Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0376-0042
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Public Notification Requirements for Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Posted Date: 2017-01-13T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 9 (Friday, January 13, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4233-4255]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31745]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 122 and 123

[EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0376; FRL-9957-40-OW]
RIN 2040-AF67

Public Notification Requirements for Combined Sewer Overflows to 
the Great Lakes Basin

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 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 proposed requirements address 
signage, notification of local public health departments and other 
potentially affected public entities, notification to the public, and 
annual notice provisions.
    The proposed rules, when finalized, will 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. Timely notice may 
allow the public to take steps 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.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 14, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2016-0376 to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. EPA 
may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit 
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the 
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish 
to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents 
located outside of the primary submission (e.g.,

[[Page 4234]]

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional 
submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information 
about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making 
effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-s.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Weiss, Office of Wastewater 
Management, Water Permits Division (MC4203), Environmental Protection 
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone 
number: (202) 564-0742; email address: weiss.kevin@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What action is the Agency proposing?
    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. Examples of Existing Public Notification Practices in CSO 
Communities
    G. Existing State-Level Public Notification Requirements for 
CSOs in the Great Lakes Basin
    H. Working With the Great Lakes States and Requesting Public 
Input
III. Proposed Requirements
    A. Overview of Proposal
    B. Types of Notification
    1. Signage
    2. Initial and Supplemental Notice to Local Public Health 
Officials and Other Potentially Affected Public Entities
    3. Initial and Supplemental Notice to the Public
    4. Annual CSO Notice
    C. Public Notification Plans
    D. Implementation
    1. Section 122.38 Requirements
    2. Required Permit Condition
    E. Additional Considerations
    1. Definitions
    2. List of Treatment Works
    3. Adjusting Deadlines To Avoid Economic Hardship
    4. Notification of CSO Volumes
    5. Treated Discharges
    6. More Stringent State Requirements
    7. Reporting
    8. Ambient Monitoring
IV. Incremental Costs of Proposed Rule
V. Statutory and Executive Orders Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities within the Great Lakes Basin potentially regulated by this 
proposed action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         North American
                                                            industry
            Category                  Examples of        classification
                                   regulated entities    system (NAICS)
                                                              code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal and state government....  EPA or state NPDES              924110
                                   permit authorities.
Local governments...............  NPDES permittees                221320
                                   with a CSO
                                   discharge to the
                                   Great Lakes Basin.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. To determine whether your entity is regulated by this 
action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria found 
in Sec.  122.32 title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and the 
discussion in the preamble. 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 proposing?

    EPA is proposing a rule to establish public notification 
requirements for CSOs to the Great Lakes Basin. The proposed rule would 
implement Section 425 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 
(Pub. L. 114-113) (hereafter referred to as ``Section 425''), which 
requires EPA to work with the Great Lake states to establish public 
notice requirements for CSO discharges to the Great Lakes and 
prescribes minimum requirements for such notice. EPA sought and 
considered public input during the development of the proposed rule.
    This proposal includes required methods for CSO permittees in the 
Great Lakes Basin to provide public notification of CSO discharges and 
for the minimum content of such notification. The proposed requirements 
for methods of providing public notice of CSO discharges include 
signage, initial and supplemental notice to potentially affected public 
entities and to the public, and an annual notice that allows for 
analysis of trends in combined sewer system performance and the 
operator's plans for CSO controls. In addition, EPA proposes 
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 proposed public 
notification requirements. EPA proposes that Great Lakes Basin CSO 
permittees would submit the public notification plan to the NPDES 
permitting authority (``Director'') within six months after publication 
of a final regulation. The public notification plan would provide a 
means of public engagement on the details of implementation of the 
notification requirements.
    Under the proposal, the public notification provisions, including 
the requirement to develop a public notification plan, would be 
implemented through two regulatory mechanisms. First, EPA proposes to 
add

[[Page 4235]]

a new section to the NPDES permit regulations, to be codified at 40 CFR 
122.38, establishing the public notification requirements for Great 
Lakes CSO permittees. The proposed requirements in Sec.  122.38 would 
apply directly to Great Lakes CSO permittees until their NPDES permits 
are next reissued after publication of a final regulation.
    EPA proposes that the requirements for developing the public 
notification plan and the methods of notification other than the annual 
notice would directly apply to CSO permittees that discharge to the 
Great Lakes Basin six months after publication of a final regulation. 
EPA proposes that the annual notice requirements would directly apply 
one year after publication of a final regulation to allow permittees 
time to collect data for a full year. Under this proposal, the Director 
could 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, under this proposal, the public notification requirements 
for CSO discharges to the Great Lakes Basin would be implemented as a 
condition in NPDES permits when they are next reissued after 
publication of a finale regulation. EPA proposes that when the 
permittee's CSO NPDES permit is reissued, the permit would be required 
to include a permit condition addressing public notification of CSO 
discharges to the Great Lakes Basin. The proposed permit condition 
would incorporate the proposed requirements in Sec.  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. This two-
stage implementation approach would ensure that the requirements of 
Section 425 will be implemented during the interim period before the 
permit condition is incorporated into the relevant NPDES permits, 
consistent with Section 425, which requires implementation by December 
18, 2017.
    The objectives of these proposed requirements are to:
     Ensure 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 to reduce their potential exposure 
to pathogens associated with the discharges.
     Ensure 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 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 affected by CSO discharges.
     Provide the community and interested stakeholders with 
effective and meaningful follow-up notification that allows for 
analysis of trends in combined sewer system (CSS) performance and 
provides stakeholders with information on the CSS operator'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.

C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    The authority for this rule is 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).

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 
some 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.
    Under normal, dry weather conditions, combined sewers transport all 
of the combined wastewater (sewage and stormwater runoff) 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, water quality impairment, and 
contaminate drinking water supplies and shellfish beds. CSOs can also 
cause depleted oxygen levels which can impact fish and other aquatic 
populations.
    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 10,000 people. Most CSSs have 
multiple CSO discharge locations or outfalls, with some larger 
communities with

[[Page 4236]]

combined sewer systems having hundreds of CSO outfalls.

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, 190 permits \1\ are for CSO discharges to 
waters located in the watershed for the Great Lakes and the Great Lakes 
System (``Great Lakes Basin'').\2\ The 190 permits for CSO discharges 
to the Great Lakes Basin have been issued to 182 communities \3\ or 
permittees. These permittees are located in the states of New York, 
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. 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). 
Hereafter, the owner or operator of a CSS is referred to as a ``CSO 
permittee.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA identified 184 CSO permits in the Great Lakes Basin in 
the 2016 Report to Congress: Combined Sewer Overflows into the Great 
Lakes Basin (EPA 833-R-16-006). EPA has adjusted that estimate to 
reflect additional information. First, six CSO permittees identified 
in the Report to Congress were subtracted because their permit 
coverage had been terminated due to sewer separation or other 
reasons. Second, EPA conducted a GIS analysis and verified with 
States that 12 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 18 permits is available in the docket for this 
rulemaking.
    \2\ Section 425 specifies in Section 425(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.''
    \3\ The number of CSO communities in the Great Lakes Basin is 
different than the number of CSO permits. Four CSO communities have 
more than one CSO NPDES permit. These include Metropolitan Water 
Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC) (4 permits); Wayne 
County, MI (4 permits); Oakland County, MI (2 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13JA17.001

    EPA recently summarized available information on the occurrence and 
volume of discharges from CSOs to the Great Lakes Basin during 2014 
(see Report to Congress: Combined Sewer Overflows into the Great Lakes 
Basin (EPA 833-R-16-006)), 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 treated 
sewage was discharged. For the purposes of the Report, 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.

[[Page 4237]]

    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-lakes-basin. Table 1 
provides the size distribution of the 182 CSO communities in the Great 
Lakes Basin.

                       Table 1--Great Lakes Basin CSO Communities by Community Population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Community Population                  Over 50,000    10,000-49,999   Under 10,000        Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of CSO Communities.......................              32              70              80             182
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\4\ 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 can make it difficult to identify and assign specific 
cause-and-effect relationships between CSOs and observed water quality 
problems. The environmental impacts of CSOs are most apparent at the 
local level.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Report to Congress--Implementation and Enforcement of the 
Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy. EPA 833-R-01-003, 2002; 
Report to Congress--Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs. EPA 833-R-
04-001, 2004; Report to Congress: Combined Sewer Overflows to the 
Lake Michigan Basin. EPA 833-R-07-007, 2007. See https://www.epa.gov/npdes/combined-sewer-overflows-policy-reports-and-training.
    \5\ Report to Congress--Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs. 
EPA 833-R-04-001, 2004. See https://www.epa.gov/npdes/combined-sewer-overflows-policy-reports-and-training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. The CSO Control Policy and Clean Water Act Framework for Reducing 
and Controlling Combined Sewer Overflows

    The Clean Water Act (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 
quality-based 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.\6\ Permits authorizing discharges 
from CSO outfalls must include more stringent water quality-based 
requirements, when necessary, to meet water quality standards (WQS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Montgomery Environmental Coalition et al. v. Costle, 646 
F.2d 568, 592 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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[s] 
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, on a case-by-case basis with a frequency dependent on the 
nature and effect of the discharge, but in no case less than once a 
year (see 40 CFR 122.44(i)(2)). In addition, permits must require that 
permittees orally report to the NPDES permitting authority any 
noncompliance with NPDES permits related to CSO discharges that may 
endanger human health or the environment within 24 hours from the time 
the permittee becomes aware of the circumstances, and in writing within 
5 days (see Sec.  122.41(l)(6)). Permits must also require reporting of 
other noncompliance related to CSOs when their discharge monitoring 
reports are submitted (see Sec.  122.41(l)(7)).
    On October 22, 2015, EPA published a final rule to modernize CWA 
reporting for municipalities, industries, and other facilities by 
converting to an electronic data reporting system. Known as the NPDES 
Electronic Reporting Rule, or E-Reporting Rule, this final rule 
requires regulated entities and state and federal regulators to report 
electronically data required by the NPDES permit program instead of 
filing written paper reports. EPA is phasing in the requirements of the 
E-Reporting Rule over a five-year period. Starting on December 21, 
2016, permittees will begin submitting their Discharge Monitoring 
Reports (DMRs) electronically. Starting on December 21, 2020, 
permittees will begin submitting electronically certain other NPDES 
reports, including ``Sewer Overflow/Bypass Event Reports,'' which may 
include information on some CSO discharges. Under the rule, Table 2 of 
Appendix A of Part 127 identifies data elements that are required to be 
reported in a DMR for CSO discharges (pursuant to Sec.  122.41(4)(i)) 
after December 21, 2016, and in ``Sewage Overflow/Bypass Event 
Reports'' (pursuant to

