Information Collection Request for

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) Program (Renewal)

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-11-009

EPA Work Assignment Number 0-22
ii

Contents

1. Identification of the Information Collection............................................................................... 1

1(a) Title of the Information 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 (SIC) 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) Reporting (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) Reporting (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 .............................................................................. 123
iii

6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs................................. 126

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables .................................................................. 127

6(e)(i) Respondent Tally..................................................................................................... 127

6(e)(ii) The Agency Tally ................................................................................................... 127

6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden ........................................................................................ 127

6(g) Burden Statement ............................................................................................................ 128

Appendices

A. Respondents Table

B. Respondents Activities Table

C. Agency Activities Table

D. Analysis of Changes

E. State Status

F. Application Forms

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 Form 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

Table 6.6 Agency Tally............................................................................................................... 127
1. 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 ICR Number: 0229.20

1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract

This Information Collection Request (ICR) renews Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

Number 2040-0004 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program ICR. 

This consolidated ICR calculates the burden and costs associated with the NPDES program, 

identifies the types 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 types of regulated activities. It is an update of the 2008 Information 

Collection Request for the NPDES Program (OMB Control Number: 2040-0004; EPA ICR 

Number: 0229.19) that consolidated the burden and costs associated with activities previously

reported in nine of the 15 NPDES program or NPDES-related ICRs administered by EPA’s 

Water Permits Division.

The objective of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, 

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 authorizes 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 states and some by EPA, this ICR 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 studies;

 Monitoring;

 

1

In this ICR, references to 47 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 enforcement actions; and

 Activities resulting from NPDES program authorization, including approval, modifications, 

transfer or withdrawal of authorization.

The primary users of this information will be states authorized to administer the NPDES 

permitting program and EPA. It is anticipated that other government agencies, both at the state 

and federal level, as well as public interest groups, private companies, and individuals will also 

use the data.

In summary, this ICR estimates a burden of 19,666,765 hours annually for 397,703 respondents

(permittees) at a cost of $948 million. Burden for the state respondents is 1,657,976 hours 

annually at a cost of $67 million. Agency burden is 91,568 hours annually at a cost of $3.8

million.
2. Need For and Use of the Collection

3

2. Need For and Use 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, physical 

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 sources2into 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 adequately 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] deemed appropriate.” EPA’s application 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 section 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 for each major program element. See Appendix 

E for a detailed NPDES program status by 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. territories may waive their right to certify

permits if they wish. CWA section 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 which 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 For and Use of the Collection

4

Table 2.1 States with program authorization as of August 2011

Type Number

NPDES Base Permit Program 47*

Pretreatment Program 36

General Permits Program 47*

Biosolids Program 8

Federal Facilities 43

* includes the U.S. Virgin Islands

CWA section 405 prohibits the discharge of pollutants caused by 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 

section 405 through its NPDES Biosolids Program.

The 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 ICR. The NPDES Program requires permits for 

stormwater discharges from certain municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), industrial 

activities, and construction activities disturbing one acre or more. CWA section 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 applicable 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 contained in 40 CFR Parts 122, and 501, and 503, respectively. EPA 

has developed its NPDES discharge and sewage sludge application requirements to ensure that it 

obtains adequate information about applicants before it issues permits. Most application 

requirements are contained in forms developed by EPA. Table 4.2 provides an overview of the 

types 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 applicable 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 section 308 provides EPA with the authority to request this type of information 

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 For and Use 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 generally 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 information 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 specifically required in their permits. This latter reporting requirement is 

intended to alert the permitting authority of potential health or environmental 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, 

122.63, 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 dynamic 

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 sections 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 

certain aspects of the effluent limitations guidelines and standards, often in lieu of monitoring for 

one or more pollutants. This ICR also integrates those certifications and planning documents.

CWA section 402(q) requires that permits, orders, and decrees that include discharges from 

combined sewer systems conform to the 1994 Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy (59 

Federal Register [FR] 18,688). The information collection activities described in this ICR 

provide the minimum data necessary for EPA to ensure that all municipalities with combined 

sewer systems 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 For and Use 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 System. 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 program. The Vessel General 

Permit (VGP) covers discharges incidental to the normal operation from non- military, nonrecreational commercial vessels greater than 79 feet in length. The VGP defines effluent limits 

for multiple discharge categories and specifies 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 types 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 expires on December 19, 2013.

