712 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

extend it by publishing a final rule in 

the Federal Register, or to discontinue 

it altogether. 

Regulatory Procedures 

Justification for Issuing Final Rule 

Without Notice and Comment 

We follow the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA) rulemaking 

procedures specified in 5 U.S.C. 553 

when developing regulations. Section 

702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act, 42 

U.S.C. 902(a)(5). The APA provides 

exceptions to its notice and public 

comment procedures when an agency 

finds there is good cause for dispensing 

with such procedures because they are 

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest. We have 

determined that good cause exists for 

dispensing with the notice and public 

comment procedures for this rule. 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Good cause exists 

because this final rule only extends the 

expiration date of an existing rule. It 

makes no substantive changes to the 

rule. The current regulations expressly 

provide that we may extend or 

terminate this rule. Therefore, we have 

determined that opportunity for prior 

comment is unnecessary, and we are 

issuing this rule as a final rule. 

In addition, because we are not 

making any substantive changes to the 

existing rule, we find that there is good 

cause for dispensing with the 30-day 

delay in the effective date of a 

substantive rule provided by 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(3). To ensure that we have 

uninterrupted authority to use attorney 

advisors to address the number of 

pending cases at the hearing level, we 

find that it is in the public interest to 

make this final rule effective on the date 

of publication. 

Executive Order 12866 as 

Supplemented by Executive Order 

13563 

We consulted with the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and 

although we do not believe that this will 

be a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, as 

supplemented by E.O. 13563, OMB has 

reviewed this final rule. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

We certify that this final rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

because it affects individuals only. 

Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, as amended, does not require us to 

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This final rule does not create any 

new or affect any existing collections 

and, therefore, does not require OMB 

approval under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 96.001, Social Security— 

Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social 

Security—Retirement Insurance; 96.004, 

Social Security—Survivors Insurance; 

96.006, Supplemental Security Income.) 

List of Subjects 

20 CFR Part 404 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Blind, Disability benefits, 

Old-age, Survivors and Disability 

Insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Social security. 

20 CFR Part 416 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Supplemental Security 

Income (SSI). 

Dated: December 28, 2017. 

Nancy A. Berryhill, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, we are amending subpart J of 

part 404 and subpart N of part 416 of 

Chapter III of title 20 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations as set forth below: 

PART 404—FEDERAL OLD-AGE, 

SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY 

INSURANCE (1950– ) 

Subpart J—[Amended] 

■ 1. The authority citation for subpart J 

of part 404 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 201(j), 204(f), 205(a)–(b), 

(d)–(h), and (j), 221, 223(i), 225, and 702(a)(5) 

of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401(j), 

404(f), 405(a)–(b), (d)–(h), and (j), 421, 423(i), 

425, and 902(a)(5)); sec. 5, Pub. L. 97–455, 96 

Stat. 2500 (42 U.S.C. 405 note); secs. 5, 6(c)– 

(e), and 15, Pub. L. 98–460, 98 Stat. 1802 (42 

U.S.C. 421 note); sec. 202, Pub. L. 108–203, 

118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note). 

■ 2. In § 404.942, revise paragraph (g) to 

read as follows: 

§ 404.942 Prehearing proceedings and 

decisions by attorney advisors. 

* * * * * 

(g) Sunset provision. The provisions 

of this section will no longer be effective 

on August 3, 2018, unless we terminate 

them earlier or extend them beyond that 

date by notice of a final rule in the 

Federal Register. 

PART 416—SUPPLEMENTAL 

SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, 

BLIND, AND DISABLED 

Subpart N—[Amended] 

■ 3. The authority citation for subpart N 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 702(a)(5), 1631, and 1633 

of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

902(a)(5), 1383, and 1383b); sec. 202, Pub. L. 

108–203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note). 

■ 4. In § 416.1442, revise paragraph (g) 

to read as follows: 

§ 416.1442 Prehearing proceedings and 

decisions by attorney advisors. 

* * * * * 

(g) Sunset provision. The provisions 

of this section will no longer be effective 

on August 3, 2018, unless we terminate 

them earlier or extend them beyond that 

date by notice of a final rule in the 

Federal Register. 

[FR Doc. 2018–00058 Filed 1–5–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 122 and 123 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2016–0376; FRL–9972–51– 

OW] 

RIN 2040–AF67 

Public Notification Requirements for 

Combined Sewer Overflows to the 

Great Lakes Basin 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is finalizing a rule to 

implement section 425 of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 

2016, which requires EPA to work with 

the Great Lakes States to establish 

public notification requirements for 

combined sewer overflow (CSO) 

discharges to the Great Lakes. The 

requirements address signage, 

notification of local public health 

departments and other potentially 

affected public entities, notification to 

the public, and annual notice. The rule 

includes a two-stage approach with 

requirements that apply directly to 

existing National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permittees 

authorized to discharge from a CSO to 

the Great Lakes Basin, beginning on 

August 7, 2018 and a requirement that 

the public notification provisions be 

incorporated into NPDES permits when 

these permits are issued or reissued 

after February 7, 2018, unless the permit 

has been proposed prior to February 7, 

2018 in which case the requirements 

would be incorporated into the next 

permit renewal. This rule protects 

public health by ensuring timely 

notification to the public and to public 

health departments, public drinking 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 713 

water facilities and other potentially 

affected public entities, including 

Indian tribes. It provides additional 

specificity beyond existing public 

notification requirements to ensure 

timely and consistent communication to 

the public regarding CSO discharges to 

the Great Lakes Basin. Timely notice 

may allow the public and affected 

public entities to take steps to reduce 

the public’s potential exposure to 

pathogens associated with human 

sewage, which can cause a wide variety 

of health effects, including 

gastrointestinal, skin, ear, respiratory, 

eye, neurologic, and wound infections. 

DATES: The final rule is effective on 

February 7, 2018. In accordance with 40 

CFR part 23, this regulation shall be 

considered issued for purposes of 

judicial review at 1 p.m. Eastern time on 

January 22, 2018. Under section 509(b) 

of the Clean Water Act, judicial review 

of this regulation can only be had by 

filing a petition for review in the U.S. 

Court of Appeals within 120 days after 

the regulation is considered issued for 

purposes of judicial review. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OW–2016–0376. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Certain materials, 

such as copyrighted material, is not 

placed on the internet and will be 

publicly available only in Hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available electronically 

through http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jenelle Hill, Office of Wastewater 

Management, Water Permits Division 

(MC4203), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: (202) 566–1893; email address: 

hill.jenelle@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Register published EPA’s 

proposed rule on January 13, 2017 (82 

FR 4233). 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. What action is the Agency taking? 

C. What is the Agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

II. Background 

A. Combined Sewer Overflows From 

Municipal Wastewater Collection 

Systems 

B. Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great 

Lakes Basin 

C. The CSO Control Policy and Clean 

Water Act Framework for Reducing and 

Controlling Combined Sewer Overflows 

D. NPDES Regulations Addressing CSO 

Reporting 

E. Section 425 of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2016— 

Requirements for Public Notification of 

CSO Discharges to the Great Lakes Basin 

F. Working with the Great Lakes States and 

Requesting Public Input 

III. Summary of the Proposed Rule and 

Comments Received 

A. Overview of Proposed Rule 

B. Summary of Comments Received 

IV. Revisions to the Final Rule 

A. Revisions To Ensure Consistent 

Terminology 

B. Revisions to Wording To Clarify That 

Consolidated Reporting Option Applies 

to Discharges During the Same 

Precipitation-Related Event 

C. Revisions To Extend the Timeframe for 

the Supplemental Notice From 24-Hours 

to Seven Days 

D. Revisions To Allow Greater Flexibility 

Regarding Signage 

E. Revisions To Provide Greater Flexibility 

in the Annual Notice Requirements 

F. Revisions To Provide More Flexibility 

Regarding Model Re-Calibration 

G. Revisions To Ensure Consultation With 

Public Health Departments Regarding 

Community-Specific Potentially 

Impacted Public Access Areas 

H. Revisions to the Implementation 

Schedule To Ensure Plans Are 

Completed Prior to Beginning 

Implementation of the Public 

Notification Requirements 

I. Revisions To Add Flexibility for Small 

Permittees Who Manually Operate CSO 

Discharge Controls 

V. Final Rule Implementation 

A. Final Rule Requirements 

B. Implementation Considerations 

VI. Incremental Benefits and Costs of the 

Rule 

A. Benefits of the Rule 

B. Costs of the Rule 

VII. Statutory and Executive Orders Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Section 425 of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2016 (Pub. L. 

114–113) (hereafter referred to as 

‘‘Section 425’’) specifies in Sub-Section 

(a)(4) that the term ‘‘Great Lakes’’ means 

‘‘any of the waters as defined in the 

Section 118(a)(3) of the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1292).’’ 

This, therefore, includes Section 

118(a)(3)(B), which defines ‘‘Great 

Lakes’’ as ‘‘Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, 

Lake Huron (including Lake St. Clair), 

Lake Michigan, and Lake Superior, and 

the connecting channels (Saint Mary’s 

River, Saint Clair River, Detroit River, 

Niagara River, and Saint Lawrence River 

to the Canadian Border);’’ and Section 

118(a)(3)(C), which defines ‘‘Great Lakes 

System’’ as ‘‘all the streams, rivers, 

lakes, and other bodies of water within 

the drainage basin of the Great Lakes.’’ 

Collectively, EPA is referring to the 

Great Lakes and the Great Lakes System 

as the ‘‘Great Lakes Basin.’’ Entities 

within the Great Lakes Basin potentially 

regulated by this action are shown in 

Table 1. 

TABLE 1—ENTITIES POTENTIALLY REGULATED BY THIS ACTION

Category Examples of regulated entities 

North American 

industry 

classification 

system (NAICS) 

code 

Federal and State government ............... EPA or State NPDES permit authorities ................................................................. 924110 

Local governments .................................. NPDES permittees with a CSO discharge to the Great Lakes Basin .................... 221320 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
714 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

1Throughout this preamble the owner or operator 

of a combined sewer system (CSS) is referred to as 

the ‘‘CSO permittee.’’ 

2EPA expects the first annual notice will only 

contain a partial year of data because the reporting 

period is for a calendar year and the permittee will 

not have begun implementing the notification 

requirements on January 1 of the first year. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. This table lists 

the types of entities that EPA is now 

aware could potentially be regulated or 

otherwise affected by this action. Other 

types of entities not listed in the table 

could also be regulated. In addition, this 

rule is not intended to change the 

conditions under which a NPDES 

permit is required but, rather, modify a 

specific requirement applicable to 

certain permittees. To determine 

whether your entity is regulated by this 

action, you should carefully examine 

the applicability criteria described 

above and found in § 122.32, and the 

discussion in the preamble. As Section 

II.B explains, States in the Great Lakes 

Basin include New York, Pennsylvania, 

Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, 

Wisconsin, and Minnesota. As of 

September 2015, all but one of those 

States (Minnesota) had active NPDES 

permits for CSO discharges within the 

Great Lakes Basin subject to the 

requirements of this rule. EPA has 

included a list of Great Lakes Basin CSO 

permittees, which was compiled in 

concert with state permitting authorities 

in 2017, in the rulemaking docket (see 

‘‘Table of Great Lakes Basin CSO 

Permittees (as of 2017)’’). If you have 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. What action is the Agency taking? 

EPA is issuing a final rule to establish 

public notification requirements for 

CSOs to the Great Lakes Basin. The rule 

implements Section 425, which requires 

EPA to ‘‘work with the affected States 

having publicly owned treatment works 

that discharge to the Great Lakes to 

create public notice requirements for a 

combined sewer overflow discharge to 

the Great Lakes’’ and prescribes 

minimum requirements for such notice. 

EPA incorporated existing State 

approaches for public notification in 

developing these requirements. EPA 

sought and considered Great Lakes 

States and public input during the 

development of the rule. 

This rule requires CSO permittees 1 in 

the Great Lakes Basin, as defined, to 

provide public notification of CSO 

discharges and specifies the minimum 

content of such notification. The rule’s 

requirements include signage at CSO 

discharge locations and potentially 

affected public access areas, methods of 

providing public notice of CSO 

discharges, initial and supplemental 

notice to potentially affected public 

entities and to the public, and an annual 

notice. The rule requires that the annual 

notice summarize the permittee’s CSO 

discharges from the previous year and 

the CSO permittee’s plans for CSO 

controls. 

In addition, the rule includes 

requirements for Great Lakes Basin CSO 

permittees to develop a public 

notification plan that reflects 

community-specific details (e.g., 

proposed monitoring locations, means 

for disseminating information to the 

public) as to how the permittee would 

implement the public notification 

requirements. Permittees are required to 

seek and consider input on these plans 

from local public health departments 

and other potentially affected entities 

whose waters may be impacted by their 

CSO discharges. The rule requires that 

Great Lakes Basin CSO permittees 

submit the public notification plan to 

the NPDES permitting authority 

(‘‘Director’’) by August 7, 2018. The 

public notification plan provides a 

means of public engagement on the 

details of implementation of the 

notification requirements. 

This rule protects public health by: 

• Ensuring timely notice to the public 

of CSO discharges. This notice is 

intended to alert members of the public 

to CSO discharges which may allow 

them to take steps, such as avoiding 

activities on the water, to reduce their 

potential exposure to pathogens 

associated with human sewage, which 

can cause a wide variety of health 

effects, including gastrointestinal, skin, 

ear, respiratory, eye, neurologic, and 

wound infections. 

• Ensuring timely notice to local 

public health departments, public 

drinking water facilities and other 

potentially affected public entities, 

including Indian tribes, of CSO 

discharges. This notice is intended to 

alert these entities to specific CSO 

discharges and support the development 

of appropriate responses to the 

discharges, such as ensuring that beach 

and waterbody closures and advisories 

reflect the most accurate and up-to-date 

information or adjusting the intake or 

treatment regime of drinking water 

treatment facilities that have intakes 

from surface waters impacted by CSO 

discharges. 

• Providing the community and 

interested stakeholders with effective 

and meaningful follow-up notification 

that summarizes the permittee’s CSO 

discharges from the previous year and 

provides stakeholders with information 

on the CSO permittee’s plans to control 

CSO discharges. This information is 

intended to help the community 

understand the current performance of 

their collection system and how the 

community’s ongoing investment to 

reduce overflows would address the 

impacts of CSOs. 

The public notification requirements, 

including the requirement to develop a 

public notification plan, are 

implemented through two regulatory 

mechanisms: Requirements that apply 

directly to existing NPDES permittees 

and conditions for permits renewed or 

issued in the future. This two-stage 

implementation approach ensures that 

the requirements of Section 425 are 

implemented promptly as the 

Appropriations Act directed EPA to do 

and also ensures that the benefits of the 

rule can begin to accrue as quickly as 

possible, rather than delaying these 

public health benefits until future 

permit renewals, which for some 

permittees could be as long as five or 

more years away. 

First, EPA is adding a new section to 

the NPDES permit regulations, codified 

at § 122.38, establishing the public 

notification requirements for Great 

Lakes Basin CSO permittees. The 

requirements in § 122.38 apply directly 

to existing Great Lakes Basin CSO 

permittees until their NPDES permits 

are next reissued after February 7, 2018, 

unless the permit has been proposed 

prior to February 7, 2018, in which case 

the requirements would be incorporated 

into the next permit renewal. 

