[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 158 (Friday, August 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49647-49648]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17825]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD20-9-000]

Hybrid Resources; Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference
Comments

    On July 23, 2020, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission)
staff convened a technical conference to discuss technical and market
issues prompted by growing interest in hybrid resources.
    All interested persons are invited to file post-technical
conference comments to address issues raised during the technical
conference and identified in the Supplemental Notice of Technical
Conference issued July 13, 2020. For reference, the questions included
in the Supplemental Notice are included below. Commenters need not
answer all of the questions, but commenters are encouraged to organize
responses using the numbering and order in the below questions.
Commenters are also invited to reference material previously filed in
this docket but are encouraged to avoid repetition or replication of
previous material. Comments must be submitted on or before 45 days from
the date of this Notice.
    Comments may be filed electronically via the internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's website
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please
contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free
at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission
strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-
filed. To paper-file, mail an original and five copies to: Kimberly D.
Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE, Washington, DC 20426.

Questions

    1. While this conference uses the term hybrid resources to refer to
resources consisting of a generation resource and an electric storage
resource paired together, we recognize that these resources can be
configured differently, from the generation resource and energy storage
resource being located at the same facility but operating separately
(``co-located'') to the generating facility and energy storage facility
operating as one ``hybrid'' resource. How are these two terms used in
the industry? What configurations are most common, and are there new
configurations emerging?
    2. What are some of the indicators of increasing interest by
developers in hybrid resources? Where and in what circumstances does
interest in hybrid resources appear to be greater? Approximately what
percentage of interconnection requests for resources in interconnection
queues are composed of hybrid resources? Has there been an increase in
requests by hybrid resource developers to participate in energy,
capacity and ancillary services markets operated by RTOs/ISOs?
    3. How have the economics underlying hybrid technologies changed
over the last three to five years? What future trends do you anticipate
in this regard? Given these anticipated future trends, please comment
on how you anticipate hybrid resources might be configured going
forward. How could these changes impact interconnection requests?
    4. We understand that increasing numbers of hybrid resources are
participating as a single resource in energy, capacity and ancillary
services markets operated by RTOs/ISOs. What are the advantages to the
hybrid resource participating as a single resource? What are the
disadvantages?
    5. What factors are driving developers' decisions in how to
configure hybrid resources? For example, what factors do developers
consider when deciding to either charge the storage component of the
hybrid resource solely from a co-located generation resource or to
charge from the grid? In addition, alternating current coupling and
direct current coupling are two technical options for interconnection
of hybrid or co-located resources. What factors influence developers to
choose one form of coupling over another?
    6. How can an interconnection customer in your region propose to
interconnect a resource composed of two or more resource types,
operated as a single resource at a single point of interconnection?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of pairing resource types
into a single interconnection request?
    7. What are the benefits and challenges of adding an energy storage
resource to an existing generation resource? What are the benefits and
challenges of adding an energy storage resource to an existing
interconnection request that is already in an interconnection queue?
What additional studies would be required to do this, and would the
process be the same or different depending on whether the addition is
to an existing generation resource or to an existing interconnection
request? Also, with respect to the addition of an energy storage
resource to an existing generation resource, would the new storage
resource be subject to the full interconnection study process, and, if
so, would any aspect of the request or study process differ from a
traditional interconnection request for a new generating facility?
Under what circumstances would the addition of an energy storage
resource to an existing interconnection request be considered a
material modification that would require the interconnection customer
to go through the interconnection process again or obtain a new queue
position? Please describe how this request would be processed.
    8. How is the maximum output of a hybrid resource calculated
currently? How is the interconnection service request sized? For
example, is it sized to the combined maximum output of each of the
hybrid components, limited to a level of output that corresponds to how
the resource is expected to operate, or some other amount?

