## Information Collection Request for

**National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sy** **stem (NPDES) Program (Renew**  **al) OMB Control No. 2040**  **- 0004**  **, EPA ICR No.**  **0229. 20** 

December 2011

Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Wastewater Management 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460

EPA Contract Number EP - C - 11 - 0 09 EPA Work Assignment Number 0 - 22ii



## Content **s** 1. I dentification of the Information Collection ................................ ................................ ............... 1 1(a) Title of the Informatio n Collection ................................ ................................ ...................... 1 1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract ................................ ................................ .......................... 1 2. Need For and Use of the Collection ................................ ................................ ............................ 3 2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection ................................ ................................ ....................... 3 2(b) Practical Utility

/Users of the Data ................................ ................................ ...................... 6 3. Non - duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria ................................ ................ 11 3(a) Non - duplication ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 11 3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submissions to OMB ................................ ............. 11 3(c) Consultations ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 11 3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection ................................ ................................ .................. 11 3(e) General Guidelines ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 13 3(f) Confidentiality ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 13 3(g) Sensitive Questions ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 13 4. The Respondents and the Information Requested ................................ ................................ .... 14 4(a) Respondents/Standard Industrial Classification (SI C) Codes ................................ ........... 14 4(b) Information Requested ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 18 4(b)(i) Application/NOI ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 19 4(b)(ii) Plan Development/Special Studies ................................ ................................ ........... 33 4(b)(iii) Monitoring ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 36 4(b)(iv) Rep orting (including certification) ................................ ................................ .......... 40 4(b)(v) Record Keeping ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 53 4(b)(vi) Compliance Assessment and Enforcement ................................ ............................. 57 4(b)(vii) Program Authorization ................................ ................................ ........................... 60 5. The Information Collected

— Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 63 5(a) Agency

Activities ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 63 5(b) Collection Methodology and Management ................................ ................................ ....... 67 5(c) Small Entity

Flexibility ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 68 5(d) Collection Schedule ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 70 6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection ................................ ................................ .... 73 6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden ................................ ................................ ......................... 73 6(a)(i) Application/NOI ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 73 6(a)(ii) Plan Development/Special Studies ................................ ................................ ........... 84 6(a)(iii) Monitoring ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 89 6(a)(iv) Rep orting (including certification) ................................ ................................ .......... 94 6(a)(v) Record Keeping ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 113 6(a)(vi) Compliance Assessment and Enforcement ................................ ............................ 117 6(a)(vii) Program Authorization ................................ ................................ ......................... 119 6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs ................................ ................................ .......................... 120 6(b)(i) Estimating Labor Costs ................................ ................................ ........................... 120 6(b)(ii) Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs ................................ ............................ 120 6(b)(iii) Capital/Start - up Costs ................................ ................................ ........................... 122 6(c) Estimating Agency

Burden and Cost ................................ ................................ .............. 123iii

6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs ................................ . 126 6(e) Bottom L ine Burden Hours and Cost Tables ................................ ................................ .. 127 6(e)(i) Respondent Tall y ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 127 6(e)(ii) The Agency

Tally ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 127 6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden ................................ ................................ ........................ 127 6(g) Burden Statement ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 128 

## Ap **pendices** A. Respondents Table B. Respondents Activities Table C. Agency

Activities Table D. Anal ys is of Changes E . State Status F . Application Form s G . DMR Form H . Comment Received and Response 

## Tables Table 2.1 States with program authorization as of August 2011 ................................ .................... 4 Table 4.1 Industrial sectors and corresponding 40 CFR Part ................................ ....................... 15 Table 4.2 Application forms and information requests ................................ ................................ 20 Table 5.1 Reporting requirement descriptions ................................ ................................ .............. 63 Table 6.1 Form 2A

— burden per applicant respondent by section ................................ ............... 78 Table 6.2 Estimate of Fo rm 2A facilities that contract out testing for pollutants ....................... 121 Table 6.3 Estimate of Form 2S facilities that contract out testing for pollutants ....................... 121 Table 6.4 Testing/contractor costs (O&M costs) ................................ ................................ ........ 121 Table 6.5 Respondent Tally ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 127 Tabl e 6.6 Agency

Tall y ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 1271. Identification of the Information Collection

1



## 1. Identification of the Information Collection **1(a) Title of the Information Collection** Title : National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program (Renewal) OMB Control Number: 2040 - 0004 EPA I CR Number: 0229. 20 

## 1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract This In formation Collection Request (ICR) renews Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Numb er 2040 - 00 04 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program ICR . This consolidated IC R calculates the burden and costs associated with the NPDES program, identifies the ty

pes of activities regulated under the NPDES program, describes the roles and responsibilities of state governments and the Agency , and presents the program areas that address the various ty

pes of regulated activities. It is an update of the 2008 Information Collection Request for the NPDES Program (OMB Control Number: 20 40 - 0004; EPA I CR Number: 0229.19) that consolidated the burden and costs associated with activities previously reported in nine of the 15 NPDES program or NPDES - related IC Rs administered by EPA’s Water Permits Division. The objective of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is to restore and maintain the chemical, phys ical, and biological integrity

of the nation ’ s waters (CWA section 101). The NPDES program, established under CWA section 402, is an important tool for controlling pollutant discharges. The CWA authori zes the Agency to issue permits for the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States. The Agency regulates point source discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States under its NPDES program. CWA section 402(b) allows states (defined to include Indian tribes and U.S. territories) to acquire authority for the NPDES program. This authority enables them to issue and administer NPDES permits. At present, 46 NPDES - authorized states and the U.S. Virgin Islands have NPDES permit program authority 1 , but only eight states have received authorization to manage the Biosolids (Sludge) Program . In states that do not have authority for these programs, the Agency issues and administers NPDES permits. Because some permit applications are processed by stat es and some by

EPA, this I CR calculates government burden and costs for both states and EPA. The information collection provisions associated with the NPDES Program include the following:

 Activities directly

related to individual permit applications or notices of intent (NOIs) for coverage under general permits ;  Activities associated with plan development or special stu dies ;  Monitoring ; 1 In this ICR, references to 4 7 authorized States means the 46 States and the one authorized territory.1. Identification of the Information Collection

2

 Reporting, including certification ;  Record - keeping ;  Activities resulting from compliance assessments or enforcem ent actions ; and  Activities resulting from NPDES program authorization, including approval, modifications, transfer or w ithdrawal of authorization . T he primary

users of this information will be s tates authorized to administer the NPDES permitting program and EPA. It is anticipated that other government agencies, both at the s tate and f ederal level, as well as public interest groups, private companies, and individuals will also use the data. In summary , this I CR estimates a burden of 19,666,765 hours annuall y for 397, 703 respondents (permittees) at a cost of $ 948 m illion. Burden for the state respondents is 1,657,976 hours annually at a cost of $ 67 million. Agenc y burden is 91,568 hours annuall y at a cost of $ 3.8 million .2. Need F or and U se of the Collection

3



## 2. Need **F or and**  **U se of the Collection**  **2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection** The purpose of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is “to restore and maintain the chemical, phy sical and biological integrity

of the nation’s waters” [section 101(a)]. CWA section 402(a) establishes the NPDES program to regulate the discharge of any pollutant from point sources 2 into waters of the United States. Section 402(a) of the CWA, as amended, authorizes the EPA Administrator to issue permits for the discharge of pollutants if those discharges meet the following requirements:

 All applicable requirements of CWA sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, and 403; or  Any conditions the Administrator determines are necessary to carry out the provisions and objectives of the CWA. The primary

mechanism to ensure that the permits are adequatel y protective of those requirements is the permit application process. In particular, CWA section 402(a)(2) requires EPA to prescribe permit conditions to assure compliance with requirements “including conditions on data and information collection, reporting and such other requirements as [the Administrator] deem ed appropriate.” EPA’s applicati on forms require applicants to submit data that help determine what those conditions should be. The CWA also establishes an administrative framework for the NPDES permitting program. CWA s ection 402(b) authorizes states (which include U.S. territories and Indian tribes that have been authorized in the same manner as a state) to administer the NPDES program once EPA is assured that they

meet minimum federal requirements. Authorizations vary by program. Table 2.1 summarizes the number of states authorized fo r each major program element . See Appendix E for a detailed NPDES program status b y state. Authorized states are considered permitting authorities and are responsible for issuing, administering, and enforcing permits for most point source discharges within their borders. In states without an authorized NPDES program , EPA is the permitting authority and undertakes all permitting activities , although CWA section 401 requires states to certify

that EPA - issued NPDES permits establish “effluent limitations, and monitoring requirements necessary to assure that any

applicant...will comply

with any applicable effluent limitations and other limitations (pursuant to the CWA) and with any other appropriate requirement of state law.. .” States, tribes, and U.S. territori es may waive their right to certify permits if they

wish. CWA s ection 510 provides that states, tribes, and territories may adopt requirements equal to or more stringent than standards established pursuant to CWA provisions.

2 EPA defines a point source as , “ any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to, any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, CAFO , landfill leachate collection system, vessel or other floating craft from wh ich pollutants are or may be discharged . This term does not include return flows from irrigated agriculture or agricultural stormwater runoff ” (40 CFR 122.2) .2. Need F or and U se of the Collection

4

**Table 2.1 States with program authorization**  **as of Au**  **gust 20**  **11 Ty**  **pe Number**  NPDES Base Permit Program 4 7 * Pretreatment Program 3 6 General Permits Program 4 7 * Biosolids Program 8 Federal Facilities 4 3 * includes the U.S. Virgin Islands CWA section 405 prohibits the discharge of pollutants caused b y the disposal of sewage sludge except in accordance with an NPDES permit (or an authorized state permit issued to control such disposal of sewage sludge). In addition, this section establishes a comprehensive sewage sludge permitting program and requires EPA to develop technical criteria for controlling sewage sludge disposal and use. CWA section 405 allows states with sludge management authority to issue and modify permits that regulate the use and disposal of sewage sludge. EPA implements CWA s ection 405 through its NPDES Biosolids Program . T he 1987 Water Quality Act ( WQA ) added a provision to the CWA [section 402(p)] that directed EPA to establish final regulations governing stormwater discharges under the NPDES program . EPA considers stormwater requirements as part of the NPDES Permit Program and as such, included them in this consolidated I CR . The NPDES Program requires permits for stormwater discharges from certain municipal separate storm sewer s ys tems (MS4s), industrial activities, and construction activities disturbing one acre or more. CWA s ection 402(p) establishes the authority for EPA to permit stormwater discharges and identifies the applicable requirements, which in some instances are different from the requirements appli cable to other NPDES permittees . The NPDES program procedures and requirements are codified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations [ CFR ] Parts 122, 123, 124, and 125 (and Parts 501 and 503 for Biosolids). Regulations governing permit requirements for NPDES discharges and sewage sludge management activities are co ntained in 40 CFR Parts 122 , and 501 , and 503, res pectivel y. EPA has developed its NPDES discharge and sewage sludge application requirements to ensure that it obtains adequ ate information about applicants before it issues permits. Most application requirements are contained in forms developed b y EPA. Tab le 4.2 provides an overview of the ty pes of respondents required to submit NPDES application forms and identifies the form(s) that they must submit . The specific monitoring, reporting, and record - keeping requirements for NPDES and biosolids permits are ap plicable to both EPA - and state - administered NPDES permit programs, NPDES permittees (including stormwater), and treatment works that treat, use , or dispose of sewage sludge. CWA s ection 308 provides EPA with the authority to request this ty

pe of informati on from permittees . While these provisions establish EPA’s authority and requirement to collect pollutant information, EPA has specific needs for collecting the data. These needs include the following:2. Need F or and U se of the Collection

5

 To provide information on pollutant discharge trends;  To provide information to permitting authorities to prioritize permit activities;  To determine whether permittees are in compliance with their permit conditions; and  To provide information to the permit writer to determine the need for permit limits. A permittee generall y informs the permitting authority about its discharge through a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR). The DMR lists all the results from the permittee ’ s required selfmonitoring of pollutants. The permitting authority reviews this informati on and compares it with permit limits to determine compliance and/or if there is a need to develop additional limits. In addition to DMRs, permittees may be required to submit reports on violations of maximum daily discharge limitations, as specificall y required in their permits. This latter reporting requirement is intended to alert the permitting authority of potential health or environment al risks that could require a timely

response. The data collected by this requirement are more incident - specific than the summary

information provided on the DMR. A summary of the specific monitoring, reporting, and record - keeping requirements for affected NPDES and sewage sludge entities is described in Section 4.0. Permit modification and variance provisions are found in CWA sections 301(c), (g), (h), (k) , (n); 302(b); and 316(a). Additionally , 40 CFR 122.21, 122.24, 122.41, 122.42, 122.47, 122.62, 122.6 3, 122.64, 124.5, 125.3 , and 501.15 give states with NPDES or sewage sludge management program authority and EPA the flexibility to respond quickly

and efficiently

to the dy namic nature of facility

operation, technology

advancements, and regulatory changes . Permits are modified to change the limits and conditions of existing permits without affecting the permit’s term. Information supporting modification requests is collected during the effective term of the permit. Variances, alternatively , allow effluent limitation requirements or time deadlines to be modified or waived. During the permit development process, the permitting authority collects information from facilities to evaluate variance requests. In each case, the information collected is used to update or supplement permit application data . Effluent limitations guidelines and standards are national wastewater limitations that apply to specific categories of industrial dischargers. The regulations are promulgated by EPA under the authority of CWA sect ions 301, 304, 306, and 307 and implemented through NPDES permits . In some instances, EPA establishes requirements for permittees to provide certification to the permitting authority or develop pollution prevention plans to demonstrate compliance with cert ain aspects of the effluent limitations guidelines and standards, often in lieu of monitoring for one or more pollutants . This I CR also integrates those certifications and planning documents . CWA s ection 402 (q) requires that permits, orders, and decrees that include discharges from combined sewer s ys tems conform to the 1994 Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy (59 Federal Register [FR] 18 , 688). The information collection activities described in this I CR provide the minimum data necessary for EPA to ensur e that all municipalities with combined sewer s ys tems are (1) developing and implementing combined sewer overflow (CSO) control programs that are consistent with the CSO Control Policy , and (2) that these CSO control programs will meet the requirements of the CWA and will achieve compliance with applicable state water quality

standards (WQS).2. Need F or and U se of the Collection

6

On November 16, 1990, Congress enacted the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act (CPA). Section 101 of the CPA amends Section 118 of the CWA and directs EPA to publish water quality guidance for the Great Lakes Sy stem. Provisions of the Guidance are codified in 40 CFR Part 132. The Guidance establishes minimum water quality criteria, implementation procedures, and antidegradation provisions for the Great Lakes System. In 2008, in response to a court order removing a regulatory exclusion, EPA developed permitting requirements for discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel into certain inland waters or the territorial sea of the United States under the NPDES p rogram. The Vessel General Permit (VGP) covers discharges incidental to the normal operation from non - military , non recreational commercial vessels greater than 79 feet in length. The VGP defines effluent limits for multiple discharge categories and speci fies certain practices for various vessel categories. All non - military , non - recreational commercial vessels operating in a capacity of transportation are eligible for coverage under the VGP. The typ es of vessels covered under the VGP include cruise ships, ferries, barges, oil tankers or petroleum tankers, bulk carriers, cargo ships, container ships, other cargo freighters, refrigerant ships, research vessels, and emergency response vessels including firefighting and police vessels, greater than 79 feet in length. The permit does not cover commercial fishing vessels (regardless of size) unless they are carrying ballast water, vessels of the armed forces of the United States, recreational vessels , or vessels less than 79 feet in length. The current VGP expire s on December 19, 2013. EPA is currentl y developing the next VGP which would cover discharges incidental to the normal operation of all non - military , non - recreational commercial vessels greater than 79 feet, including commercial fishing vessels. The next VGP is anticipated to become effective December 19, 2013. Similar to the current VGP, the next VGP will define effluent limits for multiple discharge categories as well as recordkeeping, reporting and monitoring requirements for a subset of vessel classes. In addition, EPA is developing the small vessel general permit (sVGP) which would cover discharges incidental to the normal operation of all non - recreational, non - military

commercial vessels less than 79 feet in length. Small commercial vessels are substantially

different in operation from larger commercial vessels, and the sVGP contains simpler provisions than the VGP. Primarily , the sVGP would require technology - based effluent limits expressed as best management practices (BMPs) . Congressional a ction provided a moratorium on the permitting of incidental discharges (except ballast water) from vessels less than 79 feet and commercial fishing vessels until December 2013, which coincides with the expiration of the current VGP. The proposed permitting framework would be expanded to include this universe of approximately 120,000 - 140,000 smaller vessels and commercial fishing vessels. 

## 2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data This I CR includes information used primarily by permitting authorities and perm ittees . Much of these data must be submitted to permitting authorities , while other information must be maintained on - site by

the permittee. Although different permittees submit widely differing information, this information can be categorized into two set s: identification information and2. Need F or and U se of the Collection

7

information related to the facility ’s discharges or practices. Permitting authorities use the information in the way s discussed below. Permitting authorities collect and use information such as the name, location, and des cription of facilities to uniquely

identify each applicant seeking individual or general permit coverage and to establish a contact person. This information varies in detail and scope according to the type of respondent. EPA and authorized states store ba sic permit information in EPA’s Permit Compliance Sy stem (PCS) and the Integrated Compliance Information Sy stem (ICIS -NPDES) database. PCS and IC IS -NPDES are used to track permit limits, permit expiration dates, monitoring data, enforcement and compliance data, and other data and to provide EPA with a nationwide inventory of permit holders. EPA and most states store basic information for stormwater permittees in databases separate from ICIS - NPDES. EPA uses this information to develop reports on permit issuance, backlog, and compliance rates. EPA also uses the information to respond to public and congressional inquiries, develop and guide its policies, support enforcement action, formulate its budgets, and manage its programs to ensure national consistency

in permitting. For the most part, states and territories are authorized to implement the NPDES permitting program , manage and use the data in a similar fashion to EPA and, as a result , incur similar ty

pes of burdens. To meet its obligations under the CWA, National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and Endangered Species Act (ESA), and to promote those acts’ goals, EPA must ensure that discharges covered under EPA - issued NPDES permits are protective of historic properti es, endangered and threatened species, and critical habitat. These applicants are required to assess the effe cts of their stormwater discharges on historic properties, federall y listed endangered and threatened species, and designated critical habitat. Inf ormation from this assessment for stormwater applicants is provided in the Notice of Intent (NOI ) and therefore contained in the NOI database. Authorized states are not required to meet the ESA and NHPA obligations , and therefore no ESA or NHPA burden is associated with state - (or territory) - issued permits. From the applications and requests for supplemental information, permitting authorities gather information about industrial processes, treatment sy stems, pollutant characteris tics, discharge rates and volumes, sewage sludge use and disposal practices, sewage sludge quality , and other data such as pollution prevention practices. Additional information collection requirements that m ight be necessary

to implement state - , tribal - , or EPA - promulgated provisions consistent with the CWA, the Great Lakes Guidance , and other EPA regulatory requirements include monitoring (pollutant - specific and whole effluent toxicity or WET) , pollutant minimization programs , bioassay s to support the dev elopment of water quality criteria , antidegradation policy /demonstrations , and regulatory relief options ( i.e., variances from water quality criteria). The information is used to develop effluent limitations, compliance schedules, and other routine and sp ecial conditions in permits. EPA may use these data to reevaluate testing requirements or to develop or revise effluent standards on a national basis. EPA may also use NOI and stormwater pollution prevention plan ( SWPPP ) data as part of a compliance evaluation to ensure that the permittee adheres to procedures laid out in the documents.2. Need F or and U se of the Collection

8

NPDES permits m ay

not be issued for a period more than five ye ars. The reapplication process is the primary

mechanism for obtaining up - to - date information on discharges and sewage sludge quality , particularl y for new pollutants . Although existing permittees provide pollutant data from self - monitoring activities in routine reports, these reports are usuall y limited to pollutants listed in existing permits. Permitting authorit ies use reapplication data to identify new pollutants or other information that could lead the permit writers to take the following actions: specify additional permit limitations, assess compliance with applicable effluent and sewage sludge guidelines, and place appropriate special conditions in permits. Permittees use discharge monitoring data or sewage sludge quality data ( in the case of p ublicl y owned treatment w orks [ POTWs ] and privately owned treatment w orks [ PrOTWs ] ) to perform routine operations at their facilities and evaluate facility performance. In addition, they might need to collect this information to comply with state - specific program requirements or , in the case of POTWs , to administer pretreatment programs. 3 For these reasons, most permitte es collect additional data ( i.e., product quality and production efficiency information) that may

or may not be included with monitoring reports or required b y their permits. Collection and reporting of data to permitting authorities also improves permitte e accountability to remain in compliance with their established permit conditions. As noted above, discharge monitoring data provides EPA and states with authorized NPDES and sewage sludge management programs with the information necessary to assess permi ttee compliance. Self

- monitoring data also helps the permitting authority modify or develop permit limits. Permitting authorities may also require other ty

pes of monitoring data, such as influent monitoring data to evaluate a plant’s operational aspects; a mbient stream monitoring data to measure a permit’s effectiveness in protecting water quality; internal waste stream data when monitoring at the point of discharge is impractical or infeasible; or visual monitoring (including underwater survey s) that might be necessary to determine compliance with permit limits. EPA and states anal yz e monitoring data when establishing permit conditions. For example, NPDES permit writers may revise permit requirements on the basis of data from monitoring reports. Furthermor e, EPA and states have referred to DMR data on pollutants when developing lists of waters impaired by pollutants and point source dischargers that may cause or contribute to degradation of the quality of those waters. As public information, monitoring dat a are used by public groups for a variety of purposes. Citizen groups review monitoring data to independently assess pollutant discharger compliance and noncompliance. In some instances , the data form the basis for citizen suits that are authorized under C WA section 505 . In addition, environmental groups, academicians, and others use monitoring data to estimate toxic pollutant loading to streams, lakes, oceans, and estuaries.
3 POTWs

— especially larger POTWs

—often accept wastewater from industries . To meet their NPDES pol lutant discharge limitations and satisfy the se wage sludge conditions in their permits, some of these POTWs administer pretreatment programs, in which they regulate industrial wastewater entering their facilities . POTWs impose pollutant discharge limitatio ns on industries as part of their pretreatment programs . Information requirements associated with the p retreatment program are included in a separate ICR (OMB Control No. 2040 - 0009, ICR No. 0002.08).2. Need F or and U se of the Collection

9

If noncompliance with permit conditions is detected, the permitting authority wil l determine the appropriate enforcement response based on the nature and severity of the violation , the overall frequency of noncompliance , and the degree of seriousness of the violation. There are several exceptions to the general flow of compliance asse ssment data from the permittee to the permitting authority. EPA may require additional information in the form of a section 308(a) letter (for further explanation, see Section 4(b)(vi) of this I CR). Another exception to the compliance data information flo w from permittee to permitting authority occurs in the case of the NPDES stormwater permitting program where the regulatory requirement is for records retention rather than reporting. This activity is reflected in this ICR as a record - keeping activity . Use of the data provided in each type of modification or variance request varies greatly because the information requirements of these items are so diverse. In general, EPA and authorized states use the information to determine whether the conditions or re quirements that would warrant a modification or variance exist, and the progress toward achieving the goals of the CWA will continue if the modification or variance is granted . In formation submitted by municipalities under the CSO Control Policy provide N PDES permitting authorities with the necessary information to determine whether a municipality ’s CSO control program is adequate to achieve compliance with CWA requirements and applicable state WQS, to establish permit terms and conditions for CSOs, to tra ck performance, to identify and assess violations, and to target inspection and enforcement actions. The information is also used by EPA Regions and states to develop and evaluate the success of their CSO Control Strategies. EPA will also use this data to measure its performance in achieving the goals of the CSO Control Policy . In formation collected b y EPA is used to evaluate the adequacy of a state’s NPDES or sludge program , and to provide EPA with the information necessary to fulfill its function of statutory oversight over state program performance and individual permit actions. EPA will also use this information to evaluate states’ requests for full or partial program authorization and program modifications. To evaluate the adequacy of a state’s propose d program, appropriate information must be provided to ensure that proper procedures, regulations, and statutes are in place and consistent with CWA requirements. In a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), EPA Regions and authorized states define which permits the Region will review and which permits it will not review. Generally , the Region must be provided the opportunity to review all permits for major facilities, all g eneral permits, and a2. Need F or and U se of the Collection

10

small percentage of permits for minor facilities. 4 The information submitted by states consists of all appropriate data necessary for permit review

–– application form s , fact sheets, draft permits, and the like. EPA uses the information submitted by states to review state - issued permits for compliance with federal laws. Sewage sludge noncompliance reports serve the same purposes as NPDES effluent noncompliance reports. However, sewage sludge reports are required onl y annually . EPA’s ong oing monitoring of authorized state programs ensures continued compliance with the goals and requirements of the CWA and state programs. EPA uses information about permittees’ noncompliance to do the following :  Evaluate the effectiveness of state complianc e enforcement programs;  Support its own enforcement actions, if any, against dischargers in authorized states; and  Generate and publish noncompliance rates to be used in reports to offices within EPA and to OMB and Congress .

4 EPA uses discharge volume and the strength of organic waste (i.e., population equivalent) to distinguish facilities as major or minor dischargers. A major municipal discharger discharges at least one million gallons of wastewater a day or serves a populat ion equivalent of 10,000. EPA uses a formula based on the following discharge characteristics to classify nonmunicipal dischargers as majors or minors: toxic pollutant potential; flow; conventional pollutant potential; public health impact; water quality i mpact; and proximity to coastal waters. EPA assigns weighted numerical values to each discharge characteristic on the basis of its environmental risk potential. Each nonmunicipal facility receives a total numerical value, which is the sum of the weighted v alues. EPA categorizes nonmunicipal facilities with values greater than 80 points (0 to 265 scale) as major dischargers. Facilities with point totals below

this threshold are classified as minor dischargers. All facilities that are not majors are categoriz ed as minor dischargers . However, in some instances, where the receiving water quality is of significant concern, EPA may reclassify some minor dischargers as majors.3. Non - duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

11 

## 3. Non **- duplication, Consultations, and Other**  **Collection Criteria 3(a) Non**  **- duplication**  Almost all information requested from respondents under this I CR is required by statute or regulation and, in most cases, is not available from other sources. EPA has examined all other reporting and record - keeping requirements contained in the CWA and 40 CFR Parts 122, 123, 124, 125, 403, 501, and 503. EPA also has consulted the following sources of information to de termine if similar or duplicate information is available elsewhere:  The EPA Inventory

of ICRs;  The Government Information L ocator Service; and  The Toxics Release Inventory (TR I). EPA has also examined potentially similar reporting requirements for notice of spills under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for duplication of the CWA requirement. EPA believes that an y duplication between NPDES and RCRA reporting of pollutant releases is negligible because they

focus on different areas of a faci lity (RCRA focuses on on - site activities , and NPDES focuses on discharge outfalls). 

## 3(b) Public Notice Required **P rior to ICR**  **S ubmissions to OMB**  This I CR was published in the Federal Register on Date XX , 20 XX (XX FR XX , XXX ) . The notice included a request fo r comments on the content and impact of these information collection requirements on the regulated community . 

## 3(c) Consultations EPA finalized all regulations containing the requirements addressed in this ICR after receiving comments from the public and th e regulated community . EPA h eadquarters staff responsible for program oversight in the applicable program areas were contacted to provide revised information, data, and review for this ICR. When th is IC R was open for public comments in 2008 ( EPA I CR No. 0229. 19) EPA received a total of two comments. 

## 3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection EPA recognizes the importance of balancing the need for data collection efforts against respondent burden and costs. From the inception of the NPDES program, cost has been one of the major factors considered in establishing application requirements, monito ring conditions, and report contents and frequencies. In the past several ye ars, the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government have stressed the need to evaluate the costs and benefits of regulation and the financial impact on the regulated community , state, and local government. EPA regularl y seeks new opportunities to reduce burden on the regulated community .3. Non - duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

12 T he information needed to meet permitting, monitoring, reporting , and information collection requirements related to the NPDES Program is submitted one time, at a regular frequenc y, or as needed. EPA and authorized states need current information about permittees, discharge characteristics, enforcement actions, and program performance to fulfill oversight responsibilities. Inaddition , EPA must track permits, compliance activities, and enforcement actions to ensure that state programs are carrying out the provisions of the CWA in a timely manner. The NPDES burden described in this I CR identifies the burden that EPA has determined as ne cessary . For example, less frequent reporting would not provide enough data for EPA to effectivel y provide guidance for state programs, to review or comment on state actions, or to intervene in compliance or enforcement cases , as necessary . EPA and states also have made extensive use of general permits, which tend to have less burdensome monitoring and reporting requirements than individual permits. In fact, the majority of stormwater permittees, which comp o se more than three quarters of all NPDES permitte es , are covered under general permits. Permitted facilities must reappl y for NPDES and sewage sludge management permits before their existing permits expire, generall y once every 5 years. The CWA prohibits NPDES permits from having terms longer than 5 years. Less frequent permit applications would not provide the permitting authority with sufficiently current data to establish effective limitations or conditions when reissuing permits. Less frequent permit issuance would also hinder the ability of EPA and the regulated community to take advantage of technological improvements as they occur. Permits must contain conditions that reflect, for example, the following criteria:

 New industrial processes and waste treatment technologies;  New kinds of discharges (s uch as toxic chemicals);  New detection methods; and  Changes in the quality of receiving waters. EPA strives to minimize monitoring - related workloads. For example, EPA developed an automated procedure that preprints relevant permittee information, such as discharger name and address, pollutants to be monitored , and effluent limitations on the DMR form before sending it to the permittee ; EPA is also piloting netDMR, which will further streamline reporting. Permittees are required to record onl y their monitoring results and to report any violations. EPA continues its efforts to minimize permittee burden associated with monitoring data collection and reporting requirements. However, EPA has determined that the information currentl y required is at or near the mi nimum that is necessary to adequately

evaluate permittee compliance. Some of the information in this I CR that is required to be submitted is collected only after the permittee violates a permit condition or after a certain condition occurs. For example, n oncompliance reports are submitted when the facility experiences a by

pass, an upset, or a violation of a daily

maximum limit. Responses to section 308(a) letters are submitted only when requested b y the Administrator, in response to events such as a spill of oil or a hazardous substance, or whenever EPA has reason to believe it needs additional information to determine3. Non - duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

13 compliance. Compliance schedule reports are submitted only when a permit contains a compliance schedule and when a milestone identified in the permit is reached to determine the permittee’s compliance with that milestone. Also, alternate level reports are submitted only when there is an expected change in the production level at the facility. Therefore , frequency of information collection is n ot an issue for the reporting requirements in this category . In certain instances, permittees may choose to submit information when requesting a modification or variance from otherwise applicable requirements . The information collection and reporting requ irements associated with NPDES permit modifications and variances are specific, would not be supplied in any other report or application, and are submitted as needed. In most cases, the decision to submit information is made by the NPDES permittee or permi t applicant. The exceptions are (1) when outside events trigger the need for a permit modification, and (2) when the Administrator decides to invoke a reporting requirement, such as a request for permit revocation and reissuance. Because information is sub mitted only when needed, less frequent data collection would not provide the permitting authority and EPA headquarters with sufficient information to meet their responsibilities under the CWA. 

## 3(e) General Guidelines This information collection is consistent with OMB guidelines contained in 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2) . Requests for supplemental information for the purposes of emergency response or enforcement activities are exempt from the Paperwork Reduction Act requirements. 

## 3(f) Confidentiality Permit applications and other respondent reports can contain confidential business information. If this is the case, the respondent may request that such information be treated as confidential. All confidential data will be handled in accordance with 40 CFR 122.7, 40 CFR Part 2, and EPA’s Security Manual Part III, Chapter 9, dated August 9, 1976. An y claim of confidentiality must be asserted at the time of submission. However, CWA section 308(b) specificall y states that effluent data may not be treated as confidential. 

## 3(g) Sensitive Questions Sensitive questions are defined in EPA ’ s ICR Handbook, Guide to W riting Information Collection Requests Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 as “questions concerning sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, or other matter s usuall y considered private.” The requirements addressed in this I CR do not include sensitive questions.4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(a) Respondents/ Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC ) Codes

14 

## 4. The Respondents and the Information Requested **4(a) Respondents/**

**Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC**  **) Codes**  The Clean Water Act (CWA) , enacted in 1972, requires operators of point source discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States to obtain a permit to discharge . In response, EPA developed NPDES regulations that provide the mechanisms for permitting these discharges . In addition to permitting point source discharges , EPA promulgated revisions to the NPDES permit regulations at 40 CFR Parts 122 and 124, to expand EPA’s authority to include sewage sludge use and disposal standards in permits and to issue permits to treatment works that do not have a discharge (termed sludge - only facilit ies) to waters of the United States . EPA issues NPDES permits except where a state can demonstrate that it has adequate legal, technical, and financial capabilities in place to administer the NPDES program . To date, 46 states and one U.S. territory are authorized by

EPA to administer some of or the entire NPDES program . EPA continues to be the permitting authority in the other 4 states and remaining territories . Eight states have authorized NPDES sludge management programs. For the number of states authori zed by

program area, see Table 2.1; and for a detailed NPDES program status by state, see Appendix E . The authorized states and territories are considered respondents for evaluating paperwork burden in this I CR. In calculating the average number of states with existing programs, the following was assumed:  During the next 3 years, no states will request full or partial NPDES program authority .  During the next 3 years, the average number of states and territories with NPDES authority will be 4 7 .  During the next 3 years, one state will request a sewage sludge program. Because there are eight currentl y authorized programs, the addition of the new state will result in an average of 8 .3 authorized programs operating per ye ar. All states plus five U.S. territories, the District of Columbia, and 581 federally recognized Indian tribes (for a total of 6 3 7 respondents per ye ar) are required to certify , in accordance with CWA s ection 401, that EPA - issued permits will result in compliance with the state, t erritory , or tribe’s water quality requirements . All NPDES permittees, whether permitted by EPA or a state, are also respondents in this I CR . These permittees include non - stormwater and stormwater permittees covered under both individual and general per mits . Inaddition, the NPDES regulations exempt or waive certain activities from the requirement to obtain NPDES permit coverage provided certain conditions are met . Operators of these waived and exempted facilities are also respondents in this I CR . Certai n NPDES - regulated activities are not included in this I CR (i.e., burden is included in separate ICRs) and include animal feeding operations (CAFOs and CAAPs) and cooling water intakes .4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(a) Respondents/ Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC ) Codes

15 A relativel y large portion of permitted non - stormwater facilities are classified in the Sanitary Service industry

group (NAI CS 221320, SI C 495) ; these include POTWs and PrOTWs, most of them under NAICS 22132, SI C 4952 (Sewerage Sy stems) . Unlike sanitary

services, which are described by a single NAI CS/ SI C code, nonmunicipal (industrial) dischargers may be categorized into many NAI CS/ SI C codes. Industrial categories covered b y NPDES permits include facilities in more than 800 industrial classifications . Some industrial sectors that discharge pollutants d irectly to waters of the United States are covered b y effluent limitation guidelines; the specific catego ries of dischargers are shown on Table 4.1 . **Table 4.1 Industrial s**  **ectors and corresponding 40 CFR**  **Part 40**  **CFR Part**  **Sector n**  **ame** 406 Grain Mills Manufacturing 407 Canned and Preserved Fruits and Vegetable Processing 408 Canned and Preserved Seafood (Seafood Processing) 409 Sugar Processing 410 Textile Mills 411 Cement Manufacturing 412 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) 413 Electroplating 414 Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) 415 Inorganic Chemicals 417 Soaps and Detergents Manufacturing 418 Fertilizer Manufacturing 419 Petroleum Refining 420 Iron and Steel Manufacturing 421 Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing 422 Phosphate Manufacturing 423 Steam Electric Power Generation 424 Ferroalloy Manufacturing 425 Leather Tanning and Finishing 426 Glass Manufacturing 427 Asbestos Manufacturing 428 Rubber Manufacturing 429 Ti mb er Products Processing 430 Pulp, Paper and Paperboard 432 Meat and Poultry Products 433 Metal Finishing 434 Coal Mining 435 Oil and Gas Extraction 436 Mineral Mining and Processing 437 Centralized Wa ste Treatment 438 Metal Products and Machinery 439 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 440 Ore Mining and Dressing (Hard Rock Mining) 442 Transportation Equipment Cleaning 443 Paving and Roofing Materials (Tars and Asphalt) 444 Wa ste Com bustors4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(a) Respondents/ Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC ) Codes

16 **40 CFR**  **Part Sector**  **n ame**  445 Landfills 446 Paint Formulating 447 Ink Formulating 451 Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production (Aquaculture) 454 Gum and Wo od Chemicals 455 Pesticide Chemicals Manufacturing, Formulating and Packaging 457 Explosives Manufacturing 458 Carbon Black Manufacturing 459 Photographic 460 Hospitals 461 Battery Manufacturing 463 Plastic Molding and Forming 464 Metal Molding and Casting (Foundries) 465 Coil Coating 466 Porcelain Enameling 467 Alum inum Forming 468 Copper Forming 469 Electrical and Electronic Components 471 Nonferrous Metals Forming and Metal Powders4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(a) Respondents/ Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC ) Codes

17 The NPDES regulations also require permits covering different ty pes of stormwater discharges, including discharges from municipal separate storm sewer s ys tems (MS4s), discharges associated with industrial activity , and discharges associated with constructi on activity . MS4s requiring NPDES permits include those defined by the regulations at 40 CFR 122.26 and include large, medium, and regulated small MS4s . The types of industrial activities required to obtain NPDES permit coverage for stormwater discharges i nclude the following :  Facilities subject to stormwater effluent limitations guidelines, new source performance standards, or toxic pollutant effluent standards  Heav y industrial manufacturing NAI CS codes 321 (except 33711), 322 (except 3222 and 32229), 325 (except 3254 and 3255) 324, 3161, 327 (except 327215), 331, 332312, and 3366; SI C codes 24 (except 2434), 26 (except 265 and 267), 28 (except 283 and 285), 29, 311, 32 (except 323), 33, 3441, and 373  Mineral and metal mining and certain oil and gas exploration, production, processing or treatment, and transmission activities: NAI CS codes 2122, 21221, 2121, 211, and 2123; SI C codes 10, 10 11, 12, 13, and 14  Hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities, including those that are operating under interim status or a permit under Subtitle C of RCRA  Landfills, land application sites, and open dumps that receive or have received any industrial wastes including those that are subject to regulation under Subtitle D of RCRA  Recycling facilities NAICS codes 42114 and 42193; SI C codes 5015 and 5093  Steam electric power generating facilities, including coal handling  Transportation facilities classified as NAI CS codes 482, 485, 484 (except 49313 - 481), 491, 483, 481, and 42271; SI C codes 40, 41, 42 (except 4221

–45), 43, 44, 45, and 5171, which have vehicle maintenance shops, equipment cleaning operations, or airport deicing operations  Treatment works treating domestic sewage or an y other sewage sludge or wastewater treatment device or s ys tem  Li ght industrial activity NAI CS codes 311, 3122, 314, 3159, 33711, 33711, 33712, 32221, 32229, 323, 3254, 3255, 326, 316 (except 3161), 327215, 332 (except 332312), 3332, 3353, 336 (except 3366), 3391, 33999, 49313, 49312, and 49311; SI C codes 20, 21, 22, 23, 2434, 25, 26 5, 267, 27, 283, 285, 30, 31 (except 311), 323, 34 (except 3441), 35, 36, 37 (except 373), 38, 39, 4221, 4222, and 4225 The NPDES regulations also require operators of construction activities that clear, grade, or excavate equal to or greater than 1 acre of total land area to obtain permit coverage. The largest portion of construction activities are carried out by builders, local developers, and contractors. Relevant classifications may include NAICS code 23, SI C code 15 (Building Construction General Contractors and Operative Builders), NAICS code 234, SI C code 16 (Heav y Construction Other Than Building Construction Contractors), and NAICS code 23593, SI C code 1794 (Excavation Work) . The NPDES regulations also provide authority for the permitting authority to designate additional discharges of stormwater that are a significant contributor of pollutants; contribute to a violation of WQS ; or for which additional controls are needed based on wasteload allocations that are part of a total maximum daily load (T MDL) [ 40 CFR 122.26(a)(i)(v) and 122.26(a)(9)(c)4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(a) Respondents/ Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC ) Codes

18 and (d) ] . Activities and burden associated with these permits are similar to those for stormwater permits and are included as a component of the industrial stormwater permit activities in this ICR . Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are classified according to the primary t ype of animal confined at the operation. NAICS code s : 112111, 112112, 112120, 112210, 112310, 112320, 112330, 112390, 112410, and 11290; SI C codes: 0211, 0212, 0213, 0214, 0219 , 0241, 0251, 0252, 0253, 0254, 0259, and 0272. Activities resulting from the CAFO regulations are not covered under this ICR. EPA transfe rr ed this burden to the Animal Sectors IC R (OMB Control No. 2040 - 0250 ) . Industries potentially

covered by

the Vessels General Permit include the water transportation industry (NAICS codes 483

—Water Transportation; 4872

— Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, Water; and 4883

— Support Activities for Water Transportation; SI C code 44

— Water Transportation) and the fishing indu stry (NAI CS code 11411

—Fishing; SI C code 0912 Fishing, hunting, and trapping, Finfish). For the purposes of the VGP, EPA assumed the following vessel class breakdown: Large Vessels (Cruise Ships, Freight Ships, and Tank Ships); Small Vessels (Freight Barge s, Passenger Vessels, Utility Vessels, and Tank Barges). 

