[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 28 (Monday, February 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 9687]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02932]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. FA11-21-000]

North American Electric Reliability Corporation; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on February 1, 2013, the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC) submitted a compliance filing in
accordance with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Order (FERC
or Commission) in North American Electric Reliability Corporation, 141
FERC ] 61,086 (2012) (November 2 Order).
    Any person desiring to comment on this filing must file in
accordance with the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Such
comments must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the
comment date, it is not necessary to serve comments on persons other
than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of comments in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on February 22, 2013.

    Dated: February 4, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-02932 Filed 2-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 21, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40084-40086]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13196]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Part 744

[Docket No.<PHONE_NUMBER>]
RIN 0694-AJ24

Additions of Entities to the Entity List and Removal of Entity
From the Entity List; Correction

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Correcting amendment.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is amending the Export
Administration Regulations (EAR) by adding an inadvertently omitted
entity to the Entity List.

DATES: This correcting amendment is effective June 16, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chair, End-User Review Committee,
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration, Bureau of
Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As stated in the Entity List rule titled
``Additions

of Entities to the Entity List and Removal of Entity from the Entity
List'' (June 14 Rule) (88 FR 38739), the End-User Review Committee
(ERC) determined to add certain entities under the destination of
China, including China Aviation Development Harbin Bearing Co., Ltd.,
to the Entity List for acquiring and attempting to acquire U.S.-origin
items in support of China's military modernization. This activity is
contrary to U.S. national security and foreign policy interests under
Sec.  744.11 of the EAR. As detailed in the June 14 Rule, licenses are
required for all items subject to the EAR to these entities, and
license applications will be reviewed under a presumption of denial.
Further, in the June 14 Rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)
included an entity in the preamble justification but inadvertently did
not instruct, nor provide regulatory text for, the addition of the
entity to the Entity List. This correcting amendment amends the EAR by
making the addition to the Entity List for this omitted entity.
    For the reasons described above, this correcting amendment adds the
following entity to the Entity List and includes, where appropriate,
aliases:

China

     China Aviation Development Harbin Bearing Co., Ltd.

Savings Clause

    For the changes being made in this correcting amendment, shipments
of items removed from eligibility for a License Exception or export,
reexport, or transfer (in-country) without a license (NLR) as a result
of this regulatory action that were en route aboard a carrier to a port
of export, reexport, or transfer (in-country), on June 16, 2023,
pursuant to actual orders for export, reexport, or transfer (in-
country) to or within a foreign destination, may proceed to that
destination under the previous eligibility for a License Exception or
export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) without a license (NLR)
before July 17, 2023. Any such items not actually exported, reexported,
or transferred (in-country) before midnight, on July 17, 2023, require
a license in accordance with this correcting amendment.

Export Control Reform Act of 2018

    On August 13, 2018, the President signed into law the John S.
McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which
included the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) (50 U.S.C. 4801-
4852). ECRA provides the legal basis for BIS's principal authorities
and serves as the authority under which BIS issues this rule.

Rulemaking Requirements

    1. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes
of Executive Order 12866.
    2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is
required to respond to or be subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless
that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves
collections previously approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088,
Simplified Network Application Processing System, which includes, among
other things, license applications and commodity classifications, and
carries a burden estimate of 29.4 minutes for a manual or electronic
submission for a total burden estimate of 33,133 hours. Total burden
hours associated with the PRA and OMB control number 0694-0088 are not
expected to increase as a result of this rule.
    3. This rule does not contain policies with federalism implications
as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
    4. Pursuant to section 1762 of the Export Control Reform Act of
2018, this action is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (5
U.S.C. 553) requirements for notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity
for public participation, and delay in effective date.
    5. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for
public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C.
553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., are not applicable.
Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none
has been prepared.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 744

    Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.
    Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15
CFR parts 730-774) is corrected by making the following correcting
amendment:

PART 744--CONTROL POLICY: END-USER AND END-USE BASED

0
1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 744 is continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 50 U.S.C. 4801-4852; 50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 22
U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 20947, 3 CFR,
1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p.
608; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 13026,
61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13099, 63 FR 45167, 3
CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 208; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp.,
p. 783; E.O. 13224, 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786; Notice
of September 19, 2022, 87 FR 57569 (September 21, 2022); Notice of
November 8, 2022, 87 FR 68015 (November 10, 2022).

0
2. Supplement no. 4 to part 744 is amended under CHINA, PEOPLE'S
REPUBLIC OF, by adding, in alphabetical order, an entry for ``China
Aviation Development Harbin Bearing Co., Ltd.'' to read as follows:

Supplement No. 4 to Part 744--Entity List

* * * * *

                                                                                Federal Register
               Country                                  Entity                     License requirement     License review policy         Citation

                                                                      * * * * * * *
CHINA, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF

                                                                      * * * * * * *
                                      China Aviation Development Harbin Bearing  For all items subject    Presumption of denial.  88 FR [INSERT FR PAGE
                                       Co., Ltd., a.k.a. the following three      to the EAR. (See Sec.                            NUMBER] 6/21/2023.
                                       aliases:                                    744.11 of the EAR).
                                      --AVIC Harbin Bearing;
                                      --Harbin AVIC Bearing Co Ltd; and

                                      --AviChina Harbin Bearing
                                      No. 888 Nanjing Road, Hulan District,
                                       Harbin (New District Trust Handling
                                       Area), China; and No. 81, East Wujinnan
                                       Road, Xilong Street, Harbin, China; and
                                       North Side of Traffic Management Office,
                                       Linxi County, Xingtai City, Hebei
                                       Province, China.

                                                                      * * * * * * *

* * * * *

Matthew S. Borman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2023-13196 Filed 6-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 102 (Friday, May 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34150-34151]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11295]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 3509-042]

Little Falls Hydroelectric Associates, LP; Notice of Availability
of Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed the application for a new license to continue to operate and
maintain the Little Falls Hydroelectric Project. The project is located
on the Mohawk River, in the City of Little Falls, Herkimer County, New
York. Commission staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA)
for the project.
    The EA contains the staff's analysis of the potential environmental
impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with
appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a
major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the
human environment.
    The Commission provides all interested persons with an opportunity
to view and/or print the EA via the

internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov/),
using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number, excluding the
last three digits in the docket number field, to access the document.
For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected], or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    You may also register online at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    Any comments should be filed within 45 days from the date of this
notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to
6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support. In lieu of electronic
filing, you may submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S.
Postal Service must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be
addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The first
page of any filing should include docket number P-3509-042.
    For further information, contact Monir Chowdhury at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or by email at [email protected].

    Dated: May 22, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-11295 Filed 5-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 29, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 57813]
[FR Doc No: C1-2019-14101]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 29, 2019 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 13 and 406

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Part 383

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

33 CFR Part 401

Maritime Administration

46 CFR Parts 221, 307, 340, and 356

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 107, 171, and 190

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Parts 209, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222,
223, 224, 225, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236,
237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 270, and 272

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 386

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 578

RIN 2105-AE80

Revisions to Civil Penalty Amounts

Correction

    In rule document 2019-14101 beginning on page 37059 in the issue of
Wednesday, July 31, 2019, make the following correction:

Sec.  222.11  [Amended]

0
On page 37073, in the second column, amendatory instruction 47c should
read as follows:
    c. Remove the dollar amount ``$113,894'' and add in its place
``$116,766''.