The public notification plan 

requirements apply directly to CSO 

permittees discharging to the Great 

Lakes Basin beginning August 7, 2018 

and the notification methods (other than 

the annual notice) apply directly 

beginning November 7, 2018. The 

annual notice requirements apply 

beginning in February 7, 2019 (or an 

alternative date specified by the 

Director), which allows permittees time 

to collect data for the first year.2 In 

keeping with Section 425, the Director 

may extend the compliance dates for 

notification and/or submittal of the 

public notification plan for individual 

communities if the Director determines 

the community needs additional time to 

comply in order to avoid undue 

economic hardship. 

Second, the public notification 

requirements for CSO discharges to the 

Great Lakes Basin shall be implemented 

as a condition in NPDES permits when 

they are next reissued after February 7, 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 715 

3EPA identified 184 CSO permits in the Great 

Lakes Basin in the 2016 Report to Congress: 

Combined Sewer Overflows into the Great Lakes 

Basin (EPA 833R–16–006) (EPA–HQ–OW–2016– 

0376–0043). EPA has adjusted that estimate to 

reflect additional information. First, 32 CSO 

permittees identified in the Report to Congress were 

subtracted; 31 CSO permittees because their permit 

coverage had been terminated due to sewer 

separation or other reasons and one CSO permittee 

because they do not discharge to the Great Lakes 

Basin. Second, EPA conducted a GIS analysis and 

verified with States that 10 permits for CSO 

discharges to the Great Lakes Basin were not 

identified in the 2016 Great Lakes CSO Report to 

Congress. A list of these 42 permits is available in 

the docket for this rulemaking. 

2018, unless the permit has been 

proposed prior to February 7, 2018 in 

which case the requirements would be 

incorporated into the next permit 

renewal. When the permittee’s CSO 

NPDES permit is reissued, the permit is 

required to include a permit condition 

addressing public notification of CSO 

discharges to the Great Lakes Basin. The 

permit condition incorporates the 

requirements in § 122.38 for signage, 

methods of notification and annual 

notice, as well as requirements to 

provide specific information relevant to 

the permittee’s implementation of the 

notification requirements. 

C. What is the Agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

This rule is authorized by Section 425 

of the Consolidated Appropriations Act 

of 2016 (Pub. L. 114–113) and the 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 

U.S.C. 1251 et seq., including sections 

1314(i), 1318, 1342 and 1361(a). Section 

425 requires EPA to ‘‘work with the 

affected States having publicly owned 

treatment works that discharge to the 

Great Lakes to create public notice 

requirements for a combined sewer 

overflow discharge to the Great Lakes.’’ 

While this rule is called for by an 

appropriations bill, EPA has 

independent authority under the Clean 

Water Act to require these public 

notification provisions. Specifically, 

EPA is promulgating this rule under 

CWA sections 304(i), 308, 402, and 501. 

Section 304(i) authorizes EPA to 

establish minimum procedural and 

other elements of State programs under 

section 402, including reporting 

requirements and procedures to make 

information available to the public. In 

addition, EPA is promulgating this rule 

under section 308, which authorizes 

EPA to require access to information 

necessary to carry out the objectives of 

the CWA. Section 402 establishes the 

NPDES permit program for the control 

of the discharge of pollutants into the 

nation’s waters. EPA is promulgating 

this rule under section 402(a)(2), which 

authorizes the Administrator to 

prescribe conditions in permits, 

including conditions on data and 

information collection, reporting and 

other requirements he deems 

appropriate and 402(b) and (c), which 

require each authorized State, tribe, or 

territory to ensure that permits meet 

certain substantive requirements. 

Section 402(q) requires NPDES permits 

for discharges from combined sewers to 

‘‘conform’’ to the 1994 CSO Control 

Policy. Finally, EPA is promulgating 

this rule under the authority of section 

501, which authorizes EPA to prescribe 

such regulations as are necessary to 

carry out provisions of the CWA. 

II. Background 

A. Combined Sewer Overflows From 

Municipal Wastewater Collection 

Systems 

Municipal wastewater collection 

systems collect domestic sewage and 

other wastewater from homes and other 

buildings and convey it to wastewater 

treatment plants for treatment and 

disposal. The collection and treatment 

of municipal sewage and wastewater is 

vital to the public health in our cities 

and towns. In the United States, 

municipalities historically have used 

two major types of sewer systems— 

separate sanitary sewer systems and 

CSSs. 

Municipalities with separate sanitary 

sewer systems use that system solely to 

collect domestic sewage and convey it 

to a publicly owned treatment works 

(POTW) treatment plant for treatment. 

These municipalities also have separate 

sewer systems to collect surface 

drainage and stormwater, known as 

‘‘municipal separate storm sewer 

systems’’ (MS4s). Separate sanitary 

sewer systems are not designed to 

collect large amounts of runoff from rain 

or snowmelt or provide widespread 

surface drainage, although they 

typically are built with additional 

allowance for some amount of 

stormwater or groundwater that enters 

the system as a result of storm events. 

The other type of sewer system, CSSs, 

is designed to collect both sanitary 

sewage and stormwater runoff in a 

single-pipe system. This type of sewer 

system provides the primary means of 

surface drainage by carrying rain and 

snowmelt away from streets, roofs, and 

other impervious surfaces. CSSs were 

among the earliest sewer systems 

constructed in the United States and 

were built until the first part of the 20th 

century. While some municipalities 

have undertaken projects to replace 

CSSs with separate sanitary sewer 

systems, such projects can be very 

expensive so many CSSs still exist in 

the United States. 

Under normal, dry weather 

conditions, combined sewers transport 

all of the wastewater collected to a 

sewage treatment plant for treatment. 

However, under wet weather 

conditions, when the volume of 

wastewater and stormwater exceeds the 

capacity of the CSS or treatment plant, 

these systems are designed to divert 

some of the combined flow prior to 

reaching the POTW treatment plant and 

to discharge combined stormwater and 

sewage directly to nearby streams, rivers 

and other water bodies. These 

discharges of sewage from a CSS that 

occur prior to the POTW treatment plant 

are referred to as combined sewer 

overflows or CSOs. Depending on the 

CSS infrastructure design, CSO 

discharges may be untreated or may 

receive some level of treatment, such as 

solids settling in a retention basin and 

disinfection, prior to discharge. 

CSO discharges contain human and 

industrial waste, toxic materials, and 

debris as well as stormwater. CSO 

discharges can be harmful to human 

health and the environment because 

they introduce pathogens (e.g., bacteria, 

viruses, protozoa) and other pollutants 

to receiving waters, causing beach 

closures, impairing water quality, and 

contaminating drinking water supplies 

and shellfish beds. CSOs can also cause 

depleted oxygen levels in receiving 

waters which can impact fish and other 

aquatic populations. (See EPA–HQ– 

OW–2016–0376–0043, –0056, –0057, 

and –0070.) 

CSSs serve a total population of about 

40 million people nationwide. Most 

communities with CSSs are located in 

the Northeast and Great Lakes regions, 

particularly in Illinois, Indiana, Maine, 

Michigan, New York, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. 

Although large cities like Chicago, 

Cleveland, and Detroit have CSSs, most 

communities with CSSs have fewer than 

50,000 people. Most CSSs have multiple 

CSO discharge locations (also referred to 

as outfalls), with some larger 

communities with CSSs having 

hundreds of CSO discharge locations. 

B. Combined Sewer Overflows to the 

Great Lakes Basin 

As of September 2015, 859 active 

NPDES permits for CSO discharges had 

been issued in 30 States plus the District 

of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Of these 

859 permits, 162 permits 3 are for CSO 

discharges to waters located in the 

watershed for the Great Lakes and the 

Great Lakes System (‘‘Great Lakes 

Basin,’’ as explained in Section I.A). 

The 162 permits for CSO discharges to 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
716 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

4The number of CSO communities in the Great 

Lakes Basin is different than the number of CSO 

permits. Two CSO communities have more than 

one CSO NPDES permit. These include 

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater 

Chicago (MWRDGC) (4 permits) and the City of 

Oswego, NY (2 permits). For the purposes of 

counting communities, communities with multiple 

CSO permits are counted as one CSO community. 

the Great Lakes Basin have been issued 

to 158 communities 4 or permittees. 

These permittees are located in the 

States of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, 

Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and 

Wisconsin. See ‘‘Table of Great Lakes 

Basin CSO Permittees (as of 2017)’’ in 

the rulemaking docket for a list of Great 

Lakes Basin CSO permittees that was 

compiled in 2017; this list will serve as 

a starting point for State permitting 

authorities as they evaluate the 

applicability of this rule to their 

permittees. CSO communities are 

scattered across the Great Lakes Basin, 

with the greatest concentration in Ohio, 

southeastern Michigan and northeastern 

Indiana discharging to Lake Erie, and in 

northern Indiana and southwestern 

Michigan discharging to Lake Michigan 

(see Figure 1). 

The majority of the CSO discharges in 

the Great Lakes Basin are into 

waterbodies that are tributary to one of 

the Great Lakes, while a small number 

of those discharges are directly into one 

of the Great Lakes. In compiling the list 

of permittees subject to the 

requirements of this rule included in the 

rulemaking docket (‘‘Table of Great 

Lakes Basin CSO Permittees (as of 

2017)’’), EPA consulted with State 

permitting authorities and drainage 

basin maps for the Great Lakes to 

confirm that these discharges have the 

potential to impact the Great Lakes. 

Because the water in streams and rivers 

within the drainage basin for a Great 

Lake has the potential to reach the Great 

Lakes, EPA has concluded that this 

rulemaking should apply to all 

permittees authorized to discharge CSOs 

in the Great Lakes Basin, consistent 

with the goal of providing public 

notification of CSO discharges affecting 

the Great Lakes. 

EPA recently summarized available 

information on the occurrence and 

volume of discharges from CSOs to the 

Great Lakes Basin during 2014 (see 

EPA–HQ–OW–2016–0376–0043), 

contained in the public docket for this 

rulemaking. As summarized in this 

report, seven States reported 1,482 

events where untreated sewage was 

discharged from CSOs to the Great 

Lakes Basin in 2014 and an additional 

187 CSO events where partially treated 

sewage was discharged. For the 

purposes of the Report, partially treated 

discharges referred to CSO discharges 

that received a minimum of: 

• Primary clarification (removal of 

floatables and settleable solids may be 

achieved by any combination of 

treatment technologies or methods that 

are shown to be equivalent to primary 

clarification); 

• Solids and floatable disposal; and 

• Disinfection of effluent, if necessary 

to meet water quality standards and 

protect human health, including 

removal of harmful disinfection 

chemical residuals, where necessary. 

Additional information regarding CSO 

discharges to the Great Lakes Basin, 

including the Report to Congress, is 

available at https://www.epa.gov/npdes/ 

combined-sewer-overflows-great-lakesbasin. Table 2 provides the size 

distribution of the 158 CSO 

communities in the Great Lakes Basin. 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULESER08JA18.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 717 

5 Montgomery Environmental Coalition et al. v. 

Costle, 646 F.2d 568, 592 (D.C. Cir. 1980). 

TABLE 2—GREAT LAKES BASIN CSO COMMUNITIES BY COMMUNITY POPULATION

Community population 

Total 

Over 50,000 10,000–49,999 Under 10,000 

Number of CSO Communities ................................................. 35 69 54 158 

Permits issued to Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago and Wayne County used the population for Chicago and Wayne 

County, respectively. 

As stated above, CSOs can cause 

human health and environmental 

impacts (see EPA–HQ–OW–2016–0376– 

0043, –0056, –0057, and –0070). CSOs 

often discharge simultaneously with 

other wet weather sources of water 

pollution, including stormwater 

discharges from various sources 

including municipal separate storm 

sewers, wet weather sanitary sewer 

overflows (SSOs) from separate sanitary 

sewer systems, and nonpoint sources of 

pollution. The cumulative effects of wet 

weather pollution from point and 

nonpoint sources can make it difficult to 

identify and assign specific cause-andeffect relationships between CSOs and 

observed water quality problems. The 

environmental impacts of CSOs are 

most apparent at the local level (see 

EPA–HQ–OW–2016–0376–0043, –0056, 

–0057, and –0070). 

C. The CSO Control Policy and Clean 

Water Act Framework for Reducing and 

Controlling Combined Sewer Overflows 

The CWA establishes national goals 

and requirements for maintaining and 

restoring the nation’s waters. CSO 

discharges are point sources subject to 

the technology-based and water qualitybased requirements of the CWA under 

NPDES permits. Technology-based 

effluent limitations for CSO discharges 

are based on the application of best 

available technology economically 

achievable (BAT) for toxic and 

nonconventional pollutants and best 

conventional pollutant control 

technology (BCT) for conventional 

pollutants. BAT and BCT effluent 

limitations for CSO discharges are 

determined based on ‘‘best professional 

judgment.’’ CSO discharges are not 

subject to permit limits based on 

secondary treatment requirements that 

are applicable to discharges from 

POTWs.5 Permits authorizing discharges 

from CSO discharge points must include 

more stringent water quality-based 

requirements, when necessary, to meet 

water quality standards (WQS). 

EPA issued the CSO Control Policy on 

April 19, 1994 (59 FR 18688). The CSO 

Control Policy ‘‘represents a 

comprehensive national strategy to 

ensure that municipalities, permitting 

authorities, water quality standards 

authorities, and the public engage in a 

comprehensive and coordinated effort to 

achieve cost-effective CSO controls that 

ultimately meet appropriate health and 

environmental objectives.’’ (59 FR 

18688). The policy assigns primary 

responsibility for implementation and 

enforcement to NPDES permitting 

authorities (generally referred to as the 

‘‘Director’’ in the NPDES regulations) 

and water quality standards authorities. 

The policy also established objectives 

for CSO permittees to: (1) Implement 

‘‘nine minimum controls’’ and submit 

documentation on their 

implementation; and (2) develop and 

implement a long-term CSO control 

plan (LTCP) to ultimately result in 

compliance with the CWA, including 

water quality-based requirements. In 

describing NPDES permit requirements 

for CSO discharges, the CSO Control 

Policy states that the BAT/BCT 

technology-based effluent limitations 

‘‘at a minimum include the nine 

minimum controls’’ (59 FR 18696). One 

of the nine minimum controls is ‘‘Public 

notification to ensure that the public 

receives adequate notification of CSO 

occurrences and CSO impacts.’’ 

In December 2000, as part of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554), 

Congress amended the CWA by adding 

Section 402(q). This amendment is 

commonly referred to as the ‘‘Wet 

Weather Water Quality Act of 2000.’’ It 

requires that each permit, order, or 

decree issued pursuant to the CWA after 

the date of enactment for a discharge 

from a municipal combined sewer 

system shall conform to the CSO 

Control Policy. 

D. NPDES Regulations Addressing CSO 

Reporting 

The NPDES regulations require 

NPDES permits to include requirements 

for monitoring discharges, including 

CSO discharges, and reporting the 

results to the permitting authority with 

a reporting frequency dependent on the 

nature and effect of the discharge, but in 

no case less than once a year. See 

§ 122.44(i)(2). In addition, NPDES 

permits must require permittees to 

report noncompliance, including CSO 

discharges, to their permitting authority. 

Permit noncompliance that may 

endanger health or the environment 

must be reported by the permittee to 

their permitting authority both orally 

and through a report submission. See 

§ 122.41(l)(6). All other noncompliance 

must be reported when other monitoring 

reports are submitted (e.g., Discharge 

Monitoring Reports (DMRs)). See 

§ 122.41(l)(7). 

