# Draft Information Collection Request for the Public Water System Supervision ProgramOMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE IN FORMATION COLLECTION ........................................... 1 1(a) Title and Number of th e Information Collection ............................................................. 1 1(b) Short Characterization .................................................................................................... . 1 2 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION .................................................................. 3 2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection ................................................................................... 3 2(b) Use/Users of the Data ..................................................................................................... . 9 3 NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA .................................................................................................. 10 3(a) Non-duplication ........................................................................................................... .. 10 3(b) Public Notice Required Prio r to ICR Submission to OMB ........................................... 10 3(c) Consultations............................................................................................................. ..... 10 3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection .............................................................................. 12 3(f) Confidentiality.......................................................................................................... ...... 13 3(g) Sensitive Questions....................................................................................................... . 13 4 RESPONDENTS AND INFORMATION REQUESTED.................................................... 14 4(a) Respondents/NAICS Codes ........................................................................................... 14 4(b) Information Requested................................................................................................... 14 4(b)(i) Data Items........................................................................................................... 14 4(b)(ii) Respondent Activities........................................................................................ 24
5 INFORMATION COLLECTED -- AGE NCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT .......................................... 30 5(a) Agency Activities......................................................................................................... .. 30 5(b) Collection Methodology and Management ................................................................... 32 5(c) Small Entity Flexibility .................................................................................................. 33 5(d) Collection Schedule....................................................................................................... . 35 6 ESTIMATING BURDEN AND COST OF COLLECTION ................................................ 36 6(a) Respondent Burden ........................................................................................................ 3 6 6(a)(i)Burden to Public Water Systems ......................................................................... 36 6(a)(ii) Burden to Primacy Agencies ............................................................................. 41 6(a)(iii) Burden to Laboratories..................................................................................... 45 6(b) Respondent Costs .......................................................................................................... . 46 6(b)(i) Cost to Public Water Systems ........................................................................... 46 6(b)(ii) Cost to Primacy Agencies ................................................................................ 47 6(b)(iii) Cost to Laboratories ........................................................................................ 47 6(c) Agency Burden and Costs.............................................................................................. 49 6(d) Estimating Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs...................................... 50 6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs ........................................................................... 51 6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden....................................................................................... 53 6(f)(i) Restructuring Adjustments.................................................................................. 54 6(f)(ii) Additional Program Adjustments....................................................................... 55 6(g) Burden Statement .......................................................................................................... . 58OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute iv APPENDICES

Appendix A. Federal Register Notice Soliciti ng Comment on Information Collection Requests

Appendix B. Consumer Confidence Rule Spreadsheets

Appendix C. Variances and Exemptions Spreadsheets

Appendix D. Capacity Development Spreadsheets

Appendix E. General State Primacy Spreadsheets

Appendix F. Public Notification Spreadsheets

Appendix G. Operator Certification Spreadsheets

Appendix H. Tribal Operator Certification Spreadsheets

Appendix I. Constructed Conveyance Spreadsheets

Appendix J. Proficiency Testing SpreadsheetsOMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute v LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1: Struct ure of OGWDW ICRs ................................................................................... 5

Exhibit 2: PWS Recordkeepi ng and Reporting Requirements .............................................. 15

Exhibit 3: Primacy Agency Record keeping and Reporting Requirements............................ 18

Exhibit 5: PWSS Program Requirement s for EPA Regions and Headquarters..................... 30

Exhibit 6: Annual PWS Burden and Cost.............................................................................. 48

Exhibit 7: Annual State Burden and Cost.............................................................................. 48

Exhibit 8: Annual Laboratory Burden and Cost .................................................................... 49

Exhibit 9: Bottom Line Annual Burden and Cost ................................................................. 52

Exhibit 10: Summary of Changes in Annual Burden .............................................................. 53

Exhibit 11: Restructuring Adjustme nts to the Annual Burden Inventory for the PWSS Program ICR .................................................................................. 54

Exhibit 12: Adjustments to PWS Burden from Previous ICR Estimates ................................ 56

Exhibit 13: Adjustments to Primacy Agency Burden from Previous ICR Estimates.............. 57

Exhibit 14: Adjustments to Laboratory Burden from Previous ICR Estimates....................... 57

Exhibit 15: Adjustments to Activities Carried Forward from Previous ICRs ......................... 58

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Structure of OGWDW ICRs...............................................................4OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute vi ACRONYMS

AG Attorney General AMWA Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies ASDWA Association of State Drinking Water Administrators AWWA American Water Works Association BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics CCR Consumer Confidence Report CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CFR Code of Federal Regulations CWS Community Water System DBPR Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule DDBP/Chem/Rads Disinfectants and Disinfec tion Byproducts, Chemical, and Radionuclides DWIG TSA Drinking Water Infrastr ucture Grant Tribal Set Aside DWSRF Drinking Water State Revolving Fund ECI Employment Cost Index EPA Environmental Protection Agency FR Federal Register FTE Full Time Equivalent GWR Ground Water Rule ICR Information Collection Request IESWTR Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule LCR Lead and Copper Rule LT1ESWTR Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule LT2ESWTR Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule MCL Maximum Contaminant Level MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal MRDL Maximum Residual Disinfection Level MRDLG Maximum Residual Disinfection Level Goal NAICS North American Indus try Classification System NAWA Native American Water Association NAWC National Association of Water Companies NCWS Noncommunity Water System NDWAC National Drinking Water Advisory Council NPDWR National Primary Drinking Water Regulation NRWA National Rural Water Association NTEC National Tribal Environmental Council NTNCWS Nontransient Noncommunity Water System O&M Operation and Maintenance OGWDW Office of Ground Wa ter and Drinking Water OMB Office of Management and Budget PC&B Personnel Compensation and Benefits PN Public Notification PRA Paperwork Reduction Act PT Proficiency Testing PWS Public Water SystemOMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute vii PWSS Public Water System Supervision SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System SNC Significant Noncompliance SOC Standard Occupational Classification SWAP Source Water Assessment Program SWTR Surface Water Treatment Rule TCR Total Coliform Rule TNCWS Transient Noncommunity Water System UIC Underground Injection Program V/E Variance and ExemptionPublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1 

### 1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1(a) Title and Number of the Information Collection

Title: Public Water System Supervision Program

OMB Control Number: 2040-0090

EPA Tracking Number: 0270.43

1(b) Short Characterization

The Office of Ground Water and Drinking Wate r (OGWDW) in the O ffice of Water at the United States Environmental Protection Agen cy (EPA or the Agency) is responsible for managing the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program, a national program mandated by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Secti on 1412 of the SDWA requires EPA to establish National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPD WRs) for contaminants that may adversely impact human health. The Act further requires EPA to monitor and enforce these regulations to ensure that the nation’s drinking water depe ndably complies with the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) stipulated in th e Code of Federal Regulations (C FR), 40 CFR Part 141, Subpart B.

Section 1445 of the SDWA stipulates that every drinking water supplier must conduct monitoring, maintain records, and provide such in formation as is needed for EPA to implement its monitoring and enforcement responsibilit ies with respect to the Act. State 1 governments—in those states that have assumed primary enfor cement responsibility (p rimacy) for public water systems (PWSs) under SDWA Section 1413—ensur e that PWSs are complying with these monitoring requirements. In addition, under 40 CFR 141.23(k)(3), 141.131(b)(2), 141.28, and 141.24(f)(17), laboratories must successfully participate in Proficiency Testing (PT) studies each year to be certified to conduct analys is of compliance monitoring samples.

As part of the PWSS Program, the OGWDW uses the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) 2 to record some of the data collected as a result of NPDWR requirements. SDWIS is a database management system th at assists EPA in tracking and interpreting monitoring data and other program-related data. These data assist EPA in fulfilling its SDWA obligations.

This Information Collection Request (ICR) was prepared in accordance with the November 2005 version of EPA’s Guide to Writi ng Information Collection Requests Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (or “ICR Handbook”) prepared by EPA’s Office of Environmental Information, Office of Informati on Collection, Collection Strategies Division. The ICR Handbook provides the most current inst ructions for ICR preparation to ensure

1 Throughout this document, the terms “State” or “States” ar e used to refer to all types of primacy agencies. There are currently 57 primacy entities, includin g the 50 states, the District of Columb ia, U.S. territories (Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and Northern Ma rianas), and the Navajo Nation. Though Wyoming and the District of Columbia do not have primacy, the EPA burden for these activities is counted as primacy agency burden.

2 SDWIS replaced the Federal Reporting Data System as the national drinking water database of record on August 15, 1995.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 2 compliance with the 1995 PRA amendments and Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) implementing guidelines.

Many information collection requirement s associated with the SDWA and its implementing regulations are associ ated with rulemakings that addr ess specific contaminants or groups of contaminants. This ICR examines PWS, primacy agency, laboratory, and EPA burden and costs for “cross-cutting” recordkeeping and reporting requirements (i.e., the burden and costs for complying with drinking water information requirements that are not associated with contaminant-specific rulemakings). These activities include the following—

1) Consumer Confidence Reports (CCRs) 2) Variance and Exemption Rule (V/E Rule) 3) Capacity Development Program 4) General State Primacy Activities 5) Public Notification (PN) 6) Operator Certification and Expens e Reimbursement Grants Program 7) Tribal Operator Certification Program 8) Constructed Conveyances 9) Proficiency Testing

This ICR updates the burden and cost es timates provided in the 2004 PWSS Program ICR, which expires on September 30, 2008. The ICR estimates costs for October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2011.

The total annual respondent burden associat ed with this ICR is estimated to be approximately 3.9 million hours per year. The total annual respondent cost associated with this ICR is estimated to be approximately $165.9 milli on. The distribution of annual burden between PWSs and primacy agencies is approximately 2.2 million hours and 1.7 million hours, respectively. Laboratories conducting Proficie ncy Testing (PT) incur an annual burden of 17,291 hours. The distribution of annual costs between PWSs and primacy agencies is approximately $90.6 million and $73.4 million, respect ively. The annual costs for laboratories conducting PT are $1.9 million.

The approximate annual operation and main tenance (O&M) costs for respondents are $25.2 million ($24.3 million for PWSs, $0.9 million for laboratories, and $0 for primacy agencies). This represents the “cost burden” as reported in the OMB inve ntory. Note that these costs are for O&M only; there are no capital costs associated with the acti vities covered by this ICR.

The annual EPA burden for this ICR totals 0.5 million hours, at a cost of approximately $24.6 million; 0.09 million hours (approximately $5.7 m illion) is for Headquarters activities and 0.45 million hours (approximately $18.8 million) is for EPA Regional office activities. The Agency also incurs $0.1 million in O&M costs as part of the Tribal op erator certification
program.

The total number of respondents for this ICR is 158,113; 57 of these respondents are primacy agencies, 2,363 are laboratories, and the balance (155,693) are PWSs. The total number of annual number of responses for these respondents is 1,234,512 (437,898 for PWSs, 2,363 for laboratories, and 794,251 for primacy agencies).Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 3 

### 2 NEED FOR AND US E OF THE COLLECTION

2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection

This section identifies the regulatory or statutory authority for the information collection activities covered in this ICR and explains EPA’s need for the information. Section 4 of the ICR contains a summary of the PWSS Program reco rdkeeping and reporting requirements covered by this ICR.

To allow the public to better understand the impact of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements stemming from the SDWA and 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142, OGWDW has organized its ICRs so that relate d activities are addressed in th e same ICR. Specifically, there are three primary ICRs—the Microbial Rules I CR, the Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts, Chemical and Radionuclides Rules (DDBP/Chem /Rads Rules) ICR, and the PWSS Program ICR. The Microbial Rules ICR includes rules addressing microbial contaminants, such as the Total Coliform Rule (TCR), Surface Water Tr eatment Rule (SWTR), and the Ground Water Rule (GWR). The DDBP/Chem/Rads Rules ICR includes rules addressing chemical contaminants such as the Stage 1 Disinfectant/ Disinfection Byproduct Rule (Stage 1 DBPR), the Arsenic Rule, and the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR). The PWSS Program ICR includes public notification and rules addressi ng cross-cutting requirements th at are not associated with contaminant-specific rules. The specific regulati ons and programs addressed in this ICR are—

1) Consumer Confidence Reports 2) Variance and Exemption Rule 3) Capacity Development Program 4) General State Primacy Activities 5) Public Notification 6) Operator Certification and Expens e Reimbursement Grants Program 7) Tribal Operator Certification Program 8) Constructed Conveyances 9) Proficiency Testing

As EPA publishes new regulations, it will am end the appropriate ICR to include the new rules.

For a graphical depiction of the struct ure of the OGWDW ICRs, see Figure 1. A complete itemization of the activities included in the three primary ICRs, as well as other drinking water program ICRs, is included as Exhibit 1.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 4 UIC Program ICR

2040-0042

Green = Activities remain as in current ICRBlue = Activities moving out of standalone ICRs Purple = Future rule to be addressed in stand-alone ICR 

### Figure 1. Structure of OGWDW ICRs

PWSS Program ICR

2040-0090

DDBP/Chem/Rads Rules ICR

2040-0204 Cap Dev V&E’s Proficiency

Testing

PN CCRs State Primacy Activities

Stage 1 Chems LCR

Rads IESWTR SWTR

LT1 Microbial Rules ICR

2040-0205

FBRR TCR

GWR

Arsenic Stage 2 Op Cert

LT2

Lab QA 2040-0246 Needs Survey 2040-0251

DW SRF 2040-0185 SWAP 2040-0197 Bioterrorism 2040-0253 Tribal Op

Cert

UCMR 2 2040-0270 Class V

Florida Class I UIC Program

Constructed Conveyances

ADWR

LCR STR

DDBP/Chem/Rads Rules ICR includes disinfectant residual monitoring under SWTR UIC Program ICR

2040-0042

Green = Activities remain as in current ICRBlue = Activities moving out of standalone ICRs Purple = Future rule to be addressed in stand-alone ICR 

### Figure 1. Structure of OGWDW ICRs

PWSS Program ICR

2040-0090

DDBP/Chem/Rads Rules ICR

2040-0204 Cap Dev V&E’s Proficiency

Testing

PN CCRs State Primacy Activities

Stage 1 Chems LCR

Rads IESWTR SWTR

LT1 Microbial Rules ICR

2040-0205

FBRR TCR

GWR

Arsenic Stage 2 Op Cert

LT2

Lab QA 2040-0246 Needs Survey 2040-0251

DW SRF 2040-0185 SWAP 2040-0197 Bioterrorism 2040-0253 Tribal Op

Cert

UCMR 2 2040-0270 Class V

Florida Class I UIC Program

Constructed Conveyances

ADWR

LCR STR

DDBP/Chem/Rads Rules ICR includes disinfectant residual monitoring under SWTRPublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 5 Exhibit 1 Structure of OGWDW ICRs

Currently covered To be covered in the future PWSS Program ICR (2040-0090)

Consumer Confidence Reports Variances & Exemptions The Capacity Development Program General State Primacy Activities Public Notification Operator Certification Guidelines and Expense Reimbursement Grants Program Tribal Operator Certification Constructed Conveyances Proficiency Testing Microbial Rules ICR (2040-0205)

Surface Water Treatment Rule, except disinfectant residual monitoring and associated activities 3
Total Coliform Rule Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) Filter Backwash Recycling Rule Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR) Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR) Ground Water Rule Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts, Chemi cal, and Radionuclides Rules ICR (2040-0204)

Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule Radon
Disinfectant Residual Monitoring and associated activities under the SWTR Stage 2 DBPR
Chemical Phase Rules
Radionuclides Rule Arsenic Rule Lead and Copper Rule Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP) ICR (2040-0197)

SWAP

Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program ICR (2040-0042)

UIC Base Program Activities Florida Class I Rule

Class V Rule

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Program ICR (2040-0185)

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program

3 Disinfectant residual monitoring and associated activities are included in the DDBP/Chem/Rads Rules ICR.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 6 Currently covered To be covered in the future Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey ICR (2040-0251)

2007 Needs Survey Title VI of the Public Health Security and Bi oterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002: Drinking Water Security and Safety ICR (2040-0253)

Vulnerability Assessments and Emergency Response Plans for community water systems (CWSs).

