removal and, as specified in section 307(b)(1) of the CWA, to
demonstrate that the POTW’s sludge use and disposal practices will not
be adversely affected. According to the regulations at 40 CFR 403.7,
each report must include POTW influent and effluent data demonstrating
consistent pollutant removal.

AAs are to evaluate each report to determine whether the POTW’s
pollutant removal and sewage sludge quality maintenance continue to
justify the approved removal credit. If the POTW has not justified the
removal credit, the AA may rescind the removal credit after notifying
the POTW.

Fundamentally Different Factors Variance Request

The pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR 403.13 enable an AA to issue a
variance to an IU (or POTW on behalf of an IU) from the limits specified
in a categorical pretreatment standard due to fundamentally different
factors (FDF). In certain cases, an individual discharger’s production
processes or technologies might be fundamentally different from the
representative facilities used to determine the limits. The IU must
submit a specific categorical pretreatment standard variance request
when it believes that factors relating to its discharge are
fundamentally different from those considered when EPA established the
categorical standard. A POTW or other interested party may also submit
an FDF variance request.

The factors that may be considered fundamentally different are outlined
at 40 CFR 403.13(d). They include the following:

Nature or quality of pollutants contained in the raw waste load of the
IU’s process wastewater

Volume of the IU’s process wastewater and effluent discharged

Non-water-quality environmental impact of control and treatment of the
IU’s raw waste load

Energy requirements of the application of control and treatment
technology

Age, size, land availability, and configuration as they relate to the
IU’s equipment or facilities, the processes employed, process changes,
and engineering aspects of the application of control technology

Cost of compliance with the required control technology

The FDF variance request must contain the following data:

The name and address of the person making the request

Identification of the interest of the requester affected by the
categorical pretreatment standard for which the variance is requested

Identification of the POTW currently receiving waste from the IU for
which alternative discharge limits are requested

Identification of the categorical pretreatment standards applicable to
the IU

A list of each pollutant or pollutant parameter for which an alternative
discharge limit is sought

The alternative discharge limits proposed by the requester for each
pollutant or pollutant parameter for which an alternative discharge
limit is sought

A description of the IU’s existing water pollution control facilities

A schematic flow representation of the IU’s water system, including
water supply, process wastewater systems, and points of discharge

A statement of facts clearly establishing the reason that the variance
request should receive approval, including detailed supporting data,
documentation, and evidence necessary to fully evaluate the merits of
the request (e.g., technical and economic data collected by EPA and used
in developing each pollutant discharge limit in the pretreatment
standard)

As specified at 40 CFR 403.13(g)(2), an IU must submit a variance
request within 180 days of the categorical pretreatment standard’s
promulgation. If the IU has requested a categorical determination as
provided by 40 CFR 403.6(a), the FDF request must be submitted within 30
days after the categorical determination. The AA is to circulate the
variance request to all interested parties (public review). Following
this public comment period of not less than 30 days, the AA is to
approve or deny the variance request.

Net/Gross Adjustment Request

The pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR 403.15 specify the conditions
under which a CA may adjust a CIU’s categorical pretreatment standard
based on the presence of the applicable pollutant in the CIU’s intake
water. The adjustments given are called net/gross credits. When granting
an adjustment, the CA revises the applicable pretreatment standard to
offset the pollutant load already present in the CIU’s intake water.
If the CIU, however, has treatment technologies in place that will
partially or entirely remove the pollutant in question, the CA adjusts
the standard only to the extent that the pollutant is not removed by the
CIU’s treatment technology.

CAs are not to grant credit for generic pollutants, such as biochemical
oxygen demand, total suspended solids, and oil and grease, unless the
CIU demonstrates that the constituents of the generic measure in the
user’s effluent are substantially similar to the constituents of the
generic measure in the intake water, or unless appropriate additional
limits are placed on process water pollutants at the outfall or
elsewhere. CAs are to grant credits only to the extent necessary for
CIUs to meet applicable categorical standards, up to a maximum value
equal to the influent value. The CA may require additional monitoring to
determine eligibility for credits and compliance with adjusted
standards. Finally, the CA may grant credits only if the intake water is
withdrawn from the same water body into which the POTW discharges. The
CA, however, may waive this requirement if it finds that no
environmental degradation will result.

5.	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED—AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

5(a).	Agency Activities

EPA personnel complete a number of tasks in implementing the National
Pretreatment Program. These tasks and the associated burden and costs
for conducting them are outlined in section 6(c) of this ICR.

EPA regional offices operate as the oversight authority (OA) under the
National Pretreatment Program. In this role, they approve state program
requests, and they review and approve various program implementation
requests, such as pretreatment categorical determination requests and
FDF requests.

EPA regional offices also operate as the AA in states that do not have
approved pretreatment programs. As the AA, a regional office reviews
POTW pretreatment programs for adequacy, audits and inspects approved
POTWs, enforces against POTWs for failure to implement pretreatment
regulations, and enforces pretreatment standards when IUs are not in
compliance (where the POTW has not taken action). An AA may also inspect
IUs to assess compliance.

EPA regional offices also act as the CA in instances where neither the
state nor the POTW has an approved pretreatment program. As CA, a
regional office has primary responsibility for implementing the
pretreatment program. A regional office, acting as CA, notifies SIUs of
their status and obligations under the program, reviews applications for
control mechanisms, and determines the IUs that must act to reduce the
risk of spills or batch discharges. The CA also ensures that IUs comply
with discharge limitations and reporting requirements, inspects IUs,
reviews self-monitoring reports from IUs, enforces against non-complying
IUs, and notifies the public when IUs are in significant noncompliance.

5(b).	Collection Methodology and Management

In general, IUs and POTWs provide written requests and reports. IUs and
POTWs give oral notices in emergencies; however, the IUs and POTWs
follow these notices with written ones. EPA uses the Permit Compliance
System and the Integrated Compliance Information System to store, track,
and access pretreatment-related program information.

5(c).	Small Entity Flexibility

In developing this ICR, EPA considered the requirement of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) to minimize the
burden of information collections on small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small organizations, and small government
jurisdictions, all of which are defined as follows in section 601 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act:

A small business is any business that is independently owned and
operated and not dominant in its field, as defined by the Small Business
Administration (SBA) Regulations under section 3 of the Small Business
Act.

A small organization is any non-profit enterprise that is independently
owned and operated and not dominant in its field.

A small governmental jurisdiction is the government of a city, county,
town, township, village, school district, or special district that has a
population fewer than 50,000. This definition may also include Indian
tribes.

The reporting requirements for pretreatment program development affect
only state governments and municipal governments (i.e., POTWs).
Requirements for pretreatment program implementation and
program/categorical determinations involve some small businesses. The
information requested, however, is not available from other sources and
is essential for implementing the pretreatment program.

Overall, the burden for small industries is likely to be inherently
smaller than that for other IUs because their facilities are less
complex. Reporting burdens are less for SIUs than for CIUs. Under the
Streamlining Rule, EPA modified some of the sampling requirements for
CIUs to provide greater flexibility; these changes will benefit some of
the smaller CIUs. Under the Streamlining Rule, EPA also provided states
and POTWs opportunities to remove from regulatory requirements CIUs that
never discharge more than 100 gpd of total process wastewater. POTWs and
states may also categorize some CIUs as middle tier, meaning they, too,
may be subject to fewer reporting requirements. A number of small
facilities are likely to fall into these categories.

5(d).	Collection Schedule

Many reporting requirements associated with the National Pretreatment
Program are one-time only. Therefore, the frequency of data collection
is relevant to only the following requirements:

IU and SIU self-monitoring reports

Periodic certifications

Annual POTW reports, including updating the SIU list

Issuance of control mechanisms for SIUs

Inspection and sampling the effluent of IUs and SIUs

Public notification of significant noncompliance

Evaluation of the need to revise local limits

Prevention and control plan for spills and batch discharges

Removal credit self-monitoring reports

Exhibit 5 (in section 4) summarizes reporting requirements for the
pretreatment program.

6.	ESTIMATING BURDEN AND COST OF COLLECTION

This section estimates the burden and cost to states, POTWs, and IUs for
complying with the National Pretreatment Program requirements detailed
in section 4. This section also discusses the assumptions used to
estimate costs and burden in addition to describing the change in burden
compared with the 2007 National Pretreatment Program ICR (OMB Control
No. 2040-0009, EPA ICR No. 0002.13). Additional detail about assumptions
is provided in Appendix A. Detailed burden and cost calculations are
shown in Appendix B.

