[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4289-4294]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01564]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0499; FRL-9941-35-OW]

Draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Pesticide General Permit for Point Source Discharges From the
Application of Pesticides; Reissuance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of draft permit and request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: All ten EPA Regions today are proposing for public comment the
draft 2016 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
pesticide general permit (PGP)--the ``draft 2016 PGP.'' The draft 2016
PGP covers point source discharges from the application of pesticides
to waters of the United States. Once finalized, the draft 2016 PGP will
replace the existing permit that will expire at midnight on October 31,
2016. The draft 2016 PGP has the same conditions and requirements as
the 2011 PGP and would authorize certain point source discharges from
the application of pesticides to waters of the United States in
accordance with the terms and conditions described therein. EPA
proposes to issue this permit for five (5) years in all areas of the
country where EPA is the NPDES permitting authority. EPA solicits
public comment on all aspects of the draft 2016 PGP. This Federal
Register notice describes the draft 2016 PGP in general and also
includes specific topics about which the Agency is particularly seeking
comment. The fact sheet accompanying the permit contains supporting
documentation. EPA encourages the public to read the fact sheet to
better understand the draft 2016 PGP.

DATES: Comments on the draft 2016 PGP must be received on or before
March 11, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2015-0499, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: EPA Regional Office listed in Section
I.D, or Prasad Chumble, EPA Headquarters, Office of Water, Office of
Wastewater Management at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This section is organized as follows:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. How can I get copies of this document and other related
information?
    C. Will public hearings be held on this action?
    D. Finalizing the Draft 2016 PGP
    E. Who are the EPA regional contacts for the Draft 2016 PGP?
II. Background
III. Scope and Applicability of the Draft 2016 PGP
    A. Geographic Coverage
    B. Categories of Facilities Covered
    C. Summary of the Permit Requirements and Provisions for Which
EPA Is Soliciting Comment
IV. Cost Impacts of the Draft 2016 PGP
V. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
VI. Executive Order 13175

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be affected by this action if you apply pesticides, under
the use patterns in Section III.B., that result in a discharge to
waters of the United States in one of the geographic areas identified
in Section III.A. Potentially affected entities, as categorized in the
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), may include, but
are not limited to:

      Table 1--Entities Potentially Regulated by the Draft 2016 PGP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Examples of
           Category                   NAICS         potentially affected
                                                          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture parties--General    111 Crop           Producers of crops
 agricultural interests,         Production.        mainly for food and
 farmers/producers, forestry,                       fiber, including
 and irrigation.                                    farms, orchards,
                                                    groves, greenhouses,
                                                    and nurseries that
                                                    have irrigation
                                                    ditches requiring
                                                    pest control.
                                113110 Timber      The operation of
                                 Tract Operations.  timber tracts for
                                                    the purpose of
                                                    selling standing
                                                    timber.
                                113210 Forest      Growing trees for
                                 Nurseries          reforestation and/or
                                 Gathering of       gathering forest
                                 Forest Products.   products, such as
                                                    gums, barks, balsam
                                                    needles, rhizomes,
                                                    fibers, Spanish
                                                    moss, ginseng, and
                                                    truffles.
                                221310 Water       Operating irrigation
                                 Supply for         systems.
                                 Irrigation.

Pesticide parties (includes     325320 Pesticide   Formulation and
 pesticide manufacturers,        and Other          preparation of
 other pesticide users/          Agricultural       agricultural pest
 interests, and consultants).    Chemical           control chemicals.
                                 Manufacturing.
Public health parties           923120             Government
 (includes mosquito or other     Administration     establishments
 vector control districts and    of Public Health   primarily engaged in
 commercial applicators that     Programs.          the planning,
 service these).                                    administration, and
                                                    coordination of
                                                    public health
                                                    programs and
                                                    services, including
                                                    environmental health
                                                    activities.
Resource management parties     924110             Government
 (includes State departments     Administration     establishments
 of fish and wildlife, State     of Air and Water   primarily engaged in
 departments of pesticide        Resource and       the administration,
 regulation, State               Solid Waste        regulation, and
 environmental agencies, and     Management         enforcement of air
 universities).                  Programs.          and water resource
                                                    programs; the
                                                    administration and
                                                    regulation of water
                                                    and air pollution
                                                    control and
                                                    prevention programs;
                                                    the administration
                                                    and regulation of
                                                    flood control
                                                    programs; the
                                                    administration and
                                                    regulation of
                                                    drainage development
                                                    and water resource
                                                    consumption
                                                    programs; and
                                                    coordination of
                                                    these activities at
                                                    intergovernmental
                                                    levels.
                                924120             Government
                                 Administration     establishments
                                 of Conservation    primarily engaged in
                                 Programs.          the administration,
                                                    regulation,
                                                    supervision and
                                                    control of land use,
                                                    including
                                                    recreational areas;
                                                    conservation and
                                                    preservation of
                                                    natural resources;
                                                    erosion control;
                                                    geological survey
                                                    program
                                                    administration;
                                                    weather forecasting
                                                    program
                                                    administration; and
                                                    the administration
                                                    and protection of
                                                    publicly and
                                                    privately owned
                                                    forest lands.
                                                    Government
                                                    establishments
                                                    responsible for
                                                    planning,
                                                    management,
                                                    regulation and
                                                    conservation of
                                                    game, fish, and
                                                    wildlife
                                                    populations,
                                                    including wildlife
                                                    management areas and
                                                    field stations; and
                                                    other administrative
                                                    matters relating to
                                                    the protection of
                                                    fish, game, and
                                                    wildlife are
                                                    included in this
                                                    industry.
Utility parties (includes       221 Utilities....  Provide electric
 utilities).                                        power, natural gas,
                                                    steam supply, water
                                                    supply, and sewage
                                                    removal through a
                                                    permanent
                                                    infrastructure of
                                                    lines, mains, and
                                                    pipes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The draft 2016 PGP, fact sheet and all supporting documents are
available at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2015-
0499. Electronic versions of the draft 2016 PGP and fact sheet are also
available on EPA's NPDES Web site at www.epa.gov/npdes/pesticides.