1) Consumer Confidence Reports

Section 114 of the 1996 SDWA amends Secti on 1414(c) of the Act. The amendments require community water systems (CWSs) to di stribute CCRs describing CWS water quality to their customers annually. EPA wrote regula tions under Subpart O of 40 CFR Part 141 to implement this provision.

The initial Federal Register (FR) notice containing CCR requirements was published on August 19, 1998 (63 FR 44512). These initial re quirements have been modified by three technical amendments or ot her rule-specific notices. 4 However, these amendments are assumed to have no affect on the underlying burden.

The information on the CCRs submitted to Stat es by CWSs is needed by EPA to ensure compliance with the regulations.

2) Variance & Exemption Rule

The 1996 SDWA Amendments established crit eria under which PWSs, especially those serving 10,000 or fewer people, could apply fo r a variance or exemption. Variances allow eligible systems to provide drin king water that does not comply with a NPDWR on the condition that the quality of the drinking wa ter is still protective of public health. Exemptions allow PWSs additional time above that specified in rule requi rements to come into compliance. There are two types of variances: general varian ces are intended for systems that are not able to comply with a NPDWR due to the quality of the source water; small system variances are intended for systems serving 3,300 persons or fewer that cannot affo rd to comply with a NPDWR (but may be allowed for systems serving up to 10,000 persons). Small system variances are only allowed if EPA designates a Small System Variance Tec hnology. The information required of PWSs seeking general variances, small system variances, or exemptions is needed to determine if the system satisfies SDWA conditions for variances or exemptions.

4 The dates of the technical corrections were December 28 , 1998 (63 FR 71375), June 29, 1999 (64 FR 34732), and September 14, 1999 (64 FR 49671). Rule-specific modifications include the following: Radionuclides Rule (65 FR 76707; December 7, 2000); Public Notification Rule (65 FR 25981; May 4, 20 00); Stage 1 Disinfectant and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (63 FR 69475; December 16, 1998), and Inte rim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (63 FR 69516; December 16 , 1998). In addition, as other drinking water rules are promul gated violations of their standards will also be required to be reported in CCRs.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 7 3) Capacity Development Program

Through the 1996 SDWA Amendments, Congress conveyed the importance of efforts to ensure that PWSs maintain the technical, manage rial, and financial capacity to comply with the requirements of the SDWA. To underscore it s importance the capacity development program was linked to the Drinking Water State Revolvi ng Fund (DWSRF); a state is subject to a withholding of 20 percent of the funds to which it is otherwise entitled if its program does not meet EPA’s guidelines.

Specifically, Section 1420(a) of the SDWA e xplains that a state “shall receive only 80 percent of the allotment that th e state is otherwise entitled to receive under Section 1452 (relating to state loan funds) unles s the state has obtained the legal author ity or other means to ensure that all new CWSs and new nontransient noncommu nity water systems (NTNCWSs) commencing operation after October 1, 1999, demonstrate techni cal, managerial, and financial capacity with respect to each NPDWR in effect, or likely to be in effect, on the date of commencement of operations.” In addition, according to Section 1420(c), states incur a graduated withholding, beginning with 10 percent in fiscal year 2001, 15 percent in fiscal year 2002, and 20 percent in all subsequent fiscal years, if they do not develop and implement a strategy to assist all PWSs in acquiring and main taining capacity.

EPA needs the information states submit on cap acity development to ensure that states are implementing appropriate capacity development strategies.

4) General State Primacy Activities

To implement its compliance oversight and enforcement responsibilities under the SDWA, EPA requires primacy agencies to report a specified subset of PWS monitoring and related information in SDWIS. Additionally, primacy agencies must maintain records of analysis results and other related activities (e.g., sanitary survey results). Without comprehensive, up-to-date information on drinking water contamination (as provided by SDWIS), EPA would not be able to ensure “a supply of drinking water which dependably complies with such maximum contaminant leve ls” (SDWA Section 1401(1)(d)). If these reporting requirements were volunt ary, EPA would not receive timely, comprehensive data on contaminant levels and associated acute and long-term public health risks. Specifically, voluntary monitoring would not—

1) Reliably occur with sufficient frequency. 2) Follow uniform national standards on quality of sampling, collection, and analysis. 3) Ensure that monitoring addresses all c ontaminants listed in the regulations.

Without the information collected in this I CR, EPA would not be able to protect the nation’s drinking water.

5) Public Notification

Section 114 of the 1996 SDWA Amendments re quired the EPA Administrator to develop and issue new regulations for public notification of PWS failure to comply with applicable national drinking water standards. Regulati ons mandating the form, manner, frequency, andPublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 8 content of public no tification are codified under 40 CFR Part 141, Subpart Q. Sections 1414(c)(2)(C)(ii) and 1414( c)(2)(D)(ii) of the 1996 Amendments require that notices provide a clear and understandable explana tion of the violation, the potentia l adverse health effects, steps that the system is taking to correct the viola tion, and necessity of seeking alternative water supplies until the violation is corrected.

Without the ability to collect informati on on public notification, EPA could not ensure that PWSs were notifying the public of viol ations that could affect their health.

6) Operator Certification and Expe nse Reimbursement Grants Program

Through the 1996 SDWA Amendments, Congre ss conveyed the importance of properly trained operators in providing sa fe drinking water to the public. To underscore the importance of operator certification, the program was linked to the DWSRF program through a withholding of 20 percent of the funds that a st ate is otherwise entitled to if its program does not meet EPA’s guidelines.

7) Tribal Operator Certification Program

The purpose of the Tribal Drinking Water Oper ator Certification Program is to increase public health protection by increa sing the training and certifica tion opportunities for personnel at drinking water systems in Indian Country. Th e program guidelines establish seven baseline standards. The guidelines also list requirements for organizati ons that wish to obtain EPA approval for their certification programs.

The statutory requirement to develop an ope rator certification program does not apply to Tribes. While there are certain EPA regulati ons under SDWA that require qualified operators for public water systems, whether located in Indi an Country or not (see 40 CFR 141.70(c) and 40 CFR 141.130(c)), this Tribal Drinking Water Op erator Certification Pr ogram for systems in Indian Country is voluntary. However, this information collection is driven by the grant eligibility requirements originally outlined in th e Drinking Water Infrastructure Grant Tribal SetAside Program Final Guidelines (published in Oc tober 1998) and the Draft Final Tribal Operator Certification Program Guidelines (p ublished in April 2004; 69 CFR 20874).

8) Constructed Conveyances

In the 1996 Amendments to the SDWA, S ection 1401(4) broadened the definition of “public water system” to include systems that provide water for human consumption and deliver the water via constructed conveya nces. Prior to this change, PWSs included only piped water systems. This new definition affects the reporti ng and recordkeeping burdens for both PWSs and

states.

9) Proficiency Testing

Title XIV of the Public Health Service Act of SDWA requires EPA to specify contaminants that may adversely affect public health when present in PWSs, specify maximum contaminant levels for these contaminants, and publish “criteria and procedures to assure a supply of drinking water which dependably complie s with such maximum contaminant levels.” Participation in the PT studies that relate to drinking water analyses is mandated in 40 CFR 141.23(k)(3), 141.24(f)(17), 141.28, and 141.131(b)(2) for th ose laboratories that report data toPublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 9 support PWS compliance with the NPDWRs. Under 40 CFR 142.10(b)(3), authority for certifying drinking water laborat ories is provided to States.

In the PT program, private sector companies (i.e., PT vendors) manufacture and distribute samples of regulated contaminants, also called st andards, to the particip ating laboratories. The vendors know the concentrations of the standards but the laboratories do not. The laboratories determine the concentrations of each analyte for wh ich they wish to be certified and then submit their results to the vendors. A ssuming the laboratories’ result s are accurate, PT vendors certify to the State that the laboratories have successfully completed their PT studies. This certification of PT study completion is then used by the States to support the certification of the laboratories to conduct drinking water compliance analyses. EP A, States, and laboratory personnel will use the results of these studies to identify laboratory problems for resolution, and thereby improve the quality of data used to determine regulatory compliance.

2(b) Use/Users of the Data

The information described in the previous sections will be collected by EPA and made available to the public upon request, as require d by the Freedom of Information Act (40 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 2). In some cases, the SDWA re quires that the information be provided to the public or the primacy agency. Primary users of the data collected under this ICR are OGWDW, PWS managers, and primacy agencies, which incl ude state regulators, In dian Tribes, and, in some instances, EPA Regional Admini strators. Other users include—

• Laboratory personnel

• Staff from other EPA programs (such as Superfund, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Office of En forcement and Compliance Assurance)

• Federal Emergency Management Administration

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

• Military bases

• Farmers Home Administration

• Department of Interior

• Department of Housing and Urban Development

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

• White House Task Forces

• American Water Works Association (AWWA)

• Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA)

• National Rural Water Association (NRWA)

• National Association of Water Companies (NAWC)

• Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA)

• Natural Resources Defense Council

• Consumers Federation of America

• News organizations

• Native American Water Association

• Association of American Indian Affairs

• Inter-tribal Environmental Council

• National Tribal Environmental Council

• Other intertribal groupsPublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 10 

### 3 NON-DUPLICATION, CONS ULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

3(a) Non-duplication

EPA has made an effort to ensure that the data collection efforts associated with this ICR are not duplicated. EPA has consulted State en vironmental programs, other Federal agencies (such as the CDC), and regulated entities (s uch as PWSs and their representative trade associations). To the best of EPA's knowledge, data currently required by the SDWA (and its implementing regulations codified at 40 CFR Part s 141 and 142) are not available from any other

source.

3(b) Public Notice Required Pr ior to ICR Submission to OMB

To comply with the 1995 Amendments to the PRA, EPA solicited public comment on this ICR for a 60-day period before it was submitted to OMB. Specifically, EPA published a notice in the Federal Register requesting comment on the estimated respondent burden and other aspects of this ICR (73 FR 32325, see Appendix A). EPA did not receive any comments during the 60-day comment period.

3(c) Consultations

As part of the revision of the PWSS ICR, in early 2008 EPA consulted with representatives of PWSs and States regardi ng the accuracy of EPA’s burden estimates. The groups consulted were NAWC, NRWA, AW WA, AMWA, and ASDWA. Only ASDWA submitted comments on the programs covered by the PWSS ICR; its comments were primarily on the burden to States associated with general primacy activities. In general, ASDWA felt that the burden estimated for general primacy activitie s was insufficient; the effort necessary to oversee compliance with the new regulations impl emented since the development of the State Workload Model is greater than that included in the model. EPA incorporated ASDWA’s comments to the extent possible. Each indi vidual model for the PWSS ICR, shown in the appendices to this document, contains a table sh owing how burden estimates have been revised.

The paragraphs below describe how aff ected groups were consulted during the development of the rules and programs addressed in this ICR.

Throughout the development and implemen tation of the PWSS Program, OGWDW has held numerous meetings with interested stak eholders, including St ate and EPA Regional personnel and PWS representatives, to identify the value and ease of collecting information needed to fulfill SDWA obligations. As a sta ndard regulatory development practice to promote public involvement, EPA formally solicits publi c comment on proposed drinking water rules. Before any rule is finalized, EPA logs and ev aluates all written comments on proposed rules. Additionally, EPA usually holds public meetings during which any interested party may provide oral testimony for Agency consideration. Such meetings are typically announced in the Federal Register notice accompanying the proposed rule.

In the initial phases of program developmen t, or to confirm assumptions on which rules or guidelines are based, EPA often augments formal meetings with other workshops or meetings to gather information. For example, a Na tional Drinking Water A dvisory Council (NDWAC)Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 11 working group advised EPA on the development of the Guidance on Implementing the Capacity Development Provisions of the SDWA. The NDWAC Small Syst ems Working Group consists of 22 members representing small PWSs, envi ronmental and public health advocacy groups, state drinking water programs, public utility commissions, and other interest groups. The group convened on four occasions between February and July 1997 to develop recommendations on how EPA should implement the capacity developm ent provisions. The Small Systems Working Group presented its recommendations to the full NDWAC, which in turn presented these recommendations to EPA. The working group’s recommendations on the content and format of the resulting guidance were consid ered and incorporated by EPA.

As part of the CCR Rule regulatory devel opment process, EPA consulted with NDWAC, which itself received comments from a working group on CCRs. In addition, EPA solicited input regarding the preparation and distribution of CCRs from a variety of sources, including postal offices and mailing list providers.

Burden for General State Primacy activities was estimated using the State Workload Model, which is documented in the Resource An alysis Computer Program for State Drinking Water Agencies, January 1993 (as updated in 2001) . This model was designed to estimate the resources needed to fund State drinking water prog rams. It contains a comprehensive list of activities required to operate a drinking water program, including estimates of the number of systems impacted.

When drafting the 2000 PN Rule, EPA solicited input from a variety of sources regarding the preparation and distribution of public notices. States were i nvolved early in the regulatory development process, through atte ndance at meetings held in June 1997. Representatives of primacy agencies were included in the PN Ru le Working Group that developed the regulatory requirements. Consultations were held with stakeholders, drinking water primacy agencies, ASDWA, and private firms providing information dissemination services.

The Operator Certification Guidelines are the result of a thorough stakeholder consultation process. The State-EPA Workgroup, composed of seven State and ten EPA representatives, was appointed to fulfill EPA' s responsibility under Section 1419(a) to publish guidelines on operator certification “in coope ration with States.” A second workgroup, the Operator Certification Workgroup of the NDWAC, also called the Partnership, was formed to provide EPA with views in addition to those of states. These two groups met several times and provided their input to the full NDWAC, which in turn provided recommendations to EPA. EPA held public stakeholder meetings in San Franci sco, California; Dallas, Texas; and Washington, DC, to brief interested parties on the draft Guidelines and to accept public comments. Ninetyeight parties responded to EPA’s request for public comment.

