[Federal Register: February 22, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 35)]
[Notices]
[Page 7974-7975]
[DOCID:fr22fe07-40]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0411; FRL-8280-1]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Flexible Vinyl and
Urethane Coating and Printing (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1157.08, OMB
Control Number 2060-0073.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR that is abstracted below describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 26,
2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2006-0411, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:

EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code
2201T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB
at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Schaefer, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-
05), Measurement Policy Group, Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711; telephone number: (919)
541-0296; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On June 21, 2006 (71 FR 35652), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any
additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0411, which is available for public viewing
online at http://www.regulations.gov, in person viewing at the

Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The
EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER> and the telephone number
for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov
 to submit or view public comments, access the index

listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in
the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system,
select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified
above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether
submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public
viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, as EPA receives them and without

change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov
.

    Title: NSPS for Flexible Vinyl and Urethane Coating and Printing.
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 1157.08, OMB Control Number 2060-0073.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2007.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: This Information Collection Request (ICR) renewal is
being submitted for the NSPS for Flexible Vinyl and Urethane Coating
and Printing (40 CFR part 60, subpart FFF), which were promulgated on
June 29, 1984. These standards apply to the following facilities in
subpart FFF: each rotogravure printing line used to print or coat
flexible vinyl or urethane products, and for which construction,
modification or reconstruction commenced after the proposed date of the
rule. The affected entities are subject to the General Provisions of
the NSPS at 40 CFR part 60 subpart A and any changes, or additions to
the General Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart FFF.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 14
(rounded) hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources

expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements
which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond
to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and
review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Flexible Vinyl and Urethane Coating
and Printing Operations.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 20.
    Frequency of Response: Initially and semi-annually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 593.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $97,135, which is comprised of
annualized capital/startup costs of $6,600, $54,000 of O&M costs and
$36,535 in labor costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the total estimated
burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR
Burdens.

    Dated: February 15, 2007.
Richard T. Westlund,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
 [FR Doc. E7-3003 Filed 2-21-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 57)]
[Notices]
[Page 15501]
[DOCID:fr24mr08-43]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2413-101]

Georgia Power Company; Notice of Amendment of License and
Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

March 18, 2008.
    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Non-Project Use of Project Lands and Waters.
    b. Project No.: 2413-101.
    c. Date filed: March 3, 2008.
    d. Applicant: Georgia Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: Wallace Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on Lake Oconee in Morgan
County, Georgia. The project does not occupy federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r)
and Sec. Sec.  799 and 801.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Lee Glenn, Georgia Power Company, 125
Wallace Dam Road, NE., Eatonton, GA 31024,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Christopher Yeakel at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for Filing Comments and or Motions: April 18, 2008.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington DC 20426. Please include the project
number (P-2413-101) on any comments or motions filed. Comments,
protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the
internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link.
The Commission strongly encourages e-filings.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy
of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative
of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
    k. Description of Application: The licensee requests Commission
approval to allow Patrick Malloy Communities to construct dock
facilities with 90 watercraft slips and 975 feet of seawall for a
private residential development along the shoreline of the Apalachee
River section of Lake Oconee in Morgan County, Georgia. There would be
a total of nine floating docks each with a capacity of 10 watercraft.
Each dock would consist of a 6 foot by 20 foot walkway placed
perpendicular to the center of a 6 foot by 113 foot walkway with five 5
foot by 24 foot fingers extending off one side. The proposed facility
would occupy 0.29 acre of project waters and 2.98 acres of project
lands, and would extend along 3151 linear feet of shoreline.
    l. Location of Application: A copy of the application is available
for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference
Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426,
or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. You may also register
online at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', OR ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to
which the filing refers. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be
served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the
particular application.
    p. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at: http://www.ferc.gov
under the ``e-Filing'' link.

 Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-5850 Filed 3-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US

10/18/2007 04:57 PM

To

<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Art Fraas" <EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

"Tricia Crabtree"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Lydia Wegman" <EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Harvey Richmond"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Karen Martin"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"John Langstaff" <EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Dave Mckee" <EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject

Fw: percentile plots for OMB

    ----- Original Message -----

    From: Harvey Richmond

    Sent: 10/18/2007 04:48 PM

    To: Lydia Wegman

    Cc: Karen Martin; Dave Mckee; John Langstaff; Phil Lorang; Michael Rizzo

    Subject: Fw: percentile plots for OMB

Lydia,

Per the request from OMB staff, attached is a powerpoint file that contains the year by year plots for monitors in the LA, Phildadelphia, and St. Louis urban areas that Mike Rizzo has put together.  These are the 3 areas that Mike included in his technical memo to the docket on rollback.  I do want to point out that the three areas were selected to represent urban areas where the was a lot of rollback required (LA), a moderate degree of rollback (Phil), and relatively little rollback (St. Louis) for just meeting the current standard.  I spoke to Mike this afternoon and these are ready to be transmitted to OMB.

Harvey

    Harvey M. Richmond

    Ambient Standards Group

    Health and Environmental Impacts Division

    U.S. EPA

    C504-06

    RTP, NC  27711

    (office)<PHONE_NUMBER>

    (fax)<PHONE_NUMBER>

    (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS> ----- Forwarded by Harvey Richmond/RTP/USEPA/US on 10/18/2007 04:42 PM -----

Michael Rizzo/RTP/USEPA/US

10/18/2007 02:55 PM

To

Harvey Richmond/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Phil Lorang/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

percentile plots for OMB

Harvey,

Here are the plots for the three areas mentioned in the memo: LA, Philadelphia and St. Louis.

Mike


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 10 (Thursday, January 15, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2160-2161]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00529]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74026; File No. SR-ICEEU-2014-22]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to ICE Clear Europe Board Risk
Committee

January 9, 2015.

I. Introduction

    On November 10, 2014, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear
Europe'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change SR-ICEEU-2014-22 pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\2\ The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on November 25, 2014.\3\ The
Commission did not receive comments on the proposed rule change. For
the reasons discussed below, the Commission is approving the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-73645 (Nov. 18,
2014), 79 FR 70251 (Nov. 25, 2014) (SR-ICEEU-2014-22).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    ICE Clear Europe is proposing this change to establish a risk
committee (the ``Board Risk Committee''), as described in the ICE Clear
Europe Board Risk Committee Composition and Terms of Reference (``Terms
of Reference''), which will advise the ICE Clear Europe Board (the
``Board'') on certain clearing house-wide risk management matters. The
establishment of the Board Risk Committee is required under Article 28
of the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (``EMIR''),\4\ which
will apply to ICE Clear Europe as an authorized central counterparty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 4 July 2012 on OTC derivatives, central
counterparties and trade repositories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the Terms of Reference, the role of the Board Risk
Committee, which will meet at least quarterly and report directly to
the Board, will be to advise the Board so the Board can ensure that ICE
Clear Europe (i) implements and maintains agreed risk management
procedures, processes, and controls, (ii) provides appropriate access
to its clearing services, and (iii) appropriately considers the
interests of non-clearing members, including with respect to account
segregation and collateral protection. ICE Clear Europe states that the
Board Risk Committee's activities will relate to all product categories
cleared at ICE Clear Europe, and that they are in addition to ICE Clear
Europe's existing product-specific risk committees (F&O, CDS and FX).
    Pursuant to its Terms of Reference, the Board Risk Committee's
responsibilities will include receiving and reviewing all
recommendations from each of the product-specific risk committees,
reviewing business risk mitigation procedures and controls at least
annually, and overseeing all risks facing ICE Clear Europe, including
counterparty credit risk and non-counterparty credit risks, such as
operational and liquidity risks. In addition, the Terms of Reference
provide that the Board Risk Committee will advise the Board regarding
any arrangements that may materially impact the risk management of ICE
Clear Europe, such as a significant change in its criteria for
accepting clearing members, clearing in new markets, or outsourcing of
certain functions.
    In accordance with its Terms of Reference, the Board Risk Committee
will be provided with results and analysis of back-testing, sensitivity
testing, stress testing, and reverse stress testing for any review of
margin models, methodologies, and/or the liquidity risk management
framework. The Board Risk Committee's Terms of Reference also provide
that the Board Risk Committee will consider other issues that may be
referred to it by the Board and/or executive, including the exercise of
discretion regarding recovery arrangements under the Rules. Further,
the Terms of Reference provide that the Board Risk Committee may obtain
external legal or other independent advice and secure the attendance of
third parties with relevant experience and expertise. The Terms of
Reference, however, clarify that the Board Risk Committee's advice is
not required for the daily operations of ICE Clear Europe.
    The Terms of Reference provide that the Board Risk Committee will
be composed of at least two, and up to four, Clearing Member
representatives and at least two, and up to four, customer
representatives, in each case appointed by the Board Risk Committee
Chairman following consideration by the ICE Clear Europe Nominations
Committee. Pursuant to the Board Risk Committee composition
requirements as described in the Terms of Reference, the Board Risk
Committee Chairman will be an independent non-executive director of ICE
Clear Europe appointed by the Board and will be a full voting member of
the committee. In addition, the Terms of Reference provide that any
member of the Board Risk Committee may be removed by the Board without
cause, and that the Board Risk Committee composition will be reviewed
annually to determine whether the committee has appropriate
representation of Clearing Members, customers and independent non-
executive directors, and appropriate representation of expertise and
experience in relevant risk disciplines, including market, credit and
operational risk. Based on this review, the Chairman may, pursuant to
the Terms of Reference, request the resignation of one or more
committee members and/or appoint one or more committee members to
achieve such appropriate representation.
    Pursuant to the Terms of Reference, ICE Clear Europe's Chief Risk
Officer, President, and other appropriate staff members will attend
Board Risk Committee meetings in a non-voting capacity. Additionally,
the Terms of Reference provide that the chairs of any groups or
committees involved in developing risk policies and a representative
from each of the markets cleared by ICE Clear Europe will have a right
to attend, but not vote, at Board Risk Committee meetings, and that the
Board Risk Committee may invite external independent experts to attend
meetings in a non-voting capacity. The Terms of Reference requires that
a quorum will be a minimum of four members, one of whom must be a
customer representative and one of whom must be a Clearing Member
representative, and that the Board Risk Committee Chairman will count
toward the quorum. The Terms of Reference stipulates that each Board
Risk Committee member will have one vote and Board Risk Committee
decisions will be made by a simple majority, provided that if the
committee is evenly divided, the Chairman may cast a deciding vote (in
addition to the