[[Page 4238]]

Sec. Sec.  122.41(l)(6) or (7) and 122.41(m)(3)) submitted after 
December 21, 2020. A subset of the data elements that are required to 
be reported that are relevant to public notification of a CSO discharge 
include the following data elements:
     Sewer Overflow Cause;
     Duration of Sewer Overflow (hours);
     Sewer Overflow Discharge Volume (gallons);
     Corrective Actions Taken or Planned for Sewer Overflow; 
and
     Type of Potential Impact of Sewer Overflow.
    In addition, starting on December 21, 2020, NPDES authorities are 
required to provide, and update as appropriate, information regarding 
the following data elements for each CSO permittee:
     Long-Term CSO Control Plan (LTCP) Permit Requirements and 
Compliance;
     Nine Minimum CSO Controls Developed;
     Nine Minimum CSO Controls Implemented;
     LTCP Submission and Approval Type;
     LTCP Approval Date;
     Enforceable Mechanism and Schedule to Complete LTCP and 
CSO Controls;
     Actual Date Completed LTCP and CSO Controls;
     Approved Post-Construction Compliance Monitoring Program; 
and
     Other CSO Control Measures with Compliance Schedule.
    EPA is working with states to define data standards for the sewer 
overflow data elements in 40 CFR 127, Appendix A, and how this data can 
be best presented on EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History Online 
(ECHO) Web site.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ https://echo.epa.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 follow-up 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 by not later 
than December 18, 2017. However, the Administrator of the EPA 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. Examples of Existing Local Public Notification Practices in CSO 
Communities

    In 1995, EPA published a guidance entitled ``Combined Sewer 
Overflows--Guidance for Nine Minimum Controls'' \8\ to assist with the 
implementation of the 1994 CSO Policy. As mentioned above, one of the 
nine minimum controls called for in that policy is ``public 
notification to ensure that the public receives adequate notification 
of CSO occurrences and CSO impacts.'' The 1995 guidance recognizes that 
the most appropriate mechanism for public notification will probably 
vary with local circumstances, such as the character and size of the 
use area and means of public access to waters affected by CSOs. The 
guidance also provides examples of potential measures for notifying the 
public about CSO events that were available at the time, including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/owm0030_2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Posting at affected use areas;
     Posting at selected public places;
     Posting at CSO outfalls;
     Notices in newspapers or on radio and TV news programs;
     Letter notification to affected residents that reflect 
long-term restrictions; and
     Telephone hot lines.
    While the general themes identified in the 1995 guidance are still 
useful and appropriate, the significant technology changes that have 
occurred since then allow for a much wider set of tools to be used in 
public notification. EPA's 2016 document ``National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System Compendium of Next Generation Compliance Examples 
\9\ '' provides examples of CSO notification using current technology. 
This compendium describes examples of CSO public notice efforts in New 
York and Ohio and provides examples of CSO public notification outside 
the Great Lakes Basin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ https://www.epa.gov/compliance/compendia-next-generation-compliance-examples-water-air-waste-and-cleanup-programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to those examples outlined in the Next Generation 
Compliance Compendium, EPA has summarized other existing public 
notification practices for CSO discharges both to the Great Lakes Basin 
and to other waters.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ see ``Summary of CSO Public Notification provisions,'' 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0376 at http://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Existing public notice practices summarized in these two resources 
include, but are not limited to:
     The NPDES permit for CSO discharges from the City of 
Seattle, Washington requires the city to implement a web-based public 
notification system to inform the citizens of when and where CSOs 
occur. Seattle and King County maintain a real-time public notification 
Web site that has CSO overflow information updated with available data 
every 10 minutes for King County sites, and every 60 minutes for 
Seattle sites.
     The City of Cambridge, Massachusetts and the City of 
Chelsea, Massachusetts post signs at all CSO structures and at public 
access locations and other sites identified by the Massachusetts 
Department of Environmental Protection. Cities notify local health 
agents and local watershed advocacy groups by email and issue an annual 
press release discussing past CSOs. Cambridge also provides the 
following information on its Web site:
    [cir] General information regarding CSOs, including their potential 
health impacts;

[[Page 4239]]

    [cir] Locations of CSO discharges in the Charles River and Alewife 
Brook watersheds;
    [cir] The overall status of all CSO abatement programs;
    [cir] Web links to CSO communities and watershed advocacy groups; 
and
    [cir] The most recent information on all CSO activations and 
volumes in both watersheds.
     The District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DC 
Water) operates CSO Event Indicator Lights to notify river users of CSO 
discharges. A red light must be illuminated during a CSO occurrence and 
a yellow light must be illuminated for 24 hours after a CSO has 
stopped.
     Connecticut's two-part Public Act: ``An Act Concerning The 
Public's Right to Know of a Sewage Spill'' requires the Connecticut 
Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) to provide a 
map indicating the CSOs anticipated to occur during certain storm 
events.
     The Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) 
posts on its Web site a report of any sewage release that reaches 
waters of the State.
     The Allegheny County Sanitary Authority (ALCOSAN) raises 
orange flags signifying CSOs have occurred at eight locations along the 
Allegheny, Monongahela and Ohio rivers during and after CSO discharge 
events. ALCOSAN also provides notifications of sewer overflows via text 
message and/or email.
     Sanitation District No. 1 (SD1) of Northern Kentucky 
issues an email advisory when a rainfall of 0.25 inches or more is 
predicted or recorded. They also issue an advisory when the Ohio River 
level exceeds 38 feet. Advisories will remain in effect for 72 hours 
after rainfall and 72 hours after river levels have fallen below 38 
feet.
     Onondaga County, New York maintains a ``Save the Rain'' 
Web site which serves as a notification system to alert the public of 
the occurrence of CSO events and as a prediction of elevated bacteria 
levels in Onondaga Lake and its tributaries. The discharge status of 
CSO outfalls are mapped on this Web page. The information on the map is 
updated using a model to anticipate the quantity of rainfall that will 
trigger each CSO.
     The Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD) of Greater 
Cincinnati issues a CSO advisory via a CSO hotline or email alert when 
a rainfall of 0.25 inches or more is predicted or recorded or when 
water levels in area rivers and streams are elevated and could cause a 
CSO to occur. Advisories will remain in place for 72 hours after a 
rainfall event and 72 hours after water levels in area waterways have 
returned to normal. Actual occurrences of CSO discharges are reported 
and summarized in reports that are posted on MSD's Web site.

G. Existing State-Level Public Notification Requirements for CSOs in 
the Great Lakes Basin

    EPA worked with the Great Lake states to identify existing state-
level notification requirements for CSO discharges to the Great Lakes 
Basin, which are summarized in the proposed rule docket, see ``Summary 
of State CSO Public Notification Requirements in the Great Lakes 
Basin'' See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0376 at http://www.regulations.gov. Almost all of the NPDES permits for CSO discharges 
to the Great Lakes Basin currently require some level of public 
notification to ensure citizens receive adequate information regarding 
CSO occurrences and CSO impacts. Permit requirements which add 
specificity to this requirement and additional state public 
notification requirements are discussed below. Table 2 summarizes some 
of the main components of existing Great Lakes state programs that 
relate to public notification of CSO discharges.

  Table 2--Summary of State Program Requirements for Public Notice Requirements for CSO Discharges to the Great
                                                   Lakes Basin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  NY          PA          OH          MI          IN          IL          WI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State CSO public                      X   ..........  ..........          X           X   ..........  ..........
 notification regulation....
Requires Public Notification          X   ..........          /   ..........          X           X           X
 Plan.......................
Requires CSO Outfall Signs..          X           X           X           X           X           X
Alert system (text/email)...          X   ..........  ..........  ..........          /           X           X
Immediate notification of             X   ..........          X           X           X   ..........  ..........
 local public health
 department and drinking
 water supply...............
Annual reporting on CSO               X           X           /           X   ..........  ..........  ..........
 discharges.................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`X' indicates all CSO discharges to the Great Lakes Basin are subject to requirement.
`/ ' indicates that some CSO discharges to the Great Lakes Basin are subject to requirement.

Illinois
    All forty Illinois CSO communities in the Great Lakes Basin are in 
the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRD) 
service area. The NPDES permits for these CSO communities provide that 
public notification programs may be developed in conjunction with MWRD. 
MWRD's NPDES permits for each of its four treatment plants require MWRD 
to develop a public notification plan. MWRD is implementing its plan 
by:
     Providing the public with the opportunity to sign up for 
emails and/or text messages when a confirmed CSO discharge or diversion 
to Lake Michigan occurs.
     Posting a map of the city's waterways showing the status 
of discharges at CSO outfalls.
Indiana
    Indiana requires NPDES CSO permittees to:
     Post signs within the permittee's jurisdiction at access 
points to an affected water or to make attempts to do so when access is 
not on community property.
     Provide notification to the affected public, local health 
departments and drinking water suppliers having surface water intakes 
located within ten miles downstream of a discharging CSO outfall 
whenever information indicates that a CSO discharge is occurring or is 
imminent based on predicted or actual precipitation or a related event.
     Incorporate CSO notification procedures into the 
permittee's CSO operational plan which must be approved by the Indiana 
Department of Environmental Management. A member of the public may 
request that the department reevaluate the CSO notification procedures.
Michigan
    Michigan state regulations and permits require CSO permittees to:
     Notify the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 
(DEQ); local health departments; a daily newspaper