In 1998, EPA Headquarters and Regional Offices formed a workgroup to discuss possible approaches for developing an operator certific ation program for Indian Country. The State operator certification baseline sta ndards were presented and changes were made to reflect special considerations for a program in Indian Count ry. These modified baseline standards were presented at the 1998 Annual Native American Water Association (NAWA) Conference, and comments were solicited. Most of the comment s received at the meeting were positive. The consensus was that such a program w ould be useful in Indian Country.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 12 EPA continued with several additional inte rnal reviews and presen ted the draft program guidelines at the OGWDW Tribal Consultation m eeting in February 1999. To solicit additional comments, EPA presented the draft program guidelin es at other Tribal meetings such as the 1999 Annual National Tribal Environm ental Council (NTEC) Conferen ce. In addition, EPA sought the recommendations of other federal agencies. Copies of the draft guidelines were sent for comment to stakeholders and federally recognize d Tribes whose drinking water programs are regulated by EPA. All comments received were considered as the final guidelines were being developed.

During the development of the stand-alone PT ICR, EPA contacted all nine of the PT providers concerning the cost per an alyte for laboratories participati ng in their PT studies. Of the three vendors that responded, the costs range d from $10.00 to $22.38, with an average of $15.46. EPA used an estimate of $15.00 for the cost estimat es. While EPA did not specifically request information from laboratories con cerning the costs per analysis used in this burden effort, EPA is involved in a sufficient number of contracts and other interacti ons with laborat ories to have reliable estimates for these routine analysis costs.

Since the regulations and programs covere d by this ICR are not new, the typical consultations, workshops, and meetings held for proposed rules were not held immediately prior to the development of this document.

3(d) Effects of Le ss Frequent Collection

EPA has considered a wide range of altern atives for frequency of data collection. The CCR Rule and Capacity Development Program re quire annual reporting. Distributing CCRs less frequently than annually is not allowed unde r the SDWA. Annual reporting of capacity development information is essential to enable EPA to make withholding determinations on each fiscal year’s funds.

Laboratories producing drinking water complia nce monitoring data are expected to demonstrate adequate analytical proficiency onc e each year for each analyte they test. Any decrease in frequency would not adequately supp ort the State's laborator y certification/evaluation
programs.

For other information collecti on activities, EPA has chosen to require the least frequent collection that remains consistent with overall public health preser vation objectives. If data are collected less frequently, the primacy agencies may not identify in a timely fashion violations that might threaten the health and sa fety of drinking water consumers.

3(e) General Guidelines

This ICR was prepared in accordance with the November 2005 version of ICR Handbook prepared by EPA’s Office of Environmental In formation, Office of Information Collection, Collection Strategies Division. The ICR Handbook provides the mo st current instructions for ICR preparation to ensure compliance w ith the 1995 PRA amendments and OMB’s implementing guidelines.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 13 3(f) Confidentiality

No confidential information will be collected as a result of this ICR.

3(g) Sensitive Questions

No information of a sensitive nature will be collected as a result of this ICR.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 14 

### 4 RESPONDENTS AND IN FORMATION REQUESTED

4(a) Respondents/NAICS Codes

Data associated with this ICR are collect ed and maintained at the PWS, State, and Federal levels. Re spondents include—

• Owners/operators of PWSs, who must report to the primacy agency.

• Primacy agencies, which include States, Trib es (if they have been authorized to act as primacy agencies), and EPA Regions that act as primacy agencies in Indian lands and States that do not have primacy.

• Laboratories conducting PT to achieve state certification, which permits them to analyze samples for compliance with NP DWRs. (PT vendors are not considered respondents because they are paid for th eir incurred burden and costs via the prices that laboratories pa y for the PT standards).

The North American Industry Classificati on System (NAICS) code for PWSs is 22131. The NAICS code for state agencies that include drinking water programs is 92411 (Administration of Air and Water Resources and Solid Waste Management Programs) or 923312 (Administration of Public Health Programs). Ancillary systems (i.e., those that supplement the function of other establishments like factories, power plants, mobile home parks, etc.) cannot be categorized in a single NAICS code. For ancilla ry systems, the NAICS code is that of the primary establishment or industry. The code for la boratories that include e nvironmental testing is 541380 (Testing Laboratories).

Data associated with this ICR are collect ed and maintained by laboratories seeking Primacy Agency certification for the anal ysis of drinking water samples.

4(b) Information Requested

4(b)(i) Data Items

Respondent information collection require ments covered by the PWSS Program ICR are summarized in Exhibits 2-4 below. These re flect cross-cutting recordkeeping and reporting requirements under the PWSS Program (i.e., requi rements that are not associated with contaminant-specific rules). The requirem ents are discussed following Exhibits 2-4.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 15 Exhibit 2 PWS Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

Requirement Regulatory Citation Frequency/Retention CCRs Mail copies of CCR to customers. 40 CFR 141.155(a) Annually, unless waived per §141.155(g) Announce availability of CCR. 40 CFR 141.155(b) Annually Submit copy of CCR to primacy agency. 40 CFR 141.155(c) Annually

Submit copy of CCR to agencies or clearinghouses identified by the primacy agency. 40 CFR 141.155(d) Annually, as required

Make current year’s CCR available to public. 40 CFR 141.155(e) As requested

Post current year’s CCR on the Internet (for systems serving
≥ 100,000 people). 40 CFR 141.155(f) Annually

Publish CCR in local newspaper, if the mailing requirement has been waived. 40 CFR 141.155(g)(1) Annually, except that systems serving ≤ 500 can forego per §141.155(g)(2) Retain copy of CCR. 40 CFR 141.155(h) For at least 3 years VARIANCES AND EXEMPTIONS Retain records concerning variance or exemption grants. 40 CFR 141.33 Not less than 5 years after variance/exemption expiration Submit information supporting request for variance. 40 CFR 142.41 One-time, PWS discretion

Submit information supporting request for exemption. 40 CFR 142.51 One-time, PWS discretion

Submit information supporting request for small system variance. 40 CFR 142.306 One-time, PWS discretion

Report on compliance with terms and conditions of the small system variance. 40 CFR 142.307 Quarterly after granting

CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT Demonstrate capacity (new CWSs & NTNCWSs). N/A One-time

Cooperate with state to demonstrate continued capacity. N/A As needed

GENERAL STATE PRIMACY ACTIVITIES PWSs are not involved in general state primacy activities. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION RULE Notify persons served within 24 hours of learning of a violation which requires Tier 1 public notification. 40 CFR 141.202(b)(1) As necessary, within 24 hours

Consult with the primacy agency within 24 hours of learning of a violation or other situation that requires Tier 1 public notification. 40 CFR 141.202(b)(2) As necessary, within 24 hours

Comply with any additional notification requirements for Tier 1. 40 CFR 141.202(b)(3) As necessaryPublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 16 Requirement Regulatory Citation Frequency/Retention Notify persons served within 30 days of a violation that requires Tier 2 public notification. 40 CFR 141.203(b)(1) As necessary, within 30 days

Provide repeat notices for unresolved violations every three months, unless the primacy agency determines a different frequency. 40 CFR 141.203(b)(2) As neces sary, every 3 months

Consult with the primacy agency if a violation of the turbidity MCL or SWTR/IESWTR treatment technique requirements for single exceedances of turbidity limits

occurs. 40 CFR 141.203(b)(3) As necessary, within 24 hours

Notify persons served within one year of learning of a violation or situation that requires Tier 3 notification. 40 CFR 141.204(b)(1) As necessary, within 1 year

Provide repeat notices annually for unresolved Tier 3 violations/situations. 40 CFR 141.204(b)(1) As necessary, annually

Notify new customers of ongoing violations/situations prior to or at the time service begins. 40 CFR 141.206 As necessary

Notify persons served of the availability of the results of unregulated contaminant monitoring. 40 CFR 141.207 As necessary, within 12 months of receiving results

Provide special notice to persons served for an exceedance of the fluoride secondary MCL (SMCL). 40 CFR 141.208 As necessary, within 12 months of exceedance

Provide repeat notice of a fluoride SMCL exceedance, if unresolved. 40 CFR 141.208 As necessary, annually

Notify persons served by noncommunity water systems (NCWSs) if the primacy agency grants permission to exceed the nitrate MCL. 40 CFR 141.209 As necessary, within 24 hours

Submit to the state a copy of each notice provided (Tiers 1, 2, and 3 and any repeat notices) and a certification that all PN requirements were met. 40 CFR 141.31(d) and 141.201(c)(3) As necessary, within 10 days after completing notification requirements

Retain copies of all notices and certifications. 40 CFR 141.33(e) 3 years

OPERATOR CERTIFICATION & EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT GRANTS PROGRAM Acquire certified operator(s) per state requirements. N/A As necessary

Maintain and renew operator certification(s). N/A As necessary

TRIBAL OPERATOR CERTIFICATION PROGRAM Acquire certified tribal water system operator(s) per EPA guidelines. N/A As necessary

Apply for “grandparent” certificate. N/A One time, if eligiblePublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 17 Requirement Regulatory Citation Frequency/Retention CONSTRUCTED CONVEYANCES Conduct a house-by-house survey of water use practices and document efforts to ascertain water uses. SDWA 1401(4)(B)(i) On-going

Apply for Other Residential Uses Exclusion. One time, if eligible

Apply for Alternative Water Exclusion. One time, if eligible

Apply for Treatment Exclusion. One time, if eligible Apply for Certain Piped Irrigation Districts Exclusion SDWA 1401(4)(B)(ii) One time, if eligible

PROFICIENCY TESTING PWSs are not involved in proficiency testing Note: Content requirements for public notices are described in 40 CFR 141.205, 141.207, and 141.208.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 18 Exhibit 3 Primacy Agency Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

Requirement Regulatory Citation Report Frequency/Minimum Retention CCRs Make CCRs available to public. 40 CFR 142.16(f)(2) As requested

Retain copies of CCRs and certifications that CCRs were distributed. 40 CFR 142.16(f)(3) CCRs: 5 years Certifications: 1 year

Report violations of CCR provisions. 40 CFR 142.16(f)(4) Quarterly

VARIANCES AND EXEMPTIONS Issue variances and exemptions (for other than small system variances). 40 CFR 142.20 At primacy agency discretion

Consider system variance and exemption requests (for other than small system variances). 40 CFR 142.21 Within 90 days of request

Review variance and exemption requests previously granted. 40 CFR 142.22 Within 18 months of new standards Notify EPA of new variances or exemptions granted. 40 CFR 142.15(a)(3) Quarterly

Summarize the status of variances or exemptions currently in effect. 40 CFR 142.15(b)(2) Annually

Propose small system variances and provide supporting information and responses to comments. 40 CFR 142.311 & 142.312 When State proposes to grant a small system variance

Following notification of EPA’s objections and proposed modifications to proposed small system variances, respond to EPA. 40 CFR 142.311 Before State grants a small community variance to a PWS serving 3,300 or fewer people

Re-propose small system variances. 40 CFR 142.312 Before State grants a small community variance to a PWS serving more than 3,300 and fewer than 10,000 people Review each small system variance to determine if the PWS continues to meet eligibility criteria. 40 CFR 142.307 Not less than 5 years

Notice of public meeting on proposed small system variances, with supporting information. 40 CFR 142.308 At least 30 days prior to public meeting

CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT Submit evidence to EPA that State has established and continues to implement a Capacity Development Program. N/A Annually

Submit report to Governor on the status of the Capacity Development Program. N/A Every three yearsPublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 19 Requirement Regulatory Citation Report Frequency/Minimum Retention Submit list of systems that arehistorical significant noncompliers and, to the extent practicable, the reason(s) for noncompliance. N/A Every three years

GENERAL STATE PRIMACY ACTIVITIES Retain State records for public inspection. 40 CFR 142.14 Varies

Retain quarterly SDWIS reports to EPA, make them available for public inspection. 40 CFR 142.15(d) Upon completion and submittal by state

Report any new violation data or enforcement actions. 40 CFR 142.15(a)(1)-(2) Quarterly

Report any new data related to SDWIS elements or any revisions to existing data. 40 CFR 142.15(b)(1) Annually

Submit information required for review of State programs, including review of monitoring determinations. 40 CFR 142.17-142.18 Annually, as requested

Request primacy treatment for a state or tribal primacy (for Indian tribes). 40 CFR 142.76 One-time

Submit initial application for primacy. 40 CFR 142.11 One-time

Submit statutory and regulatory provisions authorizing administrative penalties or demonstrate that authority does not exist. 40 CFR 142.11(a)(6) One-time

Submit revised primacy application. 40 CFR 142.12 As needed

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Primacy agencies may exercise flexibility in the fo llowing areas as long as they establish enforceable procedures: Requiring PWSs to notify persons served for violations or situations other than those requiring notice under the PN rule. 40 CFR0142.16(a) If necessary

Allowing PWSs to limit distribution of a notice to the portion of the distribution system that is out of compliance. 40 CFR0142.16(a) If necessary

Elevating violations/situations from Tiers 2 or 3 to Tier 1. 40 CFR0142.16(a) If necessary

Requiring additional notification for Tier 1 as a result of the 24- hour consultation. 40 CFR0142.16(a) If necessary

Requiring or permitting a different form of delivery than is required in the PN rule for Tiers 1, 2, or 3. 40 CFR0142.16(a) If necessary

Elevating monitoring/testing procedure violations from Tier 3 to Tier 2. 40 CFR0142.16(a) If necessaryPublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 20 Requirement Regulatory Citation Report Frequency/Minimum Retention Granting extensions for distribution of Tier 2 notices. 40 CFR0142.16(a) If necessary

Allowing less frequent repeat notification for Tier 2. 40 CFR0142.16(a) If necessary

Consulting with PWS within 24 hours for exceedance of turbidity limits. 40 CFR0142.16(a) If necessary

Determining the need for multilingual content in a notice. 40 CFR0142.16(a) If necessary

Consult with PWSs within 24 hours for Tier 1 violations/situations. 40 CFR 141.202(b)(2) As necessary, within 24 hours

Consult with PWSs within 24 hours for exceedances of turbidity MCL or violations of turbidity single exceedance limits. 40 CFR 141.203(b)(3) As necessary, within 24 hours

May give the required public notice on behalf of the PWS. 40 CFR 141.210 If necessary

Report violations of the PN Rule to EPA. 40 CFR 142.15(a)(1) Quarterly

Retain copies of certification and notices submitted by PWSs. Also keep records of determinations of alternative requirements made under 40 CFR 142.16. 40 CFR 142.14(f) 3 years

OPERATOR CERTIFICATION & EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT GRANTS PROGRAM Submit a report to EPA describing ongoing implementation activities of the state’s operator certification program. N/A Annually

Submit to EPA a new Attorney General (AG) certification and a copy of the state’s regulations (if the state makes changes to its operator certification program) N/A As necessary

Submit to EPA a report describing ongoing implementation activities of the state’s Expense Reimbursement Grant N/A Annually, as necessary

TRIBAL OPERATOR CERTIFICATION PROGRAM Primacy agencies are not affected by t he Tribal Operator Certification Program CONSTRUCTED CONVEYANCES Review data to determine if a constructed conveyance should be considered a PWS. SDWA 1401(4) As necessary

Review applications and make determinations about Other Residential Uses Exclusions. SDWA 1401(4)(B)(i) As necessary

Review applications and make determinations about Alternative Water Exclusions.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 21 Requirement Regulatory Citation Report Frequency/Minimum Retention Review applications and make determinations about Treatment Exclusions. SDWA 1401(4)(B)(i) As necessary

Review applications and make determinations about Certain Piped Irrigation Districts Exclusions. SDWA 1401(B)(ii) As necessary

PROFICIENCY TESTING States are not involved in the proficiency testing pr ogram (they are involved in certification, which is addressed under general state primacy activities)

Exhibit 4 Laboratories Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

Requirement Regulatory Citation Report Frequency/Minimum Retention PROFICIENCY TESTING Analyze standards 40 CFR 141.23(k), 141.24(f)(17), 141.132(b)(2) Annually

Report results to PT vendor N/A Annually Maintain records N/A Not specified

1) Consumer Confidence Reports

CCRs must identify the source of the water de livered by the CWS, describe whether it is ground water or surface water, and provide the common name and location of bodies of water used as sources. Reports also must define the terms “Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL),” “Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) ,” “Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level (MRDL),” “Maximum Residua l Disinfectant Level Goal (MRDLG),” “variance,” and “exemption.” Reports must contain a table providi ng data on contaminant levels detected as well as the MCLG and MCL for these contaminants. If contaminants are detected above the MCL or MRDL, health effects information must also be provided. Reports must indicate any violations of the NPDWRs, including monitoring and reporti ng, treatment techniques, public notification, recordkeeping, special monitoring requirements, and the terms of a variance, exemption, or administrative or judicial order. Reports mu st explain any granted variance or exemption. Reports must contain a brief explanation regard ing contaminants that may be found in drinking water. Reports must also display relevant health information con cerning drinking water and potential risks from possible contaminants.

