Download:
pdf |
pdfAPPENDIX A
Relevant Sections of Statues, Regulations, or Judicial/Administrative
Decrees Enabling the Collection of Information for the National Listing of
Advisories
Clean Water Act 104, as printed in
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode33/usc_sec_33_00001254----000-.html)
Title 33: Navigation and Navigable Waters
Chapter 26: Water Pollution Prevention and Control
Subchapter 1: Research and Related Programs
Section 1254: Research, investigations, training, and information
EPA’s Clean Water Action Plan - Fish Consumption Advisories
US CODE: Title 33,1254. Research, investigations, training, and information
Page 1 of 9
LII / Legal Information Institute
U.S. Code collection
Prev | Next
TITLE 33 > CHAPTER 26 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1254
§ 1254. Research, investigations, training, and information
How Current is This?
(a) Establishment of national programs; cooperation; investigations;
water quality surveillance system; reports
The Administrator shall establish national programs for the prevention,
reduction, and elimination of pollution and as part of such programs shall—
(1) in cooperation with other Federal, State, and local agencies, conduct
and promote the coordination and acceleration of, research, investigations,
experiments, training, demonstrations, surveys, and studies relating to the
causes, effects, extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution;
(2) encourage, cooperate with, and render technical services to pollution
control agencies and other appropriate public or private agencies,
institutions, and organizations, and individuals, including the general public,
in the conduct of activities referred to in paragraph (1) of this subsection;
Search
this title:
Notes
Updates
Parallel
regulations
(CFR)
Your
comments
(3) conduct, in cooperation with State water pollution control agencies and
other interested agencies, organizations and persons, public investigations
concerning the pollution of any navigable waters, and report on the results of
such investigations;
(4) establish advisory committees composed of recognized experts in
various aspects of pollution and representatives of the public to assist in the
examination and evaluation of research progress and proposals and to avoid
duplication of research;
(5) in cooperation with the States, and their political subdivisions, and
other Federal agencies establish, equip, and maintain a water quality
surveillance system for the purpose of monitoring the quality of the
navigable waters and ground waters and the contiguous zone and the oceans
and the Administrator shall, to the extent practicable, conduct such
surveillance by utilizing the resources of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the
United States Geological Survey, and the Coast Guard, and shall report on
such quality in the report required under subsection (a) of section 1375 of
this title; and
(6) initiate and promote the coordination and acceleration of research
designed to develop the most effective practicable tools and techniques for
measuring the social and economic costs and benefits of activities which are
subject to regulation under this chapter; and shall transmit a report on the
results of such research to the Congress not later than January 1, 1974.
(b) Authorized activities of Administrator
In carrying out the provisions of subsection (a) of this section the Administrator
is authorized to—
(1) collect and make available, through publications and other appropriate
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode33/usc_sec_33_00001254----000-.html
1/4/2007
US CODE: Title 33,1254. Research, investigations, training, and information
Page 2 of 9
means, the results of and other information, including appropriate
recommendations by him in connection therewith, pertaining to such
research and other activities referred to in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of
this section;
(2) cooperate with other Federal departments and agencies, State water
pollution control agencies, interstate agencies, other public and private
agencies, institutions, organizations, industries involved, and individuals, in
the preparation and conduct of such research and other activities referred to
in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this section;
(3) make grants to State water pollution control agencies, interstate
agencies, other public or nonprofit private agencies, institutions,
organizations, and individuals, for purposes stated in paragraph (1) of
subsection (a) of this section;
(4) contract with public or private agencies, institutions, organizations, and
individuals, without regard to section 3324 (a) and (b) of title 31 and section
5 of title 41, referred to in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this section;
(5) establish and maintain research fellowships at public or nonprofit
private educational institutions or research organizations;
(6) collect and disseminate, in cooperation with other Federal departments
and agencies, and with other public or private agencies, institutions, and
organizations having related responsibilities, basic data on chemical,
physical, and biological effects of varying water quality and other information
pertaining to pollution and the prevention, reduction, and elimination
thereof; and
(7) develop effective and practical processes, methods, and prototype
devices for the prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution.
(c) Research and studies on harmful effects of pollutants; cooperation
with Secretary of Health and Human Services
In carrying out the provisions of subsection (a) of this section the Administrator
shall conduct research on, and survey the results of other scientific studies on,
the harmful effects on the health or welfare of persons caused by pollutants. In
order to avoid duplication of effort, the Administrator shall, to the extent
practicable, conduct such research in cooperation with and through the facilities
of the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
(d) Sewage treatment; identification and measurement of effects of
pollutants; augmented streamflow
In carrying out the provisions of this section the Administrator shall develop and
demonstrate under varied conditions (including conducting such basic and
applied research, studies, and experiments as may be necessary):
(1) Practicable means of treating municipal sewage, and other waterborne
wastes to implement the requirements of section 1281 of this title;
(2) Improved methods and procedures to identify and measure the effects
of pollutants, including those pollutants created by new technological
developments; and
(3) Methods and procedures for evaluating the effects on water quality of
augmented streamflows to control pollution not susceptible to other means of
prevention, reduction, or elimination.
(e) Field laboratory and research facilities
The Administrator shall establish, equip, and maintain field laboratory and
research facilities, including, but not limited to, one to be located in the
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode33/usc_sec_33_00001254----000-.html
1/4/2007
US CODE: Title 33,1254. Research, investigations, training, and information
Page 3 of 9
northeastern area of the United States, one in the Middle Atlantic area, one in
the southeastern area, one in the midwestern area, one in the southwestern
area, one in the Pacific Northwest, and one in the State of Alaska, for the
conduct of research, investigations, experiments, field demonstrations and
studies, and training relating to the prevention, reduction and elimination of
pollution. Insofar as practicable, each such facility shall be located near
institutions of higher learning in which graduate training in such research might
be carried out. In conjunction with the development of criteria under section
1343 of this title, the Administrator shall construct the facilities authorized for
the National Marine Water Quality Laboratory established under this subsection.
(f) Great Lakes water quality research
The Administrator shall conduct research and technical development work, and
make studies, with respect to the quality of the waters of the Great Lakes,
including an analysis of the present and projected future water quality of the
Great Lakes under varying conditions of waste treatment and disposal, an
evaluation of the water quality needs of those to be served by such waters, an
evaluation of municipal, industrial, and vessel waste treatment and disposal
practices with respect to such waters, and a study of alternate means of solving
pollution problems (including additional waste treatment measures) with respect
to such waters.
(g) Treatment works pilot training programs; employment needs
forecasting; training projects and grants; research fellowships; technical
training; report to the President and transmittal to Congress
(1) For the purpose of providing an adequate supply of trained personnel to
operate and maintain existing and future treatment works and related
activities, and for the purpose of enhancing substantially the proficiency of
those engaged in such activities, the Administrator shall finance pilot
programs, in cooperation with State and interstate agencies, municipalities,
educational institutions, and other organizations and individuals, of
manpower development and training and retraining of persons in, on
entering into, the field of operation and maintenance of treatment works and
related activities. Such program and any funds expended for such a program
shall supplement, not supplant, other manpower and training programs and
funds available for the purposes of this paragraph. The Administrator is
authorized, under such terms and conditions as he deems appropriate, to
enter into agreements with one or more States, acting jointly or severally, or
with other public or private agencies or institutions for the development and
implementation of such a program.
(2) The Administrator is authorized to enter into agreements with public
and private agencies and institutions, and individuals to develop and
maintain an effective system for forecasting the supply of, and demand for,
various professional and other occupational categories needed for the
prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution in each region, State, or
area of the United States and, from time to time, to publish the results of
such forecasts.
(3) In furtherance of the purposes of this chapter, the Administrator is
authorized to—
(A) make grants to public or private agencies and institutions and to
individuals for training projects, and provide for the conduct of training
by contract with public or private agencies and institutions and with
individuals without regard to section 3324 (a) and (b) of title 31 and
section 5 of title 41;
(B) establish and maintain research fellowships in the Environmental
Protection Agency with such stipends and allowances, including
traveling and subsistence expenses, as he may deem necessary to
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode33/usc_sec_33_00001254----000-.html
1/4/2007
US CODE: Title 33,1254. Research, investigations, training, and information
Page 4 of 9
procure the assistance of the most promising research fellows; and
(C) provide, in addition to the program established under paragraph
(1) of this subsection, training in technical matters relating to the
causes, prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution for
personnel of public agencies and other persons with suitable
qualifications.
(4) The Administrator shall submit, through the President, a report to the
Congress not later than December 31, 1973, summarizing the actions taken
under this subsection and the effectiveness of such actions, and setting forth
the number of persons trained, the occupational categories for which training
was provided, the effectiveness of other Federal, State, and local training
programs in this field, together with estimates of future needs,
recommendations on improving training programs, and such other
information and recommendations, including legislative recommendations, as
he deems appropriate.
(h) Lake pollution
The Administrator is authorized to enter into contracts with, or make grants to,
public or private agencies and organizations and individuals for
(A) the purpose of developing and demonstrating new or improved methods
for the prevention, removal, reduction, and elimination of pollution in lakes,
including the undesirable effects of nutrients and vegetation, and
(B) the construction of publicly owned research facilities for such purpose.
(i) Oil pollution control studies
The Administrator, in cooperation with the Secretary of the Department in which
the Coast Guard is operating, shall—
(1) engage in such research, studies, experiments, and demonstrations as
he deems appropriate, relative to the removal of oil from any waters and to
the prevention, control, and elimination of oil and hazardous substances
pollution;
(2) publish from time to time the results of such activities; and
(3) from time to time, develop and publish in the Federal Register
specifications and other technical information on the various chemical
compounds used in the control of oil and hazardous substances spills.
In carrying out this subsection, the Administrator may enter into contracts with, or
make grants to, public or private agencies and organizations and individuals.
(j) Solid waste disposal equipment for vessels
The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall
engage in such research, studies, experiments, and demonstrations as he deems
appropriate relative to equipment which is to be installed on board a vessel and
is designed to receive, retain, treat, or discharge human body wastes and the
wastes from toilets and other receptacles intended to receive or retain body
wastes with particular emphasis on equipment to be installed on small
recreational vessels. The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard
is operating shall report to Congress the results of such research, studies,
experiments, and demonstrations prior to the effective date of any regulations
established under section 1322 of this title. In carrying out this subsection the
Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating may enter
into contracts with, or make grants to, public or private organizations and
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode33/usc_sec_33_00001254----000-.html
1/4/2007
US CODE: Title 33,1254. Research, investigations, training, and information
Page 5 of 9
individuals.
(k) Land acquisition
In carrying out the provisions of this section relating to the conduct by the
Administrator of demonstration projects and the development of field
laboratories and research facilities, the Administrator may acquire land and
interests therein by purchase, with appropriated or donated funds, by donation,
or by exchange for acquired or public lands under his jurisdiction which he
classifies as suitable for disposition. The values of the properties so exchanged
either shall be approximately equal, or if they are not approximately equal, the
values shall be equalized by the payment of cash to the grantor or to the
Administrator as the circumstances require.
(l) Collection and dissemination of scientific knowledge on effects and
control of pesticides in water
(1) The Administrator shall, after consultation with appropriate local, State,
and Federal agencies, public and private organizations, and interested
individuals, as soon as practicable but not later than January 1, 1973,
develop and issue to the States for the purpose of carrying out this chapter
the latest scientific knowledge available in indicating the kind and extent of
effects on health and welfare which may be expected from the presence of
pesticides in the water in varying quantities. He shall revise and add to such
information whenever necessary to reflect developing scientific knowledge.
(2) The President shall, in consultation with appropriate local, State, and
Federal agencies, public and private organizations, and interested individuals,
conduct studies and investigations of methods to control the release of
pesticides into the environment which study shall include examination of the
persistency of pesticides in the water environment and alternatives thereto.
The President shall submit reports, from time to time, on such investigations
to Congress together with his recommendations for any necessary
legislation.
(m) Waste oil disposal study
(1) The Administrator shall, in an effort to prevent degradation of the
environment from the disposal of waste oil, conduct a study of
(A) the generation of used engine, machine, cooling, and similar
waste oil, including quantities generated, the nature and quality of
such oil, present collecting methods and disposal practices, and
alternate uses of such oil;
(B) the long-term, chronic biological effects of the disposal of such
waste oil; and
(C) the potential market for such oils, including the economic and
legal factors relating to the sale of products made from such oils, the
level of subsidy, if any, needed to encourage the purchase by public
and private nonprofit agencies of products from such oil, and the
practicability of Federal procurement, on a priority basis, of products
made from such oil. In conducting such study, the Administrator shall
consult with affected industries and other persons.
(2) The Administrator shall report the preliminary results of such study to
Congress within six months after October 18, 1972, and shall submit a final
report to Congress within 18 months after such date.
(n) Comprehensive studies of effects of pollution on estuaries and
estuarine zones
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode33/usc_sec_33_00001254----000-.html
1/4/2007
US CODE: Title 33,1254. Research, investigations, training, and information
Page 6 of 9
(1) The Administrator shall, in cooperation with the Secretary of the Army,
the Secretary of Agriculture, the Water Resources Council, and with other
appropriate Federal, State, interstate, or local public bodies and private
organizations, institutions, and individuals, conduct and promote, and
encourage contributions to, continuing comprehensive studies of the effects
of pollution, including sedimentation, in the estuaries and estuarine zones of
the United States on fish and wildlife, on sport and commercial fishing, on
recreation, on water supply and water power, and on other beneficial
purposes. Such studies shall also consider the effect of demographic trends,
the exploitation of mineral resources and fossil fuels, land and industrial
development, navigation, flood and erosion control, and other uses of
estuaries and estuarine zones upon the pollution of the waters therein.
(2) In conducting such studies, the Administrator shall assemble,
coordinate, and organize all existing pertinent information on the Nation’s
estuaries and estuarine zones; carry out a program of investigations and
surveys to supplement existing information in representative estuaries and
estuarine zones; and identify the problems and areas where further research
and study are required.
(3) The Administrator shall submit to Congress, from time to time, reports
of the studies authorized by this subsection but at least one such report
during any six-year period. Copies of each such report shall be made
available to all interested parties, public and private.
(4) For the purpose of this subsection, the term “estuarine zones” means
an environmental system consisting of an estuary and those transitional
areas which are consistently influenced or affected by water from an estuary
such as, but not limited to, salt marshes, coastal and intertidal areas, bays,
harbors, lagoons, inshore waters, and channels, and the term “estuary”
means all or part of the mouth of a river or stream or other body of water
having unimpaired natural connection with open sea and within which the
sea water is measurably diluted with fresh water derived from land drainage.
(o) Methods of reducing total flow of sewage and unnecessary water
consumption; reports
(1) The Administrator shall conduct research and investigations on devices,
systems, incentives, pricing policy, and other methods of reducing the total
flow of sewage, including, but not limited to, unnecessary water consumption
in order to reduce the requirements for, and the costs of, sewage and waste
treatment services. Such research and investigations shall be directed to
develop devices, systems, policies, and methods capable of achieving the
maximum reduction of unnecessary water consumption.
