47154 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 13, 2008 / Notices 

(Final Rule for Locomotive and Marine 

Engines); in 40 CFR part 1042, subparts 

C, D, G and H; was approved 07/16/ 

2008; OMB Number 2060–0287; expires 

07/31/2009. 

EPA ICR Number 1284.08; NSPS for 

Polymeric Coating of Supporting 

Substrates Facilities (Renewal); in 40 

CFR part 60, subpart VVV; was 

approved 07/16/2008; OMB Number 

2060–0181; expires 07/31/2011. 

EPA ICR Number 1352.11; 

Community Right-to-Know Reporting 

Requirements Under Sections 311 and 

312 of the Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) 

(Renewal); in 40 CFR part 370; was 

approved 07/16/2008; OMB Number 

2050–0072; expires 07/31/2011. 

EPA ICR Number 1425.07; 

Application for Reimbursement to Local 

Governments for Emergency Response 

to Hazardous Substance Releases Under 

CERCLA section 123 (Renewal); in 40 

CFR part 310; was approved 07/16/ 

2008; OMB Number 2060–0077; expires 

07/31/2011. 

EPA ICR Number 2277.02; NESHAP 

for Area Sources: Electric Arc Furnace 

Steelmaking Facilities (Final Rule); in 

40 CFR part 63, subpart YYYYY; was 

approved 07/16/2008; OMB Number 

2060–0608; expires 07/31/2011. 

EPA ICR Number 1679.06; NESHAP 

for Marine Tank Vessel Loading 

Operations (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 

63, subpart Y; was approved 07/22/ 

2008; OMB Number 2060–0289; expires 

07/31/2011. 

EPA ICR Number 1463.07; National 

Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP) (Renewal); in 

40 CFR parts 430–435; was approved 

07/22/2008; OMB Number 2050–0096; 

expires 07/31/2011. 

EPA ICR Number 2292.01; Determine 

Percentage of High Evaporative 

Emission Vehicles in On-Road Fleet; 

was approved 07/23/2008; OMB 

Number 2060–0615; expires 07/31/2010. 

EPA ICR Number 2248.03; Applicant 

Background Questionnaire: Race, 

National Origin, Gender and Disability 

Demographics (Renewal); in 29 CFR 

1614.601; was approved 07/28/2008; 

OMB Number 2030–0045; expires 07/ 

31/2011. 

EPA ICR Number 0107.09; Source 

Compliance and State Action Reporting 

(Renewal); in 40 CFR part 51, subparts 

K and Q; was approved 07/30/2008; 

OMB Number 2060–0096; expires 07/ 

31/2011. 

EPA ICR Number 2286.01; 

Information Collection Effort for 

Facilities with Combustion Units; was 

approved 08/01/2008; OMB Number 

2060–0616; expires 08/31/2011. 

Disapproved 

EPA ICR Number 1748.05; State Small 

Business Stationary Source Technical 

and Environmental Compliance 

Assistance Program Annual Reporting 

Form (Renewal); was disapproved 07/ 

16/2008; OMB Number 2060–0337. 

Withdrawn 

EPA ICR Number 2170.02; Air 

Emissions Reporting Requirements 

(AERR) (Final Rule); was withdrawn 

from OMB on 07/28/2008. 

Dated: August 7, 2008. 

Sara Hisel-McCoy, 

Director, Collection Strategies Division. 

[FR Doc. E8–18736 Filed 8–12–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[OW–FRL–8703–9] 

Beaches Environmental Assessment 

and Coastal Health Act 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of Expected Changes to 

the Grant Allocation Formula for 

Awarding Grants Under the BEACH Act. 

SUMMARY: The Beaches Environmental 

Assessment and Coastal Health 

(BEACH) Act authorizes EPA to award 

program development and 

implementation grants to eligible States, 

Territories, Tribes, and local 

governments to support microbiological 

monitoring and notification of the 

public of the potential for exposure to 

disease-causing microorganisms in 

coastal recreation waters. EPA awards 

BEACH Act grant funds to eligible 

States, Territories and Tribes each year 

using an allocation formula to 

determine the amount of federal funds 

available for award to each State and 

Territory. EPA is considering changes to 

this allocation formula for the award of 

grants in 2010 and is providing States, 

Territories, and Tribes advance notice of 

expected changes. 

ADDRESSES: EPA recognizes that 

reviewers may wish to express their 

views and should send them to the 

Docket. Submit your views, identified 

by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2008–

0539, by one of the following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

scientific views. 

• E-mail: OW-Docket@epa.gov. 

• Mail: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency; EPA Docket Center 

(EPA/DC). Water Docket, MC 2822T; 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

1301 Constitution Ave, NW., EPA West, 

Room 3334, Washington, DC. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lars 

Wilcut, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

(4305T), Washington, DC 20460. 

Telephone: (202) 566–0447. E-mail: 

wilcut.lars@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. What Is the BEACH Act? 

The Beaches Environmental 

Assessment and Coastal Health 

(BEACH) Act of 2000 amends the Clean 

Water Act to better protect public health 

at our Nation’s beaches through 

improved water quality standards and 

beach monitoring and notification 

programs. The BEACH Act authorizes 

EPA to award grants to develop and 

implement monitoring and public 

notification programs for coastal 

recreation waters, consistent with EPA’s 

required performance criteria. EPA 

published the required performance 

criteria for grants in its ‘‘National Beach 

Guidance and Required Performance 

Criteria for Grants’’ (EPA–823–B–02–

004), on July 19, 2002. Currently, all 35 

eligible States and Territories operate 

beach monitoring and notification 

programs using BEACH Act grant funds. 

B. Who Is Eligible To Apply for BEACH 

Act Grants? 

Coastal and Great Lake States and 

Territories that meet the requirements of 

CWA section 406(b)(2)(A) are eligible 

for BEACH Act grants. These are the 

States adjacent to the Great Lakes, the 

Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and the 

Gulf of Mexico as well as the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 

Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, 

and the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands. Tribes may also be 

eligible for BEACH Act grants. In order 

to be eligible, a Tribe must have coastal 

recreation waters adjacent to beaches or 

similar points of access that are used by 

the public, and the Tribe must 

demonstrate that it meets the ‘‘treatment 

in the same manner as a State’’ criteria 

in CWA Section 518(e) for the purposes 

of receiving a Section 406 BEACH Act 

grant. 

C. How Much Funding Is Available? 

After the first year of funding of 

approximately two million dollars in 

2001, funding for the years between 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 13, 2008 / Notices 47155 

2002 and 2007 has been approximately 

$10 million per year distributed among 

all eligible States, Territories, and 

Tribes. The actual grant total awards are 

$1,812,580 in 2001; $9,999,990 in 2002; 

$9,935,000 in 2003; $9,891,000 in 2004; 

$9,870,000 in 2005; $9,803,100 in 2006; 

$9,900,000 in 2007; and $9,745,500 in 

2008. 