2) Variance & Exemption Rule

To obtain a variance or exemption, systems must submit a request for the variance or exemption that contains supporting informati on. Systems that are granted a variance or exemption must also provide public notice within one year after operatin g under the variance or exemption. They must also maintain records asso ciated with the granting of the variance or exemption. States must review the information contained in variance/ex emption applications.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 22 3) Capacity Development Program

Under SDWA §1420, states are required to submit the following information to EPA—

• An annual report that describes ongoing implementation activities for both the new systems’ programs (SDWA 1420(a)) a nd the existing systems’ strategies (SDWA 1420(c)).A triennial report to the G overnor on the status of the capacity development program (EPA receives a cour tesy copy of each state report). A triennial list of systems th at are historical signific ant non-compliers and, to the extent practicable, the reas on(s) for noncompliance.

Systems must document their financial, technical, and mana gerial capacity, as required by the state.

4) General State Primacy Activities

Section 142.14(a) stipulates, “Each state wh ich has primary enforcement responsibility shall maintain records of tests, measurements, analyses, decisions, and determinations performed on each public water system to determine compliance with applicable provisions of state primary drinking water regulations.” Fu rther, Section 141.14(g) states, “Records required to be kept under this section shall be made available to the Regional Administrator upon request.” Under 142.17, EPA may request information from a State in order to determine compliance of the State with requirements of 40 CFR 142 Subpart B. Information requested may include State determinations made under Secti on 142.19 and records kept by States in accordance with Section 142.14.

To implement its compliance oversight and enforcement responsibilities under the SDWA, EPA requires primacy agencies to repo rt a specified subset of PWS monitoring information in SDWIS. Additiona lly, primacy agencies must mainta in records of analysis results and other related activities (e .g., sanitary survey results).

Systems are not required to subm it any data under this program.

5) Public Notification

Under the public notificati on regulations, systems must no tify all system users of any violation of drinking water regula tions. The methods and deadlines for notification are based on a three-tier system. Tier 1 vi olations, which require 24-hour noti ce, are those that risk serious health effects from short term exposure. Tier 2 violations, which require 30-day notice, are any violations that pose a health risk that are not Tier 1 violations. Tier 3 violations and situations are any not covered under the fi rst two tiers; they include mon itoring violations, exceeding the fluoride secondary standard, operating under a variance or exemption, and announcing the availability of unregulated contaminant monitoring results. Tier 3 public notification must take place within a year of the viol ation and may be included in th e system’s CCR. Systems must consult with primacy agencies within 24 hours of a turbidity violation to determine if the violation is Tier 1 or Tier 2. Primacy agenci es must consult with any systems with Tier 1 violations within 24 hours of the violation. They may also decide to el evate certain Tier 2 or Tier 3 violations. Primacy agencies must report all violations to EPA and keep records for three years after the violation.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 23 6) Operator Certification and Expe nse Reimbursement Grants Program

To satisfy §1419 of SDWA (regarding EPA’s Op erator Certification Guidelines), states are required to submit the following information to EPA—

• An annual report that describes ongoing implementation activities of a state’s operator certification program. A new A ttorney General certification and a copy of the state’s regulations if a state makes changes to its operator certification program. An annual report that descri bes ongoing implementation activities of a state’s Expense Reimbursement Grant.

Systems must document that they have cer tified operators, and th eir operators must maintain certification as re quired by the state program.

7) Tribal Operator Certification Program

Although this program is voluntary, previously established Drinking Water Infrastructure Grant Tribal Set Aside (DWIG TSA) Final Guide lines (October 1998) state that after EPA has developed a Tribal Drinking Water Operator Cer tification Program for operators of systems in Indian Country, “any system to be assisted with TSA funds must be ope rated by an adequately trained and certified operator” in order for a tribe to receive a grant for that system.

The program guidelines establish seven base line standards for the program and list the certification program requirements that must be met for organizat ions that certify operators of drinking water systems in Indian Country to receive approval from EPA.

Any current certification provide r or organization interested in establishing an operator certification program in Indian Country may su bmit programs to EPA for review and approval. EPA will be responsible for implementing this voluntary Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification Program in Indian Country and fo r tracking the number of water systems with certified operators. Certificati on providers will be responsible for tracking training taken and operator status and for reporti ng this information to EPA.

Systems must obtain and renew certificat ions as required by the EPA guidelines.

8) Constructed Conveyances

In order to comply with the 1996 SDWA Am endments, systems and states must work together to determine if the system meets the new definition of “public water system.” In addition, Section 1401(4)(B) of the 1996 SDWA Amendments provides several exemption options. If a system is eligible for one of these exemptions, the system must submit an application to the state. The state must then review the ex emption applications and make determinations.

9) Proficiency Testing

In all laboratory PT studies, laboratorie s submit the results of analyses for all contaminants for which they wish to be certified to conduct drinking water analyses.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 24 4(b)(ii) Respondent Activities

PWSs and primacy agencies must complete the activities described in the sections below.

Public Water Systems

1) Consumer Confidence Reports

For CCRs, CWSs must conduct the following activities—

• Compile the report.

• Mail one report to each customer.

• For consumers who do not receive water bills, publish a notice in the newspaper indicating how a consumer may obtain a copy of a CCR.

• Submit one copy of the completed report to the primacy agency annually and retain one copy of the report.

• Submit copy of CCR to agencies or cl earinghouses identified by the primacy
agency.

• Certify to the primacy agency that the report has been distri buted to customers and that the information is correct.

• Publish the report in a local newspaper rather than mail it, if the State Governor allows CWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people to do so.

• Post an annual notice for customers rather than publishing or mailing a report, if the State Governor allows CWSs serving fewer than 500 people to do so.

• Post the report to a publicly accessible Internet site, for CWSs serving 100,000 or more people.

2) Variance & Exemption Rule

A PWS that elects to apply for a variance or exemption must either perform the following activities or assist the state in performing these activities—

• Apply for the variance or exemption and submit any information that the state requires. For small system variances, a system must demonstrate that it cannot afford to comply with the NPDWR for wh ich the small system variance is sought, that its source water meets the quality standards for installation of the small system variance technology, that it is fi nancially and technically capable of installing, operating, and ma intaining the applicable small system variance technology, and that the terms and conditions of the small system variance would ensure adequate protec tion of human health.

• Work with the state to hold a public hearing on the proposed variance or exemption and provide public notice w ithin one year afte r operating under the variance or exemption.

• Write and submit a quarterly report on compliance with the terms and conditions of the small system variance.

• Retain records associated with the variance or exemption.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 25 3) Capacity Development Program

Under the Capacity Development Program for new systems, all CWSs and NTNCWSs must demonstrate adequate capacity and co mply with all state capacity development requirements. All PWS are asked to cooperate w ith the state’s strategy for existing systems. This includes achieving, maintain ing, and improving capacity.

4) General State Primacy Activities

There are no PWS activities associated w ith the General State Primacy Activities.

5) Public Notification

To comply with the PN regulations, PWSs must complete the following activities—

• Prepare the notice (§§141.201, 141.205, 141.206, 141.207, and 141.208).

• Distribute the notice to all persons se rved within the applicable time frame (§§141.202,141.203, and 141.204).

• If the violation or situa tion requires public notificati on within 24 hours, consult with primacy agency within the 24-hour period to determine subsequent actions (§141.202(b)(2)). Consultation is also re quired for exceedances of the maximum allowable turbidity level (§141.203(b)(3)).

• If a violation is unresolved, prepare an updated notice for repeat distribution (§§141.205, 141.206, 141.207, and 141.208).

• Distribute the updated notice (§§141.202,141.203, and 141.204).

• Take any additional actions require d by the primacy agency (§§141.201 and 141.202).

• Submit certification to the primacy agen cy along with copies of all public notifications that were distributed.

• Retain records of all notices and certifications.

6) Operator Certification and Expe nse Reimbursement Grants Program

Systems are required to comply with the st ate requirements for ope rator certification. Systems must—

• Acquire certified operator(s) holding a valid certification equal to or greater than the classification of the system.

• Maintain/renew certification(s) as needed.

7) Tribal Operator Certification Program

For the voluntary Tribal Operator Certification Program, tribal water systems are expected to have a certified operator available. To become certified, a tribal water system operator must pass an exam and have the a ppropriate education a nd/or experience. EPA subsidizes the training and certificati on of operators in Indian Country.

A tribal water system whose existing opera tor cannot meet all of the certification requirements but has demonstrated the ability to operate that syst em may apply to the appropriatePublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 26 EPA Regional office to receive a “grandparent” certificate. Such a certificate allo ws the existing operator to continue operati ng the current system only.

8) Constructed Conveyances

In order to adhere to the broadened defin ition of “public water system” introduced by the 1996 SDWA Amendments, PWSs may comp lete the following activities—

• Conduct a house-by-house surv ey of water use practices and document efforts to ascertain water uses.

• Apply for an Other Residential Uses Exclusion.

• Apply for an Alternative Water Exclusion.

• Apply for a Treatment Exclusion.

• Apply for a Certain Piped Irr igation Districts Exclusion

Primacy Agencies

1) Consumer Confidence Reports

As part of the CCR Rule, primacy agencies must—

• Review and retain reports a nd certifications from CWSs.

• Assist in preparation of reports.

• Report compliance to EPA.

2) Variance & Exemption Rule

In addition to helping PWSs meet app lication requirements, states must—

• Provide EPA with the proposed small sy stem variance, supporting information, and responses to public comments.

• Respond to EPA’s objections to a proposed small system variance for a PWS serving 3,300 or fewer persons, if the state chooses to pursue the variance.

• Revise a proposed small systems vari ance as necessary to reflect EPA’s comments on variance requests for systems that serve more than 3,300 people and fewer than 10,000 people, if the stat e chooses to pursue the variance.

• Submit a quarterly report on violations of increments of progress or any other violated term or condition of a small system variance.

• Conduct a public meeting on a small system variance request, provide notice of the public meeting, and provide sup porting information to the public.

• Respond to significant public comments on the proposed variance request.

• Retain records associated with a granted variance or exemption not less than five years after its expiration.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 27 3) Capacity Development Program

States must—

• Submit an annual report that describe s ongoing implementation activities for both the new systems’ programs (SDWA 1420(a)) and the existing systems’ strategies (SDWA 1420(c)).

• Submit a triennial report to the Gove rnor on the status of the capacity development program (EPA receives a c ourtesy copy of each state report).

• Submit a triennial list of systems that ar e historical significant non-compliers. To the extent possible, include th e reason(s) for noncompliance.

4) General State Primacy Activities

As part of their general primacy activities, primacy agencies must—

• Prepare grant packages requesting funding to operate the program in a state.

• Maintain state drinking water data systems.

• Review monthly violations re ports to monitor compliance.

• Maintain records submitted by PWSs rega rding results of an alytical tests and other milestones, such as treatment decisions.

• Take timely and appropriate enforcement actions.

• Review PWS projects regarding design, construction, and treatment modifications.

• Conduct routine inspections to supplement information collected during sanitary
surveys.

• Certify laboratories to analyze drinking water samples for compliance with drinking water regulations.

This ICR assumes that no applications for primacy will be submitted during the next three years. However, since a new primacy app lication is a possibilit y, the following discussion of possible implications is provided. To obtain primacy, the applicant must—

• Adopt drinking water regulations that ar e no less stringent than the NPDWRs currently in effect. An agency may also be granted primacy for new or revised EPA regulations if they demonstrate that their approved program has been updated to include regulations no less st ringent than those new or revised EPA regulations.

• Adopt adequate procedures for en forcement of these regulations.

• Report these procedures according to EPA's requirements.

• Permit variances and exemptions under conditions no less stringent than those specified by the regulations.

• Adopt and implement an adequate plan for providing safe drinking water under emergency circumstances.

The regulations allow Indian tribes to be granted primacy, although no primacy applications are expected from tribes during the next three years. In order for an Indian tribe to receive primacy, they must first apply for and receive designation as a “state.” The tribe mayPublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 28 then apply for a developmental grant to assist it in preparing the necessary infrastructure (e.g., regulations). Once the regulat ions are in place, the tr ibe may apply for primacy.

Under the Indian Primacy Rule promulgate d September 26, 1988, an Indian tribe that wishes to apply for and be designated as a “state” must—

• Submit evidence that the tribe is recogni zed by the Secretary of the Interior.

• Certify that it is currently “carrying out substantial governmental duties and powers” over a defined area. The stat ement must describe the governmental functions currently performed by the tribal governing body, including, but not limited to, the exercise of police power, ta xation, and the exercise of the power of eminent domain. Copies of applicable tr ibal documents must also be provided.

• Prepare and submit a map or legal descrip tion of the area over which the Indian tribe asserts juri sdiction for the purposes of the proposed program.

• Provide copies of applicable tribal codes, ordinances, etc.

• Describe the Indian tribe's capabilit y to administer such a program.

5) Public Notification

The PN Rule requires primacy agencies to consult with the violat ing PWS to determine appropriate follow up actions. A dditionally, the primacy agencies must receive and review PN certifications submitted by PWSs. Primacy agencies must submit quarterly reports of PN Rule violations to EPA.

Primacy agencies may give notice on be half of a PWS (40 CFR141.210). However, no data is available for estimating how often this oc curs. For the purposes of this ICR, the burden for preparing and distributing public notification is assumed to be incurred by the PWS.