[[Page 4240]]

of general circulation in the county or counties in which the 
municipality is located; and a daily newspaper of general circulation 
in the county in which CSO discharges occurred immediately, but not 
more than 24 hours after the discharge begins.
    [cir] Initial notification that the discharge is occurring is to be 
by telephone or other manner required by DEQ.
    [cir] At the conclusion of the discharge, in writing or in another 
manner required by DEQ, additional notice provides more detailed 
information including the volume and quality of the discharge as 
measured pursuant to procedures and analytical methods approved by the 
department, reason for discharge, receiving water or land affected, 
date and time discharge began and ended, and compliance status.
     Contact each municipality annually whose jurisdiction 
contains waters that may be affected by the discharge and provide 
immediate notification of CSO discharges to these municipalities if 
requested.
     Test the affected waters for E. coli to assess the risk to 
the public health as a result of the discharge and provide the test 
results to the affected local county health departments and to DEQ. The 
testing is to be done at locations specified by each affected local 
county health department. This testing requirement may be waived by the 
affected local county health department if it is determined that such 
testing is not needed to assess the public health risks.
    Michigan state regulations require Michigan DEQ to:
     Promptly post the notification on its Web site upon being 
notified of a discharge.
     Maintain and publish a list of occurrences of discharges 
of untreated or partially treated sewage that have been reported. The 
list is to be posted on the department's Web site and published 
annually and made available to the general public.
New York
    New York state statutes, regulations, and permits require CSO 
permittees to:
     Install and maintain signs at all CSO outfalls owned and 
operated by the permittee.
     Implement a public notification program to inform citizens 
of the location and occurrence of CSO events.
     Notify the local public health department of CSO 
discharges immediately, but in no case later than two hours after 
discovery.
     Notify any adjoining municipality that may be affected as 
soon as possible, but no later than four hours from discovery of the 
CSO discharge.
    CSO communities can report CSO discharges to a state operated 
electronic notification system, NY-Alert. The NY-Alert system provides 
public health departments, adjoining municipalities and subscribing 
citizens with notice of CSO discharges.
    CSO permittees are required to submit an annual report to the state 
that describes implementation of 14 CSO best management practices. The 
state uses this and other information to prepare an annual report on 
sewer system discharges. The New York Department of Environmental 
Conservation's Web site includes a map of CSO outfalls in New York that 
provides information about CSO discharges.
Ohio
    Ohio state regulations and permits require CSO permittees to:
     Install and maintain signs at all regulated outfalls, 
including CSOs; and
     Notify public water supply operators as soon as 
practicable if a spill, overflow, bypass, or upset reaches a water of 
the state within a set distance of a public water supply intake.
    Public notification plans and annual reporting of CSO discharges 
are required on a case-by-case basis.
Pennsylvania
    The NPDES permit for Erie, Pennsylvania (the only city with a CSS 
in Pennsylvania that discharges to the Great Lakes Basin) requires Erie 
to submit an annual CSO status report to the state, which is available 
to the public upon request.
Wisconsin
    Of Wisconsin's two CSO permittees, one permit does not specify any 
public notification requirements. The other requires the permittee to 
have a public notification process in place and to make personal 
contact with affected members of the public in the event of an 
overflow.

H. Working With the Great Lake States and Requesting Public Input

    EPA has worked with the Great Lakes states on creating proposed 
requirements to implement Section 425 of the 2016 Consolidated 
Appropriations Act. NPDES program officials in each state with CSO 
discharges to the Great Lakes Basin have described existing state 
notification requirements, shared insights on implementation issues and 
provided individual perspectives on what should be included in the 
proposed rule.
    On August 1, 2016, EPA published a document in the Federal Register 
requesting stakeholder input regarding 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, 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.\11\ In addition, the Agency requested written 
comments. EPA received 40 unique written comments and a total of 787 
written comments, all of which were submitted to the docket (see EPA-
HQ-OW-2016-0376-2 through EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0376-41). These comments have 
informed the development of the proposed rule and are discussed 
throughout the preamble below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0376 at http://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Requirements

A. Overview of Proposal

    The proposed requirements to implement Section 425 are 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 clarifies EPA's expectations 
for CSO permittees discharging to the Great Lakes Basin to provide 
public notification to ensure that the public receives adequate 
notification of CSO occurrences and CSO impacts. The proposed 
requirements would conform to the CSO Control Policy by specifying 
requirements for implementation of one of the nine minimum controls for 
the CSO discharges addressed by Section 425.
    EPA proposes requirements for public notification of CSO discharges 
to the Great Lakes Basin to be codified at 40 CFR 122.38. This section 
would apply directly to Great Lakes Basin CSO permittees six months 
after publication of a final rule, except for annual notice 
requirements which would apply one year after publication. EPA proposes 
to implement section 425(b)(5)(B) of the Consolidated Appropriations 
Act of 2016 by providing that the NPDES permitting authority (referred 
to in the NPDES regulations as the Director)

[[Page 4241]]

could 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.
    The proposed requirements address 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 proposes 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 (e.g., 
proposed flow monitoring locations, means for disseminating information 
to the public) as to how they would implement the notification 
requirements. Under the proposed rule, CSO permittees in the Great 
Lakes Basin would be required to 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. The proposal would require the plan to be 
made available to the public and to be submitted to the Director within 
six months of the date the final rule is published.
    Ultimately, public notice requirements for CSO discharges in the 
Great Lakes Basin would be incorporated as requirements in NPDES 
permits when such permits are next reissued at least six months after 
the date the final regulation is published. (This process will follow 
normal permit reissuance timelines). Under both proposed Sec. Sec.  
122.21(j)(8)(iii) and 122.38(d), the public notification plan would be 
submitted to the Director as part the Great Lakes Basin CSO permittee's 
application for a renewed permit. The plan would provide information to 
the Director to inform the development of a NPDES permit condition 
implementing the public notification requirements. EPA proposes minimum 
requirements at Sec.  122.42(f) for a permit condition for all permits 
issued for CSO discharges within the Great Lakes Basin. See Preamble 
section III.D.2. for a discussion of the proposed permit condition.

B. Types of Notification

    EPA proposes to require several types of public notification, as 
follows:
     Signage;
     Initial and supplemental notice to local public health 
department and other potentially affected public entities, such as 
drinking water utilities, public beach and recreation agencies;
     Initial and supplemental notice to the public; and
     Annual CSO notice to the Director and the public.
    The types of notification are discussed below.
1. Signage
    Signage at CSO outfalls and public access areas potentially 
impacted by CSO discharges can raise public awareness of the potential 
for CSO discharges and impacts. EPA's 1995 guidance, ``Combined Sewer 
Overflows--Guidance for Nine Minimum Controls'' \12\ provides examples 
of signage that can be used to notify the public of CSO discharges, 
such as posting at affected use areas (e.g., along a beach front), 
selected public places (e.g., public information center at a public 
park or beach) and posting at CSO outfalls where outfalls are visible 
and the affected shoreline area is accessible to the public.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See ``Combined Sewer Overflow Guidance for Nine Minimum 
Controls'' EPA 832-B-95-003, (1995). https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/owm0030_2.pdf.
    \13\ The 2016 ``National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
Compendium of Next Generation Compliance Examples'' and the 2016 
``Summary of CSO Public Notification provisions'' EPA-HQ-OW-2016-
0376, identify additional examples of signage used by CSO 
communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes that the Great Lakes Basin CSO permittee provide 
adequate signage where signage is feasible at CSO outfalls and 
potentially impacted public access areas. The Agency proposes that 
signage contain at a minimum the following information:
     The name of the combined sewer system operator;
     A description of the discharge (e.g., untreated human 
sewage, treated wastewater);
     Notice that sewage may be present in the water; and
     The permittee's contact information, including a telephone 
number, NPDES permit number and outfall number as identified in the 
NPDES permit.
    EPA also proposes that the Great Lakes Basin CSO permittee conduct 
periodic maintenance of the sign to ensure that it is legible, visible 
and factually correct.
    The proposal would require the permittee to provide signage at 
potentially affected public areas. The permittee's identification of 
potentially affected public areas where signage is required is to be 
based on a review and consideration of local conditions and 
circumstances of a particular community. This determination may be 
informed by the identification of sensitive areas in the community's 
long term CSO control plan (LTCP). Under today's proposal, when a Great 
Lakes Basin CSO permit is reissued, the NPDES authority will determine 
specific locations where signs are required and will identify in the 
permit the location of any outfall where a sign is not required because 
it is not feasible.
    EPA requests comment on providing more specific regulatory language 
that would require signage at locations other than the CSO outfalls, 
such as potentially impacted public access areas and selected public 
places that CSO discharges may impact.
    One commenter on the August 1, 2016 notice suggested that signs at 
public access areas include quick response codes that could provide a 
link to either a public health department's Web site or the permittees 
Web site. EPA requests comment on requiring quick response codes on 
signs. EPA also requests comment on the proposed signage requirements 
and on whether the proposal includes the appropriate minimum 
information to be included on signs.
    EPA notes that several of the Great Lakes states do not require 
signage at every CSO outfall for various reasons, such as limited or no 
public access to the area or the infeasibility for the permittee to 
physically access the outfall point for inspections and maintenance of 
signs. For example, Ohio does not require signs at outfalls that are 
not accessible to the public by land or by recreational use of the 
water body.\14\ Indiana allows for alternatives to signs for outfalls 
located on private property or that are outside the jurisdiction of the 
CSO discharger.\15\ New York allows permittees to apply for a waiver 
from the requirement to install a sign under limited circumstances 
which are listed in the state's regulations.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Ohio Admin. Code 3745-33-08 (2011), available at http://codes.ohio.gov/oac/3745-33-08.
    \15\ See 327 IAC 5-2.1-6 (2003), available at http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/iac_title?iact=327.
    \16\ See 6 NYCRR 750-1.12 (2003), available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/2485.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency requests comment on specific situations where it may not 
be feasible to provide signage at a CSO outfall. In addition, the 
Agency requests comment on alternative or additional regulatory 
criteria to clarify or describe

