.

For this ICR, the following items have been estimated and cost calculated:

For operators of industrial facilities that are eligible for a no exposure exclusion from the NPDES permitting requirements:

 preparation and submittal of a no exposure certification ( see Appendix A).

For Federal, State, and Territorial governments acting as NPDES permitting authorities the following activities have been estimated and cost calculated:

 Developing and applying small MS4 designation criteria, including designating small MS4s polluting physically interconnected MS4s that are already regulated under the storm water program  Processing and reviewing industrial no exposure certifications.

5.3 SMALL ENTITY FLEXIBILITY The rule is subject to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 ( RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 ( SBREFA). For the SBREFA analysis, EPA used the definitions of small businesses, municipalities, and not for profit organizations established by the Small Business Administration ( SBA) and the RFA. The SBA defines small businesses based on Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) and size standards expressed either in number of employees or annual receipts in millions of dollars ( 13 CFR § 121.20).

The RFA defines small governmental jurisdictions and organizations ( U. S. EPA, 1992). A small government is the government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district or tribal jurisdiction with a population of fewer than 50,000. EPA identified approximately 4,746 small governments that meet this definition and are covered by the rule. A small organization is any not forprofit enterprise that is independently owned and operated, and is not dominant in its field. EPA did not identify any not for profit organizations that would be affected by the rule.

For many reasons, EPA believes the reporting requirements discussed in this ICR do not place an unreasonable burden on small business or operators of small MS4s. Over the last few years, EPA has made efforts to reduce application and reporting burdens on businesses of all sizes. The Agency specifically developed the general permit procedures to greatly reduce burden hours and costs associated with the individual application process. Storm Water Phase II Rule ICR July 19, 1999 Page 14 Industrial No Exposure In general, the no exposure provision of the Phase II rule allows regulatory relief for small industrial entities with no exposure. For a few small entities, defined later in this ICR, the information collection burden will increase slightly, but insignificantly, by an estimated 1 hour. Therefore, small entities are not unreasonably burdened by the no exposure provision.

5.4 COLLECTION SCHEDULE Construction Program Waiver Certification, NOI and NOT Permits will not be required from small construction sources for up to three years and 90 days from the effective date of the final rule, so the burden for these activities will be covered in a subsequent ICR.

Small MS4 Program NOI and Annual Reports Permits will not be required from regulated small MS4s for up to three years and 90 days from the effective date of the final rule, so the burden for these activities will be covered in a subsequent ICR.

Designation of Additional MS4s The gathering of the information required to develop designation criteria and assess small MS4s outside of urbanized areas should be completed within the first three years after promulgation of the Phase II rule.

Industrial No Exposure No Exposure Certification A no exposure certification must be submitted to the NPDES permitting authority at least once every five years, with five years being the maximum life of the certification. Storm Water Phase II Rule ICR July 19, 1999 5 Labor rates are inflated from 1997 dollars using the wages and salaries employment cost index as reported by Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Page 15 CHAPTER 6 ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 6.1 ESTIMATING RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST PER ACTIVITY In this section, EPA explains its respondent burden and cost estimates for each information request for the first three years of the Phase II rule. The respondents include Phase I industrial facilities with a condition of no exposure. The 44 NPDES authorized States and Territories are also included as respondents within this section. The burden hours and labor cost estimates are provided in Exhibits 6 1 and 6 2 for industrial no exposure respondents and NPDES Authorized States ( in accordance with OMB's instructions, this ICR calculates burden and costs to respondents on an annual basis) and are discussed herein by individual respondent in Section 6.1. These respondent estimates are then discussed in terms of total burden hours and total costs in Section 6.5.

The NPDES program is administered by EPA in the nine remaining States and Territories. A discussion of the Agency burden and cost estimates associated with the rule can be found in Section 6.3, and a discussion of total Agency burden hours and total costs can be found in Section 6.6. The Bottom Line burden hours and cost estimates are presented in Section 6.7.

An ICR must include in the total cost for each respondent activity, the labor cost, capital/ start up cost, and operation and maintenance cost. However, this ICR only includes labor costs. EPA has determined that there are no capital or operation and maintenance costs associated with any of the information collection activities required by the Phase II rule. The no exposure provision, revised by the Phase II rule, does not mandate operators of industrial facilities to construct structures to ensure that no exposure conditions exist. Respondents also will not be required to pay for capital equipment or operations and maintenance to respond to the additional information requests.