[FR Doc. C1-2019-14101 Filed 10-28-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1301-00-D


*          Gallons of stormwater runoff abated as a result of MS4 control activities/BMPs

5.4.2	Will EPA or the states need specific reports to better access or use this information?

        Improvements to ECHO and OTIS will be required in order to make full use of the MS4 data identified for conversion from paper-based reporting. The Team recommends that these key programmatic and compliance questions be used to develop web-based annual reports for the MS4 sector that demonstrate in plain language the effectiveness of the NPDES program and compliance activities. Similar to the ECHO website for the Annual Noncompliance Report for individual permitted non-majors, these web-based reports will use the list of performance questions from the program management plans to allow viewers to query results at various scales (watershed, state, regional, National). These web-based annual reports would provide regulated entities, states, EPA and the public with an easy way to retrieve data. The public could run standardized reports to see information on regulated facilities. These web-based annual reports would present an easy to use front-end, with the underlying data bases (such as ICIS, IDEA, OTIS, ECHO and state NPDES systems) operating in the background via the Exchange Network to support all the functionality. These web-based annual reports can also provide the public with an easy way to assess the performances of different regulatory agencies.

4.0 Pretreatment Program
6.1 	Overview

      Publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) receive wastewater from households (domestic waste), as well as a wide variety of commercial and industrial facilities, referred to as Industrial Users (IUs). The types of IUs range widely, from restaurants to manufacturers of organic chemicals and plastics. EPA has developed a comprehensive pretreatment program implemented through state agencies and POTWs to control pollutants from IUs that might pass through or interfere with POTW treatment processes or contaminate sewage sludge, thereby posing a threat to human health or the environment. POTWs with approved pretreatment programs are required to develop, implement, and enforce program elements through provisions written into their NPDES permits or waste discharge requirements.

      The pretreatment program focuses on controlling pollutants from IUs that: (1) have the potential to cause the POTW to violate its NPDES permit discharge limits; (2) may pose a safety concern to the POTW; and (3) affect the POTW's sludge disposal method. See 40 CFR 403.3(i). The pretreatment program also has several other equally important regulatory requirements and initiatives. First, the pretreatment program ensures implementation and compliance with the technology-based categorical standards. Many pretreatment enforcement actions concern violations of categorical standards and those standards and the associated enforcement actions are not strictly tied to interference and pass through. Second, the pretreatment program contains regulatory provisions for preventing sewer blockages and collection system spills due to FOG, which contributes to a vast majority of spills nationally. Finally, municipal pretreatment programs are the source of significant pollution prevention and innovation initiatives. Such efforts involve controlling dental mercury and pharmaceutical reverse distribution.

      Through the pretreatment program regulations at 40 CFR 403 and requirements within the NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122, EPA regulates over 1,600 approved pretreatment program, who in turn oversee approximately 20,000 Significant IUs (SIUs  - those required to be issued a control mechanism), while EPA and approved state pretreatment programs directly oversee 1,300 SIUs. This number of SIUs is approximately three times the number of industrial National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) major dischargers.

      The pretreatment program is considered a component of the NPDES program but in a larger sense its regulatory framework is as comprehensive as the NPDES permit program. As with the NPDES permit program, the authority to enforce the pretreatment program can be authorized and EPA has authorized pretreatment program authority to 36 states. The pretreatment program has additional complexity as states can further authorize pretreatment program authority to local governments. This complexity is reflected in the different types of the compliance monitoring reporting, the associated report preparers and reviewers, and reporting timing.

6.2 	Current Program Reporting

      Sections 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 provide a listing of the fifteen pretreatment program reports that are currently managed in hardcopy between industrial users, control authorities, and approval authorities that are candidates for electronic reporting. These reports are summarized in Table 6-1. In general, these reports fall into the following categories:

               *       Industrial User Reports: Twelve program reports from industrial users to control authorities (local POTWs, states, or EPA Regions in cities without approved programs); and

               *       Control Authority Reports: Three program reports from control authorities to approval authorities (states or EPA Regions).

These pretreatment reports are entirely managed in hardcopy format. Additionally, each local government, state, and EPA Region has its own hardcopy format for pretreatment reporting and other formats, including Word. Some states have Excel spreadsheet formats that they distribute to the Pretreatment Programs for preparation of Annual Reports. This means that program data is not centrally located nor is it standardized. However, these non-standardized reports all derive from the same Federal regulations (40 CFR 403) and can be standardized with coordination between EPA Headquarters, EPA Regions, states, and local governments. All entities must be willing to adhere to the template, and be willing to require, or at least strongly encourage adoption of whatever standardization methods and reports that are developed.

      States or EPA Regions enter basic POTW data into the PCS or ICIS-NPDES (e.g., POTW name, address latitude and longitude, POTW NPDES ID, POTW effluent limits, name of receiving waterbody). POTW Pretreatment status for POTWs should default to the authorized pretreatment state or EPA unless it is known that an approved program has been submitted and approved. Pretreatment Program Audits and Compliance Inspection summary data, collected by state or EPA, is entered into ICIS; similar summary data on POTW performance actions is submitted annually by the POTW [in accordance to NPDES permit conditions and also 403.12(i)], but not necessarily entered into either database. EPA limited the required number of pretreatment data elements as a means to reduce the reporting burden on states. Consequently, PCS and ICIS-NPDES pretreatment data only provide very general information about each pretreatment program and do not contain programmatic or compliance information on individual significant industrial users. Failure to track and enforce compliance of IUs for which states and EPA are the control authorities was cited as a weakness by EPA's Office of Inspector General. Some control authorities try to enter data but it is very limited.

      There are also inconsistencies in data entry between the state and Regional pretreatment programs. A recent Office of Water analysis of pretreatment data in PCS and ICIS-NPDES coupled with interviews of EPA Regional pretreatment data entry staff indicate considerable inconsistencies in data entry, including use of database codes, types of data entered, and whether the data is entered at all. This limits the ability to draw comparative statistics across different pretreatment programs or accurately respond to questions regarding the pretreatment program at the national level.

      Currently there is no known existing national or state system, aside from EPA system for online PDFs, to facilitate the online data entry, signature, and submission of program report data. Some States also have Excel spreadsheet formats that they distribute to their Pretreatment Programs for preparation of annual reports. Under current procedures, paper-based program reports are filled out by Control Authorities and Approval Authorities. EPA and states must manage this consistently large volume of paper work and enter the federally required data into ICIS or into their own state internal tracking system, which is then batched to ICIS. See Figure 6-2. However, due to system incompatibilities some states are unable to successfully upload to their data into ICIS.
          Figure 6-2: Annual Pretreatment Reports to one EPA Region (2009)

      Data from current paper-based pretreatment program reports are difficult to share and analyze as these reports are not standardized or collected electronically. The lack of standardization and the inefficient data collection methods are barriers to showing who is regulated by the pretreatment program and how EPA and state regulators demonstrate the effectiveness of their compliance activities. This rulemaking will be useful in standardizing data collection and reporting.