    9. If a hybrid resource opts not to be studied to charge from the
grid, is the resource allowed to later change its decision? If so, is
this change or possibility reflected in an interconnection agreement?
If so, how? If a hybrid resource seeks to make this type of change, is
there a requirement that the resource undergo an additional study or
studies?
    10. Are hybrid resources able to participate in the energy,
capacity and ancillary services markets operated by RTOs/ISOs using
existing frameworks or market rules? If so, how do they participate?
Are market rule changes needed to enable the participation of hybrid
resources? Are RTOs/ISOs exploring market rule changes, and if so, what
changes are they pursuing?
    11. Hybrid resources consisting of more than one technology type
could potentially participate in the market as the separate component
parts, or as a single integrated hybrid resource. Should hybrid
resources have a choice of whether to participate in the energy,
capacity and ancillary services markets operated by RTOs/ISOs as each
of the resource types or as a single resource type? If so, why is this
flexibility important?
    12. Does operating a hybrid resource as separate components (i.e.,
co-located) rather than as a single integrated resource create
challenges for RTOs/ISOs in accurately modeling whether hybrid
resources will provide operating reserves? If so, is this problem
addressed if the resource operates as a single integrated hybrid
resource?
    13. What is the current ability of RTOs/ISOs to model hybrid
resources? Is there a preferred approach?
    14. Hybrid resources with certain characteristics may be able to
provide essential reliability services. For example, when configured
with advanced controls, these resources may be able to provide fast
frequency response and dynamic voltage regulation. What considerations
(e.g., models, tools, training) are needed to improve planning and
operations models and utility practices to account for the various
controlled operating modes of hybrid and co-located resources?
    15. In some cases, RTOs/ISOs require variable energy resources to
provide data and forecasts of resource production based on weather and
other factors. Would the same requirements apply to hybrid resources
with a variable energy resource component, or how may these
requirements differ?
    16. Are existing dispatch systems in the RTOs/ISOs capable of
dispatching hybrid resources as a single resource? What are the
challenges and/or limitations of such dispatch?
    17. What are the technical considerations regarding state of charge
of the electric storage component of hybrid resources? Are there
different factors pertaining to state of charge that are dependent on
whether the resource is co-located or is operates as a single
integrated hybrid resource?
    18. Do existing RTO/ISO market power mitigation rules appropriately
recognize the particular operating characteristics of hybrid resources?
    19. Are there established best practices for metering a hybrid
resource for participation in wholesale markets? For example, with one
meter, or with multiple meters that provide visibility into individual
subcomponents or inverters, or some other configuration?
    20. What are any other potential implications, advantages, and
concerns for RTOs/ISOs regarding hybrid resources?
    21. How do RTOs/ISOs currently calculate the capacity value of
resources? Would those methods accommodate the characteristics of
hybrid resources, or would new or modified methods be needed?
    22. If new or modified methods are needed, how should the capacity
value, including any seasonal variations, be determined for hybrid
resources?
    23. If an interconnection customer proposes to add an additional
resource to an already existing resource or an existing interconnection
request, should the capacity value of the existing resource or the
existing interconnection request be modified? Why or why not? What
options exist for determining such changes to capacity value?
    24. What is the status of efforts in the RTOs/ISOs to define
Effective Load Carrying Capability for hybrid resources?
    For more information about this Notice, please contact: Kaitlin
Johnson (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and
Innovation,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: August 10, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-17825 Filed 8-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Date: October 29, 2014

Meeting:  Teleconference  -  "Supplemental Proposal"

Rule(s) Discussed: Clean Power Plan Proposal -- Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602

Attendee List:  Attached.  Presenters  -   Janet McCabe and Melanie King

Written Materials? Yes/No  -  Summary attached

Summary of Relevant, Factual Information Received:
EPA offered a stakeholder call about the Supplemental proposal associated with June 2014 Clean Power Plan proposal.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 88 (Friday, May 6, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26283-26284]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11086]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-3460-000]

Bayonne Energy Center, LLC; Supplemental Notice that Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Bayonne Energy Center, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is May 23, 2011.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the

Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also 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 e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 2, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-11086 Filed 5-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 147)]
[Notices]
[Page 42078-42079]
[DOCID:fr01au07-57]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-515; FRL-8139-4]

Experimental Use Permit; Receipt of Application

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt of an application 67979-EUP-6
from Syngenta Seeds, Inc. requesting an experimental use permit (EUP)
for the plant-incorporated protectants MIR162 Bacillus thuringiensis
Vip3Aa20 protein and the genetic material (plasmid vector pNOV1300)
necessary for its production in corn, Bt11 Bacillus thuringiensis
Cry1Ab protein and the genetic material (plasmid vector pZO1502)
necessary for its production in corn, and MIR604 Bacillus thuringiensis
mCry3A protein and the genetic material (plasmid vector pZM26)
necessary for its production in corn. The Agency has determined that
the application may be of regional and national significance.
Therefore, in accordance with 40 CFR 172.11(a), the Agency is
soliciting comments on this application.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 31, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-515, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2007-515. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced Search,'' then ``Docket

Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the
``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov
website to view the docket index or access available documents.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this
Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Reynolds, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703) 605-0515; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to those interested in agricultural
biotechnology and those persons who are or may be required to conduct
testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Since other entities may also be interested,
the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that
may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

    In the Federal Register of June 20, 2007 (72 FR 34009) (FRL-8133-
5), EPA announced the issuance of EUP 67979-EUP-6 to Syngenta Seeds,
Inc., 3054 Cornwallis Road, P.O. Box 12257, Research Triangle Park, NC
27709. Syngenta has requested to further extend this EUP to October 31,
2009 and to amend it by allowing an additional 4,844 acres to be
planted in 2008 and 4,856 acres to be planted in 2009. For 2008, the
proposed acreage includes 659 acres of MIR162, 465 acres of Bt11, 465
acres of MIR604, 575 acres of Bt11 x MIR162, 575 acres of Bt11 x
MIR604, 132 acres of MIR162 x MIR604, 575 acres of Bt11 x MIR162 x
MIR604, and 1,398 acres of non plant-incorporated protectant border
areas (4,844 total acres). For 2009, the proposed acreage includes 660
acres of MIR162, 466 acres of Bt11, 466 acres of MIR604, 576 acres of
Bt11 x MIR162, 576 acres of Bt11 x MIR604, 135 acres of MIR162 x
MIR604, 576 acres of Bt11 x MIR162 x MIR604, and 1,401 acres of non
plant-incorporated protectant border areas (4,856 total acres). MIR162
contains the lepidopteran protecting Bacillus thuringiensis Vip3Aa20
protein and the genetic material (plasmid vector pNOV1300) necessary
for its production. Bt11 contains the lepidopteran protecting Bacillus
thuringiensis Cry1Ab protein and the genetic material (plasmid vector
pZO1502) necessary for its production. MIR604 contains the coleopteran
protecting Bacillus thuringiensis mCry3A protein and the genetic
material (plasmid vector pZM26) necessary for its production.
    Proposed shipment/use dates are November 1, 2007 through October
31, 2009. Five trial protocols have been proposed, including the
following:
     Breeding and observation.
     Efficacy evaluation.
     Agronomic observation.
     Inbred and hybrid seed production.
     Regulatory studies.
    States involved include: Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia,
Washington, and Wisconsin.

III. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    Following the review of the Syngenta Seeds, Inc. application and
any comments and data received in response to this notice, EPA will
decide whether to issue or deny the EUP request for this EUP program,
and if issued, the conditions under which it is to be conducted. Any
issuance of an EUP will be announced in the Federal Register.

IV. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    The Agency's authority for taking this action is under FIFRA
section 5.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Experimental use permits.

    Dated: July 18, 2007.
Janet L. Andersen,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. E7-14683 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 56 (Thursday, March 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16834-16835]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6875]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0719, FRL 9513-8]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NPDES and Sewage Sludge
Monitoring Reports (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. This ICR describes the nature of the information
collection and its estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before April 23,
2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2008-0719 to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Water Docket, Mail Code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB
at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amelia Letnes, State and Regional
Branch, Water Permits Division, OWM Mail Code: 4203M, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On December 28, 2011 (76 FR 81488), EPA sought comments on
this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments during
the comment period. Any additional comments on this ICR should be
submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0719, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Water Docket in
the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>,
and the telephone number for the Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index
listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in
the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system,
select ``search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified in this
document. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing at www.regulations.gov as EPA receives them and
without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material,
confidential business information (CBI), or other information whose
public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information
about the electronic docket, go to www.regulations.gov.
    Title: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Program (Renewal).
    ICR Number: EPA ICR No. 0229.20, OMB Control No. 2040-0004.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2012.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The objective of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is to restore
and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
nation's waters (CWA section 101). The NPDES program, established under
CWA section 402, is an important tool for controlling pollutant
discharges. The CWA authorizes the Agency to issue permits for the
discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States. The Agency
regulates point source discharges of pollutants to waters of the United
States under its NPDES program. CWA section 402(b) allows states
(defined to include Indian tribes and U.S. territories) to acquire
authority for the NPDES program. This authority enables them to issue
and administer NPDES permits. At present, 46 NPDES-authorized states
and the U.S. Virgin Islands have NPDES permit program authority, but
only eight states have

received authorization to manage the Biosolids (Sludge) Program. In
states that do not have authority for these programs, the Agency issues
and administers NPDES permits. Because some permit applications are
processed by states and some by EPA, this ICR calculates government
burden and costs for both states and EPA.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 4.3
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 398,340 (397,703 facilities and
637 States/Tribes/Territories).
    Frequency of Response: Once, every five years, annually, semi-
annually, quarterly, bimonthly, monthly, biweekly, weekly, daily,
ongoing, occasionally/as needed.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 21,324,741 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $1,014,324,384 includes $211,074
annualized capital costs and $18,551,848 annualized O&M costs.
    Change in Burden: There is a decrease of 9,618,566 hours in the
total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved ICR Burdens. This decrease in burden corresponds to 31 percent
of the overall burden. The main reasons for the change in burden is
that EPA generated a new estimate of construction sites based on data
collected for the development of the final Construction Effluent
Limitation Guidelines. The Agency revised its estimate of the number of
large and small construction sites covered by this ICR downward from
243,076 to 84,472 sites annually. The impact of this change in the
number of construction sites is a decrease of 8,051,315 hours.
    Some other specific reasons for burdens changes are presented
below:
     EPA's continuous effort to improve the quality of data in
its PCS and ICIS-NPDES. This change could reflect more accurate data
rather than a significant change in the number of permits actually
administered. This change is particularly important for activities
related to general permittees because in previous ICRs, EPA based the
calculation on best professional estimates; whereas, for this ICR, the
Agency has real inventory numbers from PCS and ICIS-NPDES.
     All CSO permits or enforcement orders have fulfilled the
obligation of Phase I technology-based CSO control requirements (Nine
Minimum Controls).
     Previously, EPA accounted for 6 hours per CAAP facilities
to submit Form 2b and 0.5 hours per application per state to process
and review the form. This burden from CAAP facilities and states has
been transferred to the Animal Sectors ICR (OMB Control No. 2040-0250).
     In the previous ICR, EPA accounted for the state burden of
24 hours per pretreatment compliance inspection, but this burden has
been transferred to the Pretreatment ICR (OMB Control No. 2040-0009).

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2012-6875 Filed 3-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P