II. Current Allocation Formula 

A. Why Did EPA Develop an Allocation 

Formula? 

BEACH Act grants are awarded 

annually to eligible States, Territories 

and Authorized Tribes for the purpose 

of running a continuing environmental 

program for beach monitoring and 

notification; therefore, it is appropriate 

to award these grants using an 

allocation formula rather than to award 

the grants competitively. EPA uses an 

allocation formula in other State and 

Tribal continuing environmental 

programs for which EPA awards grants. 

EPA chose to develop and use an 

allocation formula for BEACH grants to 

help ensure objectivity in allocations to 

the 35 eligible States and Territories. On 

an annual basis, EPA reserves $50,000 

for eligible tribes from the total grant 

amount appropriated. To date, one tribe 

has applied for and received a grant 

award. Should other Tribes become 

eligible, EPA will reserve more funds for 

grants to Tribes. 

B. How Did EPA Develop the Current 

Allocation Formula? 

In 2001, EPA, with assistance from 

the Association of State and Interstate 

Water Pollution Control Administrators 

(ASIWPCA), held a conference call with 

States to inform them that EPA was 

developing an allocation formula for use 

in distributing BEACH Act funds. In 

developing an allocation formula, EPA 

wanted a method that distributed more 

funds to States and Territories that had 

a greater number of highly-used 

beaches, because EPA expected that 

monitoring needs would be greater in 

these States. EPA also wanted an 

allocation formula that used verifiable 

data for each of the various factors in 

the formula. EPA developed a series of 

possible allocation scenarios, assuming 

at the time that the funding would 

approach the full authorized amount of 

$30 million. EPA then had follow-up 

calls with States, obtained their views 

and input, and developed a proposed 

allocation formula. EPA then consulted 

with the States, the Coastal States 

Organization, and ASIWPCA on the 

proposed formula. Although some 

States and the contacted associations 

thought the allocation formula could be 

improved upon, they were generally 

satisfied with this approach because it 

used the most reliable data then 

available. There was not an agreement 

among parties on a better or preferred 

method. 

C. What Is the Current Allocation 

Formula? 

The current allocation formula is used 

to allocate funds to States or Territories 

where the monitoring needs are greatest, 

that is, towards States and Territories 

with more miles of beaches that are 

open for longer periods during the year, 

and are used by more people. EPA 

considers the miles of beaches and the 

length of a beach season to be good 

indicators of the need for (and cost of) 

monitoring and notification. A State or 

Territory with many beaches open for 

the entire year would be expected to 

monitor more than a State or Territory 

with few beaches only open during the 

summer. EPA considers beach use 

(represented by the number of people 

who visit and use the beach) to be a 

good indicator of the importance of 

monitoring and notification to protect 

public health at beaches. Notifications 

of exceedance of water quality standards 

at beaches with more people would be 

expected to prevent more cases of 

illness, and thus reduce the overall 

public health risk nationally more than 

notifications at beaches that experience 

low visitation. This is consistent with 

the requirement in the BEACH Act that 

grantees ‘‘prioritize the use of grant 

funds for particular coastal recreation 

waters based on the use of the water and 

the risk to human health presented by 

pathogens and pathogen indicators’’ and 

the beach prioritization step in EPA’s 

‘‘National Beach Guidance and 

Performance Criteria for Grants’’ See 

CWA Section 406(b) (2) A (ii) and EPA–

823-B–02–004. Chapter 3 of this 

document describes the risk-based 

beach evaluation and classification 

process, including the evaluation steps 

and recommended information that a 

State, Territory, or Tribe should 

consider when ranking beaches. 

The current allocation formula sums 

three parts. The first part is a base 

amount for all States and Territories that 

varies with the length of the beach 

season. This base amount is scaled in 

$50,000 increments from $150,000 for 

States with the shortest beach season to 

$300,000 for States and Territories with 

the longest beach season. States and 

Territories with long seasons are 

allotted two times the base amount of 

grant funds as those with short beach 

seasons (Table 1). The second part of the 

formula allots half of the total remaining 

funds (i.e. what is left after subtracting 

the total base amount) on the basis of 

the ratio of shoreline miles in a State or 

Territory to the total length of shoreline 

miles across the entire United States. 

For example, if a State has 4 percent of 

the total coastal and Great Lakes 

shoreline, that State would be allotted 4 

percent of 50 percent (or 2 percent) of 

total funds remaining after the Agency 

allotted the base amount (i.e. part one of 

the formula) to all States and Territories. 

The third part of the formula allots the 

remaining funds on the basis of the ratio 

of coastal population in a State or 

Territory to the total coastal population. 

For example, if a State has 2 percent of 

the total coastal and Great Lakes 

population, that State would receive 2 

percent of 50 percent (or 1 percent) of 

the total funds remaining after the 

Agency allotted the funds for the first 

two parts. The following table 

summarizes the allocation formula: 

TABLE 1—BEACH GRANT ALLOCATION FACTORS

For the factor— The part of the allocation is— 

Beach season length ............................ <3 months: $150,000 (States and Territories with a season <3 months receive season-based funding 

only.) 

3–4 months: $200,000. 

5–6 months: $250,000. 

>6 months: $300,000. 

Shoreline miles ..................................... 50% of funds remaining after allocation of season-based funding. 

Coastal population ................................ 50% of funds remaining after allocation of season-based funding. 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with NOTICES
47156 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 13, 2008 / Notices 

EPA reserves $50,000 from the total 

amount appropriated for grants to 

eligible Tribes. To date, one tribe has 

applied for and received a grant award. 

Should other Tribes become eligible, 

EPA will reserve more funds for grants 

to Tribes. 

The current allocation formula was 

originally developed assuming EPA 

would receive the full amount of funds 

authorized to be appropriated for grants 

under the BEACH Act ($30 million). At 

an annual appropriation level of $30 

million, the beach season component of 

the formula ($8.15 million) would 

represent 27% of the annually available 

funds. At this funding level, the beach 

length and beach use components 

would each be $10.92 million, 

representing together 73% of the 

allocated funds. Since 2002, annual 

appropriations for BEACH Act grants 

have been approximately $10 million. 

At an annual appropriation level of $10 

million, the beach season component 

(still $8.15 million) represents 82% of 

the appropriation, and the beach length 

and beach use components ($0.92 

million each) together represent 18% of 

the available funds. Therefore, because 

the appropriation has been much lower 

than the authorization, the ratio of the 

different components of the allocation 

formula has shifted from being roughly 

equal, which was the intention, to being 

heavily dominated by the beach season 

length component. The result is that a 

State or Territory with a longer beach 

season would receive substantially more 

money than a State or Territory in a 

colder climate with a shorter beach 

season but with more beaches and more 

people using them. 

D. How Are the Factors in the Allocation 

Formula Quantified? 