6(a).	Respondent Burden

EPA’s Streamlining Rule resulted in changes to respondent reporting
and recordkeeping burden. Specifically, the Streamlining Rule enables
CAs to designate certain NSCIUs and other CIUs as middle tier CIUs.
Those CIUs designated as NSCIUs and Middle tier CIUs may have reduced
reporting burdens. Based on data from annual reports, award
applications, public comments, and other EPA sources, 9.3 percent of
existing CIUs discharge more than 0 gpd, but less than 100 gpd. An
additional 5.7 percent of existing CIUs are zero dischargers.
Approximately 30 percent of existing CIUs are assumed to have flows more
than 100 gpd, but less than 5,000 gpd and less than 0.01 percent of
their POTW’s design flow (referred to as middle tier CIUs).

Based on discussions between EPA OWM and EPA regional staff, all
zero-discharging CIUs may be considered NSCIUs. Based on data collected
from eight POTW programs, EPA estimates that 71 percent of small CIUs
currently monitor more frequently than the minimum requirement of twice
a year. Therefore, this ICR assumes that the monitoring and reporting
frequency will not change for IUs that already monitor and report more
frequently than the current minimum requirement, twice a year. In
addition, EPA estimates that CAs will not reduce the frequency with
which they issue permits, monitor, or conduct inspections for these
systems (i.e., 71 percent of small CIUs). NSCIUs (the remaining 29
percent along with all zero-discharging CIUs) will complete annual
certifications in lieu of annual monitoring and reporting. To gather
data to complete this certification, IUs with flows greater than zero
will monitor once every 5 years, on average. CAs will discontinue
control mechanism issuance and formal inspections for this 29 percent of
NSCIUs with flows greater than zero (along with all zero-discharging
CIUs); instead, CAs will conduct an annual 2-hour evaluation, as
required by the revised regulations.

EPA estimates that 29 percent of the middle tier CIUs will be authorized
to reduce their monitoring and reporting requirements from semiannually
to annually. This estimate is based on the estimate that 71 percent are
currently subject to monitoring and reporting requirements that exceed
the minimum requirements. In addition, this ICR assumes that for 29
percent of potential middle tier CIUs, CAs will reduce inspections to
once every 2 years instead of once a year.

The Streamlining Rule also enables zero-discharging CIUs that previously
reported data semiannually to instead conduct an annual certification.
CAs, in turn, will shift from issuing control mechanisms and conducting
annual inspections of these facilities to conducting an annual
evaluation. EPA estimates that the burden for this evaluation to be 2
hours.

6(a)(i).	Burden to States

For the 3-year ICR period, the annual reporting and recordkeeping burden
for states (including the burden for states as users of the data) is
estimated to be 116,709 hours. Exhibit 6 at the end of section 6(a)
shows the annual burden hours on an activity-specific basis, and
Appendix A summarizes the assumptions EPA made in developing the
estimates. The following paragraphs briefly describe the bases for the
burden estimates.

	Program Development

	State Pretreatment Program Approval Request

Pursuant to consultation with the National Pretreatment Coordinator and
EPA regional offices, EPA does not anticipate any states to seek
pretreatment program authority during this 3-year ICR period.

	Program Implementation

	Issuance of SIU Discharge Permits

EPA assumes that all approved pretreatment states (36) will issue some
permits to SIUs. EPA assumes that some of these states might issue
general control mechanisms in place of individual permits. The number of
responses per year is calculated based on information submitted by
states and EPA regions that indicate that states directly regulate 9.62
percent of all SIUs. (See Appendix A for additional information about
this assumption.) CAs will no longer be required to issue permits to
NSCIUs. Because some SIUs can now be regulated with general control
mechanisms, EPA estimates that 2 percent of SIUs will no longer require
an individual permit. Thus, the number of responses for each state will
fall by 2 percent. EPA also estimates that it takes 20 burden hours for
a CA to issue a discharge permit; this estimate is carried forward in
this ICR.

	Inspection and Sampling of SIUs

Inspection:  EPA estimates that all 36 pretreatment states will provide
oversight for some SIUs. This ICR assumes 8 burden hours to perform one
inspection per year for 9.62 percent of all SIUs. Middle-Tier SIUs will
be inspected less frequently (every other year instead of every year).
This includes the time necessary to collect an effluent sample.

Sampling and Analysis: All pretreatment states are assumed to perform
in-house analyses for the SIUs that they regulate. This ICR estimates an
average sample analysis burden of 15.2 hours. This burden was estimated
based on regional feedback during the development of the ICR for the
Streamlining Rule, and it is carried forward in this ICR. PFPR
facilities opting for the pollution prevention option are excluded
because there are no monitoring requirements.

	Public Notification of Significant Noncompliance

In this ICR, EPA estimates that only the five states that directly
implement the pretreatment program at the local level (40 CFR 403.10(e)
states) will be required to publish notices of SNC for their POTWs. EPA
estimates that, on average, approximately 11 POTWs per state (a total of
55 POTWs in the five 403.10(e) states) receive discharges from SIUs.
One-third of the POTWs in these states (approximately 18 POTWs, or 4 per
state) are estimated to have SIUs in SNC in a given year. EPA estimates
that 3 burden hours are required to complete this activity.

	Evaluation of the Need to Revise Local Limits

This ICR assumes that only the five 40 CFR 403.10(e) states will be
required to develop local limits for their POTWs. Each POTW for which
the state has assumed CA responsibility (55 total) will require local
limits development once every 5 years. The Agency estimates a burden of
50 hours for this activity.

	Program/Categorical Determination

	There is no burden for states associated with program/categorical
determinations.

	States as Users of the Data

Under the National Pretreatment Program, AAs (or the state acting as a
CA) must receive, review, and store various requests and reports filed
by IUs and POTWs. Table B-8 in Appendix B calculates the burden to state
agencies as users of these data.

When states are the AA (i.e., for 73.85 percent of pretreatment
programs), the states review reports generated by pretreatment POTWs.
Therefore, the associated review burden for IU and POTW activities
described below and in Appendix B (Table B-3) for which reports or data
are submitted to states (as AAs) has been apportioned accordingly. The
numbers of respondents and responses are linked directly to the
corresponding activities.

In addition to AA activities, states are the CAs for approximately 9.62
percent of SIUs. As CAs, the states are responsible for receipt and
review of 9.62 percent of all reports, certifications, and data
submitted by SIUs. Table B-8 in Appendix B, therefore, includes burden
for these activities. Exhibit 6 shows the total state review burden
associated with the aforementioned activities.

	Recordkeeping

	Maintain Pretreatment Program Information

This ICR assumes that each pretreatment state (as the AA) spends 50
hours per year maintaining records from POTW pretreatment programs. In
addition, states act as CAs for 9.62 percent of SIUs. An additional
burden of 5 hours per SIU per year (i.e., 5 * 2,197) is included for
states acting as CAs. (See Appendix B, Table B-5, for the calculations.)

The Streamlining Rule amended the pretreatment regulations to require
that states maintain records for IUs regulated under general control
mechanisms, for IU’s initial samples to demonstrate pollutants not
present nor expected to be present, and for POTWs that request a
significant modification. Because states already maintain records on IUs
under individual permits, IU sampling records, and records on POTW
significant modification requests, EPA does not expect the Streamlining
Rule changes to result in changes in the recordkeeping burden.

6(a)(ii).	Burden to POTWs

For the 3-year ICR period, the annual reporting and recordkeeping burden
for POTWs (including the burden for POTWs as users of the data) is
estimated to be 864,513 hours. Exhibit 7 (at the end of section 6(a))
shows the annual burden hours on an activity-specific basis, and
Appendix B details these burden calculations. The following paragraphs
briefly describe the bases for the burden estimates.

	Program Development

	POTW Pretreatment Program Approval Request

EPA regions have indicated that they expect 64 new programs over the
next 3 years. EPA estimates that preparing a program approval request
will require 250 burden hours. The regulations also require all approved
POTWs to develop and implement enforcement response plans describing
procedures for investigating and responding to IU noncompliance. EPA
assumes that POTWs will have completed this requirement as part of their
approval request and therefore has not included any additional burden
for this activity. This burden was included in the 250 hours for a new
program.

The Streamlining Rule did not make any changes to the pretreatment
regulations that affect program development burden.

	POTW Pretreatment Compliance Schedule Progress Report

EPA expects 46 POTWs per year to be under pretreatment-related
compliance schedules. The Agency estimates that each schedule will
require the submission of three reports (responses) per year. EPA
estimates that each report will require 5 burden hours to complete.

Program Implementation

Annual POTW Report

For this program activity, EPA assumes one report per program per year.
EPA further estimates that report preparation will take each POTW 40
burden hours.

	POTW Program Modifications

EPA estimates that 20 percent of approved programs will request program
modifications of some type each year. EPA estimates that preparing
program approval requests will take each POTW 40 burden hours.