(2) The Administrator shall report the preliminary results of such studies
and investigations to the Congress within one year after October 18, 1972,
and annually thereafter in the report required under subsection (a) of section
1375 of this title. Such report shall include recommendations for any
legislation that may be required to provide for the adoption and use of
devices, systems, policies, or other methods of reducing water consumption
and reducing the total flow of sewage. Such report shall include an estimate
of the benefits to be derived from adoption and use of such devices,
systems, policies, or other methods and also shall reflect estimates of any
increase in private, public, or other cost that would be occasioned thereby.
(p) Agricultural pollution
In carrying out the provisions of subsection (a) of this section the Administrator
shall, in cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture, other Federal agencies,
and the States, carry out a comprehensive study and research program to
determine new and improved methods and the better application of existing
methods of preventing, reducing, and eliminating pollution from agriculture,
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode33/usc_sec_33_00001254----000-.html
1/4/2007
US CODE: Title 33,1254. Research, investigations, training, and information
Page 7 of 9
including the legal, economic, and other implications of the use of such methods.
(q) Sewage in rural areas; national clearinghouse for alternative
treatment information; clearinghouse on small flows
(1) The Administrator shall conduct a comprehensive program of research
and investigation and pilot project implementation into new and improved
methods of preventing, reducing, storing, collecting, treating, or otherwise
eliminating pollution from sewage in rural and other areas where collection of
sewage in conventional, communitywide sewage collection systems is
impractical, uneconomical, or otherwise infeasible, or where soil conditions or
other factors preclude the use of septic tank and drainage field systems.
(2) The Administrator shall conduct a comprehensive program of research
and investigation and pilot project implementation into new and improved
methods for the collection and treatment of sewage and other liquid wastes
combined with the treatment and disposal of solid wastes.
(3) The Administrator shall establish, either within the Environmental
Protection Agency, or through contract with an appropriate public or private
non-profit organization, a national clearinghouse which shall
(A) receive reports and information resulting from research,
demonstrations, and other projects funded under this chapter related
to paragraph (1) of this subsection and to subsection (e)(2) of section
1255 of this title;
(B) coordinate and disseminate such reports and information for use
by Federal and State agencies, municipalities, institutions, and persons
in developing new and improved methods pursuant to this subsection;
and
(C) provide for the collection and dissemination of reports and
information relevant to this subsection from other Federal and State
agencies, institutions, universities, and persons.
(4) Small flows clearinghouse.— Notwithstanding section 1285 (d) of
this title, from amounts that are set aside for a fiscal year under section
1285 (i) of this title and are not obligated by the end of the 24-month period
of availability for such amounts under section 1285 (d) of this title, the
Administrator shall make available $1,000,000 or such unobligated amount,
whichever is less, to support a national clearinghouse within the
Environmental Protection Agency to collect and disseminate information on
small flows of sewage and innovative or alternative wastewater treatment
processes and techniques, consistent with paragraph (3). This paragraph
shall apply with respect to amounts set aside under section 1285 (i) of this
title for which the 24-month period of availability referred to in the preceding
sentence ends on or after September 30, 1986.
(r) Research grants to colleges and universities
The Administrator is authorized to make grants to colleges and universities to
conduct basic research into the structure and function of freshwater aquatic
ecosystems, and to improve understanding of the ecological characteristics
necessary to the maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of freshwater aquatic ecosystems.
(s) River Study Centers
The Administrator is authorized to make grants to one or more institutions of
higher education (regionally located and to be designated as “River Study
Centers”) for the purpose of conducting and reporting on interdisciplinary studies
on the nature of river systems, including hydrology, biology, ecology, economics,
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode33/usc_sec_33_00001254----000-.html
1/4/2007
US CODE: Title 33,1254. Research, investigations, training, and information
Page 8 of 9
the relationship between river uses and land uses, and the effects of
development within river basins on river systems and on the value of water
resources and water related activities. No such grant in any fiscal year shall
exceed $1,000,000.
(t) Thermal discharges
The Administrator shall, in cooperation with State and Federal agencies and
public and private organizations, conduct continuing comprehensive studies of
the effects and methods of control of thermal discharges. In evaluating
alternative methods of control the studies shall consider
(1) such data as are available on the latest available technology, economic
feasibility including cost-effectiveness analysis, and
(2) the total impact on the environment, considering not only water quality
but also air quality, land use, and effective utilization and conservation of
freshwater and other natural resources. Such studies shall consider methods
of minimizing adverse effects and maximizing beneficial effects of thermal
discharges. The results of these studies shall be reported by the
Administrator as soon as practicable, but not later than 270 days after
October 18, 1972, and shall be made available to the public and the States,
and considered as they become available by the Administrator in carrying out
section 1326 of this title and by the States in proposing thermal water quality
standards.
(u) Authorization of appropriations
There is authorized to be appropriated
(1) not to exceed $100,000,000 per fiscal year for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1973, the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, and the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1975, not to exceed $14,039,000 for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1980, not to exceed $20,697,000 for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1981, not to exceed $22,770,000 for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1982, such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 1983
through 1985, and not to exceed $22,770,000 per fiscal year for each of the
fiscal years 1986 through 1990, for carrying out the provisions of this
section, other than subsections (g)(1) and (2), (p), (r), and (t) of this
section, except that such authorizations are not for any research,
development, or demonstration activity pursuant to such provisions;
(2) not to exceed $7,500,000 for fiscal years 1973, 1974, and 1975,
$2,000,000 for fiscal year 1977, $3,000,000 for fiscal year 1978, $3,000,000
for fiscal year 1979, $3,000,000 for fiscal year 1980, $3,000,000 for fiscal
year 1981, $3,000,000 for fiscal year 1982, such sums as may be necessary
for fiscal years 1983 through 1985, and $3,000,000 per fiscal year for each
of the fiscal years 1986 through 1990, for carrying out the provisions of
subsection (g)(1) of this section;
(3) not to exceed $2,500,000 for fiscal years 1973, 1974, and 1975,
$1,000,000 for fiscal year 1977, $1,500,000 for fiscal year 1978, $1,500,000
for fiscal year 1979, $1,500,000 for fiscal year 1980, $1,500,000 for fiscal
year 1981, $1,500,000 for fiscal year 1982, such sums as may be necessary
for fiscal years 1983 through 1985, and $1,500,000 per fiscal year for each
of the fiscal years 1986 through 1990, for carrying out the provisions of
subsection (g)(2) of this section;
(4) not to exceed $10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years ending June 30,
1973, June 30, 1974, and June 30, 1975, for carrying out the provisions of
subsection (p) of this section;
(5) not to exceed $15,000,000 per fiscal year for the fiscal years ending
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode33/usc_sec_33_00001254----000-.html
1/4/2007
US CODE: Title 33,1254. Research, investigations, training, and information
Page 9 of 9
June 30, 1973, June 30, 1974, and June 30, 1975, for carrying out the
provisions of subsection (r) of this section; and
(6) not to exceed $10,000,000 per fiscal year for the fiscal years ending
June 30, 1973, June 30, 1974, and June 30, 1975, for carrying out the
provisions of subsection (t) of this section.
(v) Studies concerning pathogen indicators in coastal recreation waters
Not later than 18 months after October 10, 2000, after consultation and in
cooperation with appropriate Federal, State, tribal, and local officials (including
local health officials), the Administrator shall initiate, and, not later than 3 years
after October 10, 2000, shall complete, in cooperation with the heads of other
Federal agencies, studies to provide additional information for use in
developing—
(1) an assessment of potential human health risks resulting from exposure
to pathogens in coastal recreation waters, including nongastrointestinal
effects;
(2) appropriate and effective indicators for improving detection in a timely
manner in coastal recreation waters of the presence of pathogens that are
harmful to human health;
(3) appropriate, accurate, expeditious, and cost-effective methods
(including predictive models) for detecting in a timely manner in coastal
recreation waters the presence of pathogens that are harmful to human
health; and
(4) guidance for State application of the criteria for pathogens and
pathogen indicators to be published under section 1314 (a)(9) of this title to
account for the diversity of geographic and aquatic conditions.
Prev | Next
LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet
site that contains links to or references LII.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode33/usc_sec_33_00001254----000-.html
1/4/2007
Clean Water--The Road Ahead
Over the past
quarter century, America
has made tremendous
strides in cleaning up its
rivers, lakes, and coastal
waters. In 1972, the
Potomac River was too
dirty to swim in, Lake Erie was dying, and the Cuyahoga River was
so polluted it burst into flames. Many rivers and beaches were little
more than open sewers. The improvement in the health of the
nation's waters is a direct result of a concerted effort to enhance
stewardship of natural resources and to implement the
environmental provisions of federal, state, tribal and local laws. In
particular, the Clean Water Act has stopped billions of pounds of
pollution from fouling the nation's water, doubling the number of
waterways safe for fishing and swimming. Today, rivers, lakes, and
coasts are thriving centers of healthy communities.
Despite tremendous progress, 40 percent of the nation's waterways
assessed by states are still unsafe for fishing and swimming.
Pollution from factories and sewage treatment plants, soil erosion,
and wetland losses have been dramatically reduced. But runoff from
city streets, rural areas, and other sources continues to degrade the
environment and puts drinking water at risk. Fish in many waters
still contain dangerous levels of mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), and other toxic contaminants.
Clean Water Program at a Crossroads
After 25 years of progress, the nation's clean water program is at a
crossroads. Implementation of the existing programs will not stop
serious new threats to public health, living resources, and the
nation's waterways, particularly from polluted runoff. These
programs lack the strength, resources, and framework to finish the
job of restoring rivers, lakes, and coastal areas. To fulfill the original
goal of the Clean Water Act-- fishable and swimmable water for
every American the nation must chart a new course to address the
pollution problems of the next generation.
Charting a New Course
In his 1998 State of the Union Address, President Clinton
announced a major new Clean Water Initiative to speed the
restoration of the nation's precious waterways. This new initiative
aims to achieve clean water by strengthening public health
protections, targeting community-based watershed protection efforts
at high priority areas, and providing communities with new
resources to control polluted runoff.
On October 18, 1997, the 25th anniversary of the Clean Water Act,
Vice President Gore directed the Department of Agriculture
(USDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to work
with other federal agencies and the public to prepare an aggressive
Action Plan to meet the promise of clean, safe water for all
Americans. This Action Plan forms the core of President Clinton's
Clean Water Initiative in which he proposed $568 million in new
resources in his FY 1999 budget to carry it out. The Action Plan
builds on the solid foundation of existing clean water programs and
proposes new actions to strengthen efforts to restore and protect
water resources. In implementing this Action Plan, the federal
government will:
support locally led partnerships that include a broad array of
federal agencies, states, tribes, communities, businesses, and
citizens to meet clean water and public health goals;
o increase financial and technical assistance to states, tribes,
local governments, farmers, and others; and
o help states and tribes restore and sustain the health of aquatic
systems on a watershed basis.
o
Four Tools for Clean Water
Federal, state, tribal, and local governments have many tools they
can use to clean up and protect water resources. Regulation,
economic incentives, technical assistance, research, education, and
accurate information all have a role to play in meeting clean water
goals. This Action Plan is built around four key tools to achieve
clean water goals.
A Watershed Approach
This Action Plan envisions a new collaborative effort by federal
state, tribal, and local governments; the public; and the private
sector to restore and sustain the health of watersheds in the nation.
The watershed approach is the key to setting priorities and taking
action to clean up rivers, lakes, and coastal waters.
Strong Federal and State Standards
This Action Plan calls for federal, state, and tribal agencies to revise
standards where needed and make existing programs more effective.
Effective standards are key to protecting public health, preventing
polluted runoff, and ensuring accountability.
Natural Resource Stewardship
Most of the land in the nation's watersheds is cropland, pasture,
rangeland, or forests, and most of the water that ends up in rivers,
lakes, and coastal waters falls on these lands first. Clean water
depends on the conservation and stewardship of these natural
resources. This Action Plan calls on federal natural resource and
conservation agencies to apply their collective resources and
technical expertise to state and local watershed restoration and
protection.
Informed Citizens and Officials
Clear, accurate, and timely information is the foundation of a sound
and accountable water quality program. Informed citizens and
officials make better decisions about their watersheds. This Action
Plan calls on federal agencies to improve the information available
to the public, governments, and others about the health of their
watersheds and the safety of their beaches, drinking water, and fish.
A Watershed Approach-- The Key to the
Future
This Action Plan proposes a new collaborative effort by state, tribal,
federal, and local governments, the private sector and the public to
restore those watersheds not meeting clean water, natural resource,
and public health goals and to sustain healthy conditions in other
watersheds.
For the past 25 years, most water pollution control efforts relied on
broadly applied national programs that reduced water pollution from
individual sources such as discharges from sewage treatment plants
and factories, and from polluted runoff. Today, there is growing
recognition that clean water strategies built on this foundation and
tailored to specific watershed conditions are the key to the future.
Why Watersheds?
Clean water is the product of a healthy watershed--a watershed in
which urban, agricultural, rangelands, forest lands, and all other
parts of the landscape are well-managed to prevent pollution.
Focusing on the whole watershed helps strike the best balance
among efforts to control point source pollution and polluted runoff,
and protect drinking water sources and sensitive natural resources
such as wetlands. A watershed focus also helps identify the most
cost-effective pollution control strategies to meet clean water goals.
Skipjack under sail on the Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay Program is an
international model of interagency and intergovernmental cooperation on a
large watershed scale. The Program sets goals for water quality and habitat
restoration based on sound science and achieves them by developing consensusdriven strategies. For example, federal agencies are working with agricultural
and forest landowners to develop farmland and riparian forest buffers, feedlot
and animal strategies, and to provide technical support. Photo Credit: EPA
Working at the watershed level encourages the public to get
involved in efforts to restore and protect their water resources and is
the foundation for building strong clean water partnerships. The
watershed approach is the best way to bring state, tribal, federal, and
local programs together to more effectively and efficiently clean up
and protect waters. It is also the key to greater accountability and
progress toward clean water goals.
Key Elements of the Watershed Approach
This Action Plan proposes a watershed approach built on several
key elements.
Unified Watershed Assessments. States, tribes, and federal agencies
currently set priorities for watershed action in many different ways.
For example, state water quality agencies are developing lists of
impaired water bodies, defining source water protection areas for
drinking water, identifying coastal protection priorities, and defining
priority areas for agricultural assistance programs. Similarly,
federal, state and tribal natural resource agencies set their priorities
for watershed restoration and protection in various ways to meet
their mandates for natural resource conservation. These processes
are designed to meet valid objectives, but too often opportunities to
work together to meet common goals are overlooked.
This Action Plan creates a strategic opportunity for states and tribes,
in cooperation with federal land and resource managers on federal
lands, to take the lead in unifying these various existing efforts and
leveraging scarce resources to advance the pace of progress toward
clean water. As a number of states and tribes have demonstrated,
they can meet existing requirements more efficiently and develop
more coordinated and comprehensive priorities on a watershed
basis.
Unified watershed assessments are a vehicle to identify:
watersheds that will be targeted to receive significant new
resources from the President's FY 1999 budget and beyond
to clean up waters that are not meeting water quality goals;
o pristine or sensitive watersheds on federal lands where core
federal and state programs can be brought together to
prevent degradation of water quality; and
o threatened watersheds that need an extra measure of
protection and attention.
o
Watershed Restoration Action Strategies. The Action Plan encourages
states and tribes to work with local communities, the public, and
federal environmental, natural resource, and land management
agencies to develop strategies to restore watersheds that are not
meeting clean water and natural resource goals. Watershed
Restoration Action Strategies will spell out the most important
causes of water pollution and resource degradation, detail the
actions that all parties need to take to solve those problems, and set
milestones by which to measure progress Funds made available to
federal agencies through the FY 1999 Clean Water and Watershed
Restoration Budget Initiative will be used to help states implement
these strategies.