1. Beach Season Length 

EPA selected beach season length as 

a factor because it represents the 

amount of time in a year when a 

government would conduct its 

monitoring and notification program. 

The longer the beach season, the more 

resources a government would need to 

conduct monitoring and notification. 

The Agency obtained the information on 

the length of a beach season from the 

‘‘National Health Protection Survey of 

Beaches’’ for the States or Territories 

that submitted a completed survey. 

However, because Alaska was not 

included in the survey, EPA estimated 

the beach season length for Alaska on 

the basis of air and water temperature, 

available information on recreation 

activities, and data from the ‘‘1993 

National Water Based Recreation 

Survey.’’ EPA then grouped the States 

and Territories into four categories of 

beach season lengths as shown in Table 

2. 

TABLE 2—DISTRIBUTION OF STATES BY BEACH SEASON CATEGORY

For beaches in— The beach season category is—

Alaska ..................................................................................................................................................................... <3 months. 

Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin.3–4 months. 

Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina .......................................................... 5–6 months. 

American Samoa, California, Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Northern Mariana, Puerto Rico, Texas, U.S. Virgin Islands.9–12 months. 

2. Shoreline Miles 

EPA wanted to use miles of beach as 

a factor because it is indicative of the 

geographical extent over which a 

government would be expected to 

conduct monitoring. The more miles of 

beaches, the more resources a 

government would need to conduct 

monitoring and notification. EPA did 

not have current beach mileage data in 

a format that could be used for the 

allocation formula. Therefore, EPA has 

used shoreline miles as a surrogate for 

beach miles in the allocation formula. 

Shoreline miles data overestimate beach 

miles in some States and Territories; 

however, EPA and States agreed that 

this is the best way to estimate beach 

miles as it was the best available data at 

that time. EPA used the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) publication, 

‘‘The Coastline of the United States,’’ to 

quantify shoreline miles. 

3. Coastal Population 

EPA wanted to use beach use as a 

factor because it reflects the magnitude 

of potential human exposure to 

pathogens at recreational beaches. In 

short, States and Territories can prevent 

more total illnesses when they notify 

the public of pollution problems at 

heavily-used beaches than when they 

notify the public at less-used beaches. 

EPA presently uses the coastal 

population of counties (from the 2000 

Census data) to quantify the coastal 

population that is wholly or partially 

within the State’s or Territory’s legallydefined coastal zone, as a surrogate for 

actual beach usage. 

E. What Do States Receive Under the 

Current Allocation Formula? 

For 2008, the total available for 

BEACH Act grants to States and 

Territories was $9,745,500. EPA 

reserved $50,000 for authorized Tribes. 

Assuming all 35 States and Territories 

with coastal recreation waters apply and 

meet the eligibility requirements for 

implementation grants (and have met 

the statutory grant conditions applicable 

to previously awarded CWA section 406 

grants), the allocation of the funds for 

fiscal year 2008 is the following: 

TABLE 3—DISTRIBUTION OF 2008 

BEACH ACT GRANTS

For the State or Territory of—

The year 

2008 allocation is—

Alabama .................................... $258,390 

Alaska ....................................... 147,650 

American Samoa ...................... 297,460 

California ................................... 514,720 

Connecticut ............................... 220,500 

Delaware ................................... 207,730 

Florida ....................................... 526,320 

Georgia ..................................... 282,700 

Guam ........................................ 297,930 

Hawaii ....................................... 318,590 

Illinois ........................................ 240,290 

Indiana ...................................... 202,730 

Louisiana .................................. 320,270 

Maine ........................................ 252,220 

Maryland ................................... 266,900 

Massachusetts .......................... 251,930 

Michigan ................................... 276,210 

Minnesota ................................. 201,190 

Mississippi ................................ 253,680 

New Hampshire ........................ 201,450 

New Jersey ............................... 275,480 

New York .................................. 347,300 

North Carolina .......................... 299,150 

Northern Marianas .................... 298,670 

Ohio .......................................... 220,780 

Oregon ...................................... 225,970 

Pennsylvania ............................ 219,650 

Puerto Rico ............................... 324,080 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 13, 2008 / Notices 47157 

TABLE 3—DISTRIBUTION OF 2008 

BEACH ACT GRANTS—Continued 

For the State or Territory of—

The year 

2008 allocation is—

Rhode Island ............................ 209,650 

South Carolina .......................... 293,270 

Texas ........................................ 379,140 

U.S. Virgin Islands .................... 298,510 

Virginia ...................................... 274,650 

Washington ............................... 267,980 

Wisconsin ................................. 222,420 

F. How Much Are States Spending Using 

the Current Allocation Formula? 

All 35 eligible States and Territories 

have developed and are now 

implementing a beach monitoring and 

notification program consistent with the 

requirements of the ‘‘National Beach 

Guidance and Required Performance 

Criteria for Grants’’ for the past 6 years. 

As a result of awarding grants to these 

States and Territories for the last seven 

years, EPA now has a clear picture of 

their spending patterns. 

First, States and Territories fund their 

beach monitoring and notification 

programs using funds awarded in the 

previous year. For example, a State will 

use its 2007 grant to fund 2008 beach 

monitoring and notification. The reason 

for this is the timing of the award of 

annual BEACH Act grants. EPA 

typically receives its appropriation 

between December and March of each 

fiscal year. Once EPA is aware of the 

total appropriation for BEACH Act 

grants, EPA publishes a notice of the 

availability of grants. States and 

Territories apply for the grants, and the 

grants are awarded by summer with a 

project period that generally covers the 

following summer. This is generally too 

late to fund the current year’s 

monitoring, so States and Territories 

typically use grant funds awarded in 

one year to fund activities in the 

following year’s beach season. Some 

grant awards are made by amending the 

previous year’s grant award and 

extending the project period. 

Second, some States and Territories 

delay expending BEACH Act grants 

until the end of the beach season, or in 

a few situations, the following year. For 

example, a State may not expend the 

grant funds awarded in FY 07 until FY 

08. Since this State would use funds 

awarded in 2006 for the 2007 

monitoring, this means that some year 

2006 funds may not be expended until 

year 2008. 

Overall, EPA expects that in any year, 

States and Territories could have some 

grant funds remaining from the 

preceding two federal fiscal years, but 

should have used and invoiced all the 

funds from the federal fiscal years prior 

to the preceding two federal fiscal years. 

For example, in FY 2008, EPA expects 

that States and Tribes could have funds 

remaining from years FY 2006 and FY 

2007, but would not have funds 

remaining from years up through FY 

2005. Table 4 shows the current status 

of funds as of July 22, 2008 remaining 

from the beginning of BEACH Act grants 

(2001) through 2005. 