EPA is currently 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 action 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 ICR includes information used primarily by permitting authorities and permittees. 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 sets: identification information and 
2. Need For and Use of the Collection

7

information related to the facility’s discharges or practices. Permitting authorities use the 

information in the ways discussed below.

Permitting authorities collect and use information such as the name, location, and description 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 basic permit information in EPA’s Permit Compliance System 

(PCS) and the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS-NPDES) database. PCS and 

ICIS-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 types 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 properties, 

endangered and threatened species, and critical habitat. These applicants are required to assess 

the effects of their stormwater discharges on historic properties, federally listed endangered and 

threatened species, and designated critical habitat. Information 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 systems, pollutant characteristics, 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 

might 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,

bioassays to support the development 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 special 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 For and Use of the Collection

8

NPDES permits may not be issued for a period more than five years. The reapplication process is 

the primary mechanism for obtaining up-to-date information on discharges and sewage sludge 

quality, particularly for new pollutants. Although existing permittees provide pollutant data from 

self-monitoring activities in routine reports, these reports are usually limited to pollutants listed 

in existing permits. Permitting authorities 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 publicly 

owned treatment works [POTWs] and privately owned treatment works [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.3For these reasons, most permittees collect 

additional data (i.e., product quality and production efficiency information) that may or may not 

be included with monitoring reports or required by their permits. Collection and reporting of data 

to permitting authorities also improves permittee 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 permittee 

compliance. Self-monitoring data also helps the permitting authority modify or develop permit 

limits. Permitting authorities may also require other types of monitoring data, such as influent 

monitoring data to evaluate a plant’s operational aspects; ambient 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 surveys) that might be necessary to determine compliance with permit limits.

EPA and states analyze monitoring data when establishing permit conditions. For example, 

NPDES permit writers may revise permit requirements on the basis of data from monitoring 

reports. Furthermore, 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 data 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 CWA 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 pollutant 

discharge limitations and satisfy the sewage 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 limitations on industries as part of their pretreatment programs. Information requirements 

associated with the pretreatment program are included in a separate ICR (OMB Control No. 2040-0009, ICR No. 

0002.08).
2. Need For and Use of the Collection

9

If noncompliance with permit conditions is detected, the permitting authority will 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 assessment 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 ICR).

Another exception to the compliance data information flow 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 requirements 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.

Information submitted by municipalities under the CSO Control Policy provide NPDES 

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 track 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.

Information collected by 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 proposed 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 general permits, and a 
2. Need For and Use of the Collection

10

small percentage of permits for minor facilities.4The information submitted by states consists of 

all appropriate data necessary for permit review––application forms, 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 only 

annually.

EPA’s ongoing 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 compliance 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 population 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 impact; 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 values. 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 

categorized 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 ICR 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 

determine if similar or duplicate information is available elsewhere:

 The EPA Inventory of ICRs;

 The Government Information Locator Service; and

 The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).

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 any duplication between NPDES and RCRA reporting of pollutant releases is 

negligible because they focus on different areas of a facility (RCRA focuses on on-site activities,

and NPDES focuses on discharge outfalls).

3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submissions to OMB

This ICR was published in the Federal Register on Date XX, 20XX (XX FR XX,XXX). The 

notice included a request for 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 the regulated community. EPA headquarters staff responsible for 

program oversight in the applicable program areas were contacted to provide revised 

information, data, and review for this ICR.

When this ICR was open for public comments in 2008 (EPA ICR 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, monitoring conditions, and 

report contents and frequencies. In the past several years, 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 regularly 

seeks new opportunities to reduce burden on the regulated community.
3. Non-duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

12

The information needed to meet permitting, monitoring, reporting, and information collection 

requirements related to the NPDES Program is submitted one time, at a regular frequency, or as 

needed. EPA and authorized states need current information about permittees, discharge 

characteristics, enforcement actions, and program performance to fulfill oversight 

responsibilities. In addition, 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 ICR identifies the burden that EPA has determined 

as necessary. For example, less frequent reporting would not provide enough data for EPA to 

effectively 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 compose more than three quarters of all NPDES permittees, are 

covered under general permits.

Permitted facilities must reapply for NPDES and sewage sludge management permits before 

their existing permits expire, generally 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 (such 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 only 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 currently required is 

at or near the minimum that is necessary to adequately evaluate permittee compliance.

