NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule Analysis E: Annual Compliance Certifications

                                                              13 September 2010
                                                                       DCN 0021

                               TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                           Page
1.0	Overview	3
2.0	Industrial Stormwater Annual Compliance Certifications	10
3.0	Active Construction Sites Annual Compliance Certifications	18
4.0	Concentrated Animal Feeding operations (CAFOs) Compliance Certifications	28

1.0 Overview
1.1	Background

      On 15 October 2009, the Agency issued the Clean Water Act Action Plan which sets forth a series of commitments by the Agency to revamp its NPDES enforcement program. A major commitment from the Action Plan is to improve management and performance of the NPDES program by requiring electronic reporting of NPDES information from regulated facilities. EPA is developing a rulemaking, NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (RIN: 2020-AA47), to solicit input and formalize the requirements for electronic reporting. Electronic reporting will likely reduce the burden for facilities to report to regulatory agencies and for states to report to EPA. Expected benefits include lower processing costs for facilities and states, improved data quality and accuracy, greater data accessibility and transparency for the public, and an increased ability to target and address noncompliance that will improve and protect water quality.

      Compliance for most NPDES program components is not solely based on the submission of discharge monitoring reports (DMRs). NPDES program compliance is also assessed by inspections and the state or EPA Region's review of periodic or incident based reports from permittees. These non-DMR reports (also known as "program reports") are required under EPA's regulations and they provide an update to program implementation items beyond what is included in the permit application or permit issuance process. Separate rulemaking analyses focus on converting DMR and program reports from paper-based to electronic reporting (see "Analysis A" and "Analysis F," respectively).

      This document focuses on potential new annual compliance certifications to supplement DMRs and program reports. When entities recognize that: (1) neither EPA nor the states will likely conduct inspections at their facilities; (2) no requirements exist for the facilities to monitor and report their compliance status to regulatory agencies; and (3) neither EPA nor the states will likely initiate enforcement actions against their facilities, deterrence theory and empirical evidence suggests a low potential for compliance-enhancing deterrent impacts. In order to enhance CWA compliance and direct government inspection and enforcement resources towards the facilities and sectors experiencing the most severe CWA noncompliance, EPA examined whether it should create new electronic-based annual compliance certifications to supplement DMRs and program reports. For the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule EPA opted to not create any new reporting requirements.

      The first step is to identify where EPA might want to create new or improved electronic compliance certifications. This document identifies the following list of potential new electronic-based annual compliance certifications:

               *       Section 2.0: Facilities regulated by master general permits (sector based general permits and industrial stormwater monitoring) that do not require DMRs or other compliance certifications. Initial estimates are that this might be 10% of the facilities regulated by master general permits.
               *       Section 3.0: Active construction sites that are regulated by the recently promulgated effluent limitations guidelines.
               *       Section 4.0: Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) that are not required to submit DMRs or other compliance certifications.

This analysis builds off of existing certification-like requirements (e.g., biosolids certifications regarding vector attraction reduction, annual noncompliance report required from vessels) as these existing requirements provide model language and for the above three new annual compliance certifications. This analysis also builds off of the work done in support of the Clean Water Action Plan.

1.2 	Potential Design Principles for Successful Annual Compliance Certifications

      The following ten design principles that will likely lead to successful application of new annual compliance certifications. These principles should guide the identification regulated sectors and facilities that are good candidates for new electronic-based annual compliance certifications. These principles can also guide the development of the tools for electronic reporting (e.g., user interface requirements, frequency of reporting, types of data that aid in compliance determinations). These principles also identify that public reporting of this annual compliance data enhances deterrence and accountability among regulated entities.

1.	Establish clear and objective criteria: In certification programs, the substantive requirements against which regulators or organizations determine compliance must be sufficiently clear and objective to allow regulated entities and certifiers to consistently and accurately apply the criteria and ascertain compliance.

2.	Require specific, fact-based certifications: Regulated entities should certify that the meet specific conditions, as opposed to merely signing general compliance statements.

3.	Provide technical assistance to regulated entities: Regulated entities must know and understand the applicable regulations and standards, including when and how these criteria apply to their particular operations.

4.	Use uniform monitoring and certification forms and test standards: Forms containing consistent, objective assessment criteria advance industry compliance with certification programs and promote effective compliance evaluations by regulators across facilities.

5. 	Ensure competent and responsible certifiers: Certifiers must maintain specified credentials, meet particularized competence criteria, and operate independently from their clients.

6. 	Employ effective and efficient electronic reporting systems: Reporting systems should be inexpensive and user friendly for regulated entities.  Electronic reporting encourages programmatic compliance and timely submission of reports, while also improving data quality.

7. 	Maintain a formal inspection and enforcement presence:  Regulatory programs that provide for random agency inspections, in addition to certification requirements, promote increased compliance incentives among regulated entities since the agencies may verify the entities' reported information.

8. 	Promote accurate reporting through personal liability requirements: Certification programs that include provisions for civil and/or criminal liability for inaccurate or falsified reporting creates increased compliance incentives for regulated entities.

9. 	Enhance deterrence and accountability through public reporting: Evidence suggests that publicly reporting information submitted pursuant to certification programs, through avenues such as website posting, enhances deterrence and accountability among regulated entities.

10.	Structure programs to promote effective measurement and evaluation:  Regulators employing certification programs must consider, when initiating the program, how to effectively define, ascertain, and measure program success through their receipt of the requested data and certifications.