TABLE 4—DISTRIBUTION OF BEACH ACT GRANT AWARDS AS OF 7/22/08 

State 

Total grant 

funds received 

FY 2001–2005 

Total grant 

funds remaining FY 2001–

2005 

% Grants 

funds uninvoiced FY 

2001–2005 

(percent) 

Alabama ....................................................................................................................................... $1,108,677 $0 0 

Alaska .......................................................................................................................................... 660,178 151,989 23 

American Samoa ......................................................................................................................... 1,207,142 0 0 

California ...................................................................................................................................... 2,178,117 0 0 

CNMI ............................................................................................................................................ 1,270,938 0 0 

Connecticut .................................................................................................................................. 957,854 0 0 

Delaware ...................................................................................................................................... 902,802 0 0 

Florida .......................................................................................................................................... 2,211,738 0 0 

Georgia ........................................................................................................................................ 1,210,365 0 0 

Guam ........................................................................................................................................... 1,208,932 0 0 

Hawaii .......................................................................................................................................... 1,354,901 0 0 

Illinois ........................................................................................................................................... 1,185,881 0 0 

Indiana ......................................................................................................................................... 882,484 0 0 

Louisiana ...................................................................................................................................... 1,471,127 0 0 

Maine ........................................................................................................................................... 1,090,713 0 0 

Maryland ...................................................................................................................................... 1,153,021 0 0 

Massachusetts ............................................................................................................................. 1,090,645 0 0 

Michigan ....................................................................................................................................... 1,151,672 0 0 

Minnesota .................................................................................................................................... 875,555 0 0 

Mississippi .................................................................................................................................... 1,088,902 0 0 

New Hampshire ........................................................................................................................... 876,994 3,522 <1 

New Jersey .................................................................................................................................. 1,189,459 7,477 <1 

New York ..................................................................................................................................... 1,493,065 4,998 <1 

North Carolina .............................................................................................................................. 1,280,231 0 0 

Ohio ............................................................................................................................................. 960,193 52,842 6 

Oregon ......................................................................................................................................... 972,673 0 0 

Pennsylvania ................................................................................................................................ 821,766 0 0 

Puerto Rico .................................................................................................................................. 1,382,783 547,201 40 

Rhode Island ................................................................................................................................ 911,670 0 0 

South Carolina ............................................................................................................................. 1,255,358 0 0 

Texas ........................................................................................................................................... 1,620,223 0 0 

Virgin Islands ............................................................................................................................... 1,270,325 64,184 5 

Virginia ......................................................................................................................................... 1,258,772 0 0 

Washington .................................................................................................................................. 1,153,133 0 0 

Wisconsin ..................................................................................................................................... 965,890 0 0 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with NOTICES
47158 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 13, 2008 / Notices 

As Table 4 shows, 28 States and 

Territories have invoiced all funds from 

years 2001 through 2005, but 7 States 

and Territories have funds remaining 

from grants awarded prior to 2006. Most 

of those States and Territories have only 

a few percent of these funds remaining. 

However, Alaska and Puerto Rico have 

over 20% of their funds remaining from 

the years 2001 through 2005. 

G. What Problems Occur Under the 

Current Allocation Formula? 

As discussed in section II.C., EPA 

developed the current allocation 

formula assuming that the BEACH Act 

grant program would be funded to its 

full authorization of $30 million. 

Approximately $8.15 million of the 

currently available $10 million in 

BEACH Act grant funds are allocated on 

the basis of what EPA expects is the 

minimum amount of dollars needed to 

establish and run a beach program, 

according to the length of a beach 

season in a State or Territory. As a 

result, the shoreline miles and coastal 

population factors are underrepresented in the allocation formula, 

each receiving 9% of the total (based on 

$10 million of available grant funds). 

The dominating influence of the beach 

season length can cause some issues. 

First, States and Territories with longer 

shorelines (and thus likely many 

beaches) receive fewer funds per beach 

than States and Territories with shorter 

shorelines (likely fewer beaches). This 

can result in a lower percentage of 

beaches monitored or less intense 

monitoring in the States and Territories 

with many beaches, which may result in 

less protection of public health that in 

other States or Territories. 

Second, States and Territories with 

shorter shorelines (likely fewer beaches) 

may receive more funds than they can 

effectively spend, thus leaving unspent 

funds intended for beach monitoring. 

Third, the current allocation formula 

uses miles of State shoreline as a 

surrogate for miles of beaches. For 

States with extensive coastline but 

fewer miles of beaches, this factor 

overestimates the miles of beaches, 

resulting in larger grant awards than 

perhaps warranted, and increases the 

potential for unused funds. 

Fourth, the current allocation formula 

uses coastal county population data 

provided by the Census Bureau as a 

surrogate for actual beach use. This 

results in a larger grant allocation for 

States and Territories with high coastal 

populations whether or not beach use in 

those States and Territories is high, and 

the potential for targeting funds away 

from beaches where the potential to 

prevent more illnesses is higher because 

of greater use there. 

The Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) identified these factors as 

shortcomings of the current allocation 

formula in its 2007 report on the beach 

program. GAO recommended that EPA 

allocate grant funds to better reflect 

monitoring needs and help States and 

Territories improve the consistency of 

their monitoring and notification 

activities. 

III. Discussions of Expected Changes to 

the Grant Allocation Formula 

A. What Process Did EPA Use To 

Analyze Potential Changes to the 

Allocation Formula? 

EPA first made public its intention to 

revisit the allocation formula in the 

Federal Register (FR) notice announcing 

the availability of fiscal year 2006 grants 

(71 FR 1744, 1746, January 11, 2006). 

On February 15, 2006, EPA convened a 

workgroup made up of EPA and State 

representatives to explore issues and 

problems with the current formula, and 

to discuss possible changes to the 

formula that would address these 

problems. Of the 35 BEACH Act eligible 

States, 25 participated in the workgroup 

which met monthly. The workgroup 

carefully evaluated alternatives to the 

three component factors used in the 

allocation formula. The workgroup 

continued its work through May 2007. 

B. What Factors Did EPA and States 

Discuss? 

EPA and States discussed all three 

factors in the current allocation formula, 

including better ways to quantify these 

factors and to address the issues 

discussed in Section II.G. 

1. Beach Season Length 

As discussed in Section II.D.1, this 

factor recognizes, all other things being 

equal, that the longer the beach season, 

the more funds that a State or Territory 

needs to operate a beach monitoring and 

notification program. Under the current 

formula, States and Territories with long 

beach seasons receive more funds than 

States and Territories with short beach 

seasons for this factor. As summarized 

in Table 1, above, the base funding level 

of the current grant allocation formula is 

based on the beach season length and 

ranges from $150,000 to $300,000. 

During the conference calls, the 

workgroup evaluated options for 

uniformly reducing the amounts 

associated with this factor by either 

$50,000 or $100,000 so that more funds 

would be ‘‘available’’ to be allotted 

based on the other two factors. 