6.1.1 Industrial No Exposure Respondents The single respondent activity for operators of industrial facilities certifying to a condition of no exposure is the preparation and submission of a no exposure certification, such as the one included in Appendix A. See Exhibit 6 1 for a summary of the burden and cost estimates for this respondent activity.

Burden Estimates An informal poll of contractor and EPA professionals knowledgeable of the storm water program for industrial facilities was conducted. Through the poll, it was estimated that it would take on average 1 hour to complete a no exposure certification form, such as the one in Appendix A.

Cost Estimates All cost calculations in this ICR account for labor costs only. EPA calculated the respondent cost for operators of industrial facilities certifying to a condition of no exposure. The average hourly wage for private sector industrial employees ( including overhead and G& A) is estimated to be $ 44.35 in 1998 dollars. 5 This figure is based on the average hourly compensation for all employees in the manufacturing sector ( SIC codes 20 through 39) and includes 50 percent for overhead, 67 percent for fringe, and 15 percent for inflation ( also presented in section 9.3 of the Economic Analysis). The source of the number of Storm Water Phase II Rule ICR July 19, 1999 6 Adjusted to 1998 dollars using the employment cost index for State and local governments wages and salaries as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Page 16 employees is U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1995. 1993 Annual Survey of Manufactures: Statistics for Industry Groups and Industries, M93( AS) 1. Table 2, page 1 8.

The labor rate of $ 44.35 an hour was used for facilities to certify a condition of no exposure.

6.1.2 NPDES Authorized States and Territories Respondents The Office of Management and Budget requires the State administrative burden and cost to be included in the compliance section of the ICR. The two respondent activities for the NPDES authorized States and one Territory, who act as the NPDES permitting authority in their States and Territory, are to: ( 1) designate additional small MS4s, and ( 2) process and review industrial no exposure forms. See Exhibit 6 2 for a summary of the burden and cost estimates for the two activities performed by the NPDESauthorized entities.

Burden Estimates Industrial No Exposure EPA has estimated that it will take NPDES permitting authorities an average of 30 minutes to process each no exposure certification form submitted by the operator of a Phase I industrial facility.

The NPDES permitting authorities will have to develop and implement a database system to track no exposure certifications because this type of system does not currently exist, although the database currently in use to track NOIs could be adopted for this purpose. The creation and operation of such a system is reflected in the burden estimate.

This estimate is based on an informal poll of contractor and EPA professionals knowledgeable of the storm water program for industrial facilities.

Cost Estimates All cost calculations in this ICR account for labor costs only. The hourly labor rate for NPDESauthorized States and Territories was based on the the average hourly wage for State employees as determined by the U. S. Department of Labor for State employees in U. S. Department of Labor Employment Cost Indexes and Levels 1975 95, Bulletin 2466, October 1995, page 17 and seen in exhibit 9 8 of the Economic Analysis. The mean hourly wage rate is $ 26.91 ( including 50% for overhead expenditures) compensation in 1998 dollars. 6 The labor rate of $ 26.91 an hour was used for all NPDES authorized States and Territories respondent activities defined in this ICR.

6.2 ESTIMATING THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSE The number of respondents for each activity is referred to as the respondent universe and is discussed in the subsections below. Storm Water Phase II Rule ICR July 19, 1999 7 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater Management. July 2, 1999. Economic Analysis of Storm Water Phase II Rule: Initial Final Draft. Section 9.3.

8 44/ 53 * 36,377 = 30,200 industrial facilities. There are forty four NPDES authorized States and Territories. Fifty three is the total number of States, Territories, and the District of Columbia.

Page 17 6.2.1 Industrial No Exposure Respondents The total number of Phase I industrial facilities defined by the categories under § 122.26( b)( 14) that are estimated to be eligible for the no exposure provision and, therefore, expected to complete the no exposure certification form, is approximately 181,885.7 Dividing the total of 181,885 by five, for the five years during which each no exposure certification is effective, results in an annual total of 36,377 industrial no exposure respondents. EPA estimates that 36,377 industrial facilities would be eligible for the no exposure provision in each of the three years covered by this ICR.