1.3 	Proposed Tools for Electronic Data Collection

      This paper identified two business models for developing new annual compliance certifications: (1) Closed Platform Model (EPA Built Tool; and (2) Open Platform Model (Third Party Commercial Software Vendors). These represent the user interface for inputting data and digitally signing the new annual compliance certifications. These two business models are not mutually exclusive and both can be developed to accommodate the different NPDES program sectors and the different needs of regulated entities.
      Additionally, both models will need to conduct similar tasks in defining how the data from the annual compliance certifications will be migrated from the regulated entity into ICIS-NPDES. The following tasks can be used to support both business models. Both models will need to establish the procedures consistent with the Exchange Network that will enable permittees to submit their annual compliance certification data with an option to allow state addendums. The two models will also need to create an Extensible Markup Language (XML) schema for each annual compliance certification that feeds data into ICIS-NPDES. The data element crosswalk for each program report should be harmonized with the EPA's Environmental Data Standard (EDSC) and Exchange Network. Development of this crosswalk might include the following tasks:
         * Link data element names with the EDSC to ensure that the data element naming and definition are consistent with the EDSC standards.
         * Link the data elements with the EPA's Shared Schema Components (SCC) to select/reuse current SCC to form the building blocks for the XML schema. In some cases, there might be a need to extend the current SCCs to accommodate new data elements based on the Exchange Network XML schema design guidelines.
         * Create a XML schema with schema documentation.	Create a schema conformance report and submit it to the Exchange Network Network Technical Group (NTG) to get approval and be adopted as the standard for future data flow schema.
      These steps will help support both business models and will help prepare EPA Regions and states to share annual compliance certification data with EPA via the Centralized Data Exchange (CDX).
      EPA will also need to develop the Flow Configuration Documents (FCD) for defining how EPA Regions, states, and facilities will share annual compliance certification data via the Exchange Network node protocols and the CDX. A FCD is intended to define the supported data services and processes that are used to exchange information. This document will also identify entity responsible for reporting each data element and how this data will be transmitted to EPA (e.g., web-based submission, network submission, web services) and whether the submissions will be from an EPA built electronic collection tool or an open platform (third party commercial software vendor tool). This document will also describe any software or information technology needed to complete these annual compliance certification. This document will also show how the standardized program report data comply with CROMERR.
1.3.1	Closed Platform Model (EPA Built Tool)
      This model relies on EPA to build and maintain an electronic reporting tool. This model has the benefits of EPA controlling all aspects of electronic data collection and offering this tool to regulated entities at no cost. The challenges for this tool would be the costs for EPA to build and maintain this tool, market the tool, and provide customer support. EPA's netDMR is an example of this type of tool for electronic data collection.
1.3.2	Open Platform Model (Third Party Commercial Software Vendors)
      This model involves partnering with commercial software vendors in order to lower the burden for facilities to report annual compliance certification data. The open platform model is based on the IRS model for collection and transmission of tax data. See Figure 1-1.

   Figure 1-1: Schematic of IRS Open Platform Model for Collecting Tax Data

      Similar to the IRS system EPA's open platform `e-File' system would rely on third-party commercial software vendors to provide the user interface with the regulated community. EPA's open platform model would also specify how these third-party commercial software vendors would share annual compliance certification data with EPA and the states through the Central Data Exchange and the Environmental Information Exchange Network.

1.3.3	CROMERR Compliance

      EPA will need to ensure that both the closed model (EPA built tools) and open model (third party commercial software) includes the appropriate identity-proofing, authentication, and encryption standards for demonstrating compliance with Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation (CROMERR). EPA will need to show how the annual compliance certification data from the user front end tool will identify the name of the responsible official attesting to the accuracy of the submission and how this official is subject to criminal sanctions for misreporting or other fraud.

1.4	Federal and State Examples of Compliance Certifications

      There are a variety of ongoing programs that rely on self-monitoring, reporting, and/or certification (self and third-party) to assure regulatory compliance and/or participant performance. The selected programs represent a variety of regulatory and voluntary approaches to self-monitoring, reporting, and certification.  This section focuses on the CWA compliance certifications ("program reports") required by New York State (NYS) Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). These compliance certifications are not new nor are they submitted electronically. However, the NYSDEC paper-based program reports, required under existing Federal and state regulations, do demonstrate the effectiveness of compliance certifications and some of the ten design principles described above.

      NYSDEC requires five types of permittee compliance self-certifications or "program reports" (see related discussions in Analysis F).  NYSDEC believes its certification requirements have increased permittee and industry awareness of their compliance obligations.  Because the permittees know that NYSDEC is enforcing the reporting requirements, they generally provide the required information to NYSDEC in a timely and correct manner.  The following list includes each type of self-certification and its corresponding approximate volume of transactions/year:

	1.  CAFO General Permit - Annual Compliance Report - 600/year
	2.  POTW Annual Flow Management Certification* - 620/year
	3.  MS4 General Permit Annual Municipal Compliance Certification (MCC) - 500/year
	4.  CAFO General Permit CNMP Certification** - 600 total
	5.  CAFO General Permit Annual NMP certification - 600/year

      	*   required by NYS SPDES regulations for POTWs subject to individual permits
      	** one-time initial plan certification

 	The NYSDEC considers annual reports for MS4s and CAFOs to be analogous to traditional DMRs and treats them similarly from a timeliness standpoint.  While some of the certifications are one-time requirements (e.g., CAFO has completed its Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan or CNMP) and others are annual (e.g., POTW flow certification), the compliance response is the same.  Facilities that fail to submit the required certification within 30 days after the permit due date receive a Notice of Violation (NOV), with an additional 30 days to submit the certification or face formal enforcement.  Failure to comply with the NOV results in the issuance of a Short Form Consent Order (SFCO) with penalty.  Failure to sign the SFCO leads to the filing of a Notice of Hearing/Complaint (NOHC) with an increased penalty.

	The NYSDEC CAFO program has contained self-certification requirements since the inaugural 1999 permit.  The certification requirement applies to both the CAFO permittee and the certified CNMP planner to co-certify that the CNMP is in place and being fully implemented.   NYSDEC used to send letters to CAFOs to remind them to send in annual reports, but it discontinued this process once it felt comfortable that the facilities understood this requirement.  Approximately 600 CAFOs operate in New York, but only about 35 certified CNMP planners work in the state.   In 1996, NYSDEC established a CAFO work group with NYSDAM, NRCS, the Cornell School of Agriculture, environmental groups, agribusiness and county soil and water districts to address related implementation issues.   According to NYSDEC, this communication has helped make the program successful and allows NYSDEC to monitor CNMP and CNMP planner quality.

	NYSDEC added the POTW flow certification requirement to the NYS SPDES regulations in 2003, but the agency did not implement it until 2007.  The POTW flow certification requires the annual reporting of influent flow and loads against the DEC-approved POTW design capacity.   If the POTW reaches threshold levels (e.g. annual flow over 95 percent of design capacity), it must comply with specific compliance schedule items.  According to NYSDEC, in practice, it has already issued enforcement orders to the majority of the POTWs that trigger the threshold levels to address any existing violations.

	The MS4 annual report/MCC allows co-reporting by cooperating MS4s.  NYSDEC achieved efficiencies by changing from a traditional report to a compliance checklist form.  NYSDEC reports that coordination with, and funding of, regional planning councils to work with the MS4s in preparing their reports has promoted a high compliance rate.  NYSDEC is assessing MS4 on-the-ground performance by inspecting the MS4s over the last few years (NYSDEC must conduct several additional years of inspections to cover all of the MS4s).  Generally, MS4 performance has been uneven, but improving.

	The self-monitoring, reporting, and certification approaches employed by NYSDEC to regulate CAFOs, POTWs, and MS4s parallel, in certain respects, how DMR requirements operate.  In 2008, NYSDEC averaged about 90 late DMRs per month (5 percent SNC for DMR nonsubmittal).  NYSDEC's noncompliance rate for DMR submissions and response to noncompliance highlight the value, when employing self-certification systems, of responding promptly to non-reporting and monitoring the content of submitted reports.  Accordingly, in 2008, NYSDEC broke the annual report review process into two steps.  First, DEC began ensuring that permittees submit the reports and started responding to any non-submissions in a streamlined fashion with the issuance of NOVs.  Second, DEC began performing detailed reviews of the content in the submitted reports.  NYSDEC now receives about 50 late DMRs per month (2.7 percent SNC for DMR non-submittal).  The residual noncompliance occurs for a myriad of reasons, such as factors related to improper permit transfers, failure to submit DMRs for no-discharge limits, and failure to contact NYSDEC to suspend DMRs for non-operating facilities.