[[Page 4242]]

where signs are not possible. The Agency also requests comment on 
whether it is appropriate to remove the proposed qualification that 
signage be feasible and instead require signage at all CSO outfalls.
    EPA recognizes that the Great Lake NPDES authorities require 
permittees to install signs at many CSO outfalls and potentially 
impacted public access areas. EPA proposes that where a permittee has 
installed a sign at a CSO outfall or potentially impacted public access 
area before the effective date of this rule, the sign does not have to 
meet the minimum requirements specified in the proposed rule until the 
sign is replaced or reset. EPA requests comment on this approach. The 
Agency requests comment on any specific language with regard to the 
proposed signage requirements that may be inconsistent with existing 
signs, and whether the proposed language should be adjusted to provide 
more flexibility.
    EPA does not propose to prescribe the specific circumstances under 
which other methods of notice such as indicator lights (as used by the 
District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority) or alert flags (as used 
by the Allegheny County Sanitary Authority) must be used. These types 
of notification may not be appropriate for every CSO community in the 
Great Lakes Basin. Rather, such requirements may be established on a 
permit-by-permit basis where appropriate. Nothing in the proposed rule 
or Section 425 would, however, preclude any Great Lakes state from 
establishing such requirements.
2. Initial and Supplemental Notice to Local Public Health Officials and 
Other Potentially Affected Public Entities
    Local public health officials play a vital role in responding to 
environmental risks. Local public health organizations typically have a 
role in water quality monitoring of waterways and public beaches and in 
providing swimming and beach advisories and beach closures. Timely 
notice of CSO discharges to local public health departments can provide 
information needed to determine appropriate actions such as issuing 
swimming or beach advisories or beach closures.
    When CSOs discharge into sources of drinking water, operators of 
drinking water facilities that have intakes in waters impacted by the 
discharge can make adjustments to their intake and treatment procedures 
after receiving notice of the CSO discharge.
    EPA proposes that the operator of a CSO outfall in the Great Lakes 
Basin provide initial notice of the CSO discharge as soon as possible 
to the local public health department (or if there is no local health 
department, to the state health department), any potentially affected 
public entity (such as the superintendent of a public drinking water 
supply with potentially affected intakes), and Indian tribes whose 
waters may be affected, but no later than four hours after becoming 
aware as determined by monitoring, modeling or other means of a CSO 
discharge. The initial notice would be required to include, at a 
minimum, the following information:
     The location of the discharge(s) and the water body that 
received the discharge(s);
     The location and a description of any public access areas 
that may be potentially impacted by the discharge;
     The date(s) and time(s) that the discharge commenced or 
the time the permittee became aware of the discharge;
     Whether, at the time of the notification, the discharge 
has ended or is continuing and, if the discharge(s) has ended, the 
approximate time that the discharge ended; and
     A point of contact for the CSO permittee.
    EPA proposes that the CSO permittee describe the location of the 
discharge. Typically, this would be the location of the CSO outfall 
that is discharging. However, for larger combined sewer systems with 
multiple outfalls, where CSO discharges occur at multiple locations at 
the same time, the CSO permittee may provide a description of the area 
in the waterbody where discharges are occurring and does not have to 
identify the specific location of each discharge. This approach may be 
more protective in that it may provide for a better description of 
potentially impacted areas, and could avoid delays associated with 
identifying when individual discharges commenced.
    EPA also proposes that Great Lakes Basin CSO permittees be required 
to seek and consider input from local public health departments and 
other potentially affected entities to develop protocols for providing 
notification. Under the proposal, the CSO permittee is to seek and 
consider input from local health departments and other potentially 
affected entities prior to submitting its public notification plan 
initially and resubmitting as part of the process for reapplying for 
their permit.
    The Agency anticipates that the Great Lakes Basin CSO permittee 
will establish protocols that will address the timing of notification. 
This could include predictive notifications that are based on weather 
forecasts. Under the proposed rule, the public notification plan would 
help inform the development of NPDES permit requirements that would 
specify the timing of this notification. EPA anticipates that this 
approach would allow for the consideration of community-specific 
factors, development of programs and changes in technology.
    Timely notice of CSO discharges to public health departments, 
drinking water facilities and other affected municipal entities and 
Indian tribes is critical to the effectiveness and timeliness of their 
response. EPA does not propose to prescribe the specific means (e.g., 
email, phone call) for this notice. Rather, the proposed rule would 
allow the CSO discharger to seek and consider input from local public 
health departments and other potentially affected public entities to 
determine the most appropriate way to provide this notice.
    EPA proposes that the timeframe for initial notice to local public 
health departments and other potentially affected public entities be as 
soon as possible, but no later than four hours after the Great Lakes 
Basin CSO permittee becomes aware of the CSO discharge as determined by 
monitoring, modeling or other means. EPA expects, however, that as 
technologies change and communities and states improve their notice 
protocols, communities may be able to notify public health departments 
and the public in less than four hours. In addition, nothing in the 
proposed rule would preclude the permitting authority from establishing 
a maximum timeframe for notification that is more stringent (shorter) 
than four hours. EPA anticipates that NPDES permit authorities would 
consider more stringent notification timeframes based on a variety of 
factors, including the nature of the receiving waters, technology 
advances and the experience and progress of the permittee. EPA notes 
that New York and Connecticut require CSO permittees to notify public 
health departments within two hours. Both states have state-run Web 
sites that facilitate notification. The Agency also notes that most 
Great Lake states currently have not established a state Web site to 
facilitate public notification. EPA specifically requests comment on 
the appropriate maximum timeframe for providing initial notification to 
the local public health department and other potentially affected 
entities. The Agency also requests comment on the minimum contents of 
the initial and supplemental notification to the local public health 
department and other potentially affected entities.

[[Page 4243]]

    Section 425(b)(3)(A)(ii) provides that public notice requirements 
also must include the volume of the discharge. EPA recognizes that for 
a number of reasons, determining the volume of a CSO discharge within 
the short timeframe provided for the initial notice may not be 
practical. EPA therefore proposes that notification of the volume of 
the discharge may occur in a supplemental notice that would be required 
within 24 hours of the end of the CSO discharge. EPA proposes this 
approach because the initial notification that a CSO discharge may 
occur or is occurring should not be delayed by waiting until the 
discharge stops or volume estimates are developed. EPA is concerned 
that requiring the Great Lakes Basin CSO permittee to include the 
volume of the CSO discharge as part of the initial notification would 
mean that the initial notification would need to be delayed, which 
would in turn cause delays in responding to the overflow. In addition, 
requiring an estimate or calculation of the discharge volume as part of 
the initial notification may discourage predictive notifications. It is 
critical that the local public health department and other affected 
municipalities or tribes be notified of the occurrence of the event as 
soon as possible without delays associated with waiting for the 
discharge to end or determining the CSO volume. Accordingly, EPA 
proposes that the CSO permittee may either provide notification of the 
time the discharge ended and the volume of the CSO discharge as part of 
the initial notification when CSO discharges are of a short enough 
duration to allow for this information to be known, or as a separate 
supplemental notification within 24 hours of the end of the CSO 
discharge.
    EPA requests comment on whether 24 hours from the time the 
permittee becomes aware that the discharge ended is the appropriate 
time period for completing notification. EPA also requests comment on 
whether the proposed minimum requirements for the 24-hour supplemental 
notice are sufficient and appropriate.
    The proposed requirement to provide a volume estimate would not 
mandate monitoring or direct measurement of CSO discharges. As 
discussed below, EPA proposes that the operator of a CSS with CSO 
discharges to the Great Lakes Basin develop a public notification plan 
that, among other things, describes for each outfall how the volume and 
duration of CSO discharges would be measured or estimated. In addition, 
as discussed below, EPA proposes that NPDES permits for CSO discharges 
to the Great Lakes Basin 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 rather 
than monitored.
    In addition to seeking comment generally on the proposed 
requirements for notifying local health departments and other 
potentially affected public entities, EPA requests comment specifically 
on whether the initial notice to public health departments and other 
potentially affected entities should also be provided to the Director 
and/or the state public health agency.
3. Initial and Supplemental Notice to the Public
    Initial notice of CSO discharges to the public via text alerts, 
social media, posting on a Web site, or other appropriate means can be 
an effective, efficient means of alerting the public to CSO discharges 
in a timely manner. This initial notice may allow the public to make 
informed decisions regarding areas where they would visit and recreate. 
EPA proposes requirements for the Great Lakes Basin CSO permittee to 
provide initial notification to the public within four hours of 
becoming aware as determined by monitoring, modeling or other means of 
the CSO discharge. Under the proposal, the Great Lakes Basin CSO 
permittee would be required to use electronic media, such as text, 
email, and social media alerts to subscribers, or posting a notice on 
its public access Web site, to provide members of the public with 
notice of CSO discharges. Other electronic media that could be used 
include broadcast media (radio and/or television) and newspaper Web 
sites. However, EPA is not proposing a specific type of electronic 
media to be used by all CSO communities as electronic media 
technologies and usage continue to change and the availability and 
appropriateness of different media options will vary from community to 
community. EPA seeks comment on whether public notice by broadcast 
media and/or local newspapers should be required for all CSO permittees 
in the Great Lakes Basin, or whether this specificity is better 
addressed in permits.
    EPA proposes the same minimum information content requirements that 
it proposes for the initial notice to the local public health 
department, with the exception that a point of contact for the 
discharger is not included in the notice to the general public. EPA 
does not propose to require that a point of contact be provided in the 
notice for the public because this could generate a large number of 
calls or emails to the CSO permittee that could hinder the permittee's 
ability to respond to the CSO discharge and to communicate with public 
health officials and other affected municipal entities.
    EPA also proposes that the Great Lakes Basin CSO permittee provide 
a supplemental notice specifying the time the discharge ended and the 
volume of the CSO discharge unless this information has already been 
provided in the initial notice. EPA proposes that the supplemental 
public notice would be required within 24 hours of the end of the CSO 
discharge.
    As mentioned above, EPA received a number of comment in response to 
the August 1, 2016 Federal Register document, in writing and at the 
public listening session on September 14, 2016, regarding notification 
methods and timeframes for notification to the public. One commenter 
recommended that information on how to receive email or text alerts 
should be provided to the public on the permittee's Web site and in 
wastewater bill mailings. EPA requests comment on whether the proposed 
regulation should include specific requirements for the permittee to 
make information on how to receive alerts available to the public.
    One commenter indicated that it would not be possible to estimate 
system-wide CSO volumes within 24 hours, given the size of their 
system, size of the storm, number of outfalls, number of receiving 
waters, and other complex factors that are considered to determine 
overflow locations, timing, and volumes. Another commenter recommended 
that the supplemental notice be required within 24 to 48 hours. Another 
commenter recommended that the Great Lakes Basin CSO permittee be given 
five days before discharge volume estimates must be provided. Other 
commenters advocated for real-time or faster alerts such as requiring 
public notification within 15 minutes, if possible. Another commenter 
suggested that if real time monitoring is not feasible, all discharges 
should be required to notify the public within two hours of the start 
of the CSO discharge.
    Other commenters expressed concerns about the time it would take to 
provide detailed notification. For example, one comment said reporting 
in-depth on volume, length of discharge and preventative measures for 
each CSO event would take resources away from more critical water 
quality initiatives. EPA requests comment on whether the 24-hour time 
period is appropriate and whether the minimum information