E. Section 425 of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2016— 

Requirements for Public Notification of 

CSO Discharges to the Great Lakes 

Basin 

Section 425 was enacted as part of the 

2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act 

and did not amend the CWA. Section 

425(b)(1) requires EPA to work with the 

Great Lakes States to establish public 

notice requirements for CSO discharges 

to the Great Lakes Basin. Section 

425(b)(2) provides that the notice 

requirements are to address the method 

of the notice, the contents of the notice, 

and requirements for public availability 

of the notice. Section 425(b)(3)(A) 

provides that, at a minimum, the 

contents of the notice are to include the 

dates and times of the applicable 

discharge; the volume of the discharge; 

and a description of any public access 

areas impacted by the discharge. Section 

425(b)(3)(B) provides that the minimum 

content requirements are to be 

consistent for all affected States. 

Section 425(b)(4)(A) calls for followup notice requirements that provide a 

description of each applicable 

discharge; the cause of the discharge; 

and plans to prevent a reoccurrence of 

a CSO discharge to the Great Lakes 

Basin consistent with section 402 of the 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 

U.S.C. 1342) or an administrative order 

or consent decree under such Act. 

Section 425(b)(4)(B) provides for annual 

publication requirements that list each 

treatment works from which the 

Administrator or the affected State 

receive a follow-up notice. 

Section 425(b)(5) requires that the 

notice and publication requirements 

described in Section 425 shall be 

implemented within two years. The 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
718 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

6See Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2016–0376 at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Administrator of the EPA, however, may 

extend the implementation deadline for 

individual communities if the 

Administrator determines the 

community needs additional time to 

comply in order to avoid undue 

economic hardship. Finally, Section 

425(b)(6) clarifies that ‘‘[n]othing in this 

subsection prohibits an affected State 

from establishing a State notice 

requirement in the event of a discharge 

that is more stringent than the 

requirements described in this 

subsection.’’ 

F. Working With the Great Lakes States 

and Requesting Public Input 

As called for in the legislation, EPA 

worked with the Great Lakes States in 

developing the rule to implement 

section 425 of the 2016 Consolidated 

Appropriations Act. In discussions with 

EPA, NPDES program officials in each 

State with CSO discharges to the Great 

Lakes Basin described existing State 

notification requirements, shared 

insights on implementation issues and 

provided individual perspectives during 

the development of the proposed rule. 

On August 1, 2016, EPA published a 

notice in the Federal Register 

requesting stakeholder input on 

potential approaches for developing 

public notice requirements for CSO 

discharges to the Great Lakes Basin 

under section 425. As part of this effort, 

EPA held a public ‘‘listening session’’ 

on September 14, 2016, in Chicago, 

Illinois, which provided stakeholders 

and other members of the public an 

opportunity to share their views 

regarding potential new public 

notification requirements for CSO 

discharges to the Great Lakes Basin. A 

summary of the oral comments made at 

the public listening session is included 

in the docket for this rulemaking.6 In 

addition, the Agency requested written 

comments. EPA received a total of 787 

written comments, all of which were 

submitted to the docket (see EPA–HQ– 

OW–2016–0376–0002 through EPA– 

HQ–OW–2016–0376–0041). These 

comments informed the development of 

the proposed rule and were discussed 

throughout the preamble to the 

proposed rule. 

On January 13, 2017, EPA published 

the proposed rule requesting comments 

on Public Notification Requirements for 

Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great 

Lakes Basin (82 FR 4236). The comment 

period for the proposed rule closed on 

March 14, 2017. EPA received a total of 

1,300 written comments, which were 

submitted to the docket (see EPA–HQ– 

OW–2016–0376–0129 through EPA– 

HQ–OW–2016–0376–0176). EPA briefed 

NPDES program officials in the Great 

Lakes States on the comments EPA 

received, and the officials engaged in 

discussions with EPA about possible 

revisions to the proposed rule to address 

the public comments. Comments 

received on the proposed rule are 

discussed further in Section III. 

III. Summary of the Proposed Rule and 

Comments Received 

The proposed requirements to 

implement Section 425 were based on 

an evaluation of current notification 

requirements and practices in the Great 

Lakes Basin and elsewhere, and input 

from officials in the Great Lakes States 

and the public, including input received 

in response to EPA’s August 1, 2016 

request. The proposal explained EPA’s 

expectations for CSO permittees 

discharging to the Great Lakes Basin to 

ensure that the public receives adequate 

notification of CSO occurrences and 

CSO impacts. The proposed 

requirements aligned with the CSO 

Control Policy, which includes public 

notification as one of the nine minimum 

controls for CSO permittees. 

A. Overview of Proposed Rule 

The Federal Register published EPA’s 

proposed rule on January 13, 2017 (82 

FR 4233). EPA proposed requirements 

for public notification of CSO 

discharges to the Great Lakes Basin to be 

codified at § 122.38. The proposed 

requirements addressed signage, initial 

and supplemental notification of local 

public health departments and other 

potentially affected public entities 

(which may include neighboring 

municipalities, public drinking water 

utilities, State and county parks and 

recreation departments and Indian 

tribes) whose waters may be potentially 

impacted, initial and supplemental 

notification of the public and annual 

notice to the public and the Director. 

EPA further proposed to require 

NPDES permittees authorized to 

discharge CSOs to the Great Lakes Basin 

to develop a public notification plan 

that would provide community-specific 

details as to how they would implement 

the notification requirements. Under the 

proposal, CSO permittees in the Great 

Lakes Basin would seek and consider 

input from local public health 

departments, any potentially affected 

public entities and Indian tribes whose 

waters may be impacted by the 

permittee’s CSO discharges in 

developing the public notification plan 

that would be submitted to the Director. 

Under the proposed rule, the plan 

would be made available to the public 

and submitted to the Director within six 

months of the publication date of the 

final rule. 

Under the proposed rule, the 

requirement to provide public notice of 

CSO discharges would initially apply by 

regulation to all existing CSO 

permittees. Then, as the NPDES permit 

for each CSO permittee is reissued, the 

proposed rule at § 122.42(f) would 

require that the public notice condition 

be incorporated into all such permits. 

B. Summary of Comments Received 

EPA received about 45 unique 

comments on the proposed rule from 

States, municipalities, environmental 

stakeholders, trade associations, and 

other members of the public. Many 

commenters expressed support for 

required public notification of CSO 

discharges in the Great Lakes Basin, 

while other commenters suggested that 

aspects of the proposed rule were too 

burdensome. Many commenters 

supported some aspects of the proposed 

rule while suggesting revisions to other 

parts. Below is a summary of some of 

the key topics on which EPA received 

comments. For a full account of 

comments received, see the rulemaking 

docket. 

• ‘‘Great Lakes’’ versus ‘‘Great Lakes 

Basin’’—Several commenters asserted 

that Section 425 was only intended to 

address CSO discharges directly into the 

Great Lakes, rather than CSO discharges 

into waters in the Great Lakes Basin as 

proposed while others supported the 

scope of the proposed rule. For 

discussion of EPA’s rationale for 

retaining the scope of the rulemaking to 

cover the Great Lakes Basin see Section 

II.B. EPA also received comments which 

recommended that the rulemaking 

should be applied nationally and not 

just limited to the Great Lakes region. 

Given the short two-year 

implementation timeframe in Section 

425 and the specific statutory intent, 

EPA chose to limit the scope of this 

rulemaking to the Great Lakes region. 

• Untreated CSOs versus All CSOs 

(untreated and partially treated)—Some 

commenters suggested that the 

requirements of the rule should only 

apply to untreated CSOs, while several 

others agreed with the approach in the 

proposed rule. For discussion of EPA’s 

decision to apply the requirements to all 

CSO discharges see Sections II.B and 

V.B.3. 

• Initial notice timing—Some 

commenters suggested that the proposed 

time window of four hours for the initial 

notice was too long, while some felt it 

was an appropriate length, and others 

suggested longer time windows. For 

discussion of EPA’s decision to retain 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 719 

the four-hour time frame see Section 

V.B.5; also see Section IV.I. 

• Supplemental notice timing—Many 

commenters suggested that the time 

period in which the supplemental 

notice must be provided should be 

longer than the proposed 24 hours. 

Many commenters suggested timeframes 

of five or seven days. For discussion of 

changes EPA has made to the 

supplemental notice timing see Section 

IV.C. 

• Annual notice requirements—Some 

commenters supported the annual 

notice requirements in the proposed 

rule. Others said the annual notice is 

duplicative of other requirements (e.g., 

the proposed supplemental notice 

requirements, existing permit 

requirements). Some commenters 

suggested that instead of permittees, 

States should be required to compile the 

annual notice and make it publicly 

available. For discussion of EPA’s 

rationale for retaining the annual notice 

requirements, as well as changes that 

EPA has made in the final rule in 

response to comments on the annual 

notice requirements, see Sections IV.E, 

V.B.2, and VI.A. 

• Implementation timeline—Many 

commenters agreed with the 

implementation timeline and two-stage 

approach with the flexibility for the 

Director to extend the compliance dates 

on a case-by-case basis. Some 

commenters preferred that EPA delay 

implementation of the requirements 

until the next permit renewal. Other 

commenters suggested 12 months rather 

than 6 months be allowed for some or 

all communities to initially implement 

the new requirements. For discussion of 

EPA’s rationale for the final rule 

compliance timeline, two-stage 

approach, as well as the flexibility in 

the final rule for the Director to extend 

that timeline, see Sections II.E, IV.H, 

V.B.7, and VI.A. 

The next section (Summary of 

Revisions Made in the Final Rule) 

includes an explanation of all of the 

revisions EPA has made in the final rule 

in response to the public comments 

received on the proposed rule. In 

addition, EPA has prepared a response 

to comments document, which can be 

found in the docket for this rulemaking. 

IV. Revisions to the Final Rule 

EPA reviewed and considered public 

comments received on the proposed 

rule and made several modifications to 

the regulatory requirements in response 

to those comments. Below is a summary 

of those revisions, some of which 

involve clarifying language to better 

convey the intent of the requirement, 

while others address the substance of 

the requirement. The list of regulatory 

changes in each sub-section below is 

organized by references to the proposed 

rule (see 82 FR 4233) sections and 

numbering, references within the 

summary of the change include citations 

to the final rule. The revisions EPA has 

made are intended to respond to the 

comments, increase flexibility for States, 

and ease implementation. 

A. Revisions To Ensure Consistent 

Terminology 

Edits were made to the following 

proposed regulatory text to improve 

clarity and consistency of language 

used: 

• § 122.21(j)(8)(iii)—‘‘Each applicant 

that discharges’’ revised to ‘‘Each 

permittee authorized to discharge.’’ Edit 

made to be consistent with terminology 

in: § 122.38(a) and (b). 

• § 122.38(d)(4)—‘‘that may be 

affected’’ revised to ‘‘that may be 

impacted.’’ Edit made to be consistent 

with terminology in: § 122.38(a)(1)(i) 

and (iii), (a)(2)(i)(B), (a)(3)(ii)(B), and 

(b)(5). 

Æ Conforming edits were also made 

at: § 122.38 (a)(2)(i), (c)(6), and (d)(2) 

(from ‘‘whose waters may be affected’’ 

to ‘‘whose waters may be impacted’’). 

• § 122.38(b)(6)—‘‘public access areas 

impacted by each CSO discharge’’ 

revised to ‘‘public access areas 

potentially impacted by each CSO 

discharge.’’ This ensures consistency 

with the above mentioned sections 

where the word ‘‘potentially’’ is used 

with ‘‘impacted’’ to make clear that the 

permittee does not need to verify if the 

area was impacted, but rather to 

consider if there is potential for the area 

to be impacted by the CSO discharge. 

• § 122.42(f)—‘‘Any permit issued for 

combined sewer overflow (CSO) 

discharges to the Great Lakes Basin’’ 

revised to ‘‘Any permit issued 

authorizing the discharge of a combined 

sewer overflow (CSO) to the Great Lakes 

Basin.’’ Edit made to be consistent with 

terminology in: § 122.38(a) and (b), as 

well as the revision to § 122.21(j)(8)(iii) 

above. 

• § 122.38(a)(1)(i)(A)—Revisions to 

replace the word ‘‘outfall’’ with 

‘‘discharge point,’’ to use consistent 

terminology with the CSO Policy. 

Æ Conforming edits were also made at 

§§ 122.38(a)(1)(ii)(C), (a)(1)(iv), (a)(3)(i), 

(b) introductory text, (b)(1), and (c)(1), 

(8), and (9) and 122.42(f)(2) and (3). 

B. Revisions to Wording To Clarify That 

Consolidated Reporting Option Applies 

to Discharges During the Same 

Precipitation-Related Event 

It is EPA’s intention that if multiple 

CSO discharges occur on the same water 

body from multiple CSO discharge 

locations during the same precipitation 

event, that the permittee has the 

flexibility to provide one public 

notification to cover the multiple 

discharges. Some commenters pointed 

out that the wording EPA used in the 

proposed rule, ‘‘at the same time,’’ was 

unclear and might imply that the 

discharges had to occur simultaneously, 

rather than simply as a result of the 

same storm event. Because of this 

potential lack of clarity, some 

commenters raised questions as to 

whether multiple CSO discharges that 

start and stop during the same 

precipitation event would require 

multiple, separate public notices. EPA 

intends that only one notification be 

required under these circumstances. In 

addition, EPA has included a provision 

in the rule that allows permittees to 

provide one notice when there are 

discharges from multiple CSO discharge 

points as a result of the same 

precipitation event. These notices can 

describe broader areas likely to be 

impacted by discharges during the 

precipitation event, eliminating the 

need to provide separate initial 

notifications every time the permittee 

becomes aware of a new discharge 

associated with the same event. Some 

commenters questioned whether these 

discharges had to have occurred at 

exactly the same time in order to be 

grouped together. EPA intends that 

multiple discharges that result from the 

same precipitation event, even if they 

are not occurring at exactly the same 

time, may be grouped together in one 

public notification. EPA has revised the 

wording in the final rule to make this 

clearer by changing the proposed rule’s 

description of discharges occurring ‘‘at 

the same time’’ to discharges occurring 

‘‘during the same precipitation-related 

event.’’ It is EPA’s expectation that the 

initial notification would be made 

within four hours of the permittee 

becoming aware of the first CSO 

discharge in the group of discharges that 

are being reported together; therefore, 

grouping multiple discharges into one 

notification is intended to reduce 

burden but would not provide a 

community additional time beyond the 

four-hour period. 

EPA is using the terminology 

‘‘precipitation-related’’ to include 

rainfall, snowfall, and snowmelt. This is 

consistent with the CSO Policy, which 

states that it applies ‘‘to all CSSs that 

overflow as a result of storm water flow, 

including snow melt runoff (40 CFR 

Section 122.26(b)(13)).’’ 

EPA has made the following revisions 

to the wording in the final rule to 

address this: 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
720 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

7One example that was raised by a NPDES 

permitting authority was an existing NPDES permit 

condition at § 122.41(l)(6)(i), which is a reporting 

requirement that involves a written report that must 

‘‘be provided within 5 days of the time the 

permittee becomes aware of the circumstances.’’ 

• § 122.38(a)(2)(i)(B)—revised 

‘‘Where CSO discharges from the same 

system occur at multiple locations at the 

same time’’ to ‘‘Where CSO discharges 

from the same system occur at multiple 

locations during the same precipitationrelated event.’’ 

Æ Conforming edits were also made 

at: § 122.38(a)(2)(ii)(A), (a)(3)(ii)(B), 

(a)(3)(iii)(A), and (b)(2). 