      In comparison to the DMR program, the compliance rate for the annual submittals under the NYSDEC programs remains in the high 90-percentage range.  The 90 plus percent compliance rate encompasses the submission of the reports, without accounting for issues related to the quality of the programs on which the permittees are reporting.  During the first several years of DEC's implementation of the certification requirements, it did not perform compliance follow up for non-submissions until it received and reviewed the annual reports.

1.5	If such a requirement were included in the regulation, would it be feasible to impose a single nationwide submission date

      The due date for each new electronic-based annual compliance certification should be evaluated separately. To assess compliance across the state, Regional or national scale it may not be necessary for compliance certifications to be sent on one date. It may help with implementation to stagger submissions as the Agency's resources can be measured out incrementally. EPA can also stagger the requirements of new electronic-based compliance certifications so as iteratively improve the process. Additionally, EPA's NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule may require NPDES permit writers to implement requirements for electronic reporting through the renewal of permits, which are not synchronized. This would be an appropriate question to solicit input during the public comment period.

2.0 Industrial Stormwater Annual Compliance Certifications
2.1 	Overview

      Section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act provides that stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity, including those related to construction activity, entering waters of the United States must receive authorization under a NPDES permit. There are ten categories of industrial activity incorporating 29 industrial sectors requiring NPDES permits for stormwater discharges. Since all but four states are authorized to implement the stormwater NPDES permitting program (NH, MA, NM, ID), the vast majority of industrial facilities get permit coverage through delegated state NPDES permit programs. Permit coverage for this universe includes individual permits and general permits.

      Stormwater runoff can have a significant impact on water quality. Several studies reveal that stormwater discharges from urban areas can include a variety of pollutants, such as turbidity, pathogens, organic nutrients, hydrocarbons, metals, oil and grease, and debris. Stormwater can pick up a variety of pollutants such as sediment, debris, pesticides, petroleum products, chemicals, solvents, asphalts and acids, and in extreme cases it can alter the pH of the receiving stream or river. These pollutants can harm the environment and public health. According to EPA's National Water Quality Inventory: 2002 Report, prepared under Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act, 40% of surveyed rivers & 45% of surveyed lakes are not clean enough to meet basic uses (e.g. fishable, swimmable and drinkable). The Report further showed that sediment contributes to the impairment of 31% of impaired rivers and streams (84,503 river miles) and 21% of impaired lake areas (1.5 million acres) and is the #2 cause of impairment for rivers and streams and the #3 cause for lakes.

      EPA estimates that there are over 100,000 industrial stormwater permittees nationwide, contained within 29 industrial sectors. According to the ICIS-NPDES database, there are 9,683 permits with an industrial stormwater component. Due to system limitations in PCS (currently 22 states), permits with an industrial stormwater component are unable to be identified and evaluated for compliance and enforcement rates. The data entry requirements for industrial stormwater permits are based on the type of permit that is issued. Therefore, the data entry requirements for a permit with an industrial stormwater program component are based on whether the permit is a major, minor, or general permit.

      EPA manages the stormwater program for four states, District of Columbia, and federal facilities. EPA has a web-based permit application system (eNOI) to manage coverage for EPA-issued stormwater permits (see "Analysis B"). Industries with stormwater control requirements can apply for coverage under EPA's the Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) or submit a no exposure certification. EPA's eNOI system also contains an electronic reporting system that enables industrial permittees to submit quarterly DMRs, annual reports, and non-compliance reports as required under EPA's 2008 MSGP. Facilities are overwhelmingly using the electronic submission feature (727 electronically submitted DMRs as opposed to 7 hardcopy DMRs).

      Industrial stormwater has been an EPA CWA compliance and enforcement priority since 2000 and continues to be a national priority.

2.2 	Scope of New Electronic-based Annual Compliance Certification

      This paper proposes to extend the annual reporting requirement in EPA's MSGP to all facilities with industrial stormwater dischargers. Under this new compliance certification facilities must conduct annual comprehensive site inspections. Facilities may be waived from having to perform a comprehensive site inspection for an inspection period if they obtain authorization to discharge less than three months before the end of that inspection period.
Should their coverage be administratively continued after the expiration date of their permit, the industrial facility must continue to perform inspections annually until they are no longer covered.

      Qualified personnel must conduct comprehensive site inspections with at least one member of the industrial facility's stormwater pollution prevention team participating in the comprehensive site inspections. Each comprehensive site inspections must cover all areas of the facility affected by the requirements in their permit, including the areas identified in the facility's stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) as potential pollutant sources where industrial materials or activities are exposed to stormwater, any areas where control measures are used to comply with the effluent limits, and areas where spills and leaks have occurred in the past 3 years. The inspections must also include a review of any discharge monitoring data. Inspectors must consider the results of the past year's visual and analytical monitoring when planning and conducting inspections. Inspectors must examine the following:

         *       Industrial materials, residue, or trash that may have or could come into contact with stormwater;
         *       Leaks or spills from industrial equipment, drums, tanks, and other containers;
         *       Offsite tracking of industrial or waste materials, or sediment where vehicles enter or exit the site;
         *       Tracking or blowing of raw, final, or waste materials from areas of no exposure to exposed areas; and
         *       Control measures needing replacement, maintenance, or repair.

Stormwater control measures must be observed to ensure that they are functioning correctly. If discharge locations are inaccessible, nearby downstream locations must be inspected.

2.3 	Example Form for a Potential Electronically Reported Compliance Certification

      The following is an example form for a potential industrial stormwater annual compliance certification. For the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule EPA opted to not create any new reporting requirements.

     Industrial Stormwater Annual Compliance Certification Reporting Form

A.	GENERAL INFORMATION

1. Facility Name: [Text Field]

2. NPDES Permit Tracking No.: [Text Field]

3. Facility Physical Address
	a. Street: [Text Field]
	b. City: [Text Field]
	c. State: [Text Field]
	d. Zip Code: [Text Field]

4. Lead Inspectors Name: [Text Field]
	Title: [Text Field]

Additional Inspectors Name(s): [Text Field]
	Title: [Text Field]

5. Contact Person: [Text Field]
	Phone: [Text Field]
	E-mail: [Text Field]

6. Inspection Date:	[Text Field]

B.	GENERAL INSPECTION FINDINGS

1. As part of this comprehensive site inspection, did you inspect all potential pollutant sources, including areas where industrial activity may be exposed to stormwater?
 YES  NO
If NO, describe why not: [Text Field]
NOTE: Complete Section C of this form for each industrial activity area inspected and included in your SWPPP or as newly identified in B.2 or B.3 below where pollutants may be exposed to stormwater.