Chairman's normal vote as a committee member).

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \5\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if the
Commission finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to such self-regulatory organization. Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
of the Act \6\ requires, among other things, that the rules of a
clearing agency are designed, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. In addition, Rule 17Ad-22(d)(8) requires registered
clearing agencies to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to have governance
arrangements that are clear and transparent to fulfill the public
interest requirements in Section 17A of the Act applicable to clearing
agencies, to support the objectives of owners and participants, and to
promote the effectiveness of the clearing agency's risk management
procedures.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 17A of the Act \8\ and the rules thereunder applicable to
ICE Clear Europe. As described above, the Board Risk Committee's Terms
of Reference provide specific information regarding, among other
things, the Board Risk Committee's objectives, responsibilities,
composition, and governance, as well as its relationship with the Board
and other ICE Clear Europe committees. Specifically, the Terms of
Reference state that the Board Risk Committee's role is to advise the
Board with respect to various firm-wide risk management matters, while
helping the Board to ensure that ICE Clear Europe (i) implements and
maintains agreed risk management procedures, processes and controls,
(ii) provides appropriate access to its clearing services, and (iii)
appropriately considers the interests of non-clearing member users of
cleared products, including with respect to account segregation and
collateral protection. In this role, the Terms of Reference provide
that the Board Risk Committee will, among other things, advise the
Board regarding any arrangements that may materially impact ICE Clear
Europe's risk management (such as a significant change in its criteria
for accepting clearing members, clearing in new markets, or outsourcing
of certain functions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the Terms of Reference provide that the Board Risk
Committee will oversee all risks facing ICE Clear Europe (including
counterparty credit risk, operational risk, and liquidity risk). ICE
Clear Europe states that the Board Risk Committee's activities will
relate to all categories of products cleared at ICE Clear Europe, and
will be in addition to the activities of its existing product-specific
risk committees (i.e., the F&O, CDS and FX risk committees). The Terms
of Reference also require the Board Risk Committee to report directly
to the Board and receive and review all recommendations from each of
the product-specific risk committees. The Commission believes that
these arrangements are reasonably designed to protect investors and the
public interest and to promote the effectiveness of ICE Clear Europe's
risk management procedures. In addition, the Commission believes that
the composition of the Board Risk Committee, as described in the Terms
of Reference, is reasonably designed to represent the interests of
owners, clearing participants, and customers, and, therefore, support
owner and participant objectives.
    Accordingly, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change
is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,\9\ and the
requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(d)(8) \10\ applicable to registered
clearing agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in
particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \11\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\12\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ICEEU-2014-22) be, and
hereby is, approved.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \13\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-00529 Filed 1-14-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Linda Metcalf/ RTP/ USEPA/ US 11/ 22/ 2005 12: 33 PM To " Thorne, John" < JThorne@ crowell. com/ O=/> cc shaver. sally@ epa. gov, dunkins. robin@ epa. gov Subject Fw: Your Power Point at Maui Sally asked me to forward the presentations she used at the Task Force meeting. I've included all four.