C. Revisions To Extend the Timeframe 

for the Supplemental Notice From 24 

Hours to Seven Days 

The final rule requires supplemental 

information to be provided to the 

public, public health department and 

other affected public entities and Indian 

Tribes within seven days of the 

permittee becoming aware that the CSO 

discharge(s) has ended. The proposed 

rule would have required this 

information to be provided within 24 

hours. Many commenters indicated that 

this was too short of a timeframe, and 

suggested that a longer window of five 

or seven days would be more 

appropriate. Some commenters pointed 

out that running models and validating 

the estimated discharge volume and 

duration takes time and resources that 

are not available on nights, weekends, 

and holidays. Other commenters also 

noted that CSO discharges can be 

discontinuous, so communities need 

more than 24-hours to determine if the 

discharge has actually ended. In 

response to these concerns, EPA 

contemplated revising the timeframe to 

either five or seven days. Some of the 

State permit writers pointed out that 

five days is consistent with other 

requirements that CSO communities 

already have, so aligning the timeframe 

would reduce confusion and burden 

that could be caused by multiple 

reporting requirements.7 Because of 

this, EPA anticipates that some States 

will use five days for the supplemental 

notice requirements in permits to be 

consistent with this and other reporting 

timeframes. EPA has not precluded this; 

however, to allow for greater flexibility 

for those circumstances where seven 

days may make more sense, EPA has 

revised the requirement to allow a 

maximum of seven days for the 

supplemental notice. Accordingly, EPA 

has made the following revisions in the 

final rule: 

• § 122.38(a)(2)(ii)—revised ‘‘Within 

twenty-four (24) hours’’ to ‘‘Within 

seven (7) days.’’ 

Æ Conforming edits were also made 

at: § 122.38(a)(3)(iii). 

D. Revisions To Allow Greater 

Flexibility Regarding Signage 

EPA received several comments 

regarding the burden of the signage 

requirement in the proposed rule. 

Specifically, commenters indicated that 

the burden estimate did not adequately 

account for the high replacement rate 

that would occur if the signs need to be 

replaced when they were next reset. 

EPA’s intention was that signs would be 

updated to reflect the required 

information when they need to be 

replaced due to normal wear or damage. 

Based on this reasoning, EPA estimated 

that signs would need to be replaced 

once every 10 years. It is now EPA’s 

understanding that in some 

communities’ signs are reset at a much 

higher rate (for example some signs are 

located in an area where they fall down 

regularly and the community frequently 

stands the sign back up and re-secures 

it in the ground (i.e., resets the sign)). In 

order to better represent EPA’s 

intentions for this requirement, EPA has 

deleted ‘‘or reset’’ from the final 

regulation as follows: 

• § 122.38(a)(1)(iii)—deleted ‘‘or 

reset’’ from ‘‘the sign is not required to 

meet the minimum requirements 

specified in paragraph (i) until the sign 

is replaced or reset.’’ 

Some commenters also indicated that 

there are certain circumstances under 

which signage at a CSO discharge point 

is not warranted because there is no 

means for public access of the receiving 

water in the vicinity of the discharge 

point. Because one of the drivers behind 

this rulemaking is to reduce the public’s 

exposure to CSO discharges, EPA has 

decided to add some flexibility for those 

instances where it is not expected that 

the public will be able to access the area 

or come into contact with the receiving 

water and therefore would not benefit 

from the notification that the signage 

would have provided. EPA has added 

language to the final rule to allow the 

Director to waive the signage 

requirement if such conditions have 

been demonstrated by the permittee to 

the Director’s satisfaction. EPA has 

made the following change to the final 

rule to reflect this: 

• § 122.38(a)(1)(i)—added ‘‘(unless 

the permittee demonstrates to the 

Director that no public access of, or 

public contact with, the receiving water 

is expected)’’ after CSO discharge point. 

EPA has also made some minor 

formatting edits to this part of the 

provision to improve clarity. 

E. Revisions To Provide Greater 

Flexibility in the Annual Notice 

Requirements 

EPA received several comments on 

the annual notice requirements in the 

proposed rule. Some commenters 

suggested that the requirements were 

redundant of other current reporting 

requirements in CSO permits. Some 

commenters asserted that the annual 

notice requirements were overly 

burdensome. The annual notice 

requirements are intended to ensure that 

the statutory requirements in Section 

425 are addressed by the rule, including 

requirements outlined in Section 

425(b)(4) for: Follow-up notice that 

provides a ‘‘description of each 

applicable discharge,’’ ‘‘the cause of the 

discharge,’’ and ‘‘plans to prevent a 

reoccurrence of a combined sewer 

overflow discharge to the Great Lakes’’; 

as well as annual publication ‘‘that list 

each treatment works from which the 

Administrator or the affected State 

receive a follow-up notice.’’ 

The final rule is responsive to these 

components of Section 425 by requiring: 

• A description of each applicable 

discharge, including: Location, 

receiving water, any treatment provided 

(if applicable), date, location, duration, 

volume, and a description of any public 

access areas that were potentially 

impacted by the CSO discharge, and a 

summary of any monitoring data for 

CSO discharges (if available). 

• Information on the cause of each 

discharge, and when that cause is 

precipitation, information on the 

amount of precipitation that caused the 

discharge. 

• Information on plans to prevent a 

reoccurrence of CSO discharges in the 

form of a concise summary of 

implementation of the nine minimum 

controls and the status of 

implementation of the CSO long-term 

control plan (or a similar plan that 

explains how the permittee is 

addressing CSO discharges). 

Providing annual notice improves 

transparency and accountability to the 

public about the presence and 

magnitude of CSO discharges in their 

community. It also highlights progress 

that is being made by permittees to 

reduce CSO discharges and highlights 

the value of investments that are being 

made in the infrastructure. 

The final rule also includes several 

revisions to the annual notice 

requirements to improve clarity and 

allow more flexibility. The added 

flexibilities are intended to allow Great 

Lakes Basin CSO permittees that are 

already subject to existing State or local 

reporting requirements, which contain 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 721 

8EPA has not defined ‘‘significant’’ in the final 

rule in order to give communities discretion to 

highlight what they consider to be significant in 

their community-specific context. Some examples 

of the types of changes that EPA expects will be 

described in the summary include: Addition or 

removal of potentially affected public entities and 

Indian Tribes whose waters may be impacted by a 

CSO discharge, changes to the list of potentially 

impacted public access areas, changes to the 

method of notice to the public, changes to the 

protocols for notification to the public health 

department or other potentially affected public 

entities and Indian Tribes, or changes to the list of 

CSO discharge points for which notification is 

provided. 

the same information as required in this 

rule’s annual notice requirement, to use 

these reports to meet this rule’s 

requirements. The flexibilities also 

allow a permittee, whose State 

permitting authority publishes an 

annual CSO report that contains the 

same information for a Great Lakes 

Basin CSO permittee as is required in 

this rule’s annual notice requirement, to 

use the State report to meet the rule’s 

requirements. Revisions to the final rule 

to add these flexibilities include: 

• § 122.38(b)—Revised ‘‘(or an earlier 

date specified by the Director)’’ to ‘‘(or 

an alternative date specified by the 

Director)’’ to allow the Director the 

flexibility to specify an alternative due 

date for the annual notice to be made 

available to the public. This allows the 

Director to specify an alternative due 

date to coincide with an existing 

reporting requirement, where one exists. 

• § 122.38(b)—Added a sentence to 

the end of the introductory text of 

§ 122.38(b) pertaining to permittees 

whose State permitting authority has 

published or will publish an annual 

report containing all of the required 

minimum information about the 

Permittee, that allows the Permittee to 

make available the State-issued annual 

report in order to meet this requirement. 

This addresses scenarios like that in 

Michigan, described in Section V.B.2 

below. 

• § 122.38(b)—Added a sentence to 

the end of the introductory text of 

§ 122.38(b) to allow permittees that have 

existing report(s) that are written 

annually that collectively contain all of 

the required minimum information to 

make that/those report(s) publicly 

available in order to meet the 

requirement. This gives Permittees the 

flexibility to use existing CSO reports, if 

they contain all of the minimum 

information required by the final rule, to 

meet the annual notice requirement. 

• § 122.38(b)(1) and (d)(11)—Deleted 

the minimum requirement to include 

‘‘Information on the availability of the 

permittee’s public notification plan and 

a summary of significant modifications 

to the plan that were made in the past 

year.’’ EPA concluded that this 

proposed requirement was somewhat 

duplicative of another requirement in 

the rule, under the public notification 

plan requirements at final rule 

§ 122.38(c). In addition, to ensure that a 

summary of significant 8 modifications 

to the public notification plan is made 

available, EPA added language to the 

final rule at § 122.38(c)(11) stating that 

the public notification plan must 

include a description of significant 

modifications to the plan that were 

made since it was last updated.’’ 

• § 122.38(b)(2)—Revised from ‘‘A 

description of the location, treatment 

provided and receiving water for each 

CSO outfall’’ to ‘‘A description of the 

location and receiving water for each 

CSO discharge point, and, if applicable, 

any treatment provided.’’ This change is 

intended to make clear that treatment 

information does not have to be 

provided if the CSO discharge does not 

receive treatment. This revision also 

includes replacing the word ‘‘outfall’’ 

with ‘‘discharge point,’’ which is 

explained above in Section IV.A. 

• § 122.38(b)(3)—Revised ‘‘The date, 

location, duration, and volume of each 

wet weather CSO discharge’’ to ‘‘The 

date, location, approximate duration, 

measured or estimated volume, and 

cause (e.g., rainfall, snowmelt) of each 

wet weather CSO discharge.’’ 

Æ By adding the words 

‘‘approximate’’ and ‘‘measured or 

estimated,’’ the rule now clarifies that 

the same level of accuracy needed for 

the supplemental notice will suffice for 

the annual notice. It is EPA’s 

expectation that the permittee will be 

able to simply summarize the date, 

location, duration, and volume 

information from the initial and 

supplemental notice in the annual 

notice. 

Æ This edit also includes the addition 

of the ‘‘cause’’ of the discharge to the 

information required for the annual 

notice. EPA intended that the 

requirement of Section 425(b)(4)(A)(ii) 

to describe the cause of the discharge 

would be addressed by the requirement 

to include rainfall data for each CSO 

discharge listed in the annual notice. 

However, commenters pointed out that 

wet weather CSO discharges may also 

be caused by snowmelt, and the 

inclusion of daily precipitation data 

would not explain the cause of those 

discharges. EPA has therefore added 

‘‘cause (e.g., rainfall, snowmelt)’’ to the 

list of required information. 

• § 122.38(b)(4)—Added ‘‘cause’’ to 

the list of required information for each 

dry weather CSO discharge. Similar to 

the explanation above, this revision 

ensures the final rule is consistent with 

the requirement of Section 

425(b)(4)(A)(ii) to describe the cause of 

the discharge. 

• § 122.38(b)(7)—Revised from 

‘‘Representative rain gauge data in total 

inches to the nearest 0.1 inch that 

resulted in a CSO discharge’’ to 

‘‘Representative precipitation data in 

total inches to the nearest 0.1 inch that 

resulted in a CSO discharge, if 

precipitation was the cause of the 

discharge identified in (§ 122.38(b)(2)).’’ 

Æ EPA replaced ‘‘rain gauge data’’ 

with ‘‘precipitation data’’ because 

commenters pointed out that rain gauge 

data may not be available for every CSO 

discharge, or in every community. By 

using broader terminology, EPA intends 

to allow communities the flexibility to 

use various data sources to meet this 

requirement. For example, some 

communities may choose to simply 

download daily precipitation data for 

their area from a publicly available 

source (e.g., National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration’s 

(NOAA’s) National Centers for 

Environmental Information’s Climate 

Data Online Search (https://

www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/search)). 

Æ As discussed above, one 

commenter pointed out that wet 

weather CSO discharges may be caused 

by snowmelt, and in those 

circumstances it would not be 

appropriate to be required to report on 

rainfall data since it was not affiliated 

with the discharge. EPA, therefore, 

added the qualifier at the end of the 

sentence ‘‘if precipitation was the cause 

of the discharge.’’ 

• § 122.38(b)(8)—Revised from ‘‘A 

point of contact’’ to ‘‘Permittee contact 

information, if not listed elsewhere on 

the website where this annual notice is 

provided.’’ Some commenters pointed 

out that the term ‘‘A point of contact’’ 

sounded like an individual person’s 

name and contact information, and that 

that information changes too frequently 

to be appropriate. This was reworded to 

be clear that the contact information 

requirement is not for an individual 

person’s contact information, but rather 

the permittee’s contact information, so 

that the public has the information 

necessary to call the municipality with 

questions about the annual notice 

information. EPA added the latter part 

of the requirement to provide permittees 

the flexibility to provide this 

information elsewhere on their website, 

if it is not already included in an 

existing annual report that is being used 

to meet this annual notice requirement. 

In addition to the above revisions, 

EPA made one additional revision to the 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
722 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

annual notice requirement to ensure the 

final rule was responsive to the Section 

425 requirement to include ‘‘annual 

publication requirements that list each 

treatment works from which the 

Administrator or the affected State 

receive a follow-up notice’’ 

(425(b)(4)(B)). In the proposal, EPA 

included a requirement for electronic 

reporting at § 122.38(c). EPA received 

several comments that this requirement 

was inconsistent with the timing of the 

NPDES Electronic Reporting rule and 

also would be redundant with reporting 

requirements of the Electronic Reporting 

rule. The proposed electronic reporting 

at § 122.38(c) would have enabled EPA 

to query the database to generate 

summary level information about the 

Great Lakes Basin CSO permittees and 

publish that information on EPA’s 

website. Rather than using electronic 

reporting to satisfy this requirement, 

EPA is requiring that Great Lakes Basin 

CSO permittees notify EPA annually of 

the availability of their annual notice. 

EPA can then use the information from 

the annual notice to update the list of 

Great Lakes Basin CSO permittees on its 

website to satisfy the requirements of 

Section 425(b)(4)(B). EPA has also 

required the contact information for the 

person responsible for maintaining the 

website (where the annual notice is 

posted) so that any issues with web 

links that do not work can be easily 

resolved. These revisions to the final 

rule are described in detail below: 

• § 122.38(b)—Revised ‘‘and shall 

provide the Director with notice of how 

the annual notice is available’’ to ‘‘and 

shall provide the Director and EPA with 

notice of how the annual notice is 

available.’’ Also added a new sentence 

to follow that phrase in order to provide 

an email address by which the permittee 

may provide the notice to EPA. 

• § 122.38(c)—Deleted the proposed 

rule electronic reporting requirement in 

full. 

F. Revisions To Provide More Flexibility 

Regarding Model Re-Calibration 

The proposed public notification plan 

requirements required larger 

communities (permittees with a 

population of 75,000 or more) that were 

using a model to estimate discharge 

volumes and durations to calibrate their 

models at least once every five years. 

Some commenters raised concern about 

the burden of requiring calibration of 

models at least once every five years. 

Since models do not necessarily require 

calibration if nothing changes in the 

system, the final rule will instead 

require that permittees with a 

population of 75,000 or more assess 

whether recalibration is necessary at 

least once every 5 years, and to 

recalibrate if it is determined that it is 

necessary. It is important for models to 

be accurately calibrated in order to 

determine when overflows are 

happening. However, EPA does not 

intend to unnecessarily burden 

municipalities if their models do not 

need to be calibrated every five years. 

EPA has therefore made the following 

revision: 

• § 122.38(d)(9)—Revised ‘‘must 

calibrate their model at least once every 

5 years’’ to ‘‘must assess whether recalibration of their model is necessary, 

and recalibrate if necessary, at least 

once every 5 years’’ in final rule 

§ 122.38(c)(9). 