Issuance of Discharge Permits or Other Control Mechanisms for SIUs

Because SIU control mechanisms typically have 5-year terms, EPA
estimates that each year POTWs (as CAs) will issue control mechanisms to
20 percent of the SIUs that are regulated by POTWs (90.4 percent of all
SIUs). Under Streamlining, POTWs will not be required to issue permits
to NSCIUs. In addition, because POTWs may regulate some SIUs with
general control mechanisms, EPA estimates that 2 percent of SIUs will no
longer require an individual control mechanism. Thus, the number of
responses for each POTW will fall by 2 percent. EPA estimates that POTWs
will require 20 hours to issue a control mechanism. EPA’s estimate of
the number of SIUs to be covered by general control mechanisms is
carried forward from the Pretreatment Streamlining ICR. EPA’s estimate
of the number of hours POTWs will require to issue individual control
mechanisms is carried forward from the Pretreatment Program ICR.

	Inspection and Sampling of CIU and SIU Effluent

Inspection:  This ICR assumes 8 burden hours to perform one inspection
per year for all SIUs regulated by POTWs. Middle tier CIUs will be
inspected less frequently (every other year instead of every year). This
includes the time necessary to collect an effluent sample. This
assumption was carried forward from the previous ICR.

Sampling and Analysis: EPA assumes that in-house sampling and analysis
will require 15.2 hours. PFPR facilities opting for the pollution
prevention option are excluded because there are no monitoring
requirements.

Mass Limits

POTWs establishing equivalent mass limits as an alternative to
concentration limits to meet concentration-based categorical
pretreatment standards must determine whether the application of a mass
limit is appropriate. POTWs will perform these demonstrations.
Currently, 14 Pretreatment Standards categories are expressed as
concentration limits alone and are therefore eligible for equivalent
mass limits under 40 CFR 403.6(c )(5). The following categories are
included in this list:

Inorganic Chemicals (§ 415)

Fertilizer manufacturing (§ 418)

Petroleum refining (§ 419)

Steam Electric Power Generating (§ 423)

Leather Tanning (§ 425)

Glass Manufacturing (§ 426)

Rubber Manufacturing (§ 428)

Metal Finishing (§ 433)

Pharmaceutical Manufacturing (§ 439)

Transportation Equipment Cleaning (§ 442)

Paving and Roofing Materials (§ 443)

Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustors Subcategory of the Waste
Combustors Point Source Category (§ 444)

Carbon Black Manufacturing (§ 458)

Electrical and Electronic Components (§ 469)

EPA estimates that there are approximately 12,000 such facilities and
that 1 percent of them will request that the POTW assess flow
variability, an assessment that will require 8 burden hours to complete.
These estimates are carried forward from the assumptions in the
recalculation of the entire pretreatment program, which was done as part
of the Pretreatment Streamlining ICR (EPA ICR No. 0002.12) and is
explained at the beginning of section 6.

	Equivalent Concentration Limits

CAs establishing concentration-based pretreatment standards instead of
mass-based limits must document that dilution is not being used as a
substitute for treatment (see 40 CFR 403.6(d) and 414.111(a) and Part
419). In addition, the CA is required to adjust permit limits using the
combined wastestream formula in 40 CFR 403.6(e) when the wastestream
used for demonstrating compliance with the permit limits is mixed with
non-process wastewater or wastewater from other processes. The POTW will
perform these demonstrations. Currently, three Pretreatment Standards
categories are eligible to benefit from this provision––Organic
Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF); Petroleum Refining;
and Pesticide Chemical manufacturing facilities. EPA estimates that
there are 420 such facilities. EPA further estimates that 4 percent of
these facilities will request that the POTW assess flow variability;
each assessment will require a POTW 8 burden hours to complete. These
estimates are carried forward from the assumptions in the recalculation
of the entire pretreatment program, which was done as part of the
Pretreatment Streamlining ICR (EPA ICR No. 0002.12) and is explained at
the beginning of section 6.

Evaluation of SIUs for Slug Control Plan

The final regulatory changes eliminate the requirement that POTWs
evaluate the need for a slug control plan for each SIU every 2 years.
POTWs may now review the need for slug control plans as part of their
ongoing oversight of IUs. Therefore, EPA estimates no burden for this
requirement.

	Public Notification of Significant Noncompliance

EPA expects POTWs to require 3 hours for public notification activities.
EPA assumes that one-third of POTWs with pretreatment programs will have
SIUs in SNC in a given year..

	Evaluation of the Need to Revise Local Limits

EPA assumes in this ICR that all pretreatment programs will reevaluate
the need to develop local limits once every 5 years. EPA estimates that
POTWs will require 50 hours to complete this activity.

	SIU Notification of Applicable Standards and Regulations

At the time of promulgation of this ICR EPA has not promulgated any new
categorical standards. EPA is in the process of developing new
categorical standards that may be in effect during the 3-year life of
this ICR. At this time the expected impacts of the new standards are not
possible to be assessed. Therefore, EPA will developed burden estimates
once these new standards are finalized.

	Program/Categorical Determination

	Removal Credit Approval Requests

Based on input from EPA regional offices, the Agency estimates three
respondents per year. EPA further estimates that a POTW will require 125
hours to prepare and submit each request.

Removal Credit Self-Monitoring Reports

EPA estimates 25 respondents per year based on the number of POTWs with
approved removal credit variances as reported by EPA regional offices.
EPA assumes that a POTW will require 40 hours per report.

POTWs as Users of the Data

Most of the IU respondents described below and in Exhibit 8 (at the end
of section 6(a)) generate reports, information, or data that CAs must
receive, review, and store. Table B-9 in Appendix B calculates the
burden to POTWs as users of these data. As CAs, POTWs are responsible
for receiving and reviewing 90.4 percent of all reports, certifications,
and data submitted by SIUs. EPA has, therefore, apportioned the review
burden for reports or data submitted by SIUs to POTWs (as CAs). The
numbers of respondents and responses are linked directly to the
corresponding activities. Exhibit 7 shows the total POTW review burden
associated with each activity.

	Recordkeeping

	Maintenance of Monitoring Records

EPA expects each pretreatment POTW to spend 100 hours per year
maintaining SIU monitoring records. Changes in the pretreatment
regulations due to the Streamlining Rule means that POTWs will have to
maintain records for IUs regulated under general control mechanisms, as
well as IUs’ initial samples to demonstrate pollutants neither present
nor expected to be present. Because POTWs already maintain records on
IUs under individual permits and IU sampling records, EPA has not
estimated any additional recordkeeping burden for POTWs as a result of
the Streamlining Rule.

6(a)(iii).	Burden to Industrial Users

For the 3-year ICR period, the annual IU reporting and recordkeeping
burden is estimated to be 803,346 hours. Exhibit 8 (at the end of
section 6(a)) shows the estimated annual burden hours for each type of
information collected, and Appendix B details these burden calculations.
The bases for the burden estimates are detailed below.

	Program Development

	EPA assumes no IU reporting and recordkeeping burden program
development.

	Program Implementation

The program implementation burden estimates for IUs were calculated per
activity, as detailed below.

	Baseline Monitoring Report

For new sources, EPA assumes a 2 percent gross annual growth in the
number of CIUs. EPA does not anticipate promulgation of new effluent
guidelines for indirect dischargers, which would result in associated
BMR requirements, during the 3 years covered by this ICR.

EPA assumes 14.3 hours for new source CIUs conducting baseline
monitoring analysis and 28 burden hours for preparing a Baseline
Monitoring Report.

	IU Compliance Schedule Progress Report

For new sources, EPA assumes a 2 percent gross annual growth in the
number of CIUs.. In the recalculation of the entire pretreatment
program, done as part of the Pretreatment Streamlining ICR (EPA ICR No.
0002.12) and explained at the beginning of section 6, EPA estimated that
25 percent of new sources or facilities subject to new effluent
guidelines would need to complete compliance schedules. The Agency
further assumed an IU would require 4 hours to prepare each compliance
schedule progress report. EPA is carrying forward these assumptions for
this ICR.

	IU Compliance Attainment Report

CIUs must complete a compliance attainment report within 90 days
following the date for final compliance with a categorical pretreatment
standard. New source CIUs must provide such a report within 90 days of
commencing discharge of the categorically regulated wastestream to the
POTW. EPA has annualized the burden for new sources over the 3-year ICR
period. EPA estimates that CIUs will require 20 hours to prepare the
compliance attainment reports and 14.3 hours to conduct the associated
analyses.

