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 the Agency'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, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OW 2003 0009, which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 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 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 EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, to access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search," then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can 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 2003 0009) in any correspondence. Appendix A 2000 Information Collection Request for the National Pretreatment Program 1For consistency, EPA is retaining the hourly rates used in the 1996 ICR ($ 28.79 for States, $ 18.10 for POTWs, and $ 43.76 for private sector employees. Costs associated with laboratory analyses by outside laboratories are converted to hours using the private sector wage rate, because the workers are private sector employees.

OMB Control No. 2040 0009 Draft for OMB Review EPA ICR No. 0002.08 September 27, 2000 INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST FOR THE NATIONAL PRETREATMENT PROGRAM ( 40 CRF PART 403) RESUBMISSION The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) is resubmitting the Information Collection Request ( ICR) for the National Pretreatment Program, which was approved by the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) on October 18, 1996. This ICR estimates the recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with the National Pretreatment Program. In response to questions raised by the General Accounting Office ( GAO) in a March 2000 report, this resubmission presents an alternative approach for estimating this burden.

This resubmission addresses the way in which EPA presents the burden associated with analyses of chemical samples by independent laboratories. Prior to 1996, EPA had presented these costs as hour burden. In 1996, EPA continued to present analysis burden as hour burden for respondents that conducted laboratory analysis " in house." However, fees paid by respondents to independent laboratories were presented as cost burden and included on Form I 83 under Item No. 14b, " Total Annual Cost ( O& M)."

The burden associated with laboratory is converted to burden hours by dividing the cost burden by the appropriate hourly rate. 1 As the table below shows, this revised approach increases the burden hour estimate by 1,082,011 hours ( from 1,765,156 hours in the 1996 submission to 2,847,167 in this resubmission).

Type of Respondent Burden Hr. Estimted, per 1996 ICR Burden Hr. Estimate, Revised Change in Burden Cost Average Hourly Rate Hours States 40,753 ( Exh. 6A) 1,173,266 ( Exh. 8B) $ 28.79 40,753 0 POTWs, inhouse labs 305,407 ( Exh. 6B) 5,527,861 ( Exh. 8C) $ 18.10 305,407 0 POTWs, outside labs 0 10,552,781 ( Exh. 8C) $ 43.76 241,151 241,151 SIUs 0 34,354,231 ( Exh. 8D) $ 43.76 785,060 785,060 CIUs in new ELGs 0 2,441,824 ( Exh. 8E) $ 43.76 55,800 55,800 Total 1,082,011 Pretreatment ICR page E 2 2For 1993, Exhibit 6B of the 1996 ICR, under Follow Up, reports 136,50 hours for metals and 99,000 hours for organics, for a total of 235,500. For 1996, the table on the previous page of this resubmission summary reports a burden of 305,407 hours for in house laboratories and 241,151 for outside labs, for a total of 546,558 hours. The difference between 1993 and 1996 is 311,058.

3Exhibit 8C of the 1996 ICR shows an in house lab cost of $ 2,001,377 + $ 662,883 = $ 2,664,260 for conventional and non conventional pollutants. This is equivalent to 147,197 hours ($ 2,664,260/$ 18.10 per hour). For contracted laboratories, Exhibit 8C shows a lab cost of $ 500,344 + $ 662,883 = $ 1,163,227. This is equivalent to 26,582 hours ($ 1,163,227/$ 43.76). In total, 147,197 hours + 26,582 hours = 173,779 hours.

4Exhibit 8C of the 1996 ICR shows an in house lab cost of $ 315,291 + $ 1,565,027 = $ 1,880,318. This is equivalent to 103,885 hours ($ 1,880,318/$ 18.10). For contracted laboratories, Exhibit 8C shows a total cost of $ 640,137 + $ 3,177,479 = $ 3,817,616, which is equivalent to 87,240 hours ($ 3,817,616/$ 43.76). In 1993, the Burden for metals was 136,500 ( Exhibit 6B of the 1996 ICR). The difference is 54,625 hours.

5Exhibit 8C of the 1996 ICR shows an in house lab cost of $ 327,761 + $ 655,522 = $ 983,283. This is equivalent to 54,325 hours ($ 983,283/$ 18.10). For contracted laboratories, Exhibit 8C shows a total cost of $ 1,857,313 + $ 3,714,626 = $ 5,517,939, which is equivalent to 127,330 hours ($ 5,571,939/$ 43.76). In 1993, the Burden for organics was 99,000 ( Exhibit 6B of the 1996 ICR). The difference is 82,655 hours.

6The analysis burden in 1996 is actually slightly less than the analysis burden in 1993. Exhibit 6C of the 1996 ICR shows 1993 estimates of 624,400 for categorical users, 360,000 hours for metals, and 237,600 hours for organics, for a total of 898,000 hours. The table in the front shows a total of 785,060 hours. However, the 1996 estimate also include estimates for sample collection and reporting, which appear to be omitted from the 1993 estimates. These estimates total 149,280 ( 119,424+ 29,856). The net difference is ( 785,060 + 149,280)  898,000 = 36,340.

OMB Control No. 2040 0009 Draft for OMB Review EPA ICR No. 0002.08 September 27, 2000 The revised 1996 burden estimate ( 2,847,167 hours) is significantly higher than the burden that had been estimated in the 1993 ICR ( 2,322,688 hours). The following summarizes the major reasons for this increase:

C When all analysis activities are reflected as burden hours, the burden associated with POTWs' monitoring of SIUs rises by 311,058 ( from 235,500 in 1993 to 546,558 in 1996). 2 This occurs because:

 The 1996 ICR ( as resubmitted) reflected the Agency's revised focus on including conventional and non conventional parameters in local limits. ( Conventional and non conventional parameters had not been considered in the 1993 ICR.). This accounts for about 173,779 hours. 3  The 1996 ICR ( as resubmitted) shows an increase of 54,625 hours in POTWs' burden for metals testing. 4 Although the 1996 ICR uses a lower cost per analysis, the 1993 ICR underestimated the number of samples required.

 The 1996 ICR ( as resubmitted) shows an increase of 82,655 hours in POTWs' burden for organics testing. 5 C The burden associated with industrial users' self monitoring also increase, but only by 36,340.6 Pretreatment ICR page E 3 7In Exhibit 6C of the 1996 ICR, the sum of the change in burden from 1993 to 1996 for Baseline Monitoring Reports, IU Compliance Schedule Reports, and IU Compliance Attainment Reports is 156,092 hours. As shown on the table in the front of this resubmission summary, the analysis burden associated with these reports is 55,800. This totals 211,892.

OMB Control No. 2040 0009 Draft for OMB Review EPA ICR No. 0002.08 September 27, 2000 C The 1996 ICR reflects burden associated with effluent guidelines that EPA had expected to promulgate during the three year ICR cycle ( i. e., 10/ 1/ 96  9/ 30/ 99). Most of this burden was associated with Baseline Monitoring Reports ( BMRs) and compliance attainment reports, which reflect a net increase of approximately 211,892 hours. 7 C Other changes that occurred between 1993 and 1996 account for the remainder of the difference. For example, there were more SIUs in 1996 compared with 1993, which increased the burden for many activities. On the other hand, some one time activities had been completed between 1993 and 1996, which offset part of the increase in burden.

EPA is currently evaluating the burden estimates discussed here. The Agency believes that the estimates presented in the ICR significantly overestimate the burden associated with the Pretreatment Program. because of program changes that have occurred since 1996. In addition, EPA is currently finalizing amendments to the Pretreatment Streamlining Rule ( proposed July 22, 1999, 64 FR 39564  39605). The amendments will result in further burden reductions. Appendix B Federal Register Notices Associated with the National Pretreatment Program ICR Appendix C Assumptions for Developing Burden and Cost Estimates C 1 Appendix C  Assumptions for Developing Burden and Cost Estimates Table C 1 provides a list of the key data input variables used to determine burden hours and costs for the pretreatment ICR. This appendix provides a description of the source of these data elements. In addition, the ICR relied on several assumptions regarding the relative percentages of respondents performing various tasks. The appendix also summarizes these key assumptions.