## 4(b) Information Requested This section presents the data items, including record - keeping requirements, and required respondent activities involved in preparing and submitting those data items . Throughout this subsection , codes will be presented in brackets ( i.e., [ 1.3 ]) . These codes correspond to the reference code in the Respondents Activities Table in Appendix B in which the first number represents the ty

pe of activity

and the second th e specific activity listed in the table . All activities reported in the nine I CRs consolidated in this supporting statement were anal yz ed and allocated to one of seven ty pes of activities related to the NPDES program . These are as follows :  Activities directly

related to individual permit applications or permit coverage under a general permit (NOIs) [respondent activities codes 1.1

– 1. 1 4 6 ] ;  Activities associated with plan development or special studies [respondent activities codes 2.1

–2. 8 6 ] ;  Monitoring [ respondent activities codes 3.1

– 3. 1 2 1 ];  Rep orting, including certification [respondent activities codes 4.1

–4. 364 ];  Record - keeping [respondent activities codes 5.1

– 5. 6 0];  Activities resulting from compliance assessments or enforcement actions [respondent activities codes 6.1

– 6. 3 9 ]; and  Activities resulting from NPDES program authorization, including approval, modifications, transfer or withdrawal of authorization [respon dent activities codes 7.1

– 7.7] . All activities were divided and allocated according to the type of permittee. Below is a list of the possible ty

pes of permittees. Please note that not all ty pes of permittees have activities under all ty pes of activities .4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b) Information Requested

19  (A) Non - Stormwater o A( 1 ) Nonmunicipal Individual  A(1)(1) Biosolids o A( 2 ) Municipal Individual  A( 2 )( 1 ) Biosolids  A( 2 )( 2 ) CSO o A( 3 ) General Permits  (B) Stormwater o B( 1 ) Industrial o B( 2 ) Municipal o B( 3 ) Construction  (C) Vessels 

### 4(b)(i) **Ap plication/NOI**  **4(b)(i)(1) Data Items** Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.21 and 122.28 detail the application and NOI requirements, respectivel y, for NPDES permits. This section includes specific application requirements related to NPDES discharge permits and sewage sludge management permits [4 0 CFR 122.21(b)

– (l), (p), and (q)], and NOI requirements [40 CFR 122.28] . Inaddition, this section includes specific application and NOI requirements for stormwater discharges [40 CFR 122.26] . As noted previousl y, this I CR does not address permit application requirements for cooling water intake structures or CAFOs. Those activities are addressed in separate IC Rs : OMB Control Numbers 2040 - 0241, 2040 - 0257, 2040 - 0268, and 2040 - 0250. EPA has developed standard application forms for many applicants (see Appe ndix F ) , references to which are specified in 40 CFR 122.21(a)(2). Standardized application forms covered under this I CR include Forms 1, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, 2F, and 2S; and the Uniform Federal Transportation/Utility

System Application Form . In addition, the NPDES regulations include specific application and NOI requirements for certain other dischargers , although standardized national forms have not been developed . For example, EPA has developed NOI forms for its industrial and construction stormwater gene ral permits , as well as the VGP . Whether or not standard forms exist, this I CR calculates the burden to respondents for supplying the information. No national forms exist for the following information collection activities:

 Requests for additional information (Section 308 r equests);  Applications for MS4 permits from large or medium municipalities 5 and regulated small municipalities;  Applications for individual construction stormwater permits;

5 Large MS4 s serve 250,000 people or more . Medium MS4s serve 100,000 to 250,000 people.4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(i) Application/NOI

20  Permit consolidation requests;  Notification of construction befo re wastewater permit issuance for a new source in an area under federal authority

requiring an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) ; and  Requests for ocean discharge information (not limited to 301(h) waivers) . Permit requirements for facilities vary according to the following factors:  The ty

pe of facility ;  The manufacturing process it uses;  The waste treatment it provides;  The pollutant ( s ) it discharge ( s ) ;  The pollutant ( s ) contained in its sludge; and  The quality

of the waters receiving the discharge. Applications request information that permit writers need to issue permits to particular types of permittees. A facility

that employ s complex industrial processes and discharges several toxic pollutants, for example, must provide more information to the permitting authority than a facility that discharges stormwater. Similarly , a facility that discharges into waters considered impaired might have to submit more information than a facility that does not. Because discharges vary

in complexity

and character , and because discharges and activities from industry groups or treatment works are often similar, EPA has developed several different NPDES application forms. Table 4.2 lists the application forms and other application requirements and the respondents to the request. Each form or request is discussed in more detail below the table. **Table 4.2 A pplication forms and information requests**  **Form/request Respondent type**  Form 1 Nonmunicipal NPDES applicants not covered under form 2B Form 2A All POTW s Additional NPDES Application Requirements for Municipal Dischargers (Section 308 Request) Municipal facilities (i.e., POTW s) Form 2B CAFO Applications and CAAP facilities (not covered under this ICR) Form 2C Existing manufacturing, commercial, mining, an d silvicultural operations that discharge process wastewater Form 2D New manufacturing and commercial facilities that discharge process wastewater Additional NPDES Application Requirements for Nonmunicipal Dischargers (Section 308 Requests) Nonmunicipal facilities Form 2E New or existing n onm unicipal facilities that discharge non process wastewater Form 2F Industrial stormwater dischargers applying for an individual permit Form 2S POTW s and other treatment works treating domestic sewage (TW TDS) (covers sludge)4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(i) Application/NOI

21 **Form/request Respondent type**  NOI - Industrial Activity (NOI Stormwater) Industrial stormwater dischargers applying for a Multi - Sector General Permit (MSGP) Application for Transportation and Utilit y S ystem s and Facilities On Federal Lands (Alaskan Lands Application) ( Alaskan Lands Applications) Builders and operators of transportation and utility projects on Alaskan public lands (substitutes for Forms 1, 2B, and 2C) Application for Phase I MS4s Phase I MS4s Petitions for Individual Permit Sm all MS4 operators or any person NOI Municipal, n onm unicipal, and sewage sludge management facilities applying for general permit coverage , Vessels applying under the VGP Permit Consolidation Request Facilities with multiple permits Notification of Construction Facilities classi fied as new sources Ocean Discharge Information Ocean dischargers Notice of Termination (NOT) General permittees (stormwater) and industrial stormwater dischargers No Exposure Certification Industrial stormwater dischargers Low Erosivity W aiver Certification General permittees (stormwater) **4(b)(i)(1)( A** **) Non -**  **Stormwater 4(b)(i)(1)**  **( A** **)(1) Non -**  **Stormwater —**  **Nonmunicipal Individual**  **Form 1 [1.1**
**– 1.**  **4 ]**  EPA originall y developed Form 1 to be used b y any facility applying for any

EPA permit. On Form 1, applicants provide basic information necessary to all EPA permit programs, including name, address, ty

pe of facility , SI C code, and number of outfalls. Applicants must also submit topographic maps and lists of all EPA and state permits presently held. Most facilities applying for an NPDES permit must submit Form 1 along with a second form (Forms 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, or 2F) requesting information specific to the type of applicant. Facilities with more than one type of discharge submit Form 1 and several of the other forms. As EPA developed specific forms, submission of Form 1 was no longer mandatory because the specific forms requested essentially the same data. Exemptions from Form 1 submission include facilities that submit NOIs for coverage under general permi ts, Alaskan applicants who submit the Application for Transportation and Utility Sy stems and Facilities on Federal Lands (discussed below), POTWs, wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) , and Phase I MS4s . **Form 2C [1. 5** 
**– 1.**  **6 ]**  Existing manufacturing, commercial, mining, and silvicultural operations that discharge process wastewater complete Form 2C. Usually , PrOTWs also use Form 2C to apply for individual NPDES permits. The form requests information about a discharger’s outfall locations, flow rates, and treatment. Respondents must also perform the following tasks:4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(i) Application/NOI

22  Prepare a water flow process line drawing;  Id entify

levels of production, WWTP construction or improvements, and effluent characteristics; and  Sample and anal yz e wastewater for pollutant char acteristics. Form 2C requires comprehensive monitoring data, i.e., all applicants must test for and report quantitative data for seven listed conventional and nonconventional pollutants. In addition, all applicants must provide information on the presence of toxic pollutants in accordance with a scheme set forth in the regulations. In establishing testing requirements for toxic pollutants, EPA balances the likelihood of the presence of the pollutants against the costs and burdens for applicants to anal yz e the effluent. In some industries, there is no reasonable expectation that certain pollutants are present. Therefore, mandatory testing for any

toxic pollutants applies only where EPA data ha s indicated a likelihood that the pollutant will be present in the discharge. Testing requirements for toxic pollutants fall into two groups. First, all process discharges in primary industrial categories must be tested for the presence of metals, cyanide, and total phenols. However, testing is not required for all orga nic toxic pollutants in all primary industrial categories. The specific organic pollutants for which an industry must test are listed by

industry ty pe in the regulations [40 CFR 122.21(g)(7)]. Second, in addition to the mandatory testing explained above, all industrial dischargers must report quantitative data for any toxic pollutant, conventional pollutant, listed nonconventional pollutant, or radioactivity that they know or have reason to believe is present in the discharge. **Form 2D [1. 7** 
**– 1.**  **10 ]**  New facili ties applying for NPDES permits to discharge process wastewater complete Form 2D. The form requests information that helps permitting authorities determin e if a facility is a new source of process wastewater. 6 Respondents must report the locations of all outfalls and the names of the receiving waters, describe all operations contributing to the wastewater and the treatment applied to it, and estimate the concentration and mass of pollutants to be discharged from each outfall. The form also stipulates that applicants must submit sampling data no later than 2 ye ars after they begin discharging. Permittees must submit these data to apprise permit authorities of discrepancies between the estimated data and the actual discharge. Permitting authorities need this information to evaluate permit conditions and revise them if necessary . **Additional NPDES Application Requirements for Nonmunicipal Dischargers (Section 308 Requests) [1.**  **11**
**– 1.**  **17 ]**  Permit authorities occasionally request supplemental application information under the authority of CWA section 308. Supplemental information may also be requested under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(13), which enables the Administrator to request “other information as the 6 EPA classifies new facilities into two groups: new sources and new dischargers . Generally, a facility is considered a new source, as opposed to a new discharger, if EPA has developed a New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) applicable to the new

facility . If not classified as a new source, an applicant is classified as a new discharger . The distinction is important because a new source must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in s tates where EPA is the permitting authority ( s ee 40 CFR 122.2) .4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(i) Application/NOI

23 Administrator may

reasonably

require to assess the discharges of the facility and to determine whether to issue an NPDES permit.” CWA section 308 requires EPA and authorized state NPDES programs to request that the owner or operator of any point sourc e maintain records, make reports, conduct monitoring and/or sampling, and provide any other information reasonabl y necessary

to carry out the objectives of the CWA. Section 308 requests vary in complexity and burden, and permit authorities may issue reque sts for a variety of reasons. Authorities may request simple narrative descriptions or existing discharge information, for example. More burdensome requests include comprehensive sampling and anal ys es, biomonitoring, fish tissue anal ys es, wastewater data and related ambient water quality data, sewage sludge characterization, or facility production or process information. In general, requested information relates to discharges or control of particular pollutants. EPA may issue Section 308 requests to formulate permit limitations, especially limitations necessary

to protect the environment from toxic pollutants or the effects of toxicity . In addition, EPA may request information necessary to assess national pollutant limitations standards, assess compliance wi th permit conditions, evaluate permit modifications, revise or add permit standards, impose prohibitions or other special requirements, revoke a permit, issue a permit, or renew a permit. Because Section 308 requests vary substantiall y, EPA has not created standard forms for the requests. **Form 2E [1. 18** 
**– 1.**  **21 ]**  Facilities that submit this form discharg e only non - process wastewater that is not regulated b y effluent limitations guidelines or new source performance standards (NSPS). The primary respondents include dischargers of non - process wastewater, primaril y sanitary waste , and noncontact cooling water. Itcannot be used for discharges of stormwater runoff or by educational, medical, or commercial chemical laboratories or POTWs. On Form 2E, applicants provide outfall locations, identify receiving waters, specify effluent characteristics, and describe tre atment s ys tems. Form 2E also requires minimal sampling for conventional pollutants such as biochemical ox ygen demand (BOD). **Application for Transportation and Utility Systems and Facilities on Federal Lands (** **Alaskan Lands Application) [1. 22**  **]** Persons constructing or operating transportation and utility projects on Alaskan public lands submit the Application for Transportation and Utility S ys tems and Facilities on Federal Lands instead of application Forms 1, 2B, and 2C. EPA uses the information on this form to determine whether a permit should be issued to these dischargers. The form is also used by the Forest Service, Air Force, Bureau of Land Management, Federal Aviation Agency, Coast Guard, NASA, and b y EPA in its RCRA and Underground Injection Control programs. **Permit Consolidation Request [1. 23** 
**– 1.**  **24 ]**  40 CFR 124.4 allows facilities that are required to obtain permits for more than one EPA program to request that their permit application processing be consolidated. This is a voluntary request made b y subm itting a letter to the permit authority .4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(i) Application/NOI

24 **Permittee Notice of Regulated Discharge Cessation [1. 27** 
**– 1.**  **30 ]**  A permittee’s decision to cease its regulated discharge must be reported in writing to the permitting authority as required by 40 CFR 122.47(b)(4). The notification must be accompanied by evidence of a firm public commitment, such as a resolution passed by a corporation’s board of directors. The permitting authority will establish and enforce a compliance schedule to accommodate the discharge termination using information received in the notice. **Permit Modification ,**  **Revocation and Reissuance, or Termination [1. 31** 
**– 1.**  **32 ]**  Permitting authorities may require permit modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination for several reasons. For example, national effluent standards might change, state WQS might change, or a facility

might begin discharging significant amounts of a pollutant that is not limited by the permit. When permitting authorities consider making modifications, they request discharger s to submit information. See 40 CFR 124.5, 122.41(h), 122.62 and 122.64 . **Variance Request Due to Fundamentally Different Factors [1. 33** 
**– 1.**  **34 ]**  Regulations at 40 CFR 122.21(m)(1) and 125.30 give dischargers the opportunity to seek a variance from otherwise applicable effluent limits if they can show that their facility contains factors fundamentall y different from those EPA considered when establi shing national effluent limits. Applicants must request this ty pe of variance in writing on or before the close of the public comment period on the draft permit for Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) standards, or within 180 day s of the establishment of the effluent limitation or pretreatment standards for Best Available Technology Economically

Achievable ( BAT ) , Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT), NSPS, Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES), and Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS). This request may take any number of forms but is usually a letter. EPA has final approval authority for Fundamentall y Different Factors (FDF) variances, although FDF variance requests denied at the state level in authorized states are not forwarded to EPA for review. **Variance Request for Non -**  **conventional Pollutants [ 1.**  **35**
**– 1.**  **36]** Facility owners or operators may appl y for a CWA section 301(g) variance if they can show that discharging nonconventional pollutants at li mits less stringent than BAT limits will not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of water quality . This request must include such information as the permit number, the number of outfalls, applicable effluent(s), and water quality data showing that the modification will not impede improvements in, or hinder maintenance of, water quality . EPA must approve all section 301(g) variances. However, these variance requests may be denied b y the states with authority for the NPDES program. **Variance Request D**  **ue to Economic Capability [1.37** 
**– 1.38]**  Section 301(c) of the CWA allows a variance for nonconventional pollutants from technologybased BAT effluent limitations due to economic factors, at the request of the facility and on a case - by - case basis. The applic ant normally files the request for a variance from effluent limitations developed from BAT guidelines during the public notice period for the draft permit. Other filing time periods may apply , as specified in 40 CFR 122.21(m)(2). The variance application must show that the modified requirements represent the maximum use of technology within the economic capability of the owner or operator and result in further progress toward the goal of discharging no process wastewater. EPA must approve all section 301(c) variances.4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(i) Application/NOI

25 However, these variance requests may be denied by

the states with authority

for the NPDES program. **Variance Request for Innovative Pollution Control Technology [1. 3**  **9**
**– 1.**  **40 ]**  Nonmunicipal dischargers apply for this variance [40 CFR 122.21(m)(4)], which extends the compliance schedule for BAT up to 2 ye ars. The variance gives dischargers an opportunity (1) to develop innovative technologies that will reduce pollutant concentrations beyond BAT levels, or (2) to e xperiment with in - plant changes to reduce the costs associated with attaining BAT limits. Requests for this variance must be filed in conjunction with NPDES permit applications. To qualify for this ty

pe of variance, the innovative pollution control system to be tested must have the potential for industry - wide application. The permitting authority , after consultation with EPA, decides whether to grant this variance request. **Variance Request Regarding Thermal Discharges [1. 42** 
**– 1.**  **46 ]**  Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.21(m)(6) state that dischargers seeking this variance must demonstrate that the existing limitations on the thermal component of their discharges are more stringent than necessary

to ensure the protection and propagation of indigenous fish, shellfi sh, and wildlife in the receiving water. The application of this variance includes a description of the studies performed and the results of biological, h ydrological, and ph ys ical data gathered in support of the request. The permitting authority uses this information to evaluate alternative limits . **Modification and Variance under the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [1. 47** 
**– 1.**  **48 ]**  Under the Great Lakes Guidance, several additional regulatory relief options are allowed if appropriate documentation is submitt ed to substantiate and justify them. In sum, relief options for dischargers to the Great Lakes include mechanisms such as variances from criteria, alter n ative mixing zones, phased - TMDLs, and site - specific criteria. All these mechanisms are available under the CWA and existing NPDES programs. Therefore, this I CR includes information collection and record - keeping activities associated with anal ys es and reporting to request regulatory

relief from guidance requirements that are in excess of what would already b e covered under other m odification and v ariance activities . **4(b)(i)(1) (**  **A )(1)(1)**  **Non -**  **Stormw ater**  **— Nonmunicipal Individual**  **— Biosolids**  **Form 2S [1. 49** 
**– 1.**  **53 ]**  Form 2S is the mechanism by which POTWs and other treatment works treating domestic sewage (TWTDS) will apply for permits containing standards for use and disposal of sewage sludge. Applicants submitting Form 2S are not required to submit Form 1. Form 2S consists of two main sections, Limited Background Information and Permit Application Information , and a p reliminary

information section that directs the applicant to complete either of the two main sections. Facilities that are not requesting site - specific permit limitations, do not have a currentl y effective NPDES permit, and/or have not been directed b y the permitting authority to appl y for a permit, complete the first part

— Limited Background Information . All other applicants complete the second part

—the Permit Application Information .4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(i) Application/NOI

26 **4(b)(i)(1) (**  **A )(**  **2 )**  **Non -**  **Stormwater —**  **Municipal Individual Form 2A [1.**  **56**
**– 1.**  **74 , 1.**  **1 3**  **7 ]**  Form 2A consolidates the application requirements for POTWs into a three - part application: Introductory

Application Overview, Basic Application Information , and Supplemental Application Information. The introductory section directs the applicant to complete the basic section as well as applicable portions of the supplemental section on the basis of the applicant’s responses to specific questions. As suggested b y the title, the Basic Application Information section collects elementary data for dra fting a POTW NPDES permit, i.e., facility name, location, service area data, receiving stream, WWTP design criteria, and so on. The supplemental section consists of four parts : Expanded Effluent Testing Data, Toxicity Testing Data , 7 In dustrial User (IU) Di scharges and RCRA/CERCLA wastes, and Combined Sewer Sy stems , and a pplicants are instructed to complete the appropriate part of the supplemental section if they meet the following:  Expanded Effluent Testing Data: > 1 million gallons per day (mgd) treatment design capacity , has or is required to have a pretreatment program, or is instructed by the permitting authority that they must  Toxicity

Testing Data: > 1 mgd treatment design capacity, has or is required to have a pretreatment program, or is instructed by the permitting authority that they must  Industrial User (IU) Discharges and RCRA/CERCLA wastes: accept IU process wastewater or receive RCRA or CERCLA wastes  CSSs: have a combined sewer s ys tem **Additional NPDES Application Requirements for Municipal Disch argers (Section 308**  **Requests) [1. 75** 
**– 1.**  **83 ]**  As explained above, municipal facilities (i.e., POTWs) must complete Form 2A to apply for NPDES permits. Occasionally , permit writers require additional information from municipal facilities to establish permit con ditions. Section 308 grants permit authorities the power to require the owner or operator of any point source to provide supplemental information reasonabl y necessary

to carry out the objectives of the CWA. Section 308 requests vary in complexity

and burde n depending on such factors as facility size or effluent characteristics. Because Section 308 requests can vary substantially , EPA has not created standard forms for the requests. **NPDES Ocean Discharge Information [1. 84** 
**– 1.**  **85 ]**  Under 40 CFR 125. 120 , d uring the first 2 years of operation, facilities that discharge into territorial seas, the contiguous zone, and the oceans must provide information that supplements the data they

provide in Form 1. This supplemental information is site - specific and highl y variable. It ranges from routine water quality and sediment anal ys es to complex impact analy ses that involve studies of large magnitude and area. Permitting authorities use the information to 7 As required under 40 CFR 122.21(j), all POTWs meeting any of the following criteria must provide the results of valid whole effluent toxicity testing to the Administrator : those with design influent flows equal or gre ater than one mgd , those with an approved pretreatment program, those required to develop a pretreatment program, or those designated by the Administrator .4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(i) Application/NOI

27 modify permit conditions before a permit expires or when dischar gers apply for new permits. The permit authority reviews all other available sources of information, which may include EI Ss and CWA section 301(h) variance requests, before requesting dischargers to submit additional information. **Request for Water Quality Related Effluent Limitations Modification [1.**  **86**
**– 1.**  **87 ]**  Under CWA section 302(b) and 40 CFR 122.21(n)(3), POTWs with NPDES permits may seek modification of the effluent limitations required by CWA section 302(a) for pollutants other than toxic pollutants. T o do that, a POTW must show that there is no reasonable relationship between the economic and social costs of the limitation and the benefits obtained from achieving it. POTWs may

also seek this ty

pe of modification by

showing that the modified effluent li mitations for toxic pollutants represent further progress toward achieving the goals of the CWA section 302(a). However, EPA notes that it has never received a request for this ty pe of modification and does not anticipate receiving such a request. Conseque ntly , it is noted here only to ensure completeness. **Permit Modification ,**  **Revocation and Reissuance, or Termination [1. 88** 
**– 1.**  **89 ]**  Permitting authorities may require permit modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination for several reasons. For more information, s ee section 4(b)(i)(1)(A)(1). **Application for Variance Regarding Discharge into Marine Waters [1. 90** 
**– 1.**  **91 ]**  POTWs may

request a variance under CWA section 301(h) and 40 CFR 122.21(n)(1) from the requirements of CWA section 301(b) ( 1 ) (B) for dis charges into marine waters. This variance is administered b y the Office of Wetlands, Oceans , and Watersheds (OWOW) , and it is the subject of a separate IC R. Therefore, no respondent burden or cost associated with this requirement is reported in this I CR. This information collection and reporting requirement is noted here onl y to ensure completeness. **Modification and V ariance under the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [1.**  **92**
**– 1.**  **93 ]**  Under the Great Lakes Guidance, several additional regulatory relief options are allowed if appropriate documentation is submitted to substantiate and justify them. For more information, s ee section 4(b)(i)(1)(A)(1). **4(b)(i)(1) (**  **A )(**  **2 )(**  **1 )**  **Non -**  **Stormw ater**  **— Municipal Individual**  **— Biosolids**  **Form 2S [1. 94** 
**– 1.**  **97 ]**  Form 2S is the mechanism by which POTWs and other treatment works treating domestic sewage (TWTDS) will apply for permits containing standards for use and disposal of sewage sludge. For more information about form 2S, see Section 4(b)(i)(1)(A)(1)(1). **4(b) (i)(1)**  **( A** **)( 3**  **) Non**  **- Stormwater**  **— General Permits**  **NOI to be Covered Under a Non -**  **Stormwater General Permit [1. 98** 
**– 1.**  **99 ]**  Permitting authorities issue general permits to groups of facilities that have similar operating procedures, discharge characteristics, and geo graphic location (e.g., states). In this way , permitting authorities can cover a large number of facilities within one permit and establish a4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(i) Application/NOI

28 common set of limitations, monitoring requirements, and permit conditions. Non - stormwater ge neral permittees are covered by man y NAICS/SIC codes. Rather than submitting an individual application, the owner or operator of a facility or activity seeking coverage under a general permit must submit an NOI , although Federal Regulations provide some limited exceptions to the NOI requirement . Where an NOI is required, Federal regulations require, at a minimum, that owners or operators provide the following information in the NO I:  The legal name and address of the owner or operator;  The facility

name and address; and  The ty

pe of facility

or discharges, and the receiving stream(s). When they

issue general permits, permitting authorities may impose additional information to be submitted with the NOIthat they regard as necessary

to ensure that facilities covered under the permits comply

with the objectives and provisions of the CWA. **Permittee Notice of Regulated Discharge Cessation [1. 100** 
**– 1.**  **101 ]**  A permittee’s decision to cease its regulated discharge must be reported in writing to the permittin g authority as required by 40 CFR 122.47(b)(4). For more information, s ee section 4(b)(i)(1)(A)(1) . **Permit Modification ,**  **Revocation and Reissuance, or Termination [1. 102** 
**– 1.**  **103 ]**  Permitting authorities may require permit modification, revocation and reissu ance, or termination for several reasons. For more information, s ee section 4(b)(i)(1)(A)(1). **4(b)(i)(1) (**  **B )**  **Stormw ater**  **4(b)(i)(1) (**  **B )(**  **1 ) Stormwater**  **— I**  **ndustrial Form 1 [1.**  **104**
**– 1.**  **107 ]**  Industrial stormwater facilities applying for individual permits must complete Form 1. This form is explained under Section 4(b)(i)(1)(A)(1) . **Form 2F [1. 108** 
**– 1.**  **109 ]**  Dischargers of stormwater associated with industrial activity wishing to obtain an individual permit, as opposed to a general permit, submit Form 2F. This form r equests information about outfall locations, scheduled improvements, flow rates, the history of leaks and spills at the facility , treatment applied to discharges, the drainage and surface area associated with discharges, and contractors used by the facility. It solicits narrative descriptions of pollutant sources, including the materials present at the site. It requires applicants to sample discharges for conventional pollutants and other pollutants regulated in NPDES permits held by the facility. The form also requests biological toxicity testing data. **NOI for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity [1. 110** 
**– 1.**  **113 ]**  T he NOI for s tormwater d ischarges a ssociated with i ndustrial a ctivity under a g eneral p ermit requests basic applicant data as well as stormwater information such as runoff, stormwater management and control measures , monitoring, and spills .4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(i) Application/NOI

29 To obtain the no exposure exclusion from permitting, the Phase II Rule requires operators of industrial facilities identified in the categories under 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14) to submit to the NPDES permitting authority a written certification that a condition of no exposure exists. The Phase II Rule includes a form for this purpose titled No Exposure Certification for Exclusion from NPDES Stormwater Permitting (NPDES Form 3510 - 11). Authorized s tates may use this or a similar form. The certification must be resubmitted once every 5 years. If conditions change during the 5 - year period such that exposure exists, the operator must obtain coverage under an NPDES permit immediately . 40 CFR 122.26(a)(4) includes an additional requirement for facilities that discharge stormwater through Phase I MS4s to notify these MS4s of such discharges. However, information required to address this requirement has negligible effect on NOI burden and costs . **Notice of Termination (NOT) for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial**  **Activity [1.**  **114**
**– 1.**  **115 ]**  When all stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity authorized by

an EPA or state - issued general permit are eliminated, or when the operator changes, the operator of the facility must submit an NOT to the permitting authority . Following is the type of information generall y required on NOT forms:  NPDES stormwater permit number;  Name, address, and phone number of the operator;  Name and address of the facility ; and  Certification of eligibility for filing the NOT (i.e., the stormwater discharge has been eliminated or the person filing the NOT is no longer the operator). **4(b)(i)(1) (**  **B )(**  **2 )**  **Stormwater —**  **Municipal Application for**  **Phase I MS4s [1.**  **116**
**– 1.**  **119 ]**  MS4s ty pically consist of many

outfalls. Permitting authorities issue one permit covering all d ischarges from a s ys tem. The NPDES regulations defined Phase I MS4 areas and required that applications be submitted in the earl y 1990s. By now , all Phase I MS4s have submitted applications; future requests are limited to reapplications. On August 9, 1996 , EPA published a policy memorandum clarifying the permit reapplication requirements for Phase I MS4s (61 FR 41,698) to include the following :  N ame and mailing address(es) of the permittee(s) that operate the MS4;  N ames and titles of the primary administrat ive and technical contacts for the municipal permittee(s) ; and  Any proposed changes or improvements to the storm water management program and monitoring activities for the upcoming 5 - ye ar term of the permit, if those proposed changes have not already been submitted pursuant to the annual reporting requirements in 40 CFR 122.42(c). **NOI or Individual Permit Application for Small MS4s [1. 120** 
**– 1.**  **121 ]**  Operators of small MS4s that are to be covered under a Phase II municipal stormwater permit must prepare and sub mit a permit application or NOI. EPA provides three options that an4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(i) Application/NOI

30 operator can follow to apply for Phase II permit coverage: (1) complete and file an NOI under a general permit; (2) complete and file an individual application for an individual permit; or (3) apply to be a co - permittee under an existing Phase IMS4 individual permit through a modification of the permit. Except in states where all MS4s are required to seek individual permit coverage, EPA expects few of the small MS4 respondents to submit an individual permit application or seek a modification of an existing Phase I permit; this is, in part, because the burden hours and costs associated with a general permit ty picall y are less than the burden and costs associated with these other two options. If a small MS4 chooses to submit an individual permit, the Phase II Rule includes simplified individual permit application requirements that are consistent with those for the general permit NOI. Therefore, this ICR assumes that the burden associated with the individual or general permit are the same. Permit coverage, and submittal of an NOI if the general permit option is chosen or a permit application if the individual permit option is chosen, is required under 40 CFR 122.33(a). The information requested on the NOI or application must include, at a minimum, the following elements:  Name of the small MS4 and the name, address, and phone number of a contact person at the MS4;  A list of the best management practices ( BMPs ) that are to be implemented for each of the six required minimum control measures;  A schedule detailing when the BMPs are to be implemented and completed, or an indication of the frequency

of the actions to be taken;  The measurable goals to be achieved fo r each of the required six minimum control measures; and  A certification that the information provided is true and complete. A waiver from the permitting requirements may be available for certain regulated small MS4s as determined b y the NPDES permitting authority . EPA expects that all waiver determinations will be made b y the NPDES permitting authorities before issuing the small MS4 general permit, thus negating the need to submit a waiver request. Therefore, this I CR does not include any costs associated with a waiver request. **4(b)(i)(1) (**  **B )(**  **3 )**  **Stormwater —**  **Construction Individual Application or**  **NOI for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity**  **[1. 122** 
**– 1.**  **13 2**  **]** Construction site operators are required to complete an NOI or file an individual application using F orms 1 and 2F . Although the NPDES regulations allow the option of submitting individual applications instead of an NOI, EPA does not anticipate that many operator s will choose this option . Stormwater discharges associated with construc tion activity exist in vast numbers. EPA has recognized that the burden to issue individual permits to each discharger would be prohibitive. EPA uses, and expects to continue and encourage the use of, a general permit option and standardized application fo rms for construction activities regulated under Phase I and II. EPA4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(i) Application/NOI

31 expects that most operators of Phase I and II construction sites will submit an NOI for coverage under a general permit consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 122.28(b)(2). EPA has dev eloped an NOI form that applies to both Phase I and Phase II of the construction stormwater program. Entities within the construction industry and their industry

organizations are familiar with an NOI as a means of seeking coverage under Phase I of the sto rmwater program. Federal regulations require, at a minimum, that applicants provide the following information in the NOI:

 The legal name and address of the operator;  The facility

name and address;  The ty

pe of facility

or discharges; and  The name of the receiving water(s). When NPDES permitting authorities issue general permits, they may require additional information to be submitted with the NOI that is deemed necessary to ensure that facilities covered under the permits are eligible for coverage under the permit . However, NPDES permitting authorities typ ically use general permits to minimize the burden associated with reviewing application information. Consequently , applicants are usually required to provide simple, easily

obtainable data in their NOIs . Small construction sites (1

– 5 acres) may submit a written certification for one of the following two waiver conditions :

 Low rainfall potential. The value of the rainfall erosivity factor ( R in the Revised Universal Soil L oss Equation) must be less than 5 during the period of construction activity ; or  A determination that stormwater controls are not needed on the basis of an EPA - approved TMDLthat addresses the pollutants of concern or, if a TMDL has not been developed or approved, an equivalent anal ys i s that determines sources and allocations for the pollutants of concern.4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(i) Application/NOI

32 **Notice of Termination (NOT) for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction**  **Activity [1.**  **13 3** 
**– 1.**  **13 6**  **]** When all stormwater discharges associated with construction activity authori zed by

a general permit are eliminated, or when the operator of stormwater discharges associated with construction activity

at a facility

changes, the operator of the facility must submit an NOT to the permitting authority. This form requires basic facility information, operator information, permit number, reason for the termination, and a certification statement. NOTs are submitted to EPA and authorized states. Following, is the ty pe of information generally required on NOT forms:

 NPDES stormwater permit number;  Name, address, and phone number of the site operator;  Name and address of the site; and  Certification of eligibility for filing the NOT (i.e., the stormwater discharge has been eliminated or the person filing the NOT is no longer the operator of th e site). **4(b)(i)(1)(C) Vessels Vessel General Permit NOI filing [1.**  **13 8** 
**– 1.**  **14 6**  **]** To obtain authorization under the VGP , operators must meet the eligibility requirements and, if required, submit a complete and accurate NOI. An operator is required to submit an NOI for its vessel if the vessel is greater than or equal to 300 gross registered tons, or the vessel has the capacity to hold or discharge more than 8 cubic meters (2,113 gallons) of ballast water. Following is the type of information generally require d on the NOI form:

 Owner/operator information ;  Vessel information ;  General voyage information ;  Discharge information ; and  Certification . **4(b)(i)(2) Respondent A ctiv**  **ities** Respondent activities can vary substantially

depending on the t ype and characteristics of the respondent and of the authorized state or territory . This I CR explains these activities, in terms of the ty pe of information submission they require, in detail in Section 4(b)(i)(1) above. However, any respondent can engage in p reparing basic information. This includes reading and reviewing instructions and regulatory requirements, gathering general information, consulting technical and legal officials, reviewing guidance materials, ty ping or filling out forms, drafting letters, reviewing applications or other materials, maintaining records, and mailing completed submissions. Each of these requirements is described in more detail in Section 6 of this I CR.4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(ii) P lan Development/Special Studies

33 

### 4(b)(ii) P **lan Development/Special Studies 4(b)(ii)(1) Data Items**  **4(b)(ii)(1)(A ) Non**  **- Stormwater**  **4(b)(ii)(1)(A )(1)**  **Non -**  **Stormw ater**  **— Nonmunicipal Individual**  **Pollution Prevention Alternative (Pesticides Packaging & Repackaging) [2. 1**  **]** For certain facilities in the pesticide formulating and packaging category , the discharger may choose to submit an annual certification to use pollution prevention alternatives. Dischargers submitting a certification for a pollution prevention alternative must also develop a pollution prevention plan. **Regulatory Options for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category (40 CFR Part**  **430) [2. 2** 
**– 2.**  **11 ]**  Operators of direct discharging mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite Category are required to prepare site - specific BMP plans (including training) . In lieu of certain monitoring requirements (primarily submission of periodic reports certifying that the fiber line(s) are operating within the range of certain process and operating condit ions), direct mills associated with the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category also have the options of voluntarily

choosing to enroll in the Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program (VAT IP ), which requires development of a Milestone Plan, or demonstrating compliance with applicable chloroform limitations and standards at a fiber line . **Coal Mining Point Source Category**
**– Coal Remining Subcategory and Western Alkaline**  **Coal Remining Subcategory [2. 12** 
**– 2.**  **15 ]**  Federal regulations for the Coal Mi ning Point Source Category (40 CFR Part 434) established two subcategories: one that addresses preexisting discharges at coal remining operations and a second that addresses drainage from coal mining reclamation and other non - process areas in the arid and semiarid western United States. The Coal Remining and Western Alkaline Coal Remining Subcategories created a set of standards and requirements for the specific waste streams, which include the development and implementation of BMPs . **Antidegradation D**  **emons tration under the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [2.**  **16**
**– 2.**  **18 ]**  The antidegradation provisions in the final guidance applies to the discharge of non - deminimis levels of pollutants to high quality waters. However, the criteria for when an antidegradation d emonstration must be performed are different for bioaccumulative chemicals of concern (BCCs) and non - BCCs. The purpose of the demonstration is to confirm that the permittee has evaluated options to reduce the extent of the need to lower water quality . In g eneral, an antidegradation demonstration consists of first performing a pollution prevention alternatives anal ys is to identify

prudent and feasible alternatives. If no pollution prevention alternatives are4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(ii) P lan Development/Special Studies

34 deemed prudent and feasible, the permittee must id entify alternative or enhanced treatment techniques. Finall y, a permittee must demonstrate that the lowering of water quality is necessary to ensure social and economic development . **Pollutant Minimization Programs (PMPs) under the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance**  **[2. 19** 
**– 2.**  **21 ]**  After s tate/tribal or f

ederal promulgation of provisions consistent with the guidance, permittees are required to establish PMPs for pollutants for which water quality - based effluent limits (WQBELs) are below quantificat ion levels. Permittees must develop and submit a control strategy , including implementation of appropriate practicable control measures. **Bioconcentration Studies under the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [2. 22**  **]** States and tribes may , but are not requir ed to, direct permittees to use fish monitoring and other bio - uptake studies to evaluate PMP performance where WQBELs are established below anal yt ical detection limits. Such studies would require sampling and laboratory anal ys is of fish tissue . **4(b)(ii)(1 )(A** **)(1)(1) Non -**  **Stormw ater**  **— Nonmunicipal**  **— Biosolids**  EPA has not identified any unique activities associated with plan development/special studies for th ese permittee s . **4(b)(ii)(1)(A )(2)**  **Non -**  **Stormw ater**  **— Municipal Individual**  **Antidegradation D**  **emonstration under the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [2. 23** 
**– 2.**  **25 ]**  The antidegradation provisions in the final guidance appl y to the discharge of non - deminimis levels of pollutants to high - quality waters. For more information, s ee S ection 4(b)(ii)(1)(A) (1) . **Pollutant Minimization Programs (PMPs) under the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [2.**  **26**
**– 2.**  **28 ]**  For more information, s ee section 4(b)(ii)(1)(A)(1). **Bioconcentration Studies under the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [2. 29**  **]** For more information, s ee section 4(b)(ii)(1)(A)(1) . **4(b)(ii)(1)(A )(2)(1)**  **Non -**  **Stormw ater**  **— Municipal Individual**  **— Biosolids**  EPA has not identified any unique activities associated with plan development/special studies for these permittees . **4(b)(ii)(1)(A )(2)(2)**  **Non -**  **Stormw ater**  **— Municipal Individual**  **— CSO**  **CSO Control Policy -**  **Nine Minimum Controls [2.**  **30**
**– 2.**  **6 3**  **]** The CSO Control Policy recommends that municipalities implement the nine minimum controls (NMC) and submit documentation demonstrating their implementation acti vities. NPDES4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(ii) P lan Development/Special Studies

35 permitting authorities generall y require this activity as an NPDES permit condition. The policy recommends that this documentation be submitted within 2 years after this requirement is included in an NPDES permit or other enforceable mechanis m . **CSO Long -**  **Term Control Plans and Supplementary Information [2.**  **6 4** 
**– 2.**  **7 5**  **]** The CSO Control Policy recommends that permittees develop and submit a Lo ng - Term Control Plan ( LTCP ) within 2 years after the inclusion of LTCP requirements in an NPDES permit or oth er enforceable mechanism. L TCPs should recognize the site - specific nature of CSOs and their effe cts on receiving waters . **4(b)(ii)(1)(A )(3) Non**  **- Stormw**  **ater —**  **General Permits** EPA has not identified any unique activities associated with plan development/special studies for these permittees . **4(b)(ii)(1)(B) Stormw ater**  **4(b)(ii)(1)(B)(1) Stormwater —**  **Industrial SWPPP for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity [2.**  **7 6** 
**– 2**  **. 79**  **]** All facilities submitting an industrial NOI - Stormwater application must develop a new or update an existing SWPPP to obtain permit coverage . The two stated objectives of these plans are to identify sources of pollution potentially affecting the qu ality

of stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity

from the facility

and to d escribe control measures to meet permit requirements. The development of a SWPPP is unique to each facility ; EPA’s Multi - Sector General Permit ( MSGP ) has sector - specific SWPPP requirements for 29 industrial sectors . **4(b)(ii)(1)(B)(2) Stormwater —**  **Municipal Stormwater Management Plans**  **[ 2.**  **80**
**– 2.81**  **]** Phase I MS4s were required to develop stormwater management plans (SWMP) programs in advance of permit cove rage. All initial plans for Phase I MS4s have been completed , but permittees continue to update their SWMPs. For small MS4s, SWMPs are generall y contained within the NOI , but states may request individual plans. **4(b)(ii)(1)(B)(3) Stormwater —**  **Construction SWPPP for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity [2.**  **8 2** 
**– 2.**  **8 6**  **]** As an NPDES construction permit condition, EPA requires operators of construction sites to develop a SWPPP. A SWPPP is ty picall y kept on - site and not submitted. The development of a SWPPP is unique to each construction site even though it is based on common required elements . **4(b)(ii)(2) Respondent A ctiv**  **ities** Respondent activities can vary substantially

depending on the t y

pe and characteristics of the respondent and of the authorized state or territory . This I CR explains these activities, in terms of4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(ii) P lan Development/Special Studies

36 the ty pe of information submission they require, in detail in Section 4(b)(ii)(1) above. However, any respondent may

engage i n g enerating detailed information. Detailed information gathered can include topographic maps, water flow process line drawings, data on production levels, data on effluent characteristics, local development patterns, management programs, financial estimates (i.e., available funds and staff resources), engineering data, or other information required b y permitting authorit ies, such as developing a SWPPP, L TCP , or NMC s. 

