Contact Us Search: All EPA This Area

• You are here: EPA Home
• Federal Register
• FR Years
• FR Months
• FR Days
• FR Documents
• [[pp. 1585-1634]] National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System--Proposed

[[pp. 1585-1634]] National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System--Proposed

 [Federal Register: January 9, 1998 (Proposed Rules)]
[Page 1585-1634]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09ja98-24]

[[pp. 1585-1634]] National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System--Proposed
Regulations for Revision of the Water Pollution Control Program
Addressing Storm Water Discharges

[[Continued from page 1584]]

[[Page 1585]]

permittee would certify to the NPDES permitting authority that it meets
the particular waiver criteria or waiver requirements applicable in a
particular State or watershed (see proposed
Sec. 122.26(b)(15)(i)(A)(1)-(3)). EPA invites comment on such a
certification process and requests comment on any other similar process
that could reduce the waiver processing burden for the NPDES permitting
authority and the permittee while ensuring that waivers are granted
only for those circumstances applicable under one of the three waiver
options.
    EPA also seeks comment from permitting authorities on how they
envision the process of implementing waivers for construction activity
based on TMDLs or TMDL-type assessments under watershed plans.
    EPA invites comment on concerns that waivers might be improperly
utilized in an effort to provide relief to regulated entities for
reasons unrelated to water quality. In particular, concerns have been
raised that an NPDES permitting authority might redirect resources from
other environmental programs in order to develop a watershed approach
that promotes the issuance of the greatest possible number of waivers.
    In addition to waivers, the Agency is also considering possible
approaches for providing incentives for local decisionmaking that would
limit the adverse water quality impact associated with uncontrolled
growth in a watershed. In situations where there are special controls
or incentives (e.g. transferable development rights, traditional
neighborhood development ordinances) in place directing development
toward compact/mixed use development and away from wetlands, open
space, or other protected lands, it may be possible to provide some
relief to small construction sites in areas of less dense development,
provided that the average development densities are very low (e.g.,
less than one unit per 25 acres). In addition, relief from requirements
may also be appropriate where redevelopment construction replaces
existing development and the new development results in a net water
quality benefit. This type of incentive could be a consideration in
development of TMDLs by State or local authorities. Based on a TMDL
that recognizes that the discharges from areas of less development do
not cause or have potential to cause water quality impacts, relief from
small construction site permitting requirements could be granted. EPA
solicits comment on this approach and any other recommendations for the
use of such incentives.
c. Permit Process and Administration
    As with any owner or operator of a point source discharge, the
operator of the construction site would be responsible for applying for
the NPDES permit as required by Sec. 122.21(b). The operator of a
construction activity would be the party or parties that either
individually or collectively meet the following two criteria: (1)
operational control over the site specifications, including the ability
to make modifications in the specifications; and (2) day-to-day
operational control of those activities at the site necessary to ensure
compliance with permit conditions. If more than one party meets these
criteria, then each party involved would need to be a co-permittee with
any other operators. The operators could be the owner, the developer,
the general contractor, or individual contractors.
    As mentioned previously, the Agency has proposed extended
application deadlines for small construction sites at
Sec. 122.26(e)(1)(iii). EPA also considered whether NOIs should be
required of construction sites less than 5 acres. Requiring an NOI
allows for greater accountability by, and tracking of, dischargers. It
allows for better outreach to the regulated community, uses an existing
and familiar mechanism, and is consistent with the existing
requirements for construction activities. EPA recognizes, however, the
paperwork burden for both the regulated community and regulators. The
Agency is proposing not to specify the NOI requirements for NPDES
general permits for storm water at Sec. 122.28 to address the storm
water discharges from construction activities proposed to be regulated
at Sec. 122.26(b)(15). EPA believes that this approach would provide
the NPDES permitting authority with the discretion to decide whether or
not to require NOIs for construction activity less than 5 acres. Thus,
the proposal would increase flexibility for the permitting authority
regarding program implementation. The Agency invites comment on whether
NOI submission should be a requirement for general permits for
construction activity less than 5 acres.
    EPA expects that the vast majority of discharges of storm water
associated with other activity identified in Sec. 122.26(b)(15) would
be regulated through general permits. In the event that an NPDES
permitting authority decides to issue an individual construction
permit, however, individual application requirements for these
construction sites would be found at Sec. 122.26(c)(1)(ii). Except for
application deadlines and NOIs under general permits, the permit
application requirements would be identical to those applicable to
storm water discharges associated with industrial activity under the
existing NPDES storm water program. EPA proposes to revise Sec. 122.26
accordingly. For any discharges of storm water associated with other
activity identified in Sec. 122.26(b)(15) that are not authorized by a
general permit, a permit application made pursuant to Sec. 122.26(c)
would need to be submitted to the Director by 3 years and 90 days after
issuance of the final rule. All regulated sources would be required to
seek coverage under an NPDES permit regardless of whether they
discharge directly to waters of the United States or through a
municipal separate storm sewer system to waters of the United States.
    The Storm Water Phase II FACA Subcommittee also identified issues
regarding linear construction projects (e.g., roads, highways,
pipelines) that cross several jurisdictions. Some Subcommittee members
were concerned about having to comply with multiple sets of
requirements from various jurisdictions, including multiple local
governments and States. Because EPA cannot issue NPDES permits in
States authorized to implement the NPDES program and because EPA cannot
preempt other more stringent local and State requirements, EPA is
limited in its options to address these concerns. EPA believes that the
option for incorporating by reference the local or State requirements
(see discussion in Section II.I.2.d., Cross-Referencing State/Local
Erosion and Sediment Control Programs) would limit the administrative
burden on the operator responsible for discharges from linear
construction projects. The operator could implement the most
comprehensive of the various requirements for the whole project to
avoid differing requirements for different sections of the project. In
addition, EPA notes that discharges of dredged or fill material into
waters of the United States that are regulated under section 404 of the
CWA do not require NPDES permits (40 CFR 122.3(b)).
    On a similar note, one comment or requested exemptions for
``routine maintenance'' activities such as repairing potholes, clearing
out drainage ditches, and maintaining fire breaks, because these
activities often involve rights-of-way extending across multiple
regulatory jurisdictions. The commenter suggested that, at most, these
activities by required to adhere to generic best

[[Page 1586]]

management practices. The Agency is interested in comments on how such
an exemption would work, what the criteria for such an exemption would
be, and the appropriate BMPs for such sites.
    EPA also invites comment on recordkeeping requirements for today's
proposed rule regarding construction. The NPDES program requires that
the entity submitting the NOI keep its records on file for three years.
Given that some smaller construction activities may last less than a
year, some recommendations suggest that this file retention requirement
be modified or deleted for such sites. EPA invites comment on
appropriate and reasonable recordkeeping requirements.
d. Cross-Referencing State/Local Erosion and Sediment Control Programs
    In developing the permit requirements for designated construction
sites less than 5 acres, members of the Storm Water Phase II FACA
Subcommittee asked EPA to try to minimize redundancy in the
construction permit requirements. As previously discussed in the
Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control discussion (see Section
II.H.3.a., Minimum Control Measures), the Agency is proposing to allow
permitting authorities to incorporate by reference the requirements of
qualifying State, Tribal, or local erosion and sediment control
programs. The NPDES permitting authority would, of course, retain the
authority to deny coverage under the general NPDES permit, disapprove
inclusion of alternative requirements in the general permit, and could
require that designated general permit applicants apply for an
individual NPDES permit.
    EPA envisions that this incorporation by reference approach would
apply not only to the proposed newly regulated storm water discharges
from construction sites between 1 and 5 acres, but also to discharges
from larger construction sites already covered by the existing storm
water regulations provided the program meets best available technology
(BAT) requirements. Under existing regulations, storm water discharges
``associated with industrial activity'' are subject to the same
technology-based standards as any other discharge under the CWA (except
publicly owned treatment works and municipal separate storm sewer
systems) (see CWA section 402(p)(3)(A)). The Agency invites comment on
whether the imposition of controls designed to satisfy the proposed
Sec. 122.34(b) would assure compliance with CWA section 402(p)(3)(A)
for discharges from construction sites over 5 acres. Note that the
Agency does not intend that incorporation by reference of qualifying
programs would relieve construction site discharges ``associated with
industrial activity'' from the applicable requirements of CWA section
301.
    EPA believes that this approach would best balance the need for
consideration of specific local requirements and local implementation
with the need for Federal and citizen oversight, and would extend
supplemental NPDES requirements to construction sites. EPA solicits
comment on this approach.
    In a somewhat different context, municipal representatives
recommended that construction activities undertaken by municipalities
be covered by the municipal storm water permit rather than under a
separate, distinct storm water permit for construction activity. The
Agency agrees that this would be a reasonable approach. The Agency
explored several possible ways to make such an approach possible during
the development of today's proposal, and feels that there are some
options that could achieve program objectives. One option would be to
simply relieve municipalities that would be covered under today's
proposal of requirements to submit an NOI for the general permit
covering construction activity. Under this option, municipalities would
still be subject to both types of permit, but would be relieved of the
paperwork associated with filing NOIs. This option might require a
revision to existing 122.28(b)(2)(v). Another option to address this
concern would be to issue individual permits to municipalities seeking
such a ``one-stop shopping'' approach that would include provisions
covering the municipal storm water program and construction activity
conducted by the municipality. Under such an option, municipalities
might need to submit individual permit applications and the NPDES
permitting authority might have to issue many more municipal permits.
Under a third option, the general permit issued to small municipalities
would include municipal storm water program requirements as well as
construction site discharge components. This option would result in the
issuance of a more complex general permit than EPA currently envisions
for small municipalities. This complexity could be minimized, however,
by organizing the general permit into distinct modules, one dealing
with the six minimum measures, one with municipal construction, and
possibly one with municipal industrial facilities (see Section II.I.3,
``Other Sources'' below). Alternatively, municipal general permits
could potentially reference provisions included in construction general
permits. As a practical matter, the controls for municipally-owned or
operated construction would presumably dovetail with the requirements
of the municipal minimum control measure for construction, at least for
sites between 1 and 5 acres (construction less than 5 acres would have
to meet BAT). The Agency seeks further input on these possible
approaches and others that could be considered. Specifically, how would
such an approach work, what would the permit look like, who would be
covered, and what would be the responsibilities of covered
municipalities.
    In a similar vein, industrial representatives recommended that
construction activities undertaken by permitted industrial storm water
facilities be covered by the industrial storm water permit. Again, the
Agency agrees with the concept. One option contemplated by the Agency
would be to include in industrial storm water permits requirements for
construction undertaken by permitted industrial facilities. Another
option would be to cross-reference construction general permit
provisions in industrial general permits. The Agency seeks comment on
these possible approaches and others that could be considered.
e. Alternative Approaches
    As previously discussed, EPA also examined size thresholds other
than one acre for regulation. Although a range of size thresholds was
mentioned in stakeholder comments, no data were offered to support such
alternatives. The Agency solicits comments that would assist the Agency
in making an informed decision as to an appropriate threshold related
to environmental effect. Alternatively, the Agency also solicits
comment on an approach by which only those construction sites located
within urbanized areas would be automatically subject to permitting
requirements. Under such an alternative, small construction sites
outside urbanized areas would not be required to be covered by an NPDES
permit unless specifically designated by the permitting authority on a
case-by-case basis.
    Some stakeholders asked EPA to consider allowing storm water
discharges associated with construction activities between 1 and 5
acres to be regulated solely under municipal storm water programs where
discharges to a municipal separate storm sewer system

[[Page 1587]]

are subject to a permit, rather than requiring construction site
discharges to be subject to both NPDES permit requirements and
municipal program requirements. Under such an approach, construction
sites would only be subject to the requirements and oversight of a
qualifying local program. The Agency has described the ``incorporation
by reference'' approach of today's proposal and the rationale for the
proposed approach elsewhere in this preamble. If EPA adopted this
``qualifying local program'' alternative, construction site operators
in qualifying municipalities would not be subject to the requirements
of an NPDES permit. The Agency solicits comment on this particular
alternative and seeks input specifically on the effectiveness of local
erosion and sediment control programs in the absence of NPDES permits
incorporating such local programs. The Agency also solicits comment on
the appropriate qualifications to establish for municipalities to
qualify under such an alternative.
    EPA considered several other alternatives for controlling
construction storm water discharges on sites less than 5 acres,
including state/local implementation only, Federal requirements/
guidelines for local erosion and sediment control programs, and State-
developed requirements. Small entity representatives recommended that
EPA only establish a voluntary program based on EPA guidance, and
perhaps including incentives for small site operators. This would
effectively translate into a program which would not require such sites
to be covered by an NPDES permit unless they were specifically
designated by the permitting authority on a case-by-case basis. One
commenter raised concerns that small site operators may lack the
resources to put together a good site plan, which would likely be
required under the proposed approach. EPA seeks comment on these
alternatives, as well, including comment on how such programs have
worked where they have been in effect.
    In evaluating options to administer the storm water control program
for discharges from construction sites, EPA considered an owner or
operator certification program that would have allowed the owner or
operator, or authorized representative, of a construction firm to apply
for coverage once for all the firm's activities in one jurisdiction for
the term of the NPDES permit. Focusing on operators in the
``construction industry'' (regardless of the size of the construction
site) would have more closely paralleled the existing storm water
program for discharges ``associated with industrial activity.'' This
option would have allowed for the coverage of each site by submittal of
one NOI, thereby reducing the paperwork burden substantially without
sacrificing accountability. This option would have applied to all
regulated construction site discharges, regardless of size. Homeowners
who performed construction activities on their own property would have
been exempt from the requirements for a permit under this option. This
option would have focused instead on the construction ``industry.''
This option also would have resulted in a different proposal for
municipal programs to control construction site discharges. Concerns
with this option included issues regarding: identification of the
responsible parties onsite (e.g., whether all parties could reasonably
be held responsible for all permit conditions) and site-by-site
identification of construction discharges for tracking compliance with
permit conditions. Such a change also would have affected operators
discharging storm water from existing, larger regulated construction
sites by restructuring the entire regulatory scheme to focus on the
``industry'' of construction site operators, thus creating significant
confusion among regulated entities and disruption in regulatory
processes. Nonetheless, EPA invites comment on the option to establish
what would amount to an NPDES-based ``licensing'' program for
construction site operators within an NPDES jurisdiction (usually
within State or Tribal boundaries).
    Industrial stakeholders recommended that the regulation of
construction site discharges under section 402(p)(6) should distinguish
between ``low intensity'' small construction and ``high intensity''
small construction. While EPA proposes case-by-case waiver
opportunities for small construction discharges (i.e., the second
waiver opportunity for predicted soil loss of less than 2 tons/acre/
year), the industrial commenters recommended that the designation of
small construction site discharges categorically distinguish and exempt
``low intensity'' construction activity from the provisions of the
proposed rule. The commenters recommended that construction activities
include intense levels of clearing, grading and excavating associated
with projects which meet the following criteria: clearing, grading and
excavation activities with a duration in excess of six months; and
construction of single or multiple story office or industrial buildings
with a grade slab in excess of 15,000 square feet; or road building
(does not include construction of wooden roads for access to remote
locations); or construction of a residential home that is part of a
larger common plan of development or sale. Under the industrial
proposal, such ``high intensity'' small construction would be subject
to Federal storm water regulations. The default, ``low intensity''
construction activity would not.
    Today's proposal does not incorporate these suggestions because the
Agency believes that regulation of storm water to protect water quality
relates more to the disturbance of land surfaces (i.e., on a two
dimensional, roughly horizontal plane) rather than to the activity or
reason for the land disturbance. EPA proposes to regulate storm water
discharges associated with construction activity from smaller sites,
not the construction activity itself. EPA would consider this option in
the final rule, however, if public comments demonstrate that a ``low
intensity'' exclusion would relate to the intensity of the surface
disturbance. The second waiver opportunity EPA proposes today does
relate to the intensity of surface disturbance, and necessarily
accounts for regional variation. The Agency, therefore, invites comment
on how to define applicability provision to exclude ``low intensity''
surface disturbances associated with construction activity and still
provide a simple, workable regulation that accounts for regional
variability.
    EPA believes the approach proposed in this proposal would provide
EPA and the States with a more manageable program than the other
alternatives discussed. The proposed approach should offer flexibility
to State and local governments in managing their storm water programs
with little or no interruption in the consistency of current
environmental management and would assure appropriate tracking and
enforcement mechanisms. EPA requests comment on the appropriateness of
the scope and requirements of this part of today's proposed storm water
program.
3. Other Sources
    In the National Water Quality Inventory, 1994 Report to Congress
submitted by EPA pursuant to section 402(p)(5), EPA examined the
remaining unregulated point sources of storm water for the potential to
adversely affect water quality. Due to very limited national data on
which to estimate pollutant loadings on the basis of discharge
categories, the discussion of the extent of unregulated storm water
discharges is limited to an analysis of the number and geographic
distribution

[[Page 1588]]

of the unregulated storm water discharges. Therefore, EPA is not
proposing to designate any additional unregulated point sources of
storm water on a nationwide, categorical basis. Instead, EPA is
designating a category of sources to be regulated based on case-by-case
post-promulgation designations by the NPDES permitting authority.
    EPA did, however, evaluate a variety of categories of discharges
for potential designation in the report to Congress. EPA's efforts to
identify sources and categories of unregulated storm water discharges
for potential designation for regulation under today's proposal started
with an examination of approximately 7.7 million commercial, retail,
industrial, and institutional facilities identified as ``unregulated.''
In general, the distribution of these facilities follows the
distribution of population, with a large percentage of facilities
concentrated within urbanized areas (see page 4-35 of Storm Water
Discharges Potentially Addressed by Phase II of the NPDES Storm Water
Program, EPA 833-K-94-002). This examination resulted in identification
of two general classes of facilities with the potential for discharging
pollutants to waters of the United States through storm water point
sources. The first group (Group A) included sources that are very
similar, or identical, to regulated ``storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity'' but that were not included in the existing
storm water regulations because EPA used SIC codes in defining the
universe of regulated industrial activities. By relying on SIC codes,
which were not classified according to environmental impacts, some
types of storm water discharges that might otherwise be considered
``industrial'' were not included in the existing NPDES storm water
program. The second general class of facilities (Group B) was
identified on the basis of potential activities and pollutants that
could contribute to storm water contamination.
    EPA estimates that Group A has approximately 100,000 facilities.
Discharges from facilities in this group, which may be of high priority
due to their similarity to regulated storm water discharges from
industrial facilities, include, for example, auxiliary facilities or
secondary activities (e.g., maintenance of construction equipment and
vehicles, local trucking for an unregulated facility, such as a grocery
store) and facilities intentionally omitted from existing storm water
regulations (e.g., treatment works with a design flow of less than 1
million gallons per day, and landfills that have not received
industrial waste).
    Group B consists of nearly one million facilities. EPA organized
Group B sources into 18 sectors for the purposes of the report to
Congress. The automobile service sector (e.g., gas/service stations,
general automobile repair, new and used car dealerships, car and truck
rental) makes up more than one-third of the total number of facilities
identified in all 18 sectors.
    EPA conducted a geographical analysis of the industrial and
commercial facilities in Groups A and B. The geographical analysis
shows that the majority are located in urbanized areas (see Section
4.2.2, Geographic Extent of Facilities, in the Report to Congress). In
general, about 61 percent of Group A facilities and 56 percent of Group
B facilities are located in urbanized areas. The analysis also showed
that nearly twice as many industrial facilities are found in all
urbanized areas as are found in large and medium municipalities alone.
Notable exceptions to this generalization included lawn/garden
establishments, small unregulated animal feedlots, wholesale livestock,
farm and garden machinery repair, bulk petroleum wholesale, farm
supplies, lumber and building materials, agricultural chemical dealers,
and petroleum pipelines, which can frequently be located in smaller
municipalities or rural areas.
    In identifying potential categories of sources for designation in
today's notice, EPA considered designation of discharges from Group A
and Group B facilities. Based on input from the Storm Water Phase II
FACA Subcommittee, EPA applied three criteria to each potential
category in both groups to determine the need for designation: (1) The
likelihood for exposure of pollutant sources included in that category,
(2) whether such sources were adequately addressed by other
environmental programs, and (3) whether sufficient data were available
at this time on which to make a determination of adverse water quality
impacts for the category of sources. As discussed previously, EPA
searched for applicable nationwide data on the water quality impacts of
such categories of facilities.
    By application of the first criterion, the likelihood for exposure,
EPA considered the nature of potential pollutant sources in exposed
portions of such sites. As precipitation contacts industrial materials
or activities, the resultant runoff is likely to be contaminated with
pollutants. As the size of these exposed areas increases, EPA expects a
proportional increase in the pollutant loadings leaving the site. If
EPA concluded that a category of sources has a high potential for
exposure of raw materials, intermediate products, final products, waste
materials, byproducts, industrial machinery, or industrial activity to
rainfall, the Agency rated that category of sources as having ``high''
potential for adverse water quality impact. EPA's application of the
first criterion showed that a number of Group A and B sources have a
high likelihood of exposure of pollutants.
    Through application of the second criterion, EPA assessed the
likelihood that pollutant sources are regulated in a comprehensive
fashion under other environmental protection programs, such as programs
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) or the
Occupational Health and Safety Act (OSHA). If EPA concluded that the
category of sources was sufficiently addressed under another program,
the Agency rated that source category as having ``low'' potential for
adverse water quality impact. Application of the second criterion
showed that some categories were likely to be adequately addressed by
other programs.
    After application of the third criterion, availability of
nationwide data on the various storm water discharge categories, EPA
concluded that available data would not support any such nationwide
designations. While such data could exist on a regional or local basis,
EPA believes that permitting authorities should have flexibility to
regulate only those categories of sources contributing to localized
water quality impairments.
    Therefore, today's proposal does not propose to designate any
additional industrial or commercial category of sources. Rather,
today's proposal would encourage control of storm water discharges from
Groups A and B through self-initiated, voluntary BMPs, unless the
discharge (or category of discharges) is individually or locally
designated as described in the following section. The necessary data to
support designation could be available on a local, regional, or
watershed basis and would allow the NPDES permitting authority to
designate a category of sources or individual sources on a case-by-case
basis. If sufficient nationwide data become available in the future,
EPA could at that time designate additional categories of industrial or
commercial sources on a national basis.
    EPA requests comment on the three-pronged analysis used to assess
the need to designate additional industrial or commercial sources and
invites suggestions regarding watershed-based designation. EPA also
requests information regarding any available

[[Page 1589]]

national or local data on the potential water quality impacts of other
currently unregulated point sources of storm water.
    Finally, storm water discharges from facilities exempted by the
Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act of 1991
(discharges from industrial activities other than power plants,
airports, and uncontrolled sanitary landfills that are owned or
operated by municipalities of less than 100,000 people) were also
identified as potential sources for designation under today's proposal.
These facilities discharge storm water in the same manner (and are
expected to use identical processes and materials) as the industrial
facilities regulated under the existing regulations. As such, these
facilities would pose similar water quality threats. The extended
moratorium for these facilities was necessary to allow municipalities
additional time to comply with NPDES requirements. EPA proposes to
maintain August 7, 2001, as the NPDES permit application deadline for
such municipally owned or operated facilities discharging industrial
storm water. General permits are available in States where EPA issues
permits and should already be available for such sources in most NPDES-
authorized States. Based on advice and recommendations of small entity
representatives, EPA also invites comment on whether permit
authorization for these discharges could be combined with permit
authorization for other discharges from the municipal separate storm
sewer system.
    Municipal representatives recommended to EPA that permit
requirements for municipally-owned or operated industrial facilities be
included in municipal storm water permits (this recommendation could be
extended to cover municipally-owned construction activities, as well).
As such, municipalities would be covered by a single permit, rather
than by two or more separate permits. The Agency agrees with the
recommendation and is considering options to implement it. One option
would be to include relevant industrial storm water controls in the
municipal storm water permits for the types of industrial facilities
typically owned or operated by municipalities. Another option would be
to cross-reference industrial storm water permit requirements in
municipal storm water permits. A third option would be to design an
additional minimum control measure for municipal storm water programs
that would address municipally-owned or operated industrial facilities.
The Agency seeks input on these options and suggestions as to any
additional options. The Agency also seeks comment on any implementation
issues associated with this recommended approach.
4. Residual Designation Authority
    The NPDES permitting authority's existing designation authority, as
well as the petition provisions would be retained. The proposed rule
contains two provisions related to designation authority at
Secs. 122.26(a)(9)(i)(C) and (D). Subsection (C) would add designation
authority where storm water controls are needed for the discharge based
upon wasteload allocations that are part of TMDLs that address the
pollutants of concern or upon a comprehensive watershed plan
implemented for the waterbody that includes the equivalents of TMDLs
and addresses the pollutants of concern. EPA intends that the NPDES
permitting authority would have discretion in the matter of
designations based on existing TMDLs under subsection (C) and would
invite comment on the implementation of existing TMDLs as the basis for
designation under today's proposed storm water program. Subsection (D)
would carry forward residual designation authority under Sec. 122.26(g)
of the existing regulations. Under today's proposal, EPA and authorized
States would continue to exercise the authority to designate remaining
unregulated discharges composed entirely of storm water for regulation
on a case-by-case basis (see proposed Secs. 122.26(b)(15) and 123.35).
The standard for designation would be the same as under the existing
NPDES regulations for storm water. Individual sources would be subject
to regulation if EPA or the State, as the case may be, determines that
the storm water discharge contributes to a violation of a water quality
standard or is a significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the
United States. This standard is based on the text of section 402(p). In
today's proposed rule, EPA believes, as Congress did in drafting
section 402(p)(2)(E), that individual instances of storm water
discharge might warrant special regulatory attention, but do not fall
neatly into a discrete, predetermined category. EPA does envision,
however, that preservation of such regulatory authority would be
necessary to subsequently address a source (or sources) of storm water
discharges of concern on a localized or regional basis. As States and
EPA implement TMDLs, for example, permitting authorities might need to
designate some of the point sources of storm water not subject to
regulation on categorical basis nationwide in order to assure progress
toward compliance with water quality standards in the watershed. EPA
intends that the TMDL-based waiver would be available prospectively,
applying to future construction sites. This raises an issue of how this
waiver provision could be applied to such sites.
    One of the industrial stakeholders on the Storm Water Phase II FACA
Subcommittee questioned the Agency's legal authority to provide for
such residual designation authority. The stakeholder argued that the
lapse of the October 1, 1994, permitting moratorium under section
402(p)(1) eliminated the significance of the section 402(p)(2)
exceptions to the moratorium, including the exception for discharges of
storm water determined to be contributing to a violation of a water
quality standard or a significant contributor of pollutants under
section 402(p)(2)(E). The stakeholder further argued that EPA's
authority to designate sources for regulation under section 402(p)(6)
is limited to storm water discharges other than those described under
section 402(p)(2). Because section 402(p)(2)(E) describes individually
designated discharges, the stakeholder concluded that regulations under
section 402(p)(6) cannot provide for post-promulgation designation of
individual sources. EPA disagrees.
    First, as explained previously, EPA anticipates that NPDES
permitting authorities may yet determine that individual unregulated
point sources of storm water discharges may require regulation on a
case-by-case basis. This conclusion is consistent with the Congress'
recognition of the potential need for such designation under the first
phase of storm water regulation as described in section 402(p)(2)(E).
Under section 402(p)(2)(E), Congress recognized the need for both EPA
and the State to retain authority to regulate unregulated point sources
of storm water under the NPDES permit program. Second, to the extent
that section 402(p)(6) requires designation of a ``category'' of
sources, EPA would designate such (as yet unidentified) sources as a
category that should be regulated to protect water quality. Though such
sources may exist and discharge today, if neither EPA nor the NPDES
permitting authority has designated the source for regulation under
section 402(p)(2)(E) to date, then section 402(p)(6) provides EPA with
authority to designate such sources.
    The Agency would make this designation of a category of ``not yet
identified'' sources in order to ensure that sources that should be
regulated based on local concerns could be

[[Page 1590]]

regulated even if data does not exist to support nationwide regulation
of such sources. EPA does not believe that the language in section
402(p) should be interpreted to preclude States from exercising
designation authority under this category after promulgation of a final
rule because any such designation (and subsequent regulation of
designated sources) would be within the ``scope'' of the NPDES program.
    EPA also believes that sources regulated pursuant to a State
designation would be part of (and regulated under) a Federally approved
State NPDES program, and thus subject to enforcement under CWA sections
309 and 505. Under existing NPDES State program regulations, State
programs that are ``greater in scope of coverage'' are not part of the
Federally-approved program. By contrast, any such State regulation of
sources in this ``reserved category'' would be within the scope of the
Federal program because today's proposal would recognize the need for
such post promulgation designations of unregulated point sources of
storm water. Such regulation would be ``more stringent'' than the
Federal program rather than ``greater in scope of coverage'' (40 CFR
123.1(h)).
    In addition, EPA does not interpret the congressional direction in
section 402(p)(6) to preclude regulation of point sources of storm
water that should be regulated to protect water quality. Under CWA
section 510, Congress expressly recognized and preserved the authority
of States to adopt and enforce more stringent regulation of point
sources, as well as any requirement respecting the control or abatement
of pollution. Section 510 applies, ``except as expressly provided'' in
the CWA. The CWA does expressly provide affirmative limitations on the
regulation of certain pollutant sources through the point source
control program in section 502(14), which excludes agricultural storm
water and return flows from irrigated agriculture from the definition
of point source, and section 402(l), which again limits applicability
of the section 402 permit program for return flows from irrigated
agriculture, as well as for storm water runoff from certain oil, gas,
and mining operations. EPA does not interpret section 402(p)(6) as an
express provision limiting the authority to designate point sources of
storm water for regulation on a case-by-case basis after the
promulgation of final regulations. Any source of storm water is
encouraged to assess its potential for storm water contamination and
take preventive measures against contamination. Such proactive actions
could result in the avoidance of future requirements.
    Finally, EPA evaluated the proposal under which owners or operators
of regulated small, medium, and large municipal separate storm sewer
systems would be responsible for controlling discharges from industrial
and other facilities into their systems in lieu of requiring NPDES
permit coverage for the individual facilities. EPA does not propose
this framework due to concerns with administrative and technical burden
on the municipalities, as well as concerns about such an
intergovernmental mandate. EPA does, however, request comments on this
approach.