Table C 1 Data and Assumptions Used in Pretreatment ICR Pretreatment Program Data 2000 ICR 2003 ICR 1. Total Number of SIUs 31,962 31,172 2. Number of CIUs 14,928 14,954 3. Number of noncategorical SIUs 17,034 16,218 4. Number of State Run POTW Pretreatment Programs in 40 CFR § 403.10( e) States 112 97 5. Total Number of Approved Programs 1,535 1,469 6. Number of 40 CFR § 403.10( e) States 5 5 7. Number of States eligible for Excellence Awards submissions 24 29 8. Number of States with approved Pretreatment Programs 29 34 9. Number of SIUs with POTWs as Control Authority 29,797 29,249 10. Percentage of SIUs with POTWs as Control Authority 93.2% 93.83% 11. Number of SIUs with State/ EPA as Control Authority 2,165 1,923 12. Percentage of SIUs with State/ EPA as Control Authority 6.8% 6.17% 13. Percentage of SIUs Resampling ( for violations) 10% 10% 14. Hourly Rate for Federal employees ( 50% Overhead ( OH)) 28.79 32.39 15. Hourly Rate for State employees ( 50% OH) 18.10 31.20 16. Hourly Rate for POTW employees ( 50% OH) 18.10 24.76 17. Hourly Rate for Private Industry employees ( 100% OH) 43.76 56.76 18. Number of New Source CIUs 299 299 19. Number of Pesticide Formulating, Packaging, and Repackaging Facilities 1500 0 20. Number of MP& M Facilities ( Phase I & II) 2,000 0 21. Number of CWT Facilities 56 151 22. Number of Industrial Laundries 1,700 0 23. Number of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers 286 0 24. Number of Transportation Equipment Cleaning 1,800 0 Pretreatment Program Data 2000 ICR 2003 ICR C 2 25. Number of POTWs with EPA as Approval Authority 567 399 26. Percentage of POTWs with EPA as Approval Authority 36.9% 27.16% 27. Number of POTWs with State as Approval Authority 968 1,070 28. Percentage of POTWs with State as Approval Authority 63.1% 72.84% 29. Number of POTWs projected to develop a pretreatment program during the three year ICR period 43 46 ICR Input Data 1. Total Number of Significant Industrial Users ( SIUs)  Data collected from a Permit Compliance System ( PCS) query conducted in February 2003, as amended by Regional EPA personnel.

2. Number of Categorical Industrial Users ( CIU)  Data collected from a PCS query conducted in February 2003, as amended by Regional EPA personnel.

3. Number of Non Categorical SIUs  The mathematical difference between 1 and 2. above.

4. Number of State Run POTW Pretreatment Program in 40 CFR § 403.10( e) States  This number was estimated by dividing the total number of SIUs regulated by States/ EPA by the average number of SIUs per approved pretreatment program. This assumption was carried over from the previous ICR.

5. Total Number of Approved Programs  Data collected from a PCS query conducted in February 2003, as amended by Regional EPA personnel.

6. Number of 40 CFR § 403.10( e) States  Five: Alabama, Connecticut, Mississippi, Nebraska, and Vermont.

7. Number of States eligible for Excellence Award submissions  Total number of approved, delegated state pretreatment programs ( 34) minus the five 40 CFR § 403.10( e) states. Since these five states cannot nominate themselves, they are not eligible for Excellence Award submission.

8. Number of States with Approved Pretreatment Programs  Currently at 34, per EPA Headquarters.

9. Number of SIUs with POTWs as Control Authority  Data collected from a PCS query conducted in February 2003, as amended by Regional EPA personnel. C 3 10. Percentage of SIUs with POTWs as Control Authority  Percentage calculated from data collected from a PCS query conducted in February 2003, as amended by Regional EPA personnel.

11. Number of SIUs with State/ EPA as Control Authority  Data collected from a PCS query conducted in February 2003, as amended by Regional EPA personnel. Includes SIUs in 40 CFR § 403.10( e) States as well as SIUs regulated by States/ EPA in nonpretreatment cities.

Note: Based on Regional data, the vast majority of SIUs regulated directly by Approval Authorities are in Approved States. Therefore, the entire burden for SIUs in nonpretreatment POTWs is attributed to States ( and not EPA Regions). This assumption was carried over from the previous ICR.

12. Percentage of SIUs with State/ EPA as Control Authority  Includes SIUs in 40 CFR § 403.10( e) States as well as SIUs regulated by States/ EPA in non pretreatment cities. The data were collected from a PCS query conducted in February 2003, as amended by Regional EPA personnel.

13. Percentage of SIUs Resampling  The previous ICR assumed that 10 percent of all SIUs would identify violations and, hence, resample. This assumption remains unchanged.

14. Hourly Rate for Federal Employees  The hourly labor rate for the Federal government is based on an average annual salary for Federal employees of $ 44,738, which is equivalent to the salary of a GS 9, Step 10 Federal employee ( Office of Personnel Management, 1998 schedule). At 2,080 hours per year, the hourly rate is $ 21.53. Overhead costs for Federal employees are estimated to be 50 percent ( i. e., $ 10.76 per hour) yielding a fully loaded rate of $ 32.39 per hour.

15. Hourly Rate for State Employees  This hourly rate was based on the average hourly wage for State employees as determined by the U. S. Department of Labor. It is based on U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 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 2002.

16. Hourly Rate for POTW Employees  The average hourly rate for municipal employees as determined by the U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics is $ 24.76. Updated rates are derived from 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 occupational and industry group, June 2002. C 4 17. Hourly Rate for Private Sector Employees  This average hourly rate for private sector employees is consistent with rates used in other recent OWM ICR submittals and represents the labor rate for IUs.

18. Number of New Source CIUs  Assumed a gross increase of 2 percent of total CIUs will begin operation each year. This assumption is unchanged from the previous ICR.

19 24. Number of New Effluent Limit Guideline ( ELG) Facilities  Estimates of the numbers of indirect dischargers in each of the ELG categories that are scheduled to be finalized during the three year ICR period were obtained directly from EPA Office of Science and Technology contacts for the respective categories. Since the previous ICR, the BMRs and compliance attainment reports have been completed for Pesticide Formulating, Packaging, and Repackaging ( PFPR), Pharmaceutical Manufacturing, and Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Facilities. Therefore, for this ICR, no burden is associated with these two ELG categories. Other rulemakings have been abandoned ( e. g., Industrial Laundries), or were promulgated without pretreatment standards ( e. g., Metal Products and Machinery or MP& M). This ICR estimates burden for new source CIUs and the compliance attainment reports for Centralized Waste Treatment facilities.

25 26. Number and Percentage of POTWs with EPA as Approval Authority  Data collected from a PCS query conducted in February 2003, as amended by Regional EPA personnel.

27 28. Number and Percentage of POTWs with State as Approval Authority  Data collected from a PCS query conducted in February 2003, as amended by Regional EPA personnel.

29. Number of POTWs projected to develop a Pretreatment Program during the life of this ICR  Data collected from a PCS query conducted in February 2003, as amended by Regional EPA personnel.

Burden Hour and Respondent Assumptions The tables references below are included as Appendix D and show the burden and cost calculations for the National Pretreatment Program ICR.

Table 2: Respondent Burden for States C State Pretreatment Program Approval Request  Pursuant to consultation with the National Pretreatment Coordinator, one state may seek pretreatment program authority during the three year ICR period. C 5 C Issuance of SIU Discharge Permits  Assumes all approved pretreatment states ( 34) issue some permits to SIUs. As such, the number of responses per year is calculated based on the assumption that 6.17 percent of all SIUs receive a permit once every five years. This assumption was carried over from the previous ICR.

C Inspection and Sampling of SIUs

 Inspection  Assumes all pretreatment States perform oversight of some SIUs. Assumes 8 hour burden to perform one inspection per year for 6.17 percent of all SIUs. This includes the time necessary to collect an effluent sample.

 Sampling and Analysis  Assumes all pretreatment States perform oversight of some SIUs and assumes that all analyses performed by States are performed inhouse The burden hours estimate is carried over from the previous ICR. PFPR facilities opting for the pollution prevention option are excluded because there are no monitoring requirements. Though other CIUs may reduce sampling burden by submitting similar certifications, for simplification, this ICR assumes that all other CIUs conduct monitoring. This results in a burden overestimate of unknown magnitude.

C Evaluation of SIUs for Slug Control Plan ( SCP)  Assumes all pretreatment States perform oversight of some SIUs. Assumes 0.5 hour burden to assess whether an SIU needs an SCP. This assessment occurs once every two years for 6.17 percent of all SIUs.

C Public Notification of Significant Noncompliance  Assumes that only 40 CFR § 403.10( e) States will be required to publish SNC for their POTWs. One third of the POTWs for these States ( i. e., 97 total) are estimated to have SIUs in SNC in a given year. This assumption was carried forward from the previous ICR.

C Evaluation of the Need to Revise Local Limits  Assumes that only 40 CFR § 403.10( e) States will be required to develop local limits for their POTWs. Each POTW for which the State has assumed Control Authority responsibility ( i. e., 97 total), will require local limits development once every five years. This assumption was carried forward from the previous ICR.

C Excellence Award Program Information  Assumes that 40 POTWs per year will submit pretreatment excellence awards packages. Assumes that all 34 pretreatment States minus the five 40 CFR 403.10( e) States that are not eligible ( 29 States total), will receive, on average, 1.5 ( i. e., 40 packages/ 29 States) excellence awards packages per State from pretreatment POTWs. The previous ICR miscalculated the average excellence award packages per State. The basic assumptions have been carried forward from the previous ICR.

Table 3: Respondent Burden for POTWs C 6 C POTW Pretreatment Compliance Schedule Reports  Based on PCS data, assumes that 46 POTWs per year will be under pretreatment related compliance schedules. The schedules are anticipated to require 3 reports ( responses) per year. This assumption is carried forward from the previous ICR.

C POTW Pretreatment Program Approval Requests  The number of respondents is based on information provided by EPA Regions regarding the total number of new programs ( i. e., 46) that they anticipate over the next three years. This burden has been averaged over the three year ICR period.

C Annual Pretreatment Program Reports  Assumes one report per program per year. This assumption was carried forward from the previous ICR.

C POTW Program Modifications Approval Request  Assumes 25 percent of approved programs will request program modifications of some type each year. This assumption was carried forward from the previous ICR.