### 4(b)(iii) Monitoring **4(b)(iii)(1) Data Items 4(b)(iii)(1)(A** **) Non -**  **Stormwater 4(b)(iii)(1)(A** **)(1) Non**  **- Stormwater**  **— Nonmunicipal Individual**  **DMRs for Major and Minor Individual Permittees [3. 1** 
**– 3.**  **14 ]**  Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122. 44(i) outline the monitoring requirements for NPDES permittees. NPDES permittees are required to collect representative samples of all monitored activity and to take associated measurements. Permittees are also required to conduct pollutant anal ys is on all samples collected according to the parameters outlined in the facilit y’s permit. The permit also will sp ecify the frequency

with which the permittee must conduct sampling and anal ys is . **Regulatory Options for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category (40 CFR Part**  **430) [3. 15** 
**– 3.22**  **]** Operators of direct discharging mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite Category are required to monitor discharges at a frequency of dail y, weekl y, or monthly. **Coal Mining Point Source Category**
**– Coal Remining Subcategory and Western Alkaline**  **Coal Remining Subcategory [3. 23** 
**– 3.**  **44 ]**  Federal regulations for the Coal Mining Point Source Category (40 CFR Part 434) established two subcategories: one that addresses preexisting discharges at coal remining operations and a second that addresses drainage from coal mining reclamation an d other non - process areas in the arid and semiarid western United States. The Coal Remining and Western Alkaline Coal Remining Subcategories created a set of standards and requirements for the specific waste streams, which include data collection and record keeping associated with modeling, implementation of BMPs, baseline monitoring, and performance monitoring. **WET Data Collection under the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [3.**  **45 ]**  Whole effluent toxicity

(WET) testing is required to meet minimum data req uirements to evaluate the need for WET limits. A minimum of 1 year of quarterly acute or chronic WET testing using a fish and a macroinvertebrate ( e . g ., daphnia) was assumed necessary to evaluate the need for WET limits in a facility ’s permit.4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(iii) Monitoring

37 **WQBEL Compl iance Monitoring**  **under the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [3. 46**  **]** In formation collection requirements specified in the Great Lakes Guidance include monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements for WQBEL compliance monitoring . **4(b)(iii)(1)(A )(**  **1)(1) Non -**  **Stormw ater**  **— Nonmunicipal**  **— Biosolids**  **DMRs for Sewage Sludge Facilities [3. 47** 
**– 3.**  **54 ]**  40 CFR Parts 501 and 503 outline the monitoring requirements and include tables listing minimum monitoring frequencies for sewage sludge facilities whose sewage sludge will be land applied, placed on a surface disposal site, or incinerated. Frequency of monitoring requirements range from once per ye ar for facilities using or disposing of relativel y small amounts of sludge to once per month for facilities disposing of larger amounts of sludge. Requirements for additional monitoring are determined according to the permit writer’s best professional judgment (BPJ). These requirements are dependent on the amount of sewage sludge produced, sewage sludge use, the number and typ es of industrial users discharging to treatment works, and previous sewage sludge quality data. EPA may require more frequent data collection or additional pollutant monitoring to assess permit compliance. While monitoring requirements vary conside rabl y among and within permittee categories, all permits specify

sampling frequency

and location as well as other sampling and anal ys is parameters. The permittee must collect and analyze representative samples and must conduct all monitoring according to p ermit specific conditions and/or approved test procedures as set forth under 40 CFR Part 136 or as specified in 40 CFR Part 503 . **4(b)(iii)(1)(A )(2)**  **Non -**  **Stormwater —**  **Municipal Individual DMRs for Major and Minor Individual**  **Permittees [ 3.**  **55**
**– 3.**  **66 ]**  Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122. 44(i) outline the monitoring requirements for NPDES permittees. For more information, s ee section 4(b)(iii)(A)(1) . **WET Data Collection under the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [3.**  **67 ]**  For more information, s ee section 4(b)(iii )(1)(A)(1) . **WQBEL Compliance Monitoring under the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [3.**  **68 ]**  For more information, s ee section 4(b)(iii)(1)(A)(1) . **4(b)(iii)(1)(A )(2)(1)**  **Non -**  **Stormw ater**  **— Municipal Individual**  **— Biosolids**  **DMRs for Sewage Sludge Facilities [3. 69** 
**– 3.**  **76 ]**  40 CFR Parts 501 and 503 outline the monitoring requirements and include tables listing minimum monitoring frequencies for sewage sludge facilities that will be land applied, placed on a surface disposal site, or incinerated. For more information, s ee section 4(b)(iii)(1)(A)(1)(1) .4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(iii) Monitoring

38 **4(b)(iii)(1)(A )(2)(2)**  **Non -**  **Stormw ater**  **— Municipal Individual**  **— CSO**  **CSO Control Policy -**  **Compliance Monitoring [3.**  **77**
**– 3.**  **79 ]**  The policy

recommends that municipalities develop CSO monitoring programs to doc ument compliance with applicable state WQS, protection of designated uses, and to measure the effectiveness of CSO control programs after they are implemented. The NPDES permitting authority should approve the compliance monitoring program as part of the L TCP review process. During the term of this renewal IC R, municipalities will collect information on the sampling and anal ys is of pollutants in CSOs and the effe cts of CSOs on the quality of the receiving waters . **4(b)(iii)(1)(A )(3) Non**  **- Stormwater**  **— General P**  **ermits DMRs for**  **Non -**  **Stormwater General Permittees [3.**  **80**
**– 3.**  **91 ]**  Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122. 44(i) outline the monitoring requirements for NPDES permittees. For more information, s ee section 4(b)(iii) (1) (A)(1) . **4(b)(iii)(1)(B) Stormwater 4(b)(iii)(1)(B)(1) Stormwater**  **— Industrial**  **Inspections for Industrial Stormwater General Permittees [ 3.92**  **]** Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(i)( 4 ) establish monitoring requirements for industrial stormwater general permittees to include annual inspection at a minimum. In addition, many permits for industrial stormwater include additional routine inspection requirements. **DMRs for Industrial Stormwater**  **General Permittees [3. 93** 
**– 3.**  **94 ]**  In addition to annual inspections, f ederal regulations at 40 CFR 122.4 4 ( i ) ( 3) - (4) outline the monitoring requirements for NPDES permittees and describe the situations in which DMRs may be submitted for industrial stormwater . For more information, s ee section 4(b)(iii) (1) (A)(1) . **4(b)(iii)(1)(B)(2) Stormwater —**  **Municipal MS4**  **Monitoring [3.**  **9 5** 
**– 3.**  **9 6**  **]** Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122. 44(i) outline the monitoring requirements for NPDES permittees. For more information, s ee section 4(b)(iii) (1) (A)(1) . **4(b)(iii)(1)(B)(3) Stormwater —**  **Construction Stormwater Discharges Associated wi**  **th Construction Activity [3.**  **97**
**– 3.**  **10 2**  **]** As an NPDES construction permit condition, EPA’s construction general permit ( CGP ) requires that operators perform routine site inspections to assess the effectiveness of the SWPPP and associated control measures . Some authorized s tates also require monitoring in their construction permits.4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(iii) Monitoring

39 **4(b)(iii)(1)(C) Vessels Vessel General Permit Routine Inspections [3.**  **10 3** 
**– 3.**  **111 ]**  Vessel self

- inspections are required as a means of identifying, for example, sources of spills, broken pollution prevention equipment, or other situations that are or might lead to permit violations and allow the owner or operator to correct the situation as soon as possible. The permit requires self

- inspections so that the owner or operator can diagnose and fix problems to remain compliant with the permit. These self - inspections can and must be conducted while the vessel is underway as well as while in port and are designed to fit easily into other, already - established vessel routines. **Vessel General Permit Annual Inspection [3.**  **112**
**– 3.**  **120 ]**  The comprehensive annual inspection requirements include a more detailed, thorough inspection of areas of the vessel that are difficult to inspect on a more regular basis, such as the vessel hull , ballast wate r tanks and bilges, pumps and oil y water separators. The annual inspections also include a review of monitoring data collected and routine maintenance records to ensure that required maintenance is being performed (e.g., annual tune - ups for small boats that have wet exhaust) . Annual inspection of these areas ensures that they are inspected frequently

enough to identify and correct problems. In addition, the annual review of all inspection and monitoring data highlights problem areas of the vessel that might need additional attention. This allows the owner or operator to establish and implement additional procedures applicable to problem areas to reduce future problems. Additionally , the annual inspection requires that all pollution control and monitoring equ ipment be inspected to ensure that it is functioning properly . This requirement provides a reminder and opportunity to complete maintenance activities on onboard equipment. Each annual inspection must be recorded in the official logbook or other record keeping documentation, signed b y the person conducting the inspection, and include basic information relating to the inspection and any corrective actions taken as a result of inspection findings. **Vessel General Permit Monitoring [3.121]** Certain vessels are required to conduct sampling and anal ys is of gray water , bilge water, ballast water and wastewater discharges from exhaust gas cleaning s ys tems . The monitoring requirements vary

considerabl y between the discharge categories and all of the requirements are spelled out in the permit. **4(b)(iii)(2) Respondent A ctivities**  Respondent activities can vary substantially

depending on the t ype and characteristics of the respondent and of the authorized state or territory . This I CR explains these activities, in terms of the ty pe of information submission they require, in detail in Section 4(b)(iii)(1) above. However, any respondent may

engage in the following types of activities:  Sampling and analyzing discharges and sludge. This can involve pollutant scans, biological t oxicity testing, impact analy ses, field monitoring, or other scientific anal ys es.  Performing routine inspections. This could involve routine site inspections to assess the site for information required by the permitting authorities, such as effectiveness o f the SWPPP and associated BMP s in protecting water quality .4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

40 

### 4(b)(iv) Reporting (including certification) **4(b)(iv)(1) Data Items 4(b)(iv)(1)(A** **) Non -**  **Stormwater 4(b)(iv)(1)(A** **)(1) Non -**  **Stormwater —**  **Nonmunicipal Permittee Report of Planned Faci**  **lity Changes [4. 1** 
**– 4.**  **4]** Consistent with 40 CFR 122.41(l)(1), an y planned alteration or addition to a permitted facility must be reported to the permitting authority when any of the following are true:  The change could meet one of the criteria at 40 CFR 122. 29(b) for determining whether a facility is a new source;  The alteration or addition to the facility could significantly

change the nature or quantity of discharged pollutants that are not subject to effluent limitations in the existing permit; or  The alte ration significantly changes the sewage sludge use or disposal practices. A Permittee Report of Planned Facility Changes applies to a change in the discharge of pollutants that are not already subject to the facility’s permit requirements. When reporting planned facility

changes, a permittee must provide a description of the planned alterations or additions and a statement outlining the anticipated effects of the changes on the facility ’s discharge. The permitting authority may use the information submitte d by the discharger to modify the NPDES permit before the planned facility changes are made . **Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance [ 4.5** 
**– 4.**  **8]** The Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance in 40 CFR 122.41(l)(2) applies to a change in the discharge of pollutants that might result in noncompliance with existing permit limits. Changes in production or process are examples of activities that permittees must report. Permittees ty

pically make this sort of report b y a letter that explains the rea sons for the anticipated noncompliance. The advance notice provided b y this reporting requirement enables the permitting authority t o modify a permit or help a permittee mitigate the effects of anticipated noncompliance on the receiving waters or on the si te or facility where sewage sludge is used or disposed of

. **Facility and Permit Transfer Report [4. 9** 
**– 4.1**  **2]** Under 40 CFR 122.41(l)(3) , when a facility’s ownership changes, it must notify the permitting authority . Generally , this takes place in a letter stat ing the date of the transfer and the name of the new permit holder. If the new owner agrees to abide by the conditions of the old permit, the notice of transfer must include a written and signed agreement containing a specific date for transferring respons ibility , coverage, and liability between the new and former owners. The permitting authority uses this information to update permit records, evaluate the new discharge situation, and determine whether public notification and opportunity for comment are nec essary .4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

41 **Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous Information [4. 1**  **3**
**– 4.**  **16 ]**  According to 40 CFR 122.41(l)(8), permittees must correct inaccurate information that has been submitted in a permit application or permit report as soon as the permittee learns of th e error(s). Usually , permittees notify the permitting authority

by letter. The permitting authorit y uses this information to set or modify permit conditions or to execute appropriate enforcement actions. The information is also used to update permit record s . **Notification of New or Increased Discharge [4.**  **17**
**– 4.**  **20 ]**  The Notification of New or Increased Discharge requirements in 40 CFR 122.42(a)(1) and (2) mandate that all manufacturing, commercial, mining, and silvicultural dischargers must notify EPA when the y know or have reason to believe (1) that any activity has occurred or will occur that would result in discharge on a routine or frequent basis of any toxic pollutant that is not limited in the permit if the discharge exceeds certain defined notification l evels for pollutants , or (2) that an y activity

has occurred or will occur that would result in any discharge on a nonroutine or infrequent basis of a toxic pollutant that is not limited in the permit if that discharge would exceed notification levels. This report provides up - to - date, plant - specific information to the permitting authority, which uses it to decide whether permit modification or revocation and reissuance are necessary . Because NPDES permits are usuall y in effect for 5 years, reports of new tox ic discharges enable the permitting authority to decide whether permit modification or revocation and reissuance is necessary in the interim. **DMRs for Major and Minor Individual Permittees [4. 21** 
**– 4.**  **34 ]**  40 CFR 122.41(j)(1) - (2) and 40 CFR 122.41(l)(1) outline the reporting requirements for NPDES permittees. NPDES permittees are required to report all monitoring results to the permitting authority . The frequency

with which the permittee must submit these reports is permit - specific. Appendix G contains a sample preprinted discharge monitoring form (i.e., a blank DMR). Permittees reporting monitoring data that are not effluent data may submit the information in other formats, as specified by the permitting authority . **Compliance Schedule Reports [4.**  **35**
**– 4.**  **40 ]**  Adherence to an NPDES permittee’s compliance schedule is determined by evaluation of the compliance schedule reports submitted by the permittee [ 40 CFR 122.41(l)(5)]. This information is used to assess the permittee’s progress in installing the treatment facilities (or milestones ) necessary to meet discharge limitations. Compliance schedule reports must be submitted within 14 day s following the schedule date of each of the scheduled milestones. A schedule violation could result in an enforcement action . **N oncompliance Reports**  **[4. 41** 
**– 4.**  **66 ]**  Requirements in 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) - (7) specify that a permittee must provide 24 - hour oral reporting of an y noncompliance that could endanger human health or the environment (with a written follow - up submission within 5 day s). The following must be reported within 24 hours to the permitting authority: (1) any unanticipated bypass that exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit; (2) an y upset that exceeds an y effluent limitation in the permit; and (3) violation of a maximum daily

discharge limitation for any of the pollutants listed by the Administrator in the permit .4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

42 **Alternate Level Reports [4. 67**  **]** The permitting authority

may , at its discretion, apply tiered production - based effluent limits in an NPDES permit as described in 40 CFR 122.45(b)(2) (i) . Tiered permit limits allow facilities to operate under different sets of limits for pollutants based on varying production levels. In the case of automotive factories, however, a reasonable demonstration by the permittee of the requirement for tiered limits obligates EPA (not states) to grant tiered limits to the industry . Nevertheless, every

facility operating under tiered limits is required to submit a notification to the permitting authority i f it intends to operate at a production level higher than the lowest production level identified in the permit. **Cert ification for Exemption from Monitoring and Notification of Process Changes**  **[4. 68** 
**– 4.**  **91 ]**  The effluent limitations guidelines and standards regulations for 14 industrial categories (12 categories and 2 subcategories) allow dischargers to submit a certificati on to exempt them from monitoring one or more pollutants . **Synthetic -**  **Based Fluids (SBF) Well Drilling Operations [4. 92**  **]** SBF well drilling operations that elect to control their SBF - cuttings discharges through the use of BMPs under 40 CFR Part 435 are required to prepare the following information: (1) certification of BMP completion and a cop y of the most current BMP Plan; (2) records demonstrating periodic review of the BMP Plan (at a minimum once every 5 years); (3) monitoring reports (including the o peration of monitoring s ys tems) to establish equivalence with a numeric cuttings retention limitation and to detect leaks, spills, and intentional diversion; and (4) training reports to document refresher training necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the BMP Plan. **Regulatory Options for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category (40 CFR Part**  **430) [4. 93** 
**– 4.**  **101 ]**  Operators of direct discharging mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite Category are re quired to prepare monitoring reports associated with collection of dail y, weekly, or monthl y discharges. The permitting authority must process and anal yz e the reported monitoring data. In lieu of certain monitoring requirements (primarily submission of pe riodic reports certifying that the fiber line(s) are operating within the range of certain process and operating conditions), direct mills associated with the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category also have the options t o enroll in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program (VATIP), which requires development of a Milestone Plan, or demonstrating compliance with applicable chloroform limitations and standards at a fiber line. **Annual Status Report under the Great Lakes Water Quality Gu**  **idance [4. 102**  **]** After s tate/tribal or f

ederal promulgation of provisions consistent with the Guidance, permittees are required to establish pollutant minimization programs ( PMPs ) for pollutants for which WQBEL s are below quantification levels. Information c ollection activities associated with PMPs include an annual status report .4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

43 **4(b)(iv)(1)(A )(1)(1) Non**  **- Stormw**  **ater —**  **Nonmunicipal —**  **Biosolids Permittee Report of Planned Facility Changes [4.**  **103**
**– 4.**  **104 ]**  Consistent with 40 CFR 122.41 and 501.15, the permittee must give notice to the Director as soon as possible of an y planned ph ys ical alterations or additions to the permitted facility , or significant changes planned in the permittee’s sludge disposal practice, where such alterations, additions, or changes could just ify the application of permit conditions that are different from or absent in the existing permit, including notification of additional disposal sites not reported during the permit application process or not reported pursuant to an approved land applicati on plan. **Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance [4. 105** 
**– 4.**  **106 ]**  The Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance in 40 CFR 122.41 and 501.15 applies to any planned changes in the permitted facility or activity that could result in noncompliance with permit requirements . **Facility and Permit Transfer Report [4. 107** 
**– 4.**  **108 ]**  Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.41 and 501.15 specify that a sludge permit is not transferable to any person except after notice to the Director. **Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous Information [4.**  **109**
**– 4.**  **110 ]**  According to 40 CFR 122.41 and 501.15, where the permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any

relevant facts in a permit application, or submitted incorrect information in a permit application or in an y report to the Director, it must promptly submit such facts or information . **DMRs for Sewage Sludge Facilities [4. 111** 
**– 4.**  **11 8**  **]** 40 CFR 122.4 1, and Parts 501 and 503 outline the reporting requirements and include tables listing minimum monitoring frequencies for sewage sludge facilities whose sewage sludge will be land applied, placed on a surface disposal site, or incinerated. Treatments works that land apply , surface dispose, or incinerate sewage sludge are required to report all pollutant monitoring results to the permitting authority . Reporting frequencies are permit - specific. The permitting authority requires sewage sludge monitoring reports at least once a year. In addition, 40 CFR Part 503 requires Class Isludge management facilities , and POTWs with a flow rate equal to or greater than 1 mgd or that serve a population of 10,000 or more, to report data at least once per year if they land apply, surface dispose, or incinerate sewage sludge. Requirements for additional reporting are determined according to the permit writer’s best professional judgment (BPJ). These requirements depend on the amount of sewage sludge produced, sewage sludge use, the number and typ es of industrial users di scharging to treatment works, and previous sewage sludge quality data. Reporting requirements vary considerabl y among and within permittee categories. If a facility choose s to collect and anal yz e more samples than specified in its permit, the permittee is required to include all monitoring data in reports.4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

44 **Compliance Schedule Reports [4.**  **119**
**– 4.**  **120 ]**  Adherence to a sewage sludge permittee’s compliance schedule is determined by evaluation of the compliance schedule reports submitted by the permittee [ 40 CFR 122.41 and 501.15] . This information is used to assess the permittee’s progress in installing the treatment facilities (or milestones ) necessary

to meet sewage sludge quality standards. Compliance schedule reports must be submitted within 14 day s following the schedule date of each of the scheduled milestones. A schedule violation could result in an enforcement action . **Noncompliance Reports [4.**  **121**
**– 4.**  **122 ]**  Requirements in 40 CFR 122.41 and 501.15 require permittees to report instances of noncompliance with s ewage sludge regulations such as noncompliance with sewage sludge pollution standards. Timely reporting is essential in these cases, and thus, separate reporting requirements have been established for reporting bypass, upset, or violation of a maximum dail y discharge. If required, the written report of the occurrence will describe the event, its cause, its duration, and remedial actions taken. In addition, respondents must report other noncompliance situations as soon as they occur, even if they are not cov ered under these reporting requirements . **4(b)(iv)(1)(A )(2)**  **Non -**  **Stormwater —**  **Municipal Individual Permittee Report of Planned Facility Changes [4.**  **123**
**– 4.**  **12 6**  **]** Consistent with 40 CFR 122.41(l)(1), an y planned alteration or addition to a permitted facility must be reported to the permitting authority. A Permittee Report of Planned Facilit y Changes applies to a change in the discharge of pollutants that are not already subject to the facility ’s permit requirements. When reporting planned facility changes, a permittee must provide a description of the planned alterations or additions and a statement outlining the anticipated effects of the changes on the facility ’s d ischarge. The permitting authority may use the information submitted by the permittee to modify the NPDES permit before the planned facility changes are made. For more information, s ee 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1) . **Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance [4. 127** 
**– 4.**  **130 ]**  The Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance in 40 CFR 122.41(l)(2) applies to a change in the discharge of pollutants that might result in noncompliance with existing permit limits. For more information, s ee 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1) . **Facility an d Permit Transfer Report [4.**  **131**
**– 4.**  **134 ]**  Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.41(l)(3) specify that when a facility ’s ownership changes, it must notify

the permitting authority in a letter stating the date of the transfer and the name of the new permit holder. For more information, s ee 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1). **Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous Information [4. 135** 
**– 4.**  **138 ]**  According to 40 CFR 122.41(l)(8), permittees must correct inaccurate information that has been submitted in a permit application or permit repor t as soon as the permittee learns of the error(s). For more information, s ee 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1) .4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

45 **New Introduction of Pollutants to POTWs [4. 139** 
**– 4.**  **142 ]**  Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122. 42 (b ) specify that all POTWs must provide adequate notice to the Director of any

substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants being introduced into that POTW by

a source introducing pollutants into the POTW at the time of issuance of the permit . **DMRs for Major and Minor Individual Permittees [4. 143** 
**– 4.**  **154 ]**  Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.41(j)(1) - (2) and 40 CFR 122.41(l)(1) outline the monitoring, reporting, and record - keeping requirements for NPDES. For more information, s ee 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1) . **Compliance Schedule Reports [4.**  **155**
**– 4.**  **160 ]**  Adherence to an NPDES permittee’s compliance schedule is determined by evaluation of the compliance schedule reports submitted by the permittee [ 40 CFR 122.41(l)(5)]. For more information, s ee Section 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1) . **Noncompliance Reports [4.**  **161**
**– 4.**  **1 86**  **]** Requirements in 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) - (7) specify that a permittee must provide 24 - hour oral reporting of an y noncompliance that could endanger human health or the environment (with a written follow - up submission within 5 day s . For more information, s ee Section 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1). These reports can include sanitary sewer overflow ( SSO) events; however, in this I CR, SSO reporting burdens appear as separate line items [4. 1 85

–4. 1 86 ] . **Annual Status Report under the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [4.**  **187 ]**  After s tate/tribal or f

ederal promulgation of provisions consistent with the guidance, permittees are required to establish PMPs for pollutants for which WQBELs are below quantification levels. In format ion collection activities associated with PMPs include an annual status report . **4(b)(iv)(1)(A )(2)(1)**  **Non -**  **Stormw ater**  **— Municipal Individual**  **— Biosolids**  **Permittee Report of Planned Facility Changes [4. 188** 
**– 4.**  **189 ]**  Consistent with 40 CFR 122.41 and 501.15, the permittee must give notice to the Director as soon as possible of an y planned ph ys ical alterations or additions to the permitted facility . For more information, s ee Section 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1) (1) . **Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance [4. 190** 
**– 4.**  **191 ]**  The Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance in 40 CFR 122.41 and 501.15 applies to a change in the discharge of pollutants that might result in noncompliance with existing permit limits. Changes in production or process are examples of activitie s that permittees must report. Permittees ty

pically make this sort of report b y a letter that explains the reasons for the anticipated noncompliance. The advance notice provided b y this reporting requirement enables the permitting authority t o modify a per mit or help a permittee mitigate the effects of anticipated noncompliance on the receiving waters or on the site or facility where sewage sludge is used or disposed of

. For more information, s ee Section 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1) .4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

46 **Facility and Permit Transfer Repo rt [4.**  **192**
**– 4.**  **193 ]**  Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.41 and 501.15 specify that a sludge permit is not transferable to any person except after notice to the Director. **Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous Information [4. 194** 
**– 4.**  **195 ]**  According to 40 CFR 122. 41 and 501.15, where the permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any

relevant facts in a permit application, or submitted incorrect information in a permit application or in an y report to the Director, it must promptly submit such facts or information . **DMRs for Sewage Sludge Facilities [4. 196** 
**– 4.**  **203 ]**  40 CFR Parts 501 and 503 outline the monitoring, reporting, and record - keeping requirements and include tables listing minimum monitoring frequencies for sewage sludge facilities that will be land applied, placed on a surface disposal site, or incinerated. For more information, s ee section 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1)(1) . **Compliance Schedule Reports [4.**  **204**
**– 4.**  **205 ]**  Adherence to a sewage sludge permittee’s compliance schedule is determined by evaluation of the compliance schedule reports submitted by the permittee [ 40 C FR 501.15(a)(6)] . This information is used to assess the permittee’s progress in installing the treatment facilities (or milestones ) necessary

to meet sewage sludge quality standards. Compliance schedule reports must be submitted within 14 day s following the schedule date of each of the scheduled milestones. A schedule violation could result in an enforcement action . **Noncompliance Reports [4.**  **206**
**– 4.**  **207 ]**  Requirements in 40 CFR 122.41 and 501.15 require permittees to report instances of noncompliance with sewage sludge regulations such as noncompliance with sewage sludge pollution standards. I f required, the written report of the occurrence will describe the event, its cause, its duration, and remedial actions taken. In addition, respondents must report oth er noncompliance situations even if they are not covered under these reporting requirements as soon as they

occur . **4(b)(iv)(1)(A )(2)(2)**  **Non -**  **Stormw ater**  **— Municipal Individual**  **— CSO**  Note: these requirements are in addition to those covered in section 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(2) . **Noncompliance Reports [4.**  **208**
**– 4.**  **209 ]**  Requirements in 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) and 122.41(l)(7) specify that a permittee must provide 24 - hour oral reporting of any noncompliance that could endanger human health or the environment (with a writt en follow - up submission within 5 day s . For more information, s ee Section 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1). These reports can include unpermitted CSO reporting; however, in this ICR, unpermitted CSO reporting burdens appear as separate line items [ 4. 208

–4 . 209 ] **CSO Control Policy** 

**— Nine Minimum Controls** 
**— Public Notification**  **[4. 210** 
**– 4.**  **212 ]**  The CSO Control Policy recommends public notification to ensure that the public receives adequate notification of CSO occurrences and CSO effe cts .4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

47 **CSO Control Policy**

**— Compliance Monitor**  **ing [4. 213** 
**– 4.**  **215 ]**  The policy recommends that municipalities develop post - construction compliance monitoring programs to document compliance with applicable state WQS, protection of designated uses, and to measure the effectiveness of CSO control programs after they are implemented. The NPDES per mitting authority should approve the compliance monitoring program as part of the LTCP review process. During the term of this renewal ICR, municipalities will submit to the NPDES permitting authority information on the sampling and anal ys is of pollutants in CSOs and the effe cts of CSOs on the quality of the receiving waters . **4(b)(iv)(1)(A )(3) Non**  **- Stormwater**  **— General Permits**  **Permittee Report of Planned Facility Changes [4. 216** 
**– 4.**  **217 ]**  Consistent with 40 CFR 122.41(l)(1), an y planned alteration or addition to a permitted facility must be reported to the permitting authority. For more information, s ee 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1) . **Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance [4. 2**  **18**
**– 4.**  **2 19**  **]** The Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance in 40 CFR 122.41(l)(2) applies to a change in the discharge of pollutants that might result in noncompliance with existing permit limits. For more information, s ee Section 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1) . **Facility and Permit Transfer Report [4.**  **220**
**– 4.**  **221 ]**  Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.41(l)(3) specify that when a facility ’s ownership changes, it must notify

the permitting authority in a letter stating the date of the transfer and the name of the new permit holder. Fo r more information, s ee Section 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1). **Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous Information [4. 2**  **22**
**– 4.**  **2 23**  **]** According to 40 CFR 122.41(l)(8), permittees must correct inaccurate information that has been submitted in a permit application or permit report as soon as the permittee learns of the error(s). For more information, s ee 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1) . **DMRs for Non**  **- Stormwater**  **General Permittees [4. 2**  **2 4** 
**– 4.**  **2 30**  **]** Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.41(j)(1) - (2) and 40 CFR 122.41(l)(1) outline the monitoring, reporting, and record - keeping requirements for NPDES. For more information, s ee 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1) . **Noncompliance Reports [4.**  **231**
**– 4.**  **242 ]**  Requirements in 40 CFR 12 2.41(l)(6) - (7) specify that a permittee must provide 24 - hour oral reporting of an y noncompliance that could endanger human health or the environment (with a written follow - up submission within 5 day s. For more information, s ee 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1) .4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

48 **4(b)(iv)( 1)(B) Stormwater**  **4(b)(iv)(1)(B)(1) Stormwater —**  **Industrial Permittee Report of Planned Facility Changes [4.**  **243**
**– 4.**  **244 ]**  Consistent with 40 CFR 122.41(l)(1), an y planned alteration or addition to a permitted facility must be reported to the permitting authori ty . For more information, s ee Section 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1) . **Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance [4. 2**  **45**
**– 4.**  **2 46**  **]** The Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance in 40 CFR 122.41(l)(2) applies to a change in the discharge of pollutants that might result in noncompliance with existing permit limits. For more information, s ee 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1) . **Facility and Permit Tr ansfer Report [4.**  **247**
**– 4.**  **248 ]**  Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.41(l)(3) specify that when a facility ’s ownership changes, it must notify

the permitting authority in a letter stating the date of the transfer and the name of the new permit holder. For more in formation, s ee Section 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1). **Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous Information [4. 2**  **49**
**– 4.**  **2 50**  **]** According to 40 CFR 122.41(l)(8), permittees must correct inaccurate information that has been submitted in a permit application or permit report as soon as the permittee learns of the error(s). For more information, s ee 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1) . **DMRs for Indust**  **rial Stormwater General Permittees [4.**  **2 51** 
**– 4.**  **2 53**  **]** Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.41(j)(1) - (2) and 40 CFR 122.41(l)(1) outline the monitoring, reporting, and record - keeping requirements for NPDES permittees. For more information, s ee Section 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1) . **Submittal of Inspections [4. 254**  **]** On the basis of 40 CFR 122.48(c), some permits require industrial stormwater permittees to submit their inspection report s to the permitting authority . **Noncompliance Reports [4.**  **2 55** 
**– 4.**  **266 ]**  Stormwater per

mittees must report any

violation of a maximum daily discharge limitation for any of the pollutants listed in the permit. For more information, s ee Section 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1) . **4(b)(iv)(1)(B)(2) Stormwater —**  **Municipal Permittee Report of Planned Facility**  **Changes [4. 267** 
**– 4.**  **270 ]**  Consistent with 40 CFR 122.41(l)(1), an y planned alteration or addition to a permitted facility must be reported to the permitting authority. For more information, s ee 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1) .4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

49 **Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance [4.2**  **71**
**– 4.2**  **74 ]**  The Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance in 40 CFR 122.41(l)(2) applies to a change in the discharge of pollutants that might result in noncompliance with existing permit limits. For more information, s ee Section 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1) . **Facility and Permit Transfer Report [4. 275** 
**– 4.**  **278 ]**  Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.41(l)(3) specify that when a facility ’s ownership changes, it must notify

the permitting authority in a letter stating the date of the transfer and the name of the new perm it holder. For more information, s ee 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1). **Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous Information [4.2 79** 
**– 4.2**  **82 ]**  According to 40 CFR 122.41(l)(8), permittees must correct inaccurate information that has been submitted in a permit application or permit report as soon as the permittee learns of the error(s). For more information, s ee 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1) . **Annual Reports for Small MS4s**  **C overed by a**  **General Permit or Individual Permit [4.**  **2 83** 
**– 4.**  **2 84**  **]** Operators of small MS4s that are covered under a Phase II municipal stormwater permit must prepare and submit annual reports. Under 40 CFR 122.34(g)(3), the Phase II Rule requires operators of regulated small MS4s to prepare and submit annual reports to the NPDES permitting authority during the first 5 - ye ar permit term and twice per permit term thereafter . **Annual Reports for Phase I**  **MS4s [4.2 85** 
**– 4.2**  **86 ]**  Federal regul ations at 40 CFR 122.42(c) outline the annual reporting requirements for Phase I MS4 permittees . **Petitions for Stormwater Individual Permit [4. 2**  **87**
**– 4.**  **2 88**  **]** Federal regulations (55 FR 48072) allow MS4 operators to petition EPA to require industrial facilitie s discharging through the MS4 to obtain individual NPDES permits. Depending on the circumstances, these petitions can come from MS4 operators or an y other person. Ordinarily, dischargers of stormwater associated with industrial activity who discharge through MS4s are eligible for coverage under general permits provided that they meet the eligibility

provisions of the per mit. In addition, any

person may

petition EPA to require an individual permit for a stormwater discharge that contributes to a WQS violation or is a significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the United S tates . **Compliance Schedule Reports [4.**  **289**
**– 4**  **. 294**  **]** Adherence to an NPDES permittee’s compliance schedule is determined by evaluation of the compliance schedule reports submitted by the permittee [ 40 CFR 122.41(l)(5)]. For more information, s ee Section 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1) . **Noncompliance Reports [4.**  **295**
**– 4.**  **318 ]**  Requirements in 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) - (7) specify that a permittee must provide 24 - hour oral reporting of an y noncompliance that could endanger human health or the environment (with a written follow - up submission within 5 day s. For more information, s ee Section 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1) .4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