J. Conditional Exemption for ``No Exposure'' of Industrial Activities
and Materials to Storm Water

1. Background
    As noted previously, the 9th Circuit remanded to EPA for further
rulemaking a portion of the definition of ``storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity'' that exempted the category of
industrial activity identified as ``light industry'' (NRDC v. EPA, 966
F.2d 1292, 1305 [9th Cir. 1992]). In addition to the rulemaking
conducted under section 402(p)(6) on August 7, 1995, today's proposal
also responds to that remand. In the 1990 storm water regulations, EPA
exempted facilities in the category from the requirement for an NPDES
permit if the industrial materials or activities were not ``exposed''
to storm water (see 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14) [introductory text]). The
Agency has reasoned that most of the activity at these types of
facilities takes place indoors and that emissions from stacks, use of
unhoused manufacturing equipment, outside material storage or disposal,
and generation of large amounts of dust or particles would be atypical
(55 FR 48008, November 16, 1990).
    The Ninth Circuit determined that the exemption was arbitrary and
capricious for two reasons (966 F.2d at 1305). First, the court found
that EPA had not established a record to support its assumption that
light industry that was not exposed to storm water was not ``associated
with industrial activity,'' particularly when other types of industrial
activity not exposed to storm water remained ``associated with
industrial activity.'' The court specifically found that ``[t]o exempt
these industries from the normal permitting process based on an
unsubstantiated assumption about this group of facilities is arbitrary
and capricious'' (966 F.2d at 1305). Second, the court concluded that
the exemption impermissibly ``altered the statutory scheme'' for
permitting because the exemption relied on the unverified judgement of
the light industrial facility operator to determine non-applicability
of the permit application requirements. In other words, the court was
critical that the operator would determine for itself that there was no
exposure and then simply not apply for a permit without any further
action. Without a basis for ensuring the effective operation of the
permitting scheme--either that facilities would self-report actual
exposure or that EPA would be required to inspect and monitor such
facilities--the court vacated and remanded the rule to EPA for further
rulemaking (966 F.2d at 1305).
    Under today's proposal, the Agency responds to both of the bases
for the court's remand. First, the exemption from permitting based on
``no exposure'' applies to all industrial categories listed in the
existing storm water regulations, regardless of the type of industry.
The court's opinion rejected EPA's distinction between light industry
and other industry, but it did not preclude an interpretation that
treats ``non-exposed'' industrial facilities in the same fashion.
Presuming that an industrial facility adequately precludes exposure of
industrial materials and activities to storm water, EPA proposes to
treat discharges from ``non-exposed'' industrial facilities in a manner
similar to the way Congress intended for discharges from administrative
buildings and parking lots; specifically, permits would not be required
on a categorical basis. To assure that discharges from industrial
facilities really are similar to discharges from administrative
buildings and parking lots, and to respond to the second basis for the
court's remand, EPA proposes that the permitting exemption be
conditional. The person responsible for a point source discharge from a
``no exposure'' industrial source must meet the conditions of the
exemption and provide a certification pursuant to 40 CFR 122.22 for
tracking and accountability purposes. EPA believes today's proposal,
therefore, is fully consistent with the direction provided by the
court.
    A major objective of the FACA Committee at the outset (August
1995), was to streamline and reinvent certain troublesome or
problematic aspects of the existing storm water permitting program. One
area identified was the mandatory applicability of the permitting
program to all industrial facilities, even those ``light'' industrial
activities that are of very low risk or of

[[Page 1591]]

no risk to storm water contamination. Such dischargers could have no
industrial sources of storm water contamination on the industrial plant
site, yet they are still required to acquire an NPDES storm water
permit and meet all permitting requirements. Examples of such
facilities would be a soap manufacturing plant (SIC Code 28) or
hazardous waste treatment and disposal facility, where all industrial
activities, even loading docks, are inside a building or under a roof.
    Committee members advised EPA that the existing storm water program
needed to be revised to allow such facilities to seek an exemption from
the NPDES storm water permitting requirements. Committee members agreed
that such an exemption should also provide a strong incentive for other
industrial facilities that might conduct some industrial activities
outdoors exposed to rainfall and runoff to move the activities under
cover or into buildings to prevent contamination of rainfall and storm
water runoff. The committee believed that such a no-exposure permit
exemption provision could be a valuable incentive for storm water
pollution prevention.
    Over approximately 2 years, the Phase I Improvement Work Group of
the FACA Committee developed and recommended to EPA the concept of a
no-exposure incentive provision, which EPA is proposing by making a
change to the existing storm water rules and adding a new storm water
rule provision, including a no-exposure certification process as
discussed below.
    EPA relied upon the no-exposure concept developed by the FACA
Committee in developing today's proposal regarding ``no exposure.'' EPA
proposes to incorporate the recommendations of the committee by
deleting the sentence regarding ``no exposure'' for the facilities in
Sec. 122.26(b)(14)(xi) and adding a new section--Sec. 122.26(g)
Conditional Exemption for No Exposure of Industrial Activities to Storm
Water. In accordance with the committee's recommendations, the proposed
no-exposure provision refers to all classes of industrial and other
facilities discharging storm water that would be defined under existing
Sec. 122.26(b)(14), except construction defined under existing
Sec. 122.26(b)(14)(x) and proposed Sec. 122.26(b)(15)(i) and sources
individually designated under Secs. 122.26(a)(1)(v),
122.26(a)(9)(i)(B),(C), & (D) and 122.26(g)(3). Thus, proposed
Sec. 122.26(g) would make all classes of industrial facilities eligible
for exemption from the identification as ``associated with industrial
activity'' under the existing regulations.
    Today's proposal represents a significant expansion in the scope of
the no-exposure provision originally promulgated in the 1990 rule for
only light industry. The intent of this proposal is to provide
industrial facilities that are entirely indoors a simplified method of
complying with the CWA. This could include facilities that are located
within a larger office building, or at which the only items permanently
exposed to precipitation are roofs, parking lots, vegetated areas, and
other non-industrial areas or activities.
    Although the FACA Committee agreed in principle to the basic
concept of this exemption, committee members could not resolve two
significant issues related to the actual implementation of the concept.
The first issue relates to how to account for storm water runoff from
parking lots, roof tops, lawns, and other non-industrial areas of an
industrial facility. These types of storm water discharges, which may
contain pollutants or which may result in excess storm water flows, are
not directly regulated under the existing storm water permitting
program because they are not ``storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity.''
    The second issue involves an industrial facility that achieves no
exposure by constructing large amounts of impervious surfaces, such as
roofs (where previously there were pervious or porous surfaces into
which storm water could infiltrate), which results in a significant
increase in storm water volume flowing off the industrial facility and
thus causes adverse receiving water impacts simply due to the increased
quantity of storm water flow. Although discussed extensively, the FACA
Committee was not able to reach a consensus recommendation on how to
fully address these two remaining issues.
    From the perspective of the environmental groups on the committee,
excessive storm water flows from an industrial site and pollutants from
non-industrial areas of the site are potentially a significant cause of
receiving water impairment and, as such, should not be allowed to occur
as a result of achieving no exposure and gaining an exemption from an
NPDES storm water permit. Environmental groups believe that storm water
discharges from impervious areas at an industrial facility are
generally more frequent, and many of them larger, than discharges from
the preexisting natural surfaces. These discharges will contain
pollutants typical of commercial areas, streets, and roads and are an
equal threat to direct human uses of the water and can cause equal
damage to aquatic life and its habitat. The environmental groups
believe that these storm water discharges should be permitted in the
same way that residential and commercial storm water discharges are
permitted and that, otherwise, these discharges--their volume alone
often destructive of aquatic life and habitat, and containing
conventional pollutants as well--would escape the control required
under the CWA.
    The industry representatives support streamlining the existing
storm water permitting program by exempting no-exposure facilities.
They believe that creating this exemption, however, does not create in
EPA the authority to regulate other activities not subject to the
existing storm water program. Industry representatives point out that
since 1990, the NPDES storm water permitting program has excluded
administrative buildings, parking lots, and other non-industrial areas
from permitting or other regulatory requirements. The industry
representatives also reserved the right to address the legal authority
provided by Congress to EPA to regulate the amount of storm water
discharged from these areas. Industry representatives believe that if
Congress or EPA addresses the issue of flow, it should be addressed on
a broader scale than merely through the no-exposure exemption.
    Municipal representatives believe that EPA has no authority under
any existing legal framework to regulate flow. Developing federal
parameters for the control of flow would result in federal intrusion
into land use planning, an authority that they claim is solely within
the purview of State government and their political subdivisions. Local
governments are aware of the impact that flows have on receiving waters
and, as has been well documented, take the appropriate steps to
ameliorate negative results within the context of locally developed and
agreed upon long-term land use plans. Under no circumstances will local
governments agree to share or cede this authority with or to federal
agencies or departments.
    Given the lack of consensus by the FACA Committee on these two
remaining key issues, EPA is soliciting public comment on potential
ways to address these issues, if possible, in the context of the
proposed no-exposure exemption.
    In an effort to address the second issue the FACA Committee
recommended that the no-exposure 5-year certification form (discussed
below) should be modified to add an additional question that asks the
facility operator to provide information

[[Page 1592]]

indicating if large amounts of impervious surfaces were created to
qualify for the no-exposure exemption. To respond to the question, a
series of four boxes would be checked by the facility operator
indicating approximately how much impervious area was created, if any,
to achieve no exposure. These boxes would be (1) none, (2) less than 1
acre, (3) 1 to 5 acres, and (4) more than 5 acres. This question would
provide additional information that would help the NPDES permitting
authority determine whether or not an NPDES storm water permit should
be required for the facility.
    In order to be covered under the no-exposure provision, EPA
proposes that an owner or operator of an otherwise regulated facility
would need to submit to the NPDES permitting authority the no exposure
form certifying that the facility meets the no-exposure requirements
(see Appendix 4 for the Draft No Exposure Certification Form). This
requirement would apply across all categories of industrial activity
covered by the existing program, except discharges associated with
construction activity, and would include those facilities currently in
Sec. 122.26(b)(14)(xi) (''light industry'') that are not permitted
based upon a claim of ``no exposure.'' The category (xi) ``light''
industrial facilities that claim to have no exposure of materials to
storm water are not required under the existing regulations to submit
any type of form to the permitting authority, but would need to submit
a certification under today's proposal. The facility would need to
allow the NPDES permitting authority or operator of a municipal
separate storm sewer system (where there is a storm water discharge to
the municipal system) to inspect the facility and to make such
inspection reports publicly available, upon request. In addition, based
on committee recommendations, EPA proposes that the certification would
require only minimal amounts of information from the facility claiming
the no-exposure exemption. The NPDES permitting authority would
maintain a simple registration list that should impose minimal
administrative burden, but that would allow for tracking of industrial
facilities claiming the exemption.
    EPA envisions the NPDES storm water program to be implemented
primarily through general permits and the no exposure certification to
be submitted at the ``beginning'' of each permit term. However, EPA
invites comment on situations that may affect the timing of submission
of the no exposure certification, for example, in cases where a
facility's process water and storm water are covered under an
individual permit.
2. Definition of ``No Exposure''
    For purposes of this section, ``no exposure'' would mean that all
industrial materials or activities are protected by storm resistant
sheltering so that they are not exposed to rain, snow, snowmelt, or
runoff. Industrial materials or activities would refer to those
activities or materials described under Sec. 122.26(b)(14) (e.g.,
material handling equipment, industrial machinery, raw materials,
intermediate products, byproducts, or industrial waste products,
however packaged). Barrels, drums, dumpsters, and other packaging
containing industrial wastes are inherently prone to leak and therefore
could be a source of exposure, thereby precluding the facility from
qualifying for the exemption.
    The FACA Committee held lengthy discussions on the definition of no
exposure pertaining to barrels, drums, dumpsters, and other packaging
containers. The committee could not agree on whether barrels, drums,
dumpsters, and other packaging containers that are outdoors should
trigger the disqualification of an industrial facility from the no-
exposure exemption. One perspective expressed was that any such
containers that are stored outdoors should constitute exposure and the
need for a permit, whether or not they are leaking. The opposing
perspective was that containers should be allowed to be stored outdoors
and not be considered exposure as long as they were not actually
leaking. The committee also discussed the concept of ``potential to
leak'' as a trigger for exposure, but could not agree on this approach.
Therefore, EPA is soliciting public comment on this issue and the
approach proposed in today's rule.
    The term ``storm resistant shelter'' is intended to include
completely roofed and walled buildings or structures, as well as
structures with only a top cover but no side coverings, provided
material under the structure is not otherwise subject to any run-on and
subsequent runoff of storm water. For purposes of this provision,
emissions from roof stacks/vents that are regulated and in compliance
under other environmental protection programs and that do not cause
storm water contamination would be considered not exposed. EPA requests
comment on the scope of roof stacks/vents that would be covered by this
provision. EPA welcomes, in particular, any suggestions as to ways in
which this provision might be narrowed so as to focus on significant
stack emissions that could result in identifiable levels of storm water
contamination. Visible ``track out'' (i.e., pollutants carried on the
tires of vehicles) or windblown raw materials would be deemed
``exposed.'' Leaking pipes containing contaminants exposed to storm
water would be deemed ``exposed,'' as would past sources of storm water
contamination that remain onsite. General refuse and trash, not of an
industrial nature, would not be considered exposed industrial
materials.
    While the intent of this provision is to promote permanent no
exposure, EPA understands that certain machinery, such as trucks, could
pass between buildings and, during passage, would be exposed to rain
and snow. Adequately maintained mobile equipment (e.g., trucks,
automobiles, trailers, or other such general purpose vehicles found at
the industrial site that are not industrial machinery or material
handling equipment and that are not leaking contaminants or are not
otherwise a source of industrial pollutants) could be exposed to
precipitation or runoff. Such activities alone would not prevent a
facility from being able to certify no exposure under this provision.
Similarly, trucks or other vehicles located at vehicle maintenance
facilities awaiting maintenance, as defined at 40 CFR
122.26(b)(14)(viii), that are not leaking contaminants or are not
otherwise a source of industrial pollutants, would not be considered
exposed.
    In addition, EPA recognizes that other instances could occur where
permanent no exposure of industrial activities or materials is not
possible and, therefore, is proposing that under such conditions,
materials and activities be covered with temporary covers, such as
tarps, between periods of permanent enclosure. This proposal would not
specify every such situation, instead EPA intends that permitting
authorities would address this issue on a case-by-case basis.
Permitting authorities could determine the circumstances under which
temporary structures would or would not meet the requirements of this
section. Until permitting authorities determined otherwise, temporary
coverage of industrial materials or activities would be allowable under
this section during facility renovation or construction, provided the
temporary cover achieved the intent of this section. Moreover, exposure
that results from a leak in protective covering would only be
considered exposure if not corrected prior to the next storm water
discharge event.
    While the intent of this proposal would be to reduce the regulatory

[[Page 1593]]

burdens on industrial facilities and government agencies, the FACA
Committee suggested that the NPDES permitting authority should consider
a compliance assessment program to ensure that facilities that have
availed themselves of this no-exposure option meet the applicable
requirements. Inspections would be conducted at the discretion of the
NPDES permitting authority and would likely be coordinated with other
facility inspections. EPA expects, however, that the permitting
authority would conduct inspections when it became aware of potential
water quality impacts possibly caused by the facility's storm water
discharges or when requested to do so by affected members of the
public. The intent of this provision would be that the 5-year no-
exposure certification be fully available to, and enforceable by,
appropriate federal and State authorities under the CWA. Private
citizens could enforce against facilities for discharges of storm water
that are inconsistent with a no-exposure certification if storm water
discharges from such facilities are not otherwise permitted.
    The FACA Committee recommended that the certifying party not allow
any actions taken to qualify for this provision to result in a net
environmental detriment. The phrase ``no net environmental detriment,''
however, seemed too imprecise a phrase to use within this context.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to implement this recommendation by
requiring that actions taken to qualify for this provision shall not
interfere with the attainment or maintenance of water quality
standards, including designated uses. Permitting authorities would be
able, where necessary, to make a determination by evaluating the
activities changed at the industrial site to achieve no exposure and
assess whether these changes adversely impact, or have the potential to
impact, water quality standards, including designated uses. EPA
anticipates that most efforts to achieve no exposure would employ
simple good housekeeping and contaminant cleanup activities. Other
efforts could involve moving materials and industrial activities
indoors into existing buildings or structures.
    In very limited cases, industrial operators could make major
changes at a site to achieve no exposure. These efforts could include
constructing a new building or cover to eliminate exposure or
constructing structures to prevent run-on and storm water contact with
industrial materials or activities. Where major changes were undertaken
to achieve no exposure that increase the impervious area of the site,
the facility operator would need to provide information on this in the
certification form discussed above. Using this information, and other
available data and information, permitting authorities should be able
to assess whether any major change has resulted in increased pollutant
concentrations or loadings, toxicity of the storm water runoff, or a
change in natural hydrological patterns that would interfere with the
attainment and maintenance of water quality standards, including
designated uses or appropriate narrative, chemical, biological, or
habitat criteria where such State water quality standards exist. In
these instances, the facility operator and their NPDES permitting
authority should take appropriate actions to ensure that attainment or
maintenance of water quality standards can be achieved. The NPDES
permitting authority could determine the need for the facility to
obtain coverage under an individual permit or a general permit to
ensure that appropriate actions are taken to address water quality
impacts.
    Another issue that the FACA Committee discussed but was unable to
reach consensus on was whether or not the facility operator should bear
the burden of determining whether the activities undertaken to achieve
no exposure impact, or have the potential to impact, water quality
standards, or whether the NPDES permitting authority should be
responsible for making that determination. Some members of the FACA
Committee indicated that facility operators are not sufficiently
trained to conduct water quality impact assessments, nor privy to the
necessary information, and, therefore, would not be able to make these
determinations. Similarly, these members highlighted that under the
existing NPDES permitting program, the NPDES permitting authority
appears to have this responsibility (see 40 CFR 122.44(d)). Other
committee members explained that only the facility operator would know
exactly what changes were made at the industrial site to achieve no
exposure and, therefore, should make the determination. Other committee
members were concerned that these determinations would place an
extensive burden on permitting authorities. In today's proposed rule,
the NPDES permitting authority would have the primary responsibility
for determining potential or actual water quality impacts; however,
this determination would be based upon specific information that the
operator would be required to provide. Given the differing opinions
expressed by committee members regarding this provision, EPA is also
inviting public comment on this aspect of the no exposure incentive.
    EPA envisions that general permits would be used to implement the
program and that the owner or operator would submit a written
certification to the permitting authority once every 5 years at the
``beginning'' of the permit term or prior to commencing discharges
during a permit term. Upon request, the owner or operator would also
need to submit a copy of the certification to the municipality in which
the facility is located. EPA invites comment on situations that may
affect the timing of submission of the certification. For example, some
States are transitioning toward ``specific'' general permits (industry
or watershed-based), and to the extent possible, to individual
permits--making it likely that more than one general permit may be
applicable to a given facility and raising an issue as to when to
submit a ``no exposure'' certification.
    Once a facility operator has established that the facility meets
the definition of no exposure, it would be imperative that the operator
of the facility maintains the no-exposure condition. Failure to do so
would result in the unauthorized discharge of pollutants to waters of
the United States, which could result in penalties under the CWA. Where
a facility operator determines that exposure would occur in the future
due to some anticipated change at the facility, the operator would need
to submit an application and acquire storm water permit coverage prior
to such discharge to avoid such penalties.
3. Options Considered
    In the course of the ``no-exposure dialogue,'' the FACA Committee
considered a number of options for implementing the no-exposure
provision, including regulating qualifying industrial facilities by (1)
an NPDES general permit for no-exposure facilities, (2) a no-exposure
permit by rule, (3) a modification of the definition of ``storm water
associated with industrial activity'' such that industrial facilities
without exposure could instead be covered under the requirements of a
new or different storm water program, and (4) a watershed approach to
no exposure. The FACA Committee did not fully support any of these
options.
    Some committee members thought that options 1 and 2 provided little
incentive to achieve no exposure. However, Option 1 was considered the
most enforceable, and Option 2 was

[[Page 1594]]

considered to have the advantage of enforceability and potential for
reduced administrative burden.
    Under Option 3, the definition of ``discharge associated with
industrial activity'' at Sec. 122.26(b)(14) would be modified such that
facilities with no exposure could lose their status as ``storm water
discharges associated with industrial activity'' under the existing
regulations. Rather, these facilities would become storm water
dischargers under today's proposed rule and would be required to do
whatever the final section 402(p)(6) regulation required. This option
would not track, however, the proposed requirements of today's rule
because the rule would not impose any requirements on undesignated
sources. EPA anticipates that permitted sources would be expected to
comply with requirements similar to those for industrial facilities
permitted under the existing storm water program. Option 4 had
virtually no support.

K. Public Involvement/Public Role

    The Phase II Subcommittee discussed the appropriate role of the
public in successful implementation of a municipal storm water program.
The Subcommittee generally agreed that a successful municipal storm
water program requires an educated and actively involved public.
Although efforts to educate and involve the public consume limited
staff and financial resources, the benefits are numerous. An educated
public increases program compliance from residents and businesses as
they realize their individual and collective responsibility for
protecting water resources. For instance, an educated and motivated
public could reduce pollutant loadings by limiting the use of garden
chemicals. Moreover, an educated public is more likely to understand
the environmental benefits of a municipal storm water program and,
therefore, may be more willing to fund such a program. The program is
also more likely to receive public support and participation when the
public is actively involved from the program's inception and allowed to
participate in the decisionmaking process. In a time of limited staff
and financial resources, public volunteers offer diverse backgrounds
and expertise that may be used to plan, develop, and implement a
program that is tailored to local needs. The public's participation is
also useful in the areas of information dissemination/education and
reporting of violators, where large numbers of community members can be
more effective than a few regulators. The public may undertake several
roles in the municipal storm water program to help ensure a beneficial
and workable program for all involved. The public is encouraged to
contact the NPDES permitting authority or local municipal separate
storm sewer operator for information on the municipal storm water
program and ways to participate. Such information may also be available
from local environmental or other public advocacy groups.
    EPA is inviting comment regarding the appropriate role of the
public in a municipal storm water program, and the best approach that
EPA can take in the final regulation to provide appropriate recognition
of this role and involvement. The advantages of active public
involvement include reduced pollutant loadings, increased program
support, and vigilant protection of waterbodies. Some examples of such
involvement follow. First of all, the public may be subject to local
storm water program requirements, guidelines, and financial costs. For
example, the public could be subject to a local ordinance that
prohibits dumping used oil down storm sewers. In addition, members of
the public might choose to participate as actively involved partners in
program planning, development, and implementation (e.g., participate in
public meetings and other opportunities for input, perform lawful
volunteer monitoring, assist in program coordination with other
preexisting and related programs, report suspected violators to the
municipal, State, or Tribal authorities), aid in the development and
distribution of educational materials, and provide public training
activities. In addition, the public could protect waterbodies by taking
civil action under section 505 of the CWA against any person who is
alleged to be in violation of an effluent standard or permit condition.
In such situations, members of the public would be strongly encouraged,
however, to resolve any disagreements or concerns directly with the
parties involved, either informally or through any available
alternative dispute resolution process.
    The public could also petition the NPDES permitting authority to
require an NPDES permit for a discharge composed entirely of storm
water that contributes to a violation of a water quality standard or is
a significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the United States.
In evaluating such a petition, the NPDES permitting authority would be
encouraged to consider the set of designation criteria developed for
the evaluation of the small municipal separate storm sewer systems
located outside of an urbanized area in places with a population of at
least 10,000 and a population density of 1,000 or more. The NPDES
permitting authority must make a final determination within 180 days of
receiving a petition.
    Public involvement and participation pose challenges, however. It
requires a substantial initial investment of staff and financial
resources, which could be very limited. Even with this investment, the
public might not be interested in participating. In addition, public
participation could slow down the decisionmaking process. Nevertheless,
EPA believes the public is vital to the long-term success of the
municipal storm water program and strongly encourages public
involvement and participation.
    In response to comments from the Storm Water Phase II FACA
Subcommittee, EPA believes it is important for the public to seek
administrative remedies before filing civil suit under section 505 of
the CWA. EPA also received comments stressing the need to suggest to
the public that they have a responsibility to fund the municipal storm
water program. While EPA believes it is important that the program be
adequately funded, as a federal agency it cannot take a position on the
appropriate mechanism or level for such funding.

L. Water Quality Issues

    The CWA combines a technology-based approach with a water quality-
based approach to ``restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation's waters . . . .'' EPA and most
States issue NPDES permits to point source discharges of pollutants to
meet the technology-based and water quality-based requirements of the
act. Technology-based requirements are the minimum level of control and
are generally applicable nationwide. When the technology-based controls
are not sufficient for the waterbody to support the water quality
standards that States or Tribes adopted for their waters, the CWA
requires development of more stringent permit limits and control
programs to ensure compliance with water quality standards.
1. Water Quality Standards
    Water quality standards are the cornerstone of a State's or Tribe's
water quality management program. States and Tribes adopt water quality
standards for waters within their jurisdictions. Water quality
standards define a use for a waterbody and describe the specific water
quality criteria to achieve that use. Examples of designated uses are
recreation and protection of aquatic life. Water quality criteria can
include chemical, physical,

[[Page 1595]]

or biological parameters, expressed as either numeric limits or
narrative statements. The water quality standards also contain
antidegradation policies to protect existing uses and high quality
water. The antidegradation policy ensures that water quality
improvements are conserved, maintained, and protected. States and
Tribes review their water quality standards every 3 years and, if
appropriate, revise them. Water quality standards provide the goals for
the waterbody, serve as the regulatory basis of water quality
management programs, and are benchmarks by which success is ultimately
gauged for a given waterbody or watershed.
    EPA recognizes that urban runoff is not the only contributor of
pollutants and other stressors to urban waterways. Controls on urban
runoff, however, represent an opportunity to prevent or capture a
significant portion of the pollutants that are causing or contributing
to violations of water quality standards, including impairment of
designated uses. Storm Water Phase II FACA Subcommittee municipal
representatives expressed concern that municipalities not be liable for
loadings attributable to other sources. Today's proposal contains
provisions that establish a BMP-based program with measurable goals
that must meet the standard of MEP and protect water quality. In the
first two to three rounds of storm water permits, EPA envisions that
this would be the extent of the municipal requirements for a large
majority of regulated entities. If additional specific measures to
protect water quality were imposed, they would likely be the result of
an assessment based on TMDLs, or the equivalent of TMDLs, where the
proper allocations would be made to all contributing sources. EPA
believes that the municipality's additional requirements, if any,
should be guided by its equitable share based on a variety of
considerations, such as cost effectiveness, proportionate contribution
of pollutants, and ability to reasonably assume wasteload reductions.
a. Permitting Policy
    As a result of today's proposed regulation, NPDES general permits
that would be issued to owners or operators of regulated small
municipal separate storm sewer systems, as well as storm water
discharges associated with other activity, will be the primary
mechanism used to implement these requirements. As is the case in the
issuance of any NPDES permit, the permitting authority would use its
NPDES program requirements, including 40 CFR 122.44 in establishing
appropriate permit terms. EPA intends to issue NPDES permits consistent
with the August 1, 1996, Interim Permitting Approach guidance (61 FR
43761, November 6, 1996.) This guidance describes the interim
permitting approach as follows:

    In response to recent questions regarding the type of water
quality-based effluent limitations that are most appropriate for
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water
permits, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is adopting an
interim permitting approach for regulating wet weather storm water
discharges. Due to the nature of storm water discharges, and the
typical lack of information on which to base numeric water quality-
based effluent limitations (expressed as concentration and mass),
EPA will use an interim permitting approach for NPDES storm water
permits.
    The interim permitting approach uses best management practices
(BMPs) in first-round storm water permits, and expanded or better-
tailored BMPs in subsequent permits, where necessary, to provide for
the attainment of water quality standards. In cases where adequate
information exists to develop more specific conditions or
limitations to meet water quality standards, these conditions or
limitations are to be incorporated into storm water permits, as
necessary and appropriate. This interim permitting approach is not
intended to affect those storm water permits that already include
appropriately derived numeric water quality-based effluent
limitations. Since the interim permitting approach only addresses
water quality-based effluent limitations, it also does not affect
technology-based effluent limitations, such as those based on
effluent limitations guidelines or developed using best professional
judgment, that are incorporated into storm water permits.
    Each storm water permit should include a coordinated and cost-
effective monitoring program to gather necessary information to
determine the extent to which the permit provides for attainment of
applicable water quality standards and to determine the appropriate
conditions or limitations of subsequent permits. Such a monitoring
program may include ambient monitoring, receiving water assessment,
discharge monitoring (as needed), or a combination of monitoring
procedures designed to gather necessary information.
    This interim permitting approach applies only to EPA; however,
EPA also encourages authorized States and Tribes to adopt similar
policies for storm water permits. This interim permitting approach
provides time, where necessary, to more fully assess the range of
issues and possible options for the control of storm water
discharges for the protection of water quality. This interim
permitting approach may be modified as a result of the ongoing Urban
Wet Weather Flows Federal Advisory Committee policy dialogue on this
subject.

