[Federal Register: August 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 162)]
[Notices]
[Page 42670-42671]
[DOCID:fr24au09-62]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER08-1113-004; ER08-1113-005]

California Independent System Operator Corporation; Supplemental
Notice of Technical Conference

August 14, 2009.
    On July 29, 2009, the Commission issued an order establishing
technical conference in the above-captioned proceedings to explore
issues concerning Market Efficiency Enhancement Agreements (MEEA)
between the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO)
and eligible market participants. The technical conference will be held
on Thursday, August 20, 2009, at 10 a.m. (EDT), in Hearing Room 7 at
the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 and ending at approximately 4 p.m.
(EDT). The following additional information and instruction is provided
regarding the conference.
    The technical conference will afford Commission staff and
interested parties an opportunity to discuss the issues related to the
MEEAs. The conference is intended to be a working session focused on
discussing the information necessary to execute a MEEA and the
transactions under a MEEA that should receive MEEA pricing. The July
29, 2009 order outlined the issues to be discussed.
    The technical conference will be open to the public. Although staff
encourages all interested parties to attend in person, the conference
will be accessible via telephone on a listen-only basis. For
information regarding telephone access

to the conference, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>no later than
5 p.m. (EDT) on Tuesday, August 18, 2009. You will then receive a
confirmation e-mail containing the dial-in number and password. Staff
requests that, to the extent possible, individuals calling from the
same location share a single telephone line.
    The conference will not be transcribed, and all interested persons
will be afforded the opportunity to file post-conference comments.
Dates for filing such comments will be established at the technical
conference. Also, representatives from the Commission's Dispute
Resolution Services office will be available to offer assistance to the
parties to the extent they seek to pursue settlement negotiations.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a FAX to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    For further information about this conference, please contact:
Sarah McKinley,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>for logistical
issues and either Kendra Pace at<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Christopher Demko at<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for other concerns.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-20214 Filed 8-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 69414]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27729]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0112; FRL-9902-68]

Toxic Substances Control Act Chemical Testing; Receipt of Test
Data

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's receipt of test data on 1-
propanesulfonic acid, 2-hydroxy-3-(2-propen-1-yloxy)-, sodium salt
(1:1). These data were submitted pursuant to a test rule issued by EPA
under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The purpose of this
notice is to alert the public about test data received between August
1, 2013, and October 31, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Kathy Calvo, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-8089; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email 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 persons who are concerned about data
on health and/or environmental effects and other characteristics of
this chemical substance. 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.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0112, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center
(EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC. The 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 Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the OPPT Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor
instructions and additional information about the docket available at
http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Test Data Submissions

    Section 4(d) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2603(d)) requires EPA to publish a
notice in the Federal Register reporting the receipt of test data
submitted pursuant to test rules promulgated under TSCA section 4(a)
(15 U.S.C. 2603(a)). Each notice must:
    1. Identify the chemical substance or mixture for which data have
been received.
    2. List the uses or intended uses of such chemical substance or
mixture and the information required by the applicable standards for
the development of test data.
    3. Describe the nature of the test data developed.
    EPA has received test data for the following test rule:
    EPA received data on 1 chemical substance listed in the TSCA
section 4 test rule entitled ``Testing for Certain High Production
Volume Chemicals; Third Group of Chemicals,'' published in the Federal
Register of October 21, 2011 (76 FR 65385) (FRL-8885-5) (docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0112).
    The table in this unit contains the described information required
by TSCA section 4(d). See the applicable CFR citation, listed in the
title of the table, for test data requirements. Data received can be
found by referencing the docket ID number and document number listed in
the table. See Unit I.B. for additional information about the docket.
EPA reviews of test data are added to the docket upon completion.