Watershed Pollution Prevention. Protecting pristine or sensitive waters
and taking preventive action when clean water is threatened by new
activities in the watershed can be the most cost-effective approach to
meeting clean water goals. This Action Plan encourages states,
tribal, and federal agencies to bring core programs and existing
resources together to support watershed pollution prevention
strategies to keep clean waters clean.
Watershed Assistance Grants. Federal agencies will provide small
grants to local organizations that want to take a leadership role in
building local efforts to restore and protect watersheds. These grants
will ensure that local communities and stakeholders can effectively
engage in the process of setting goals and devising solutions to
restore their watersheds.
Strong Federal and State Standards
This Action Plan calls on federal, state, and tribal governments to
strengthen existing programs to support an accelerated effort to
attack the nation's remaining water quality problems. Federal, state,
and tribal standards for water quality and polluted runoff are key
tools for protecting public health, preventing polluted runoff, and
ensuring accountability. Some of the specific actions called for in
this Action Plan are identified below.
Improve Assurance that Fish and Shellfish are Safe to Eat
Federal agencies will work with states and tribes to expand
programs to reduce contaminants that can make locally caught fish
and shellfish unsafe to eat, particularly mercury and other persistent,
bio-accumulative toxic pollutants, and to ensure that the public gets
clear notice of fish consumption risks.
Ensure Safe Beaches
Federal, state, and local governments will work to improve the
capacity to monitor water quality at beaches, develop new standards,
and use new technologies such as the Internet to report public health
risks to recreational swimmers.
Expand Control of Storm Water Runoff
EPA will publish final Phase II storm water regulations for smaller
cities and construction sites in 1999. EPA will also work with its
partners to make sure that existing storm water control requirements
for large urban and industrial areas are implemented.
Improve State and Tribal Enforceable Authorities to Address
Polluted Runoff
Federal agencies will work with states and tribes to promote the
establishment of state and tribal enforceable authorities to ensure the
implementation of polluted runoff controls by the year 2000.
Define Nutrient Reduction Goals
EPA will establish by the year 2000 numeric criteria for nutrients
(i.e., nitrogen and phosphorus) that reflect the different types of
water bodies (e.g., lakes, rivers, and estuaries) and different
ecoregions of the country and will assist states and tribes in adopting
numeric water quality standards based on these criteria.
Reduce Pollution from Animal Feeding Operations
EPA will publish and, after public comment, implement an Animal
Feeding Operations Strategy for important and necessary actions on
standards and permits. In addition, by November 1998, EPA and
USDA will jointly develop a broad, unified national strategy to
minimize the environmental and public health impacts of Animal
Feeding Operations.
Natural Resource Stewardship
Nearly 70 percent of the United States, exclusive of Alaska, is held
in private ownership by millions of individuals. Fifty percent, or 907
million acres, is owned by farmers, ranchers, and their families.
Another 400 million acres are federal lands. Most of the rainfall in
the country falls on these lands before it enters rivers, lakes, and
coastal waters. Effective management of these croplands, pastures,
forests, wetlands, rangelands, and other resources is key to keeping
clean water clean and restoring watersheds where water quality is
impaired.
This Action Plan commits all federal natural resource conservation
and environmental agencies to focus their expertise and resources to
support the watershed approach described above. In addition, these
agencies will work with states tribes and others to enhance critical
natural resources essential to clean water.
Federal Land Stewardship
More than 800 million acres of the United States, including Alaska,
is federal land. These lands contain an immense diversity and wealth
of natural resources, including significant sources of drinking water
and public recreation opportunities.
By 1999, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) and USDA will
take the lead in developing a Unified Federal Policy to enhance
watershed management for the protection of water quality and the
health of aquatic systems on federal lands and for federal resource
management. Federal land managers will improve water quality
protection for over 2,000 miles of roads and trails each year through
2005 and decommission 5,000 miles each year by 2002. Federal
land managers will also accelerate the cleanup rate of watersheds
affected by abandoned mines and will implement an accelerated
riparian stewardship program to improve or restore 25,000 miles of
stream corridors by 2005.
Protect and Restore Wetlands
This Action Plan sets a goal of attaining a net increase of 100,000
wetland acres per year by the year 2005. This goal will be achieved
by ensuring that existing wetland programs continue to slow the rate
of wetland losses, improving federal restoration programs, and by
expanding incentives to landowners to restore wetlands.
Protect Coastal Waters
Federal agencies, led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), will work in partnership to improve the
monitoring of coastal waters, expand research of emerging problems
like Pfiesteria, amend Fishery Management Plans to address water
quality issues, and ensure the implementation of strong programs to
reduce polluted runoff to coastal waters.
Provide Incentives for Private Land Stewardship
This Action Plan relies on a substantial increase in the technical and
financial assistance available to private landowners as the primary
means of accelerating progress toward reducing polluted runoff
from agricultural, range, and forest lands.
USDA, working with federal, state, tribal, and private partners, will
establish by 2002 two million miles of conservation buffers to
reduce polluted runoff and protect watersheds, direct new funding
for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program to support
watershed restoration, and develop as many new agreements with
states as practicable to use the Conservation Reserve Enhancement
Program to improve watersheds. The Plan also envisions new and
innovative methods to provide incentives for private landowners to
implement pollution prevention plans, including risk management
protection for adoption of new pollution prevention technologies
and market recognition for producers that meet environmental goals.
In addition, DOI will expand its existing Partners for Wildlife
Program, which restores degraded fish and wildlife habitats and
improves water quality through partnerships with landowners. The
program provides technical and financial assistance, and gives
priority to threatened and endangered species.
Informed Citizens and Officials
Effective management of water resources requires reliable
information about water quality conditions and new tools to
communicate information to the public. Federal agencies, led by the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), will work with states and tribes to
improve monitoring and assessment of water quality, focusing on
nutrients and related pollutants. Federal agencies will also work with
states and tribes to develop and use state-of-the-art systems, such as
EPA's Index of Watershed Indicators on the Internet, to
communicate meaningful information to the public about water
quality conditions in their communities.
Improvements in Connecticut River water quality have led to a resurgence in
recreational fishing, especially in urban areas like Hartford, which has been the
site of major fishing tournaments in recent years. Photo Credit: Riverfront Recapture
Clean Water and Watershed
Restoration Budget Initiative
To support the new and expanded efforts to restore and protect the
nation's waters as proposed in this Clean Water Action Plan, the
President's FY 1999 budget proposes a Clean Water and Watershed
Restoration Budget Initiative. The funding provided in this budget
initiative will dramatically increase federal financial support for
clean water programs in FY 1999 and beyond. Specifically, the
Clean Water and Watershed Restoration Budget Initiative will:
o
o
o
o
o
o
increase direct support to states and tribes to carry out a
watershed approach to clean water;
increase technical and financial assistance to farmers,
ranchers, and foresters to reduce polluted runoff and enhance
the natural resources on their lands;
fund watershed assistance programs and grants to engage
local communities and citizens in leadership roles in
restoring their watersheds;
accelerate progress in addressing critical water quality
problems on federal lands, including those related to roads,
abandoned mines, riparian areas, and rangelands;
expand and coordinate water quality monitoring programs;
and
increase efforts to restore nationally significant watersheds,
such as the Florida Everglades and the San Francisco BayDelta.
Clean Water and Watershed Restoration Budget
Funding Summary
Percent Increase 1999 over 1998
35%
Total Increase 1999-2003
2,338
Total Spending 1999-2003
10,516
Total Spending 1999-2003
10,516
1998
Enacted
1999
Budget
Polluted runoff control grants (Sec. 319)
105
200
State program management grants (Sec. 106)
96
116
Wetlands protection grants
15
15
Water quality cooperative agreements
20
19
248
279
484
629
200*
300*
Natural Resources Conservation Service:Locally
led conservation
0
20
Natural Resources Conservation
Service:Watershed health monitoring
0
3
Forest Service:Improve water quality on federal
lands
239
308
Agriculture Research Service:Watershed health
research
0
2
439
633
133
157
5
7
U.S. Geological Survey:Water monitoring and
assessment
125
147
Fish and Wildlife Service:Wetlands restoration
36
42
Bureau of Indian Affairs:Improve water quality
on tribal lands
0
5
299
358
Polluted runoff and toxic contaminants
0
13
Harmful algal blooms
0
9
0
22
Funding by Agency
Environmental Protection Agency:
State Grant Assistance
Water quality program management
Total, EPA
Department of Agriculture:
Natural Resources Conservation
Service:Environmental Quality Incentives
Program
Total, USDA
Department of the Interior:
Bureau of Land Management:Improve water
quality on federal lands
Office of Surface Mining:Clean streams
Total, DOI
National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration:
Total, NOAA
Army Corps of Engineers:
Wetlands program
106
117
0
25
106
142
Florida Everglades
228
282
California Bay Delta
85
143
Elimination of overlap between Everglades and
other water programs listed above
-5
-5
Total,Interagency projects
308
420
Total Clean Water and Watershed Restoration
Initiative (with Mandatory Spending)
1,636
2,204
Challenge 21:Floodplain restoration initiative
Total, ACE
Interagency Projects:
*Indicates Mandatory Spending
Source:Office of
Management and Budget
A Continuing Commitment to Clean Water
The publication of this Action Plan is just the beginning of a longterm effort. Many of the proposed actions will provide for later
public review and comment and federal agencies are committed to
working closely with states, tribes, and others to ensure successful
implementation of specific actions.
In addition, regular reports will keep the public apprised of progress
and remaining challenges. By the end of the year 2000 and
periodically thereafter, status reports on progress in implementing
watershed restoration plans and related programs will be provided to
the President, the nation's governors, tribal leaders, and the public.
Table of Contents | Next Section
Clean Water Initiative Home
EPA HOMEPAGE/ OFFICE OF WATER/ USDA HOME/ COMMENTS/ SEARCH
http://cleanwater.gov/action/overview.html
Revised August 10, 1998
APPENDIX B
2004 Fish Advisory Fact Sheet
(http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish)
EPA-823-F-05-004
September 2005
2004 National Listing of Fish Advisories
Summary
Since 1993, EPA has made available to the public its compendium of information on locally issued fish advisories and safe
eating guidelines. This information is provided to EPA annually by states, U.S. territories, tribes, and local governments, and
EPA makes this information easily accessible to the public every summer on its Web site
(http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/). States, U.S. territories, tribes, and local governments issue fish consumption advisories
and safe eating guidelines to inform people about the recommended level of consumption for fish caught in local waters. Fish
advisories are advice to limit or avoid eating certain fish. Safe eating guidelines are designations of monitored waters where
there is no restriction on eating fish. The 2004 National Listing of Fish Advisories database shows that the number of safe
eating guidelines issued continues to rise rapidly. Although states, U.S. territories, tribes, and local governments also continue to
issue new fish advisories, most new fish advisories involve mercury and are a result of increased monitoring and assessment
rather than increased U.S. releases of mercury. In fact, U.S. mercury emissions have declined by more than 45% since 1990.
On March 15, 2005, EPA issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule to permanently cap and reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired
power plants.
Background
The states, District of Columbia, U.S. territories, tribes, and local
governments (for simplicity, hereafter referred to as states)
have primary responsibility for protecting their residents from
the health risks of eating contaminated fish caught in local
waters. Forty-eight states, the District of Columbia, the U.S.
Territory of American Samoa, and three tribes have fish
consumption advisories in place. The states have developed
their own fish advisory programs over the years, and as a result
there is variability among states in the scope and extent of
monitoring, in how frequently previously tested waters are
sampled again, in how decisions are made to place waters
under advisory, and in the specific advice that is provided when
contamination is found in fish. Because of this variability, it is
difficult to draw national conclusions or to establish national
trends in fish advisories; however, through this Technical Fact
Sheet, EPA provides an annual summary of fish advisory
information submitted by states.
A consumption advisory may include recommendations to limit
or avoid eating certain fish and water-dependent wildlife species
caught from specific waterbodies or, in some cases, from
specific waterbody types (e.g., all lakes) due to contamination
by one or more particular contaminants. An advisory may be
issued for the general population (i.e., general public), including
recreational and subsistence fishers, or it may be issued
specifically for sensitive subpopulations, such as pregnant
women, nursing mothers, and children. A consumption advisory
is not a regulation, but rather a voluntary recommendation
issued to help protect public health.
No-consumption advisory for sensitive subpopulations
– Issued when contaminant levels in fish or wildlife pose a
health risk to sensitive subpopulations (such as children
and pregnant women). Sensitive subpopulations are
advised to avoid eating certain types of locally caught fish
or wildlife.
•
Restricted-consumption advisory for the general
population – Issued when contaminant levels in fish or
wildlife may pose a health risk if too much fish or wildlife is
consumed. The general population is advised to limit eating
certain types of locally caught fish or wildlife.
•
Restricted-consumption advisory for sensitive subpopulations – Issued when contaminant levels in fish or
wildlife may pose a health risk if too much fish or wildlife is
consumed. Sensitive subpopulations are advised to limit
eating certain types of locally caught fish or wildlife.
•
Commercial fishing ban – Issued when high levels of
contamination are found in fish caught for commercial
purposes. These bans prohibit the commercial harvest and
sale of fish and shellfish from a designated waterbody.
In addition to the five major types of advisories, states are
increasingly issuing notices of statewide advisories and safe
eating guidelines. A statewide advisory is issued to warn the
public of the potential human health risks from widespread
chemical contamination of certain species of fish from particular
types of waterbodies (e.g., lakes, rivers, and/or coastal waters)
within the state. An advisory for each waterbody name or type
of waterbody may be listed as one advisory, regardless of the
number of fish affected or the number of chemical contaminants
detected. In contrast, a safe eating guideline is issued to inform
the public that fish from specific waterbodies have been tested
for chemical contaminants, and the results have shown that
specific species of fish from these waters are safe to eat without
consumption restrictions. As states increase their monitoring
activities, the quantity of available information increases,
resulting in better public health protection.
States typically issue five major types of advisories and bans to
protect both the general population and specific subpopulations.
•
•
No-consumption advisory for the general population –
Issued when levels of chemical contamination in fish or
wildlife pose a health risk to the general public. The general
population is advised to avoid eating certain types of locally
caught fish or wildlife.
1
2004 National Listing of Fish Advisories Web
Site
Synopsis of 2004 National Listing of Fish
Advisories
The National Listing of Fish Advisories Web site provides
information on fish advisories issued by the federal government,
all 50 states, the District of Columbia, four U.S. territories, and
three tribes. The 2004 National Listing of Fish Advisories Web
site lists 3,221 advisories in 48 states, the District of Columbia,
1 territory, and 3 tribes. The Web site includes
In past years, EPA has reported fish advisories based on the
number of advisories in effect; however, this does not provide
an indication of the geographic extent of the advisory. For
example, a waterbody-specific advisory may be issued to cover
a single waterbody (e.g., a 20-acre lake), whereas a single
statewide lake advisory can cover all lake acres within the
state’s jurisdiction (up to 12,787,200 acres in one state).
