candidate technologies are not cost reasonable, given the lack of hard
data on which to base the determination. This is fully consistent with
EPA's findings in the proposed rule that POTWs are very cost effective
at fecal coliform removals. 71 FR 37,772. The assessment confirms what
logic suggests: Given a POTW's requirement to virtually eliminate the
extremely high fecal coliform discharges in its influent (basically raw
sewage), POTWs, on a national basis, achieve fecal coliform removal on
a cheaper basis than CAFOs.
    Finally, EPA notes that Congress intended the BCT level of control
to be somewhere between the BPT and the BAT levels of control, as
established in the statute. As noted in the conference report to the
1977 amendments establishing BPT:

    ``The result of the cost test could be a 1984 requirement which
is no more than that which would result from best practicable
technology but also could result in effluent reductions equal to
that required in the application of best available technology.''
Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference, 95th
Cong. 1st Sess., H.R. No. 95-830 at 85, Legislative History at 269.

    Thus, candidate technologies with costs between 6 and 13 times the
costs of technologies that have already been determined to be BAT would
not generally be appropriate as the basis for BCT.
5. Additional Comments on the Proposal
    The following discussion summarizes additional significant comments
received by EPA on the proposed CAFO BCT determination for pathogens.
For a complete response to the issues raised by commenters, see the
Response to Comment Document.
    In calculating the BPT cost per unit of fecal coliform removal for
its cost-reasonableness assessment, one commenter noted the cost was
erroneously calculated in units of dollars per billion colony forming
units (CFU); the units should have been dollars per trillion CFU in
order for the test to be comparable and consistent with the remaining
BCT cost calculations. EPA agrees with this comment and has corrected
all calculations to dollars per trillion CFU.
    Some commenters correctly noted that as part of the BCT cost test
for fecal coliform, EPA calculated the POTW and industry cost
benchmarks as the difference in average costs of removing fecal
coliform between secondary treatment and advanced secondary treatment
rather than as the incremental cost for the upgrade. These commenters
believed that such an approach was incorrect. As discussed above, EPA
agrees and has not used the revised BCT cost test for this final rule.
In regards to the BCT options that were selected for further analysis,
some commenters believe that numerical limits are feasible for CAFOs
and should have been selected for BCT. They would have liked to see EPA
take a similar approach to CAFO waste that EPA has taken regarding
human sewage sludge (i.e., setting numerical pathogen standards for
use). Some commenters pointed to the ``sludge rule'' or ``biosolids''
program under 40 CFR part 503 as a possible basis for pathogen
standards in the CAFO rule. EPA notes that the CWA statutory criteria
for sewage sludge standards under section 405 of the Act are health and
welfare-based. By contrast, CWA effluent limitations require
consideration of different factors. However, the technologies used to
meet the regulations in part 503 may, in some cases, be used by CAFOs.
For these reasons, EPA included sewage sludge pollution reduction
technologies such as composting and lime addition in the suite of BCT
candidate technologies the Agency considered. In addition, some
commenters criticized EPA's cost analysis for not including cost-share
from federal sources such as EQIP, and for not including cost offsets
from sale of treated manure. EPA considered both of these aspects in
the cost analysis to the 2003 final CAFO rule, and was upheld on its
economic analysis. 399 F.3d 486. In addition, EPA considered such cost
offsets in a sensitivity analysis, and concluded that the cost offsets
did not change EPA's fundamental conclusions regarding economic
achievability and feasibility. See Chapter 14 of the TDD for more
information.
    By contrast, other commenters found no fault or shortcomings in the
EPA analysis of the technical feasibility of conventional technologies
in determining BCT for pathogen removal. They agree that the candidate
technologies examined by EPA present insurmountable challenges to many
CAFOs that make them inappropriate as a basis for BCT. They found no
fault with the cost data or analytical techniques used by EPA in the
BCT cost test. These commenters also presented additional economic
analysis of the candidate technologies that has been published in the
``Phase 3'' report on the ``Development of Environmentally Superior
Technologies'' per agreements between the North Carolina Attorney
General and major pork producers in the State. These commenters note
that the ``Phase 3'' economic analysis found that none of the 16
technologies studied were economically feasible for existing swine
operations in North Carolina, which is consistent with EPA's findings
as discussed in detail above. These commenters also provided State
records of CAFO violations and discharge data for the past three years
to support their position that EPA has overstated the frequency of
production area overflows. These additional data may be found in the
record for this final action.

IV. Impact Analysis

A. Environmental Impacts

    When EPA issued the revised CAFO regulations on February 12, 2003,
it estimated annual pollutant reductions

for the rule at 56 million pounds of phosphorus, 110 million pounds of
nitrogen, and two billion pounds of sediment. This final, revised rule
will not change these environmental benefits since the technical
requirements for CAFOs that discharge are not affected and all CAFOs,
whether covered by NPDES permits or not, still need to control nutrient
releases from the production and land application areas in order to
comply with the Clean Water Act. Under this rule, all CAFOs that do not
apply for permits must be designed, constructed, operated, and
maintained such that the CAFO does not discharge or propose to
discharge. Therefore, as was true under the 2003 rule, all discharges
from CAFOs (except precipitation-related discharges from land
application areas under a CAFO's control that qualify as agricultural
stormwater discharges) are required to be covered by NPDES permits. The
overall magnitude of the benefits will increase compared to 2003 due to
growth in the industry, but the analysis for this rule does not
recalculate these effects since the increase is not due to changes in
the CAFO regulations. EPA is assuming full compliance with the rule,
which is standard Agency procedure when modeling impacts of a final
rule.

B. Administrative Burden Impacts

    Since there is no change in technical requirements, changes in
impacts on respondents are due exclusively to changes in the
information collection burden. To determine the administrative burden
for the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) analysis, the Agency first
examined the two key permitting changes resulting from the Waterkeeper
decision and how they would be implemented under the final regulations.
These are the change in the duty to apply for CAFOs and the change to
the nutrient management plan (NMP) related provisions for CAFO permits.
    The 2003 CAFO rule had a universal duty to apply requirement which
required virtually all CAFOs to obtain NPDES permit coverage. The
supporting analysis for the 2003 rule estimated that as a result of
this requirement, approximately 15,500 CAFOs would ultimately receive
NPDES permits. See the Technical Development Document for the 2003
rule, Chapter 9.
    This final rule changes the duty to apply requirement so that only
CAFOs that discharge or propose to discharge are required to seek NPDES
coverage. To derive the number of CAFOs that could ultimately fall into
this category, EPA first projected total industry size for 2008 based
on both U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Census of Agriculture
statistics as well as Agency-based sector expertise. This exercise
yielded an estimate of approximately 20,700 total CAFOs for 2008. EPA
then combined the 2008 projections for each animal sector with
information on standardized operational profiles to anticipate the
number of facilities as of 2008 that might discharge. For example, when
inclement weather precludes land application or dewatering activities,
open lot type facilities such as beef lots and dairy operations are
more likely to experience conditions that could result in a discharge
due to the use of open on-site lagoons. Additionally, EPA assumed that
all dairies generate wastewater from the production area and generally
have uncovered on-site lagoons. Thus, for purposes of burden estimates,
EPA assumed that all dairies and most beef feedlots would apply for
permits.
    Even though the industry grew to roughly 20,700 CAFOs from 2002 to
2008, the change in the duty to apply requirement is anticipated to
reduce the number of facilities needing permit coverage to
approximately 15,300 discharging CAFOs. Based on these updated figures,
EPA estimates that approximately 25 percent of the total universe of
CAFOs would not discharge and thus would not need NPDES coverage under
this final rule. Although these facilities may not need to apply for
permits, the administrative burden analysis performed by EPA under the
PRA nonetheless accounts for the costs that unpermitted facilities will
incur for the nutrient management planning that are necessary for
demonstrating that the facility is land applying manure in such a way
as to qualify for the agricultural stormwater exemption.
    These figures may overstate the numbers of CAFOs needing NPDES
permits in that the estimates of the number of discharging facilities
in each sector make conservative categorical assumptions about the
likelihood of a discharge based on broad operational profiles and do
not account for more subtle stratifications within specific operational
categories. For instance, although most dairies generate wastewater
from the production area and have on-site lagoons, there do, in fact,
exist dairies designed to be no discharge operations.
    Based on the updated estimates of the CAFO universe, EPA's PRA
analysis projects, as shown in Table 4.1, that CAFO operators and
permitting authorities will collectively experience an increase in
total annual administrative burden of approximately $0.5 million as a
result of the EPA regulations to address the court decision. Although
the PRA burden to CAFOs and permitting authorities declines as a result
of the Waterkeeper court decision to limit permits only to discharging
CAFOs, this burden reduction is offset by the new NMP-related
requirements for permits and by the assumption, for purposes of this
PRA analysis, that all unpermitted CAFOs will certify under the
voluntary no discharge certification option. More specifically, CAFO
operators will experience a $0.2 million reduction in net annual
administrative burden. This net result is based on several offsetting
changes. CAFOs that do not seek permit coverage under this final rule
because they do not discharge or propose to discharge will save
approximately $14 million annually in reduced permitting costs.
However, even though fewer CAFOs will need to be covered by NPDES
permits, permitted facilities as a group face an increase in annual
administrative burden of $1.2 million per year due to the new NMP
requirements.
    EPA's analysis of burden impacts to CAFOs also accounts for the
burden that unpermitted facilities will incur in order to be able to
qualify for the agricultural stormwater exemption--a cost category that
EPA estimates will result in a burden on unpermitted facilities of
$12.2 million annually. In addition, EPA estimates that the voluntary
certification option for unpermitted CAFOs could add $0.4 million
annually to the PRA burden for CAFOs. Although certification is
voluntary, EPA elected to cost the PRA burden associated with this
option so as to provide a complete accounting of all rule-related
impacts. As noted above, the net result of these impacts is an
administrative burden savings across all CAFO operators, permitted and
unpermitted, of $0.2 million annually.
    Permitting authorities, on the other hand, are projected to
experience a $0.7 million increase in annual administrative burden.
Although the burden to issue permits declines by $4.2 million annually
due to fewer facilities needing permits, this decline is more than
offset by the added workload arising from the new NMP-related
requirements. EPA estimates that States would face an additional PRA
burden of $4.9 million annually specifically as a result of the new
NMP-related requirements. In addition, States are projected to face a
burden increment of up to $0.04 million annually to process the new
certifications.
    EPA's estimate of PRA burden impacts changed from a reduction of
$14.9 million annually for the 2006 proposed rule to an increase of
$0.5