	IU Resampling Compliance Report

All IUs are required to notify the CA immediately of all discharges that
could potentially cause problems for the POTW. IUs are further required
to notify the CA and resample following a violation. EPA assumes that 10
percent of all IUs will need to resample every year. The 1,500 IUs with
PFPR P2 certification are not included in the estimate because the
resampling requirements do not apply to these facilities. EPA assumes
that an IU will require 4 hours for sampling, 12 hours for analysis, and
1 hour for reporting each year.

	IU Self-Monitoring Compliance Report

Under the Streamlining Rule, NSCIUs are not required to conduct periodic
self-monitoring; instead, they are required to submit annual
certifications. (This ICR assumes that sampling and analysis is required
once every 5 years to complete this certification.) In addition, certain
middle tier CIUs will monitor and report once a year instead of twice a
year. These assumptions are carried forward from the Pretreatment
Streamlining ICR.

The Streamlining Rule ICR assumed that a CIU will require 11.6 hours and
a non-categorical SIU will require 9.5 hours to complete the report
twice per year. EPA has excluded PFPR facilities opting for the P2
option from the estimate because these facilities have no monitoring
requirements.

	Pollution Prevention Plans

This ICR assumes that all PFPR facilities (1,500 facilities) will opt
for the P2 alternative and that all 1,500 facilities have already
prepared and submitted an initial certification for the P2 alternative.
Consistent with the assumptions in the preamble for the PFPR rule (61 FR
57541), this ICR assumes that 10 percent of the facilities that are
implementing a P2 alternative plan will submit modifications to P2
plans. The burden for the periodic certification requirements is
discussed below under “Periodic Certifications.”

Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Indirect Discharging Mills in the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade
Sulfite Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source
Category

EPA estimates that 10 facilities would be subject to these requirements.
EPA estimates that the burden to respondents associated with collecting,
reporting and maintaining records of monitoring data is 826 hours.

Pollution Prevention Compliance Alternative; Transportation Equipment
Cleaning Point Source Category.

EPA estimates that 84 facilities would be subject to these requirements.

Best Management Practices for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper
and Paperboard Point Source Category

EPA estimates that 10 facilities would be subject to these requirements.

	CWT Initial Certification Statement

According to the CWT preamble (65 FR 81267), 37 facilities “accept
wastes from multiple subcategories and could be subject to the multiple
wastestream subcategory.” EPA estimated that 34 of the 37 facilities
are indirect dischargers (91.5 percent of 37 facilities) and were likely
to complete the initial CWT certification statement during the 3-year
ICR period of the previously approved ICR. This burden is not included
in this pretreatment ICR.

	Request for Coverage Under a General Control Mechanism

This ICR assumes that 2 percent of all SIUs will be covered under a
general control mechanism. EPA estimates that an IU will require 0.5
hour to complete each request.

Periodic Certifications

Below is a summary of assumptions about the universe of indirect
dischargers with certification potential (the number of facilities
covered by the relevant part or subpart(s) of 40 CFR, Chapter I,
Subchapter N). EPA assumes in this ICR that periodic certifications
require CIUs 1 hour to complete, which is consistent with the
Information Collection Request for the NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/
Certification Information (OMB No. 2040-0110, EPA ICR No. 1427.07).
Assumptions regarding the percentage of facilities that will undertake
certifications activities are summarized below. Except where noted,
these assumptions are also consistent with the Information Collection
Request for the NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification Information.
Assumptions regarding the number of responses per year are also
explained below.

Aluminum Forming Point Source Category (Part 467). The estimated number
of indirect dischargers in the Aluminum Forming Point Source Category
(72 facilities) is from the Development Document for Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Aluminum Forming: Point
Source Category (EPA 440184073, June 1984). EPA estimates that
approximately 75 percent of these 72 aluminum forming facilities will
choose to submit an annual certification requesting an exemption from
cyanide monitoring.

Canmaking (Part 465, Subpart D). Canmaking facilities covered by Part
465, Subpart D, are required to submit a one-time notification if the
alloy used in making cans contains less than 1 percent manganese. For
indirect dischargers, EPA expects few (if any) such notifications in the
future. As a conservative estimate, this ICR assumes one such
notification during the next 3 years.

Centralized Waste Treatment Point Source Category (Part 437). The
preamble to the final Central Waste Treatment Rule indicates that 37
facilities “accept wastes from multiple subcategories and could be
subject to the multiple wastestream subcategory” (65 FR 81267). Based
on data in the development document for the final rule, approximately
91.5 percent of CWT facilities are indirect dischargers (pp. 4–6). In
this ICR, EPA applies the overall percentage of indirect dischargers to
the total number of dischargers that accept wastes from multiple
subcategories to arrive at 34 indirect discharger that accept waste from
multiple subcategories (37 * 91.5% = 34). EPA also assumes that 34
respondents complete initial certification statements for coverage under
Part 437, Subpart D. Each of these 34 facilities must submit an annual
certification. (This burden was discussed in the 2003 Pretreatment
Program ICR, but it is repeated here for completeness.)

Coil Coating Point Source Category (Part 465). The estimated number of
indirect dischargers in the Coil Coating Point Source Categories (41
facilities) is from the Technical Support Document for the 2004 Effluent
Guidelines Program Plan (EPA-821-R-04-014, August 2004) (“the TSD”).
EPA estimates that approximately 75 percent of these 41 coil coating
facilities will choose to submit an annual certification requesting an
exemption from cyanide monitoring. This information collection item does
not apply to canmaking facilities (Part 465, Subpart D) because they are
not required to monitor for cyanide.

Electrical and Electronic Components (Part 469). The number of indirect
dischargers in the Electrical and Electronic Components Point Source
Category (91 facilities) is also from the August 2004 TSD, which in turn
uses Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data. EPA estimates that
approximately 50 percent of these 91 electrical and electronic
components facilities will choose to submit a total toxic organic (TTO)
certification in lieu of TTO monitoring. Certifications must be
submitted twice a year.

Electroplating Point Source Category (Part 413) and Metal Finishing
Point Source Category. The estimated number of indirect dischargers in
the Electroplating and Metal Finishing Point Source Categories (7,644
total) is from data compiled by EPA’s Office of Science and Technology
(OST) during the development of the Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M)
rule. The categories are combined because the facilities’ operations
are similar. EPA estimates that approximately 75 percent of these 7,644
electroplating and metal finishing facilities will choose to submit a
TTO certification semiannually in lieu of TTO monitoring. This
assumption is consistent with the assumptions associated with the Metal
Finishing category.

Pesticide Chemicals (Part 455). The estimated number of indirect
dischargers covered by PFPR regulations (1,500 facilities) is from the
preamble to the PFPR rule (61 FR 57541). Consistent with that preamble,
EPA assumes in this ICR that all 1,500 indirect dischargers in the PFPR
category will opt for the P2 alternative and that all 1,500 facilities
will submit two certifications per year. These assumptions are
consistent with the 1996, 2000, and 2005 pretreatment program ICRs and
with the preamble to the PFPR rule (61 FR 57541). For consistency with
the Information Collection Request for the NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/
Certification Information, EPA assumes that certifications will require
IUs 1 hour each.

Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Point Source Category (Part 439). The
estimated number of facilities (286) subject to guidelines for the
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Point Source Category is based on data
gathered by OST during the development of the 1998 final rule. EPA
estimates, on the basis of data in effluent guideline development
documents, that approximately 40 percent of the pharmaceutical
facilities are in a subcategory that potentially uses cyanide. Of these,
EPA estimates that 75 percent will choose to submit a certification once
every permit cycle (once every 5 years).

Porcelain Enameling Point Source Category (Part 466). The estimated
number of indirect dischargers in the Porcelain Enameling Category (146)
is from data collected by OST during development of the TSD but not
included in the final TSD. The estimate includes TRI data from
facilities with SIC codes 3431, 3469, 3479, 3631, 3633, 3632, and 3639,
each of which reported transfers of TRI chemicals to POTWs in 2000.
Although this number represents EPA’s best estimate, the Agency is
uncertain about the fit between these SIC codes and indirect dischargers
covered in the Porcelain Enameling Category because operations in these
SIC codes could be covered by the Metal Finishing Category. EPA
estimates that 50 percent of these 146 porcelain enameling facilities
will choose to submit an annual certification requesting an exemption
from chromium monitoring

Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Source Category (Part 430). To estimate the
universe of potentially affected facilities, EPA has used estimates in
this ICR from the Supplemental Technical Development Document for
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Pulp, Paper, and
Paperboard Category: Subpart B (Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda) and
Subpart E (Papergrade Sulfite) and from EPA’s Guidance Manual for
Pulp, Paper and Paperboard and Builders’ Paper and Board Mills
Pretreatment Standards (September 21, 1984). EPA estimates that 119 of
the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category not including Subpart B
(Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda) and Subpart E (Papergrade Sulfite)
will choose to submit an annual certification requesting an exemption
Based on EPA ICR No. 2015.02, OMB Control Number 2040-0242, EPA
estimated that six Subpart B (Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda)
facilities would certify.

Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (Part 423). The
estimated number of facilities in the Steam Electric Power Generating
Point Source Category is from the Development Document for Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards and Pretreatment Standards for the
Steam Electric Point Source Category (November 1982). EPA estimates that
approximately 75 percent of these 117 facilities will choose to provide
an annual demonstration and provide a certification requesting an
exemption from monitoring requirements for priority pollutants other
than chromium and zinc.

	IU Slug Load Notification

In this ICR, EPA assumes that 100 SIUs per year will be required to
provide a slug load notification. EPA estimates the average burden per
CIU response to be 2 hours. The Agency further estimates that an
additional 450 non-categorical SIUs per year will be required to provide
a slug load notification. EPA estimates the average burden per SIU
response to be 0.25 hour.

	Notification of Changed Discharge

EPA assumes that 1,000 IUs per year will provide notification of a
changed discharge. EPA estimates that this notification will require 4
burden hours.

	Bypass Notification

In this ICR, EPA assumes that 1,427 SIUs per year will report bypasses
and that CAs will require 75 percent of these SIUs (1,070 SIUs) to
conduct follow-up activities. EPA assumes IUs will require 5 hours for
bypass notification and 2 hours for follow-up activities.

	Notification of Changed Monitoring Location

For this ICR, EPA estimates that 50 SIUs will provide notification of a
changed monitoring location per year. EPA estimates the SIUs will
require 1 hour to provide notification.

	Slug Control Plan

EPA estimates that 10 percent of all new SIUs will need to develop a
slug control plan. EPA based the number of new SIUs on an assumed growth
rate of 2 percent for existing CIUs and to account for any facilities
that will be covered under new categorical standards. However, no new
effluent guidelines are anticipated during this ICR cycle. The Agency
estimates that this activity will require 2 hours per SIU.

	Program/Categorical Determination

	Categorical Determination Request

The deadline for a categorical determination request has passed for all
existing effluent guidelines, and no new guidelines affecting indirect
discharges are anticipated during this ICR cycle. Therefore, no formal
categorical determination requests are anticipated during the 3-year ICR
period. A New Source must request this certification prior to commencing
discharge.

	Alternative Limits Modification Request

In this ICR, EPA assumes that 10 percent of all new CIUs will request
alternative limits (i.e., use the combined wastestream formula). EPA
estimates that an IU will require 2 hours to complete a request.

	Fundamentally Different Factors Variance Request

FDF variance requests must be submitted within 180 days following
publication of a new effluent guideline. EPA knows of no pending FDF
variance requests associated with recently promulgated guidelines.
Because no new guidelines affecting indirect dischargers are anticipated
during the next 3 years, no new respondents are anticipated. In
addition, no new dischargers under existing guidelines are anticipated
because facilities are required to submit requests no later than 180
days after promulgation of the categorical pretreatment standard.

	Net/Gross Adjustment Request

Based on information provided by EPA Regional Pretreatment Coordinators,
EPA estimates that two net/gross adjustment requests will be submitted
each year. The Agency further estimates that IUs will require 50 hours
per request.

	Recordkeeping

	Maintain Monitoring Records

All SIUs must maintain monitoring records. EPA estimates that SIUs will
require 2 hours per year to maintain pretreatment records. Based on
changes made to the pretreatment regulations by the Streamlining Rule,
IUs with general control mechanisms will have to maintain associated
records. CIUs that request a variance for pollutants neither present nor
expected to be present will also have to maintain sampling and reporting
records. Because IUs already maintain individual permit and sampling
records, EPA estimates no additional SIU reporting and recordkeeping
burden.

6(b).	Respondent Costs

6(b)(i).	Cost to States

Exhibit 6 shows that the annual costs to states are approximately $4.6
million. The labor costs, which account for all state costs, are based
on the average hourly wage for state employees as determined by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation, Table 3- Employer costs per hour worked for employee
compensation and costs as a percent of total compensation: state and
local government, by selected characteristics (June 2010), in March
2010, to be $39.81.

Exhibit 6.	Average annual state burden and costs

Activity	Annual Burden Hours	Annual Cost ($K)	Responses

Capital and O&M Cost	Labor Cost	Total Cost

	Program development	0	$0.0	$0.0	$0.0	0.0

Program implementation	57,256	$0.0	$2,279.3	$2,279.3	2,706

Program/categorical determination	0	$0.0	$0.0	$0.0	0

States as users of data	46,668	$0.0	$1,857.9	$1,857.9	NA

Recordkeeping	12,785	$0.0	$509.0	$509.0	NA

Total	116,709	$0.0	$4,646.2	$4,646.2	2,706

NOTE:  Detail may not add due to independent rounding. Costs in
thousands of dollars.

6(b)(ii).	Cost to POTWs

Exhibit 7 shows that the annual costs to POTWs are approximately $25.4
million. The average hourly rate for municipal employees, which account
for all POTW costs, as determined by the U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, is $29.44 (including 50% overhead). Updated
rates are derived from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, in a table entitled May 2009 National Industry-Specific
Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates and adjusted to March 2010
dollars using the ECI.

Exhibit 7.	Average annual POTW burden and costs

Activity	Annual Burden Hours	Annual Cost ($K)	Responses

Capital and O&M Cost	Labor Cost	Total Cost

	Program development	6,015	$0.0	$177.1	$177.1	159.3

Program implementation	622,971	$0.0	$18,338.4	$18,338.4	27,749

Program/categorical determination	1,375	$0.0	$40.5	$40.5	28

POTWs as users of data	79,353	$0.0	$2,335.9	$2,335.9	NA

Recordkeeping	154,800	$0.0	$4,556.8	$4,556.8	NA

Total	864,513	$0.0	$25,448.6	$25,448.6	27,937

NOTE:  Detail may not add due to independent rounding. Costs in
thousands of dollars.

6(b)(iii).	Cost to Industrial Users

Exhibit 8 shows the total costs for IUs over the 3-year ICR period.
Annual costs are approximately $46.7 million, comprised of labor and
capital and O&M cost.

Labor costs are based on the number of burden hours times the average
hourly wage rate, including overhead. For all IU activities, EPA used
the median industrial engineer wage of $36.11 per hour. After adjusting
this rate for inflation, compensation, and overhead the rate is $55.22
per hour. There are capital costs incurred by IUs that receive mass
limits as an alternative to concentration based standards.

Exhibit 8.	Average annual industrial user burden and costs

Activity	Annual Burden Hours	Annual Cost ($k)	Responses

Capital and O&M Cost	Labor Cost	Total Cost

	Program development	0	$0.0	$0.0	$0.0

Program implementation	757,552	$2,318.9	$41,831.4	$44,150.3	67,773

Program/categorical determination	140	$0.0	$7.7	$7.7	22

IUs as users of data	0	$0.0	$0.0	$0.0	NA

Recordkeeping	45,654	$0.0	$2,521.0	$2,521.0	NA

Total	803,346	$2,318.9	$44,360.1	$46,679.0	67,796

NOTE:  Detail may not add due to independent rounding. Costs in
thousands of dollars.

6(c).	Agency Burden and Costs

Appendix B, Table B-10, provides detailed information about the burden
to the Agency as a user of the information. The total burden to the
Agency is 13,099 hours per year.

The federal government (EPA regions and headquarters) incurs burden and
costs to process, analyze, and maintain the information collected. EPA
regions, in their role as OAs, are users of the State Program Approval
Requests, Categorical Determination Requests, FDF Variance Requests, and
other types of information.

Most of the respondent activities described in section 5 of this ICR
generate reports, information, or data, which must be received,
reviewed, and stored by an OA. Table B-10 in Appendix B calculates the
burden to federal agencies (primarily EPA regions) as users of these
data. Where EPA is the AA (i.e., in 26.15 percent of pretreatment
programs), the Agency reviews reports generated by pretreatment POTWs.
Therefore, the associated review burden for the activities detailed in
Appendix B, Table B-3, and described in section 4(b)(ii), for which
reports or data are submitted to federal agencies (as AAs) has been
apportioned accordingly.

Appendix B, Table B-10, outlines the hours per response, number of
responses per year, and total hours per year expended by the federal
government (EPA) for reviewing state and POTW reports. The annual
average number of hours expended by EPA as a user of the data is 13,099.
Based on an average hourly rate of $38.97 for a federal employee, the
estimated annual cost to EPA is $510,481.

In addition, EPA is the OA for states acting as AAs. Data or reports
generated by the activities listed in Table B-2 of Appendix B will be
sent to EPA regions for review. The burden for these review activities
is also included in Appendix B, Table B-10. Total annual EPA burden and
cost estimates are also included in Exhibit 9.