   Table 1--Data Received in Response to TSCA Section 4 Test Rule at 40 CFR 799.5089, Testing of Certain High
    Production Volume Chemicals; Third Group of Chemicals, Docket Identification Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0112
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Document
          Chemical identity                      Use(s)                     Data received             number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-Propanesulfonic acid, 2-hydroxy-3-  Polymerizable surfactant for  Biodegradation; Acute                   0146
 (2-propen-1-yloxy)-, sodium salt      vinylic systems; antistatic   Toxicity to Fish; Acute
 (1:1) (CAS No. 52556-42-0).           properties; promotes          Toxicity to Daphnia;
                                       adhesion of pigments;         Toxicity to Algae; Acute
                                       emulsion polymerization in    Inhalation Toxicity in
                                       paper, textile, fiber, and    Rats; Bacterial Reverse
                                       adhesives industries.         Mutation; In Vitro
                                                                     Mammalian Chromosome
                                                                     Aberration; Repeated Dose/
                                                                     Reproduction Development
                                                                     Toxicity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note: CAS No. = Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2603.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Hazardous substances.

    Dated: November 12, 2013.
Maria J. Doa,
Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2013-27729 Filed 11-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 24, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 205)]
[Notices]
[Page 60338]
[DOCID:fr24oc07-69]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

October 16, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
    Docket Numbers: RP07-649-001.
    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Texas Gas Transmission LLC submits Substitute Second
Revised Sheet 404 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1,
to be effective 10/1/07.
    Filed Date: 10/10/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071011-0228.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 22, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-21-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company.
    Description: El Paso Natural Gas Company submits Sixth Revised
Sheet 363 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1-A.
    Filed Date: 10/09/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071010-0099.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 22, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-22-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company.
    Description: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co submits First Revised Sheet
405A.02 to FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume 1, to be effective 11/
9/07.
    Filed Date: 10/10/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071011-0180.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 22, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-23-000.
    Applicants: Avista Corporation.
    Description: Avista Corp submits notice of cancellation of First
Revised Sheet 45 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Volume 2, effective 4/30/
07.
    Filed Date: 10/09/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071011-0179.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 22, 2007.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    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 St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings 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 dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Acting Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-20850 Filed 10-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 229 (Wednesday, November 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71023-71024]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28212]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Certification:
Pilots and Flight Instructors

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. FAA regulations prescribe certification standards for
pilots, flight instructors, and ground instructors. The information
collected is used to determine compliance with applicant eligibility.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by January 27, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Kathy
DePaepe, Room 126B, Federal Aviation Administration, AES-200, 6500 S.
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0021
    Title: Certification: Pilots and Flight Instructors
    Form Numbers: FAA Form 8710-1.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations part 61 (14
CFR part 61) Certification: Pilots, Flight Instructors, and Ground
Instructors prescribes minimum standards and requirements for the
issuance of airman certificates, and establishes procedures for
applying for airman certificates. The Airman Certificate and/or Rating
Application form and the required records, logbooks and statements
required by the federal regulations are submitted to Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) Flight Standards District Offices or its
representatives to determine qualifications of the applicant for
issuance of a pilot or instructor certificate, or rating or
authorization.
    Respondents: Approximately 175,000 certificated pilots.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Approximately 2.15 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 301,344 hours.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including 1. Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; 2. The
accuracy of the estimated burden; 3. Ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and 4. Ways
that the burden could be

minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information.
The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request
for OMB's clearance of this information collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC on November 18, 2013.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2013-28212 Filed 11-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT STRATEGY FOR NATIONAL CLEAN WATER INDUSTRIAL REGULATIONS Outline Draft 8/ 27/ 03 Introduction Comment Topics on Strategy and Four Factors Strategy ( 18 commenters) Stakeholder Input  General ( 12 commenters) Four Factors  General ( 14 commenters) Factor 1 ( Human Health & Environmental Impacts) ( 10 commenters) Factor 2 ( Technology Innovation and Process Changes) ( 6 commenters) Factor 3 ( Cost, Performance, and Affordability) ( 5 commenters) Factor 4 ( Implementation and Efficiency) ( 7 commenters) Ranking/ Weighting the Four Factors ( 10 commenters) Additional Factors ( 8 commenters) Selecting Categories for New or Revised Guidelines Prioritizing Categories ( 11 commenters) Guidelines to Be Revised ( 4 commenters) New Guidelines ( 5 commenters)

Comment Topics on Issue Areas Identified in Strategy Encouraging Innovation ( 5 commenters) Level of Effort ( 13 commenters) Voluntary Efforts ( 16 commenters) Trading ( 7 commenters) Multi Media ( 8 commenters) Impairment Information ( 8 commenters)