C. Will public hearings be held on this action?

    EPA has not scheduled any public hearings to receive public comment
concerning the draft 2016 PGP. However, interested persons may request
a public hearing pursuant to 40 CFR 124.12 concerning the draft 2016
PGP. Requests for a public hearing must be sent or delivered in writing
to the same address as provided above, for public comments prior to the
close of the comment period. Requests for a public hearing must state
the nature of the issues proposed to be raised in the hearing. Pursuant
to 40 CFR 124.12, EPA shall hold a public hearing if it finds, on the
basis of requests, a significant degree of public interest in a public
hearing on the draft 2016 PGP. If EPA decides to hold a public hearing,
a public notice of the date, time and place of the hearing will be made
at least 30 days prior to the hearing. Any person may provide written
or oral statements and data pertaining to the draft 2016 PGP at any
such public hearing.

D. Finalizing the Draft 2016 PGP

    EPA intends to issue a final 2016 PGP on or prior to October 31,
2016 (the expiration date of the 2011 PGP). The final 2016 PGP will be
issued after all public comments received during the public comment
period have been considered and appropriate changes made to the draft
2016 PGP. EPA will include its response to comments received in the
docket as part of the final permit decision. Once the final 2016 PGP
becomes effective, eligible Operators may seek authorization under the
new PGP as outlined in the permit. To ensure uninterrupted permit
coverage from the 2011 PGP to the new permit, Operators, who are
required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI), must submit their NOI for
coverage under the new permit prior to discharge as outlined in the
permit (no later than 10 or 30 days before discharge). See Part 1.2.4
of the draft 2016 PGP.

E. Who are the EPA regional contacts for the Draft 2016 PGP?

    For EPA Region 1, contact George Papadopoulos at tel.: (617) 918-
1579; or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 2, contact Maureen Krudner at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 3, contact Mark Smith at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 4, contact Sam Sampath at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 5, contact Mark Ackerman at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 6, contact Kilty Baskin at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 7, contact Kimberly Hill at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 8, contact David Rise at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 9, contact Pascal Mues at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 10, contact Dirk Helder at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
II. Background

    Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) provides that ``the
discharge of any pollutant by any person shall be unlawful'' unless the
discharge is in compliance with certain other sections of the Act. 33
U.S.C. 1311(a). The CWA defines ``discharge of a pollutant'' as

``(A) any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point
source, (B) any addition of any pollutant to the waters of the
contiguous zone or the ocean from any point source other than a vessel
or other floating craft.'' 33 U.S.C. 1362(12). A ``point source'' is
any ``discernible, confined and discrete conveyance'' but does not
include ``agricultural stormwater discharges and return flows from
irrigated agriculture.'' 33 U.S.C. 1362(14).
    The term ``pollutant'' includes, among other things, ``garbage . .
. chemical wastes, biological materials . . . and industrial,
municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water.'' 33 U.S.C.
1362(6).
    A person may discharge a pollutant without violating the section
301 prohibition by obtaining authorization to discharge (referred to
herein as ``coverage'') under a section 402 NPDES permit (33 U.S.C.
1342). Under section 402(a), EPA may ``issue a permit for the discharge
of any pollutant, or combination of pollutants, notwithstanding section
1311(a)'' upon certain conditions required by the Act.
    EPA issued the first Pesticide General Permit (PGP) on October 31,
2011 in response to a United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
ruling vacating EPA's 2006 Final Rule on Aquatic Pesticides. National
Cotton Council of America. v. EPA, 553 F.3d 927 (6th Cir. 2009). EPA
developed the PGP to control point source discharges of biological
pesticides, and chemical pesticides that leave a residue, into waters
of the United States.
    Implementation of the 2011 PGP has been successful during its first
four years. EPA is not aware of any lawsuits brought against Operators
discharging under EPA's PGP. The regulated community has raised very
few implementation issues, and EPA resolved those issues. The
provisions in the permit for pesticide applications during emergencies
have been effectively implemented. Finally, Operators have generally
submitted the NOIs and Annual Reports on time to the Agency. However,
in an effort to pursue continuous improvement to protect water quality,
EPA seeks comment on the draft 2016 PGP, in general, and on specific
topics as described in Section III.C, below.

