[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 22, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15205-15210]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06062]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0798; FRL-9943-88-Region 4]

Air Plan Disapprovals; MS; Prong 4-2008 Ozone, 2010
NO2, SO2, and 2012 PM2.5

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
disapprove the visibility transport (prong 4) portions of revisions to
the Mississippi State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), addressing the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2008
8-hour Ozone, 2010 1-hour Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), 2010 1-
hour Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), and 2012 annual Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for
the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS
promulgated by EPA, commonly referred to as an ``infrastructure SIP.''
Specifically, EPA is proposing to disapprove the prong 4 portions of
Mississippi's May 29, 2012, 2008 8-hour Ozone infrastructure SIP
submission; July 26, 2012, 2008 8-hour Ozone infrastructure SIP
resubmission; February 28, 2013, 2010 1-hour NO2
infrastructure SIP submission; June 20, 2013, 2010 1-hour
SO2 infrastructure SIP submission; and December 8, 2015,
2012 annual PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submission. All other
applicable infrastructure requirements for these SIP submissions have
been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 21, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2015-0798 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman of the Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Mr. Lakeman can be reached by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    By statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) of the CAA are to be submitted by states within three years after
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS to provide for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the new or revised
NAAQS. EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for
the purpose of satisfying the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) require states to address basic SIP elements such as for
monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are
designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the newly established
or revised NAAQS. More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the
procedural and timing requirements for infrastructure SIPs. Section
110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for the
infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established or
revised NAAQS. The contents of an infrastructure SIP submission may
vary depending upon the data and analytical tools available to the
state, as well as the provisions already contained in the state's
implementation plan at the time in which the state develops and submits
the submission for a new or revised NAAQS.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct
components, commonly referred to as ``prongs,'' that must be addressed
in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit
any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from
contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another
state (prong 1) and from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in
another state (prong 2). The third and fourth prongs, which are
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit
emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required
to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state
(prong 3) or from interfering with measures to protect visibility in
another state (prong 4). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to
include provisions insuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the
Act, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement.
    Through this action, EPA is proposing to disapprove the prong 4
portions of Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008
8-hour Ozone, 2010 1-hour NO2, 2010 1-hour SO2,
and 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. All other applicable
infrastructure SIP requirements for these SIP submissions have been or
will be addressed in separate rulemakings. A brief background regarding
the NAAQS relevant to today's proposal is provided below. For
comprehensive information on these NAAQS, please refer to the Federal
Register notices cited in the following subsections.

a. 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

    On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS to 0.075
parts per million. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). States were
required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the

2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS to EPA no later than March 12, 2011. For the
2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, today's proposed action only addresses the
prong 4 element of Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submissions
received on May 29, 2012, and July 26, 2012. EPA took action on the
remainder of Mississippi's May 29, 2012, SIP submission, and July 26,
2012, SIP resubmission in separate rulemakings. See 80 FR 11131 (March
2, 2015); 80 FR 14019 (March 18, 2015); 80 FR 48355 (August 12, 2015).

b. 2010 1-Hour NO2 NAAQS

    On January 22, 2010, EPA established a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for
NO2 at a level of 100 parts per billion, based on a 3-year
average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour
daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010). States
were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-
hour NO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than January 22, 2013. For
the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS, today's proposed action only
addresses the prong 4 element of Mississippi's infrastructure SIP
submission received on February 28, 2013. EPA will take action on the
remainder of Mississippi's February 28, 2013, SIP submission through a
separate rulemaking.

c. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS

    On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the primary SO2 NAAQS to an
hourly standard of 75 parts per billion based on a 3-year average of
the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. See
75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). States were required to submit
infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
to EPA no later than June 2, 2013. For the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS, today's proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of
Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submission received on June 20, 2013.
EPA will take action on the remainder of Mississippi's June 20, 2013,
SIP submission through a separate rulemaking.

d. 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS

    On December 14, 2012, EPA revised the primary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\).
See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013). An area will meet the standard if
the three-year average of its annual average PM2.5
concentration (at each monitoring site in the area) is less than or
equal to 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\. States were required to submit infrastructure
SIP submissions for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later
than December 14, 2015. For the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, today's
proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of Mississippi's
infrastructure SIP submission received on December 8, 2015. EPA will
take action on the remainder of Mississippi's December 8, 2015 SIP
submission through a separate rulemaking.

II. What is EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP
submissions?

    The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type
arises out of section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states
must make SIP submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as
the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' and
these SIP submissions are to provide for the ``implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The statute directly
imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the
requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's
taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ``each such
plan'' submission must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) as
``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term ``infrastructure
SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this
particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to
satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as ``nonattainment
SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to address the
nonattainment planning requirements of part D of Title I of the CAA,
``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by EPA rule to address the
visibility protection requirements of section 169A of the CAA, and
nonattainment new source review permit program submissions to address
the permit requirements of CAA, Title I, part D.
    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for
infrastructure SIP submissions and section 110(a)(2) provides more
details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list
of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide
variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required
legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program
provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both
authority and substantive program provisions.\1\ EPA therefore believes
that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous,
some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular,
EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP
submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities
concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states
must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority
under state and local law to carry out the SIP; Section 110(a)(2)(C)
provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address
certain sources as required by part C of Title I of the CAA; and
section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority
to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA
to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements
with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or
revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2)
requires that ``each'' SIP submission must meet the list of
requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal
reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a
conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of Title I of the
CAA, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.\2\
Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and
part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions to address
nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b)
requires EPA to establish a schedule for submission of such plans for
certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates the designation
of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to two
years or in some cases three years, for such designations to be
promulgated.\3\ This ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all
the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense,
EPA must determine

which provisions of section 110(a)(2) are applicable for a particular
infrastructure SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See, e.g., ``Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call;
Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162, at 25163-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining
relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)
versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \3\ EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is
heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific
dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in
designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g.,
that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submission of
emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific
dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of
the new or revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another example of ambiguity within section 110(a)(1) and (2) with
respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether states must meet all
of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single SIP submission, and
whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a single action.
Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit ``a plan'' to meet
these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow states to make
multiple SIP submissions separately addressing infrastructure SIP
elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make such multiple SIP
submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA can elect
to act on such submissions either individually or in a larger combined
action.\4\ Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to allow it to take action
on the individual parts of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP
submission for a given NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire
submission. For example, EPA has sometimes elected to act at different
times on various elements and sub-elements of the same infrastructure
SIP submission.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,'' 78 FR
4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action approving the structural
PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately
to meet the requirements of EPA's 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule),
and ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' 78 FR 4337 (January 22, 2013)
(EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS).
    \5\ On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP
revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action for
infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR
3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On
April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA
took separate proposed and final actions on all other section
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14,
2007 submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ambiguities within section 110(a)(1) and (2) may also arise with
respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for different
NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2)
would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for
each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant infrastructure SIP
submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be different. For example,
the monitoring requirements that a state might need to meet in its
infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B)
could be very different for different pollutants, because the content
and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP submission to meet this
element might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS than for a
minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also
necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required
under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA
also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section
110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions.
For example, section 172(c)(7) requires attainment plan SIP submissions
required by part D to meet the ``applicable requirements'' of section
110(a)(2); thus, attainment plan SIP submissions must meet the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding enforceable emission
limits and control measures and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air
agency resources and authority. By contrast, it is clear that
attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D would not need to
meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the PSD
program required in part C of Title I of the CAA, because PSD does not
apply to a pollutant for which an area is designated nonattainment and
thus subject to part D planning requirements. As this example
illustrates, each type of SIP submission may implicate some elements of
section 110(a)(2) but not others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language
of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is
appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1)
and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP
submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have
intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in
question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant,
would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same
way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews
infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section
110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that
particular NAAQS.
    Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases
conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some
cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and
applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.\7\ EPA
most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13,
2013 (2013 Guidance).\8\ EPA developed this document to provide states
with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or revised
NAAQS. Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty of states to make
infrastructure SIP submissions to meet basic structural SIP
requirements within three years of promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific subsections of
section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of infrastructure
SIP submissions.\9\ The guidance also discusses the substantively
important issues that are germane to certain subsections of section
110(a)(2). EPA interprets section 110(a)(1) and (2) such that
infrastructure SIP submissions need to address certain issues and need
not address others. Accordingly, EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP
submission for compliance with the applicable statutory provisions of
section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to
provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP
submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the
submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, regardless of whether
or not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such
submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist
states, as appropriate.
    \8\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),''
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
    \9\ EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make
recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions to
address Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly
after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the DC Circuit
decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had
interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light
of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to
provide additional guidance on the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding
nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a
particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of
section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this
element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128,
which pertain to state boards that approve permits or