Uniformly reducing the beach season 

length component of the allocation 

formula (i.e., by $50,000 or $100,000) 

affects the minimum amount of funding 

a State or Territory receives to 

implement its BEACH Act monitoring 

and notification program and would 

have the effect of shifting funds toward 

those States and Territories with longer 

shorelines and greater shoreline 

populations. For a $10 million 

appropriation for BEACH Act grants, 

reducing this factor by $50,000 (i.e. 

changing the values in Table from 

150,000 to 100,000; 200,000 to 150,000; 

250,000 to 200,000) would result in a 

total of $6.5 million for this factor, or 

65% of the funds. Likewise, reducing 

this factor by $100,000 would result in 

a total of $4.75 million for this factor, 

or 48% of the funds distributed by the 

formula. Either of these changes would 

reduce the significance of the length of 

beach season in the allocation formula, 

and increase the significance of the 

other two factors, but would leave all 

States and Territories with enough 

funds to operate a basic beach 

monitoring and notification program. 

EPA estimates that this minimum base 

amount is $150,000 based on 1 full-time 

equivalent and other costs associated 

with the collection and transmittal to 

EPA of monitoring and advisory data. 

The workgroup also discussed the 

implications of reducing the beach 

season length component by $150,000. 

Most state workgroup representatives 

believed this could reduce the grant 

amounts at a $10 million appropriation 

for States and Territories with fewer 

beach miles or beach use to a level 

below which the States and Territories 

believed necessary to operate a basic 

monitoring and notification program. As 

a result, the workgroup only considered 

reductions of $50,000 and $100,000. 

2. Beach Miles 

As discussed in section II.D.2, this 

factor recognizes that the greater 

number of beach miles in a State or 

Territory, the more funds are needed to 

monitor beaches and notify the public at 

those beaches. From this component, 

States and Territories with more miles 

of beaches would receive more funds 

than States and Territories with fewer 

miles of beaches. Because there was no 

verifiable source of the total beach 

mileage for each State and Territory 

when EPA developed the original 

allocation formula, EPA used NOAA 

shoreline length as a surrogate for beach 

length. 

a. Considerations About Total Beach 

Miles 

Beach mileage was a factor that 

received special attention from the 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 13, 2008 / Notices 47159 

workgroup. The workgroup considered 

options for changing the surrogate for 

the beach mileage component from the 

current shoreline miles (taken from a 

NOAA data set) to a more precise 

measure. They started their discussions 

with a common view that actual beach 

miles would be the most preferable 

measure because it is a direct 

measurement, rather than a surrogate 

and is also available as a data field in 

EPA’s PRogram tracking, beach 

Advisories, Water quality standards, 

and Nutrients (PRAWN) database. 

PRAWN is used by EPA to store 

information on State and Territorial 

beach advisories and closings. However, 

the workgroup found several issues with 

the current information in PRAWN on 

actual total beach miles. 

The workgroup noted significant 

differences in reported beach mileage 

due to several factors. First, States and 

Territories have different ways for 

computing total beach miles in the data 

that they input into PRAWN. Second, 

not all States and Territories had input 

complete information about beach 

length into PRAWN. Finally, the 

workgroup noticed what appeared to be 

inconsistencies between entries in 

PRAWN and similar data from other 

sources. 

As a result, the workgroup 

recommended that EPA improve the 

completeness and accuracy of the total 

beach mile data in PRAWN before 

considering using it in the allocation 

formula. EPA is continuing to compile 

and review for accuracy beach mileage 

information for all the BEACH Act 

States and Territories and expects to 

have more reliable data on beach 

mileage by mid-2009. EPA has designed 

this effort to address all of the data 

limitations discussed above, as well as 

any additional limitations or concerns 

that may arise during this effort. The 

effort includes using the same latitude/ 

longitude data standards as used in 

other EPA and State databases and a 

quality assurance review of all data used 

to generate the beach lengths. EPA is 

conducting this effort with the States 

and Territories to ensure that beach 

mileage amounts are accurate and thus 

would be appropriate to use for BEACH 

Act grant allocation formula purposes in 

the future. 

Given their concerns about using 

current total beach miles in the 

allocation formula, the workgroup then 

considered whether current monitored 

beach miles (i.e. lengths of beaches 

where sampling occurs) would be a 

better measure to use. Lengths of 

beaches with no monitoring would not 

be considered. One advantage of using 

monitored beach miles data that the 

workgroup recognized is that this 

information is updated annually by 

States and Territories as they submit 

their beach monitoring and notification 

information to EPA. The workgroup 

favored using monitored beach miles 

because they were aware of the quality, 

accuracy and representativeness of this 

information. The workgroup reviewed 

the monitored beach mile data from 

PRAWN for the 2005 swimming season, 

which was the most current information 

at the time of the workgroup 

deliberations, and agreed that monitored 

beach miles is a reasonable substitute 

for total beach miles. 

The workgroup categorized monitored 

beach miles data into groups that were 

relatively close in magnitude. The 

workgroup observed that monitored 

beach miles tended to fall into five 

groups: less than 32 miles, 32–63 miles, 

64–249 miles, 250–500 miles, and 

greater than 500 miles. Grouping 

information in this way has the effect of 

minimizing differences between the 

lowest and highest data points. EPA 

considers grouping data appropriate 

when there is a wide disparity between 

the high and low points of data. 

b. Considerations of Alternatives to 

Beach Miles 

The workgroup evaluated several 

other alternatives for distributing grant 

funds based on the monitoring need for 

the length of beaches. These included 

the total number of Tier 1 beaches, the 

total number of Tier 1 and Tier 2 

beaches combined (using EPA’s 

recommended tiers), frequency of 

sampling or the total number of samples 

taken during the beach season at Tier 1 

beaches, and total number of monitoring 

stations. In discussing other alternatives 

for characterizing beach length, the 

workgroup looked for ways to better 

represent the actual monitoring and 

notification need by using data of 

comparable quality between the States 

and Territories. 

A Tier 1 or Tier 2 beach represents the 

relative priority that States and 

Territories place on a beach for 

monitoring and notification. Consistent 

with the ‘‘National Beach Guidance and 

Required Performance Criteria for 

Grants’’ (EPA–823–B–02–004), States 

and Territories evaluate and classify 

beaches based on the potential risk of 

disease and to protect public health. For 

states that use EPA’s recommended 

process to categorize or ‘‘tier’’ their 

beaches, a classification of Tier 1, for 

example, could indicate that waters are 

of such importance and/or receive such 

high usage that significant resources 

should be devoted to more intensive 

monitoring and public notification 

efforts for that area. In theory, a State or 

Territory with a higher number of Tier 

1 beaches (or combination of Tier 1 and 

Tier 2 beaches) would have a greater 

need for monitoring, and thus would 

warrant more grant funds. 