Because of the dramatic range in the geographic size of lake
acres and river miles affected by a single advisory, the number
of advisories does not tell the full story of the geographic extent
of waters subject to state advice to limit fish consumption. Thus,
EPA is providing information on the total lake acres and total
river miles where advisories are currently in effect.
•
Information on species and size of fish or water-dependent
wildlife under advisory
•
Chemical contaminants identified in the advisory
•
Geographic location of the waterbody
•
Lake acreage or river miles under advisory
•
Population for whom the advisory was issued
•
Meal size and meal frequency (number of meals per week
or month) by advisory
•
Data on the concentrations of contaminants in fish tissue
for 48 states and the District of Columbia
•
State and tribal contact information.
The EPA 2004 National Listing of Fish Advisories indicates that
states reported that 395 new fish advisories were issued in
2004 and 65 previous advisories were reactivated, bringing the
total number of advisories in effect to 3,221 in 2004 (Figure 1).
Currently, the 3,221 advisories in the national listing represent
35% of the nation’s total lake acreage and 24% of the nation’s
total river miles. Approximately 14,285,062 lake acres and
839,441 river miles were under advisory in 2004. This
represents less than a 1% increase in the number of lake acres
and river miles that were under advisory in 2003, and the lowest
percentage increase since the National Listing of Fish
Advisories was created in 1993. The percentages of lake acres
The Web site can generate national, regional, and state maps
that summarize advisory information. The Web site also
includes the names of each state contact, a phone number, a
fax number, and an e-mail address.
Figure 1
Total Number of Fish Consumption Advisories – 2004
Please note that states may have a different counting method for fish advisories than the national method, so
advisory counts in Figure 1 may be slightly different than those reported by individual states.
2
and river miles under advisory in each state in 2004 are shown
in Figure 2. All (100%) of the Great Lakes and their connecting
waters were under advisory in 2004 (Table 1). The Great Lakes
and their connecting waters are considered separately from
other waters and are not included in the above calculations of
total lake acres or river miles.
Fifteen states have issued fish advisories for all of their coastal
waters (Table 2). Almost 65% of the coastline of the United
States (excluding Alaska, which has no advisories) currently is
under advisory. Based on coastal size estimates from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 92% of the
Atlantic coast and 100% of the Gulf coast were under advisory
in 2004 as was the case in 2003. The Atlantic coast advisories
have been issued for a wide variety of chemical contaminants,
including mercury, PCBs, dioxins, and cadmium. All of the Gulf
coast advisories have been issued for mercury. No Pacific coast
state has issued a statewide advisory for any of its coastal
waters, although several local areas along the Pacific coast are
under advisory. Hawaii has a statewide advisory in affect for
mercury in several marine fish species.
Figure 2
Percentage of Lake Acres/River Miles
Currently Under Advisory
Table 2. Summary of Statewide Advisories by Waterbody Type and
Year Issued
State
Lake
Issued
River
Issued
Mercury
1996
Mercury
1996
PCBs
1993
PCBs
1993
Mercury
2002
Mercury
2002
Alabama
Connecticut
Dist. of
Columbia
Florida
Georgia
In 2004, approximately 35% of the nation’s lake acres and 24%
of the nation’s river miles were under fish consumption
advisories.
Hawaii
Table 1. Fish Advisories Issued for the Great Lakes
Great
Lakes
Lake
Superior
PCBs
Dioxins
Mercury
Chlordane
z
z
z
z
Lake
Michigan
z
z
z
z
Lake Huron
z
z
z
z
Lake Erie
z
z
Lake
Ontario
z
z
Illinois
Mercury
2002
Mercury
2002
Indiana
Mercury
2004
Mercury
PCBs
1996
Kentucky
Mercury
2000
Mercury
2000
Mercury
1994
Mercury
1994
Louisiana
Mirex
Maine
DDT
z
Maryland
Mercury
2001
Mercury
2004
Massachusetts
Mercury
1996
Mercury
1996
Michigan
Mercury
1993
Minnesota
Mercury
PCBs
1999
Mercury
2001
Mercury
2001
Montana
Mercury
2003
Mercury
2003
New
Hampshire
Mercury
1995
Mercury
New Jersey
Mercury
1995
Mercury
1993
Mercury
2000
Mercury*
2003
Mercury
1997
Dioxins
Mercury
PCBs
1994
1995
PCBs
Mercury
Dioxin
1994
Mercury
1995
PCBs
Dioxins
1993
PCBs
Chlordane
Mirex
DDT
1994
Cadmium
Dioxins
PCBs
1995
Mercury
2000
Mercury
2001
PCBs
Mercury
1993
South Carolina
Mercury
2001
Texas
Mercury
1997
1994
PCBs
Chlordane
Mirex
DDT
North Carolina
North Dakota
Mercury
2001
Ohio
Mercury
1997
Mercury
1997
Pennsylvania
Mercury
2001
Mercury
2001
Rhode Island
Mercury
2002
Mercury
2002
Vermont
Mercury
1995
Mercury
1995
Washington
Mercury
2003
Mercury
2003
Wisconsin
Mercury
2000
Mercury
2000
* Hawaii has a statewide advisory for mercury in marine fish.
3
1993
1998
New York
In addition to the Great Lakes, other large lakes and estuaries
are currently under advisory for a variety of contaminants. For
example, the main stem of the Chesapeake Bay is under
advisory for the first time. The Potomac, James, Back,
Anacostia, Piankatank, and Patapsco rivers that connect to the
Chesapeake Bay continue to be under advisory. Baltimore
Harbor, which also connects to the Chesapeake Bay, is under
advisory for chlordane and PCB contamination in fish and blue
crabs.
1996
PCBs
Mercury
Missouri
A statewide advisory is issued to warn the public of the potential
for contamination of specific species of fish or water-dependent
wildlife (e.g., turtles or waterfowl) in certain types of waterbodies
(e.g., lakes, rivers, or coastal waters) across the state. Thirtyone states had statewide advisories in effect in 2004, the same
number as in 2003 (Table 2). Indiana reported a new statewide
advisory for lakes in 2004.
Mercury
1994
Mississippi
The number of lake acres and river miles under advisory is
related to the number of assessments of chemical contaminants
in fish and water-dependent wildlife tissues, as well as the
states’ use of statewide advisories.
Issued
PCBs
Mercury
z
z
Coastal
Waters
public toward making more informed decisions about the
waterbodies in which they fish, as well as healthier choices
about the species that they choose to eat.
Safe Eating Guidelines
EPA has been encouraging states to issue safe eating
guidelines when providing advisory information. In addition to
issuing statewide advisories warning the public about chemical
contaminants in fish tissue, states are increasingly issuing safe
eating guidelines to inform the public that fish from specific
waterbodies or certain species of fish have been tested for
chemical contaminants and have been shown to contain very
low levels of contaminants. By issuing safe eating guidelines,
the states are identifying monitored waters or species for the
public where no restrictions on eating fish apply, as well as
promoting enjoyment of recreational fishing.
Bioaccumulative Contaminants
Bioaccumulative chemical contaminants accumulate in the
tissues of aquatic organisms at concentrations many times
higher than concentrations in the water. Bioaccumulative
chemical contaminants can persist for relatively long periods in
sediments, where bottom-dwelling organisms that are low in the
food chain can accumulate them and pass them up the food
chain to fish. Concentrations of bioaccumulative contaminants
in the tissues of aquatic organisms may increase at each level
of the food chain. As a result, top predators in a food chain,
such as largemouth bass or walleye, may have concentrations
of bioaccumulative contaminants in their tissues a million times
higher than the concentrations found in the waterbodies.
In 1993, the first year that the National Listing of Fish Advisories
collected data on safe eating guidelines, there were only 20
such guidelines in effect. This number increased very slowly
until 2004, when Arkansas, Georgia, and Minnesota reported
827 new safe eating guidelines, increasing the total number of
safe eating guidelines to 1,213 in 2004. This 2004 increase
represented almost half of all safe eating guidelines issued
since 1993. Table 3 shows the trend in the issuance of safe
eating guidelines since 1993. As of December 31, 2004, 17
states have issued safe eating guidelines. No tribes have
issued safe eating guidelines. The largest numbers of such
guidelines have been issued by Minnesota (835), Georgia
(159), South Carolina (75), and Texas (45). Three states have
issued statewide guidelines. In 2001, Alaska issued a statewide
guideline to inform the public that all of Alaska’s fish are safe to
eat without restrictions. In 2002, Wisconsin issued a safe eating
guideline for bluegill and other sunfish, yellow perch, white and
black crappie, and bullheads in all lakes statewide. Minnesota
issued a similar guideline for panfish in all lakes statewide.
There are a few waterbody-specific exceptions to the safe
eating guidelines, so consumers are advised to review
waterbody-specific information on state Web sites.
Although there are advisories in the United States for 36
chemical contaminants, almost 98% of advisories in effect in
2004 involved five bioaccumulative chemical contaminants:
mercury, PCBs, chlordane, dioxins, and DDT. In this regard,
considerable progress has been made towards reducing the
occurrence of these contaminants in the environment. US
human-caused emissions of mercury to the air have declined
more than 45% since 1990 and EPA has issued regulations that
will result in further reduction of mercury emissions. For
example, on March 15, 2005, EPA issued the Clean Air Mercury
Rule (CAMR) to permanently cap and reduce mercury
emissions from coal-fired power plants. CAMR supplements
EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to significantly reduce
emissions from coal-fired power plants. When fully
implemented, these rules are estimated to reduce utility
emissions of mercury nearly 70 percent. In addition, production
of PCBs for use ceased in 1977; chlordane was banned in
1988; DDT was banned in 1972; and known and quantifiable
industrial emissions of dioxin in the United States are estimated
to have been reduced by approximately 90% from 1987 levels.
Table 3. Total Safe Eating Guidelines Issued Since 1993
Year Issued
New Advisories
Cumulative Advisories
1993
20
20
Mercury
1994
12
32
1995
35
67
1996
10
77
1997
2
79
1998
25
104
1999
44
148
2000
7
155
The total number of advisories for mercury increased from
2,362 in 2003 to 2,436 in 2004, with 44 states, 1 territory, and 2
tribes issuing mercury advisories. Seventy-six percent of all
advisories have been issued, at least in part, because of
mercury. The increase in the number of mercury advisories in
2004 can be attributed to the issuance of new mercury
advisories by 20 states and 1 tribe. Most of these new
advisories were issued by Florida and Minnesota. To date, 44
states, 2 tribes and 1 territory have issued mercury advisories.
Alaska, District of Columbia, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, Utah,
and Wyoming did not issue advisories in either 2003 or 2004. In
2004, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe was the only state or
tribe to issue a mercury advisory for the first time.
2001
20
175
2002
164
339
2003
47
386
2004
827
1,213
A total of 13,183,748 lake acres and 765,399 river miles were
under advisory for mercury in 2004. This represents a decrease
of 1,467 river miles under advisory between 2003 and 2004.
The decrease is a result of changes in waterbody-specific
mercury advisories in several states. The total number of river
miles under advisory decreased in Minnesota, Michigan,
Louisiana, Nebraska, and Georgia, as well as other states. The
number of lake acres under advisory in 2004 represents an
increase of 114,758 lake acres between 2003 and 2004. The
increase is a result of changes to waterbody-specific advisories
in several states as well as the addition of Indiana’s statewide
advisory for lakes.
In 2004, 2.4% of river miles and 18% of lake acres in the
continental United States had safe eating guidelines for at least
one fish species. Approximately 76,069 river miles and
5,047,921 lake acres had safe eating guidelines in 2004.
Between 2003 and 2004 the area for which there were safe
eating guidelines increased by 9,530 river miles and 3,808,605
lake acres. In addition, the number of these guidelines is likely
to grow as more states identify safe fishing waters or species
(e.g., sunfish and other panfish) that do not tend to accumulate
chemical contaminants in their tissues to the same extent as
long-lived predatory species (e.g., largemouth bass, walleye,
northern pike, catfish). These guidelines will help direct the
4
Currently, 21 states (Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont,
Washington, and Wisconsin) have issued statewide advisories
for mercury in freshwater lakes and/or rivers. Twelve states
(Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts,
Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island,
South Carolina, and Texas) have statewide advisories for
mercury in their coastal waters. Hawaii has a statewide advisory
for mercury in marine fish. The Micmac tribe of Maine has two
tribal statewide advisories in effect for mercury in freshwater
and marine fish (including lobster). In addition, the Cheyenne
River Sioux Tribe has one tribal statewide for mercury in rivers,
lakes, and stock ponds.
effect in 2004 (14), followed by Maine (13) and Massachusetts
(10). During 2004, Massachusetts issued 10 new advisories for
DDT, and New York had an existing statewide advisory for
multiple contaminants, including DDT.
Other Contaminants
Although the five bioaccumulative contaminants account for
almost 98% of the total number of advisories, the remaining 2%
of all fish advisories are caused by other contaminants. These
include heavy metals (e.g., arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
copper, lead, selenium, and zinc) and organochlorine pesticides
(e.g., dieldrin, heptachlor epoxide, kepone, mirex, and
toxaphene), as well as a myriad of other chemical compounds,
including creosote, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
hexachlorobenzene, pentachlorophenol, and diethylphthalate.
In 2004, eight states issued new advisories for these
contaminants: Delaware (not specified), Georgia (toxaphene),
Indiana (not specified), Massachusetts (pesticides), Maryland
(chlorinated pesticides), New York (mirex), Ohio (mirex), and
Utah (arsenic). Washington also added diethylphthalate to an
existing advisory. In contrast, other states rescinded advisories
for aldrin, dichloroethane, gasoline, lindane, trichloroethane,
and vinyl chloride.
PCBs
In 2004, there were 873 advisories in place for PCBs, with 39
states, American Samoa, and the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe
reporting PCB advisories in 2004. This represents a decrease in
the number of PCB advisories since 2003 when there were 884
PCB advisories. Although 17 states added new advisories for
PCBs in 2004, 55 advisories were rescinded. There were
4,652,401 lake acres and 110,522 river miles under PCB
advisory in 2004. Four states (District of Columbia, Indiana,
Minnesota, and New York) issued statewide freshwater (river
and/or lake) advisories for PCBs, and seven other states
(Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island) issued PCB advisories for
all of their coastal marine waters in 2004.
Although these other chemical contaminants represent only 2%
of the total number of advisories, the extent of the area under
advisory for these contaminants slightly exceeds the lake acres
and river miles under advisory for DDT. In 2004, 2,176,525 lake
acres and 102,938 river miles were under advisories for these
contaminants. The majority of lake acres and river miles under
advisory for other chemical contaminants are the result of a
statewide advisory in New York for multiple contaminants,
including mirex, a regional advisory in Mississippi for
toxaphene, and a statewide advisory in Maine for cadmium.
Chlordane
Many advisories for the pesticide chlordane have been
rescinded in recent years, primarily because all uses of chlordane were banned in the United States in 1988 and the
compound continues to degrade in the environment. In 2003,
there were 89 chlordane advisories. In 2004, that number
decreased to 79 chlordane advisories. Chlordane advisories
covered 847,242 lake acres and 54,132 river miles in 2004.
Wildlife Advisories
In addition to advisories for fish and shellfish, the National
Listing of Fish Advisories Web site also contains several waterdependent wildlife advisories. In 2004, no new advisories were
issued for water-dependent wildlife. States have issued
advisories in previous years that are still in effect. Four states
have issued consumption advisories for turtles: Massachusetts
(1), Minnesota (6), New York (statewide advisory), and Rhode
Island (1). In addition, Massachusetts has an advisory for frogs;
New York has a statewide advisory for waterfowl; Utah has an
advisory for American coot and ducks; and Maine issued a
statewide advisory for cadmium in moose liver and kidneys.