enforcement orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers.
Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the
state's SIP appropriately addresses the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA's
interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can
appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements,
depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or
enforcement program (e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are
approved by a multi-member board or by a head of an executive agency).
However they are addressed by the state, the substantive requirements
of Section 128 are necessarily included in EPA's evaluation of
infrastructure SIP submissions because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
explicitly requires that the state satisfy the provisions of section
128.
    As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions
with respect to the PSD program requirements in section 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program
requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural
PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD
program to address all regulated sources and NSR pollutants, including
Greenhouse Gases (GHGs). By contrast, structural PSD program
requirements do not include provisions that are not required under
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an
option for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of
complete permit applications with respect to the PM2.5
NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are types of
provisions EPA considers irrelevant in the context of an infrastructure
SIP action.
    For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a
state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the
state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section
110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a
program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the
state has an EPA-approved minor new source review program and whether
the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the
context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, however, EPA
does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every
provision of a state's existing minor source program (i.e., already in
the existing SIP) for compliance with the requirements of the CAA and
EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs.
    With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an
action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the
appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in
a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions
related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) that may be contrary to the CAA and
EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions; \10\ (ii) existing
provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's
discretion'' that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to
allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public
process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing
provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current
requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186
(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (NSR
Reform). Thus, EPA believes that it may approve an infrastructure SIP
submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for
such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission
even if it is aware of such existing provisions.\11\ It is important to
note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submission
should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any
existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three
specific issues just described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Subsequent to issuing the 2013 Guidance, EPA's
interpretation of the CAA with respect to the approvability of
affirmative defense provisions in SIPs has changed. See ``State
Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking;
Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs;
Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend
Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup,
Shutdown and Malfunction,'' 80 FR 33839 (June 12, 2015). As a
result, EPA's 2013 Guidance (p. 21 & n.30) no longer represents the
EPA's view concerning the validity of affirmative defense
provisions, in light of the requirements of section 113 and section
304.
    \11\ By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a
new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a
legal deficiency, such as a new exemption or affirmative defense for
excess emissions during SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate
that provision for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA
requirements in the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to
identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that
submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a
particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it
would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in section 110(a)(2) as requiring
review of each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against
all requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of
assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements
for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have
grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory
requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded
provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new
or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP
submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA
to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA
most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation
of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
    For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with
respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the
visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon
monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP
submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need
only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to
infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of
section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the CAA provides other avenues and
mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately
tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged
SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a ``SIP
call'' whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is
substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate
interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.\12\ Section

110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as
past approvals of SIP submissions.\13\ Significantly, EPA's
determination that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission
is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing
SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's subsequent reliance on
provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to
correct those deficiencies at a later time. For example, although it
may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing
inappropriate director's discretion provisions in the course of acting
on an infrastructure SIP submission, EPA believes that section
110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in
the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address
specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of
excess emissions during SSM events. See ``Finding of Substantial
Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revisions,'' 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
    \13\ EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past
actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See ``Limitation
of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation
Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has
previously used its authority under section 110(k)(6) of the CAA to
remove numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it
had approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62
FR 34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona,
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062, November 16, 2004
(corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 2009)
(corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \14\ See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from
Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's
discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including
section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21,
2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76
FR 4540 (January 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What are the prong 4 requirements?

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires a state's SIP to contain
provisions prohibiting sources in that state from emitting pollutants
in amounts that interfere with any other state's efforts to protect
visibility under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and
169B). The 2013 Guidance states that these prong 4 requirements can be
satisfied by approved SIP provisions that EPA has found to adequately
address any contribution of that state's sources to impacts on
visibility program requirements in other states. The 2013 Guidance also
states that EPA interprets this prong to be pollutant-specific, such
that the infrastructure SIP submission need only address the potential
for interference with protection of visibility caused by the pollutant
(including precursors) to which the new or revised NAAQS applies.
    The 2013 Guidance lays out two ways in which a state's
infrastructure SIP may satisfy prong 4. The first way is through an air
agency's confirmation in its infrastructure SIP submission that it has
an EPA-approved regional haze SIP that fully meets the requirements of
40 CFR 51.308 or 51.309. 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309 specifically require
that a state participating in a regional planning process include all
measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction
obligations agreed upon through that process. A fully approved regional
haze SIP will ensure that emissions from sources under an air agency's
jurisdiction are not interfering with measures required to be included
in other air agencies' plans to protect visibility.
    Alternatively, in the absence of a fully approved regional haze
SIP, a state may meet the requirements of prong 4 through a
demonstration in its infrastructure SIP submission that emissions
within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other air agencies' plans
to protect visibility. Such an infrastructure SIP submission would need
to include measures to limit visibility-impairing pollutants and ensure
that the reductions conform with any mutually agreed regional haze
reasonable progress goals for mandatory Class I areas in other states.

IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Mississippi addressed prong 4?