6) Operator Certification and Expe nse Reimbursement Grants Program

A state complying with the program must—

• Submit an annual report that describe s ongoing implementation activities of a state’s operator cert ification program.

• Submit a new attorney genera l certification and a copy of the state’s regulations if a state makes changes to its operator certification program.

• Submit an annual report that describes ongoing implementation activities associated with the state’s expense reimbursement grant.

7) Tribal Operator Certification Program

States are not affected by the Tr ibal Operator Cer tification Program.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 29 8) Constructed Conveyances

To comply with the broadened definition of “public water system” introduced by the 1996 SDWA Amendments, states may co mplete the following activities—

• Review data to determine if a constr ucted conveyance should be considered a PWS.

• Review applications for Other Resi dential Uses Exclusions and make determinations about the exemption applications.

• Review applications for A lternative Water Exclusions and make determinations about the exemption applications.

• Review applications for Treatment Exclus ions and make determinations about the exemption applications.

• Review applications for Certain Piped Irr igation Districts Exclusions and make determinations about the exemption applications.

Laboratories

Proficiency Testing

The primary burden involves analyzing and reporting results for relevant study samples according to instructions. Samples may be analyzed for inorganics, disinfection byproducts and/or organic chemicals. Respondents will participate in the following activities—

• Read instructions

• Plan activities

• Analyze inorganic chemicals

• Analyze DBPs

• Analyze organic chemicals

• Report results to the proficiency testing vendor

• Maintain records

Laboratories are not subject to any of the other collections covered in this ICR.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 30 

### 5 INFORMATION COLLECTED -- AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOL OGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

5(a) Agency Activities

As part of its supervisory responsibility for the PWSS Program, EPA maintains SDWIS and evaluates the data in SDWIS to determin e system compliance. Agency personnel also reformat, distribute, and stor e these data for a number of uses, including responding to Congressional and public inquiri es. EPA also oversees the st ate and EPA Regional programs, provides technical assistance, a nd develops policies designed to ensure consistent program implementation. EPA officials serve as res pondents when testifying to Congress on the PWSS Program or in the courts for enforcement ac tions. EPA’s recordk eeping requirements are outlined in Exhibit 5 below.

Exhibit 5 PWSS Program Requirements for EPA Regions and Headquarters

Requirement CFR Citation Report Frequency/Minimum Retention Review initial and revised applications for primacy. 40 CFR 142.11-142.12 As needed
Inform primacy agency of PWS noncompliance with any NPDWRs in 40 CFR 141 or with any requirement under SDWA Sections 1415 and 1416. 40 CFR 142.30, 142.15 Quarterly

Review existing State primacy programs. 40 CFR 142.17 Annually
Review State monitoring determinations. 40 CFR 142.18 As needed
Review State implementation of Lead and Copper Rule. 40 CFR 142.19 As needed
Inform primacy agency of substantial abuse of discretion in granting variances and exemptions. 40 CFR 142.23 As needed

Provide notice of public hearing for states abusing right to grant variances and exemptions. 40 CFR 142.23 As needed

Notify primacy agencies of failure to prescribe schedules in accordance with SDWA. 40 CFR 142.23 As needed

Notify primacy agencies of repeal of notice or promulgation of any revisions to schedules or revocation of schedules proposed in notice. 40 CFR 142.23 Within 180 days of first notice given to the state; revised schedule or revocation takes effect 90 days after state is notified.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 31 Requirement CFR Citation Report Frequency/Minimum Retention Notify primacy agencies of objection and proposed modifications to small system variances proposed by states for PWSs serving 3,300 or fewer people. 40 CFR 142.311 Within 90 days of receiving proposal

Notify primacy agencies of deficiencies in state program for granting small system variances. 40 CFR 142.313 As needed

Notify PWSs of noncompliance with any NPDWRs in 40 CFR 141 or with any requirement under SDWA Sections 1415 and 1416. 40 CFR 142.30, 142.15 Quarterly

Provide PWSs with copies of Federal Register notice about PWS failure to comply. 40 CFR 142.23 Within 30 days of notice

Notify PWSs of denial or grant ofvariance (for PWSs in nonprimacy states). 40 CFR 142.42 Within 90 days of request

Notify PWSs of denial or grant ofexemption (for PWSs in nonprimacy states). 40 CFR 142.52 Within 90 days of request

Notify PWSs of denial or grant of small system variance (for PWSs in non-primacy states). 40 CFR 142.311, 142.312 Within 90 days of request

Provide notice to PWSs in nonprimacy states that are no longer eligible for small system variances. 40 CFR 142.307 As needed

Provide public notice of public meeting on proposed smallsystem variances (in nonprimacy states), with supporting information. 40 CFR 142.308 At least 30 days prior to public meeting

Respond to significant public comments. 40 CFR 142.308 Before proposal
Notify public of proposed small system variance (in non-primacy states), with supporting information. 40 CFR 142.309 No later than 15 days after receiving small system variance proposal.
Make DWSRF grant withholding decisions with regard to States’ Capacity Development Programs. SDWA Section 1420(a), (c) 35 CFR 35.3515(b)ii Annually

Make DWSRF grant withholding decisions with regards to States’ Operator Certification Programs. SDWA Section 1419(b) Annually

Provide state and PWS assistance and training with regard to recordkeeping and reporting requirements covered in this ICR N/A As needed

Maintain SDWIS. N/A As needed Review data in SDWIS. N/A QuarterlyPublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 32 5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

Primacy agencies must report data quarterly to EPA. These data include any new data and revisions or corrections to existing data. Th is information is maintained in SDWIS, which contains the following—

• Inventory data for each PWS

• Violations

• Enforcement actions and some follow-up activity

• Variances and exemptions

Primacy agencies transmit SDWIS data to EPA both manually and electronically. In Wyoming and Indian Lands (excep t for the Navajo Nation, which has primacy), results of system samples are sent directly to the EPA Re gion. Virtually all SDWIS data are reported electronically by the primacy agency.

Each quarter, EPA Regions must provide Hea dquarters with informa tion on the status of systems in significant noncompliance (SNC). H eadquarters then generates a list of SNCs and transmits it to the EPA Regions, which in turn send it to the states. Using this report, states report the current status of th e SNCs to the EPA Regions, which in turn report back to Headquarters. This information is provided to the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, as part of the Reporting for Enfo rcement and Compliance A ssurance Priorities. These data provide senior management with information on trends in drinking water enforcement.

EPA Regions also undertake extensive data verification of SDWIS inventory, violation, and enforcement data. The methodology for data verification includes revi ew of a statistically valid random sample of PWS inventory, violation, enforcement, milestone, and sample data. EPA Regional staff conduct an on-si te verification of each sample sy stem’s data at the offices of the primacy agency. Then the EPA Regions co mpare the recorded compliance determined by the data verification process with the inform ation reported to SDWIS and prepare reports summarizing the differences. The report summ arizes the state’s compliance determination procedures, data verification process, observations, and any recommendations for improving program management.

The primary purposes of the data verificat ion program are to assess the accuracy and quality of data collected and reported by the st ates and to recommend a ny necessary changes in collection or reporting. In addition, the process of verification provides in sights into the primacy agency’s program implementation. During data ve rification, the EPA Regional Office is able to gain greater understanding of how the primacy agencies interpre t and implement regulations. For example, EPA Regional Offices can perform the following activities—

• Evaluate procedures used to manage the program.

• Critique implementation methods used for follow-up activity, in cases of violation.

• Verify the flow of information through the state to ensure that the data reflect actual state experience.

• Observe how the program is implemented in various primacy agencies.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 33 The data verification process also enables EPA Regional Offices to educate states about the SDWA regulations and to st andardize interpretations and im plementation procedures. For example, a state's definition of compliance with the Federal regulations may differ from the official definition. These discrepancies become evident during the data verification process and can be corrected by EPA Regional and state staff. Thus, the data verification process plays a crucial role in standardizing state impl ementation and enforcement of the SDWA.

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.” These terms are defined below. 5

• A small business is any business that is inde pendently owned and operated and not dominant in its field as defined by the Small Business Administration 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 governme nt of a city, county, town, township, village, school distri ct or special district th at has a population of fewer than 50,000. This definition may also include Indian Tribes.

The major requirement under SBREFA is a regula tory flexibility analys is of all rules that have a “significant economic impact on a substantia l number of small entities.” This ICR is not associated with new rules. Therefore, this ICR is not subject to the SBREFA.

However, EPA has made significant effort s to minimize the burden for all respondents, particularly for small entities . In setting both maximum contaminant levels and monitoring requirements, EPA has been able to minimize bur den for small entities as detailed below.

1) Consumer Confidence Reports

EPA’s regulations allow systems serv ing fewer than 10,000 people to publish a newspaper notice in lieu of sending reports to customers. Under 40 CFR 141.155(g)(2), CWSs serving 500 or fewer people may forego the notic e-publishing requirement , provided they give notice at least annually to their customers by mail, door-to-door delive ry, or posting in an appropriate location that the CCR is available upon request. In a ddition, only very large systems (those serving more than 100,000 people) must provide CCR information on the Internet.

5 These definitions were taken from Section 601 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 34 2) Variance & Exemption Rule

The V/E Rule includes procedures and c onditions under which the primacy agency (or the EPA Administrator in non-primacy states) may i ssue variances or exemptions to public water systems. The V/E Rule is intended to provide regulatory relief, while still protecting public health. Specifically, it permits primacy agencies to issue variances to PWSs that cannot comply with the national primary drinking water standards due to source water quality or affordability. These variances generally allow a system to pr ovide drinking water that may be above the MCL if the drinking water quality is still protectiv e of public health. Duration of small system variances generally coincides with the life of the technology. Exem ptions are intended to allow a small system with compelling circumstances add itional time to comply with applicable SDWA requirements. An exemption is generally limited to three years after the in itial compliance date stated in the regulations.

3) Capacity Development Program

EPA’s guidelines provide states with maximum flexibility in developing and implementing the capacity development progr am. As mentioned above, EPA published a document entitled, Small System Regulatory Requi rements Under the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, which, among other things, explains the requirements of the Capacity Development Program. In addition, EPA pub lished a Handbook for Capacity Development: Developing Water System Capacity Under the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 and is working on several other tools to help small systems comply.

4) General State Primacy Activities

There are no PWS activities associated w ith the General State Primacy Activities.

5) Public Notification

EPA allows systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons several options for delivering public notices, such as hand delivery and posting in a prominent location.

6) Operator Certification and Expe nse Reimbursement Grants Program

EPA’s Guidelines provide states with maximum flexibility in developing and implementing their operator cert ification programs. Furtherm ore, funding is available for training and certification expe nses of small system ope rators through the Expense Reimbursement Grants program, and EPA’s Guidelin es permit the use of circuit riders (certified operators who are responsible for multiple systems) as determined to be appropriate by the state.

7) Tribal Operator Certification Program

Since the Tribal Operator Certification Progr am is voluntary, the pr ogram provides tribes with maximum flexibility in seek ing operator certificat ion. Water system operators in Indian Country can decide if they woul d like to be certified by an EP A-approved tribal certification provider or by a state program. Furthermore, EP A subsidizes the traini ng and certification of tribal water system operato rs in Indian Country.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 35 Additionally, certification pr oviders have flexibility in developing and implementing their tribal operator certification programs. EPA will provide one-time, start-up grants to selected tribal operator certification providers.

8) Constructed Conveyances

The broadened definition of “public water system” could financially affect small constructed conveyance systems that would now be considered PWSs. Consequently, the 1996 SDWA Amendments provided several exempti on options. Examples of these exclusions include—

• If water provided by a supplier is used exclusively for purposes other than residential uses (drinking, bathing, cooking, and similar uses), then a system may apply for an “Other Than Residential Uses” exclusion.

• If a water supplier provides adequate health protection through means specified in 1401(4)(B)(i)(II) and (III), then the system may apply for an “Alternative Water Treatment” Exclusion.

• If the water supply will be used for dr inking, cooking, or bath ing, then the water must be treated either centrally or at the point-of-entry at each connection. To receive a “Treatment” Exclusion, a system mu st demonstrate that this treatment is occurring.

• If an irrigation district existed prior to May 18, 1994, and if the district provides primarily agricultural serv ice through piped water systems (with incidental residential use), the system may be e ligible for a “Certain Piped Irrigation Districts” Exclusion.

9) Proficiency Testing

The proficiency testing program is not part of a rule, so it is not subject to the requirements of SBREFA. The PT program applies only to those laboratorie s that wish to be certified to conduct drinking water analyses.

5(d) Collection Schedule

Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 of this document cont ain summaries of the co llection schedules for each rule. Additional information may be obtaine d by consulting the individual rules for specific collection schedules.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 36 

### 6 ESTIMATING BURDEN A ND COST OF COLLECTION

This section estimates the burden and cost to PWSs, primacy agencies, and EPA for complying with drinking water information requirements that are not associated with contaminant-specific rulemakings. These activities include the following—

1) Consumer Confidence Reports 2) Variance and Exemption Rule 3) Capacity Development Program 4) General State Primacy Activities 5) Public Notification 6) Operator Certification and Expens e Reimbursement Grants Program 7) Tribal Operator Certification Program 8) Constructed Conveyances 9) Proficiency Testing

This section also discusses the assumpti ons used to estimate costs and burden and describes the change in burden, as comp ared with the 2004 PWSS Program ICR.

6(a) Respondent Burden

6(a)(i) Burden to Public Water Systems

The annual PWS burden for October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2011 is estimated to be approximately 2.2 million hours. Exhibit 6 shows the breakdown of the annual burden hours on an activity-specific basis. The bases for the burden estimates are detailed below.

1) Consumer Confidence Reports

CCR regulations require, at a minimum, that each CWS mail to each of its customers an annual report on the level of cont aminants in the drinking water purveyed by that system. EPA estimates that CCR requirements will affect approximately 52,110 PWSs, all of which are CWSs, during the course of this ICR period. Ac tivities associated with the preparation and delivery of CCRs account for 527,168 burden hours per year, which includes burden for both CCR development and distribution.

Appendix B summarizes the assumptions used to calculate the CCR burden and provides detailed burden and cost calculations. The a ssumptions used to calculate the CCR burden are based largely on assumptions from the 2004 PWSS Program ICR. For the PWSS Program ICR renewal, these assumptions have been augmen ted or supplanted where updated data were available. Section 6(f) describes the reasons fo r changes in burden and shows the effects of any new assumptions on the CCR burden estimates.

Report Development

Preparation of a CCR incl udes assembling data, writing th e report, ensuring that the notice meets regulatory requirement s, and printing the document. Burden estimates range from 4 hours for CWSs serving 500 or fewer people to 23 hours for CWSs serving at least 10,000 people. After completion of CCR preparation activities, all CWSs, regardless of size, arePublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 37 assumed to have the same burden (0.12 hours) for submitting to the state a copy of the CCR distributed to customers. Certif ication that the reports were, in fact, distributed is also required along with the report. Finally, all CWSs, regard less of size, are assumed to have the same burden (0.25 hours) for maintaining a copy of the CCR and making it publicly available, if requested.