G. Revisions To Ensure Consultation 

With Public Health Departments 

Regarding Community-Specific 

Potentially Impacted Public Access 

Areas 

In the final rule, EPA is requiring 

permittees to seek input from the public 

health department on what areas would 

be considered ‘‘potentially impacted 

public access areas’’ prior to submitting 

the public notification plan. This 

requirement addresses comments on the 

proposal suggesting that EPA define 

‘‘potentially affected public access 

areas.’’ This terminology is used in rule 

sections on signage, notification of local 

public health department and other 

potentially affected public entities, 

notification of the public, and annual 

notice. Public access area types vary 

between communities and may depend 

on factors such as local ordinances, 

local culture, and geographic features. 

For instance, in one community, the 

public access areas may be defined to 

include swimming beaches and boat 

launches, while in another community 

they may include fishing streams, 

campgrounds, or marinas. Given this 

potential variability, it is more 

appropriate for each community to 

evaluate its own local circumstances 

and determine how best to define these 

public access areas for their CSO public 

notification plan, rather than for EPA to 

prescribe a general definition in the 

final rule to apply to all the Great Lakes 

Basin CSO communities. This is the 

type of information EPA expected 

would be discussed with public health 

departments when consulting with them 

on the public notification plan 

development (as would have been 

required in the proposed rule, and is 

required in the final rule), and this 

change explicitly calls this out to ensure 

it is discussed. The final rule provides: 

• § 122.38(e)(1)(iii)—‘‘Develop 

recommendations for areas that would 

be considered ‘‘potentially impacted 

public access areas’’ as referenced in 

122.38(a)(1), (2), and (3).’’ 

H. Revisions to the Implementation 

Schedule To Ensure Plans Are 

Completed Prior to Beginning 

Implementation of the Public 

Notification Requirements 

In the final rule, EPA is requiring the 

public notification plan to be completed 

within six months and that the 

notification requirements be 

implemented within nine months. The 

three-month window between plan 

completion and implementation of the 

notification requirements allows 

communities time to ramp up for 

implementation of their notification 

plans after the plans have been fully 

developed, which includes all the 

outreach to seek input on the plan from 

local public health departments and 

other potentially affected public entities 

and Indian Tribes. In the proposed rule, 

plan implementation would have begun 

immediately at six months, when the 

plan was completed. Commenters 

indicated that additional time may be 

needed to ramp up implementation after 

plan completion, therefore EPA has 

made these changes in the final rule. 

EPA also added clarifying language to 

the annual notice provision to ensure 

the compliance date (which is the year 

following the effective date of the rule) 

is clear. EPA has therefore made the 

following revision: 

• § 122.38(a)—Changed the 

implementation language from ‘‘provide 

public notification of CSO discharges as 

described in this paragraph after August 

7, 2018’’ to ‘‘provide public notification 

of CSO discharges as described in this 

paragraph after November 7, 2018.’’ 

• § 122.38(b)—Inserted ‘‘Starting in 

February 7, 2019,’’ prior to ‘‘By May 1 

of each calendar year’’. 

I. Revisions To Add Flexibility for Small 

Permittees Who Manually Operate CSO 

Discharge Controls 

EPA received comments identifying 

circumstances under which actions in 

small communities, to limit the impacts 

of the actual CSO discharge, may 

consume all available staff resources. 

Under these circumstances EPA wants 

to provide clarity that the permittee may 

take the necessary actions to address the 

CSO discharge prior to initiating the 

start of the four-hour notification 

window. To allow for such 

circumstances, EPA has revised the 

requirements as follows: 

• § 122.38(a)(3)(i)—At the end of the 

provision, inserted a sentence that 

allows a permittee to identify in its 

public notification plan circumstances 

and physical action needed to limit the 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 723 

9The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 was 

enacted on December 18, 2015. 

public health impacts of the CSO 

discharge by controlling the CSO 

discharge (including continuing to 

implement its existing practice of 

conducting inspections of CSO 

discharge points during the discharge), 

and if they identify that all available 

staff are required to complete this 

action, the four-hour notification 

window will commence upon 

completion of that action. 

• § 122.38(c)(8)—Inserted, at the end 

of the provision, language that the plan 

shall include a description of 

circumstances under which the initial 

notification of the public may be 

delayed beyond four hours of the 

permittee becoming aware of the 

discharge, if the circumstances 

described above are met. 

V. Final Rule Implementation 

The public notification provisions are 

directly required regulatory 

requirements (independent of being 

implemented by permit conditions) 

until these conditions are incorporated 

into the NPDES permit of the Great 

Lakes Basin CSO permittee. EPA is 

using these two regulatory mechanisms 

to respond to Section 425(b)(5) of the 

2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act 

direction that the notice and publication 

requirements described in the Act are to 

be implemented by ‘‘not later than 2 

years after the date of enactment’’ of the 

Act.9 The Agency recognizes that if 

NPDES permits were the only means of 

implementing these requirements, 

permits would have to be reissued with 

these requirements before they would 

take effect. Given the current status of 

CSO permits in the Great Lakes Basin, 

it would take over five years for the 

public notification requirements to be 

incorporated into all permits, far beyond 

the timeframe specified in Section 425. 

Making the public notification 

requirements directly applicable at first, 

followed by incorporating them into 

NPDES permits as they are issued, will 

enable all Great Lakes Basin CSO 

permittees to establish their public 

notification system within the same 

timeframe, and within the timeframe 

specified by Section 425(b)(5)(A). 

The requirements of § 122.38(a) 

(signage and notification requirements) 

and § 122.38(b) (annual notice) are 

enforceable under the CWA prior to 

incorporation into a permit under CWA 

section 308 by operation of this rule. 

The requirement to develop a public 

notification plan consistent with 

§ 122.38(c) and (d) is enforceable under 

CWA section 308. Once public 

notification requirements are 

incorporated into an NPDES permit, 

they are enforceable as a permit 

condition issued under CWA section 

402. 

The details and content of the public 

notification plan, however, are not 

enforceable under § 122.38(c) or as 

effluent limitations of the permit, unless 

the document or the specific details of 

the plan are specifically incorporated 

into the permit. Under the final rule, the 

contents of the public notification plan 

are instead intended to provide a road 

map for how the permittee would 

comply with the requirements of the 

permit (or with the requirements of 

§ 122.38(a) and (b) prior to inclusion in 

the permit as a permit condition). Once 

the public notification requirements are 

incorporated into the permit as a permit 

condition, the plan may be changed 

based on adaptions made during the 

course of the permit term, thereby 

allowing the permittee to react to new 

technologies, circumstances and 

experiences gained during 

implementation and to make 

adjustments to its program as necessary 

to provide better public notification and 

better comply with the permit. This 

approach will allow the CSO permittee 

to modify and continually improve its 

approach during the course of the 

permit term without requiring the 

permitting authority to review each 

change as a permit modification. 

A. Final Rule Requirements 

1. Section 122.38 Requirements 

As discussed in detail above, § 122.38 

sets forth requirements that apply to all 

permittees with CSO discharges to the 

Great Lakes Basin. Under this rule, 

Great Lakes Basin CSO permittees are 

required to develop a public notification 

plan, after seeking and considering 

input from public health departments 

and other potentially affected public 

entities. The plan must be submitted to 

the Director and made available to the 

public by August 7, 2018. Section 

122.38 also requires implementation of 

the signage requirements and notice to 

affected public entities and the public 

by November 7, 2018. The annual notice 

requirements apply beginning in 

February 7, 2019 (or an alternative date 

specified by the Director), which allows 

permittees time to collect data for the 

first year. As described in Section V.B.7, 

the Director may extend the compliance 

dates for notification and/or submittal of 

the public notification plan for 

individual communities if the Director 

determines the community needs 

additional time to comply in order to 

avoid undue economic hardship. 

2. Required Permit Condition 

EPA’s rule will require the 

incorporation of public notice 

requirements into NPDES permits for 

CSO discharges to the Great Lakes Basin 

over time as they are issued and 

renewed. To effectuate this requirement, 

EPA is revising the permit application 

regulation requirements in § 122.21(j). 

EPA is adding § 122.21(j)(8)(iii), which 

requires the CSO permittees in the Great 

Lakes Basin to submit a public 

notification plan to the Director with its 

permit application (and any updates to 

its plan that may have occurred since 

the last plan submission). EPA is also 

adding a new standard condition at 

§ 122.42(f) that applies to CSO permits, 

ensuring that CSO public notification 

requirements are incorporated into the 

NPDES permits for discharges to the 

Great Lakes Basin and updated over 

time as appropriate with each permit 

cycle. Public notification plans, 

submitted with subsequent permit 

applications, will reflect changes in 

collection systems and technology, as 

well as public notice practices. By 

requiring the Great Lakes Basin CSO 

permittee to include its updated public 

notice plan with its permit application, 

the Director will have the information 

he/she needs for including requirements 

for public notification in the permit 

when it is reissued. 

While the rule requires that permits 

for CSO discharges to the Great Lakes 

Basin henceforth include public 

notification requirements, it also 

provides flexibility to allow NPDES 

permit writers to address the particular 

circumstances of each community (e.g., 

size of community, differences in public 

access areas potentially impacted by a 

CSO discharge) in a manner that 

addresses local considerations. At the 

same time, however, this provision 

preserves the authority of the Great 

Lakes States to establish more stringent 

public notification requirements (see 

Section 425(b)(6) of the 2016 

Consolidated Appropriations Act) and 

section 510 of the Clean Water Act. As 

outlined in § 122.42(f) of the rule, 

permits for CSO discharges within the 

Great Lakes Basin, at a minimum, will: 

• Require implementation of the 

public notification requirements in 

§ 122.38(a); 

• Specify the information that must 

be included on discharge point signage; 

• Specify discharge points and public 

access areas where signs are required; 

• Specify the timing and minimum 

information for providing initial 

notification to local public health 

departments and other potentially 

affected entities, and the public; 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
724 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

10The CSO Policy clarifies EPA’s expectation that 

a permittee’s LTCP give the highest priority to 

controlling overflows to sensitive areas. The Policy 

provides that sensitive areas, as determined by the 

NPDES authority in coordination with State and 

Federal agencies, as appropriate, include designated 

Outstanding National Resource Waters, National 

Marine Sanctuaries, waters with threatened or 

endangered species and their habitat, waters with 

primary contact recreation, public drinking water 

intakes or their designated protection areas, and 

shellfish beds. (59 FR 18692). 

• Specify the location of CSO 

discharges that must be monitored for 

volume and discharge duration and the 

location of CSO discharges where CSO 

volume and duration may be estimated; 

• Require submittal of an annual 

notice in accordance with § 122.38(b); 

and 

• Specify protocols for making the 

annual notice available to the public. 

Section 402(q) of the CWA requires 

NPDES permits for discharges from 

combined sewers to ‘‘conform’’ to the 

1994 CSO Control Policy. One of the 

‘‘Nine Minimum Controls’’ identified in 

the Policy is that NPDES permits for 

CSO discharges require public 

notification to ensure that the public 

receives adequate notification of CSO 

occurrences and CSO impacts. The 

permit condition required by this rule 

conforms to the 1994 CSO Control 

Policy’s minimum control to provide 

the public with ‘‘adequate notification’’ 

and further provides specificity to better 

implement the public notification 

provision identified in the Policy. 

Including this provision in permits 

gives the Great Lakes States an 

opportunity to update and fine-tune 

public notice requirements to reflect 

continued development of the 

permittee’s public notice approach, 

ensure consistency with State legislative 

and regulatory requirements for public 

notification, consider new technologies 

and be informed by public input. In 

addition, when public notification 

becomes a permit condition, the public 

will have the opportunity to comment 

on the public notification requirements 

during the permit process. 

B. Implementation Considerations 

1. Public Notification Plan Development 

The final rule requires that Great 

Lakes Basin CSO permittees develop 

and submit to the Director a public 

notification plan by August 7, 2018 and 

again subsequently when the permittee 

files an application for permit renewal. 

In addition, prior to submitting the 

public notification plan, CSO permittees 

must seek and consider input from the 

local public health department (or if 

there is no local health department, the 

State health department) and potentially 

affected public entities and Indian tribes 

whose waters may be impacted by CSO 

discharges. 

The public notification plans are 

intended to provide system-specific 

detail (e.g., proposed monitoring 

locations, means for disseminating 

information to the public) describing the 

discharger’s public notification efforts. 

Having a public notification plan in 

place will enhance communication with 

public health departments and other 

potentially affected public entities and 

Indian tribes whose waters may be 

impacted by the CSO discharge. The 

details within the plan will also assist 

NPDES permit writers in establishing 

corresponding public notification 

permit conditions. In addition, the plan 

will provide the public with a better 

understanding of the permittee’s public 

notification efforts. 

Section 425(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the 2016 

Consolidated Appropriations Act 

provides that public notice for CSO 

discharges is to include a description of 

any public access areas impacted by the 

discharge. This rule requires that public 

notification plans identify which 

municipalities and other public entities 

may be affected by the permittee’s CSO 

discharges. Potentially affected public 

entities whose waters may be impacted 

by the CSO discharge could include 

adjoining municipalities, public 

drinking water utilities, State and 

county parks and recreation 

departments. Such areas may have 

already been identified in the CSO 

permittee’s LTCP, which should 

identify CSO discharges to sensitive 

areas.10 In deciding which public 

entities and Indian tribes are 

‘‘potentially affected’’ and should be 

contacted for their input, the Great 

Lakes Basin CSO permittee should 

evaluate: 

• The location of the CSO discharge 

point and what users of that waterbody 

may exist in the surrounding region; 

• The direction of flow in the 

receiving water and uses of that 

waterbody, or connected waterbodies, 

downstream of the CSO discharge point; 

• The presence of public access areas 

near, or downstream of, the discharge 

point; 

• The presence of drinking water 

supply systems near, or downstream of, 

the discharge point; and 

• The presence of municipal entities, 

Indian tribes, and/or parks and 

recreation department lands near, or 

downstream of, the discharge point. 

Local public health departments, 

public entities, and Indian tribes whose 

waters may be impacted by a CSO 

discharge are in a unique position to 

provide input on the timing, means and 

content of the public notification 

requirements addressed in this rule. 

Seeking input from these entities allows 

the permittee to reflect in the public 

notification plan the needs and 

preferences of these entities. Also, these 

groups can help inform decisions 

regarding the most appropriate means of 

communicating information to the 

public, taking into consideration 

specific populations in the community 

and their access to various electronic 

communication methods and social 

media. For example, if there is a 

segment of the population without 

access to cell phones or computers, or 

that would incur costs by receiving text 

notifications, the consulted entities may 

suggest other methods of 

communication that would be more 

appropriate to reach these groups (e.g., 

radio broadcast, postings in public 

places, announcements through 

community flyers). 

The plan will also describe how the 

volume and duration of CSO discharges 

will be either measured or estimated. If 

the Great Lakes Basin CSO permittee 

intends to use a model to estimate 

discharge volumes and durations, the 

plan is required to summarize the model 

and describe how the model was or 

would be calibrated. CSO permittees 

that are a municipality or sewer district 

with a population of 75,000 or more are 

required to assess whether re-calibration 

of their model is necessary, and 

recalibrate if necessary, at least once 

every 5 years. 

2. Annual Notice 

The final rule includes revisions to 

improve clarity and allow more 

flexibility regarding the annual notice 

requirements. The added flexibilities are 

intended to allow Great Lakes Basin 

CSO permittees that are already subject 

to existing State or local reporting 

requirements, which contain the same 

information as required in this rule’s 

annual notice requirement, to use these 

reports to meet this rule’s requirements. 

For example, New York State requires a 

Combined Sewer Overflow Annual 

Report which contains several of the 

components in the rule’s annual notice 

requirements. Great Lakes Basin CSO 

permittees in New York may choose to 

provide a copy of this Annual Report 

along with a supplemental report or 

appendix that addresses the remaining 

components. 