III. Scope and Applicability of the Draft 2016 PGP

A. Geographic Coverage

    EPA would provide permit coverage for classes of discharges where
EPA is the NPDES permitting authority. The geographic coverage of
today's draft 2016 PGP is listed below. Where the permit covers
activities on Indian Country lands, those areas are as listed below
within the borders of that state:
EPA Region 1
 Massachusetts, including Indian Country lands within
Massachusetts
 Indian Country lands within Connecticut
 New Hampshire
 Indian Country lands within Rhode Island
 Federal Facilities within Vermont
EPA Region 2
 Indian Country lands within New York State
 Puerto Rico
EPA Region 3
 The District of Columbia
 Federal Facilities within Delaware
EPA Region 4
 Indian Country lands within Alabama
 Indian Country lands within Florida
 Indian Country lands within Mississippi
 Indian Country lands within North Carolina
EPA Region 5
 Indian Country lands within Michigan
 Indian Country lands within Minnesota
 Indian Country lands within Wisconsin
EPA Region 6
 Indian Country lands within Louisiana
 New Mexico, including Indian Country lands within New Mexico,
except Navajo Reservation Lands (see Region 9) and Ute Mountain
Reservation Lands (see Region 8)
 Indian Country lands within Oklahoma
 Discharges in Texas that are not under the authority of the
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (formerly TNRCC), including
activities associated with the exploration, development, or production
of oil or gas or geothermal resources, including transportation of
crude oil or natural gas by pipeline, including Indian Country lands
EPA Region 7
 Indian Country lands within Iowa
 Indian Country lands within Kansas
 Indian Country lands within Nebraska, except Pine Ridge
Reservation lands (see Region 8)
EPA Region 8
 Federal Facilities in Colorado, including those on Indian
Country lands within Colorado as well as the portion of the Ute
Mountain Reservation located in New Mexico
 Indian Country lands within Montana
 Indian Country lands within North Dakota
 Indian Country lands within South Dakota, as well as the
portion of the Pine Ridge Reservation located in Nebraska (see Region
7)
 Indian Country lands within Utah, except Goshute and Navajo
Reservation lands (see Region 9)
 Indian Country lands within Wyoming
EPA Region 9
 The Island of American Samoa
 Indian Country lands within Arizona as well as Navajo
Reservation lands in New Mexico (see Region 6) and Utah (see Region 8)
 Indian Country lands within California
 The Island of Guam
 The Johnston Atoll
 Midway Island, Wake Island, and other unincorporated U.S.
possessions
 The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
 Indian Country lands within the State of Nevada, as well as
the Duck Valley Reservation in Idaho, the Fort McDermitt Reservation in
Oregon (see Region 10) and the Goshute Reservation in Utah (see Region
8)
EPA Region 10
 Indian Country lands within Alaska
 Idaho, including Indian Country lands within Idaho, except
Duck Valley Reservation lands (see Region 9)
 Indian Country lands within Oregon, except Fort McDermitt
Reservation lands (see Region 9)
 Federal Facilities in Washington, including those located on
Indian Country lands within Washington.

B. Categories of Facilities Covered

    The draft 2016 PGP has the same requirements and conditions as
EPA's 2011 PGP and regulates the same discharges to waters of the
United States from the application of (1) biological pesticides, and
(2) chemical pesticides that leave a residue. These apply to the
following pesticide use patterns:
     Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control--to control
public health/nuisance and other flying insect pests that develop or
are present during a portion of their life cycle in or above standing
or flowing water. Public health/nuisance and other flying insect pests
in this use category include mosquitoes and black flies.
     Weed and Algae Pest Control--to control weeds, algae, and
pathogens that

are pests in water and at water's edge, including ditches and/or
canals.
     Animal Pest Control--to control animal pests in water and
at water's edge. Animal pests in this use category include fish,
lampreys, insects, mollusks, and pathogens.
     Forest Canopy Pest Control--application of a pesticide to
a forest canopy to control the population of a pest species (e.g.,
insect or pathogen) where, to target the pests effectively, a portion
of the pesticide unavoidably will be applied over and deposited to
water.
    The scope of activities encompassed by these pesticide use patterns
is described in greater detail in Part III.1.1 of the Fact Sheet for
the draft 2016 PGP.