C Issuance of Discharge Permits  Assumes that all Control Authority POTWs will issue permits to 20 percent of all SIUs that are regulated by POTWs ( 93.83 percent of all SIUs).

C Inspection and Sampling of SIUs  Inspection  Assumes 8 burden hours to perform one inspection per year for 93.83 percent of all SIUs. This includes the time necessary to collect an effluent sample. This assumption was carried forward from the previous ICR.

 Sampling and Analysis  The burden hours estimate is carried forward from the previous ICR. PFPR facilities opting for the pollution prevention option are excluded because there are no monitoring requirements.

C Evaluation of SIUs for SCP  Assumes 0.5 burden hours to assess whether an SIU needs an SCP; this burden is assumed once every two years for 93.83 percent of all SIUs. This assumption was carried forward from the previous ICR.

C Public Notification of Significant Noncompliance  Assumes 3 burden hours for public notification. Additionally assumes that one third of the POTWs with pretreatment programs will have SIUs in SNC in a given year. This assumption was carried foward from the previous ICR.

C Evaluation of the Need to Revise Local Limits  Assumes that all pretreatment programs will reevaluate the need to develop local limits once every five years. This assumption was carried forward from the previous ICR. C 7 C Excellence Award Program Information  Assumes that 40 POTWs per year will submit pretreatment program excellence awards packages. This is a voluntary activity. This assumptions was carried forward from the previous ICR.

C Removal Credit Approval Requests  The number of respondents is based on estimates provided by EPA Regions.

C Removal Credit Self Monitoring Reports  The number of respondents is based on the number of POTWs with approved removal credit variances, as reported by EPA Regions.

Table 4: Respondent Burden for Industrial Users C Baseline Monitoring Reports  For New Sources ( pre existing categorical industries), assumes a 2 percent gross annual growth in the number of CIUs. This assumption was carried forward from the previous ICR. For ELG categories, respondents are based on number of indirect dischargers in each category ( only for ELGs expected to be finalized during the three year ICR period). The burden for each category is annualized over the three year ICR period. Pharmaceutical Manufacturing, PFPR, CWT, and TEC have completed these activities since the previous ICR. The deadlines for submission of BMRs for these categories have passed. EPA withdrew the proposed rule for Industrial Laundries in June 1999; the newly promulgated MP& M category does not apply to indirect discharges. Therefore, this ICR has no burden associated with the Industrial Laundry or MP& M categories. In Exhibit 6C, Baseline Monitoring Reports have been divided into activities associated with reporting and activities associated with analysis. The analysis burden for these reports is listed as a separate line item; it is distinct from the paperwork reporting burden.

C IU Compliance Schedule Reports  For New Sources, assumes a 2 percent gross annual growth in the number of CIUs. For ELG categories, respondents are based on number of indirect dischargers in each category ( only for ELGs expected to be finalized during the three year ICR period). EAD provides estimates for the number of facilities expected to require compliance schedules. The previous ICR assumed that 25 percent of facilities will require compliance schedules. The analysis burden for these reports is listed as a separate line item; it is distinct from the paperwork reporting burden.

C IU Compliance Attainment Reports  Existing CIUs must complete a Final Compliance 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 1 CIUs that must submit compliance attainment reports are already submitting periodic compliance reports with the same information.

C 8 commencing discharge of the categorically regulated waste stream to the POTW. The burden for new sources and CWTs is annualized over the three year ICR period. 1 C IU Compliance Reports ( Resampling requirements)  Assumes 10 percent of all SIUs will identify violations and will be required to resample their effluent. Assumes 4 labor hours to collect samples and 1 hour labor to complete the report. This assumption was carried forward from the previous ICR. The labor burden assumption for analysis has also been carried forward from the previous ICR.

C IU Self Monitoring Report

 Categorical SIUs. PFPR facilities opting for the pollution prevention option are excluded because there are no monitoring requirements.

< Sampling  Assumes all CIUs will require 4 labor hours to collect effluent samples twice per year. This assumption was carried forward from the previous ICR. < Reporting  Assumes all CIUs will require 1 labor hour to complete the report twice per year. This assumption was carried forward from the previous ICR.

 Non Categorical SIUs < Sampling  Assumes all NC SIUs will require 4 labor hours to collect effluent samples twice per year. This assumption was carried forward from the previous ICR. < Reporting  Assumes all NC SIUs will require 1 labor hour to complete the report twice per year. This assumption was carried forward from the previous ICR.

NOTE: Burden hour assumptions for analysis are carried forward from the previous ICR.

° PFPR P2 Alternatives  The previous ICR assumed that 10 percent ( 150) of the 1500 PFPR facilities completed the P2 alternative prior to the regulatory deadline ( i. e., during the period covered by the previous ICR). This ICR assumes that the remaining facilities ( 90 percent, or 1350 facilities) have prepared and submitted an initial certification for the P2 alternative. For periodic reports, this ICR assumes that all of the indirect dischargers will choose the P2 alternative and will prepare the periodic certifications. For the C 9 modifications, this ICR assumes that 10 percent of the facilities that are implementing a P2 alternative plan will submit modifications.

° CWT Multiple Wastestream Category  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 assumes that 91.5 percent of these facilities are indirect discharges based on the percentage of all CWT facilities that are indirect dischargers. Thus, 34 facilities ( 91.5 percent of 37) complete initial certification over the three year ICR period, and all 34 submit annual certifications throughout the three year period.

C IU Slug Load Notification ( Categorical)  Assumes 100 respondents per year will be required to provide a slug load notification. This assumption was carried forward from the previous ICR.

C IU Slug Load Notification ( Non Categorical)  Assumes 450 respondents per year will be required to provide a slug load notification. The average burden per response is estimated to be 0.25 hours. This assumption was carried forward from the previous ICR.

C Notification of Changed Discharge  Assumes 1,000 SIUs per year will provide notification of a changed discharge. This assumption was carried forward from the previous ICR.

C Bypass Notification  Assumes 1,427 SIUs per year will report bypasses. This assumption was carried forward from the previous ICR.

C Notification of Changed Monitoring Location  Assumes 50 SIUs per year will provide notification of a changed monitoring location. This assumption was carried forward from the previous ICR.

C Prevention and Control Plan for Spills and Batch Discharges  Assumes that 10 percent of all new SIUs will be required to develop a slug control plan. Number of " new" SIUs is based on an assumption of a 2 percent growth rate of existing SIUs, plus all facilities that will be covered under new categorical standards. This assumption was carried forward from the previous ICR.

C Categorical Determination Request  Assumes that no formal categorical determination requests are generated during the three year ICR period because the deadline has passed.

C Alternative Limits Requests  Assumes that 10 percent of all new CIUs will request alternative limits ( i. e., use the combined wastestream formula). This assumption was carried forward from the previous ICR. C 10 C Fundamentally Different Factors Variance Request  Assumes that no FDF requests will be submitted during this three year ICR period. This is based on information provided by OST.

C Net/ Gross Adjustment Request  Assumes 2 net/ gross adjustment requests will be submitted each year. This is based on information provided by EPA Regional Pretreatment Coordinators.

Table 5: Recordkeeping Burden for IUs, POTWs, and States C IU Maintenance of Monitoring Records  Assumes that all SIUs must maintain records. Assumes 2 hours per SIU per year to maintain pretreatment records.

C POTW Maintenance of Monitoring Records  Assumes that each Pretreatment POTW spends 100 hours per year to maintain SIU monitoring records. This assumption was carried forward from previous ICR.

C Approval Authority Maintenance of Pretreatment Program Information  Assumes each Pretreatment State ( as the Approval Authority) spends 50 hours per year maintaining records from POTW pretreatment programs. Additionally, States act as Control Authorities for 6.17 percent of SIUs. An additional burden of 5 hours per SIU per year is included for States acting as Control Authorities. This assumption was carried forward from the previous ICR.

Table 6: Annual Average Responses per Respondent Each of the activities identified in Table 6 corresponds directly to an activity in Tables 2, 3, or 4. The cell references in the Exhibit 6E spreadsheet link to the corresponding cell in the appropriate exhibit.

Table 7: Average Annual Respondent Costs Table 7 calculates the total annual average cost to each of the respondent categories.

C State Cost  The State cost is calculated by multiplying the total State burden for reporting ( Table 2) and record keeping ( Table 6) by the hourly rate for State employees.

C POTW Cost  The POTW cost is calculated by multiplying the total POTW burden for reporting ( Table 3) and record keeping ( Table 6) by the hourly rate for POTW employees.

C IU Cost  The IU cost is calculated by multiplying the total IU hourly burden for reporting ( Table 4) and record keeping ( Table 6) by the hourly rate for private sector employees. C 11 Table 8: Labor Hours for State Government as Users of the Data Most of the respondent activities described in Tables 3 and 4, generate reports, information, or data that must be received, reviewed, and stored by an oversight authority. Table 8 calculates the burden to State Agencies as users of these data. Where States are the Approval Authority ( i. e., 72.84 percent of POTWs), reports generated by pretreatment POTWs are reviewed by States. Therefore, the associated " review" burden for activities described in Table 3 for which reports or data are submitted to States ( as Approval Authorities), has been apportioned accordingly. The numbers of respondents and responses are linked directly to the corresponding item on Table 3.