However, the workgroup did not 

believe that using the Tier 1 or a 

combination of Tier 1 and Tier 2 

beaches would be a good alternative for 

beach length. First, States and 

Territories classify their beaches 

differently. For example, some states 

count each point of access to the ocean 

as a beach whereas other states consider 

the length of beach when counting 

beaches. 

Second, States and Territories use 

different criteria for defining Tier 1 

beaches. Some beaches are classified as 

Tier 1 beaches because they are highly 

used, and others are classified as Tier 1 

because they have higher contamination 

levels. The workgroup also discussed 

creating a matrix of factors related to 

monitoring at beaches, and using this to 

quantify the component to allocate grant 

funds based on monitoring need. This 

matrix would include factors such as 

operating costs, number of monitored 

beaches, frequency of monitoring, and 

number of monitoring stations. 

The workgroup concluded that there 

are several issues with using a matrix of 

factors, and decided it would not be 

appropriate to use it as a surrogate for 

beach length. The first issue is that there 

is no current verifiable collection of 

these data and thus constructing a 

matrix would require a data collection 

effort that the workgroup did not believe 

could be completed with verifiable data. 

The second issue relates to using the 

frequency of monitoring as a metric. 

Some States and Territories would 

likely monitor more intensely if they 

had funds to do so. Therefore, a state’s 

current level or frequency of monitoring 

does not necessarily reflect a need for 

monitoring but rather the resources 

available to monitor. Some workgroup 

members pointed out that collecting 

more water samples at more stations is 

not always necessary to ensure 

protection of public health. If a beach 

has a documented history of good water 

quality and officials well understand 

what is impacting water quality at a 

particular beach, then taking more 

samples at the beach may not provide 

any more information for determining 

the need for a beach advisory or protect 

any more people from illness. In 

addition, increased monitoring at a 

beach with good water quality could 

direct funds away from beaches that do 

not have such a good history and thus 

where additional monitoring would be 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with NOTICES
47160 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 13, 2008 / Notices 

helpful and lead to preventing 

additional illness. 

Third, EPA expects that States and 

Territories have made decisions on the 

intensity of monitoring and notification 

priorities based on risk, the need to 

protect public health, and local 

circumstances. EPA’s guidance in this 

area is in the ‘‘National Beach Guidance 

and Performance Criteria for Grants’’

EPA–823–B–02–004). Including 

frequency of sampling or number of 

sampling stations in the allocation 

formula could change this. EPA 

recognizes that States and Territories 

may want to reduce or increase 

sampling frequencies at individual 

beaches, focus on problem beaches, 

conduct intensive sampling efforts, or 

respond to community requests, and 

that States and Territories need to be 

able to make these decisions as needed 

during a swimming season without 

considering how it might affect the 

distribution of grant funds the following 

year. 

3. Beach Use 

As discussed in section II.D.3, this 

factor recognizes that the greater the 

beach use in a State or Territory, the 

greater the potential to reduce the 

absolute number of people who get sick 

by monitoring and notifying the public 

at these beaches. States and Territories 

with beaches with more visitors would 

receive more funds than States and 

Territories with beaches with fewer 

visitors. Because there was no verifiable 

source of the number of people visiting 

beaches when EPA developed the 

allocation formula, EPA used 2000 

census data of county coastal 

population as a surrogate for beach use. 

During its deliberations, the 

workgroup investigated different ways 

of finding a better estimate of beach use. 

EPA identified a reliable, and 

independently-verifiable data source: 

‘‘Current Participation Patterns in 

Marine Recreation’’ (November 2001), 

which the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration published 

as part of the 1999–2000 National 

Survey of Recreation and the 

Environment (NSRE). The NSRE is the 

eighth in a series of national surveys 

that was started in 1960 by the federal 

government to assess outdoor recreation 

participation in the United States. The 

survey was conducted as an ‘‘in-thehome’’ phone survey of 50,000 

households across all ethnic groups 

throughout the United States. The 

survey provides a quantitative measure 

of the number of people who swim at 

marine beaches, including mixed fresh/ 

saltwater in tidal portions of rivers and 

bays. Thus, the survey better reflects the 

swimming beach activity for marine 

States than does coastal population. The 

NSRE information overcomes the bias of 

using coastal population as a surrogate 

for beach use. However, the report does 

not include data for the Great Lakes 

States or the Territories. 

The workgroup looked for other 

sources of beach use or swimming 

information regarding the Great Lakes 

and Territories. Not finding such 

information, the workgroup then 

considered whether it could estimate 

the number of people who swim at 

beaches on the Great Lakes and the 

Territories by projecting a ratio between 

the NSRE report data and coastal 

population data for marine States and 

then applying this ratio to the coastal 

population for the Great Lakes States 

and the Territories. This process could 

replace use of the year 2000 coastal 

county population data on the 

distribution of funds in the allocation 

formula. 

However, application of those ratios 

produced results in some instances that 

seemed inappropriate to the workgroup. 

For example, applying the ratio to 

estimate the number of people 

swimming in the Chicago area was 

about 50% higher than the NSRE data 

for the New York City area. Applying 

the ratio to Puerto Rico gave a result that 

was only slightly higher than the NSRE 

data for California. EPA discussed the 

consequences of using the ratio to 

estimate the number of people 

swimming at Great Lakes and Territorial 

beaches with representatives from Great 

Lakes States and EPA Region 9 

personnel representing the Pacific 

Territories. The representatives 

suggested that the ratio estimates should 

be based on known local information if 

available. Thus, EPA is now working 

with the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration to address 

the need for an update to the NSRE that 

would obtain information about Great 

Lakes beaches. 

As was the case with the beach length 

data, the workgroup categorized the 

beach use data to minimize the effect of 

any imprecision in the data or 

inconsistencies in reporting on the 

allocation formula calculations. By 

grouping the data into categories, beach 

use totals that are relatively close in 

magnitude would be considered to be 

the same magnitude. The beach use data 

tended to fall into four groups: fewer 

than 1 million swimmers, 1–4 million 

swimmers, 4–8 million swimmers, and 

greater than 8 million swimmers. 

C. What Potential Solutions Were 

Developed? 

From these evaluations of the 

components of the formula, the 

workgroup formed four options for a 

revised formula. The options were 

designed to overcome the two primary 

issues with the current allocation 

formula: the overly-large influence of 

the beach season component of the 

formula at the current level of 

appropriations, and the shortcomings of 

the surrogates for beach use and beach 

length. To reduce the influence of the 

beach season component, reductions in 

this component by either $50,000 or 

$100,000 per state were considered. To 

overcome the shortcomings of the 

current indices for beach miles and 

beach use, EPA considered monitored 

beaches as a surrogate for the beach 

season length factor and the NSRE data 

as a surrogate for the beach use factor. 

The options differ in that they 

investigate different combinations of 

reducing the beach season length and 

the effect of grouping monitored beach 

mile and NSRE use data within range 

categories as replacements for the 

surrogates as shown in Table 5. 