50 **4(b)(iv)(1)(B)(3) Stormwater —**  **Construction Permittee Report of Planned Facility Changes [4.**  **319**
**– 4.**  **320 ]**  Consistent with 40 CFR 122.41(l)(1), an y planned alteration or addition to a permitted facility must be reported to the permitting authority. For more information, s ee 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1) . **Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance [4. 321** 
**– 4.**  **322 ]**  The Perm ittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance in 40 CFR 122.41(l)(2) applies to a change in the discharge of pollutants that might result in noncompliance with existing permit limits. For more information, s ee 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1) . **Facility and Permit Transfer R eport [4.**  **323**
**– 4.**  **324 ]**  Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.41(l)(3) specify that when a facility ’s ownership changes, it must notify

the permitting authority in a letter stating the date of the transfer and the name of the new permit holder. For more informatio n, s ee Section 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1). **Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous Information [4. 325** 
**– 4.**  **326 ]**  According to 40 CFR 122.41(l)(8), permittees must correct inaccurate information that has been submitted in a permit application or permit report as soon a s the permittee learns of the error(s). For more information, s ee Section 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1) . **Noncompliance Reports [4.**  **327**
**– 4.**  **338 ]**  Requirements in 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) - (7) specify that a permittee must provide 24 - hour oral reporting of an y noncompliance that could endanger human health or the environment (with a written follow - up submission within 5 day s. For more information, s ee Section 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1) . **4(b)(iv)(1)(C) Vessels Vessel**  **General Permit One -**  **time Report [4. 339** 
**– 4.**  **347 ]**  The permit requires the owner or operator to submit a one - time report that contains basic information about the vessel after the 30th month of permit coverage. EPA requires this report in lieu of an annual repo rt. Specificall y, the report must include the owner and operator name(s) and addresses, the name of the vessel, the flag of the vessel, the size of the vessel, whether the monitoring conditions of the permit have been met, and the date of submission of the report. EPA requires this information to en sure that permittees are complying with the provisions of th e permit, to learn how vessels are implementing the permit, and to gain a better understanding about the universe of permittees covered b y this general permit. Owner s or operators are required to submit this one - time report between 30 months and 36 months after obtaining permit coverage (i.e., between 2 .5 and 3 years after receiving authorization to discharge under the general permit) . **Permittee Report o f Planned Facility Changes [4.348]**  Consistent with 40 CFR 122.41(l)(1), an y planned alteration or addition to a permitted vessel must be reported to the permitting authority. For more information, s ee Section 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1) .4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

51 **Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance [4.3**  **49 ]**  The Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance in 40 CFR 122.41(l)(2) applies to a change in the discharge of pollutants that might result in noncompliance with existing permit limits. For more information, s ee Section 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1) . **Facility and Permit Transfer Report [4.3 50**  **]** Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.41(l)(3) specify that when a vessel’s ownership changes, it must notify

the permitting authority of the date of the transfer and the name of the new permit ho lder via the e -NOI s ys tem . For more information, see Section 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1). **Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous Information [4.3 51**  **]** According to 40 CFR 122.41(l)(8), permittees must correct inaccurate information that has been submitted in a permi t application or permit report as soon as the permittee learns of the error(s). For more information, s ee 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1) . **Noncompliance Reports [4.3**  **52**
**– 4.3**  **54 ]**  Requirements in 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) - (7) specify that a permittee must provide 24 - hour oral rep orting of an y noncompliance that could endanger human health or the environment (with a written follow - up submission within 5 day s. For more information, s ee Section 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1) . **4(b)(iv)(1)( D**  **) Stat e Reporting & Certification**  **Report on NPDES Program Authorization**  **Compliance Evaluation [4.**  **355 ]**  40 CFR 123.26 requires states to have a program that is capable of making comprehensive survey s of all facilities and activities subject to the state Director’s authority . The purpose of this survey is to identify

persons subject to regulations who have failed to comply with permit application or other program requirements. States must make available to the EPA Regional Administrator upon request any compilation, index, or inventory of such facilitie s and activities. Comprehensive survey s and inspections are covered under “Inspection and Investigation of NPDES Permittees,” discussed below. Survey s of any facilities and activities may be conducted, subject to NPDES program authority , to identify person s that are subject to regulation who have failed to comply

with permit application or other program requirements. During the life of this ICR, EPA does not expect to request any of this information. **State Certification of EPA -**  **issued Permits [4.**  **356 ]**  When E PA issues permits in non - authorized states, it must ensure that the permits are in compliance with state laws, including WQS. EPA may not issue a permit in a non - authorized state until the state certifies that the permit is in compliance with state laws. C ertification is usually supplied by

the state with the permittee’s application form or at the time the draft permit is completed. The regulations require that certifications be in writing and that they identify the conditions necessary to ensure complianc e with applicable provisions of the CWA and state laws. When certification accompanies a draft permit, it must include any conditions more stringent than those in the draft permit that the state finds necessary to meet the CWA or state requirements. It mus t4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

52 also list permit conditions that can be made less stringent without violating state law requirements, including WQS. States may waive their certification rights, and a certification is considered waived if the state does not specifically certify or deny certification within a reasonable period. **Submittal of NPDES Permit Information [4.**  **357**
**– 4.**  **3 60**  **]** Federal regulations at 40 CFR 123.41(a) require that “any information obtained or used in the administration of a state program shall be available to EPA upon request without restriction.” In formation submitted to EPA includes permit program forms and any other relevant information specified in the MOA between EPA and the state. At a minimum, the required information includes copies of completed permit applicati on forms, draft and final permits, permit modifications, and related information ( i.e., notices of state actions, public comments) unless EPA waives permit review. **Submittal of CSO Permit Information [4. 361**  **]** In order to ensure compliance with the CSO Control Policy , s tates submit CSO permit information to EPA. EPA uses the information submitted by states to review state - issued permits for compliance with the policy **Submittal of Sludge Permit Information [ 4.**  **362 ]**  40 CFR 501.14(b) requires states to submit p roposed sludge permits to EPA as agreed to in the MOA. EPA uses the information submitted by states to review state - issued permits for compliance with federal laws. **Quarterly, Semiannual, and Annual Reports [ 4.**  **363 ]**  NPDES regulations in 40 CFR 123.45 requi re that each EPA Region and authorized state prepare s quarterl y, semiannual, and annual noncompliance reports. These reports are as follows:

 Quarterly Noncompliance Reports (QNCRs). Authorized states must submit to EPA quarterly reports of noncompliance b y major permittees. These reports include the name, location, and permit number of the facility ; the date and a brief description of each instance of noncompliance; the date and a brief description of action taken b y the state; the status of noncompliance or the date noncompliance was resolved; and any details that explain or mitigate the noncompliance.  Semiannual Statistical Summary Reports. Each semiannual report must indicate the number of major permittees with two or more violations of the same monthly average limitation during the past 6 months. Authorized states must submit these reports along with the first and third QNCRs.  Annual Statistical Summary Reports. These reports must indicate the number of all non major permittees reviewed, the number in no ncompliance, the number of enforcement actions taken, and the number of permits modified to extend compliance deadlines. A list of non - majors that are 1 or more years behind the construction phases of the compliance schedule is also required.4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

53 **Annual Sewag e Sludge Program Reports [**  **4. 364**  **]** Under 40 CFR 501.21, permitting authorit y annual reports must provide, at a minimum, updated inventory information of all sewage sludge generators and sludge disposal facilities and a summary of all instances of noncompliance over the previous ye ar. **4(b)(iv)(2) Respondent A ctivities**  Respondent activities can vary substantially

depending on the t ype and characteristics of the respondent and of the authorized state or territory . This I CR explains these activities, i n terms of the ty pe of information submission they require, in detail in Section 4(b)(iv)(1) above. However, any respondent preparing and submitting reports may engage in the following types of activities:  Preparing basic information. This can include read ing instructions and regulations for report requirements, consulting technical, legal, and political staff, reviewing guidance materials, gathering general information, ty ping or completing forms or generating reports, and mailing or electronic submission of completed forms or reports to the NPDES permitting authority .  Gathering detailed information. Detailed information gathered can include progress reports from those persons/governmental departments responsible for implementing the chosen BMPs, financial estimates, monitoring data, visual inspection data, compliance/enforcement data, public opinion and awareness surveys, or any information required by

the NPDES permitting authorities to be submitted with the annual reports. 

### 4(b)(v) Record **K eeping**  **4(b)(v)(1) Data Items**  **4(b)(v)(1)(A ) Non**  **- Stormwater**  **4(b)(v)(1)(A )(1)**  **Non -**  **Stormw ater**  **— Nonmunicipal Individual**  **NPDES P**  **ermit A**  **pplicants [5.1**
**– 5.**  **3 ]**  All NPDES permit applicants must keep records of the data used to complete their applications for at least 3 ye ars. First - time applicants m ight need to develop a record - keeping s ys tem, enter data, train personnel, and file information. For existing facilities, record keeping entails collecting and filing raw data . **Record K** **eeping of Monitoring Data [5.**  **4**
**– 5.**  **12 ]**  Federal regulation in 40 CFR 122.41(j)(2) mandates that, i n association with monitoring requirements, NPDES permittees must keep records of all monitoring data and reports, including copies of all original monitoring information, for 3 years after the date of sample, measurement, report, or application. Data that must be retained include date and time of sampling and monitoring, names of individuals who performed sampling and monitoring, anal yt ical techniques or methods used, and results of such anal ys es. These data mu st be readil y available to the permitting authority during site inspections or at any other time they

are needed. This record keeping requirement is intended to ensure that permittees keep files on the raw data used to generate DMR summary

information. Thi s information would otherwise not be available to the permitting authority .4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(v) Record K eeping

54 **4(b)(v)(1)(A )(1)(1) Non**  **- Stormw**  **ater —**  **Nonmunicipal —**  **Biosolids Sewage**  **S ludge**  **P ermit**  **A pplicants [5.1**  **3 ]**  All sewage sludge permit applicants must keep records of the data used to complete their applications for at least 3 years. First - time applicants might need to develop a record - keeping sy stem, enter data, train personnel, and file information. For existing facilities, record keeping entails collecting and filing raw data . **Record K** **eeping of Monitoring Data for Sewage Sludge Facilities [5.1**  **4**
**– 5.**  **21 ]**  40 CFR Parts 501 and 503 outline the monitoring, reporting, and record - keeping requirements and include tables listing minimum monitoring frequencies for sewage sludge facilities that will be land applied, placed on a surface disposal site, or incinerated. Even if the treatment works is not required to report monitoring data, they must be retained for a period of 5 years, or indefinitely in cases where loadings are calculated on a Cumulative Pollutant L oading Rate (CPLR) basis . **4(b)(v)(1)(A )(2)**  **Non -**  **Stormw a**  **ter —**  **Municipal Individual NPDES**  **P ermit**  **A pplicants [5.**  **22 ]**  All NPDES permit applicants must keep records of the data used to complete their applications for at least 3 ye ars. First - time applicants m ight need to develop a record - keeping s ys tem, enter data, train personnel, and file information. For existing facilities, record keeping entails collecting and filing raw data . **Record K** **eeping of Monitoring Data [5.**  **23**
**– 5.**  **24 ]**  Federal regulation s in 40 CFR 122.41(j)(2) mandate that, i n association with monitoring requirements, NPDES permittees must keep records of all monitoring data and reports, including copies of all original monitoring information, for 3 years after the date of sample, measurement, report, or application. For more information, s ee Section 4(b)(v)(1)(A)(1) . **4(b)(v)(1)(A )(2)(1)**  **Non -**  **Stormw ater**  **— Municipal Individual**  **— Biosolids**  **Sewage S**  **ludge P**  **ermit A**  **pplicants [5. 25**  **]** All sewage sludge permit applicants must keep records of the data used to complete their applications for at least 3 years. First - time applicants m ight need to develop a record - keeping sy stem, enter data, train personnel, and file information. For existing facilities, record keeping entails collecting and filing raw data . **Record K** **eeping of Monitoring Data for**  **Sewage Sludge Facilities [5. 26** 
**– 5.**  **33 ]**  40 CFR Parts 501 and 503 outline the record - keeping requirements and include tables listing minimum monitoring frequencies for sewage sludge facilities that will be land applied, placed on a surface disposal site, or i ncinerated. Even if the treatment works is not required to report monitoring data, they

must be retained for a period of 5 years, or indefinitely for cumulative amounts of pollutants added to an y site by Cumulative Pollutant L and Rates (CPLR) sludge .4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(v) Record K eeping

55 **4(b) (v)(1)(A** **)(2)(2) Non**  **- Stormw**  **ater —**  **Municipal Individual —**  **CSO CSO Control Policy**  **- Compliance Monitoring [5.**  **34 ]**  Under the CSO Control Policy , municipalities develop post - construction compliance monitoring programs to document attainment of applicable state WQS, protection of designated uses, and to measure the effectiveness of CSO control programs after they are implemented. The NPDES permitting authority should approve the compliance monitoring program as part of the LTCP review process. Municipalities keep records of the information on the sampling and anal ys is of pollutants in CSOs and the effe cts of CSOs on the quality of the receiving waters . **4(b)(v)(1)(A )(3) Non**  **- Stormw**  **ater —**  **General Permits NPDES**  **Permit Applicants/NOI [5. 35**  **]** All permit applicants and facilities covered b y general permits must keep records of the data used to complete their applications for at least 3 years. First - time applicants m ight need to develop a record - keeping sy stem, enter data, train personnel, and file informat ion. For existing facilities, record keeping entails collecting and filing raw data . **Record K** **eeping of Monitoring Data [5.**  **36 ]**  40 CFR 122.41(j)(2) mandates that, i n association with monitoring requirements, NPDES permittees , including non - stormwater genera l permittees , must keep records of all monitoring data and reports, including copies of all original monitoring information, for 3 years after the date of sample, measurement, report, or application. Data that must be retained include date and time of samp ling and monitoring, names of individuals who performed sampling and monitoring, anal yt ical techniques or methods used, and results of such anal ys es. These data must be readily available to the permitting authority during site inspections or at an y other t ime they are needed. This record - keeping requirement is intended to ensure that permittees keep files on the raw data used to generate DMR summary information. This information would otherwise not be available to the permitting authority . **4(b)(v)(1)(B) St ormw**  **ater 4(b)(v)(1)(B)(1) Stormwater**  **— Industrial**  **NPDES P**  **ermit A**  **pplicants [ 5.**  **37**
**– 5.**  **39 ]**  All NPDES permit applicants must keep records of the data used to complete their NOI s or applications for at least 3 years. First - time applicants m ight need to develop a record - keeping sy stem, enter data, train personnel, and file information. For existing facilities, record keeping entails collecting and filing raw data . **Record K** **eeping of Inspection s and Monitoring**  **[ 5.**  **40 ]**  40 CFR 122.44(i)(4)(ii) speci fies that stormwater general permittees must keep records of annual on - site inspection data for 3 years after the date of inspection. The inspection data must summarize the results of the inspection, identify any incidents of noncompliance , and evaluate measures that reduce pollutant loadings identified in the SWPPP. This data must be readil y available to the permitting authority on request. This information is the minimum compliance4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(v) Record K eeping

56 requirement and applies to all stormwater general permitte es. In addition, stormwater permittees with discharges associated with industrial activity are required to perform periodic visual examinations of their facilities and maintain records of these visual examinations. **4(b)(v)(1)(B)(2) Stormwater —**  **Municipal Phase I**  **MS4 Applicant**  **s [5.**  **41 ]**  All Phase I MS4 NPDES permit applicants must keep records of the data used to complete their applications and annual reports for at least 3 years . **Small MS4s Covered by a**  **General o**  **r Individual Permit [5.**  **42 ]**  All regulated smal l MS4 NPDES permit applicants must keep records of the data used to complete their applications or NOIs and annual reports for at least 3 ye ars . **4(b)(v)(1)(B)(3) Stormwater —**  **Construction Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity**  **[5. 43** 
**– 5.**  **47 ]**  T he CGP requires that the SWPPP (as well as an y materials requir e d by the SWPPP) and copies of the NOI are kept on - site. These requirements are consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 122.41(h), (j) and (l). The operator must also keep a cop y of the NOT and supporting documentation on file for at least 3 years . **Record K** **eeping of Inspection s**  **and Monitoring [5.**  **48 ]**  40 CFR 122.44(i)(4)(ii) specifi es that stormwater general permittees must keep records of annual on - site inspection data for 3 years after the date of inspection. As an NPDES construction permit condition, the CGP requires that operators maintain records of inspections on - site as part of the S WPPP documentation. The SWPPP also requires the construction site operator to keep records of biweekl y inspections of control measures used for erosion and sediment control. For more information, s ee S ection 4(b)(v)(1)(B)(1). **4(b)(v)(1)( C**  **) Vessels Vessel**  **General Permit Record K** **eeping [5. 49** 
**– 5.**  **57 ]**  A permittee must keep only one brief record of each inspection, noting when and how it was completed and an y relevant information discovered during the inspection. Inspection records may be kept in any

form, provi ded that they

can be made available to EPA. Furthermore, as part of the corrective action assessment, any problems identified during inspections that constitute violations of permit requirements (instances of noncompliance) must be either noted as part of the vessel’s records or reported to EPA. Examples include the ship’s official logbook or other official vessel record - keeping documentation. Multiple copies of the records are not needed. Additional requirements include a record of maintenance of specific pieces of equipment that cause discharges covered under the permit , a record of each incidence where a discharge occurs pursuant to a safety

or emergency

exception , and any

monitoring data collected as required b y the permit .4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(v) Record K eeping

57 **4(b)(v)(1)( D**  **) State Record**  **K eeping**  **Record K** **eeping of NPDES Program Information [5. 5**  **8**
**– 5.**  **6 0]**  40 CFR 123.41(a) requires that “any information obtained or used in the administration of a state program shall be available to EPA upon request without restriction.” Authorized states are als o required to keep such records and to submit such information as is reasonable to ascertain whether the state program complies with the requirements of the CWA and the NPDES regulations, consistent with 40 CFR 123.43(d). Record keeping must include all no tices and reports required of permittees and other regulated persons . **4(b)(v)(2) Respondent A ctiv**  **ities** Respondent activities can vary substantially

depending on the t ype and characteristics of the respondent and of the authorized state or territory . This I CR explains these activities, in terms of the ty pe of information submission they require, in detail in Section 4(b)(v)(1) above. However, any respondent may

engage in m aintaining records. This includes keeping records of the data for at least 3 years, developing record - keeping s ys tems, collecting and entering data, training personnel, filing information, o r other record - keeping requirements, such as maintaining a SWPPP on - site for the duration of the project. 

### 4(b)(vi) Compliance A **ssessment and Enforcement 4(b)(vi)(1) Data Items**  **4(b)(vi)(1)(A ) Non**  **- Stormwater**  **Section 308(a) Letters [6. 1** 
**– 6.2**  **]** Section 308(a) of the CWA gives broad discretion to permitting authorities to request information from a permittee. In addition to application - related letters (see Section 4(b)(i)(1)), Section 308(a) letters may request additional information on other monitoring activit ies under the CWA, including spills of oil and hazardous substances from owners or operators of facilities or vessels. They

are, therefore, a compliance - related activity . Because of the nature of these requests, the overwhelming majority of compliance - related Section 308 letters appl y to nonmunicipal facilities. **4(b)(vi)(1)(B) Stormwater Section 308(a) Letters**  **[6. 3** 
**– 6.5**  **]** Section 308(a) of the CWA gives broad discretion to permitting authorities to request information from a permittee. In addition to application - related letters (see Section 4(b)(i)(1)), Section 308(a) letters may request additional information on other monitoring activities under the CWA, including spills of oil and hazardous substances from owners or operators of facilitie s or vessels. They

are, therefore, a compliance - related activity . Because of the nature of these requests, the majority of compliance - related Section 308 letters appl y to nonmunicipal facilities. The burden for this is included in Section 4(b)(vi)(1)(A) ab ove.4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(vi) Compliance Assessment and Enforcement

58 **4(b)(vi)(1)(C) State -**  **Only A** **ctivities Inspection and Investigation of NPDES Permittees**  **[6. 6** 
**– 6.**  **38 ]**  The respondents to this item are the 46 NPDES - authorized states and the U.S. Virgin Islands. As part of NPDES program implementation, inspections are performed on permitted facilities to assess compliance with permit requirements. The NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 123.26(e)(5) require major permittees to be inspected at least once annually . In addition, an estimated 20 percent of minor facilities are insp ected each ye ar. The information collected and reported to EPA by the state may include sampling data, status of compliance with permit requirements such as construction schedules and reports, and evaluation of a permittee’s sample collection and anal ys is methodology . The information varies depending on the ty pe of inspection conducted; it is used to assess compliance with NPDES permit requirements and to verify permittees’ reporting. The various types of inspections 8 are as follows:  Compliance Sampling In spections (CSI). [ 6. 6

– 6. 7 , 6. 21

– 6. 22

] During the CSI , representative samples required b y the permit are obtained. Chemical anal ys es are performed, and the results are used to verify

the accuracy

of the permittee’s self

- monitoring program and reports, deter mine the quantity and quality of effluents, develop permits, and provide evidence for enforcement proceedings where appropriate. In addition, CSI s include the same object ives and tasks as a Compliance Evaluation Inspection, discussed below.  Compliance Evaluation Inspections (CEI). [6. 8

– 6. 9, 6. 23

– 6. 2 4 ] The CEIis a non - sampling inspection designed to verify the permittee’s compliance with applicable permit selfmonitoring requirements and compliance schedules. This inspection involves record reviews, visual observations, and evaluations of the treatment facilities, effluents, receiving waters, and so forth. The CEI examines both chemical and biological self - monitoring and forms the basis for all other inspection ty pes except the Reconnaissance Inspection.  Per formance Audit Inspections (PAI). [6. 10
- 6. 11 , 6.2 5 - 6.2 6 ] The PAIis used to evaluate the permittee’s self

- monitoring program. Like a CEI, the PAIis used to verify the permittee’s reported data and compliance through a records check. In a CEI, the inspecto r makes a cursory visual observation of the facility , effluents, and receiving waters. In a PAI, the inspector actually

observes the permittee performing the self - monitoring process from sample collection and flow measurement through laboratory anal ys es, d ata workup, and reporting. The PAI inspector may leave a check sample for the permittee to anal yz e. Compared to a CSI , the PAI is less resource - intensive because sample collection and anal ys es b y the state are not included.  Diagnostic Inspections (DI). [ 6. 12
- 6. 13 ] The DIprimarily

focuses on POTWs that have not achieved permit compliance. POTWs that are having difficulty diagnosing their problems are targeted. The purpose of the DI is to identify the causes of noncompliance and to suggest immediate remedies that will help the POTW achieve compliance. Once the cause of noncompliance is defined, an administrative order that requires the permittee to conduct a detailed anal ys is and develop a composite correction plan is usually issued.

8 The descriptions of the inspections are taken from EPA , Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assur ance, NPDES Compliance Inspection Manual , July 2004.4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(vi) Compliance Assessment and Enforcement

59  Compliance Biomonitoring Inspection (CBI). [6. 1 4 - 6.1 5, 6.2 7- 6. 2 8 ] The CBI uses acute and chronic whole effluent toxicity testing techniques to evaluate the biological effect of a permittee’s effluent discharge(s) on test organisms. In addition, this inspection includes the same objectives and tasks as a CEI.  Toxic Sampling Inspection (XSI). [6.1 6
- 6.1 7 , 6.2 9
- 6. 30

] The XSIhas the same objectives as a conventional CSI ; however, the XSI places increased emphasis on toxic substances regulated b y the NPDES permit. The XSI covers priority pollutants other than heavy metals, phenols, and cyanide, which are typically included in a CSI . An XSI uses more resources than a CSIbecause highly sophisticated techniques are required to sample and anal yz e toxic pollutants.  Reconnaissance Inspectio n (RI). [6.1 8
- 6.1 9, 6. 31
- 6. 37 ] The RIis used to obtain a preliminary

overview of a permittee’s compliance program. The inspector conducts a brief visual inspection of the permittee’s treatment facility , effluents, and receiving waters. The RI uses the ins pector’s experience and judgment to quickly summarize an y potential compliance problems. The objective of the RIis to expand inspection coverage without increasing inspection resources.  Pretreatment Compliance Inspection (PCI). [ 6. 20 ] The PCIevaluates th e POTW’s implementation of its authorized pretreatment program. It includes a review of the POTW’s records on monitoring, inspections, and enforcement activities for its industrial users. The PCImay be supplemented with industrial user inspections.  Regula tory Options for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category (40 CFR Part 430) . [6. 38 ] Permitting authorities must process and anal yz e the reported monitoring data from direct discharging mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite Category and may conduct follow - up activities for compliance assessment and enforcement . A Compliance Inspection Report (CIR) form (Form 3560 - 3) was developed for inspectors to use when submitting the qualitative results of CS Is , CEI s, PAIs, and DIs. In most cases, the form is not used, but the information collected and reported is usually the same, except for those states that require and collect more information . **4(b)(vi)(2) Respondent A ctivities**  Responde nt activities for compliance assessment/certification information can vary substantially depending on the type of permittee and its ability to comply with its NPDES or sewage sludge permit. However, to submit the required information, a respondent can engage in preparing basic information, generating detailed information, sample collection, and reporting and maintaining records. Facilities with regulatory alternatives such as certification and BMPs should expect to be involved in developing, reviewing, and certifying plans ; p eriodicall y reviewing and revising plans; submitting additional monitoring reports ; and conducting refresher training . The specific requirements and activities for Compliance Assessment/Certification are outlined in section 4(b)(vi)(1) a

bove.4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(vii) Program Authorization

60 

### 4(b)(vii) Program Authorization **4(b)(vii)(1) Data Items** All the activities required for program authorization are performed b y states. **Request for NPDES Program Authorization [ 7.1]**  States requesting NPDES program authorization must submit three copi es of a program submission (40 CFR 123.21). Each submission must contain all the following:  A letter from the state’s governor (or tribal authority) requesting program authorization;  A complete program description that summarizes the structure, scope, cove rage, and processes of the proposed state program and outlines the state’s permitting and review procedures. In addition, copies of all relevant permit forms, application forms, and reporting forms must be submitted;  A statement from the state attorney gen eral certifying that the state laws provide adequate authority to carry out the program requirements as outlined in the program description;  An MOA between the state Director and the EPA Regional Administrator. The MOA must clarify the division of responsi bilities between the state agency and EPA. It also must specify the procedures that will ensure adequate coordination between EPA and the state, and it must discuss this coordination in detail. In particular, it must address compliance activities, enforcem ent activities, and the transfer of information between the state and EPA. It must also describe which classes and categories of permits the Regional Administrator must review before a permit is issued by the state and further specify those classes for whi ch the Regional Administrator will waive review; and  Copies of all relevant state regulations and statutes. **Request for Partial NPDES Program Authorization [7.2]**  The 1987 WQA authorizes EPA to approve states for two ty pes of partial programs (CWA Section 402(n)): (1) major category partial programs and (2) phased partial programs. States apply

for major category

partial program authority if more than one state agency has jurisdiction over discharges. An y state appl yi ng for a major category partial program must comply with existing 40 CFR Part 123, Subpart B, State Program Submission requirements. Under the phased partial program, states obtain authority for the entire NPDES program over a 5 - ye ar period. The requirements for submittal of major category partial program and phased partial program requests are essentially the same as the requirements for submitting a full NPDES program request, as discussed above. **Request for NPDES Program Modifications [7.3** 
**– 7.5]**  EPA or an authorized state may initiate a program revision. A program revision might be necessary when the controlling federal statutes or regulations are modified. When necessary , the state is required to submit a modified program description, an attorney general’s statement, an MOA, or other documents necessary to describe and evaluate whether the program revision is substantial and requires public notice. States may modify their programs to obtain pretreatment authority (covered by

a separate ICR, OMB Control No. 2040 - 0009), authority to issue gener al4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(vii) Program Authorization

61 permits, or authority

to issue permits to federal facilities. They must also update other areas of their programs as necessary :  Request for Authority to Issue General Permits. General permits cover a class of similar dischargers with similar effluent limitations in a defined geographic area. Authority to issue general permits is an optional component of the NPDES program. For this ICR , 46 states and the U.S. Virgin Islands have general permit authority .  Request for Authority to Issue Permits to Federal Facilities. Authorized states are required to obtain authority

to issue NPDES permits to federal facilities. For this ICR , 43 states are authorized to regulate federal facilities. States seeking to modify their NPDES programs to obtain this authority , in most cases , revise their attorney general’s statement, program description, and MOA. In some cases, they must also revise their statutes and regulations.  Request to Update Legal Authority in Other Areas. Under 40 CFR 123.62(e), state NPDES and sludge programs must be in compliance with federal regulations at all times. I f new federal requirements are enacted, states have 1 ye ar to updat e their regulations to meet the federal requirements. States have 2 ye ars if they must also update statutes. States seeking to modify their NPDES programs to update their authority must normally

revise their statutes or regulations. In some cases, they mus t also revise their attorney general’s statement, program description, or MOA. **Request for Program Transfer/Withdrawa**  **l [**  **7. 6**  **]** A state may

request that an authorized program be transferred back to EPA. Transfers back to EPA require 180 days’ notice by the s tate and a plan for the orderl y transfer of all relevant program information. If necessary , EPA may require that the state provide further information. In addition, EPA may

initiate proceedings to determine whether an authorized state program should be withdrawn because of the state’s failure to administer its program in accordance with federal requirements. Withdrawal proceedings may be initiated not only

unilaterally

by EPA, but also in response to a petition submitted by an interested party . **Request for Sludge Program Authorization [**  **7. 7**  **]** On August 24, 1998, EPA promulgated revised regulations setting forth minimum requirements for state sludge programs. These revisions specify that all state sludge management program submissions must be submitted under 4 0 CFR Part 501, regardless of whether the state seeks a revision to an NPDES program or a non -NPDES program. The requirements for a sewage sludge program are contained in 40 CFR Part 501. The first requirement for submittal of a state sludge program is th e program description, which contains the scope, structure, coverage, and processes of the state program. The state must also submit a statement from the state attorney general outlining its legal authority to impose the sludge requirements. The program su bmission must also include an MOA between the state Director and the EPA Regional Administrator that, in part, sets forth the state’s approach to administering the sludge program and EPA’s role in overseeing the state’s administration. **4(b)(vii)(2) Respond ent A** **ctivities** This I CR explains these activities, in terms of the ty pe of information submission they require, in detail in Section 4(b)(vii)(1) above. Respondents associated with each ty pe of request can be engaged in drafting letters, developing program descriptions and MOA, consulting with technical4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(vii) Program Authorization

62 or legal staff and maintaining records. Furthermore, for those respondents that have NPDES program authority, the activities can vary depending on the characteristics of the state or territory and the method ology

they chose in administering the program. However, any NPDES permitting authority could be expected to engage in the following t ypes of activities:  Maintaining records. States and territories need to develop a record - keeping sy stem, develop a master d atabase, train personnel, enter data, and distribute the information to EPA (via PCS, NPDES - IC IS) and other interested parties, such as reviewers and enforcement personnel.  Reviewing submitted data. States and territories might need to answer respondent qu estions and provide a review of applications or collected data for completeness and technical accuracy . In addition, states and territories need to notify applicants of receipt/approval of submissions. Because the NPDES regulations do not require SWPPPs to be submitted to the permitting authority, there are no SWPPP - related respondent activities for any authorized state.5 . The Information Collected —Agenc y Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

63 

## 5 **. The Information Collected —** **Ag ency**  **Ac tiv**  **ities, Collection Methodology**  **, and Information Management 5(a) Agency Activities**  This I CR includes all the reporti ng requirements related to state program requests, state NPDES and sludge program implementation, and EPA overview of state NPDES and sludge programs . Under CWA section 402(c) and (d), EPA must ensure that state program requests and state program modificat ion requests meet all the necessary federal requirements . Thus, EPA must review state program submissions to ensure that all the necessary requirements are met . EPA ’ s review includes an analysis of the state ’ s statutes and regulations, as well as an in - dep th examination of the program description, attorney general ’ s statement, and MOA . All the information submitted by states is filed in the state program files at EPA headquarters. Once a state acquires NPDES authorization, EPA must oversee the program to ensure that it meets the requirements set forth in the federal regulations . Consequently , EPA is required to regularl y review state - issued permits, state compliance reports, and state inspection forms . Most of these tasks are delegated to the individual EP A R egions . Lists of the reporting requirements imposed on states , which impose further agency work related to the CWA provisions and NPDES and sludge regulations, with statutory and regulatory

citations, are provided in Table 5.1. **Table 5.1 Reporting**  **r equirement**  **d escriptions**  **Reporting r** **equirements Citation**  **Description State**  **p rogram**  **r equests**  Request for NPDES Program Authorization 40 CFR Part 123, Subpart B Contains requirements for states that wish to

obtain an NPDES program authorization. Request for NPDES Partial Program Authorization CW A s ection 402(n) Allows states to request authority to administer

portions of the NPDES program . Reporting requirements parallel requests for full NPDES program authorization. Request for NPDES Program Modification 40 CFR 123.62 Contains requirements for states that wish to mo dify an existing NPDES program. Request for Program Transfer/ Wi thdrawal 40 CFR 123.63, 123.64, and 501.34 Outlines procedures for states to voluntarily

transfer their NPDES program responsibilities back to EPA and for withdrawal of state programs due to unilateral EPA decision or in response to an interested party ’ s petition. Request for Sewage Sludge Program authorization 40 CFR 501.11 Contains requirements for states that wish to obtain a sludge management program authorization. **State p**  **rogram i**  **mplementation** Report on Compliance Evaluation 40 CFR 123.26(b)(1) Requires states to submit information on

com pliance evaluation programs. Record K ee ping of NPDES Program Information 40 CFR 123.26(e) Requires states to maintain a management information system for compliance evaluation activities.5 . The Information Collected —Agenc y Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

64 **Reporting r** **equirements Citation**  **Description** Record K ee ping for Sludge Program Information 40 CFR 501.16 Requires states with sludge management programs to comply with the record - kee ping requirements outlined in 40 CFR 123.26. Inspection and Investigation of NPDES permittees 40 CFR 123.26(b)(2) and (3) Requires states to inspect facilities to determine

permit compliance, verify monitoring and other data supplied by permittees, and investigate violation reports from the public. Certification of EPA - Issued Permits 40 CFR 124.53 and 124.54 Requires states to certify permit conditions and

to ensure conformity

with all applicable state laws. (Does not apply to sludge programs.) **State p**  **rogram o**  **versight** Subm ittal of NPDES Permit Information 40 CFR 123.43 and 123.44(j) Requires states to submit proposed NPDES

permits and sludge permits for certain permittee categories to EPA. Subm ittal of Sludge Permit Information 40 CFR 501.14(b) Requires states to submit proposed sludge permits to EPA as agreed to in the MOA. NPDES Quarterly, Sem iannual , and Annual Reports 40 CFR 123.45 Requires quarterly and semiannual reports of ma jor permittee violations, as well as annual st atistical reports of non - major permittee violations and enforcement actions. Sludge Non comp liance Reports 40 CFR 501.21 Requires annual reports providing inventory information and compliance monitoring summaries. EPA ’ s activities as the NPDES permitting authority in non - authorized states and territories are the same as the activities performed b y authorized states and territories . Authorizations vary by program . For example, the assumption for this I CR is that 46 states and the U.S. Virgin Islands have applied for and received authorization to manage the NPDES Permit Program, but only eight states have received authorization to manage the Biosolids (Sludge) Program . F or the NPDES state program status , see Appendix E . Some of the key activities EPA will perform as the permit authority

are :  Receive permit applications and review them for completeness . If an application is incomplete, the permitting authority must notify the applicant and request the missing informati on . Completed applications must be assigned to permit writers, who review the applications in more detail as they develop permit conditions. 9  Process responses to requests for supplemental information (Section 308 r equests).  Notify dischargers or facilitie s eligible for coverage under a general permit, once it is issued . Notification may

include newspaper announcements, direct mailings, or other methods of communication .  Determine which applicants for general permits , if any , would be more appropriately gov erned b y individual permits . As part of these activities, permitting authorities may notify dischargers or sludge facilities that they need to apply

for individual permits.

9 This ICR does not calculate the burden and costs associated with issuing permits . It does, however, estimate the burden and costs associated with revie wing applications for permits.5 . The Information Collected —Agenc y Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

65 Other EPA activities in non - authorized states are more specific to the typ e of facility appl yi ng for permit coverage . For example, EPA must review NOIs for coverage under the Construction General Permit for completeness . If an NOI is incomplete, the applicant is notified and instructed to submit the missing information . If the NO I is complete, an acceptance letter is sent to the permittee, along with a unique permit number . The NOI data is maintained in the NOI database at the NOI Processing Center. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) must help some applicants obtain information relating to endangered species and critical habitat and participate in formal and informal ESA consultations when endangered species or critical habitat are present or w ould be affe cted by construction activity . Authorized states are not required to include these requirements in their general permits, and therefore neither the authorized states nor the construction sites within those states incur any burden for ESA consultations. The activities EPA will perform as the NPDES permitting authority related to the stormwater P hase II regulations consist of processing and reviewing small MS4 NOI s and annual reports; processing and reviewing construction permit waiver certifications, NOIs, and NOTs; and processing and revie wing industrial no - exposure certifications. Permittees are not required to submit SWPPPs to EPA for review . These plans are to be maintained on - site where the construction activities are taking place and must be available for EPA review as requested . Ther efore, for the purposes of this I CR, the pollution prevention plans are integral to the day- to - day operational control of each construction site but are not included as a component of Agency

activities. With regard to use of BMPs under 40 CFR Part 435 to control non - aqueous drilling fluids (NAFs ) , permittees must maintain records as described in Part 435 at the facility and must make the BMP Plan and related documentation available to EPA or the state NPDES permitting authority , upon request . Submission of the BMP Plan and related documentation must be at the frequency established b y the NPDES permitting authority (i.e., permit monitoring reports) but in no case less than once per 5 year s . Review of monitoring records by EPA or the state permitting authority might also be helpful to permit writers when develop ing future NPDES permit conditions. When permitting authorities receive modification and variance requests, they must review them for completeness . If a request is incomplete, the authorities must noti fy the applicant and request the missing information . Completed requests must be assigned to permit writers, who review the information in more detail as they develop permit conditions . EPA directly reviews and processes modification and variance requests in non - authorized states . In addition, EPA assists authorized states with some requests . In some cases, EPA also reviews state - approved variances . EPA estimates that federal assistance or approval will be required as follows :

 Authorized states will request assistance from EPA on 5 percent of reports submitted to them for each of the following items: o Requests for Modification, Revocation and Reissuance, or Termination of Permits ; o Wastewater Permittee Report of Planned Facility Changes ;5 . The Information Collected —Agenc y Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

66 o Wastewater Perm ittee Report of Anticipated Non comp liance ; o Facility and Permit Transfer Report ; o Wastewater Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous Information ; o Excessive Discharge Report ; and o Permittee Notice of Regulated Discharge Cessation  Authorized states review and recommend denial or approval of variance requests for FDF and n onconventional p ollutants . EPA is required to review each of these requests . Where the state is the permitting authority , the state may perform a voluntary

initial review and make recommendatio ns to EPA regarding the issuance of a variance . If an authorized state recommends approval of either ty pe of request, EPA will then review it and issue a final decision.  EPA oversees and provides assistance to authorized states that receive variance reques ts for Innovative Pollution Controls or Thermal Discharges. Permittees submit DMRs, and/or other forms where necessary , to the appropriate permitting authority . The permitting authority is required to review data, and where necessary , conduct follow - up ac tions . The data requirements are listed by regulation number and are grouped by respondent category . Within each category , the information data requirements are further organized into the following sections :

 DMR Review  Reporting and Record - keeping Requirements. Data review varies from region to region and state to state . Generally , the permitting authorit y routinely screens data to identify

permit violations and conducts a more thorough technical review and follow - up when violations are detected . F ollow - up activities can include informal contact with the permittee (b y telephone or letter) requesting prompt corrective action, technical assistance, field inspections to further substantiate violations, or a formal enforcement action such as an administrative order or referral to the U.S. attorney g eneral (or s tate attorney g eneral in the case of authorized s tates). The extent to which EPA reviews data in assessing permit compliance also varies . For example, EPA will tend to conduct a more extensive review of permittees that are, or have been, in violation of their permit requirements, than of permittees who have been in full compliance . In cases of continued noncompliance , EPA may use monitoring report data to identify patterns of noncompliance and/o r to support Agency enforcement efforts. EPA limits its review of data submitted by full y compliant permittees to a simple determination of continuing compliance . EPA may reduce monitoring requirements for permittees that consistently

demonstrate an abili ty

to reduce pollutants in their discharge below their permit limitations. The extent to which EPA reviews data also depends on available resources and the specific reviewing procedures of the permitting authority ( state or EPA R egion) . In authorized s tat es,5 . The Information Collected —Agenc y Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

67 state environmental agencies generall y review permittee data . EPA R egions also may review data from permittees in authorized states while performing program oversight functions ( i.e., during file audits and when compiling statistical compliance summari es). EPA R egions review data in non - authorized s tates . The R egional permitting authority places emphasis on data from major permittees and from minor permittees that can cause water quality problems (i.e., significant minors) . EPA reviews data from other minor permittees and general permittees less frequently . In most cases, EPA will forward copies of reports to non - authorized s tates, which routinel y review data from minor permittees . EPA does not require these non authorized s tates to review data, but sev eral state s voluntarily conduct the review and use the results in their own programs. In collecting and anal yz ing the information associated with this I CR, EPA and authorized s tates enter all applicable data into the PCS or I CI S - NPDES national database s . In formation for permittees covered under general permits might be entered into an NOI database . EPA uses these data to manage the NPDES program, for example, to develop statistical summaries on such things as permit compliance rates, permit issuance rates , to evaluate problems resulting from citizen complaints, focus inspection efforts, conduct spot check reviews, and determine appropriate enforcement action 

## 5(b) Collection Methodology and Management EPA maintains some application data in databases such as PCS, I CI S -NPDES, and the NOI database . These s ys tems provide EPA with a nationwide inventory of all permit holders . EPA headquarters uses this information to assess permit compliance . This technology also reduces the burden to EPA and the states for gathering and analyzing national permit and water quality data. In collecting and anal yz ing the information associated with NPDES permit coverage applications, EPA will use PCS, I CI S -NPDES, and electronic NOI (eNOI) sy stems; paper - based forms; personal computer s; and databases to ultimately store the information . EPA will ensure accuracy and completeness of the information by reviewing each submittal upon receipt and is responsible for ensuring that applicable data are entered into PCS or I CI S -NPDES . Any form th at is considered inaccurate or incomplete will not be accepted and will be returned to the sender with a letter requesting the missing or inaccurate information. Upon request to EPA, the public may access certain information via PCS, ICI S -NPDES , Online Tracking Information System (OTI S), or Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) . Some of the information is available to the public through W eb - based interfaces of these databases or other EPA W eb - based tools such as Envirofacts. For activities related to NPDES m odification and v ariance r equests, improved information technology

does not appear to provide opportunities to minimize respondent s ’ burden because of the unique nature of the information that respondents must submit as needed . CSO municipal ities will submit NMC documentation and L TCPs in response to a requirement in an NPDES permit or other enforceable mechanism . The L TCP - EZ planning template offer s5 . The Information Collected —Agenc y Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

68 some burden reduction to small communities and will be discussed more in depth under Small Entity Flexibility . The information reported in this I CR related to the NPDES and Sewage Sludge Management State Programs is limited to state efforts, including EPA review of state information; it does not reflect the burden on the permittee . For general reports, EPA and states are moving toward greater automation

— for example, computer - generated QNCRs . Much of the information is dayto - day , ongoing program information, some of which is case - specific. 