[[Page 4244]]

requirements for the 24-hour notice are appropriate.
    EPA requests comment on providing a longer timeframe than four 
hours for small communities to make the initial notification, such as 
eight or twelve hours as well as appropriate population thresholds 
(e.g., under 2,000 or 1,000) for such a requirement. Some of the 
representatives of the Great Lakes states expressed concerns that 
introducing an alternative timeframe for initial reporting for small 
communities could create confusion in the regulated community. EPA 
requests comment on the appropriateness of the proposed four-hour time 
period and on whether all communities should be subject to the same 
four-hour maximum timeframe for providing initial notification.
    Some commenters responding to the August 1, 2016 Federal Register 
document raised concerns that overuse of text alerts of CSO discharges 
to the public could be counter-productive because the public could be 
over saturated by the alerts and the alerts overly simplify a complex 
message about health risks. Another commenter raised concerns that 
supplemental notifications indicating that CSO discharges have ceased 
may send an incorrect message that the waters are safe. EPA requests 
comment on allowing permittees flexibility to use different mechanisms 
for providing initial and supplemental notice (e.g. text/email alerts 
and Web site notice for initial notification and limiting supplemental 
notice to posting information on the permittees Web site).
4. Annual CSO Notice
    EPA proposes that all permittees authorized to discharge a CSO to 
the Great Lakes Basin are required to make an annual notice available 
to the public by the first of May each year. In addition, EPA proposes 
that the permittee notify the Director of the availability of the 
annual notice. The information in the annual notice would provide the 
public with a comprehensive understanding of how the permittee's CSS is 
performing and of the permittee's CSO control program. The Agency 
proposes that the annual notice would include a summary of both the 
prior year's discharges and upcoming implementation of CSO controls. 
EPA proposes that the annual notice include at a minimum:
     A description of 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;
     A description of the location, treatment provided, and 
receiving water of each CSO outfall;
     The date, location, duration, and volume of each wet 
weather CSO discharge that occurred during the past calendar year;
     The date, location, duration, and volume of each dry 
weather CSO discharge that occurred during the past calendar year;
     A summary of available monitoring data from the past 
calendar year;
     A description of any public access areas impacted by the 
discharge;
     Representative rain gauge data in total inches to the 
nearest 0.1 inch that resulted in each CSO discharge;
     A point of contact; and
     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:
    [cir] A description of key milestones remaining to complete 
implementation of the plan; and
    [cir] 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.
    The proposed elements of the annual notice summarize the 
information provided in the initial and supplemental notifications to 
the public and provide additional follow-up information required in 
Section 425(b)(4)(A). Section 425(b)(4)(A) requires inclusion of 
follow-up notice requirements that provide a description of ``(i) each 
applicable discharge; (ii) the cause of the discharge; and (iii) plans 
to prevent a reoccurrence of a combined sewer overflow 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.''
    EPA proposes an annual notice requirement that would address the 
information required by Section 425(b)(4)(A)(ii) and (iii) by requiring 
a summary of how the CSO permittee is implementing the nine minimum 
controls and their LTCP. The summary would include a description of key 
milestones remaining to complete implementation of the LTCP and a 
description of the anticipated average annual number of CSO discharges 
after the LTCP is completed.
    As described in section II.C of this preamble, Section 402(q) of 
the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1342(q)), provides that NPDES permits and 
enforcement orders for discharges from combined sewer systems ``shall 
conform'' to the 1994 CSO Control Policy. By requiring the annual 
report to summarize how the permittee is implementing the nine minimum 
controls and LTCP, the proposed rule would result in a description of 
the permittee's plans under their permit, administrative order or 
consent decree, ``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'' as required by Section 
425(b)(4)(A)(iii). This information is intended to provide the public 
with a description of the current performance of their system as well 
as progress on CSO reduction. This notice can serve to increase public 
awareness, and enable the public to better understand the community's 
current and future investments into collection system infrastructure. 
This can promote stronger public support for actions necessary to 
reduce CSOs. EPA requests comment on the proposed elements of the 
annual notice.
    EPA anticipates that any community that already generates an annual 
CSO report would ensure that the required elements of the proposed rule 
are addressed in that report and then use that annual CSO report to 
comply with the annual notice requirements proposed today, rather than 
generating a separate report solely to meet these new requirements. 
Communities choosing this approach under the proposed rule would need 
to ensure that the annual report is published to their Web site by the 
date specified in the proposed rule (May 1 of each calendar year).
    EPA requests comment on requiring permittees to supplement the 
annual notice by providing quarterly notice of a description of each 
CSO discharge, the cause of the discharge, and plans to prevent a 
reoccurrence of the CSO discharge. This approach may assist interested 
members of the public in following the status of CSO remediation 
efforts in their communities in a more up-to-date timeframe. EPA 
requests comment on this approach or other means of updating the public 
more frequently than annually.

C. Public Notification Plans

    EPA proposes requirements for public notification plans at Sec.  
122.38(d). The Agency proposes that Great Lakes Basin CSO permittees be 
required to develop and submit to the Director a public notification 
plan within six months after publication of a final rule and then as 
part of the permittee's application for permit renewal. In addition, 
EPA proposes at Sec.  122.38(e) that, prior to

[[Page 4245]]

submitting the proposed 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 affected 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. The plan will enhance communication with 
public health departments and other potentially affected public 
entities and Indian tribes whose waters may be affected by the CSO 
discharge. The plan would also assist NPDES permit writers in 
establishing public notification permit conditions. In addition, the 
plan would provide the public with a better understanding of the 
permittee's public notification efforts.
    Under the proposal, the plan would describe:
     The permittee's signage program;
     The identification of municipal entities that may be 
affected by the permittee's CSO discharges;
     Input from the health department and other potentially 
affected entities;
     Protocols for the initial and supplemental notice of the 
public, public health departments and other public entities;
     How the volume and duration of CSO discharges would be 
determined; and
     Protocols for making the annual notice available to the 
public.
    Regarding signage, the plan would describe what information is in 
the message on the signs and identify any CSO outfall where a sign 
under Sec.  122.38(a)(1) is not and will not be provided, explain why a 
sign at that location is not feasible. The plan would also describe the 
maintenance protocols for signage, such as inspection intervals and 
replacement schedule.
    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. EPA 
proposes to lay the groundwork for this provision by requiring 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 affected 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.\17\ In deciding which public entities and Indian tribes are 
``potentially impacted'' and should be contacted for their input, the 
Great Lakes Basin CSO permittee should evaluate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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.
    EPA proposes that the plan would identify any municipality and 
Indian tribe that was contacted for input on public notification 
protocols. In addition, the plan would provide a summary of the 
comments and any recommendations from these entities, as well as a 
summary of the significant comments and recommendations provided by the 
local public health department(s).
    Local public health departments, public entities, and Indian tribes 
whose waters may be affected by a CSO discharge are in a unique 
position to recommend the timing, means and content of the public 
notification requirements addressed in this proposal. Seeking input 
from these entities would allow the permittee to reflect in the public 
notification plan the needs and preferences of these entities with 
regard to notice of CSO discharges. Also, these groups can help inform 
decisions regarding what is 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 who would incur costs by receiving text notifications, the consulted 
entities may suggest other communications means that would be more 
appropriate to reach these groups (e.g., radio broadcast, postings in 
public places, announcements through community flyers).
    The plan would also be required to describe how the volume and 
duration of CSO discharges would 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 would be 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 must calibrate their model at least 
once every 5 years.
    EPA requests comment on the minimum elements of a plan listed in 
Sec.  122.38(c) and whether additional minimum requirements may be 
appropriate. Other such elements could include: A description of 
outreach that would be conducted to alert the public of the 
notification system and how to subscribe or otherwise gain access to 
the information, and information on how the public notification plan 
would be made available to the public. In addition, EPA seeks comment 
on requiring Great Lakes Basin CSO permittees to seek and consider 
input from public health departments and other potentially affected 
entities in developing their public notification plans. EPA also 
requests comment on whether the final rule should specifically require 
that the permittee provide an opportunity for members of the public to 
review and comment on the public notification plan, as was suggested by 
one commenter responding to the August 1, 2016 Federal Register 
document.
    EPA proposes that the Great Lakes Basin CSO permittee make its 
public notification plan available to the public on the permittee's Web 
site (if it has a Web site) and periodically provide information in 
bill mailings and by other appropriate means on how to view the 
notification plan. The EPA seeks comment on whether there should be 
specific requirements for requiring notice of the plan and if so, how 
the plan should be made available. In addition, EPA seeks comment on 
whether there should be specific requirements for requiring notice of 
when significant modifications are made to the plan.

[[Page 4246]]