6.2.2 NPDES Authorized States and Territories Respondents The respondent universe for NPDES authorized States and Territories falls within the activities of no exposure certification processing and review, and designation of additional small MS4s. The respondent universe is dependent upon the fact that only 44 States and Territories are NPDES authorized for the storm water program by 2000. The remaining nine States and Territories are under the NPDES authority of the Agency. This ratio was used to determine the respondents per year for the NPDES authorized States and Territories.

Industrial No Exposure Provision Applying the percentage of NPDES authorized States and Territories to the average annual total of 36,377 industrial " no exposure" facilities results in 30,200 industrial facilities within NPDES authorized States and Territories. 8 Small MS4 Program For the activity of developing designation criteria and using them to assess small MS4s located outside of an urbanized area, a respondent universe of 44 is used to represent each of the NPDESauthorized States and Territories for which this activity must be done. EPA assumes that collection of information for designation of additional small MS4s will occur in the year before permits are issued. Therefore, the respondent universe divided by the three years of this ICR gives an average annual number of 15 respondents.

6.3 ESTIMATING AGENCY ( EPA) BURDEN AND COST PER ACTIVITY The Agency burden and costs associated with the Phase II storm water program will impact the Agency where it is acting as the NPDES permitting authority in the nine non NPDES authorized States and Territories. An estimate of the burden and costs for the Agency results from the Phase II affected entities complying with the application, certification, reporting, and notice requirements in the rule. See Exhibit 6 Storm Water Phase II Rule ICR July 19, 1999 9 Source: U.. S. Office of Personnel Management, 1998 General Schedule.

10 9/ 53 * 36,377 annual total of industrial no exposure facilities = 6,177 industrial no exposure facilities in non NPDESauthorized States and Territories annually. There are nine non NPDES authorized States and Territories. Fifty three is the total number of States, Territories, and the District of Columbia.

Page 18 3 for a summary of the Agency activities, and the burden and cost estimates associated with those activities.

Burden Estimates The Agency burden associated with managing and implementing the rule as an NPDES permitting authority is exactly the same as the burden estimated for NPDES authorized States and Territories. See Section 6.1.4.

Cost Estimates All cost calculations in this ICR account for labor costs only. The hourly labor rate for the Federal government was based on the average annual salary for Federal employees of $ 39,338, which is equivalent to the salary of a GS 9, Step 10 Federal employee9. At 2,080 labor hours per year, the hourly rate is $ 18.91. Overhead costs for Federal employees are estimated to be 50%, or $ 9.46 per hour, yielding a fully loaded hourly rate of $ 28.37 in 1998 dollars and presented in Exhibit 9 9 of the Economic Analysis.

The hourly rate of $ 28.37 was used for all Agency activities defined in this ICR.

6.4 ESTIMATING THE AGENCY UNIVERSE The respondent universe for the Agency falls within the activities of no exposure certification processing and review, and designation of additional MS4s. The respondent universe is dependent upon the fact that only nine States and Territories are under the NPDES authority of the Agency. The remaining 44 States and Territories are NPDES authorized for the storm water program by 2000.

Small MS4 Program For the activity of developing designation criteria and using them to assess small MS4s located outside of an urbanized area, a respondent universe of nine is used to represent each of the non NPDESauthorized States and Territories for which the Agency must perform this activity. EPA assumes that collection of information for designation of additional small MS4s will occur in the year before permits are issued. Therefore, the respondent universe ( 9) divided by the three years of this ICR gives an average annual number of 3 respondents.

Industrial No Exposure Provision Applying the percentage of non NPDES authorized States and Territories to the average annual total of 36,377 industrial " no exposure" facilities results in 6,177 facilities in non NPDES authorized States and Territories. 10 Storm Water Phase II Rule ICR July 19, 1999 Page 19 6.5 ESTIMATING TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN AND TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS Using the burden and costs per activity calculated for all respondents as discussed in Section 6.1, the total burden and total cost for all respondents can be calculated.

6.5.1 Industrial No Exposure Facilities Based on a universe of 36,377 respondents per year, the total annual burden for preparing and submitting a no exposure certification form is estimated to be 36,377 hours at a total annual cost of $ 1,613,320.