million annually in the final rule. This change is due principally to
the Agency's decision, as discussed earlier in this section, to amend
the PRA analysis to account for the burden incurred by unpermitted
CAFOs for nutrient management planning, which is necessary for any
unpermitted CAFO that land applies irrespective of whether the CAFO is
certified under the voluntary no discharge certification option.
    The PRA burden analysis presented in this rule accounts both for
growth in the industry and changes in labor rates since the 2003 rule
was issued. In addition, the changes are based on annualized impacts
and assume a permit term of five years as stipulated in the CWA. EPA
submitted draft ICRs with the 2006 proposed rule and 2008 supplemental
proposal, and did not receive any comments from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). The documentation in the public record on
the PRA analysis for this rulemaking discusses more fully the
assumptions used to estimate the numbers of CAFOs needing permits and
to project the associated administrative burden.

                                      Table 4.1--PRA Burden Impact Changes
                                  [Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Total baseline
                                                                   PRA burden:    Total amended   Net change in
                                                                  based on 2003    PRA burden:      paperwork
                                                                    CAFO rule    based on final    burden (2003
                                                                  requirements        rule        rule compared
                                                                       \1\        requirements    to final rule)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAFOs needing permits (2008)   ...............  ...............          20,685          15,281
 \2\.
CAFOs seeking agricultural     ...............  ...............             n/a           5,404
 stormwater exemption only
 (2008).
    Total CAFOs (2008).......  ...............  ...............          20,685          20,685
Annualized Costs \3\ (in $     CAFOs..........  Base NPDES                $54.0           $40.0          ($14.0)
 millions).                                      Permit.
                                                New NMP                     n/a            $1.2            $1.2
                                                 Provisions.
                                                Agricultural                n/a           $12.2           $12.2
                                                 Stormwater
                                                 Exemption.
                                                Certification..             n/a            $0.4            $0.4
                                                Total CAFO                $54.0           $53.8           ($0.2)
                                                 Burden.
                               Permitting       Base NPDES                $16.5           $12.2           ($4.2)
                                Authorities.     Permit.
                                                New NMP                     n/a            $4.9            $4.9
                                                 Provisions.
                                                Certification..             n/a           $0.04           $0.04
                                                Total Permit              $16.5           $17.1            $0.7
                                                 Authority
                                                 Burden.
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               All Respondents                            $70.5           $71.0            $0.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 2003 baseline impacts adjusted to reflect current labor rates and growth in facilities.
\2\ Facility totals are annualized over 5 years in burden calcultions presented below to reflect CWA requirement
  for NPDES permit renewal every 5 years.
\3\ Annualized costs represent labor, capital and O&M costs.

C. Response to Public Comment on the Proposal

    The Agency received a variety of comments on the impacts analysis
presented for the 2006 proposed rule and the 2008 supplemental
proposal. Several commenters indicated that the Agency erred in
assuming that the environmental benefits from the 2003 rule would be
retained under the approach adopted in this final rule. The Agency
stands by its position presented in the 2006 proposed rule, but has
revised the burden analysis to reflect more fully that all unpermitted
CAFOs do not discharge or propose to discharge and, therefore, must
implement nutrient management practices to ensure that any discharge
from the CAFO's land application area qualifies for the agricultural
stormwater exemption. As a consequence, as indicated above, the annual
burden reduction realized by CAFOs under the final revised rule is
shown as approximately $0.2 million as opposed to the $15.4 million
reduction projected for CAFOs in the 2006 proposed rule. This revised
analysis also addresses specific comments suggesting that the Agency
should recognize that operators without permits will continue to incur
costs under the regulation in order to meet the burden of proof
required to qualify for the agricultural stormwater exemption.
    Other commenters indicated that the impacts analysis underestimated
the costs to CAFO operators of complying with the EPA regulations.
Careful review of these statements makes clear that commenters with
this viewpoint either did not account for the fact that the impacts
analysis presented for this rulemaking is exclusively an assessment of
the paperwork burden--not the overall compliance burden--faced by
CAFOs, or did not fully consider that the costs shown represent average
yearly (annualized) burden rather than total paperwork-related costs
for a five-year CAFO NPDES permit.
    Other commenters provided specific information on nutrient
management plan (NMP) development costs, which the Agency determined
corroborated the original NMP cost estimates.
    One State commenter claimed that the Agency had underestimated
costs to permitting authorities for managing the potential public
hearings precipitated by the new requirements for public notice. This
commenter projected that every public notice regarding NMPs would
result in a public hearing. The Agency re-examined its assumptions
regarding the incidence of public hearings, but did not find
information to corroborate the commenter's projection either based on
past NPDES public hearing patterns or based on expectations from other
States regarding the number of hearings likely to be triggered by NMP-
related public notices. This assumption that public hearings would not
be requested for every NMP is further confirmed by the experiences of
States that currently require NMPs to be submitted as part of their
permitting process.
    Several commenters indicated that they believed that the Agency had
also

underestimated the cost to States of processing voluntary no discharge
certifications. This final rule does not require permitting authority
review of no discharge certifications. See discussion of certification
submission in section III.A.3(c) of this preamble. The Agency notes
that the cost analysis it performed to assess the paperwork burden
associated with the final rule shows a net paperwork burden reduction
to States on this aspect of the rule, since the 2003 rule required
permits-which are more burdensome for permitting authorities to
process-from all CAFOs.