2. Did this inspection identify any stormwater or non-stormwater outfalls not previously identified in your SWPPP?	 YES  NO
If YES, for each location, describe the sources of those stormwater and non-stormwater discharges and any associated control measures in place. [Text Field]

3. Did this inspection identify any sources of stormwater or non-stormwater discharges not previously identified in your SWPPP?  YES  NO
If YES, describe these sources of stormwater or non-stormwater pollutants expected to be present in these discharges, and any control measures in place. [Text Field]

4. Did you review stormwater monitoring data as part of this inspection to identify potential pollutant hot spots?	 YES  NO  NA, no monitoring performed
If YES, summarize the findings of that review and describe any additional inspection activities resulting from this review. [Text Field]

5. Describe any evidence of pollutants entering the drainage system or discharging to surface waters, and the condition of and around outfalls, including flow dissipation measures to prevent scouring. [Text Field]

6. Have you taken or do you plan to take any corrective actions since your last annual report submission (or since you received authorization to discharge under this permit if this is your first annual report), including any corrective actions identified as a result of this annual comprehensive site inspection?
 YES  NO
If YES, how many conditions requiring review for correction action were addressed by these corrective actions? [Text Field]

NOTE: Complete the attached Corrective Action Form (Section D) for each condition identified, including any conditions identified as a result of this comprehensive stormwater inspection.

C.	INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY AREA SPECIFIC FINDINGS

Complete one block for each industrial activity area where pollutants may be exposed to stormwater. Copy this section for additional industrial activity areas.
In reviewing each area, you should consider:

         *       Industrial materials, residue, or trash that may have or could come into contact with stormwater;
         *       Leaks or spills from industrial equipment, drums, tanks, and other containers;
         *       Offsite tracking of industrial or waste materials, or sediment where vehicles enter or exit the site;
         *       Tracking or blowing of raw, final, or waste materials from areas of no exposure to exposed areas; and
         *       Control measures needing replacement, maintenance, or repair.

INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY AREA No: [Text Field]

1. Brief Description: [Text Field]

2. Are any control measures in need of maintenance or repair?  YES  NO

3. Have any control measures failed and require replacement?  YES  NO

4. Are any additional/revised control measures necessary in this area?  YES  NO
If YES to any of these three questions, provide a description of the problem: (Any necessary corrective actions should be described on the attached Corrective Action Form) [Text Field]

D.	CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

Complete this section for each specific condition requiring a corrective action or a review determining that no corrective action is needed. Copy this section for additional corrective actions or reviews. Include both corrective actions that have been initiated or completed since the last annual report, and future corrective actions needed to address problems identified in this comprehensive stormwater inspection. Include an update on any outstanding corrective actions that had not been completed at the time of your previous annual report.

1. Corrective Action No. [Text Field] of [Text Field] for this reporting period.

2. Is this corrective action:
		An update on a corrective action from a previous annual report; or
		A new corrective action?

3. Identify the condition(s) triggering the need for this review:
		Unauthorized release or discharge
		Numeric effluent limitation exceedance
		Control measures inadequate to meet applicable water quality standards
		Control measures inadequate to meet non-numeric effluent limitations
		Control measures not properly operated or maintained
		Change in facility operations necessitated change in control measures
		Average benchmark value exceedance
		Other (describe): [Text Field]

4. Briefly describe the nature of the problem identified: [Text Field]

5. Date problem identified:	[Text Field]

6. How problem was identified:
		Comprehensive site inspection
		Quarterly visual assessment
		Routine facility inspection
		Benchmark monitoring
		Notification by EPA or State or local authorities
		Other (describe): [Text Field]

7. Description of corrective action(s) taken or to be taken to eliminate or further investigate the problem (e.g., describe modifications or repairs to control measures, analyses to be conducted, etc.) or if no modifications are needed, basis for that determination: [Text Field]

8. Did/will this corrective action require modification of your SWPPP?	 YES  NO

9. Date corrective action initiated:	[Text Field]

10. Date correction action completed: [Text Field] or expected to be [Text Field] completed:

11.If corrective action not yet completed, provide the status of corrective action at the time of the comprehensive site inspection and describe any remaining steps (including timeframes associated with each step) necessary to complete corrective action. [Text Field]

E.	ANNUAL REPORT CERTIFICATION

1. Compliance Certification
Do you certify that your annual inspection has met the requirements of this permit, and that, based upon the results of this inspection, to the best of your knowledge, you are in compliance with the permit?	 YES  NO
If NO, summarize why you are not in compliance with the permit: [Text Field]

2. Annual Report Certification

I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.

Authorized Representative Printed Name: [Text Field]
Title: [Text Field]

The form will be digitally signed (in compliance with CROMERR) and dated by the user interface.

3.0 Active Construction Sites Annual Compliance Certifications
3.1 	Overview

      Construction takes place on approximately 853,000 acres in the coterminous United States and results in the discharge of more than 5 billion pounds of sediment each year. All major surface water types receive construction discharges, including streams, rivers, wetlands, lakes, estuaries, and other coastal waters. In any given year, some level of construction activity occurs in the majority of U.S. watersheds. However, most construction acreage is concentrated in a relatively limited number of watersheds. Between 1992 and 2001, more than half of all construction activity took place in less than 5 percent of U.S. watersheds. A common development pattern is for new construction to concentrate in rural and suburban watersheds adjacent to more densely developed urban areas. Because construction is a temporary activity, the locations of the most highly impacted watersheds in the United States shift over time.

      Permit coverage under the construction stormwater program is primarily through general permits, and construction sites regulated under the program are generally required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the applicable permitting authority. Some authorized states may have a different permit application process. Because there is no central database for NOIs or other permit application information, information on the construction stormwater universe would have to be compiled from EPA and authorized states' databases, and nationwide information is therefore not readily available. An important feature of this sector is its transient nature (discharges from active construction sites are of a temporary nature).

      Currently, construction stormwater permits do not have "end-of-pipe" numeric effluent limits and do not require submittal of discharge monitoring reports (DMRs). This will change, however, beginning in August 2011 as the new Construction and Development Effluent Guidelines are implemented. Under the new rule, DMRs (or an equivalent) are required to be submitted to the permitting authority on at least an annual basis.