Other Topics Not Directly Discussed in Strategy ( in order of frequency) Nonpoint Sources ( 9 commenters) Pretreatment Program ( 5 commenters) Enforcement/ Implementation Issues ( 5 commenters) Guidance ( 4 commenters) 50 POTW Study ( 3 commenters) Uncontrolled Pollutants ( 3 commenters) Tax Incentives ( 2 commenters) Other Regulatory Issues ( 4 commenters) draft 8/ 27/ 03 Page 1 of 9 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT STRATEGY FOR NATIONAL CLEAN WATER INDUSTRIAL REGULATIONS Introduction In November 2002, EPA published a Notice in the Federal Register ( November 29, 2002; Volume 67, Number 230) announcing a draft Strategy for National Clean Water Industrial Regulation, which describes a process EAD may use to identify industries for which effluent guidelines need to be revised or developed, in compliance with Section 304( m) of the Clean Water Act. In addition to welcoming comments from our stakeholders on the draft Strategy as a whole, EPA solicited comments on six specific issues discussed in the draft document. These are: ° Key Factors for Evaluating Existing Effluent Guidelines ° Key Factors for Developing New Effluent Guidelines ° Sources of Water Quality Impairments ° Voluntary Loading Reductions ° Technology Innovation, Market based Incentives, and Multi media Pollutant Reduction ° Level of Effort Devoted to Effluent Guidelines The comment period on the draft Strategy ended on February 27, 2003, and EPA received comments from 26 commenters. Most of the comments came from municipal wastewater agencies or industry trade associations, with two comments expressing the perspective of environmental groups.

These comments generally supported EPA's proposed strategy and the four factors for determining when new or revised effluent guidelines should be promulgated. However, two commenters ( the Natural Resources Defense Council ( NRDC) and the State of New York's Office of the Attorney General) disagree with the inclusion of risk reduction ( considered under Factor 1: Human Health and Environmental Impacts), noting that it is contrary to the intent of the Clean Water Act. Overall, the comments universally supported the idea of using effluent guidelines in a targeted fashion ( i. e., where national categorical regulations were the " right tool" for the identified risk).

The paragraphs that follow summarize the comments received. They are organized into three sections: 1) Comment Topics on Strategy and Four Factors, 2) Comment Topics on Issue Areas Identified in the Draft Strategy, and 3) Other Topics Not Directly Discussed in the Draft Strategy. Attachment I presents a synopsis of comments organized by commenter, and Attachment II presents the comment synopsis organized by topic, as presented here. draft 8/ 27/ 03 Page 2 of 9 I. Comments on the draft Strategy and Four Factors In November 2002, EPA announced a draft Strategy that describes a process EPA proposed to use to identify industries for which effluent guidelines need to be revised or developed, in compliance with Section 304( m) of the Clean Water Act. The process would allow EPA to identify existing effluent guidelines the Agency should consider revising or industrial categories for which the Agency should consider developing new effluent guidelines.

Two overarching goals guided the development of the draft Strategy: reducing risk to human health and the environment and assuring transparent decision making. In order to accomplish the first goal, EPA looked at the Clean Water Act and identified four major factors for deciding if it is appropriate to revise or develop an effluent guideline. EPA received comments on the draft Strategy, the importance of stakeholder involvement in the process, and the four factors. Commenters also provided specific suggestions on ways to prioritize the results of the process outlined in the draft Strategy along with recommendations for effluent guidelines the Agency should consider revising or developing. The paragraphs below summarize these comments.

Draft Strategy: In total, eighteen commenters addressed the draft Strategy directly. Twelve commenters generally support it, and of these twelve, six commenters specifically support the primary goal of reducing risk to human health and the environment. Three other commenters agree with the Strategy while identifying specific concerns, including recommendations that EPA ° correct errors or omissions in existing effluent guidelines, ° avoid redundancy with other regulations, and ° have the Strategy reviewed by the EPA Science Advisory Board ( SAB). The remaining three commenters disagree with the draft Strategy as it is written.

Stakeholder Input: In total, twelve commenters specifically mentioned stakeholder involvement with the planning process. Nine of these commenters generally endorse the stakeholder involvement described in the draft Strategy. Three others agree with the Strategy, but also suggest more effective ways involve stakeholders: ° work with control authorities at the local level as a supplement/ alternative to regulations; ° form a broad based panel of stakeholders to work more closely with EPA ( 2 commenters), and ° develop data gathering tools.