V. Cross-Media Considerations and Pathogens

A. Cross-Media Approaches

    Since 2003, EPA and CAFO stakeholders have been interested in
developing a framework to enable CAFOs to pursue superior environmental
performance across all media. Today, some CAFOs voluntarily conduct
whole-farm audits to evaluate releases of pollutants to all media
through Environmental Management Systems (e.g., ISO 14001
certification), self-assessment tools, EPA's performance track, and
State-approved trade-offs in reducing discharges to water and emissions
to air that accomplish the best overall level of protection given State
and local conditions. The development of new and emerging technologies
offers the potential to achieve equivalent or greater pollutant
reductions relative to those achieved by the effluent guidelines and
standards. Many of these are superior from a cross-media perspective,
and EPA encourages superior cross-media solutions. These regulations
regarding nutrient management plans may provide an opportunity for EPA
to encourage cross-media approaches at CAFOs. For example, the nutrient
value in the animal byproducts provides a valuable source of fertilizer
for crops. However, inappropriate application can lead to preventable
discharges to water and emissions to air. Optimal application
technologies and rates reduce potential water quality and air quality
standards violations.
    The fact that EPA has multiple efforts underway relating to
livestock operations under several environmental statutes underscores
the need to explore how to leverage existing regulatory authorities
most effectively. For example, in addition to the regulations being
finalized in this rulemaking, the Agency has recently undertaken a
National Air Emissions Monitoring Study. EPA also proposed a rule that
would exempt animal feeding operations from certain requirements
relating to reporting of air releases under hazardous waste laws.
    EPA solicited comment in the 2006 proposed rule on the feasibility
(including consideration of legal, technical, and implementation
issues) of allowing flexibility in how facilities meet various
programmatic requirements, for instance those of the Clean Air Act and
the Clean Water Act (CWA), in order to achieve greater cross-media
pollutant reductions. EPA received generalized support for this type of
approach in the comments submitted in response. EPA will continue to
explore cross-media considerations as it works together with CAFOs and
stakeholders to build further experience on this issue.
    As an example of the Agency's work in this area, in October 2007,
EPA awarded $8 million in federal grants for providing technical
assistance to livestock operators, including animal feeding operations,
for the prevention of water discharges and reduction of air emissions.
More recently, EPA's Agricultural Advisor announced the establishment
of the Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Federal Advisory Committee.
One of the issues the committee will focus on will be identification
and development of a comprehensive environmental strategy for livestock
operations. EPA anticipates that the committee will offer timely
observations on the opportunities and challenges of cross-media
approaches to programs for addressing environmental concerns at
livestock operations as its work progresses.

B. Pathogens and Animal Feeding Operations

    Although this final rule does not require any new best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT) effluent limitations specifically to
control fecal coliform, EPA is continuing to assess environmental and
human health concerns associated with the management of manure and
wastewater at CAFOs. Pollutants most commonly associated with animal
waste include nutrients (including ammonia), organic matter, solids,
odorous compounds, and various pathogens. These pollutants, and others,
can be released into the environment through discharge or runoff if
manure and wastewater are not properly handled and managed. EPA is
interested in recently initiated studies to assess potential impacts
from pathogens in livestock manure, especially those which may pose
unique risks such as Cryptosporidium and Giardia. These pathogens may
be of concern if they make their way into drinking water sources (e.g.,
lakes, rivers, and streams) because of their stability in the natural
environment and their resistance to the most commonly used drinking
water disinfection procedure (i.e., chlorination). If proper treatment
is not provided for these pathogens, they have the potential to cause
adverse health impacts in exposed populations. While the Agency has a
number of on-going efforts in these areas, research is still in its
early stages. The absence of available information necessarily limits
EPA's ability to act with respect to these potential concerns.
    EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) is actively working
to identify sources of Cryptosporidium. In collaboration with the
Centers for Disease Control (CDC), EPA Region 3, and the Potomac River
Drinking Water Source Protection Partnership (DWSPP), ORD has initiated
Cryptosporidium source tracking studies of the Potomac River Watershed.
The primary objective of this project is to develop and implement a
monitoring program for Cryptosporidium source tracking in order to
identify the most significant sources of this parasite within the
watershed. Once identified, appropriate source protection efforts,
where available, may be mobilized and directed to the reduction of
these sources' contributions. In addition, in 2005 EPA's Science to
Achieve Results (STAR) program held a solicitation for proposals
entitled, ``Development and Evaluation of Innovative Approaches for the
Quantitative Assessment of Pathogens in Drinking Water,'' and has
funded eleven research grants from this proposal involving the
development and evaluation of innovative approaches to quantitatively
detect microbial pathogens in drinking water, including Cryptosporidium
and Giardia. The goal of the STAR research is to improve the suite of
available detection methods for known and emerging microbial drinking
water contaminants. EPA expects that this research will result in
methods that will, among other things, allow determination of the
presence and quantities of waterborne pathogens; present a protocol for
preparing and processing water samples for application of the proposed
approach; and where possible, allow comparison of the performance of
the new detection methods with existing approved EPA methods for
specific pathogens.
    ORD is also collaborating with the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) in their research programs associated with Cryptosporidium. ORD
scientists

participated in the USDA selection process for the National Research
Initiative on Watershed Processes and Water Resources. Grants awarded
under this program will explore the effects of a number of factors on
Cryptosporidium mobility and contamination of waterways. These include
the use of buffers and other best management practices for decreasing
loadings of Cryptosporidium from land application of wastes and other
soluble organic matter. EPA scientists have begun to review recently
published research on Cryptosporidium and Giardia oocyst shedding. The
research suggests that shedding is highest during early life stages of
cattle and zoonotic forms and may greatly diminish as calves age. These
factors have already led some veterinarians to recommend that farmers
separate these high shedding young animals from older animals to
decrease disease spread and economic losses among herds of cattle and
dairy cows. The research also suggests that the separation may provide
secondary environmental benefits by helping to prevent the release of
Cryptosporidium into waterways. As part of their efforts to protect the
New York City water supply, the New York State Department of
Agriculture has recommended separation controls in their best
management practice (BMP) guidance to dairy farmers. Other States,
including California, are considering similar separation BMPs.
    EPA's ORD will continue to collaborate and assess the impacts that
these and other research efforts may have on any future CAFO management
recommendations.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51,735; October 4, 1993), this
action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' Accordingly, EPA
submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under Executive Order 12866 and any changes made in response to
OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.
    In addition, EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and
benefits associated with this action. This analysis is contained in
section IV of this preamble above, entitled Impact Analysis. A copy of
the supporting analysis is available in the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB
approves them. However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
previously approved the information collection requirements contained
in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2040-
0250. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA
was assigned EPA ICR No. 1989.06.
    The 2003 CAFO rule had a universal duty to apply requirement which
required virtually all CAFOs to obtain NPDES permit coverage. This
final revised rule changes the duty to apply requirement so that only
CAFOs that discharge or propose to discharge must to seek NPDES
coverage. EPA projects that CAFO operators and permitting authorities
will collectively experience a reduction in total annual administrative
burden of 25,500 hours as a result of the regulatory revisions to
address the court decision. Labor burden is projected to undergo a net
decrease compared to a net increase in administrative costs of $0.5
million annually as discussed in Chapter IV. This difference arises
from the fact that the PRA analysis performed for the final rule
converts labor hour burden to labor costs using a higher wage rate for
State permitting authorities than for CAFO operators.\16\ The higher
wage rate for State permitting authorities causes the State labor cost
increase to be large enough to offset the labor cost reduction
experienced by CAFO operators once labor hours are converted to dollars
in the PRA analysis of annual administrative impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Wage rates for the PRA analysis supporting this rulemaking
were drawn from recent reports filed by the U.S. Department of
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. For further information please
refer to the ICR prepared by EPA for the rulemaking, available in
the record as EPA ICR No. 1989.06.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More specifically, the estimated reduction in total annual
administrative burden of 25,500 hours is based on a projected decrease
in labor burden to CAFO operators of approximately 54,100 hours
annually and a projected increase in labor burden to State permitting
authorities of approximately 28,600 hours annually. For CAFOs, much of
the labor burden decrease derives from the smaller number of facilities
that will need permits, which results in an annual burden decrease of
more than 703,000 labor hours. This burden reduction for CAFOs is
offset by a concomitant increase of 603,200 labor hours annually at
unpermitted facilities for activities necessary to meet the
agricultural stormwater exemption, along with an increment of 33,100
hours annually for permitted facilities to undertake the NMP-related
activities and 12,600 hours annually for those CAFOs who elect to
pursue the voluntary certification option.
    The annual labor burden increase for State permitting authorities
of 28,600 hours includes an estimated annual reduction in labor burden
of 93,000 hours due to the need to process fewer permits. However, for
State permitting authorities this burden reduction is more than offset
by an increment in annual labor burden of 120,700 hours to address the
new NMP-related requirements combined with a relatively minor annual
burden increase of 900 hours to handle the voluntary certifications.
    Additional details on the assumptions and parameters of the PRA
analysis are available in the ICR document referenced above, which is
available in the docket supporting this final rulemaking. Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    This final rule responds to OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements as discussed in the Impact Analysis
(section IV) in this preamble.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business based on
Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards at 13 CFR 121.201;
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district, or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any