Deliberative  Do Not Cite or Quote Linda C. Metcalf Office of the Director, Emission Standards Division Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards  Forwarded by Linda Metcalf/ RTP/ USEPA/ US on 11/ 22/ 2005 12: 24 PM

Sally Shaver/ RTP/ USEPA/ US 11/ 21/ 2005 10: 22 AM To Linda Metcalf/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc Subject RE: Your Power Point at Maui " Thorne, John" < JThorne@ crowell. com>

11/ 21/ 2005 10: 17 AM To Sally Shaver/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc bcc Subject RE: Your Power Point at Maui Likewise! I'm still recovering from the jet lag. Tough duty  Maui then come home to a short holiday week  but somebody has to do these jobs, right?

 Original Message From: Shaver. Sally@ epamail. epa. gov [ mailto: Shaver. Sally@ epamail. epa. gov]

Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 10: 09 AM To: Thorne, John Subject: Re: Your Power Point at Maui John, I don't have a copy of all of them but have asked Linda Metcalf to forward them to you when she returns to the office tomorrow. Hope you enjoyed your trip. I sure did. Even the work was ok due to the location!

See you soon. Have a great Thanksgiving.

Sally Shaver Associate Counselor for Agricultural Policy Office of Air and Radiation 202 564 7421 919 541 5572 Fax: 919 685 3222 " Thorne, John" < JThorne@ crowell . com> To Sally Shaver/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA 11/ 18/ 2005 11: 53 cc AM Subject Your Power Point at Mau Please send me your power point  it was great. I was writing as fast as I could but you were skimming slides and making me crazy!! Thanks, John


INFORMATION MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Assessment of NPDES Electronic Reporting Participation Rates
FROM:	Carey A. Johnston, NPDES Electronic Reporting Project Lead
		US EPA/OECA/Office of Compliance

TO:		Randolph L. Hill, Director
		Enforcement Targeting and Data Division
		US EPA/OECA/Office of Compliance

DATE: 	6 July 2018

PURPOSE:	Demonstrate Completion of the Initial Assessment of the Electronic Reporting Participation Rates for Authorized NPDES Programs.
In collaboration with states and EPA Regions to fully implement the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule ("NPDES eRule"), we are tracking electronic reporting and sharing of NPDES facility, permit, and compliance monitoring information. We are tracking the electronic reporting participation rate for each authorized NPDES program. The NPDES eRule requires EPA to calculate participation rates for each authorized NPDES program six months after the deadline for conversion from paper to electronic submissions and annually thereafter [see 40 CFR 127.26(j)].
This memorandum documents the second assessment, which includes NPDES Data Groups No. 3 (Discharge Monitoring Reports) and No. 4 [Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Reports, where EPA implements the biosolids program (40 CFR Part 503)]. For this second assessment, EPA used the data in its national NPDES data system (ICIS-NPDES) as of 30 June 2018. In accordance with the NPDES eRule, NPDES-regulated entities were required to start electronically submitting these reports on 21 December 2016.
We will continue to work collaboratively with authorized NPDES programs to enhance implementation of the NPDES eRule. Authorized NPDES programs can request assistance from EPA by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