EPA would encourage authorized States and Tribes to adopt policies
similar to the Interim Permitting Approach when developing its storm
water program. For a discussion of appropriate monitoring activities,
see Section II.L.4. below.
2. Total Maximum Daily Loads
    A TMDL analysis includes the determination of the relative
contributions of pollutants from point, nonpoint, and natural
background sources, including a margin of safety of pollutants that can
be discharged to a water quality-limited waterbody to meet water
quality standards. More specifically, an allowable TMDL is defined as
the sum of the individual wasteload allocations for existing and future
point sources (including storm water) and load allocations for existing
and future nonpoint sources (including diffuse runoff and agricultural
storm water) and natural background materials with a margin of safety
incorporated to account for uncertainty in the analysis. TMDLs are
required in the CWA section 303(d)(1) for waters that will not achieve
water quality standards after implementation of technology-based
controls. These provisions have been codified in 40 CFR 130.7.
    The Part 130 regulations were designed to implement CWA sections
106, 205(g), 205(j), 208, 303, and 305, which address ambient water
quality monitoring and planning for implementation, including funding
and periodic reporting of ambient water quality for the development of
a national inventory. Section 130.5 describes a continuing water
quality planning process designed to implement CWA section 303(e). Of
particular significance for an alternative State storm water management
program described above are the provisions of Sec. 130.6, which
describes water quality management planning under sections 208 and 303.
The water quality management regulations specify some of the elements
of water quality management, including provisions for point and
nonpoint source management and control. The nonpoint source management
elements include, for example, regulatory and nonregulatory programs,
activities, and BMPs for a variety of sources, including urban storm
water (see 40 CFR 130.6(c)(4)(iii)(G)). State representatives have
suggested that requirements for State storm water management under
section 402(p)(6) could derive from, and be developed through, these
water quality management provisions of Part 130. EPA is not proposing
any amendments to the Part 130 regulations at this time, but is
inviting comment on how the existing Part 130 regulations could be used
to support the proposed

[[Page 1596]]

State alternative program described in this proposal.
    TMDL analyses include estimates of loadings from storm water
discharges. Load reductions obtained through the implementation of BMPs
required in the NPDES program for storm water should be reflected in
the TMDL analysis. Through the TMDL analysis, the relative contribution
of storm water discharges within a watershed will be determined.
    EPA has formed a Federal Advisory Committee to provide advice to
EPA on identifying water quality-limited waterbodies, establishing
TMDLs for them as appropriate, and developing appropriate watershed
protection programs for these impaired waters in accordance with
section 303(d). The committee operates under the auspices of the
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology
(NACEPT).
3. Anti-Backsliding
    In general, the term ``anti-backsliding'' refers to statutory and
regulatory provisions at CWA sections 303(d)(4) and 402(o) and 40 CFR
122.44(l) that prohibit the renewal, reissuance, or modification of an
existing NPDES permit to contain effluent limits, permit terms,
limitations and conditions, or standards that are less stringent than
those established in the previous permit. There are, however,
exceptions to this prohibition (known as ``antibacksliding
exceptions''), which are also presented in sections 303(d)(4), 402(o)
and 40 CFR 122.44(l).
    The issue of backsliding from prior permit limits, standards, or
conditions is not expected to initially apply to most storm water
dischargers designated under today's proposal because they generally
have not been previously authorized by an NPDES permit. However, the
backsliding prohibition would apply if a storm water discharge was
previously covered under another NPDES permit. Also, the
antibacksliding prohibition could apply when an NPDES storm water
permit is reissued, renewed, or modified. In most cases, however, EPA
does not believe that these provisions would restrict revisions to
storm water NPDES permits.
4. Monitoring
    EPA encourages States to provide a multiyear monitoring strategy in
their CWA section 106 grant application to provide the framework for
State/EPA agreement on the States' annual work plans. The strategy
should include both ambient and program-specific monitoring activities
for nonpoint sources, lakes, estuaries, wetlands, and wet weather
surveys. States should also include monitoring for NPDES, TMDL, and
section 305(b) activities. Finally, the State should describe how these
activities were integrated to provide all information necessary to
support the State water quality management programs. Specific elements
recommended for State monitoring program work plans include
identification of indicators to be used to measure progress toward
goals and reference conditions for baselines; identification of methods
used; identification of water quality problems; sampling and laboratory
analytical support with a field manual and quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) plans; provisions for data storage, management, and
sharing; training and support for all involved persons, including
volunteer reporting through the section 305(b) process; and annual
program evaluation.
    As part of EPA's efforts to further implementation of urban wet
weather programs using a watershed approach, the Agency is working to
develop a practical approach to monitoring that would provide
meaningful results. Under today's approach, assessment, evaluation, and
recordkeeping requirements beyond those required by the NPDES
regulations would be left to the discretion of the NPDES permitting
authority. The NPDES permitting authority (EPA or the authorized State
or Tribe) would determine monitoring requirements in accordance with
State or Tribe monitoring plans appropriate to the watershed. For
purposes of today's proposal, EPA recommends that, in general, small
municipalities not be required to conduct in the first permit term any
additional monitoring beyond any they may be already performing. In the
second and subsequent permit terms, EPA expects that some limited
ambient monitoring might be appropriately required for perhaps half of
the regulated small municipal separate storm sewer systems. However,
EPA encourages participation in monitoring programs appropriate to
watershed protection. The permitting authority may wish to consult the
recommendations made in the report prepared by the Intergovernmental
Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM). For further discussion
regarding monitoring activities and the ITFM report, see Section
II.H.3.c, Evaluation and Assessment.
    EPA and the FACA Committee have developed a paper entitled
``Watershed Assessment: A Critical Tool for Stakeholders'' (November 7,
1997) which is intended to supplement a draft watershed-based policy
statement entitled ``A Watershed Alternative.'' The policy approach
described in the Watershed Alternative would promote a watershed-based
assessment as an essential element of watershed-based programs for
protecting water quality. The Watershed Assessment paper amplifies this
element, describing varying levels of resources and stakeholder needs
for developing watershed assessment plans. It also acknowledges the
importance of designing each assessment plan to address specific
stakeholder interests. The paper states that each plan should include
unique assessment goals and objectives, selected baseline, sampling
methods, procedures for analysis, record keeping and reporting, and
schedules for periodic evaluation. Additionally, the paper sets out the
various roles and responsibilities of stakeholders. Also, it contains
an expansive bibliography that gives resource managers suggested
references to aid them in carrying out each stage of the watershed
assessment plan.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. EPA
prepared an Information Collection Request (ICR) document (ICR
No.1820.01), a copy of which may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE
Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(2137); 401 M Street, S.W.; Washington, D.C. 20460, or by calling (202)
260-2740.
    Information collection requirements under this proposed rule would
include requirements to submit an NPDES permit application or notice
for coverage under an NPDES general permit, as well as to comply with
applicable recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Under the proposed
rule, certain construction sites under 5 acres and small regulated
municipal separate storm sewer systems would be required to retain
records of data used to complete their NPDES permit applications or
NOIs. In addition, small regulated municipal separate storm sewer
systems would be required to submit annual reports in the first permit
term and reports in years 2 and 4 in subsequent permit terms.
    Under the proposed rule, the owners or operators of regulated small
municipal separate storm sewer systems would be required to submit
reports containing information which the permitting authority could use
to assess

[[Page 1597]]

the effectiveness of individual storm water programs. This information
could be further used at the time of permit renewal to ensure that
appropriate measures would be taken by the owner or operator to revise
its storm water program as needed. Information that might be contained
in the reports includes monitoring data, and a self-assessment of
progress toward pollutant reduction or programmatic goals which were
established as permit conditions. Compliance with the applicable
information collection requirements imposed under this proposed rule
would be mandatory, pursuant to section 402.
    Exhibit 3 presents annual and average total burden and cost
estimates for Phase II respondents (for 3 years under the Paperwork
Reduction Act). Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust existing ways for complying with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.

              Exhibit 3.--Annual and Average Annual Total Burden Estimates for Phase II Respondents
                                 [For 3 years under the Paperwork Reduction Act]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Estimated
                                                        Projected   burden hours     Projected       Projected
                       Activity                        respondents       per       annual burden    annual cost
                                                         per year    respondent      (Hrs)\1\         ($)\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Construction Sources:
    Notice of Intent.................................       95,889           1.0          95,889      $2,876,670
    Development of SWPPPs............................       95,889          14.6       1,399,979      47,361,303
    Individual Application...........................            0           9.1               0               0
    Recordkeeping....................................       95,889           0.1           9,589         211,243
    Notice of Termination............................       95,889           0.5          47,945         765,674
                                                      ----------------------------------------------------------
        Annual Subtotal..............................  ...........  ............       1,554,361      51,214,890
II. Small Regulated Municipalities:
    Notice of Intent.................................        4,154          40           166,160       4,341,761
    Individual Application...........................            0          88.2               0               0
    Co-Applicant Application.........................            0         146                 0               0
    Retention of Records.............................        4,154           1             4,154         108,544
    Annual Report Preparation and Submittal..........        4,154          21            87,234       2,279,424
                                                      ----------------------------------------------------------
        Year 1 Subtotal..............................  ...........  ............         257,548       6,729,729
                                                      ----------------------------------------------------------
        Years 2 and 3 Annual Subtotal (i.e., not
         including applications)\2\..................  ...........  ............          91,388       2,387,968
                                                      ----------------------------------------------------------
        Average Annual Burden and Cost\3\............  ...........  ............         146,775       3,835,222
                                                      ==========================================================
        Average Annual Program Total\4\..............  ...........  ............       1,701,135      55,050,112
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Totals may not add because of rounding.
\2\ Retention of Records (4,154) + Annual Report Preparation and Submittal (87,234) = Years 2 and 3 Annual
  Subtotal (91,388).
\3\ Average annual cost for the municipal component of the program is calculated by taking the year 1 subtotal
  (i.e., applications plus retention of records and annual report preparation and submittal; $6,729,729) plus
  the average total for each of the years 2 and 3 (recordkeeping plus annual report preparation and submittal,
  i.e., 2 x $2,387,968), which equals $11,505,665. This is divided by 3 (the number of years the ICR is valid)
  to equal $3,835,222.
\4\ Burden total calculated as the sum of the construction source annual subtotal plus the municipal average
  annual burden. Cost total calculated as the sum of the construction source annual subtotal and the municipal
  average annual cost.

    Given the requirements of today's proposed regulation, there would
be no capital and no operations and maintenance costs associated with
information collection requirements of the rule. Similarly, there would
be no capital/startup or operating and maintenance costs associated
with the information collection requirements of the rule.
    The government burden associated with the proposed extension of the
existing storm water program would impact State, Tribal, and
Territorial governments (NPDES-authorized governmental entities) that
have storm water program authority, as well as the Federal government
(i.e., EPA), where it is acting as the NPDES permitting authority in
States, Tribes, and Territories that are not authorized to administer
the NPDES program. As of May 1997, 42 States and the Virgin Islands had
NPDES authority. EPA estimates that 96,962 construction starts and
3,749 small municipal separate storm sewer systems would be regulated
within authorized governmental entities. EPA estimates that 18,815
construction starts and 405 small municipal separate storm sewer
systems would be regulated in non-authorized States, Tribes, and
Territories.
    The estimated burden that would be imposed upon authorized
governmental entities and the Federal government is estimated to be
241,282 hours for authorized States and 38,933 for the Federal
government, for a total of 280,215. This estimate is based on the
average time that governments would expend to carry out the following
activities: review, respond to, and enter a construction NOI into a
data base (1 hour); review and enter a Notice of Termination (NOT) into
a data base (0.5 hours); process permit applications from owners or
operators of regulated small municipal separate storm sewer systems
using the NOI (4 hours); issue permits to regulated small municipal
separate storm sewer systems (160 hours); and review annual reports
submitted by

[[Page 1598]]

regulated small municipal separate storm sewer systems (30 hours).
    Today's proposed rule also would include a conditional exemption
from the existing storm water permit application requirements for
industrial facilities that can certify that their industrial materials
or activities have no exposure to storm water. This exemption would be
conditioned upon the owner or operator certifying that their facility
meets the no exposure requirements. Because the information collection
burden associated with this certification, as well as the reduced
information collection requirements associated with becoming exempt
from the existing storm water permit regulations, are being developed
at this time but are most appropriately considered as part of the
existing storm water regulations, the incremental change in information
collection burden associated with the no exposure requirements has been
estimated in a separate section of the economic analysis accompanying
today's proposed storm water rule.
    The proposed no exposure provision would expand the applicability
of the ``no exposure'' exemption to more industrial entities than
currently contemplated. Under the existing rule, permit application
requirements are reserved for storm water discharges associated with
light industrial materials and activities identified under
Sec. 122.26(b)(14)(xi) if those materials and activities have no
exposure to storm water. Today's proposed rule would expand the
applicability of the ``no exposure'' exemption to include all
industrial activity regulated under Sec. 122.26(b)(14) (except category
(x), construction). The proposed no exposure provision would be applied
through the use of a written certification process, thus representing a
slight burden increase for ``light'' industries with no exposure. There
would be both new costs and cost savings. The new costs would relate to
the certification requirement and State and Federal implementation
costs. The new cost savings would be based on relief from all existing
compliance requirements for those industrial facilities that qualify.
The net impact of the proposed no exposure provision for regulated
industrial facilities would be an annual net savings ranging from $89
million to $2,499 million. The total cost to Federal and State
governments would range from $0.6 to $1.1 million annually.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
    Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information,
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of
automated collection techniques. Comments are specifically requested on
the potential to shorten the recordkeeping period for construction
activity less than 5 acres to less than the proposed 3 years. Send
comments on the ICR to ``ATTN: Storm Water Proposed Rule ICR Comment
Clerk--W-97-15, Water Docket, Mail Code 4101, EPA; 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, D.C. 20460'' and to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street,
NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.''
Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Because OMB is required
to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after
January 9, 1998, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full
effect if OMB receives it by February 9, 1998. The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.

IV. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993: Regulatory
Planning and Review, (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) the Agency must
determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the executive
order. The order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that
is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action''
because it could have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million
or more. As such, this action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes
made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be
documented in the public record.
    EPA developed detailed cost estimates for the incremental
requirements imposed under today's proposed regulation and the
regulatory options considered and applied these estimates to the
potentially regulated universe of storm water sources designated under
today's proposal. These estimates, including descriptions of the
methodology and assumptions used, are described in detail in the
Economic Analysis of the Storm Water Phase II Proposed Rule, which is
included in the record of this rulemaking. Exhibit 4 summarizes the
low-high cost range associated with the basic elements of the proposed
rule.

                                               Exhibit 4.--Comparison of Annual Compliance Cost Estimates
                                                               [Millions of 1997 Dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  No
                                                              regulation     August 7,                     September 30,    February 13,  Proposed phase
                                                             of phase II    1995, final       Plan B        1996 draft      1997 draft        II rule
                                                               sources         rule                        proposed rule   proposed rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction...............................................           $0  $278-$976       $261-$914       $177-$683       $115-$476       $115-$476
Municipal..................................................            0  701-3,085       388-2,236        23-393          23-393          23-393
Industrial.................................................            0  1,218-74,824          0         46-2,632        46-2,632              0
                                                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Cost.............................................            0  2,197-78,885    649-3,150       246-3,708       184-3,501       138-869
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1599]]

    In interpreting these costs, a number of caveats should be born in
mind. The primary component of the municipal costs is the
implementation of the six minimum measures. These were estimated from a
sample of 21 permit applications for Phase I municipalities. Cost
categories from these applications corresponding to the six required
Phase II minimum measures were identified and used to calculate, for
each measure, the percent of municipalities that would incur costs for
that measure, and for those that would, a range of per capita costs.
Municipalities that did not show costs for a particular measure on
their permit application were assumed to already have programs in place
to comply with that measure, and thus incur no additional costs. Also,
per capita costs that were more than two standard deviations above or
one standard deviation below the mean were dropped because they were
not representative of most cities. This evaluation was done separately
for the first permit cycle and the second and third permit cycles. In
estimating the costs for the second and third permit cycles, cost
elements were dropped that would be expected to occur only once, such
as development of municipal ordinances, or assessment of appropriate
O&M requirements for municipal operations. The first, second, and third
permit cycle costs were then combined to get an average annual cost
over the first 15 years of the program.
    The estimated percentages of affected municipalities and the range
of per capita costs for each of the six minimum measures are presented
in Exhibit 5.

   Exhibit 5.--Percentage of Municipalities Affected and Range of Per
                  Capita Costs for Six Minimum Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Percent of
                                municipalities   Low end of  High end of
            Measure               expected to     range of     range of
                                  incur costs    per capita   per capita
                                   (percent)       costs        costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Permit Cycle:
     Public Education.........             39         $0.02        $0.34
     Public Involvement.......            100          0.19         0.20
     Illicit Discharge D&E....             90          0.04         2.61
     Const Site SW Runoff
     Control..................             83          0.04         1.59
     Post Construction SW Mgt.              4          1.09         1.09
     PP/GH of Municipal Ops...             71          0.01         2.00
2nd and 3rd Permit Cycles:
     Public Education.........             39          0.01         0.34
     Public Involvement.......            100          0.12         0.12
     Illicit Discharge D&E....             73          0.04         2.17
     Const Site SW Runoff
     Control..................             80          0.01         0.83
     Post Construction SW Mgt.              4          1.09         1.09
     PP/GH of Municipal Ops...             67          0.01         1.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Concerns have been raised that using data from Phase I permit
applications to calculate Phase II costs may lead to either an
understatement or overstatement of these costs. Since Phase II
communities are smaller and less densely populated, they will probably
have fewer structures to maintain, systems to map, and connections to
inspect for illicit discharges than Phase I municipalities, although
whether this is also true on a per capita basis is not clear. They may
also be able to coordinate with nearby Phase I programs for some
measures, such as public education. However, to the extent that there
are significant fixed costs and economies of scale associated with
implementation of the measures, the per capita costs for Phase II
municipalities may be higher than those for Phase I municipalities.
Also, it is not clear whether the costs listed on permit applications
represent the entire compliance costs for the Phase I municipalities
sampled. EPA requests comment on its methodology of using estimated
costs from Phase I permit applications to project per capita costs for
Phase II municipalities. EPA especially requests any data that might
provide a better indication of actual compliance costs for these types
of measures for smaller municipalities.
    EPA also requests comment on its projection that compliance costs
will be lower in the 2nd and 3rd permit cycles. This projection is
based on the fact that some program elements, such as development of
municipal ordinances and identification of illicit connections, will
only have to be done once, in the first permit cycle. However, concern
has been raised that there may be counteracting tendencies for
subsequent permit cycle costs to be higher, such as population growth
and more areas being classified as urbanized areas.
    Concern has also been expressed that it may not be appropriate to
apply the percentages of Phase I municipalities that apparently
incurred costs for implementation of each measure to the estimation of
Phase II costs. Because Phase II municipalities are smaller, they may
be less likely than Phase I municipalities to already have adequate
storm water programs in place and thus be more likely to incur
additional costs as a result of this rule. As a sensitivity analysis,
EPA has estimated the municipal costs under the assumption that 100
percent of covered Phase II municipalities would incur costs for each
measure. Under this assumption the municipal costs for the first permit
cycle would range from $110 million to $690 million with a mean of $238
million; second and third permit cycles would range from $98 million to
$494 million with a mean of $209 million. EPA requests comment on its
projections of the percentage of Phase II municipalities expected to
incur costs for each measure, and any data that might help refine these
estimates for the final rule.
    To estimate costs to owner/operators of small construction sites,
EPA first gathered national data on building permits issued over 15
years. Over the period from 1980 to 1994, there was a 1.3 percent
average annual increase in the number of building permits issued. This
growth rate was used to project total building starts through the year
2015. To estimate what percentage of these starts would be between 1
and 5 acres, EPA used more detailed data from

[[Page 1600]]

Prince George's County, Maryland to determine for each category of
building permit (residential, commercial, etc.) what percentage was
between 1 and 5 acres and applied these percentages to the national
totals. Of the projected 645,709 building sites for the year 2000, EPA
estimated that 22 percent, or 140,485 would be between 1 and 5 acres,
based on the Prince George's County (PGC) data. EPA recognizes that PGC
may not be representative of the entire country and requests any data
that commenters may have that might be used to develop a better
estimate of the number of construction sites between 1 and 5 acres.
    EPA next estimated the number of sites located in States that
already require permits for sites between 1 and 5 acres, and removed
these from its cost calculations because sites in these States would
not be expected to incur additional costs, beyond those already
involved in State permitting. This removed 19 percent of the estimated
sites between 1 and 5 acres, leaving a projected 111,357 sites in the
year 2000 that would be expected to incur incremental costs as a result
of this rule. Finally, EPA estimated the percentage of these sites that
are already subject to local sediment and erosion control (SEC)
requirements. Based on a survey of 113 localities, EPA estimated that
37 percent of sites between 1 and 5 acres, or 41,202 in the year 2000,
would already be subject to local controls and would thus not incur
incremental costs to implement SEC measures. EPA estimates that these
sites would incur costs for the preparation of Notices of Intent,
Notices of Termination, and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans
only, while the remaining 70,155 sites would incur costs for
implementation of SEC controls as well. EPA notes that sites in coastal
areas subject to the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of
1990 (CZARA) would be required to implement sediment and erosion
controls even without the proposed rule. SEC costs for sites in those
areas should thus not be considered incremental costs of this rule.
However, because EPA is not sure how much overlap exists between
coastal zone areas, States that already have permitting programs for
small construction sites, and localities that already have SEC
requirements, EPA did not remove additional sites from the rule costs
specifically because they were located in areas subject to CZARA (note,
for example, that most State permitting programs are in such areas).
EPA requests comment on its procedure for adjusting the number of sites
subject to incremental costs to account for programs and requirements
already in place.
    The proposed rule would allow the NPDES permitting authority to
waive applicability of requirements to storm water discharges from
small construction sites based on three different criteria. In the
economic analysis the Agency has projected that 15 percent of the
construction sites that would be covered by today's proposal would be
eligible to receive such waivers. Based on an informal survey of
individuals familiar with the construction industry, EPA believes the
percentage of sites eligible for waivers would probably fall between 5
and 25 percent. If the number of sites eligible for waivers were 25
percent, rather than the 15 percent used in the EA, projected
compliance costs for small construction sites would be correspondingly
lower. Similarly, if only 5 percent of sites turned out to be eligible
for waivers, compliance costs would be correspondingly higher. The
construction cost analysis does not include any costs for the
preparation and submission of waiver applications, but the agency
believes these costs will be negligible. EPA solicits comments and data
on its assumptions regarding construction waivers.
    Because today's proposed rule provides a significant degree of
flexibility to the NPDES permitting authority and designated sources
proposed for regulation, the actual costs of implementing today's
proposed storm water rule depend greatly on how the NPDES permitting
authority and regulated sources implement the program. To some extent,
this flexibility is reflected in the broad ranges of costs. EPA
believes that because of the significant flexibility provided by the
proposed rule, the low to middle ranges of costs are most
representative of the actual costs likely to be incurred.
    Estimates of monetized benefits associated with today's proposed
regulation were derived using an aggregate, ``top-down'' approach.
Under this approach, the underlying data and assumptions were geared to
a national scale (e.g., national value of the commercial fishery and
nationwide beach visit data). EPA chose this approach because research
indicated that, given the variability of local situations and the
scarcity of data on both local conditions and on extrapolation methods,
a bottom-up approach was not deemed to be feasible at this time.
Nevertheless, information from more geographically confined studies
provided important data that support such a monetized benefit analysis.
In addition, local and regional experiences also verified some of the
impacts and benefits that EPA had estimated at a national level.
    The basic methodology for the top-down approach was as follows. For
each of the various categories of financial, recreational, and health
benefits, EPA first estimated the total value if all surface waters of
the United States were cleaned up to a level that supported their
designated uses. Next, using information on the degree and causes of
water quality impairment from EPA's 1994 and 1996 Section 305(b)
National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress, EPA estimated the
portion of total impairment (and thus total benefits) attributable to
storm water runoff. Although it varied by benefit category, generally
between 5 and 10 percent of total water quality impairment was found to
be attributable to either urban or construction storm water runoff.
Finally, EPA determined the share of storm water benefits that should
be attributed to the Phase II rule specifically.
    One consequence of the approach used to estimate monetized benefits
is that, unlike the cost analysis, the benefits analysis only provides
monetized estimates of the benefits associated with today's proposed
regulatory alternative. To account for the fact that any storm water
control may not be 100-percent effective, EPA estimated the
effectiveness of the storm water BMPs proposed in today's rule and
applied these estimates to the total monetized benefits of the
proposal. Due to the uncertainty regarding effectiveness of different
BMPs, as well as that regarding the appropriate share of storm water
benefits to allocate to each of EPA's wet weather programs, EPA
developed three scenarios to estimate proposal benefits. In Scenario 1
(high benefits scenario), it was assumed that Phase II BMPs would be 90
percent effective in controlling pollution from storm water runoff,
that \5/7\ of health benefits should be allocated to storm water
programs (Phases I and II) and \2/7\ should be allocated to EPA's
sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) program, and that most municipal storm
water benefits should be allocated 50 percent to Phase I and 50 percent
to Phase II. The exceptions were benefits for avoided costs of building
or replacing water storage capacity, 75 percent of which were to be
allocated to Phase II, and benefits for avoided costs of freshwater
navigational dredging, 25 percent of which were allocated to Phase II.
In Scenario 2 (medium benefits scenario), it was assumed that Phase II
BMPs would be 80 percent effective, that all

[[Page 1601]]

health benefits should be allocated to storm water programs, and again,
that most municipal storm water benefits should be allocated evenly
between Phases I and II, with the same two exceptions. In Scenario 3
(low benefits scenario), it was assumed that Phase II BMPs would be
only 60 percent effective, that all health benefits should be allocated
to storm water programs, and that all municipal storm water benefits,
including those for avoided costs of building or replacing water
storage capacity and freshwater navigational dredging, should be
allocated evenly between Phases I and II. In Scenario 1, all water
storage replacement and navigational dredging costs were allocated to
storm water programs (Phases I and II), while in Scenarios 2 and 3, 96
percent of these benefits were allocated to storm water programs and 4
percent to other wet weather programs. In all three scenarios, 40
percent of storm water construction benefits were allocated to Phase
II. The Economic Analysis document accompanying today's action provides
a detailed description of the basis rationale for each of these
scenarios.
    Exhibit 6 summarizes annual benefits attributed to the proposed
Phase II rule.

       Exhibit 6.--Summary of Total Annual Monetized Benefits from
             Implementation of the Proposed Storm Water Rule
                       [Millions of 1997 Dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Scenario 1   Scenario 2   Scenario 3
        Benefits category             annual       annual       annual
                                      value        value        value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Municipal Benefits...............    $114-$379    $100-$333     $66-$222
Construction Benefits............       61-195       53-169       40-127
                                  --------------------------------------
    Total........................      175-574      153-502      106-349
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA was able to develop a partial monetary estimate of expected
benefits for today's storm water proposed rule for municipal and
construction benefits. Summing the monetized benefits for each of the
scenarios across these categories results in total benefits ranging
from approximately $106 million to $574 million (1997 $) annually for
the proposed rule.
    EPA is requesting comment on several aspects of its benefits
estimation methodology. The largest single category of estimated
benefits is avoided costs of building or replacing water storage
capacity (reservoirs) lost to sediment deposition. EPA estimates that
an average of 820,000 acre feet of storage capacity is lost to
pollution sources each year. EPA further estimates that \1/3\ of this
capacity will be replaced by building new reservoirs, at a cost of $420
to $1500 per acre foot, and \2/3\ of this capacity will be restored by
dredging, at a cost of roughly $3,500 to $11,000 per acre foot. This
yields annual water storage replacement costs of $2 to $6 billion
annually. EPA estimates that roughly 8 percent of these costs (or $170
to $510 million) are attributable to storm water runoff. EPA allocated
75 percent of the benefits from avoiding these costs in Scenarios 1 and
2 to Phase II, because it believes that most reservoirs are likely to
be outside of densely populated Phase I areas. In Scenario 3, these
benefits are allocated evenly between Phases I and II. Concern has been
expressed that these benefits estimates may be too high, especially
given that the total amount actually spent on navigational dredging
attributable to pollution sources annually is only $180 million (to
remove 83 million cubic yards), compared to the $2 to $6 billion that
EPA estimates would be required to replace the estimated 1.3 billion
cubic yards of water storage capacity lost to pollution sources
annually. On the other hand, the temporary nature and intermittent
frequency of reservoir dredging and the frequent need to deploy and
remove heavy equipment and dispose of spoil often in confined areas,
may elevate costs on a per cubic yard basis for reservoirs versus
navigational dredging. EPA has no data on the actual amount spent on
water storage capacity replacement. EPA thus requests comment on its
methodology for estimating these avoided costs, on its allocation of
these avoided costs between Phases I and II, and any data that would
allow it to refine these estimates for the final rule. EPA also
requests comment on whether it would be appropriate to discount these
benefits, and by how much, given that much of the actual replacement of
lost storage capacity may not occur for several decades. EPA further
notes that many other categories of benefits may also entail
significant lags and requests comment on the appropriateness of
discounting benefits to account for these lags generally.
    EPA is also requesting comment on its methodology for estimating
marine recreational and commercial benefits for fishing and swimming.
Specifically, the current estimates are based on the degree of
estuarine impairment attributable to storm water, although EPA
recognizes that a significant share of marine fishing and swimming
occurs in open coastal waters rather than estuaries. EPA has assumed
that full restoration of these resources would result in a 20 percent
increase in their value, based roughly on the degree of estuarine
impairment. A concern has been raised that the degree of impairment in
open coastal waters may be significantly different than that of
estuaries, and the value of full restoration of open coastal resources
correspondingly changed. Concern has also been raised that the current
estimates do not account for the substitutability of resources, but
rather assume that the total amount of current marine fishing and
swimming is limited by the availability of unimpaired estuarine and
coastal areas. EPA requests comment on its methodology for estimating
these benefits, and any data, especially on the degree of impairment of
open coastal waters or the fraction of marine fishing and swimming that
occurs in such waters, that would allow it to refine these estimates
for the final rule.
    As a sensitivity analysis, EPA also performed an alternative
benefits estimate using a different ``bottoms-up'' approach based on
its Clean Water Act Effects Model. The modeling approach examined
impacts of all wet weather events together: SSOs, CSOs (Combined Sewer
Overflows) and storm water Phase I and II. This would provide an upper
bound estimates for storm water control. (For this analysis, it was
possible to break out CSOs as separate data exists for these events.)
    Changes in water quality relate to changes in how humans use the
resource. This analysis estimated

[[Page 1602]]

changes to water quality based on assumptions about the level of
control EPA would expect from the CWA's wet weather programs. Next, the
Agency estimated the changes in human use and enjoyment of the
resource. The Agency applied ``willingness-to-pay (WTP)'' values from
Mitchell/Carson (1993) contingent valuation survey results, which
estimates the amount of money people are willing to pay for water
quality improvement. (Mitchell/Carson estimates include values for
recreation use as well as nonuse values.)
    The model examined three different wet-weather programs under three
loadings reduction scenarios based on differences in such factors as
average annual rainfall in different hydrologic regions and changes in
removals. For each of these scenarios EPA further estimated low, medium
and high values to account for wide ranges in variability. The
following discussion of results is based on medium values in these
three scenarios.
    The results of this analysis show a range of monetized benefit of
$1 to $7 billion for all urban wet weather programs. The results of the
modeling did not split out storm water impacts from SSO impacts.
Applying the percentages used in the top down approach (\5/7\ storm
water, \2/7\ SSO), EPA derived an estimate for storm water Phase II.
Using the medium results, averaged between the low and the high
estimates, benefit estimates for the proposed rule fall within a range
of $526 million to $3.56 billion. The wide range of these estimates is
due to the very flexible nature of the proposal, which would provide
communities with a wide range of options to consider for control of
storm water.
    There are additional benefits to storm water control that cannot be
quantified or monetized. The estimate of monetized benefits presented
here may thus understate the true value of storm water controls because
it may omit additional numerous mechanisms by which society is likely
to benefit from reduced storm water pollution, such as improved
aesthetic quality of waters, benefits to wildlife and to threatened and
endangered species, option existence values, cultural values, and
biodiversity benefits. The estimates of freshwater recreational
benefits included in the monetized benefits analysis are based on the
Mitchell/Carson ``willingness-to-pay'' study. Mitchell/Carson estimates
the value people are willing to pay to restore all of the nation's
waters to fishable/swimmable quality, and thus presumably already
includes associated ``non-use'' values. However, EPA believes there are
non-use values that are not captured in the Mitchell/Carson estimates
and thus not included in the monetized benefits estimates.
    These environmental and health benefits are also important. Another
benefit that EPA did not specifically monetize is the benefits of flood
control to the extent that Phase II storm water controls reduce
downstream flooding. In addition, the Agency relied on a
geographically-limited data set (Santa Monica Bay, California) to
measure the benefits of illness avoided due to storm water controls.
    A significant category of benefits that the Agency could not
specifically monetize is ecological benefits. Urbanization can
adversely affect water quality by increasing the amount of sediment,
nutrients, metals and other pollutants associated with land disturbance
and development. Not only is there a dramatic increase in the volume of
water runoff but there may also be a substantial decrease in that
water's quality due to stream scour, runoff and dispersion of toxic
pollutants, and oversiltation. The higher flow volumes in the tributary
streams and channels create a ``domino'' effect of ecological impacts.
Erosion of stream banks and incision of the stream floor result in
sediment movement and eventually buildup in downstream environments.
Sediment covers the stream bed, smothers fish eggs and spawning
grounds, interferes with hatching, and can clog the gills and filter
systems of fish and aquatic invertebrates. This latter effect can
result in retarded growth, systemic disfunction, or asphyxiation.
Subsequent loss of aquatic life has a ripple effect up the food chain.
    High nutrient levels often lead to eutrophication of the aquatic
system. This entails the blue/green surface algae bloom, water
discoloration, and depressed levels of dissolved oxygen. Heavy metals
can have toxic effects on aquatic life. Heavy metals in the water
column and sediments have been connected with respiratory problems in
fish and often destroy or infect the insect populations which serve as
the primary food source for many fish species. High bacteria levels
from animal excrement and carcasses, septic runoff or illegal dumping
by motor homes and others affect critical estuarine habitats which are
the nation's most productive finfish, oyster, clam and shrimp
fisheries. EPA requests comment on the extent to which additional
consideration of these ecological benefits is needed and appropriate
methodologies for quantifying and monetizing them.
    Exhibit 7 compares the estimated national annual monetized total
benefits associated with the proposed storm water regulations with the
monetized costs associated with the proposed regulation. Because EPA is
uncertain of the exact monetized benefit, the benefits for each
scenario have been compared to costs. The net total benefits (social
benefits less social costs) for the three benefits scenarios range from
positive $34 million in Scenario 1 to negative $531 million in Scenario
3.