    Mississippi's May 29, 2012, 2008 8-hour Ozone submission; July 26,
2012, 2008 8-hour Ozone resubmission; February 28, 2013, 2010,
NO2 submission; and December 8, 2015, 2012 PM2.5
submission each cite to the State's regional haze SIP as satisfying
prong 4 requirements. The June 20, 2013, 2010 SO2 submission
cites to the State's regional haze SIP and to EPA's February 20, 2013
(78 FR 11805) notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on the prong 4
element of the State's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. In that notice, EPA proposed to approve
the prong 4 element on the basis that Mississippi's regional haze SIP,
in combination with its SIP provisions to implement the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR), prevented sources from interfering with
measures adopted by other states to protect visibility.
    In its regional haze SIP, Mississippi relied on CAIR to satisfy the
best available retrofit technology (BART) requirements for its CAIR-
subject electricity generating units (EGUs).\15\ Although this reliance
on CAIR was consistent with the CAA at the time that the State
submitted its regional haze SIP, CAIR has since been replaced by the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and can no longer be relied upon
as a substitute for BART or as part of a long-term control strategy
(LTS) for regional haze. Therefore, EPA finalized a limited disapproval
of the Mississippi regional haze SIP to the extent that it relies on
CAIR to satisfy BART and LTS requirements.\16\ See 77 FR 33642 (June 7,
2012). Because Mississippi's regional haze SIP is not fully approved,
the State cannot rely on this plan alone to meet the prong 4
requirements for the 2008 Ozone, 2010 1-hour NO2, 2010 1-
hour SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Furthermore,
unlike CAIR, CSAPR does not cover SO2 emissions from EGUs in
Mississippi and therefore cannot be relied upon to fully satisfy
outstanding regional haze requirements for EGUs in the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Section 169A of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations
require states to establish long-term strategies for making
reasonable progress towards the national goal of achieving natural
visibility conditions in Class I areas. Implementation plans must
also give specific attention to certain stationary sources.
Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states to
revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to
make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal,
including a requirement that certain categories of existing major
stationary sources 8 built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install,
and operate BART as determined by the state. Under the RHR, states
are directed to conduct BART determinations for such ``BART-
eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to
any visibility impairment in a Class I area.
    \16\ EPA finalized a limited approval of Mississippi's regional
haze SIP on June 27, 2012. See 77 FR 38191.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mississippi's reference to EPA's February 20, 2013, NPRM to approve
the prong 4 element of the State's infrastructure SIP submissions for
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS is not relevant because the
legal status of CAIR and CSAPR has changed since publication of that
notice. In June 2012, EPA finalized the limited disapproval of the
State's regional haze SIP, which relied on CAIR to satisfy affected
EGUs' BART requirements. At that time, questions regarding the legality
of CSAPR were pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit). The D.C. Circuit
subsequently vacated and remanded CSAPR in August 2012, leaving CAIR in
place temporarily.\17\ As of February 20, 2013, when EPA proposed
approving the prong 4 element of the State's 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA had not yet asked
the United States Supreme Court to review the D.C. Circuit's decision
on CSAPR. Based upon the

D.C. Circuit's direction to EPA to continue administering CAIR, the
Agency believed that it was appropriate for states to rely on CAIR
emission reductions for prong 4 purposes. EPA intended to allow this
practice until a valid replacement for CAIR was developed and EPA acted
on SIPs submitted in compliance with any new rule, or until the CSAPR
litigation was resolved in a way that provided different direction
regarding CAIR and CSAPR. After publication of the February 20, 2013,
prong 4 proposal, EPA asked the Supreme Court to review the DC
Circuit's decision and the Supreme Court reversed that ruling and
upheld CSAPR.\18\ EPA began implementation of CSAPR, which replaced
CAIR, on January 1, 2015. Therefore, because of this intervening change
in the law, EPA cannot finalize its February 20, 2013, proposal to
approve the prong 4 element that relies on CAIR, and Mississippi cannot
rely on the outdated rationale contained in the NPRM regarding CAIR to
satisfy prong 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C.
Cir. 2012).
    \18\ EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584
(2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As mentioned above, a state may meet the requirements of prong 4
without a fully approved regional haze SIP by showing that its SIP
contains adequate provisions to prevent emissions from within the state
from interfering with other states' measures to protect visibility.
Mississippi did not, however, provide a demonstration in any of the
infrastructure SIP submissions subject to today's proposed action that
emissions within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other states'
plans to protect visibility.
    As discussed above, Mississippi does not have a fully approved
regional haze SIP that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 and has
not otherwise shown that its SIP contains adequate provisions to
prevent emissions from within the state from interfering with other
states' measures to protect visibility. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
disapprove the prong 4 portions of Mississippi's May 29, 2012, 2008 8-
hour Ozone infrastructure SIP submission; July 26, 2012, 2008 8-hour
Ozone infrastructure SIP resubmission; February 28, 2013, 2010 1-hour
NO2 infrastructure SIP submission; June 20, 2013, 2010 1-
hour SO2 infrastructure SIP submission; and December 8,
2015, 2012 annual PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submission.
Mississippi did not submit these infrastructure SIPs to meet
requirements for Part D or a SIP call; therefore, if EPA takes final
action to disapprove the prong 4 portions of these submissions, no
sanctions will be triggered. However, if EPA finalizes this proposed
disapproval action, that final action will trigger the requirement
under section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a FIP no later than two years
from the date of the disapproval unless the State corrects the
deficiency through a SIP revision and EPA approves the SIP revision
before EPA promulgates such a FIP.

V. Proposed Action

    As described above, EPA is proposing to disapprove the prong 4
portions of Mississippi's May 29, 2012, 2008 Ozone infrastructure SIP
submission; July 26, 2012, 2008 Ozone infrastructure SIP resubmission;
February 28, 2013, 2010 NO2 infrastructure SIP submission;
June 20, 2013, 2010 SO2 infrastructure SIP submission; and
December 8, 2015, 2012 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submission.
All other outstanding applicable infrastructure requirements for these
SIP submissions will be addressed in separate rulemakings.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. EPA is proposing to
determine that the prong 4 portions of the aforementioned SIP
submissions do not meet Federal requirements. Therefore, this proposed
action does not impose additional requirements on the state beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: March 8, 2016.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2016-06062 Filed 3-21-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller,

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me as a long-time user of electronic cigarettes. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I want to respond to in detail, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching those issues, but this is a huge task. Since it took the FDA many years to come up with the Proposed Rule, I think it is reasonable to allow the public at least six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our well-researched feedback.

I firmly believe that electronic cigarettes saved my life. I wish to tell you my story, as well as offer science- and evidence-based responses to your questions, and I hope you will take my comments into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all interested parties have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request. Sincerely, Katherine


[Federal Register: May 25, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 101)]
[Notices]
[Page 30127-30128]
[DOCID:fr25my06-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP97-28-020]

Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd.; Notice of Filing

May 19, 2006.
    Take notice that on May 16, 2006, Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd.
(WIC) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second
Revised Volume No 2, the following tariff sheets, to become effective
June 15, 2006:

Seventh Revised Sheet No. 1
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 105
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 113
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 114

    WIC states that copies of its filing have been served to all firm
customers, interruptible customers and affected state commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be

taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Such protests must be filed in accordance with the
provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR
154.210). Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on
all the parties to the proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-8015 Filed 5-24-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM

(CBP)

REPORTING GUIDANCE

For the

Chesapeake Action Plan/Activity Integration Plan (CAP/AIP)

Reporting System

Version 2.0

Data Refresh

December 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

  TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216158276"  1.0
INTRODUCTION	  PAGEREF _Toc216158276 \h  - 1 -

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216158277"  1.1	Purpose	  PAGEREF _Toc216158277 \h
- 1 -

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216158278"  1.2	Background	  PAGEREF _Toc216158278
\h  - 1 -

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216158279"  1.3	Who Has Been Invited to Report?
PAGEREF _Toc216158279 \h  - 2 -

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216158280"  1.4	Schedule	  PAGEREF _Toc216158280 \h
- 4 -

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216158281"  1.5	How Will the Information Be Used?
PAGEREF _Toc216158281 \h  - 4 -

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216158282"  1.6	What Information Is Needed?
PAGEREF _Toc216158282 \h  - 4 -

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216158283"  2.0	Gathering the Data	  PAGEREF
_Toc216158283 \h  - 6 -

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216158284"  2.1	Getting Familiar with the Reporting
Elements	  PAGEREF _Toc216158284 \h  - 6 -