not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and
is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
final rule does not change the substantive requirements for CAFO
operators or increase the net paperwork burden faced by facilities
compared to the burden imposed under the 2003 CAFO rule. Some CAFOs
will face increased permitting costs due to the new NMP provisions,
while others will face reduced costs due to the changes in the duty to
apply. However, these paperwork cost changes are generally small and do
not rise to the level of a significant adverse economic impact on a
substantial number of operators. Additionally, this rule would not
affect small governments as the permitting authorities are State or
federal agencies.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
    EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. The revised administrative burden EPA
calculated for the final rule constitutes a reduction of roughly 25,500
labor hours annually compared to the administrative burden estimated
for the 2003 CAFO rule. This burden reduction reflects a decrease in
annual labor burden of 54,100 hours for CAFO operators and an annual
labor burden increase to State permitting authorities of 28,600 hours.
In addition, this rulemaking is in response to a federal court decision
and is necessary to assure compliance with applicable law. Thus, this
rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the
UMRA.
    EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. There are no local or Tribal governments authorized to
implement the NPDES permit program and the Agency is unaware of any
local or Tribal governments who are owners or operators of CAFOs. Thus
this rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43,255;
August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to
ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in
the development of regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism implications'' is
defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. EPA estimates that the average
annual impact on all authorized States together is a cost increase of
$0.7 million. EPA does not consider an annual impact of this magnitude
on States to be a substantial effect. In addition, EPA does not expect
this rule to have any impact on local governments. EPA also considered
flexibility as an important factor when developing this regulation.
    Further, the revised regulations will not alter the basic State-
federal scheme established in the CWA under which EPA authorizes States
to carry out the NPDES permitting program. EPA expects the revised
regulations to have little effect on the relationship between, or the
distribution of power and responsibilities among, the federal and State
governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicited comment on the proposed rule
from State and local officials. In addition, through a variety of
meetings with State associations during the rulemaking process, States
have been informed about the issues related to addressing the court's
decisions. States provided input during these meetings. State concerns
generally focused on the process for incorporating NMPs into permits
and the related public review process, and also on guidance related to
what constitutes a discharge from a CAFO given that the proposed rule
would have required only those operations that discharge or propose to
discharge to apply for a permit. These concerns have been addressed in
such a way as to provide flexibility and accountability in the new
permit application requirements and review processes promulgated in
this rule.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled, ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67,249; November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.''
    This rule does not have tribal implications. There are currently no
tribal governments authorized for the NPDES program. This rulemaking
provides increased opportunity for the public and tribal governments to
comment on specific CAFOs' applications for permit coverage. It will
not have substantial direct effects on

tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments,
EPA specifically solicited comment on the proposed rule from tribal
officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19,885; April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it
is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866,
and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. The benefits analysis performed for
the 2003 CAFO rule determined that the rule would result in certain
significant benefits to children's health. (Please refer to the
Benefits Analysis in the record for the 2003 CAFO final rule.) This
action does not affect the environmental benefits of the 2003 CAFO
rule.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28,355; May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. EPA has
concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy
effects since CAFOs in general do not figure significantly in the
energy market, and the regulatory revisions finalized in this rule are
not likely to change existing energy generation or consumption profiles
for CAFOs.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This final rule does not change the technical requirements for land
application from those of the 2003 rule. Production area requirements
are the same for existing sources and for new sources as in the 2003
rule. The no discharge production area requirements for new sources in
this rulemaking, however, now include an option for complying with the
requirement through the development of site-specific design, operation
and maintenance permit conditions that will ensure no discharge from
the site. However, the specific no discharge conditions applicable to a
specific operator choosing this option for compliance will be
determined by the permitting authority on a site-specific BPJ basis.
EPA encourages the use by permitting authorities of voluntary consensus
standards, such as those that may be developed by USDA, in establishing
the site-specific technical requirements in CAFO permits when the
permittee demonstrates that these standards are consistent with the
achievement of no discharge from a specific CAFO.
    This rule for new source requires that CAFOs complying with the no
discharge requirement through the development of site-specific design,
maintenance and operation standards must use prescribed technical
standards in demonstrating that a specific CAFO's design, operation and
maintenance will be consistent with no discharge from its production
area. (In certain circumstances, a CAFO may use either equivalent
evaluation and simulation procedures or technical standards developed
for a class of specific facilities within a specified geographical area
if approved by its permitting authority), EPA has not required the use
of any particular voluntary consensus standards in this rule. The use,
however, of voluntary consensus standards such as those that may be
developed by USDA for the required demonstration that site-specific
design, maintenance and operational requirements for CAFOs to comply
with the no discharge standard is encouraged. The decisions as to what
specific best management practices and technologies must be applied at
individual animal feeding operations are left to the State or EPA in
the exercise of their NPDES authority.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will become effective December 22, 2008.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20NO08.000

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20NO08.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20NO08.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20NO08.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20NO08.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20NO08.005

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 122

    Administrative practice and procedure, confidential business
information, hazardous substances, reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, water pollution control.

40 CFR Part 412

    Environmental protection, feedlots, livestock, waste treatment and
disposal, water pollution control.

    Dated: October 31, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, chapter I of Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is to be amended as follows:

PART 9--OMB APPROVALS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT

0
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003,
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330,
1342, 1344, 1345(d) and (e), 1361; Executive Order 11735, 38 FR
21243, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246,
300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-
2, 300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q,
7542, 9601-9657, 11023, 11048.

0
2. In Sec.  9.1 the table is amended by adding entries in numerical
order under the indicated heading to read as follows:

Sec.  9.1  OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             OMB control
                      40 CFR citation                            No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               * * * * *
EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge
 Elimination System

                                * * * * *
122.21(i)..................................................    2040-0250

                                * * * * *
122.23 (d), (e), (h).......................................    2040-0250

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 122--EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT
DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM

0
3. The authority citation for part 122 continues to read as follows:

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

0
4. Section 122.21 is amended by revising the last sentence in paragraph
(a)(1), and revising paragraph (i)(1)(x), to read as follows:

Sec.  122.21  Application for a permit (applicable to State programs,
see Sec.  123.25).

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * * The requirements for concentrated animal feeding
operations are described in Sec.  122.23(d).
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (x) A nutrient management plan that at a minimum satisfies the
requirements specified in Sec.  122.42(e), including, for all CAFOs
subject to 40 CFR part 412, subpart C or subpart D, the requirements of
40 CFR 412.4(c), as applicable.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 122.23 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraph (a).
0
b. By revising paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2).
0
c. By adding paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2).
0
d. By revising paragraph (f).
0
e. By revising paragraph (g).
0
f. By revising paragraph (h).
0
g. By adding paragraph (i).
0
h. By adding paragraph (j).

Sec.  122.23  Concentrated animal feeding operations (applicable to
State NPDES programs, see Sec.  123.25).

    (a) Scope. Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), as
defined in paragraph (b) of this section or designated in accordance
with paragraph (c) of this section, are point sources, subject to NPDES
permitting requirements as provided in this section. Once an animal
feeding operation is defined as a CAFO for at least one type of animal,
the NPDES requirements for CAFOs apply with respect to all animals in
confinement at the operation and all manure, litter, and process
wastewater generated by those animals or the production of those
animals, regardless of the type of animal.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) Permit Requirement. The owner or operator of a CAFO must seek
coverage under an NPDES permit if the CAFO discharges or proposes to
discharge. A