Dioxins
In 2003 there were 90 existing dioxin advisories. In 2004,
Massachusetts issued 5 new dioxin advisories; Hawaii issued 1
new dioxin advisory; Maine added dioxin to 7 existing advisories
for other contaminants; and Michigan, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, Oregon, and Texas also added dioxin to existing
advisories, bringing the total number of dioxin advisories to 106.
A total of 22,757 lake acres and 2,335 river miles were under a
dioxin advisory in 2004. Although dioxins are one of the five
major contaminants that have resulted in the issuance of health
advisories, the geographic extent of dioxin advisories is
extremely limited compared to that for the other four major
contaminants. This is due in part to the limited monitoring of
dioxins resulting from the high cost of contaminant analysis.
Also, dioxins have been associated primarily with specific
locations near some pulp and paper plants that use a bleach
kraft process, as well as with other types of chemical
manufacturing facilities or incineration facilities.
National Advice Concerning Mercury in Fish
In 2004, EPA and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
issued advice for women who might become pregnant, women
who are pregnant, nursing mothers, and young children. The
national advice is not included in the statistics presented in this
fact sheet. The following advice is still in effect:
Fish and shellfish are an important part of a healthy diet. Fish
and shellfish contain high-quality protein and other essential
nutrients, are low in saturated fat, and contain omega-3 fatty
acids. A well-balanced diet that includes a variety of fish and
shellfish can contribute to heart health and children’s proper
growth and development; therefore, women and young children
in particular should include fish or shellfish in their diets due to
the many nutritional benefits.
DDT
Although the use of DDT, an organochlorine pesticide, has
been banned since 1975, there were 67 advisories in effect for
DDT (and its degradation products, DDE and DDD) in 2004. In
2003 there were 52 advisories in effect. There are currently
843,762 lake acres and 69,010 river miles under advisory for
DDT. California had the greatest number of DDT advisories in
Nearly all fish and shellfish, however, contain traces of mercury.
For most people, the risk from mercury from eating fish and
shellfish is not a health concern. Yet some fish and shellfish
5
contain higher levels of mercury that may harm an unborn baby
or young child’s developing nervous system. The risks from
mercury in fish and shellfish depend on the amount of fish and
shellfish eaten and the levels of mercury in the fish and
shellfish. Therefore, the FDA and EPA are advising women who
may become pregnant, pregnant women, nursing mothers, and
young children to avoid some types of fish and to only eat fish
and shellfish that are lower in mercury.
Follow these same recommendations when including fish and
shellfish in a young child’s diet, but serve smaller portions. More
information on the joint federal advisory is available at
www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish.
For More Information
For more information on specific advisories within a state,
contact the appropriate state agency listed on the National
Listing of Fish Advisories Web site at www.epa.gov/
waterscience/fish. This is particularly important for advisories
that recommend that consumers restrict their consumption of
fish from certain waterbodies. For restricted consumption
advisories, state health departments provide specific
information on the meal size and meal frequency (number of
meals per week or month) that is considered safe to eat.
By following the three recommendations listed below for
selecting and eating fish or shellfish, women and young children
will receive the benefits of eating fish and shellfish and be
confident that they have reduced their exposure to the harmful
effects of mercury.
•
Do not eat shark, swordfish, king mackerel, or tilefish
because they contain high levels of mercury.
•
Eat up to 12 ounces (2 average meals) a week of a variety
of fish and shellfish that are lower in mercury.
-
-
•
For more information on how to reduce exposure, consult EPA’s
brochure What You Need to Know About Mercury in Fish and
Shellfish, available in several languages on EPA’s fish advisory
Web site: www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish.
Five of the most commonly consumed fish that are low in
mercury are shrimp, canned light tuna, salmon, pollock,
and catfish.
For more information on the National Fish and Wildlife
Contamination Program, contact:
Jeff Bigler
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Science and Technology (4305T)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone 202-566-0389
E-mail bigler.jeff@epa.gov
Another commonly eaten fish, albacore (“white”) tuna
has more mercury than canned light tuna. Eat up to 6
ounces (one average meal) of albacore tuna per week.
Check local advisories about the safety of fish caught by
family and friends in local lakes, rivers, and coastal areas.
If no advice is available, eat up to 6 ounces (one average
meal) per week of fish caught from local waters, but do not
consume any other fish during that week.
6
APPENDIX C
Federal Register Notice for Original Information Collection Request
for the National Listing of Advisories April 21, 2000 (Volume 65,
Number 78, pages 21415–21416).
Federal Register Notice for Renewal Information Collection Request
for the National Listing of Advisories August 14, 2003 (Volume 68,
Number 157, pages 48605–48606).
21415
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Notices
CAG–23.
Omitted
CAG–24.
Docket#, CP00–14, 000, Buccaneer Gas
Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
Other#s, CP00–15, 000, Buccaneer Gas
Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
CP00–16, 000, Buccaneer Gas Pipeline
Company, L.L.C.
CAG–25.
Docket#, CP00–45, 000, Eastern Shore
Natural Gas Company
CAG–26.
Docket#, CP00–6, 000, Gulfstream Natural
Gas System, L.L.C.
Other#s, CP00–7, 000, Gulfstream Natural
Gas System, L.L.C.
CP00–8, 000, Gulfstream Natural Gas
System, L.L.C.
CAG–27.
Omitted
CAG–28.
Docket#, CP96–684, 001, Interenergy
Sheffield Processing Company, Bear Paw
Energy, L.L.C.
CAG–29.
Omitted
CAG–30.
Docket#, RP99–471, 001, Williams Field
Services Group, Inc. v. El Paso Natural
Gas Company
CAG–31.
Docket#, CP97–315, 003, Independence
Pipeline Company
Other#s, CP97–319, 002, ANR Pipeline
Company
CP97–320, 001, Independence Pipeline
Company
CP97–321, 001, Independence Pipeline
Company
CP98–200, 002, National Fuel Gas Supply
Corporation
CP98–540, 002, Transcontinental Gas Pipe
Line Corporation
CAG–32.
Docket#, CP96–687, 002, Iroquois Gas
Transmission System
Hydro Agenda
[FRL–6582–7]
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Information
Collection Request for the National
Listing of Advisories
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), this document announces
that EPA is planning to submit the
following new Information Collection
Request (ICR) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB):
Information Collection Request for the
National Listing of Advisories (EPA ICR
Number 1959.01). Before submitting the
ICR to OMB for review and approval,
EPA is soliciting comments on specific
aspects of the proposed information
collection as described below.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on
or before June 20, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Jeffrey Bigler, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Science and Technology, 401
M Street SW., Maildrop 4305,
Washington, DC 20460, (202) 260–1305,
by e-mail at bigler.jeff@epa.gov, or
download a copy off the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/icr and refer to EPA
ICR No. 1959.01.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jeffrey Bigler at EPA, (202) 260–1305, by
e-mail at bigler.jeff@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Affected Entities
H–1.
Reserved
Entities potentially affected by this
action are those which issue fish
consumption advisories within their
state, territory, or tribal jurisdictions.
Electric Agenda
E–1.
Reserved
Title
Information Collection Request for the
National Listing of Advisories (EPA ICR
Number 1959.01). This is a request for
a new collection.
Oil and Gas Agenda
I.
Pipeline Rate Matters
PR–1.
Reserved
II.
Pipeline Certificate Matters
PC–1.
Reserved
Abstract
David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00–10204 Filed 4–19–00; 3:51 pm]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
VerDate 182000
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
22:08 Apr 20, 2000
Release of chemical contaminants into
our Nation’s waters from industrial
pollution, sprawling urbanization, and
introduction of new pesticides in
agriculture poses potentially serious
public health problems. Recent studies
have confirmed that adverse health
effects can result from consumption of
chemically-contaminated fish from
contaminated waters. These adverse
affects have been one of EPA’s long
Jkt 190000
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
standing concerns. They are also
directly related to such Clean Water Act
responsibilities as water quality
standards, surface water quality, and to
the Agency’s effort to ensure that the
waters of the United States are both
‘‘fishable’’ and ‘‘swimmable.’’ Based on
results from the 1998 National Listing of
Fish and Wildlife Advisories (NLFWA)
database, fish consumption advisories
have been issued by 47 states and from
100 to 200 new advisories are issued
every year nationwide.
EPA believes there is a need to
maintain and improve the existing
quality and availability of public
information concerning fish advisories,
which includes but is not limited to
monitoring and risk assessment
activities and the issuance of advisories.
Primary responsibility for these
activities lies with each state, territory,
or tribal jurisdiction, however, several
agencies often share responsibilities for
these activities. Consequently, EPA’s
Office of Water will conduct an annual
fish advisory survey which will be sent
to environmental and health officials
from state, territorial, and tribal agencies
specifically responsible for the issuance
of fish advisories. This survey will
collect information (electronically via
the Internet and on paper) on the
location of advisories and agencies and
persons responsible for maintaining and
issuing advisories for lakes and rivers,
and for estuarine and coastal marine
waterbodies. Responses to the
questionnaire (either on paper or
electronically via the Internet) are
needed to assess public health risks of
consuming chemically-contaminated
fish, and to make this information
available to the public.
The EPA will use the information to
update existing advisory information in
the EPA’s National Listing of Fish and
Wildlife Advisories (NLFWA) electronic
database which has archived fish
advisory data since 1994. The results of
the nationwide data collection effort are
shared with the states, territories, tribes,
other federal agencies and the general
public through access to the NLFWA
database which can be queried for
specific information and through
distribution of the annual Fish Advisory
Fact Sheet via the Internet. Results of
this and past surveys will be available
at EPA’s NLFWA web site (http://
www.epa.gov/OST/fish/). Information
from these surveys has stimulated
nationwide dialogue on fish
consumption advisories involving
agencies and the public. This
information is being used to identify
and clarify issues that will lead to the
continued development of national
guidance to assist states on sampling
E:\FR\FM\21APN1.SGM
pfrm01
PsN: 21APN1
21416
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Notices
and analysis, risk assessment
procedures, risk management practices,
and risk communication procedures that
will further protect human health.
The purpose of the new collection is
two-fold. First, the survey is needed to
continue to collect and update
quantitative information on the number
of advisories issued by states, territories,
and tribes annually, including detailed
information on species sampled,
chemical contaminants involved,
waterbodies under advisory (including
freshwater, estuarine, and marine
waterbodies), target populations to
which the advisory refers (e.g., pregnant
women, nursing mothers, and young
children), geographic location of each
advisory, and tissue residue data
supporting the states’ advisories. In
addition, the expanded questionnaire
portion of the survey will provide
information on monitoring procedures
used to collect and analyze fish
samples, risk assessment methodologies
used to evaluate fish tissue residue data
and issue advisories, and risk
communication procedures used to
communicate the human health risks of
consuming chemically-contaminated
species. From this information, EPA can
determine how to most effectively
provide assistance to state, territorial,
and tribal fish advisory programs to
improve effectiveness among
jurisdictions through the use of
appropriate procedures for sampling,
chemical analysis, risk assessment, and
risk communication. Completion of this
survey is voluntary and the information
requested is part of the state public
record associated with issuing the
advisories. Over the last few years, the
states have requested guidance from
EPA in their fish advisory programs and
a more comprehensive questionnaire
will provide the states with the
opportunity to identify those advisory
areas for which they most need EPA
assistance.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed
in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
The EPA would like to solicit
comments to:
(i) Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
VerDate 182000
22:08 Apr 20, 2000
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
(iv) Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses.
Burden Statement:
The annual public reporting and
record keeping burden for this
collection of information is estimated to
average 36.5 hours per response. Burden
means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to
generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal
agency. This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and
systems for the purposes of collecting,
validating, and verifying information,
processing and maintaining
information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
Respondents/Affected Entities: State,
territory, and tribal environmental and
health agencies (50 states, District of
Columbia, 5 territories, and 36 tribal
agencies).
Estimated Number of Respondents:
92.
Frequency of Response: Annually.
Estimated Total Annual Hours
Burden: 3,358 hours.
Estimated Total Annualized Cost
Burden (non-labor costs): $552.00.
Geoffrey H. Grubbs,
Director, Office of Science and Technology.
[FR Doc. 00–10035 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Jkt 190000
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL–6583–9]
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request; Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) Corrective Action Information
Request
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), this document announces
that the following Information
Collection Request (ICR) has been
forwarded to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval: RCRA Corrective Action
Information Request (EPA ICR No.
1939.01). The ICR describes the nature
of the information collection and its
expected burden and cost; where
appropriate, it includes the actual data
collection instrument.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on
or before May 22, 2000.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
a copy of the ICR contact Sandy Farmer
at EPA by phone at (202) 260–2740, by
email at farmer.sandy@epamail.epa.gov,
or download off the Internet at http://
www.epa.gov/icr and refer to EPA ICR
No. 1939.01. For technical questions
about the ICR contact Heather Harris at
(703) 308–6101.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action
Information Request (EPA ICR No.
1939.01). This is a new collection.
Abstract: This information collection
is in response to an April 15, 1999
request from Congress concerning the
RCRA Corrective Action program.
Included in this inquiry were certain
questions which only the state offices
have the information to answer. EPA
intends to obtain this information from
the states by means of a questionnaire.
The questionnaire includes facility
specific questions on all RCRA Cleanup
Baseline facilities, enforcement orders,
state authority, and federal funding.
Responses to this request will be
mandatory and all information will be
used to respond to Congress and to
provide an accurate picture of the
current state of the program. An agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number. The OMB control numbers for
E:\FR\FM\21APN1.SGM
pfrm01
PsN: 21APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 157 / Thursday, August 14, 2003 / Notices
via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission’s Web
site under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link. The
Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 03–20687 Filed 8–13–03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[OW–2003–0076, FRL–7544–3]
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; National Listing of
Advisories, EPA ICR Number 1959.02,
OMB Control Number 2040–0026
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), this document announces
that EPA is planning to submit a
continuing Information Collection
Request (ICR) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). This is
a request to renew an existing approved
collection. This ICR is scheduled to
expire on January 31, 2004. Before
submitting the ICR to OMB for review
and approval, EPA is soliciting
comments on specific aspects of the
proposed information collection as
described below.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on
or before October 14, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
referencing Docket ID No. OW–2003–
0076, to EPA online using EDOCKET
(our preferred method), by e-mail to
OW-Docket@epa.gov, or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Water Docket
MC4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC 20460, attention:
Information Collection Request for the
National Listing of Advisories.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jeffrey D. Bigler, National Program
Manager, National Fish and Wildlife
Contamination Program (4305T), Office
of Science and Technology, U.S. EPA,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number: (202) 566–0389; fax number:
(202) 566–0409; e-mail address:
bigler.jeff@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA
has established a public docket for this
ICR under Docket ID number OW–2003–
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:25 Aug 13, 2003
Jkt 200001
0076, which is available for public
viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West,
Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket
Center Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and
the telephone number for the Water
Docket is (202) 566–2426. An electronic
version of the public docket is available
through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at
http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Use
EDOCKET to obtain a copy of the draft
collection of information, submit or
view public comments, access the index
listing of the contents of the public
docket, and to access those documents
in the public docket that are available
electronically. Once in the system,
select ‘‘search,’’ then key in the docket
ID number identified above.