## 5(c) Small Entity Flexibility For man y reasons, EPA beli eves the reporting requirements discussed in this I CR do not place an unreasonable burden on small business . EPA developed several application forms, and it promulgated different application requirements to tailor the information collection demands conside ring, among other factors, the size and complexity of the facility . Generall y, as the size of a facility increases, the amount of required information increases correspondingl y. Several of the applications ( e.g., Form 1 and NOIs) request minimal information, such as the name and location of the facility , or merel y direct the applicant to complete specific sections of the application ( e.g., Forms 2A and 2S) . Furthermore, facilities submit applications infrequentl y, ty picall y once every 5 year s . The burden represented by these applications cannot be further reduced for small businesses . Permitting authorities need certain basic information to make permitting decisions . This basic information is not dependent on a fac ility ’ s size . EPA has regularl y looked for ways to reduce reporting burdens on businesses of all sizes . For instance , EPA developed general permit procedures to reduce burdens associated with the application process, especially the burden associated with stormwater discharges . Applicants for stormwater general permits, for instance, do not need to submit any sampling data. NOIs for permit coverage for construction sites contain minimal information required to characterize the site and construction activity . NOIs are submitted infrequently , ty picall y once for each construction activity or twice if the construction activity continues beyond the expiration date of the general permit . Most site - related information is contained in the SWPPP, which is not required to be submitted to EPA . Furthermore, sites submit NOI s once every 5 ye ar s , and the burden represented by these NOIs cannot easily be reduced for small businesses because EPA needs certain basic information to make permitting decisions . This basic inform ation is not dependent on an organization ’ s size . The CGP NOI(EPA form 3510 - 9) was developed specificall y to reduce the burden for construction activities . The preexisting NOI form (EPA F orm 3510 - 6) that was replaced in 1998 required more detailed information because the form was also used for industrial activities requesting coverage under a general permit . The current NOI is simplified and requests onl y relevant information for construction activities. With regard to s mall MS4s regulated under the Phase II Rule, EPA believes that the application requirements provide the minimum information required to adequately assess the current and future effe cts of the small MS4 discharges on waters of the United States . The NOI and individual permit application requirements for regulated small MS4s represent substantially5 . The Information Collected —Agenc y Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

69 reduced application requirements from those of the Phase I stormwater regulation for medium and large MS4s . In general, the no - exposure provision of th e Stormwater Phase II Rule allows regulatory relief for small industrial entities with no exposure . For a few small entities, defined later in this I CR, the information collection burden will increase slightl y b y an estimated 45 minutes because of the need to submit a waiver certification . Some facilities that do not have toxic pollutants in their effluent are not required to provide as much monitoring information on Form 2C as those with toxic discharges . Under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(8) , coal mines with a proba ble total annual production less than 100,000 tons per year and other applicants with gross total annual sales averaging less than $100,000 per year (in second quarter 1980 dollars) m ight qualify as a small business and be exempt from the reporting require ments for toxic pollutants . EPA also developed Form 2E specificall y to reduce the reporting burden for certain small businesses . These businesses are new or existing manufacturing, commercial, mining, and silvicultural NPDES permit applicants that do not discharge process wastewater . This form is easier to complete and requires the submission of existing sampling data (i.e., sampling and anal ys is is not required to be conducted as part of the application process) . EPA’s guidance materials

– such as manuals , fact sheets, and training courses on development of SWPPPs and L TCPs

– also help minimize the burden on small entities by giving them easier access to the specific and streamlined requirements applicable to them. Finally , many

small businesses do not dis charge any pollutants . Of the small businesses that do discharge, man y of them are indirect dischargers to a POTW. These businesses are not required to have NPDES permits and thus are not subject to the reporting requirements contained in this ICR . Although small business direct dischargers are not treated as a separate class under the NPDES program, efforts to minimize the burdens imposed on them by NPDES information collection activities are implicit in the existing monitoring/reporting framework . Most sm all businesses permitted under NPDES, except those discharging toxic chemicals, are covered either by permits with less rigorous monitoring and reporting requirements or by general permits . This tends to impose lower DMR - related workloads on minor permitte es and general permittees than major individual permittees . In general, monitoring and reporting requirements are based on many factors, the most important of which are the volume and environmental significance of wastewater discharge . Because small permittees usually discharge small volumes of wastewater, their monitoring and reporting burdens tend to be minimal. All permittees, regardless of the size of their facilities, are required to report instances of noncompliance and keep records of monitoring dat a . In most cases, these requirements do not impose a large burden on small business es because the information required is simple and straightforward . For activities related to NPDES modification and variance requests, the NPDES regulations do not specify

different modification and variance requirements for small businesses . The burden5 . The Information Collected —Agenc y Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

70 incurred as a result of variance requests is voluntary . A small busin ess that decides to request a variance from effluent limitations does so on the basis of its assessment that the benefits of receiving such a variance outweigh the burdens associated with preparing the request . T he time and effort required to prepare a small facility ’ s variance request m ight be less than that required to prepare a similar request for a larger, more complex facility . The information reported in this I CR related to state NPDES and sewage sludge programs is limited to state efforts, including EPA review of state information; it does not reflect the burden on the permittee . Therefore, these activities do not affect small businesses . To assist communities with combined sewer s ys tems ( CSSs ) that serve populations of fewer than 75,000, the CSO Co ntrol Policy recommends that NPDES permitting authorities use flexibility when requiring these communities to develop an LTCP . In the policy , EPA recommends that small sy stems be required to document implementation of the NMC , prepare LTCPs that give high priority to controlling overflows to sensitive areas, and employ public participation in their decision - making process . The intent of this recommendation is to focus the limited resources of smaller communities on controlling CSOs . The extent of compliance monitoring by small entities should be less extensive than monitoring by larger communities because the small sy stems have few er CSOs. EPA developed an LTCP Template (L TCP EZ) to help small communities develop L TCPs . LTCP EZ builds on NMC implementation and provides step - bystep instructions for a detailed template . The simple forms can be completed in hard cop y format or electronically . 

## 5(d) Collection Schedule The collection schedule for the activities presented in this I CR varies greatly depending on the ty pe of activity

and respondent . Federal regulations require permittees to reappl y for permits at least every 5 year s because the C WA limits the terms of an NPDES permit to 5 years. T he regulations also grant permi t writers the authority

to issue permits more frequent ly . Most respondents submit applications every 5 ye ar s . Both g eneral and individual permits are issued only for a 5 - year term . All facilities that wish to be covered under a general permit must reapply when a new permit is issued . When calculating burden, this ICR assumes that all permit applicants follow this schedule. In addition, this I CR assumes that every 5 year s, industrial stormwater permittees will perform a comprehensive reevaluation of the exi sting SWPPP s and modify their plans as appropriate . This reevaluation is anticipated to require less cost and burden than the initial cost and burden of developing the plan . N ote that the SWPPP is ty pically not collected from construction operators unless the permitting authority finds it necessary

to review it for compliance assurance purposes , and because most construction sites are active for less than 5 years, no reevaluation of the SWPPP is needed . For constructions sites, the waiver certification is to be submitted before starting construction activity , and an NOT is submitted once when coverage under the permit is no longer necessary . Similar to an NOI , an industrial no - exposure certification must be submitted to the NPDES permitting authority at lea st once every 5 year s.5 . The Information Collected —Agenc y Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

71 Since the first year of implementin g the sewage sludge permitting program (i.e., from March 22, 1993 , to March 21, 1994) has passed, EPA anticipates three groups of respondents: ( 1) one - fifth of the NPDES permittees will need to sub mit applications each ye ar; ( 2) new sludge - only facilities will submit limited background information each ye ar; and ( 3) some sludge - only facilities that have already submitted the limited background information will be required b y EPA to submit permit app lications each ye ar. Some information collection activities included in this I CR do not follow routine schedules . For example, permittees that are required to obtain permits for more than one EPA program may request that their permit application processin g be consolidated. In addition, permitting authorities request supplemental information as needed . For detailed estimates of collection schedules for these activities, see Section 6 of this ICR. With the exception of the certifications allowed b y the effluent limitations guidelines and standards and the stormwater - related inspections and visual examinations, the information collection activities related to NPDES Compliance Assessment/Certification Information included in this I CR do not follow routine sche dules; they are submitted on an as - needed basis . The time frames for collecting and submitting compliance assessment information are outlined below :  Record keeping is performed continual ly ;  General permittee facility self - inspections must occur annually ;  S tormwater permittees with discharges associated with industrial activity must perform quarterl y visual examinations;  Compliance assessment reports are submitted within 14 day s of a scheduled milestone;  Noncompliance reports are submitted only in cases wher e the permittee has violated a permit condition;  Notices of alternate levels of production are submitted at least 2 day s before a month in which a change in production is anticipated; and  Response time to s ection 308(a) information requests varies . EPA (and state s under applicable s tate l aw) sends these when there is reason to believe that there m ight be noncompliance and where enforcement might be an appropriate response. The information collection schedules for the 14 industrial categories (12 cat egories and 2 subcategories) seeking exemptions or alternative compliance reporting are detailed in Section 4(b)(iv). Facilities subject to 40 CFR Part 435 and that use BMPs to control non - aqueous drilling fluids (NAFs ) are anticipated to certify that the ir BMP plans are complete, on - site, and available upon request to the permitting authorit ies . This certification identif ies the NPDES permit number and is signed b y an authorized representative of the operator and kept with the BMP Plan . For new or modifie d NPDES permits, the certification will be made no later than the effective date of the new or modified permit . For existing NPDES permits, the certification is made within 1 year of permit issuance . The submission of records to the permitting authority de monstrating periodic review of the BMP Plan is due at a minimum once every 5 years. In addition, m onitoring reports5 . The Information Collected —Agenc y Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

72 and refresher training certifications demonstrating compliance with the BMP Plan are due to the permitting authority at the frequency set b y the permitt ing authority ( i.e., monthly , annuall y , or semiannually) and may

be requested by

the permitting authority on demand. The data items related to NPDES m odification and v ariance r equests covered by this ICR must be provided onl y when a permittee decides to seek a modification or variance or when an event beyond the permittee ’ s control triggers a need for the information . In an y event, the permittees submit data items only

when needed . The informatio n collection process to prepare DMR s includes tw o distinct collection activities : monitoring (sample collection and anal ys is), and reporting and record keeping . Collection frequencies vary

for the universe of permittees covered b y the NPDES program . However, permittees are required, at a minimum, to mon itor their wastewater or biosolids annually . Under 40 CFR 122.34(g)(3), the stormwater Phase II Rule requires operators of regulated small MS4s to prepare and submit annual reports to the NPDES permitting authority during the first 5 - year permit term and twice per permit term thereafter. Activities related to state requests for NPDES or sewage sludge p rogram authorization occur only one time. Program modifications, transfers and withdrawal are not common activities and take place only

as needed . As of the date of this I CR, no state programs had been withdrawn . Once a state is authorized to manage the permit program, it must continuously keep record s of program information. S tate s must also inspect and inve stigate permittees and report compliance evaluations as they

are needed . Authorized states must submit certain permit information to EPA every 5 years or as permits are issued; prepare quarterl y, semiannual , and annual noncompliance reports; and prepare and submit annual Sewage Sludge Non comp liance Reports . The CSO Control Policy recommends that municipalities have up to 2 year s from issuance of permits or other enforceable mechanism to document the implementation of the NMC and to develop and submit an LTCP . Complex systems can be provided more time to develop LTCPs . Generally it is expected that these requirements have been incorporated into NPDES permits as the permits came up for reissuance . NPDES permitting authorities may use other tools to initiate the CSO planning process where appropriate.6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(i) Application/NOI

73 

## 6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection **6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden** This section presents the estimated respondent burden for each information request. Throughout this subsection, codes will be presented in brackets (i.e., [1.1]). These codes correspond to the reference code in the Respondents Activities Table in Appendix B. This table presents all assumptions, calculations, and results discussed in this subsection. Facilities subject to NPDES program requirements and authorized states are included as respondents in this section. The breakdown of cost and burden b y labor category is provided in Section 6(b). On the basis of 2010 U.S. Census data, an estimated 94.85 percent of the population resides in states authorized to issue general permits . This population percentage has been applied to the respondent values to estimate those stormwater general permittees that report directl y to authorized states . For all other permittees, the information in PCS, NPDES - IC IS, and other EPA databases were used to determine the allocation. ( For a list of authorized states, s ee Appendix E ) . T his I CR calculates annual burden and costs to respondents. These calculations are somewhat complicated because there are two typ es of permittee respondents discussed in this section: applicants renewing existing permits, and applicants applying for new p ermits. Applications for permit renewal must be submitted every 5 years. For these respondents, the ICR assumes that the number of applicants renewing per ye ar equals one - fifth of the total number of existing permitted facilities. 

### 6(a)(i) A **pplication/NOI** T o calculate the total annual applicant respondent burden, EPA first calculated the annual burden for each permit application and for each information request associated with permit applications. This subsection explains applicant respondent burden estimate s for each application and information request. In addition, the Respondents Activities Table in Appendix B calculates the estimated burden to state governments for handling and reviewing permit application information discussed in this subsection. Estimates of the burden do not include anal ys is of the data because this activity is associated with preparing and issuing the permit. Because most state governments have authority for the NPDES programs, state governments will incur the majority of the permitti ng authority burden and costs. There are, however, some exceptions to this rule: EPA will alway s proc ess Alaskan Lands Applications and permits in Indian County . A s a result, the burden and costs for these activities will belong to EPA exclusively . **6(a)(i)(A ) Non**  **- Stormwater**  **6(a)(i)(A )(1)**  **Non -**  **Stormwater —**  **Nonmunicipal Individual Form 1 [1.1** 
**– 1.4]**  EPA estimates that Form 1 requires 3 hours to complete for the first time. New respondents must read and fill out the form, prepare a topographic map, and rev iew and mail the completed6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(i) Application/NOI

74 application. Applicants renewing existing permits will spend 1 hour completing Form 1 because these applicants need to send a duplicate of the previously submitted form, updating material if necessary . This applies to NPDES appli cants who have permits in other EPA programs; these applicants also submit copies of existing forms. EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 0.5 hour reviewing Form 1. PCS and I CI S -NPDES identify 30,169 existing nonmunicipal facilities that must s ubmit Form 1 . If one - fifth of these file applications each ye ar, the annual number of respondents in this group is 6,034 . Inaddition, EPA estimates that 785 new nonmunicipal facilities will submit Form 1 each ye ar . **Form 2C [1.5**
**– 1.6]**  EPA estimates that Fo rm 2C requires approximately 33 hours to complete . PCS and I CI S NPDES report 30,169 existing nonmunicipal facilities that must submit either Form 2C or Form 2E . Those that discharge process wastewater use Form 2C, and those that discharge non - process wastewater use Form 2E . EPA assumes that 65 percent of these facilities discharge process wastewater, yi elding 19,610 nonmunicipal facilities subject to the requirements of Form 2C . If one - fifth of all nonmunicipal facilities file applications each ye ar, the annual number of respondents is 3,922 . EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 2 hours reviewing Form 2C. This section does not separate the burden for major and minor facilities. The burden will probably be lower for minor facilities because mi nor facilities ty picall y discharge fewer pollutants than majors. **Form 2D [1.7**
**– 1.10]**  EPA estimates that major new facilities will spend 46 hours performing the necessary activities to complete this form. Minor facilities will spend 32 hours. EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 0.5 hour reviewing Form 2D. EPA estimates that 19 new major and 785 new minor nonmunicipal facilities will apply for permits each ye ar . Of the minor facilities, EPA estimates that 70 percent will discharge process wastewater . This yields an estimated 19 respondents filing Form 2D as new major facilities and 550 completing Form 2D as new minor facilities . (The remaining 235 minor new facilities will use Form 2E.) **Additional NPDES Application Requirements for Nonmunicipal Dischargers (Section 308**  **Requests) [1.11**
**– 1.17]**  Because requests for supplemental information vary in complexity , this ICR calculates burden according to the complexity of the request. EPA estimates that facilities spend 5 hours responding to routine requests. This includes 1 hour to read and understand the request, 2 hours to obtain information, and 2 hours to write a response. Requests of medium complexity require, on average, 50 hours. EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 1 hour re viewing routine request and 10 hours reviewing medium complexity requests. EPA may request supplemental information from a facilit y at an y time. Generall y, facilities are more likely

to receive Section 308 requests when they appl y or reappl y for permits than at other times. Therefore, this I CR divides nonmunicipal respondents into two categories: those that are6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(i) Application/NOI

75 applying for permits in a year, and those that are not. Because permits ty pically last 5 years, one fifth of all facilities apply for permits each ye ar. EPA assumes that 5 percent of the major nonmunicipals receive requests when they appl y for permits, and 10 percent of the remaining receive s requests at other times. Of the minor nonmunicipals, 1 percent receive requests when they appl y for permits and 1 percent of the remaining receive requests at other times. In addition, 25 percent of major nonmunicipal facilities that receive medium requests pay contract laboratories to conduct the tests [ s ee S ection 6(b)(ii)(1)]. **Form 2E [1.18**
**– 1.21]**  EPA estimat es that applicants

— nonmunicipal facilities that discharge non - process wastewater

— will spend 14 hours reading the instructions, gathering the necessary information, obtaining engineering data, sampling and anal yz ing their discharge, reviewing the form, and completing and mailing Form 2E. EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 0.5 hour reviewing Form 2E. PCS and I CI S -NPDES reports 30,169 that there are existing nonmunicipal facilities that must submit either Form 2C or Form 2E . Those that discharge process wastewater use Form 2C , and those that discharge non - process wastewater use Form 2E . EPA assumes that 35 percent of these facilities discharge non - process wastewater, creating 11,559 existing facilities subject to the requirements of Form 2E . If on e - fifth of all existing permittees file applications each ye ar, the annual number of respondents is 2, 112 . To this figure, EPA adds new nonmunicipal facilities that discharge non - process wastewater . EPA estimates that 23 6 new nonmunicipal facilities will f ile Form 2E each ye ar . **Application for Transportation and Utility Systems and Facilities on Federal Lands (Alaskan Lands Application) [1.2**  **2 ]**  EPA estimates that the average respondent can complete the Alaskan Lands Application in 30 hours. When preparing this estimate, EPA considered the potential variation among applicants; depending on the nature and location of the proposed facility, a respondent could spend much longer preparing the form. EPA further estimates that 3 respondents will file this application each ye ar. **Permit Consol idation Request [1.23** 
**– 1.2**  **4 ]**  Facilities that must obtain permits for more than one EPA program may request that their permit application processes be consolidated. EPA estimates that a facility will spend 2 hours writing, ty ping , editing, and mailing a request; and authorized states will spend 0.5 hour reviewing these requests. EPA anticipates that 0 facilities will file Permit Consolidation Requests each ye ar. **Permittee Notice of Regulated Discharge Cessation [1.2 7** 
**– 1.3**  **0 ]**  When n otifying the permitting authority of a facility ’s decision to cease regulated discharges, the respondent incurs 1 hour of burden to prepare, ty pe, and mail a letter of intent. The annual number of respondents is estimated to include 2 percent of all major s and 0.8 percent of all minor s for a total of 266 nonmunicipal respondents. EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 4 hours handling and reviewing each Permittee Notice of Regulated Discharge Cessation.6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(i) Application/NOI

76 **Permit Modification ,**  **Revocation and Reissuan ce, or Termination [1.3**  **1**
**– 1.3**  **2 ]**  The total annual number of permittees expected to request a modification of their effluent limitations is 1, 659 or 5.5 percent of nonmunicipal NPDES permittees . An estimated 5 hours of respondent time would be necessary to provide the information requested by the permitting authority . EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 40 hours handling and reviewing each Permit Modification, Revocation and Reissuance, or Termination . **Variance Request Due to Fundamentally Diffe rent Factors [1.3**  **3**
**– 1.3**  **4 ]**  The burden for this ty

pe of variance request is high because of the level of detail required for this variance. Facilities that submit this request are often very complex, and writing and reviewing this variance requires a detailed examination of the facility’s operations. Each variance request requires a total of 160 hours

—20 hours to prepare a letter requesting a variance, 60 hours to develop a legal brief, and 80 hours to prepare attachments describing the processes, technologie s, and equipment of the plant. There have been cases in which many more FDF variance requests were submitted (i.e., in response to a recentl y promulgated effluent guideline); however, the burden associated with such a multitude of similar requests is much lower than 160 hours. An association or other organized group of respondents usually prepares a boilerplate document for member facilities to use in such cases. EPA anticipate s approximately 6 requests in the 3 years covered b y this ICR , with an annual burden to facilities of 320 hours . EPA estimates that authorized states would spend 520 hours handling and reviewing each variance request , for a total of 1 , 040 hours annuall y. **Variance Request for Non -**  **conventional Pollutants [1.3 5** 
**– 1.3**  **6 ]**  Permittees seeking this ty pe of variance incur a burden of 150 hours for each variance request The 150 - hour burden includes 30 hours to prepare a letter stating the request and providing the appropriate documentation, 40 hours addressing a response to each of the statutory fa ctors, 40 hours anal yz ing a computer dilution model, and 40 hours anal yz ing the requested variance’s effect on water quality

criteria. The annual number of 9 respondents is based on numbers of previously

received requests. EPA estimates that the effort inc urred by the permitting authority in reviewing these requests would be 520 hours (65 work day s) . **Variance Request due to Economic Capability [1.37** 
**– 1.38]**  Permittees seeking this ty pe of variance incur a burden of 150 hours for each variance request. For a CWA section 301(c) request, the permittee must submit economic data that will demonstrate that the variance represents the best use of technology available to the permittee. The 150 - hour burden includes 30 hours to prepare a letter stating the request and providing the appropriate documentation, 40 hours addressing a response to each of the statutory factors, 40 hours anal yz ing a computer dilution model, and 40 hours anal yz ing the requested variance’s effect on water quality

criteria. No variances under thi s criterion are anticipated. **Variance Request for Innovative Pollution Control Technology [1. 39** 
**– 1.**  **40 ]**  Nonmunicipal dischargers seeking an extension under CWA section 301(k) would have an estimated burden of 60 hours. Of the 60 hours, 15 hours are required to write a letter of request, and 45 hours are necessary to document the permittee’s claim. The annual number of6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(i) Application/NOI

77 respondents is based on the number of previously received 301(k) requests. EPA estimates that 2 respondents will make this request per ye ar, one in an authorized state and one in a non authorized state . EPA and authorized states receive Varian ce Requests for Innovative Pollution Control Technology . EPA estimates that the effort incurred in this capacity would be 400 hours (50 work day s) for authorized states as compared to 520 hours (65 work day s) for evaluating a request submitted directly

to EPA in non - authorized states. **Variance Request Regarding Thermal Discharges [1. 42** 
**– 1.**  **46 ]**  The respondent ’ s burden associated with the CWA section 316(a) request for variance includes 20 hours planning the request, 160 hours collecting biological data, 80 ho urs collecting hydrological data, 120 hours collecting physical data, and 20 hours preparing the request for submission to EPA. This burden estimate of 400 hours represents a typical request; however, EPA recognizes that the burden will vary depending on the complexity of the request. EPA estimates that 8 thermal variance requests will be received each ye ar, 6 in authorized states and 2 in non - authorized states. In addition, approximately 40 previously issued thermal discharge variances are renewed each year. The respondent burden for a reissued variance is estimated to be 4 hours. EPA oversees and provides assistance to authorized states that receive Variance Requests for Thermal Discharges. EPA estimates that the effort incurred in this capacity would be 400 hours (50 work day s) for authorized states as compared to 520 hours (65 work day s) for evaluating a request submitted directly to EPA in non - authorized states. In addition, an estimated 1 hour would be necessary

for handling and reviewing each variance reissue. **Modification and Variance under the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [1. 47** 
**– 1.**  **48 ]**  EPA conservativel y estimates that regulatory relief would be requested for a total of 87 pollutants (from 59 facilities). EPA assumes that one - fifth (or about 18) will be requested each ye ar, 1 0 of which are industrial facilities. Permittee burden to prepare and submit a request for regulatory

relief will vary

depending on the type of relief being pursued (i.e., criteria modification, alternative mixing zone). O n the basis of a mid - range of costs to pursue regulatory relief provided b y EPA Region s and s tate s , the respondent burden to prepare and submit variance requests is estimated to be about 835.3 hours per request. This estimate is divided by two since some beca

use some of the burden is accounted for in the Water Quality Standards ICR. For the s tate burden associated with regulatory relief requests, EPA estimate s 4 hours to review a regulatory

relief request for completion, including any contact with the permittee for additional information; 4 hours for public notice and comment (assuming the regulatory relief mechanism is independent of regular permit public notic e); and 80 hours to anal yz e the regulatory relief option request, decide if it is justified, justify the decision, and prepare a permit modification if necessary . For the state burden, EPA estimate s a total of 88 hours for evaluati ng regulatory relief opti ons . This estimate is divided by two since some because some of the burden is accounted for in the Water Quality

Standards ICR.6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(i) Application/NOI

78 **6(a)(i)(A )(1)(1) Non**  **- Stormwater**  **— Nonmunicipal**  **— Biosolids**  **Form 2S [1. 49** 
**– 1.**  **53 ]**  EPA estimates that respondents will spend 8.7 hours reviewing instructions, gathering and recording information, and completing Form 2S according to the analy sis conducted in the Applications for the NPDES Discharge Permits and the Sewage Sludge Management Permits ICR (OMB Control No. 2040 - 0086; EPA I CR No. 0226.18). The annual number of 75 8 respondents consists of NPDES permit renewals (one - fifth of the total universe annually) for PrOTWs and sludge - onl y facilities submitting a permit application. This I CR assumes that permits issued to these respondents will be up for renewal and that on average, one - fifth of these total respondents will respond annually . In addition, EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 0.67 hour reviewing Part 1 of Form 2S and 1.42 hours reviewing the full form. **6(a)(i)(A )(2)**  **Non -**  **Stormwater —**  **Municipal Individual Form 2A [1.**  **56**
**– 1.**  **74 , 1.13**  **7 ]**  EPA estimates that POTWs will spend the following amount of time completing the various sections of Form 2A (see Table 6.1). **Table 6.1 For m 2A** 

**— burden per applicant respondent by section**  **10 Activity**  **Burden (hours)**  **Basic (Parts A**  **- C)**  **D**

**(Expanded e**  **ffluent t**  **esting d**  **ata) E** 

**(Toxicity t**  **esting d**  **ata) F** 

**(SIUs or RCRA**  **or CERCL**  **A G** 

**(CSOs) Ma**  **jor POTWs** 6.5 6 4.5 5 9 **Mi nor POTWs**  **(0.1 –**  **1.0 mgd)** 5 3.5 4.5 2 7 **Mi nor POTWs**  **(** ≺ **0.1 mgd)** 4 3.5 4.5 2 7 Note: Most applicants do not complete ever y section. Of the possible 2,737 Form 2A annual respondents (one - fifth of 13,685 existing POTWs), all majors and minors will complete the basic application information section. All major POTWs and all minor POTWs with pretreatment programs will complete sections D and E of the form. EPA assumes that 90 percent of major POTWs, 15 perce nt of large minors, and 1 percent of small minors have significant industrial users (SIUs) and therefore will complete section F . With regard to section G , on the basis of Clean Water Needs Survey ( CWNS ) 2004 data, EPA estimates that 15 percent of the major POTWs and 2.3 percent of minor POTWs have CSOs. In addition, EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 4 hours reviewing Form 2A , with an additional 4 hours for each CSO permit .

10 Design flow

from PCS or ICIS -NPDES wa s used as a proxy for flow. EPA is aware that design flow is usually greater than actual flow and that the results represent a conservative estimate. Permits not reporting flow in PCS or ICIS -NPDES were proportionally allocated to each of the flow categories .6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(i) Application/NOI

79 **Additional NPDES Application Requirements for Municipal Dischargers (Section 308**  **Requests) [1. 75** 
**– 1.**  **83 ]**  Because requests for supplemental information vary in complexity , this ICR calculates burden according to the complexity of the request. EPA estimates that facilities sp end 5 hours responding to routine requests. This includes 1 hour to read and understand the request, 2 hours to obtain information, and 2 hours to write a response. Requests of medium complexity require, on average, 50 hours. EPA estimates that complex req uests demand 1,000 hours. EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 1 hour reviewing routine request and 10 hours reviewing medium complexity

requests, and 20 hours for complex requests. EPA may request additional information from a facility at an y time. Generally , facilities are more likely

to receive Section 308 requests when they appl y or reappl y for permits than at other times. Therefore, this I CR divides municipal respondents into two categories: those that are applying for permits in a year, an d those that are not. Because permits ty pically last 5 years, one fifth of all facilities apply for permits each ye ar. EPA estimates that 7.5 percent major facilities and 1 percent of minors will receive a Section 308 request as part of the application pro cess. With regard to Section 308 requests not made during the application process, EPA estimates that 5 percent of the remaining major facilities will receive such a request. For minor municipals, EPA assumes that 1 percent of the remaining minor faciliti es receive them each ye ar. In addition, 50 percent of POTW s that receive complex requests pay contract laboratories to conduct the tests [see Section 6(b)(ii)(1)]. **NPDES Ocean Discharge Information [1. 84** 
**– 1.**  **85 ]**  Permittees generally

hire environmental cons ultants to conduct ocean discharge studies. These studies can include site survey s, effluent monitoring, field monitoring, and data anal ys is. Field monitoring may

require scuba diving and the help of a marine biologist. This I CR includes consultant labor h ours in its estimates of respondent burden. EPA estimates that a respondent will spend 778 hours supplying Ocean Discharge information. Burden estimates are based on EPA’s experience with field monitoring programs in ocean dumping and NPDES permit monitori ng. In addition, EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 88 hours reviewing these studies. O n the basis of permit issuance estimates, EPA believes that there will not be an y permittees required to submit ocean discharge information in the 3 ye ars covered b y this ICR . **Request for Water Quality Related Effluent Limitations Modification [1. 8**  **6**
**– 1.**  **87 ]**  EPA has never received a request for this ty pe of modification, and these requests are not anticipated in the future. Therefore, there is no burden associated with this type of modification . **Permit Modification ,**  **Revocation and Reissuance, or Termination [1. 8**  **8**
**– 1.**  **8 9**  **]** The total annual number of permittees expected to request a modification , revocation and reissuance, or termination of their permit is 7 48 or 5.5 percent of municipal NPDES permittees . An estimated 5 hours of respondent time would be necessary to provide the information requested b y the permitting authority . EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 40 hours handling and reviewing each Permit Modification, Revocation and Reissuance, or Termination .6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(i) Application/NOI

80 **Application for Variance Regarding Discharge into Marine Waters [1. 90** 
**– 1.**  **91 ]**  This variance is administered b y the Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds and is the subject of a separate ICR. Therefore, no respondent burden or cost associated with this requirement is reported in this I CR. This information collection and reporting requirement is noted here onl y to ensure completeness. **Modification and Variance under the Great Lakes Wate r Quality Guidance [1.**  **92**
**– 1.**  **93 ]**  EPA conservativel y estimates that regulatory relief would be requested for a total of 87 pollutants (from 59 facilities). EPA assumes that one - fifth (or about 18) will be requested each ye ar, 8 of which are municipal faciliti es. For more information, s ee S ection 6(a)(i)(A)(1). **6(a)(i)(A )(2)(1)**  **Non -**  **Stormwater —**  **Municipal Individual —**  **Biosolids Form 2S [1.**  **9 4** 
**– 1.**  **9 7**  **]** EPA estimates that respondents will spend 8.7 hours reviewing instructions, gathering and recording information, and c ompleting Form 2S according to the analy sis conducted in the Applications for the NPDES Discharge Permits and the Sewage Sludge Management Permits ICR (OMB Control No. 2040 - 0086; EPA I CR No. 0226.18). The annual number of 2,737 respondents consists of NPDES permit renewals (one - fifth of the total universe annually) for POTWs and sludge - onl y facilities submitting a permit application. This I CR assumes that permits issued to these respondents will be up for renewal and that on ave rage, one - fifth of these total respondents will respond annually . In addition, EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 0.67 hour reviewing Part 1 of Form 2S and 1.42 hours reviewing the full form. **6(a)(i)(A )(3) Non**  **- Stormwater**  **— General Permits**  **NOI to be Covered Under a Non**  **- Stormwater General Permit [1.**  **9 8** 
**– 1.**  **9 9**  **]** EPA estimates that respondents will spend, on average, 1 hour to file an NOI for non - stormwater general permits. EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 0.25 hour processing these NOIs . PCS and I CI S -NPDES data indicate that 62,425 non - stormwater general permittees exist . One fifth of the existing permittees, or 12,485 respondents, will file NOIs each year. **Permittee Notice of Regulated Discharge Cessation [1. 100** 
**– 1.**  **101 ]**  When notifying the permitting authority of a facility ’s decision to cease regulated discharges, the respondent incurs 1 hour of burden to prepare, ty pe, and mail a letter of intent. The annual number of respondents includes 1 percent of non - stormwater gene ral permittees for a total of 624 respondents. EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 4 hours handling and reviewing each Permittee Notice of Regulated Discharge Cessation. **Permit Modification ,**  **Revocation and Reissuance, or Termination [1. 10**  **2**
**– 1.**  **10 3**  **]** EPA does not anticipate any general permittee to be affe cted b y a p ermit m odification, r evocation and r eissuance, or t ermination because individual facility changes do not affect the general permit. Permittees would either file an NOT or appl y for an individual permit if a change makes them ineligible for coverage under the general permit.6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(i) Application/NOI

81 **6(a)(i)(B) Stormwater 6(a)(i)(B)(1) Stormwater**  **— Industrial**  **Form 1 [1. 10**  **4**
**– 1.**  **107 ]**  EPA estimates that Form 1 requires 3 hours to complete for the first time. New res pondents must read and fill out the form, prepare a topographic map, and review and mail the completed application. Applicants renewing existing permits will spend 1 hour completing Form 1 because these applicants need only send a duplicate of the previous ly submitted form, updating material if necessary . This applies to NPDES applicants who have permits in other EPA programs; these applicants also submit copies of existing forms. EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 0.5 hour reviewing Form 1. P CS and I CI S -NPDES identify 783 individual stormwater permittees that must submit Form 1 . If one - fifth of these file applications each ye ar, the annual number of respondents in this group is 157 . Inaddition, EPA estimates that 86 new facilities each ye ar will submit Form 1 with their applications for individual stormwater permits . **Form 2F [1. 108** 
**– 1.**  **109 ]**  On average, respondents will spend 28.6 hours preparing a site map, describing significant materials, certifying outfalls, gathering existing information o n spills and leaks, sampling and anal yz ing their discharges, and completing Form 2F (see Table 12 in OMB Control No. 2040 - 0086; EPA I CR No. 0226.18). EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 2.2 hours reviewing Form 2F. EPA estimates that about 90, 000 facilities have stormwater discharges associated with industrial activities and must apply

for NPDES permits. EPA bases its estimate on the number of NOI s received for stormwater general permits by EPA and the states, number of group applicants, and th e total number of 2F forms received. Of these 90,000 dischargers, very few have or will apply for individual stormwater permits because of the availability of less burdensome options (i.e., general permits). PCS and I CI S -NPDES indicate that there are onl y 783 facilities with industrial stormwater permits. Dividing this number b y the 5 permit years gives approximately 157 individual applicants per year. **NOI for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity [1. 110** 
**– 1.**  **11 3**  **]** EPA estimates that respon dents will spend approximately 1.5 hours completing the state’s NOI - Stormwater form, except for those facilities covered b y an EPA - issued permit, in which case, they will spend 3.7 hours. The weighted - average time spent will be 1.62 hours. EPA estimates th at 89,415 facilities have coverage under this ty pe of general permits (e.g., state or EPA - issued MSGP) . One - fifth of those (17,883) would reappl y for coverage each year . The single respondent activity for operators of industrial facilities certifying to a condition of no exposure is preparing and submitting a no - exposure certification. The burden estimate for industrial no - exposure respondents is 0.75 hour ( 45 minutes ) . No - exposure certifications are for 5 years, and as such, each respondent will incur one - fifth of the full burden of this activity each6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(i) Application/NOI