CAFO proposes to discharge if it is designed, constructed, operated, or
maintained such that a discharge will occur. Specifically, the CAFO
owner or operator must either apply for an individual NPDES permit or
submit a notice of intent for coverage under an NPDES general permit.
If the Director has not made a general permit available to the CAFO,
the CAFO owner or operator must submit an application for an individual
permit to the Director.
    (2) Information to submit with permit application or notice of
intent. An application for an individual permit must include the
information specified in Sec.  122.21. A notice of intent for a general
permit must include the information specified in Sec. Sec.  122.21 and
122.28.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) For unpermitted Large CAFOs, a precipitation-related discharge
of manure, litter, or process wastewater from land areas under the
control of a CAFO shall be considered an agricultural stormwater
discharge only where the manure, litter, or process wastewater has been
land applied in accordance with site-specific nutrient management
practices that ensure appropriate agricultural utilization of the
nutrients in the manure, litter, or process wastewater, as specified in
Sec.  122.42(e)(1)(vi) through (ix).
    (2) Unpermitted Large CAFOs must maintain documentation specified
in Sec.  122.42(e)(1)(ix) either on site or at a nearby office, or
otherwise make such documentation readily available to the Director or
Regional Administrator upon request.
    (f) When must the owner or operator of a CAFO seek coverage under
an NPDES permit? Any CAFO that is required to seek permit coverage
under paragraph (d)(1) of this section must seek coverage when the CAFO
proposes to discharge, unless a later deadline is specified below.
    (1) Operations defined as CAFOs prior to April 14, 2003. For
operations defined as CAFOs under regulations that were in effect prior
to April 14, 2003, the owner or operator must have or seek to obtain
coverage under an NPDES permit as of April 14, 2003, and comply with
all applicable NPDES requirements, including the duty to maintain
permit coverage in accordance with paragraph (g) of this section.
    (2) Operations defined as CAFOs as of April 14, 2003, that were not
defined as CAFOs prior to that date. For all operations defined as
CAFOs as of April 14, 2003, that were not defined as CAFOs prior to
that date, the owner or operator of the CAFO must seek to obtain
coverage under an NPDES permit by February 27, 2009.
    (3) Operations that become defined as CAFOs after April 14, 2003,
but which are not new sources. For a newly constructed CAFO and for an
AFO that makes changes to its operations that result in its becoming
defined as a CAFO for the first time after April 14, 2003, but is not a
new source, the owner or operator must seek to obtain coverage under an
NPDES permit, as follows:
    (i) For newly constructed operations not subject to effluent
limitations guidelines, 180 days prior to the time CAFO commences
operation;
    (ii) For other operations (e.g., resulting from an increase in the
number of animals), as soon as possible, but no later than 90 days
after becoming defined as a CAFO; or
    (iii) If an operational change that makes the operation a CAFO
would not have made it a CAFO prior to April 14, 2003, the operation
has until February 27, 2009, or 90 days after becoming defined as a
CAFO, whichever is later.
    (4) New sources. The owner or operator of a new source must seek to
obtain coverage under a permit at least 180 days prior to the time that
the CAFO commences operation.
    (5) Operations that are designated as CAFOs. For operations
designated as a CAFO in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section,
the owner or operator must seek to obtain coverage under a permit no
later than 90 days after receiving notice of the designation.
    (g) Duty to Maintain Permit Coverage. No later than 180 days before
the expiration of the permit, or as provided by the Director, any
permitted CAFO must submit an application to renew its permit, in
accordance with Sec.  122.21(d), unless the CAFO will not discharge or
propose to discharge upon expiration of the permit.
    (h) Procedures for CAFOs seeking coverage under a general permit.
(1) CAFO owners or operators must submit a notice of intent when
seeking authorization to discharge under a general permit in accordance
with Sec.  122.28(b). The Director must review notices of intent
submitted by CAFO owners or operators to ensure that the notice of
intent includes the information required by Sec.  122.21(i)(1),
including a nutrient management plan that meets the requirements of
Sec.  122.42(e) and applicable effluent limitations and standards,
including those specified in 40 CFR part 412. When additional
information is necessary to complete the notice of intent or clarify,
modify, or supplement previously submitted material, the Director may
request such information from the owner or operator. If the Director
makes a preliminary determination that the notice of intent meets the
requirements of Sec. Sec.  122.21(i)(1) and 122.42(e), the Director
must notify the public of the Director's proposal to grant coverage
under the permit to the CAFO and make available for public review and
comment the notice of intent submitted by the CAFO, including the
CAFO's nutrient management plan, and the draft terms of the nutrient
management plan to be incorporated into the permit. The process for
submitting public comments and hearing requests, and the hearing
process if a request for a hearing is granted, must follow the
procedures applicable to draft permits set forth in 40 CFR 124.11
through 124.13. The Director may establish, either by regulation or in
the general permit, an appropriate period of time for the public to
comment and request a hearing that differs from the time period
specified in 40 CFR 124.10. The Director must respond to significant
comments received during the comment period, as provided in 40 CFR
124.17, and, if necessary, require the CAFO owner or operator to revise
the nutrient management plan in order to be granted permit coverage.
When the Director authorizes coverage for the CAFO owner or operator
under the general permit, the terms of the nutrient management plan
shall become incorporated as terms and conditions of the permit for the
CAFO. The Director shall notify the CAFO owner or operator and inform
the public that coverage has been authorized and of the terms of the
nutrient management plan incorporated as terms and conditions of the
permit applicable to the CAFO.
    (2) For EPA-issued permits only. The Regional Administrator shall
notify each person who has submitted written comments on the proposal
to grant coverage and the draft terms of the nutrient management plan
or requested notice of the final permit decision. Such notification
shall include notice that coverage has been authorized and of the terms
of the nutrient management plan incorporated as terms and conditions of
the permit applicable to the CAFO.
    (3) Nothing in this paragraph (h) shall affect the authority of the
Director to require an individual permit under Sec.  122.28(b)(3).
    (i) No Discharge Certification Option. (1) The owner or operator of
a CAFO that meets the eligibility criteria in paragraph (i)(2) of this
section may certify to the Director that the CAFO does not discharge or
propose to discharge. A CAFO owner or operator who certifies that the
CAFO does not

discharge or propose to discharge is not required to seek coverage
under an NPDES permit pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this section,
provided that the CAFO is designed, constructed, operated, and
maintained in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs (i)(2) and
(3) of this section, and subject to the limitations in paragraph (i)(4)
of this section.
    (2) Eligibility Criteria. In order to certify that a CAFO does not
discharge or propose to discharge, the owner or operator of a CAFO must
document, based on an objective assessment of the conditions at the
CAFO, that the CAFO is designed, constructed, operated, and maintained
in a manner such that the CAFO will not discharge, as follows:
    (i) The CAFO's production area is designed, constructed, operated,
and maintained so as not to discharge. The CAFO must maintain
documentation that demonstrates that:
    (A) Any open manure storage structures are designed, constructed,
operated, and maintained to achieve no discharge based on a technical
evaluation in accordance with the elements of the technical evaluation
set forth in 40 CFR 412.46(a)(1)(i) through (viii);
    (B) Any part of the CAFO's production area that is not addressed by
paragraph (i)(2)(i)(A) of this section is designed, constructed,
operated, and maintained such that there will be no discharge of
manure, litter, or process wastewater; and
    (C) The CAFO implements the additional measures set forth in 40 CFR
412.37(a) and (b);
    (ii) The CAFO has developed and is implementing an up-to-date
nutrient management plan to ensure no discharge from the CAFO,
including from all land application areas under the control of the
CAFO, that addresses, at a minimum, the following:
    (A) The elements of Sec.  122.42(e)(1)(i) through (ix) and 40 CFR
412.37(c); and
    (B) All site-specific operation and maintenance practices necessary
to ensure no discharge, including any practices or conditions
established by a technical evaluation pursuant to paragraph
(i)(2)(i)(A) of this section; and
    (iii) The CAFO must maintain documentation required by this
paragraph either on site or at a nearby office, or otherwise make such
documentation readily available to the Director or Regional
Administrator upon request.
    (3) Submission to the Director. In order to certify that a CAFO
does not discharge or propose to discharge, the CAFO owner or operator
must complete and submit to the Director, by certified mail or
equivalent method of documentation, a certification that includes, at a
minimum, the following information:
    (i) The legal name, address and phone number of the CAFO owner or
operator (see Sec.  122.21(b));
    (ii) The CAFO name and address, the county name and the latitude
and longitude where the CAFO is located;
    (iii) A statement that describes the basis for the CAFO's
certification that it satisfies the eligibility requirements identified
in paragraph (i)(2) of this section; and
    (iv) The following certification statement: ``I certify under
penalty of law that I am the owner or operator of a concentrated animal
feeding operation (CAFO), identified as [Name of CAFO], and that said
CAFO meets the requirements of 40 CFR 122.23(i). I have read and
understand the eligibility requirements of 40 CFR 122.23(i)(2) for
certifying that a CAFO does not discharge or propose to discharge and
further certify that this CAFO satisfies the eligibility requirements.
As part of this certification, I am including the information required
by 40 CFR 122.23(i)(3). I also understand the conditions set forth in
40 CFR 122.23(i)(4), (5) and (6) regarding loss and withdrawal of
certification. I certify under penalty of law that this document and
all other documents required for this certification were prepared under
my direction or supervision and that qualified personnel properly
gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based upon my inquiry
of the person or persons directly involved in gathering and evaluating
the information, the information submitted is to the best of my
knowledge and belief true, accurate and complete. I am aware there are
significant penalties for submitting false information, including the
possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.''; and
    (v) The certification must be signed in accordance with the
signatory requirements of 40 CFR 122.22.
    (4) Term of Certification. A certification that meets the
requirements of paragraphs (i)(2) and (i)(3) of this section shall
become effective on the date it is submitted, unless the Director
establishes an effective date of up to 30 days after the date of
submission. Certification will remain in effect for five years or until
the certification is no longer valid or is withdrawn, whichever occurs
first. A certification is no longer valid when a discharge has occurred
or when the CAFO ceases to meet the eligibility criteria in paragraph
(i)(2) of this section.
    (5) Withdrawal of Certification. (i) At any time, a CAFO may
withdraw its certification by notifying the Director by certified mail
or equivalent method of documentation. A certification is withdrawn on
the date the notification is submitted to the Director. The CAFO does
not need to specify any reason for the withdrawal in its notification
to the Director.
    (ii) If a certification becomes invalid in accordance with
paragraph (i)(4) of this section, the CAFO must withdraw its
certification within three days of the date on which the CAFO becomes
aware that the certification is invalid. Once a CAFO's certification is
no longer valid, the CAFO is subject to the requirement in paragraph
(d)(1) of this section to seek permit coverage if it discharges or
proposes to discharge.
    (6) Recertification. A previously certified CAFO that does not
discharge or propose to discharge may recertify in accordance with
paragraph (i) of this section, except that where the CAFO has
discharged, the CAFO may only recertify if the following additional
conditions are met:
    (i) The CAFO had a valid certification at the time of the
discharge;
    (ii) The owner or operator satisfies the eligibility criteria of
paragraph (i)(2) of this section, including any necessary modifications
to the CAFO's design, construction, operation, and/or maintenance to
permanently address the cause of the discharge and ensure that no
discharge from this cause occurs in the future;
    (iii) The CAFO has not previously recertified after a discharge
from the same cause;
    (iv) The owner or operator submits to the Director for review the
following documentation: a description of the discharge, including the
date, time, cause, duration, and approximate volume of the discharge,
and a detailed explanation of the steps taken by the CAFO to
permanently address the cause of the discharge in addition to
submitting a certification in accordance with paragraph (i)(3) of this
section; and
    (v) Notwithstanding paragraph (i)(4) of this section, a
recertification that meets the requirements of paragraphs (i)(6)(iii)
and (i)(6)(iv) of this section shall only become effective 30 days from
the date of submission of the recertification documentation.
    (j) Effect of certification. (1) An unpermitted CAFO certified in
accordance with paragraph (i) of this section is presumed not to
propose to discharge. If such a CAFO does discharge, it is not in
violation of the requirement that CAFOs that propose to discharge seek
permit coverage pursuant