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216158285"  2.2	Organizing the data	  PAGEREF
_Toc216158285 \h  - 7 -

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216158286"  2.3	Some Basic Elements to Review
PAGEREF _Toc216158286 \h  - 7 -

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216158287"  2.4	Reporting Rules, Guidance, and
Examples to Review Before Entering Data	  PAGEREF _Toc216158287 \h  - 7
-

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216158288"  3.0	Process for retrieving, entering or
updating information	  PAGEREF _Toc216158288 \h  - 8 -

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216158289"  3.1	Accessing the System	  PAGEREF
_Toc216158289 \h  - 8 -

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216158290"  3.2	Retrieving Existing and Creating New
Activities	  PAGEREF _Toc216158290 \h  - 8 -

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216158291"  3.2.3	Deleting Existing Activity
Information- Accordion View	  PAGEREF _Toc216158291 \h  - 13 -

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216158292"  3.3	Retrieving Activities using the
Activity Categories-Search Criteria	  PAGEREF _Toc216158292 \h  - 17 -

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216158293"  3.3.1	Updating Existing Activity
Information- Activity Categories-Search Criteria	  PAGEREF _Toc216158293
\h  - 17 -

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216158294"  3.3.2	Deleting Existing Activity
Information- Activity Categories-Search Criteria	  PAGEREF _Toc216158294
\h  - 18 -

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216158295"  3.3.3	Creating New Activity/Funding
Information using Activity Categories- Search Criteria	  PAGEREF
_Toc216158295 \h  - 18 -

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216158296"  APENDIX A - DEFINITIONS	  PAGEREF
_Toc216158296 \h  - 19 -

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216158297"  APPENDIX B – ACRONYMS	  PAGEREF
_Toc216158297 \h  - 23 -

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216158298"  APPENDIX C – EXAMPLES OF REPORTING
DATA	  PAGEREF _Toc216158298 \h  - 24 -

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216158299"  APPENDIX D – REPORTING HIERARCHY-
UPDATE	  PAGEREF _Toc216158299 \h  - 1 -

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216158300"  APPENDIX E – REPORTING ELEMENTS
PAGEREF _Toc216158300 \h  - 1 -

 INTRODUCTION

 Purpose

The purpose of this document is to provide partners and stakeholders
with guidelines needed to update information regarding Chesapeake Bay
restoration and protection activities reported in the spring of 2008.
The information was entered through a web-based application reporting
system by the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) partners to support the
development of the Chesapeake Action Plan (CAP).  The CAP, issued in a
report to Congress in July 2008 (http://cap.chesapeakebay.net/rtc.htm),
was developed to strengthen and expand partnerships in the watershed,
enhance coordination of restoration activities, and increase the
collective accountability for protecting the Chesapeake Bay.  The CAP
consists of four components: an activity integration plan, a strategic
framework, an adaptive management process, and dashboards.

The activity integration plan (the database) is a comprehensive
catalogue of the activities in which CBP partners are engaged to protect
and restore the Chesapeake Bay.  The plan provides information on:  the
actual activities being implemented by the CBP partners; the lead
partner for each activity and any cooperating partners; the amount and
source of funding being used and, ideally, planned for use to accomplish
each activity by all cooperating partners; the location of each
activity; and progress toward the establish realistic annual targets.
The reporting system is the mechanism to gather information on Bay
partner activities to support development of an overarching operating
plan for the CBP.

The intent of this second information collection is to allow partners to
either make changes to the information reported in the spring of 2008 or
to enter new information.  In other words, this is a data refresh of the
data reported in the spring.  The information will be utilized to update
the dashboards.  The dashboards summarize and synthesize information
from the CBP activity integration plan and goal strategies so the
program partners can understand at a glance, the progress that the CBP
has made in key program areas.  The dashboards include measures of
progress, information about the resources CBP partners have dedicated to
the efforts described, and strategic analyses of what needs to be done
to improve implementation.

This guidance document outlines partners who have been asked to report
information, what information is being requested, and how to enter the
information.  If additional information is needed regarding the
reporting application, please call the CAP Help Desk at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
via email at   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>.  For subject matter assistance, please call your
CBP Liaison.

Background

Chesapeake 2000 is a bay protection and restoration agreement that
outlines the commitments guiding bay restoration through 2010.   In
October 2005, the US General Accountability Office (GAO) recommended
that the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office:

(1) Complete its efforts to develop and implement an integrated
assessment approach;

(2) Revise its reporting approach to improve the effectiveness and
credibility of its reports;

(3) Develop an overall, coordinated implementation strategy that unifies
the program’s various planning documents; and

(4) Establish a means to better target its limited resources to ensure
that the most effective and realistic work plans are developed and
implemented.

In the 2008 congressional appropriations bill that includes EPA’s
budget, Congress directed EPA to submit a Report to Congress stating
that the Chesapeake Bay Program has implemented GAO’s recommendation
and to develop a Chesapeake Bay action plan for the remaining years of
the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement.  This plan must:

(1) Clearly articulate realistic targets the Chesapeake Bay Program
expects to achieve in each of the remaining years;

(2) Describe the actual activities the Chesapeake Bay Program will
implement in each year to achieve these annual targets;

(3) Identify the amount and source of funding that will be used to
accomplish each of these activities; and

(4) Describe the process the Chesapeake Bay Program will use to track
and measure the progress of these actions.

The Chesapeake Action Plan, including development of the reporting
system, is the product of the direction from GAO and Congress. The CAP
outlined an integrated approach for assessing the overall progress
toward reaching the goals established in Chesapeake 2000.

Who Has Been Invited to Report?

To meet Congress’s mandate, Chesapeake Bay partners have been asked to
provide information on their bay activities and resources.  During the
first reporting in the spring, the request was directed to the Federal,
State agencies, and Non-governmental organizations listed below.  This
second reporting cycle will include the same partners to allow them the
opportunity to update the data entered in the spring or to enter new
data.  In the future, the reporting system is expected to be available
to other agencies or organizations which would be interested in
reporting information regarding their CB restoration and protection
activities.

Federal Agencies:

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Chesapeake Bay Program Office

US EPA Region 3 Environmental Assessment and Innovation Division

US EPA Region 3 Water Protection Division

US EPA Region 2

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) / Baltimore

USACE / Norfolk

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) / Chesapeake

Bay Office

Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

US Geological Survey (USGS) / Baltimore

National Park Service (NPS)

US Forest Service (USFS)

Federal Highway Administration / US Department of Transportation

US Department of Defense (DoD)

USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA)

States and Districts:

Delaware

District of Columbia

Maryland

New York

Pennsylvania

Virginia

West Virginia

Chesapeake Bay Commission

Non-governmental Organizations

	Chesapeake Bay Trust

	Ducks Unlimited

The information collection is focused on activity-based information
supporting the programmatic areas for the Chesapeake Bay program.

Schedule

Table 1 illustrates the schedule for next reporting.

      Table 1: Reporting Schedule for Refresh of 2008 Information

DATE	ACTIVITY

12/4/08-12/19/08	Workshops

12/10/08-01/16/09	Data Reporting Period

1/16/09-02/27/09	Data QA

1/30/09	Draft data delivered to support development or re-development of
the dashboards

2/27/09	Final data delivered to support development or re-development of
the dashboards

 How Will the Information Be Used?