Four Factors: In all, twelve commenters addressed the four factors generally. Eight commenters support the factors as identified in the Strategy, with one of these recommending that the factors should be the same for both existing and new categories. Another two commenters agree with the factors in general, but suggested EPA consider additional aspects within the factors. One suggested that EPA evaluate and compare incremental risks ( included under Factor 1 in the draft Strategy) and incremental costs ( included under Factor 3 in the draft Strategy) as part of the process. Another commenter suggested that EPA be more specific about the implementation of the Factors for greater transparency. Two commenters disagree with the set of four factors, suggesting that EPA can or should use only some of the identified factors. In addition to these draft 8/ 27/ 03 Page 3 of 9 general comments, several commenters provided feedback on one or more of the specific factors identified in the draft Strategy.

FACTOR 1  HUMAN HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Twelve commenters specifically discussed Factor 1. Three of these commenters support Factor 1 as the primary factor to use before applying the other factors. Six others suggest specific elements to be included in Factor 1 application: ° total volumes discharged, ° different relative toxicity scales for human health and ecological effects, ° impacts from conventional pollutants ( e. g. grease) on sewer function, ° persistent bioaccumulative toxics ( PBTs), ° means for identifying emerging concerns, and ° more broad focus than human health, e. g. consider ecological impacts of nutrients and occupational impacts to POTWs. Three other commenters disagree with the use or definition of this factor. One of these argues that risk should not be a factor at all, and two of these suggest that risk be defined relative to water quality criteria or water quality issues.

FACTOR 2  TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES AND PROCESS CHANGES: Seven commenters specifically addressed Factor 2. One of the seven commenters argues that this factor should be the sole determinant for selecting industrial categories based on their assertion that the Clean Water Act identifies only technology based considerations in Section 304. One commenter suggested EPA focus data gathering on industries with no or incomplete effluent guidelines. Four others suggest additions to this factor: ° consider recent technological advancements in biological methods, ° evaluate technologies successfully used by dischargers on impaired waters, ° identify dischargers significantly below the norm for their industry; ° evaluate technologies not yet in use in the U. S. but used in countries with more stringent regulations; ° consider economic considerations within this factor by requiring that technologies considered be economically achievable and demonstrated for the pollutant of concern; and ° consider multi media impact of new control technologies/ process changes/ pollution prevention. The seventh commenter disagrees with the application of this factor.

FACTOR 3  COST, PERFORMANCE, AND AFFORDABILITY: Five commenters specifically discussed factor 3. Two commenters support this factor. Another two commenters agree with this factor in general but suggest that EPA expand it to also consider the time, expense, and effort required to develop, implement, and enforce new or revised effluent guidelines; and to also consider the full economic impact and operation restraints of control technologies. The fifth commenter recommends including these considerations as part of Factor 2 rather than as a separate factor; this commenter also lists seven additional costs that EPA should consider: ° lost opportunity while the facility is shut down during installation, ° plant closures that may result from the effluent guidelines, draft 8/ 27/ 03 Page 4 of 9 ° lost tax revenues, ° increased energy usage, ° increased emissions associated with increased energy demand ( which may occur elsewhere, such as at a power plant), ° personnel costs, and ° other indirect costs.

FACTOR 4  IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFICIENCY: Seven commenters addressed factor 4 specifically. Two of these commenters support this factor, both in its consideration of other EPA programs and in its inclusion of stakeholder input. Another four commenters agree with this factor in general, but suggest that EPA expand it to: ° also seek information on emerging technologies from ORD, OECA, and Regions; ° also consult with Commerce, Patent Office, and wastewater treatment manufacturers to identify emerging technologies; ° also consider whether permit writers have been requesting modifications to existing effluent guidelines and whether those changes require revision of the existing effluent guidelines. The seventh commenter contends that this factor is not allowed under the CWA.