Report Delivery

The burden estimate for CCR delivery includes the followi ng activities and assumptions—

• Except for CWSs serving 500 or fewer people, all CWSs incur a burden for publishing a notice about obtaining a CCR. Th e burden per system for this activity is 0.25 hours. For systems serving at least 10,000 people, publication is in addition to report delivery to customers. For system s serving fewer than 10,000 people, this ICR assumes that 50 percent of systems will publ ish a notice in lieu of sending reports to

customers.

• Under 40 CFR 141.155(g)(2), CWSs serving 500 or fewer people may forego the notice-publishing requirement, provided they give notice at least annually to their customers by mail, door-to-door delivery, or posting in an appropriate location that the CCR is available upon request. This I CR assumes that 50 percent of these CWSs post the report and 50 percent deliver the re port to their customers as part of their standard water bill. Those that post th e CCR are estimated to incur a burden of 0.12 hours for this activity.

• Regardless of CWS size category, this ICR a ssumes a burden of 1 hour per system for coordinating delivery of the CCR as a bill stuffer. CWSs serving 10,000 or more people must deliver the CCR to all servic e connections. However, CWSs serving fewer than 10,000 people may apply to the St ate Governor (or Tribal Leader) for a waiver of the requirement to deliver a CCR to each customer. This ICR assumes that half of such CWSs will recei ve a waiver. For CWSs serv ing 500 or fewer people, the 50 percent without a waiver are assumed to include the CCR along with the normal water bill (instead of sending the CCR in a separate mailing). For CWSs serving between 501 and 10,000 people, half of the systems without a waiver (or 25 percent of the total number of CWSs in this size category) are assumed to include the CCR as a bill stuffer, and the remaining systems will mail the CCR separately.

• Under §141.155(f), CWSs serving at least 100,000 people must post a copy of the current CCR on a publicly accessible Internet site. This burden is estimated at 0.5 hours per system.

2) Variance and Exemption Rule

An exact burden could not be estimated in the 1998 V/E ICR and the 2001 and 2004 PWSS Program ICRs because the number of reque sted variances and exemptions was impossible to estimate, given that EPA had not yet identified cases in which small system variances would be available. However, in the 2008 PWSS Program ICR, data for exemptions is derived from April 2008 EPA data on the total number of actual exemptions applied for under the ArsenicPublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 38 Rule (286 systems). The number of systems appl ying for variances, however, is carried forward from the 1998 V/E ICR, and the number of sy stems completing each task is based on the percentages of systems completing each task in the1998 V/E ICR (assuming a total of 411 systems in 1998).

Based on the above estimates, it is estimated that the average annual burden to PWSs will be approximately 9,066 hours. Appendix C summari zes the assumptions used to calculate the Variances and Exemptions Rule burden and provid es detailed burden and cost calculations.

3) Capacity Development

EPA estimates that capacity developm ent will affect approximately 41,578 PWSs, including CWSs, NTNCWSs, and transient noncommunity water systems (TNCWSs), during the course of this ICR period. The Capacity Development Program consists of two major components—

1) Implementation of a program to ensure that all new CWSs and NTNCWSs demonstrate the capacity to comply with NPDWRs.

2) Implementation of a strategy to assi st existing PWSs in acquiring and maintaining capacity to comply with the SDWA.

The burden estimate associated with new a nd existing capacity development efforts is based on expert opinions, in cluding opinions provided by members of the NDWAC Small Systems Workgroup, and consultations with drinking water industr y representatives. Specifically, the burden estimate includes th e following activitie s and assumptions—

• New systems must demonstrate capacity in order to obtain approval. Each new system applying for approval will require 40 hours to prepare and submit new system approval materials to the state. This burden estimate does not include compliance with state technical requirements sin ce these were generally unaffected by the capacity development provisions. EPA estimat es that there will be an average of 8 new systems per state per year.

• Some new systems must improve capacity in order to obtain approval. An estimated 20 percent of new systems applying for approval will be required to submit supplemental materials before approval is granted by the state. To develop and submit these materials, it is estimated that each system denied initial approval will require an additional 20 hours. As with the approval application, it is estimated that there will be 8 new systems per state per year (20 percent of which will be required to submit supplemental materials) and that the burden estimate does not include the time needed to comply with technical requirements.

• Some existing systems will incur burden for complying with state capacity development strategies. Each year, EP A estimates that 20 percent of CWSs, 7 percent of NTNCWSs, and 2.5 percent of TNCWSs will incur a burden to comply with state capacity development strategy efforts. EPA estimates that these systems will spend, on average, 8 hours per year participating in capacity development strategy activities (primarily consultations with states).Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 39 Based on these assumptions, EPA estimates th at the average annual burden to PWSs will be approximately 130,939 hours for capacity deve lopment activities. Appendix D summarizes the assumptions used to calculate the Capac ity Development Program burden and provides detailed burden and cost calculations.

Appendix D summarizes the assumptions used to calculate the Capacity Development Program burden and provides detailed burden and cost calculations.

4) General State Primacy

There is no PWS burden associated with general state primacy activities.

5) Public Notification

Only PWSs with one or more violation dur ing the year incur a burden. (PWSs with no violations have no requirements under this rule.) The informa tion collection burden for systems that do experience a violation is estimated to average 7.5 hours per violation per year (1,422,405 hours divided by 189,144 violations). This esti mate includes time for preparing, copying, mailing, submitting, or posting public notices, as well as time for maintaining records of PN activities.

In preparing this ICR, EPA assumed that each PWS will delive r a public notice to persons served. A “person served” is define d as an individual who normally receives water provided by the PWS. Under the statute, PWSs are required to reach persons served, including those who ordinarily do not receive water bills (e.g., residents of apartment buildings, students and staff at schools, etc.).

Under the PN Rule, CWSs providing a Tier 1 notice are expected either to hand deliver the notice to all residences or to contact a ll media outlets serving the affected community, including television and radio stations, and submit a press release to them. Burden for distribution of Tier 1 not ices is estimated at 12 hours for pos ting and hand delivery and/or use of mass media. NCWSs providing a Ti er 1 notice are likely to post the notice or hand deliver the notice to customers. All water systems are require d to take other reasonably calculated steps to ensure all the persons served by the system r eceive the notice. Although the rule does not specify such actions, PWSs are assumed to place telephone calls to centers of sensitive populations, such as hospitals, nursing homes, and schools. Finally, water systems are expected to prepare a notice suitable for posting in rest areas, government-owned buildings, libraries, and other facilities served by the water system.

Systems providing a Tier 2 or Tier 3 notice must mail or otherwise directly deliver one notice to each customer. The PN Rule also perm its NCWSs to post the notice in lieu of direct delivery or mailing. All water systems must also take other reasonably calc ulated steps to reach other persons not reached by mail, direct delivery, or routine posting. Estimated burden hours for delivering Tier 2 notices are 9 hours for CWSs under 500 in size, and 30 hours for larger CWSs. NTNCWS and TNCWS are estimated to incur 9 burden hours per system.

The burden estimate for mailing assumes that half the CWSs bill their customers less frequently than every month or use postcards rather than envelopes to send bills. Therefore, if aPublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 40 system experiences a violation requiring a Tier 2 notice more than 30 days prior to a regular billing date, these CWSs are required to send a separate mailing specifically for the public notice. Water systems that bill on a monthly ba sis and do not use postcards, or those sending out other mailings to the customers, including annual CCRs, will be able to incorporate the notice as a stuffer in one of the system’s other mailings . Because the mailing al one will not reach all persons served, the burden estimate includes ot her methods of information dissemination to ensure all persons serv ed receive the notice.

The burden for preparation of these notices was calculated separately from the burden for delivering the notices. For Tier 1 systems serving up to 10,000 customers, the burden estimate per system is 8.5 hours. Systems over 10,000 cust omers can expect a burden of 10 hours per system. Systems with Tier 2 notices have an es timated burden of 3.5 hours, regardless of size, while CWSs with Tier 3 notices have an estimated burden of 1 hour and NTNCWSs and TNCWSs have an estimated 3.5 burden hours.

If repeated notices are necessary, the es timated PWS respondent burden for developing and distributing repeat public notifica tion is 0.33 hours per system.

Based on the above estimates, it is estimated that the average annual burden to PWSs will be approximately 1,422,405 hours.

Appendix F summarizes the assumptions used to calculate the PN Rule burden and provides detailed burden and cost calculations.

6) Operator Certification Guidelines an d Expense Reimbursement Grant Program

EPA estimates that 70,949 public CWSs and NTNCWSs will be affected annually by the Operator Certification Program. The burden for PWSs involves operators renewing their certifications. The burden is estimated to be 79, 682 hours annually for PWSs. Specifically, it is estimated that for systems serving fewer than 3,300 customers, the bu rden hours per operator will be 4 hours. For systems serving greater than 3,300 customers, the estimated burden is 4 hours per system.

Appendix G summarizes the assumptions used to calculate the Operator Certification Program burden and provides detailed burden and cost calculations.

7) Tribal Operator Certification Program

Burden for Tribal PWSs involves obtaining an d renewing certification of their operators. This burden is estimated to be 14,136 hours. A nnually that is an average burden of 4,712 hours. It is estimated that Tribal systems will requ ire 40 hours for new Level 1 certifications, 26 hours for new Level 2 certifications and 26 hours fo r new Level 3 certifications. Other activities include 40 hours for certification renewals, and 0.5 hours to complete paperwork for reimbursement of certification cost s. Appendix H summarizes the assumptions used to calculate the Tribal Operator Certification burden and prov ides detailed burden and cost calculations.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 41 8) Constructed Conveyances

Certain PWSs may incur burden to adhere to the broadened defin ition of “public water system” introduced by the 1996 SDWA Amendments. It is estimated that, on average, up to 371 PWSs may complete one or more of the following activities annually—

• Conduct a house-by-house surv ey of water use practices and document efforts to ascertain water uses.

• Apply for exclusions.

• Communicate with the primacy agency.

Recordkeeping.

The total annual burden to carry out these activities is estimat ed to be 7,496 hours. It is estimated that surveys and data collection will re quire 20 hours per PWS. E ach of four exclusion applications available (other residential uses, alternative water, treatment, and certain piped irrigation districts) will take 10 hours each per system. Communication with the primacy agency is estimated to take 10 hours and recordkeepi ng is estimated at 1 hour per system. Appendix I summarizes the assumptions used to calculate the burden for adherence to the constructed conveyance requirements under the revised PWS definition and provides detailed burden and cost calculations.

6(a)(ii) Burden to Primacy Agencies

The annual burden for state primacy agenci es for October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2011 is estimated to be approximately 1.7 million hour s. Exhibit 7 shows the annual burden hours on an activity-specific basis. The following briefly describes the bases for the burden estimates –

1) Consumer Confidence Reports

Primacy agencies are expected to incur a burden for information collection activities associated with preparation assistance, review, and filing of CCRs. The total annual state burden is estimated at 106,831 hours. Assisting in the prep aration of reports for small CWSs is estimated at 4 hours per system. State r ecordkeeping activ ities, including receiving and reviewing CWS reports and filing reports, are estimated at 0.20 hours and 0.10 hours, respectively. Appendix B contains detailed burden and cost assumptions and calculations for primacy agencies.

2) Variance and Exemption Rule

The burden for States is ba sed on the number of systems applying for variances and exemptions. As discussed in Section 6(a)(i), an exact burden for the number of systems affected could not be estimated in the 1998 V/E ICR a nd the 2001 PWSS Program ICR. However, in the 2008 PWSS Program ICR, data for exemptions is derived from April 2008 EPA data on the total number of actual exemptions applied for unde r the Arsenic Rule. The number of systems applying for variances, however, is carried fo rward from 1998 V/E ICR, and the number of systems completing each task is based on per centages of systems completing each task in the1998 V/E ICR.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 42 Based on the above estimates, it is estimated that the average annual burden to Primacy Agencies will be approximately 89,231 hours. Appe ndix C summarizes the assumptions used to calculate the Variances and Exemptions Rule burden and provides detailed burden and cost calculations.

3) Capacity Development Program

As discussed in Section 6(a)(i), the Ca pacity Development Program, which was added pursuant to the 1996 SDWA Amendments, is a stat e effort to help drinking water systems improve their finances, management, infrastructu re, and operations so they can provide safe drinking water consistently, relia bly, and cost-effectively. The pr ogram consists of two major components—

1) Implementation of a program to ensure that all new CWSs and NTNCWSs demonstrate the capacity to comply with NPDWRs.

2) Implementation of a strategy to assi st existing PWSs in acquiring and maintaining capacity to comply with the SDWA.

The burden estimate associated with new a nd existing capacity development efforts is based on expert opinions, in cluding opinions provided by members of the NDWAC Small Systems Workgroup, and consultations with drinking water industr y representatives. Specifically, the burden estimate assumes that—

• States must review and approve applicatio ns for new systems. This ICR assumes that, on average, there will be 8 new systems per state per year. It will take state personnel an estimated 100 hours per system to review new system documentation and information.

• Some applications for new systems will requi re state follow up. Upon initial review, all new systems likely will not meet states’ capacity criteria. An estimated 20 percent of new systems applying for approval each year will be required to submit supplemental materials. It is estimated th at a state will need 8 hours per system to review these materials.

• States must provide capacity development assistance to some existing systems. One element that states must consider in their capacity development strategies is how to identify and prioritize the PWSs most in need of improving capacity. In estimating this burden, EPA assumed that states will as sist 20 percent of CWSs, 7 percent of NTNCWSs, and 2.5 percent of TNCWSs each year. EPA estimates that, on average, a state will dedicate 4 hours of assistan ce to each of these existing systems.

• Every 3 years, States must submit a list ofsystems that are historical significant noncompliers, describing the reasons for their noncompliance. It will take an estimated 24 hours per state to prepare this list, fo r an average annual burden of 8 hours per

state.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 43 • Each state must write and submit to the G overnor a report on the progress and success of its strategy. Every three years, the pr imacy agency must submit a report to the State's Governor on the progress and success of its strategy. It will take an estimated 40 hours to coordinate and prepare this re port, for an average annual burden of 13.3 hours per state.

In total, the average annu al state burden for capacity development efforts is 104,503 hours per year. Appendix D summarizes the a ssumptions used to calculate the Capacity Development Program burden and provides de tailed burden and cost calculations.

4) General State Primacy Activities

As illustrated in Exhibit 7, approximate ly 70 percent of the state burden—or 1,204,022 hours—is for activities that cannot be associated w ith specific drinking wate r rules or programs. These “general primacy activities” include—

• Submission of grant applications. Primacy agencies are eligible to receive program grants from EPA to implement their PWSS programs. To receive the grants they must prepare program plans describing thei r planned activities a nd use of the grant funds. Primacy agencies must apply for the gr ants on an annual basis. This activity is estimated to require 1,040 hours annually per State.

• File management (recordkeeping). Each primacy agency is required to maintain records of tests, measurements, analyses, d ecisions, and determinations performed on each PWS to assess compliance with the provisions of the state’s primary drinking water regulations. File management is estimated to take 1,040 hours annually per State.