In addition to Approval Authority activities, States are the Control Authorities for approximately 6.17 percent of SIUs. As Control Authority, the States are responsible for receipt and review of 6.17 percent of all reports and data submitted by SIUs. Table 8, therefore, includes burden for these activities.

Table 9: Labor Hours for POTWs as Users of the Data Most of the respondent activities described in Table 4 generate reports, information, or data that must be received, reviewed, and stored by the Control Authority. Table 9 calculates the burden to POTWs as users of these data. As Control Authorities, POTWs are responsible for receipt and review of 93.83 percent of all reports and data submitted by SIUs. Therefore, the associated " review" burden for reports or data submitted by SIUs to POTWs ( as Control Authorities) has been apportioned accordingly. The numbers of respondents and responses are linked directly to the corresponding items in Table 4.

Table 10: Labor Hours for Federal Government as Users of the Data Most of the respondent activities described in Tables 2 and 3 generate reports, information, or data, that must be received, reviewed, and stored by an oversight authority. Table 10 calculates the burden to Federal Agencies ( primarily EPA Regions) as users of these data. Where EPA is the Approval Authority ( i. e., 27.16 percent of POTWs), reports generated by pretreatment POTWs are reviewed by EPA. Therefore, the associated " review" burden for the activities described on Table 3, for which reports or data are submitted to Federal Agencies ( as Approval Authorities) has been apportioned accordingly. The numbers of respondents and responses are linked directly to the corresponding items in Table 3.

In addition, EPA is the Oversight Authority for States acting as Approval Authorities. Data or reports, generated by activities listed in Table 2, will be sent to EPA Regions for review. Burden for these review activities are included in Table 10. C 12 Table 11: Total Average Annual Respondent Burden and Costs Table 11 shows the total annual average burden hours and annual average costs for the pretreatment program ICR by respondent category. These data are each linked to the originating exhibit. Please note that Federal Government burden is not included in this exhibit. Appendix D Burden and Cost Spreadsheets National Pretreatment Program ICR March 21, 2003 Table 1. Summary of Total Annual Average Respondent Burden Reporting and Analysis Burden:

States 34 59,128 1739.06 POTWs 1,469 955,279 650.29 IUs 31,172 1,093,178 35.07 Subtotal 32,675 2,107,586 64.50 Recordkeeping:

States 34 12,973 381.55 POTWs 1,469 146,900 100.00 IUs 31,172 62,344 2.00 Subtotal 32,675 222,217 6.80 TOTAL 32,675 2,329,802 71.30 Respondent Number of Respondents Burden ( hours/ year) Average Burden per Respondent D 1 National Pretreatment Program ICR March 21, 2003 Previous Calculations ( 2000): Current Calculations ( 2003): Difference: Reason for Change:

( 2) ( 3) ( 4) ( 6) ( 7) ( 8) ( 10)=( 9)( 5)

Annual Annual Hours Responses Hours Responses Per Number of Per Hours Per Number of Per Hours Hours Item Response Respondents Respondent Per Year Response Respondents Respondent Per Year Per Year State Pretreatment 300 1 1 300 300 0.3 1 100  200 Program Approval Request Issuance of SIU 20 29 15 8,694 20 34 11 7,692  1,002 Fewer SIUs in PCS Discharge Permits Inspection and Sampling of SIUs  Inspection 8 29 75 17,387 8 34 57 15,384  2,003 Fewer SIUs in PCS  Sampling and Analysis 19 29 75 40,753 19 34 54 34,322  6,430 Fewer SIUs in PCS Evaluation of SIUs for SCP 0.5 29 37 543 0.5 34 28 481  63 Fewer SIUs in PCS Public Notification 3 5 7 112 3 5 6 97  15 Fewer POTWs in PCS of Significant Noncompliance Evaluation of the Need 50 5 4 1,120 50 5 4 966  154 to Revise Local Limits*

Excellence Award 2 29 1.8 104 2 29 1.5 87  17 Program Information TOTAL ALL ITEMS 69,013 59,128  9,885 Most states have completed; fewer respondents expected Note: Values in spreadsheet generally do not display decimals, however decimals are carried through in all calculations. Fewer PT programs in PCS * States that implement pretreatment programs for their POTWs must evaluate the need to revise local limits once every five years. Therefore, the number of respondents is equal to the number of States that implement pretreatment programs for their POTWs ( 5). The number of evaluations/ responses per year is equal to the average number of pretreatment programs in each State divided by five to obtain a number of average annual responses. Table2. Respondent Burden for States ( 5)=

( 2)*( 3)*( 4) ( 9)=

( 6)*( 7)*( 8) Fewer responses per respondent D 2 National Pretreatment Program ICR March 21, 2003 Previous Calculations ( 2000): Current Calculations ( 2003): Difference: Reason for Change:

( 2) ( 3) ( 4) ( 6) ( 7) ( 8) ( 10)=( 9)( 5)

Annual Annual Hours Responses Hours Responses Per Number of Per Hours Per Number of Per Hours Hours Item Response Respondents Respondent Per Year Response Respondents Respondent Per Year per Year POTW Pretreatment Compliance 5 65 3 975 5 46 3 690  285 Schedule Progress Report*

POTW Pretreatment Program 250 14 1 3,575 250 15 1 3,833 258 Approval Request*

Annual POTW Reports 40 1,535 1 61,400 40 1,469 1 58,760  2,640 Fewer PT programs in PCS POTW Program Modification 40 307 1 12,280 40 294 1 11,752  528 Fewer PT programs in PCS Approval Request**

Issuance of Discharge 20 1,535 4 119,154 20 1,469 4 116,996  2,158 Fewer PT programs in PCS Permits for SIUs Inspection and Sampling of SIUs***

 Inspection 8 1,535 19 238,309 8 1,469 20 233,992  4,317  Sampling and Analysis, In ho 10 1,535 19 305,407 10 1,469 19 278,415  26,991  Sampling and Analysis, Cont 8 1,535 19 241,151 8 1,469 19 225,389  15,762 Evaluation of SIUs for SCPs 0.5 1,535 10 7,447 0.5 1,469 10 7,312  135 Fewer PT programs in PCS Public Notification of 3 512 1 1,535 3 490 1 1,469  66 Fewer PT programs in PCS Significant Noncompliance Evaluation of the Need to 50 307 1 15,350 50 294 1 14,690  660 Fewer PT programs in PCS Revise Local Limits Excellence Award Program 12 40 1 480 12 40 1 480 0 Information ( voluntary)

Removal Credit 125 4 1 513 125 4 1 500  13 Correcting calculation error Approval Request* ( voluntary)

Removal Credit Self 40 25 1 1,000 40 25 1 1,000 0 Monitoring Report ( voluntary)

TOTAL ALL ITEMS 1,008,575 955,279  53,297 Note: Values in spreadsheet generally do not display decimals, however decimals are carried through in all calculations.

* These are one time only reporting requirements. The total number of respondents anticipated over the next three years has been spread out over the three year time span for calculation of av ** This reporting requirement is based on an event which occurs sporadically. A single response is all that is required for each occurrence Table 3. Respondent Burden for POTWs *** 2000 ICR derived total sampling and analysis burden for POTWs conducting in house analysis by dividing those sampling and analysis costs attributed to in house laboratories by the POTW labor rate ($ 18.10), and total sampling and analysis burden for POTWs conducting commercial analysis by dividing those sampling and analysis costs attributed to commercial laboratories by th private sector labor rate ($ 43.76). These are the totals represented in ( 5). The burden hours for contracted sampling and analysis were added in the September 27, 2000 submission.

More expected PT program approval requests ( 5)=

( 2)*( 3)*( 4) ( 9)=

( 6)*( 7)*( 8) Fewer POTWs on completion schedule Fewer SIUs and PT programs in PCS D 3 National Pretreatment Program ICR March 21, 2003 Previous Calculations ( 2000): Current Calculations ( 2003): Difference: Reason for Change:

( 1) ( 2) ( 3) ( 5) ( 6) ( 7) ( 9)=( 8)( 4)

Annual Annual Hours Responses Hours Responses Per Number of Per Hours Per Number of Per Hours Hours Item Response Respondents Respondent Per Year Response Respondents Respondent Per Year Per Year Baseline Monitoring Report/ Reporting*

 New Sources 28 299 1 8,360 28 299 1 8,372 12 Slightly more new sources estimated  Metal Products and Machinery 28 667 1 18,667  0  0  18,667 No PT standards promulgated  PFPR 28 500 1 14,000  0  0  14,000 BMRs/ compliance completed  Centralized Waste Treaters 28 19 1 523  0  0  523 BMRs completed  Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 28 95 1 2,669  0  0  2,669 BMRs/ compliance completed  Industrial Laundries 28 567 1 15,867  0  0  15,867 No longer pursuing rule  Transportation Equipment Cleaning 28 600 1 16,800  0  0  16,800 BMRs/ compliance completed Baseline Monitoring Report/ Analysis*