      Moreover, Regional and state program authorities must review and assess compliance against these non-standard, hardcopy reports and identify facilities for enforcement and compliance activities. The non-standard hardcopy formats limits the usefulness of these reports as data cannot be easily compared or shared across different regulatory programs. Standardization and electronic data submittals can help track submissions and automate some compliance checks, which might lead to a burden reduction. Finally, standardization and electronic data submittals will lead to better identification of facilities that have the potential to impact impaired waters.

         Table 6-1: Current Reporting Requirements Summarization Chart
                                  REGULATION
                                    NUMBER
                                    REPORT
                                   REPORTING
                                    ENTITY
                                   RECEIVING
                                    ENTITY
                                   FREQUENCY
                                  REPORT DATE
                               SIMILAR TO NPDES
                                 40 CFR 403.6
                       Categorical Determination Request
                                   CIU/POTW
                                      EPA
                                     ONCE
Within 60 days after the effective date of new categorical pretreatment standard for existing sources and prior to discharge for new sources.
                                      NO
                                 40 CFR 403.7
            Removal Credit Authorization and Compliance Monitoring
                               Control Authority
                              Approval Authority
                                     ONCE
Schedule for removal credit application is set by POTW. After application approval the POTW must annually demonstrate compliance to Approval Authority.
                                      NO
                               40 CFR 403.12 (b)
                          Baseline Monitoring Report
                                      CIU
                               Control Authority
                                     ONCE
Within 180 days after the effective date of new Federal categorical pretreatment standard or existing users and 90 days prior to discharge for new industrial users.
                               Application Form
                               40 CFR 403.12 (d)
      Initial report on Compliance with Categorical Pretreatment Standard
                                      CIU
                               Control Authority
                                     ONCE
Within 90 days after the effective date of new categorical pretreatment standard for existing sources and immediately after discharge for new sources.
                                      YES
                               40 CFR 403.12 (e)
               Periodic Reports on Continued Compliance for CIUs
                                      CIU
                               Control Authority
                          MINIMUM OF EVERY SIX MONTHS
                             (JUNE & DECEMBER)
                   Periodic reports on continued compliance.
                   Yes, Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs)
                               40 CFR 403.12 (f)
             Notice of Potential Problems, Including Slug Loading
                                      IU
                               Control Authority
                                 CASE BY CASE
                            Immediate notification
                                      NO
                               40 CFR 403.12 (h)
             Periodic Reports on Continued Compliance for Non-CIUs
                                      SIU
                               Control Authority
                       MINIMUM OF ONCE EVERY SIX MONTHS
                   Periodic reports on continued compliance.
                                   Yes, DMRs
                                 403.12(g)(2)
             24 hour notification of violations, 30 day resampling
                                      SIU
                               Control Authority
                                 Case by Case
     Within 24 hours (notification) and 30 days of violation (Re-sampling)
                                      YES
                               40 CFR 403.12 (i)
                              Annual POTW Reports
                               Control Authority
                              Approval Authority
                             MINIMUM OF ANNUALLY
             (some states require semiannual or quarterly reports)
    No later than one year after program approval and annually thereafter.
                                      NO
                               40 CFR 403.12 (j)
                       Notification of Changed Discharge
                                      IU
                               Control Authority
                                 CASE BY CASE
Prompt notice to Control Authority of new pollutant discharges or substantial changes
                                      NO
                               40 CFR 403.12 (k)
                         Compliance Schedule for POTWs
                               Control Authority
                              Approval Authority
                                     ONCE
                      Based upon the Compliance Schedule
                                      NO
                               40 CFR 403.12 (p)
              Hazardous Waste Notification and BMP Certification
                                      IU
                               Control Authority
                                 CASE BY CASE
Initial reports due in 1991. New dischargers must report 180 days after start of the IU discharge.
                                      NO

                               40 CFR 122.42(b)
      POTW Disclosure Requirements on IU Discharges for NPDES Permitting
                                     POTW
                            NPDES Program Director
                                 CASE BY CASE
 Timely notice to Director of new pollutant discharges or substantial changes
                                      YES
                              40 CFR 122.44(j)(1)
SIUs, identify in terms of volumes and character of pollutants (similar to 122.42(b) for non approved pretreatment programs)
                                     POTW
                            NPDES Program Director
                                 Case by Case
Timely notice to Director of characterizing SIUs, in terms of volume and character of pollutants
                                      YES
                               40 CFR 403.12 (q)
     Annual Certification by Non-Significant Categorical Industrial Users
                                      CIU
                               Control Authority
                                   ANNUALLY
                     Must accompany an alternative report
                                      NO
                                 40 CFR 403.16
                                     Upset
                                     CIUs
                               Control Authority
                                 CASE BY CASE
     Verbal report within 24 hours of upset and written report with 5 days
                                Yes, 122.41(n)
                                 40 CFR 403.17
                                    Bypass
                                      IUs
                               Control Authority
                                 CASE BY CASE
     Verbal report within 24 hours of upset and written report with 5 days
                                Yes, 122.41(m)

      The NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule will alleviate state programs from entering many pretreatment data elements into ICIS-NPDES as these data will be submitted by the POTW (control authority) or significant industrial user (for facilities in cities or states without approved programs). Section 6.3 identifies the program reports and data elements that are candidates for electronic reporting. The following definitions are useful in understanding the responsible report preparer and signatory and report reviewer as defined by EPA regulations.

               *       "Approval Authority" is defined in Section 403.3(c): "Director in an NPDES State with an approved State pretreatment program and the appropriate Regional Administrator in a non-NPDES State or NPDES State without an approved State pretreatment program."

               *       "Control Authority" is defined in Section 403.3(f): (1) The POTW if the POTW's Pretreatment Program Submission has been approved in accordance with the requirements of §403.11; or (2) the Approval Authority if the Submission has not been approved."

               *       "Director" is defined at Section 403.3(g) as "the chief administrative officer of a State or Interstate water pollution control agency with an NPDES permit program approved pursuant to section 402(b) of the Act and an approved State pretreatment program."

      There are other program reports that are not good candidates for electronic reporting. The regulations at 40 CFR 403.10 provide the application and reporting requirements for the states to seek approval from EPA to run their State pretreatment program. States are required to implement the pretreatment program requirements set forth in 40 CFR 403.8(f) for the IUs in their jurisdictions. The state must identify and characterize IUs; issue control mechanisms; conduct oversight monitoring (sampling and inspections); request, receive, and analyze required reports from its IUs; and enforce against pretreatment program and control mechanism violations. Regulations at 40 CFR 403.11 provide procedures and reporting requirements for approving, denying, or modifying requests for approval of POTW Pretreatment Programs and applications for removal credit authorization. The reporting requirements at Parts 403.10 and the reporting procedures in 403.11 can be extensive and contain a mix of non-standardized quantitative and narrative data so may not be good candidates for electronic submission. Examples of other reports that might be identified as not appropriate for electronic submission are: 403.9 (POTW pretreatment programs and/or authorization to revise pretreatment standards: Submission for approval), 403.10 (Development and submission of NPDES State pretreatment program), 403.13 (Variances from categorical pretreatment standards for fundamentally different factors), 403.15 (Net/Gross calculations) or 403.18 (Modifications of POTW pretreatment programs).Likewise, there may be other reports required by enforcement actions (e.g., administrative orders. These reporting requirements are also one-time or infrequent events. Consequently, the Team recommends that these program reports remain as paper-based reports.