82 ye ar. EPA estimates that 36,377 industrial respondents will be eligible for the no - exposure provision over a 5 - ye ar period and, therefore will complete the no - exposure certification form. EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 0.25 hour processing these NOIs. The time for authorized states to process and review industrial no - exposure forms includes reviewing the form for completeness and applicability and entering the information into a database or tracking sy stem (1 hour each). **Notice of Termination (NOT) for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial**  **Activity [1.11 4** 
**– 1.11**  **5 ]**  EPA estimates that on average, general permittees will spend 0.5 hour filling out an NOT. On the basis of the previous NPDES Applications I CR (OMB Control No. 2040 - 0086; EPA I CR No. 0226.18), EPA estimates that 6,857 MSGP NOTs will be filed annuall y. EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 0.25 hour processing each NOT. **6(a)(i)(B)(2) Stormwater —**  **Municipal Application for Phase I MS4s [1.116** 
**– 1.119]**  EPA estimates that there are there are a total of 770 Phase I MS4s, covered under approximately 176 MS4 permits. EPA assumes that one - fif th of them will submit applications each ye ar ( 35 permits). All Phase I MS4s have previousl y applied for a permit , and therefore this I CR covers only reapplication activities. EPA estimates that an average MS4 will spend 80 hours for permit reapplication, which includes information for all co - permittees covered in that sy stem. EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 20 hours reviewing reapplications for MS4s. **NOI or Individual Permit Application for Small MS4s [1.1 20** 
**– 1.1**  **21 ]**  The respondent activitie s for operators of regulated small MS4s include submitting an NOI or individual permit application. EPA estimates that respondents will each spend an average of 6 0 hours over a 5 - year permit term to prepare and submit an NOI. This represents an average of facilities requiring a new permit as well as those reapplying for coverage . The MS4 NOI/permit application burden estimates are presented as NOI estimates but do include those MS4s that opt to use the individual permit application option available in 40 CF R 122.33(b)(2). According to EPA’s internal anal ys is, the Agency estimates that there are 6,632 permitted small MS4s . EPA assumes that one - fifth of them (1,326) will submit applications each ye ar. The burden incurred by authorized states for administering the small MS4 program include s 4 hours for processing and reviewing each NOIs and 4 hours for each individual permit applications . **6(a)(i)(B)(3) Stormwater —**  **Construction Individual Application or**  **NOI for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity**  **[1.12 2** 
**– 1.**  **13 2**  **]** Construction site operators for construction sources of 5 acres or more are required to complete an NOI or an individual application. EPA estimates that all construction sources required to seek coverage will use an NOI rather than s eek coverage using an application for an individual permit. EPA estimates that nationwide, there will be an annual average of 36,503 construction starts of 56. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(i) Application/NOI

83 acres or more in the period covered b y this ICR (on the basis of the Construction Effluent Limitat ion Guideline Technical Development Document). EPA estimates that the burden for permittees covered under EPA - issued permits to complete the EPA form for construction sites that disturb 5 acres or more would, on the basis of the level of Endangered Specie s Act ( ESA ) consultation needed , be the following :  No consultation in 60 percent of the cases: 1.5 hours;  In formal consultation in 37.3 percent of the cases: 6 hours; and  Formal consultation in 2.7 percent of the cases: 20 hours . However, in authorized states, the ESA requirement of the CGP does not necessarily apply , unless specificall y provided for b y the state. Therefore, for the purposes of this I CR, only construction sites in non - authorized states might incur burden in consult ations with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS ) . In other words, in authorized states, the burden is 1.5 hours for completin g the NOI, while in areas where EPA is the permitting authority, the burden depend s on the required level of consultation with FWS and NMFS. The sole activity required for administering the construction program in authorized states is for processing and reviewing NOIs. This includes entry of the NOI data into a database and for respondi ng to an y inquiries. EPA estimates that the average time for an authorized state to process and review an NOIis 1 hour. The respondent activities for construction sources of 1 to 5 acres include preparing and submitting a waiver certification or preparin g and submitting an NOI. Although construction activities may

be covered by

an NPDES permit for 5 years or longer, on the basis of data from EPA’s NOI Processing Center, the mean and median duration of permit coverage is less than 1 ye ar. As such, burden e stimates for each construction permittee are based on operation for 1 ye ar. Estimates are based on the steps necessary to determine eligibility

under the Phase II Rule’s construction waiver provision and the permit application, record keeping, SWPPP requir ements, and NOT for Phase I construction activities. EPA estimates that nationwide, there will be an annual average of 47,969 construction starts eligible for coverage under the Phase II Rule in the 3 years covered b y this ICR. The total number of starts for these 3 years was reduced by 5 percent according to EPA’s estimate of the number of construction starts that should be eligible for a waiver under the rule, thus resulting in a total of 45,571 per ye ar. These construction respondents are expected to pe rform the same activities as Phase I respondents , except for preparing and submitting a waiver certification in lieu of an NOI. Subtracting 45,571 from the 47,969 total construction starts yields an estimate of 2,398 construction sources that will qualify for a permit waiver each ye ar. For small construction sites , EPA estimates that respondents will spend 1 hour preparing and submitting waivers and 3.7 hours preparing and developing an NOI. The activities required for administering the small construction p rogram include processing and reviewing waiver certification forms (1 hour each) and NOIs (1 hour each) .6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(i) Application/NOI

84 **Notice of Termination (NOT) for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction**  **Activity [1.**  **13 3** 
**– 1.13**  **6 ]**  EPA estimates that on average, stormwater co nstruction general permittees will spend 0.5 hour preparing and submitting an NOT . EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 0.25 hour processing each . **6(a)(i)(C) Vessels Vessel General Permit NOI filing [1.**  **13 8** 
**– 1.**  **14 6**  **]** The NOI filing requirement is applicable onl y to vessels that are greater than or equal to 300 gross tons or if the vessel has the capacity to hold or discharge more than 8 cubic meters (2,113 gallons) of ballast water. EPA estimates that 1 hour is require d to file an NOI for a general permit. O n the basis of information presented in the Economic and Benefits Analysis of the 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP), September 20 1 1 , EPA estimate s that a total of 60,852 vessels are required to seek permit coverage, f or an annual average of 12,170 . 

### 6(a)(ii) Plan Development/Special Studies **6(a)(ii) (A** **) Non -**  **Stormwater 6(a)(ii)(A** **)(1) Non**  **- Stormwater**  **— Nonmunicipal Individual**  **Pollution Prevention Alternative (Pesticides Packaging & Repackaging) [2.1]** The effluent limitations guidelines contain provisions for one category (pesticides formulating, packaging, and repackaging) to develop a pollution prevention plan. EPA estimates that 50 percent of the facilities will choose to submit an annual certification to use pollution prevention alternatives. As part of this certification, each facility must de velop a pollution prevention plan. As in the previous ICR, this I CR estimates that one - third of these facilities will develop a pollution prevention plan annually and that each plan will take 20 hours to develop. **Regulatory Options for the Pulp, Paper, an d Paperboard Point Source Category (40 CFR**  **Part 430) [2.2** 
**– 2.11]**  EPA does not anticipate any bleached papergrade kraft and soda mill to develop the Milestones Plan required as part of a Voluntary Advanced Technology

Incentives Program (VAT IP ) established under the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards (40 CFR Part 430) portion of the Cluster Rule promulgated on April 15, 1998. The Milestones Plan is required only

of those mills that voluntarily choose to enroll in the incentives program. EPA does not anticipate any new plans in the period covered by this ICR. For those plans previously

developed, EPA estimates the recurring burden to authorized states to be an average of 6 hours per ye ar per mill for periodi c review of the mill’s progress in implementing the Milestones Plan and to take appropriate action if and when progress falters. Operators of direct discharging mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite Category are required to prepare site - specific BMP plans. EPA does not anticipate an y new plans in the period covered by this ICR. For those plans previousl y developed, EPA anticipates 50 hours of mill labor for amending and periodically reviewing a6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(ii) Plan Development/Special Studies

85 BMP Plan and has based the I CR burden on an assumption that each mill would need to amend its BMP plan twice every 5 years. In addition, EPA estimates that mills will spend 40 hours conducting refresher training . **Coal Mining Point Source Category**
**– Coal Remining Subcate**  **gory and Western Alkaline Coal Remining Subcategory [2.12** 
**– 2.15]**  The hour and cost burden associated with development of site - specific BMPs and plans is already covered b y the Surface Mining Permit Applications - Minimum Requirements for Reclamation and Ope ration Plan - 30 CFR part 780 I CR, OMB Control N o. 1029 - 0036. However, the burden to review these plans and prepare permits is covered by this ICR. EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 25 hours per plan for review and 10 hours per site for NPDES permit preparation for a total of 35 hours per site. **Antidegradation D**  **emonstration under the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [2.16**
**– 2.18]**  EPA expects that 5 percent of the 1 , 258 nonmunicipal permittees (approximately 63 ) will discharge bioaccumulative chemicals of concern ( BCCs ) . EPA conservatively assumes that all the permittees that discharge BCCs will request an increase in permit limits and be required to perform an antidegradation demonstration. EPA assumes that one - fifth of these permittees will prepare and submit an antidegradation demonstration each ye ar and assumes that 22.2 hours is required to prepare the demonstration for BCCs. 11 This number is divided by two because some of the burden is accounted for in the Water Qu ality Standards I CR. O n the basis of past experience, EPA expects that another 5 percent of the permittees (approximately 63 ) are likely to request an increase in permit limits for non - BCCs. EPA assumes that one - fifth of these respondents will prepare and submit an antidegradation demonstration each ye ar, and estimates that 14.8 hours is required to prepare the demonstration for non - BCCs. 12 is divided by

two because some of the burden is accounted for in the Water Quality Standards ICR. EPA determined that it would take a state about 16 hours to review an antidegradation demonstration. EPA also determined that one - fifth of antidegradation policy demonstrations submitted would be reviewed annuall y. The burden was divided by two since some because some of the burden is accounted for in the Water Quality Standards IC R. **Pollutant Minimization Programs (PMPs) under the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [2.19** 
**– 2.21]**  EPA estimate s that about 40 nonmunicipal facilities w ill be required to develop approvable control strategies for pollut ant minimization . Total respondent burden for establish ing PMPs i s estimated from the first Great Lakes Water Q uality Guidance ICR published in 1995, which cites the Final Assessment of Compliance Costs Resulting from Implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance . The burden to develop the strategy is 142.3 hours , and permittees will 11 Burden reported in the original Great Lakes ICR (60 hours) was reduced by 63 percent for the first renewal. See record of communications between EPA and OMB. 12 Burden reported in the original Great Lakes ICR (40 hours) was reduc ed by 63 percent for the first renewal. See record of communications between EPA and OMB.6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(ii) Plan Development/Special Studies

86 spend 1.4 hours per ye ar implement ing it . EPA estimate s the authorized state burden for reviewing an approvable control strategy , which is one component of a permittee’s PMP , to be about 4 hours per facility. **Bioconcentration Studies under the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [2.22]** After a consultation with EPA Regions with s tates in the Great Lakes watershed, EPA does not anticipate receiving an y bioconcentration studies in the next 3 years. **6(a)(ii)(A )(1)(1) Non**  **- Stormw**  **ater —**  **Nonmunicipal —**  **Biosolids** EPA has not identified any unique activities associated with plan development/special studies for thes e permittees . **6(a)(ii)(A )(2)**  **Non -**  **Stormwater —**  **Municipal Individual Antidegradation**  **D emonstration under the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [2.23** 
**– 2.25]**  EPA expects that 5 percent of the 1,065 municipal permittees in the Great L akes watershed (approximately 53 ) will discharge BCCs , and another 5 percent of the permittees (approximately 53 ) are likel y to request an increase in permit limits for non - BCCs. For more information, s ee Section 6(a)(ii)(A)(1). **Pollutant Minimization Programs (PMPs) un der the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance**  **[2.26**
**– 2.28]**  EPA estimate s that about 20 municipal facilities w ill be required to develop approvable control strategies. Total respondent burden for establish ing PMPs was estimated from the first Great Lakes Water Q uality Guidance ICR published in 1995, which cites the Final Assessment of Compliance Costs Resulting from Implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance . EPA estimate s the authorized state burden for reviewing an approvable control strategy , wh ich is one component of a permittee’s PMP , to be about 4 hours per facility . **Bioconcentration Studies under the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [2.29]** O n the basis of a consultation with EPA Regions with s tates in the Great Lakes watershed, EPA does no t anticipate receiving any bioconcentration studies in the next 3 years. **6(a)(ii)(A )(2)(1)**  **Non -**  **Stormw ater**  **— Municipal Individual**  **— Biosolids**  EPA has not identified any unique activities associated with plan development/special studies for these permittees . **6(a)(ii)(A )(2)(2)**  **Non -**  **Stormw ater**  **— Municipal Individual**  **— CSO**  **CSO Control Policy**

**— Nine Minimum Controls**  **[2.30**
**– 2.63]**  There are two burden activities associated with documenting implementation of the NMC: (1) the burden of writing a report documenting the controls’ implementation, and (2) the burden of gathering the information necessary to document that the controls have been implemented. The6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(ii) Plan Development/Special Studies

87 burden for writing a report to support the documentation will vary widel y among s ys tems because of the varying size of sy stems documenting the NMC’s implementation. Furthermore, the cost of actually

implementing a control measure, fo r example, purchasing netting to control floating debris, is not included in the I CR because it is not an information collection activity . The burden of collecting information to support the documentation will vary widel y among sy stems because some might already have available information and others might not. For large sy stems, this burden is 200 hours per s ys tem, for medium sy stems 43 hours, and for small sy stems it is 29 hours. The state burden to review the documentation is estimated to be 40 hours per sy stem. EPA estimates that all 853 CSO permits or enforcement orders have fulfill the obligation of Phase I technology - based CSO control requirements. This estimate is supported by information from EPA Regional and authorized state CSO program staff. **CS O Long**  **- Term Control Plans and Supplementary Information**  **[2.64**
**– 2.75]**  Following are information collection burdens calculated for components of the L TCP. The burdens are calculated assuming that the permit requires that the permittee develop the LTCP and that the permittee address each component of the L TCP. The calculated burdens are adjusted for several factors: (1) a number of CSS municipalities have already completed long - term plans that contain part of or all the L TCP components included in the policy , ( 2) the small sy stem consideration in the policy might relieve small sy stems of some of the burden in developing an LTCP, and (3) not every

component of the LTCP will be applicable to every CSS and every outfall. The resulting burden varies from 300 hours f or small sy stems that have existing studies to 6,000 hours for large systems without existing studies. States would need an annual average of 20 hours to review the information for small s ys tems, 33 hours for medium sy stems, and 53 hours for large s ys tems. EPA estimates that 734 of the 853 CSO permits with requirements to submit a CSO long - term control plan have submitted documentation to the appropriate NPDES authority with a schedule incorporated into an enforceable mechanism, including a permit or enforcement order, with specific dates and milestones, including a completion date consistent with Agency guidance which requires: 1) Implementation of a Long Term Control Plan (L TCP) which will result in compliance with the technology and water quality - based r equirements of the Clean Water Act; or 2) Implementation of any other acceptable CSO control measures consistent with the 1994 CSO Control Policy ; or 3) Completion of separation after the baseline date (September 30, FY2007). (Cumulative) This estimate is supported by information from EPA Regional and authorized state CSO program staff. As a result of this information, EPA estimates that the remaining 119 permits will submit the necessary

documentation over the next 3 years. For purposes of calculating the burden of developing an LTCP, municipalities were divided into three categories: (1) those serving more than 75,000 persons (approximately 79 s ys tems) termed large, (2) those serving between 10,000 and 75,000 persons (approximately 31 s ys tems) termed medi um, and (3) those serving fewer than 10,000 persons (approximately 10 s ys tems) termed small [allocation is based on previous CSO Control Policy

I CR (OMB No. 2040 - 0170; EPA I CR No. 1680.04)].6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(ii) Plan Development/Special Studies

88 Each CSS is unique in terms of its condition, design, operation, and the extent that it has been studied. Each of the components of the LTCP overlaps with the other components to a varying degree depending on the individual system’s characteristics. For one s ys tem, consideration of sensitive areas could be tied closely with consideration of control alternatives, while for another sy stem, no identifiable sensitive area exists. Finally , the amount of information collection required to support the LTCP will vary greatly from sy stem to sy stem. **6(a)(ii)(A )(3) Non**  **- Stormwater**  **— General Permits**  EPA has not identified any unique activities associated with plan development/special studies for these permittees . **6(a)(ii)(B) Stormw ater**  **6(a)(ii)(B)(1) Stormwater —**  **Industrial SWPPP for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial**  **Activity [2.76**
**– 2.**  **79 ]**  Facilities completing an NOI for industrial activity must develop a SWPPP or update their current SWPPP when reapplying for permit coverage . In this ICR, EPA assumes that the 871 new nonmunicipal applicants a year will be required to develop a SWPPP and one - fifth of the 89,415 existing permittees will be required to update their SWPPP . Although components of a SWPPP are similar, facility design, size and function, and the level of effort involved will vary for each facility . EPA identified a typical respondent and then estimated the burden for that respondent to prepare a SWPPP. This burden estimate for preparing a SWPPP includes 8 hours to read regulations, 2 hours to select a team , 20 hours to describe sources, 42 hours to develop measures and controls, and 8 hours to perform a comprehensive site evaluation. EPA estimates that the average time for a respondent to develop a SWPPP is 80 hours. From these estimate s to develop a new SW PPP, EPA estimates that updating an existing plan would take 8 hours. EPA estimates that states will review 20 percent of SWPPPs and will spend 1 hour handling and reviewing each new or updated SWPPP. **6(a)(ii)(B)(2) Stormwater —**  **Municipal Stormwater Management Plans**  **[ 2.**  **80**
**– 2.81**  **]** EPA estimates that the time required to update the stormwater management plans (SWMP) programs for Phase I MS4s is 200 hours for each of the 176 permits every 5 ye ars . **6(a)(ii)(B)(3) Stormwater —**  **Construction SWPPP**  **for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity [2.**  **8 2** 
**– 2.8**  **6 ]**  The burden to develop a SWPPP for construction sources of 5 acres or more was estimated from input by contractor staff familiar with the stormwater CGP process and designing SWPPPs . Although components of a SWPPP are similar, the design, size, function, and the level of effort involved will vary

for each site. To calculate the burden to prepare a SWPPP, EPA and EPA contractor staff identified a typical respondent and then estimated the burden for that respondent6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(ii) Plan Development/Special Studies

89 to prepare a SWPPP. This burden for preparing a SWPPP is presented in Section 4(b). EPA estimates that the average time for a respondent to develop a SWPPP is 36.4 hours. This is a one time development activity. The estimated burden of 22.7 hours for construction sources of 1 to 5 acres developing a SWPPP represents the median value of the low (10.6 hours) and high (34.7 hours) burden estimates determined in the EA for the Phase II Rule. 

### 6(a)(iii) Monitoring **6(a)(iii)(A ) Non**  **- Stormwater**  **6(a)(iii)(A )(1)**  **Non -**  **Stormwater —**  **Nonmunicipal Individual DMRs for Major and Minor Individual Permittees [3.1** 
**– 3.14]**  This section describes the methods EPA used to calculate the burden to respondents associated with collecting and reporting or maintaining records of monitoring data. The burden on each respondent is the sum of sampling , record - keeping , and reporting burden. Respondent burden is a function of factors that are specific to each NPDES permit or, in the case of 40 CFR Part 503 biosolids facilities, specified in the regulations. These factors include, but are not limited to, the following:  Th e number of facility outfalls (a DMR is submitted for each outfall);  The number of samples collected;  The number of parameters monitored; and  The frequency

of sample collection. EPA has estimated average or ty pical values for each of the above factors (i. e., number of outfalls, number of samples, number of hours to collect a sample) to calculate respondent burden. These averages are difficult to estimate because of the variability of monitoring and reporting requirements among regulated facilities. EPA has attempted to categorize DMR respondents b y ownership (public vs. private), major/minor, effluent flow, or industrial classification; however, burden values vary significantly

within these respondent categories. Accordingl y, it is not possible to define a typical respondent. However, to develop appropriate burden estimates for the 2002 DMR ICR (OMB Control No. 2040 - 0004; EPA I CR No. 0229.15) EPA estimated ty pical values using information from interviews with EPA staff, data from the PCS database, the NOI P rocessing Center, the previous DMR I CRs, and two prior NPDES Streamlining Rules. Values and assumptions from the previous DMR I CRs were used, to the extent that they were considered reasonable estimates. Estimates of the number of major and minor NPDES pe rmittees and the frequency at which they are required to submit DMRs are based on current data from PCS, I CI S -NPDES, and on the previous DMR I CR (OMB Control No . 2040 - 0004; EPA I CR No. 0229.16)6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(iii) Monitoring

90 NPDES permittees spend time collecting wastewater or sludge s amples or both . These respondents can collect samples either automatically or manuall y. The samples can be either grab or composite (which involves collecting individual samples and combining them into one sample representative of a dail y discharge). Burde ns for collecting samples vary depending on the typ es of samples taken. For example, economies of scale are realized when a single sample can be used for man y parameters. The time to collect a sample can vary from a few minutes (in the case of automatic sampling for some parameters) to 3 hours for manuall y collected composite samples. Sample collection burdens also will vary depending on the number of outfalls that must be sampled and the distance between sampling locations. Sampling burden is calculated as follows: Sampling Burden (hours) = Avg. Number of Samples × Avg. Hours to Collect a Sample The assumptions (i.e., number of samples, hours to collect a sample) used to calculate the sampling burden are based on the previous DMR ICR (OMB Control No . 2040 - 0004; EPA I CR No. 0229.16). After facilities have collected wastewater or sludge samples, they are anal yz ed. The assumptions (i.e., number of parameters anal yzed, hours to conduct analy sis) used to calculate the anal ys is burden are b ased on the previous DMR I CR (OMB Control No . 2040 - 0004; EPA I CR No. 0229.16). **Regulatory Options for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category (40 CFR Part**  **430) [3.15**
**– 3.22]**  Operators of direct discharging mills are required to daily monitor w astewater treatment s ys tem influent for the purpose of detecting leaks and spills, tracking the effectiveness of the BMPs, and detecting trends in spent pulping liquor losses. EPA estimates the burden associated with this monitoring to be in an increment o f 1 additional hour per day . This activity was originally presented in OMB ICR No. 2040

– 0207 . The following activities were originally presented in OMB ICR No. 2040

– 0243. All Subparts B and E direct discharging mills are required to monitor for BAT and NS PS pollutants at the minimum frequency

specified in 40 CFR 430.02. The additional time required to prepare the samples, labels, and paperwork and to ship the samples to the laboratory for anal ys is was estimated in the original ICR (OMB ICR No. 2040

– 0243). These additional times depend on the ty pe of mill:  Mills Kraft & Soda: 1.00 hour  Subpart B Bleached Papergrade Kraft & Soda, (AOX): 0.25 hour  Subpart B Bleached Papergrade Kraft & Soda, (chloroform): 1.50 hour  Subpart B Bleached Papergrade Kraft & Soda, (TCDD, TCDF, 12 chlorinated phenolics) grab sample: 0.50 hour  Subpart B Bleached Papergrade Kraft & Soda, (TCDD, TCDF, 12 chlorinated phenolics) composite sample: 0.25 hour  Subpart E Ca / Sodium / Mg Sulfite : 0.25 hour  Subpart E Ammonium Sulfite: 0.50 hour6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(iii) Monitoring

91 **Coal Mining Point Source Category**
**– Coal Remining Subcategory and Western Alkaline**  **Coal Remining Subcategory [3.23**
**– 3.44]**  Activities were originall y presented in OMB ICR No. 2040

– 0239. For this anal ys is EPA includes collecting baseline determination and mon itoring data (0.75 hour per sample) for the Coal Remining Subcategory . EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 10 hours per site per year for reviewing post - baseline monitoring data . The hour and cost burden associated with Western Alkaline Coal R emining is covered b y the Surface Mining Permit Applications - Minimum Requirements for Reclamation and Operation Plan

— 30 CFR P art 780 ICR, OMB I CR No. 1029 - 0036. **WET Data Collection under the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [3.45]**  O n the basis of the first Great Lakes Water Q uality Guidance ICR published in 1995, which cites the Final Assessment of Compliance Costs Resulting from Implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance, the burden for WET testing is 6,841 hours per ye ar for nonmunicipal permittees . **WQBEL Compliance Monitoring under the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [3.46]**  On the basis of the results from the Final Assessment of Compliance Costs Resulting from Implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance , EPA estimate s that an additional 250 facilities will require WQBEL monitoring for 69 pollutants as a result of implementing s tate/tribal or f

ederal provisions consistent with the guidance . EPA estimates that 0.5 hour w ill be required for each monitoring event (i.e., each pollutant) per year. This results in a total monitoring burden of just over 216 hours each ye ar. **6(a)(iii)(A )(1)(1)**  **Non -**  **Stormwater —**  **Nonmunicipal Individual —**  **Biosolids DMRs for Sewage Sludge Facilities [3.47** 
**– 3.54]**  Respondent burden is a function of factors that are specified in the regulations. For detailed information, s ee S ection 6(a)(iii)(A)(1). **6(a)(iii)(A )(2)**  **Non -**  **Stormwater —**  **Municipal Individual DMRs for Major and Minor Individual Permittees [3.55** 
**– 3.66]**  Respondent burden is a function of factors that are specified in each NPDES permit. For detailed information, s ee S ection 6(a)(iii)(A)(1). **WET Data Collection under the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [3.67]**  On the basis of the first Great Lakes Water Q uality Guidance ICR published in 1995, which cites the Final Assessment of Compliance Costs Resulting from Implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance, the burden for WET testing is 10,877 hours per year for municipal permittees . **WQBEL Compl iance Monitoring**  **under the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [3.68]** On the basis of the results from the Final Assessment of Compliance Costs Resulting from Implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance , EPA estimate s that an additional6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(iii) Monitoring

92 17 0 fac ilities will require WQBEL monitoring for 237 pollutants as a result of implement ing s tate/tribal or f

ederal provisions consistent with the guidance . EPA estimates that 0.5 hour w ill be required for each monitoring event (i.e., each pollutant) per year. This results in a monitoring burden of just under 147 hours each ye ar per permittee. **6(a)(iii)(A )(2)(1)**  **Non -**  **Stormwater —**  **Municipal Individual —**  **Biosolids DMRs for Sewage Sludge Facilities**  **[3.69**
**– 3.76]**  Respondent burden is a function of factors that are specified in the regulations. For detailed information, s ee S ection 6(a)(iii)(A)(1). **6(a)(iii)(A )(2)(2)**  **Non -**  **Stormwater —**  **Municipal Individual —**  **CSO CSO Control Policy**  **- Compliance Monitoring**  **[3 .77** 
**– 3.79]**  The CSO Control Policy

recommends that CSO communities conduct compliance monitoring to demonstrate that their implemented CSO control plans do achieve compliance with CWA requirements and applicable state WQS. Over the life of this I CR, EPA esti mates that 75 percent of the 746 CSO municipalities (560) will conduct compliance monitoring activities . EPA estimates that, during each semiannual reporting period, CSO communities will sample wet weather discharges from CSOs during three wet - weather events. During each of three storm events, municipalities will sample two CSO discharge points, taking two samples per outfall. Each sample will be analyzed for total suspended solids , BOD, and fecal coliform. Municipalities may

be required as a condition of their NPDES permit to analyze for additional pollutants depending on the site - specific circumstances in each case. EPA anticipates that NPDES permitting authorities will require as a permit condition that municipalities estimate and report the volume, frequency , and duration of CSOs that they experience in each reporting period. The assumptions used to estimate the hours of sampling and anal ys is , taken from the CSO Control Policy

I CR (OMB Control No. 2040 - 0170; EPA I CR No. 1680.04) , are 27 hours for sampling, 18 hours for analy sis, and 20 hours for estimating the flow parameters . **6(a)(iii)(A )(3) Non**  **- Stormwater**  **— General Permits**  **DMRs for Non -**  **Stormw ater General Permittees [3.80** 
**– 3.91]**  Respondent burden is a function of factors that are specified in each NPDES permit. For detailed information, s ee S ection 6(a)(iii)(A)(1). **6(a)(iii)(B) Stormw ater**  **6(a)(iii)(B)(1) Stormwater —**  **Industrial Inspections for**  **Industrial Stormwater General Permittees [3.92]** All 89,415 general industrial stormwater permittees are required to conduct annual comprehensive inspections. EPA estimates 2 hour s per respondent per ye ar to complete this6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(iii) Monitoring

93 activity . Additional routine inspec tion s ( EPA assumes quarterl y half hour inspections ) would add 2 hours per ye ar for a total of 4 hours per ye ar per permittee. **DMRs for Industrial Stormwater General Permittees [3. 93** 
**– 3.**  **94 ]**  Respondent burden is a function of factors that are specified in each NPDES permit. For detailed information, s ee S ection 6(a)(iii)(A)(1). **6(a)(iii)(B)(2) Stormwater —**  **Municipal MS4s**  **monitoring [ 3.**  **95**
**– 3.**  **96 ]**  Respondent burden is a function of factors that are specified in each NPDES permit. For detailed information, s ee S ection 6(a)(iii)(A)(1). **6(a)(iii)(B)(3) Stormwater —**  **Construction Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity [3.**  **97**
**– 3.**  **10 2**  **]** The permittee burden to conduct routine site inspections for construction sources of 5 acres or more was estimated using BPJ. This I CR assumes that inspections will be conducted by a project manager, biweekl y, with each inspection expected to take 0.5 hour , including do cumentation of findings. According to data from EPA’s NOI database, the median and mean large construction projects last approximately 1 year , and EPA assumes 26 biweekl y self - inspections will be conducted. The respondent activities for construction sourc es of 1 to 5 acres include conducti ng routine site inspections . The burden for routine inspections is based on small construction activities operating for an average of 4 months, with biweekly inspections (8 total) and each lasting approximately

0.25 hour . Some states with NPDES authorization have begun requiring monitoring at construction sites. EPA estimates that 5 percent ( 3,892 ) of construction sites will have bimonthly monitoring requirements as p art of their permits, with each monitoring episode taki ng 1.5 hours. **6(a)(iii)(C) Vessels Vessel General Permit Routine Inspections [3.**  **10 3** 
**– 3.**  **111 ]**  Vessels are already performing these routine inspections. However, additional time may be required based on the introduction of BMP permitting requirements. EPA estimates that an additional 0.5 hour will be annuall y required of small vessels (including fre ight barges, passenger vessels, utility

vessels, and tank barges) , and 2 additional hours will be annually required of large vessels (including cruise ships, freight ships, and tank ships) . EPA estimates that the effe ct of routine inspections on foreign ve ssels will be 20 percent of that for domestic vessels , becaus e of their limited time in U . S . waters . **Vessel General Permit Annual Inspection [3. 112** 
**– 3.**  **120 ]**  Vessels are already performing annual inspections. However, additional time may be required based on the introduction of BMP permitting requirements. EPA estimates that an additional 0.56. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(iii) Monitoring

94 hour will be annuall y required of small vessels , and 2 additional hours will be annuall y required of large vessels. EPA estimates that the effe ct of annual inspections o n foreign vessels will be 90 percent of that for domestic vessels , because of their limited time in U . S . waters . **Vessel General Permit Monitoring [3.121]** EPA estimates that 200 vessels will each perform sampling of and anal ys is of gray water and/or ballast water discharges four times a year. Each sampling event would take approximately 6 hours. 

### 6(a)(iv) Reporting (including certification) **6(a)(iv)(A )**  **Non -**  **Stormwater 6(a)(iv)(A** **)(1) Non**  **- Stormwater**  **— Nonmunicipal Individual**  **Permittee Report of Planned Facility Changes [4.1**
**– 4.4]**  Respondents will use an estimated average of 4 hours to complete their notification of planned alterations and additions . This burden estimate includes 1 hour to read and understand the regulation, 1 hour to plan the report, and 2 hours to write the report . On the basis of recent discussion with EPA headquarters and Regional staff, the annual number of respondents includes 5 perce nt of all major permittees and 2 percent of all minor permittees for a total of 665 annual nonmunicipal NPDES respondents . EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 20 hours handling and reviewing each Permittee Report of Planned Facility Changes. **P ermittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance [4.5** 
**– 4.8]**  Respondents will use an estimated average of 5 hours of labor for each report of anticipated noncompliance. This burden is divided as follows: 1 hour to read and understand the regulation, 1 hour of pl anning, 1 hour of collecting information, and 2 hours for writing and submitting the report. The annual number of NPDES respondents is estimated to include 1 percent of all major permittees and 1 percent of all minor permittees for a total of 301 annual no nmunicipal NPDES respondents. EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 10 hours handling and reviewing each Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance . **Facility and Permit Transfer Report [4.9**
**– 4.12]**  EPA estimates that the average respondent burd en of this requirement would be 3 hours for each report. Necessary

reporting activities include writing and mailing the cover letter and official notice. The annual number of respondents includes approximately 2 percent of all major and 3 percent of all mi nor nonmunicipals for a total of 885 respondents. EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 4 hours handling and reviewing each Facility and Permit Transfer Report. **Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous Information [4.13**
**– 4.16]**  The respondent burde n associated with this reporting requirement includes the time needed to verify the reporting error or omission, to prepare the revised form that details the reporting corrections, and to mail the information to the permitting authority . The time required under this regulation will vary

depending on the size of the facility and the extent of the error or omission.6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

95 EPA estimates that a ty

pical report requires 2 hours to prepare. The annual number of respondents is estimated to be 1 percent of all major and 2 percent of all minor nonmunicipals, for a total of 583 respondents annually . EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 4 hours handling and reviewing each Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous Information. **Notification of New or Increase d**  **Dischar ge**  **[4.17**
**– 4.20]**  The respondent burden associated with this requirement w ill be 4 hours, including 1 hour to read and understand the regulation, 1 hour to plan and gather information for the report, and 2 hours to write and prepare the report. No quantitative sampling and analy sis is required to complete the r eport. The annual number of 946 respondents would be composed of 5 percent of all major and 3 percent of all minor nonmunicipals. EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 4 hours handling and reviewing each r eport. **DMRs for Major and Minor Individual Permittees [4.21**
**– 4**  **.34]** Reporting of monitoring data involves compiling data from various pollutant analy ses and calculating average pollutant concentrations and/or loadings. The respondent records this information on DMRs. When preprinted DMRs are used, the respondent spend s time for reporting only

the anal yt ical results (the general DMR information is preprinted). EPA estimates the reporting burden per DMR to be 2 hours. For facilities with multiple outfalls, this number is multiplied by

the number of outfalls. The burden to state s for processing and anal yz ing monitoring data is a function of two factors: (1) the number of DMRs received b y the permitting authority, and (2) the time it takes to process and anal yz e monitoring data (including entry into the PCS and I CI S -NPDES databases). In addition to entering monitoring data into PCS or ICI S -NPDES, staff might need to conduct follow - up actions in instances of noncompliance. This follow - up could be a phone conversation or a letter to verify , clarify , or s ubstantiate the information reported. For those facilities required only to maintain records, there is no corresponding federal or state burden. EPA estimates that it takes about an average of 0.17 hour (10 minutes ) to review and enter the data into PCS or I CI S -NPDES. EPA also estimates that 20 percent of the DMRs submitted will require some form of follow - up action because of noncompliance. EPA estimates that this follow - up action requires an average of 0.5 hour pe r DMR. In addition, EPA is working toward implement ing W eb - based submission of DMR data (n etDMR) . Such a submission of DMR data are voluntary

and will be an alternative to the paper DMR submission. **Compliance Schedule Reports [4.35** 
**– 4.40]**  Permittees must submit reports that state whether compliance schedule milestones contained in their permits have been met. EPA assumes that most NPDES permittees will engage a contractor to undertake the construction necessary to meet these milestones. EPA further assumes that the permittees will receive periodic detailed progress reports from their contractors on the status of construction. Therefore, EPA expects this requirement to place very little additional burden on permittees. According to the previo us Compliance Assessment/Certification I CR (OMB Control No. 2040 - 0110; EPA I CR No. 1427.08), EPA estimates that permittees will submit an average of 1.5 reports per ye ar, and the burden to complete each report will be 0.75 hour. This is equivalent6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

96 to 1.125 hours per ye ar for each respondent. This burden represents the time required to both prepare and send the compliance schedule report. EPA expect s that 20 percent of the major facilities and 5 percent of the minor facilities will submit compliance schedul e reports per year , on the basis of the results of Permit Quality Reviews in 15 states . EPA estimates that states require 0.25 hour s to review each compliance schedule report submitted by

permittees who are in compliance. According to the QNCR, approximat ely 20 percent of permittees that submit these reports are not in compliance with their scheduled milestones. EPA estimates that the regulatory authority requires 4 hours to review and conduct follow - up activities (phone calls, letters) for each of these reports. **Noncompliance Reports [4.41** 
**– 4.66]**  When a permittee violates a permit condition, it must submit a noncompliance report to the permitting authority. The following subsections discuss the burden estimates associated with these noncompliance reports. 24
-Hour Report of Unanticipated Bypass or Upset [4.41
- 4.50] . Where noncompliance at a permittee’s facility

could endanger human health or the environment, the permittee is required to verball y notify

the permitting authority

within 24 hours of the noncomp liance. The permittee must follow the verbal report by a written report, unless the permitting authority waives it. EPA assumes that permittees closely monitor the operation of their facilities so that the occurrence of a by pass or upset of the treatment w orks is readil y apparent to operators. Because of the potential for serious environmental damage, grave threats to public health, and injury to facility employees, permittees should act quickly if such an event occurs. Permittees must make these reports if they

wish to use unanticipated by pass or upset as an affirmative defense for violating their permit limits [40 CFR 122.41(n)(3)]. Thus, if proper procedures for reporting b yp ass or upset are followed, the permittee may use the 24 - hour report as a defense for violating its permit conditions, because it is a timely report of the occurrence. EPA estimates that 15 percent ( 317 ) of the 2,116 major nonmunicipal facilities and 5 percent (1, 432 ) of the 28,643 minor nonmunicipal facilities upset or b ypass annually , thereby requiring a verbal notification . EPA estimates that these respondents will submit one report per year at 5 hours of burden . In addition, EPA estimates that 75 percent ( 1,312 ) of the 1,749 facilities submitting a verbal notification will also be required to submit a written report . The written report is expected to require an additional 2 hours of burden . The burden represents the time required to investigate the by pass or cause of upset; determine the duration or expected duration of the incident; determine the corrective actions to be taken; prepare the written report (if the requirement is not waived); and send the report to the permitting authority. EPA estimates that 1 hour is required for states to receive and process each verbal noncomplianc e notice, and 2 hours are required for the regulatory authority to receive and process each written noncompliance report. Approximately 75 percent of those permittees that must submit verbal reports are also required to submit written reports. EPA anticipates that the permitting authority will waive the written report requirement for the remaining 25 percent. In6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