RANKING/ WEIGHTING FACTORS: Ten commenters specifically discussed this issue. Three of the ten commenters note that Factor 1 should be primary. Four other commenters propose alternate primary rankings: ° two commenters suggested reducing risk ( Factor 1) and implementation/ efficiency ( specifically reducing regulatory burden) ( Factor 4), ° one commenter suggested technology advances and process changes ( Factor 2); and ° another commenter suggested technology advances and process changes ( Factor 2) and cost, performance and affordability ( Factor 3). Three of the ten commenters believe the factors should not be ranked.

ADDITIONAL FACTORS: Eight commenters suggest a total of fourteen additional factors for EPA to consider, some of which may fit under the existing factors. New factors suggest that EPA also: ° identify opportunities for disseminating pollution prevention information; ° schedule effluent guidelines revisions relative to other EPA activities to support addressing multi media concerns; ° determine whether there were errors and omissions made when existing effluent guidelines were originally promulgated; ° eliminate consideration of interference with sewage collection or treatment when it could be addressed through local regulation; ° determine whether facilities or components of operations that are being limited in some places due to water quality concerns within industries that have no current national effluent guidelines; ° evaluate the resource constraints at the state level and the unfunded mandate created for state permit writers when EPA fails to meet its section 304( m) obligations; draft 8/ 27/ 03 Page 5 of 9 ° eliminate industries whose existing effluent guidelines have already been revisited and revised at least; ° evaluate cross media and other indirect impacts, such as the risks and costs associated with proper handling, treatment, and disposal of any residual generated by the treatment technology; ° consider the extent to which a category is already subject to existing regulation, under either the NPDES or the National Pretreatment Program ( local limits already in place); ° consider the effects   including uncertainty and uneven competitive impacts   of ongoing environmental rulemakings or implementation of major environmental rules; ° evaluate the effects of major industry restructuring ( e. g., utility deregulation), ° determine whether significant guidance exists that in effect " updates" existing effluent guidelines; ° require that the cost benefit ratio must be ( much) greater than one to justify new effluent guidelines or revise existing effluent guidelines; and ° investigate the extent to which additional pollutant reduction could be achieved for the industrial category through existing EPA programs that are implemented outside of the effluent guidelines/ NPDES program.

Selecting Categories for New or Revised Effluent Guidelines: The following comments were received on this topic area.

PRIORITIZING CATEGORIES: Eleven commenters specifically discussed ways to prioritize industrial categories for potential effluent guidelines development or revision, using or modifying elements in the draft Strategy. ( See Attachment II for specifics.) Seven of these commenters suggest approaches for assigning high priority, while the other four commenters suggest approaches for assigning low priority.

EFFLUENT GUIDELINES TO BE REVISED: Four commenters made specific recommendations on existing effluent guidelines to be revised. Three commenters identify five specific categories: ° the drum reconditioning subcategory of Transportation Equipment Cleaning; ° electroplating; ° hospitals and related health care facilities; ° metal finishing; and ° metal molding and casting. The third of these three commenters also suggested that EPA revise all effluent guidelines where the technologies they require are no longer Best Available Technology ( BAT) for existing sources or Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology ( BCT) for new sources. The fourth commenter warns EPA that no revisions to effluent guidelines will prove cost effective.

NEW EFFLUENT GUIDELINES: Five commenters made specific recommendations draft 8/ 27/ 03 Page 6 of 9 regarding categories which do not have effluent guidelines. Four of these commenters identify five specific categories that could warrant new effluent guidelines: ° chemical formulators*; ° dental facilities ( two commenters); ° food services; ° laboratories ( two commenters)*; and ° printing and publishing*. One of the four commenters suggested that the 304( m) Team review a list developed in 1988 to identify specific industrial categories and identify any categories that remain unregulated today. After a review of the referenced Plaintiff's Exhibit G ( submitted to the federal district court in NRDC v. Reilly, 89 2980), EAD identified three industrial categories in that Exhibit which had not yet been addressed; these are the items marked with an asterisk in the list above. This same commenter also argues that effluent guidelines should be developed for all point sources that discharge more than trivial amounts of toxic or nonconventional pollutants. The fifth commenter reminds EPA that a finding of " significant amounts" of toxic pollutants is a mandated prerequisite for identifying new categories.