Any comments related to this ICR
should be submitted to EPA within 60
days of this notice. The EPA’s policy is
that public comments, whether
submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public
viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives
them and without change, unless the
comment contains copyrighted material,
CBI, or other information whose public
disclosure is restricted by statute. When
EPA identifies a comment containing
copyrighted material, EPA will provide
a reference to that material in the
version of the comment that is placed in
EDOCKET. The entire printed comment,
including the copyrighted material, will
be available in the public docket.
Although identified as an item in the
official docket, information claimed as
CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise
restricted by statute, is not included in
the official public docket, and will not
be available for public viewing in
EDOCKET. For further information
about the electronic docket, see EPA’s
Federal Register notice describing the
electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 (May
31, 2002), or go to http://www.epa.gov./
edocket.
Affected entities: Entities potentially
affected by this action are
Administrators of Public Health and
Environmental Quality Programs in
State and tribal governments (NAICS
92312/SIC 9431 and NAICS 92411/SIC
9511).
Title: National Listing of Advisories.
Abstract: The National Listing of Fish
and Wildlife Advisories (NLFWA)
Database contains information on the
number of new advisories issued by
each state, territory, or tribe annually.
The advisory information collected
identifies the waterbody under advisory,
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
48605
the fish or shellfish species and size
ranges included in the advisory, the
chemical contaminants and residue
levels causing the advisory to be issued,
the waterbody type (river, lake, estuary,
coastal waters), and the target
populations to whom the advisory is
directed. This information is collected
under the authority of section 104 of the
Clean Water Act, which provides for the
collection of information to be used to
protect human health and the
environment. The results of the survey
are shared with states, territories, tribes,
other federal agencies, and the general
public through the NLFWA database
and the distribution of annual fish
advisories fact sheets. The responses to
the survey are voluntary and the
information requested is part of the state
public record associated with the
advisories. No confidential business
information is requested. An agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number. The OMB control numbers for
EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR. The EPA
would like to are listed in 40 CFR part
9.
The EPA would like to solicit
comments to:
(i) Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the Agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the
Agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
(iv) Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses.
Burden Statement: The annual public
reporting burden for the collection of
information (averaged over the first
three years of the information collection
request) is 3,566 labor hours per year.
This includes one response per year
from 92 respondents with an average of
38.76 hours per response. The total
annualized cost to the respondents is
estimated at $529.00. No capital or
startup costs are required. Burden
means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to
generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
E:\FR\FM\14AUN1.SGM
14AUN1
48606
Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 157 / Thursday, August 14, 2003 / Notices
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.
Dated: August 8, 2003.
Geoffrey H. Grubbs,
Director, Office of Science and Technology.
[FR Doc. 03–20779 Filed 8–13–03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[OW–2003–0064, FRL–7544–6]
Agency Information Collection
Activity: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Questionnaire for
Nominees for the Annual National
Clean Water Act Recognition Awards
Program, EPA ICR 1287.06, OMB
Control Number 2040–0101
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), this document announces
that EPA is planning to submit a
continuing Information Collection
Request (ICR) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). This is
a request to renew an existing approved
collection. This ICR is scheduled to
expire on February 29, 2004. Before
submitting the ICR to OMB for review
and approval, EPA is soliciting
comments on specific aspects of the
proposed information collection as
described below.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on
or before October 14, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
referencing docket ID number OW–
2003–0064, to EPA online using
EDOCKET (our preferred method), by
e-mail to ow-docket@epa.gov, or by mail
to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water
Docket, MC 4101–T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Maria E. Campbell, Municipal
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:25 Aug 13, 2003
Jkt 200001
Assistance Branch, MC 4204–M,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number: 202–564–
0628; fax number: 202–501–2396; e-mail
address: campbell.maria@epa.gov.
EPA has
established a public docket for this ICR
under Docket ID number OW–2003–
0064, which is available for public
viewing at the Office of Water Docket in
the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA
West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA
Docket Center Public Reading Room is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and
the telephone number for the Office of
Water Docket is (202) 566–2426. An
electronic version of the public docket
is available through EPA Dockets
(EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/
edocket. Use EDOCKET to obtain a copy
of the draft collection of information,
submit or view public comments, access
the index listing of the contents of the
public docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are
available electronically. Once in the
system, select ‘‘search,’’ then key in the
docket ID number identified above.
Any comments related to this ICR
should be submitted to EPA within 60
days of this notice. EPA’s policy is that
public comments, whether submitted
electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing in
EDOCKET as EPA receives them and
without change, unless the comment
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or
other information whose public
disclosure is restricted by statue. When
EPA identifies a comment containing
copyrighted material, EPA will provide
a reference to that material in the
version of the comment that is placed in
EDOCKET. The entire printed comment,
including copyrighted material, will be
available in the public docket. Although
identified as an item in the official
docket, information claimed as CBI, or
whose disclosure is otherwise restricted
by statute, is not included in the official
public docket, and will not be available
for public viewing in EDOCKET. For
further information about the electronic
docket, see EPA’s Federal Register
notice describing the electronic docket
at 67 FR 38102 (May 31, 2002), or go to
http://www.epa.gov./edocket.
Affected entities: Entities potentially
affected by this action are public
wastewater treatment plants,
municipalities, industries, universities,
manufacturing sites and States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Title: Questionnaire for Nominees for
the Annual National Clean Water Act
Recognition Awards Program.
Abstract: This ICR requests reapproval to collect data from EPA’s
National Clean Water Act Recognition
Awards nominees. The awards are for
the following program categories:
Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
Excellence, Biosolids (Biosolids)
Management Excellence, Combined
Sewer Overflow Control (CSO) Program
Excellence and Storm Water (SW)
Management Excellence.
Note: Information collection approval for
the Pretreatment Awards Program is included
in the National Pretreatment Program ICR
(OMB No. 2040.0009, EPA ICR No. 0002.09),
approved through September 30, 2003. The
National Clean Water Act Recognition
Awards Program is managed by EPA’s Office
of Wastewater Management (OWM). The
Awards Program is authorized under Section
501(e) of the Clean Water Act, as amended.
The Awards Program is intended to provide
recognition to municipalities and industries
which have demonstrated outstanding
technological achievements, innovative
processes, devices or other outstanding
methods in their waste treatment and
pollution abatement programs.
Approximately 50 awards are presented
annually. The achievements of these award
winners are summarized in reports, news
articles, national publications, and Federal
Register Notice.
Submission of information on behalf
of the respondents is voluntary. No
confidential information is requested.
The Agency only collects information
from award nominees under 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. An agency may not conduct
or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
The OMB control numbers for EPA’s
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40
CFR part 9. Based on the data collection,
national panels will evaluate the
nominees’ efforts and recommend
finalists. The collections will be used by
the respective awards programs to
evaluate and determine which
abatement achievements should be
recognized. A regulation in the Federal
Register on February 8, 2002, (67 FR
6138, February 8, 2002) establishes a
framework for the annual Clean Water
Act Recognition Awards.
As currently structured, the O&M
awards category has nine sub-categories
which recognize municipal
achievements. The biosolids awards
category has four sub-categories which
recognize municipal biosolids
operations, technology and research
E:\FR\FM\14AUN1.SGM
14AUN1
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 70 / Thursday, April 12, 2007 / Notices
particular application, either a
competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an
application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development
application allows an interested person
to file the competing application no
later than 120 days after the specified
comment date for the particular
application. A competing license
application must conform with 18 CFR
4.30(b) and 4.36.
p. Notice of Intent: A notice of intent
must specify the exact name, business
address, and telephone number of the
prospective applicant, and must include
an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be
filed, either a preliminary permit
application or a development
application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be
served on the applicant(s) named in this
public notice.
q. Proposed Scope of Studies Under
Permit: A preliminary permit, if issued,
does not authorize construction. The
term of the proposed preliminary permit
would be 36 months. The work
proposed under the preliminary permit
would include economic analysis,
preparation of preliminary engineering
plans, and a study of environmental
impacts. Based on the results of these
studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation
of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
r. Comments, Protests, or Motions To
Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to
intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211,
385.214. In determining the appropriate
action to take, the Commission will
consider all protests or other comments
filed, but only those who file a motion
to intervene in accordance with the
Commission’s Rules may become a
party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must
be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular
application.
s. Filing and Service of Responsive
Documents: Any filings must bear in all
capital letters the title ‘‘COMMENTS’’,
‘‘NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE
COMPETING APPLICATION’’,
‘‘COMPETING APPLICATION’’,
‘‘PROTEST’’, and ‘‘MOTION TO
INTERVENE’’, as applicable, and the
Project Number of the particular
application to which the filing refers.
Any of the above-named documents
must be filed by providing the original
and the number of copies provided by
the Commission’s regulations to: The
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:49 Apr 11, 2007
Jkt 211001
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. An additional
copy must be sent to Director, Division
of Hydropower Administration and
Compliance, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, at the above-mentioned
address. A copy of any notice of intent,
competing application or motion to
intervene must also be served upon each
representative of the Applicant
specified in the particular application.
t. Agency Comments: Federal, state,
and local agencies are invited to file
comments on the described application.
A copy of the application may be
obtained by agencies directly from the
Applicant. If an agency does not file
comments within the time specified for
filing comments, it will be presumed to
have no comments. One copy of an
agency’s comments must also be sent to
the Applicant’s representatives.
Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7–6922 Filed 4–11–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–HQ–OW–2007–0201; FRL–8297–9]
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Information
Collection Request for the National
Listing of Fish Advisories, EPA ICR
Number 1959.03, OMB Control Number
2040–0226
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), this document announces
that EPA is planning to submit a request
to renew an existing approved
Information Collection Request (ICR) to
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). This ICR is scheduled to expire
on September 30, 2007. Before
submitting the ICR to OMB for review
and approval, EPA is soliciting
comments on specific aspects of the
proposed information collection as
described below.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on
or before June 11, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OW–2007–0201, by one of the following
methods:
• www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18475
• E-mail: OW-Docket@epa.gov.
• Fax: 202–566–9744.
• Mail: EPA Docket Center
[Information Collection Request for the
National Listing of Fish Advisories],
Environmental Protection Agency,
Water Docket MC4101T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460.
• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket, EPA
West Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2007–
0201. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an e-mail
comment directly to EPA without going
through www.regulations.gov your
e-mail address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public
docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at http://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Erica Fleisig, National Fish Advisory
Program (4305T), Office of Science and
Technology, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number: (202) 566–1057; fax
number: (202) 566–0409; e-mail address:
fleisig.erica@epa.gov.
E:\FR\FM\12APN1.SGM
12APN1
18476
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 70 / Thursday, April 12, 2007 / Notices
What Should I Consider When I
Prepare My Comments for EPA?
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
How Can I Access the Docket and/or
Submit Comments?
EPA has established a public docket
for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA–
HQ–OW–2007–0201, which is available
for online viewing at
www.regulations.gov, or in person
viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC
Public Reading Room is open from 8
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Reading Room
is 202–566–1744, and the telephone
number for the Water Docket is (202)
566–2426.
Use www.regulations.gov to obtain a
copy of the draft collection of
information, submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of
the contents of the docket, and to access
those documents in the public docket
that are available electronically. Once in
the system, select ‘‘search,’’ then key in
the docket ID number identified in this
document.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
What Information Is EPA Particularly
Interested in?
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of
the PRA, EPA specifically solicits
comments and information to enable it
to:
(i) Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the Agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the
Agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
(iv) Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses. In
particular, EPA is requesting comments
from very small businesses (those that
employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA
could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses
affected by this collection.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:49 Apr 11, 2007
Jkt 211001
You may find the following
suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as
possible and provide specific examples.
2. Describe any assumptions that you
used.
3. Provide copies of any technical
information and/or data you used that
support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or
costs, explain how you arrived at the
estimate that you provide.
5. Offer alternative ways to improve
the collection activity.
6. Make sure to submit your
comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA,
be sure to identify the docket ID number
assigned to this action in the subject
line on the first page of your response.
You may also provide the name, date,
and Federal Register citation.
What Information Collection Activity or
ICR Does This Apply to?
Affected entities: Entities potentially
affected by this action are
Administrators of Public Health and
Environmental Quality Programs in
State and tribal governments (NAICS
92312/SIC 9431 and NAICS 92411/SIC
9511).
Title: Information Collection Request
for the National Listing of Fish
Advisories.
ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1959.03,
OMB Control No. 2040–0226.
ICR status: This ICR is currently
scheduled to expire on September 30,
2007. An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information,
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations in title 40
of the CFR, after appearing in the
Federal Register when approved, are
listed in 40 CFR part 9, and are
displayed either by publication in the
Federal Register or by other appropriate
means, such as on the related collection
instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in
certain EPA regulations is consolidated
in 40 CFR part 9.
Abstract: The National Listing of Fish
Advisories (NLFA) database contains
information on the number of new
advisories issued by each state, territory,
or tribe annually. The advisory
information collected identifies the
waterbody under advisory, the fish or
shellfish species and size ranges
included in the advisory, the chemical
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
contaminants and residue levels causing
the advisory to be issued, the waterbody
type (river, lake, estuary, coastal
waters), and the target populations to
whom the advisory is directed. This
information is collected under the
authority of section 104 of the Clean
Water Act, which provides for the
collection of information to be used to
protect human health and the
environment. The results of the survey
are shared with states, territories, tribes,
other federal agencies, and the general
public through the NLFA database and
the distribution of annual fish advisory
fact sheets. The responses to the survey
are voluntary and the information
requested is part of the state public
record associated with the advisories.
No confidential business information is
requested. An agency may not conduct
or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
The OMB control numbers for EPA’s
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40
CFR part 9.
Burden Statement: The annual public
reporting and recordkeeping burden for
this collection of information is
estimated to average 38.76 hours per
response. Burden means the total time,
effort, or financial resources expended
by persons to generate, maintain, retain,
disclose or provide information to or for
a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
requirements which have subsequently
changed; train personnel to be able to
respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and
review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.
The ICR provides a detailed
explanation of the Agency’s estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:
Estimated total number of potential
respondents: 92.
Frequency of response: Annual.
Estimated total average number of
responses for each respondent: 3.
Estimated total annual burden hours:
3,566 labor hours.
Estimated total annual burden costs:
$124,755.08. No capital or startup costs
are required.
E:\FR\FM\12APN1.SGM
12APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 70 / Thursday, April 12, 2007 / Notices
Are There Changes in the Estimates
From the Last Approval?
There is no change in the total
estimated respondent burden compared
with that identified in the ICR currently
approved by OMB.
What Is the Next Step in the Process for
This ICR?
EPA will consider the comments
received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will
then be submitted to OMB for review
and approval pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue
another Federal Register notice
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to
announce the submission of the ICR to
OMB and the opportunity to submit
additional comments to OMB. If you
have any questions about this ICR or the
approval process, please contact the
technical person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Dated: April 6, 2007.
Ephraim King,
Director, Office of Science and Technology.
[FR Doc. E7–6947 Filed 4–11–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Notice of Public Information
Collection(s) Being Submitted for
Review to the Office of Management
and Budget
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
April 4, 2007.