                  2018 NPDES Electronic Reporting Assessment
                               40 CFR 127.26(j)

Discharge Monitoring Reports (NPDES Data Group No. 3)

To collaborate with authorized NPDES programs and prepare for this assessment, EPA created the "NPDES eRule Readiness and Data Completeness Dashboard." This online tool shows how well authorized NPDES programs are doing in sharing facility, permit, and DMR data for DMR filers with ICIS-NPDES. To ensure that this dashboard accurately represents the progress states are making in implementing the final rule, EPA performs weekly updates of the dashboard with data from ICIS-NPDES. For this assessment for DMR filers, EPA calculated the percentage of individually permitted facilities that do not have permit limits data in ICIS-NPDES (shown as "Permit Limits Not in ICIS" on the dashboard). See Attachment 1. The dashboard has a drilldown feature that allows EPA and States to identify those facilities in the "Permit Limits Not in ICIS" category. EPA is helping the authorized NPDES programs so that they can provide us the minimum set of data as required by the NPDES eRule (see 40 CFR 127.23).

For the 2019 assessment and annually thereafter, EPA plans to expand the assessment to include all relevant data elements for tracking implementation for all DMR filers, except those that file DMRs irregularly and/or have an approved electronic reporting waiver. In particular, EPA will limit these calculations to facilities that report DMRs to the permitting authority on a regular frequency (i.e., "NPDES Data Group Number" = G3A) and exclude facilities that have an approved electronic reporting waiver (i.e., "Electronic Reporting Waiver Type" = TMP or PER). EPA will also identify if a DMR filer electronically submitted their DMRs by using the "Electronic Submission Type (Compliance Monitoring Activity)" data element (ES1, ES2, or ES7).

Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Reports (NPDES Data Group No. 4)

EPA's biosolids regulations (40 CFR part 503) require certain generators of biosolids to file a Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Report (NPDES Data Group No. 4). This annual report is submitted each February and documents the measures taken to protect public health and the environment from any reasonably anticipated adverse effects of certain pollutants and pathogens that might be present in sewage sludge/biosolids. In accordance with the NPDES eRule, the start date for regulated entities to electronically submit this report where EPA is the authorized NPDES program is 21 December 2016 (see Table 1 to 40 CFR 127.16).

EPA calculated the electronic reporting participation rates by EPA Region for NPDES-regulated entities that electronically submitted the annual report. This calculation was based on those NPDES-regulated entities that electronically submitted their annual report through EPA's NPDES Electronic Reporting Tool ("NeT") and those NPDES-regulated entities that submitted their annual report on paper or through non-standard electronic submissions (e.g., via email). For the 2017 Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Report, which had a due date of 20 February 2018, EPA received 2,226 annual reports electronically through NeT. EPA also received 81 annual reports through paper submissions or non-standard electronic submissions. This equates to an overall electronic participation rate of 96.5%. See Attachment 2.

With respect to the 81 reports submitted to EPA on paper or by non-standard electronic submissions, EPA plans to work with its Biosolids Center of Excellence (Region 7 in Kansas City, KS) to contact these filers to ensure they are aware of the electronic reporting requirement. In particular, EPA will offer additional training to these facilities so that they can submit their annual report using EPA's NeT application.

Attachments (2)