• Maintenance of data systems is estimate d to require 1,040 hours annually per State. Each primacy agency must develop a method of storing all PWS inventory, compliance, and enforcement information that it uses to operate its PWSS oversight program. While EPA does not prescribe a st orage method, states ge nerally store this information electronically because of the volume of data involved. States must routinely enter new inventory, compliance, and enforcement data into their data systems. States must also modify their data systems as necessary.

• Submission of ongoing violation reports is estimated to require 1,040 hours annually per State. Each primacy agency must provide EPA with information regarding all violations of the state drinking water regula tions and with other selected water system information that is necessary to dete rmine compliance with the drinking water requirements. States must also provide new and updated water system inventory information on an annual basis.

• Laboratory certifications are estimated to require 728 hours annually per State. The state PWSS programs require that water sy stems conduct routine monitoring of water quality to ensure that the water produced meet s all regulatory standa rds. States must have some method of ensuring that the la boratories conducting these analyses are qualified and capable of perfor ming the tests. As a result , states must establish andPublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 44 maintain a program for certifying labora tories that may conduct the required compliance monitoring for PWSs.

• Plan and project reviews. Primacy agenci es must establish and maintain a program that assures the design and construction of new or modified water system facilities that are capable of complying with the St ate primary drinking water regulations. Most States achieve this assurance by re quiring state review a nd approval of plans and specifications for drinking water facili ty construction. Reviewing plans for major projects for systems with more th an 10,000 customers, between 3,301 and 10,000, and less than 3,300 customers is esti mated to require 312, 416, and 5,200 hours annually per State, respectively. Reviewi ng plans for minor projects for systems greater than 500 customers and fewer than 500 customers is estimated to require 1,040 and 2,600 hours annually per State, re spectively. Routine inspections are estimated to require 832 burden hours annually per State.

• Oversight of compliance monitoring (inclu ding issuing notices of violation and ensuring appropriate follow-up activities). States must ensure that water systems monitor in accordance with the regulations . Where monitoring does not occur, states must take action to ensure th at systems monitor so that the quality of water is known and so that any appropriate actions can be taken. Where violations occur and are not expeditiously corrected, states must take appropriate enforcement follow-up actions. States must maintain administrative penalty authority and the right to sue to ensure the effectiveness of their enforcement progr ams. These programs require an estimated average of 2,309 hours annually per State.

• Training activities. Primacy agencies c onduct training for both state staff and for PWS owners and operators. Training is ongoing for all program components (for new staff and owners/operators). Training accounts for 7.1 hours annually per State.

Appendix E summarizes the assumptions used to calculate the General State Primacy Activities burden and provides detaile d burden and cost calculations.

5) Public Notification

The burden to primacy agencies for the Pub lic Notification Rule results from consulting with PWSs, reviewing the PWS compliance certification and noti ce copies, preparing quarterly reports to EPA, and filing and maintaining the PN records. The burden for primacy agencies for these activities is estimated to be 143,790 hour s annually. This amounts to approximately 1,000 hours per primacy agency. Tier 1 consultation ac tivities require an es timated 3.0 hours annually per system in violation, Tier 2 consultation requires an averag e of 1.1 hours and Tier 3 requires 0.1 hours. The burden for receiving/renewing PN certification is 0.2 hours and filing reports is 0.1 hours. Appendix F summarizes the assumptions used to calculate the Public Notification burden and provides detailed burden and cost calculations.

6) Operator Certification Guidelines an d Expense Reimbursement Grants Program

The burden to primacy agencies for implementing an EPA-approved Operator Certification Program includes the ongoing certifi cation of operators and tracking fulfillment of operator certification requiremen ts. Under the Expense Reimbursement Grants Program, it isPublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 45 assumed that 95 percent of states will opt to cont ract with third parties to provide group training to small system operators and that 5 percent will opt to reimburse individual operators for training. The burden to primacy agencies also includes annual report ing to EPA on program implementation for operator certification and ex pense reimbursement grants. The total annual burden estimated for primacy agencies is 22,233 hour s. It is estimated that submitting a yearly report on the status of implementation will requi re 16 hours per state, and the submittal to EPA (progress report) will require 560 hours, amending the workplan will require 32 hours, documenting the actual uses of previous fis cal year’s allotment w ill require 8 hours, and administering grants will require 520 hours annually per state. A subs et of states will complete these tasks during this ICR period, since some stat es have already received all their grant money. Appendix G summarizes the assumptions used to calculate the Operator Certification Program burden and provides detailed burden and cost calculations.

7) Tribal Operator Certification Program

There is no burden to primacy agencies for the Tribal Operator Certification Program.

8) Constructed Conveyances

Primacy agencies incur burden to adhere to the broadened definition of “public water system” introduced by the 1996 SDWA Amendments for oversight of PWS activities. These activities include—

• Review of survey results: estimated at 150 hours per PWS.

• Reviewing applications for exclusions: estima ted at 10 hours for each of four types of exclusions (other residential uses, altern ative water, treatmen t, and certain piped irrigation districts exclusions).

• Communications with PWSs: estim ated at 10 hours per PWS.

• Recordkeeping: estimated at 60 hours per PWS.

The total annual burden associat ed with these activities is estimated to be 44,175 hours. Appendix H summarizes the assumptions used to calculate the burden for primacy agencies and provides detailed burden and cost calculations.

6(a)(iii) Burden to Laboratories

The annual laboratory burden for October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2011 is estimated to be approximately 17,291 hours. Exhibit 8 shows the annual burden to la boratories associated with Proficiency Testing. The bases for th e burden estimate are detailed below.

1) Proficiency Testing

This section describes the estimated average annual burden and costs for the information collection activities for Pr oficiency Testing (PT) studies that will be conducted by drinking water laboratories. There is no burden for PT vendors or primacy agencies. The burden for laboratories for these activities is estimated to be 17,291 hours annually. This estimate includes burden for participating laboratorie s to read instructions, plan activities, analyze samples, submit data to the PT vendors, and maintain records.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 46 EPA assumes that the respondent burden will be divided among three labor categories: manager, chemist, and records clerk. The labor associated with each of the ICR activities is discussed in more detail below.

• Read instructions: EPA assumes that each of the 2,363 respondents will require 1.0 hour to read the instructions provided by the vendor. The burden will be evenly divided between a manager and chemist.

• Plan activities: EPA assumes that the manager of each laboratory will require 0.2 hours to plan activities associated with the PT studies.

• Analyze inorganic chemicals: EPA assu mes that 1,082 laboratories will require approximately 3.3 hours to analyze PT sta ndards for 29 inorganic chemicals. All hours will be incurred by a chemist.

• Analyze DBPs: Chemists in 871 laboratori es are assumed to require 2.0 hours to analyze PT standards for 9 DBPs.

• Analyze organic chemicals: Chemists in 410 laboratories are assumed to require 16.0 hours to analyze PT standards for 52 organic chemicals.

• Report results: EPA assumes that each of the 2,363 respondents will require 1.0 hour to report the results of the study to th e PT vendor. The burden will be divided between a manager and records clerk.

• Maintain records: EPA assumes that a r ecords clerk in each of the 2,363 laboratories will require 0.1 hours to maintain the files from the PT study.

6(b) Respondent Costs

6(b)(i) Cost to Public Water Systems

Exhibit 6 shows the total costs for PWSs over the 3-year ICR period. Annual costs are estimated at approximately $90.6 million, which consists of $24.3 million in O&M costs and $66.3 million in labor costs.

Labor costs are based on the number of bur den hours times the average hourly wage rate, including overhead. The average hourly wage ra te is the rate quoted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for Standard Occupationa l Classification (SOC) Code 51-8031, “Local Government—Water and Liquid Waste Treatment Plant and System Operators.” The quoted rate was $17.87 in 2006 dollars (see http://stats.bls.gov). For consistency, this rate has been inflated to 2007 dollars using the Employment Cost Index (ECI). In addition, 60 percent overhead was assumed, bringing the lo aded rate to $30.72 in 2007 dollars.

In addition to the labor costs, there are O& M costs associated with the CCR, the Public Notification Rule, and Operator Certification Programs and the Tribal Operator Certification Program. For the CCR, these costs reflect non-la bor costs associated with printing, delivery, posting, and publishing CCRs. These costs were carried forward from the previous ICRs, updated with current cost information (e.g., posta ge rates), and adjusted for inflation. CCRPublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 47 O&M costs and associated calculations are presen ted in greater detail in Appendix B. For the Public Notification Rule these costs reflect non-la bor costs to print and distribute notices of violation. These costs were carried forwar d from the 2004 PWSS Program ICR. Appendix F shows the costs for the Public No tification Rule in more detail. For the Operator Certification Program and Tribal Operator Cert ification, O&M costs reflect rene wal fees paid by operators to renew their certifications. Thes e costs were carried forward from the 2004 ICR and are shown in more detail in Appendices G and H, respectively.

There are no capital costs a ssociated with this ICR.

6(b)(ii) Cost to Primacy Agencies

Exhibit 7 shows that the annual costs to prim acy agencies are estimated at approximately $73.4 million. All costs incurred by primacy agencies are labor costs. Labor costs are based on the number of burden hours times the average hourly wage rate, including overhead. The average hourly wage rate is the rate quot ed by the BLS for SOC Code 19-2041, “State Government - Environmental Scientists and Specia lists, Including Health.” The quoted rate was $24.92 in 2006 dollars (see http://stats .bls.gov). For consistency, this rate has been inflated to 2007 dollars using the ECI. In addition, 60 perc ent overhead was assumed, bringing the loaded rate to $42.80 in 2007 dollars.

6(b)(iii) Cost to Laboratories

Exhibit 8 shows the total costs for laboratorie s over the three-year ICR period. Annual costs are estimated at approximately $1.9 milli on, which consists of $0.9 million in O&M costs (fees for PT standards) and $1.0 million in labor costs.

Labor costs are based on the number of burde n hours times the average hourly wage rate, including overhead. For consiste ncy, the original 2005 rates have been inflated to 2007 dollars using the ECI. In addition, 60 percent overhea d was assumed. Loaded hourly labor rates in 2007 dollars for the three labor cat egories include a manager at an hourly rate of $88.30, a data entry clerical person at an hourly rate of $26.21, and a skilled technician or chemist to conduct the measurements at an hourly rate of $53.46.

O&M costs for laboratories are all costs related to providing personnel with the space, equipment, and materials necessary to perfor m the tasks required for PT studies. Since laboratories are driven by thei r compliance monitoring requiremen ts to purchase the analytical instrumentation and computers and not by PT requ irements, no capital costs can be considered associated with PT studies. Only the cost associated with purchasi ng the PT standards is appropriate for considera tion in this category.

Laboratories may participate in the PT st udies for some or all of the regulated contaminants. Because EPA does not have suffici ent information to estimate how many analytes are contained in the PT samples sent to each laboratory, EPA has estimated a "worst case" scenario by assuming that a single PT set contains standards for each possible regulated analyte. Therefore, laboratories participating in the inor ganic PT study are assumed to receive and run analyses for 29 analytes. Similarly, those partic ipating in the PT study for DBPs and/or organic chemicals will receive samples for each of 9 analytes and/or each of 52 analytes, respectively. EPA estimates the costs of each PT standa rd to be $15.15 (i.e., $15.15 per analyte).Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 48 Exhibit 6 Annual PWS Burden and Cost October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2011

Annual Labor Cost ($K) Annual O&M Cost ($K) Total Annual Cost ($K) Consumer Confidence Reports 527,168 $16,193 $16,912 $33,105 212,939 Variance and Exemptions 9,066 $277 $0 $277 286 Capacity Development 130,939 $4,022 $0 $4,022 14,407 General State Primacy N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Public Notification 1,422,405 $43,692 $6,430 $50,123 189,144 Operator Certification 79,682 $1,736 $951 $2,687 19,921 Tribal Operator Certification 4,712 $145 $0 $145 233 Constructed Conveyances 7,496 $230 $0 $230 969 TOTAL 2,181,468 $66,295 $24,294 $90,589 437,898 Note: Detail may not add exactly to totals due to rounding. Activity Annual Burden Hours Annual Responses Cost

Exhibit 7 Annual State Burden and Cost October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2011

Labor Cost ($K) O&M Cost ($K) Total Cost ($K)

Consumer Confidence
Re p orts 106,831 $4,572 $0 $4,572 127,020 Variance and Exemptions 89,231 $3,819 $0 $3,819 2,399 Capacity Development 104,503 $4,473 $0 $4,473 14,407 General State Primacy 1,204,022 $51,531 $0 $51,531 155,693

Public Notification 143,790 $6,154 $0 $6,154 473,844 Operator Certification 22,233 $952 $0 $952 19,921 Tribal Operator
Certification N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 Constructed Conveyances 44,175 $1,891 $0 $1,891 969 TOTAL 1,714,785 $73,391 $0 $73,391 794,251 Note: Detail may not add exactl y to totals due to rounding. Annual Responses Activity Annual Burden
Hours Annual CostPublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 49 Exhibit 8 Annual Laboratory Burden and Cost October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2011

Labor Cost ($K) O&M Cost ($K) Total Cost ($K) Proficiency Testing 17,291 $984 $917 $1,902 2,363 Activity Annual Burden Hours Annual Responses Annual Cost

6(c) Agency Burden and Costs

EPA’s drinking water program incurs burden bot h at Headquarters a nd regional offices to assist States in implementing drinking water regulations. In previous ICRs for the PWSS Program, burden associated with EPA’s enforcem ent and compliance activities at Headquarters and the Regions was also included in the Agen cy’s burden and cost estimates. With the implementation of the Government Performance a nd Results Act in Federal Fiscal Year 1999, it has become difficult to isolate the resources (full time equivalents (FTEs) and dollars) for drinking water enforcement and compliance activiti es from the overall Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance operating plan. Thus, this section presents only the burden and costs incurred by EPA’s water program, especially dr inking water protection, atHeadquarters and in Regions. It is important to note that the burden and cost s presented below cover ongoing activities for all EPA drinking water programs (not just those listed in this ICR), including rule development activities.

EPA Headquarters

There are 45.5 Headquarters FTEs dedicated to drinking water prot ection implementation activities. The following assumptions were used to develop a cost estimate for Headquarters—

• The average salary and benefits (i.e., pe rsonnel compensation and benefits (PC&B)) of the 45.5 FTEs is at the GS 13, Step 5 level of $124,443 7

.

• An FTE is 2,080 hours/year.

Given these assumptions, the following calcu lations yield the annual labor cost for Headquarters—

• The 45.5 FTEs equal 94,640 hours (45.5*2,080).

• The labor cost of 45.5 FTEs is $5,662,157 (45.5*$124,443).

For most of the programs and regulations covered in the PWSS ICR, there are no O&M costs. However, EPA incurs O&M costs for the Tr ibal operator certification program; these costs are associated with reimbursing providers fo r training courses and reimbursing PWS operators for travel costs associated with training. Regions are assumed to incur 93 percent of these costs and Headquarters incurs 7 percent. The annua l Tribal operator certification O&M cost for Headquarters is $10,092 (see Appendix H).Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 50 Note that because the EPA burden and labor costs calculated above address burden for all drinking water programs, including Tribal opera tor certification, the EPA burden and labor costs calculated for Tribal operator certification in Appendix H were not ad ded to the labor burden discussed in this section.

