In this final rule, EPA has adjusted its approach to use maximum quantity onsite (inventory) rather than maximum container capacity onsite as the basis for assessing risk to the environment. EPA based this decision largely on the fact that risk determinations using maximum quantity onsite will more accurately reflect the hazard posed and has been used successfully in other EPA chemical regulations, such that this is standard business practice. Some commenters also urged EPA to remove the provision regarding the process by which RAs determine that a covered facility could cause significant and substantial harm through a worst case discharge into or on navigable waters or a conveyance to navigable waters. However, the CWA directs the President to develop criteria to identify a subset of substantial harm facilities that could reasonably be expected to cause both significant and substantial harm to the environment.
For example, as in the Oil Pollution Prevention FRP regulation, duties may be spread across corporate departments and consist of a regional QI structure, corporate call center, and corporate media relations department. —The RMP regulation under the CAA’s authority is for air releases; for that reason alone, it is insufficient to rely upon to determine whether a covered facility could cause substantial harm to the environment by discharging into or on navigable waters (40 CFR part 68). In § 118.4, EPA proposed and is finalizing, with some adjustments, general requirements and compliance dates for CWA hazardous substance FRPs.
Arrangement #1: Equity = Assets – Liabilities
For example, EPA has adjusted the language in Question 5 to clarify that the reportable discharge must have been to navigable waters. For discharges after the effective date of this rule, EPA expects that covered facility owners or operators will collect this information routinely in order to the accounting equation may be expressed as improve their business practices and minimize accidental discharges. The adverse impact reported are limited to what is listed in Appendix A. In addition, conforming changes regarding the requirement to analyze all CWA hazardous substances above the threshold level onsite have been made.
EPA is not requiring information on non-CWA hazardous substance discharges, since it is unclear at best how relevant they are or would be to worst case discharges of CWA hazardous substances. Similarly, EPA is only including reportable discharges that reach navigable waters, since other discharges are outside the scope of this action. Working with Federal response partners, the Agency intends to provide compliance assistance to covered facilities to ensure these areas are properly identified and impacts are assessed. In addition, the owner or operator is responsible for identifying public receptors, not just ACPs.
What Are the Key Components in the Accounting Equation?
While the basic accounting equation’s main goal is to show the financial position of the business. Whether you call it the accounting equation, the accounting formula, the balance sheet equation, the fundamental accounting equation, or the basic accounting equation, they all mean the same thing. As transactions occur within a business, the amounts of assets, liabilities, and owner’s equity change. The accounting equation formula helps in ledger balancing using double-entry accounting.
To prepare and submit to the President a plan for responding, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst case discharge, and to a substantial threat of such a discharge, of oil or a hazardous substance” (33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5)(A)(i)). [an] onshore facility that, because of its location, could reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm to the environment by discharging into or on the navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or the exclusive economic zone” (33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5)(C)(iv)). As described below, the Administrator has been delegated this authority under Executive Order (E.O.) (56 FR 54757, October 18, 1991).