6(d).	Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

Respondents for this ICR include IUs, POTWs, and states, for a total of
24,411 respondents. This ICR estimates the number of IUs at 22,827. In
addition to the IUs, this ICR assumes 36 states (31 states that
authorize POTWs to implement pretreatment programs and 5 states covered
by 40 CFR 403.10(e)) and 1,548 approved pretreatment programs.

The total costs and burden for these respondents are summarized in
Exhibits 6, 7, and 8. Agency costs and burden are detailed in Appendix
B, Table B-10.

6(e).	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

The bottom line burden hours and costs appear in Exhibit 9 below. This
exhibit summarizes the burden and cost calculations from Exhibits 6, 7,
8, and Appendix B, Table B-10. (Appendix B provides detailed cost and
burden calculations.) The total annual respondent burden associated with
this ICR is estimated to be 1.78 million burden hours. The corresponding
total annual respondent costs are estimated to be $76.8 million. The
total national burden, including respondent burden and Agency burden, is
estimated to be 1.80 million hours annually. The total national cost,
for respondents and EPA, is estimated to be $77.3 million annually.

Exhibit 9.	Bottom line average annual burden and cost

Number of Respondents	24,411

	=	36	States

+	1,548	POTWs

+	22,827	Industrial Users

Total Annual Responses	98,438

	=	2,706	States

+	27,937	POTWs

+	67,796	Industrial Users

Total Respondent Hours	1,784,568

	=	116,709	States

+	864,513	POTWs

+	803,346	Industrial Users

Hours per Response	18.13

	=	1,784,568	Total annual hours from above

÷	98,438	Total annual responses from above

Annual Respondent Labor Cost	$74,454,863

	=	$4,646,169	States

+	$25,448,626	POTWs

+	$44,360,068	Industrial Users

Annual Respondent O&M and Capital Cost	$2,318,913

	=	$0	States

+	$0	POTWs

+	$2,318,913	Industrial Users

Total Respondent Cost	$76,773,776

	=	$4,646,169	States

+	$25,448,626	POTWs

+	$46,678,981	Industrial Users

Total Hours (Respondents & EPA)	1,797,668

	=	1,784,568	Respondents

+	13,099	EPA

Total Cost (Respondents & EPA)	$77,284,256	=	$76,773,776	Respondents

+	$510,481	EPA

NOTE:  Detail may not add due to independent rounding.

6(f).	Reasons for Change in Burden

This section explains the burden changes from the September 2007 ICR
which is the current inventory kept by OMB. The current burden approved
by OMB for the existing ICR is 1,797,087. That is 12,519 (0.7%) more
hours than are being requested in this ICR. Most of the decrease in
burden is attributable to the decrease in the number of SIUs. EPA
revised the estimated number of SIUs and pretreatment programs after
extensive consultation with the EPA regions and a thorough examination
of PCS data. The revised number of SIUs drives the decrease in
respondent burden because SIUs constitute the bulk of respondents.  This
ICR shows a shift in burden from POTWs to States as a consequence of
EPA’s updated estimates of of SIUs regulated by POTWs and States.
However, EPA does not believe this is the result of programmatic changes
but simply a reflection of more accurate information about the
implementation of the pretreatment program.

Other minor decreases in burden in this ICR are the result of:

Moving the burden to participate in the Clean Water Act awards for
pretreatment programs from this ICR to the Recognition Application for
Sustainable Water Leadership Program (EPA ICR No. 1287.10 OMB Control
No. 2040-0101)

EPA’s anticipation that no state will seek pretreatment program
authority during this 3-year ICR period.

Although the overall burden decreases, there are also burden increases
in some areas. For example, the number of state respondents has
increased from 35 to 36, and the number of approved programs has
increased to 1,548 from 1,512.

For this ICR, labor rates have been updated to March 2010 dollars. These
changes affect the estimated costs of reporting and recordkeeping
requirements of the National Pretreatment Program.

6(g).	Burden Statement

The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for collections included
in this ICR is detailed in Exhibit 9 and Appendix B. The annual
respondent reporting burden is estimated to average 64.4 hours per
respondent per year, and annual respondent recordkeeping burden is
estimated to average 8.7 hours per respondent per year. This burden is
attributed to states, POTWs, and IUs.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
people to generate, maintain, retain, 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; 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. An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for
information collection unless it displays a currently valid OMB control
number. The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed in
40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

To comment on EPA’s need for this information, the accuracy of the
provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
the Agency has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2007-0142, which is available for public viewing at the
Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 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
202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is
202-566-2426. An electronic version of the public docket is available
through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
http://www.regulations.gov/. Use FDMS to submit or view public comments,
to access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to
access documents in the public docket that are available electronically.
Once in the system, key in the docket ID number identified above. You
can also send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the
EPA Docket ID No. OW-2007-0142 and OMB Control No. 2040-0009 in any
correspondence.

 70 FR 60134, October 15, 2005.

 Project XL is covered by a separate ICR, the Regulatory Reinvention
Pilot Projects under Project XL: Pretreatment Program, OMB Control
Number 2010-0026, EPA ICR Number 1755.05.

 For a detailed summary of PIRT's recommendations, see the January 30,
1985, EPA publication Pretreatment Review Task Force: Final Report to
the Administrator.

 The Streamlining Rule introduced two new categories of IUs to the
National Pretreatment Program for the purpose of reducing implementation
and reporting burdens on the IUs that fall into these categories.
Control authorities may designate an IU that never discharges more than
100 gpd of total categorical wastewater as a non-significant categorical
industrial user (NSCIU). CAs may also classify some CIUs as middle tier
CIUs, meaning they are subject to more stringent reporting requirements
than those for NSCIUs but less than those for CIUs that are SIUs. These
voluntary regulatory changes reduce the number of respondents for many
National Pretreatment Program requirements. In turn, these changes
reduce program management and implementation burdens on CAs, AAs, and
OAs.

 Ibid.

 Ibid.

 EPA is in the process of developing new categorical standards that may
be in effect during the 3-year life of this ICR. At this time the
expected impacts of the new standards are not possible to be assessed.
Therefore, EPA will developed burden estimates once these new standards
are finalized.

 The TSD estimates the number of indirect dischargers based on data from
the TRI. There are limitations associated with these TRI data. Because
neither small establishments (fewer than 10 employees) nor facilities
that do not meet the reporting thresholds are required to report,
facilities reporting to TRI might be a very small subset of an industry.
Also, because facilities are identified by SIC code, not by point source
category, it might be difficult or impossible to identify the point
source category that is the source of the toxic wastewater releases for
some SIC codes. For example, coil coating is an operation that is part
of canmaking (3411, metal cans). Some of these facilities have coil
coating operations, but they cannot be identified from the data in TRI.

 The hourly employment cost of federal employees was determined using a
methodology established in previous ICRs. According to the U.S. Office
of Personnel Management, January 2010 General Schedule (2010-GS), the
average annual salary of a government employee at the GS-9, Step 10,
level is $54,028. At 2,080 hours per year, the hourly wage would be
$25.98. Assuming overhead costs of 50 percent, or $12.99 per hour, the
fully loaded cost of employment for a federal employee would be $38.97.

Draft Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request	  PAGE   \*
MERGEFORMAT  iii

Draft Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request	  PAGE   \*
MERGEFORMAT  66


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 72 (Monday, April 15, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15162-15165]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07385]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0192; Product Identifier 2019-NM-004-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus SAS Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes,
and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model
A300-600 series airplanes), and Model A310 series airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by a determination that a certain aircraft
maintenance manual (AMM) task provided instructions for a visual
inspection of composite and metallic vertical tailplane (VTP)
attachment fittings, but the inspection method did not specify
detection of delamination length, which could possibly extend beyond
the defined allowable limits. This proposed AD would require a review
of maintenance records, and, depending on the result, one-time detailed
and ultrasonic inspections of the affected parts and applicable
corrective actions, as specified in an European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD, which will be incorporated by reference. We are proposing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 30, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For the incorporation by reference (IBR) material described in the
``Related IBR material under 1 CFR part 51'' section in SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne,
Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 1000; email [email protected];
Internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA
website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at
the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD docket on the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-

0192; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations (telephone 800-
647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in
the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2019-0192;
Product Identifier 2019-NM-004-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this NPRM.