II. Comment Topics on Issue Areas Identified in the Draft Strategy In addition to comments on the draft Strategy and the four factors it describes, EPA solicited comments on four specific topics that were considered in the development of the draft Strategy. These are listed in the order presented in the draft document and discussed in the paragraphs that follow. ° Sources of Water Quality Impairments ° Voluntary Loading Reductions ° Technology Innovation, Market based Incentives, and Multi media Pollutant Reduction ° Level of Effort Devoted to Effluent Guidelines Water Quality Impairment Information: Eight commenters specifically addressed this topic. Five commenters suggest that EPA work with the POTWs, pretreatment authorities, and/ or approval authorities to obtain information and data on impairments. Another commenter recommends using NPDES permit renewal applications, especially the facility fact sheet. The remaining two commenters argue that effluent guidelines cannot address the causes of impairments.

Voluntary Efforts: Sixteen commenters specifically addressed this topic. Nine of the sixteen support the consideration of voluntary efforts, especially where there has been significant effort and/ or significant reductions in discharges. Only two of these nine commenters addressed the quantitative goal EPA should use. One commenter agrees that the 10% goal is a good starting point, while the other commenter stated that the reduction goal should be no lower than 80%, which is closer to the typical effluent guidelines loading reductions ( 90% to 99%). Four other commenters expressed concerns with the mechanics of evaluating loading reductions. Their suggestions and concerns include ° offering an effective incentive ( i. e. a tax credit); draft 8/ 27/ 03 Page 7 of 9 ° addressing the caution in industry toward voluntary efforts; ° measuring and verifying loading reductions; ° coordinating with the National Watershed Trading Policy; and ° reviewing National Metal Finishing Strategic Goals Program components ( specific reductions on a specific time line). The three remaining commenters disagree with including voluntary efforts, arguing that effluent guidelines are a more equitable approach or that EPA does not have the authority to consider/ include voluntary loading reductions.

Encouraging Innovation: Five commenters specifically addressed ways EPA can encourage innovation. Two of these commenters suggest evaluating the effectiveness of EPA's existing programs. Others suggest that EPA: ° encourage EPA programs aimed at developing technology in a non effluent guidelines program ( noting that incentives in the form of variances from limitations would be counter productive); ° offer pollution training incentives ( though they may prove to be complex and difficult to carry out); ° assess the effectiveness of EPA's current technology assistance programs such as the National Metal Finishing Resource Center and the Advanced Diffusion of Pollution Prevention Technology ( ADOP2T) Program at the Illinois Waste Management and Research Center ( two commenters); and ° involve stakeholders in development of effluent guidelines from the beginning stages, which is probably the best way to encourage technology innovation.

Trading: Seven commenters specifically addressed this topic. Two commenters endorse EPA's consideration of trading, although one of these expressed concerns about permit language and anti backsliding. Four other commenters agree conditionally, specifying that trading should be limited to trading within single facilities for direct dischargers or single POTWs for indirect dischargers. One of these commenters presented a potential approach, but also identified issues with trading and noted that Pretreatment Regulations would have to be revised to allow it. The remaining commenter argues that in plan trading with no net decrease in loadings is not the proper subject of effluent guidelines.

Multi Media Impacts: Eight commenters specifically addressed this topic. Two commenters generally agree with consideration of multi media impacts during the planning process. Five other commenters agree with considering multi media impacts, but offer specific considerations for EPA: ° the need to revise other media standards ( note the timing issue mentioned by a commenter under " Additional Factors" above); ° the need to develop an " environmental impact equivalent" to compare toxicity across media ( 2 commenters); ° ways to utilize stakeholder information, and ° ways to utilize the Toxic Release Inventory ( TRI) for media transfer information. The remaining commenter argues that multi media data and strategies are inconsistent with the CWA and therefore invalid. draft 8/ 27/ 03 Page 8 of 9 Level of Effort: Thirteen commenters discussed the level of effort devoted to the effluent guidelines program by EPA. Four commenters recommend that the resources allocated be sufficient to produce high quality results, e. g. meeting statutory obligations, avoiding duplication, and utilize rigorous science methods and high quality analyses. The other nine commenters recommend that EPA redirect the resources dedicated to the effluent guidelines program to other programs, including non point source discharges, assistance to POTWs, voluntary load reductions, WQ standards attainment, TMDLs, pollutant trading, a new " 50 POTW Study," and implementing the Watershed Strategy.