 New Sources 14 299 1 4,256 14 299 1 4,264 8 Slightly more new sources estimated  Metal Products and Machinery 7 667 1 4,569  0  0  4,569 No PT standards promulgated  PFPR 14 500 1 7,130  0  0  7,130 BMRs/ compliance completed  Centralized Waste Treaters 14 19 1 265  0  0  265 BMRs completed  Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 23 95 1 2,177  0  0  2,177 BMRs/ compliance completed  Industrial Laundries 14 567 1 8,079  0  0  8,079 No longer pursuing rule  Transportation Equipment Cleaning 14 600 1 8,554  0  0  8,554 BMRs/ compliance completed IU Compliance Schedule Report  New Sources 4 75 1 299 4 75 1 299 0 Slightly more new sources estimated  Metal Products and Machinery 4 167 1 667  0 1 0  667 No PT standards promulgated  PFPR 4 125 1 500  0 1 0  500 BMRs/ compliance completed  Centralized Waste Treaters 4 5 1 19  0 1 0  19 BMRs completed  Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 4 24 1 95  0 1 0  95 BMRs/ compliance completed  Industrial Laundries 4 142 1 567  0 1 0  567 No longer pursuing rule  Transportation Equipment Cleaning 4 150 1 600  0 1 0  600 BMRs/ compliance completed IU Compliance Attainment Report/ Reporting*

 New Sources 20 299 1 5,971 20 299 1 5,980 9 More CIUs in PCS  Metal Products and Machinery 20 667 1 13,333  0 1 0  13,333 No PT standards promulgated  PFPR 20 500 1 10,000  0 1 0  10,000 BMRs/ compliance completed  Centralized Waste Treaters 20 19 1 373 20 50 1 1,007 633 Estimate of CWT from 65 FR 81267  Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 20 95 1 1,907  0 1 0  1,907 BMRs/ compliance completed  Industrial Laundries 20 567 1 11,333  0 1 0  11,333 No longer pursuing rule  Transportation Equipment Cleaning 20 600 1 12,000  0 1 0  12,000 BMRs/ compliance completed IU Compliance Attainment Report/ Analysis*

 New Sources 14 299 1 4,256 14 299 1 4,264 8 More CIUs in PCS  Metal Products and Machinery 7 667 1 4,569  0 1 0  4,569 No PT standards promulgated  PFPR 14 500 1 7,130  0 1 0  7,130 BMRs/ compliance completed  Centralized Waste Treaters 14 19 1 265 14 50 1 718 453 Estimate of CWT from 65 FR 81267  Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 23 95 1 2,177  0 1 0  2,177 BMRs/ compliance completed  Industrial Laundries 14 567 1 8,079  0 1 0  8,079 No longer pursuing rule  Transportation Equipment Cleaning 14 600 1 8,554  0 1 0  8,554 BMRs/ compliance completed Table 4. Respondent Burden for Inustrial Users ( 4)=

( 1)*( 2)*( 3) ( 8)=

( 5)*( 6)*( 7)

D 4 National Pretreatment Program ICR March 21, 2003 Previous Calculations ( 2000): Current Calculations ( 2003): Difference: Reason for Change:

( 1) ( 2) ( 3) ( 5) ( 6) ( 7) ( 9)=( 8)( 4)

Annual Annual Hours Responses Hours Responses Per Number of Per Hours Per Number of Per Hours Hours Item Response Respondents Respondent Per Year Response Respondents Respondent Per Year Per Year ( 4)=

( 1)*( 2)*( 3) ( 8)=

( 5)*( 6)*( 7)

IU Compliance Reports ( Resampling Requirements)

 Sampling 4 3,196 1 12,785 4 2,967 1 11,869  916 Fewer SIUs in PCS, PFPR P2 sampling  Analysis 12 3,196 1 38,066 12 2,967 1 35,339  2,727 Fewer SIUs in PCS, PFPR P2 sampling  Reporting 1 3,196 1 3,196 1 2,967 1 2,967  229 Fewer SIUs in PCS, PFPR P2 sampling IU/ SIU Self Monitoring Report Categorical SIUs  Sampling 4 14,928 2 119,424 4 13,454 2 107,632  11,792  Analysis*** 15 14,928 2 439,209 15 13,454 2 395,842  43,368  Reporting 1 14,928 2 29,856 1 13,454 2 26,908  2,948 Non Categorical SIUs  Sampling 4 17,034 2 136,272 4 16,218 2 129,744  6,528 Fewer NCSIUs in PCS  Analysis 9 17,034 2 322,112 9 16,218 2 306,682  15,431 Fewer NCSIUs in PCS  Reporting 1 17,034 2 34,068 1 16,218 2 32,436  1,632 Fewer NCSIUs in PCS PFPR P2 Alternative  Initial Certification 60 50 1 3,000  0 1 0  3,000 Certifications completed  Periodic Certifications 0.25 150 2 75 0.25 1500 2 750 675 More PFPR CIUs now participating  Modifications 20 15 1 300 20 150 1 3,000 2,700 More PFPR CIUs now participating CWT Multiple Wastestream Category  Initial Certification     60 11 1 677 677 Estimate from 65 FR 81267  Annual Certifications     0.25 34 1 8 8 Estimate from 65 FR 81267 IU Slug Load Notification 2 100 1 200 2 100 1 200 0 ( Categorical)

IU Slug Load Notification 0.25 450 1 113 0.25 450 1 113 0 ( Non Categorical)

Notification of Changed Discharge 4 1,000 1 4,000 4 1,000 1 4,000 0 Bypass Notification 5 1,427 1 7,135 5 1,427 1 7,135 0 Follow Up 2 1,070 1 2,140 2 1,070 1 2,140 0 Notification of Changed 1 50 1 50 1 50 1 50 0 Monitoring Location Slug Control Plans 2 309 1 617 2 67 1 135  482 Fewer new SIUs/ categorical standards Categorical Determination 20 18 1 366  0 1 0  366 Deadline for request has passed Request ( voluntary)

Alternative Limits Modification 2 275 1 549 2 35 1 70  479 Fewer new SIUs/ categorical standards Fundamentally Different Factors 160 6 1 960 160 3 1 480  480 Variance Request ( voluntary)

Net/ Gross Adjustment Request 50 6 1 310 50 2 1 100  210 ( voluntary)

TOTAL ALL ITEMS ( IUs) 1,359,412 1,093,178  266,233 Note: Values in spreadsheet generally do not display decimals, however decimals are carried through in all calculations.

** These reporting requirements are based on events which occur sporadically. A single response is all that is required for each occurrence.

*** Analysis burden carried forward from 2000 ICR. More CIUs in PCS, but PFPR IUs removed to prevent double counting Estimate from EPA Regional PT Coordinators Estimate from EPA Regional PT Coordinators * These are one time only reporting requirements. Total number of respondents anticipated over the next three years has been spread out over the three year time span for calculation of annual burden. Burden for analysis was not included in 1996 ICR. D 4 National Pretreatment Program ICR March 21, 2003 Previous Calculations ( 1996): Current Calculations ( 1999): Difference: Reason for Change:

( 2) ( 3) ( 4)=( 2)*( 3) ( 5) ( 6) ( 7)=( 5)*( 6) ( 8)=( 7)( 4)

Hours per Number of Hours Hours per Number of Hours Hours Item Recordkeeper Recordkeepers Per Year Recordkeeper Recordkeepers Per Year Per Year IU Maintenance of 2 31,962 63,924 2 31,172 62,344  1,580 Fewer SIUs in PCS Monitoring Records POTW Maintenance of 100 1,535 153,500 100 1,469 146,900  6,600 Monitoring Records Approval Authority 50 29 1,450 50 34 1,700 250 Maintenance of 375 29 10,867 332 34 11,273 406 Pretreatment Program Information*

TOTAL ALL ITEMS 229,741 222,217  7,524 Note: Values in spreadsheet generally do not display decimals, however decimals are carried through in all calculations.

* Additional burden due to States that act as Control Authorities. Assumes 5 hours per SIU per year. Fewer pretreatment programs in PCS More states with PT authority Table 5. Recordkeeping Burden for Industrial Users, POTWs, and States D 5 National Pretreatment Program ICR March 21, 2003 ( 1) ( 2) ( 3)=( 1)*( 2)

Type Title Number of Responses Responses Respondents Per Respondent Per Year Program Development State Pretreatment Program Approval Request 0 1 0 POTW Pretreatment Compliance Schedule 46 3 138 Progress Report POTW Pretreatment Program Approval Request 15 1 15 Program Implementation Baseline Monitoring Report/ Reporting  New Sources 299 1 299  Metal Products and Machinery 0 0 0  Pesticide Formulating, Packaging, and Repackagi 0 0 0  Centralized Waste Treaters 0 0 0  Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 0 0 0  Industrial Laundries 0 0 0  Transportation Equipment Cleaning 0 0 0 Baseline Monitoring Report/ Analysis  New Sources 299 1 299  Metal Products and Machinery 0 0 0  Pesticide Formulating, Packaging, and Repackagi 0 0 0  Centralized Waste Treaters 0 0 0  Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 0 0 0  Industrial Laundries 0 0 0  Transportation Equipment Cleaning 0 0 0 IU Compliance Schedule Progress Report  New Sources 75 1 75  Metal Products and Machinery 0 1 0  Pesticide Formulating, Packaging, and Repackagi 0 1 0  Centralized Waste Treaters 13 1 13  Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 0 1 0  Industrial Laundries 0 1 0  Transportation Equipment Cleaning 0 1 0 Table 6. Average Annual Responses per Respondent D 6 National Pretreatment Program ICR March 21, 2003 ( 1) ( 2) ( 3)=( 1)*( 2)