      Finally, it is noteworthy that only one pretreatment data element PRET [Pretreatment Program Required Indicator] is included in EPA's IDEA database and even that code is not made available through the ECHO or OTIS website. Without direct access to PCS or ICIS-NPDES there is no ability to gain access to pretreatment data submitted by the EPA Regions and states.

6.2.1 	Industrial User Reports

        These reports are submitted by Industrial Users to the Control Authority (POTW, state, or EPA Region). Currently there is no known existing national or state system to facilitate the online data entry, signature, and submission of these program report data. Under current procedures, paper-based program reports are filled out by IU/SIUs and provided to their Control Authority.

         * 40 CFR 403.6 	provides industrial users with the ability to request written certification on the categorical pretreatment standards that apply to their operations ("Categorical Determination Request").

         * 40 CFR 403.12(b) addresses "Baseline Monitoring Reports": "...Industrial users [that are subject to categorical pretreatment standards]... shall submit to the Control Authority a report which contains the information listed in paragraphs (b)(1)  -  (7) of this section." The information identified in this section to be submitted is similar to a permit application and, if applicable, a schedule by which the industrial user can meet the standards if it does not meet the standards at the time of submittal.

         * 40 CFR 403.12(d) addresses "Report on compliance with categorical pretreatment standard Deadline": "any Industrial User subject to Pretreatment Standards and Requirements shall submit to the Control Authority a report containing the information described in paragraphs (b) (4)-(6) of this section".

         * 40 CFR 403.12(e) addresses "Periodic reports on continued compliance":" ...(1) any Industrial User ... shall submit to the Control Authority... a report indicating the nature and concentration of pollutants in the effluent which are limited by such categorical Pretreatment Standards." These reports are similar to DMRs in the NPDES permit program.

         * 40 CFR 403.12(f) addresses "Notice of potential problems, including slug loading": "All categorical and non-categorical Industrial Users shall notify the POTW immediately of all discharges that could cause problems to the POTW..."

         * 40 CFR 403.12(g) addresses the requirement for SIUs to report within 24 hours of becoming aware of a violation and the requirement to re-sample and submit within 30 days.

         * 40 CFR 403.12(h) addresses "Reporting requirements for Industrial Users not subject to categorical Pretreatment Standards": "...Significant Non-categorical Industrial Users must submit to the Control Authority at least once every six months (on dates specified by the Control Authority) a description of the nature, concentration, and flow of the pollutants required to be reported by the Control Authority..." These reports are similar to DMRs in the NPDES permit program.

         * 40 CFR 403.12(j) addresses "Notification of changed Discharge": "...All Industrial Users shall promptly notify the Control Authority (and the POTW if the POTW is not the Control Authority) in advance of any substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants in their Discharge, including the listed or characteristic hazardous wastes for which the Industrial User has submitted initial notification under paragraph (p) of this section."

         * 40 CFR 403.12(p) addresses "any [Industrial User] discharge into the POTW of a substance, which, if otherwise disposed of, would be a hazardous waste": "The Industrial User shall notify the POTW, the EPA Regional Waste Management Division Director, and State hazardous waste authorities in writing of any discharge into the POTW of a substance, which, if otherwise disposed of, would be a hazardous waste under 40 CFR part 261." This requirement also requires that the IU submit certification to the Control Authority that the IU has a program in place to reduce the volume and toxicity of the hazardous waste discharges to the degree that it has determined to be economically practicable.

         * 40 CFR 122.44(j)(1) addresses Characterizing SIUs, in terms of volume and character of pollutants. This regulation requires POTWs to "Identify, in terms of character and volume of pollutants, any Significant Industrial Users discharging into the POTW subject to Pretreatment Standards under section 307(b) of CWA and 40 CFR part 403." Further, this regulations requires POTWs to "Provide a written technical evaluation of the need to revise local limits under 40 CFR 403.5(c)(1), following permit issuance or reissuance."

         * 40 CFR 403.12(q) addresses "Annual certification by Non-Significant Categorical Industrial Users": "A facility determined to be a Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User pursuant to Sec. 403.3(v)(2) must annually submit the following certification statement, signed in accordance with the signatory requirements in paragraph (l) of this section. This certification must accompany any alternative report required by the Control Authority..." Although "facility" is not separately defined, the term "Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User" is defined within the definition of Significant Industrial User in 40 CFR 403.3(v)(2).

         * 40 CFR 403.16(c)(3) addresses the "Upset" Regulation. "An Industrial User who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of Upset shall ... submit the following information to the POTW and Control Authority within 24 hours of becoming aware of the Upset (if this information is provided orally, a written submission must be provided within five days): (i) A description of the Indirect Discharge and cause of noncompliance; (ii) The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times or, if not corrected, the anticipated time the noncompliance is expected to continue; (iii) Steps being taken and/or planned to reduce, eliminate and prevent recurrence of the noncompliance." These regulations are similar to the "Upset" regulations for the NPDES permit program.

         * 40 CFR 403.17(c) addresses the "Bypass" Regulation. "If an Industrial User knows in advance of the need for a bypass, it shall submit prior notice to the Control Authority, if possible at least ten days before the date of the bypass. An Industrial User shall submit oral notice of an unanticipated bypass that exceeds applicable Pretreatment Standards to the Control Authority within 24 hours from the time the Industrial User becomes aware of the bypass. A written submission shall also be provided within 5 days of the time the Industrial User becomes aware of the bypass. The written submission shall contain a description of the bypass and its cause; the duration of the bypass, including exact dates and times, and, if the bypass has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is expected to continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the bypass. The Control Authority may waive the written report on a case-by-case basis if the oral report has been received within 24 hours." These regulations are similar to the "Bypass" regulations for the NPDES permit program.

      As noted earlier, failure to track and enforce compliance of SIUs for which states and EPA are the control authorities was cited as a weakness by EPA's Office of Inspector General in its 2004 pretreatment program report. There are some states that do not track or enforce compliance of SIUs in cities without approved pretreatment programs. When tracked, IU data are infrequently entered into national databases and, when they are entered, are often incorrectly entered. For example, many states and EPA personnel believe that individual IU data cannot be entered into ICIS or PCS. Electronic receipt of basic IU information and IU monitoring efforts would facilitate tracking of compliance report receipt and IU compliance with control mechanism requirements, and EPA would be able to identify all SIUs, their applicable categorical pretreatment standards, and their related discharge data in cities without approved pretreatment programs.

6.2.2 	Control Authority Reports

        These reports are submitted by POTWs with approved Pretreatment Program to the Approval Authority, which can either be a delegated state program or an EPA Region. Currently there is no known existing national or state system to facilitate the online data entry, signature, and submission of these program report data. Under current procedures, paper-based Program Reports are filled out by Control Authorities and provided to their Approval Authority.