3.2 	Key Environmental Impacts/Footprint

      Stormwater runoff, including discharges from municipal storm sewers, industrial facilities and construction sites, can have a significant impact on water quality. Such discharges are responsible for beach closings, swimming and fishing advisories, and habitat degradation. Several studies reveal that stormwater discharges from urban areas can include a variety of pollutants, such as turbidity, pathogens, organic nutrients, hydrocarbons, metals, oil and grease, and debris. As stormwater flows over a construction or industrial site or urbanized areas, it can pick up a variety of pollutants such as sediment, debris, pesticides, petroleum products, chemicals, solvents, asphalts and acids, and in extreme cases it can alter the pH of the receiving stream or river. These pollutants can harm the environment and public health. According to EPA's National Water Quality Inventory: 2002 Report, prepared under Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act, 40% of surveyed rivers & 45% of surveyed lakes are not clean enough to meet basic uses (e.g. fishable, swimmable and drinkable). The Report further showed the sediment contributes to the impairment of 31% of impaired rivers and streams (84,503 river miles) and 21% of impaired lake areas (1.5 million acres) and is the #2 cause of impairment for rivers and streams and the #3 cause for lakes.

3.3 	Number of Regulated Entities

      The construction universe is continually changing with new sites obtaining permit coverage in order to initiate construction activity and other sites terminating permit coverage once construction is complete and the site is stabilized. The construction industry is divided into three major subsectors: general building contractors, heavy construction contractors, and special trade contractors. General contractors build residential, industrial, commercial, and other buildings. Heavy construction contractors build sewers, roads, highways, bridges, and tunnels. Special trade contractors typically provide carpentry, painting, plumbing, and electrical services. EPA's Office of Water estimates that nationwide the NPDES program regulates approximately 200,000 construction sites annually.

      In the recent Construction and Development effluent guidelines rulemaking EPA estimates the annual amount of newly developed land in the conterminous United States as being approximately 590,000 acres between 1992 and 2001. By overlaying geographic information system layers of states and watersheds, EPA was able to estimate the annual number of future acres of new development at both the state and watershed for that time period. EPA also used the eNOI data to estimate the number and type of construction sites. See the table below for this estimate of future construction acreage.

Estimated Number and Type of Future Construction and Development Sites
Source: Construction and Development Technical Development Document, Page 4-10.

3.4 	Current Data Entry Requirements

      Most of the facilities in this sector are not "majors," which means that states are not currently required to enter data on them in ICIS-NPDES. As with any inspected facility, states and regions should enter facility (construction site) information and permit information resulting from the inspection. Violations found during inspections (single-event violations) are required to be entered for EPA inspections, but not for state inspections. An additional problem with data collection on this sector is that many operators fail to file a `Notice to Terminate Coverage," which affects EPA's estimate of facilities regulated by the CGP.

      EPA manages the stormwater program for four states (NH, MA, NM, ID), the District of Columbia, and federal facilities. EPA has implemented a web-based permit application system (eNOI) to manage coverage for EPA-issued stormwater permits. Alaska was partially delegated NPDES program authority and has adopted the use of eNOI. Construction site operators can apply for coverage under EPA's Construction General Permit (CGP) or submit a low erosivity waiver, if applicable, for exclusion from the CGP. The objectives of the eNOI system include: (1) more efficient NOI processing for EPA and operators; (2) reduce or eliminate paper handling burdens; and (3) enable electronic data collection, management, analysis, and reporting.

3.5 	Current Permitting Requirements

      The NPDES Phase I and Phase II stormwater permit programs are now fully implemented. However, the new Construction and Development effluent guidelines (published 1 December 2009) add new regulatory requirements (40 CFR 450). These new requirements will require additional costs to state and regional NPDES programs. Specifically, these programs will incur costs for:

               *       Revising NPDES permits for incorporating the Construction and Development effluent guidelines (Part 450);
               *       Processing and analyzing discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) for construction sites regulated by Part 450; and
               *       Reviewing the regulation, developing a plan for implementation, disseminating information to relevant parties, and potentially updating DMR data management systems.

3.6 	New Electronically Reported Compliance Certification

      Section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act provides that stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity, including those related to construction activity, entering waters of the United States must receive authorization under a NPDES permit. Once operators of construction sites regulated by the NPDES stormwater program obtain permit coverage, they must develop stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs), as well as implement sediment, erosion, and pollution prevention control measures in accordance with the SWPPPs, at their sites.

      The SWPPPs contain the parameters with which facilities must comply to meet the terms and conditions of their permit.  Facilities must develop SWPPPs in accordance with sound engineering practices and based on site-specific criteria.  The SWPPPs focus on identifying sources of pollution in stormwater discharges on the sites, as well as developing and implementing appropriate measures to reduce pollutants in the stormwater discharges to ensure compliance with their permit.

      This paper proposes to extend the annual reporting requirement in EPA's Construction General Permit (CGP) to all facilities with industrial stormwater dischargers. This new annual compliance certification will require that permittees inspect designated areas on their sites at least once per week and within 24 hours after any storm event of 0.5 inches or greater. Inspectors must visually assess the disturbed areas and discharge points on the site, the condition and effectiveness of implemented sediment and erosion controls, and the quality of the receiving waters near the site, with regard to any evidence of pollutant introductions.

	The CGP specifies requirements for inclusion in inspection reports, such as the inspection date, pertinent weather information, and BMP descriptions.  The CGP also provides standardized inspection forms, as attached below, as well as checklists, for potential utilization by the facilities, to be supplemented with any necessary site-specific information.  The inspection reports must identify any incidents of non-compliance at the construction sites, as well as any actions taken by the facilities to return them to compliance with the CGP terms and conditions.  If the permittees do not identify any incidents of non-compliance, the inspection reports must contain a certification that the sites are operating in compliance with their SWPPPs and the CGP.

	The CGP requires that qualified personnel, either employed by the construction site operators or hired as consultants, perform the site inspections.  The inspectors must possess the necessary skills to assess conditions at construction sites pertaining to pollutant laden stormwater runoff, the effectiveness of implemented pollution control measures, and potential water quality impacts to nearby water bodies.  Following the inspections, a responsible officer, a general partner or proprietor of a partnership, or a principal executive officer for the construction site operators must sign and certify the inspection reports.  The operators face EPA enforcement actions, including penalties, for knowingly making false statements, representations, or certifications on their inspection reports.

	Construction site operators covered by the CGP must retain inspection reports, with their SWPPPs, on site for three years after the permit expires or terminates.  Facilities must make copies of their SWPPPs readily available to authorized inspectors during any normal business hours.  In addition, permittees must make SWPPPs available, upon request, to EPA and any federal, state, or local agencies responsible for approving stormwater management plans, including sediment and erosion control plans, or evaluating water quality and habitat maintenance near the construction sites.