Type Title Number of Responses Responses Respondents Per Respondent Per Year Program Implementation IU Compliance Attainment Report ( continued)  New Sources 299 1 299  Metal Products and Machinery 0 1 0  Pesticide Formulating, Packaging, and Repackagi 0 1 0  Centralized Waste Treaters 50 1 50  Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 0 1 0  Industrial Laundries 0 1 0  Transportation Equipment Cleaning 0 1 0 IU Compliance Attainment Report/ Analysis  New Sources 299 1 299  Metal Products and Machinery 0 1 0  Pesticide Formulating, Packaging, and Repackagi 0 1 0  Centralized Waste Treaters 50 1 50  Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 0 1 0  Industrial Laundries 0 1 0  Transportation Equipment Cleaning 0 1 0 IU Compliance Reports ( Resampling Requirements)

 Sampling 2,967 1 2,967  Reporting 2,967 1 2,967 IU/ SIU Self Monitoring Report Categorical SIUs  Sampling 13,454 2 26,908  Analysis 13,454 2 26,908  Reporting 13,454 2 26,908 Non Categorical SIUs  Sampling 16,218 2 32,436  Analysis 16,218 2 32,436  Reporting 16,218 2 32,436 D 6 National Pretreatment Program ICR March 21, 2003 ( 1) ( 2) ( 3)=( 1)*( 2)

Type Title Number of Responses Responses Respondents Per Respondent Per Year Program Implementation PFPR P2 Alternative ( Continued)  Initial Certification 0 1 0  Periodic Certifications 1,500 2 3,000  Modifications 150 1 150 CWT Multiple Wastestream Category  Initial Certification 11 1 11  Annual Certifications 34 1 34 Annual POTW Reports 1,469 1 1,469 POTW Program Modifications 294 1 294 IU Slug Load Notification ( Categorical) 100 1 100 IU Slug Load Notification ( Non Categorical) 450 1 450 Notification of Changed Discharge 1,000 1 1,000 Bypass Notification 1,427 1 1,427 Follow up 1,070 1 1,070 Notification of Changed Monitoring Location 50 1 50 Issuance of Discharge Permits for SIUs States 34 11 385 POTWs 1,469 4 5,850 State Inspection and Sampling the Effluent of IUs and SIUs Inspection and Sampling of SIUs 34 57 1,923 Evaluation of SIUs 34 28 962 POTW Inspection and Sampling the Effluent of IUs and SIUs Inspection and Sampling of SIUs 1,469 20 29,249 Evaluation of SIUs 1,469 10 14,625 Public Notification of Significant Noncompliance States 5 6 32 POTWs 490 1 490 D 6 National Pretreatment Program ICR March 21, 2003 ( 1) ( 2) ( 3)=( 1)*( 2)

Type Title Number of Responses Responses Respondents Per Respondent Per Year Program Implementation Prevention and Control Plan 0 0 0 ( Continued) for Spills and Batch Discharges Evaluation of the Need to Revise Local Limits States 5 4 19 POTWs 294 1 294 Excellence Award Program Information States 29 2 44 POTWs 40 1 40 Program/ Categorical Categorical Determination Request 0 1 0 Determination Alternative Limits Modification 35 1 35 Fundamentally Different Factors 3 1 3 Variance Request Net/ Gross Request 2 1 2 Removal Credit Approval Request 4 1 4 Removal Credit Self Monitoring Report 25 1 25 Total: 248,539 Number of Respondents Per Year ( From Table 1): 32,675 TOTAL ANNUAL AVERAGE RESPONSES PER RESPONDENT: 7.61 D 6 National Pretreatment Program ICR March 21, 2003 Respondent Burden hours per year Labor rate Cost State 72,101 $ 31.20 $ 2,249,550 POTWs 1,102,179 $ 24.76 $ 27,289,953 IUs 1,155,522 $ 56.76 $ 65,587,450 TOTAL 2,329,802 $ 95,126,953 Table 7. Average Annual Respondent Costs D 7 National Pretreatment Program ICR March 21, 2003 Table 8. Labor Hours for State Governments as Users of the Data Previous Calculations ( 2000): Current Calculations ( 2003): Difference:

( 2) ( 3) ( 4) ( 5) ( 6) ( 7) ( 8) ( 9) ( 10)

Hours Number of Hours Per Hours Number of Hours Per Hours per Number of Responses Year per Number of Responses Year per Year Item Response Respondents Per Year ( 2)*( 3)*( 4) Response Respondents Per Year ( 6)*( 7)*( 8) ( 9)( 5)

State Pretreatment Program N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 0 Approval Request*

POTW Pretreatment Compliance 2 41 1 ** 82 2 34 1 ** 67  15 Schedule Progress Report***

POTW Pretreatment Program 40 9 1 ** 361 40 11 1 ** 447 86 Approval Request***

POTW Pretreatment Program 20 194 1 3,874 20 214 1 4,280 406 Modification Approval Request***

Baseline Monitoring Report  New Sources 24 20 1 ** 487 24 18 1 ** 443  45  Metal Products and Machinery 24 45 1 ** 1,088 24 0 1 ** 0  1,088  PFPR 24 34 1 ** 816 24 0 1 ** 0  816  Centralized Waste Treaters 24 1 1 ** 30 24 0 1 ** 0  30  Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 24 6 1 ** 156 24 0 1 ** 0  156  Industrial Laundries 24 39 1 ** 925 24 0 1 ** 0  925  Transportation Equipment Cleanin 24 41 1 ** 979 24 0 1 ** 0  979 IU Compliance Schedule Progress Report  New Sources 1 5 1 ** 5 1 5 1 ** 5 0  Metal Products and Machinery 1 11 1 ** 11 1 0 1 ** 0  11  PFPR 1 8 1 ** 8 1 0 1 ** 0  8  Centralized Waste Treaters 1 0 1 ** 0 1 0 1 ** 0 0  Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 1 2 1 ** 2 1 0 1 ** 0  2  Industrial Laundries 1 10 1 ** 10 1 0 1 ** 0  10  Transportation Equipment Cleanin 1 10 1 ** 10 1 0 1 ** 0  10 D 8 National Pretreatment Program ICR March 21, 2003 Previous Calculations ( 2000): Current Calculations ( 2003): Difference:

( 2) ( 3) ( 4) ( 5) ( 6) ( 7) ( 8) ( 9) ( 10)

Hours Number of Hours Per Hours Number of Hours Per Hours per Number of Responses Year per Number of Responses Year per Year Item Response Respondents Per Year ( 2)*( 3)*( 4) Response Respondents Per Year ( 6)*( 7)*( 8) ( 9)( 5)

IU Compliance Attainment Report  New Sources 2 20 1 ** 41 2 18 1 ** 37  4  Metal Products and Machinery 2 45 1 ** 91 2 0 1 ** 0  91  PFRP 2 34 1 ** 68 2 0 1 ** 0  68  Centralized Waste Treaters 2 1 1 ** 3 2 3 1 ** 6 4  Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 2 6 1 ** 13 2 0 1 ** 0  13  Industrial Laundries 2 39 1 ** 77 2 0 1 ** 0  77  Transportation Equipment Cleanin 2 41 1 ** 82 2 0 1 ** 0  82 IU Compliance Reports 4 0 1 ** 0 4 0 1 ** 0 0 ( Resampling Requirements)

IU/ SIU Self Monitoring Report Categorical SIUs 2 1,015 2 4,060 2 923 2 3,690  370 Non Categorical SIUs 1 1,158 2 2,317 1 1,000 2 2,001  316 PFPR P2 Alternative  Initial Certification 10 3 1 * 34 10 0 1 * 0  34  Periodic Certifications 0.25 10 2 5 0.25 0 2 0  5  Modifications 3 1 1 3 3 0 1 0  3 IU Slug Load Notification 0.25 7 1 # 2 0.25 6 1 # 2 0 ( Categorical)

IU Slug Load Notification 0.25 31 1 # 8 0.25 28 1 # 7  1 ( Non Categorical)

Notification of Changed 2 68 1 # 136 2 62 1 # 123  13 Discharge Annual POTW Reports*** 20 969 1 19,372 20 1,070 1 21,400 2,028 D 8 National Pretreatment Program ICR March 21, 2003 Previous Calculations ( 2000): Current Calculations ( 2003): Difference:

( 2) ( 3) ( 4) ( 5) ( 6) ( 7) ( 8) ( 9) ( 10)

Hours Number of Hours Per Hours Number of Hours Per Hours per Number of Responses Year per Number of Responses Year per Year Item Response Respondents Per Year ( 2)*( 3)*( 4) Response Respondents Per Year ( 6)*( 7)*( 8) ( 9)( 5)

Inspection and Sampling 0.5 1,535 21 15,981 0.5 1,469 21 15,586  395 of IU and SIU Effluent Prevention and Control 1 21 1 21 1 4 1 4  17 Plan for Spills and Batch Discharges Evaluation of the Need to 1 194 ## 1 194 1 214 ## 1 214 20 Revise Local Limits***

Excellence Award Program 1.2 25 1 30 1.2 29 1 35 5 Information***

Categorical Determination N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 0 Request* Alternative Limits Modification 2 19 1 37 2 2 1 4  33 Fundamentally Different Factors N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 0 Variance Request*

Net/ Gross Adjustment Request 10 6 1 ** 62 10 2 1 ** 20  42 Removal Credit 80 3 1 ** 247 80 3 1 ** 233  14 Approval Request***

Removal Credit 1 16 1 16 1 18 1 18 2 Self Monitoring Report***

TOTAL ALL ITEMS 51,702 48,622  3,121 Note: Values in spreadsheet generally do not display decimals, however decimals are carried through in all calculations.