         * 40 CFR 403.7 provides the reporting requirements for control authorities to request authorization from the Approval Authority to grant removal credits to industrial users.

         * 40 CFR 403.12(i) addresses "Annual POTW Reports": "POTWs with approved Pretreatment Programs shall provide the Approval Authority with a report that briefly describes the POTW's program activities, including activities of all participating agencies, if more than one jurisdiction is involved in the local program." At a minimum this report must contain the following:
               (1) An updated list of the POTW's Industrial Users, including their names and addresses, or a list of deletions and additions keyed to a previously submitted list. The POTW shall provide a brief explanation of each deletion. This list shall identify which Industrial Users are subject to categorical Pretreatment Standards and specify which Standards are applicable to each Industrial User. The list shall indicate which Industrial Users are subject to local standards that are more stringent than the categorical Pretreatment Standards. The POTW shall also list the Industrial Users that are subject only to local Requirements. The list must also identify Industrial Users subject to categorical Pretreatment Standards that are subject to reduced reporting requirements under paragraph (e)(3), and identify which Industrial Users are Non-Significant Categorical Industrial Users.
               (2) A summary of the status of Industrial User compliance over the reporting period;
               (3) A summary of compliance and enforcement activities (including inspections) conducted by the POTW during the reporting period;
               (4) A summary of changes to the POTW's pretreatment program that have not been previously reported to the Approval Authority; and
               (5) Any other relevant information requested by the Approval Authority.

        It is worth noting that in practice Control Authorities only report on Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and the Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs), not the entire list of Industrial Users (which includes restaurants and any other non-domestic source of wastewater). The Office of Water notes that quantification of the SIUs and CIUs is needed to calculate burden hours for their programmatic Information Collection Request (a prerequisite to run the national program). The listing of SIUs and CIUs (and not IUs) is also necessary to determine if a POTW Pretreatment Program is in SNC for failure to implement its pretreatment program and should be on the QNCR (if the facilities have too high percentage of expired control mechanisms, too many facilities in long term SNC, etc., hinting at some issue with oversight deficiencies). Consequently, EPA may wish to reduce the reporting burden on POTWs to only report on SIUs and CIUs and not include all other IUs.

         * 40 CFR 403.12(k) addresses "Compliance Schedule for POTWs": "The following conditions and reporting requirements shall apply to the compliance schedule for development of an approvable POTW Pretreatment Program required by Sec. 403.8. . . the POTW shall submit a progress report to the Approval Authority including, as a minimum, whether or not it complied with the increment of progress to be met on such date and, if not, the date on which it expects to comply with this increment of progress, the reason for delay, and the steps taken by the POTW to return to the schedule established."

         * 40 CFR 122.42(b) addresses POTW disclosure requirements on Industrial User discharges for NPDES permitting. This regulation states that "All POTWs must provide adequate notice to the [NPDES] Director of the following: (1) Any new introduction of pollutants into the POTW from an indirect discharger which would be subject to section 301 or 306 of CWA if it were directly discharging those pollutants; and (2) Any substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants being introduced into that POTW by a source introducing pollutants into the POTW at the time of issuance of the [NPDES] permit. (3) For purposes of this paragraph, adequate notice shall include information on (i) the quality and quantity of effluent introduced into the POTW, and (ii) any anticipated impact of the change on the quantity or quality of effluent to be discharged from the POTW."

         * Follow Up reports required by Audits/PCIs or enforcement actions?

6.3 	Pretreatment Program Report Recommended for Inclusion in the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule

        The regulatory framework for the pretreatment program is as comprehensive as the NPDES permit program. There are numerous reporting requirements that vary from one-time events to more frequent reports (e.g., biannual compliance monitoring reports by CIUs to their Control Authority). Adding more complexity is the fact that the recipient of these program reports depends on whether the POTW or state has been granted authorization to act as a Control Authority or Approval Authority. Consequently, the Team evaluated the ability and need to convert paper-based pretreatment program reports to electronic reports against the following factors: (1) the ability to standardize a pretreatment report; (2) the frequency of the pretreatment report (e.g., one-time or very infrequent reporting may not warrant conversion to electronic reporting); (3) the need to collect and manage data from the pretreatment report on a national basis for measuring programmatic and compliance activities; and (4) whether summary data from various paper-based reports could be combined into a new electronic based reports. Reports that are not considered candidates for electronic reporting for the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule will remain as paper-based reporting requirements. Additionally, the pretreatment program reports that are not considered candidates for this rulemaking may be good candidates for being managed as electronic documents (e.g., searchable PDFs) and posting on EPA, state, or local government websites. Making these documents available to the public will provide added transparency on the pretreatment program. The Team solicits input on whether such pretreatment reports should be included in the rulemaking but managed as static electronic documents (e.g., searchable PDFs).

        Using the above three criteria the Team identified that the following reports are not likely good candidates for electronic reporting on a national basis.

   * 40 CFR 403.6 	Categorical determination request;
   * 40 CFR 403.7	Removal credits;
   * 40 CFR 403.10 	State pretreatment program applications;
   *    40 CFR 403.11	Approval procedures for POTW pretreatment programs and POTW granting of removal credits;
   * 40 CFR 403.12(b)	Baseline monitoring report;
   * 40 CFR 403.12(d)	Initial report on compliance with categorical pretreatment standard;
   * 40 CFR 403.12(f)	Notice of potential problems including slug loadings;
   * 40 CFR 403.12(j)	Notice of change in Industrial User discharge;
   * 40 CFR 403.12(k)	Compliance schedule for POTW pretreatment program;
   * 40 CFR 403.12(p)	Hazardous waste notification and BMP certification;
   * 40 CFR 122.42(b)	POTW disclosure requirements to NPDES Director;
   * 40 CFR 403.12(q)	Annual certification by Non-significant CIUs
   *    40 CFR 403.16	Upset notification;
   *    40 CFR 403.17 	Bypass notification; and
   *    40 CFR 403.18 	Modification of POTW pretreatment programs.

      The team recommends adding summary data to the annual POTW report on slug loadings, upset notifications and bypass notifications.

        However, the Team identified that summary data from these reports are good candidates for electronic reporting. In particular, summary data from the following reports can be electronically submitted by the Control Authority through their Annual POTW Report (40 CFR 403.12(i)). For example, Control Authorities can identify in their Annual POTW Report the number of Slug Loadings Reports (40 CFR 403.12(f)) reported by each Industrial User.

   *	40 CFR 403.6 	Categorical determination request;
   *	40 CFR 403.7	Removal credits;
   *	40 CFR 403.12(f)	Notice of potential problems including slug loadings;
   *	40 CFR 403.12(j)	Notice of change in Industrial User discharge;
   *	40 CFR 403.12(p)	Hazardous waste notification and BMP certification;
   *	40 CFR 403.12(q)	Annual certification by Non-significant CIUs;
   *	40 CFR 122.42(b)	POTW disclosure requirements to NPDES Director;
   *    40 CFR 122.44(j)(1)	POTW disclosure requirements to NPDES Director (SIUs, need to evaluate local limits after permit reissuance
                       *	40 CFR 403.16	Upset notification;
   *	40 CFR 403.17 	Bypass notification

	The Team also noted that the following Industrial User reports should be collected electronically for Industrial Users in cities without approved pretreatment programs. This will facilitate tracking and enforcing compliance of IUs for which states and EPA are the control authorities.