C. Summary of the Permit Requirements and Provisions for Which EPA Is
Soliciting Comment

    Once issued, the final 2016 PGP will replace the 2011 PGP, which
was issued for a five-year term on October 31, 2011 (see 76 FR 68750).
The draft 2016 PGP has the same conditions and requirements as the
existing 2011 PGP, and is structured in the same nine parts: (1)
Coverage under the permit, (2) technology-based effluent limitations,
(3) water quality-based effluent limitations, (4) monitoring, (5)
pesticide discharge management plan, (6) corrective action, (7)
recordkeeping and Annual Reporting, (8) EPA contact information and
mailing addresses, and (9) permit conditions applicable to specific
states, Indian country lands or territories. Additionally, as with the
2011 PGP, the draft 2016 PGP includes nine appendices with additional
conditions and guidance for permittees: (A) Definitions, abbreviations,
and acronyms, (B) standard permit conditions, (C) areas covered, (D)
Notice of Intent (NOI) form, (E) Notice of Termination (NOT) form, (F)
Pesticide Discharge Evaluation worksheet (PDEW), (G) Annual Reporting
template, (H) Adverse Incident template, and (I) endangered species
procedures.
    The following is a summary of the draft 2016 PGP's requirements:
     The draft 2016 PGP defines ``Operator'' (i.e., the entity
required to obtain NPDES permit coverage for discharges) to include any
(a) Applicator who performs the application of pesticides or has day-
to-day control of the application of pesticides that results in a
discharge to waters of the United States, or (b) Decision-maker who
controls any decision to apply pesticides that results in a discharge
to waters of the United States. There may be instances when a single
entity acts as both an Applicator and a Decision-maker.
     All Applicators are required to minimize pesticide
discharges by using only the amount of pesticide and frequency of
pesticide application necessary to control the target pest, maintain
pesticide application equipment in proper operating condition, control
discharges as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards, and
monitor for and report any adverse incidents.
     All Decision-makers are required, to the extent not
determined by the Applicator, to minimize pesticide discharges by using
only the amount of pesticide and frequency of pesticide application
necessary to control the target pest. All Decision-makers are also
required to control discharges as necessary to meet applicable water
quality standards and monitor for and report any adverse incidents.
     Certain Decision-makers [i.e., any agency for which pest
management for land resource stewardship is an integral part of the
organization's operations, entities with a specific responsibility to
control pests (e.g., mosquito and weed control districts), local
governments or other entities that apply pesticides in excess of
specified annual treatment area thresholds, and entities that discharge
pesticides to Tier 3 waters or to waters of the United States
containing National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Listed Resources of
Concern] are required to also submit an NOI to obtain authorization to
discharge and implement pest management options to reduce the discharge
of pesticides to waters of the United States. Of this group, certain
large Decision-makers must also develop a Pesticide Discharge
Management Plan (PDMP), submit annual reports, and maintain detailed
records. Certain small Decision-makers are required to complete a
pesticide discharge evaluation worksheet for each pesticide application
(in lieu of the more comprehensive PDMP), an annual report, and
detailed recordkeeping.
    While EPA encourages the public to review and comment on all
aspects and provisions in the draft 2016 PGP, EPA specifically solicits
comments on the following as part of this reissuance:
    (1) Notice of Intent. As with the 2011 PGP, the draft 2016 PGP
requires only certain Decision-makers, as discussed above, to submit
NOIs. If an NOI is required, it must contain either a map or narrative
description of the area and the potentially affected waters of the
United States, and the pesticide use patterns for which permit coverage
is being requested for the duration of the permit. Operators can
identify specific waters or request coverage for all waters within the
area for which they are requesting permit coverage. EPA is interested
in feedback on whether the NOI data requirements capture adequate
information on the pesticide application areas and associated waters of
the United States for which permit coverage is being requested. For
example, in the NOI submissions for the 2011 PGP, EPA received a
variety of submissions for the Pest Management Areas ranging from maps
of large waterbodies to specific subsections of streams. NOIs submitted
under the 2011 PGP are available online at (http://ofmpub.epa.gov/apex/aps/f?p=PGP_2011:HOME::::::), and a summary of the data is available in
the docket EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0257. EPA requests comments on whether
different, or more specific and consistent, information should be
required to better determine the locations of pesticides applications.
    As mentioned above, the draft 2016 PGP requires Decision-makers to
include in their NOIs a description of the areas where pesticides are
applied (or treatment areas) within the broader designated Pest
Management Area. Within the Pest Management Area, Operators are
required to determine if they are applying to impaired or Tier 3
waters; however, Operators are not required to determine whether their
application will impact the water quality of drinking water supplies.
EPA seeks feedback on how best to collect information to determine if
pesticides activities covered under this permit could impact drinking
water source protection areas. One possible approach would be to
require a determination of whether a portion of the Pest Management
Area is within a public drinking water supply source protection area.
If EPA adopted this approach, EPA would add a ``Yes/No'' indicator to
the eNOI form (Appendix D) to indicate whether a portion of the Pest
Management Area is within a public water supply source water protection
area. EPA solicits comment on this approach.
    (2) Annual Reporting. As with the 2011 PGP, the draft 2016 PGP
requires any Decision-maker who is required to submit an NOI and is a
large entity, and any Decision-maker with discharges to waters of the
United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern including
small entities, to submit an annual report to EPA that contains, among
other things, a previous calendar year's compilation of pesticide
products applied, total annual quantities applied, locations where
pesticide applications were made, and information on any adverse
incidents or corrective actions