          Attachment 1  -  2018 NPDES Electronic Reporting Assessment
                     (DMR Filers - NPDES Data Group No. 3)
                                      No.
                          State, Tribe, or Territory
                Authorized for NPDES Program
(40 CFR part 122)
                                  EPA Region
                 Number of Individual DMR Filers in ICIS-NPDES
                                (30 June 2018)
Percentage of Individually Permitted DMR Filers That Do Not Have Limits Data in ICIS-NPDES
                                (30 June 2018)
                                       1
                                    Alabama
                                      Yes
                                       4
                                     1,247
                                     0.0%
                                       2
                                    Alaska
                                      Yes
                                      10
                                      54
                                     0.0%
                                       3
                                    Arizona
                                      Yes
                                       9
                                      90
                                     1.1%
                                       4
                                   Arkansas
                                      Yes
                                       6
                                      782
                                     0.0%
                                       5
                                  California
                                      Yes
                                       9
                                      410
                                     2.4%
                                       6
                                   Colorado
                                      Yes
                                       8
                                      404
                                     0.0%
                                       7
                                  Connecticut
                                      Yes
                                       1
                                      151
                                     0.0%
                                       8
                                   Delaware
                                      Yes
                                       3
                                      42
                                     4.8%
                                       9
                             District of Columbia
                                      No
                                       3
                                      10
                                     0.0%
                                      10
                                    Florida
                                      Yes
                                       4
                                      425
                                     0.0%
                                      11
                                    Georgia
                                      Yes
                                       4
                                      388
                                     0.3%
                                      12
                                    Hawaii
                                      Yes
                                       9
                                      42
                                     2.4%
                                      13
                                     Idaho
                                      No
                                      10
                                      50
                                     0.0%
                                      14
                                   Illinois
                                      Yes
                                       5
                                     1,476
                                     0.3%
                                      15
                                    Indiana
                                      Yes
                                       5
                                     1,214
                                     0.5%
                                      16
                                     Iowa
                                      Yes
                                       7
                                     1,229
                                     14.1%
                                      17
                                    Kansas
                                      Yes
                                       7
                                      715
                                     0.0%
                                      18
                                   Kentucky
                                      Yes
                                       4
                                     1,406
                                     0.1%
                                      19
                                   Louisiana
                                      Yes
                                       6
                                     1,264
                                     13.3%
                                      20
                                     Maine
                                      Yes
                                       1
                                      254
                                     0.0%
                                      21
                                   Maryland
                                      Yes
                                       3
                                      474
                                     0.6%
                                      22
                                 Massachusetts
                                      No
                                       1
                                      214
                                     3.3%
                                      23
                                   Michigan
                                      Yes
                                       5
                                      302
                                     0.0%
                                      24
                                   Minnesota
                                      Yes
                                       5
                                      608
                                     78.3%
                                      25
                                  Mississippi
                                      Yes
                                       4
                                     1,160
                                     0.0%
                                      26
                                   Missouri
                                      Yes
                                       7
                                     1,370
                                     4.2%
                                      27
                                    Montana
                                      Yes
                                       8
                                      157
                                     0.6%
                                      28
                                   Nebraska
                                      Yes
                                       7
                                      682
                                     11.3%
                                      29
                                    Nevada
                                      Yes
                                       9
                                      43
                                     4.7%
                                      30
                                 New Hampshire
                                      No
                                       1
                                      69
                                     0.0%
                                      31
                                  New Jersey
                                      Yes
                                       2
                                      407
                                     0.2%
                                      32
                                  New Mexico
                                      No
                                       6
                                      120
                                     0.8%
                                      33
                                   New York
                                      Yes
                                       2
                                     1,366
                                     0.3%
                                      34
                                North Carolina
                                      Yes
                                       4
                                     1,110
                                     2.2%
                                      35
                                 North Dakota
                                      Yes
                                       8
                                      86
                                     1.2%
                                      36
                                     Ohio
                                      Yes
                                       5
                                     2,844
                                     0.1%
                                      37
                                   Oklahoma
                                      Yes
                                       6
                                      447
                                     0.0%
                                      38
                                    Oregon
                                      Yes
                                      10
                                      298
                                     0.0%
                                      39
                                 Pennsylvania
                                      Yes
                                       3
                                     4,126
                                     53.3%
                                      40
                                  Puerto Rico
                                      No
                                       2
                                      213
                                     0.0%
                                      41
                                 Rhode Island
                                      Yes
                                       1
                                      69
                                     0.0%
                                      42
                                South Carolina
                                      Yes
                                       4
                                      392
                                     1.3%
                                      43
                                 South Dakota
                                      Yes
                                       8
                                      204
                                     0.0%
                                      44
                                   Tennessee
                                      Yes
                                       4
                                     1,054
                                     0.0%
                                      45
                                     Texas
                                      Yes
                                       6
                                     2,978
                                     8.9%
                                      46
                                     Utah
                                      Yes
                                       8
                                      121
                                     0.0%
                                      47
                                    Vermont
                                      Yes
                                       1
                                       1
                                     0.0%
                                      48
                                Virgin Islands
                                      Yes
                                       2
                                      77
                                     0.0%
                                      49
                                   Virginia
                                      Yes
                                       3
                                      876
                                     0.0%
                                      50
                                  Washington
                                      Yes
                                      10
                                      63
                                     9.5%
                                      51
                                 West Virginia
                                      Yes
                                       3
                                     1,824
                                     4.4%
                                      52
                                   Wisconsin
                                      Yes
                                       5
                                      694
                                     0.6%
                                      53
                                    Wyoming
                                      Yes
                                       8
                                      476
                                     0.0%
                                      54
                               Other Territories
                                      No
                                    2, 6, 9
                                      27
                                     0.0%