Discussion

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0006, dated January 17, 2019
(``EASA AD 2019-0006'') (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for all Airbus SAS Model A300-600 series airplanes and Model
A310 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    AMM Task 55-36-11 provides instructions for visual inspection of
composite and metallic VTP attachment fittings, and contains
detailed information on damage limits. As defined in this AMM task,
a composite part delamination is acceptable without further repair.
However, as the inspection method included in the AMM does not allow
detection of delamination length, this may consequently pass over
the allowable limits defined.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
failure of the VTP attachment fittings, possibly resulting in loss
of control of the aeroplane.
    Prompted by this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued the
applicable SB [service bulletin] to provide non-destructive test
instructions, which allow detection of delaminated area(s) before
exceeding the limits.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a
review of maintenance records and, depending on the result, a one-
time detailed inspection (DET) of the affected parts, followed by an
ultrasonic (US) inspection, and, depending on findings,
accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2019-0006 describes procedures for a review of maintenance
records, one-time detailed and ultrasonic inspections of the affected
parts, and applicable corrective actions. This material is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
ADDRESSES section, and it is publicly available through the EASA
website.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced
above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent
information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to
exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Proposed Requirements of This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2019-0006 described previously, as incorporated by
reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a process to
use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information for
compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. As a result,
EASA AD 2019-0006 will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final
rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with the
provisions specified in EASA AD 2019-0006, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
Service information specified in EASA AD 2019-0006 that is required for
compliance with EASA AD 2019-0006 will be available on the internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2019-0192 after the FAA final rule is published.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 133 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Labor cost                   Parts cost         Cost per product         Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 21 work-hours x $85 per hour =                  $0  Up to $1,785..............  Up to $237,405.
 $1,785.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.
    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this
proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost
impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for
affected individuals. As a result, we have included all known costs in
our cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701:

``General requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA
with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by
prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the
Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses
an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products
identified in this rulemaking action.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the
Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA-2019-0192; Product Identifier 2019-NM-
004-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 30, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1)
and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category, as identified
in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-0006, dated
January 17, 2019 (``EASA AD 2019-0006'').
    (1) Airbus SAS Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622
airplanes, Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes, Model A300 F4-
605R and F4-622R airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F
airplanes.
    (2) Airbus SAS Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -
324, and -325 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 55, Stabilizers.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that a certain aircraft
maintenance manual task provided instructions for a visual
inspection of composite and metallic vertical tailplane (VTP)
attachment fittings, but the inspection method did not specify
detection of delamination length, which could possibly extend beyond
the defined allowable limits. We are issuing this AD to address this
condition, which, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
failure of the VTP attachment fittings, possibly resulting in loss
of control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2019-0006.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2019-0006

    (1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements
of this AD: Where EASA AD 2019-0006 refers to its effective date,
this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements
of this AD: Replace the language in paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2019-
0006 that states ``it is determined that the maintenance records are
incomplete,'' with ``maintenance records cannot be used to
positively determine that the applicable maintenance actions have
been accomplished.''
    (3) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements
of this AD: Replace the language in paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2019-
0006 that states ``concurrently,'' with ``before further flight.''
    (4) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2019-0006 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's
EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any service information
referenced in EASA AD 2019-0006 that contains RC procedures and
tests: Except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, RC
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For information about EASA AD 2019-0006, contact EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
89990 6017; email [email protected]; Internet www.easa.europa.eu.
You may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this EASA AD at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195. EASA AD 2019-0006 may be found in the AD docket on the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2019-0192.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on April 8, 2019.
Michael J. Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-07385 Filed 4-12-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 74 (Thursday, April 16, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21223-21226]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08021]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER20-588-000]

Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.; Notice of
Technical Conference

    By order dated March 10, 2020,\1\ the Commission directed staff to
convene a technical conference regarding Midcontinent Independent
System Operator, Inc.'s (MISO) filing of proposed revisions to its Open
Access Transmission, Energy and Operating Reserve Markets Tariff to
allow for the

selection of a storage facility as a transmission-only asset (SATOA) in
the MISO Transmission Expansion Plan (MTEP). The technical conference
will explore issues including, but not limited to, MISO's proposed
evaluation and selection criteria for SATOAs, the SATOA's market
activities and any potential wholesale market impacts of those
activities, how MISO's current formula rate structure accommodates cost
recovery for SATOAs, a SATOA's potential effects on the generator
interconnection queue, and operating guides that will apply to a
SATOA.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 170 FERC ] 61,186
(2020).
    \2\ Id. P 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that the Commission will hold this staff-led technical
conference on Monday, May 4, 2020, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
(Eastern Time). This conference will be held remotely, as further
described below.
    Participants should be prepared to discuss, at minimum, the
following:

A. Evaluation and Selection Criteria for SATOAs

    MISO proposes Tariff language stating that, to be selected for
inclusion in Appendix A of the MTEP as a transmission asset, a proposed
SATOA must demonstrate:
    a. Unique characteristics or circumstances of the proposed SATOA
necessary to meet the identified Transmission System performance
requirements and not otherwise available at comparable costs from other
proposed solutions, including speed of operation, lead-time to
implement, right-of-way, or other property considerations.
    b. A need to resolve the Transmission Issue(s) through the storage
facility's functioning as a SATOA instead of as a Resource that
participates in [MISO's] markets.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ MISO Dec. 12 Filing, Tab A, proposed MISO Tariff Att. FF,
Sec.  II.G.1.c.i (71.0.0).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MISO states that an example of a unique characteristic is the
storage asset's ability to rapidly inject and withdraw real or reactive
power in solving transmission issues that could not otherwise be
resolved if the storage asset was participating in markets.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ MISO Dec. 12 Filing, Transmittal Letter at 2 n.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. What is an ``identified Transmission System performance
requirement?'' How and where are they identified? What is the
difference between an identified Transmission System performance
requirement and a Transmission Issue? What are examples of Transmission
System performance requirements that can be addressed by a proposed
SATOA?
    2. What criteria will MISO consider when determining whether a
proposed SATOA has unique characteristics or circumstances necessary to
meet the identified transmission system performance requirements? How
does MISO intend to communicate these criteria to stakeholders and
participants in the MTEP? What does MISO mean by ``other property
considerations''?
    3. What criteria will MISO consider when determining whether there
is a need for the storage facility to solve the transmission issue
through the storage facility's functioning as a SATOA instead of as a
resource that participates in MISO's markets? How does MISO intend to
communicate these criteria to stakeholders and participants in the
MTEP?
    4. With regard to MISO's example of a unique characteristic-i.e., a
storage asset's ability to rapidly inject and withdraw real or reactive
power in solving transmission issues-how can storage as transmission be
distinguished from storage resources participating in markets that
could have their dispatch schedules adjusted to rapidly inject or
withdraw real or reactive power to solve transmission issues if needed
as part of the normal security constrained dispatch of market
resources?
    5. If a traditional transmission project and a SATOA can both meet
a transmission system performance requirement equally well, how will
MISO determine which solution to select in the regional transmission
planning process? If multiple SATOA proposals have unique
characteristics or circumstances necessary to meet the identified
transmission system performance requirements, how will MISO determine
which solution to select in the regional transmission planning process?
    6. If the entity that proposes a SATOA does not provide sufficient
information for MISO to determine whether the SATOA meets the criteria
outlined in the Tariff excerpted above, how will MISO proceed? For
instance, will MISO attempt to determine if the SATOA meets the
criteria using MISO's own independent analysis? Will that analysis be
available to other participants in the regional transmission planning
process?
    7. How will MISO's evaluation criteria ensure that SATOAs are
limited to only those electric storage resources that are performing a
transmission-specific function?
    8. Please explain how MISO will communicate its decision in
approving a SATOA. For instance, MISO stated in its filing that there
is currently a storage resource pending as a recommended project in
MTEP19. Is the explanation provided in the MTEP19 executive summary
regarding this recommended project representative of the type of
explanation that MISO intends to provide in the future? What steps will
MISO take if additional information is requested from participants in
the regional transmission planning process?
    MISO states that comparative evaluations of a proposed SATOA will
include the minimum and maximum capacity required to address the
transmission issue to ensure that excess storage capacity is not
treated as a transmission asset. MISO further states that cost recovery
under transmission rates is limited to the cost of the maximum capacity
to be determined needed to address the transmission issue.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ MISO Dec. 12 Filing, Tab A, proposed MISO Tariff Att. FF,
Sec.  II.G.1.a.ii (71.0.0).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. How will MISO determine the maximum capacity needed to address
the transmission issue? Please explain.