SUMMARY: The Federal Communications
Commission, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork burden
invites the general public and other
Federal agencies to take this
opportunity to comment on the
following information collection(s), as
required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA) of 1995, Public Law 104–13.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor
a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid control
number. No person shall be subject to
any penalty for failing to comply with
a collection of information subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that
does not display a valid control number.
Comments are requested concerning (a)
whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
Commission, including whether the
information shall have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the Commission’s
burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:49 Apr 11, 2007
Jkt 211001
information on the respondents,
including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.
DATES: Written Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA) comments should be
submitted on or before June 11, 2007. If
you anticipate that you will be
submitting PRA comments, but find it
difficult to do so within the period of
time allowed by this notice, you should
advise the FCC contact listed below as
soon as possible.
ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to
Jasmeet K. Seehra, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10236
NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, (202)
395–3123, or via fax at 202–395–5167 or
via Internet at
Jasmeet_K._Seehra@omb.eop.gov and to
Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov, Federal
Communications Commission, Room 1–
B441, 445 12th Street, SW., DC 20554 or
an e-mail to PRA@fcc.gov. If you would
like to obtain or view a copy of this
information collection after the 60-day
comment period, you may do so by
visiting the FCC PRA Web page at:
http://www.fcc.gov/omd/pra.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
additional information or copies of the
information collection(s), contact Judith
B. Herman at 202–418–0214 or via the
Internet at Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB
Control Number: 3060–XXXX.
Title: Consummation of Assignments
and Transfers of Control of Station
Authorization.
Form No.: N/A.
Type of Review: New collection.
Respondents: Business or other forprofit.
Number of Respondents: 586
respondents; 586 responses.
Estimated Time Per Response: 1 hour.
Frequency of Response: On occasion
reporting requirement.
Obligation to Respond: Required to
obtain or retain benefits.
Total Annual Burden: 586 hours.
Total Annual Cost: N/A.
Privacy Act Impact Assessment: N/A.
Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:
There is no need for confidentiality
pertaining to the information collection
requirements in this collection.
Needs and Uses: The Commission
will submit this new information
collection to the OMB after this 60-day
comment period to obtain the full threeyear clearance from them. The Federal
Communications Commission
(‘‘Commission’’) is requesting that the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) approve the establishment of a
new collection for consummation of
assignments and transfers of control of
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18477
station authorization. In addition, the
Commission is requesting the OMB’s
approval of mandatory electronic filing
of consummations of assignments and
transfers of control of licenses for all
telecommunications services.
A consummation is a party’s
notification to the Commission that a
transaction (assignment or transfer of
control of station authorization) has
been completed within a designated
period of time. A consummation is
applicable to all international
telecommunications services, including
International High Frequency (IHF),
Section 214 Applications (ITC), Satellite
Space Stations (SAT), Submarine Cable
Landing Licenses (SCL) and Satellite
Earth Station (SES) stations.
Currently, applicants send multiple
letters to various offices within the
Commission for each file number and
call sign that are part of the
consummation. The new, proposed
consummation module will eliminate
the applicant’s requirement to notify the
Commission by letter with the details of
the consummation. With this new
collection, the applicant will complete
an on-line form (consummation module)
in the Commission’s electronic
International Bureau Filing System
(‘‘IBFS’’). After the applicant enters the
FCC Registration Number (FRN) in the
form, the system will generate a list of
file numbers and call signs that are
related to the FRN. The applicant can
select the file numbers and call signs
that are part of the consummation. The
consummation module: (1) Saves time
for the applicants and the Commission
staff because the information is readily
accessible for viewing and processing 24
hours a day/7 days a week, (2)
eliminates the applicants completion by
paper and mailing of letters, and (3)
expedites the Commission staff’s receipt
of consummations in a timely manner.
The Commission has authority for this
information collection pursuant to 47
CFR 1.767, 25.119, 63.24(e), 73.3540
and 73.3541. Without this collection of
information, the Commission would not
have critical information such as a
change in a controlling interest in the
ownership of the licensee. Furthermore,
the Commission would not have the
authority to review assignments and
transfers of control of satellite licenses
to determine whether the initial license
was obtained in good faith with the
intent to construct a satellite system.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7–6936 Filed 4–11–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
E:\FR\FM\12APN1.SGM
12APN1
APPENDIX D
Survey Instrument for the 2007–2009 NLFA Reporting Cycles and the
State Fish Advisory Program Questionnaire
OMB Control Number 2040-0226
Approval Expires 9/30/2007
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORY PROGRAMS QUESTIONNAIRE
FOR SURVEY YEARS 2007, 2008, AND 2009
Please provide the following information about the agency in your state or
tribe that is responsible for issuing noncommercial (sportfishing/subsistence)
advisories or closures for chemical contamination in fish and shellfish.
Agency name
Agency address
Agency fish advisory contact
Contact’s e-mail address
(_____)
Contact’s phone number
(_____)
Contact’s fax number
A-1
Fish Tissue Monitoring Program
1.
Did your state or tribal agency conduct routine monitoring during this past year to obtain
information about the concentrations of chemical contaminants in fish tissue for assessing human
health risks?
G Yes
G No
G Not applicable
2.
What kind of data does your state or tribal agency collect to evaluate chemical contaminant levels
in fish? (Please check all that apply.)
Captures fish and sends tissues to a lab to determine contaminant concentrations
Monitors water quality and uses data to estimate contaminant concentrations in fish
Monitors sediments and uses data to estimate contaminant concentrations in fish
Other methods (please specify)
Not applicable
G
G
G
G
G
3.
G
G
G
G
4.
G
G
G
G
5.
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
6.
G
G
G
G
How does your state or tribe conduct monitoring of contaminants in fish tissue for fish advisories?
(Please check all that apply)
Conducts one-time, nonrecurring or special surveys in particular fishing areas, watersheds, or basins
Monitors the same fishing areas, watersheds, or basins at regular intervals
Other methods (please specify)
Not applicable
During the past year, please estimate the number of stations from which your state or tribal
agency collected fish tissue that was analyzed for chemical contaminants and was used for the fish
advisory program.
0 stations
G 31-50 stations
1-10 stations
G 51-100 stations
11-20 stations
G >100 stations
21-30 stations
G Not applicable
How frequently does your state typically resample fish from waterbodies where advisories are in
effect?
Every year
Every 2 years
Every 3 years
Every 4 years
Every 5 years
Every 6 to 10 years
On an as needed basis (no set schedule)
Other (please specify)
Not applicable
In approximately how many waterbodies was fish tissue monitoring conducted within your state
during the past year?
1-10 waterbodies
G
21-30 waterbodies
11-20 waterbodies
G
31-40 waterbodies
>40 (specify number) (please specify)
Not applicable
A-2
7.
G
G
G
G
G
G
Please check how your state determines which sites to monitor
(Please check all that apply)
Accessibility of site
G Fixed-station sites
Area of concern
G High pollution potential at the site
Citizen or Agency request
G Major fishery resource
Degree of angling pressure the site receives
G Randomly selected sites
Other method (please specify)
Not applicable
Answers to questions 8 through 11 should be based on your Agency’s evaluation of fish tissue monitoring
data. Sediment analysis or water quality monitoring data may be included in your evaluation only if they are
used as the basis for determining when an advisory is needed. Note: For these questions, you may need to
consult with other individuals in your state or tribal organization.
8.
How many river, stream, or canal miles were assessed at least once during the last 3 years
specifically for the fish advisory program?
__________ miles
9.
How many lake or reservoir acres were assessed at least once during the past 3 years specifically
for the fish advisory program?
acres
10.
How many square miles of estuarine waters were assessed at least once during the past 3 years
specifically for the fish advisory program?
__________ square miles
11.
How many miles of marine coastline (coastal waters) were assessed at least once during the past
3 years specifically for the fish advisory program?
__________ miles
Types of Fish Advisories
12.
Does your state issue fish consumption advisories advising individuals to restrict fish
consumption?
G Yes
G No
G
Not applicable
13.
Does your state issue fish consumption advisories advising individuals not to consume any fish or
any fish of a particular species from a particular waterbody?
G Yes
G No
G
Not applicable
14.
Fish consumption advisories issued in your state pertain to:
(Please check all that apply)
Specific fish species analyzed by the state (e.g., largemouth bass)
Specified size class(es) for the given species analyzed (e.g., largemouth bass 15-20 inches)
Selected trophic groups (e.g., game fish, bottom feeders, or panfish)
The entire fish community (e.g., all fish)
Certain fish species purchased in stores and restaurants
Other (please specify)
Not applicable
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
A-3
15.
Does your state issue statewide or regionwide “blanket” advisories based on your sampling
effort? (A region-wide advisory may be issued for an individual HUC, river drainage basin or portion
of the state.)
Statewide:
G Yes
G No
G Not applicable
Regionwide: G Yes
G No
G Not applicable
16. Do you have legally enforced advisories or bans within your state (e.g., are fines or citations given
for fishing in posted waters)?
G
Yes
G No
17. Has your state ever issued a commercial fishing ban for chemically-contaminated fish?
G
Yes
G No
18. If your state or tribe has issued commercial fishing bans in a waterbody, do they include
consumption information for sport and subsistence fishers?
G
Yes
G No
G Not applicable
19. In addition to chemical contaminants, does your state or tribe also issue fish and/or shellfish
advisories (closures) for microbial contamination (e.g., bacteria or viruses) of a waterbody?
G
Yes
G No
G Not applicable
Sample Preparation and Analyses Procedures
20. Fish consumption advisories (no consumption and/or restricted consumption advisories) issued in
your state are based on the analysis of : (Please check all that apply)
G Fillet samples (skin on)
G Fillet samples (skin off)
G Muscle plug samples
G Whole-fish samples (skin on)
G Whole-fish samples (skin off)
G Other sample types (please specify)
G Not applicable
21. Does your state target the collection of particular indicator species, and on what is this decision
based? (Please check all that apply)
G Angler survey data
G Availability of the species
G Desire to maintain consistency with past collections
G EPA target species recommendations based on bioaccumulation potential/trophic groups
G Citizen requests
G State does not target collection of indicator species
G Other reasons (please specify)
G Not applicable
22. Does your state collect multiple size classes, by species, and submit these individual size classes for
residue analyses?
G
Yes
G No
G Not applicable
23.
G
G
G
G
Are individual fish samples or composite samples submitted for residue analyses in your state?
Individual fish samples only
Composite samples only
Both individual and composite samples are used
Not applicable
A-4
24. If individual fish samples are used, how many “individual fish” typically are needed to support an
advisory determination in a waterbody?
G 1 fish
G 3 fish
G 5 fish
G 6 to 10 fish
G 11 to 20 fish
G > 20 fish
G Other number (please specify)
G Not applicable; state uses only composite fish samples
25. If composite samples are used, how many “individual fish” typically are combined in each of your
state’s composite samples for residue analysis?
G 2 fish
G 3 fish
G 4 fish
G 5 fish
G Other number (please specify)
G Not applicable; state uses only individual fish samples
26. If composite samples are used, how many composite samples are needed to support an advisory
determination in a waterbody?
G 1 composite sample
G 2 composite samples
G 3 composite samples
G Variable; no set number
G Other number (please specify)
G Not applicable; state uses only individual fish samples
27. Assuming your state finds residue levels in exceedance of state criteria, how many years of
sampling are required at a given waterbody before a fish consumption advisory can be issued?
G 1 year
G 2 years
G 3 or more years
G Site-specific decision; no set time period established
G Other (please specify)
G Not applicable
28. If commercial fishing bans are issued in your state, on which of the following sample types are they
based? (Please check all that apply)
G Whole-fish samples (skin-on)
G Whole-fish samples (skin-off)
G Fillet samples (skin-on)
G Fillet samples (skin-off)
G Other sample types (please specify)
G Not applicable
29. How many fish tissue samples must be analyzed and found to be in exceedance of state criteria
before a commercial fishing ban is issued?
G 1 sample
G 2 samples
G 3 or more samples
G Site-specific decision; no set number established
G Not applicable
A-5
30. How many years of sampling are conducted at a given waterbody before a commercial fishing ban
can be issued?
G 1 year
G 2 years
G 3 or more years
G Site-specific decision; no set time period established
G Not applicable
31. Once an advisory is issued for a specific waterbody, what must occur for the state to rescind the
advisory?
G Residue levels of the chemical must decline below the state criterion for at least 1 year
G Residue levels of the chemical must decline below the state criterion for at least 2 years
G Residue levels of the pollutant must decline below the state criterion for at least 3 years
G Site-specific decision; no set time period established
G Other schedule or procedure (please specify)
G Not applicable
32. During this past year, please estimate the number of fish tissue samples that were submitted for
chemical analyses by your state agency?
G <20 samples
G 41-50 samples
G 21-30 samples
G 51-60 samples
G 31-40 samples
G >60 samples (please specify number)
G Not applicable
33. What pollutants did your state screen for in fish tissue samples in this past year?
(Please check all that apply)
G Aldrin
G Dicofol
G Hexachlorobenzene G PCBs
G Arsenic
G Dieldrin
G Lead
G Pentachloroanisole
G Cadmium
G Dioxins/Furans
G Lindane
G Selenium
G Chlordane
G Disulfoton
G Mercury
G Terbufos
G Chlorpyrifos
G Endosulfan
G Methoxychlor
G Toxaphene
G Chromium
G Endrin
G Mirex
G Tributyltin
G DDT and its
G Ethion
G Nonachlor
G Trifluralin
metabolites
G Heptachlor or
G Oxyfluorfen
G Other (please specify
G Diazinon
Heptachlor epoxide
G PAHs
34. Of the pollutants listed, which ones are of primary human health concern in your state waters
(specify up to 5 pollutants).
G Aldrin
G Dicofol
G Hexachlorobenzene G PCBs
G Arsenic
G Dieldrin
G Lead
G Pentachloroanisole
G Cadmium
G Dioxins/Furans
G Lindane
G Selenium
G Chlordane
G Disulfoton
G Mercury
G Terbufos
G Endosulfan
G Methoxychlor
G Toxaphene
G Chlorpyrifos
G Chromium
G Endrin
G Mirex
G Tributyltin
G DDT and its
G Ethion
G Nonachlor
G Trifluralin
metabolites
G Heptachlor or
G Oxyfluorfen
G Other (please specify
G Diazinon
Heptachlor epoxide
G PAHs
35.
G
G
G
G
G
G
If your state analyzes for PCBs, what specifically is analyzed? (Please check all that apply)
Individual congeners
All Aroclor groups
Selected Aroclor groups
A combination of both Aroclors and congeners
Others (please specify)
Not applicable
A-6
State Advisory Program Funding
36.
G
G
G
G
How many dollars are spent annually in your state on routine fish tissue field collection activities?
<$1,000
G $10,000 to $24,999
$1,000 to $4,999
G $25,000 to $50,000
$5,000 to $9,999
G >$50,000 (please specify)
Not applicable
37. What was the funding source for your state’s fish tissue collection activities during the past year?
(Please check all that apply)
G State general funds
G State fishing license revenues
G State sales tax
G EPA Section 106 funds
G EPA Section 205j funds
G EPA Region funds
G EPA Grant funds
G Other (please specify)
G Not applicable
38.
G
G
G
G
How many dollars are spent annually in your state on laboratory analyses of fish tissue samples?