* All burden for this activity will fall on the Federal Government.

** These are one time only reporting requirements. The total number of respondents anticipated over the next three years has been spread out over the three year time span for calc of average annual burden.

*** For these activities, burden is apportioned to the States only where the State is the Approval Authority.

# These reporting requirements are based on events that occur sporadically, if at all. A single response is all that is required for each occurrence.

## Control Authorities evaluate the need to revise local limits once every five years. Therefore, the number of respondents divided by 5 to obtain the average annual burden.

D 8 National Pretreatment Program ICR March 21, 2003 Table 9. Labor Hours for POTWs as Users of the Data Previous Calculations ( 2000): Current Calculations ( 2003): Difference:

( 2) ( 3) ( 4) ( 5) ( 6) ( 7) ( 8) ( 9) ( 10)

Hours Number of Hours Per Hours Number of Hours Per Hours per Number of Responses Year per Number of Responses Year per Year Item Response Respondents Per Year ( 2)*( 3)*( 4) Response Respondents Per Year ( 6)*( 7)*( 8) ( 9)( 5)

Baseline Monitoring Report  New Sources 24 278 1 6,678 24 281 1 6,733 55  Metal Products and Machinery 24 621 1 14,912 24 0 1 0  14,912  PFPR 24 466 1 11,184 24 0 1 0  11,184  Centralized Waste Treaters 24 17 1 418 24 0 1 0  418  Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 24 89 1 2,132 24 0 1 0  2,132  Industrial Laundries 24 528 1 12,675 24 0 1 0  12,675  TEC 24 559 1 13,421 24 0 1 0  13,421 IU Compliance Attainment Report  New Sources 2 278 1 557 2 281 1 561 5  Metal Products and Machinery 2 621 1 1,243 2 0 1 0  1,243  PFPR 2 466 1 932 2 0 1 0  932  Centralized Waste Treaters 2 17 1 35 2 47 1 94 60  Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 2 89 1 178 2 0 1 0  178  Industrial Laundries 2 528 1 1,056 2 0 1 0  1,056  TEC 2 559 1 1,118 2 0 1 0  1,118 IU Compliance Reports 4 0 1 * 0 4 0 1 * 0 0 ( Resampling Requirements)

IU/ SIU Self Monitoring Report Categorical SIUs 2 13,913 2 55,652 2 14,031 2 56,126 474 Non Categorical SIUs 1 15,876 2 31,751 1 15,218 2 30,435  1,316 PFPR P2 Alternative  Initial Certification 10 47 1 * 466 10 0 1 * 0  466  Periodic Certifications 0.25 140 2 70 0.25 0 2 0  70  Modifications 3 14 1 42 3 0 1 0  42 IU Slug Load Notification 0.25 93 1 ** 23 0.25 94 1 ** 23 0 ( Categorical)

IU Slug Load Notification 0.25 419 1 ** 105 0.25 422 1 ** 106 1 ( Non Categorical)

Notification of Changed 2 932 1 ** 1,864 2 938 1 ** 1,877 13 Discharge Prevention and Control 1 288 1 288 1 63 1 63  224 Plan for Spills and Batch Discharges Alternative Limits Modification 2 256 1 512 2 33 1 66  446 TOTAL ALL ITEMS 157,311 96,084  61,227 Note: Values in spreadsheet generally do not display decimals, however decimals are carried through in all calculations.

** These reporting requirements are based on events which occur sporadically, if at all. A single response is all that is required for each occurrence.

* These are one time only reporting requirements. The total number of respondents anticipated over the next three years has been spread out over the three year time span for calculation of average annual burden. D 9 National Pretreatment Program ICR March 21, 2003 Table 10. Labor Hours for Federal Government As Users of the Data Previous Calculations ( 2000): Current Calculations ( 2003): Difference:

( 2) ( 3) ( 4) ( 5) ( 6) ( 7) ( 8) ( 9) ( 10)

Hours Number of Hours Per Hours Number of Hours Per Hours per Number of Responses Year per Number of Responses Year per Year Item Response Respondents Per Year ( 2)*( 3)*( 4) Response Respondents Per Year ( 6)*( 7)*( 8) ( 9)( 5)

State Pretreatment Program 325 1 1 * 325 325 0.3333333 1 * 108  217 Approval Request POTW Pretreatment Compliance 2 24 1 * 48 2 12 1 * 25  23 Schedule Progress Report**

POTW Pretreatment Program 40 5 1 * 211 40 4 1 * 167  44 Approval Request**

POTW Pretreatment Program 20 113 1 2,266 20 80 1 1,596  670 Modification Approval Request**

Annual POTW Reports** 20 566 1 11,328 20 399 1 7,980  3,348 Evaluation of the Need to 1 113 1 113 1 80 1 80  33 Revise Local Limits**

Excellence Award Program 1.2 15 1 17 1.2 11 1 13  5 Information**

Categorical Determination 20 18 1 * 366 20 0 1 * 0  366 Request Fundamentally Different Factors 400 6 1 * 2,400 400 3 1 * 1,200  1,200 Variance Request Removal Credit 80 2 1 * 121 80 1 1 * 87  34 Approval Request**

Removal Credit 1 9 1 9 1 7 1 7  2 Self Monitoring Report**

TOTAL ALL ITEMS 17,205 11,262  5,943 Note: Values in spreadsheet generally do not display decimals, however decimals are carried through in all calculations.

* These are one time only reporting requirements. The total number of respondents anticipated over the next three years has been spread out over the three year time span for calculation of average annual burden.

** For these activities, burden is apportioned to the Federal Government only where the Federal Government is the Approval Authority.

D 9 National Pretreatment Program ICR March 21, 2003 Table 11. Total Average Annual Respondent Burden and Costs Annual Burden Hours Annual Costs Respondent reporting burden 2,107,586 $ 87,546,313 Respondent recordkeeping burden 222,217 $ 7,580,640 144,706 $ 3,896,046 Total 2,474,508 $ 99,022,998 Note: Federal Government incurs a burden of 11,262 hours as user of the data ( see Table 10) State and Municipal Government burden ( Users of the Data)

D 11


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 128 (Thursday, July 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31316-31318]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14148]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC17-134-000.
    Applicants: Ameren Illinois Company.
    Description: Application of Ameren Illinois Company for
Authorization under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request
for Expedited Consideration.
    Filed Date: 6/28/17.
    Accession Number: 20170628-5195.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/19/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG17-121-000.
    Applicants: Cottonwood Wind Project, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Cottonwood Wind Project, LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/29/17.
    Accession Number: 20170629-5045.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/20/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2265-013; ER10-1581-019; ER10-2262-007; ER10-
2346-009; ER10-2353-009; ER10-2355-009; ER10-2783-014; ER10-2784-014;
ER10-2795-014; ER10-2798-014; ER10-2799-014; ER10-2801-014; ER10-2875-
014; ER10-2878-014; ER10-2879-014; ER10-2880-014; ER10-2896-014; ER10-
2913-014; ER10-2947-014; ER10-2969-014; ER10-3223-008; ER11-2062-022;
ER11-2107-013; ER11-2108-013; ER11-2508-021; ER11-2805-021; ER11-2863-
011; ER11-4307-022; ER11-4308-022; ER11-4351-009; ER12-261-021; ER13-
1745-009; ER13-1788-009; ER13-1789-009; ER13-1801-009; ER13-1802-009;