   *	40 CFR 403.12(e)	Periodic reports on continued compliance for CIUs
   *	40 CFR 403.12(h)	Periodic reports on continued compliance for Non-CIUs

        The Team also noted that the following Control Authority report should be collected electronically: Annual POTW Report (40 CFR 403.12 (i)). As previously noted, the Team also recommends that this annual report include summary data from paper-based reports that are not candidates for electronic reporting, especially data on by pass and upset notifications and slug loadings and a quantification summary of the reports received by the POTW.

        The following tables provide a listing of the data elements that are specific to the two Industrial User reports (40 CFR 403.12(e) and (h)) and the Annual POTW Report (40 CFR 403.12(h)). Compliance monitoring data from Industrial Users will also be submitted using data elements that are also used for Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) (e.g., initial monitoring date).

SNC Published in Newspaper Flag
An indication as to which Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial Users (NSCIUs) in SNC were published in the newspapers.
SNC with Pretreatment Schedule Flag
An indication as to which Significant Industrial Users (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial Users (NSCIU) were in SNC with pretreatment schedules.
Date of Most Recent Adoption of Technically Based Local Limits
The date on which the Control Authority has technically evaluated the need for local limits. The date data must be provided in CCYY-MM-DD format where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the month and DD is the day.
Date of Most Recent Technical Evaluation & or Local Limits
The date on which the Control Authority adopted local limits for pollutants. The date data must be provided in CCYY-MM-DD format where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the month and DD is the day.
Local Limits Pollutants
This is the list of the pollutants for which the Control Authority derived, which is calculated using data from the headworks of the POTW.
POTW Discharge Contamination Indicator (Program Report)
The flag indicating if there have been any problems (including upset, bypass, interference, pass-through) with the receiving POTW's effluent discharge within the previous 12 months.
POTW Biosolids Contamination Indicator (Program Report)
The flag indicating if there have been any problems (including upset, bypass, interference, pass-through) with the receiving POTW's biosolids within the previous 12 months.
Removal Credits Application Status
The status of the POTW's application for administering removal credits.
Date of Most Recent Removal Credits Approval
This is the date the POTW's application for removal credits was approved by the Approval Authority. The date data must be provided in CCYY-MM-DD format where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the month and DD is the day.
Removal Credits Pollutants
This field contains a list of pollutants for which the Approval Authority granted the POTW authorization to administer removal credits.
Industrial User Name (Program Report)
The name of each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW.
Industrial User Address (Program Report)
The mailing address of each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW.
Industrial User City (Program Report)
The name of the city, town, village, or other locality, when identifiable, within whose boundaries (the majority of) for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW.
Industrial User State (Program Report)
The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) abbreviation that represents the state or state equivalent for the U.S. for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW.
Industrial User Zip Code (Program Report)
The combination of the 5-digit Zone Improvement Plan (ZIP) code and the 4-digit extension code (if available) that represents the geographic segment that is a sub unit of the ZIP Code assigned by the U.S. Postal Service to a geographic location for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW.
Industrial User SIU Flag
This code/description will identify whether the Industrial User is a Significant Industrial Users (SIU).
Industrial User Control Mechanism Flag
This code/description will identify whether the Industrial User has a Control Mechanism.
Industrial User Control Mechanism Expiration Date
The date when the Control Mechanism for the Industrial User will expire. The date data must be provided in CCYY-MM-DD format where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the month and DD is the day.
Industrial User Subject to Categorical Standards and Type (Program Report)
This code/description will identify whether the Industrial User is a Categorical Industrial Users (CIU) and its type (including Standard CIU, Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU), and Middle Tier Categorical Industrial User).
Applicable Categorical Standards (Program Report)
This data element will identify for each Categorical Industrial User (CIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW the applicable categorical pretreatment standards.
Industrial User Subject to Local Limits (Program Report)
This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW whether the IU is subject to local limits.
Industrial User Subject to Local Limits More Stringent Than Categorical Standards (Program Report)
This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW whether the IU is subject to local limits that are more stringent than the applicable categorical standards.
SNC with Pretreatment Standards (Program Report)
This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW whether the IU was in Significant Non-Compliance (SNC) with discharge requirements (including effluent limit violations) in the previous 12 months.
SNC with Reporting Requirements (Program Report)
This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW whether the IU was in Significant Non-Compliance (SNC) with reporting requirements (including baseline monitoring reports, notice of potential problems, periodic self monitoring reports, notice of change in Industrial User discharge, hazardous waste notification and BMP certification) in the previous 12 months.
SNC with Other Control Mechanism Requirements (Program Report)
This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW whether the IU was in Significant Non-Compliance (SNC) with any other control mechanism requirements in the previous 12 months.
Number of Quarters in SNC
This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW the number of yearly quarters the IU is in SNC in the previous 12 months.
Number of Industrial User Inspections
This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) the number of inspections conducted by the Control Authority in the previous 12 months.
Number of Industrial User Sampling Events
This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) the number of sampling events conducted by the Control Authority in the previous 12 months.
Number of Industrial User Violation Notices
This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) the number of formal notices of violation or equivalent actions issued by the Control Authority in the previous 12 months.
Administrative Orders Issued to IUs (Program Report)
This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) the number of administrative orders issued by the Control Authority in the previous 12 months.
Civil Suits Filed Against IUs (Program Report)
This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) the number of civil suits filed by the Control Authority in the previous 12 months.
Criminal Suits Filed Against IUs (Program Report)
This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) the number of criminal suits filed by the Control Authority in the previous 12 months.
Industrial User Cash Civil Penalty Amount Assessed
For civil judicial Enforcement Actions, the dollar amount of the penalty assessed against each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) in the previous 12 months as specified in the final entered Consent Decree or Court Order. For Administrative Enforcement Actions, it is the dollar amount of the penalty assessed in the Consent/Final Order.
Industrial User Cash Civil Penalty Amount Collected
For civil judicial Enforcement Actions, the dollar amount of the penalty collected from each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) in the previous 12 months. For Administrative Enforcement Actions, it is the dollar amount collected of the penalty assessed in the Consent/Final Order.
Industrial User POTW Discharge Contamination Indicator (Program Report)
This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) whether the Industrial User caused or contributed to any problems with the receiving POTW's effluent discharge in the previous reporting period. EPA regulations require the Control Authority to develop and enforce local limits when the discharge from an IU causes or contributes to any problems (including upset, bypass, interference, pass-through) at the receiving POTW.
Industrial User Biosolids Contamination Indicator (Program Report)
This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) whether the Industrial User caused or contributed to any problems with the receiving POTW's biosolids in the previous reporting period. EPA regulations require the Control Authority to develop and enforce local limits when the discharge from an IU causes or contributes to any problems (including upset, bypass, interference, pass-through) at the receiving POTW.
Industrial User Process Wastewater Flow Rate (Program Report)
This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW the process wastewater flow rate (in gallons per day).
Type of Significant Industrial User Process Wastewater Flow (Program Report)
This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW the type of process wastewater flow (continuous or intermittent).
Significant Industrial User Non-Process Wastewater Flow Rate (Program Report)
This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW the non-process wastewater flow rate (in gallons per day).
Type of Significant Industrial User Non-Process Wastewater Flow (Program Report)
This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW the type of non-process wastewater flow (continuous or intermittent).
Industrial User Removal Credits Flag
This code/description will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) whether the POTW has granted the IU removal credits.
Industrial User Removal Credits Pollutants
This code/description will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) the list of pollutants for which POTW has granted the IU removal credits.
Industrial User Reduced Reporting Flag
This code/description will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) whether the Control Authority has granted reduced reporting requirements [403.12(e)(3)].
Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) Certification to Control Authority
This code/description will identify for each Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) whether it has given its annual compliance certification.
Control Authority Budget Resources
Annual pretreatment implementation budget.