resulting from discharges covered under the draft 2016 PGP. See
Appendix G of the draft 2016 PGP, Annual Report template. Due to the
potential burden of accounting and submitting information on each and
every location of application, type, and amount of pesticides, EPA
asked for a compilation of that information for the previous year of
application. However, as with the information requested in the NOI, EPA
received a variety of descriptions for the Pest Management Areas and
treatment areas in the Annual Reports. The Agency is interested in
comments on the utility and value of the information collected by the
reports. EPA would also like feedback on whether less, more, or
different information would provide a more accurate accounting of the
amount, type, and location of pesticide discharges. Annual Reports
submitted under the 2011 PGP are available online at (http://ofmpub.epa.gov/apex/aps/f?p=PGP_2011:HOME::::::). In addition, to
ensure consistency and prevent confusion among the pesticides user
community, EPA seeks comment on whether the terminology is clear and
easily understandable. For example, many state pesticide regulations
require Applicators to report pesticides in ``amount used,'' unlike the
2011 PGP, which requires that pesticides be reported in ``quantity
applied.'' See Part III.7 of the Fact Sheet for further discussion on
Annual Reporting requirements.
    (3) Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations (WQBEL). The 2011 PGP
contained several provisions to protect water quality and the draft
2016 PGP includes those same provisions. It includes a narrative WQBEL
requiring that discharges be controlled as necessary to meet applicable
water quality standards. Failure to control discharges in a manner that
meets applicable water quality standards is a violation of the permit.
    In addition to the narrative WQBEL, the draft 2016 PGP contains
related provisions which act together to further protect water quality.
These provisions were also included in the 2011 PGP. For example, the
draft 2016 PGP requires the Operator to implement control measures and
to take corrective action in response to any excursion of applicable
water quality standards. Additionally, EPA expects that, as with the
2011 PGP, the Agency will receive CWA Section 401 certifications for
the final 2016 PGP. Some of those certifications will include
additional conditions that are required by the state, territory, or
tribe, that are necessary to assure compliance with the applicable
provisions of the CWA, including water quality standards, in specific
geographic areas where the permit is available. The CWA Section 401
certifications submitted by states, territories and tribes for the 2011
PGP are included in the docket at EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0257-1267.
    The draft 2016 PGP retains the same eligibility provisions from the
2011 PGP which provides additional water quality protection. For
instance, the draft 2016 PGP makes clear that Operators must comply
with all applicable statutes, regulations, and other requirements
including, but not limited to, requirements contained in the labeling
of pesticide products approved under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), known as ``FIFRA labeling.'' If Operators
are found to have applied a pesticide in a manner inconsistent with any
relevant water quality-related FIFRA labeling requirements, EPA will
presume that the effluent limitation to minimize pesticides entering
the waters of the United States has been violated under the NPDES
permit. Many provisions of FIFRA labeling--such as those relating to
application sites, rates, frequency, and methods, as well as provisions
concerning proper storage and disposal of pesticide wastes and
containers--are requirements that protect water quality. Also, it is
important to note that biological pesticides do not cause water quality
toxicity because they do not work through a toxic mode of action, and
the discharges of chemical pesticides that would be covered by the
draft 2016 PGP are residues of pesticides after they have performed
their intended purpose. Thus, residue concentrations will be no higher
than the concentration of the pesticide as applied.
    To provide further protection, the draft 2016 PGP also includes the
provision from the 2011 PGP which excludes from coverage any discharges
of pesticides to waters listed as impaired, including waters with Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), where the waterbody is impaired for the
active ingredient in that pesticide or its degradates. For geographic
areas covered under the draft 2016 PGP, the 303(d) list of impairments
\1\ indicates that of the 17 pesticide active ingredients identified on
the impairment list, seven are for legacy pollutants that have had
their FIFRA registrations cancelled and are no longer authorized for
use. Furthermore, for the remaining pesticides, analysis of the 2011
PGP annual reports data indicate that none of the reported pesticides
are on the 303(d) list of impairments in geographic areas where the PGP
is authorized. See document titled, ``Comparison of 303(d) Pesticides
Impairment Data with 2011 PGP Annual Reports Data'' in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control?p_report_type=T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, as identified in Part 1.2.3 of the 2011 PGP and the
draft 2016 PGP, for eligible discharges (e.g., discharges to waters
that are impaired for pollutants other than the pesticide product or
degradates of that product), EPA may determine that additional TBELs or
WQBELs are necessary, or may deny coverage under the PGP and require
submission of an application for an individual permit.
    Prior to reissuing permits, EPA evaluates opportunities for
improving permit requirements to protect water quality. Although EPA
finds that the conditions and requirements of the draft 2016 PGP are
protective of water quality, EPA is aware that some states, tribes, and
territories include additional WQBELs in their states-issued permits or
included additional conditions in their 401 certifications for the
draft 2011 PGP. EPA has examined these additional BMPs and permit
conditions and seeks feedback on whether some of these additional
measures or others should be added to the draft 2016 PGP WQBELs to
further protect water quality. EPA has included examples of some permit
requirements from NPDES authorized state WQBELs in the docket. See
document titled, ``Examples of State PGP Provisions that Address
WQBELs/WQ Monitoring.'' Additionally, examples of some BMPs from
pesticides labels are available in the docket as well. See document
titled, ``Examples of BMPs in Pesticides Product FIFRA Labels to
Address Water Quality.''