EPA Regional Offices

There are 214.8 Regional FTEs dedicated to drinking water protection implementation activities. 6 The following assumptions are used to develop a cost estimate for the Regions—

• The average salary and benefits (i.e., PC&B ) of the 214.8 FTEs is at the GS 11, Step 5 level of $87,309 7

.

• An FTE is 2,080 hours/year.

Given these assumptions, the following calculations yield the annual labor cost for the 10 EPA Regional offices—

• The 214.8 FTEs equal 446,784 hours (214.8*2,080).

• The labor cost of 214.8 FTEs is $18,753,973 (214.8*$87,309).

The annual Agency O&M cost as sociated with Tribal oper ator certification is $144,315.

The total cost to the Federa l government is the sum of th e labor cost to Headquarters ($5,662,157), the labor cost to EPA Regional o ffices ($18,753,973), O&M cost to Headquarters ($10,092), and the O&M cost to EPA Regional offices ($143,315) for a total of $24,569,537. Similarly, the total burden to the Federal government (HQ and Regions) is 541,424 hours for 260.3 FTEs.

6(d) Estimating Respondent Univ erse and Total Burden and Costs

Respondents for this ICR include PWSs, la boratories, and States or other primacy agencies. This ICR estimates the number of PWS respondents at 155,693. Not every PWS is necessarily subject to eac h of the information collection require ments contained in this ICR. The regulations associated with each ICR will identif y the types of PWSs that are subject to each particular drinking water regulation.

In addition to the PWS respondents, this ICR assumes 57 primacy agencies (50 states plus the District of Columbia, U.S. territories, and the Navajo Nation) 8 , and 2,363 laboratories. Therefore, the total number of respondents is 158,113.

The total costs and burden for these responde nts are summarized in Exhibits 6 - 8. Agency costs and burden are detailed in Section 6(c).

6 FTE figures based on e-mail correspondence from EPA COR, Rick Naylor (6/19/2008).

7 Base salary, United States Office of Personnel Management website, http://www.opm.gov 2008 pay schedule. Loaded with a 60% loading factor.

8 This is a simplifying assumption. Primacy activities fo r Wyoming and the District of Columbia are actually carried out by the respective EPA Regional offices.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 51 6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs

The bottom line burden hours a nd costs are presented in E xhibit 9. The total annual respondent burden associated with this ICR is estimated to be approximately 3.9 million burden hours. The corresponding total an nual respondent costs are estim ated to be $165.9 million. The total national burden, including respondent burde n and EPA burden, is estimated to be 4.5 million hours annually. The total national cost, fo r respondents and EPA, is estimated to be $190.5 million annually.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 52 Exhibit 9 Bottom Line Annual Burden and Cost October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2011

158,113 (=) 155,693 (+) Existing PWSs 57 (+) Primacy agencies
2,363 Laboratories
1,234,512 (=)

437,898 (+) PWS responses (see Exhibit 6) 794,251 (+) Primacy agency responses (see Exhibit 7)

2,363 Laboratory responses (see Exhibit 8)

7.8 (=) 1,234,512 (/) Total annual responses from above

158,113 Total number of respondents from above
3,913,544 (=) 2,181,468 (+) PWS hours (see Exhibit 6) 1,714,785 (+) Primacy agency hours (see Exhibit 7) 17,291 Laboratory hours (see Exhibit 8)

3.17 (=) 3,913,544 (/) Total annual respondent hours from above 1,234,512 Total annual responses from above

$25,211 (=) $24,294 (+) Total PWS O&M costs (see Exhibit 6) $0 (+) Total primacy agency O&M costs (see Exhibit 7) $917 Total laboratory O&M costs (see Exhibit 8) $165,882 (=)

$90,589 (+) For PWSs (see Exhibit 6) $73,391 (+) For primacy agencies (see Exhibit 7) $1,902 For laboratories (see Exhibit 8) Total Hours (resp. plus Agency) 4,454,968 (=) 3,913,544 (+) Total respondent hours

541,424 (+) Total EPA hours Total Cost (resp. plus Agency) ($K) $190,451 (=) $165,882 (+) Total respondent cost

$24,570 Total EPA Cost
Note: Detail may not add exactly to totals due to rounding.

1 No capital costs are associated with the PWSS ICR in this evaluation period. Total EPA hours are based on the assumption that 45.5 FTEs for HQ and 214.8 FTEs for regions are needed at 2080
hours/FTE. Total EPA hours and cost reflect the combined burden and cost for Headquarters and regional staff. Costs also include O&M costs incurred for Tribal Operator Certification. Total Respondent Cost ($K) Number of Respondents

Number of Responses per Respondent

Hours per Response

Annual Respondent O&M and Capital Cost ($K) 1 Total Respondent Hours Total Annual ResponsesPublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 53 6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden

This section presents the change in burden and explains the reasons for the change in burden. The discussion is divided into two parts—

• Section 6(f)(i) summarizes the differences between the burden estimated in the 2004 PWSS Program ICR and the current OMB i nventory for the PWSS Program ICR. See Exhibit 11.

• Section 6(f)(ii) summarizes other adju stments to the annual burden estimates associated with each rule in the PWSS Program ICR. See Exhibits 12-14.

Exhibit 10 summarizes how each of thes e changes has affected the overall burden inventory for the PWSS Program ICR.

Exhibit 10 Summary of Changes in Annual Burden (Includes PWS, Primacy Agen cy, and Laboratory Burden)

Type of Change Burden (hours) Running Total Comment Burden Estimated in the 2004 PWSS Rules ICR* 3,223,430 3,223,430 This burden serves as the baseline for
the 2008 PWSS Rules ICR.

Restructuring Adjustments–see Section 6(f)(i) 17,291 3,240,721 Burden for Proficiency Testing is now included in this ICR, and burden for Primacy Regulations is no longer
included. Other Adjustments to Burden–see Section 6(f)(ii) 672,823 3,913,544 Burden for which EPA seeks approval
in this ICR. Note: Detail may not add exactly to totals due to rounding.

*The official inventory on file with the Office of Management and Budget is currently 3,226,027 hours. However, that number inc ludes excess PWS burden (2,597 hours) for tribal operator certification. The 2,597 hours, the annual burden from the standalone tribal opera tor certification ICR (expiration date 7/31/06) were added to the PWSS ICR inventory in early 2006. However, the 2004 PWSS ICR already included t he updated tribal operator certification burden for 2007, the relevant part of the clearance period for the PWSS ICR. Thus, some of the tr ibal operator certification was double counted. Therefore, for these exhibits, EPA used the burden as calculated in the 2004 ICR (3,223,430 h ours).Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 54 6(f)(i) Restructuring Adjustments

Restructuring adjustments are being made to consolidate the burden for each of the regulations and programs being newly incorporated into the PWSS ICR. These adjustments are discussed below and summarized in Exhibit 11

.

• The burden associated with PT. The total annual respondent burden estimated in the PT program (for August 2007 – September 2008) was approximately 17,291 hours, or 7.32 hours per respondent per year . The total annual respondent cost (for August 2007 – September 2008) estimated in the PT ICR was approximately $2.11 million. There were no primacy agency costs or burden associated specifically with the PT program. In order to consolidate PWSSs, EPA is requesting that these hours be move d to the PWSS ICR (OMB No. 2040-0090).

• The burden associated with primacy regulations. All activities for these requirements were completed before this ICR period; therefore, EPA requests the removal of burden associated with primacy regulations.

Exhibit 11 Restructuring Adjustments to the Annual Burden Inventory for the PWSS Program ICR (Includes PWS, Primacy Agen cy, and Laboratory Burden)

Action Annual Burden Hours Brief Explanation N/A 3,223,430 Inventory for the 2004 PWSS Rules ICR carried forward as the baseline for 2008 PWSS
Rules ICR * Add 17,291 This represents the addition of Proficiency Testing burden. Subtract 0 This represents the Primacy Regulation burden that has been moved out of the 2008
PWSS Rules ICR. Total 3,240,721 PWSS Rules ICR inventory based on current burden inventories.

*The official inventory on file with the Office of Management and Budget is currently 3,226,027 hours. However, that number inc ludes excess PWS burden (2,597 hours) for tribal operator certification. The 2,597 hours, the annual burden from the standalone tribal opera tor certification ICR (expiration date 7/31/06) were added to the PWSS ICR inventory in early 2006. However, the 2004 PWSS ICR already included t he updated tribal operator certification burden for 2007, the relevant part of the clearance period for the PWSS ICR. Thus, some of the tr ibal operator certification was double counted. Therefore, for these exhibits, EP A used the burden as calculated in the 2004 ICR (3,223,430 h ours).Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 55 6(f)(ii) Additional Program Adjustments

The remaining changes in burden consist of pr ogram adjustments for activities that were carried forward from existing ICRs to this PWSS Program ICR renewal. Changes in calculated burden are a result of updating relevant baseline in formation for each rule with the most current and accurate information on activity compliance. Exhibits 12-14 summarize reasons for these changes and quantify the changes by activity. Burden adjustments associated with PWS activities resulted in a burden increase of 186,055 hours and are shown in Exhibit 12. Burden adjustments for primacy agencies resulted in an increase of 486,768 hours per year, as shown in Exhibit 13. Burden adjustments for laboratories resulted in no change in annual burden, as shown in Exhibit 14.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 56 Exhibit 12 Adjustments to PWS Burden from Previous ICR Estimates

Activity Previous Estimate (Hours) 2008 Annual Burden Estimate (Hours) Annual Change in Burden (Hours) Reason for Change in Burden Consumer Confidence Reports 534,484 527,168 (7,316) The change in burden results from a decrease in the number of systems. Primacy Regulations N/A N/A N/A N/A

Variance and Exemptions 13,050 9,066 (3,984) The change in burden results from a cha nge in how the number of systems that applied for exemptions was determined. The number of systems is now based on
data from the Arsenic Rule. Capacity Development 132,328 130,939 (1,389) The change in burden results from a decrease in the number of systems. General State Primacy N/A N/A N/A N/A

Public Notification 1,226,699 1,422,405 195,706 The change in burden results from the difference in burden estimates for the 2004 and 2008 ICRs. The 2004 ICR included general burden estimates for certain violations since no data was available at the time, while the 2008 ICR bases the
estimates on available violation data for a more accurate estimate of burden. Operator Certification Guidelines and Expense
Reimbursement Grants Program 79,616 79,682 66 Change in burden is due to an increase in the number of systems serving over 3,300 people. These larger systems require more operators per system.

Tribal Operator Certification Program 1,740 4,712 2,972 The change in burden reflects that the 2004 ICR included burden for only one year (2007), averaged across the three years that the ICR covered. The remaining burden was addressed in a standalone ICR that expired in 2006. The 2008 burden estimate includes the burden for all three years of the ICR. Constructed Conveyances 7,496 7,496 0 N/A TOTAL 1,995,413 2,181,468 186,055 PWS change in burden after adjustments. Note: Detail may not add exactly to totals due to rounding.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 57 Exhibit 13 Adjustments to Primacy Agency Burden from Previous ICR Estimates

Consumer Confidence
Re p orts 110,317 106,831 (3,486) The change in burden results from a decrease in the number
of s y stems.
Primacy Regulations N/A N/A N/A All activities for these regulations were completed before this ICR period.

Variance and Exemptions 109,080 89,231 (19,849) Primacy agency burden is based on the number of PWSs. The change in burden results from a change in how the number of systems that applied for exemptions was determined. The number of systems is now based on data from the Arsenic
Rule.

Capacity Development 66,894 104,503 37,609 The change in burden results from the incorporation of
b urden consultation results.
General State Primacy 837,358 1,204,022 366,664 The change in burden results from incorporation of burden
consultation results.

Public Notification 57,001 143,790 86,789 Primacy agency burden is based on the number of violations requiring Public Notification. The change in burden results from the difference in burden estimates for the 2004 and 2008 ICRs. The 2004 ICR included general burden estimates for certain violations since no data was available at the time, while the 2008 ICR bases the estimates on available violation
data for a more accurate estimate of burden.

Operator Certification 3,192 22,233 19,041 The change in burden results from the incorporation of the results of consultations with water industry representatives and from a decrease in the number of states conducting operator certification grant reimbursement activities.
Tribal Operator Certificatio n N/A N/A N/A N/A

Constructed Conveyances 44,175 44,175 0 N/A

TOTAL 1,228,017 1,714,785 486,768 Adjusted Primacy Agency Burden Note: Detail may not add exactly to totals due to rounding. Reason for Change in Burden Activity Previous Estimate (Hours) 2008 Annual Burden Estimate (Hours) Annual Chan g e in Burden

(Hours)

Exhibit 14 Adjustments to Laboratory Burden from Previous ICR Estimates

Proficiency Testing 17,291 17,291 0 This represents the current Proficiency Testing annual Laboratory burden estimate. This burden is being moved from the Proficiency Testing ICR (OMB 2040-0276) into the
2008 PWSS ICR. Note: Detail may not add exactly to totals due to rounding. Reason for Change in Burden Activity Previous Estimate (Hours) 2008 Annual Burden Estimate (Hours) Annual Chan g e in Burden

(Hours)

Exhibit 15 shows the effect of these adjustments on th e bottom line burden. Adding 186,055 hours to account for the adjustment for the PWS burden and 486,768 hours to account for the upwards adjustment for the primacy agency burden yields 3,913,544 hours.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR September 2008

OMB DRAFT—Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 58 Exhibit 15 Adjustments to Activities Carried Forward from Previous ICRs (Includes PWS, Primacy Agen cy, and Laboratory Burden)

Action Annual Burden Hours Brief Explanation None 3,240,721 Inventory after restructuring adjustments, and other adjustments to burden. Add 186,055 Adjustments for PWS activities carried forward from previous ICRs (see Exhibit 12)

Add 486,768 Adjustment for primacy agency activities carried forward from previous ICRs (see Exhibit 13) Total 3,913,544 Equals hours requested in 2008 PWSS Program ICR. (See Exhibit 9) Note: Detail may not add exactly to totals due to rounding.

6(g) Burden Statement

The public reporting burden for co llections included in this ICR is detailed in Exhibit 13 above. The annual respondent burden is estimate d to average approximately 3.9 million hours, of which 2.2 million hours are attributable to PW Ss, 1.7 million hours to primacy agencies, and 0.02 million hours to laboratories. These estimates in clude time for gathering information as well as developing and maintaining records.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by people to generate, maintain, retain, disclo se, or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to revi ew instructions; develop, acquire , install, and utilize technology, and systems for the purposes of collecting, valid ating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providi ng information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructio ns and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of info rmation; search data sources; co mplete 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 res pond to, a request for info rmation collection unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed in 40 CF R 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 Number EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0437, whic h is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov , or in person viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Consti tution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is ope n 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 Do cket is (202) 566-2426. An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov . This site can be used to submit or view public comments, to access the index listing of th e contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are ava ilable electronically. When 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 Affair s, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number (EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0437) a nd the OMB Control Number 2040-0090 in any correspondence.