III. Other Topics Not Directly Discussed in Draft Strategy ( in order of frequency)

In addition to the comments summarized above, a number of commenters addressed topics related to the development and implementation of effluent guidelines. Although EPA did not solicit comments on these topics, they are summarized in the paragraphs that follow.

Nonpoint Sources: Nine commenters specifically addressed nonpoint sources. Commenters note the concerns and challenges posed by pollutant discharges from nonpoint sources. Of these, three commenters note the resource intensive nature of the problem, four other commenters argue that effluent guidelines are not the solution to the problem, and the two remaining commenters recommend that the effluent guidelines program be adapted to address nonpoint sources.

Pretreatment Program: Five commenters specifically suggested EPA streamline its Pretreatment Program. Two of these commenters refer EPA to the AMSA WEF pretreatment streamlining recommendations made in 1997 and/ or 1999.

Enforcement and Implementation Issues: Five commenters specifically addressed enforcement and implementation issues. These commenters assert that EPA should: ° enforce more strictly existing Clean Water Act effluent limits for industrial pollutants, ° proper implementation of technically based local discharge limitations could more efficiently address the risks   more effective with less burden   than developing new national ELGs, especially for indirect dischargers, ° realize that New York unfairly will have to bear additional administrative and enforcement costs if EPA substitutes programs administered by the states( e. g. TMDL program) for federal implementation of the CWA, ° give precedence to WQ based standards for new or revised NPDES permit limitations, since a water quality based approach will provide the most cost effective approach to further improvement and management of our nation's water resources. and ° realize that, for a city the size of Duluth, Minnesota it is not practical to regulate small businesses using conventional structure of pretreatment program with inspections, sampling, and other requirements.

Guidance: Four commenters specifically suggested EPA develop guidance. Commenters recommend guidance to: ° help industry make informed decisions, ° assist POTWs in implementing a pretreatment program, draft 8/ 27/ 03 Page 9 of 9 ° assist POTWs in developing ( WQ based) local limits, and ° answer the many questions on effluent guidelines interpretation.

50 POTW Study: Three commenters specifically suggested EPA update its interference/ passthrough analyses ( referred to informally as the " 50 POTW Study"). They note that the data used by EPA to conduct this analysis was collected more than 20 years ago, and that both industrial activities and POTW operations have changed significantly since then.

Uncontrolled Pollutants: Three commenters specifically addressed uncontrolled pollutants. Commenters specifically identified carcinogens, phthalates, endocrine disruptors, bioengineered products, and pharmaceutical residues. They recommend that EPA ° make reducing such pollutants the Agency's top priority; ° evaluate the best way to control newer pollutants, arguing that setting limits/ issuing permits will not effectively control them since many are being discharged through household and commercial use rather than by large dischargers; and ° evaluate the Activated Sludge Respiration Inhibition Test and issue effluent guidelines for the introduction of the test, on a voluntary basis in the first instance.

Tax Incentives: Two commenters specifically addressed tax incentives. One commenter recommends considering tax credits for industrial facilities installing wastewater recycling technologies. The other commenter suggests that EPA consider the use of financial incentives in the form of tax breaks or grants, not only for innovative technologies, but also for technologies that go beyond the accepted BAT.

Other Regulatory Issues: Four commenters included seven unique suggestions and concerns in their comments, in addition to the areas discussed above: ° EPA needs to address a number of unimplemented recommendations on the effluent guidelines development process from the Effluent Guidelines Task Force; ° EPA should consider developing a streamlined process to develop effluent guidelines that apply to 10 facilities or less; ° Until effluent guidelines are developed for industries with 10 facilities or less, EPA should review permits to ensure the technologies required meet those standards that are the equivalent to BAT, NSPS, etc.; ° EPA should not evaluate indirect dischargers, as they do not pose a direct risk and their indirect risk is difficult to estimate; ° EPA should resolve issues with the use of surveys and TRI data by collaborating with industry to design a meaningful, understandable, consistent and successful survey; ° Commenter strongly supports EPA's Watershed Strategy; and ° Commenter argues that the CWA does not require annual review of each industry category or a set schedule for effluent guidelines development.