IV. Cost Impacts of the PGP

    EPA performed a cost impact analysis on Operators covered by the
2011 PGP for the purpose of examining the economic achievability of
complying with the technology-based effluent limitations and the
administrative requirements embodied in the permit. EPA performs this
type of analysis where a general permit is developed in the absence of
existing applicable national effluent limitations. Based on the 2011
PGP analysis and the updated cost analysis for the draft 2016 PGP, EPA
expects that there will be minimal burden on entities, including small
businesses, covered under the draft 2016 PGP. EPA finds the limitations
to be economically achievable. A copy of EPA's cost analysis, titled,
``Cost Impact Analysis for the Draft 2016 Pesticide General Permit
(PGP),'' is available in

the docket. EPA solicits additional information during the public
notice of the draft 2016 PGP that will allow for a more accurate cost
analysis, and will update the cost impact analysis as appropriate, for
the final permit.

V. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    The draft 2016 PGP is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

VI. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in E.O.
13175. It will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on
federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. EPA
directly implements the NPDES Program, including the proposed 2016 PGP,
in Indian Country; therefore, in compliance with the EPA Policy on
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, EPA consulted with
tribal officials early in the process to permit tribes to have
meaningful and timely input into the renewal of the 2016 PGP. To gain
an understanding of, and where necessary, to address tribal
implications of the draft 2016 PGP, EPA conducted the following
activities:
     October 28, 2015--EPA mailed notification letters to
tribal leaders initiating consultation and coordination on the renewal
of the PGP. The initiation letter was posted on the tribal portal Web
site at http://tcots.epa.gov.
     November 19, 2015--EPA held an informational
teleconference open to all tribal representatives, and reserved the
last part of the teleconference for official consultation comments.
Seven tribal officials participated. EPA also invited tribes to submit
written comments on the draft 2016 PGP. The presentation was posted on
the tribal portal Web site at http://tcots.epa.gov.

Although EPA did not receive any comments during the formal
consultation period, EPA encourages tribes to participate in the public
review process by submitting comments through regulations.gov. EPA will
consider the comments and address them in the final action.

    Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

    Dated: January 14, 2016.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
    Dated: January 14, 2016.
Joan Leary Matthews,
Director, Clean Water Division, EPA Region 2.
    Dated: January 14, 2016.
Jose C. Font,
Division Director, Caribbean Environmental Protection Division, EPA
Region 2.
    Dated: January 13, 2016.
Jon M. Capacasa,
Director, Water Protection Division, EPA Region 3.
    Dated: January 13, 2016.
James D. Giattina,
Director, Water Protection Division, EPA Region 4.
    Dated: January 13, 2016.
Tinka G. Hyde,
Director, Water Division, EPA Region 5.
    Dated: January 14, 2016.
William K. Honker, P.E.,
Director, Water Division, EPA Region 6.
    Dated: January 14, 2016.
Karen A. Flournoy,
Director, Water, Wetlands and Pesticides Division, EPA Region 7.
    Dated: January 14, 2016.
Darcy O'Connor,
Acting Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Partnerships and
Regulatory Assistance, EPA Region 8.
    Dated: January 13, 2016.
Tomas Torres,
Director, Water Division, EPA Region 9.
    Dated: January 14, 2016.
Daniel D. Opalski,
Director, Office of Water and Watersheds, EPA Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2016-01564 Filed 1-25-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2176-2177]
[FR Doc No: 2011-437]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63649; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2010-122]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE
Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services

January 5, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on December 28, 2010, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. NYSE Arca filed the proposal pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) \4\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \5\ thereunder. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of
Fees and Charges for Exchange Services (the ``Schedule'') to modify the
fees that it charges for routing orders to the New York Stock Exchange
LLC and NYSE Amex LLC for execution on those markets. The text of the
proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's
Public Reference Room, and http://www.nyse.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Effective January 1, 2011, the Exchange proposes to amend the
Schedule to modify the fees that it charges for routing orders to the
New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') and NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE
Amex'') for execution on those markets. In two recent rule filings,\6\
both NYSE and NYSE Amex have modified their fee structures for equities
transactions, including changes to the rates for taking liquidity and
adding liquidity, to become effective at the beginning of January 2011.
The Exchange's current fees for routing orders to those exchanges are
closely related to those exchanges' fees for taking and adding
liquidity, and the Exchange is proposing an adjustment to its routing
fees to maintain the existing relationship to the new fees in place at
the NYSE and NYSE Amex.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See SR-NYSE-2010-87 (the ``NYSE Fee Filing'') and SR-
NYSEAmex-2010-125 (the ``NYSE Amex Fee Filing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NYSE Fee Filing increased the NYSE's charge for execution of
customer orders that take liquidity from the NYSE from $0.0021 per
share to $0.0023 per share, and increased the rebate for execution of
customer orders that add liquidity to the NYSE from $0.0013 per share
to $0.0015 per share. Currently, for NYSE Arca Tier 1 and Tier 2
customers, the fee for routing orders in Tape A securities to the NYSE
outside the book is equal to the NYSE ``take'' rate of $0.0021 per
share, and the fee for routing such orders to the NYSE for non-tier
customers is slightly higher at $0.0023 per share. Consequently, the
Exchange is proposing to increase each of those fees by $0.0002 to
$0.0023 per share and $0.0025 per share, respectively, in line with the
$0.0002 increase in the NYSE ``take'' rate.
    In addition, the Exchange currently charges $0.0019 per share for
Primary Sweep Orders in Tape A securities that are routed outside the
book to the NYSE for execution. This charge applies to Tier 1, Tier 2
and non-tier customers. In order to maintain the existing relationship
to the other Exchange