D. Implementation

    EPA proposes to implement the public notification provisions as a 
stand-alone regulatory requirement until the proposed required 
condition is incorporated into the NPDES permit of the Great Lakes 
Basin CSO permittee. Section 425(b)(5) of the 2016 Consolidated 
Appropriations Act provides that the notice and publication 
requirements described in the Act are to be implemented by ``not later 
than'' December 18, 2017. The Act also provides that the Administrator 
of the EPA 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. 
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 proposed public notification requirements to be 
incorporated into all permits. Implementing the public notification 
requirements by regulation would result in all Great Lakes Basin CSO 
permittees establishing their public notification system within the 
same timeframe, and is more consistent with the implementation deadline 
in Section 425(b)(5)(A).
    In addition to Section 425 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act 
of 2016, EPA's authority for these public notification requirements 
includes Sections 304(i) and 308 of the CWA, which provide broad 
authority to issue procedural requirements for reporting (including 
procedures to make information available to the public) and to require 
point source owners and operators to establish and maintain records, 
make reports, monitor, and provide other ``reasonably required'' 
information.
    The requirements of Sec.  122.38(a) (signage and notification 
requirements), Sec.  122.38(b) (annual notice), Sec.  122.38(c) 
(reporting) would be enforceable under the CWA prior to incorporation 
into a permit as requirements of CWA section 308. With respect to the 
public notification plan, the requirement to develop a public 
notification plan consistent with Sec.  122.38(d) and (e) would also be 
enforceable under the CWA as a requirement of CWA section 308. Once 
public notification requirements are incorporated into an NPDES permit, 
they would enforceable as a condition of permit issued under CWA 
section 402.
    The details and content of the public notification plan, however, 
would not be enforceable under Sec.  122.38(d) or as effluent 
limitations of the permit, unless the document or the specific details 
with the plan were specifically incorporated into the permit. Under the 
proposed approach, the contents of the public notification plan would 
instead provide a road map for how the permittee would comply with the 
requirements of the permit (or with the requirements of Sec.  
122.38(a)-(c) 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 could be changed based on 
adaptions made during the course of the permit term, thereby allowing 
the permittee to react to new technologies, circumstance and experience 
gained and to make adjustments to its program to provide better public 
notification and better comply with the permit. This approach would 
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.
1. Section 122.38 Requirements
    As discussed in detail above, a new Sec.  122.38 would set forth 
requirements that would apply to all permittees with CSO discharges to 
the Great Lakes Basin. Under the proposed rule, Great Lakes Basin CSO 
permittees would be required to develop a public notification plan, 
after seeking and considering input from public health departments and 
other potentially affect public entities. EPA proposes that the plan 
must be submitted to the Director and made available to the public 
within six months of publication of the final rule. Proposed Sec.  
122.38 would also require implementation of the signage and notice to 
affected public entities and the public within six months of 
publication of the final rule. Thus, a Great Lakes Basin CSO permittee 
would be required to develop its plan and implement it within six 
months of the final rule.
    EPA has considered how much time it should take to implement public 
notification requirements. EPA also recognizes that every Great Lakes 
Basin CSO permittee already provides some public notification, in order 
to implement one of the nine minimum control measures in the 1994 CSO 
Control Policy. However, small communities in particular may not 
provide public notification to the extent that would be required under 
the proposed rule. Therefore, EPA seeks comment on whether six months 
is adequate for implementing the proposed public notification 
requirements, including development of a public notification plan. In 
particular, EPA seeks comment on whether some (e.g., small) communities 
should have more time than others to implement public notification 
requirements and/or whether there should be additional time to 
implement the signage or notification requirements after the public 
notification plan is developed, submitted to the Director, and made 
available to the public, and if so, how much additional time should be 
allowed. For example, should municipal permittees with a population of 
less than 10,000, or in the case of sewerage districts, a service 
population of less than 10,000, be required to submit a public 
notification plan to the Director within nine or 12 months after the 
publication of the final rule, rather than six months?
2. Required Permit Condition
    EPA's long-term objective is to use NPDES permits to implement 
public notice requirements for CSO discharges in the Great Lakes Basin. 
To that end, EPA proposes to revise both the permit application 
regulation requirements in Sec.  122.21(j) and to add a required permit 
condition for NPDES permits issued for these discharges. EPA proposes 
to add Sec.  122.21(j)(8)(iii) to require 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 also proposes to add a 
new condition at Sec.  122.42(f) that would apply to permits for CSO 
discharges to the Great Lakes Basin. The proposed provision would 
ensure that CSO public notice requirements are incorporated into the 
NPDES permit where they can be updated as appropriate with each permit 
cycle. Public notification plans, submitted with subsequent permit 
applications, would 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 would have the information 
that would be needed for including requirements for public notification 
in the permit when it is reissued.
    The proposed required permit condition would provide flexibility in 
a number of areas to allow NPDES permit writers to address in their 
plans the particular circumstances of each

[[Page 4247]]

community (e.g., size of community, differences in public access areas 
potentially impacted by a CSO discharge). This provision would not 
preclude the Great Lake states from modifying the condition to 
establish more stringent public notification requirements (see Section 
425(b)(6) of the 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act).
    As outlined in Sec.  122.42(f) of the proposed rule, permits for 
CSO discharges within the Great Lakes Basin would, at a minimum:
     Require implementation of the public notification 
requirements in Sec.  122.38(a);
     Specify the information that must be included on outfall 
signage;
     Specify outfalls 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;
     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;
     Specify protocols for making the annual notice available 
to the public; and
     Require all CSO discharges be reported electronically 
either in a discharge monitoring report or as a non-compliance event.
    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 proposed required permit condition would conform to the 
1994 CSO Control Policy's minimum control to provide the public with 
``adequate notification'' and would further provide specificity to 
better implement the public notification provision identified in the 
Policy. Including this provision in permits would give the Great Lakes 
states an opportunity to update and fine-tune public notice 
requirements to reflect continued development of the permittee's public 
notice effort, ensure consistency with state legislative and regulatory 
requirements for public notification, reflect new technologies and be 
informed by public input. In addition, by including public notification 
requirements as a condition in permits, the public would have a 
formalized opportunity to comment on the proposed permit conditions.

E. Additional Considerations

1. Definitions
    EPA proposes to add three definitions to the NPDES regulations, 
``Combined Sewer System,'' ``Combined Sewer Overflows,'' and ``Great 
Lakes Basin.'' The proposed 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  403.3(p)).'' The proposed 
definition of combined sewer overflow also conforms to the description 
of CSO in the CSO Policy which provides that a ``CSO is the discharge 
from a CSS at a point prior to the POTW Treatment Plant.''
    The 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act specifies in Section 
425(a)(4) that the term ``Great Lakes'' means ``any of the waters as 
defined in the Sec.  118(a)(3) of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
Act (33 U.S.C. 1292).'' This, therefore, includes Sec.  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 Sec.  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.''
2. List of Treatment Works
    Section 425(b)(4)(B) provides that EPA shall work with the Great 
Lakes states to establish annual publication requirements that list 
each treatment works from which the Administrator or the affected state 
receive a follow-up notice. EPA has developed a Web page that 
identifies the communities in the Great Lakes Basin with CSO 
discharges.\18\ In the future, EPA will update this Web page with 
information on how to access the annual notices of these communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ https://www.epa.gov/npdes/combined-sewer-overflows-great-lakes-basin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Adjusting Deadlines 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 by not later than December 17, 2017, 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 
proposes to implement Section 425 as part of the NPDES permit program, 
under proposed Sec.  122.38(f), this determination would be made by the 
Director. As the NPDES authority, the state 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.
    EPA proposes that the Great Lakes Basin CSO permittee must submit a 
public notification plan to the Director of the NPDES program not later 
than six months after publication of a final rule. The Great Lakes 
Basin CSO permittee would be required to comply with the public notice 
requirements of Sec.  122.38 by six months for initial and supplemental 
notifications and 12 months in the case of annual notification, after 
publication of a final rule, unless the Director specifies a later date 
to avoid economic hardship. Under the proposed rule at Sec.  122.38(e), 
the Director may extend the compliance dates for public notification 
under Sec.  122.38(a), annual notice under Sec.  122.38(b), and/or 
public notification plan submittal under Sec.  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 proposed 
rule would require the Director to notify the Regional Administrator of 
the extension and the reason for the extension. In addition, the 
Director would be required to post on its Web site a notice that 
includes the name of the community and the new compliance date(s). EPA 
also proposes to amend 40 CFR 123.25, which sets forth the requirements 
of an approved state NPDES program, to include a requirement for Great 
Lakes States to have the authority to implement the public notification 
requirements in Sec.  122.38. No revision to Sec.  123.25 would be 
needed with respect to proposed revisions to Sec.  122.21(j) and Sec.  
122.42, as both of those sections are already included in Sec.  123.25. 
As noted above in

[[Page 4248]]

section II.G of today's preamble, all of the Great Lakes States already 
have some form of public notification requirements, therefore EPA does 
not anticipate that any Great Lakes state would need to revise its 
regulations or seek additional authority from the legislature to 
implement proposed Sec.  122.38 or revised Sec.  122.21(j) and Sec.  
122.42.
    EPA requests comment on this proposed implementation of Section 
425(b)(5)(B).
4. Notification of CSO volumes
    Most NPDES permits for CSO discharges to the Great Lakes Basin 
require the permittee to report CSO volumes in DMRs. In addition, CSO 
discharge volume information is typically needed to implement the nine 
minimum controls and LTCPs under the CSO Policy. One of the nine 
minimum controls identified in the CSO Control Policy addresses 
monitoring to effectively characterize CSO impacts and the efficacy of 
CSO controls. Similarly, one of the minimum elements of a LTCP is 
characterization monitoring and modeling of the CSS. In addition, the 
post-construction compliance monitoring program in the CSO Policy calls 
for effluent and ambient monitoring. EPA has issued technical guidance 
on monitoring and modeling of CSO discharges.\19\ EPA has also 
identified examples of where CSO monitoring technologies have also been 
used by regulators and communities to better identify significant 
pollution and noncompliance problems in the ``NPDES Compendium of Next 
Generation Compliance Examples.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See ``Combined Sewer Overflows--Guidance for Monitoring and 
Modeling'' EPA-832-B-99-022, 1999 and ``CSO Post Construction 
Compliance Monitoring Guidance'', EPA-833-K-11-001, 2012). https://www.epa.gov/npdes/combined-sewer-overflows-csos.
    \20\ See https://www.epa.gov/compliance/compendia-next-generation-compliance-examples-water-air-waste-and-cleanup-programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Typically, CSO permittees use a combination of monitoring and 
modeling to estimate CSO volume. This approach is reflected in many CSO 
permits that require monitoring of CSO discharges from some outfalls, 
and for other outfalls allows for estimating CSO discharge volumes by 
modeling or some other means. For larger collection systems with 
multiple outfalls, the permit may require monitoring the volume 
discharged at the most active outfalls with the largest discharge 
volumes. CSO permits may provide that for less active CSO outfalls, the 
permittee report volume in the DMR based on estimates. In some cases, 
volume estimates for DMR reporting purposes are based on models which 
were developed to characterize flows in the collection system as part 
of developing and implementing a LTCP. These models can vary in 
complexity, and may be calibrated by periodic flow measurements or 
other data from various locations in the collection system.
    The Agency recognizes that for many CSO permittees, CSO monitoring 
efforts have tended to become more robust as monitoring technology has 
evolved and continues to evolve. In general, EPA encourages CSO 
permittees to consider using monitoring to determine CSO discharge 
durations and volume. Traditionally, the cost of installing and 
maintaining monitoring sensors has been high when compared to modeling. 
However, the cost of monitoring technologies has decreased and is 
expected to continue to do so. In addition, new tools are being 
developed to communicate, analyze and display data collected by these 
monitoring technologies. One example of a CSO community with a more 
comprehensive monitoring program is the City of Seattle, WA. The NPDES 
permit for CSO discharges in Seattle (WA0031682) requires the permittee 
to use automatic flow monitoring equipment to monitor the discharge 
volume, discharge duration, storm duration and precipitation at all 86 
CSO outfalls from the CSS. In another example, the Capital Region Water 
(CRW) in Harrisburg, PA is conducting a pilot study to evaluate the 
potential use of CSO activation monitoring equipment.\21\ CRW will use 
the results of this pilot study to determine which technology to 
implement to send an alert each time a monitored CSO outfall begins 
discharging.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See the Consent Decree between Harrisburg, PA, Capital 
Region Water (CRW), the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 
Protection and EPA (U.S. District Court for the Middle District of 
Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-00291-WWC). (https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-02/documents/cityofharrisburg-cd.pdf.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some of the public comments received in response to EPA's August 1, 
2016 Federal Register document discussed several challenges associated 
with volume measurement and reporting. Some commenters suggested that 
wastewater monitoring devices may be placed in a harsh environment and 
require active maintenance. One commenter suggested that the 
configuration of a CSO outfall may present unique and challenging 
circumstances which make monitoring difficult. For example, discharges 
from the outfall may include contributions from separate storm sewers 
or wastewater flows may be influenced by currents and tides in the 
receiving water.
    Many commenters discussed the importance of flexibility for Great 
Lakes Basin CSO permittees to determine the data collection method that 
works best for their community. A commenter also recommended that CSO 
discharge volume be noticed in a simplified way that is easier to 
understand for the public, such as small, medium, or large discharges. 
Another commenter indicated that installing, operating, and maintaining 
meters at each of their 52 CSO locations would be cost prohibitive.
    The proposed rule would require the Great Lakes Basin CSO permittee 
to provide an estimate of CSO discharges volumes as part of the 
supplemental notice to the initial notification to the local public 
health department and other potentially affected public entities and 
the supplemental notification to the public. The proposal would require 
this information within 24-hours of becoming aware that the CSO 
discharge has ended. In addition, the proposal would require the CSO 
discharger to provide the volume of each CSO discharge that occurred 
during the past calendar year in the annual notice. EPA anticipates 
that the information in the annual notice may reflect refinements in 
the volume and duration estimates provided at the time of the 
supplemental notification, and therefore these numbers may not be the 
same. EPA requests comment on the adequacy of a 24-hour reporting 
window for reporting CSO discharge volume and duration data. EPA also 
requests comment on whether these data should be required to be 
reported for each outfall, or whether it would be appropriate to allow 
for reporting aggregated data at the water body or stream or river 
segment level.
    Under the proposed approach, where a CSO permittee has CSO 
discharges occurring at multiple locations at the same time, the CSO 
permittee would not have to estimate the volume discharged for each 
outfall, but would be allowed to make an estimate of the cumulative 
volume of CSOs discharged to a given waterbody. This approach would 
simplify the information provided to the public and focus on individual 
watersheds. This is consistent with the proposed notification 
requirements for outfalls, which would not require identification of 
individual outfalls in all cases. EPA requests comment on this 
approach.
    Under the proposed approach, the Great Lake states would determine

[[Page 4249]]

which outfalls must be monitored and where volume estimates are 
appropriate for the purpose of public notification when reissuing CSO 
permits. This approach would provide flexibility for adapting volume 
reporting requirements that would be consistent with and build on 
ongoing compliance and implementation monitoring and could respond to 
technology advancements that occur in the future. The flexibility would 
also allow states and permittees to focus on system specific priorities 
(e.g., highest priority outfalls, predictive modeling).
5. Treated Discharges
    Section 425(b)(1) of the 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act 
requires EPA to work with the Great Lake states to establish public 
notice requirements for CSO discharges. The Agency recognizes that some 
CSO discharges receive treatment, including solids removal and 
disinfection, such that the end-of-pipe discharge may meet state water 
quality standards, including standards for bacteria indicators designed 
to protect recreational uses. Under the proposal and consistent with 
Section 425(b)(1), permittees would be required to provide public 
notice for all CSO discharges, regardless of the level or type of 
treatment a CSO received, if any, prior to discharge. However, nothing 
in the proposed rule would preclude permittees from also describing the 
level of treatment that various CSO discharges receive.
    EPA received comments at the listening session on September 14, 
2016 in response to EPA's August 1, 2016 Federal Register document that 
indicate that some municipalities with engineered treatment systems for 
CSO discharges do not believe primary treated and disinfected CSO 
discharges should be subject to the same public notification 
requirements as untreated discharges. In addition, some state workgroup 
members have also made this recommendation, including those from 
Michigan and Indiana.
    The Agency requests 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 requests 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. One approach would be to provide the NPDES 
authority with flexibility to not require initial notification 
requirements in the permit for treated CSO discharges. Another approach 
would be to only establish initial notification requirements in 
proposed Sec.  122.38 for CSO discharges that are not in compliance 
with permit limits or that do not receive at least primary treatment 
and disinfection. EPA requests comment on this flexibility. The 
existing practices in the state of Indiana allow such flexibility.\22\ 
Other states, such as New York, require public notification for all CSO 
discharges, including treated discharges.\23\ Still another approach is 
to limit initial notification of treated CSO discharges to public 
health officials and other impacted communities. However, EPA notes 
that 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.\24\ 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.\25\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Indiana's interpretation is based on the stated purposes in 
327 IAC 5-2.1-1, and the definitions of ``Affected Public'' and 
``Affected Waters'' in 327 IAC 5-2.1-3(1) & (2). These provisions 
signify the intent of the notification rule is to properly warn 
citizens of possible health impacts from exposure to waterborne 
pathogens/E. coli related to CSO events. Notifications to health 
departments and drinking water suppliers are also related primarily 
to waterborne pathogen concerns. Any ``treated'' CSOs in Indiana 
must meet the minimum treatment requirements of the Federal CSO 
Policy (which includes disinfection). ``Treated'' CSO discharges are 
regulated in Indiana's NPDES permits with appropriate effluent 
sampling and numeric limitations for E. coli applied during the 
defined recreational season. As these ``treated'' CSO discharges 
must comply with E. coli limitations which are protective of full 
body contact recreational uses, such discharges are not considered 
to be imminent risks to human health (in regards to waterborne 
pathogens), any more than are discharges from wastewater treatment 
plant outfalls which disinfect and discharge continuously. 
Therefore, public notification for ``treated'' CSO discharges is not 
required in Indiana.
    \23\ New York Environmental Conservation Law Sec.  17-0826-a 
requires public notification for all CSO discharges.
    \24\ ``Review of Coliphages as Possible Indicators of Fecal 
Contamination for Ambient Water Quality,'' EPA, 820-R-15-098, April 
17, 2015.
    \25\ ``Impact of Wet-Weather Peak Flow Blending on Disinfection 
and Treatment: A Case Study at Three Wastewater Treatment Plants,'' 
Interstate Environmental Commission, March, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some of the entities from whom input is sought in the plan 
development may prefer to receive notice of all CSO discharges, 
regardless of treatment status, because of the potential risks posed by 
elevated pathogen levels (e.g., drinking water facilities may want 
notification because of concerns about elevated levels of viruses or 
other pathogens in the source water).
6. More Stringent State Requirements
    Consistent with Section 425(b)(6) of the 2016 Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, nothing in the proposal would prohibit a Great 
Lakes state from establishing notice requirements for Great Lakes Basin 
CSO permittees in that state that are more stringent than the 
requirements proposed today. The NPDES regulations specifically allow 
for state NPDES permit authorities to establish permit requirements 
that are more stringent than the permit conditions specified at Sec.  
122.42 (see Sec.  123.25(a)).
7. Reporting
    Most NPDES permits for CSO discharges to the Great Lakes Basin 
require all CSO discharges be reported in a DMR at a frequency 
specified in the permit or within 24 hours pursuant to Sec.  
122.41(l)(6). As discussed in section II.D of today's preamble, the 
NPDES electronic reporting rule requires that these reports be made 
electronically. EPA proposes that all NPDES permits for CSO discharges 
to the Great Lakes Basin require that all CSO discharges are reported 
electronically. In addition, the Agency proposes a provision in Sec.  
122.43(f) that would require Great Lakes Basin CSO permittees to 
electronically report any CSO discharge that occurred during the past 
calendar year that has not been previously reported pursuant to a 
permit requirement by May 1 of the following calendar year.
    These proposed provisions are intended to ensure that the NPDES 
electronic database has complete information on CSO discharges to the 
Great Lakes Basin and to minimize any potential discrepancies between a 
permittee's annual notice and the NPDES electronic database.
8. Ambient Monitoring
    One municipality has suggested that a targeted approach to public 
notification

[[Page 4250]]

that prioritizes high-use recreational areas may reduce health risks 
more than an overly broad, general notification requirement. They 
suggested a targeted public notification approach could include 
monitoring the water quality of recreational areas for E. coli and 
cyanobacteria, public notification, posting water quality advisories, 
predictive modeling and source tracking. They suggested posting 
information from predictive models and the previous day E. coli 
sampling results on multiple Web sites and working with local 
television stations, newspapers, and radio stations to provide public 
notice.
    The proposed rule would not mandate ambient monitoring for all CSO 
permittees as part of a public notification program. However, the 
proposal would provide flexibility for such approaches to be 
incorporated into an NPDES permit. EPA requests comment on when ambient 
monitoring and predictive monitoring of ambient water conditions should 
be incorporated as a requirement for the public notification program.

IV. Incremental Costs of Proposed Rule

    The economic analysis estimates the incremental costs of requiring 
operators of a CSO discharge to the Great Lakes Basin to provide public 
notification of CSO discharges. Table 3 summarizes the estimated 
incremental costs for the proposed rule.

                            Table 3--Annual Incremental Costs by Respondent Category
                                         [Average of first three years]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Capital/ start-
                                                    Respondents     Labor costs    up/ O&M costs       Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSO permittees with a population of less than                 80        $102,114         $55,251        $157,365
 10,000.........................................
CSO permittees with a population of between                   70         118,894           1,296         120,190
 10,000 and 50,000..............................
CSO permittees with a population of more than                 32          86,720           3,456          90,176
 50,000.........................................
States..........................................               7          17,526               0          17,526
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals......................................  ..............         325,254          60,003         385,257
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The average incremental cost per CSO permittee is about $2,000 per 
CSO permittee per year. These estimates are all below the threshold 
level established by statute and various executive orders for 
determining that a rule has a significant or substantial impact on 
affected entities. See further discussion in Section V of this 
document.
    The Economic 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 per year 
activities including an annual notice, and ongoing activities that 
would occur during and after CSO discharges. The Economic Analysis also 
assumes costs for state agencies, mainly in the review of CSO permittee 
plans and reports.