97 addition, EPA estimates that 2 hours are required for documentation of immediate action to mitigate the problem for 25 percent of the responses. 24
-Hour Report of Violation of Maximum Daily Discharge [4.51
- 4.60] . When a permittee exceeds its maximum daily discharge limitation for pollutants specified in its permit, the permittee is required to verball y notify the permitting authority within 24 hour s of the violation. The permittee must follow the verbal report b y a written report, unless the permitting authority waives it. Permittees that have dail y maximum discharge limits are already required to monitor for limited pollutants and report sampling results to the permitting authority on a DMR. Because the permittee’s requirements are already accounted for in Section 6(a)(iii), the verbal and written notice requirements under this activity add onl y an incremental burden to the permittee’s regular reporting requirements. EPA assumes that the permittees required to submit verbal notices will incur a burden of 3 hours per notice. In addition, EPA assumes that 50 percent of those permittees giving notice will be required to submit written notices (permitti ng authorities will waive the remaining 50 percent), with an estimated burden of 2 hours per written report. The burden represents the time required to gather information and prepare the verbal notice, prepare the written report if the requirement is not w aived, and submit the report to the permitting authority. EP A estimates that 15 percent ( 317 ) of the 2,116 major and 5 percent (1, 432 ) of the 28,643 minor nonmunicipal facilities will violate their maximum daily discharge limitations for which a 24 - hour r eport is required . Of these permittees, EPA expects the written report submittal requirement to be waived in 50 percent of the cases . Thus, 159 major and 716 minor nonmunicipals are expected to submit written reports of violations of the maximum daily disc harge limit . EPA estimates that the major facilities will submit an average of two reports per ye ar, while the minors will submit an average of one report annuall y . EPA estimates that 1 hour is required for states to receive and process each verbal violation notice, and 2 hours are required to receive and process each written violation report. As mentioned earlier, in 50 percent of the cases the requirement for the written report is waived. In addition, EPA estimates that 2 hours are needed to document imm ediate action to mitigate the problem for 25 percent of the verbal and written responses. Other Noncompliance [4.61
- 4.66] . When any t yp e of noncompliance occurs that is not covered by standard compliance assessment reports (i.e., DMRs, compliance schedule reports, 24 - hour reports, or planned changes), the permittee is still required to report it. Usually , a permittee makes these types of reports when conditions other than those described above cause it to violate the conditions of its permit. EPA estimates the average burden to be 5 hours per response. This burden represents the time required to gather information, prepare and present/conduct the verbal notice, and prepare and submit a written report. Because most instances of NPDES noncompliance reporting are covered b y other requirements of this I CR, EPA expects very few respondents to be affected annuall y . Approximately 2 percent ( 42 ) of the 2,116 major and 1 percent ( 286 ) of the 28,643 minor nonmunicipal facilities are6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

98 expected to submit one report per ye ar. EPA estimates that an average of 2 hours is required for the permitting authority t o receive and process each report. **Alternate Level Reports [4.67]** The permitting authority

may , at its discretion, apply tiered production - based effluent limits in an NPDES permit. Tiered permit limits allow facilities to operate under different sets of limits for pollutants on the basis of varying production levels. In the case of automotive factories, however, a reasonable demonstration by the permittee for the requi rement for tiered limits obligates EPA (not states) to grant tiered limits to the industry . Nevertheless, every facility operating under tiered limits is required to submit a notification to the permitting authority if it intends to operate at a production level higher than the lowest production level identified in the permit. EPA estimates that 0. 5 percent (11) of major nonmunicipal permittees have such conditions in their permits and will submit one report per ye ar. Each report is estimated to take 1 hour to complete. **Certification for Exemption from Monitoring and Notification of Process Changes [4.68** 
**– 4.91]**  As discussed in Section 4(b)(i)(4), the effluent limitations guidelines contain provisions that allow facilities in certain industrial categorie s to request exemptions from monitoring requirements. The Respondents Table in Appendix A provides an estimate of the number of facilities in each of these industrial categories. These estimates were generated using data from the previous Compliance Assess ment/Certification I CR (OMB Control No. 2040 - 0110; EPA ICR No. 1427.08) and cross - referencing it with facility SI C code data by CFR category . EPA estimates that e ach certification will require 1 hour to prepare. EPA estimates that approximately 75 percent of the aluminum forming facilities and coil coating facilities choose to submit an annual certification requesting an exemption from cyanide monitoring. EPA estimates that 50 percent of the porcelain enameling facilities choose to submit an annual certif ication requesting an exemption from chromium monitoring. Additionally , of the eligible pharmaceutical facilities, EPA estimates from effluent guideline development documents that approximately 40 percent of the pharmaceutical facilities are in a subcateg ory

that potentially

use cyanide. Of these, EPA estimates that 75 percent choose to submit a certification once every permit cycle requesting an exemption from monitoring. In the P ulp, Paper , and Paperboard category , EPA estimates from effluent guideline development documents that approximately 80 percent of the facilities use a chlorine - free process and are eligible to choose an alternative monitoring program. These facilities may certify once every permit cycle that their process does not use chloropheno lic biocides. EPA estimates that of these 80 percent eligible, 75 percent will choose to certify that their process is eligible for alternative monitoring requirements. Similarly , for the B uilders’ P aper and B oard M ills category , EPA estimates that 75 perc ent of the facilities will certify their process.6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

99 EPA estimates that approximately 75 percent of the facilities in the S team E lectric category choose to provide a demonstration and certification requesting an exemption from monitoring requirements. EPA e stimates that approximately 50 percent of the eligible electrical and electronic components facilities will choose to submit a TTO Certification (semiannuall y) in lieu of TTO monitoring, and 75 percent of the metal finishing facilities will choose to submi t this (semiannual) TTO certification. Note: There are no known electroplating facilities that discharge directl y into a water of the United S tates (as opposed to discharging into a POTW). EPA estimates that state review of certifications take 1 hour per certification , which occur annually , except those for pulp, paper, and paperboard facilities. Such facilities are required to submit certifications once per permit cycle. The electroplating, metal finishing, and electric and electronic components facilitie s must submit semiannual certifications. **Synthetic -**  **Based Fluids (SBF) Well Drilling Operations [4.92]** With regard to use of BMPs under 40 CFR Part 435 to control NAFs, EPA estimates that 68 facilities annuall y will be affected b y this I CR. EPA estimates the public reporting (i.e., all information collection) burden for the selected BMP option as 787 hours per respondent per ye ar. **Regulatory Options for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category (40 CFR Part**  **430) [4.93**
**– 4.101]**  EPA anticipates th at the burden of preparing a spill report is approximately 4 hours. This activity was originally

presented in OMB ICR No. 2040

– 0207. Operators of direct discharging mills are required to provide their NPDES permit authorities reports of the monitoring requ ired b y the BMP regulation. EPA has based the burden estimates on a semiannual reporting frequency and estimates that each report will take 16 hours to complete . EPA estimates that authorized states will spend an incremental 10 hours per ye ar per facility for reviewing periodic (i.e., annual or semiannual) monitoring reports and conducting compliance reviews. The monthly

reporting burden for Subparts B and E mills presented in the Respondents Activities Table in Appendix B comes from estimates in the original ICR (OMB ICR No. 2040

– 0243) . EPA assumed that DMRs and Periodic Compliance Reports (PCRs) are submitted monthly . Reporting monitoring data involves compiling data from various pollutant analy ses and calculating average pollutant concentrations and/or l oadings. The respondent records this information on the DMR or PCR and submits this information to the permitting authority . EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 0.5 hour processing and analyzing monitoring data for Subpart B and E direct disch arging mills . These activities were originall y presented in OMB ICR No. 2040

– 0243. Activities were originall y presented in OMB ICR No. 2040

– 0242. EPA estimates a recurring reporting burden of 0.5 hour monthly per facility for submitting periodic certification reports to the permitting authority t o confirm that for the certified fiber lines , the facility is not using6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

100 elemental chlorine or h ypochlorite as bleaching agents and are maintaining the process and operating conditions within the range documented during the initial compliance period. **Annual Status Report under the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [4.102]**  EPA estimate s that about 250 nonmunicipal facilities w ill be required to submit annual status reports of their PMPs . Total respondent burden associated with establish ing PMPs i s estimated from the first Great Lakes Water Q uality Guidance I CR published in 1995, which cites the Final Assessment of Compliance Costs Resulting from Implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance . **6(a)(iv)( A)**  **(1)(1) Non -**  **Stormwater —**  **Nonmunicipal —**  **Biosolids Permittee Report of Planned Facility Changes [4.103** 
**– 4.104]**  The annual number of respondents is estimated to include 5 percent of nonmunicipal biosolids facilities. For more information, s ee Section 6(a)(iv)(A )(1). **Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance [4. 105** 
**– 4.**  **106 ]**  The annual number of respondents is estimated to include 1 percent of nonmunicipal biosolids facilities . For more information, s ee Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1). **Facility and Permit Transfer Report [4.107** 
**– 4.108]**  The annual number of respondents is estimated to include 3 percent of nonmunicipal biosolids facilities . For more information, s ee Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1). **Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous Information [4.109**
**– 4.110]**  The annual number of respondents is estimated to include 1 percent of nonmunicipal biosolids facilities . For more information, s ee 6(a)(iv)(A)(1). **DMRs for Sewage Sludge Facilities [4. 111** 
**– 4.11**  **8 ]**  Reporting of monitoring data involves compiling data from various pollutant analy ses and calculating average pollutant concentrations and/or loadings. For more information, s ee 6(a)(iv)(A)(1) . **Compliance Schedule Reports [4.**  **119**
**– 4.**  **120 ]**  Permittees must submit reports that state whether compliance schedule milestones contained in their permits have been met. For more information, s ee 6(a)(iv)(A)(1). EPA anticipates that each ye ar, 32 PrOTWs are required to submit compliance schedule report s regarding sewage sludge permit conditions and, further, that these facilities are required to submit and average of two reports per ye ar. EPA estimates that the burden to complete each report is 0.75 hour. **Noncompliance Reports [4.**  **121**
**– 4.**  **122 ]**  EPA estimat es that 10 PrOTW s will be required to submit an average of one noncompliance report per ye ar regarding sewage sludge permit conditions (generall y noncompliance with pollutant limitations). EPA assumes that the burden to complete these reports equals 5 .2 ho urs. EPA estimates that permitting authorities will spend 0.3 hour to review and process each report6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

101 **6(a)(iv)(A )(2)**  **Non -**  **Stormwater —**  **Municipal Individual Permittee Report of Planned Facility Changes [4.**  **123**
**– 4.1**  **26 ]**  The annual number of respondents includes 5 percent of all major permittees and 2 percent of all minor permittees for a total of 395 annual municipal NPDES respondents . For more information, s ee Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1) . **Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance [4.127**
**– 4.130]**  The annual number of NPDES respondents is estimated to include 1 percent of all major permittees and 1 percent of all minor permittees for a total of 136 annual municipal NPDES respondents. For more information, s ee 6(a)(iv)(A)(1) . **Facility and Permit Tra nsfer Report [4.131** 
**– 4.134]**  The annual number of NPDES respondents is estimated to include 0. 1 percent of all major permittees and 0. 1 percent of all minor permittees for a total of 9 annual municipal NPDES respondents. For more information, s ee Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1) . **Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous Information [4. 135** 
**– 4.**  **138 ]**  The annual number of respondents is estimated to be 1 percent of all major municipal and 2 percent of all minor municipal permittees for a total of 230 respondents annually . For more information, s ee Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1) . **New Introduction of Pollutants to POTWs [4.139**
**– 4.142]**  EPA estimates that the average respondent burden of this requirement w ill be 3 hours for each report. Necessary

reporting activities include writing and mailing the cover letter and official notice. The annual number of respondents includes approximately 5 percent of all major and 2 percent of all minor municipals for a total o f 395 respondents. EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 4 hours handling and reviewing each New Introduction of Pollutants to POTWs. **DMRs for Major and Minor Individual Permittees [4. 143** 
**– 4.1**  **54 ]**  Reporting of monitoring data involves compiling data from various pollutant analy ses and calculating average pollutant concentrations and/or loadings. All 4,1 23 major municipal dischargers are required to report DMR information monthly . Of the 9, 471 minor municipals dischargers, 1,719 are not required to report , and the remaining 6 , 559 have reporting frequencies ranging from monthly

to annual reporting. For more information, s ee 6(a)(iv)(A)(1). **Compliance Schedule Reports [4.**  **155**
**– 4.**  **160 ]**  Permittees must submit reports that state whether compliance schedule milestones contained in their permits have been met. For more information, s ee 6(a)(iv)(A)(1). EPA estimates that 825 major and 474 minor municipal facilities will submit these reports e very y ear . **Noncompliance Reports [4.**  **161**
**– 4.**  **186 ]**  When a permittee violates a permit condition, it must submit a noncompliance report to the permitting authority. The following subsections present the respondent s and associated with6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

102 these noncompliance repor ts . For a detail ed description of the burden associated with each report , see S ection 6(a)(iv)(A)(1). 24
-Hour Report of Unanticipated Bypass or Upset [4. 161
- 4. 170 ]. EPA estimates that 15 percent ( 618 ) of the 4,1 23 major and 5 percent ( 474 ) of the 9, 471 minor municipal facilities upset or by pass annuall y, thereb y requiring a verbal notification . Inaddition, EPA estimates th at 75 percent ( 820 ) of the 1, 092 facilities submitting a verbal notification will also be required to submit a written report . 24
-H our Report of Violation of Maximum Daily Discharge [4. 171
- 4. 180 ]. EPA estimates that 15 percent ( 618 ) of the 4,1 23 major and 5 percent ( 474 ) of the 9, 471 minor municipal facilities will violate their maximum daily discharge limitations for which a 24 - hour report is required . Of these permittees, EPA expects the written report submittal requirement to be waived in 50 percent of the cases . Thus, each ye ar, 309 major and 237 minor municipals are expected to submit written reports of violations of the maximum d aily discharge limit . Other Noncompliance [4. 181
- 4. 184 ] . Approximately

2 percent ( 82 ) of the 4,1 23 major facilities and 1 percent ( 95 ) of the 9, 471 minor municipal facilities are expected to submit one report per ye ar. EPA estimates that an average of 2 hours is required for the permitting authority to receive and process each report. SSO Reporting [4. 185
- 4. 186 ]. In1998 EPA conducted an evaluation of SSOs and gathered information on the number and frequency of SSOs. At that time, EPA developed a Summary of Revised Burden Estimate for SSO/Unpermitted CSO Reporting , which OMB approved in March 1998. This revised burden summary estimates the SSO respondent burdens to be 62,144 hours. The SSO burden is based on an estimated 41,087 SSO events per year and the associated DMR, 24 - hour and 5 - day

reports . The previous Compliance Assessment/Certification I CR (OMB Control No. 2040 - 0110; EPA ICR No. 1427.08) include s burden hours and costs associated with SSOs and unpermitted CSOs originall y estimated and provided to OMB in the 1998 Summary of Revised Burden Estimates for SSO/Unpermitted CSO Reporting . The I CR d oes not, however, include an estimate of the number of re spondents associated with these SSO/unpermitted CSO estimates. Using the information in the previous Compliance Assessment/Certification I CR, EPA estimates that the burden per SSO event for respondents is 1.51 (62,144/41,087) hours per event. The 2004 Rep ort to Congress: Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs estimates that there are between 23,000 and 75,000 SSO events per year. From the number of POTWs from PCS and IC IS ( 13,685 ), EPA estimates that each POTW will experience on average 3.4 SSO events per ye ar . On the basis of the information in the previous Compliance Assessment/Certification I CR, EPA estimates that the state burden per SSO event is 0.3 (12,068/41,087) hour per event **Annual Status Report under the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [4.**  **187 ]**  EPA estimate s that about 170 municipal facilities w ill be required to submit annual status reports of their PMPs . T he t otal burden (2 , 860.9 hours) associated with establish ing PMPs was reported in the first Great Lakes Water Q uality Guidance ICR published in 1995, which cites the Final6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

103 Assessment of Compliance Costs Resulting from Implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance . **6(a)(iv)(A )(2)(1)**  **Non -**  **Stormwater —**  **Municipal Individual —**  **Biosolids Permittee Report of Planned Facility Changes [4.**  **188**
**– 4.**  **189 ]**  EPA estimates that 153 municipal treatment works will be required to respond to this information collection item because of their sewage sludge permit requirements . For more information, s ee Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1) . **Permittee Report of Anticipated Non compliance [4.**  **190**
**– 4.**  **191 ]**  EPA estimates that each year 153 municipal treatment works w ill be required to respond to this item because of their sewage sludge permit conditions. For more information, s ee Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1). **Facility and Permit Transfer R eport [4.192** 
**– 4.193]**  EPA estimates that the annual number of respondents include s 0.5 percent of municipal biosolids facilities. For more information, s ee 6(a)(iv)(A)(1). **Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous Information [4. 194** 
**– 4.**  **195 ]**  EPA estimates that the annual number of respondents include s 1 percent of municipal biosolids facilities . For more information, s ee Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1). **DMRs for Sewage Sludge Facilities [4. 196** 
**– 4.**  **203 ]**  Reporting of monitoring data involves compiling data from various pollutant analy ses and calculating average pollutant concentrations and/or loadings. For more information, s ee 6(a)(iv)(A)(1). EPA estimates that the annual number of respondents include s 94 6 sludge - onl y Class Ifacilities, 1 sludge - only non - Class I facilities, 6, 573 POTWs Class I facilities , and 6,401 POTWs non - Class Ifacilities. The number of responses varies from 1 to 5 per year, with 2 hours per response. **Compliance Schedule Reports [4.**  **204**
**– 4.**  **205 ]**  Permittees must submit reports that state whether compliance schedule milestones contained in their permits have been met. For more information, s ee 6(a)(iv)(A)(1). EPA anticipates that each ye ar, 100 POTWs are required to submit compliance sche dule reports regarding sewage sludge permit conditions and, further, that these facilities are required to submit and average of two reports per ye ar. EPA estimates that the burden to complete each report is 0.75 hour. **Noncompliance Reports [4.**  **206**
**– 4.**  **207 ]**  EPA estimates that 31 P OTW s will be required to submit an average of one noncompliance report per ye ar regarding sewage sludge permit conditions (generall y noncompliance with pollutant limitations). EPA assumes that the burden to complete these reports is 5 .2 hours. EPA estimates that the permitting authorities will spend 0.3 hour to review and process each report.6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

104 **6(a)(iv)(A )(2)(2)**  **Non -**  **Stormwater —**  **Municipal Individual —**  **CSO** Note: these requirements are in addition to those covered in S ection 6(a)(iv)(A)(2) . **Noncompliance Reports [4.**  **208**
**– 4.**  **209 ]**  In 1998 EPA conducted an evaluation of SSOs and CSOs and gathered information on the number and frequency

of SSOs and unpermitted CSOs. At that time, EPA developed a Summary of Revised Burden Estimate for SSO/Unpermitted CSO Reporting , which OMB approved in March 1998. This revised burden summary estimates the CSO respondent burdens to be 5,184 hours. The CSO burden is based on an estimated 3,840 events per ye ar and the associated DMR, 24 - hour and 5 - day

reports. The pr evious Compliance Assessment/Certification I CR (OMB Control No. 2040 - 0110; EPA ICR No. 1427.08) include s burden hours and costs associated with SSOs and unpermitted CSOs originall y estimated and provided to OMB in the 1998 Summary of Revised Burden Estimates for SSO/Unpermitted CSO Reporting . The I CR d oes not, however, include an estimate of the number of respondents associated with these SSO/unpermitted CSO estimates. Using the information in the previous Compliance Assessment/Certification I CR, EPA estimates that the burden per CSO event for respondents 1.35 (5,184/3,84 0 ) hours per unpermitted event. The 2004 Report to Congress: Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs does not contain updated information about the number of unpermitted CSOs. On the basis of previous estimates and 746 CSS communities, EPA conservativel y estimates 5.15 (3,840/746) unpermitted CSO events per CSS per year. On the basis of the information in the previous Compliance Assessment/ Certification I CR, EPA estimates that the state burden per CSO event is 1.4 (5,280/3,84 0 ) hours per unpermitted event. **CSO Control Policy**
**– Nine Minimum Controls** 
**– Public Notification**  **[4. 210** 
**– 4.**  **212 ]**  Very large communities will not need to prepare and submit reports to the appropriate NPDES permitting authority because EPA believes that these communities have implemented the NMC.6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

105 The estimated burden for third - party notification in the Respondents Activities Table in Appendix B reflects the following assumptions:  For purposes of calculating burden, notification will take one of three forms: permanent signs at outfalls (2 hours) , permanent signs at beaches or other public exposure areas (2 hours) , or press or radio advisories (5 hours) . From its experience to date, EPA believes that the vast majority of CSO communities use one or some combination of these methods of public notification.  All 746 communities with CSSs should have procedures in place to notify the public of CSO occurrences and effects.  EPA assumes that communities posting CSO outfalls wil l post one sign per outfall. It also assumes that communities posting beaches and other public exposure areas will post five signs per community .  EPA assumes that all public notification activities are performed b y in - house staff, and none are contracted o ut. **CSO Control Policy**
**– Compliance Monitoring [4.**  **213**
**– 4.**  **215 ]**  EPA, after discussions with state NPDES and EPA Regional staff, believes that communities will submit CSO monitoring results in their DMRs semiannually . EPA estimates that the time required repo rting this information to be 2 hours . The state burden for reviewing compliance monitoring data submitted in semiannual DMRs is estimated to be 0.17 hour ( 10 minutes ) per facility per DMR. Authorized state staff might need to conduct follow - up actions in instances of noncompliance. This follow - up could be a phone conversation or a letter to verify , clarify , or substantiate the information reported. EPA estimates that 5 0 percent of the DMRs submitted will require follow - up action by the authorized states . Recurring incremental state burden for this follow - up action requires an average of 0.5 hour per facility per DMR. The assumption used to estimate reporting time per r esponse in the Respondents Activities Table in Appendix B is taken from the CSO Control Policy I CR (OMB Control No. 2040 - 0170; EPA ICR No. 1680.04). **6(a)(iv)(A )(3) Non**  **- Stormwater**  **— General Permits**  **Permittee Report of Planned Facility Changes [4.216**
**– 4.217]**  EPA estimates the annual number of respondents to be 2 percent (1, 249 ) of non - stormwater general permittees that w ill be required to respond to this item. For more information, s ee Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1). **Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance [4. 2**  **18**
**– 4.**  **219 ]**  EPA estimates the annual number of NPDES respondents that submit reports of anticipated noncompliance to be 1 percent of non - stormwater general permittees for a total of 624 annual respondents. For more information, s ee Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1).6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

106 **Facility and Permit Transfer Report [4.220**
**– 4.221]**  EPA estimates the annual number of respondents to include 2 percent ( 1,249 ) of non - stormwater general permittees that w ill be required to respond to this item. For more information, s ee Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1). **Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous Information [4. 222** 
**– 4.**  **223 ]**  EPA estimates the annual number of respondents that submit reports of inaccurate previous information to be 0.1 percent of non - stormwater general permittees for a total of 6 2 respondents annually . For more information, s ee Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1). **DMRs for Non**  **- Stormwater**  **General Permittees [4. 224** 
**– 4.**  **230 ]**  Reporting of monitoring data involves compiling data from various pollutant analy ses and calculating average pollutant concentrations and/or loadings. For more information, s ee Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1). **Noncompliance Reports [4.231** 
**– 4.242]**  When a permittee v iolates a permit condition, it must submit a noncompliance report to the permitting authority. F or a complete discussion of the burden estimates associated with these noncompliance reports , see Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1) . 24
-Hour Report of Unanticipated Bypass or Upset [4. 231
- 4. 235 ]. EPA estimates that 5 percent ( 3,121 ) of the 62,425 general non - stormwater permittees upset or by pass annually , thereby requiring a verbal notification. In addition, EPA estimates that 75 percent ( 2, 341 ) of the 3,121 facilities sub mitting a verbal notification will also be required to submit a written report . 24
-Hour Report of Violation of Maximum Daily Discharge [4. 236
- 4. 240 ]. EPA estimates that 5 percent ( 3,121 ) of the 62,425 general non - stormwater permittees will violate their maximum daily discharge limitations for which a 24 - hour report is required. Of these permittees, EPA expects the written report submittal requirement to be waived in 50 percent of the cases. Thus, 1, 561 permittees are expected to submit written reports of violations of the maximum daily discharge limit. EPA estimates that permittees will submit an average one report annuall y . Other Noncompliance [4. 241
- 4. 242 ]. Because most instances of NPDES noncompliance reporting are covered b y other requirements of this I CR, EPA expects very few respondents to be affected annually . Approximately 1 percent ( 624 ) of the 62,425 general non - stormwater permittees are expected to submit one report per year . **6(a)(iv)(B) Stormw ater**  **6(a)(iv)(B)(1) Stormwater —**  **Industrial Permittee Report of Planned Facility Changes [4.243** 
**– 4.244]**  EPA estimates the annual number of respondents to be 1 percent (894) industrial stormwater general permittees that w ill be required to respond to this item. For more information, s ee Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1).6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

107 **Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance [4. 245** 
**– 4.**  **246 ]**  EPA estimates the annual number of NPDES respondents to be 0.1 percent of industrial stormwater general permittees for a total of 89 annual respondents. For more information, s ee Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1). **Facility and Permit Transfer Report [4.247**
**– 4.248]**  EPA estimates the annual number of respondents to be 1 percent ( 894 ) of industrial stormwater general permittees that w ill be required to respond to this item. Many stormwater general permits do not require permit transfer reports, instead requiring submission of an NOT and NOI when a permit or ownership is transferred . This burden is accounted for as part of NOI and NOT burden. For more information, s ee Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1). **Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous Information [4. 249** 
**– 4.**  **250 ]**  EPA estimates the annual number of respondents to be 0.05 percent of industrial stormwater general permittees for a total of 45 respondents annually . For more information, s ee Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1). **DMRs for Industrial Stormwater**  **General Permittees [4. 251** 
**– 4.**  **253 ]**  Reporting of monitoring data involves compiling data from various pollutant analy ses and calculating average pollutant concentrations and/or loadings. For more info rmation, s ee Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1). **Submittal of Inspections [4.254]** Each of the 89,415 industrial stormwater general permittees will spend 0.25 hour per ye ar to submit an inspection report. **Noncompliance Reports [4.**  **255**
**– 4.**  **266 ]**  When a permittee violates a permit condition, it must submit a noncompliance report to the permitting authority. F or a complete discussion of the burden estimates associated with these noncompliance reports , see Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1) . 24
-Hour Report of U

nanticipated Bypass or Upset [4.255
- 4.259] . EPA estimates that 0.1 percent (89) of the 89,415 stormwater general permittees with industrial discharges upset or by pass annually , thereby

requiring a verbal notification. In addition, EPA estimates that 75 per cent ( 67) of the 89 facilities submitting a verbal notification will also be required to submit a written report . 24
-Hour Report of Violation of Maximum Daily Discharge [4.260
- 4.264] . EPA expects 5 percent of the 44,260 13 stormwater general permittees with industrial discharges , required to maintain monitoring data , to violate their maximum daily discharge limits. As a result, 2,213 such permittees will be required to provide verbal notice of the violation, of which 50 percent, or 1,107, will be required to submit written reports . 13 A portion of the stormwater general permittees with industrial discharges are required to keep monitoring records . On the basis of information submitted by these pe rmittees to EPA’s NOI Data Processing Center, this number is estimated to be 49.5 percent of 89,415 or 44,260 permittees6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

108 Other Noncompliance [4.265
- 4.266] . Because most instances of NPDES noncompliance reporting are covered b y other requirements of this I CR, EPA expects very few respondents to be affected annually . Approximately 1 percent (894) of the 89,415 stormwater general permittees with industrial discharges are expected to submit one report per ye ar . **6(a)(iv) (B)(2) Stormwater**  **— Municipal**  **Permittee Report of Planned Facility Changes [4.267**
**– 4.270]**  EPA estimates the annual number of respondents to be 5 percent ( 9 ) of Phase I MS4s and 2 percent (1 33 ) of small MS4s that w ill be required to respond to this item. For more information, s ee Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1). **Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance [4.271**
**– 4.2**  **74]** EPA estimates the annual number of respondents to be 1 percent ( 2 ) of Phase I MS4s and 1 percent ( 66 ) of small MS4s that w ill be required to respond to this item. For more information, s ee Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1). **Facility and Permit Transfer Report [4 .275** 
**– 4.278]**  EPA does not anticipate permit transfers for these ty pe s of permittees . **Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous Information [4.279**
**– 4.282]**  EPA estimates the annual number of respondents to be 1 percent ( 2 ) of Phase I MS4s and 1 percent ( 66 ) of small MS4s that w ill be required to respond to this item. For more information, s ee Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1). **Annual Reports for Small MS4s**  **C overed by a**  **General or Individual Permit [4.**  **283**
**– 4.**  **284 ]**  The respondent activities for operators of regulated small MS 4s include preparing and submitting annual reports. EPA estimates that respondents will spend 100 hours preparing and submitting annual reports. The activities required for administering the small MS4 program include processing and reviewing annual reports (1.6 hour s each) . **Annual Reports for Phase I MS4s [4.285**
**– 4.286]**  The respondent activities for operators of Phase I MS4s include preparing and submitting annual reports. EPA estimates that respondents (i.e., each permitted Phase I MS4) will spend 250 hours preparing and submitting annual reports. The activities required for administering the Phase I MS4 program include processing and reviewing annual reports (40 hour s each) . **Petitions for Stormwater Individual Permit [4. 287** 
**– 4.**  **288 ]**  EPA could receive a petition requesting that a facility covered under an NPDES stormwater general permit obtain an individual permit. Depending on the circumstances, these petitions might come from MS4 operators or an y other person. On the basis of information supplied by contractors, EPA estimates that an average petition requires 40 hours to prepare. Municipal sewer s ys tems may

petition permitting authorities to require dischargers using their s ys tems to obtain individual permits. Anyone may petition authorities to require an individual permit for a stormwater discharge that contributes to water quality violations or is a significant contributor of pollutants. For purposes of simplicity , this ICR assumes that all petitions are submitted by MS4s.6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

109 EPA anticipates that it will receive 5 petitions each year over the next 3 years . EPA estimates that states will spend 8 hours reviewing and processing each petition. **Compliance Schedule Reports [4.289** 
**– 4.294]**  Permittees must submit reports that state whether compliance schedule milestones contained in their permits have been met. For more information, s ee Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1). EPA estimates that 9 Phase I and 3 32 small MS4s will submit these reports every ye ar . **Noncompliance Reports [4.295** 
**– 4.318]**  When a permittee violates a permit condition, it must submit a noncompliance report to the permitting authority. F or a complete discussion of the burden estimates associated with these noncompliance reports , see Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1) . 24
-Hour Report of U

nanticipated Bypass or Upset [4.2 95
- 4. 304 ]. EPA estimates that 1 percent ( 2 ) of the 176 Phase I MS4s and 1 percent ( 66 ) of the 6,632 small MS4s by pass annuall y, thereb y requiring a verbal notification. In addition, EPA estimates that 75 percent ( 2 and 47, respectivel y) of the MS4s submitting a verbal notification will also be required to submit a written report . 24
-Hour Report of Violation of Maximum Daily Discharge [4. 305
- 4. 314 ]. EPA does not anticipate receiving th is ty pe of report from MS4s. Other Nonc ompliance [4. 315
- 4. 318 ]. Because most instances of NPDES noncompliance reporting are covered b y other requirements of this I CR, EPA expects very few respondents to be affected annually . EPA estimates that 1 percent ( 2 ) of the 176 Phase I MS4s and 1 percent ( 66 ) of the 6,632 small MS4s will submit one report per year . **6(a)(iv)(B)(3) Stormwater —**  **Construction Permittee Report of Planned Facility Changes [4.319** 
**– 4.320]**  EPA estimates the annual number of NPDES respondents to be 0.5 percent of construction stormwater general permittees for a total of 4 10 annual respondents. For more information, s ee Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1). **Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance [4. 321** 
**– 4.**  **322 ]**  EPA estimates the annual number of NPDES respond ents to be 0.1 percent of construction stormwater general permittees for a total of 82 annual respondents. For more information, s ee Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1). **Facility and Permit Transfer Report [4.323**
**– 4.324]**  EPA estimates the annual number of NPDES respondents to be 0. 1 percent of construction stormwater general permittees for a total of 82 annual respondents. Man y s tormwater general permits do not require permit transfer reports, instead requiring submission of an NOT and N OI when a permit or ownership is transferred. This burden is accounted for as part of NOI and NOT burden. For more information, s ee Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1).6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

110 **Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous Information [4. 325** 
**– 4.**  **326 ]**  EPA estimates the annual number of respondents to be 0.05 percent of construction stormwater general permittees for a total of 41 respondents annually . For more information, s ee Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1). **Noncompliance Reports [4.327** 
**– 4.338]**  When a permittee violates a perm it condition, it must submit a noncompliance report to the permitting authority. F or a complete discussion of the burden estimates associated with these noncompliance reports , see Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1) . 24
-Hour Report of Unanticipated Bypass or Upset [4. 327
- 4.331] . EPA estimates that 0.1 percent ( 82 ) of the 82 , 074 construction stormwater general permittees upset or b yp ass annuall y, thereb y requiring a verbal notification. In addition, EPA estimates that 75 percent ( 62 ) of the 82 facilities submitting a verbal notification will also be required to submit a written report . 24
-Hour Report of Violation of Maximum Daily Discharge [4.332
- 4.336] . EPA expects 2 percent of the 3,892 14 construction stormwater general permittees required to maintain monitoring data to violate their maximum daily discharge limits. As a result, 78 such permittees will be required to provide verbal notice of the violation, of which 50 percent, or 40 , will be required to submit written reports . Other Noncomplia nce [4.337
- 4.338] . Because most instances of NPDES noncompliance reporting are covered b y other requirements of this I CR, EPA expects very few respondents to be affected annually . EPA estimates that a pproximately

1 percent ( 821 ) of the 82,074 construction stormwater general permittees will submit one report per ye ar . **6(a)(iv)(C) Vessels Vessel General**  **Permit One**  **- time Report [4.**  **339**
**– 4.**  **347 ]**  Because this is a new one - time permit requirement, EPA estimates that, for both the low - and high - end estimate, 0.5 hour is required for small and large vessels . This requirement only applies to new vessels seeking permit coverage. **Permittee Report of Planned Facility Changes [4.348]** EPA estimates the annual number of NPDES respondents to be 0.5 percent of vessels cov ered b y the general permit for a total of 304 annual respondents. For more information, s ee Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1). **Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance [4.349]** EPA estimates the annual number of NPDES respondents to be 0.1 percent of vessels covered b y the general permit for a total of 61 annual respondents. For more information, s ee Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1). 14 A portion of the construction stormwater general permittees are required to keep monitoring records. EPA estimates that 5 percent (3, 892) of construction sites in NPDES - authorized states will have monitoring requirements as part of their permits.6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

111 **Facility and Permit Transfer Report [4.350]** EPA does not anticipate any respondents because vessels are required t o file an NOT when they transfer ownership . **Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous Information [4.351]** EPA estimates the annual number of NPDES respondents to be 0.1 percent of vessels covered b y the general permit for a total of 61 annual respondents. For more information, se e Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1). **Noncompliance Reports [4.352** 
**– 4.354]**  When a permittee violates a permit condition, it must submit a noncompliance report to the permitting authority. F or a complete discussion of the burden estimates associ ated with these noncompliance reports , see Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1) . 24
-Hour Report of Unanticipated Bypass or Upset [4.352
- 4.353] . EPA estimates that 0.1 percent ( 61 ) of the 60,852 vessels covered by the general permit upset or by pass annually , thereby requiring a verbal notification. In addition, EPA estimates that 75 percent (38) of the 239 facilities submitting a verbal notification will also be required to submit a written report . Other Noncompliance [4.354 ]. Because most instances of NPDES noncomplian ce reporting are covered b y other requirements of this I CR, EPA expects very few respondents to be affected annually . EPA estimates that a pproximately

1 percent ( 609 ) of the 60,852 vessels covered b y the general permit will submit one report per ye ar . **6(a )(iv)(**  **D ) State**  **Reporting & Certification Report on NPDES Program Authorization Compliance Evaluation [4.**  **3 55**  **]** Survey s of any

facilities and activities may be conducted, subject to NPDES program authority , to identify

persons that are subject to regulation who have failed to comply with permit application or other program requirements. States must make any compilat ion, index, or inventory of such facilities and activities available to the EPA Regional Administrator upon request. During the life of this I CR, EPA does not expect to request any of this information. **State Certification of EPA -**  **issued Permits [4. 356**  **]** The respondents to this information item are the 59 0 entities 15 without NPDES programs. As of July 20 11 , there were 811 EPA - issued permits : 110 major permits, 674 minor permits , and 27 general permits . EPA assumes that each ye ar it reissues 20 percent of th ese permits, or an average of 162 permits each year. On the basis of new permits reported in PCS and I CI S NPDES, EPA estimates that on average the number of new permits issued each ye ar will be 29 . The respondent burden for certifying these permits varies because of differing state procedures, level of involvement with EPA in developing the permit, and permit complexity . The average respondent burden is estimated to be 4 hours . 15 As discussed in 4(a), this ICR assumes that an average of 47 states , tribes, or U.S. territories will have NPDES programs. Thus, 5 90 entitie s, including states, tribes, and U.S. territories will not have programs.6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

112 **Submittal of NPDES Permit Information [4. 357** 
**– 4.**  **360 ]**  The respondents to this information item are the 47 states (including the Virgin Islands) that have NPDES programs. EPA assume s that the states treat this information collection as an ongoing activity , rather than as a set of discrete reports. The annual b urden for these states is calculated as follows:  States must submit all major permits, about 5 percent of minor permits, and all general permits.  There are 6 , 049 major, 36,930 minor, and approximately 497 general permits in the 47 authorized states assumed for this I CR . Each permit can have a life span of 5 years, so an average of 1, 2 10 major, 7,386 minor, and approxi mately 99 general permits will be issued each ye ar.  In addition, EPA estimates that authorized states will issue 19 new major, 785 new minor, and 15 new general permits each year . Accordingly , the estimated number of major permits for each ye ar of the IC R is 1, 22 9 ( 1,210 + 19 ), the estimated number of minor permits is 8, 171 ( 7,386 + 785 ), and the estimated number of general permits is 114 (99 + 15 ).  Seventy

percent of the major ( 858 ), 5 percent of the minor ( 444 ), and 100 percent of the general permits ( 114 ) require 0.17 hour (10 minutes ) for transmittal to EPA . The remaining 30 percent of major p ermits (3 67 ) require 2 hours of transmittal time . The total number of NPDES submittals of permit s equals an average of 2,602 per year ( 858 + 19 + 4 44 + 785 + 114 + 15 + 3 67 ). **Submittal of CSO Permit Information [4. 361**  **]** EPA expects to receive information covering 87 CSO permits over a 3 - ye ar period, yi elding an average of 29 reports per year. Each report will require 13 hours to complete . **Submittal of Sludge Permit Information [4. 362**  **]** EPA expects to receive 39 sludge permit reports over a 3 - ye ar period, yi elding an average of 13 reports per ye ar. Each report will require 0.17 hour (10 minutes ) to be transmitted to EPA. **Quarterly, Semiannual, and Annual Reports [4. 363**  **]** The respondents providing this information are the 47 authorized states. Each year, these 47 states must develop four QNCRs, two semiannual summary reports, and one annual summary report ( s ee S ection 4(b)(iv)(1)(D) ). Because the semiannual and annual summary reports are normally prepared along with the QNCRs, and because states have indicated that the b urden for these reports has been reduced , this I CR assumes (for simplicity) that each authorized state prepares the equivalent of five QNCRs each ye ar. The work involved ranges from manually preparing reports, which includes reviewing individual inspection reports, to copying data generated b y the PCS onto QNCR form. This results in 235 annual responses ( 47 states × 5). EPA estimates an average respondent burden of 25 hours per report. **Annual Sewage Sludge Program Reports [4. 364**  **]** EPA estimates that the respondents for this item will average 8.3 state s with sewage sludge programs (8 currentl y authorized and 1 expected to be authorized in the next 3 years). The estimated burden for completing this report is 84 hours .6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(v) Record Keeping