6.4	Key Programmatic and Compliance Questions and Metrics

        A common theme found across all NPDES program sectors is that there are major limitations with the current NPDES program and enforcement data collection, management, analysis, and reporting activities. These limitations exist in part because the existing data management requirements originated when "major" individually permitted dischargers were the main focus of the NPDES program. EPA has not issued sufficiently clear guidance and support materials relating to program and data entry expectations regarding other NPDES programs (e.g., pretreatment, biosolids, wet weather, CAFOs). Consequently, EPA's data systems are not fully meeting the needs of EPA and the state NPDES programs to address questions about the activities and performance of the various programs. This lack of clarity undermines the importance of current data collection, management, analysis, and reporting.

        The Team behind this paper identified the following key programmatic and compliance questions and metrics. These key questions and metrics are derived from statutory obligations, programmatic needs (e.g., re-issuance of information collection requests, GPRA performance measures), and enforcement obligations. The Team recommends that these key programmatic and compliance questions be used to develop web-based annual reports for the pretreatment sector that demonstrate in plain language the effectiveness of the NPDES program and compliance activities.

6.4.1	Will the needs of EPA and the states be met through this proposal?

        The collection, management, analysis, and reporting of data from the pretreatment reports identified for conversion from paper-based reporting to electronic reporting will fully meet the needs of EPA and the states. For example, the pretreatment data collected electronically will enable EPA, states, and the public to more readily answer the following questions:

           *          Number and names of POTWs with approved pretreatment programs;
           *          Number and names of POTWs that are not required to have pretreatment programs;
           *          Number and names of industrial users (IUs) in cities without pretreatment programs inspected or sampled during a time period (not just as part of audits);
           *          Number of significant industrial users (SIUs) and categorical industrial users (CIUs) in approved pretreatment programs and number without permits or with expired permits;
           *          Number of SIUs and CIUs in cities without pretreatment programs and number without permits;
           *          Number and name of IUs in cities without pretreatment programs that are in compliance/not in compliance with their monitoring/reporting requirements;
           *          Number of SIUs discharging to POTWs with pretreatment programs that are not inspected or sampled annually by the CA;
           *          Number and names of IUs that have been issued enforcement actions including the type of enforcement (SNC publication, AO, APO), who issued it (EPA, state, POTW), and any dollar amounts;
           *          Number and names of POTWs that are late in submitting local limits reevaluations;
           *          Number and names of POTWs that are required to submit local limits reevaluations and the dates the submissions are due;
           *          Numbers and names of POTWs in various stages of local limits development and approval;
           *          Number and names of SIUs that have had SNC violations in the last two consecutive years;
           *          Number of enforcement actions taken against SIUs;
           *          Number of SIUs in SNC that have been published in the local paper;
           *          Number of incidents of pass-through and/or interference at POTWs;
           *          Number and names of POTWs with control mechanism deficiencies;
           *          Number and names of POTWs with SIU sampling and inspection deficiencies;
           *          Number and names of POTWs with inadequate pretreatment resources;
           *          NPDES permit compliance for POTWs with approved pretreatment programs (reportable or significant noncompliance);
           *          Sludge compliance for POTW with approved pretreatment programs;
           *          Number and names of POTWs that have exceeded their influent, effluent, or sludge goals;
           *          Numbers and names of POTWs that have not incorporated the required pretreatment streamlining revisions into their legal authority;
           *          Numbers and names of POTWs that have incorporated the optional pretreatment streamlining revisions into their legal authority;
           *          Numbers and names of POTWs in various stages of pretreatment streamlining approval;
           *          Numbers and names of POTWs that are late in submitting annual reports;
           *          Numbers and names of POTWs whose annual reports have been reviewed/not been reviewed; and
           *          Identification POTW with approved pretreatment programs that are covered by a TMDL or other 303d listing.

6.4.2	Will EPA or the states need specific reports to better access or use this information?

        Improvements to ECHO and OTIS will be required in order to make full use of the pretreatment data identified for conversion from paper-based reporting. The Team recommends that these key programmatic and compliance questions be used to develop web-based annual reports for the pretreatment sector that demonstrate in plain language the effectiveness of the NPDES program and compliance activities. Similar to the ECHO website for the Annual Noncompliance Report for individual permitted non-majors, these web-based reports will use the list of performance questions from the program management plans to allow viewers to query results at various scales (watershed, state, regional, National). These web-based annual reports would provide regulated entities, states, EPA and the public with an easy way to retrieve data. The public could run standardized reports to see information on regulated facilities. These web-based annual reports would present an easy to use front-end, with the underlying data bases (such as ICIS, IDEA, OTIS, ECHO and state NPDES systems) operating in the background via the Exchange Network to support all the functionality.

        These web-based annual reports can also provide the public with an easy way to assess the performances of different regulatory agencies. For example, Region 9 provided the Team with a draft conceptual model on how to assess the performance of different Control Authorities. The data to support this conceptual model would be electronically captured and stored in ICIS-NPDES and IDEA.

        Figure 6-1: Pretreatment Program Performance Measures Conceptual Model

6.5 	Data Elements Supporting Key Programmatic and Compliance Questions and Metrics

        The following table identifies the questions that EPA, states, and the public will be able to answer with the new electronic data collection, management, and reporting from the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule.