Source: EPA's NPDES eRule Readiness and Data Completeness Dashboard. The dashboard selector "Issuing Agency" was set to "State" for states and territories that are authorized to administer the NPDES program. Conversely, this dashboard selector was set to "U.S. EPA" for states and territories that are not authorized to administer the NPDES program. Data for the June 2018 assessment was retrieved from the dashboard on 6 July 2018 (which uses data from ICIS-NPDES as of 30 June 2018).

Note: This table excludes EPA issued permits in states where the state is the authorized NPDES program (40 CFR part 122). The "Other Territories" row in this table includes: (1) American Samoa (AS), Guam (GU), Northern Mariana Islands (MP), Midway Island and Wake Island (MW), and Navajo Nation  -  these NPDES permits are issued by EPA Region 9 (NN); (2) Federal Offshore Oil and Gas permits in the Western Gulf of Mexico  -  these NPDES permits are issued by EPA Region 6 (GM); and (3) Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe - these NPDES permits are issued by EPA Region 2 (SR).
         Attachment 2  -  2018 NPDES Electronic Reporting Assessment
(Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Report Filers - NPDES Data Group No. 4)

                                  EPA Region
        Number of Sewage Sludge /Biosolids Annual Program Report Filers
Number of Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Report Filers that Filed On Paper or Non-Standard Electronic Submissions
Number of Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Report Filers that Filed Electronically via EPA's NeT
Percentage of Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Report Filers that Filed Electronically as Required by
                                  NPDES eRule
                                 (40 CFR 127)
                                       1
                                      154
                                       6
                                      148
                                     96.1%
                                       2
                                      216
                                      16
                                      200
                                     92.6%
                                       3
                                      313
                                      22
                                      291
                                     93.0%
                                       4
                                      521
                                      15
                                      506
                                     97.1%
                                       5
                                      284
                                       8
                                      276
                                     97.2%
                                       6
                                      94
                                       0
                                      94
                                    100.0%
                                       7
                                      243
                                       8
                                      235
                                     96.7%
                                       8
                                      132
                                       4
                                      128
                                     97.0%
                                       9
                                      218
                                       0
                                      218
                                    100.0%
                                      10
                                      132
                                       2
                                      130
                                     98.5%
                                     TOTAL
                                     2,307
                                      81
                                     2,226
                                     96.5%

Source: EPA's national NPDES data system (ICIS-NPDES). These data represent reports that were accepted by ICIS-NPDES. Data retrieved on 30 June 2018.

Note: The above table excludes Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Report filers in the eight states authorized to run the Federal biosolids program (40 CFR part 503): Arizona, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin. See: https://www.epa.gov/npdes/npdes-state-program-information. The NPDES eRule requires filers in these eight states to start electronically filing their annual reports no later than 21 December 2020. EPA received the following number of annual reports from filers in states authorized for the Federal biosolids program via NeT: Arizona (2), Michigan (6), Ohio (7), Oklahoma (0), South Dakota (7), Texas (1), Utah (0), and Wisconsin (0). EPA did not receive any annual reports from filers in states authorized for the Federal biosolids program via paper submission or non-standard electronic submission (e.g., e-mail).