	Since the NPDES stormwater program requires construction site operators to develop and maintain SWPPPs, including updated inspection reports generated and retained on site in accordance with the SWPPPs, EPA could develop an electronic reporting system through which site operators could scan, certify, and submit their inspection reports to EPA on an annual basis, without requiring any substantial increased costs or resource demands on the facilities.  While EPA would need to use resources to manage and systematically review this information, having this information available for "desktop" types of compliance auditing could create efficiencies that would allow for fewer, resource intensive on-site inspections.  Another benefit of obtaining this information electronically is that EPA would be able to improve targeting aimed at identifying serious noncompliance for those on-site inspections that are conducted and would facilitate compliance reviews at a corporate and/or watershed level, as opposed to facility-by-facility.

3.7 	Example Form for Potential Electronically Reported Compliance Certification

      The following is an example form for construction stormwater annual compliance certification. For the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule EPA opted to not create any new reporting requirements.

    Construction Stormwater Annual Compliance Certification Reporting Form

                              General Information
Project Name

NPDES Tracking No.

Location

Date of Inspection

Start/End Time

Inspector's Name(s)

Inspector's Title(s)

Inspector's Contact Information

Inspector's Qualifications

Insert qualifications or add reference to the SWPPP. (See Section 5 of the SWPPP Template)
Describe present phase of construction

Type of Inspection:
 Regular           Pre-storm event           During storm event           Post-storm event
                              Weather Information
Has there been a storm event since the last inspection?   Yes    No
If yes, provide:
Storm Start Date & Time:               Storm Duration (hrs):	               Approximate Amount of Precipitation (in):
Weather at time of this inspection?
 Clear      Cloudy       Rain       Sleet       Fog       Snowing      High Winds
 Other:                                                               Temperature:
Have any discharges occurred since the last inspection?   Yes    No
If yes, describe:
Are there any discharges at the time of inspection? Yes    No
If yes, describe:

Site-specific BMPs
   * Number the structural and non-structural BMPs identified in your SWPPP on your site map and list them below (add as many BMPs as necessary). Carry a copy of the numbered site map with you during your inspections.  This list will ensure that you are inspecting all required BMPs at your site.
   * Describe corrective actions initiated, date completed, and note the person that completed the work in the Corrective Action Log.

BMP
BMP Installed?
BMP Maintenance Required?
Corrective Action Needed and Notes

1

Yes  No
Yes  No

2

Yes  No
Yes  No

3

Yes  No
Yes  No

4

Yes  No
Yes  No

5

Yes  No
Yes  No

6

Yes  No
Yes  No

7

Yes  No
Yes  No

8

Yes  No
Yes  No

9

Yes  No
Yes  No

10

Yes  No
Yes  No

11

Yes  No
Yes  No

Overall Site Issues
Below are some general site issues that should be assessed during inspections.  Customize this list as needed for conditions at your site.

BMP/activity
Implemented?
Maintenance Required?
Corrective Action Needed and Notes

1
Are all slopes and disturbed areas not actively being worked properly stabilized?
Yes  No
Yes  No

2
Are natural resource areas (e.g., streams, wetlands, mature trees, etc.) protected with barriers or similar BMPs?
Yes  No
Yes  No

3
Are perimeter controls and sediment barriers adequately installed (keyed into substrate) and maintained?
Yes  No
Yes  No

4
Are discharge points and receiving waters free of any sediment deposits?
Yes  No
Yes  No

5
Are storm drain inlets properly protected?
Yes  No
Yes  No

6
Is the construction exit preventing sediment from being tracked into the street?
Yes  No
Yes  No

7
Is trash/litter from work areas collected and placed in covered dumpsters?
Yes  No
Yes  No

8
Are washout facilities (e.g., paint, stucco, concrete) available, clearly marked, and maintained?
Yes  No
Yes  No

9
Are vehicle and equipment fueling, cleaning, and maintenance areas free of spills, leaks, or any other deleterious material?
Yes  No
Yes  No

10
Are materials that are potential stormwater contaminants stored inside or under cover?
Yes  No
Yes  No

11
Are non-stormwater discharges (e.g., wash water, dewatering) properly controlled?

Yes  No
Yes  No

12
(Other)
Yes  No
Yes  No

                                Non-Compliance
Describe any incidents of non-compliance not described above:

                            CERTIFICATION STATEMENT

"I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations."

Print name and title: ___________________________________________________________________________

The form will be digitally signed (in compliance with CROMERR) and dated by the user interface.
4.0 Concentrated Animal Feeding operations (CAFOs) Compliance Certifications
4.1 	Overview

      The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates that operations that confine livestock and poultry animals generate about 500 million tons of manure annually  -  three times the amount of EPA's estimate of 150 million tons of human sanitary waste produced annually in the U.S. Pollutants commonly associated with manure include nutrients (mainly nitrogen and phosphorus), organic matter, solids, and pathogens. Under Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), states have consistently reported that agricultural activities  -  including animal feeding operations  -  are leading sources of pollutants such as nutrients, pathogens (bacteria), and organic enrichment (low dissolved oxygen) that are contributing to water quality impairment in U.S. surface waters. Adverse environmental and human health impacts associated with pollutants in animal manure include: eutrophication or nutrient over-enrichment of surface waters, fish kills, reductions in dissolved oxygen available for aquatic life, increase in suspended solids resulting in an increase in turbidity of surface waters and inhibition of the functioning of aquatic plants and animals, nitrate contamination of drinking water, and transmission of pathogens associated with food and waterborne diseases in humans.

      EPA and the states receive inconsistent information about the CAFO sector because most CAFOs do not have National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, do not have traditional effluent discharge points and controls and, therefore, do not submit discharge monitoring reports (DMRs). Permit coverage for this universe includes individual permits and general permits. Many states have their own permit programs for livestock operations, but because these operations do not meet EPA's definition of NPDES "major," the states are not required to submit much data to EPA.

      EPA's Office of Water estimates there are approximately 19,000 CAFOs. Under the terms of the NPDES CAFO regulations at 40 CFR §122.23, an animal feeding operation is defined as a large CAFO based on the number of animals raised in confinement, for example, 700 mature dairy cows, 1,000 beef cattle, or 2,500 swine (each weighing 55 pounds or more). An animal feeding operation is defined as a medium CAFO based on both type and number of animals confined, for example 200 to 699 mature dairy cows or 300 to 999 beef cattle, 750 to 2,499 swine (each weighing 55 pounds or more) as well as certain other conditions at the facility, including pollutants discharged to jurisdictional waters via a man-made ditch or other man-made device or pollutants are discharged directly into waters of the United States which pass over/through the facility or otherwise come into direct contact with the confined animals. Predominant animal agriculture sectors include dairy, beef cattle, poultry, egg laying operations, and swine. Every EPA region has CAFOs. The states with the highest numbers of CAFOs include: Arkansas, Iowa, North Carolina, Minnesota, Texas, and California. Collectively, these states have more than a third of all CAFOs in the U.S,

4.2 	Current Program Reporting

      Under the terms of EPA's CAFO NPDES regulations as revised in 2008, only CAFOs that either discharge or propose to discharge must seek NPDES permit coverage. This aspect of the NPDES program requires NPDES permit authorities to obtain site-specific information in order to require CAFOs to seek permit coverage if CAFOs do not seek coverage independently. Simple, easily enforceable NPDES permit requirements for CAFOs are difficult to develop because CAFOs do not have outfalls and effluent controls like other industrial point sources. Instead, CAFO permits require implementation of best management practices. A CAFO that believes it does not need to seek NPDES permit coverage can voluntarily certify to the permitting authority that it does not discharge or propose to discharge. EPA does not receive copies of the CAFO certifications. The Office of Water estimates that approximately 15,000 large and medium CAFOs need permits and approximately 8,000 CAFOs currently have NPDES permit coverage.