to paragraphs (d)(1) and (f) of this section, with respect to that
discharge. In all instances, the discharge of a pollutant without a
permit is a violation of the Clean Water Act section 301(a) prohibition
against unauthorized discharges from point sources.
    (2) In any enforcement proceeding for failure to seek permit
coverage under paragraphs (d)(1) or (f) of this section that is related
to a discharge from an unpermitted CAFO, the burden is on the CAFO to
establish that it did not propose to discharge prior to the discharge
when the CAFO either did not submit certification documentation as
provided in paragraph (i)(3) or (i)(6)(iv) of this section within at
least five years prior to the discharge, or withdrew its certification
in accordance with paragraph (i)(5) of this section. Design,
construction, operation, and maintenance in accordance with the
criteria of paragraph (i)(2) of this section satisfies this burden.

0
6. Section 122.28 is amended by adding a new paragraph (b)(2)(vii), to
read as follows:

Sec.  122.28  General permits (applicable to State NPDES programs, see
Sec.  123.25).

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (vii) A CAFO owner or operator may be authorized to discharge under
a general permit only in accordance with the process described in Sec.
122.23(h).
* * * * *

0
7. Section 122.42 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraph (e) introductory text and paragraph (e)(1)
introductory text.
0
b. By removing the period at the end of paragraph (e)(4)(vii) and
adding in its place ``; and''.
0
c. By adding paragraph (e)(4)(viii).
0
d. By adding paragraphs (e)(5) and (e)(6).

Sec.  122.42  Additional conditions applicable to specified categories
of NPDES permits (applicable to State NPDES programs, see Sec.
123.25).

* * * * *
    (e) Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Any permit
issued to a CAFO must include the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1)
through (e)(6) of this section.
    (1) Requirement to implement a nutrient management plan. Any permit
issued to a CAFO must include a requirement to implement a nutrient
management plan that, at a minimum, contains best management practices
necessary to meet the requirements of this paragraph and applicable
effluent limitations and standards, including those specified in 40 CFR
part 412. The nutrient management plan must, to the extent applicable:
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (viii) The actual crop(s) planted and actual yield(s) for each
field, the actual nitrogen and phosphorus content of the manure,
litter, and process wastewater, the results of calculations conducted
in accordance with paragraphs (e)(5)(i)(B) and (e)(5)(ii)(D) of this
section, and the amount of manure, litter, and process wastewater
applied to each field during the previous 12 months; and, for any CAFO
that implements a nutrient management plan that addresses rates of
application in accordance with paragraph (e)(5)(ii) of this section,
the results of any soil testing for nitrogen and phosphorus taken
during the preceding 12 months, the data used in calculations conducted
in accordance with paragraph (e)(5)(ii)(D) of this section, and the
amount of any supplemental fertilizer applied during the previous 12
months.
    (5) Terms of the nutrient management plan. Any permit issued to a
CAFO must require compliance with the terms of the CAFO's site-specific
nutrient management plan. The terms of the nutrient management plan are
the information, protocols, best management practices, and other
conditions in the nutrient management plan determined by the Director
to be necessary to meet the requirements of paragraph (e)(1) of this
section. The terms of the nutrient management plan, with respect to
protocols for land application of manure, litter, or process wastewater
required by paragraph (e)(1)(viii) of this section and, as applicable,
40 CFR 412.4(c), must include the fields available for land
application; field-specific rates of application properly developed, as
specified in paragraphs (e)(5)(i) through (ii) of this section, to
ensure appropriate agricultural utilization of the nutrients in the
manure, litter, or process wastewater; and any timing limitations
identified in the nutrient management plan concerning land application
on the fields available for land application. The terms must address
rates of application using one of the following two approaches, unless
the Director specifies that only one of these approaches may be used:
    (i) Linear approach. An approach that expresses rates of
application as pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus, according to the
following specifications:
    (A) The terms include maximum application rates from manure,
litter, and process wastewater for each year of permit coverage, for
each crop identified in the nutrient management plan, in chemical forms
determined to be acceptable to the Director, in pounds per acre, per
year, for each field to be used for land application, and certain
factors necessary to determine such rates. At a minimum, the factors
that are terms must include: The outcome of the field-specific
assessment of the potential for nitrogen and phosphorus transport from
each field; the crops to be planted in each field or any other uses of
a field such as pasture or fallow fields; the realistic yield goal for
each crop or use identified for each field; the nitrogen and phosphorus
recommendations from sources specified by the Director for each crop or
use identified for each field; credits for all nitrogen in the field
that will be plant available; consideration of multi-year phosphorus
application; and accounting for all other additions of plant available
nitrogen and phosphorus to the field. In addition, the terms include
the form and source of manure, litter, and process wastewater to be
land-applied; the timing and method of land application; and the
methodology by which the nutrient management plan accounts for the
amount of nitrogen and phosphorus in the manure, litter, and process
wastewater to be applied.
    (B) Large CAFOs that use this approach must calculate the maximum
amount of manure, litter, and process wastewater to be land applied at
least once each year using the results of the most recent
representative manure, litter, and process wastewater tests for
nitrogen and phosphorus taken within 12 months of the date of land
application; or
    (ii) Narrative rate approach. An approach that expresses rates of
application as a narrative rate of application that results in the
amount, in tons or gallons, of manure, litter, and process wastewater
to be land applied, according to the following specifications:
    (A) The terms include maximum amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus
derived from all sources of nutrients, for each crop identified in the
nutrient management plan, in chemical forms determined to be acceptable
to the Director, in pounds per acre, for each field, and certain
factors necessary to determine such amounts. At a minimum, the factors
that are terms must include: the outcome of the field-specific
assessment of the potential for nitrogen and phosphorus transport from
each field; the crops to be planted in each field or any other uses
such as pasture or fallow fields (including