The Chesapeake Bay Program partnership is undergoing transformational
changes in the way it aligns strategy with operational decision making
and resource use.  The CAP Activity Integration Plan reporting system
(previously known as the CAP reporting system) was first implemented in
the spring of 2008 as the primary source for input for the CAP report.
The CAP Activity Integration System will continue to be a vital part of
transitioning the Chesapeake Bay Program toward greater integration of
partner activities and more efficient use of the limited resources
available to achieve the program’s vision.  Furthermore, it is
anticipated that some partners will be able to use the application
reporting system as a key tool for their own management and planning of
their efforts to protect and restore the bay.

The information from this data refresh will be utilized to update the
dashboards.  The dashboards include measures of progress, information
about the resources CBP partners have dedicated to the efforts
described, and strategic analyses of what needs to be done to improve
implementation.

What Information Is Needed?

Reporting Requirements

The CAP Activity Integration plan includes detailed information on all
activities undertaken by partner organizations to restore and protect
the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed.  Requested information included
the nature of the activity, responsible organization, point of contact,
resource levels, location, and major milestones.  During this second
reporting period, the partners will be able to retrieve the records
created in the spring and update them, if needed.  Or, they can create
news records for activities not entered previously.  See Appendix C for
examples of the data being reported.  This information is necessary to
effectively document activities and to provide an accurate depiction of
the program’s activities as a whole.  Each reporting organization is
asked to provide a sufficient level of detail to account for all of
their Chesapeake Bay and watershed related activities and resources.

Reporting Hierarchy

The CAP Activity Integration Plan system follows the Chesapeake Bay
Program’s goal

 hierarchy.  In the hierarchy, goals represent broad programmatic areas.
 Each goal contains many detailed topic areas.  Figure 1, “CAP
Activity Integration Plan Hierarchy,” illustrates the major reporting
units.

Figure 1:  CAP Activity Integration Plan Hierarchy

Figure 2, “Goals and Topic Areas,” displays the six goals and 31
topic areas represented in the CAP Activity Integration Plan system.
Each goal contains a support topic area.  The support topic areas are
for the resources that provide the support function for the entire goal.
 Each topic area contains several standard activity categories.  The
smallest reporting unit is an activity defined as an action which
accomplishes a job.  Activities are the foundation of summary reporting.
 It is important that activities are reported in the correct goal/topic
area/activity category.  It is equally important that the activities are
documented in as much detail as reasonable.  The information required at
the activity-level include activity responsibility (organization and
staff), resources (funding and/or FTE’s by year), and detailed
location.  Each activity category may comprise many activities.

Figure 2:  Goals and Topic Areas

Note:

Forest Buffer related activities should be aligned to the Topic Area for
Streamside and Tidal Shoreline Riparian Areas.  For the purpose of this
guidance, Forest Buffer is defined as wooded buffer zones along streams,
rivers, and the bay.  Future versions of the CAP Activity Integration
reporting system may add Forest Buffer as a separate topic area for
improved alignment of activities.

Activities that have been entered should be updated or “refreshed”
in the CAP Activity application reporting system for 2007, 2008, and
2009.  In addition, new records for 2007, 2008 and 2009 can also be
added.  To improve the efficiency of entering data, a cloning button is
available on the webform.  Clicking on this button will make a copy of
the data for the next fiscal year, i.e., clone the 2008 data to create
and modify a record for 2009.

Reporting Method

The preferred method for entering information into the CAP Activity
Integration Plan application reporting system is through the CAP
Activity Integration Plan website available at:   HYPERLINK
"http://cap.chesapeakebay.net"  http://cap.chesapeakebay.net:8080 .
User IDs and passwords have been established for each reporting
organization.  Each Federal agency will have a user ID and password.
Each state will have one user ID and password for all state agencies
within that state.  Security measures have been established to track
individual user interactions with the CAP Activity Plan application
based on IP addresses.  In addition, security measures have been
established to protect the data you enter.  Measures include:
maintaining the data on a secure server, on a secure network; confirming
the data with each reporting organization; and making only summarized
data available publicly.  To obtain the appropriate user ID and password
to the CAP Activity Integration Plan application, please contact the CAP
Help Desk at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via email at   HYPERLINK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>.

Since each state will only have one ID and password to identify each
organization’s record, is recommended that an acronym for your agency
be provided in the Activity Description section.  For example: VADEQ,
MDDNR, EPAR3WPD, etc.  See Figure 9 Modify Existing Activity & Funding
Information.

Gathering the Data

 Getting Familiar with the Reporting Elements

The CAP Activity Integration Plan application reporting system contains
21 reporting elements to describe activities.  In most cases, the
reporting community will be entering information at the activity level,
which contains 18 reporting elements, several of which are optional.
Appendix D contains a graphical depiction of the reporting hierarchy,
including the domains and data fields.  Appendix E describes the
activity reporting elements in more detail, including name, description,
purpose, rules and guidance, and examples

Organizing the data

Before you start accessing the database to retrieve, enter or update the
information, it is recommended that you organize your data.  We
recommend that you separate the data into the Goal areas first, followed
by the Topic areas and finally the Activity.  It is important that you
have chosen where you want to categorize the funding for each activity
before you get started.  Definitions of the Activities can be viewed in
Appendix A of this document.  Reviewing this information will make
entering the data easier.  An Excel data spreadsheet is available at
http://cap.chesapeakebay.net/template/capv2template.xls, as a suggested
method to assist you in organizing the data.

Some Basic Elements to Review

For the purposes of CAP Activity Integration reporting, the goals, topic
areas, and activity categories, are standardized and have been
pre-populated into the system.  In other words, the reporting community
cannot make changes to the goal, area, or activity category framework.
However, the reporting community can choose “other” as an activity
category if no activity category seems appropriate.  If “other” is
selected, then a proposed activity category should be entered into the
activity description field and placed within parentheses.  It should
also be noted that each topic area is correlated to a group of specific
activity categories.  After this basic information is provided, users
will begin entering information about the specific activity.

Reporting Rules, Guidance, and Examples to Review Before Entering Data

There are several guiding principles associated with reporting activity
elements contained in the CAP Activity Integration Plan application.
They are as follows:

It is very important to ensure the same data associated with a set of
funds is not entered by different individuals.  For example, if oyster
data is entered by a subject matter expert in an oyster workshop, the
individual Federal / state reporting organizations should review the
oyster data in the CAP application to ensure their data is not
duplicating what already exists.  In addition, the funding that one
agency gives to another, should only be captured by the originating
agency.

An organization’s activities entered into the CAP Activity Integration
Plan application should be consistent and total the organization’s
budget.  If an organization’s budget is not specific for the bay or
watershed activities, ensure the budget associated with ear marks are
entered in the CAP Activity Integration Plan application.  Prior to
starting the data entry, it is recommended that the organization’s
budget items be grouped by goal and topic area in order to make the data
entry easier.

When entering different topic areas, be sure to go back to the main
activity screen in order to change the topic area.  To do this, use the
“Return to Main Page” button located in the bottom of the screen.
Do not use the back button on the browser; this will take you out of the
system.

When conducting the data entry, be sure to have your entire budget data
with you; the CAP application will time out after approximately 30
minutes, and you will be required to log back into the application.

 Process for retrieving, entering or updating information

 Accessing the System

The CAP Activity Integration Plan application reporting system is
available at   HYPERLINK "http://cap.chesapeakebay.net"
http://cap.chesapeakebay.net:8080 .  A user name and password are
required to enter tasks into the system.  Each reporting organization
will report under a single user name and password.  For quality
assurance purposes, all entries will be associated with the user name
under which they were entered.