 Exhibit 7.--Comparison of Total Annual Monetized Benefits to Total Annual Costs for the Proposed Phase II Storm
                                                   Water Rule
                                           [Millions of 1997 Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Benefit categories                    Scenario 1 value    Scenario 2 value    Scenario 3 value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Financial Benefits..................................            $93-$267            $80-$228            $51-$144
Recreational Benefits...............................            $81-$304            $72-$271            $54-$203
Health Benefits.....................................               $1-$3               $1-$3               $1-$2
                                                               $175-$574           $153-$502           $106-$349
                   Cost categories                           Value            (Low-High)
Compliance Costs....................................  ..................           $138-$869  ..................
Administration Costs................................  ..................              $3-$11  ..................
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
    Total Monetized Costs...........................  ..................           $141-$880  ..................
                                                     ===========================================================
    Net Monetized Benefits..........................          $34-$(306)          $12-$(378)          $35-$(531)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1603]]

    The proposed storm water rule includes a provision that would allow
owners or operators of facilities with existing discharges associated
with industrial activity to certify that if significant materials or
industrial activities are not exposed to storm water the owners or
operators could apply for an exemption from the requirements of the
NPDES permitting program. This provision is included in today's
proposed storm water rule but would only apply to sources regulated
under existing rules. Therefore, EPA has decided not to factor the
costs savings associated with this exemption into the costs analysis
for today's proposed rule. Rather, the cost savings associated with
this exemption is addressed separately in the Economic Analysis.

V. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act/Executive Order 12875

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, Tribal, and local
governments and the private sector. Under UMRA section 202, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, Tribal, and local governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, UMRA section 205 generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under
UMRA section 203 a small government agency plan. The plan must provide
for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, Tribal, and local governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any 1 year. Accordingly, under UMRA section 202, EPA has
prepared a written statement, which is summarized below.

A. UMRA Section 202 Written Statement

    EPA proposes today's storm water regulation pursuant to the
specific mandate of Clean Water Act Sec. 402(p)(6), as well as sections
301, 308, 402, and 501. (33 U.S.C. Secs. 1342(p)(6), 1311, 1318, 1342,
1361.) Section 402(p)(6) of the CWA requires that EPA designate sources
to be regulated to protect water quality and establish a comprehensive
program to regulate those sources. In a separate document in the
administrative record, EPA describes the qualitative and monetized
benefits associated with the proposed storm water rule and then
compares the monetized benefits with the estimated costs for the
proposed rule. The Agency also developed a partial monetary estimate of
expected benefits for the proposed rule for financial benefits,
recreational benefits, and health benefits. Summing the monetized
benefits, for each of the scenarios, across these categories results in
total benefits ranging from approximately $106 million to $574 million
(1997 $) annually for the proposed rule. Because EPA is uncertain of
the exact monetized benefit, three benefit scenarios were created and
compared to costs for the proposed regulation.
    In that document, EPA reviewed the potential for this proposed rule
to have a significant effect on the economy or upon unemployment and
determined that the unemployment impacts will be minimal, if any at
all.
    First, the proposed rule does not address industries involved in
production, but rather small municipal separate storm sewer systems and
construction sites under 5 acres. Second, flexibility within the
proposed rule would allow municipalities to tailor proposed individual
municipal storm water program requirements to their needs and financial
position. Finally, discussions with representatives within the
construction industry indicate that construction costs would likely be
passed on to consumers. EPA believes that these same reasons would
result in the proposed rule having minimal or no unemployment impacts.
EPA also assessed the social costs of the proposed regulation and
estimates the total social costs of the proposed rule to range from
approximately $141 million to $878 million annually (1997 $). The
proposed rule would not have the potential to increase costs for
industrial manufacturers and producers because the proposed rule does
address storm water discharges from other types of industrial
facilities.

B. Description of Intergovernmental Consultation

    Consistent with the intergovernmental consultation provisions of
section 204 of the UMRA and Executive Order 12875, Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership, EPA consulted with elected
representatives of various levels of government in a variety of ways.
First, EPA provided States, local, and tribal governments and the
private sector with the opportunity to comment on alternative
approaches to the proposed regulations through publishing a notice
requesting information and public comment on the approach for the CWA
section 402(p)(6) regulations in the Federal Register on September 9,
1992 (57 FR 41344). This notice presented a full range of regulatory
alternatives under each issue in an attempt to illustrate, and obtain
input on, the regulation of unregulated sources to protect water
quality. Approximately 43 percent of the more than 130 comments
received came from municipalities and 24 percent from State or Federal
agencies. These comments provided the genesis for many of the
provisions in the proposed storm water rule, including reliance on the
NPDES program framework (including general permits), providing State
and local governments flexibility in selecting additional sources
requiring regulation on a localized basis, focusing on high priority
polluters and providing certain exemptions for facilities that do not
pollute, focusing on pollution prevention and best management
practices, and incorporating watershed-based concerns in targeting.
    Second, in early 1993, EPA, in conjunction with the Rensselaerville
Institute held public and expert meetings to assist in developing and
analyzing options for identifying unregulated storm water sources and
possible controls. These meetings again allowed participants an
opportunity to provide input into the CWA section 402(p)(6) program
development process. The proposed rule reflects several of the key
concerns identified in these groups, including provisions that provide
flexibility to the States and to other

[[Page 1604]]

permitting authorities to select sources to be controlled in a manner
consistent with criteria developed by EPA.
    Finally, EPA established the Urban Wet Weather Flows Advisory
Committee (FACA), including a Storm Water Phase II Subcommittee.
Consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the membership of
the Storm Water Phase II Subcommittee was balanced among EPA's various
outside stakeholder interests, including representatives from State
governments, municipal governments (both elected officials and
appointed officials) and tribal governments, as well as industrial and
commercial sectors, agriculture, environmental and public interest
groups. The Storm Water Phase II Subcommittee met approximately every
other month between September 1995 and June 1997. In addition to
meetings, conference calls, and correspondence, Subcommittee members
were provided three opportunities to comment in writing on preliminary
draft approaches and actual drafts of the proposed rule and preamble.
Ultimately, the 32 Subcommittee members recommended many of the
portions making up the regulatory framework in the proposed rule.

C. Selection of the Least Costly, Most Cost-Effective or Least
Burdensome Alternative That Achieves the Objectives of the Statute

    The proposed regulation is based on a ``flexible'' NPDES program
alternative. This alternative evolved over time and incorporates
aspects of each of the other alternatives in order to respond to
concerns presented by the various interests represented in the Storm
Water Phase II Subcommittee. A primary characteristic of the proposed
rule is the flexibility it offers both the permitting authority and the
sources proposed for regulation (small MS4s and small construction
sites), such as general permits, best management practices suited to
specific locations, and allowing MS4s to develop their own program
goals. EPA developed detailed cost estimates for the incremental
requirements imposed under the proposed regulation, and for each of the
alternatives, and applied these estimates to the potentially regulated
universe of remaining unregulated point sources of storm water. The
Agency compared the estimated annual range of costs imposed under the
proposed regulation and other major options considered. The range of
values for each option included the costs for compliance including
paperwork requirements for the owners and operators of small
construction sites, industrial facilities, and MS4s and administrative
costs for State and Federal NPDES permitting authorities.
    Because the proposed rule provides a significant degree of
flexibility to the permitting authority and sources proposed for
regulation, the actual costs of implementing the proposed storm water
rule are highly dependent on how the program is implemented by the
permitting authority and the sources proposed for regulations. To some
extent, this flexibility is reflected in the broad ranges of costs. EPA
believes that because of the significant flexibility provided by the
proposed rule, the low to middle ranges of costs are most
representative of the actual costs likely to be incurred. In the
administrative record supporting today's proposal, EPA estimated ranges
of costs associated with six different options for today's proposal.
For each option, EPA estimate a cost range. From the highest of the
high estimates to the lowest of the low, the cost range varied between
no cost and $79 billion dollars. The least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome option is the ``no regulation'' option. This
option, however, would not achieve the objectives of CWA section
402(p)(6) because remaining unregulated point sources of storm water
need to be regulated to protect water quality. The remaining option
that is both the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome
and accomplishes the objectives of the rule is the proposed rule in its
current form. Today's proposal represents the lowest cost range option
(between $106 million to $574 million dollars).
    Although Congress did not establish a fund to fully finance
implementation of the proposed extension of the existing NPDES storm
water program under section 402(p)(6), numerous Federal financing
programs (administered by EPA and other Federal agencies) could provide
some financial assistance. These programs include CWA section 106 grant
program CWA section 104(b)(3) grant program, State surface and ground
water management programs under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the
environmental quality incentives program, the conservation reserve
program, the wetlands reserve program, and the estuary management and
Federal monitoring programs. Also, the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) has some grants available to assist in projects related
to erosion and sediment controls.

D. Small Government Agency Plan

    In developing the proposed rule, EPA consulted with small
governments pursuant to its interim plan established under UMRA section
203 to address impacts of regulatory requirements in the rule that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Though
today's proposal would expand the NPDES program (with modifications) to
certain municipal separate storm sewer systems serving populations
below 100,000 people and though many systems are owned by small
governments, EPA does not think the proposed rule might significantly
or uniquely affect small governments. As explained in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act section of the preamble, EPA today certifies that the
proposed rule will not have a significant impact on small governmental
jurisdictions. In addition, the proposed requirements would not have a
unique impact on small governments because larger governments would
also be affected. Notwithstanding this finding, the Agency sought to
provide elected officials of small governments (and their
representatives) with an opportunity for early and meaningful
participation through FACA process. In addition, EPA is committed to
providing guidance for the operators of the municipal separate storm
sewer systems (which would likely include small governments) developed
in conjunction with the Storm Water Phase II FACA Subcommittee.
    As mentioned previously, 43 percent of the comments received on the
September 9, 1992, notice were from municipal governments. In addition,
the following groups participated as members of the Storm Water Phase
II FACA Subcommittee: the Conference of Mayors, the National League of
Cities, the National Association of Towns and Townships, the National
Association of Counties, the CSO Partnership, the Water Environment
Federation, and the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies.
Through such participation and exchange, EPA notified potentially
affected small governments of requirements under consideration, allowed
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input into the development of regulatory proposals, and will inform,
educate, and advise small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements. The Agency is also undertaking efforts to develop a
``tool box'' of aids (e.g., fact sheets, guidance, information
clearinghouse, training, education, research, and pilot programs) to be
made available to regulated entities and permitting authorities to
facilitate implementation of today's proposed regulation.

[[Page 1605]]

VI. Executive Order 12898

    Executive Order 12898 established a Federal policy for
incorporating environmental justice into Federal agency missions by
directing agencies to identify and address in their programs, policies,
and activities, as appropriate, the disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income
populations. EPA ensured proper consideration of environmental justice
concerns during the section 402(p)(6) rulemaking by selecting a
balanced FACA membership and specifically inviting a representative of
the Environmental Justice Information Center to participate on the
Storm Water Phase II FACA Subcommittee. EPA examined the potential
impact of today's proposed storm water rule on minority and low-income
populations and worked to develop a proposed rule that would address
environmental justice concerns. Discussions with the Storm Water Phase
II FACA Subcommittee contributed to these efforts.
    Three aspects of today's proposed storm water regulation would
support environmental justice objectives. First, the proposed rule
would result in improvements in water quality in the areas around small
municipalities and certain industries that impact water quality. These
improvements would benefit all persons living in or using these areas,
including minority populations and low-income populations. Second, the
proposed rule would provide a high degree of flexibility to the NPDES
permitting authority to address high priority contaminated storm water
discharges based on community input and public participation. This
ability to focus program requirements on priority needs or areas should
serve as an additional tool to address environmental justice concerns.
Third, the proposed rule specifies that public education and outreach
programs required of small municipal separate storm sewer systems
should be tailored to address the concerns of all communities,
particularly minority and disadvantaged communities, as well as
children. The proposed rule also specifies that compliance with
required public involvement and participation requirements should
include efforts to engage all economic and ethnic groups.
    In addition, partly in consideration of the executive order, EPA
proposes to exempt Tribes in urbanized areas with populations of less
than 1,000 from the requirements of today's proposed rule.

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA), whenever EPA is required to publish notice of general
rulemaking, EPA must prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis
(IRFA) describing the economic impact of the proposal on small
entities, unless the Administrator certifies that a proposed rule will
not have a ``significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.'' After consideration of the economic impacts of
today's proposed rule on small entities, the Administrator certifies
that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Notwithstanding today's
certification, EPA has prepared an IRFA. In addition, prior to
determining that today's proposal should be certified, EPA convened a
Small Business Advocacy Review Panel under the RFA, as amended by the
Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act (SBREFA), to evaluate and
minimize the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities.

A. Economic Impact on Small Entities

    EPA assessed the potential economic impact of today's proposed
storm water regulation on small entities. As the first step in its
evaluation, EPA identified those small entities potentially affected by
the proposal. In identifying these small entities, EPA used the
definitions of small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions
(e.g., municipalities), and small organizations (e.g., nonprofit
organizations) established by the RFA. Based on data from the 1990 U.S.
Census, EPA estimated that a total of 3,614 small governmental
jurisdictions (specifically, municipalities) would be affected by the
proposed rule. In addition, 11 Indian Tribes, as small governmental
jurisdictions who own/operate municipal separate storm sewer systems,
would also be affected. Next, EPA estimated that 187,610 construction
firms in Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code 15 would be
subject to the proposal, if adopted. EPA recognizes, however, that this
number may over-estimate the number of small businesses subject to the
proposal. The data do not permit the Agency to distinguish between
small construction firms whose activities include land clearing and
site preparation--the proposal's requirements would apply to such
operations--and those small construction firms that do not prepare
sites. Finally, the proposed rule would not apply to any small not-for-
profit organizations.
    In the next step of the Agency's evaluation, EPA analyzed the
potential economic impact of the proposed rule on the small entities it
had identified as likely to be subject to the proposed rule. In the
case of those small municipalities that would be affected if the
proposal is adopted, EPA evaluated the potential impact using a
``revenue test.'' Under this test, EPA looked at the total annual cost
of complying with the proposed requirements in relation to total annual
municipal revenues. EPA calculated total annual compliance cost based
on mean costs ($2.67 per capita and $555 per municipality) and the
population reported in the 1990 Census. EPA estimated annual revenues
based on data from the 1992 Census of Governments, using state-specific
estimates of annual revenue per capita for municipalities in three
population size categories (fewer than 10,000, 10,000-25,000, and
25,000-50,000).
    Based on this evaluation, the Administrator certifies that today's
proposed storm water rule will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small municipalities. Estimated compliance
costs represent more than 1 percent of estimated revenues for only 62
municipalities of the affected small municipalities--approximately 1.7
percent of small municipalities--and less than 3 percent of estimated
revenues for all but 4 municipalities--approximately 0.1 percent of
affected small municipalities. In both absolute and relative terms, the
impact is not significant.
    EPA also assessed the potential impact of the rule on Indian Tribes
using the same revenue test applied to municipalities. However, revenue
per capita for tribal governments was not available. Therefore, EPA
used the State-specific municipal per capita revenue estimates by size
category and adjusted these estimates downward based on the ratio of
per capita income on the reservation to per capita income for the
State. EPA then multiplied the adjusted estimates of per capita revenue
by the reservation population and conducted the screening analysis in
the same manner as for municipalities (assuming annual compliance costs
of $2.67 per capita and $555 per reservation). EPA assumed that all
Tribes with populations between 1,000 and 100,000 would have to comply
with the rule and Tribes in Oklahoma would

[[Page 1606]]

not be regulated.\5\ Estimated compliance costs represent more than 1
percent of total estimated revenues for only 2 Indian Tribes. The
remaining 9 Indian Tribes have compliance costs less than 1 percent of
estimated revenues. The Administrator therefore certifies that this
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small governmental jurisdictions regardless of whether the
municipal and tribal impacts are analyzed separately or combined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The determination of applicability to Oklahoma Tribes would
be done on a case-by-case basis. In authorization of the Oklahoma
NPDES program, EPA retained jurisdiction to regulate discharges in
Indian Country (61 FR 65049, 12/10/96). However, EPA believes it is
unlikely that large populations of Oklahoma Tribes would fall within
areas that would be determined to be a Federal Indian Reservation,
and thus, subject to regulation (see preamble).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For small businesses, in most instances, EPA evaluates the
potential impact by using a ``sales test.'' Under a sales test, EPA
compares the cost of complying with proposed requirements to a small
business' total annual sales. In developing the inputs to this test,
EPA calculated the compliance costs based on ``unit costs'' (i.e.,
compliance costs per single-family home) rather than costs per
developer/contractor because of the uncertainties associated with
estimating how many units an ``average'' developer/contractor might
develop or build in a typical year. Therefore, EPA's analysis was not
exactly a ``sales test,'' but was developed to derive the kind of
results that are comparable to results from a sales test. EPA
approximated the sales test by estimating compliance costs for single-
family homes under various scenarios and comparing those costs with the
median sales price of a single-family home. The results of this
approximation show that the cost of complying with the proposed rule
will not exceed 1 percent of the average sales price of a single family
home for an array of the most likely economic and regulatory scenarios.
EPA reached this conclusion after controlling for sites of different
size and the changes in compliance costs per site (i.e., single family
home) that depend upon the need to implement erosion and sediment
controls as a result of the proposed rule.
    Because of the absence of data to specifically assess compliance
costs per developer/contractor as a percentage of total annual sales
(i.e., a very direct estimate of the impact on potentially affected
small businesses), EPA performed additional market analysis to examine
the ability of potentially affected firms to pass along regulatory
costs to buyers for single-family homes constructed using the storm
water control program proposed today. Obviously, if the small
construction companies that would be subject to the proposal are able
to pass the costs of compliance, either completely or partially, on to
their purchasers, then the proposed rule's impact is significantly
reduced. EPA conducted this supplemental analysis using available data
and published economic literature. The analysis evaluated the potential
effects of complying with this proposed rule on the market for single-
family houses for both the short and long term including potential
changes in the price and sales of single-family homes. The Agency
assessed the effect on average monthly mortgage rates for a range of
potential interest rates. EPA has concluded that the costs to site
developers and building contractors, and the potential changes in
housing prices and monthly mortgage payments for single-family home
buyers, are not expected to have a significant impact on the market for
single-family houses including most potentially affected small firms
that are actively participating in this market. EPA's analysis projects
the impact of the rule on small site developers and building
contractors will be minimal because these companies are expected to
pass regulatory costs on to home buyers without a significant impact on
sales. Based on this assessment, the Administrator also certifies that
the proposal will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small businesses.

B. SBREFA Panel Process

    As previously explained earlier in the preamble, EPA has conducted
an extensive outreach effort in developing today's storm water
proposal. EPA held a number of public and expert meetings to assist in
preparing the proposal, and the Agency established a FACA Committee
specifically to provide a forum for addressing storm water issues.
    EPA also convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
(``Panel''), as described in RFA section 609, in June 1997. Because
EPA's economic assessment was incomplete, the Agency was not initially
certain whether the proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. A number of small
entity representatives were actively involved with EPA through the FACA
process, and were, therefore, broadly knowledgeable about the proposal
under development. Prior to convening the Panel, EPA consulted with the
Small Business Administration to identify a group of small entity
representatives to advise the Panel. The Agency distributed a briefing
package describing its preliminary analysis under the RFA to this group
(as well as to representatives from the Office of Management and Budget
and the Small Business Administration) and also conducted two telephone
conference calls and an all-day meeting at EPA Headquarters in May of
1997. With this preliminary work complete, in June 1997, EPA formally
convened the interagency Panel, comprising representatives from the
Office of Management and Budget, the Small Business Administration,
EPA's Office of Water and EPA's Small Business Advocacy Chair. The
Panel received written comments from representatives based on their
involvement in the earlier meetings, and invited additional comments to
be submitted during the term of the Panel itself.
    Consistent with RFA requirements, the Panel evaluated the assembled
materials and small-entity comments on issues related to: (1) a
description and number of small entities to which the proposed rule
would apply; (2) a description of the projected record keeping,
reporting and other compliance requirements applicable to small
entities; (3) identification of other Federal rules that may duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule; and (4) regulatory
alternatives that would minimize any significant economic impact of the
proposed rule on small entities that would also accomplish the stated
objectives of the CWA section 402(p)(6).
    On August 7, 1997, the Panel provided a Final Report (hereinafter,
``Report'') to the EPA Administrator. The Report noted that, because of
the extensive outreach conducted by the Agency, and due to the Agency's
responsiveness in addressing stakeholder concerns, small entity
representatives raised fewer concerns than might otherwise have been
expected. A copy of the Report is included in the docket for this
proposed rule. Notwithstanding today's certification that the proposed
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, the Agency has incorporated many of the
Panel's recommendations into today's proposal.
    The Panel acknowledged and commended EPA's efforts prior to its
Report to work with stakeholders, including small entities, through the
Storm Water Phase II FACA Subcommittee. As discussed in the Background
section of this preamble (Section I.F. The FACA Committee

[[Page 1607]]

Effort) the subcommittee provided extensive input in the development of
today's proposal. The Agency also provided FACA members with copies of
the Economic Analysis of the proposal, which includes the initial
regulatory flexibility analysis. EPA has sought to build upon the
recommendations made by members of the federal advisory committee and
has responded to numerous issues raised by them concerning the scope,
method, and timing of the program outlined in today's proposal. The
SBREFA Panel stated that, because of the extensive outreach conducted
by the Agency and the Agency's responsiveness in addressing stakeholder
concerns, commenters during the SBREFA process raised fewer concerns
than might otherwise have been expected. Based on the advice and
recommendations of the Storm Water Phase II FACA Subcommittee, as well
as the Panel Report, the proposal includes a number of provisions
designed to minimize any significant impact of the proposed rule on
small entities as explained below and in Appendix 5 of today's notice.
    Municipal representatives commented to the Panel that small
municipal separate storm sewers systems in urbanized areas serving less
than 1,000 people might lack the capacity to certify that their
discharges do not have significant adverse water quality impacts. EPA
responded that the technical basis for such certification would
generally be produced by the permitting authority, in the form of a
TMDL or watershed plan. The Panel was concerned, however, that in the
absence of a TMDL or watershed plan developed by other parties (i.e.,
States or EPA), municipalities under 1,000 would have difficulty taking
advantage of this waiver provision. The Panel recommended that EPA
invite comment on this issue, and EPA has done so (Section II.G.3,
NPDES Permitting Authority's Role--Provide Waivers).
    Municipal representatives also suggested to the Panel that small
municipal separate storm sewer systems serving less than 1,000 people
in urbanized areas should be automatically exempt, just as EPA is
proposing to exempt systems operated by Tribes of less than 1,000. As
further explained in Section F., Tribal Role, EPA believes that the
situations of very small Tribes are not comparable to those of small
municipalities because Tribes cannot generally rely on administrative
support from a State permitting authority in the way municipalities
can. Based on the positions taken by OMB and SBA in the Report,
however, EPA has agreed to request comment on this issue as well.
    Other small business representatives also questioned the Panel
about the proposed comprehensive program to regulate construction
activities that result in the land disturbance of 1 acre up to 5 acres.
The Panel recommended that EPA revise the preamble to the proposed rule
to invite comment on alternatives to the proposed requirements,
including a discussion of the concerns expressed by small entity
representatives and their specific suggestions for addressing them. The
Agency has included the suggested alternatives in its discussion of
construction requirements in this preamble, in Section II. I. Other
Designated Storm Water Discharges.
    Both municipal and industrial representatives commented to the
Panel that, to avoid redundance, requirements for construction
activities undertaken by municipalities or industrial facilities should
be incorporated within their respective permits (provided that the
permits detail sediment and erosion controls). Similarly, municipal
representatives commented that requirements for industrial facilities
operated by municipalities should be covered under municipal storm
water permits. The Panel recommended that EPA explore and request
comment on these ideas in the preamble of the proposed rule. The Panel
reported that these options may be appropriate for municipalities or
industrial facilities with individually-issued NPDES permits, but may
be difficult to administer under NPDES general permits. The Agency has
discussed and solicited comment on the first two of these options--
condensing construction requirements into a single municipal or
industrial storm water permit--as part of the preamble discussion of
construction requirements, in Section II.I. Other Designated Storm
Water Discharges. The Agency has discussed and solicited comment on the
third of these options--condensing industrial storm water requirements
for municipally owned or operated industrial facilities into a single
municipal storm water permit--in the preamble as part of the discussion
of industrial requirements, in Section II.I.3. Other Sources.
    The Panel also received comments on a preliminary draft of the
revisions to the existing storm water rules providing relief to parties
certifying ``no exposure'' to rainfall events that could produce storm
water runoff. Commenters indicated that, as drafted, the provision
would preclude such certification (and thus deny appropriate exemption
from permitting requirements) to certain deserving facilities. Such
facilities include those that undergo a ``temporary operational
change'' or that maintain vehicles outdoors without generating
pollution. The Panel recommended that the Agency discuss these comments
with the Urban Wet Weather Flows FACA Committee and revise the proposal
as far as possible to allow all facilities preventing the actual
discharge of pollutants to make use of the ``no exposure'' EPA complied
with that recommendation as well.
    In addition to looking for ways to redesign today's proposal to
limit its impacts on small entities, the Agency has been working with
the Storm Water Phase II Subcommittee to develop considerable support
for implementation through the ``tool box'' approach discussed in the
Section II.A.5. of this preamble. The tool box would include fact
sheets, guidances, an information clearinghouse, training and outreach
efforts, technical research, and support for demonstration projects.
    EPA's outreach to small entities covered by this proposal and its
accommodation of their legitimate needs have been aggressive and highly
responsive. The Agency actively invites comments on all aspects of the
proposal and its impacts on small entities so that the final rule will
reflect the most auspicious balance between necessary environmental
protection and appropriate respect for the genuine limitations of small
entities in understanding and complying with applicable requirements.

VIII. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under Sec. 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act, the Agency is required to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. ``Voluntary
consensus standards'' are ``technical standards'' (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices,
management systems practices, etc.) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standard bodies. Where available and potentially
applicable voluntary consensus standards are not used by EPA, the Act
requires the Agency to provide Congress, through the Office of
Management and Budget, an explanation of the reasons for not using such
standards.
    Today's proposed rule would not even prescribe nationally
applicable substantive control standards, either for construction site
storm water or municipal storm sewers. Such control standards would be
developed on a

[[Page 1608]]

State or local basis. Thus, as a threshold matter, the concept of
``technical standards'' would not apply to the regulatory activities
proposed today.
    EPA requests comment on these findings. If a commenter believes
that today's rule relies on technical standards, the Agency also
solicits information about the identification and possible use of any
potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards for the final
rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 122 and 123

    Environmental protection, Administrative procedure, Water pollution
control.