The flexibilities also allow a 

permittee, whose State permitting 

authority publishes an annual CSO 

report that contains the same 

information for a Great Lakes Basin CSO 

permittee as is required in this rule’s 

annual notice requirement, to use the 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 725 

11As EPA noted in the preamble to the proposed 

rule, traditional bacteria indicators that are used in 

State water quality standards may not be the best 

indicators of viral and other pathogens associated 

with fecal contamination. CSO discharges that only 

receive primary treatment prior to disinfection and 

that meet water quality standards based on 

indicator bacteria may have levels of viruses and 

other pathogens that are higher than discharges of 

wastewater that are treated by secondary treatment 

processes prior to disinfection. This is because 

bacteria respond to water treatment processes and 

environmental degradation processes differently 

than viruses. In addition, particles in wastewater 

may shield pathogens from disinfection. CSO 

discharges that only receive primary treatment prior 

to disinfection may also have higher levels of 

trihalomethanes and other disinfection byproducts 

due to the higher concentration of chlorine needed 

to disinfect and potential interactions with particles 

in the wastewater. 

State report to meet the rule’s 

requirements. For example, in addition 

to existing annual reports permittees 

may be preparing, in at least one of the 

Great Lakes States (Michigan), the State 

prepares an annual CSO report 

summarizing information on all the 

Great Lakes Basin (and other) CSO 

permittees. Michigan’s annual report 

provides the majority of the information 

that the final rule requires, and after 

discussions with the State, EPA 

anticipates that Michigan will make 

some minor adjustments to the data 

presented in its annual report to ensure 

it addresses all of the requirements for 

annual notice and thus enable Great 

Lakes Basin CSO permittees in 

Michigan to simply provide a link to the 

State annual report to meet their annual 

notice requirements. 

3. Coverage of Partially Treated CSOs 

The rule includes definitions of 

‘‘Combined Sewer System’’ and 

‘‘Combined Sewer Overflows’’ at 

§ 122.2. The definition of combined 

sewer system is based on the 

description of combined sewer system 

found in the 1994 CSO Policy. The 

Policy provides that ‘‘A combined sewer 

system (CSS) is a wastewater collection 

system owned by a State or 

municipality (as defined by § 502(4) of 

the CWA) which conveys sanitary 

wastewaters (domestic, commercial and 

industrial wastewaters) and storm water 

through a single-pipe system to a 

Publicly Owned Treatment Works 

(POTW) Treatment Plant (as defined in 

§ 403.3(p)).’’ (59 FR 18689) The 

definition of combined sewer overflow 

also conforms to the description of CSO 

in the CSO Policy, which specifies that 

a ‘‘CSO is the discharge from a CSS at 

a point prior to the POTW Treatment 

Plant.’’ 

In the proposed rule preamble, EPA 

requested comment on whether it would 

be appropriate to establish alternative 

public notice requirements for CSO 

discharges that are treated to a specified 

level (e.g., primary treatment plus 

disinfection). EPA also requested 

comment on whether the final 

regulations should provide additional 

flexibility for Great Lakes Basin CSO 

permittees to recommend in their public 

notification plan different public 

notification procedures for treated CSO 

discharges as compared to untreated 

CSO discharges. Some commenters 

(including the Indiana Department of 

Environmental Management (IDEM)) 

recommended that the final rule 

requirements only apply to untreated 

CSO discharges. However, many other 

commenters (including the New York 

State Department of Environmental 

Conservation (NYDEC) and Ohio EPA) 

supported the approach in the proposed 

rule where the requirements would 

apply to all CSO discharges. EPA 

decided to finalize the definition and 

scope of the rule as proposed, which 

treats untreated and partially treated 

CSOs alike for the purpose of public 

notice. As the preamble to the proposed 

rule explained (82 FR 4249), CSO 

discharges that only receive primary 

treatment prior to disinfection may have 

levels of viruses and other pathogens 

that are higher than discharges of 

wastewater that are treated by secondary 

treatment processes prior to 

disinfection, and they may also have 

higher levels of trihalomethanes and 

other disinfection byproducts.11 There 

is no indication that Section 425 

contemplated lesser notification to the 

public for partially treated discharges, 

and the CSO Policy treats untreated and 

partially treated discharges alike. 

4. Precipitation-Related Events and 

Grouping CSO Notifications for 

Multiple Discharges 

EPA intends that multiple discharges 

that result from the same precipitationrelated event, even if they are not 

occurring at exactly the same time, may 

be grouped together in one public 

notification. EPA has revised the 

wording in the final rule to make this 

clearer, as is described in Section IV.B. 

EPA also revised the wording in the 

final rule to clarify that snowfall and 

snowmelt may also be the cause of a wet 

weather CSO discharge by changing 

‘‘precipitation event’’ to ‘‘precipitationrelated event’’, as described in Section 

IV.B. 

EPA has not further defined ‘‘event’’ 

in this rule. Because permittees have 

been tracking and reporting CSO 

discharge data for many years to meet 

permit requirements and commitments 

made in long-term control plan and 

related documents, EPA expects that the 

Director and the permittee have already 

established what constitutes separate 

CSO events and precipitation events for 

reporting purposes. It is not EPA’s 

intention to change that approach with 

this rulemaking; rather, the purpose of 

this rulemaking is to ensure information 

about CSO discharges is provided to the 

public, public health departments, and 

other affected entities. 

5. Initial Notification Timing 

The rule requires that an initial notice 

be provided to the local public health 

departments and other potentially 

affected entities as well as the public 

‘‘as soon as possible, but no later than 

four (4) hours after becoming aware by 

monitoring, modeling or other means 

that a CSO discharge has occurred.’’ 

EPA selected four hours because it is 

prompt enough to allow the public to 

make informed decisions regarding 

areas where they would visit and 

recreate before doing so; while it is also 

a long enough amount of time to allow 

permittees to initiate notification 

processes. 

By using language that combines a 

definitive deadline (i.e., no later than 

four (4) hours after becoming aware) 

with language that requires notification 

‘‘as soon as possible,’’ EPA provides 

flexibility to minimize the increased 

burden of the requirement as much as 

possible. One important consideration 

was the existing staffing hours at some 

POTWs. From speaking to State 

Directors and hearing from permittees in 

comment letters and the public listening 

session, EPA is aware that not all 

permittees have staff monitoring for 

combined sewer overflows at all hours. 

While EPA is accounting for some 

additional burden on permittees 

because of this rule (including in the 

form of staff resources), it is not EPA’s 

intention for permittees to significantly 

change staff hours, or hire new staff, in 

order to increase monitoring for CSO 

discharge. Rather, EPA expects that the 

initial notification would begin at the 

time that the permittee becomes aware 

of the CSO discharge. EPA therefore 

used the wording ‘‘after becoming 

aware’’ to trigger the beginning of the 

four-hour timeframe. For example, if a 

CSO discharge occurred on a Sunday 

evening at 8:00 p.m. but the permittee 

did not become aware of the discharge 

until staff reported to work at 7:00 a.m. 

on Monday morning, the four-hour 

timeframe would begin at 7:00 a.m. on 

Monday and the permittee would need 

to provide the initial notice as soon as 

possible but no later than 11 a.m. on 

Monday. 

In consideration of circumstances in 

which a small community has limited 

staff (e.g., one person is required to 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
726 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

handle all response activities), and that 

staff member must take a physical 

action to limit the public health impacts 

of a CSO discharge (including 

continuing to implement its existing 

practice of conducting inspections of 

CSO discharge points during the 

discharge), EPA has added a flexibility 

to the final rule to ensure that the 

permittee is able to complete that 

physical action before focusing on 

sending out the public notification. This 

change is described in Section IV.I. 

6. CSO Discharge Modeling/Monitoring 

EPA expects that most permittees 

already have a system in place by which 

they monitor, model, or otherwise 

estimate when CSO discharges have 

occurred. This approach is often 

established in the LTCP or other 

planning or operational document. EPA 

expects that most communities would 

use that same approach and/or data to 

inform the notification provided in 

response to this rule. The rule does not 

specifically require additional 

monitoring beyond what the CSO 

permittee already has in place for 

compliance with the current CSO Policy 

and other existing regulations; therefore, 

permittees would not need to purchase 

additional monitoring equipment or 

establish an expensive model. 

As noted in the preamble to the 

proposed rule (82 FR 4233), EPA 

anticipates that some communities may 

choose to estimate when CSO 

discharges may occur based on weather 

forecasts and provide notification in 

advance of a precipitation-related event. 

From a review of State-issued permits 

and additional State requirements 

pertaining to CSOs, EPA found that all 

seven States within the Great Lakes 

Basin require permittees to report the 

occurrence of a CSO discharge. Some 

States also require permittees to report 

CSO discharge duration, CSO discharge 

start and end times, and precipitation 

data associated with each CSO 

discharge. By using historic CSO 

discharge and precipitation data, along 

with certain system and service area 

characteristics that are already known 

and readily available, a predictive 

approach provides a simplified method 

to estimate a precipitation threshold 

that can be expected to cause a CSO 

discharge on a per discharge point basis. 

This method can be used to provide 

timely notification to the public, local 

public health departments, and other 

potentially affected public entities. EPA 

considered that there may be smaller 

communities that would like to provide 

public notification using a predictive 

approach, but they may not know the 

precipitation threshold at which they 

should trigger the advanced notice. For 

these communities, EPA has included a 

memo to the record describing how one 

might establish a precipitation threshold 

that can be used to meet the initial 

public notification requirements of the 

rule (see the ‘‘Predictive Approach 

Memo for the Great Lakes Basin’’ in the 

rulemaking docket). EPA’s memo 

suggests correlating historic CSO 

occurrence data with precipitation data 

obtained from rain gauges near CSO 

discharge points, if available, or readily 

available data from the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration’s National Centers for 

Environmental Information Climate 

Data Online Search (https://

www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/search) to 

determine a reasonable precipitation 

threshold that would be expected to 

cause a CSO discharge. 

7. Extending Compliance To Avoid 

Economic Hardship 

Section 425(b)(5)(A) of the 2016 

Appropriations Act provides that the 

notice and publication requirements of 

the provision must be implemented 

within two years, unless the EPA 

Administrator determines the 

community needs additional time to 

comply in order to avoid undue 

economic hardship. All of the Great 

Lakes States are authorized to 

administer the NPDES program. Because 

EPA is implementing Section 425 as 

part of the NPDES permit program, this 

determination may be made by the 

Director or by the Administrator. In 

EPA’s view, the State as the NPDES 

authority is in a better position to 

evaluate the economic conditions and 

financial capability of the permittee as 

they have worked with individual 

communities to ensure implementation 

of their LTCPs. 

The rule requires that the Great Lakes 

Basin CSO permittee must submit a 

public notification plan to the Director 

of the NPDES program by August 7, 

2018. The Great Lakes Basin CSO 

permittee is required to comply with the 

public notice requirements of § 122.38 

within nine months, and in the next 

calendar year in the case of annual 

notification, unless the Director 

specifies a later date to avoid economic 

hardship. Under § 122.38(e), the 

Director may extend the compliance 

dates for public notification under 

§ 122.38(a), annual notice under 

§ 122.38(b), and/or public notification 

plan submittal under § 122.38(c) for 

individual communities if the Director 

determines the community needs 

additional time to comply in order to 

avoid undue economic hardship. The 

rule requires the Director to notify the 

Regional Administrator of the extension 

and the reason for the extension. In 

addition, the Director is required to post 

on its website a notice that includes the 

name of the community and the new 

compliance date(s). 

The requirement to post this 

information on the Director’s website 

provides the public with information on 

any exceptions that have been made to 

the compliance date. Because financial 

resources will vary among communities 

due to community size, annual revenue, 

staffing and consultant resources, other 

program expenses (e.g., existing longterm control plan commitments) and 

other factors, EPA is not establishing 

specific criteria to define economic 

hardship in the final rule. Instead, EPA 

is providing the Director with the 

flexibility to evaluate each community’s 

specific circumstances to decide if an 

extension to the compliance date is 

needed. 

VI. Incremental Benefits and Costs of 

the Rule 

EPA anticipates there will likely be 

public health benefits from decreased 

bodily exposure to sewer overflows but 

did not quantify these benefits. EPA 

views these new notification 

requirements as a minimal increase in 

existing costs that permittees are already 

incurring due to existing permit 

requirements that conform to the CSO 

Control Policy codified in CWA 402(q). 

A. Benefits of the Rule 

This rule is expected to protect public 

health by ensuring timely notification to 

the public and to public health 

departments, public drinking water 

facilities and other potentially affected 

public entities, including Indian tribes. 

It provides additional specificity beyond 

existing public notification 

requirements to ensure timely and 

consistent communication to the public 

regarding combined sewer overflows in 

the Great Lakes Basin. It also 

acknowledges the significant technology 

changes that have occurred since the 

original requirements were developed in 

1994 which allow direct public access 

to real-time information. Timely notice 

may allow the public and affected 

public entities to take steps to reduce 

the public’s potential exposure to 

pathogens associated with human 

sewage, which can cause a wide variety 

of health effects, including 

gastrointestinal, skin, ear, respiratory, 

eye, neurologic, and wound infections. 

Although EPA has not quantified these 

benefits, the expected reduction in 

human exposure to pathogens may 

provide a net public health benefit from 

this rule. See ‘‘Benefits of Abating 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 727 

Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs)’’ in 

the rulemaking docket for a discussion 

of some of the many potential benefits 

that can be expected from reducing 

exposure to raw sewage discharges. 

Because of these expected public 

health benefits, EPA has chosen to 

implement the requirements with a twostage approach which ensures that the 

benefits of the rule can begin to accrue 

as quickly as possible, rather than 

delaying these public health benefits 

until future permit renewals which for 

some permittees could be as long as five 

years away (or even more if a permit is 

administratively continued by the 

permitting authority). 

The rule also improves transparency 

and accountability to the public about 

the presence and magnitude of CSO 

discharges in their community. Many 

permittees already report to their 

Director on the occurrence, duration, 

volume, and cause of CSO discharges; 

however, that information is often 

difficult for communities to find and 

interpret. Through a complete, 

consistent, and easily accessible annual 

notice that is shared with the public, 

community members can gain 

perspective on this important water 

pollution issue and they are able to see 

progress that is being made to reduce 

discharges. 

B. Costs of the Rule 

The ‘‘Analysis of Costs and Executive 

Orders’’ (available in the rulemaking 

docket) estimates the incremental costs 

of requiring CSO permittees that 

discharge to the Great Lakes Basin to 

provide public notification of CSO 

discharges. Table 3 summarizes the 

estimated incremental costs for the rule. 

TABLE 3—ANNUAL INCREMENTAL COSTS

[Average of first three years] 

Category 

Number of 

entities per 

category 

Labor costs Capital/startup/O&M costs Total 

CSO permittees with a population of less than 10,000 ................................... 54 $110,000 $30,600 $140,000 

CSO permittees with a population of between 10,000 and 50,000 ................ 69 140,000 26,600 167,000 

CSO permittees with a population of more than 50,000 ................................. 35 130,000 13,300 143,000 

States ............................................................................................................... 7 7,000 0 7,000 

Totals ........................................................................................................ 165 387,000 70,500 457,000 

Note: Cost values in table are rounded to three significant figures. 

The average incremental cost per CSO 

permittee is about $2,850 per year and 

the total annual incremental cost on all 

CSO permittees is about $450,000. 