The user name and password will be provided to each reporting
organization as listed in section 1.3.  Figure 3, “Chesapeake Activity
Integration Plan Login Screen” displays the login screen.  To retrieve
forgotten user names and passwords, email   HYPERLINK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>.

Figure 3:  CAP Application Reporting System Login Screen

Retrieving Existing and Creating New Activities

After successfully logging on to the CAP Activity Integration
application reporting system, users will be directed to an Activities
Categories- Accordion View screen (See Figure 4.)  In this screen you
will be able to retrieve the records for all the activities entered in
the spring of 2008.  The screen will give you two choices to retrieve or
create activities:  the Accordion View and the Activity Categories-
Search Criteria View.  The default view will be the Accordion View.  To
select the Activity Categories-Search Criteria View, just click on it.
Partners can use either view to modify, update, or create activities.
However, the Search Criteria view will be more useful to partners who
have previously entered data and are familiar with the system.  The
sections below will guide users on how to navigate the system using the
Accordion View first, then the Search Criteria View.

   Figure 4:  Activity Categories - Accordion View (Goals)

Retrieving and Updating/Creating Activities using the Accordion View.

To view activities using the Accordion View, first click on the desired
Goal.  After selecting the goal, select a topic from the dropdown list.
See Figure 5 below.

Figure 5:  Topic Areas

Once a Topic has been selected, a list will display at the bottom of the
screen showing the activity categories for the selected goal, the number
of activities in each category, and the total dollars/FTE for that
category for 2008.  See Figure 7 Below.

Figure 7: Activity Categories

Note that although this table shows the total funding for 2008, the list
of activities in the next step will show the activities for all funding
years for each activity.  To see the activities entered in the spring of
2008 for each category, click on the View/Modify button on the same line
of the desired activity category.  An Activity and Funding information
screen will be displayed showing all the activities for that category
for all organizations. See Figure 8 Below.  If you want to see the
activities of your organization only, click on the Show Only My
Organization’s Records button at the top of the list.

Figure 8: Viewing Existing Task/Funding Information

Updating Existing Activity Information-Accordion View

On the Activity and Funding screen, each activity has on the far left
side, a button showing either, View/Modify and Delete buttons, or a View
button.  The View/Modify and Delete buttons will be displayed only on
your organization’s activities and the View button on the other
organization’s activities.  You can only view other organization’s
activities information.  If you want to modify any information from any
of your organization’s activities, click on the View/Modify button.
An Activity and Funding screen will display showing all the information
entered in the spring. See Figure 9 Below. Make any necessary changes in
this screen and click on Save.

Figure 9:  Modify Existing Activity & Funding Information-UPDATE

Deleting Existing Activity Information- Accordion View

If you want to delete any activity entered in the spring, go to the
Activity and Funding screen and click on the Delete button on the line
of the activity that you want to delete.

Creating New Activity/Funding Information- Accordion View

To enter new activity/funding information, go to the Activity and
Funding screen and click on the Add New Activity/Funding Source located
at the bottom of the screen.  An Activity and Funding Information screen
will display.  See Figure 10 below.

Figure 10:  Activity and Funding Information

On the Activity entry form, the user will be required to enter the
following information:

	- Activity Description

	- Lead Organization / Agency

	- Point of Contact

	- Status of funding

	- Hard dollars allocated to activity

	- Number of FTEs allocated to activity

	- Year of funding

- Pertinent geography (one of the following:  lat/long, state,
watershed-wide)

	- Pertinent C2K commitment

Additionally, the user also has the option of entering other
activity-related information, including the following:

	- Collaborating organization

	- Performance measures/units

	- Milestones

Refer to Appendix E for additional rules and guidance on the reporting
elements listed above.

Cloning the Funding Record

There is a clone funding record option (at the bottom of the screen)
that allows the user to create a copy of the current funding record for
easy additions.  This can be used if the Goal, Topic Area, and Activity
Category remain the same for another activity or year.  It can be very
useful to clone an FY 2008 record to update for FY 2009.  Cloning copies
the following fields in the Activity and Funding section:  Lead
organization/Source/Program, Collaborating Organization, Point of
Contact, Activity Description, and C2K Commitment.  See Figure 11 below.

Figure 11:  Clone Funding Record

Milestone Field

The milestone field is used to identify a major event or subtask to be
completed as part of the activity.  See Figure 12 below.

			Figure 12:  Entering Milestones

Milestones are associated with Activity/Funding records.  Multiple
milestones can be associated with each Activity/Funding record.  Refer
to Appendix E for additional rules and guidance.  There is also guidance
available by clicking the More information icon located to the right of
field titles.  A new window will open with a table of data field
guidance.

Required fields must be entered before a new activity/funding can be
saved.    There is also guidance available by clicking on the More
information icon located to the right of field titles.  A new window
will open with a table of data field guidance.

Retrieving Activities using the Activity Categories-Search Criteria

To retrieve activities using the Activities Categories-Search Criteria-
you will click the tab on the top right tab (see figure 4 for example
screen view).  Once you enter the Search Criteria screen, you will have
the choice of obtaining a list of categories sorted by Goal, Topic Area,
Organization, Funding year, or the complete list of categories from all
the organizations (See Figure 13 below).   To obtain the list sorted by
any of the areas indicated, just select your desired criteria from the
dropdown list for each area.  After you select your criteria, click on
the Retrieve Results button at the bottom of the page.  If you want a
complete list of categories from all the organizations, do not select
any criteria and click on the Retrieve Results button.  After you click
on Retrieve Results, a list will be displayed at the bottom of the
screen showing a list of activity categories, the number of activities
in each category, and the total dollars/FTE for that category for 2008.
Make sure you scroll down to see the results.

		Figure 13: Activity Categories – Search Criteria

Updating Existing Activity Information- Activity Categories-Search
Criteria

To modify information from an activity, click on the View/Modify button
at the far left end of the line in of the category of your activity.
After you click on that button, a Modify Activity screen will come up
displaying all the activities (see Figure 8 above).

 If you desire a list of your organizations activities only, click on
View Only My Organization’s Records button.  To view and modify
information for the activity, click on the View/Modify button on the far
right end of the line of your activity.  Once you click there, an
Activity and Funding screen will display showing all the information
entered for that activity in the spring.  Make any desired changes and
then click on the Save button at the button of the screen.

Deleting Existing Activity Information- Activity Categories-Search
Criteria

If you want to delete any activity entered in the spring, go to the
Activity and Funding screen and click on the Delete button on the line
of the activity that you want to delete.

Creating New Activity/Funding Information using Activity Categories-
Search Criteria

If you want to create a new activity, on the Activity and Funding
screen, click on the Add New Activity/Funding Source button at the
bottom of the screen.  An Activity and Funding screen will display.  To
enter information, follow the instructions in Section 3.2.4 above.

APENDIX A - DEFINITIONS

GENERAL:

Below are general definitions for some of the reporting elements
contained in the CAP application reporting system.

Chesapeake Action Plan (CAP) – A report that outlines an integrated
approach for assessing the overall progress toward reaching the goals
outlined in Chesapeake 2000. The CAP was developed to strengthen and
expand partnerships in the watershed, enhance coordination of
restoration activities, and increase the collective accountability for
protecting the Chesapeake Bay.  The CAP consists of four components: an
activity integration plan, a strategic framework, an adaptive management
process, and dashboards.