    Dated: December 15, 1997.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

Appendices to the Preamble

  Appendix 1 to Preamble--Federally-Recognized American Indian Areas Located in Bureau of the Census Urbanized
                                                      Areas
                                           [Based on 1990 Census data]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       State                     American Indian area                              Urbanized area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AZ................  Pascua Yacqui Reservation (pt.), Pascua        Tuscon, AZ (Phase I).
                     Yacqui Tribe of Arizona.
AZ................  Salt River Reservation (pt.), Salt River Pima- Phoenix, AZ (Phase I).
                     Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River
                     Reservation, California.
AZ................  San Xavier Reservation (pt.), Tohono O'odham   Tucson, AZ (Phase I).
                     Nation of Arizona (formerly known as the
                     Papago Tribe of the Sells, Gila Bend & San
                     Xavier Reservation).
CA................  Augustine Reservation, Augustine Band of       Indio-Coachella, CA (Phase I).
                     Cahuilla Mission of Indians of the Augustine
                     Reservation, CA.
CA................  Cabazon Reservation, Cabazon Band of Cahuilla  Indio-Coachella, CA (Phase I).
                     Mission Indians of the Cabazon Reservation,
                     CA.
CA................  Fort Yuma (Quechan) (pt.), Quechan Tribe of    Yuma, AZ-CA.
                     the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, California
                     and Arizona.
CA................  Redding Rancheria, Redding Rancheria of        Redding, CA.
                     California.
FL................  Hollywood Reservation, Seminole Tribe........  Fort Lauderdale, FL (Phase I).
FL................  Seminole Trust Lands, Seminole Tribe of        Fort Lauderdale, FL (Phase I).
                     Florida, Dania, Big Cypress and Brighton
                     Reservations.
ID................  Fort Hall Reservation and Trust Lands,         Pocatello, ID.
                     Shosone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall
                     Reservation of Idaho.
ME................  Penobscot Reservation and Trust Lands (pt.),   Bangor, ME.
                     Penobscot Tribe of Maine.
MN................  Shakopee Community, Shakopee Mdewakanton       Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN (Phase I).
                     Sioux Community of Minnesota (Prior Lake).
NM................  Sandia Pueblo (pt.), Pueblo of Sandia, New     Albuquerque, NM (Phase I).
                     Mexico.
NV................  Las Vegas Colony, Las Vegas Tribe of Paiute    Las Vegas, NV (Phase I).
                     Indians of the Las Vegas Indian Colony,
                     Nevada.
NV................  Reno-Sparks Colony, Reno-Sparks Indian         Reno, NV (Phase I).
                     Colony, Nevada.
OK................  Osage Reservation (pt.), Osage Nation of       Tulsa, OK (Phase I).
                     Oklahoma.
OK................  Absentee Shawnee-CitizensBand of Potawatomi    Oklahoma City, OK (Phase I).
                     TJSA (pt.), Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of
                     Indians of Oklahoma, Citizen Potawatomi
                     Nation, Oklahoma.
OK................  Cherokee TJSA 9 (pt.), Cherokee Nation of      Ft. Smith, AR-OK; Tulsa, OK (Phase I).
                     Oklahoma, United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee
                     Indians of Oklahoma.
OK................  Cheyenne-Arapaho TJSA (pt.), Cheyenne-Arapaho  Oklahoma City, OK (Phase I).
                     Tribes of Oklahoma.
OK................  Choctaw TJSA (pt.), Choctaw Nation of          Ft. Smith, AR-OK (Phase I).
                     Oklahoma.
OK................  Creek TJSA (pt.), Alabama-Quassarte Tribal     Tulsa, OK (Phase I).
                     Town of the Creek Nation of Oklahoma,
                     Kialegee Tribal Town of the Creek Indian
                     Nation of Oklahoma, Muscogee (Creek) Nation
                     of Oklahoma, Thlopthlocco Tribal Town of the
                     Creek Nation of Oklahoma.
OK................  Kiowa-Comanche-Apache-Ft. Sill Apache, Apache  Lawton, OK.
                     Tribe of Oklahoma, Comanche Indian Tribe,
                     Oklahoma, Fort Sill Apache Tribe of
                     Oklahoma, Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma.
TX................  Ysleta del Sur Reservation, Ysleta Del Sur     El Paso, TX-NM (Phase I).
                     Pueblo of Texas.
WA................  Muckleshoot Reservation and Trust Lands        Seattle, WA (Phase I).
                     (pt.), Muckleshoot Indian Tribe of the
                     Muckleshoot Reservation.
WA................  Puyallup Reservation and Trust Lands (pt.),    Tacoma, WA (Phase I).
                     Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation,
                     WA.
WA................  Yakima Reservation (pt.), Confederated Tribes  Yakima, WA.
                     and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation of the
                     Yakama Reservation, WA.
WI................  Oneida (West) (pt.), Oneida Tribe of           Green Bay, WI.
                     Wisconsin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please Note:
``(pt.)'' indicates that the American Indian Area (AIA) listed is only partially located within the referenced
  urbanized area.
``(Phase I)'' indicates that the urbanized area includes a medium or large MS4 currently regulated under the
  existing NPDES storm water program (i.e. Phase I).
The first line under ``American Indian Area'' is the name of the reservation/colony/rancheria as it appears in
  the Bureau of the Census data. Under this first line, the names of the tribes included in the AIA are listed
  as they appear on the Bureau of Indian Affairs' list of Federally Recognized Indian Tribes. [Federal Register:
  Nov. 13, 1996, Vol. 66, No. 220, pgs. 58211-58216]
Information for Tribal Jurisdiction Statistical Areas (TSJAs) in Oklahoma was also included in the table. These
  areas are defined in conjunction with the Federally-recognized tribes in Oklahoma who have definite land areas
  under their jurisdiction, but do not have reservation status.
Sources: Mike Radcliffe, Geography Division, Bureau of the Census.
  1990 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Population and Housing Characteristics, United States. Tables 9
  & 10. [1990 CPH-1-1].
  Federal Register: Nov. 13, 1996, Vol. 66, No. 220, pgs. 58211-58216.


BILLING CODE 6560-55-P

[[Page 1609]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JA98.000



BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 1610]]

Appendix 3 to Preamble--Urbanized Areas of the United States and Puerto
Rico (based on 1990 Census data)

Alabama

Anniston
Auburn--Opelika
Birmingham
Columbus, GA--AL
Decatur
Dothan
Florence
Gadsden
Huntsville
Mobile
Montgomery
Tuscaloosa

Alaska

Anchorage

Arizona

Phoenix
Tucson
Yuma, AZ--CA

Arkansas

Fayetteville-Springdale
Fort Smith, AR--OK
Little Rock--North Little Rock
Memphis, TN--AR--MS
Pine Bluff
Texarkana, AR--TX

California

Antioch--Pittsburgh
Bakersfield
Chico
Davis
Fairfield
Fresno
Hemet--San Jacinto
Hesperia--Apple Valley--Victorville
Indio--Coachella
Lancaster--Palmdale
Lodi
Lompoc
Los Angeles
Merced
Modesto
Napa
Oxnard--Ventura
Palm Springs
Redding
Riverside--San Bernardino
Sacramento
Salinas
San Diego
San Francisco--Oakland
San Jose
San Luis Obispo
Santa Barbara
Santa Cruz
Santa Maria
Santa Rosa
Seaside--Monterey
Simi Valley
Stockton
Vacaville
Visalia
Watsonville
Yuba City
Yuma

Colorado

Boulder
Colorado Springs
Denver
Fort Collins
Grand Junction
Greeley
Longmont
Pueblo

Connecticut

Bridgeport--Milford
Bristol
Danbury, CT--NY
Hartford--Middletown
New Britain
New Haven--Meriden
New London--Norwich
Norwalk
Springfield, MA--CT
Stamford, CT--NY
Waterbury
Worcester, MA--CT

Delaware

Dover
Wilmington, DE--NJ--MD--PA

District of Columbia

Washington, DC--MD--VA

Florida

Daytona Beach
Deltona
Fort Lauderdale--Hollywood--Pompano Beach
Fort Myers--Cape Coral
Fort Pierce
Fort Walton Beach
Gainesville
Jacksonville
Kissimmee
Lakeland
Melbourne--Palm Bay
Miami--Hialeah
Naples
Ocala
Orlando
Panama City
Pensacola
Punta Gorda
Sarasota--Bradenton
Spring Hill
Stuart
Tallahassee
Tampa--St. Petersburg--Clearwater
Titusville
Vero Beach
West Palm Beach--Boca Raton--Delray Beach
Winter Haven

Georgia

Albany
Athens
Atlanta
Augusta
Brunswick
Chattanooga
Columbus
Macon
Rome
Savannah
Warner Robins

Hawaii

Honolulu
Kailua

Idaho

Boise City
Idaho Falls
Pocatello

Illinois

Alton
Aurora
Beloit, WI--IL
Bloomington--Normal
Champaign--Urbana
Chicago, IL--Northwestern IN
Crystal Lake
Davenport--Rock Island--Moline, IA--IL
Decatur
Dubuque
Elgin
Joliet
Kankakee
Peoria
Rockford
Round Lake Beach--McHenry, IL--WI
St. Louis, MO--IL
Springfield

Indiana

Anderson
Bloomington
Chicago, IL--Northwestern IN
Elkhart--Goshen
Evansville, IN--KY
Fort Wayne
Indianapolis
Kokomo
Lafayette--West Lafayette
Louisville, KY--IN
Muncie
South Bend--Mishawaka, IN--MI
Terre Haute

Iowa

Cedar Rapids
Davenport--Rock Island--Moline, IA--IL
Des Moines
Dubuque, IA--IL--WI
Iowa City
Omaha, NE--IA
Sioux City, IA--NE--SD
Waterloo--Cedar Falls

Kansas

Kansas City, MO--KS
Lawrence
St. Joseph, MO--KS
Topeka
Wichita

Kentucky

Cincinnati, OH--KY
Clarksville, TN--KY
Evansville, IN--KY
Huntington--Ashland, WV--KY--OH
Lexington-Fayette
Louisville, KY-IN
Owensboro

Louisiana

Alexandria
Baton Rouge
Houma
Lafayette
Lake Charles
Monroe
New Orleans
Shreveport
Slidell

Maine

Bangor

[[Page 1611]]

Lewiston--Auburn
Portland
Portsmouth--Dover--Rochester, NH--ME

Maryland

Annapolis
Baltimore
Cumberland
Frederick
Hagerstown, MD--PA--WV
Washington, DC--MD--VA
Wilmington, DE--NJ--MD--PA

Massachusetts

Boston
Brockton
Fall River, MA--RI
Fitchburg--Leominster
Hyannis
Lawrence--Haverhill, MA--NH
Lowell, MA--NH
New Bedford
Pittsfield
Providence--Pawtucket, RI--MA
Springfield, MA--CT
Taunton
Worcester, MA--CT

Michigan

Ann Arbor
Battle Creek
Bay City
Benton Harbor
Detroit
Flint
Grand Rapids
Holland
Jackson
Kalamazoo
Lansing--East Lansing
Muskegon
Port Huron
Saginaw
South Bend--Mishawaka, IN--MI
Toledo, OH-MI

Minnesota

Duluth, MN--WI
Fargo--Moorhead, ND--MN
Grand Forks, ND--MN
La Crosse, WI--MN
Minneapolis--St.Paul
Rochester
St. Cloud

Mississippi

Biloxi--Gulfport
Hattiesburg
Jackson
Memphis, TN--AR--MS
Pascagoula

Missouri

Columbia
Joplin
Kansas City, MO--KS
St. Joseph, MO--KS
St. Louis, MO--IL
Springfield

Montana

Billings
Great Falls
Missoula

Nebraska

Lincoln
Omaha, NE--IA
Sioux City, IA--NE--SD

Nevada

Las Vegas
Reno

New Hampshire

Lawrence--Haverhill, MA--NH
Lowell, MA--NH
Manchester
Nashua
Portsmouth--Dover--Rochester, NH--ME

New Jersey

Allentown--Bethlehem--Easton, PA--NJ
Atlantic City
New York, NY--Northeastern NJ
Philadelphia, PA-NJ
Trenton, NJ--PA
Vineland--Millville
Wilmington, DE--NJ--MD--PA

New Mexico

Albuquerque
El Paso
Las Cruces
Santa Fe

New York

Albany--Schenectady--Troy
Binghamton
Buffalo--Niagara Falls
Danbury, CT--NY
Elmira
Glens Falls
Ithaca
Newburgh
New York, NY--Northeastern NJ
Poughkeepsie
Rochester
Stamford, CT--NY
Syracuse
Utica--Rome

North Carolina

Asheville
Burlington
Charlotte
Durham
Fayetteville
Gastonia
Goldsboro
Greensboro
Greenville
Hickory
High Point
Jacksonville
Kannapolis
Raleigh
Rocky Mount
Wilmington
Winston-Salem

North Dakota

Bismark
Fargo--Moorhead, ND--MN
Grand Forks, ND-MN

Ohio

Akron
Canton
Cincinnati, OH--KY
Cleveland
Columbus
Dayton
Hamilton
Huntington--Ashland, WV--KY--OH
Lima
Lorain--Elyria
Mansfield
Middletown
Newark
Parkersburg, WV--OH
Sharon, PA--OH
Springfield
Steubenville--Weirton, OH--WV--PA
Toledo, OH-MI
Wheeling, WV-OH
Youngstown--Warren

Oklahoma

Fort Smith, AR--OK
Lawton
Oklahoma City
Tulsa

Oregon

Eugene--Springfield
Longview
Medford
Portland--Vancouver, OR--WA
Salem

Pennsylvania

Allentown--Bethlehem--Easton, PA--NJ
Altoona
Erie
Hagerstown, MD--PA--WV
Harrisburg
Johnstown
Lancaster
Monessen
Philadelphia, PA--NJ
Pittsburgh
Pottstown
Reading
Scranton--Wilkes-Barre
Sharon, PA--OH
State College
Steubenville--Weirton, OH--WV--PA
Trenton, NJ--PA
Williamsport
Wilmington, DE--NJ--MD--PA
York

Rhode Island

Fall River, MA--RI
Newport, RI
Providence--Pawtucket, RI--MA

South Carolina

Anderson
Augusta, GA--SC
Charleston
Columbia
Florence
Greenville
Myrtle Beach
Rock Hill
Spartanburg
Sumter

South Dakota

Rapid City
Sioux City, IA--NE--SD
Sioux Falls

Tennessee

Bristol, TN--Bristol, VA
Chattanooga, TN--GA
Clarksville, TN--KY
Jackson
Johnson City

[[Page 1612]]

Kingsport, TN--VA
Knoxville
Memphis, TN--AR--MS
Nashville

Texas

Abilene
Amarillo
Austin
Beaumont
Brownsville
Bryan--College Station
Corpus Christi
Dallas--Fort Worth
Denton
El Paso, TX--NM
Galveston
Harlingen
Houston
Killeen
Laredo
Lewisville
Longview
Lubbock
McAllen--Edinburg--Mission
Midland
Odessa
Port Arthur
San Angelo
San Antonio
Sherman--Denison
Temple
Texarkana, TX--Texarkana, AR
Texas City
Tyler
Victoria
Waco
Wichita Falls

Utah

Logan
Ogden
Provo--Orem
Salt Lake City

Vermont

Burlington

Virginia

Bristol, TN--Bristol, VA
Charlottesville
Danville
Fredericksburg
Kingsport, TN--VA
Lynchburg
Norfolk--Virginia Beach--Newport News
Petersburg
Richmond
Roanoke
Washington, DC--MD--VA

Washington

Bellingham
Bremerton
Longview, WA--OR
Olympia
Portland--Vancouver, OR--WA
Richland--Kennewick--Pasco
Seattle
Spokane
Tacoma
Yakima

West Virginia

Charleston
Cumberland, MD--WV
Hagerstown, MD--PA--WV
Huntington--Ashland, WV--KY--OH
Parkersburg, WV--OH
Steubenville--Weirton, OH--WV--PA
Wheeling, WV--OH

Wisconsin

Appleton--Neenah
Beloit, WI--IL
Duluth, MN--WI
Eau Claire
Green Bay
Janesville
Kenosha
La Crosse, WI--MN
Madison
Milwaukee
Oshkosh
Racine
Round Lake Beach--McHenry, IL--WI
Sheboygan
Wausau

Wyoming

Casper
Cheyenne

Puerto Rico

Aquadilla
Arecibo
Caguas
Cayey
Humacao
Mayaguez
Ponce
San Juan
Vega Baja--Manati

Appendix 4 to Preamble

Checklist for No-Exposure Certification for NPDES Storm Water
Permitting

Instructions--EPA Form XXX-X

Who May File a No-Exposure Certification

    In accordance with the Clean Water Act, all industrial
facilities that discharge storm water meeting the definition of
storm water associated with industrial activity must apply for
coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit. However, permit coverage is not required at
facilities that can certify a ``no-exposure'' condition exists. This
document may be used to certify that at the facility described
herein, a condition of no-exposure exists. This certification is
under the auspices of the EPA only and must be made at least once
every five years. Should the industrial activity change such that a
condition of no-exposure no longer exists, this certification is no
longer valid and coverage under an NPDES storm water permit must be
sought.

Definition of No-Exposure

    No-exposure exists at an industrial facility when all industrial
materials or activities, including, but not limited to, material
handling equipment, industrial machinery, raw materials,
intermediate products, by-products or waste products, however
packaged, are protected by a storm-resistant shelter so as not to be
exposed to rain, snow, snowmelt, or runoff. Adequately maintained
mobile equipment (trucks, automobiles, trailers or other such
general purpose vehicles found at the industrial site which
themselves are not industrial machinery or material handling
equipment and which are not leaking contaminants or are not
otherwise a source of industrial pollutants) may be exposed to
precipitation or runoff.

Completing the Form

    You must type or print in the spaces provided only. One form
must be completed for each facility or site for which you are
seeking to certify no-exposure.

Section I. Facility Operator Information

    Provide the legal name (no colloquial names) of the person,
firm, public organization, or any other entity that operates the
facility or site described in this certification. The name of the
operator may or may not be the same as the name of the facility. The
operator is the legal entity that controls the facility's operation,
rather than the plant or site manager. Enter the complete address
(P.O. Box numbers OK) and telephone number of the operator.

Section II. Facility/Site Location Information

    Enter the facility's or site's official or legal name and
complete street address (directional address OK if no street address
exists). Do not provide a P.O. Box number as the street address. In
addition, provide the latitude and longitude of the facility to the
nearest 15 seconds of the approximate center of the site (if you do
not know your site's latitude and longitude, call 1-800-USA-MAPS).

Section III. Exposure Checklist

    Circle ``Yes'' or ``No'' as appropriate to describe conditions
at your facility. For the purposes of this document, ``material'' is
defined as any raw material, intermediate product, finished product,
by-product or waste product, however packaged. ``Material handling
activities'', by definition, include storage, loading and/or
unloading, transportation or conveyance of a raw material,
intermediate product, finished product, by-product or waste product.

Interpretation of Results

    If you answer ``Yes'' to ANY of questions a. through r. in
Section III, a potential for exposure exists at your site and you
cannot certify a no-exposure condition exists. You must obtain (or
already have) coverage under an NPDES Storm Water permit. After
obtaining permit coverage, you can institute modifications to
eliminate the potential for a discharge of storm water exposed to
industrial activity, and then claim no-exposure and terminate
coverage under the existing permit.

Section IV. Certification

    Federal statutes provide for severe penalties for submitting
false information on this application form. Federal regulations
require this application to be signed as follows:
    For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer, which
means: (i) president, secretary, treasurer, or vice-president of the
corporation in charge of a principal business function, or any other
person who performs similar policy or decision making functions, or
(ii) the manager of one or more manufacturing, production, or
operating

[[Page 1613]]

facilities employing more than 250 persons or having gross annual
sales or expenditures exceeding $25 million (in second-quarter 1980
dollars) if authority to sign documents has been assigned or
delegated to the manager in accordance with corporate procedures
[note, wording subject to change as a result of NPDES streamlining,
rnd. II];
    For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner
or the proprietor; or
    For a municipality, State, Federal, or other public facility: by
either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official.

Where To File This Form

    Mail the completed form to:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (4203)
401 M St. SW
Washington, DC 20460

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 1614]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JA98.002



[[Page 1615]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JA98.003



BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

Appendix 5 to Preamble--Regulatory Flexibility for Small Entities

A. Regulatory Flexibility for Municipal Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s)

Different Compliance, Reporting, or Timetables That Are Responsive to
Resources of Small Entities

    NPDES permitting authority would issue general permits instead
of requiring individual permits. This flexibility would avoid the
high application costs and administrative burden associated with
individual permits.
    NPDES permitting authority could specify a time period of up to
five years for small MS4s to fully develop and implement their
program.
    Analytic monitoring would not be required.
    After the first permit term and subsequent permit terms,
submittal of a summary report would only be required in years two
and four. Phase I municipalities are currently required to submit a
detailed report each year.
    Brief reporting format encouraged to facilitate compiling and
analyzing data from submitted reports. EPA would develop a model
form for this purpose.

Clarifying, Consolidating, or Simplifying Compliance and Reporting
Requirements

    The proposed rule would avoid duplication in permit requirements
by allowing the NPDES permitting authority to incorporate by
reference State, Tribal, or local programs under a NPDES general
permit. Compliance with these programs would be considered
compliance with the NPDES general permit.
    The proposed rule would allow the NPDES permitting authority to
recognize existing responsibilities among different municipal
entities to satisfy obligations for the minimum control measures.
For example, a State program may address construction site storm
water runoff. Municipalities would be relieved of that obligation
and would only be responsible for the remaining minimum control
measures.
    The proposed rule would allow a small MS4 to satisfy its NPDES
permit obligations if another governmental entity is already
implementing a minimum control measure in the jurisdiction of the
small MS4. The following conditions would need to be met:
    1. The particular control measure (or component thereof) is
equivalent to what the NPDES permit requires,
    2. The other entity is implementing the control measure, and
    3. The small MS4 has requested, and the other entity has agreed
to accept responsibility for implementation of the control measure
on your behalf and to satisfy your permit obligation.
    The proposed rule would allow a covered small MS4 to ``piggy-
back'' on to the storm water management program of an adjoining
Phase I MS4. A small MS4 would be waived from the application
requirements of Sec. 122.26(d)(1)(iii), (iv) and (d)(2)(iii)
[discharge characterization] and may satisfy the requirements of
Sec. 122.26(d)(1)(v) and (d)(2)(iv) [identifying a management plan]
by referencing the adjoining Phase I MS4's storm water management
plan.
    The proposed rule would accommodate the use of the watershed
approach through NPDES general permits that could be issued on a
watershed basis. A municipality could develop measures that are
tailored to meet their watershed requirements. Municipalities' storm
water management program could tie into watershed-wide plans.

Performance Rather Than Design Standards for Small Entities

    Small governmental jurisdictions whose MS4s are covered by this
proposed rule would be allowed to choose the best management
practices (BMPs) to be implemented and the measurable goals for each
of the minimum control measures:
    1. Public education and outreach on storm water impacts.
    2. Public Involvement/Participation.
    3. Illicit discharge detection and elimination.

[[Page 1616]]

    4. Construction site storm water runoff control for sites of one
or more acre.
    5. Post-construction storm water management in new development
and redevelopment for sites of one or more acre.
    6. Pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal
operations.
    EPA would provide guidance and would recommend, but not mandate,
certain BMPs for some of the minimum control measures listed above.
    Small governmental jurisdictions would identify the measurable
goals for each of the minimum control measures listed above. In
their reports to the NPDES permitting authority, the small MS4s
would need to evaluate their progress towards achievement of their
identified measurable goals.

Waivers for Small Entities From Coverage

    The proposed rule would waiver from coverage Indian Tribes
located within an urbanized area and whose population is less than
or equal to 1,000 people.
    The proposed rule would allow the permitting authority to waive
from coverage MS4s owned or operated by small governmental
jurisdictions located within an urbanized area and serving a
population less than or equal to 1,000 people where the permitting
authority determines:
    1. Implementation of a TMDL that addresses the pollutants of
concern, or
    2. Implementation of a comprehensive watershed plan for the
water body.

B. Regulatory Flexibility for Construction Activities

Different Compliance, Reporting, or Timetables That Are Responsive to
Resources of Small Entities

    The proposed rule would give the relevant Director of the NPDES
permitting program discretion not to require the submittal of a
notice of intent (NOI) for coverage under a NPDES general permit,
thereby reducing administrative and financial burden. Currently, all
construction sites disturbing greater than 5 acres must submit an
NOI.

Clarifying, Consolidating, or Simplifying Compliance and Reporting
Requirements

    The proposed rule would avoid duplication by allowing the NPDES
permitting authority to incorporate by reference State, Tribal, or
local programs under a NPDES general permit. Compliance with these
programs would be considered compliance with the NPDES general
permit.

Performance Rather Than Design Standards for Small Entities

    The operator of a covered construction activity would select and
implement the BMPs most appropriate for the construction site based
on the operator's storm water pollution prevention plan.

Waivers for Small Entities From Coverage

    Waivers could be granted based on the use of the revised
Universal Soil Loss Equation. Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE)
    (A) Default/Low-Risk Exemption: When rainfall energy factor (R
from Universal Soil Loss Equation) is less than 2 during periods of
construction activity, a permit would not be required.
    (B) Case-by-Case Determination: A permit would not be required
for sites having an annual soil loss less than 2 tons/acre/year.
    The NPDES permitting authority could waive from coverage
construction activities disturbing from 1 acre up to 5 acres of land
where the permitting authority determines that storm water controls
are not needed based on:
    1. Implementation of a TMDL that addresses the pollutants of
concern, or
    2. Implementation of a comprehensive watershed plan for the
water body.

C. Regulatory Flexibility for Industrial/Commercial Facilities

Waivers for Small Entities From Coverage

    The proposed rule would provide a ``no-exposure'' waiver
provision for Phase I industrial/commercial facilities. Those
facilities seeking this provision would simply need to complete a
self-certification form.