              Table 6-4: Data Elements Supporting Key Programmatic
                      and Compliance Questions and Metrics
                                  Key Question
                             Required Data Elements
                            Purpose of Key Question
Number and names of industrial users (IUs) in cities without pretreatment programs inspected and/or sampled during a time period (not just as part of audits)
IU name / identifier ( Not in ICIS?), POTW identifier; inspection flag  -  NOIN- opposite;
       Control Authority NPDES ID; SIUs Not Inspected; SIUs Not Sampled
Checking inspection coverage against the Compliance Monitoring Strategy for approval authority;
                     Implications for CA compliance status
Number of SIUs and CIUs in approved pretreatment programs and number without permits

SIUs; SIUs Without Control Mechanism; CIUs; Number of NSCIUs; Number of Middle Tier CIUs;

 GPRA; Question Assists Renewal of Programmatic ICR; Determination of RNC/SNC
Number and names of POTWs that are late in submitting local limits reevaluations
          NPDES ID; local limit reevaluation due date (not in ICIS?)
Control authority management; General interest; Congressional interest; program implementation
Number and names of POTWs that are required to submit local limits reevaluations and the dates the submissions are due
  NPDES ID; local limit re-evaluation flag; local limit reevaluation due date
Control authority management; General interest; Congressional interest; program implementation
Numbers and names of POTWs in various stages of local limits development and approval
NPDES ID; Date of Most Recent Adoption of Technically Based Local Limits; Date of Most Recent Technical Evaluation & or Local Limits; local limit reevaluation flag (not in ICIS?); local limit reevaluation due date (not in ICIS?)
Control authority management; General interest; Congressional interest; program implementation
Number and names of SIUs that have had SNC violations in the last two consecutive years
SIUs; SIUs in SNC with Pretreatment Standards; SIUs in SNC with Reporting Requirements; SIUs in SNC with Pretreatment Schedule
            Determination of RNC/SNC; general enforcement interest
NPDES permit compliance for POTWs with approved pretreatment programs
              NPDES ID; Pretreatment Program Required Indicator;
Pretreatment Program Approved Date; various violations indicators already in ICIS, depending on violation
Implications for POTW compliance status; general enforcement interest; Determination of RNC/SNC
Sludge compliance for POTW with approved pretreatment programs
                   NPDES ID; Sludge Contamination Indicator
                             Enforcement interest?
Number and names of POTWs that have exceeded their influent, effluent, or sludge goals
NPDES ID; various violations indicators already in ICIS, depending on violation
     Implications for POTW compliance status; general enforcement interest

Numbers and names of POTWs that have not incorporated the required pretreatment streamlining revisions into their legal authority;

         NPDES ID; Program Modification Date for Required Streamlining
General program interest; Implications for CA compliance status; program implementation
Numbers and names of POTWs in various stages of pretreatment streamlining approval
      POTW name /identifier; pretreat streamlining approval flag (code?)
                          Control Authority interest?
Numbers and names of POTWs that are late in submitting annual reports
NPDES ID; Annual Report Due Date (NOT IN ICIS); Annual Report Receipt Date (NOT IN ICIS)
        General program interest; Implications for CA compliance status
Numbers and names of POTWs whose annual reports have been reviewed/not been reviewed
        NPDES ID; Annual Report Receipt Date; Annual Report Review Date
        General program interest; Implications for CA compliance status
Identification POTW with approved pretreatment programs that are covered by a TMDL or other 303d listing
                       POTW name/ identifier; TMDL flag
                General interest - prioritize for inspections.
Number and names of POTWs with approved pretreatment programs

              NPDES ID; Pretreatment Program Required Indicator;
                      Pretreatment Program Approved Date
General interest; Congressional interest; GPRA; Question Assists Renewal of Programmatic ICR
Number and names of POTWs that are not required to have pretreatment programs

POTW name /identifier; ; Pretreatment Program Required Indicator; Need new indicator code for facilities that have been determined NOT to need a pretreatment program, so we can distinguish them from POTWs that haven't been evaluated yet for the need to develop a pretreatment program

                      Pretreatment Program Approved Date
General interest; Congressional interest; GPRA; Question Assists Renewal of Programmatic ICR
Number of SIUs and CIUs in cities without pretreatment programs and number without permits
Control Authority NPDES ID; SIUs; SIUs Without Control Mechanism; CIUs; Number of NSCIUs; Number of Middle Tier CIUs;
 GPRA; Question Assists Renewal of Programmatic ICR; Determination of RNC/SNC
Number and name of IUs in cities without pretreatment programs that are in compliance/not in compliance with their monitoring/reporting requirements
Control Authority NPDES ID; SIUs in SNC with Pretreatment Standards; SIUs in SNC with Reporting Requirements; Violation Notices Issued to SIUs
                           Determination of RNC/SNC
Number of SIUs discharging to POTWs with pretreatment programs that are not inspected or sampled annually by the CA
                     SIUs Not Inspected; SIUs Not Sampled
                           Determination of RNC/SNC
Number of enforcement actions taken against SIUs
Violation Notices Issued to SIUs; Administrative Orders Issued to SIUs; Civil Suits Filed Against SIUs; Criminal Suits Filed Against SIUs; Industrial Users (IUs) from which Penalties have been collected
      Implications for CA compliance status; general enforcement interest
Number of SIUs in SNC that have been published in the local paper
                      SIUs in SNC Published in Newspaper
      Implications for CA compliance status; general enforcement interest
Number of incidents of pass-through and/or interference at POTWs
                     Pass-Through/ Interference Indicator
Implications for CA compliance status; general enforcement interest; Determination of RNC/SNC; OECA
Number and names of POTWs with control mechanism deficiencies
                        Control Mechanism deficiencies
                           Determination of RNC/SNC
Number and names of POTWs with SIU sampling and inspection deficiencies
                    Inadequacy of sampling and inspections
                           Determination of RNC/SNC
Number and names of POTWs with inadequate pretreatment resources
                      Adequacy of pretreatment resources
Implications for CA compliance status; general interest; program implementation
Numbers and names of POTWs that have incorporated the optional pretreatment streamlining revisions into their legal authority
NPDES ID; Program Modification Date for Optional Streamlining; Optional Streamlining Program Modification Type
               General program interest; program implementation

                                  Appendix A

                   Analysis F (Program Reports) Team Members

                               Workgroup Member
                                 Organization
                            Biosolids/Pretreatment
Carey Johnston (Lead)
                           OECA/Office of Compliance
Virginia Lathrop
                           OECA/Office of Compliance
Peter Bahor
                           OECA/Office of Compliance
Laura Paradise
                           OECA/Office of Compliance
Ginny Phillips
                       OECA/Office of Civil Enforcement
Jan Pickrel
                      OW/Office of Wastewater Management
Robin Danesi
                      OW/Office of Wastewater Management
Chrystal Beasley
                      OW/Office of Wastewater Management
Rick Stevens
                      OW/Office of Science and Technology
                                     CAFOs
Michael Mundell
                           OECA/Office of Compliance
Al Havinga
                           OECA/Office of Compliance
Kathryn Greenwald
                       OECA/Office of Civil Enforcement
Carol Galloway
                                 EPA/Region 7
Nina Bonnelycke
                      OW/Office of Wastewater Management
 Combined Sewer Systems/ Separate Sewer Systems (including satellite systems)
Andrew Cherry
                       OECA/Office of Civil Enforcement
Bob Klepp
                       OECA/Office of Civil Enforcement
Mohammed Billah
                      OW/Office of Wastewater Management
Kevin Weiss
                      OW/Office of Wastewater Management
Charles Glass
                      OW/Office of Wastewater Management
              Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer Systems (MS4s)
Kelly Brantner
                      OW/Office of Wastewater Management
Holly Galavotti
                      OW/Office of Wastewater Management