Exhibit 6 1. No exposure Average Annual Total Burden and Cost Estimates Information Collection Activity A Avg. Annual Respondents B Burden Hours Per Respondent ( A) x ( B) = C Annual Respondent Burden Hours D Respondent Labor Cost ($/ hr) ( 1998 $) ( C ) x ( D) = E Annual Cost ($)

No Exposure Certification ( completion & submittal) 36,377 1.0 36,377 $ 44.35 $ 1,613,320 6.5.2 NPDES Authorized States and Territories The associated total burdens and costs for NPDES authorized States and Territories is best presented with the two general areas ( 1) the small MS4 program and ( 2) industrial no exposure provision.

For both of the information collection activities for which NPDES authorized States and Territories are responsible, the total annual burden is 19,992 hours at a total annual cost of $ 537,985. The average annual respondents is 44, for the 44 NPDES Authorized States and Territories.

Small MS4 Program Using an average annual respondent universe of 15 States and Territories, the burden for designating additional small MS4s is estimated at 4,892 hours annually at a cost of $ 131,644.

Industrial No Exposure Provision Based on the average annual respondent universe of 30,200, the annual burden for processing and reviewing the no exposure certifications is 15,100 hours at a cost of $ 406,341.

Exhibit 6 2. NPDES Authorized States Average Annual Total Burden and Cost Estimates Storm Water Phase II Rule ICR July 19, 1999 Page 20 Information Collection Activity A Avg. Annual Respondents B Burden Hours Per Respondent ( A) x ( B) = C Annual Respondent Burden Hours D Respondent Labor Cost ($/ hr) ( 1998 $) ( C ) x ( D) = E Annual Cost ($)

No Exp. Cert. Process & Review 30,200 0.5 15,100 26.91 406,341 Designation Of Add. MS4s 15 332.8 4,892 26.91 131,644 Annual Totals 30,215 19,992 537,985 6.6 ESTIMATING THE AGENCY TOTAL BURDEN AND TOTAL COSTS The associated total burdens and costs for the Agency falls within the activities of no exposure certification processing and review, and designation of additional MS4s For both of the information collection activities for which the Agency is responsible, the total annual burden is 4,087 hours at a total annual cost of $ 115,948 ( see Exhibit 6 3).

Small MS4 Program Using an annual respondent universe of three, the burden for designating additional small MS4s is estimated at 998 hours annually at a cost of $ 28,313.

Industrial No Exposure Provision Based on the annual respondent universe of 6,177, the annual burden for processing and reviewing the no exposure certifications is 3,089 hours at a cost of $ 87,635.

Exhibit 6 3. Agency Average Annual Total Burden and Cost Estimates Information Collection Activity A Avg. Annual Respondents B Burden Hours Per Respondent ( A) x ( B) = C Annual Respondent Burden Hours D Respondent Labor Cost ($/ hr) ( 1998 $) ( C ) x ( D) = E Annual Cost ($)

No Exp. Cert. Process & Review 6,177 0.5 3,089 28.37 87,635 Designation Of Additional small MS4s 3 332.8 998 28.37 28,313 Annual Totals 6,180 4,087 115,948 6.7 BOTTOM LINE BURDEN HOURS AND COST The bottom line burden hours and cost are the sum of all the hours and costs incurred for all activities by the Phase II respondents and the Agency. Storm Water Phase II Rule ICR July 19, 1999 Page 21 Exhibit 6 4 provides a summary of Exhibits 6 1, 6 2 and 6 3. This exhibit presents the total number of respondents, activities, annual burden hours, and annual cost for Phase II respondents and the Agency to comply with and implement the rule over the first three years.

Respondent Tally This ICR calculated burden and cost for two types of respondents: 1) industrial " no exposure" facilities and 2) NPDES authorized States and Territories. The combined annual ( bottom line) totals for both respondent types are 36,421 respondents performing 3 information collection activities resulting in 56,369 burden hours at a cost of $ 2,151,305.

Agency Tally The Agency's annual ( bottom line) totals have been estimated to be 6,180 respondents performing two activities resulting in 4,087 burden hours at a cost of $ 115,948.