Appendix 6 of Preamble--Incorporated Places and Counties Proposed To Be
Automatically Designated Under the Storm Water Phase II Proposed Rule
(From the 1990 Census of Population and Housing--U.S. Census Bureau)

(This List May Change With the Decennial Census)

AL  Anniston
AL  Attalla
AL  Auburn
AL  Autauga County
AL  Blue Mountain
AL  Calhoun County
AL  Colbert County
AL  Dale County
AL  Decatur
AL  Dothan
AL  Etowah County
AL  Flint City
AL  Florence
AL  Gadsden
AL  Glencoe
AL  Grimes
AL  Hartselle
AL  Hobson City
AL  Hokes Bluff
AL  Houston County
AL  Kinsey
AL  Lauderdale County
AL  Lee County
AL  Madison County
AL  Midland City
AL  Montgomery County
AL  Morgan County
AL  Muscle Shoals
AL  Napier Field
AL  Northport
AL  Opelika
AL  Oxford
AL  Phenix City
AL  Prattville
AL  Priceville
AL  Rainbow City
AL  Russell County
AL  Sheffield
AL  Southside
AL  Sylvan Springs
AL  Talladega County
AL  Tuscaloosa
AL  Tuscaloosa County
AL  Tuscumbia
AL  Weaver

AZ  Apache Junction
AZ  Chandler
AZ  El Mirage
AZ  Gilbert
AZ  Guadalupe
AZ  Maricopa County
AZ  Oro Valley
AZ  Paradise Valley
AZ  Peoria
AZ  Pinal County
AZ  South Tucson
AZ  Surprise
AZ  Tolleson
AZ  Youngtown
AZ  Yuma
AZ  Yuma County

AR  Alexander
AR  Barling
AR  Benton County
AR  Cammack Village
AR  Crawford County
AR  Crittenden County
AR  Farmington
AR  Fayetteville
AR  Fort Smith
AR  Greenland
AR  Jacksonville
AR  Jefferson County
AR  Johnson
AR  Marion
AR  Miller County
AR  North Little Rock
AR  Pine Bluff
AR  Pulaski County
AR  Saline County
AR  Shannon Hills
AR  Sherwood
AR  Springdale
AR  Sunset
AR  Texarkana
AR  Van Buren
AR  Washington County
AR  West Memphis
AR  White Hall

CA  Apple Valley
CA  Belvedere
CA  Benicia
CA  Brentwood
CA  Butte County
CA  Capitola
CA  Carmel-by-the-Sea
CA  Carpinteria
CA  Ceres
CA  Chico
CA  Compton
CA  Corte Madera
CA  Cotati
CA  Davis
CA  Del Rey Oaks
CA  Fairfax
CA  Hesperia
CA  Imperial County
CA  Lakewood
CA  Lancaster
CA  Larkspur
CA  Lodi
CA  Lompoc
CA  Marin County
CA  Marina
CA  Marysville
CA  Merced
CA  Merced County
CA  Mill Valley
CA  Monterey
CA  Monterey County
CA  Morgan Hill

[[Page 1617]]

CA  Napa
CA  Napa County
CA  Novato
CA  Pacific Grove
CA  Palm Desert
CA  Palmdale
CA  Piedmont
CA  Redding
CA  Rocklin
CA  Rohnert Park
CA  Roseville
CA  Ross
CA  San Anselmo
CA  San Buenaventura (Ventura)
CA  San Francisco
CA  San Joaquin County
CA  San Luis Obispo
CA  San Luis Obispo County
CA  San Rafael
CA  Sand City
CA  Santa Barbara
CA  Santa Barbara County
CA  Santa Cruz
CA  Santa Cruz County
CA  Santa Maria
CA  Sausalito
CA  Scotts Valley
CA  Seaside
CA  Shasta County
CA  Solano County
CA  Sonoma County
CA  Stanislaus County
CA  Sutter County
CA  Tiburon
CA  Tulare County
CA  Vacaville
CA  Victorville
CA  Villa Park
CA  Visalia
CA  Watsonville
CA  West Sacramento
CA  Yolo County
CA  Yuba City
CA  Yuba County

CO  Adams County
CO  Arvada
CO  Boulder
CO  Boulder County
CO  Bow Mar
CO  Broomfield
CO  Cherry Hills Village
CO  Columbine Valley
CO  Commerce City
CO  Douglas County
CO  Edgewater
CO  El Paso County
CO  Englewood
CO  Evans
CO  Federal Heights
CO  Fort Collins
CO  Fountain
CO  Garden City
CO  Glendale
CO  Golden
CO  Grand Junction
CO  Greeley
CO  Greenwood Village
CO  Jefferson County
CO  La Salle
CO  Lakeside
CO  Larimer County
CO  Littleton
CO  Longmont
CO  Manitou Springs
CO  Mesa County
CO  Mountain View
CO  Northglenn
CO  Pueblo
CO  Pueblo County
CO  Sheridan
CO  Thornton
CO  Weld County
CO  Westminster
CO  Wheat Ridge

CT  Ansonia
CT  Bridgeport
CT  Bristol
CT  Danbury
CT  Derby
CT  Fairfield County
CT  Groton
CT  Hartford
CT  Hartford County
CT  Litchfield County
CT  Meriden
CT  Middlesex County
CT  Middletown
CT  Milford
CT  Naugatuck
CT  New Britain
CT  New Haven
CT  New Haven County
CT  New London
CT  New London County
CT  Norwalk
CT  Norwich
CT  Shelton
CT  Tolland County
CT  Waterbury
CT  West Haven
CT  Windham County
CT  Woodmont

DE  Camden
DE  Dover
DE  Kent County
DE  Newark
DE  Wyoming

FL  Alachua County
FL  Baldwin
FL  Bay County
FL  Belleair Shore
FL  Biscayne Park
FL  Brevard County
FL  Callaway
FL  Cape Canaveral
FL  Cedar Grove
FL  Charlotte County
FL  Cinco Bayou
FL  Clay County
FL  Cocoa
FL  Cocoa Beach
FL  Collier County
FL  Daytona Beach
FL  Daytona Beach Shores
FL  Destin
FL  Edgewater
FL  El Portal
FL  FLorida City
FL  Fort Pierce
FL  Fort Walton Beach
FL  Gainesville
FL  Gulf Breeze
FL  Hernando County
FL  Hillsboro Beach
FL  Holly Hill
FL  Indialantic
FL  Indian Harbour Beach
FL  Indian River County
FL  Indian River Shores
FL  Indian Shores
FL  Kissimmee
FL  Lazy Lake
FL  Lynn Haven
FL  Malabar
FL  Marion County
FL  Martin County
FL  Mary Esther
FL  Melbourne
FL  Melbourne Beach
FL  Melbourne Village
FL  Naples
FL  New Smyrna Beach
FL  Niceville
FL  Ocala
FL  Ocean Breeze Park
FL  Okaloosa County
FL  Orange Park
FL  Ormond Beach
FL  Osceola County
FL  Palm Bay
FL  Panama City
FL  Parker
FL  Ponce Inlet
FL  Port Orange
FL  Port St. Lucie
FL  Punta Gorda
FL  Rockledge
FL  Santa Rosa County
FL  Satellite Beach
FL  Sewall's Point
FL  Shalimar
FL  South Daytona
FL  Springfield
FL  St. Johns County
FL  St. Lucie
FL  St. Lucie County
FL  Stuart
FL  Sweetwater
FL  Titusville
FL  Valparaiso
FL  Vero Beach
FL  Virginia Gardens
FL  Volusia County
FL  Walton County
FL  Weeki Wachee
FL  West Melbourne
FL  Windermere

GA  Albany
GA  Athens
GA  Bartow County
GA  Bibb City
GA  Brunswick
GA  Catoosa County
GA  Centerville
GA  Chattahoochee County
GA  Cherokee County
GA  Chickamauga
GA  Clarke County
GA  Columbia County
GA  Columbus
GA  Conyers
GA  Dade County
GA  Dougherty County
GA  Douglas County
GA  Douglasville
GA  Fayette County
GA  Floyd County
GA  Fort Oglethorpe
GA  Glynn County
GA  Grovetown
GA  Henry County
GA  Houston County
GA  Jones County
GA  Lee County
GA  Lookout Mountain
GA  Mountain Park
GA  Oconee County

[[Page 1618]]

GA  Payne
GA  Rockdale County
GA  Rome
GA  Rossville
GA  Stockbridge
GA  Vernonburg
GA  Walker County
GA  Warner Robins
GA  Winterville
GA  Woodstock

ID  Ada County
ID  Ammon
ID  Bannock County
ID  Bonneville County
ID  Chubbuck
ID  Garden City
ID  IDaho Falls
ID  Iona
ID  Pocatello
IL  Addison
IL  Algonquin
IL  Alorton
IL  Alsip
IL  Alton
IL  Antioch
IL  Arlington Heights
IL  Aroma Park
IL  Aurora
IL  Bannockburn
IL  Barrington
IL  Bartlett
IL  Bartonville
IL  Batavia
IL  Beach Park
IL  Bedford Park
IL  Belleville
IL  Bellevue
IL  Bellwood
IL  Bensenville
IL  Berkeley
IL  Berwyn
IL  Bethalto
IL  Bloomingdale
IL  Bloomington
IL  Blue Island
IL  Bolingbrook
IL  Bourbonnais
IL  Bradley
IL  Bridgeview
IL  Broadview
IL  Brookfield
IL  Brooklyn
IL  Buffalo Grove
IL  Burbank
IL  Burnham
IL  Burr Ridge
IL  Cahokia
IL  Calumet City
IL  Calumet Park
IL  Carbon Cliff
IL  Carol Stream
IL  Carpentersville
IL  Cary
IL  Caseyville
IL  Centreville
IL  Champaign
IL  Champaign County
IL  Cherry Valley
IL  Chicago
IL  Chicago Heights
IL  Chicago Ridge
IL  Cicero
IL  Clarendon Hills
IL  Coal Valley
IL  Collinsville
IL  Colona
IL  Columbia
IL  Cook County
IL  Country Club Hills
IL  Countryside
IL  Crest Hill
IL  Crestwood
IL  Crete
IL  Creve Coeur
IL  Crystal Lake
IL  Darien
IL  Decatur
IL  Deer Park
IL  Deerfield
IL  Des Plaines
IL  Dixmoor
IL  Dolton
IL  Downers Grove
IL  Dupo
IL  DuPage County
IL  East Alton
IL  East Dubuque
IL  East Dundee
IL  East Hazel Crest
IL  East Moline
IL  East Peoria
IL  East St. Louis
IL  Edwardsville
IL  Elgin
IL  Elk Grove Village
IL  Elmhurst
IL  Elmwood Park
IL  Evanston
IL  Evergreen Park
IL  Fairmont City
IL  Fairview Heights
IL  Flossmoor
IL  Ford Heights
IL  Forest Park
IL  Forest View
IL  Forsyth
IL  Fox Lake
IL  Fox River Grove
IL  Frankfort
IL  Franklin Park
IL  Geneva
IL  Gilberts
IL  Glen Carbon
IL  Glen Ellyn
IL  Glencoe
IL  Glendale Heights
IL  Glenview
IL  Glenwood
IL  Golf
IL  Grandview
IL  Granite City
IL  Grayslake
IL  Green Oaks
IL  Green Rock
IL  Gurnee
IL  Hainesville
IL  Hampton
IL  Hanover Park
IL  Harristown
IL  Hartford
IL  Harvey
IL  Harwood Heights
IL  Hawthorn Woods
IL  Hazel Crest
IL  Henry County
IL  Hickory Hills
IL  Highland Park
IL  Highwood
IL  Hillside
IL  Hinsdale
IL  Hodgkins
IL  Hoffman Estates
IL  Hometown
IL  Homewood
IL  Indian Creek
IL  Indian Head Park
IL  Inverness
IL  Itasca
IL  Jerome
IL  Jo Daviess County
IL  Joliet
IL  Justice
IL  Kane County
IL  Kankakee
IL  Kankakee County
IL  Kendall County
IL  Kenilworth
IL  Kildeer
IL  La Grange
IL  La Grange Park
IL  Lake in the Hills
IL  Lake Barrington
IL  Lake Bluff
IL  Lake County
IL  Lake Forest
IL  Lake Villa
IL  Lake Zurich
IL  Lakemoor
IL  Lakewood
IL  Lansing
IL  Leland Grove
IL  Libertyville
IL  Lincolnshire
IL  Lincolnwood
IL  Lindenhurst
IL  Lisle
IL  Lockport
IL  Lombard
IL  Long Grove
IL  Loves Park
IL  Lynwood
IL  Lyons
IL  Machesney Park
IL  Macon County
IL  Madison
IL  Madison County
IL  Markham
IL  Marquette Heights
IL  Maryville
IL  Matteson
IL  Maywood
IL  McCook
IL  McCullom Lake
IL  McHenry
IL  McHenry County
IL  McLean County
IL  Melrose Park
IL  Merrionette Park
IL  Midlothian
IL  Milan
IL  Moline
IL  Monroe County
IL  Montgomery
IL  Morton
IL  Morton Grove
IL  Mount Prospect
IL  Mount Zion
IL  Mundelein
IL  Naperville
IL  National City
IL  New Lenox
IL  New Millford
IL  Niles
IL  Normal
IL  Norridge
IL  North Aurora
IL  North Barrington
IL  North Chicago

[[Page 1619]]

IL  North Pekin
IL  North Riverside
IL  Northbrook
IL  Northfield
IL  Northlake
IL  Norwood
IL  O'Fallon
IL  Oak Brook
IL  Oak Forest
IL  Oak Grove
IL  Oak Lawn
IL  Oak Park
IL  Oakbrook Terrace
IL  Oakwood Hills
IL  Olympia Fields
IL  Orland Hills
IL  Orland Park
IL  Oswego
IL  Palatine
IL  Palos Heights
IL  Palos Hills
IL  Palos Park
IL  Park City
IL  Park Forest
IL  Park Ridge
IL  Pekin
IL  Peoria
IL  Peoria County
IL  Peoria Heights
IL  Phoenix
IL  Plainfield
IL  Pontoon Beach
IL  Posen
IL  Prospect Heights
IL  Richton Park
IL  River Forest
IL  River Grove
IL  Riverdale
IL  Riverside
IL  Riverwoods
IL  Robbins
IL  Rock Island
IL  Rock Island County
IL  Rockdale
IL  Rockton
IL  Rolling Meadows
IL  Romeoville
IL  Roscoe
IL  Roselle
IL  Rosemont
IL  Round Lake
IL  Round Lake Beach
IL  Round Lake Heights
IL  Round Lake Park
IL  Roxana
IL  Sangamon County
IL  Sauget
IL  Sauk Village
IL  Savoy
IL  Schaumburg
IL  Schiller Park
IL  Shiloh
IL  Shorewood
IL  Silvis
IL  Skokie
IL  Sleepy Hollow
IL  South Beloit
IL  South Chicago Heights
IL  South Elgin
IL  South Holland
IL  South Roxana
IL  Southern View
IL  Springfield
IL  St. Charles
IL  St. Clair County
IL  Steger
IL  Stickney
IL  Stone Park
IL  Streamwood
IL  Summit
IL  Sunnyside
IL  Swansea
IL  Tazewell County
IL  Thornton
IL  Tinley Park
IL  Tower Lakes
IL  Troy
IL  University Park
IL  Urbana
IL  Venice
IL  Vernon Hills
IL  Villa Park
IL  Warrenville
IL  Washington
IL  Washington Park
IL  Waukegan
IL  West Chicago
IL  West Dundee
IL  Westchester
IL  Western Springs
IL  Westmont
IL  Wheaton
IL  Wheeling
IL  Will County
IL  Willow Springs
IL  Willowbrook
IL  Wilmette
IL  Winfield
IL  Winnebago County
IL  Winnetka
IL  Winthrop Harbor
IL  Wood Dale
IL  Wood River
IL  Woodridge
IL  Worth
IL  Zion

IN  Allen County
IN  Anderson
IN  Beech Grove
IN  Bloomington
IN  Boone County
IN  Carmel
IN  Castleton
IN  Chesterfield
IN  Chesterton
IN  Clark County
IN  Clarksville
IN  Clermont
IN  Country Club Heights
IN  Crown Point
IN  Crows Nest
IN  Cumberland
IN  Daleville
IN  Delaware County
IN  Dyer
IN  East Chicago
IN  Edgewood
IN  Elkhart
IN  Elkhart County
IN  Evansville
IN  Fishers
IN  Floyd County
IN  Gary
IN  Goshen
IN  Greenwood
IN  Griffith
IN  Hamilton County
IN  Hammond
IN  Hancock County
IN  Hendricks County
IN  Highland
IN  Hobart
IN  Homecroft
IN  Howard County
IN  Indian Village
IN  Jeffersonville
IN  Johnson County
IN  Kokomo
IN  Lafayette
IN  Lake County
IN  Lake Station
IN  Lawrence
IN  Madison County
IN  Meridian Hills
IN  Merrillville
IN  Mishawaka
IN  Monroe County
IN  Muncie
IN  Munster
IN  New Albany
IN  New Chicago
IN  New Haven
IN  New Whiteland
IN  Newburgh
IN  North Crows Nest
IN  Ogden Dunes
IN  Osceola
IN  Portage
IN  Porter
IN  Porter County
IN  River Forest
IN  Rocky Ripple
IN  Roseland
IN  Schererville
IN  Seelyville
IN  Sellersburg
IN  Selma
IN  South Bend
IN  Southport
IN  Speedway
IN  Spring Hill
IN  St. John
IN  St. Joseph County
IN  Terre Haute
IN  Tippecanoe County
IN  Vanderburgh County
IN  Vigo County
IN  Warren Park
IN  Warrick County
IN  West Lafayette
IN  West Terre Haute
IN  Westfield
IN  Whiteland
IN  Whiting
IN  Williams Creek
IN  Woodlawn Heights
IN  Wynnedale
IN  Yorktown
IN  Zionsville

IA  Altoona
IA  Asbury
IA  Bettendorf
IA  Black Hawk County
IA  Buffalo
IA  Carter Lake
IA  Cedar Falls
IA  Clive
IA  Coralville
IA  Council Bluffs
IA  Dubuque
IA  Dubuque County
IA  Elk Run Heights
IA  Evansdale
IA  Hiawatha
IA  Iowa City
IA  Johnson County
IA  Johnston
IA  Le Claire

[[Page 1620]]

IA  Linn County
IA  Marion
IA  Norwalk
IA  Panorama Park
IA  Pleasant Hill
IA  Polk County
IA  Pottawattamie County
IA  Raymond
IA  Riverdale
IA  Robins
IA  Scott County
IA  Sergeant Bluff
IA  Sioux City
IA  University Heights
IA  Urbandale
IA  Warren County
IA  Waterloo
IA  West Des Moines
IA  Windsor Heights

KS  Bel Aire
KS  Countryside
KS  Doniphan County
KS  Douglas County
KS  Eastborough
KS  Elwood
KS  Fairway
KS  Haysville
KS  Johnson County
KS  Kechi
KS  Lake Quivira
KS  Lawrence
KS  Leawood
KS  Lenexa
KS  Merriam
KS  Mission
KS  Mission Hills
KS  Mission Woods
KS  Olathe
KS  Park City
KS  Prairie Village
KS  Roeland Park
KS  Sedgwick County
KS  Shawnee
KS  Shawnee County
KS  Westwood
KS  Westwood Hills

KY  Alexandria
KY  Anchorage
KY  Ashland
KY  Audubon Park
KY  Bancroft
KY  Barbourmeade
KY  Beechwood Village
KY  Bellefonte
KY  Bellemeade
KY  Bellevue
KY  Bellewood
KY  Blue Ridge Manor
KY  Boone County
KY  Boyd County
KY  Briarwood
KY  Broad Fields
KY  Broeck Pointe
KY  Bromley
KY  Brownsboro Farm
KY  Brownsboro Village
KY  Bullitt County
KY  Cambridge
KY  Campbell County
KY  Catlettsburg
KY  Cherrywood Village
KY  Christian County
KY  Cold Spring
KY  Covington
KY  Creekside
KY  Crescent Park
KY  Crescent Springs
KY  Crestview
KY  Crestview Hills
KY  Crossgate
KY  Daviess County
KY  Dayton
KY  Douglass Hills
KY  Druid Hills
KY  Edgewood
KY  Elsmere
KY  Erlanger
KY  Fairmeade
KY  Fairview
KY  Flatwoods
KY  Florence
KY  Forest Hills
KY  Fort Mitchell
KY  Fort Thomas
KY  Fort Wright
KY  Fox Chase
KY  Glenview
KY  Glenview Hills
KY  Glenview Manor
KY  Goose Creek
KY  Graymoor-Devondale
KY  Green Spring
KY  Greenup County
KY  Hebron Estates
KY  Henderson
KY  Henderson County
KY  Hickory Hill
KY  Highland Heights
KY  Hills and Dales
KY  Hillview
KY  Hollow Creek
KY  Hollyvilla
KY  Houston Acres
KY  Hunters Hollow
KY  Hurstbourne
KY  Hurstbourne Acres
KY  Independence
KY  Indian Hills
KY  Indian Hills Cherokee Section
KY  Jeffersontown
KY  Jessamine County
KY  Keeneland
KY  Kenton County
KY  Kenton Vale
KY  Kingsley
KY  Lakeside Park
KY  Langdon Place
KY  Latonia Lakes
KY  Lincolnshire
KY  Ludlow
KY  Lyndon
KY  Lynnview
KY  Manor Creek
KY  Maryhill Estates
KY  Meadow Vale
KY  Meadowbrook Farm
KY  Meadowview Estates
KY  Melbourne
KY  Middletown
KY  Minor Lane Heights
KY  Mockingbird Valley
KY  Moorland
KY  Murray Hill
KY  Newport
KY  Norbourne Estates
KY  Northfield
KY  Norwood
KY  Oak Grove
KY  Old Brownsboro Place
KY  Owensboro
KY  Park Hills
KY  Parkway Village
KY  Pioneer Village
KY  Plantation
KY  Plymouth Village
KY  Poplar Hills
KY  Prospect
KY  Raceland
KY  Richlawn
KY  Riverwood
KY  Robinswood
KY  Rolling Fields
KY  Rolling Hills
KY  Russell
KY  Seneca Gardens
KY  Shively
KY  Silver Grove
KY  South Park View
KY  Southgate
KY  Spring Mill
KY  Spring Valley
KY  Springlee
KY  St. Matthews
KY  St. Regis Park
KY  Strathmoor Gardens
KY  Strathmoor Manor
KY  Strathmoor Village
KY  Sycamore
KY  Taylor Mill
KY  Ten Broeck
KY  Thornhill
KY  Villa Hills
KY  Watterson Park
KY  Wellington
KY  West Buechel
KY  Westwood
KY  Whipps Millgate
KY  Wilder
KY  Wildwood
KY  Winding Falls
KY  Windy Hills
KY  Woodland Hills
KY  Woodlawn
KY  Woodlawn Park
KY  Worthington
KY  Wurtland

LA  Alexandria
LA  Baker
LA  Ball
LA  Bossier City
LA  Bossier Parish
LA  Broussard
LA  Caddo Parish
LA  Calcasieu Parish
LA  Carencro
LA  Denham Springs
LA  East Baton Rouge Parish
LA  Houma
LA  Lafayette
LA  Lafayette Parish
LA  Lafourche Parish
LA  Lake Charles
LA  Livingston Parish
LA  Monroe
LA  Ouachita Parish
LA  Pineville
LA  Plaquemines Parish
LA  Port Allen
LA  Rapides Parish
LA  Richwood
LA  Scott
LA  Slidell
LA  St. Bernard Parish
LA  St. Charles Parish
LA  St. Tammany Parish
LA  Sulphur
LA  Terrebonne Parish
LA  West Baton Rouge Parish

[[Page 1621]]

LA  West Monroe
LA  Westlake
LA  Zachary

ME  Androscoggin County
ME  Auburn
ME  Bangor
ME  Brewer
ME  Cumberland County
ME  Lewiston
ME  Old Town
ME  Penobscot County
ME  Portland
ME  South Portland
ME  Westbrook
ME  York County

MD  Allegany County
MD  Annapolis
MD  Bel Air
MD  Berwyn Heights
MD  Bladensburg
MD  Bowie
MD  Brentwood
MD  Brookeville
MD  Capitol Heights
MD  Cecil County
MD  Cheverly
MD  Chevy Chase
MD  Chevy Chase Section Five
MD  Chevy Chase Section Three
MD  Chevy Chase Village
MD  College Park
MD  Colmar Manor
MD  Cottage City
MD  Cumberland
MD  District Heights
MD  Edmonston
MD  Elkton
MD  Fairmount Heights
MD  Forest Heights
MD  Frederick
MD  Frostburg
MD  Funkstown
MD  Gaithersburg
MD  Garrett Park
MD  Glen Echo
MD  Glenarden
MD  Greenbelt
MD  Hagerstown
MD  Highland Beach
MD  Hyattsville
MD  Kensington
MD  Landover Hills
MD  Laurel
MD  Martin's Additions
MD  Morningside
MD  Mount Rainier
MD  New Carrollton
MD  North Brentwood
MD  Riverdale
MD  Rockville
MD  Seat Pleasant
MD  Smithsburg
MD  Somerset
MD  Takoma Park
MD  University Park
MD  Walkersville
MD  Washington Grove
MD  Williamsport

MA  Attleboro
MA  Barnstable County
MA  Berkshire County
MA  Beverly
MA  Bristol County
MA  Brockton
MA  Cambridge
MA  Chelsea
MA  Chicopee
MA  Essex County
MA  Everett
MA  Fall River
MA  Fitchburg
MA  Gloucester
MA  Hampden County
MA  Hampshire County
MA  Haverhill
MA  Holyoke
MA  Lawrence
MA  Leominster
MA  Lowell
MA  Lynn
MA  Malden
MA  Marlborough
MA  Medford
MA  Melrose
MA  Middlesex County
MA  New Bedford
MA  Newton
MA  Norfolk County
MA  Northampton
MA  Peabody
MA  Pittsfield
MA  Plymouth County
MA  Quincy
MA  Revere
MA  Salem
MA  Somerville
MA  Springfield
MA  Suffolk County
MA  Taunton
MA  Waltham
MA  Westfield
MA  Woburn
MA  Worcester County

MI  Allegan County
MI  Allen Park
MI  Auburn Hills
MI  Battle Creek
MI  Bay City
MI  Bay County
MI  Belleville
MI  Benton Harbor
MI  Berkley
MI  Berrien County
MI  Beverly Hills
MI  Bingham Farms
MI  Birmingham
MI  Bloomfield Hills
MI  Burton
MI  Calhoun County
MI  Cass County
MI  Center Line
MI  Clarkston
MI  Clawson
MI  Clinton County
MI  Clio
MI  Davison
MI  Dearborn
MI  Dearborn Heights
MI  Detroit
MI  East Detroit
MI  East Grand Rapids
MI  East Lansing
MI  Eaton County
MI  Ecorse
MI  Essexville
MI  Farmington
MI  Farmington Hills
MI  Ferndale
MI  Flat Rock
MI  Flushing
MI  Franklin
MI  Fraser
MI  Garden City
MI  Genesee County
MI  Gibraltar
MI  Grand Blanc
MI  Grandville
MI  Grosse Pointe
MI  Grosse Pointe Farms
MI  Grosse Pointe Park
MI  Grosse Pointe Shores
MI  Grosse Pointe Woods
MI  Hamtramck
MI  Harper Woods
MI  Hazel Park
MI  Highland Park
MI  Holland
MI  Hudsonville
MI  Huntington Woods
MI  Ingham County
MI  Inkster
MI  Jackson
MI  Jackson County
MI  Kalamazoo
MI  Kalamazoo County
MI  Keego Harbor
MI  Kent County
MI  Kentwood
MI  Lake Angelus
MI  Lansing
MI  Lathrup Village
MI  Lincoln Park
MI  Livonia
MI  Macomb County
MI  Madison Heights
MI  Marysville
MI  Melvindale
MI  Monroe County
MI  Mount Clemens
MI  Mount Morris
MI  Muskegon
MI  Muskegon County
MI  Muskegon Heights
MI  New Baltimore
MI  Niles
MI  North Muskegon
MI  Northville
MI  Norton Shores
MI  Novi
MI  Oak Park
MI  Oakland County
MI  Orchard Lake Village
MI  Ottawa County
MI  Parchment
MI  Pleasant Ridge
MI  Plymouth
MI  Pontiac
MI  Port Huron
MI  Portage
MI  River Rouge
MI  Riverview
MI  Rochester
MI  Rochester Hills
MI  Rockwood
MI  Romulus
MI  Roosevelt Park
MI  Roseville
MI  Royal Oak
MI  Saginaw
MI  Saginaw County
MI  Shoreham
MI  South Rockwood
MI  Southfield
MI  Southgate
MI  Springfield
MI  St. Clair
MI  St. Clair County

[[Page 1622]]

MI  St. Clair Shores
MI  St. Joseph
MI  Stevensville
MI  Swartz Creek
MI  Sylvan Lake
MI  Taylor
MI  Trenton
MI  Troy
MI  Utica
MI  Walker
MI  Walled Lake
MI  Washtenaw County
MI  Wayne
MI  Wayne County
MI  Westland
MI  Wixom
MI  Wolverine Lake
MI  Woodhaven
MI  Wyandotte
MI  Wyoming
MI  Ypsilanti
MI  Zeeland
MI  Zilwaukee

MN  Andover
MN  Anoka
MN  Apple Valley
MN  Arden Hills
MN  Benton County
MN  Birchwood Village
MN  Blaine
MN  Bloomington
MN  Brooklyn Center
MN  Brooklyn Park
MN  Burnsville
MN  Champlin
MN  Chanhassen
MN  Circle Pines
MN  Clay County
MN  Coon Rapids
MN  Cottage Grove
MN  Crystal
MN  Dayton
MN  Deephaven
MN  Dilworth
MN  Duluth
MN  Eagan
MN  East Grand Forks
MN  Eden Prairie
MN  Excelsior
MN  Falcon Heights
MN  Farmington
MN  Fridley
MN  Gem Lake
MN  Golden Valley
MN  Greenwood
MN  Ham Lake
MN  Hennepin County
MN  Hermantown
MN  Hilltop
MN  Hopkins
MN  Houston County
MN  Inver Grove Heights
MN  La Crescent
MN  Lake Elmo
MN  Lakeville
MN  Landfall
MN  Lauderdale
MN  Lexington
MN  Lilydale
MN  Lino Lakes
MN  Little Canada
MN  Long Lake
MN  Loretto
MN  Mahtomedi
MN  Maple Grove
MN  Maple Plain
MN  Maplewood
MN  Medicine Lake
MN  Medina
MN  Mendota
MN  Mendota Heights
MN  Minnetonka
MN  Minnetonka Beach
MN  Minnetrista
MN  Moorhead
MN  Mound
MN  Mounds View
MN  New Brighton
MN  New Hope
MN  Newport
MN  North Oaks
MN  North St. Paul
MN  Oakdale
MN  Olmsted County
MN  Orono
MN  Osseo
MN  Plymouth
MN  Prior Lake
MN  Proctor
MN  Ramsey
MN  Ramsey County
MN  Robbinsdale
MN  Rochester
MN  Rosemount
MN  Roseville
MN  Sartell
MN  Sauk Rapids
MN  Savage
MN  Scott County
MN  Sherburne County
MN  Shoreview
MN  Shorewood
MN  South St. Paul
MN  Spring Lake Park
MN  Spring Park
MN  St. Anthony
MN  St. Cloud
MN  St. Louis County
MN  St. Paul Park
MN  Stearns County
MN  Sunfish Lake
MN  Tonka Bay
MN  Vadnais Heights
MN  Victoria
MN  Waite Park
MN  WA County
MN  Wayzata
MN  West St. Paul
MN  White Bear Lake
MN  Willernie
MN  Woodbury
MN  Woodland

MS  Bay St. Louis
MS  Biloxi
MS  Brandon
MS  Clinton
MS  D'Iberville
MS  DeSoto County
MS  Flowood
MS  Forrest County
MS  Gautier
MS  Gulfport
MS  Hancock County
MS  Harrison County
MS  Hattiesburg
MS  Hinds County
MS  Horn Lake
MS  Jackson County
MS  Lamar County
MS  Long Beach
MS  Madison
MS  Madison County
MS  Moss Point
MS  Ocean Springs
MS  Pascagoula
MS  Pass Christian
MS  Pearl
MS  Petal
MS  Rankin County
MS  Richland
MS  Ridgeland
MS  Southaven
MS  Waveland

MO  Airport Drive
MO  Andrew County
MO  Arnold
MO  Avondale
MO  Ballwin
MO  Battlefield
MO  Bel-Nor
MO  Bel-Ridge
MO  Bella Villa
MO  Bellefontaine Neighbors
MO  Bellerive
MO  Belton
MO  Berkeley
MO  Beverly Hills
MO  Birmingham
MO  Black Jack
MO  Blue Springs
MO  Boone County
MO  Breckenridge Hills
MO  Brentwood
MO  Bridgeton
MO  Buchanan County
MO  Calverton Park
MO  Carl Junction
MO  Carterville
MO  Cass County
MO  Charlack
MO  Chesterfield
MO  Clarkson Valley
MO  Claycomo
MO  Clayton
MO  Cliff Village
MO  Columbia
MO  Cool Valley
MO  Cottleville
MO  Country Club
MO  Country Club Hills
MO  Country Life Acres
MO  Crestwood
MO  Creve Coeur
MO  Crystal Lake Park
MO  Dellwood
MO  Dennis Acres
MO  Des Peres
MO  Duquesne
MO  Edmundson
MO  Ellisville
MO  Fenton
MO  Ferguson
MO  Flordell Hills
MO  Florissant
MO  Frontenac
MO  Gladstone
MO  Glen Echo Park
MO  Glenaire
MO  Glendale
MO  Grandview
MO  Grantwood Village
MO  Greendale
MO  Greene County
MO  Hanley Hills
MO  Hazelwood
MO  Hillsdale
MO  Houston Lake
MO  Huntleigh

[[Page 1623]]