      EPA regulations at 40 CFR 122.42(e)(4) require permitted CAFOs to submit an annual report to the NPDES Director. The annual report must include: (1) the number and type of animals, whether in open confinement or housed under roof; (2) estimated amount of total manure, litter and process wastewater generated by the CAFO in the previous 12 months (tons/gallons); (3) estimated amount of total manure, litter and process wastewater transferred to other person by the CAFO in the previous 12 months (tons/gallons); (4) total number of acres for land application covered by the CAFO's nutrient management plan; (5) total number of acres under control of the CAFO that were used for land application of manure, litter and process wastewater in the previous 12 months; (6) summary of all manure, litter and process wastewater discharges from the production area that have occurred in the previous 12 months, including date, time, and approximate volume; (7) a statement indicating whether the current version of the CAFO's nutrient management plan was developed or approved by a certified nutrient management planner; (8) actual crop(s) planted and actual yield(s) for each field; the actual nitrogen and phosphorus content of the manure, litter, and process wastewater; calculations of maximum amounts of manure, litter, and process wastewater to be land applied at least once per year; and the amount of manure, litter, and process wastewater applied to each field in the previous 12 months;  results of any soil testing for nitrogen and phosphorus taken during the previous 12 months; and  any supplemental fertilizer applied during the previous 12 months.

4.3 	Example Form for Potential Electronically Reported Compliance Certification

        The following is an example form that might assist EPA and the states in better identifying CAFOs that might require permitting. For the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule EPA opted to not create any new reporting requirements.

        CAFO Stormwater Annual Compliance Certification Reporting Form

A.	GENERAL INFORMATION

1. CAFO Name: [Text Field]

2. Has this CAFO applied for a NPDES Permit?
 YES  NO
If YES, NPDES No.: [Text Field]

3. CAFO Physical Address
	a. Street: [Text Field]
	b. City: [Text Field]
	c. State: [Text Field]
	d. Zip Code: [Text Field]
      e. Location (longitude and latitude) of the CAFO

4. CAFO Owner Name: [Text Field]
	a. Title: [Text Field]
	b. Street: [Text Field]
	c. City: [Text Field]
	d. State: [Text Field]
	e. Zip Code: [Text Field]
	f. Phone: [Text Field]
	g. E-mail: [Text Field]

5. Is the CAFO Operator is different than the CAFO Owner?
 YES  NO
If YES, a. CAFO Owner Name: [Text Field]
	b. Title: [Text Field]
	c. Street: [Text Field]
	d. City: [Text Field]
	e. State: [Text Field]
	f. Zip Code: [Text Field]
	g. Phone: [Text Field]
	h. E-mail: [Text Field]

6. Is the CAFO a contract operation?
 YES  NO
If YES, a. CAFO Integrator Name: [Text Field]
	b. Title: [Text Field]
	c. Street: [Text Field]
	d. City: [Text Field]
	e. State: [Text Field]
	f. Zip Code: [Text Field]
	g. Phone: [Text Field]
	h. E-mail: [Text Field]

7. Type of CAFO Facility: [Text Field]

8. Number [Text Field] and type(s) of animals [Text Field]

9. Type [Text Field]and capacity of manure storage: [Text Field]

10. Quantity of manure, process wastewater and litter generated annually by the CAFO [Text Field]

11. Does the CAFO land-apply manure?
 YES  NO

If No,
a. What (if any) are the alternative uses of manure, litter, and/or wastewater? [Text Box]
b. Who if anyone receives your CAFO manure [Text Box] and how much do they receive in the last year [Text Box].

If YES,
a. Does the CAFO implement a nutrient management plan for land application?  YES  NO
b. Does the CAFO employ nutrient management practices and keeps records on site consistent with 40 C.F.R. § 122.23(e)?  YES  NO

12. What is the available acreage for land application: [Text Field]

                            CERTIFICATION STATEMENT

"I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations."

Print name and title: ___________________________________________________________________________

The form will be digitally signed (in compliance with CROMERR) and dated by the user interface.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 83 (Tuesday, April 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 18336]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08736]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2019-12]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Jonathan
Dill

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of
this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary
is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final
disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before May 20, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2019-0007
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Ross<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office
of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 22, 2019.
Brandon Roberts,
Deputy Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition For Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2019-0007.
    Petitioner: Jonathan Dill.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: 121.311(b), (c).
    Description of Relief Sought: Petitioner seeks relief from 14 CFR
part 121.311(b) and (c) to the extent required to use a child restraint
systems, either the CARES CRS for Larger/Older Persons or Firefly GoTo
Postural Support Seat by Leckey, during all phases of flight while on
board an aircraft. This request, if granted, would be precedent setting
because relief has not previously been given for the Firefly GoTo
Postural Support Seat by Leckey.

[FR Doc. 2019-08736 Filed 4-29-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 17, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 33176]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15241]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0007; FRL-9980-69--Region 5]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Naval Industrial
Reserve Ordnance Plant Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notification of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5 is issuing
a Notice of Intent to Delete Operable Unit 3 (OU3) of the Naval
Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant (NIROP) Superfund Site (Site),
located in Fridley, Minnesota, from the National Priorities List (NPL)
and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL,
promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended,
is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). EPA and the State of Minnesota, through the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), have determined that all
appropriate response actions at the OU, identified under CERCLA, other
than operation, maintenance, and five-year reviews, have been
completed. However, this partial deletion does not preclude future
actions under Superfund. This partial deletion pertains to the OU3
portion of the NIROP Site, which includes all the unsaturated soils
underlying the former Plating Shop Area of the NIROP Superfund Site.