Total Tally The sum of both respondent and Agency annual ( bottom line) totals include 42,601 respondents per year, 5 information collection activities, 60,456 burden hours per year, and a cost of $ 2,267,253 per year.

Exhibit 6 4. Total Estimated Respondent and Agency Burden and Cost Summary ( Bottom Line Totals)

Number of Respondents Number of Activities Total Burden Per Year ( Hours) Total Cost Per Year ($)

Industrial No Exposure Facilities 36,377 1 36,377 1,613,320 NPDES Authorized States 44 2 19,992 537,985 Annual Subtotal 36,421 3 56,369 2,151,305 Agency ( EPA) 6,180 2 4,087 115,948 Annual Subtotal 6,180 2 4,087 115,948 Annual Total 42,601 5 60,456 2,267,253 6.8 REASON FOR CHANGE IN BURDEN The Phase II rule's no exposure provision will result in an increase in burden for some industrial entities and a decrease in burden for others due to two program changes: 1) the provision now applies to all Storm Water Phase II Rule ICR July 19, 1999 11 Source: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater Management. July 2, 1999. Economic Analysis for the Storm Water Phase II Rule: Initial Final Draft. Section 9.3.

12 Source: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater Management. July 2, 1999. Economic Analysis for the Storm Water Phase II Rule: Initial Final Draft. Section 9.4.

13 See Note 11.

14 19,992 ( total burden hours for all 44 NPDES authorized States and Territories)/ 44 = 454 Page 22 industrial facilities defined by the Phase I regulated categories, and 2) all facilities claiming no exposure must submit written certification of no exposure.

There are an estimated 76,239 industrial facilities that are required to obtain a permit under Phase I of the NPDES storm water program but have no exposure of industrial activities or materials to storm water. 11 For these entities, obtaining the no exposure exclusion, versus having to comply with a permit, will result in an estimated cost savings ranging from $ 317,615,622 to $ 1,864,433,088, in 1998 dollars. 12 An estimated 105,646 industrial facilities with no exposure of industrial activities or materials to storm water were defined under the Phase I industrial program as category ( xi) facilities. 13 Any category ( xi) facilities with no exposure were not required to submit a permit or any other information. These facilities were simply exempt from the program without further action. However, the Phase II rule's no exposure provision now requires them to submit a written certification of no exposure, such as the form in Appendix A, resulting in an increase of 1.0 burden hours at a cost of $ 44.35 for each industrial facility.

6.9 BURDEN STATEMENT The burden for collecting information required by the rule is estimated to be 1.0 hour per industrial " no exposure" facility, 454 total hours per NPDES authorized State or Territory14, and 4,087 total hours for the Agency. These burden estimates include the time required to review the instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain ( usually in electronic databases) all necessary data, and complete and review the information required to be collected.

Burden means the 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 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, OPPE Regulatory Information Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2137), 401 M St., S. W., Washington, D. C. 20460; and to the Office of Storm Water Phase II Rule ICR July 19, 1999 Page 23 Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer to EPA. Include the EPA ICR number and OMB control number in any correspondence. APPENDIX A


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 108 (Wednesday, June 5, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33766-33768]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13300]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0480; Directorate Identifier 2012-SW-090-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter France (Eurocopter)
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Eurocopter Model SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, EC 155B,
EC155B1, AS332C, AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, and EC225LP helicopters with
certain EADS Sogerma pilot and co-pilot seats installed. This proposed
AD would require inspecting the rear beam of each seat to determine if
all of the weld beads are present and replacing the seat if any weld
bead is missing. This proposed AD is prompted by a maintenance
inspection that discovered a missing weld bead on the rear beam of a
pilot seat. The proposed actions are intended to prevent failure of the
pilot and co-pilot seats and subsequent injury to the pilot or co-
pilot.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 5, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the economic
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX
75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or at http://www.eurocopter.com/techpub. You may review the referenced
service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas
76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Grant, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth,
Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or

federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
No. 2012-0206, dated October 2, 2012 (AD 2012-0206), to correct an
unsafe condition for Eurocopter Model SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2, AS
365 N3, EC 155B, EC155B1, AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2,
and EC225LP helicopters with certain EADS Sogerma pilot seats, part
number (P/N) 2510106-03-00 or P/N 2510106-06-00. EASA advises that
during a maintenance inspection, a weld bead was found missing on the
rear beam of an EADS Sogerma pilot seat. According to EASA, this non-
conformity impairs the seat anti-crash function and may be present on a
limited number of seats installed on Eurocopter helicopters. EASA
states that this condition, if not corrected, could lead to pilot
injury following a hard landing following an emergency.
    To address this unsafe condition, EASA issued AD No. 2012-0084,
dated May 16, 2012 (AD 2012-0084), to require inspecting the flight
crew seats, replacing any improperly welded seat, and marking all
correctly welded seats. After issuing AD 2012-0084, a missing weld bead
was discovered on another part of the seat rear beam that was not
required to be inspected. As a result, EASA issued AD 2012-0206, which
superseded AD 2012-0084, to revise the inspection procedure and add new
areas of the rear beam of the seat to be inspected.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known
relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely
to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design.

Related Service Information

    Eurocopter has issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. AS365-
25.01.18 for Model SA-365N, SA-365 N1, AS-365N2, and AS 365 N3
helicopters; ASB No. EC155-25A114 for Model EC155 B and EC155B1
helicopters; ASB No. AS332-25.02.49 for model AS332C, AS332L, AS332L1,
and AS332L2 helicopters; and ASB No. EC225-25A110 for Model EC225LP
helicopters; all Revision 1, dated August 9, 2012. The ASBs incorporate
the procedures in EADS Sogerma Inspection Service Bulletin No. 2510106-
25-888, Revision 1, dated July 16, 2012, for inspecting the rear beam
of the pilot and co-pilot seats to verify all of the weld beads are
present. The complete EADS Sogerma bulletin is contained in the
Appendix of the ASBs. EASA classified these ASBs as mandatory and
issued AD 2012-0206 to ensure the continued airworthiness of these
helicopters.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require, within 50 hours time-in-service
(TIS), inspecting the rear beam of each pilot and co-pilot seat to
determine if any weld beads are missing. If any weld beads are missing,
before further flight, this proposed AD would require removing the seat
from the helicopter and replacing it with an airworthy seat.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD allows compliance within 3 months or 50 flight hours,
whichever occurs earlier; the proposed AD requires compliance within 50
hours TIS. The EASA AD applies to Model AS332C1 helicopters. This
proposed AD does not because this model is not FAA type-certificated.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 65 helicopters of
U.S. Registry.
    We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order
to comply with this AD. At an average labor rate of $85 per hour,
inspecting the seats would require about .2 work-hour, for a cost per
helicopter of $17 and a total cost to U.S. operators of $1,105.
Replacing a seat with a missing weld bead would require about 1 work-
hour, and required parts would cost about $30,251, for a cost per
helicopter of $30,336.
    According to Eurocopter's service information some of the costs of
this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the
cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty
coverage by Eurocopter. Accordingly, we have included all costs in our
cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):

Eurocopter France (Eurocopter): Docket No. FAA-2013-0480;
Directorate Identifier 2012-SW-090-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Eurocopter Model SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2,
AS 365 N3, EC 155B, EC155B1, AS332C, AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, and
EC225LP helicopters with an EADS Sogerma pilot or co-pilot seat,
part number (P/N) 2510106-03-00 or P/N 2510106-06-00, with a serial
number 720 through 1451, installed, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a missing weld on a seat
rear beam, which could result in failure of the seat and injury to
the pilot during a hard landing.

(c) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 5, 2013.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 50 hours time-in-service, using a mirror, inspect the
rear beam of each seat for weld beads in the areas depicted in the
Appendix, Figure 1, of Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No.
AS365-25.01.18 for model SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2, and AS 365 N3
helicopters; ASB No. EC155-25A114 for model EC155 B and EC155B1
helicopters; ASB No. AS332-25.02.49 for model AS332C, AS332L,
AS332L1, and AS332 L2 helicopters; and ASB No. EC225-25A110 for
model EC225LP helicopters. All ASBs are Revision 1 and dated August
9, 2012.
    (2) If any weld bead is missing from the rear beam, before
further flight, remove the seat and replace it with an airworthy
seat.
    (3) Do not install a seat listed in paragraph (a) of this AD on
any helicopter unless it has been inspected as required by this AD.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Robert Grant, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort
Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety
Agency AD No. 2012-0206, dated October 2, 2012.