MO  Iron Gates
MO  Jackson County
MO  Jasper County
MO  Jefferson County
MO  Jennings
MO  Joplin
MO  Kimmswick
MO  Kinloch
MO  Kirkwood
MO  Ladue
MO  Lake St.Louis
MO  Lake Tapawingo
MO  Lake Waukomis
MO  Lakeshire
MO  Leawood
MO  Lee's Summit
MO  Liberty
MO  Mac Kenzie
MO  Manchester
MO  Maplewood
MO  Marlborough
MO  Maryland Heights
MO  Moline Acres
MO  Normandy
MO  North KS City
MO  Northmoor
MO  Northwoods
MO  Norwood Court
MO  O'Fallon
MO  Oakland
MO  Oakland Park
MO  Oaks
MO  Oakview
MO  Oakwood
MO  Oakwood Park
MO  Olivette
MO  Overland
MO  Pagedale
MO  Parkdale
MO  Parkville
MO  Pasadena Hills
MO  Pasadena Park
MO  Pine Lawn
MO  Platte County
MO  Platte Woods
MO  Pleasant Valley
MO  Randolph
MO  Raymore
MO  Raytown
MO  Redings Mill
MO  Richmond Heights
MO  Riverside
MO  Riverview
MO  Rock Hill
MO  Saginaw
MO  Shoal Creek Drive
MO  Shrewsbury
MO  Silver Creek
MO  St. Ann
MO  St. Charles
MO  St. Charles County
MO  St. George
MO  St. John
MO  St. Joseph
MO  St. Louis
MO  St. Louis County
MO  St. Peters
MO  Sugar Creek
MO  Sunset Hills
MO  Sycamore Hills
MO  Town and Country
MO  Twin Oaks
MO  Unity Village
MO  University City
MO  Uplands Park
MO  Valley Park
MO  Velda Village
MO  Velda Village Hills
MO  Vinita Park
MO  Vinita Terrace
MO  Warson Woods
MO  Weatherby Lake
MO  Webb City
MO  Webster Groves
MO  Wellston
MO  Westwood
MO  Wilbur Park
MO  Winchester
MO  Woodson Terrace

MT  Billings
MT  Cascade County
MT  Great Falls
MT  Missoula
MT  Missoula County
MT  Yellowstone County

NE  Bellevue
NE  Boys Town
NE  Dakota County
NE  Douglas County
NE  La Vista
NE  Lancaster County
NE  Papillion
NE  Ralston
NE  Sarpy County
NE  South Sioux City

NH  Dover
NH  Hillsborough County
NH  Manchester
NH  Merrimack County
NH  Nashua
NH  Portsmouth
NH  Rochester
NH  Rockingham County
NH  Somersworth
NH  Strafford County

NJ  Absecon
NJ  Allendale
NJ  Allenhurst
NJ  Alpha
NJ  Alpine
NJ  Asbury Park
NJ  Atlantic City
NJ  Atlantic County
NJ  Atlantic Highlands
NJ  Audubon
NJ  Audubon Park
NJ  Avon-by-the-Sea
NJ  Barrington
NJ  Bay Head
NJ  Bayonne
NJ  Beachwood
NJ  Bellmawr
NJ  Belmar
NJ  Bergen County
NJ  Bergenfield
NJ  Berlin
NJ  Bernardsville
NJ  Beverly
NJ  Bloomingdale
NJ  Bogota
NJ  Boonton
NJ  Bordentown
NJ  Bound Brook
NJ  Bradley Beach
NJ  Brielle
NJ  Brigantine
NJ  Brooklawn
NJ  Buena
NJ  Burlington
NJ  Burlington County
NJ  Butler
NJ  Camden
NJ  Camden County
NJ  Cape May County
NJ  Carlstadt
NJ  Carteret
NJ  Chatham
NJ  Chesilhurst
NJ  Clayton
NJ  Clementon
NJ  Cliffside Park
NJ  Clifton
NJ  Closter
NJ  Collingswood
NJ  Cresskill
NJ  Cumberland County
NJ  Deal
NJ  Demarest
NJ  Dover
NJ  Dumont
NJ  Dunellen
NJ  East Newark
NJ  East Orange
NJ  East Rutherford
NJ  Eatontown
NJ  Edgewater
NJ  Elizabeth
NJ  Elmwood Park
NJ  Emerson
NJ  Englewood
NJ  Englewood Cliffs
NJ  Englishtown
NJ  Essex County
NJ  Fair Haven
NJ  Fair Lawn
NJ  Fairview
NJ  Fanwood
NJ  Fieldsboro
NJ  Florham Park
NJ  Fort Lee
NJ  Franklin Lakes
NJ  Freehold
NJ  Garfield
NJ  Garwood
NJ  Gibbsboro
NJ  Glassboro
NJ  Glen Rock
NJ  Gloucester City
NJ  Gloucester County
NJ  Guttenberg
NJ  Hackensack
NJ  Haddon Heights
NJ  Haddonfield
NJ  Haledon
NJ  Harrington Park
NJ  Harrison
NJ  Hasbrouck Heights
NJ  Haworth
NJ  Hawthorne
NJ  Helmetta
NJ  Hi-Nella
NJ  Highland Park
NJ  Highlands
NJ  Hillsdale
NJ  Ho-Ho-Kus
NJ  Hoboken
NJ  Hopatcong
NJ  Hudson County
NJ  Hunterdon County
NJ  Interlaken
NJ  Island Heights
NJ  Jamesburg
NJ  Jersey City
NJ  Keansburg
NJ  Kearny
NJ  Kenilworth
NJ  Keyport

[[Page 1624]]

NJ  Kinnelon
NJ  Lakehurst
NJ  Laurel Springs
NJ  Lavallette
NJ  Lawnside
NJ  Leonia
NJ  Lincoln Park
NJ  Linden
NJ  Lindenwold
NJ  Linwood
NJ  Little Ferry
NJ  Little Silver
NJ  Loch Arbour
NJ  Lodi
NJ  Long Branch
NJ  Longport
NJ  Madison
NJ  Magnolia
NJ  Manasquan
NJ  Mantoloking
NJ  Manville
NJ  Margate City
NJ  Matawan
NJ  Maywood
NJ  Medford Lakes
NJ  Mendham
NJ  Mercer County
NJ  Merchantville
NJ  Metuchen
NJ  Middlesex
NJ  Middlesex County
NJ  Midland Park
NJ  Millstone
NJ  Milltown
NJ  Millville
NJ  Monmouth Beach
NJ  Monmouth County
NJ  Montvale
NJ  Moonachie
NJ  Morris County
NJ  Morris Plains
NJ  Morristown
NJ  Mount Arlington
NJ  Mount Ephraim
NJ  Mountain Lakes
NJ  Mountainside
NJ  National Park
NJ  Neptune City
NJ  Netcong
NJ  New Brunswick
NJ  New Milford
NJ  New Providence
NJ  Newark
NJ  Newfield
NJ  North Arlington
NJ  North Haledon
NJ  North Plainfield
NJ  Northfield
NJ  Northvale
NJ  Norwood
NJ  Oakland
NJ  Oaklyn
NJ  Ocean City
NJ  Ocean County
NJ  Ocean Gate
NJ  Oceanport
NJ  Old Tappan
NJ  Oradell
NJ  Palisades Park
NJ  Palmyra
NJ  Paramus
NJ  Park Ridge
NJ  Passaic
NJ  Passaic County
NJ  Paterson
NJ  Paulsboro
NJ  Pennington
NJ  Penns Grove
NJ  Perth Amboy
NJ  Phillipsburg
NJ  Pine Beach
NJ  Pine Hill
NJ  Pine Valley
NJ  Pitman
NJ  Plainfield
NJ  Pleasantville
NJ  Point Pleasant
NJ  Point Pleasant Beach
NJ  Pompton Lakes
NJ  Prospect Park
NJ  Rahway
NJ  Ramsey
NJ  Raritan
NJ  Red Bank
NJ  Ridgefield
NJ  Ridgefield Park
NJ  Ridgewood
NJ  Ringwood
NJ  River Edge
NJ  Riverdale
NJ  Riverton
NJ  Rockaway
NJ  Rockleigh
NJ  Roseland
NJ  Roselle
NJ  Roselle Park
NJ  Rumson
NJ  Runnemede
NJ  Rutherford
NJ  Saddle River
NJ  Salem County
NJ  Sayreville
NJ  Sea Bright
NJ  Sea Girt
NJ  Seaside Heights
NJ  Seaside Park
NJ  Secaucus
NJ  Shrewsbury
NJ  Somerdale
NJ  Somers Point
NJ  Somerset County
NJ  Somerville
NJ  South Amboy
NJ  South Belmar
NJ  South Bound Brook
NJ  South Plainfield
NJ  South River
NJ  South Toms River
NJ  Spotswood
NJ  Spring Lake
NJ  Spring Lake Heights
NJ  Stanhope
NJ  Stratford
NJ  Summit
NJ  Sussex County
NJ  Tavistock
NJ  Tenafly
NJ  Teterboro
NJ  Tinton Falls
NJ  Totowa
NJ  Trenton
NJ  Union Beach
NJ  Union City
NJ  Union County
NJ  Upper Saddle River
NJ  Ventnor City
NJ  Victory Gardens
NJ  Vineland
NJ  Waldwick
NJ  Wallington
NJ  Wanaque
NJ  Warren County
NJ  Watchung
NJ  Wenonah
NJ  West Long Branch
NJ  West NY
NJ  West Paterson
NJ  Westfield
NJ  Westville
NJ  Westwood
NJ  Wharton
NJ  Wood-Ridge
NJ  Woodbury
NJ  Woodbury Heights
NJ  Woodcliff Lake
NJ  Woodlynne

NM  Bernalillo County
NM  Corrales
NM  Dona Ana County
NM  Las Cruces
NM  Los Ranchos de Albuquerque
NM  Mesilla
NM  Rio Rancho
NM  Santa Fe
NM  Santa Fe County
NM  Sunland Park

NY  Albany
NY  Albany County
NY  Amityville
NY  Ardsley
NY  Atlantic Beach
NY  Babylon
NY  Baldwinsville
NY  Baxter Estates
NY  Bayville
NY  Beacon
NY  Belle Terre
NY  Bellerose
NY  Bellport
NY  Binghamton
NY  Blasdell
NY  Briarcliff Manor
NY  Brightwaters
NY  Bronxville
NY  Brookville
NY  Broome County
NY  Buchanan
NY  Buffalo
NY  Camillus
NY  Cayuga Heights
NY  Cedarhurst
NY  Chemung County
NY  Chestnut Ridge
NY  Clayville
NY  Clinton
NY  Cohoes
NY  Colonie
NY  Cornwall on Hudson
NY  Croton-on-Hudson
NY  Depew
NY  Dobbs Ferry
NY  Dutchess County
NY  East Hills
NY  East Rochester
NY  East Rockaway
NY  East Syracuse
NY  East Williston
NY  Elmira
NY  Elmira Heights
NY  Elmsford
NY  Endicott
NY  Erie County
NY  Fairport
NY  Farmingdale
NY  Fayetteville
NY  Fishkill
NY  Floral Park
NY  Flower Hill

[[Page 1625]]

NY  Fort Edward
NY  Freeport
NY  Garden City
NY  Glen Cove
NY  Glens Falls
NY  Grand View-on-Hudson
NY  Great Neck
NY  Great Neck Estates
NY  Great Neck Plaza
NY  Green Island
NY  Hamburg
NY  Harrison
NY  Hastings-on-Hudson
NY  Haverstraw
NY  Hempstead
NY  Herkimer County
NY  Hewlett Bay Park
NY  Hewlett Harbor
NY  Hewlett Neck
NY  Hillburn
NY  Horseheads
NY  Hudson Falls
NY  Huntington Bay
NY  Irvington
NY  Island Park
NY  Islandia
NY  Ithaca
NY  Johnson City
NY  Kenmore
NY  Kensington
NY  Kings Point
NY  Lackawanna
NY  Lake Grove
NY  Lake Success
NY  Lancaster
NY  Lansing
NY  Larchmont
NY  Lattingtown
NY  Lawrence
NY  Lewiston
NY  Lindenhurst
NY  Liverpool
NY  Lloyd Harbor
NY  Long Beach
NY  Lynbrook
NY  Malverne
NY  Mamaroneck
NY  Manlius
NY  Manorhaven
NY  Massapequa Park
NY  Matinecock
NY  Menands
NY  Mill Neck
NY  Mineola
NY  Minoa
NY  Monroe County
NY  Montebello
NY  Mount Kisco
NY  Mount Vernon
NY  Munsey Park
NY  Muttontown
NY  Nassau County
NY  New Hartford
NY  New Hempstead
NY  New Hyde Park
NY  New Rochelle
NY  New Square
NY  NY Mills
NY  Newburgh
NY  Niagara County
NY  Niagara Falls
NY  North Hills
NY  North Syracuse
NY  North Tarrytown
NY  North Tonawanda
NY  Northport
NY  Nyack
NY  Old Brookville
NY  Old Westbury
NY  Oneida County
NY  Onondaga County
NY  Orange County
NY  Orchard Park
NY  Oriskany
NY  Ossining
NY  Oswego County
NY  Patchogue
NY  Peekskill
NY  Pelham
NY  Pelham Manor
NY  Phoenix
NY  Piermont
NY  Pittsford
NY  Plandome
NY  Plandome Heights
NY  Plandome Manor
NY  Pleasantville
NY  Pomona
NY  Poquott
NY  Port Chester
NY  Port Dickinson
NY  Port Jefferson
NY  Port WA North
NY  Poughkeepsie
NY  Putnam County
NY  Rensselaer
NY  Rensselaer County
NY  Rochester
NY  Rockland County
NY  Rockville Centre
NY  Rome
NY  Roslyn
NY  Roslyn Estates
NY  Roslyn Harbor
NY  Russell Gardens
NY  Rye
NY  Rye Brook
NY  Saddle Rock
NY  Sands Point
NY  Saratoga County
NY  Scarsdale
NY  Schenectady
NY  Schenectady County
NY  Scotia
NY  Sea Cliff
NY  Shoreham
NY  Sloan
NY  Sloatsburg
NY  Solvay
NY  South Floral Park
NY  South Glens Falls
NY  South Nyack
NY  Spencerport
NY  Spring Valley
NY  Stewart Manor
NY  Suffern
NY  Suffolk County
NY  Syracuse
NY  Tarrytown
NY  Thomaston
NY  Tioga County
NY  Tompkins County
NY  Tonawanda
NY  Troy
NY  Tuckahoe
NY  Ulster County
NY  Upper Brookville
NY  Upper Nyack
NY  Utica
NY  Valley Stream
NY  Village of the Branch
NY  Wappingers Falls
NY  Warren County
NY  Washington County
NY  Waterford
NY  Watervliet
NY  Webster
NY  Wesley Hills
NY  West Haverstraw
NY  Westbury
NY  Westchester County
NY  White Plains
NY  Whitesboro
NY  Williamsville
NY  Williston Park
NY  Woodsburgh
NY  Yonkers
NY  Yorkville

NC  Alamance County
NC  Apex
NC  Archdale
NC  Asheville
NC  Belmont
NC  Belville
NC  Bessemer City
NC  Biltmore Forest
NC  Black Mountain
NC  Brookford
NC  Brunswick County
NC  Buncombe County
NC  Burke County
NC  Burlington
NC  Cabarrus County
NC  Carrboro
NC  Cary
NC  Catawba County
NC  Chapel Hill
NC  China Grove
NC  Clemmons
NC  Concord
NC  Conover
NC  Cramerton
NC  Dallas
NC  Davidson County
NC  Durham County
NC  Edgecombe County
NC  Elon College
NC  Fletcher
NC  Forsyth County
NC  Garner
NC  Gaston County
NC  Gastonia
NC  Gibsonville
NC  Goldsboro
NC  Graham
NC  Greenville
NC  Guilford County
NC  Harnett County
NC  Haw River
NC  Hickory
NC  High Point
NC  Hildebran
NC  Hope Mills
NC  Indian Trail
NC  Jacksonville
NC  Jamestown
NC  Kannapolis
NC  Landis
NC  Leland
NC  Long View
NC  Lowell
NC  Matthews
NC  McAdenville
NC  Mebane
NC  Mecklenburg County
NC  Mint Hill
NC  Montreat
NC  Mount Holly

[[Page 1626]]

NC  Nash County
NC  New Hanover County
NC  Newton
NC  Onslow County
NC  Orange County
NC  Pineville
NC  Pitt County
NC  Randolph County
NC  Ranlo
NC  Rocky Mount
NC  Rowan County
NC  Rural Hall
NC  Spring Lake
NC  Stallings
NC  Thomasville
NC  Union County
NC  Wake County
NC  Walkertown
NC  Wayne County
NC  Weaverville
NC  Wilmington
NC  Winterville
NC  Woodfin
NC  Wrightsville Beach

ND  Bismarck
ND  Burleigh County
ND  Cass County
ND  Fargo
ND  Grand Forks
ND  Grand Forks County
ND  Lincoln
ND  Mandan
ND  Morton County
ND  West Fargo

OH  Addyston
OH  Allen County
OH  Amberley
OH  Amelia
OH  Amherst
OH  Arlington Heights
OH  Auglaize County
OH  Aurora
OH  Avon
OH  Avon Lake
OH  Barberton
OH  Bay Village
OH  Beachwood
OH  Beavercreek
OH  Bedford
OH  Bedford Heights
OH  Bellaire
OH  Bellbrook
OH  Belmont County
OH  Belpre
OH  Bentleyville
OH  Berea
OH  Bexley
OH  Blue Ash
OH  Brady Lake
OH  Bratenahl
OH  Brecksville
OH  Brice
OH  Bridgeport
OH  Brilliant
OH  Broadview Heights
OH  Brook Park
OH  Brooklyn
OH  Brooklyn Heights
OH  Brookside
OH  Brunswick
OH  Butler County
OH  Campbell
OH  Canfield
OH  Canton
OH  Carlisle
OH  Centerville
OH  Chagrin Falls
OH  Chesapeake
OH  Cheviot
OH  Cincinnati
OH  Clark County
OH  Clermont County
OH  Cleveland
OH  Cleveland Heights
OH  Cleves
OH  Coal Grove
OH  Cridersville
OH  Cuyahoga County
OH  Cuyahoga Falls
OH  Cuyahoga Heights
OH  Deer Park
OH  Delaware County
OH  Doylestown
OH  Dublin
OH  East Cleveland
OH  Eastlake
OH  Elmwood Place
OH  Elyria
OH  Englewood
OH  Erie County
OH  Euclid
OH  Evendale
OH  Fairborn
OH  Fairfax
OH  Fairfield
OH  Fairfield County
OH  Fairlawn
OH  Fairport Harbor
OH  Fairview Park
OH  Forest Park
OH  Fort Shawnee
OH  Franklin
OH  Franklin County
OH  Gahanna
OH  Garfield Heights
OH  Geauga County
OH  Girard
OH  Glendale
OH  Glenwillow
OH  Golf Manor
OH  Grand River
OH  Grandview Heights
OH  Green
OH  Greene County
OH  Greenhills
OH  Grove City
OH  Groveport
OH  Hamilton
OH  Hamilton County
OH  Hanging Rock
OH  Harbor View
OH  Hartville
OH  Heath
OH  Highland Heights
OH  Hilliard
OH  Hills and Dales
OH  Holland
OH  Hubbard
OH  Huber Heights
OH  Hudson
OH  Independence
OH  Ironton
OH  Jefferson County
OH  Kent
OH  Kettering
OH  Kirtland
OH  Lake County
OH  Lakeline
OH  Lakemore
OH  Lakewood
OH  Lawrence County
OH  Lexington
OH  Licking County
OH  Lima
OH  Lincoln Heights
OH  Linndale
OH  Lockland
OH  Lorain
OH  Lorain County
OH  Louisville
OH  Loveland
OH  Lowellville
OH  Lucas County
OH  Lyndhurst
OH  Macedonia
OH  Madeira
OH  Mahoning County
OH  Maineville
OH  Mansfield
OH  Maple Heights
OH  Marble Cliff
OH  Mariemont
OH  Martins Ferry
OH  Mason
OH  Massillon
OH  Maumee
OH  Mayfield
OH  Mayfield Heights
OH  McDonald
OH  Medina County
OH  Mentor
OH  Mentor-on-the-Lake
OH  Meyers Lake
OH  Miami County
OH  Miamisburg
OH  Middleburg Heights
OH  Middletown
OH  Milford
OH  Millbury
OH  Millville
OH  Minerva Park
OH  Mingo Junction
OH  Mogadore
OH  Monroe
OH  Montgomery
OH  Montgomery County
OH  Moraine
OH  Moreland Hills
OH  Mount Healthy
OH  Munroe Falls
OH  New Miami
OH  New Middletown
OH  New Rome
OH  Newark
OH  Newburgh Heights
OH  Newtown
OH  Niles
OH  North Bend
OH  North Canton
OH  North College Hill
OH  North Olmsted
OH  North Randall
OH  North Ridgeville
OH  North Royalton
OH  Northfield
OH  Northwood
OH  Norton
OH  Norwood
OH  Oakwood
OH  Oakwood
OH  Obetz
OH  Olmsted Falls
OH  Ontario
OH  Orange
OH  Oregon
OH  Ottawa County
OH  Ottawa Hills
OH  Painesville

[[Page 1627]]

OH  Parma
OH  Parma Heights
OH  Pepper Pike
OH  Perrysburg
OH  Poland
OH  Portage County
OH  Powell
OH  Proctorville
OH  Ravenna
OH  Reading
OH  Reminderville
OH  Reynoldsburg
OH  Richfield
OH  Richland County
OH  Richmond Heights
OH  Riverlea
OH  Riverside
OH  Rocky River
OH  Rossford
OH  Seven Hills
OH  Shadyside
OH  Shaker Heights
OH  Sharonville
OH  Shawnee Hills
OH  Sheffield
OH  Sheffield Lake
OH  Silver Lake
OH  Silverton
OH  Solon
OH  South Amherst
OH  South Euclid
OH  South Point
OH  South Russell
OH  Springboro
OH  Springdale
OH  Springfield
OH  St. Bernard
OH  Stark County
OH  Steubenville
OH  Stow
OH  Strongsville
OH  Struthers
OH  Sugar Bush Knolls
OH  Summit County
OH  Sylvania
OH  Tallmadge
OH  Terrace Park
OH  The Village of Indian Hill
OH  Timberlake
OH  Trenton
OH  Trotwood
OH  Trumbull County
OH  Twinsburg
OH  Union
OH  University Heights
OH  Upper Arlington
OH  Urbancrest
OH  Valley View
OH  Valleyview
OH  Vandalia
OH  Vermilion
OH  Wadsworth
OH  Waite Hill
OH  Walbridge
OH  Walton Hills
OH  Warren
OH  Warren County
OH  Warrensville Heights
OH  Washington County
OH  Wayne County
OH  West Carrollton City
OH  West Milton
OH  Westerville
OH  Westlake
OH  Whitehall
OH  Wickliffe
OH  Willoughby
OH  Willoughby Hills
OH  Willowick
OH  Wintersville
OH  Wood County
OH  Woodlawn
OH  Woodmere
OH  Worthington
OH  Wyoming
OH  Youngstown

OK  Arkoma
OK  Bethany
OK  Bixby
OK  Broken Arrow
OK  Canadian County
OK  Catoosa
OK  Choctaw
OK  Cleveland County
OK  Comanche County
OK  Creek County
OK  Del City
OK  Edmond
OK  Forest Park
OK  Hall Park
OK  Harrah
OK  Jenks
OK  Jones
OK  Lake Aluma
OK  Lawton
OK  Logan County
OK  Midwest City
OK  Moffett
OK  Moore
OK  Mustang
OK  Nichols Hills
OK  Nicoma Park
OK  Norman
OK  Oklahoma County
OK  Rogers County
OK  Sand Springs
OK  Sequoyah County
OK  Smith Village
OK  Spencer
OK  The Village
OK  Tulsa County
OK  Valley Brook
OK  Wagoner County
OK  Warr Acres
OK  Woodlawn Park
OK  Yukon

OR  Central Point
OR  Columbia County
OR  Durham
OR  Jackson County
OR  Keizer
OR  King City
OR  Lane County
OR  Marion County
OR  Maywood Park
OR  Medford
OR  Phoenix
OR  Polk County
OR  Rainier
OR  Springfield
OR  Troutdale
OR  Wood Village

PA  Adamsburg
PA  Alburtis
PA  Aldan
PA  Aliquippa
PA  Allegheny County
PA  Allenport
PA  Altoona
PA  Ambler
PA  Ambridge
PA  Archbald
PA  Arnold
PA  Ashley
PA  Aspinwall
PA  Avalon
PA  Avoca
PA  Baden
PA  Baldwin
PA  Beaver
PA  Beaver County
PA  Beaver Falls
PA  Bell Acres
PA  Belle Vernon
PA  Bellevue
PA  Ben Avon
PA  Ben Avon Heights
PA  Berks County
PA  Bethel Park
PA  Bethlehem
PA  Big Beaver
PA  Birdsboro
PA  Blair County
PA  Blakely
PA  Blawnox
PA  Boyertown
PA  Brackenridge
PA  Braddock
PA  Braddock Hills
PA  Bradfordwoods
PA  Brentwood
PA  Bridgeport
PA  Bridgeville
PA  Bridgewater
PA  Bristol
PA  Brookhaven
PA  Brownstown
PA  Brownsville
PA  Bryn Athyn
PA  Bucks County
PA  California
PA  Cambria County
PA  Camp Hill
PA  Canonsburg
PA  Carbondale
PA  Carnegie
PA  Castle Shannon
PA  Catasauqua
PA  Centre County
PA  Chalfant
PA  Chalfont
PA  Charleroi
PA  Chester
PA  Chester County
PA  Chester Heights
PA  Cheswick
PA  Churchill
PA  Clairton
PA  Clarks Green
PA  Clarks Summit
PA  Clifton Heights
PA  Coal Center
PA  Coatesville
PA  Collegeville
PA  Collingdale
PA  Columbia
PA  Colwyn
PA  Conshohocken
PA  Conway
PA  Coplay
PA  Coraopolis
PA  Courtdale
PA  Crafton
PA  Cumberland County
PA  Daisytown
PA  Dale
PA  Dallas

[[Page 1628]]

PA  Dallastown
PA  Darby
PA  Dauphin County
PA  Delaware County
PA  Delmont
PA  Dickson City
PA  Donora
PA  Dormont
PA  Dover
PA  Downingtown
PA  Doylestown
PA  Dravosburg
PA  Duboistown
PA  Duncansville
PA  Dunlevy
PA  Dunmore
PA  Dupont
PA  Duquesne
PA  Duryea
PA  East Conemaugh
PA  East Lansdowne
PA  East McKeesport
PA  East Petersburg
PA  East Pittsburgh
PA  East Rochester
PA  East Washington
PA  Easton
PA  Eastvale
PA  Economy
PA  Eddystone
PA  Edgewood
PA  Edgeworth
PA  Edwardsville
PA  Elco
PA  Elizabeth
PA  Ellport
PA  Ellwood City
PA  Emmaus
PA  Emsworth
PA  Erie
PA  Erie County
PA  Etna
PA  Exeter
PA  Export
PA  Fallston
PA  Farrell
PA  Fayette City
PA  Fayette County
PA  Ferndale
PA  Finleyville
PA  Folcroft
PA  Forest Hills
PA  Forty Fort
PA  Fountain Hill
PA  Fox Chapel
PA  Franklin
PA  Franklin County
PA  Franklin Park
PA  Freedom
PA  Freemansburg
PA  Geistown
PA  Glassport
PA  Glendon
PA  Glenfield
PA  Glenolden
PA  Green Tree
PA  Greensburg
PA  Hallam
PA  Harrisburg
PA  Harveys Lake
PA  Hatboro
PA  Hatfield
PA  Haysville
PA  Heidelberg
PA  Hellertown
PA  Hermitage
PA  Highspire
PA  Hollidaysburg
PA  Homestead
PA  Homewood
PA  Houston
PA  Hughestown
PA  Hulmeville
PA  Hummelstown
PA  Hunker
PA  Ingram
PA  Irwin
PA  Ivyland
PA  Jacobus
PA  Jeannette
PA  Jefferson
PA  Jenkintown
PA  Jermyn
PA  Jessup
PA  Johnstown
PA  Kenhorst
PA  Kingston
PA  Koppel
PA  Lackawanna County
PA  Laflin
PA  Lancaster
PA  Lancaster County
PA  Langhorne
PA  Langhorne Manor
PA  Lansdale
PA  Lansdowne
PA  Larksville
PA  Laurel Run
PA  Laureldale
PA  Lawrence County
PA  Lebanon County
PA  Leesport
PA  Leetsdale
PA  Lehigh County
PA  Lemoyne
PA  Liberty
PA  Lincoln
PA  Lititz
PA  Loganville
PA  Lorain
PA  Lower Burrell
PA  Luzerne
PA  Luzerne County
PA  Lycoming County
PA  Macungie
PA  Madison
PA  Malvern
PA  Manor
PA  Marcus Hook
PA  Marysville
PA  Mayfield
PA  McKees Rocks
PA  McKeesport
PA  Mechanicsburg
PA  Media
PA  Mercer County
PA  Middletown
PA  Millbourne
PA  Millersville
PA  Millvale
PA  Modena
PA  Mohnton
PA  Monaca
PA  Monessen
PA  Monongahela
PA  Montgomery County
PA  Montoursville
PA  Moosic
PA  Morrisville
PA  Morton
PA  Mount Oliver
PA  Mount Penn
PA  Mountville
PA  Munhall
PA  Municipality of Monroeville
PA  Municipality of Murrysville
PA  Nanticoke
PA  Narberth
PA  New Brighton
PA  New Britain
PA  New Cumberland
PA  New Eagle
PA  New Galilee
PA  New Kensington
PA  New Stanton
PA  Newell
PA  Newtown
PA  Norristown
PA  North Belle Vernon
PA  North Braddock
PA  North Catasauqua
PA  North Charleroi
PA  North Irwin
PA  North Wales
PA  North York
PA  Northampton
PA  Northampton County
PA  Norwood
PA  Oakmont
PA  Old Forge
PA  Olyphant
PA  Osborne
PA  Paint
PA  Palmyra
PA  Parkside
PA  Patterson Heights
PA  Paxtang
PA  Penbrook
PA  Penn
PA  Penndel
PA  Pennsbury Village
PA  Phoenixville
PA  Pitcairn
PA  Pittsburgh
PA  Pittston
PA  Pleasant Hills
PA  Plum
PA  Plymouth
PA  Port Vue
PA  Pottstown
PA  Pringle
PA  Prospect Park
PA  Rankin
PA  Reading
PA  Red Lion
PA  Ridley Park
PA  Rochester
PA  Rockledge
PA  Roscoe
PA  Rose Valley
PA  Rosslyn Farms
PA  Royalton
PA  Royersford
PA  Rutledge
PA  Scalp Level
PA  Schwenksville
PA  Scranton
PA  Sewickley
PA  Sewickley Heights
PA  Sewickley Hills
PA  Sharon
PA  Sharon Hill
PA  Sharpsburg
PA  Sharpsville
PA  Shillington
PA  Shiremanstown
PA  Sinking Spring
PA  Somerset County