Grouping, as opposed to calculating an 

allocation based on discrete beach mile 

and use data, is more tolerant of 

imprecision in measurement while 

reflecting the effects of broader variation 

for this type of purpose. 

TABLE 5—ALLOCATION FORMULA OPTIONS CONSIDERED

For option— The beach season component is 

reduced by—

The monitored beach miles data 

for the component is—

The NSRE data for the beach use 

component is—

1 ..................................................... $50,000 ......................................... Grouped ........................................ Ungrouped. 

2 ..................................................... $100,000 ....................................... Grouped ........................................ Ungrouped. 

3 ..................................................... $50,000 ......................................... Grouped * ...................................... Grouped.** 

4 ..................................................... $100,000 ....................................... Grouped * ...................................... Grouped.** 

* 5 Groupings: less than 32 miles, 32–63 miles, 64–249 miles, 250–500 miles, and greater than 500 miles. 

**5 Groupings: fewer than 1 million swimmers, 1–4 million swimmers, 4–8 million swimmers, and greater than 8 million swimmers. 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 13, 2008 / Notices 47161 

All four options resulted in more 

States losing funding than those gaining 

funding. The 2006 BEACH Act grants 

were used as a baseline to evaluate each 

option. In 2006, the allocation 

calculated awards ranging between 

$150,000 and $528,410. In Option 1, the 

calculated grant awards ranged from 

$132,610 to $717,290. Nine States and 

one Territory would receive increased 

funding, with increases ranging from 

$13,665 to $331,211. Six States and one 

Territory would receive increases of 

more than 20%. Twenty-one States and 

four Territories would receive decreased 

funding, with decreases ranging from 

$2,458 to $170,949. Nine States would 

receive decreases of more than 20%. 

In Option 2, the calculated grant 

awards ranged from $127,430 to 

$687,770. Twelve States and three 

Territories would receive increased 

funding, with increases ranging from 

$888 to $159,354. Five States and one 

Territory States would receive increases 

of more than 20%. Eighteen States and 

two Territories States would receive 

decreased funding, with decreases 

ranging from $2,770 to $138,124. Four 

of those 20 States would receive 

decreases of more than 20%. 

In Option 3, the calculated grant 

awards ranged from $131,060 to 

$561,960. Fourteen States and three 

Territories would receive increased 

funding, with increases ranging from 

$769 to $114,510. Three States would 

receive increases of more than 20%. 

Sixteen States and two Territories 

would receive decreased funding, with 

decreases ranging from $7,120 to 

$140,951. Two States would receive 

decreases of more than 20%. 

In Option 4, the calculated grant 

awards ranged from $153,800 to 

$490,220. Twelve States and five 

Territories would receive increased 

funding, with increases ranging from 

$464 to $84,618. Two States would 

receive increases of more than 20%. 

Eighteen States would receive decreased 

funding, with decreases ranging from 

$275 to $118,216. One State would 

receive a decrease of more than 20%. 

In evaluating the options, EPA 

recognized that under any option, some 

States and Territories would gain 

funding and some would lose. EPA was 

most interested in options that would 

not result in many States or Territories 

losing significant funds such that their 

programs would possibly be unable to 

continue. Option 1 would result in nine 

States and Territories losing over 20% 

of their current annual funds, which 

could adversely affect their ability to 

carry out their program. Under option 2, 

only four States and Territories would 

lose over 20% of their funds, but more 

States and Territories would lose funds 

than gain funds. Under option 3, only 2 

States would lose over 20% of their 

funds and the number of States and 

Territories losing and gaining funds 

were about the same. Under option 4 

only one State would lose over 20% of 

its current allocation and the number of 

States and Territories losing and gaining 

funds were about the same. EPA prefers 

option 4. Each of the evaluated options 

maintained at least $150,000 for all 

States except Alaska, which was 

reduced to as low as $127,430 in option 

two. 

D. How Did States React to the Options? 

During the course of successive 

meetings, State representatives in the 

workgroup made it clear that any 

significant reduction in beach grant 

funds could cause severe effects to 

many State beach monitoring and 

notification programs. State 

representatives identified effects 

including discontinuing monitoring at 

some beaches, especially those that are 

in remote areas; discontinuing funding 

to entire counties or Tribes that are 

subcontracted to monitor beaches, 

thereby reducing monitoring and 

notification at multiple beaches; and 

reducing the frequency of monitoring at 

Tier 1 beaches in high-population areas, 

thereby increasing the risk of missing 

high pathogen concentrations and thus 

increasing the risk to public health. 

The State representatives on the 

workgroup recommended that EPA 

maintain its current allocation formula 

(i.e., the ‘‘no change’’ option) for the 

current level of funding (which is about 

$10 million annually) to prevent 

significant State and Territorial program 

reductions or cuts. To many State 

representatives, the annual beach grant 

amount had become the financial 

foundation upon which they built their 

programs. In addition to funding the 

actual beach monitoring and 

notification, the annual beach grant 

supports other elements essential to 

maintaining a viable beach program: A 

State or Territory beach coordinator, the 

maintenance of a database of beach 

monitoring and notification, and the 

electronic transmittal of these data to 

EPA. Some State budgets are very tight, 

and funds for recreational water 

monitoring and notification are limited 

to the amount received in BEACH Act 

grant funding. These States, which may 

not have had any beach monitoring and 

notification program prior to the BEACH 

Act, are extremely sensitive to any 

reduction in their grant amounts. Some 

State workgroup representatives 

indicated that they might choose to opt 

out of EPA’s BEACH Act grant program 

if their grant amounts are significantly 

reduced. 

E. What Is EPA’s Reaction and Why? 

EPA has reviewed the beach grant 

allocation formula and has recognized 

issues and some imbalance in the 

allocation of grant funds among States 

and Territories. EPA has sought input 

from the States in having them 

participate in a workgroup formed to 

review the allocation formula. EPA and 

the State workgroup identified and have 

reviewed a range of options for 

improving the formula. 

EPA has reviewed the data on the 

allocation of beach grant funds and 

concludes that the current formula 

provides a base amount of 

approximately $150,000 that is the 

minimum required to maintain a beach 

program that meets the requirements of 

the BEACH Act. The data indicate that 

the distribution of fund grant funds is 

for the most part equitable and that 

States are expending the grant funds 

consistent with program requirements. 

EPA recognizes, however, outstanding 

needs presented by long beach seasons, 

heavy use of beaches, and/or long 

coastlines with many beaches represent 

burdens that some State partners must 

manage. 

Our evaluation led EPA to choose an 

incremental process in considering 

changes to the grant allocation formula, 

starting with modest changes to address 

outstanding needs. The first step to be 

piloted by EPA in adjusting the grant 

process employs two techniques: (1) 

The re-allocation of older unexpended 

grant funds and (2) making changes to 

be employed effective in 2010 as to how 

these and any other additional funds 

over an annual appropriation of $10 

million would be allocated to States and 

Territories. 