 (h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2510: Flight
Compartment Equipment.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 28, 2013.
Kim Smith,
Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-13300 Filed 6-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 225)]
[Notices]
[Page 61397-61398]
[DOCID:fr24no09-89]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61017; File No. SR-BX-2009-072]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the
Fee Schedule of the Boston Options Exchange Facility

November 17, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'')\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 12, 2009, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (the ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposed
rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act\3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule of the Boston
Options Exchange Group, LLC (``BOX''). The text of the proposed rule
change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the
Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's Internet
website at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQOMXBX/Filings/.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange recently submitted a proposed rule change, SR-BX-2009-
071, which made several changes to the BOX Fee Schedule.\5\ Certain of
these changes eliminated references to outbound P/A Orders from the Fee
Schedule as these order types are no longer sent by BOX.\6\ Some of the
text that was removed from the Fee Schedule in SR-BX-2009-071 should
not have been removed but rather amended to reflect applicability to
Eligible Orders that are routed away by Routing Brokers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60934 (November 4,
2009), 74 FR 58358 (November 12, 2009) (SR-BX-2009-071). The BOX Fee
Schedule can be found on the BOX Website at http://
www.bostonoptions.com.
    \6\ The Exchange is a participant in the Options Order
Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan (``Decentralized Plan'').
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60405 (July 30, 2009), 74 FR
39362 (August 6, 2009) (File No. 4-546) (Order Approving the
National Market System Plan Relating to Options Order Protection and
Locked/Crossed Market Plan). Instead of routing P/A Orders BOX now
sends Eligible Orders to Away Exchange(s), when such Away
Exchange(s) display the Best Bid or Best Offer, in accordance with
the Decentralized Plan, via certain non-affiliated third party
routing broker/dealers (``Routing Broker(s)''). See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 60832 (October 16, 2009), 74 FR 54607
(October 22, 2009) (SR-BX-2009-66).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to once again include the specific language
in the BOX Fee Schedule, as appropriate, to reflect its applicability
to Eligible Orders routed to Away Exchanges by Routing Brokers.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to exempt outbound Eligible Orders
routed to Away Exchanges by Routing Brokers from the fees and credits
of Section 7 of the BOX Fee Schedule, as these transactions are deemed
to neither `add' nor `take' liquidity from the BOX Book.\7\
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to impose of a fee of $0.50 per
contract for all Eligible Orders routed to Away Exchanges by Routing
Brokers in excess of 4,000 contracts per month for an individual BOX
Options Participant, as was imposed for outbound P/A Orders.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60504 (August 14,
2009), 74 FR 42724 (August 24, 2009) (SR-BX-2009-047).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60610 (September 1,
2009), 74 FR 46285 (September 8, 2009) (SR-BX-2009-058). The
Exchange stated in SR-BX-2009-58 that ``exempting all outbound P/A
Orders from fees may tempt BOX Options Participants to increase non
executable order flow to BOX in order to avoid fees on other
exchanges.'' The Exchange proposed the $0.50 fee ``to eliminate the
abusive use of this exemption.'' As proposed in SR-BX-2009-58, the
proposed re-inclusion of this fee will have no effect on the billing
of orders of non-BOX Options Participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange proposes a clarifying change to text of
Section 7(d) of the BOX Fee Schedule regarding the volume discount
applied to executions in Price Improvement Period (``PIP'') auctions of
the Participant that initiated the PIP which occur at a price at least
better than the NBBO. To clarify the application of the volume discount
the Exchange proposes that the final sentence of Section 7(d) will read
as follows: ``This discount is calculated monthly for the Participant's
previous calendar month's executions in PIP auctions which it initiated
and which were filled at a price at least better than the NBBO.''

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it is designed to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest,
as well Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\11\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its
facilities. The proposed changes will result in clarification of the
fees charged for trading activity on BOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act\12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\13\ because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other
charge applicable only to a member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the rule change if it
appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or would
otherwise further the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2009-072 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2009-072. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/
shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing will also be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-BX-2009-072 and should be
submitted on or before December 15, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-28099 Filed 11-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P