alternative crops identified in accordance with paragraph (e)(5)(ii)(B)
of this section); the realistic yield goal for each crop or use
identified for each field; and the nitrogen and phosphorus
recommendations from sources specified by the Director for each crop or
use identified for each field. In addition, the terms include the
methodology by which the nutrient management plan accounts for the
following factors when calculating the amounts of manure, litter, and
process wastewater to be land applied: Results of soil tests conducted
in accordance with protocols identified in the nutrient management
plan, as required by paragraph (e)(1)(vii) of this section; credits for
all nitrogen in the field that will be plant available; the amount of
nitrogen and phosphorus in the manure, litter, and process wastewater
to be applied; consideration of multi-year phosphorus application;
accounting for all other additions of plant available nitrogen and
phosphorus to the field; the form and source of manure, litter, and
process wastewater; the timing and method of land application; and
volatilization of nitrogen and mineralization of organic nitrogen.
    (B) The terms of the nutrient management plan include alternative
crops identified in the CAFO's nutrient management plan that are not in
the planned crop rotation. Where a CAFO includes alternative crops in
its nutrient management plan, the crops must be listed by field, in
addition to the crops identified in the planned crop rotation for that
field, and the nutrient management plan must include realistic crop
yield goals and the nitrogen and phosphorus recommendations from
sources specified by the Director for each crop. Maximum amounts of
nitrogen and phosphorus from all sources of nutrients and the amounts
of manure, litter, and process wastewater to be applied must be
determined in accordance with the methodology described in paragraph
(e)(5)(ii)(A) of this section.
    (C) For CAFOs using this approach, the following projections must
be included in the nutrient management plan submitted to the Director,
but are not terms of the nutrient management plan: The CAFO's planned
crop rotations for each field for the period of permit coverage; the
projected amount of manure, litter, or process wastewater to be
applied; projected credits for all nitrogen in the field that will be
plant available; consideration of multi-year phosphorus application;
accounting for all other additions of plant available nitrogen and
phosphorus to the field; and the predicted form, source, and method of
application of manure, litter, and process wastewater for each crop.
Timing of application for each field, insofar as it concerns the
calculation of rates of application, is not a term of the nutrient
management plan.
    (D) CAFOs that use this approach must calculate maximum amounts of
manure, litter, and process wastewater to be land applied at least once
each year using the methodology required in paragraph (e)(5)(ii)(A) of
this section before land applying manure, litter, and process
wastewater and must rely on the following data:
    (1) A field-specific determination of soil levels of nitrogen and
phosphorus, including, for nitrogen, a concurrent determination of
nitrogen that will be plant available consistent with the methodology
required by paragraph (e)(5)(ii)(A) of this section, and for
phosphorus, the results of the most recent soil test conducted in
accordance with soil testing requirements approved by the Director; and
    (2) The results of most recent representative manure, litter, and
process wastewater tests for nitrogen and phosphorus taken within 12
months of the date of land application, in order to determine the
amount of nitrogen and phosphorus in the manure, litter, and process
wastewater to be applied.
    (6) Changes to a nutrient management plan. Any permit issued to a
CAFO must require the following procedures to apply when a CAFO owner
or operator makes changes to the CAFO's nutrient management plan
previously submitted to the Director:
    (i) The CAFO owner or operator must provide the Director with the
most current version of the CAFO's nutrient management plan and
identify changes from the previous version, except that the results of
calculations made in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs
(e)(5)(i)(B) and (e)(5)(ii)(D) of this section are not subject to the
requirements of paragraph (e)(6) of this section.
    (ii) The Director must review the revised nutrient management plan
to ensure that it meets the requirements of this section and applicable
effluent limitations and standards, including those specified in 40 CFR
part 412, and must determine whether the changes to the nutrient
management plan necessitate revision to the terms of the nutrient
management plan incorporated into the permit issued to the CAFO. If
revision to the terms of the nutrient management plan is not necessary,
the Director must notify the CAFO owner or operator and upon such
notification the CAFO may implement the revised nutrient management
plan. If revision to the terms of the nutrient management plan is
necessary, the Director must determine whether such changes are
substantial changes as described in paragraph (e)(6)(iii) of this
section.
    (A) If the Director determines that the changes to the terms of the
nutrient management plan are not substantial, the Director must make
the revised nutrient management plan publicly available and include it
in the permit record, revise the terms of the nutrient management plan
incorporated into the permit, and notify the owner or operator and
inform the public of any changes to the terms of the nutrient
management plan that are incorporated into the permit.
    (B) If the Director determines that the changes to the terms of the
nutrient management plan are substantial, the Director must notify the
public and make the proposed changes and the information submitted by
the CAFO owner or operator available for public review and comment. The
process for public comments, hearing requests, and the hearing process
if a hearing is held must follow the procedures applicable to draft
permits set forth in 40 CFR 124.11 through 124.13. The Director may
establish, either by regulation or in the CAFO's permit, an appropriate
period of time for the public to comment and request a hearing on the
proposed changes that differs from the time period specified in 40 CFR
124.10. The Director must respond to all significant comments received
during the comment period as provided in 40 CFR 124.17, and require the
CAFO owner or operator to further revise the nutrient management plan
if necessary, in order to approve the revision to the terms of the
nutrient management plan incorporated into the CAFO's permit. Once the
Director incorporates the revised terms of the nutrient management plan
into the permit, the Director must notify the owner or operator and
inform the public of the final decision concerning revisions to the
terms and conditions of the permit.
    (iii) Substantial changes to the terms of a nutrient management
plan incorporated as terms and conditions of a permit include, but are
not limited to:
    (A) Addition of new land application areas not previously included
in the CAFO's nutrient management plan. Except that if the land
application area that is being added to the nutrient management plan is
covered by terms of a nutrient management plan incorporated into an
existing NPDES permit in accordance with the requirements of paragraph
(e)(5) of this section, and the CAFO owner or operator applies manure,
litter, or

process wastewater on the newly added land application area in
accordance with the existing field-specific permit terms applicable to
the newly added land application area, such addition of new land would
be a change to the new CAFO owner or operator's nutrient management
plan but not a substantial change for purposes of this section;
    (B) Any changes to the field-specific maximum annual rates for land
application, as set forth in paragraphs (e)(5)(i) of this section, and
to the maximum amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus derived from all
sources for each crop, as set forth in paragraph (e)(5)(ii) of this
section;
    (C) Addition of any crop or other uses not included in the terms of
the CAFO's nutrient management plan and corresponding field-specific
rates of application expressed in accordance with paragraph (e)(5) of
this section; and
    (D) Changes to site-specific components of the CAFO's nutrient
management plan, where such changes are likely to increase the risk of
nitrogen and phosphorus transport to waters of the U.S.
    (iv) For EPA-issued permits only. Upon incorporation of the revised
terms of the nutrient management plan into the permit, 40 CFR 124.19
specifies procedures for appeal of the permit decision. In addition to
the procedures specified at 40 CFR 124.19, a person must have submitted
comments or participated in the public hearing in order to appeal the
permit decision.

0
8. Section 122.62 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(17) to read as
follows:

Sec.  122.62  Modification or revocation and reissuance of permits
(applicable to State programs, see Sec.  123.25)

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (17) Nutrient Management Plans. The incorporation of the terms of a
CAFO's nutrient management plan into the terms and conditions of a
general permit when a CAFO obtains coverage under a general permit in
accordance with Sec. Sec.  122.23(h) and 122.28 is not a cause for
modification pursuant to the requirements of this section.
* * * * *

0
9. Section 122.63 is amended by adding paragraph (h) to read as
follows:

Sec.  122.63  Minor modification of permits.

* * * * *
    (h) Incorporate changes to the terms of a CAFO's nutrient
management plan that have been revised in accordance with the
requirements of Sec.  122.42(e)(6).

PART 412--CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS (CAFO) POINT
SOURCE CATEGORY

0
10. The authority citation for part 412 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342, and
1361.

0
11. Section 412.37 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as
follows:

Sec.  412.37  Additional measures.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Depth marker. All open surface liquid impoundments must have a
depth marker which clearly indicates the minimum capacity necessary to
contain the runoff and direct precipitation of the 25-year, 24-hour
rainfall event. In the case of new sources subject to effluent
limitations established pursuant to Sec.  412.46(a)(1) of this part,
all open surface manure storage structures associated with such sources
must include a depth marker which clearly indicates the minimum
capacity necessary to contain the maximum runoff and direct
precipitation associated with the design storm used in sizing the
impoundment for no discharge.