113 

### 6(a)(v) Record Keeping **6(a)(v)(A ) Non**  **- Stormwater**  **6(a)(v)(A )(1)**  **Non -**  **Stormwater —**  **Nonmunicipal Individual NPDES**  **P ermit**  **A pplicants [5.1** 
**– 5.3]**  All permittees must maintain, for at least 3 ye ars, records of all data used to complete their permit applications . The burden associated with record keeping depends on the ty pe of permit, the size of the facility , and whether the facilit y already has a record - keeping s ys tem . Estimates from EPA, PCS, and I CIS -NPDES list a total of 30,169 nonmunicipal facilities (2, 036 major and 28 , 133 minor) filing applications for individual permits . Assuming that one - fifth of all permittees file applications each year, the annual numbe r of existing facilities with record - keeping burden is 6, 034 . EPA estimates that 19 major and 785 minor new nonmunicipal facilities will apply for permits each ye ar. Each of the existing facilities applying for an NPDES permit is expected to spend 1 hour maintaining records each year . The 19 major new facilities are expected to spend 5 hours each . The 785 new nonmunicipal minor facilities are expected to spend 1.5 hours each . **Record K** **eeping of Monitoring Data [5.4** 
**– 5.7]**  EPA estimates that all NPDES permitt ees (except for certain stormwater permittees as discussed below) will incur an annual burden for record keeping of discharge monitoring and other monitoring data . The burden associated with this record - keeping requirement depends on the size of the facility . In the previous Compliance Assessment/Certification I CR (OMB Control No. 2040 - 0110; EPA I CR No. 1427.08), EPA estimated that 6 hours per year (0.5 hour per month) for major permittees and 1.2 hours per ye ar (0.1 hour per month) for minor permitte es are necessary to organize and file the appropriate existing monitoring data . These estimates are consistent with current record - keeping requirements and are retained in this I CR . Therefore, 2,116 major permittees will each spend 6 hours per year on reco rd - keeping activities . All 28,643 minor nonmunicipal permittees will each incur 1.2 hours per ye ar for record keeping. The facilities submitting certifications are a very small subset of the major and minor permittees, and the record - keeping burden for th ese certifications is believed to be adequately reflected in the record - keeping burden discussed above. **Regulatory Options for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category (40 CFR Part**  **430) [5.8**
**– 5.12]**  There are two regulatory

options that result in additional record - keeping activities for these facilities: implement ing BMPs and minimum monitoring requirements. Th e record - keeping burden for BMPs was originall y presented in OMB ICR No. 2040

– 0207. T he burden estimates for record keeping are based on an incremental level of effort to comply with BMP requirements. EPA estimates 7.3 hours per month using a weighted average of the information reported in OMB ICR No. 2040

– 0207.6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(v) Record Keeping

114 Minimum m onitoring r equirements activities were originall y presented in OMB IC R No. 2040

– 0243. EPA assumes that the time devoted to record keeping for monitoring requirements generall y involves cop yi ng and filing DMRs or PCRs. EPA estimates this burden to be 0.17 hour (10 minutes) per DMR or PCR submitted with an extended amount of 0.67 hour (40 minutes) annually for quarterl y reports for a total annual monitoring record - keeping burden of 2.71 hours per mill . **6(a)(v)(A )(1)(1) Non**  **- Stormw**  **ater —**  **Nonmunicipal —**  **Biosolids Sewage**  **S ludge**  **P ermit**  **A pplicants [5.13]**  EPA estimates that 329 nonmunicipal sludge - onl y facilities will apply for sludge permits . This equals 66 nonmunicipal sludge - onl y facilities filing applications per ye ar. These facilities are expected to spend 1.5 hours in record - ke eping activities. **Record K** **eeping of Monitoring Data for Sewage Sludge Facilities [5.14** 
**– 5.21]**  Sewage sludge facilities that are required to submit monitoring data are also required to maintain records of that information. EPA assumes that the time devoted to record keeping at these facilities generally

involves copying and filing DMRs. EPA estimate s this burden to be 0.17 hour (10 minutes) per DMR submitted. Some sewage sludge facilities are required to monitor but are required onl y to maintain records of , not report, their monitoring data. The annual record - keeping burden per facility is assumed to be 1.5 hours. **6(a)(v)(A )(2)**  **Non -**  **Stormwater —**  **Municipal Individual NPDES**  **P ermit**  **A pplicants [5.22]**  Estimates from EPA, PCS, and I CI S -NPDES list a total of 13, 685 municipal facilities . Assuming that one - fifth of all permittees file applications each year, the annual number of existing facilities with record - keeping burden is 2, 737 . Each of the existing facilities appl yi ng for an NPDES permit is expected to spend 1 hour maintaining permit application records the ye ar it appl ies for a permit . **Record K** **eeping of Monitoring Data [5.23** 
**– 5.24]**  M ajor municipal permittees ( 4,123 ) will spend 6 hours per ye ar on record - keeping activities . All 9,471 minor municipal permittees will incur 1.2 hours per ye ar for record keeping. For more information, s ee Section 6(a) (v)(A)(1) . **6(a)(v)(A )(2)(1)**  **Non -**  **Stormw ater**  **— Municipal Individual**  **— Biosolids**  **Sewage S**  **ludge P**  **ermit A**  **pplicants [5.25]** EPA estimates that 954 municipal sludge - onl y facilities will apply for sludge permits . This equals 191 municipal sludge - only facilities filin g applications per ye ar. These facilities are expected to spend 1.5 hours in record - keeping activities.6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(v) Record Keeping

115 **Record K** **eeping of Monitoring Data for Sewage Sludge Facilities [5.26** 
**– 5.33]**  Sewage sludge facilities that are required to submit monitoring data are also required to maintain records of that information. EPA assumes that the time devoted to record keeping at these facilities generally

involves copying and filing DMRs. EPA estimate s this burden to be 0.17 hour (10 minutes) per DMR submitted. EPA estimates the time required to report this information to be 2 hours . Some sewage sludge facilities are required to monitor but are required onl y to maintain records of their monitoring data (i.e., they do not have to report monitoring data). The annual record keeping burden per facility is assumed to be 1.5 hours. **6(a)(v)(A )(2)(2)**  **Non -**  **Stormw ater**  **— Municipal Individual**  **— CSO**  **CSO Control Policy -**  **Compliance Monitoring [5.34]** During the term of this renewal ICR, 560 municipalities maintain records of information submitted to the NPDES permitting authority on the sampling and anal ys is of pollutants in CSOs and the effe cts of CSOs on the quality of the receiving waters . EPA estimates the time re quired to perform record - keeping activities to be 5 hours . **6(a)(v)(A )(3) Non**  **- Stormwater**  **— General Permits**  **NPDES Permit Applicants/NOI [5.**  **35 ]**  Each of the existing 62,425 non - stormwater general permittees is expected to spend 1 hour maintaining permit application records during the year it appl ies for a permit. **Record K** **eeping of Monitoring Data [5.**  **36 ]**  EPA estimates that all 62,425 non - stormwater general permittees will incur a record - keeping burden of 1.2 ho urs annually for maintaining monitoring data. **6(a)(v)(B) Stormw ater**  **6(a)(v)(B)(1) Stormwater —**  **Industrial NPDES**  **P ermit**  **A pplicants [5.**  **37**
**– 5.**  **39 ]**  Estimates from EPA, PCS, and I CI S -NPDES list a total of 783 individual stormwater permits . Assuming that one - fifth of all permittees file applications each ye ar, the annual number of existing facilities with record - keeping burden is 157 . Each of the existing facilities applying for an NPDES permit is expected to spend 1 hour maintaining permit a pplication records the year it appl ies for a permit . EPA predicts that 86 additional facilities will apply for individual stormwater permits each year. These and the 17,883 facilities per ye ar applyingfor coverage under a stormwater general permit are exp ected to spend 1.5 hours each. **Record K** **eeping of Inspection s**  **and Monitoring [5.**  **40 ]**  All 89,415 stormwater general permittees with industrial discharges are required to conduct and maintain records of their annual site inspections . These activities are expected to result in an annual burden of 4 hours per respondent . EPA also assume s that each will conduct quarterl y6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(v) Record Keeping

116 visual examinations , at an estimated 0.5 hour for each. EPA estimates that these stormwater permittees will spend 1.2 hours in keeping monitoring records . Because onl y a portion of the 89,415 stormwater permittees with industrial discharges are required to maintain monitoring data, the average burden hours for stormwater permittees with industrial discharges is 6.6 hours (4 hours to maintain records of their annual site inspections + 2 hours for visual examinations + [1.2 hours for keeping monitoring records × 49.5 percent of the stormwater general permittees with industrial discharges required to keep monitoring records]). **6(a)(v)(B)(2) Stormwater**  **— Municipal**  **Phase I MS4**  **Applicants [5.**  **41 ]**  EPA estimates that 88 larg e and 88 medium MS4s will apply for separate storm sewer s ys tem permits each ye ar . E ach is expected to spend 5 hours developing record - keeping s ys tem , entering data , training p ersonnel , and filing information . **Small MS4s Covered by a General**  **or Individual Permit [5. 42**  **]** The respondent activities for operators of regulated small MS4s include maintaining records related to the permit application and any supporting documentation for annual reports. EPA estimates that respondents will spend 2.8 hours per year for record keeping . **6(a)(v)(B)(3) Stormwater —**  **Construction Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity [5.**  **43**
**– 5.**  **47 ]**  EPA expects the estimated CGP NOIand SWPPP record - keeping burden for construction sources of 1 acre or more to be 0.4 hour per construction start, on the basis of a poll of contractor and EPA staff familiar with the record - keeping activities associated with the construction stormwater program. The burden is estimated at 0.2 hour each for the CGP NOI and SWPPP, respectivel y. **Record K** **eeping of Inspection s and Monitoring**  **[5. 48**  **]** All 82 , 074 construction stormwater general permittees are required to conduct and maintain records of their comprehensive si te inspection . EPA expects that these activities will result in an annual burden of 4 hours per respondent . **6(a)(v)(C) Vessels Vessel General Permit Record keeping [5.49** 
**– 5.57]**  Vessels are already required to keep extensive records. Because there are very few additional requirements that vessels must record, EPA assume s that a small incremental number of hours is required for record keeping. EPA estimates that 0.5 additional hours is annually required of small er vessels (including freight barges, passenger vessels, utility vessels, and tank barges) , and 1 additional hour is annually required of large vessels (including cruise ships, freight ships, and tank ships) . EPA estimates that the effe ct of record keeping on foreign vessels is 50 percent of that for d omestic vessels , because of their limited time in U . S . waters .6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(v) Record Keeping

117 **6(a)(v)( D**  **) State -**  **Only**

**A ctiv**  **ities Record**  **K eeping of NPDES Program Information [5.58** 
**– 5.60]**  Although the burden for this activity can vary widely , EPA estimates the average burden to authorized states to be 600 hours . This is based on the original estimate of 50 hours multiplied by a factor of 6 , which is the growth in the number of permits since the burden was first estimated . Because this requirement pertains on ly to the state program, there is no federal burden associated with this information requirement. The respondents keeping this information are the 4 7 NPDES authorized states assumed to have been authorized for this I CR . Two programs

– CSOs and biosolids - have average record - keeping burden s of more than 50 hours . EPA anticipates that the biosolids program w ill require an additional 50 hours of record keeping for the average of 8.3 sludge program authorized states (8 currently authorized and 1 expected to be authorized in the next 3 years ) . For the CSO program , EPA estimates the time required for the states to perform record - keeping activities to be 0.33 hour for each municipality in that state submitting doc umentation. 

### 6(a)(vi) Compliance A **ssessment and Enforcement 6(a)(vi)(A** **) Non -**  **Stormwater Section 308(a) Letters [6.1** 
**– 6.2]**  As discussed in Section 4(b), section 308(a) of the CWA gives permitting authorities broad discretion to request information from a permittee above and beyond routine requirements. EPA estimates the burden associated with section 308(a) collection to be 8 hours per response. This estimate represents the time required for the permittee to gather existing information ; consult specialists , such as engineers and lawyers ; and prepare a short, direct report. EPA estimates that 1,200 permittees will be required to respond to a section 308(a) letter each year. EPA estimates that 277 and 123 of these are for non - stormwater nonmunicipal and non - s tormwater municipal facilities , respectively . **6( a**  **)(vi)(B) Stormw ater**  **Section 308(a) Letters [6.3**
**– 6.5]**  A complete discussion of these letters is presented in S ection 6( a)(vi)(A). EPA estimates the burden associated with this ty pe of collection to be 8 hours per response. This estimate represents the time required for the permittee to gather existing information ; consult specialists, such as engineers and lawyers ; and prepare a short, direct report. EPA estimates that 1,200 permittees will be required to respond to a section 308(a) letter each year. Of these, EPA estimates that 401 are for general stormwater permittees with industrial discharges, 31 are for MS4s, and 368 are for c onstruction stormwater general permittees.6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(v) Record Keeping

118 **6(a)(vi)( D**  **) State -**  **Only**

**A ctiv**  **itie s**  **Inspection and Investigation of NPDES Permittees [6. 6** 
**– 6.**  **38 ]**  The information varies depending on the type of inspection conducted; it is used to assess compliance with NPDES permit requirements and to verify permittees’ reporting. The various ty pes of in spections are as follows:  Compliance Sampling Inspection (CSI). [6. 6

– 6. 7 , 6. 21

– 6. 22

] The estimated burden for the inspection is 120 hours.  Compliance Evaluation Inspection (CEI) . [6. 8

– 6. 9, 6. 23

– 6. 24 ] The estimated burden for this inspection is 24 hours.  Performance Audit Inspection (PAI). [6. 10

– 6. 11 , 6. 25

– 6. 26

] The estimated burden for this inspection is 96 hours.  Diagnostic Inspection (DI). [6. 12

– 6. 13 ] The estimated burden for this inspection is 128 hours.  Compliance Biomonitoring Inspection (CBI) . [6. 14

– 6.1 5, 6.2 7

– 6.2 8 ] The estimated burden for this inspection is 240 hours.  Toxic Sampling Inspection (XSI). [6.1 6

– 6.1 7 , 6.2 9

– 6. 30

] The estimated burden for this inspection is 280 hours.  Reconnaissance Inspection (RI). [6.1 8

– 6.1 9, 6. 31

– 6. 37 ] The RIis the bri efest of all NPDES inspections; the estimated burden for this inspection is 8 hours.  Regulatory Options for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category (40 CFR Part 430) [6.38] Authorized state staff might need to conduct follow - up actions in ins tances of noncompliance. This follow - up could be a phone conversation or a letter to verify , clarify , or substantiate the information reported. EPA estimates that 20 percent of the DMRs submitted will require follow - up action b y the authorized states, particularl y because of the unique nature of the new monitoring requirements imposed by the recently

promulgated effluent limitations guidelines. EPA estimates that recurring incremental state burden for this follow - up action requires an average of 0.5 hour (30 minutes ) per facility per DMR For this calculation, EPA assumes that there are a total of 2, 089 major and 3 0 , 881 minor nonmunicipal facilities and a total of 4,076 major and 9,470 minor municipal facilities in authorized states . Of the major facilities (nonmunicipal and municipal), 15 percent receive CSI s, 60 percent receive CEIs, 15 percent receive PAIs, 17 percent receive CBIs, 4 percent receive XSI s, 40 percent receive RI s , and an additional 5 percent of municipal facilities receive DIs . Of the minor facilities (both nonmunicipal and municipal), 3 percent receive CSI s and 17 percent receive CEIs . In addition, 10 percent of general stormwater permittees with industrial discharges , 5 percent of large (> 5 acres) c onstruction stormwater general permittees, 2.5 percent of small (1

– 5 acres) c onstruction stormwater general permittees, 20 percent of Phase I MS4s, and one seventh of small MS4s receive RIs. Therefore, EPA estimates the total annual number of inspections conducted to be 30 , 004 inspections.6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(vii) Program Authorization

119 

### 6(a)(vii) Program Authorization The annual burden for program authorization activities for state NPDES and sludge programs is a function of the number of states responding to the collection and the average time required for states to complete each information item. The Respondents Activities Table in Appendix B summarizes the average burden for the in formation items in this I CR. To determine the average burden hours for the ICR, EPA calculated a cumulative total for each reporting item. **Request for NPDES Program Authorization [7.1]** EPA expects that no state s will request full program authorization during the life of this IC R . The estimated average time to prepare a state NPDES program application can vary from a relativel y small burden to several work ye ars where complete regulatory and statutory

changes are neces sary . In most cases, at least some regulatory changes are necessary . It is unreasonable to determine the average burden for this reporting requirement because the burden depends on many different factors. For the purposes of this ICR, EPA estimates one work year (2,080 hours) to reflect the burden for states requesting program authorization. **Request for Partial NPDES Program Authorization [7.2]** EPA anticipates that no states will seek partial program authorization during the life of this I CR. Because th e elements of the partial program application are expected to be the same as those for program authorization, EPA assumed that the burden for partial programs equals the burden for a full program (one work year, or 2,080 hours). **Request for NPDES Program Modifications [7.3** 
**– 7.5]**  Four of the authorized states do not have authority to issue permits to federal facilities. EPA does not expect that these states will request such authorities during the next 3 years. The Agency anticipate s that all authorized stat es will revise their programs to update their legal authorities in response to the multiple rulemakings anticipated in the NPDES program . Therefore, the average number of requests for program modification expected during the next 3 years is 12.33 . For the purposes of this I CR, EPA uses a burden estimate of 250 hours for an y program modifications . **Request for Program Transfer/Withdrawa**  **l [7.**  **6 ]**  On the basis of the analysis for this I CR, EPA estimates that an average of three transfer petitions per year will be submitted in the next several years. EPA estimates that on average, develop ing each petition will require 480 state hours. EPA to date has not withdrawn a program and assumes it will not do so in the next 3 years. **Request for Sl udge Program Authorization [7.7]**  EPA expects two requests for state sewage sludge programs over the next 3 years. States requesting authority to implement sludge programs will expend an estimated 750 hours per request. Because this requirement pertains onl y to the state programs, no federal burden is associated with this information requirement .6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

120 

## 6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs With burden hour estimates in place from Section 6(a), the next step is to estimate the labor cost per respondent and the capital costs required to complete each activity . The total cost for each respondent activity

is comp o sed of the following :  Labor Cost;  Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Cost; and  Capital/Start - up Cost. The results of the respondents ’ costs anal ys is are presented in the Respondents Activities Table in Appendix B. 

### 6(b)(i) **Estimating Labor Costs** When calculating respondent labor costs, EPA makes the following assumptions :  EPA used a labor rate of $ 40.28 per hour for all authorized state and territory respondent activities defined in this ICR . This hourly rate was based on the average hourly wage for state and municipal employees as determined by the U.S. Department of Labor . It is based on U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, Table 3 : Employer costs per hour worked f or employee compensation and costs as a percent of total compensation: State and local government workers, by major occupational and industry group, December 2010 .  The average hourly

rate for municipal employees, which account for all POTW and MS4 costs, a s determined b y the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, is $ 33. 49 (including overhead costs of 50 percent) . Updated rates are derived from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, in a table titled May 2010 National Indus try - Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, NAICS Industry 999300
- Local Government (OES designation), which is part of: NAICS 999000
- Federal, State, and Local Government (OES designation), and adjusted to December 2010 dollars using the se asonall y adjusted Employ ment Cost Index (ECI) for state and local government employees .  EPA assumes the average hourly rate in the private sector is $4 9 . 46 as determined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Total Compensation for Ma nagement, professional, and related . Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, Table 5
- Employer costs per hour worked for employee compensation and costs as a percent of total compensation: Private industry, by major occupational group and bargaining status, December 2010 . 

### 6(b)(ii) Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs Most calculations in th is ICR account for labor costs only . The ICR does, however, account for certain testing/anal ys is costs incurred by respondents that perform activities outside the normal operation practices . All costs presented in this section have been adjusted with the Consumer Price Index to December 2007 dollars . These costs are linked to the three distinctive activities described below .6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

121 **6(b)(ii)(1) Ap**  **plication Requirements for NPDES Permits**  **[ 1.**  **12 ,**  **1. 51**  **, 1.**  **74 ,**  **1. 80**  **]** Assumptions and estimates for these O&M costs (i.e., testing/contractor costs) are detailed in Tables 6. 2 to 6. 4 . These assumption s come from EPA I CR Number: 0226.18, OMB Control N o. 2040 - 0086 . **Table 6.**  **2 Estimate of**  **Form 2A f** **acilities t**  **hat contract out testing for pollutants** 

**Facility t**  **yp e**  **Annual # of r** **espondents Basic** 

**c onventional**  **a nd**  **n onconventional**  **Additional c**  **onventional and**  **n onconventional**  **Priorit y**  **p ollutants and**  **s tate WQS**  **Multiple s**  **pecies**

**b iomonitoring**  % testing in - house # not

testing in house %

testing in - house # not

testing in house %

testing in - house # not

testing in house %

testing in - house # not

testing in house ≺ 0.1 mgd , no priority pollutants. 656 60% 2 63 0.1 – 1.0 mgd , no priority pollutants. 1, 164 80% 2 33 80% 2 33 Minors, with priority pollutants. 38 85% 6 85% 6 50% 19 85% 6 Majors, no priority pollutants. 8 71 85% 131 85% 131 10% 784 75% 218 Majors, with priority pollutants. 7 90% 1 90% 1 70% 2 85% 1 Total minors 1,859 5 02 239 19 6 Total majors 878 132 132 786 219 **Table 6.**  **3 Estimate of Form 2S**  **f acilities**  **t hat**  **contract out testing for pollutants Facility**  **t yp**  **e An**  **nual # of r** **espondents Basic**  **c onventional and**  **n onconventional** 

**% testing in**  **- house**  **# not testing in**  **- house**  NPDES POTW s 2, 737 95% 137 NPDES PrOTW s 692 95% 35 Sludge Only POTW s 29 50% 14 Sludge Only PrOTW s 66 50% 33 **Table 6.**  **4 Testing/**  **c ontractor**  **c osts (O&M**  **c osts)**  **Respondents Tests/** **y ear**  **Cost p**  **er t**  **est ($)**  **Total $ Form 2A**  Basic conventional and non conventional 634 3 $109 .00 $207 , 318 .00 Additional conventional and non conventional 371 3 $21 7.00 $ 241,521 .00 Priority Pollutants/state W QS 805 3 $1,248 .00 $3,013,920 .00 Multiple Species Biomonitoring 225 1 $8,683 .00 $1,953,675 .00 **Form 2S** NPDES and sludge - only facilities 300 1 $21 7.00 $ 65,100.00 **Section 308 Requests** Municipal (complex) 4 1 $1,248 .00 $4,368 .00 Nonmunicipal (medium) 5 1 $1,08 5.00 $5,696.256. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

122 **6(b)(ii)( 2**  **) Baseline Determination and Estimate of the Incremental Monitoring**  **Burden and Cost for Remining Sites [**  **3. 25** **– 3.**  **26 ,**  **3. 30**  **]** EPA assumes that baseline determination monitoring and annual monitoring costs will be required for all the reporting requirements for min ing sites in Indiana (5) , Kentucky (7) , and Tennessee (9) . EPA assumes a sample analy sis and mileage cost of $29.51/sample (Baseline Standards and BMPs for the Coal Mining Point Source Category- Coal Remining Subcategory and Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory ICR; OMB Control No. 2040 - 0239; EPA I CR No. 1944.03) . **6(b)(ii)( 3**  **) Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Direct Discharging Mills in the**  **Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite**  **Subcategory**

**of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category [**  **3. 16**  **– 3.**  **22 ]**  To estimate O&M costs associated with these activities, EPA assumes that mills w ill send their collected samples to outside laboratories for analysis . Some facilities could perform in - house anal ys is for some pollutants ( i.e., adsorbable organic halides (AOX ) and/or c hloroform) . However, for the purposes of this I CR, EPA assumed that all anal ys es will be contracted to outside laboratories to express the full potential analy tical costs of minimum monitoring on Subpart s B and E mills. In the future, facilities might elect to conduct analy sis in house, particularl y AOX anal ys es, because the monitoring requirement is dail y . Analy tical costs performed at outside laboratories were taken from the Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Direct Discharging Mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory

and the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category

I CR (OMB Control No . 2040 - 0243; EPA I CR No. 1878.02) . These costs are $159 for AOX, $1 , 156 for TCDD/TCDF, $660 for chlori nated phenolics, and $356 for chloroform . Seventy- five Subpart B Bleached Papergrade Kraft & Soda mills perform daily sampling for AOX, weekly

sampling for chloroform, and monthly grab sampling for TCDD, TCDF , and chlorinated phenolics . Thirty- eight Subpart B Bleached Papergrade Kraft & Soda mills perform monthly composite sampling for TCDD, TCDF , and chlorinated phenolics. Five of the Subpart E Ca / Sodium / Mg Sulfite mills perform d aily AOX sampling. Two each for the Subpart E Ammonium Sulfite and Speci alty Grade perform monthly

sampling for TCDD, TCDF , and chlorinated phenolics 

### 6(b)(i **i i) Capital/Start**  **- up Costs**  Most calculations in the ICR account for labor costs only . The ICR does, however, account for certain capital and start - up costs incurred b y resp ondents that perform activities outside the normal operati ng practices . All costs presented in this section have been adjusted with the Consumer Price Index to January 2011 dollars . These costs are linked to two distinctive activities. **6(b)(i i**  **i)(1) CSO Con trol Policy**  **[ 4.**  **210 –** **4. 211**  **]** The capital costs associated with public notification of CSO locations, events , and public health and environmental effe cts are included in this ICR . The costs are those for municipalities to6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

123 purchase notification signs . From estimate s presented in the previous CSO Control Policy IC R ( OMB Control No. 2040 - 0170; EPA I CR No. 1680.04 ) each sign is estimated to cost $104 and be used once . **6(b)(i i**  **i)(2) Baseline Determination and Estimat e of the Incremental Monitoring**  **Burden and Cost for Remining Sites [**  **3. 25** **– 3.**  **26, 3.30 ]**  EPA assumes that flow metering from an installed weir is required for min ing sites in Indiana and Tennessee . For all other states, EPA assumes that flow metering is already required and installed as part of the state Rahall remining permit program . For Indiana and Tennessee , EPA assumes installed weir costs of $1,368 on the basis of an escalation of 2004 cost estimates from previous the Baseline Standards and BMPs for the Coal Mining P oint Source Category- Coal Remining Subcategory and Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory

I CR (OMB Control No. 2040 - 0239; EPA I CR No. 1944.03) (originall y from Weir & Flume Sales Company and Tarco Tech Industries) . Indiana will have 5 sites/year × 4 pree xisting discharge points/site × $1,368 /weir = $27,360 . Tennessee will have 9 sites/year × 4 preexisting discharge points/site × $1,368/weir = $49,248 . These costs are annualized using a 7 percent discount rate and an estimated 10 - ye ar life for the weir . 

## 6(c) **Estimating Agency Burden and**  **Cost** EPA’s estimate of its burden and costs are from the activities described in Section 5(a) . When calculating the Agency

cost, EPA makes the following assumption : EPA determined the hourly employ ment cost of f

ederal emp loyees using methodology established in previous ICRs . According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2011 General Schedule (20 11 - GS), the average annual salary of a government employee at the GS - 9, Step 10 level is $ 54,028 . At 2,080 hours per ye ar, the hourly wage is $2 5.98 . Assuming overhead costs of 60 percent, or $1 5.59 per hour, the fully loaded cost of employ

ment for a federal employee is $ 41.57 . Burden and costs incurred by EPA are presented in the Agency Activities Table in Appendix C. EPA ’ s activities as the NPDES permitting authority for non - authorized states and territories are the same as the activities performed b y the authorized states and territories . These burdens and costs are identical to those for authorized states and territories , with the exception of certain activities performed only by EPA as described below. **Alaskan Land Applications [**  **EPA4 8**  **]** Because most state governments have authority for the NPDES programs, state governments will incur the majority of the burden and costs . There are, however, some exceptions to this rule . EPA will alway s process Alaskan Lands Applications . As a result, the burden and cost for this activity will belong to the federal government exclusively . EPA es timates that the Agency will spend 0.6 hour reviewing each Alaskan Land Applications . The burden estimate and annual cost to EPA associated with Alaskan Land Applications do es not include anal ys is of the data because this activity is associated with preparing and issuing the permit .6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

124 **Variance Request for Innovative Pollution Control Technology [**  **EPA117 ]**  EPA oversees and provides assistance to authorized states that receive Variance Requests for Innovative Pollution Controls . EPA estimates that the Agency effort incurred in this capacity w ill be 400 hours (50 work day s) as compared to 520 hours (65 work day s) for evaluating a request submitted directly

to EPA in non - authorized states. **Variance Request Regarding Thermal Discharges [**  **EPA118**
**– EPA119**  **]** EPA oversees and provides assistance to authorized states that receive Variance Requests for Thermal Discharges . EPA estimates that the Agency effort incurred in this capacity w ill be 400 hours (50 work day s) as compared to 520 hours (65 work day s) for evaluating a request submitted directly

to EP A in non - authorized states . Inaddition, an estimated 1 hour w ill be necessary for handling and reviewing each variance reissue. **Discharge Monitoring Reports**
**— Support**  **on Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Direct Mills**  **Associated with the Pulp, Paper and P oint Source Category**  **[ EPA1**  **74**
**– EPA1**  **75 ]**  EPA estimates that 20 percent of the DMRs submitted to authorized states under the Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Direct Mills will result in 0.5 hour each of additional support from EPA . **24 -**  **Hour Report of Unanticipated Upset or Bypass**  **[ EPA127**  **, EP**  **A129 ]**  Agency burden is calculated for a portion of the responses that are submitted to state s that need Agency assistance . EPA estimates that 5 percent of written responses submitted to state s will require an additi onal 2 hours of Agency burden per response . In addition, 5 percent of the total responses submitted to state s will result in 2 each hours o f additional f ederal review time after the state response. **24 -**  **Hour Report of Violation of Maximum Daily Discharge [**  **EP A132**  **, EPA134**  **]** Agency burden is calculated for a portion of the responses that are submitted to state s that need f ederal assistance . EPA estimates that 5 percent of written responses submitted to state s will require an additional 2 hours of Agency burden per response . In addition, 5 percent of the total responses submitted to state s will result in 2 each hours of additional f ederal review time after the state response. **Other Noncomp**  **liance [**  **EPA13 6**  **]** EPA estimates that the Agency will require 1 hour for additional Agency assistance to 5 percent of the state responses. **Section 308(a) Letters [EPA1**  **40 ]**  EPA is the sole recipient of each of these responses . EPA estimates that 8 hours are required for it to issue the letter, review the response, and evaluate the need for additional action for each response. **Part 435 Certification for**  **Oil and Gas Extraction [**  **EPA155 ]**  The burden and cost for EPA is based on the time required to review BMPs and ensure compliance . EPA estimates that 5.7 hours are required per certification .6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

125 **NPDES and Sewage Sludge Management State Programs [**  **EP A8** 
**– EP**  **A14 ]**  The burden for EPA is based on the time to review state program requests as described in Section 4(b)(i)(5) for the following activities:  Request for NPDES Program Authorization

—EPA estimates the average Agency burden for the review of state program requests is 1,248 hours.  Request for Partial NPDES Program Authorization

—Li ke full NPDES program requests, the average Agency

burden for the review of state program requests is 1,248 hours.  Request for NPDES Program Modifications

—EPA staff will require 50 hours to review each request for program modification for the following: o Request for Authority to Issue General Permits ; o Request for Authority to Issu e Permits to Federal Facilities; and o Request to Update Legal Authority in Other Areas .  Request for Program Transfers

—EPA estimates that the Agency burden to review program transfers is 240 hours .  Request for Sludge Program Authorization

—EPA must review and process each state program submission, expending approximately 400 hours per reques t.  Request for Pretreatment Program Authorization

—this activity

is covered under the ICR for the National Pretreatment Program (OMB Control No. 2040 - 0009; EPA I CR No. 0002.1 4 ). **Compliance Inspection Report (CIR) [**  **EP A15** 
**– EPA16**  **]** The burden and cost for EPA is based on the time required to review the CIRs or the pretreatment checklists. 16 On the basis of previous experience, 90 percent of the inspection reports will require an in itial review of 0.5 hour each , while the remaining 10 percent will require a more intensive review of 5 hours. **Quarterly, Semiannual, and Annual Reports [**  **EPA17 ]**  The burden and cost for EPA is based on the time to review reports b y EPA R egions and b y EPA headquarters . EPA estimates the burden for this information item to be 15 hours, including 8 hours of review b y EPA R egions and 7 hours of review b y EPA headquarters. **Submittal of Noncomp**  **liance Information for Sludge Management Programs Annual**  **Sewage Sludge Program Reports**  **[ EP**  **A18 ]**  The burden and cost for EPA is based on the time to review the reports . EPA estimates that the review time is 55 hours per report. **Review Support for Subpart B, Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Milestone Plans**  **[ EPA164** 
**– EP**  **A1 65**  **]** EPA estimates the burden for this information item to be 20 hours for the initial review and 4 hours for recurring review of milestone plans.

16 As discussed above, states are not required to use these forms. However, the federal burden is not likely to depend greatly on the format in which results are reported. Therefore, for simplicity, it is assumed that states use these forms.6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

126 **Support to State and Local Entities for the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Point Source Category**  **[ EPA167**  **]** The burden and cost for EPA is based on review data and program oversight . EPA estimates that the Agency

burden for program oversight is 8 hours . **Coal Remining [**  **EPA168**
**– EPA169**  **]** EPA ’s burden for this information item is estimated at 1 hour for the initial r eview and 8 hours for recurring review of the site. **Western Alkaline Coal Mining [**  **EPA170**
**– EPA172**  **]** EPA estimates the burden for this information item to be 1 hour for the initial review and 8 hours for recurring review of the site. **Great Lakes Water Qualit y Guidance [**  **EPA199 ]**  EPA estimate s an annual burden to the Agency of 400 hours to maintain the water quality database to serve as the Information Clearinghouse. **Vessel General Permit NOI filing [EPA 200**  **]** EPA will be the permitting authority for the Vessels General Permit. The Agency estimates that it will spend 0.5 hour processing each NOIs. **Vessel General Permit Standard Permit Conditions [EPA71, EPA81, EPA103]** As the permit authority , EPA will handle an d review Permittee Report of Planned Facility Changes, Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance, and Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous Information. EPA estimates it will spend 20 hours, 10 hours, and 4 hours , respectively for this activity . 

## 6(d) **Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs**  Detailed information describing the universe and basis for burden and costs is provided in S ection 6(a) . R esults are presented in the Respondents Activities Table in Appendix B . The Respondents Table in Appendix A provides the respondents universe and the source of information for all respondent categories used throughout this I CR.6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

127 

## 6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables **6(e)(i) Respondent Tally** The bottom line burden hours and costs for facilities and authorized states are the average annual hours and costs collectively incurred for all activities during the 3 - year period covered b y this ICR . Table 6 . 5 provides a summary of the average annual number of respondents, burden hours, and costs . A more detailed summary is in the Respondents Activities Table in Appendix B . **Table 6. 5**  **Respondent T ally**  **Permittees S**  **tates /** **t ribes/** **t erritories**  **Totals** Unique Respondents (number) a 397,703 637 398,340 Responses (number) 4,184,125 796,791 4,980,917 Burden (hours) 19,666,765 1,657,976 21,324,741 Costs (labor) $928,775,997 $66,785,464 $995,561,461 Costs (capital) $211,074 $0 $211,074 Costs (O&M) $18,551,848 $0 $18,551,848 Total costs $947,538,919 $66,785,464 $1,014,324,384 a . 5 9 0 of these 6 3 7 states respond to only one information item (certification of EPA - issued permits) [ 4. 3 56 ] 

### 6(e)(ii) The A**gency**

**Tall y**  The bottom line burden hours and costs for the Agency are the total annual hours and costs collectively

incurred for all activities during the period covered by this I CR . Table 6 . 6 provides a summary of the average annual A gency burden hours and costs . A more detailed summary is in the Agency

Activities Table in Appendix C . **Table 6. 6**  **Ag ency**  **T ally**  Responses (number) 109,249 Burden (hours) 91,568 Costs (labor) $3,806,493 Costs (capital) $0 Costs (O&M) $0 Total costs $3,806,493 

## 6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden This consolidated I CR does not include any programmatic changes to the NPDES permit program ; it is simply an update of the 2008 consolidated I CR . An y changes are primarily due to new and better data, and some minor changes from elimination of obsolete or redundant respondent activities. The current burden approved by OMB for the ICRs being consolidated is 30,943,308 hours . This consolidated I CR estimates a total burden that is 9,618,566 hours less than the currently approved burden . This decrease in burden corresponds to 3 1 percent of the overall burden . The main reasons for the change in burden is that EPA generated a new estimate of construction sites b ased on data collected for the development of the final Construction Effluent L imitation6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(g) Burden Statement

128 Guidelines. T he Agency

revised its estimate of the number of large and small construction sites covered b y this ICR downward from 243,076 to 84,472 sites annual ly . The impact of this change in the number of construction sites is a decrease of 8, 051 , 315 hours. Some other specific reasons for burdens changes are presented below. In addition, Appendix D presents a table with all activities with burden changes greater than 50 perfect and an explanation of the reasons for the change and any quality assurance actions taken to verify the estimates.  EPA’s continuous effort to improve the quality of data in it s PCS and IC IS - NPDES. This change could reflect more accurate data rather than a significant change in the number of permits actuall y administered. This change is particularl y important for activities related to general permittees because in previous ICRs , EPA based the calculation on best professional estimates ; whereas , for this I CR , the Agency has real inventory

numbers from PCS and I CI S NPDES .  All CSO permits or enforcement orders have fulfill the obligation of Phase I technology based CSO control requirements (Nine Minimum Controls)  P reviously , EPA accounted for 6 hours per CAAP facilities to submit Form 2b and 0.5 hours per application per st ate to process and review the form. This burden from CAAP facilities and states has been transferred to the Animal Sectors I CR ( OMB Control No. 2040 - 0250 ) .  In the previous ICR, EPA accounted for the state burden of 24 hours per pretreatment compliance ins pection, but this burden has been transferred to the Pretreatment I CR (OMB Control No. 2040 - 0009).  For this I CR, labor rates have been updated to January 2011 dollars. These changes affect the estimated costs of reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the NPDES Program. 

## 6(g) Burden Statement The calculations made for this I CR cover the burden and costs for EPA, authorized state s , and operators of regulated facilities . This I CR estimates a burden of 19,666,765 hours annuall y for 397, 703 operator respondents at a cost of $ 9 48 m illion . Burden for the state respondents is 1,657,976 hours annuall y at a cost of $ 6 7 million . Agency burden is 91,568 hours annuall y at a cost of $ 3. 8 million . The annual reporting and record - keeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 4.3 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended b y persons to generate, maintain, or disclose or provide information to or for a f ederal agency . This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and s ys tems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing way s to comply with any previousl y applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose information . An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently

valid OMB control number . The OMB control number s for EPA ’ s regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(g) Burden Statement

129 To comment on EPA ’ s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and an y suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, the Agency has established a public docket for this ICR under Dock et ID No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2008 - 0719 , which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC . The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday

through Friday , excluding legal holiday s . The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202 - 566 - 1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is 202 - 566 - 2426 . An electronic version of the public docket is available through the Federal Docket Management Sy stem (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov/ . Use FDMS to submit or view public comments, to access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access documents in the public docket that are available electronicall y . Once in the s ys tem, key in the docket ID number identified above . You can also send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA . P lease include the EPA Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2008 - 0719 and OMB Control No. 2040 - 0004 in an y correspondence .