B. SATOA Market Activities and Market Impacts

    MISO states that the SATOA owner is responsible for maintaining the
necessary state of charge to be ready to serve the transmission
function for which it was approved in the MTEP, and MISO will exercise
functional control of the SATOA for transmission purposes only, i.e.,
charging and discharging to meet the transmission need will be done at
the direction of MISO.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ MISO Dec. 12 Filing, Transmittal Letter at 6-7; MISO Answer
at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. What does it mean for a SATOA to be under MISO's ``functional
control,'' while making the SATOA owner responsible for maintaining
state of charge? Will MISO tell the SATOA when to charge and discharge
while the SATOA is performing to meet the transmission need? What is
the practical difference, if any, between charging/discharging to
``meet'' the transmission need and charging/discharging to be ``ready
to serve'' the transmission need?
    11. How will MISO ensure that a SATOA under its ``functional
control'' is available (e.g., not fully charged when needed to withdraw
power and not fully discharged when needed to inject power) to solve a
transmission issue?
    12. Please explain your view on whether and, if so, how the
charging/discharging activities of the SATOA directed under MISO's
functional control or, in connection with the SATOA owner's
responsibility to maintain state of charge, impact the wholesale energy
and capacity markets. For example, would these activities impact
transmission capacity, congestion, and/or other resources'

ability to meet energy and ancillary services needs, etc.? Please
explain.
    MISO proposes that the SATOA owner will need a registered market
participant to receive energy net costs when charging and discharging
under MISO's functional control. MISO states that the market
participant for a SATOA will be credited the applicable Real-Time Ex
Post LMP for Non-Excessive Energy and will be charged for Non-Excessive
Energy withdrawals. MISO explains that the SATOA market participant
then must provide the net revenues back to the transmission owner, and
those net revenues will offset the transmission revenue requirement
associated with the resource.\7\ MISO states that the SATOA will be a
price taker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ MISO Dec. 12 Filing, Transmittal Letter at 23, Tab A,
proposed MISO Tariff, Module C, Sec.  <IP_ADDRESS>.a.i (44.0.0).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. Does a SATOA's direct participation in the wholesale energy
markets as a price-taker create potential impacts on the wholesale
energy and capacity markets by, for instance, displacing otherwise
marginal or infra-marginal resources and possibly changing the energy
market price? Why or why not? If energy market impacts occur, will they
be minimal or might they be mitigated, and if so how?
    14. Please provide further information on: (1) What types of entity
could serve as the SATOA's market participant; (2) whether such market
participant and/or the SATOA owner would have market-based rate
authority; and (3) if the market participant were affiliated merchant
function staff, how the standards of conduct would be met.

C. Cost Recovery for SATOAs

    MISO proposes that costs resulting from a SATOA's market activities
directed under MISO's functional control be collected through
transmission rates in a manner consistent with the treatment of costs
associated with the transmission project type in which the SATOA is
included in Appendix A to the MTEP. Any revenues collected from the
SATOA's market activities directed under MISO's functional control
would be credited through transmission rates in a manner consistent
with the treatment of costs associated with the transmission project
category in transmission rates.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ MISO Dec. 12 Filing, Transmittal Letter at 22, Tab A,
proposed MISO Tariff, Att. FF Sec.  II.G.6 (71.0.0).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. How does MISO's current formula rate structure in Attachments
O, GG, or MM accommodate cost recovery for SATOAs? Are any of those
provisions sufficient to allow net market revenue to be credited
through the transmission revenue requirement? Will the net energy
revenue be credited outside the existing formulas, e.g., through a
separate rider?
    16. If the existing formulas will need to be modified to
accommodate SATOAs, what types of modifications are needed and when
will such modifications be filed to ensure that they are effective
before a SATOA becomes operational?

D. Impact on the Generator Interconnection Queue

    MISO proposes that, if it or a stakeholder identifies a potential
impact to newly-interconnecting generation resources in the
interconnection study process, MISO will assess whether the proposed
SATOA will have an impact. If the assessment demonstrates that the
necessary operating mode of the proposed SATOA will cause the need for
additional system mitigation, the cost of such mitigation will be
included in the evaluation of the proposed SATOA as compared with other
potential transmission solutions. MISO proposes that its impact
assessment may include targeted contingency analyses applying NERC TPL
and applicable regional and local planning criteria to evaluate the
incremental impact.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ MISO Dec. 12 Filing, Transmittal Letter at 20-21, Tab A,
proposed MISO Tariff Att. FF, Sec.  II.G.1.d (71.0.0).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. Please provide further details on how MISO would assess the
impact of a proposed SATOA on newly-interconnecting generation
resources and compute costs if system mitigation is needed. Would MISO
account for changes due to restudies in the interconnection study
process and, if so, how? Could a SATOA be considered a contingent
facility? Will MISO's interconnection procedures be modified to include
any of these details? Does MISO intend to include any of these details
in its Business Practice Manuals? Will the analysis of the impact of
the proposed SATOA on the newly-interconnecting generation resources be
available to market participants in the regional transmission planning
process and/or interconnection customers in the interconnection queue?
    18. Will MISO's assessment of impacts include assessment of delays
in the interconnection queue, and if so, how would MISO mitigate those
delays? If not, why is it not necessary to assess potential delays to
the interconnection queue as a result of a proposed SATOA?
    19. MISO states that the cost of additional mitigation if the SATOA
affecting newly-interconnecting generation resource is selected as the
preferred transmission solution in the MTEP will be included in the
evaluation of the proposed SATOA. Will such costs also be included in
the total SATOA cost recovered through transmission rates and, if so,
how?

E. Operating Guides

    MISO states that it will coordinate with the SATOA owner, MISO
Operations, and the transmission operator to develop an operating guide
that will establish (1) conditions for which the SATOA should be
discharged and charged to meet the anticipated planning objective and
(2) boundaries for operation that will be consistent with this
objective and will reflect the unique operating parameters of the
individual SATOA.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ MISO Dec. 12 Filing, Transmittal Letter at 21, proposed
MISO Tariff, Att. FF, Sec.  II.G.2 (71.0.0).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. Please provide a summary and explanation of the information
that may be contained in the operating guides. Please provide specific
examples of the information to be contained in the operating guides.

F. Miscellaneous

    21. Are there any scenarios where a SATOA might be called upon
under emergency conditions to relieve an issue outside of the specific
transmission issue for which the SATOA was selected? If so, how will
MISO handle any out-of-market payments that the SATOA receives?
    22. Are SATOAs studied for reliability impacts in the same way as
storage as non-transmission alternatives, particularly regarding
dynamic stability? If not, why not? Please explain in detail how SATOAs
will be studied for reliability impact.
    The technical conference will be led by Commission staff, and is
open to the public. All people interested in participating in the
conference must register at the following link: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/05-04-20-form.asp by no later than noon on May
1, 2020. There is no registration fee. Information on joining the
technical conference will be posted on the Events Calendar available at
https://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx?View=listview.
    The conference will include discussions between Commission staff
and MISO. If time permits, there may be an opportunity for parties that
are participating in the conference to ask questions or provide
comments. The proposed agenda for the technical conference is described
below. Procedures to be followed at the

conference and any changes to the proposed agenda will be announced by
staff at the opening of the conference. The technical conference will
not be transcribed.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or 202-502 -8659 (TTY); or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    Following the technical conference, the Commission will consider
post-technical conference comments submitted on or before May 25, 2020.
The written comments will be included in the formal record of the
proceeding, which, together with the record developed to date, will
form the basis for further Commission action.
    For more information about this technical conference, please
contact Mark Byrd,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information
related to logistics, please contact Sarah McKinley,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: April 10, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.

Storage as a Transmission-Only Asset (SATOA) in MISO Technical
Conference--Webex Teleconference

Monday, May 4, 2020, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

9:00 a.m.-10:30 a.m. Evaluation and Selection Criteria for SATOA
     Identified Transmission System performance requirement
     Unique Characteristics or Circumstances
     Functioning as SATOA Compared to Market Participant
10:30 a.m.-10:45 a.m. Break
10:45 a.m.-11:30 a.m. Evaluation and Selection Criteria for SATOA
(continued)
     Traditional Transmission Project compared to SATOA
     SATOA Evaluation Criteria
     Communication of Decision Approving a SATOA
11:30 a.m.-12:45 p.m. SATOA Market Activities and Market Impacts
     Meaning of ``Functional Control''
     Impact of SATOA Activity on Wholesale Market
     Information Regarding Market Participant
12:45 p.m.-1:30 p.m. Lunch
1:30 p.m.-2:15 p.m. Cost Recovery for SATOAs
     Formula Rate Structure
2:15 p.m.-3:30 p.m. Impact on the Generator Interconnection Queue
     Assessing the Impact of a SATOA on Newly Interconnecting
Generating Resources
     Assessment of Delays and Mitigation
3:30 p.m.-3:45 p.m. Break
3:45 p.m.-4:15 p.m. Operating Guides
     Information in Operating Guides
4:15 p.m.-5:00 p.m. Miscellaneous
     Emergency Conditions
     Reliability Impacts

[FR Doc. 2020-08021 Filed 4-15-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P