The cost analysis assumes that costs 

will be borne by Great Lakes Basin CSO 

permittees in the form of one-time 

implementation activities that would 

occur within one to two years, once-peryear activities including an annual 

notice, and ongoing activities that 

would occur during and after CSO 

discharges. The cost analysis also 

accounts for costs to State agencies, 

mainly in the review of CSO permittee 

plans and reports. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Orders 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is a significant regulatory 

action that was submitted to the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review. Any revisions made in response 

to interagency review have been 

documented in the docket for this 

action. In addition, EPA prepared an 

analysis of the potential costs associated 

with this action. This analysis, 

‘‘Analysis of Costs and Executive 

Orders,’’ is summarized in Section VI 

and is available in the docket. 

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

This action is considered an 

Executive Order 13771 regulatory 

action. Details on the estimated costs of 

this final rule can be found in EPA’s 

‘‘Analysis of Costs and Executive 

Orders,’’ which is available in the 

docket. Also see Section VI. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection activities 

in this rule have been submitted for 

approval to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) under the PRA. The 

Information Collection Request (ICR) 

document that the EPA prepared has 

been assigned EPA ICR number 2562.01. 

The ICR is summarized here; a complete 

copy can be found in the docket. The 

information collection requirements are 

not enforceable until OMB approves 

them. 

As discussed in section V.A of this 

document, NPDES permits for CSO 

discharges to the Great Lakes Basin will 

require permittees to provide public 

notification to ensure that the public 

receives adequate notice of CSO 

occurrences and CSO impacts. The 

information burden associated with this 

provision is approved in ‘‘Information 

Collection Request for NPDES Program 

(Renewal),’’ OMB Control No. 2040– 

0004, EPA ICR No. 0229.21. EPA has 

developed an additional analysis to 

provide a better, updated estimate of the 

public notification requirements. The 

analysis used to develop these estimates 

is described in ‘‘ICR Supporting 

Statement, Information Collection 

Request: Public Notification 

Requirements for CSOs in the Great 

Lakes Basin,’’ EPA ICR number 2562.01. 

Key estimates and assumptions in the 

analysis include: 

• 69% percent of existing discharge 

points (outfalls) for all CSO permittees 

have already installed signs and they are 

being maintained; 

• Over 60% of the CSO permittees 

already have a system for developing 

estimates of the occurrence and volume 

of discharges from CSO discharge 

points; 

• Each Great Lakes Basin CSO 

permittee already operates a website 

that can be modified to provide the 

public with notification of a CSO event; 

• Larger CSO communities may have 

access to listserv technology; 

• Electronic technology significantly 

reduces the burden of providing initial 

and supplemental notification to the 

public and to local public health 

departments and other affected public 

entities; 

• Much of the effort in developing 

public notification plans is included in 

burden estimates for the individual 

public notification components in the 

proposal. The activities attributed to the 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
728 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

burden for the public notification plan 

include preparation of the document 

describing the public notification 

activities. 

• The burdens on the NPDES 

authority for permit renewals are 

applied to one-fifth of all Great Lakes 

Basin CSO permits within each State 

beginning in year 2 of the ICR to 

account for the five year permit term. 

The public notification requirements 

in this rule are designed to alert the 

public and public health departments, 

and other potentially affected entities of 

CSO discharges in a more wide-spread 

and timely manner than is currently 

practiced. The notification requirements 

which involve distribution of CSO 

discharge related information (e.g., CSO 

discharge location, receiving waterbody, 

time started, time ended, volume) to the 

public and affected local governmental 

agencies would enable potentially 

affected parties to take action that may 

help prevent serious health effects that 

may otherwise occur if they were to 

remain unaware of the occurrence of 

CSO discharges. 

Respondents/affected entities: The 

ICR covers information that must be 

provided by operators of combined 

sewer systems (Great Lakes Basin CSO 

permittees) that discharge within the 

watershed of the Great Lakes Basin. In 

addition, the ICR covers information 

burdens of the seven NPDES authorized 

States that are implementing the 

program and the estimated 158 public 

health departments that are consulting 

on the public notification plan. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Compliance with the notification 

requirements would be mandatory. 

Requirements for public notification of 

CSO discharge are part of the ‘‘nine 

minimum controls’’ established as part 

of EPA’s CSO Control Policy. Section 

425 of the Consolidated Appropriations 

Act of 2016 (Pub. L. 114–113) requires 

EPA to work with the Great Lakes States 

to establish these public notice 

requirements. 

Estimated number of respondents: 

EPA has identified 158 CSO 

communities that discharge to the Great 

Lakes Basin, seven State NPDES 

permitting authorities, and 158 public 

health departments. 

Frequency of response: Responses 

include one-time implementation 

activities, such as signage, activities that 

occur once per year, such as providing 

annual notice, and ongoing activities 

that would occur during and after CSO 

discharge events. 

Total estimated burden: EPA 

estimates that the burden of 

implementing the rule would be 10,301 

hours per year. Burden is defined at 5 

CFR 1320.3(b). 

Total estimated cost: EPA estimates 

that the rule would cost $457,000 per 

year during the three year ICR period. 

This is the total annual incremental cost 

for all 158 Great Lakes Basin CSO 

permittees and seven State NPDES 

authorities. The average incremental 

cost per CSO permittee is about $2,850 

per year and the average incremental 

cost per State NPDES authority is about 

$1,000. 

EPA 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 

the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are 

listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB 

approves this ICR, the Agency will 

announce that approval in the Federal 

Register and publish a technical 

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display 

the OMB control number for the 

approved information collection 

activities contained in this final rule. 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. The small entities 

subject to the requirements of this 

action are small governmental 

jurisdictions. The Agency has 

determined that 123 (78%) of the 158 

communities discharging CSOs to the 

Great Lakes Basin are governmental 

jurisdictions with a population of less 

than 50,000 and thus can be classified 

as small entities. EPA evaluated the 

potential impact on annual revenue that 

these small entities may experience. 

Nearly all of the small communities 

(121 of 123 communities) are expected 

to experience an impact of less than 1% 

of annual revenue. Two communities 

may experience an impact of greater 

than 1% of annual revenue (one 

potentially experiencing an impact 

slightly over 1% and the other 

approximately 2%). Details of this 

analysis are presented in the Analysis of 

Costs and Executive Orders which is 

available in the docket. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain an 

unfunded mandate of $100 million or 

more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538. EPA has conducted a cost 

analysis examining the potential burden 

to State, tribal and local governments. 

Details of this analysis are presented in 

the Analysis of Costs and Executive 

Orders which is available in the docket. 

EPA estimates that the costs of the rule 

to States, tribes and local governments 

will be well below $100 million per 

year. In addition, EPA compared the 

estimated annualized cost of the rule 

and revenue estimates for small local 

governments using four estimates of 

revenue data. The annualized 

compliance cost as a percentage of 

annual government revenues is below 

1%. EPA concludes that the impact of 

the rule is very unlikely to reach or 

exceed 1% of small local government 

revenue. 

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

The rule includes a requirement for 

CSO permittees to notify the public of 

CSO discharges. This requirement 

includes the development of a public 

notification plan and the release of an 

annual notice that includes monitoring 

data. The incremental impact to State 

permitting authorities is estimated to be 

approximately $1,000 annually per 

State. The incremental impact to local 

permittees may range from a total of 

$1,000 to $4,000 annually per CSO 

permittee, depending on the number of 

CSO events and preparation time for the 

annual notice. Details of this analysis 

are presented in ‘‘Analysis of Costs and 

Executive Orders,’’ which is available in 

the docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OW–2016–0376 http://

www.regulations.gov). 

Keeping with the spirit of E.O. 13132 

and consistent with EPA’s policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local governments, and 

Section 425’s direction to work with the 

States, EPA met with State and local 

officials throughout the process of 

developing the proposed rule and 

received feedback on how potential new 

regulatory requirements would affect 

them. EPA engaged in extensive 

outreach via conference calls to affected 

States to enable officials of affected 

States to have meaningful and timely 

input into the development of the 

proposed and final rule. EPA also held 

a public listening session and solicited 

written comments from the public and 

impacted stakeholder groups, including 

affected municipalities, to inform the 

development of the public notice 

proposed requirements. See Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OW–2016–0376 to the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 729 

12https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/ 

2013–08/documents/cons-and-coord-with-indiantribes-policy.pdf. 

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 since it does not have a 

direct substantial impact on one or more 

federally recognized tribes. No tribal 

governments are authorized NPDES 

permitting authorities and none of the 

combined sewer systems subject to this 

rule are located on Indian nation lands. 

The rule would address the way in 

which municipalities share information 

with the public, public health 

departments, and potentially impacted 

communities (including Indian tribes) 

about CSOs in the Great Lakes Basin. 

EPA therefore evaluated the proximity 

of CSSs that would be subject to the rule 

in relation to Indian lands. EPA 

identified six CSO permittees with the 

potential to affect waters near four 

Indian nations in New York State: 

• Seneca Nation of Indians (SNI): The 

Dunkirk WWTP is located south of the 

Cattaraugus Reservation. The Buffalo 

Sewer Authority and Niagara Falls 

WWTP are located close to SNI lands 

within the city of Niagara Falls, NY and 

Buffalo, NY (where the Seneca casinos 

are located). 

• Tuscarora Nation (TN): The 

Tuscarora Nation lands are located 

directly between the Niagara Falls 

WWTP and Lockport WWTP but not on 

the Niagara River or Eighteen Mile 

Creek. 

• Tonawanda Seneca Nation (TSN): 

The Medina WWTP is located 10 miles 

north of the Tonawanda Seneca Nation 

lands. 

• St. Regis Mohawk Tribe (SRMT): 

Any of the three WWTP plants along the 

St. Lawrence River would be of concern 

to the Mohawks at Akwesasne. SRMT is 

directly impacted by the Massena 

WWTP as the St. Lawrence River goes 

directly thru the heart of Akwesasne, 

the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe’s 

reservation lands. 

Consistent with the EPA Policy on 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribes,12 EPA conducted 

outreach to tribal officials during the 

development of this action. EPA 

contacted the above mentioned tribes 

through outreach conducted by EPA’s 

Office of Environmental Justice to 

ensure they were aware of the 

opportunity to provide public 

comments on the proposed rule. In 

addition, when EPA held the public 

listening session while the proposed 

rule was under development, EPA 

conducted outreach to tribes to ensure 

awareness of the public listening 

session, and the associated opportunity 

to provide written comments to the 

Agency. In addition, the rule requires 

Great Lakes Basin CSO permittees to 

consult with potentially affected Indian 

Tribes whose waters may be impacted 

by a CSO discharge prior to submitting 

the public notification plan. This 

requirement ensures that needs of tribes 

using potentially impacted waters are 

considered in terms of timing of 

notification, the type of information that 

is provided, and the means by which 

public notification is communicated. 

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

EPA does not believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. The rule would, in some cases, 

increase public awareness of CSO 

discharges to the Great Lakes Basin, 

including information about public use 

areas such as beaches that may be 

impacted by contaminated CSO 

discharges, and by doing so could 

decrease health risks for children, 

infants, and adults. 

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ because it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution or use of energy. 

The rule requires CSO permittees to 

notify the public of CSO discharges. 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

EPA determined that the human 

health or environmental risk addressed 

by this action would not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income, or indigenous 

populations, as specified in Executive 

Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994). This action affects the way in 

which Great Lakes Basin CSO 

permittees communicate information 

regarding CSO discharges to the public. 

It does not change any current human 

health or environmental risk standards. 

However, because the rule would 

address the way in which information 

about CSO discharges is communicated 

to the public, EPA did reach out to 

environmental justice organizations to 

specifically solicit input on what may 

be the best approaches to reaching 

environmental justice communities with 

this information. Prior to the public 

listening session on September 14, 2016, 

EPA contacted over 800 environmental 

justice stakeholders through the Office 

of Environmental Justice Listserv, to 

ensure they were aware of the listening 

session and the opportunity to provide 

written input to the Agency through the 

public docket. EPA again reached out 

via this Listserv to ensure 

environmental justice stakeholders were 

aware of the public comment period for 

the proposed rule. 

In addition, the rule requires the Great 

Lakes Basin CSO permittee to consult 

with local public health departments 

and potentially affected public entities 

when developing the public notification 

plan. These consultations may alert the 

Great Lakes Basin CSO permittee to 

specific environmental justice 

community considerations regarding the 

best ways to effectively communicate 

this information. 

L. Congressional Review Act 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

EPA will submit a rule report to each 

House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 122 

Environmental protection, Combined 

sewer overflow, Public notification, 

Reporting, Water pollution. 

40 CFR Part 123 

Environmental protection, Combined 

sewer overflow, Public notification, 

Reporting, Water pollution. 

Dated: December 18, 2017. 

E. Scott Pruitt, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR parts 

122 and 123 as follows: 

PART 122—EPA ADMINISTERED 

PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE NATIONAL 

POLLUTANT DISCHARGE 

ELIMINATION SYSTEM 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 122 

continues to read as follows: 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
730 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

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

1251 et seq. 

■ 2. In § 122.2, add the definitions 

‘‘Combined sewer overflow (CSO)’’, 

‘‘Combined sewer system (CSS)’’, and 

‘‘Great Lakes Basin’’ in alphabetical 

order to read as follows: 

§ 122.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Combined sewer overflow (CSO) 

means a discharge from a combined 

sewer system (CSS) at a point prior to 

the Publicly Owned Treatment Works 

(POTW) Treatment Plant (defined at 

§ 403.3(r) of this chapter). 

Combined sewer system (CSS) means 

a wastewater collection system owned 

by a State or municipality (as defined by 

section 502(4) of the CWA) which 

conveys sanitary wastewaters (domestic, 

commercial and industrial wastewaters) 

and storm water through a single-pipe 

system to a Publicly Owned Treatment 

Works (POTW) Treatment Plant (as 

defined at § 403.3(r) of this chapter). 

* * * * * 

Great Lakes Basin means the waters 

defined as ‘‘Great Lakes’’ and ‘‘Great 

Lakes System’’ as those terms are 

defined in § 132.2 of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 122.21, add paragraph (j)(8)(iii) 

to read as follows: 

§ 122.21 Application for a permit 

(applicable to State programs, see § 123.25). 

* * * * * 

(j) * * * 

(8) * * * 

(iii) Public notification plan for CSO 

discharges to the Great Lakes Basin. 

Each permittee authorized to discharge 

a combined sewer overflow to the Great 

Lakes Basin as defined in § 122.2 must 

submit a public notification plan 

developed in accordance with § 122.38 

as part of its permit application. The 

public notification plan shall describe 

any significant updates to the plan that 

may have occurred since the last plan 

submission. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Add § 122.38 to read as follows: 

§ 122.38 Public notification requirements 

for CSO discharges to the Great Lakes 

Basin. 

(a) All permittees authorized to 

discharge a combined sewer overflow 

(CSO) to the Great Lakes Basin (‘‘Great 

Lakes Basin CSO permittee’’) must 

provide public notification of CSO 

discharges as described in this 

paragraph (a) after November 7, 2018. 

Public notification shall consist of: 

(1) Signage. (i) The Great Lakes Basin 

CSO permittee shall ensure that there is 

adequate signage where signage is 

feasible at: 

(A) CSO discharge points (unless the 

permittee demonstrates to the Director 

that no public access of, or public 

contact with, the receiving water is 

expected); and 

(B) Potentially impacted public access 

areas. 

(ii) At a minimum, signs shall 

include: 

(A) The name of the Great Lakes Basin 

CSO permittee; 

(B) A description of the discharge 

(e.g., untreated human sewage, treated 

wastewater) and notice that sewage may 

be present in the water; and 

(C) The Great Lakes Basin CSO 

permittee contact information, 

including a telephone number, NPDES 

permit number and CSO discharge point 

number as identified in the NPDES 

permit. 