IV. Future Change to the Grant 

Allocation Formula Under 

Consideration 

A. What Change Is EPA Considering? 

EPA is today announcing that it is 

considering a change to its allocation 

formula that would shift funding from 

States and Territories that are not fully 

using all of their previously awarded 

BEACH Act grant funds to those States 

and Territories that: (1) Use their annual 

funds and (2) have more beach miles at 

which they could conduct monitoring 

and notification to increase public 

health protection. To do this, EPA 

would develop and use a new allocation 

formula based on beach miles and beach 

use to reallocate any unspent funds. 

EPA would also use this new formula in 

the future to allocate any increase in 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with NOTICES
47162 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 13, 2008 / Notices 

appropriated BEACH Act grant funds 

above the $10 million current level. 

EPA would implement this approach 

by reviewing State and Territorial 

spending every October 1 and adjusting 

the allocation to certain States and 

Territories on the basis of the funds that 

these States and Territories have not yet 

expended. EPA would review EPA’s 

Financial Database Warehouse to 

confirm the amount of outstanding 

funds reported. In making this 

determination, EPA will take into 

account those funds that have been 

committed through an appropriate State, 

Territorial or Tribal contract, interagency agreement, or similar type of 

binding agreement, but have not been 

requested for reimbursement, i.e., that 

are not showing as ‘‘drawn down’’ in 

EPA’s Data Warehouse. As noted in 

section III.F., EPA recognizes that States 

and Territories have different financial 

management systems and that those 

systems could result in delayed billing 

to EPA, even though the States and 

Territories might have already expended 

funds to monitor beaches and notify the 

public. EPA also recognizes that States 

and Territories typically spend the 

previous year’s grant award in any given 

beach season due to the timing of the 

availability of BEACH Act grants in the 

middle of the beach season. Therefore, 

to account for these factors, EPA is 

considering an approach that would 

reduce the new grant award by the 

amount of unexpended grant funds that 

are more than three years old. 

For the 2010 beach season, EPA 

would review State and Territory 

spending in October 2009 and 

determine how much grant funding 

from fiscal years 2001 to 2007 is still 

unspent by each State and Territory. 

EPA would identify the unspent 

amounts from 2001 through 2007 in the 

Financial Database Warehouse and 

compare them to the amount EPA 

expects to award in fiscal year 2010. 

EPA would then reduce the 2010 grant 

award for those States and Territories 

with unobligated funds from 2001 

through 2007 by the amount remaining. 

For example, in 2010, consider a State 

that normally receives $250,000 

annually yet has $100,000 remaining 

from grants awarded up to fiscal year 

2007. Under the approach that EPA is 

considering, EPA would reduce the 

State’s grant award for the following 

year’s beach season by $100,000 (the 

amount the State has left unspent from 

fiscal years up to 2007), thus resulting 

in an award of $150,000 in 2010. The 

$100,000 not awarded to the State 

would be combined with unused grant 

funds from other States and Territories 

and re-allocated among the States and 

Territories that have fully used their 

funds from fiscal years up to 2007 using 

a modified allocation formula, described 

below. 

EPA is considering reallocating these 

additional funds according to a second, 

modified allocation formula composed 

of only two factors—beach miles and 

beach use—to only those States and 

Territories that do not have remaining 

money older than three years old. EPA 

is working with States and Territories to 

obtain sufficient information to base a 

supplemental allocation formula on 

those two factors. As discussed in 

Section III.B.2.a, with the help of State 

and Territorial beach program managers, 

EPA is compiling and quality testing 

beach mile information for all the 

BEACH Act States and Territories and 

expects to have reliable beach mile data 

on the extent of beaches by mid-2009. 

EPA is also working with the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration to expand its research 

on beach use to Great Lakes States, and 

is also looking for information on beach 

use in the Territories. EPA will work 

with States to ensure effective 

implementation of the new allocation 

formula. 

B. Why Isn’t EPA Amending Other Parts 

of the Allocation Formula? 

EPA is considering the retention of 

the use of the surrogates EPA has used 

for beach mileage and beach use—i.e., 

shoreline miles and coastal 

population—as factors of the current 

allocation formula for the first $10 

million in BEACH Act grant funds. As 

discussed in section III.D, States 

consider their current level of BEACH 

Act funding to be the financial 

foundation for their beach monitoring 

and notification programs. Because this 

funding has been relatively stable over 

the last six years, States and Territories 

rely on these funds to provide them a 

generally consistent level of funding for 

their programs. For many States, funds 

for recreational water monitoring are 

limited to the amount received in 

BEACH Act grant funding. Some States 

have indicated to EPA that they might 

choose to opt out of EPA’s BEACH Act 

grant program if their grant amounts are 

reduced. For these reasons, EPA is 

considering retaining the use of 

shoreline miles and coastal population 

factors in the core allocation formula for 

the first $10 million of appropriated 

grant funds and not making any other 

changes to this formula. 

C. How Would This Change Affect 

Current State Funding? 

Based on grant fund use as of 2008, 

EPA expects that most States and 

Territories will not be affected in 2010 

because they currently have no unused 

BEACH Act grant funds that are more 

than three years old. The expected 

changes to the allocation formula will 

affect only those States and Territories 

that have unspent BEACH Act grant 

funds that are more than three years old. 

In 2008, only 7 States and Territories—

Alaska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, 

New York, Ohio, Puerto Rico, and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands—fall into this 

category. As noted in Table 4, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, and New York 

all have balances of less than 1 percent 

of their total BEACH Act grant funds 

more than three years old. EPA 

recognizes that Agency accounting 

practices contributed to the remaining 

balances in New Jersey and New York, 

and has worked to ensure that the oldest 

money is now invoiced first. Under the 

process EPA is considering, should any 

State or Territory in 2010 have 

uninvoiced funds from FY 2001 through 

FY 2007, EPA would reduce their 2010 

grant funding by the amount equal to 

this older money and redistribute these 

funds to the other States and Territories. 

D. How Would EPA Involve States in 

Developing This Change? 

EPA intends to reconstitute the 

workgroup of EPA and State 

representatives to discuss the details for 

implementing this change to the 

allocation formula. EPA will also invite 

Territorial representatives to the 

workgroup. 

E. When Would This Change Become 

Effective? 

EPA expects that this change will be 

effective for the awarding of the 2010 

BEACH Act grants. 

Dated: August 7, 2008. 

Benjamin H. Grumbles, 

Assistant Administrator for Water. 

[FR Doc. E8–18739 Filed 8–12–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–Docket ID No. ORD–2008–0597; 

FRL–8703–4] 

Guidance on the Development, 

Evaluation and Application of 

Environmental Models 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of public comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing a 30-day 

public comment period for an external 

review of its Guidance Document on the 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with NOTICES