Activity Integration Plan – A plan designed to be a comprehensive
catalogue of the activities in which CBP partners are engaged to protect
and restore the Chesapeake Bay.  The plan provides information on:  the
actual activities being implemented by the CBP partners; the lead
partner for each activity and any cooperating partners; the amount and
source of funding being used and, ideally, planned for use to accomplish
each activity by all cooperating partners; the location of each
activity; and progress toward the establish realistic annual targets.

Goal – A Goal represents a broad programmatic area and is based on the
organizational framework of the Chesapeake Bay program.  The goals are
predefined in the application reporting system.  The goal framework was
developed by the Chesapeake Bay Program partnership in to organize
activities and responsibilities for Chesapeake restoration.

Topic Area – Topic areas are specific thematic program areas that are
organized as a subset of goals.  The topic areas are predefined in the
application reporting system.  Each goal contains several topics areas.
In the context of the CAP, the topic areas represent the major program
areas.

Activity Category – An Activity category consists of generic functions
that support a topic area.  Activity categories are predefined in the
application reporting system.  They represent the general function
performed in support of the topic area; it may not necessarily be the
main activity of the topic area, but the support being provided for the
topic area.

Activity – An Activity consists of detailed functions that support the
activity.  The Activity Description contains specific details about the
activity level, location, and number of units.  It contains a sufficient
amount of detail to distinguish the activity from one organizational
element to another.  It represents the smallest unit of reporting for
CAP.

ACTIVITY CATEGORIES:

Below are definitions for the activity categories that are predefined in
the CAP application reporting system.

Aquaculture -The cultivation of aquatic organisms (as fish or shellfish)
especially for food.

Assessment - Organizing data to provide a judgment or classification of
progress relative to set objectives.

Communication – The process of broadcasting information and guidance
to the Chesapeake Bay partners, the public, the media, and legislators
to build a broad base of public understanding of bay health and
ecological issues.

Education – Providing information, both comprehensive and interactive
for use by public and technical audiences to achieve public awareness
and personal involvement on behalf of the bay and local watersheds.
This also includes providing experiences, both outdoors and in the
classroom for school children, grades K-12.

Enforcement – Assurance of compliance with local, state, and/or
Federal regulatory programs through inspection, monitoring and by
returning violators to compliance, through civil or criminal means.

Engage Partners - The process of working collaboratively with and
through groups of people affiliated by special interest, to address
issues affecting the well-being of those people.  It often involves
partnerships and coalitions that help mobilize resources and influence
systems, change relationships among partners, and serve as catalysts for
changing policies, programs, and practices.

Enhancement - Manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological
characteristics of an existing wetland (undisturbed or degraded) site to
heighten, intensify, or improve specific function(s) or for a purpose
such as water quality improvement, flood water retention, or wildlife
habitat. Results gain in function, not acres.

Facility - Something that is built, installed, or established to serve a
particular purpose.

Funding/Finance - The management of financial mechanisms, such as
grants, to support environmental program activities.

Grants/Contracts – Grants are sums of money awarded by the Federal
government, States, and even the private sector for specifically
designated purposes for which no repayment is required.  Contracts are
legally binding exchanges of promises or agreements between parties that
the law will enforce.

Habitat – The ecological or environmental area that is inhabited by a
particular species.

Information Management - The collection and management of information
from one or more sources, and the distribution of that information to
one or more audiences.

Land Conservation - Planning and managing land and its resources to
prevent exploitation, destruction, or neglect.

Land Preservation - Land that is permanently protected from development
with a perpetual conservation, open space easement, or fee ownership,
held by a Federal, state, or local government or non-profit organization
for natural resource, forestry, agriculture, wildlife, recreation,
historic, cultural, or open space use, or to sustain water quality and
living resource values.

Management Tool Development - The development of computer based tools,
such as models to support environmental decision making.

Mitigation - The restoration, creation, or enhancement of resource lands
to compensate for permitted resource or function losses.

Monitoring - To test or sample, especially on a regular or ongoing
basis, keeping track of conditions systematically through the collection
of data.

Program Management - The discipline of planning, organizing, and
managing resources to bring about the successful completion of specific
project goals and objectives.

Protection- Removal of a threat to or preventing the decline of, wetland
conditions by an action in or near a wetland. Includes purchase of land
or easements of 30 years minimum duration and does not result in a gain
of wetland acres or function.

Regulation – The drafting and promulgation of regulations and the
implementation of local, state, and federal regulatory programs.

Remediation - The removal of pollution or contaminants from
environmental media such as soil, groundwater, sediment, or surface
water for the general protection of human health and the environment.

Reporting - Giving an account of or describing a specified state by
creating a written record or summary.

Research - Engagement in scientific investigation or experimentation at
the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories
or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new
or revised theories or laws.

Restoration - The return of an ecosystem to a close approximation of its
condition prior to disturbance, through the manipulation of physical,
chemical, and/or biological characteristics of a site.

Targeting – Prioritizing and directing implementation resources
towards particular geographic locations and/or towards specific sets of
prevention/reduction practices and restoration activities.

Technical Assistance - Professional technical advice or help in the
installation of structural and non-structural practices directed toward
reducing/preventing excess hydrology, nutrient, and sediment loads to
local streams and the bay.

Technical Support – The conduct of statistical data analysis and
interpretation, geospatial analysis, model simulation and evaluations
diverted toward assisting program implementation.

TMDL Development - The calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant
a water body can receive and still meet applicable water quality
standards (accounting for seasonal variations and a margin of safety),
including an allocation of pollutant loadings to point sources (waste
load allocations) and non-point sources (load allocations).

Trading/Credit – As an alternative to command-and-control regulations,
a market-based approach is used to comply with regulations to achieve
pollution abatement goals at lower costs to society. Environmental
credit trading allows regulated firms to meet their obligations by
purchasing pollution abatement services (credits) from lower-cost
providers.

APPENDIX B – ACRONYMS

CAP – Chesapeake Action Plan

CBO – Chesapeake Bay Office

CBP – Chesapeake Bay Program

CBPO - Chesapeake Bay Program Office

COE – Corps of Engineers

EAID – Environmental Assessment and Innovation Division

EPA – US Environmental Protection Agency

FY – Fiscal Year

GAO – US General Accounting Office

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPS - National Park Service

NRCS - Natural Resource Conservation Service

SME - Subject Matter Expert

USFWS - United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USFS – United States Forest Service

USGS - United States Geological Survey

WPD – Water Protection Division

APPENDIX C – EXAMPLES OF REPORTING DATA

C.1:  Managing Point Source Data

C.2:  Conducting a Feasibility Study

 APPENDIX D – REPORTING HIERARCHY

APPENDIX E – REPORTING ELEMENTS

Activity Reporting Elements

Reporting Element	Description	Purpose	Rules & Guidance	Examples

Goal	An identifier that specifies the name of the goal under which the
activity is undertaken	Overarching framework and broad categorization of
activities and related tasks

Listing of all activities and tasks by goal; summarize funding for
activities and tasks by goal

Allows for the aggregation and summarization of activities by goal.	One
goal for each activity

Select the goal that best describes the activity.  In some cases,
several goals may be appropriate, select the one that is most
appropriate.