DATES: Comments must be received by August 16, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1989-0007, by mail to Randolph Cano, NPL Deletion Coordinator,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 (SR-6J), 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604. Comments may also be submitted
electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the
detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule
located in the Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randolph Cano, NPL Deletion
Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 (SR-6J), 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of
this issue of the Federal Register, we are publishing a direct final
Notice of Partial Deletion for OU3 of the NIROP Superfund Site without
prior Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion because EPA views this as a
noncontroversial revision and anticipates no adverse comment. We have
explained our reasons for this partial deletion in the preamble to the
direct final Notice of Partial Deletion, and those reasons are
incorporated herein. If we receive no adverse comment(s) on this
partial deletion action, we will not take further action on this
Notification of Intent for Partial Deletion. If we receive adverse
comment(s), we will withdraw the direct final Notice of Partial
Deletion, and it will not take effect. We will then, as appropriate,
address all public comments in a subsequent final Notice of Partial
Deletion based on this Notification of Intent for Partial Deletion. We
will not institute a second comment period on this Notification of
Intent for Partial Deletion. Any parties interested in commenting must
do so at this time.
    For additional information, see the direct final Notice of Partial
Deletion which is located in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of
this issue of the Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626,
77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3
CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp.,
p. 193.

    Dated: June 25, 2018.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2018-15241 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 62)]
[Notices]
[Page 15676-15677]
[DOCID:fr02ap07-43]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER07-559-000]

Flat Earth Energy, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order

March 27, 2007.
    Flat Earth Energy, LLC (Flat Earth) filed an application for
market-based rate authority, with an accompanying tariff. The proposed
market-based rate tariff provides for the sale of energy and capacity
at market-based rates. Flat Earth also requested waivers of various
Commission regulations. In particular, Flat Earth requested that the
Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Flat Earth.
    On March 21, 2007, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director,
Division of Tariffs and Market Development--West, granted the requests
for blanket approval under Part 34. The Director's order also stated
that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the Federal
Register

establishing a period of time for the filing of protests. Accordingly,
any person desiring to be heard or to protest the blanket approvals of
issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by Flat Earth
should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2004).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to
intervene or protest is April 20, 2007.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above,
Flat Earth is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or
liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect
of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or
assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of
Flat Earth, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably
necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of Flat Earth's issuance of securities or
assumptions of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the

docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically 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.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-5994 Filed 3-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 223 (Monday, November 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 58243]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25136]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER19-314-000]

Bridgewater Power Company, L.P.; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Bridgewater Power Company, L.P.'s application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is December 3, 2018.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected], or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 13, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-25136 Filed 11-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


       Support for OSHA's Preliminary Economic Analysis for Proposed Respirable Crystalline Silica Standard:
                   Excel Spreadsheets of Economic Costs and Impacts

The eleven attachments to this exhibit are Excel (spreadsheet) workbooks that contain data and analysis supporting OSHA's preliminary economic analysis (PEA) of the proposed silica standard.
Silica PEA Excel Workbook #1 - Industry Profile Tables (revised with fracking): Estimates of the numbers of establishments, entities and employment, by NAICS industry code, affected by the proposed standard; the distribution of worker exposures; and other industrial and financial characteristics of affected industries.
Silica PEA Excel Workbook #2  -  Construction Unit Costs_Updated: Baseline construction job and task categories, unit labor wage and equipment rates, control costs, and cost impact summaries.
 Silica PEA Excel Workbook #3  -  Construction Control Costs_Active: Profile of at-risk construction occupational categories, dollar value of at-risk tasks, and cost and productivity impacts associated with compliance.
Silica PEA Excel Workbook #4  -  Construction Calculations_Updated: Calculation of the number of at-risk Construction workers by task, both in key and secondary occupations, for each affected BLS Occupational Employment Statistics category and NAICS industry.
Silica PEA Excel Workbook #5  -  Construction_Active: Engineering control costs, respirator costs, costs for abrasive blasting operations, and financial (revenue and profit) impacts for affected Construction industries.
 Silica PEA Excel Workbook #6  -  General Industry Unit Costs_Active: Unit labor wage rates, unit equipment parameters and costs, operating costs for industrial ventilation systems, and other baseline data for General Industry.
Silica PEA Excel Workbook #7  -  General Industry Control Costs_Active: Detailed and total control costs (including abrasive blasting), profile and impact inputs, and summary costs and impacts for General Industry and Maritime.
Silica PEA Excel Workbook #8  -  Fracking Control Cost_Active_Revised: Baseline inputs, profile data, compliance costs, and impacts for affected entities in the hydraulic fracturing industry.
Silica PEA Excel Workbook #9  -  Program Costs_All_Active: Detailed calculations of program costs, program cost summaries, and total costs for alternative discount rates and PELs and by year.
Silica PEA Excel Workbook #10  -  Impacts-7%, 3%, 0%_Active: Economic impacts of the proposed standard for alternative discount rates, by detailed NAICS industry within General Industry, Maritime, and Construction.
Silica PEA Excel Workbook #11  -  Benefits_Combined: Estimates of avoided fatal and non-fatal illnesses and monetized (dollar value) estimates of benefits for alternative discount rates, working lifespan, and other sensitivity inputs.


[Federal Register: November 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 226)]
[Notices]
[Page 65992]
[DOCID:fr26no07-73]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection, Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 203-2 and Form ADV-W; SEC File No. 270-40; OMB Control No.
3235-0313.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    The title for the collection of information is ``Rule 203-2 (17 CFR
275.203-2) and Form ADV-W (17 CFR 279.2) under the Investment Advisers
Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b).'' Rule 203-2 under the Investment Advisers
Act of 1940 establishes procedures for an investment adviser to
withdraw its registration with the Commission. Rule 203-2 requires
every person withdrawing from investment adviser registration with the
Commission to file Form ADV-W electronically on the Investment Adviser
Registration Depository (``IARD''). The purpose of the information
collection is to notify the Commission and the public when an
investment adviser withdraws its pending or approved SEC registration.
Typically, an investment adviser files a Form ADV-W when it ceases
doing business or when it is ineligible to remain registered with the
Commission.
    The respondents to the collection of information are all investment
advisers that are registered with the Commission or have applications
pending for registration. The Commission has estimated that compliance
with the requirement to complete Form ADV-W imposes a total burden of
approximately 0.75 hours (45 minutes) for an adviser filing for full
withdrawal and approximately 0.25 hours (15 minutes) for an adviser
filing for partial withdrawal. Based on historical filings, the
Commission estimates that there are approximately 500 respondents
annually filing for full withdrawal and approximately 500 respondents
annually filing for partial withdrawal. Based on these estimates, the
total estimated annual burden would be 500 hours ((500 respondents x
.75 hours) + (500 respondents x .25 hours)).
    Rule 203-2 and Form ADV-W do not require recordkeeping or records
retention. The collection of information requirements under the rule
and form are mandatory. The information collected pursuant to the rule
and Form ADV-W are filings with the Commission. These filings are not
kept confidential. 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 control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the documentation of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the agency, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
through the use of automated collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
    Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O
Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: November 13, 2007.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-22927 Filed 11-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P