routing fees that are being adjusted upward, the Exchange is also
proposing to increase this fee by $0.0002 to both tier and non-tier
customers, to a level of $0.0021 per share.
    Finally, for Primary Only Plus (``PO+'') orders, the current
Exchange fee for orders routed to the NYSE that remove liquidity from
the NYSE is $0.0021 per share, which is equal to the current NYSE
``take'' rate, and the Exchange credit for such orders routed to the
NYSE that provide liquidity to the NYSE is $0.0013 per share, which is
equal to the current NYSE rebate for execution of customer orders that
add liquidity to the NYSE. Consequently, the Exchange is proposing to
increase its fees (credits) for routing PO+ orders to the NYSE by the
same amount ($0.0002) as the increase in the corresponding NYSE fees
(credits). The proposed new fee for PO+ orders routed to the NYSE that
remove liquidity is $0.0023 per share, and the proposed new credit for
such orders routed to the NYSE that provide liquidity is $0.0015 per
share. These changes would maintain the current relationship with NYSE
rates.
    The NYSE Amex Fee Filing increased NYSE Amex's charge for execution
of customer orders that take liquidity from NYSE Amex from $0.0025 per
share to $0.0028 per share, and increased the rebate for execution of
customer orders that add liquidity to NYSE Amex from $0.0015 per share
to $0.0016 per share. Currently, the Exchange fee is $0.0025 per share
for PO and PO+ orders routed to NYSE Amex that remove liquidity from
NYSE Amex, which is equal to the current NYSE Amex ``take'' rate, and
the Exchange credit for such orders routed to NYSE Amex that provide
liquidity to NYSE Amex is $0.0015, which is equal to the current NYSE
Amex rebate for execution of customer orders that add liquidity to NYSE
Amex. Consequently, the Exchange is proposing to increase its fees
(credits) for routing PO and PO+ orders to NYSE Amex by the same
amounts as the increase in the corresponding NYSE fees (credits). The
proposed new fee for PO and PO+ orders routed to NYSE Amex that remove
liquidity is $0.0028 per share, and the proposed new credit for such
orders routed to NYSE Amex that provide liquidity is $0.0016 per share.
These changes would maintain the current relationship with NYSE Amex
rates.
    Finally, the Exchange is adding a sentence in the introduction of
the Tier 1 and Tier 2 volume levels to clarify that the calculation of
U.S. Average Daily Consolidated Share Volume does not include trades on
days when the market closes early.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\7\ in general, and Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\8\ in
particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange believes
that the proposal does not constitute an inequitable allocation of
fees, as all similarly situated member organizations and other market
participants will be subject to the same fee structure, and access to
the Exchange's market is offered on fair and non-discriminatory terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \9\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-
4 \10\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by NYSE Arca.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2010-122 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2010-122. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange.\11\ All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSEArca-2010-122 and should be submitted on or before February 2,
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-437 Filed 1-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                          INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING
                         JOB TRAINING REPORTING FORM

                             GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

Overview:
As specified in your cooperative agreement terms and conditions, all Job Training cooperative agreement recipients must report to EPA on a regular basis. This OMB and EPA approved reporting form (OMB No. xxxx - xxxx, EPA Form xxxx-xx) supplements your Quarterly Reports with information about specific activities and accomplishments that EPA deems necessary to adequately monitor and evaluate progress toward goals defined in cooperative agreements. Please contact your EPA Regional representative if you have any questions when completing this form.  Please note that, in most instances, all reported information is accessible by the public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and may be distributed by EPA to the public unless an FOIA exclusion is applicable.

Compared to the Quarterly Reports, the Job Training Reporting Form (JT Reporting Form or JT Form) contains quantitative information on four specific measures of recipient performance. Reporting on these specific activities and accomplishments must be provided in the attached JT Reporting Form rather than in the Quarterly Reports. Additional voluntary and/or narrative information may be provided in Part II of this form or in the Quarterly Report.

When to Submit:
Original JT Reporting Forms. Cooperative agreement recipients must develop the first JT Reporting Form when the first specified accomplishment has occurred (e.g., when the first class of trainees "graduates" from the training program provided under the cooperative agreement, or when leveraged funding is committed to supplement the cooperative agreement activities).

Updated JT Reporting Forms. JT Reporting Forms should be updated and delivered as additional accomplishments occur.  In addition, an updated form should be provided when the cooperative agreement is being closed out. Cooperative agreement recipients should provide ample time to report job placement activities  prior to the closeout of the project period. If you have data to report after the closeout of the cooperative agreement, please contact the ACRES Help desk at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
To Whom to Submit:
 Cooperative agreement recipients must submit JT Reporting Forms to their EPA Regional Representative identified in the terms and conditions of the cooperative agreement. If data is entered online it will automatically be delivered to the EPA Regional Representative.