This is a required field.	Goal 1: Restoring Healthy Waters

Goal 2: Restoring Healthy Habitats

Goal 3: Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management

Goal 4: Maintaining Healthy Watersheds

Goal 5: Fostering Chesapeake Stewardship

Goal 6: Partnership, Leadership & Management

Topic Area	An identifier that specifies the name of a specific topic
area under which the activity is undertaken	More detailed framework for
categorization of activities and related tasks

Listing of all activities and tasks by topic area; summarize funding for
activities and tasks by topic area; summarize measures by topic area

Allows for the aggregation and summarization of activities by topic
area.	One topic area for each activity

Select the topic area that best describes the activity. In some cases,
several goals may seem appropriate; select the one that is most
appropriate.

This is a required field.	Wastewater Treatment

Oysters

Forest Buffers

IT Support

Activity Category	A short title that describes the nature of the
activity	Generic function to categorize related activities

Link activity with associated topic area	One or many activities for a
topic area

Click the View/Modify button to select an activity category

Select the activity category that best describes the support provided
for the topic area.

If an appropriate category does not exist, select “other” to add a
proposed new title.  Add the title to the Activity Description field,
enclosed in parentheses.

This is a required field.	Monitoring

Assessment

 Activity & Funding Reporting Elements

Reporting Element	Description	Purpose	Rules & Guidance	Examples

Activity Description	A detailed narrative description of the activity.
Main reporting element that links all other elements in the activity and
funding area

Identify the specific role of the activity category	Enter a description
of the activity in the text box; include sufficient detail to
distinguish from another organizational element.

Maximum characters allowed for this field is 500.

This is a required field.  	Publish 11 issues of the Bay Journal.

Lead Org/Source/Program	An abbreviation for the program that has the
lead for the specific activity	The source/program field allows for the
aggregation of data by program.  This field is also useful for data
verification, ownership and QA.

Links activity to the specific organization leading the activity	Select
from the pick list the funding organization or program that conducts the
activity.

One for each activity.

This is a required field.  	EPA/CBPO

Point of Contact	The first and last name of the staff person within the
lead organization that is responsible for the activity	The lead staff is
required for accountability purposes.

Link activity to the individual responsible.	Enter Point of Contact
first and last name in the text box.  Maximum characters allowed for
this field is 500.

This is a required field.  	Joe Smith

Jane Doe

Collaborating Organization	A list of organizations that are contributing
resources to the project	This field will be used for additional data
verification.

Link activity to the organizations collaborating with the lead
organization.	Enter collaborating organizations in the text box.
Maximum characters allowed for this field is 500.

Use standard terminology to assist with reporting by organization.

This is an optional field.	CRC

Status	An identifier that specifies the status of the activity	The
status field allows for aggregation of activities and associated funding
by current or planned activities.

Link with the funding year.	Select the activity status from the pick
list.  Current=2008, Planned=2009 and beyond, Completed=2007.

Cancelled is used when previously entered dollars/activities for a
future year do not get funded; change the status to Cancelled.

This is a required field.  	Current

Planned

Completed

Cancelled

Geography

	Longitude 	The longitude in decimal degrees that represents the
location of the activity	These fields will be used to designate, as
accurately as possible the pertinent center point of the geography for
the funding to be allocated.

One of the Geography fields must be entered.	Enter a numerical value in
the text box

This is an optional field	-79.12345

	Latitude 	The latitude in decimal degrees that represents the location
of the activity

Enter a numerical value in the text box

This is an optional field	39.12345

	State	An identifier of the state in which the activity is performed

Select the appropriate state from the pick list if the activity is not
watershed-wide.

If more then one statue, use the watershed-wide button or make 2 records
for each portion of the budget tied to a state.	MD

	Watershed-wide	An identifier that indicates if the activity is
ubiquitous across the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed

Select Yes/No radio button as appropriate.	watershed-wide

Primary C2K Commitment	An identifier that specifies the primary
commitment from the Chesapeake 2000 agreement under which the activity
is performed.	Link activities and their associated tasks to specific C2K
commitments

Listing of all activities and tasks by C2K commitment; summarize funding
for activities and tasks by C2K commitment; summarize measures by C2K
commitment

Allows for the aggregation and summarization of activities by C2K
commitment.	Select a C2K commitment from the pick list.  Choices will
vary based upon the goal.  One C2K commitment can be selected for each
task.

In some cases, several commitments may seem appropriate; select the one
that is most appropriate.

If an activity does not fit a C2K commitment, select other and enter
text in the blank field to describe the activity.  For example, if the
activity supports all commitments, select other and enter “supports
all commitments” in the blank field.

This is a required field.  	<IP_ADDRESS>- By 2010, achieve a net resource
gain by restoring 25,000 acres of tidal and non-tidal wetlands.

“Hard” Dollars	Total Dollars allocated by the organization for the
activity	The “hard” dollars field is used to help estimate the total
cost of the activity.	Enter the total dollars allocated to the activity
by the listed organization for the specified funding year.

For 2009, Federal funding is based on President’s budget (projected).
Entering 2010 funding is optional at this time.

Do not enter dollar signs, commas, or cents.  You can enter FTEs as
dollars here.  If FTEs are being entered, do not enter the dollars here
that are associated with the FTEs.  Enter “0”

This is a required numeric field.  	$563,365

Total FTE’s	The total number of full time equivalent employees
dedicated to the activity	The total number of FTEs will be used to help
estimate the total activity cost.	Enter the FTEs allocated to the
activity by the listed organization for the specified funding year.
FTEs can be expressed as whole or partial numbers.

If an individual supports more then one activity, estimate the
percentage for each activity.

It is recommended that dollars be entered instead of FTEs at this time;
the number of FTEs can be entered in the description field.

If not entering FTEs, enter “0”

This is a required numeric field.  	0.25, 0.5, 1.0

Funding Year	An identifier that specifies the fiscal year in which the
funding was provided for the activity	The funding year allows for the
aggregation of activities and associated funding by major activity
functions.	Select from pick list.  There can be planned funding for 2009
and 2010 and current funding for 2007 and 2008 for the same activity.

To capture the same activity category and activity data for more then
one year, use the “Clone Funding” button after you have entered the
data on the current form.

For 2009, Federal funding is based on President’s budget (projected).
Entering 2010 funding is optional at this time.

This is a required field.  	2007

2008

2009

2010

Measure 	A numeric measure of the actual activity expressed as a linear,
area or numeric measure	Quantitative summary metric	Enter the measure
for the activity for that year only.  This should include the number of
“on the ground” practices occurring for this activity; this does not
include the number of events or reports.

This is an optional free text field.	50

Units	The units of the measure 	Further defined measure	Select units of
measure from the pick list.

This is an optional field.	Acres

Miles

Pounds per year

Unit Description	A textual description of the unit of measure.	Further
defined unit	Enter additional information to describe the unit of
measure if needed.

This is an optional free text field.

	Milestone 	A short description of a major event for the activity	The
milestone field is used to identify a major event or subtask to be
completed as part of the activity.

Used to show future completion of an activity.	0, 1 or many milestone
descriptions for each activity; milestone date must coincide with
milestone description.

This is an optional field.	Launch New Website

Milestone Date	The date related to the major event as identified in the
milestone	The milestone date field is used to identify the completion of
the specific milestone.	0, 1 or many milestone dates for each activity;
milestone date is related to milestone description.

A milestone date must be entered in order to save the milestone.

This is an optional field.	1/12/2006

 PAGE

 PAGE   2

 PAGE

 PAGE   - 14 -