ER13-1965-012; ER14-1818-013; ER16-10 002.
    Applicants: NRG Power Marketing LLC, Arthur Kill Power LLC, Astoria
Gas Turbine Power LLC, Boston Energy Trading and Marketing LLC,
Conemaugh Power LLC, Connecticut Jet Power LLC, Devon Power LLC,
Dunkirk Power LLC, El Segundo Power, LLC, Energy Plus Holdings LLC,
Forward WindPower LLC, GenOn Energy Management, LLC, GenOn Mid-
Atlantic, LLC, Green Mountain Energy Company, Independence Energy Group
LLC, Indian River Power LLC, Keystone Power LLC, Lookout Windpower,
LLC, Middletown Power LLC, Midwest Generation, LLC, Montville Power
LLC, NEO Freehold-Gen LLC, North Community Turbines LLC, North Wind
Turbines LLC, NRG Bowline LLC, NRG Canal LLC, NRG Chalk Point CT LLC,
NRG Chalk Point LLC, NRG Energy Center Dover LLC, NRG Energy Center
Paxton LLC, NRG Power Midwest LP, NRG REMA LLC, NRG Wholesale
Generation LP, Oswego Harbor Power LLC, Pinnacle Wind, LLC, Reliant
Energy Northeast LLC, RRI Energy Services, LLC, Vienna Power LLC, Long
Beach Peakers LLC.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis of the NRG Northeast MBR
Sellers.
    Filed Date: 6/28/17.
    Accession Number: 20170628-5202.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1045-004.
    Applicants: Pilot Hill Wind, LLC.
    Description: Market-Based Triennial Review Filing: 2017 Triennial
Market Power Update for Northeast Region--Pilot Hill Wind to be
effective 7/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/28/17.
    Accession Number: 20170628-5181.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2226-002; ER16-2227-003.
    Applicants: Kelly Creek Wind, LLC, McHenry Battery Storage, LLC.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Update for the Northeast Region
of Kelly Creek Wind, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 6/28/17.
    Accession Number: 20170628-5210.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1314-001; ER10-2398-005; ER10-2399-005; ER10-
2406-006; ER10-2408-005; ER10-2409-005; ER10-2410-005; ER10-2411-006;
ER10-2412-006; ER11-2935-007; ER13-1816-006; ER14-1933-005; ER16-1152-
003; ER16-1724-002; ER17-1315-001.
    Applicants: Arkwright Summit Wind Farm LLC, Blackstone Wind Farm,
LLC, Blackstone Wind Farm II LLC, Headwaters Wind Farm LLC, High Trail
Wind Farm, LLC, Jericho Rise Wind Farm LLC, Marble River, LLC, Meadow
Lake Wind Farm LLC, Meadow Lake Wind Farm II LLC, Meadow Lake Wind Farm
III LLC, Meadow Lake Wind Farm IV LLC, Meadow Lake Wind Farm V LLC,
Paulding Wind Farm II LLC, Paulding Wind Farm III LLC, Sustaining Power
Solutions LLC.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis for the Northeast Region
and Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Arkwright Summit Wind
Farm LLC, et. al.
    Filed Date: 6/28/17.
    Accession Number: 20170628-5204.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1376-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2017-06-29_Amendment to Stored
Energy Resource-Type II Compliance to be effective 12/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/29/17.
    Accession Number: 20170629-5041.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1935-000.
    Applicants: Bruce Power Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: NE Category 1 Seller Request
to be effective 6/29/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/28/17.
    Accession Number: 20170628-5164.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/19/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1936-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Credit Policy Revisions to
Increase Unsecured Credit Allowance Maximum to be effective 8/27/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/28/17.
    Accession Number: 20170628-5186.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/19/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1937-000.
    Applicants: Robison Energy, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Robison Energy, LLC Market
Based Rate Tariff to be effective 7/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/29/17.
    Accession Number: 20170629-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1938-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Two LA's Gabriel Solar 1 & 2
Projects SA Nos. 966 & 967 to be effective 6/27/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/29/17.
    Accession Number: 20170629-5004.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1939-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amended GIA CTV Power
Purchase Contract Trust Project SA No. 881 to be effective 6/30/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/29/17.
    Accession Number: 20170629-5005.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1940-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Otter
Tail Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-06-29_SA 3018 OTP-MPC
T-T (T16-03) to be effective 8/29/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/29/17.
    Accession Number: 20170629-5009.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1941-000.
    Applicants: AEP Texas Central Company.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: AEP Texas Central TCC RS and SA
Baseline Cancellation to be effective 6/30/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/29/17.
    Accession Number: 20170629-5015.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1942-000.
    Applicants: AEP Texas North Company.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: AEP Texas North OATT Concurrence
Cancellation to be effective 6/30/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/29/17.
    Accession Number: 20170629-5036.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1943-000.
    Applicants: AEP Texas North Company.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: AEP Texas North RS and SA
Baseline Cancellation to be effective 6/30/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/29/17.
    Accession Number: 20170629-5037.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1944-000.
    Applicants: AEP Texas Central Company.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: AEP Texas Central OATT
Concurrence Cancellation to be effective 6/30/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/29/17.
    Accession Number: 20170629-5038.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/20/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing

requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 29, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-14148 Filed 7-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 12764]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05481]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Monday, March 14,
2016 at 10:00 a.m., in the Auditorium, Room L-002.
    The subject matter of the Open Meeting will be:
     The Commission will consider whether to approve the 2016
budget of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and the related
annual accounting support fee for the Board under Section 109 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted, or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 7, 2016.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-05481 Filed 3-8-16; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 159)]
[Notices]
[Page 51122-51123]
[DOCID:fr18au10-161]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (Release No. 34-62694;

[File No. SR-EDGA-2010-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Amend
EDGA Rule 3.13

August 11, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 3, 2010, the EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
the ``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend EDGA Rule 3.13 to conform it with
FINRA Rule 5230 in order (i) for FINRA to effectively examine for the
rule pursuant to a Rule 17d-2 agreement that the Exchange has entered
into with FINRA; and (ii) to modernize its terms and clarify its scope.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site at http://www.directedge.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    EDGA Exchange, Inc. has entered into a Rule 17d-2 \3\ agreement
with FINRA pursuant to which FINRA surveils violations of rules in
common between FINRA and EDGA. This agreement covers common members of
EDGA and FINRA and allocates to FINRA regulatory responsibility, with
respect to common members, for the following: (i) Examination of common
members of EDGA and FINRA for compliance with federal securities laws,
rules and regulations and rules of the Exchange that the Exchange has
certified as identical or substantially similar to FINRA rules; (ii)
investigation of common members of EDGA and FINRA for violations of
federal securities laws, rules or regulations, or Exchange rules that
the Exchange has certified as identical or substantially identical to a
FINRA rule; and (iii) enforcement of compliance by common members with
the federal securities laws, rules and regulations, and the rules of
EDGA that the Exchange has certified as identical or substantially
similar to FINRA rules.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 17 CFR 240.17d-2.
    \4\ See Securities and Exchange Release No. 61698 (March 12,
2010), 75 FR 13151 (March 18, 2010) (approving File No. 10-194).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EDGA Rule 3.13 is identical to NASD Rule 3330, which was
subsequently re-numbered and amended to be FINRA Rule 5230.\5\ FINRA,
however, recently incorporated additional exceptions to this rule in
order to ``modernize its terms and clarify its scope.'' \6\ After a
consideration of the merits of such rule change, including the benefits
of ensuring that Rule 3.13 would continue to be a common rule covered
under the Exchange's Rule 17d-2 agreement with FINRA, EDGA is proposing
to amend its Rule 3.13 to comport it with FINRA Rule 5230.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities and Exchange Release No. 60648 (September 10,
2009), 74 FR 47837 (September 17, 2009) (SR-FINRA-2009-048).
    \6\ See Securities and Exchange Release No. 60648 (September 10,
2009), 74 FR 47837 (September 17, 2009) (SR-FINRA-2009-048).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EDGA Rule 3.13 currently provides that no member may, ``directly or
indirectly, give, permit to be given, or offer to give, anything of
value to any person for the purpose of influencing or rewarding the
action of such person in connection with the publication or circulation
in any newspaper, investment service, or similar publication, of any
matter which has, or is intended to have, an effect upon the

market price of any security * * * .'' The rule includes an exception
for any matter that is ``clearly distinguishable as paid advertising.''
    EDGA agrees with FINRA's reasoning for proposing changes to its
Rule 5230. Therefore, EDGA is proposing two changes to EDGA Rule 3.13
to modernize its terms and clarify its scope.\7\ First, the proposed
rule change updates the list of media to which the rule refers since
Rule 3.13 refers only to matters published or circulated in any
``newspaper, investment service, or similar publication.'' The proposed
rule change updates this language to include electronic and other types
of media, including magazines, Web sites, and television programs.
Second, the proposed rule change expands the exceptions in the rule
beyond paid advertising to also include compensation paid in connection
with research reports and communications published in reliance on
Section 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933.\8\ EDGA is proposing these
changes to clarify that the prohibitions in the rule are not intended
to cover compensation paid for publications that are explicitly
permitted pursuant to other rules. For example, Rule 3.13 could be read
to prohibit a member from paying for a third-party research report if
the report affected the market price of a security. However, EDGA does
not believe that the rule should be read to prohibit compensation paid
in connection with the publication of information that is specifically
permitted pursuant to Section 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933,
provided the required disclosures are made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The proposed rule changes also changes the title of the rule
to ``Payments Involving Publications that Influence the Market Price
of a Security.''
    \8\ Section 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 provides that no
person may ``publish, give publicity to, or circulate any * * *
communication which, though not purporting to offer a security for
sale, describes such security for a consideration received or to be
received, directly or indirectly, from an issuer, underwriter, or
dealer, without fully disclosing the receipt, whether past or
prospective, of such consideration and the amount thereof.'' 15
U.S.C. 77q(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\9\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, which requires, among
other things, that Exchange rules must be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors
and the public interest. EDGA believes that the proposed rule change
will clarify the scope of the rule as well as allow FINRA to be able to
examine for it under a Rule 17d-2 agreement since it will be identical
to FINRA Rule 5230, as proposed to be amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments Regarding the
Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\12\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EDGA-2010-11 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGA-2010-11. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGA-2010-11 and should be
submitted on or before September 8, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-20368 Filed 8-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P