[[Page 1629]]

PA  Souderton
PA  South Coatesville
PA  South Greensburg
PA  South Heights
PA  South Williamsport
PA  Southmont
PA  Southwest Greensburg
PA  Speers
PA  Spring City
PA  Springdale
PA  St. Lawrence
PA  State College
PA  Steelton
PA  Stockdale
PA  Sugar Notch
PA  Swarthmore
PA  Swissvale
PA  Swoyersville
PA  Tarentum
PA  Taylor
PA  Telford
PA  Temple
PA  Thornburg
PA  Throop
PA  Trafford
PA  Trainer
PA  Trappe
PA  Tullytown
PA  Turtle Creek
PA  Upland
PA  Verona
PA  Versailles
PA  Wall
PA  Warrior Run
PA  Washington
PA  Washington County
PA  Wernersville
PA  Wesleyville
PA  West Brownsville
PA  West Chester
PA  West Conshohocken
PA  West Easton
PA  West Elizabeth
PA  West Fairview
PA  West Homestead
PA  West Lawn
PA  West Mayfield
PA  West Middlesex
PA  West Mifflin
PA  West Newton
PA  West Pittston
PA  West Reading
PA  West View
PA  West Wyoming
PA  West York
PA  Westmont
PA  Westmoreland County
PA  Wheatland
PA  Whitaker
PA  White Oak
PA  Wilkes-Barre
PA  Wilkinsburg
PA  Williamsport
PA  Wilmerding
PA  Wilson
PA  Windber
PA  Windsor
PA  Wormleysburg
PA  Wrightsville
PA  Wyoming
PA  Wyomissing
PA  Wyomissing Hills
PA  Yardley
PA  Yatesville
PA  Yeadon
PA  Yoe
PA  York
PA  York County
PA  Youngwood

PR  Aguada Municipio
PR  Aguadilla Municipio
PR  Aguas Buenas Municipio
PR  Aibonito Municipio
PR  Anasco Municipio
PR  Arecibo Municipio
PR  Bayamon Municipio
PR  Cabo Rojo Municipio
PR  Caguas Municipio
PR  Camuy Municipio
PR  Canovanas Municipio
PR  Carolina Municipio
PR  Catano Municipio
PR  Cayey Municipio
PR  Cidra Municipio
PR  Dorado Municipio
PR  Guaynabo Municipio
PR  Gurabo Municipio
PR  Hatillo Municipio
PR  Hormigueros Municipio
PR  Humacao Municipio
PR  Juncos Municipio
PR  Las Piedras Municipio
PR  Loiza Municipio
PR  Manati Municipio
PR  Mayaguez Municipio
PR  Moca Municipio
PR  Naguabo Municipio
PR  Naranjito Municipio
PR  Penuelas Municipio
PR  Ponce Municipio
PR  Rio Grande Municipio
PR  San German Municipio
PR  San Juan Municipio
PR  San Lorenzo Municipio
PR  Toa Alta Municipio
PR  Toa Baja Municipio
PR  Trujillo Alto Municipio
PR  Vega Alta Municipio
PR  Vega Baja Municipio
PR  Yabucoa Municipio

RI  Bristol County
RI  Central Falls
RI  Cranston
RI  East Providence
RI  Kent County
RI  Newport
RI  Newport County
RI  Pawtucket
RI  Providence
RI  Providence County
RI  Warwick
RI  Washington County
RI  Woonsocket

SC  Aiken
SC  Aiken County
SC  Anderson
SC  Anderson County
SC  Arcadia Lakes
SC  Berkeley County
SC  Burnettown
SC  Cayce
SC  Charleston
SC  Charleston County
SC  Columbia
SC  Cowpens
SC  Darlington County
SC  Dorchester County
SC  Florence
SC  Florence County
SC  Folly Beach
SC  Forest Acres
SC  Fort Mill
SC  Georgetown County
SC  Goose Creek
SC  Hanahan
SC  Horry County
SC  Irmo
SC  Isle of Palms
SC  Lexington County
SC  Lincolnville
SC  Mount Pleasant
SC  Myrtle Beach
SC  North Augusta
SC  North Charleston
SC  Pickens County
SC  Pineridge
SC  Quinby
SC  Rock Hill
SC  South Congaree
SC  Spartanburg
SC  Spartanburg County
SC  Springdale
SC  Sullivan's Island
SC  Summerville
SC  Sumter
SC  Sumter County
SC  Surfside Beach
SC  West Columbia
SC  York County

SD  Minnehaha County
SD  North Sioux City
SD  Pennington County
SD  Rapid City

TN  Alcoa
TN  Anderson County
TN  Bartlett
TN  Blount County
TN  Brentwood
TN  Bristol
TN  Carter County
TN  Church Hill
TN  Clarksville
TN  Collegedale
TN  East Ridge
TN  Elizabethton
TN  Farragut
TN  Germantown
TN  Hamilton County
TN  Hawkins County
TN  Hendersonville
TN  Jackson
TN  Johnson City
TN  Jonesborough
TN  Kingsport
TN  Knox County
TN  Lakesite
TN  Lookout Mountain
TN  Loudon County
TN  Madison County
TN  Maryville
TN  Montgomery County
TN  Mount Carmel
TN  Mount Juliet
TN  Red Bank
TN  Ridgeside
TN  Rockford
TN  Shelby County
TN  Signal Mountain
TN  Soddy-Daisy
TN  Sullivan County
TN  Sumner County
TN  Washington County
TN  Wilson County

TX  Addison
TX  Alamo
TX  Alamo Heights

[[Page 1630]]

TX  Allen
TX  Azle
TX  Balch Springs
TX  Balcones Heights
TX  Bayou Vista
TX  Baytown
TX  Bedford
TX  Bell County
TX  Bellaire
TX  Bellmead
TX  Belton
TX  Benbrook
TX  Beverly Hills
TX  Bexar County
TX  Blue Mound
TX  Bowie County
TX  Brazoria County
TX  Brazos County
TX  Brookside Village
TX  Brownsville
TX  Bryan
TX  Buckingham
TX  Bunker Hill Village
TX  Cameron County
TX  Carrollton
TX  Castle Hills
TX  Cedar Hill
TX  Cedar Park
TX  Cibolo
TX  Clear Lake Shores
TX  Clint
TX  Cockrell Hill
TX  College Station
TX  Colleyville
TX  Collin County
TX  Combes
TX  Converse
TX  Copperas Cove
TX  Corinth
TX  Coryell County
TX  Crowley
TX  Dallas County
TX  Dalworthington Gardens
TX  Deer Park
TX  Denison
TX  Denton
TX  Denton County
TX  DeSoto
TX  Dickinson
TX  Donna
TX  Double Oak
TX  Duncanville
TX  Ector County
TX  Edgecliff
TX  Edinburg
TX  El Lago
TX  El Paso County
TX  Euless
TX  Everman
TX  Farmers Branch
TX  Flower Mound
TX  Forest Hill
TX  Fort Bend County
TX  Friendswood
TX  Galena Park
TX  Galveston
TX  Galveston County
TX  Grand Prairie
TX  Grapevine
TX  Grayson County
TX  Gregg County
TX  Groves
TX  Guadalupe County
TX  Haltom City
TX  Hardin County
TX  Harker Heights
TX  Harlingen
TX  Hedwig Village
TX  Hewitt
TX  Hickory Creek
TX  Hidalgo County
TX  Highland Park
TX  Highland Village
TX  Hill Country Village
TX  Hilshire Village
TX  Hitchcock
TX  Hollywood Park
TX  Howe
TX  Humble
TX  Hunters Creek Village
TX  Hurst
TX  Hutchins
TX  Impact
TX  Jacinto City
TX  Jefferson County
TX  Jersey Village
TX  Katy
TX  Keller
TX  Kemah
TX  Kennedale
TX  Killeen
TX  Kirby
TX  La Marque
TX  La Porte
TX  Lacy-Lakeview
TX  Lake Dallas
TX  Lake Worth
TX  Lakeside
TX  Lakeside City
TX  Lancaster
TX  League City
TX  Leander
TX  Leon Valley
TX  Lewisville
TX  Live Oak
TX  Longview
TX  Lubbock County
TX  Lumberton
TX  McAllen
TX  McLennan County
TX  Meadows
TX  Midland
TX  Midland County
TX  Mission
TX  Missouri City
TX  Montgomery County
TX  Morgan's Point
TX  Nash
TX  Nassau Bay
TX  Nederland
TX  Nolanville
TX  North Richland Hills
TX  Northcrest
TX  Nueces County
TX  Odessa
TX  Olmos Park
TX  Palm Valley
TX  Palmview
TX  Pantego
TX  Pearland
TX  Pflugerville
TX  Pharr
TX  Piney Point Village
TX  Port Arthur
TX  Port Neches
TX  Portland
TX  Potter County
TX  Primera
TX  Randall County
TX  Richardson
TX  Richland Hills
TX  River Oaks
TX  Robinson
TX  Rockwall
TX  Rockwall County
TX  Rollingwood
TX  Rose Hill Acres
TX  Rowlett
TX  Sachse
TX  Saginaw
TX  San Angelo
TX  San Benito
TX  San Juan
TX  San Patricio County
TX  Sansom Park
TX  Santa Fe
TX  Schertz
TX  Seabrook
TX  Seagoville
TX  Selma
TX  Shavano Park
TX  Sherman
TX  Shoreacres
TX  Smith County
TX  Socorro
TX  South Houston
TX  Southside Place
TX  Spring Valley
TX  Stafford
TX  Sugar Land
TX  Sunset Valley
TX  Tarrant County
TX  Taylor County
TX  Taylor Lake Village
TX  Temple
TX  Terrell Hills
TX  Texarkana
TX  Texas City
TX  Tom Green County
TX  Travis County
TX  Tye
TX  Tyler
TX  Universal City
TX  University Park
TX  Victoria
TX  Victoria County
TX  Wake Village
TX  Watauga
TX  Webb County
TX  Webster
TX  Weslaco
TX  West Lake Hills
TX  West University Place
TX  Westover Hills
TX  Westworth
TX  White Oak
TX  White Settlement
TX  Wichita County
TX  Wichita Falls
TX  Williamson County
TX  Wilmer
TX  Windcrest
TX  Woodway

UT  American Fork
UT  Bluffdale
UT  Bountiful
UT  Cache County
UT  Cedar Hills
UT  Centerville
UT  Clearfield
UT  Clinton
UT  Davis County
UT  Draper
UT  Farmington
UT  Farr West
UT  Fruit Heights
UT  Harrisville
UT  Highland

[[Page 1631]]

UT  Hyde Park
UT  Kaysville
UT  Layton
UT  Lehi
UT  Lindon
UT  Logan
UT  Mapleton
UT  Midvale
UT  Millville
UT  Murray
UT  North Logan
UT  North Ogden
UT  North Salt Lake
UT  Ogden
UT  Orem
UT  Pleasant Grove
UT  Pleasant View
UT  Providence
UT  Provo
UT  River Heights
UT  Riverdale
UT  Riverton
UT  Roy
UT  Sandy
UT  Smithfield
UT  South Jordan
UT  South Ogden
UT  South Salt Lake
UT  South Weber
UT  Springville
UT  Sunset
UT  Syracuse
UT  Uintah
UT  Utah County
UT  Washington Terrace
UT  Weber County
UT  West Bountiful
UT  West Jordan
UT  West Point
UT  West Valley City
UT  Woods Cross

VT  Burlington
VT  Chittenden County
VT  Essex Junction
VT  South Burlington
VT  Winooski

VA  Albemarle County
VA  Alexandria
VA  Amherst County
VA  Bedford County
VA  Botetourt County
VA  Bristol
VA  Campbell County
VA  Charlottesville
VA  Colonial Heights
VA  Danville
VA  Dinwiddie County
VA  Fairfax
VA  Falls Church
VA  Fredericksburg
VA  Gate City
VA  Gloucester County
VA  Hanover County
VA  Herndon
VA  Hopewell
VA  James City County
VA  Loudoun County
VA  Lynchburg
VA  Manassas
VA  Manassas Park
VA  Occoquan
VA  Petersburg
VA  Pittsylvania County
VA  Poquoson
VA  Prince George County
VA  Richmond
VA  Roanoke
VA  Roanoke County
VA  Salem
VA  Scott County
VA  Spotsylvania County
VA  Stafford County
VA  Suffolk
VA  Vienna
VA  Vinton
VA  Washington County
VA  Weber City
VA  Williamsburg
VA  York County

WA  Algona
WA  Auburn
WA  Beaux Arts Village
WA  Bellevue
WA  Bellingham
WA  Benton County
WA  Bonney Lake
WA  Bothell
WA  Bremerton
WA  Brier
WA  Clyde Hill
WA  Cowlitz County
WA  Des Moines
WA  DuPont
WA  Edmonds
WA  Everett
WA  Fife
WA  Fircrest
WA  Franklin County
WA  Gig Harbor
WA  Hunts Point
WA  Issaquah
WA  Kelso
WA  Kennewick
WA  Kent
WA  Kirkland
WA  Kitsap County
WA  Lacey
WA  Lake Forest Park
WA  Longview
WA  Lynnwood
WA  Marysville
WA  Medina
WA  Mercer Island
WA  Mill Creek
WA  Millwood
WA  Milton
WA  Mountlake Terrace
WA  Mukilteo
WA  Normandy Park
WA  Olympia
WA  Pacific
WA  Pasco
WA  Port Orchard
WA  Puyallup
WA  Redmond
WA  Renton
WA  Richland
WA  Ruston
WA  Selah
WA  Spokane
WA  Spokane County
WA  Steilacoom
WA  Sumner
WA  Thurston County
WA  Tukwila
WA  Tumwater
WA  Union Gap
WA  Vancouver
WA  West Richland
WA  Whatcom County
WA  Woodway
WA  Yakima
WA  Yakima County
WA  Yarrow Point

WV  Bancroft
WV  Barboursville
WV  Belle
WV  Benwood
WV  Berkeley County
WV  Bethlehem
WV  Brooke County
WV  Cabell County
WV  Cedar Grove
WV  Ceredo
WV  Charleston
WV  Chesapeake
WV  Clearview
WV  Dunbar
WV  East Bank
WV  Follansbee
WV  Glasgow
WV  Glen Dale
WV  Hancock County
WV  Huntington
WV  Hurricane
WV  Kanawha County
WV  Kenova
WV  Marmet
WV  Marshall County
WV  McMechen
WV  Mineral County
WV  Moundsville
WV  Nitro
WV  North Hills
WV  Ohio County
WV  Parkersburg
WV  Poca
WV  Putnam County
WV  Ridgeley
WV  South Charleston
WV  St. Albans
WV  Triadelphia
WV  Vienna
WV  Wayne County
WV  Weirton
WV  Wheeling
WV  Wood County

WI  Allouez
WI  Altoona
WI  Appleton
WI  Ashwaubenon
WI  Bayside
WI  Beloit
WI  Big Bend
WI  Brookfield
WI  Brown County
WI  Brown Deer
WI  Butler
WI  Calumet County
WI  Cedarburg
WI  Chippewa County
WI  Chippewa Falls
WI  Combined Locks
WI  Cudahy
WI  Dane County
WI  De Pere
WI  Eau Claire
WI  Eau Claire County
WI  Elm Grove
WI  Elmwood Park
WI  Fitchburg
WI  Fox Point
WI  Franklin
WI  Germantown
WI  Glendale
WI  Grafton
WI  Green Bay
WI  Greendale

[[Page 1632]]

WI  Greenfield
WI  Hales Corners
WI  Holmen
WI  Howard
WI  Janesville
WI  Kaukauna
WI  Kenosha
WI  Kenosha County
WI  Kimberly
WI  Kohler
WI  La Crosse
WI  La Crosse County
WI  Lannon
WI  Little Chute
WI  Maple Bluff
WI  Marathon County
WI  McFarland
WI  Menasha
WI  Menomonee Falls
WI  Mequon
WI  Middleton
WI  Monona
WI  Muskego
WI  Neenah
WI  New Berlin
WI  North Bay
WI  Oak Creek
WI  Onalaska
WI  Oshkosh
WI  Outagamie County
WI  Ozaukee County
WI  Pewaukee
WI  Pleasant Prairie
WI  Racine
WI  Racine County
WI  River Hills
WI  Rock County
WI  Rothschild
WI  Schofield
WI  Sheboygan
WI  Sheboygan County
WI  Sheboygan Falls
WI  Shorewood
WI  Shorewood Hills
WI  South Milwaukee
WI  St. Francis
WI  Sturtevant
WI  Superior
WI  Superior
WI  Sussex
WI  Thiensville
WI  Washington County
WI  Waukesha
WI  Waukesha County
WI  Wausau
WI  Wauwatosa
WI  West Allis
WI  West Milwaukee
WI  Whitefish Bay
WI  Wind Point
WI  Winnebago County

WY  Casper
WY  Cheyenne
WY  Evansville
WY  Laramie County
WY  Mills
WY  Natrona County

Appendix 7 of Preamble--Incorporated Places and Counties Potentially
Designated (Outside Urbanized Areas)\1\ Under the Storm Water Phase II
Proposed Rule

[Proposed to be Examined by the Permitting Authority Under
Sec. 123.35(b)(2)]

(From the 1990 Census of Population and Housing--U.S. Census Bureau)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Listed incorporated places have at least 10,000 population
and 1,000 population density. Please note that no counties meet the
10,000/1,000 threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(This List May Change With the Decennial Census)

AL  Jacksonville
AL  Selma

AZ  Douglas

AK  Arkadelphia
AK  Benton
AK  Blytheville
AK  Conway
AK  El Dorado
AK  Hot Springs
AK  Magnolia
AK  Rogers
AK  Searcy
AK  Stuttgart

CA  Arcata
CA  Arroyo Grande
CA  Atwater
CA  Auburn
CA  Brawley
CA  Calexico
CA  Clearlake
CA  Corcoran
CA  Delano
CA  Dinuba
CA  Dixon
CA  El Centro
CA  El Paso De Robles
CA  Eureka
CA  Gilroy
CA  Grover City
CA  Hanford
CA  Hollister
CA  Lemoore
CA  Los Banos
CA  Madera
CA  Manteca
CA  Oakdale
CA  Oroville
CA  Paradise
CA  Petaluma
CA  Porterville
CA  Red Bluff
CA  Reedley
CA  Ridgecrest
CA  Sanger
CA  Selma
CA  Tracy
CA  Tulare
CA  Turlock
CA  Ukiah
CA  Wasco
CA  Woodland

CO  Canon City
CO  Durango
CO  Lafayette
CO  Louisville
CO  Loveland
CO  Sterling

FL  De Land
FL  Eustis
FL  Key West
FL  Leesburg
FL  Palatka
FL  St. Augustine
FL  St. Cloud

GA  Americus
GA  Carrollton
GA  Cordele
GA  Dalton
GA  Dublin
GA  Griffin
GA  Hinesville
GA  Moultrie
GA  Newnan
GA  Statesboro
GA  Thomasville
GA  Tifton
GA  Valdosta
GA  Waycross

ID  Caldwell
ID  Coeur D'alene
ID  Lewiston
ID  Moscow
ID  Nampa
ID  Rexburg
ID  Twin Falls

IL  Belvidere
IL  Canton
IL  Carbondale
IL  Centralia
IL  Charleston
IL  Danville
IL  De Kalb
IL  Dixon
IL  Effingham
IL  Freeport
IL  Galesburg
IL  Herrin
IL  Jacksonville
IL  Kewanee
IL  Lincoln
IL  Macomb
IL  Marion
IL  Mattoon
IL  Morris
IL  Mount Vernon
IL  Ottawa
IL  Pontiac
IL  Quincy
IL  Rantoul
IL  Sterling
IL  Streator
IL  Taylorville
IL  Woodstock

IN  Bedford
IN  Columbus
IN  Connersville
IN  Crawfordsville
IN  Frankfort
IN  Franklin
IN  Greenfield
IN  Huntington
IN  Jasper
IN  La Porte
IN  Lebanon
IN  Logansport
IN  Madison
IN  Marion
IN  Martinsville
IN  Michigan City
IN  New Castle
IN  Noblesville
IN  Peru
IN  Plainfield

[[Page 1633]]

IN  Richmond
IN  Seymour
IN  Shelbyville
IN  Valparaiso
IN  Vincennes
IN  Wabash
IN  Warsaw
IN  Washington

IA  Ames
IA  Ankeny
IA  Boone
IA  Burlington
IA  Fort Dodge
IA  Fort Madison
IA  Indianola
IA  Keokuk
IA  Marshalltown
IA  Mason City
IA  Muscatine
IA  Newton
IA  Oskaloosa
IA  Ottumwa
IA  Spencer

KS  Arkansas City
KS  Atchison
KS  Coffeyville
KS  Derby
KS  Dodge City
KS  El Dorado
KS  Emporia
KS  Garden City
KS  Great Bend
KS  Hays
KS  Hutchinson
KS  Junction City
KS  Leavenworth
KS  Liberal
KS  Manhattan
KS  Mcpherson
KS  Newton
KS  Ottawa
KS  Parsons
KS  Pittsburg
KS  Salina
KS  Winfield

KY  Bowling Green
KY  Danville
KY  Frankfort
KY  Georgetown
KY  Glasgow
KY  Hopkinsville
KY  Madisonville
KY  Middlesborough
KY  Murray
KY  Nicholasville
KY  Paducah
KY  Radcliff
KY  Richmond
KY  Somerset
KY  Winchester

LA  Abbeville
LA  Bastrop
LA  Bogalusa
LA  Crowley
LA  Eunice
LA  Hammond
LA  Jennings
LA  Minden
LA  Morgan City
LA  Natchitoches
LA  New Iberia
LA  Opelousas
LA  Ruston
LA  Thibodaux

ME  Waterville

MD  Aberdeen
MD  Cambridge
MD  Salisbury
MD  Westminster

MA  Newburyport

MI  Adrian
MI  Albion
MI  Alpena
MI  Big Rapids
MI  Cadillac
MI  Escanaba
MI  Grand Haven
MI  Marquette
MI  Midland
MI  Monroe
MI  Mount Pleasant
MI  Owosso
MI  Sturgis
MI  Traverse City

MN  Albert Lea
MN  Austin
MN  Bemidji
MN  Brainerd
MN  Faribault
MN  Fergus Falls
MN  Hastings
MN  Hutchinson
MN  Mankato
MN  Marshall
MN  New Ulm
MN  North Mankato
MN  Northfield
MN  Owatonna
MN  Stillwater
MN  Willmar
MN  Winona

MS  Brookhaven
MS  Canton
MS  Clarksdale
MS  Cleveland
MS  Columbus
MS  Greenville
MS  Greenwood
MS  Grenada
MS  Indianola
MS  Laurel
MS  Mccomb
MS  Meridian
MS  Natchez
MS  Starkville
MS  Vicksburg
MS  Yazoo City

MO  Cape Girardeau
MO  Carthage
MO  Excelsior Springs
MO  Farmington
MO  Hannibal
MO  Jefferson City
MO  Kennett
MO  Kirksville
MO  Marshall
MO  Maryville
MO  Mexico
MO  Moberly
MO  Poplar Bluff
MO  Rolla
MO  Sedalia
MO  Sikeston
MO  Warrensburg
MO  Washington

MT  Bozeman
MT  Havre
MT  Helena
MT  Kalispell

NE  Beatrice
NE  Columbus
NE  Fremont
NE  Grand Island
NE  Hastings
NE  Kearney
NE  Norfolk
NE  North Platte
NE  Scottsbluff

NV  Elko

NJ  Bridgeton
NJ  Princeton Borough

NM  Alamogordo
NM  Artesia
NM  Clovis
NM  Deming
NM  Farmington
NM  Gallup
NM  Hobbs
NM  Las Vegas
NM  Portales
NM  Roswell
NM  Silver City

NY  Amsterdam
NY  Auburn
NY  Batavia
NY  Canandaigua
NY  Corning
NY  Cortland
NY  Dunkirk
NY  Fredonia
NY  Fulton
NY  Geneva
NY  Gloversville
NY  Jamestown
NY  Kingston
NY  Lockport
NY  Massena
NY  Middletown
NY  Ogdensburg
NY  Olean
NY  Oneonta
NY  Oswego
NY  Plattsburgh
NY  Potsdam
NY  Watertown

NC  Albemarle
NC  Asheboro
NC  Boone
NC  Eden
NC  Elizabeth City
NC  Havelock
NC  Henderson
NC  Kernersville
NC  Kinston
NC  Laurinburg
NC  Lenoir
NC  Lexington
NC  Lumberton
NC  Monroe
NC  New Bern
NC  Reidsville
NC  Roanoke Rapids
NC  Salisbury
NC  Sanford
NC  Shelby
NC  Statesville
NC  Tarboro
NC  Wilson

ND  Dickinson
ND  Jamestown
ND  Minot
ND  Williston

OH  Alliance

[[Page 1634]]

OH  Ashland
OH  Ashtabula
OH  Athens
OH  Bellefontaine
OH  Bowling Green
OH  Bucyrus
OH  Cambridge
OH  Chillicothe
OH  Circleville
OH  Coshocton
OH  Defiance
OH  Delaware
OH  Dover
OH  East Liverpool
OH  Findlay
OH  Fostoria
OH  Fremont
OH  Galion
OH  Greenville
OH  Lancaster
OH  Lebanon
OH  Marietta
OH  Marion
OH  Medina
OH  Mount Vernon
OH  New Philadelphia
OH  Norwalk
OH  Oxford
OH  Piqua
OH  Portsmouth
OH  Salem
OH  Sandusky
OH  Sidney
OH  Tiffin
OH  Troy
OH  Urbana
OH  Van Wert
OH  Washington
OH  Wilmington
OH  Wooster
OH  Xenia
OH  Zanesville

OK  Ada
OK  Altus
OK  Bartlesville
OK  Chickasha
OK  Claremore
OK  Mcalester
OK  Miami
OK  Muskogee
OK  Okmulgee
OK  Owasso
OK  Ponca City
OK  Stillwater
OK  Tahlequah
OK  Weatherford

OR  Albany
OR  Ashland
OR  Astoria
OR  Bend
OR  City of the Dalles
OR  Coos Bay
OR  Corvallis
OR  Grants Pass
OR  Hermiston
OR  Klamath Falls
OR  La Grande
OR  Lebanon
OR  Mcminnville
OR  Newberg
OR  Pendleton
OR  Roseburg
OR  Woodburn

PA  Berwick Borough
PA  Bloomsburg
PA  Butler
PA  Carlisle Borough
PA  Chambersburg Borough
PA  Ephrata Borough
PA  Hazleton
PA  Indiana Borough
PA  Lebanon
PA  Meadville
PA  New Castle
PA  Oil City
PA  Pottsville
PA  Sunbury
PA  Uniontown
PA  Warren

SC  Clemson
SC  Easley
SC  Gaffney
SC  Greenwood
SC  Newberry
SC  Orangeburg

SD  Aberdeen
SD  Brookings
SD  Huron
SD  Mitchell
SD  Vermillion
SD  Watertown
SD  Yankton

TN  Brownsville
TN  Cleveland
TN  Collierville
TN  Cookeville
TN  Dyersburg
TN  Greeneville
TN  Lawrenceburg
TN  Mcminnville
TN  Millington
TN  Morristown
TN  Murfreesboro
TN  Shelbyville
TN  Springfield
TN  Union City

TX  Alice
TX  Alvin
TX  Andrews
TX  Angleton
TX  Bay City
TX  Beeville
TX  Big Spring
TX  Borger
TX  Brenham
TX  Brownwood
TX  Burkburnett
TX  Canyon
TX  Cleburne
TX  Conroe
TX  Coppell
TX  Corsicana
TX  Del Rio
TX  Dumas
TX  Eagle Pass
TX  El Campo
TX  Gainesville
TX  Gatesville
TX  Georgetown
TX  Henderson
TX  Hereford
TX  Huntsville
TX  Jacksonville
TX  Kerrville
TX  Kingsville
TX  Lake Jackson
TX  Lamesa
TX  Levelland
TX  Lufkin
TX  Mercedes
TX  Mount Pleasant
TX  Nacogdoches
TX  New Braunfels
TX  Palestine
TX  Pampa
TX  Pecos
TX  Plainview
TX  Port Lavaca
TX  Robstown
TX  Rosenberg
TX  Round Rock
TX  San Marcos
TX  Seguin
TX  Snyder
TX  Stephenville
TX  Sweetwater
TX  Taylor
TX  The Colony
TX  Uvalde
TX  Vernon
TX  Vidor

UT  Brigham City
UT  Cedar City
UT  Spanish Fork
UT  Tooele

VT  Rutland

VA  Blacksburg
VA  Christiansburg
VA  Front Royal
VA  Harrisonburg
VA  Leesburg
VA  Martinsville
VA  Radford
VA  Staunton
VA  Waynesboro
VA  Winchester

WA  Aberdeen
WA  Anacortes
WA  Centralia
WA  Ellensburg
WA  Moses Lake
WA  Mount Vernon
WA  Oak Harbor
WA  Port Angeles
WA  Pullman
WA  Sunnyside
WA  Walla Walla
WA  Wenatchee

WV  Beckley
WV  Bluefield
WV  Clarksburg
WV  Fairmont
WV  Martinsburg
WV  Morgantown

WI  Beaver Dam
WI  Fond du Lac
WI  Fort Atkinson
WI  Manitowoc
WI  Marinette
WI  Marshfield
WI  Menomonie
WI  Monroe
WI  Oconomowoc
WI  River Falls
WI  Stevens Point
WI  Sun Prairie
WI  Two Rivers
WI  Watertown
WI  West Bend
WI  Whitewater
WI  Wisconsin Rapids

WY  Evanston
WY  Gillette
WY  Green River


[[Continued on page 1635]] 

Local Navigation

• FR Home
• About the Site
• FR Listserv
• FR Search
• Selected Electronic Dockets
• Regulatory Agenda
• Executive Orders
• Current Laws and Regulations

• EPA Home
• Privacy and Security Notice
• Contact Us