<$1,000
G $10,000 to $24,999
$1,000 to $4,999
G $25,000 to $50,000
$5,000 to $9,999
G >$50,000 (please specify)
Not applicable
39. What was the funding source for your state's laboratory analyses of fish tissue samples during this
past year? (Please check all that apply)
G State general funds
G State fishing license revenues
G State sales tax
G EPA Section 106 funds
G EPA Section 205j funds
G EPA Region funds
G EPA Grant funds
G Other (please specify)
G Not applicable
40. If no funding is currently available, is your state seeking funding to conduct a monitoring and
assessment program?
G Yes
G No
G Not applicable
Other Uses of State Advisory Data
41. For your state’s biennial 305(b) water quality report, what use support designation is assigned to
waterbodies placed under fish consumption advisory?
G Fully supporting
G
Threatened
G Partially supporting
G
Not supporting
G No assessments were made
G
Not applicable
42. If fish consumption advisories have been issued for waterbodies in your state, does your state place
these waterbodies on the state’s 303(d) list of impaired waters?
G Yes
G No
G
Not applicable
A-7
43. If commercial fishing bans have been issued for waterbodies in your state, does your state place
these waterbodies on the state’s 303(d) list of impaired waters?
G Yes
G No
G Not applicable
44. Is “fish consumption” an assigned beneficial use for waters in your state?
G Yes
G No
45.
G
G
G
G
If yes, where have these criteria for beneficial use been established?
State water quality standards
SOP for assessing beneficial uses (or related document)
Other (please specify)
Not applicable
Risk Assessment Methodology
46. What method(s) does your state currently use to calculate “carcinogenic” health risks and issue
advisories for individuals who consume fish harvested from state waters?
(Please specify all current methods used)
G Risk assessment methodology
G Food and Drug Administration (FDA) action levels
G None
G Other approach (please specify)
G Not applicable
47. What carcinogenic risk level (i.e., individual risk within an exposed population) does your state use
to issue advisories and/or post waterbodies?
G 1:10,000 (10-4)
G 1:100,000 (10-5)
G 1:1,000,000(10-6)
G FDA action level
G Other (please specify)
G Not applicable
48. What source(s) does your state use to obtain cancer potency factors to help calculate
“carcinogenic” health risks? (Please check all that apply)
G ATSDR Toxicological Profiles
G EPA Fish Guidance Document
G EPA Health Effects Assessment Summary Table (HEAST)
G EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
G EPA Toxicology One-Liners Database (Office of Pesticide Programs)
G Great Lakes Protocol
G Hazardous Substance Data Bank (HSDB) from the National Library of Medicine
G IARC Monographs
G Other sources (please specify)
G Not applicable
A-8
49. What method(s) does your state currently use to calculate “noncarcinogenic” health risks and
issue fish advisories for individuals who consume fish harvested from state waters?
(Please specify all current methods used)
G EPA Fish Guidance Document
G FDA Action Levels
G Great Lakes Protocol
G Hazard Index calculations using risk assessment methodology (IRIS RfD)
G None
G Other approach (please specify)
G Not applicable
50. What noncarcinogenic risk level (i.e., individual risk within an exposed population) does your state
use to issue advisories and/or post waterbodies?
G Hazard index (please specify if hazard index is >, =, or < 1)
G FDA action levels
G Other (please specify)
G Not applicable
51. What source(s) does your state use to obtain potency factors (reference dose) to help calculate
noncarcinogenic health risks? (Please check all that apply)
G ATSDR Toxicological Profiles
G EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
G EPA Health Effects Assessment Summary Table (HEAST)
G EPA Toxicology One-Liners Database (Office of Pesticide Programs)
G EPA Fish Guidance Document
G Great Lakes Protocol
G Hazardous Substance Data Bank (HSDB) from the National Library of Medicine
G Other sources (please specify)
G Not applicable
52. Of all the fish advisories currently in effect in your jurisdiction, including those issued last year
and in earlier years, what percentage were issued based on each of these methods?
(Please write down your best estimate of the percentage for each method)
% of advisories now in effect were issued using risk assessment methods.
% of advisories now in effect were issued using FDA action levels.
% of advisories now in effect were issued using other methods specified in question 46 and 49.
G Not applicable
53. Does your state or tribal agency have a plan to reevaluate data from sites where outdated
assessment methods were used to issue fish advisories?
G Yes
G No
G Not applicable
54. Is your state currently re-evaluating the method or approach used to establish fish advisories?
G Yes
G No
G Not applicable
55. What default value does your state use in its risk assessments as a daily fish consumption rate for
recreational fishers?
G 6.5 g/day
G 12 g/day (the value EPA is currently recommending)
G 15 g/day
G 30 g/day
G Other consumption rates (please specify value in g/day)
G Not applicable
A-9
56. What default value does your state use in its risk assessments as a daily fish consumption rate for
subsistence fishers?
G 6.5 g/day
G 15 g/day
G 30 g/day
G 87 g/day
G 124 g/day (the value EPA is currently recommending)
G Other consumption rates (please specify value in g/day)
G Not applicable
57. What default value does your state use in its risk assessments as a daily fish consumption rate for
children?
G 2.0 g/day
G 4.0 g/day
G 6.5 g/day
G Other consumption rates (please specify value in g/day)
G Not applicable
58.
G
G
G
G
G
What default value does your state use for exposure duration in its cancer risk assessments?
30 years
70 years
75 years (the value EPA is currently recommending).
Other exposure duration (please specify value in years)
Not applicable
59.
G
G
G
G
G
What default value does your state use to estimate life expectancy in its risk assessments?
70 years
75 years
80 years
Other life expectancy (please specify value in years)
Not applicable
60. Does your state recommend a meal frequency format or number of meals over time in its advisories
(e.g., number of meals per month)?
G Yes
G No
G Not applicable
61. If your response to question 60 is yes, what assumption does your state make in its risk assessments
about meal size or portion for adults? (Please specify all that apply)
G 4 oz (114 g)
G 8 oz (227 g)
G 12 oz (341 g)
G 16 oz (454 g)
G Other (please specify value in grams)
G Not applicable
62. If your response to question 60 is yes, what assumption does your state make in its risk assessments
about meal size or portion for children? (Please specify all that apply)
G 4 oz (114 g)
G 8 oz (227 g)
G 12 oz (341 g)
G Other (please specify value in grams)
G Not applicable
A-10
63. What default value does your state use for body weight of an adult male consumer in its risk
assessments?
G 71 kg
G 70 kg
G 65 kg
G Other weight (please specify value in kg)
G Not applicable
64. What default value does your state use for body weight of an adult female consumer (including
pregnant women and nursing mothers) in its risk assessments?
G 70 kg
G 65 kg
G 62 kg
G Other weight (please specify value in kg)
G Not applicable
65.
G
G
G
G
G
G
What default value does your state use for body weight of a child in its risk assessments?
10 kg
14.5 kg
15.5 kg
Other weight (please specify value in kg)
Risk assessments not conducted for children
Not applicable
66. Please specify what age range or ranges your state uses to calculate risk with respect to children.
(Please specify all age ranges used in your state’s risk assessments for children.)
G <1 year
G <6 years
G <7 years
G <12 years
G <15 years
G <18 years
G Other age ranges (please specify)
G Risk assessments not conducted for children
G Not applicable
67. What assumption does your state make in its risk assessments about the amount of the pollutant
absorbed by the body after ingestion (percent absorption by the gut) (e.g., in pharmacokinetic
modeling)?
G 100% for all pollutants
G 75% for all pollutants
G 50% for all pollutants
G Chemical-specific % based on available data
G Other (please specify)
G Not applicable
68. Does your state use “contaminant reduction factors” in its risk calculations to account for
contaminant losses of PCBs and other organochlorine pollutants from fish tissues during cleaning,
preparation, and cooking of the fish?
G Yes
G No
G Not applicable
A-11
69. If yes, what are the pollutants and their associated contaminant reduction factors (% reduction in
pollutant level resulting from cleaning, preparing, and cooking of fish) assumed by your state?
% chlordane
% mercury
% DDE
% mirex
% DDT
% total PCBs
% dieldrin
% toxaphene
% heptachlor epoxide
% other (please specify)
G Not applicable
70.
G
G
G
G
G
G
If contaminant reduction factors are used, what are their basis?
EPA Guidance Documents
Great Lakes Protocol
Scientific literature review
Conducted own research
Other (please specify)
Not applicable
71. How does your state evaluate health risks for fish samples contaminated with multiple chemicals
with the same human health endpoints (e.g., two organochlorine pesticides)?
G Cumulative risk (add individual contaminant risks from each chemical together)
G Calculate single contaminant risk based on the most conservative carcinogenic risk value
G Either cumulative risk or single contaminant risk depending on the chemicals involved
G Other method (please specify)
G State does not evaluate health risks for multiple contaminants
G Not applicable
72. Regarding mercury, does your state assign different noncarcinogenic toxicity values to different
populations (i.e., does the state use an RfD of 1 x 10-4 mg/k/day for women of child-bearing age
and/or children versus using an RfD of 3 x 10-4 for adults in the general population)?
G Yes
G No
G Not applicable
73. What is the mercury toxicity value (i.e., RfD) used for each of the following populations?
Adults in the general population
Women of childbearing age or nursing mothers
Children
G Not applicable
74. When your state receives method detection limits (MDLs) as the reportable concentration for
contaminants from the laboratory, what value do you use for non-detects in your risk assessment?
G Zero
G Pollutant’s MDL
G Half the pollutant’s MDL
G Other value (please specify)
G Maximum likelihood indicator
G Not applicable
75. Does your state screen for lead in its fish tissue samples?
G Yes
G No
76. What assessment method do you use for lead since lead does not currently have an associated
reference dose in IRIS? (Please specify assessment method used)
G Not applicable
A-12
Targeting Fish Consumers
77. Are health risks being assessed in your state for target groups of people whose culinary habits may
differ from the customs of the majority of Americans regarding meal preparation and
consumption?
G Yes
G No
G Not applicable
78. Has your state identified the primary waterbodies fished by these target population(s)?
G Yes
G No
G Not applicable
79. Has your state made efforts to identify the fish species and the sizes of fish consumed by these target
populations?
G Yes
G No
G Not applicable
80. If yes, has your state used any of the following procedures to obtain information from these target
populations? (Please check all that apply)
G Local fish consumption surveys (creel surveys)
G Fishing license surveys
G Anecdotal information from populations of interest
G Behavioral risk surveillance surveys funded by the Centers for Disease Control
G Not applicable
81. Has your state altered its monitoring approach to address the needs of these target populations?
G Yes
G No
G Not applicable
82. If your state has altered its monitoring approach to address the needs of these target populations,
what actions have been taken? (Please check all that apply)
G State has added stations in waterbodies where the targeted populations frequently fish
G State has targeted species consumed by the target populations for residue analyses
G Other actions (please specify)
G Not applicable
83. If your state is not currently addressing the concerns of populations with a perceived higher risk, is
there a plan to do so in the future?
G Yes
G No
G Not applicable
Risk Management
84. Who prepares risk assessments on behalf of your state or tribal fish advisory program?
(Please check all that apply)
G State or Tribal Environmental Agency/Department
G State or Tribal Public Health Agency/Department
G State or Tribal Fisheries Agency/Department
G Consultant
G University
G Other (please specify)
G Not applicable
85. Does your state or tribe have written procedures for evaluating the health risks associated with
consumption of chemically-contaminated fish?
G Yes
G No
G Not applicable
A-13
86. Does your state or tribe have a group or committee that oversees the fish advisory
program/processes?
G Yes
G No
G Not applicable
87. If the answer to question 86 is yes, what professional disciplines are represented on that committee?
(Please check all that apply)
G Toxicology/epidemiology
G Fisheries
G Water pollution assessment/control
G Hazardous waste management
G Analytical chemist
G Risk communication
G Other disciplines (please specify)
G Not applicable
88. Who in your state or tribe makes the ultimate risk management decision to issue, modify, or rescind
fish advisories?
G Head of Environmental Agency/Department
G Head of Public Health Agency/Department
G Head of Fisheries Agency/Department
G Governor’s Office or Tribal Chief’s/President’s Office
G Other (please specify)
G Not applicable
Risk Communication Procedures
89. How often does your Agency revise the fish consumption advisory listings and release the
information to the public? (Please check all that apply)
(specify date: Day/Month)
G Annually; released on
G Whenever data become available (on an as-needed basis)
G Other schedules (please specify)
G Not applicable
90. Where can the public obtain copies of your agency’s printed advisory materials?
(Please check all that apply)
G Local public health departments
G State public health departments
G Other State agencies
G Doctors' offices
G Local businesses (e.g., hair styling salons)
G Businesses that issue fishing licenses (e.g., bait and tackle shops)
G WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) clinics
G Welfare offices
G Organizations (e.g.,sporting or women's clubs)
G Tourist offices
G State fisheries offices
G Tribal organizations
G Town halls
G Law enforcement officers
G State Internet site
G Other sources (please specify)
G Not applicable
A-14
91. How are your Agency's fish advisories communicated to the public?
(Please check all that apply)
G Mailed to public upon request
G Press releases distributed to media sources
G Targeted newspaper stories
G Published articles in ethnic newspapers
G Videos for ethnic groups
G Radio announcements
G Television announcements
G Radio/television talk shows
G Internet site
G Agency telephone information service (i.e., hotlines)
G Agency magazine
G Posted signs (at boat launches, stream access points, public docks, etc.)
G Posted information where fishing licenses issued
G Posters in public places (libraries, town halls, etc)
G Annual fishing regulations booklet
G Generic statewide listing booklet separate from fishing regulations
G Printed pamphlets or fact sheets
G Information presented at public meetings
G Publication of articles in state medical journal
G Publication of articles in agency annual monitoring report
G Publication of information in state 305(b) report
G Flyers distributed with trout and salmon stamps
G GIS maps posted for tribal members
G Other methods (please specify)
G Not applicable
92. Does your state or tribal fish advisory distribution plan specifically target some populations to
receive advisory information?
G Yes
G
No
G Not applicable
93.
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
If yes, please identify all targeted populations.
Sport fishers
Subsistence fishers
Specific racial/ethnic groups (please specify)
Women of child-bearing age
Pregnant or nursing women
New parents
Tourists
Members of the general population
Others (please specify)
Not applicable
(Please check all that apply)
94. Are your state or tribal fish consumption advisories distributed to the public in languages other
than English?
G Yes
G No
G Not applicable
A-15
95.
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
If yes, please specify all languages that apply.
Alaskan native languages
Bosnian
Cambodian
Chinese
Creole
Hmong
Japanese
Korean
Laotian
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
Llacano
Ojibwa
Portugese
Russian
Spanish
Tagalog
Thai
Vietnamese
Others (please specify)
Not applicable
96. Does your state or tribe evaluate the effectiveness of the fish consumption advisories?
G Yes
G
No
G Not applicable
97.
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
If yes, how is their effectiveness determined? (Please check all that apply)
Feedback form/postcard in regulation pamphlet
Questions included in creel census program
Questions included in state BRFS (Behavior Risk Factor Survey)
Focus groups
Mailed questionnaires (to whom?)
Telephone surveys (of whom?)
Other methods (please specify)
Not applicable
98. To your knowledge, have there been any studies in your state (including federal, tribal, and
university-based studies) to evaluate human tissue contaminant levels (e.g., in blood, urine, breast
milk, or adipose tissues) or adverse human health effects related to fish consumption?
G Don’t know
G No
G Yes (please specify organization or agency)
A-16
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Modified | 2007-06-12 |
| File Created | 2007-01-04 |