(iii) The Great Lakes Basin CSO 

permittee shall perform periodic 

maintenance of signs to ensure that they 

are legible, visible and factually correct. 

(iv) Where a permittee has before 

August 7, 2018 installed a sign at a CSO 

discharge point or potentially impacted 

public access area that is consistent 

with State requirements, the sign is not 

required to meet the minimum 

requirements specified in paragraph 

(a)(1)(ii) of this section until the sign is 

replaced. 

(2) Notification of local public health 

department and other potentially 

affected public entities. (i) As soon as 

possible, but no later than four (4) hours 

after becoming aware by monitoring, 

modeling or other means that a CSO 

discharge has occurred, the Great Lakes 

Basin CSO permittee shall provide 

initial notice of the CSO discharge to the 

local public health department (or if 

there is no local health department, to 

the State health department), any 

potentially affected public entities (such 

as municipalities, public drinking water 

utilities, State and county parks and 

recreation departments), and Indian 

Tribes whose waters may be impacted. 

Such initial notice shall, at a minimum, 

include the following information: 

(A) The water body that received the 

discharge(s); 

(B) The location of the discharge(s) 

and identification of the public access 

areas potentially impacted by the 

discharge. Where CSO discharges from 

the same system occur at multiple 

locations during the same precipitationrelated event, the Great Lakes Basin 

CSO permittee may provide a 

description of the area in the waterbody 

where discharges are occurring and 

identification of the public access areas 

potentially impacted by the discharge, 

and the permittee is not required to 

identify the specific location of each 

discharge; 

(C) The date(s) and time(s) that the 

discharge(s) commenced or the time the 

permittee became aware of the 

discharge(s) or when discharges are 

expected to occur; 

(D) Whether, at the time of the 

notification, the discharge(s) is 

continuing or has ended. If the 

discharge(s) has ended, the approximate 

time that the discharge ended; and 

(E) A point of contact for the CSO 

permittee. 

(ii) Within seven (7) days after 

becoming aware by monitoring, 

modeling or other means that the CSO 

discharge(s) has ended, the Great Lakes 

Basin CSO permittee shall provide the 

following supplemental information to 

the public health department and 

affected public entities and Indian 

Tribes receiving the initial notice under 

paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section unless 

the information had been provided in an 

earlier notice: 

(A) The measured or estimated 

volume of the discharge(s). Where CSO 

discharges from the same system occur 

at multiple locations during the same 

precipitation-related event, the Great 

Lakes Basin CSO permittee may provide 

an estimate of the cumulative volume 

discharged to a given waterbody; and 

(B) The approximate time that the 

discharge(s) ended. 

(3) Notification of the public. (i) As 

soon as possible, but no later than four 

(4) hours after becoming aware by 

monitoring, modeling or other means 

that a CSO discharge has occurred, the 

Great Lakes Basin CSO permittee shall 

provide public notification of CSO 

discharges. The Great Lakes Basin CSO 

permittee shall provide public 

notification of CSO discharges 

electronically, such as by text, email, 

social media alerts to subscribers or by 

posting a notice on its public access 

website, and, if appropriate, by other 

means (e.g., newspaper, radio, 

television). If a permittee’s public 

notification plan identifies 

circumstances and physical action 

needed to limit the public health 

impacts of the CSO discharge by 

controlling the CSO discharge 

(including continuing to implement its 

existing practice of conducting 

inspections of CSO discharge points 

during the discharge), and all available 

staff are required to complete this 

action, the four-hour notification 

window will commence upon 

completion of that action. 

(ii) At a minimum, the notice shall 

include: 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 731 

(A) The water body that received the 

discharge(s); 

(B) The location of the discharge(s) 

and identification of the public access 

areas potentially impacted by the 

discharge. Where CSO discharges from 

the same system occur at multiple 

locations during the same precipitationrelated event, the Great Lakes Basin 

CSO permittee may provide a 

description of the area in the waterbody 

where discharges are occurring and 

identification of the public access areas 

potentially impacted by the discharge, 

and the permittee is not required to 

identify the specific location of each 

discharge; 

(C) The date(s) and time(s) that the 

discharge(s) commenced or the time the 

permittee became aware of the 

discharge(s); and 

(D) Whether, at the time of the 

notification, the discharge(s) is 

continuing or has ended. If the 

discharge(s) has ended, the approximate 

time that the discharge(s) ended. 

(iii) Within seven (7) days after 

becoming aware by monitoring, 

modeling or other means that the CSO 

discharge(s) has ended, the Great Lakes 

Basin CSO permittee shall update the 

electronic notice with the following 

information unless the information had 

been provided in an earlier notice: 

(A) The measured or estimated 

volume of the discharge(s). Where CSO 

discharges from the same system occur 

at multiple locations during the same 

precipitation-related event, the Great 

Lakes Basin CSO permittee may provide 

an estimate of the cumulative volume 

discharged to a given waterbody; and 

(B) The approximate time that the 

discharge(s) ended, unless this 

information was provided in an earlier 

notice. 

(b) Annual notice. Starting in 

February 7, 2019, by May 1 of each 

calendar year (or an alternative date 

specified by the Director), any 

permittees authorized to discharge a 

CSO to the Great Lakes Basin shall make 

available to the public an annual notice 

describing the CSO discharges from its 

discharge point(s) that occurred in the 

previous calendar year and shall 

provide the Director and EPA with 

notice of how the annual notice is 

available. Notice to EPA shall be in the 

form of an email to NPDES_CSO@

epa.gov containing a link to the annual 

notice and the contact information 

(name, title, phone number, email) of 

the person responsible for maintaining 

the website, or alternative information 

about how the annual notice is available 

if it is not on a website; if the permittee 

is emailing the Director with this 

information, the permittee may copy 

EPA on that email to meet this 

requirement. Permittees that are owners 

or operators of a satellite collection 

system with one or more CSO discharge 

points shall provide the annual notice to 

the public and a copy of the annual 

notice to the operator of the POTW 

treatment plant providing treatment for 

its wastewater. For permittees whose 

State permitting authority has published 

or will publish an annual report 

containing all of the below minimum 

information (listed at paragraphs (b)(1) 

through (8) of this section) about the 

Permittee, the Permittee may choose to 

make available the State-issued annual 

report in order to meet this requirement. 

If permittees have existing report(s) that 

are written annually that collectively 

contain all of the below minimum 

information (listed at paragraphs (b)(1) 

through (8) of this section), then the 

Permittee may choose to make that/ 

those report(s) publicly available in 

order to meet this requirement. At a 

minimum, the annual notice shall 

include: 

(1) A description of the location and 

receiving water for each CSO discharge 

point, and, if applicable, any treatment 

provided; 

(2) The date, location, approximate 

duration, measured or estimated 

volume, and cause (e.g., rainfall, 

snowmelt) of each wet weather CSO 

discharge that occurred during the past 

calendar year. Where CSO discharges 

from the same system occur at multiple 

locations during the same precipitationrelated event, the Great Lakes Basin 

CSO permittee may provide an estimate 

of the cumulative volume discharged to 

a given waterbody; 

(3) The date, location, duration, 

volume, and cause of each dry weather 

CSO discharge that occurred during the 

past calendar year; 

(4) A summary of available 

monitoring data for CSO discharges 

from the past calendar year; 

(5) A description of any public access 

areas potentially impacted by each CSO 

discharge; 

(6) Representative precipitation data 

in total inches to the nearest 0.1 inch 

that resulted in a CSO discharge, if 

precipitation was the cause of the 

discharge identified in (§ 122.38(b)(2)); 

(7) Permittee contact information, if 

not listed elsewhere on the website 

where this annual notice is provided; 

and 

(8) A concise summary of 

implementation of the nine minimum 

controls and the status of 

implementation of the long-term CSO 

control plan (or other plans to reduce or 

prevent CSO discharges), including: 

(i) A description of key milestones 

remaining to complete implementation 

of the plan; and 

(ii) A description of the average 

annual number of CSO discharges 

anticipated after implementation of the 

long-term control plan (or other plan 

relevant to reduction of CSO overflows) 

is completed. 

(c) Public notification plan. The Great 

Lakes Basin CSO permittee shall 

develop a public notification plan that 

describes how the Great Lakes Basin 

CSO permittee will ensure that the 

public receives adequate notification of 

CSO occurrences and CSO impacts. The 

Great Lakes Basin CSO permittee must 

provide notice of the availability of the 

plan, for instance on the permittee’s 

website (if it has a website), and 

periodically provide information on 

how to view the notification plan, such 

as in bill mailings and by other 

appropriate means. The Great Lakes 

Basin CSO permittee must submit its 

public notification plan to the Director 

by August 7, 2018 and as part of a 

permit application under 

§ 122.21(j)(8)(iii). The plan must: 

(1) Identify the location of signs 

required under paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section and the location of any CSO 

discharge point where a sign is not 

provided. Where a sign has not been 

provided at a CSO discharge point, the 

plan shall explain why a sign at that 

location is not feasible or was otherwise 

determined to not be necessary. 

(2) Describe the message used on 

signs required under paragraph (a)(1) of 

this section; 

(3) Describe protocols for maintaining 

signage (e.g., inspections at set 

intervals); 

(4) Identify (with points of contact) 

the municipalities, public drinking 

water supplies, public parks with water 

access, Indian Tribe(s), and describe 

other sensitive area(s) identified in the 

permittee’s long-term CSO control plan, 

that may be impacted by the permittee’s 

CSO discharges; 

(5) Summarize significant comments 

and recommendations raised by the 

local public health department under 

paragraph (d) of this section; 

(6) Identify other affected public 

entities and Indian Tribes whose waters 

may be impacted by a CSO discharge 

that were contacted under paragraph (d) 

of this section and provide a summary 

of their significant comments and 

recommendations; 

(7) Describe protocols for the initial 

and supplemental notice to public 

health departments and other public 

entities; 

(8) Describe protocols for the initial 

and supplemental notice to the public; 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
732 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

this shall include a description of 

circumstances under which the initial 

notification of the public may be 

delayed beyond four hours of the 

permittee becoming aware of the 

discharge, which shall only include 

circumstances where a physical action 

is needed to limit the public health 

impacts of a CSO discharge by 

controlling the CSO discharge 

(including continuing to implement its 

existing practice of conducting 

inspections of CSO discharge points 

during the discharge), and all available 

staff are required to complete this 

action, and, therefore, are not available 

to initiate the initial notification until 

this action is complete; 

(9) Describe, for each CSO discharge 

point, how the volume and duration of 

CSO discharges shall be either measured 

or estimated for the purposes of 

complying with paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(A), 

(a)(3)(iii)(A) and (b)(2) and (3) of this 

section. If the Great Lakes Basin CSO 

permittee intends to use a model to 

estimate discharge volumes and 

durations, the plan must summarize the 

model and describe how the model was 

or will be calibrated. CSO permittees 

that are a municipality or sewer district 

with a population of 75,000 or more 

must assess whether re-calibration of 

their model is necessary, and recalibrate 

if necessary, at least once every 5 years; 

(10) Describe protocols for making the 

annual notice described in paragraph (b) 

of this section available to the public 

and to the Director; and 

(11) Describe significant 

modifications to the plan that were 

made since it was last updated. 

(d) Seek input on public notification 

plan. Prior to submitting the public 

notification plan, or resubmitting under 

§ 122.21(j)(8)(iii), the Great Lakes Basin 

CSO permittee must: 

(1) Seek input from the local public 

health department (or if there is no local 

health department, the State health 

department), to: 

(i) Develop recommended protocols 

for providing notification of CSO 

discharges to the public health 

department. The protocols will specify 

which CSO discharges are subject to 

notification, the means of notification, 

timing of notification and other relevant 

factors. 

(ii) Develop recommendations for 

providing notice to the general public of 

CSO discharges electronically and by 

other appropriate means. 

(iii) Develop recommendations for 

areas that would be considered 

‘‘potentially impacted public access 

areas’’ as referenced in § 122.38(a)(1), 

(2), and (3). 

(2) Seek input from other potentially 

affected public entities and Indian 

Tribes whose waters may be impacted 

by a CSO discharge. 

(3) Consider the recommendations of 

the public health department and other 

potentially affected entities in 

developing protocols in its public 

notification plan for providing 

notification of CSO discharges to the 

public health department and 

potentially affected public entities and 

Indian Tribes. 

(e) Extending compliance to avoid 

undue economic hardship. The Director 

may extend the compliance dates in 

paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this 

section for individual communities if 

the Director determines the community 

needs additional time to comply in 

order to avoid undue economic 

hardship. Where the Director extends 

the compliance date of any of these 

requirements for a community, the 

Director shall notify the Regional 

Administrator of the extension and the 

reason for the extension. The Director 

shall post on its website a notice that 

includes the name of the community 

and the new compliance date(s). The 

notice shall remain on the Director’s 

website until the new compliance date. 

■ 5. In § 122.42, add paragraph (f) to 

read as follows: 

§ 122.42 Additional conditions applicable 

to specified categories of NPDES permits 

(applicable to State NPDES programs, see 

§ 123.25). 

* * * * * 

(f) Public notification requirements for 

CSO discharges to the Great Lakes 

Basin. Any permit issued authorizing 

the discharge of a combined sewer 

overflow (CSO) to the Great Lakes Basin 

must: 

(1) Require implementation of the 

public notification requirements in 

§ 122.38(a); 

(2) Specify the information that must 

be included on discharge point signage, 

which, at a minimum, must include 

those elements in § 122.38(a)(1)(ii); 

(3) Specify discharge points and 

public access areas where signs are 

required pursuant to § 122.38(a)(1)(i); 

(4) Specify the timing and minimum 

information required for providing 

initial and supplemental notification to: 

(i) Local public health department 

and other potentially affected entities 

under § 122.38(a)(2); and 

(ii) The public under § 122.38(a)(3). 

(5) Specify the location of CSO 

discharges that must be monitored for 

volume and discharge duration and the 

location of CSO discharges where CSO 

volume and duration may be estimated; 

and 

(6) Require submittal of an annual 

notice in accordance with § 122.38(b); 

(7) Specify protocols for making the 

annual notice under § 122.38(b) 

available to the public. 

PART 123—STATE PROGRAM 

REQUIREMENTS 

■ 6. The authority citation for part 123 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 

1251 et seq. 

■ 7. In § 123.25, add paragraph (a)(47) to 

read as follows: 

§ 123.25 Requirements for permitting. 

(a) * * * 

(47) For a Great Lakes State, § 122.38. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2017–27948 Filed 1–5–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 0 

[FCC 17–172] 

Expansion of Intergovernmental 

Advisory Committee 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission adopts revisions to its rules 

governing the Intergovernmental 

Advisory Committee (Committee or 

IAC), which advises the Commission on 

a range of telecommunications issues 

affecting local, county, state, and Tribal 

interests, to expand it from 15 members 

to 30 members. The IAC has been an 

important source of information and 

guidance to the Commission over the 

past 20 years. The rule change will 

enhance the IAC’s role by allowing for 

a greater diversity of viewpoints 

representing our municipal, county, 

state, and Tribal partners throughout the 

country. 

DATES: Effective January 8, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carmen Scanlon, Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, at: (202) 

418–0544; email: Carmen.Scanlon@

fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Order, 

FCC 17–172, adopted December 13, 

2017, released December 20, 2017. The 

full text of this document will be 

available for public inspection and 

copying via ECFS, and during regular 

business hours at the FCC Reference 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES