SRF State Multi-Year Report

State Review Framework - CAA Data for North Dakota, State Multi-Year Report

Metric		Metric Type	Agency	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	Graph
1. Data completeness. degree to which the minimum data requirements are complete.
A	Title V Universe: AFS Operating Majors (Current)	Data Quality	State	71	71	71	71	71	71	71	n/a
	Title V Universe: AFS Operating Majors (Current)	Data Quality	Combined	72	72	72	72	72	72	72	n/a
	Title V Universe: AFS Operating Majors with Air Program Code = V (Current)	Data Quality	State	67	67	67	67	67	67	67	n/a
		Data Quality	Combined	67	67	67	67	67	67	67	n/a
B	Source Count: Synthetic Minors (Current)	Data Quality	State	99	99	99	99	99	99	99	n/a
	Source Count: Synthetic Minors (Current)	Data Quality	Combined	99	99	99	99	99	99	99	n/a
	Source Count: NESHAP Minors (Current)	Data Quality	State	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	n/a
	Source Count: NESHAP Minors (Current)	Data Quality	Combined	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	n/a
	Source Count: Active Minor facilities or otherwise FedRep, not including NESHAP Part 61 (Current)	Informational Only	State	29	31	39	39	40	50	54	n/a
		Informational Only	Combined	29	31	39	39	40	50	54	n/a
C	CAA Subprogram Designations: NSPS (Current)	Data Quality	State	88	88	88	88	88	88	88	n/a
	CAA Subprogram Designations: NSPS (Current)	Data Quality	Combined	88	88	88	88	88	88	88	n/a
	CAA Subprogram Designations: NESHAP (Current)	Data Quality	State	8	8	8	8	8	8	8	n/a
	CAA Subprogram Designations: NESHAP (Current)	Data Quality	Combined	8	8	8	8	8	8	8	n/a
	CAA Subprogram Designations: MACT (Current)	Data Quality	State	22	22	22	22	22	22	22	n/a
	CAA Subprogram Designations: MACT (Current)	Data Quality	Combined	23	23	23	23	23	23	23	n/a
	CAA Subpart Designations: Percent NSPS facilities with FCEs conducted after 10/1/2005	Data Quality	State	92.6%	92.6%	92.6%	92.6%	92.6%	92.6%	92.6%
	CAA Subpart Designations: Percent NESHAP facilities with FCEs conducted after 10/1/2005	Data Quality	State	20.0%	20.0%	20.0%	20.0%	20.0%	20.0%	20.0%
	CAA Subpart Designations: Percent MACT facilities with FCEs conducted after 10/1/2005	Data Quality	State	27.6%	27.6%	27.6%	27.6%	27.6%	27.6%	27.6%
		Data Quality	Combined	26.7%	26.7%	26.7%	26.7%	26.7%	26.7%	26.7%
D	Compliance Monitoring: Sources with FCEs (1 FY)	Data Quality	State	55	54	50	60	49	57	50
	Compliance Monitoring: Number of FCEs (1 FY)	Data Quality	State	55	54	51	60	51	65	57
	Compliance Monitoring: Number of PCEs (1 FY)	Informational Only	State	1	0	0	2	3	1	4
E	Historical Non-Compliance Counts (1 FY)	Data Quality	State	0	5	5	4	4	4	4
E	Historical Non-Compliance Counts (1 FY)	Data Quality	Combined	8	8	8	7	7	7	7
F	Informal Enforcement Actions: Number Issued (1 FY)	Data Quality	State	3	0	0	0	2	0	0
F	Informal Enforcement Actions: Number of Sources (1 FY)	Data Quality	State	3	0	0	0	2	0	0
G	HPV: Number of New Pathways (1 FY)	Data Quality	State	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
G	HPV: Number of New Sources (1 FY)	Data Quality	State	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
H	HPV Day Zero Pathway Discovery date: Percent DZs with discovery	Data Quality	State	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0
	HPV Day Zero Pathway Violating Pollutants: Percent DZs	Data Quality	State	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0
	HPV Day Zero Pathway Violation Type Code(s): Percent DZs with HPV Violation Type Code(s)	Data Quality	State	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0
I	Formal Action: Number Issued (1 FY)	Data Quality	State	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
I	Formal Action: Number of Sources (1 FY)	Data Quality	State	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
J	Assessed Penalties: Total Dollar Amount (1 FY)	Data Quality	State	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
K	Major Sources Missing CMS Policy Applicability (Current)	Review Indicator	State	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	n/a
2. Data accuracy. degree to which the minimum data requirements are accurate.
A	Number of HPVs/Number of NC Sources (1 FY)	Data Quality	State	0 / 0	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	100.0%
A	Number of HPVs/Number of NC Sources (1 FY)	Data Quality	Combined	50.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	25.0%
B	Stack Test Results at Federally-Reportable Sources - % Without Pass/Fail Results (1 FY)	Goal	State	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
B	Stack Test Results at Federally-Reportable Sources - Number of Failures (1 FY)	Data Quality	State	0	0	0	3	3	1	1
3. Timeliness of data entry. degree to which the minimum data requirements are complete.
A	Percent HPVs Entered ≤ 60 Days After Designation, Timely Entry (1 FY)	Goal	State	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0
B	Percent Compliance Monitoring related MDR actions reported ≤ 60 Days After Designation, Timely Entry (1 FY)	Goal	State	0.0%	0.0%	18.0%	56.2%	56.2%	53.7%	58.5%
B	Percent Enforcement related MDR actions reported ≤ 60 Days After Designation, Timely Entry (1 FY)	Goal	State	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0.0%	0 / 0	0 / 0
5. Inspection coverage. degree to which state completed the universe of planned inspections/compliance evaluations.
A	CMS Major Full Compliance Evaluation (FCE) Coverage (2 FY CMS Cycle)	Goal	State	76.8%	83.3%	83.3%	74.2%	74.2%	76.5%	76.5%
		Goal	Combined	76.8%	83.3%	83.3%	74.2%	74.2%	76.8%	76.8%
	CAA Major Full Compliance Evaluation (FCE) Coverage(most recent 2 FY)	Review Indicator	State	69.9%	70.4%	67.6%	70.4%	70.4%	74.6%	73.2%
		Review Indicator	Combined	68.9%	69.4%	66.7%	69.4%	70.8%	75.0%	72.2%
B	CAA Synthetic Minor 80% Sources (SM-80) FCE Coverage (5 FY CMS Cycle) ¹	Review Indicator	State	91.2%	94.1%	94.1%	55.9%	88.2%	94.1%	100.0%
		Review Indicator	Combined	91.2%	94.1%	94.1%	55.9%	88.2%	94.1%	100.0%
	CAA Synthetic Minor 80% Sources (SM-80) FCE Coverage (last full 5 FY)	Informational Only	State	91.2%	94.1%	94.1%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
		Informational Only	Combined	91.2%	94.1%	94.1%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
C	CAA Synthetic Minor FCE and reported PCE Coverage (last 5 FY)	Informational Only	State	36.4%	37.4%	37.4%	41.4%	42.4%	42.4%	42.4%
C		Informational Only	Combined	36.4%	37.4%	37.4%	41.4%	42.4%	42.4%	42.4%
D	CAA Minor FCE and Reported PCE Coverage (last 5 FY)	Informational Only	State	16.2%	17.3%	22.0%	22.0%	21.2%	25.3%	27.6%
E	Number of Sources with Unknown Compliance Status	Review Indicator	State	15	22	6	6	4	5	9
E	Number of Sources with Unknown Compliance Status	Review Indicator	Combined	15	22	6	6	4	5	9
F	CAA Stationary Source Investigations (last 5 FY)	Informational Only	State	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
G	Review of Self-Certifications Completed (1 FY)	Goal	State	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	98.4%	100.0%	100.0%
7. Identification of alleged violations. degree to which compliance determinations are accurately made and promptly reported in the national database based upon compliance monitoring report observations and other compliance monitoring information.
C	Percent facilities in noncompliance that have had an FCE, stack test, or enforcement (1 FY)	Review Indicator	State	0.0%	1.8%	1.9%	1.6%	2.0%	1.7%	1.9%
	Percent facilities that have had a failed stack test and have noncompliance status (1 FY)	Review Indicator	State	0 / 0	0 / 0	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
		Review Indicator	EPA	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0
8. Identification of SNC and HPV. degree to which the state accurately identifies significant noncompliance & high priority violations and enters information into the national system in a timely manner.
A	High Priority Violation Discovery Rate - Per Major Source (1 FY)	Review Indicator	State	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
A		Review Indicator	EPA	1.4%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
B	High Priority Violation Discovery Rate - Per Synthetic Minor Source (1 FY)	Review Indicator	State	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
B		Review Indicator	EPA	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
C	Percent Formal Actions With Prior HPV - Majors (1 FY)	Review Indicator	State	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0
D	Percent Informal Enforcement Actions Without Prior HPV - Majors (1 FY)	Review Indicator	State	100.0%	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	100.0%	0 / 0	0 / 0
E	Percentage of Sources with Failed Stack Test Actions that received HPV listing - Majors and Synthetic Minors (2 FY)	Review Indicator	State	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
10. Timely and Appropriate Action. Degree to which a state takes timely and appropriate enforcement actions in accordance with policy relating to specific media.
A	Percent HPVs not meeting timeliness goals (2 FY)	Review Indicator	State	100.0%	100.0%	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0
12. Final penalty assessment and collection. Degree to which differences between initial and final penalty are documented in the file along with a demonstration in the file that the final penalty was collected.
A	No Activity Indicator - Actions with Penalties (1 FY)	Review Indicator	State	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
B	Percent Actions at HPVs With Penalty (1 FY)	Review Indicator	State	0.0%	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0

Report Generated on 6/30/2011
Data Refresh Dates

Note: SRF data metrics results may change as data are updated in AFS, ICIS-NPDES, PCS, and RCRAInfo. The above data set may be saved in Excel or comma delimited text format by clicking on the appropriate Save Results link above.

General Notes:
^* Blue-shaded rows denote that the metric was pulled manually.
^* Metrics that are listed as "current" pull live data from the most recent IDEA refresh. Results for these metrics do not change across fiscal years.

Caveats:
⁰EPA administers the CWA program in the following states/territories: AK, DC, ID, MA, NH, NM, AS, GU, PR, and VI.
EPA administers the RCRA program in the following states/territories: AK, IA, and VI
¹ The current CMS Cycle for SM80s started with FY07; therefore, metric 5B1 includes number of FYs since FY07 through selected FY. Goal percentages expected to increase with selected FY until CMS Cycle completion in FY11, e.g., 20%- FY07,40% -FY08, etc.