How to Submit:
The Assessment, Cleanup, and Redevelopment Exchange System (ACRES) is available online and is the preferred method for Job Training cooperative agreement recipients to enter and submit the JT Reporting Form. Electronic reporting is optional. The JT Reporting Form may also be submitted in hard copy with the next required Quarterly Report or via e-mail to the EPA Regional Representative.

            DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING EACH ITEM ON FORM

PART I  -  COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT RECIPIENT INFORMATION

1.  Cooperative Agreement Recipient Name. Enter the cooperative agreement recipient name. Use the official name provided in the cooperative agreement, unless otherwise directed by the EPA Regional Representative.

2.  Cooperative Agreement Number. Enter the cooperative agreement number. Use the number as provided in the cooperative agreement.

PART II - PERFORMANCE MEASURES INFORMATION

This section contains two parts -- one mandatory, for performance measures information; the other optional, for narrative information to supplement the quantitative information provided (Field 8).

Mandatory Performance Measures.
Provide all quantitative information relating to each of the mandatory performance measures. For each measure, enter amounts in column (a)  --  This Federal Fiscal Quarter  --   to reflect the incremental accomplishments attained during the current federal fiscal reporting quarter and column (b)  --  Cumulative  --  to reflect the total accomplishments attained to date during the term of the  cooperative agreement. Note:  quantitative information relating to these performance measures should only be provided in the JT Form (i.e., not in narrative reporting contained in the Quarterly Report).

3. Number of Participants Entering Training. Enter the number of participants who entered a cooperative agreement funded training program.

3a. Number of Ex-offenders Entering Training. Enter the number of participants who entered a cooperative agreement funded training program that are ex-offenders.

3b. Number of Veterans Entering Training. Enter the number of participants who entered a cooperative agreement funded training program that are Veterans.

3c. Number of participants entering training (who are) currently receiving TANF. Enter the number of participants who entered a cooperative agreement funded training program that were receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) when they entered.

4. Number of Participants Completing Training. Enter the number of participants taking the cooperative agreement funded training who have completed the training program.

5. Number of Participants Obtaining Employment. Enter the number of graduates from the cooperative agreement funded training program who have obtained employment of any kind. Self-employed graduates should be included in this count. The cumulative total number inserted in column (b) should only increase during the term of the cooperative agreement; the recipients' reporting of the cumulative total should not reflect any decreases for graduates who had obtained employment but later reported losing their jobs. If desired, provide a brief narrative description in section 8 for any reported job losses.

5b. Number of Individuals that did not Obtain Employment but are Pursuing Education (e.g., GED, college courses, etc.). Enter the number of graduates from the cooperative agreement funded training program who have not obtained employment but are pursuing an education. Education can include GED classes, college courses, vocational training, etc.

6. Average Hourly Wage. Enter the average hourly wage of job training graduates in their initial post-training employment. Provide the hourly wage for the first job that each employed graduate secures after completing the job training program. Anecdotal information about subsequent jobs and wages may also be narratively provided.

7. Funds Leveraged. Enter the total amount of funding leveraged as a result of cooperative agreement activities.  Capture the total number of non-cooperative agreement dollars linked and leveraged to support additional, related activities of the recipient. To be reportable, there must be a demonstrable link or connection between the EPA funded activity and the leveraged funding.  Funding can occur through direct financial assistance and/or through in-kind services or supplies.  Usually, leveraged funding that was committed prior to the award of the EPA recipient should not be reported as leveraged. In addition, leveraged funding should not be reported in this section until the funding has been committed. These leveraged funds may be used to support activities that cannot be funded by the EPA cooperative agreement (e.g., transportation or child care for job training students).

In addition to the total leveraged funds, also describe the source(s) and amount of funding leveraged, and the types of activities it funded. For each funding source (7-1), also list the type of activity funded (7-2) and the amount of funding leveraged per source in columns (a) and (b). As necessary, add additional lines for 7-1 and 7-2.

      7-1. Funding Source Name(s). For each funding source, enter the name of the organization providing the funds and/or in-kind services. Examples of sources of leveraged funding include other EPA programs; private organizations; state environmental, labor, or economic agencies; tribal governments; local governments (including community development corporations); and other federal agencies.

      7-2. Activity Funded. For each funding source listed under 7-1, provide the type of activity that was supported.  Examples of leveraged activities include additional curricula development/training (e.g., environmental and non-environmental), supplies/equipment, transportation for students, and child care for students.

8.  Supplement Performance Measures Information (Optional). Provide a brief narrative description to supplement the required performance measures reporting, including, for example:  demographic information (e.g., gender, age, ethnicity, education); description of the training curricula; information on the types of jobs obtained by the participants entering/completing the training; names of employers; names of brownfield sites graduates are placed at; availability of photographs/video footage of the training/graduation/post-training employment; and/or other milestones tracked by the recipient for its own management.

PART III - APPROVALS

9.  Cooperative Agreement Recipient Project Manager. Type or print the name of the cooperative agreement recipient project manager. The project manager should also sign and date the completed JT Reporting Form before submission.

10.  U.S. EPA Regional Representative. Type or print the name of the EPA Regional Representative. The EPA Representative should also sign and date the reviewed JT Reporting Form.