0
12. Section 412.46 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (d), and
(e) to read as follows:

Sec.  412.46  New source performance standards (NSPS).

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) Any CAFO subject to this subpart may request that the Director
establish NPDES permit best management practice effluent limitations
designed to ensure no discharge of manure, litter, or process
wastewater based upon a site-specific evaluation of the CAFO's open
surface manure storage structure. The NPDES permit best management
practice effluent limitations must address the CAFO's entire production
area. In the case of any CAFO using an open surface manure storage
structure for which the Director establishes such effluent limitations,
``no discharge of manure, litter, or process wastewater pollutants,''
as used in this section, means that the storage structure is designed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with best management practices
established by the Director on a site-specific basis after a technical
evaluation of the storage structure. The technical evaluation must
address the following elements:
    (i) Information to be used in the design of the open manure storage
structure including, but not limited to, the following: minimum storage
periods for rainy seasons, additional minimum capacity for chronic
rainfalls, applicable technical standards that prohibit or otherwise
limit land application to frozen, saturated, or snow-covered ground,
planned emptying and dewatering schedules consistent with the CAFO's
Nutrient Management Plan, additional storage capacity for manure
intended to be transferred to another recipient at a later time, and
any other factors that would affect the sizing of the open manure
storage structure.
    (ii) The design of the open manure storage structure as determined
by the most recent version of the National Resource Conservation
Service's Animal Waste Management (AWM) software. CAFOs may use
equivalent design software or procedures as approved by the Director.
    (iii) All inputs used in the open manure storage structure design
including actual climate data for the previous 30 years consisting of
historical average monthly precipitation and evaporation values, the
number and types of animals, anticipated animal sizes or weights, any
added water and bedding, any other process wastewater, and the size and
condition of outside areas exposed to rainfall and contributing runoff
to the open manure storage structure.
    (iv) The planned minimum period of storage in months including, but
not limited to, the factors for designing an open manure storage
structure listed in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section. Alternatively
the CAFO may determine the minimum period of storage by specifying
times the storage pond will be emptied consistent with the CAFO's
Nutrient Management Plan.
    (v) Site-specific predicted design specifications including
dimensions of the storage facility, daily manure and wastewater
additions, the size and characteristics of the land application areas,
and the total calculated storage period in months.
    (vi) An evaluation of the adequacy of the designed manure storage
structure using the most recent version of the Soil Plant Air Water
(SPAW) Hydrology Tool. The evaluation must include all inputs to SPAW
including but not limited to daily precipitation, temperature, and
evaporation data for the previous 100 years, user-specified soil
profiles representative of the CAFO's land application areas, planned
crop rotations consistent with the CAFO's Nutrient Management Plan, and
the final modeled result of no overflows from the designed open manure
storage structure. For those CAFOs where 100 years of local weather
data for the CAFO's location is not available, CAFOs

may use a simulation with a confidence interval analysis conducted over
a period of 100 years. The Director may approve equivalent evaluation
and simulation procedures.
    (vii) The Director may waive the requirement of (a)(1)(vi) for a
site-specific evaluation of the designed manure storage structure and
instead authorize a CAFO to use a technical evaluation developed for a
class of specific facilities within a specified geographical area.
    (viii) Waste management and storage facilities designed,
constructed, operated, and maintained consistent with the analysis
conducted in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(vii) of this section
and operated in accordance with the additional measures and records
required by Sec.  412.47(a) and (b), will fulfill the requirements of
this section.
    (ix) The Director has the discretion to request additional
information to support a request for effluent limitations based on a
site-specific open surface manure storage structure.
* * * * *
    (d) Any source subject to this subpart that commenced discharging
after April 14, 1993, and prior to April 14, 2003, which was a new
source subject to the standards specified in Sec.  412.15, revised as
of July 1, 2002, must continue to achieve those standards for the
applicable time period specified in 40 CFR 122.29(d)(1). Thereafter,
the source must achieve the standards specified in Sec.  412.43(a) and
(b).
    (e) Any source subject to this subpart that commenced discharging
after April 14, 2003, and prior to January 20, 2009, which was a new
source subject to the standards specified in Sec.  412.46(a) through
(d) in the July 1, 2008, edition of 40 CFR part 439, must continue to
achieve those standards for the applicable time period specified in 40
CFR 122.29(d)(1).

 [FR Doc. E8-26620 Filed 11-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 1 (Monday, January 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 86-87]
[FR Doc No: 2015-33030]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG16-32-000
    Applicants: Pasadena Cogen, LLC
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Pasadena Cogen, LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/28/15
    Accession Number: 20151228-5185
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/19/16

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3079-010
    Applicants: Tyr Energy LLC
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis of Tyr Energy, LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/28/15
    Accession Number: 20151228-5159
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/26/16

    Docket Numbers: ER16-618-001; ER15-1015-002; ER12-957-001; ER12-
1875-004; ER10-1840-004
    Applicants: AltaGas San Joaquin Energy Inc., AltaGas Brush Energy
Inc., AltaGas Renewable Energy Colorado LLC, AltaGas Ripon Energy Inc.,
Blythe Energy Inc.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Alta Wind
I, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 12/22/15
    Accession Number: 20151222-5340
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/16

    Docket Numbers: ER16-636-000
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Petition of Southwest Power Pool, Inc. for Tariff
Waiver.
    Filed Date: 12/24/15
    Accession Number: 20151224-5049
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/14/16

    Docket Numbers: ER16-637-000
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico
    Description: Initial rate filing: Three-Party Economic Benefit
Contract to be effective 3/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/28/15
    Accession Number: 20151228-5080

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/19/16

    Docket Numbers: ER16-638-000
    Applicants: Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: WPC 2016 eTariff Correction
Filing to be effective 1/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/28/15
    Accession Number: 20151228-5105
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/19/16

    Docket Numbers: ER16-639-000
    Applicants: PacifiCorp
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: VA Salt Lake Non-Conforming
SGIA to be effective 12/4/2015.
    Filed Date: 12/28/15
    Accession Number: 20151228-5143
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/19/16

    Docket Numbers: ER16-640-000
    Applicants: Otter Tail Power Company
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Submission of Operational
and Supplemental Services Agreement to be effective 1/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/28/15
    Accession Number: 20151228-5186
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/19/16

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES16-11-000
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Supplement to December 11, 2015 Application under
Section 204 of the Federal Power Act of Westar Energy, Inc.
    Filed Date: 12/23/15
    Accession Number: 20151223-5081
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/13/16

    Docket Numbers: ES16-14-000
    Applicants: Prairie Wind Transmission, LLC
    Description: Supplement to December 11, 2015 Application of Prairie
Wind Transmission, LLC under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act.
    Filed Date: 12/23/15
    Accession Number: 20151223-5098
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/13/16

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 28, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-33030 Filed 12-31-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Meeting Summary

EPA/American Chemistry Council Chromated Arsenicals Meeting

June 25, 2008; 10:30 AM to 12:30 PM

Room S-8100, 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

Participants

American Chemistry Council: Has Shah, Nick Skoulis, Bob Gruber, Seth
Goldberg, Kevin Archer, Chuck Shaw, Teri Muchow, Elizabeth Brown, Russ
Morgan

EPA: Diane Isbell (AD), Mark Hartman (AD), Tim Leighton (AD), Tim Dole
(AD), Nader Elkassabany (AD), Jonathan Becker (BEAD), Andy Lee (BEAD),
Steve Hopkins (BPPD), Doreen Aviado (AD), Tim McMahon (AD), Najm Shamim
(AD), Lance Wormell (AD)

Summary

On June 25, 2008, EPA reregistration team members met with the American
Chemistry Council’s Arsenical Wood Preservative Task Force (AWPTF)
regarding EPA’s upcoming reregistration eligibility decision (RED) for
wood preservative uses of chromated arsenicals (e.g., CCA).  The meeting
was held at the request of the AWPTF to review with EPA its submission
to the public docket in response to the revised risk assessments to
support the RED.  The AWPTF presented an overview of its comments on
toxicity end point selection, worker exposure/occupational assessment,
potential risk mitigation measures, environmental fate assessment,
benefits of arsenically-treated wood, and product chemistry.

EPA will review the written submission in detail and prepare a formal
response to comments to be released with the RED in September 2008.