V. Statutory and Executive Orders Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and therefore 
this proposal was not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) for review. The final rule may be submitted to OMB for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed 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.
    As discussed in section II.C of today's notice, NPDES permits for 
CSO discharges to the Great Lakes Basin should require permittees to 
provide public notification to ensure that the public receives adequate 
notification 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 
proposed today. 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:
     93% percent of existing outfalls for all CSO permittees 
have installed signs and that they are being maintained;
     Approximately half of the CSO permittees already have a 
system for developing estimates of the occurrence and volume of 
discharges from CSO outfalls;
     Each Great Lakes Basin CSO permittee already operates a 
Web site that can be modified to provide the public with notification 
of an 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 plan 
are included in burden estimates for the individual public notification 
components in the proposal. The activities attributed to the burden for 
the public notification plan include preparation of the document 
describing the public notification activities.
     The burdens on NPDES authority 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 proposed 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

[[Page 4251]]

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.
    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 182 CSO 
communities that discharge to the Great Lakes Basin and seven state 
NPDES permitting authorities.
    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 8,641 hours per year. Burden is defined 
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: EPA estimates that the rule would cost 
$385,257 per year during the three year ICR period. This is the total 
annual incremental cost for all 182 Great Lakes Basin CSO permittees. 
The average incremental cost per CSO permittee is about $2,000 per year 
and the average incremental cost per state NPDES authority is about 
$2,500.
    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.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at 
the beginning of this proposed rule. You may also send your ICR-related 
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via 
email to OIRA submission@omb.eop.gov, Attention: Desk Officer for the 
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR 
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no 
later than February 13, 2017. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related 
comment in the final rule.

C. 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 152 (83%) of 
the 182 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 and may experience an impact 
of between 0% and 0.75% of annual revenue. Details of this analysis are 
presented in the Economic Analysis for the proposed rule (see 
``Economic Analysis for the Proposed Public Notification of CSOs to the 
Great Lakes Rule,'' EPA, 2016).

D. 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 an 
economic analysis examining the potential burden to state, tribal and 
local governments. Details of this analysis are presented in the 
economic analysis for the proposed rule (see ``Economic Analysis for 
the Proposed Public Notification of CSOs in the Great Lakes Rule,'' 
EPA, 2016). EPA estimates that the costs of 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 were all well below 1% for all four revenue 
estimate methods. EPA concludes that the impact of the rule is very 
unlikely to reach or exceed 1% of small local government revenue.
    EPA has provided small local governments an opportunity to share 
their views regarding potential new public notification requirements 
for CSO discharges in the Great Lakes Basin as part of the September 
14, 2016 listening session and August 1, 2016 request for stakeholder 
input discussed in Section I.K of this notice. EPA is also encouraging 
the Great Lake states to notify small local governments affected by 
this rule about the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal.

E. 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 proposes 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 $2,503.71 annually per state. The 
incremental impact to local permittees may range from a total of $1,000 
to $3,000 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 ``Economic Analysis for the Public 
Notification Requirements for Combined Sewer Overflow discharges within 
the Great Lakes Basin,'' which is available in the docket for the 
proposed rule (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, 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 state to have meaningful and timely input into 
the development of the proposed 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.

[[Page 4252]]

F. 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 proposed 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 proposed 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,\26\ 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 public listening 
session held regarding this rulemaking, and the associated opportunity 
to provide written comments to the Agency. In addition, the proposed 
rule would require Great Lakes Basin CSO permittees to consult with 
potentially affected Indian Tribes whose waters may be affected by a 
CSO discharge prior to submitting the public notification plan. This 
requirement would ensure that needs of tribes using potentially 
affected 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/cons-and-coord-with-indian-tribes-policy.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. 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 proposed 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.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it 
does not significantly affect energy supply, distribution or use.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. 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. 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 proposed 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.
    In addition, the proposed rule would require 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. EPA requests comment on this requirement and whether it is 
expected to sufficiently account for the needs of environmental justice 
communities that may utilize waters that could be affect by a CSO 
discharge to the Great Lakes Basin.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 122

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Combined sewer overflow, Confidential business information, Hazardous 
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution 
control, Water pollution, public notification, reporting.

40 CFR Part 123

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Combined sewer overflow, Hazardous substances, Indians--lands, 
Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Water pollution control, Water pollution, public 
notification, reporting.

    Dated: December 16, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 
CFR part 122 as follows:

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

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

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

[[Page 4253]]

0
2. Amend Sec.  122.2 by adding the definitions for ``Combined sewer 
overflow,'' ``Combined sewer system,'' and ``Great Lakes Basin'' in 
alphabetical order to read as follows:

 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  section 
132.2 of this chapter.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  122.21 by adding paragraph (j)(8)(iii).

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

* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (8) * * *
    (iii) Public Notification Plan for CSO discharges to the Great 
Lakes Basin. Each applicant that discharges a combined sewer overflow 
to the Great Lakes Basin as defined in Sec.  122.2 must submit a public 
notification plan developed in accordance with Sec.  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.
* * * * *
0
4. Add Sec.  122.38 to read as follows:

Sec.  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 after [date 6 months after publication of 
final rule]. 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 CSO 
outfalls and potentially impacted public access areas. 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 outfall number as 
identified in the NPDES permit.
    (ii) The Great Lakes Basin CSO permittee shall perform periodic 
maintenance of signs to ensure that they are legible, visible and 
factually correct.
    (iii) Where a permittee has before [date 6 months after publication 
of final rule] installed a sign at a CSO outfall 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)(i) of this section until the sign is replaced or 
reset.
    (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 affected. 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). Where CSO discharges from the 
same system occur at multiple locations at the same time, 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 twenty-four (24) hours 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 at the same 
time, 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 Web 
site, and by other appropriate means (e.g. newspaper, radio, 
television).
    (ii) At a minimum, the notice shall include:
    (A) The water body that received the discharge(s);
    (B) The location of the discharge(s). Where CSO discharges from the 
same system occur at multiple locations at the same time, 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 twenty-four (24) hours after becoming aware by 
monitoring,

[[Page 4254]]

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 at the same 
time, 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. By May 1 of each calendar year (or an earlier 
date specified by the Director), all 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 outfall(s) that 
occurred in the previous calendar year and shall provide the Director 
with notice of how the annual notice is available. Permittees that are 
owners or operators of a satellite collection system with one or more 
CSO outfalls 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. At a minimum, the annual notice 
shall include:
    (1) 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;
    (2) A description of the location, treatment provided and receiving 
water for each CSO outfall;
    (3) The date, location, duration, and volume of each wet weather 
CSO discharge that occurred during the past calendar year. Where CSO 
discharges from the same system occur at multiple locations at the same 
time, the Great Lakes Basin CSO permittee may provide an estimate of 
the cumulative volume discharged to a given waterbody;
    (4) The date, location, duration, and volume of each dry weather 
CSO discharge that occurred during the past calendar year;
    (5) A summary of available monitoring data for CSO discharges from 
the past calendar year;
    (6) A description of any public access areas impacted by each CSO 
discharge;
    (7) Representative rain gauge data in total inches to the nearest 
0.1 inch that resulted in a CSO discharge;
    (8) A point of contact; and
    (9) 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) Reporting. By May 1 of each calendar year (or an earlier date 
specified by the Director), all permittees authorized to discharge a 
CSO to the Great Lakes Basin shall electronically report any CSO 
discharge that occurred during the past calendar year that has not been 
previously reported pursuant to a permit requirement. to the initial 
recipient, as defined in 40 CFR 127.2(b), in compliance with 40 CFR 127 
using the discharge monitoring report (NPDES Data Group 3, Appendix A 
to 40 CFR 127) or the Sewer Overflow Event Report (NPDES Data Group 9, 
Appendix A to 40 CFR 127).
    (d) 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 on 
the permittee's Web site (if it has a Web site), and periodically 
provide information in bill mailings and by other appropriate means on 
how to view the notification plan. The Great Lakes Basin CSO permittee 
must submit its public notification plan to the Director by [date 6 
months after publication of a final rule] and as part of a permit 
application under Sec.  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 outfall where a sign is not 
feasible. Where a sign has not been provided at an outfall, the plan 
shall explain why a sign at that location is not feasible.
    (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 affected by the 
permittee's CSO discharges;
    (5) Summarize significant comments and recommendations raised by 
the local public health department under paragraph (e) of this section;
    (6) Identify other affected public entities and Indian Tribes whose 
waters may be affected by a CSO discharge that were contacted under 
paragraph (e) 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;
    (9) Describe, for each outfall, how the volume and duration of CSO 
discharges shall be either measured or estimated for the purposes of 
complying with paragraphs (a)(2)(B)(i), (a)(3)(C)(i), (b)(2), and 
(b)(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 calibrate their model at least 
once every 5 years; and
    (10) Describe protocols for making the annual notice described in 
paragraph (b) of this section available to the public and to the 
Director.
    (e) Prior to submitting the public notification plan, or 
resubmitting under Sec.  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; and
    (ii) Develop recommendations for providing notice to the general 
public of CSO discharges electronically and by other appropriate means.
    (2) Seek input from other potentially affected public entities and 
Indian Tribes whose waters may be affected 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

[[Page 4255]]

potentially affected public entities and Indian Tribes.
    (f) The Director may extend the compliance dates in paragraphs (a), 
(b), and (d) 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 Web site a 
notice that includes the name of the community and the new compliance 
date(s). The notice shall remain on the Director's Web site until the 
new compliance date.
0
5. Amend Sec.  122.42 by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:

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

* * * * *
    (f) Public Notification requirements for CSO discharges to the 
Great Lakes Basin. Any permit issued for combined sewer overflow (CSO) 
discharges to the Great Lakes Basin must:
    (1) Require implementation of the public notification requirements 
in Sec.  122.38(a);
    (2) Specify the information that must be included on outfall 
signage, which, at a minimum, must include those elements in Sec.  
122.38(a)(1)(i);
    (3) Specify outfalls and public access areas where signs are 
required pursuant to Sec.  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 Sec.  122.38(a)(2); and
    (ii) The public under Sec.  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;
    (6) Require submittal of an annual notice in accordance with Sec.  
122.38(b);
    (7) Specify protocols for making the annual notice under Sec.  
122.38(b) available to the public; and
    (8) Require all CSO discharges be electronically reported in a 
discharge monitoring report or a sewer overflow event report pursuant 
to 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) or (7).
* * * * *

PART 123--STATE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

0
6. The authority for part 123 continues to read as follows:

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

0
7. Amend Sec.  123.25 by revising paragraph (a)(46) and adding 
paragraph (a)(47) to read as follows:

Sec.  123.25  Requirements for permitting.

    (a) * * *
    (46) For states that wish to receive electronic documents, 40 CFR 
part 3--(Electronic Reporting); and
    (47) For a Great Lakes State, Sec.  122.38.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-31745 Filed 1-12-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P