Some of the information in this ICR that is required to be submitted is collected only after the 

permittee violates a permit condition or after a certain condition occurs. For example, 

noncompliance reports are submitted when the facility experiences a bypass, an upset, or a 

violation of a daily maximum limit. Responses to section 308(a) letters are submitted only when 

requested by 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 determine 
3. 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 not 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 requirements 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 permit 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 submitted 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. Any claim of confidentiality

must be asserted at the time of submission. However, CWA section 308(b) specifically 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 Writing Information 

Collection Requests Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 as “questions concerning 

sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, or other matters usually considered private.” The 

requirements addressed in this ICR 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 facilities) 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 authorized 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 ICR.

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 47. 

 During the next 3 years, one state will request a sewage sludge program. Because there are 

eight currently authorized programs, the addition of the new state will result in an average of 

8.3 authorized programs operating per year.

All states plus five U.S. territories, the District of Columbia, and 581 federally recognized Indian 

tribes (for a total of 637 respondents per year) are required to certify, in accordance with CWA 

section 401, that EPA-issued permits will result in compliance with the state, territory, or tribe’s 

water quality requirements.

All NPDES permittees, whether permitted by EPA or a state, are also respondents in this ICR. 

These permittees include non-stormwater and stormwater permittees covered under both 

individual and general permits. In addition, 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 ICR. Certain 

NPDES-regulated activities are not included in this ICR (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 relatively large portion of permitted non-stormwater facilities are classified in the Sanitary

Service industry group (NAICS 221320, SIC 495); these include POTWs and PrOTWs, most of 

them under NAICS 22132, SIC 4952 (Sewerage Systems).

Unlike sanitary services, which are described by a single NAICS/SIC code, nonmunicipal 

(industrial) dischargers may be categorized into many NAICS/SIC codes. Industrial categories 

covered by NPDES permits include facilities in more than 800 industrial classifications. Some 

industrial sectors that discharge pollutants directly to waters of the United States are covered by 

effluent limitation guidelines; the specific categories of dischargers are shown on Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Industrial sectors and corresponding 40 CFR Part

40 CFR Part Sector name

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 Timber 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 Waste 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 Waste Combustors
4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

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

16

40 CFR Part Sector name

445 Landfills

446 Paint Formulating

447 Ink Formulating

451 Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production (Aquaculture)

454 Gum and Wood 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 Aluminum Forming

468 Copper Forming

469 Electrical and Electronic Components

471 Nonferrous Metals Forming and Metal Powders
4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

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

17

The NPDES regulations also require permits covering different types of stormwater discharges, 

including discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), discharges 

associated with industrial activity, and discharges associated with construction 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 include the following:

 Facilities subject to stormwater effluent limitations guidelines, new source performance 

standards, or toxic pollutant effluent standards

 Heavy industrial manufacturing NAICS codes 321 (except 33711), 322 (except 3222 and 

32229), 325 (except 3254 and 3255) 324, 3161, 327 (except 327215), 331, 332312, and 

3366; SIC 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: NAICS codes 2122, 21221, 2121, 211, and 2123; SIC 

codes 10, 1011, 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; SIC codes 5015 and 5093

 Steam electric power generating facilities, including coal handling

 Transportation facilities classified as NAICS codes 482, 485, 484 (except 49313-481), 491, 

483, 481, and 42271; SIC 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 any other sewage sludge or wastewater 

treatment device or system

 Light industrial activity NAICS 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; SIC codes 20, 21, 22, 23, 2434, 

25, 265, 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, SIC code 15 (Building Construction 

General Contractors and Operative Builders), NAICS code 234, SIC code 16 (Heavy 

Construction Other Than Building Construction Contractors), and NAICS code 23593, SIC 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 (TMDL) [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 type of 

animal confined at the operation. NAICS codes: 112111, 112112, 112120, 112210, 112310, 

112320, 112330, 112390, 112410, and 11290; SIC 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 transferred this burden to the Animal Sectors ICR (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; SIC code 44—

Water Transportation) and the fishing industry (NAICS code 11411—Fishing; SIC 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 Barges, 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 type of activity and the second the specific activity listed in the table.

All activities reported in the nine ICRs consolidated in this supporting statement were analyzed 

and allocated to one of seven types 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 1.1–1.146];

 Activities associated with plan development or special studies [respondent activities codes 

2.1–2.86];

 Monitoring [respondent activities codes 3.1–3.121];

 Reporting, including certification [respondent activities codes 4.1–4.364];

 Record-keeping [respondent activities codes 5.1–5.60];

 Activities resulting from compliance assessments or enforcement actions [respondent 

activities codes 6.1–6.39]; and

 Activities resulting from NPDES program authorization, including approval, modifications, 

transfer or withdrawal of authorization [respondent 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 types of permittees. Please note that not all types of permittees have activities under all 

types 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) Application/NOI

4(b)(i)(1) Data Items

Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.21 and 122.28 detail the application and NOI requirements, 

respectively, for NPDES permits. This section includes specific application requirements related 

to NPDES discharge permits and sewage sludge management permits [40 CFR 122.21(b)–(l), 

(p), and (q)], and NOI requirements [40 CFR 122.28]. In addition, this section includes specific 

application and NOI requirements for stormwater discharges [40 CFR 122.26].

As noted previously, this ICR does not address permit application requirements for cooling water 

intake structures or CAFOs. Those activities are addressed in separate ICRs: OMB Control 

Numbers 2040-0241, 2040-0257, 2040-0268, and 2040-0250.

EPA has developed standard application forms for many applicants (see Appendix F), references 

to which are specified in 40 CFR 122.21(a)(2). Standardized application forms covered under 

this ICR 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 general permits, as well as the VGP. Whether or not 

standard forms exist, this ICR 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 requests);

 Applications for MS4 permits from large or medium municipalities5and regulated small 

municipalities;

 Applications for individual construction stormwater permits;

 

5

Large MS4s 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 before 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 type 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 employs 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 Application forms and information requests

Form/request Respondent type

Form 1 Nonmunicipal NPDES applicants not covered under form 2B

Form 2A All POTWs 

Additional NPDES Application 

Requirements for Municipal 

Dischargers (Section 308 Request)

Municipal facilities (i.e., POTWs)

Form 2B CAFO Applications and CAAP facilities (not covered under 

this ICR)

Form 2C Existing manufacturing, commercial, mining, and 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 nonmunicipal facilities that discharge nonprocess wastewater

Form 2F Industrial stormwater dischargers applying for an individual 

permit 

Form 2S POTWs and other treatment works treating domestic 

sewage (TWTDS) (covers sludge)
4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(i) Application/NOI

21

Form/request Respondent type

NOI-Industrial Activity (NOIStormwater)Industrial stormwater dischargers applying for a Multi-Sector 

General Permit (MSGP)

Application for Transportation and 

Utility Systems 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 Small MS4 operators or any person

NOI Municipal, nonmunicipal, 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 classified 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 Waiver 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 originally developed Form 1 to be used by any facility applying for any EPA permit. On 

Form 1, applicants provide basic information necessary to all EPA permit programs, including 

name, address, type of facility, SIC 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 permits, Alaskan applicants who submit 

the Application for Transportation and Utility Systems 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;

 Identify levels of production, WWTP construction or improvements, and effluent 

characteristics; and

 Sample and analyze wastewater for pollutant characteristics.

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 analyze 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 has 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 organic toxic pollutants in all primary industrial 

categories. The specific organic pollutants for which an industry must test are listed by industry

type 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 facilities applying for NPDES permits to discharge process wastewater complete Form 2D. 

The form requests information that helps permitting authorities determine 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 years 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 states where EPA is the permitting authority (see 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 source maintain records, 

make reports, conduct monitoring and/or sampling, and provide any other information 

reasonably necessary to carry out the objectives of the CWA.

Section 308 requests vary in complexity and burden, and permit authorities may issue requests 

for a variety of reasons. Authorities may request simple narrative descriptions or existing 

discharge information, for example. More burdensome requests include comprehensive sampling 

and analyses, biomonitoring, fish tissue analyses, 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 with 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 substantially, EPA has not created standard 

forms for the requests.

Form 2E [1.18–1.21]

Facilities that submit this form discharge only non-process wastewater that is not regulated by 

effluent limitations guidelines or new source performance standards (NSPS). The primary

respondents include dischargers of non-process wastewater, primarily sanitary waste, and 

noncontact cooling water. It cannot 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 

treatment systems. Form 2E also requires minimal sampling for conventional pollutants such as 

biochemical oxygen 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 Systems 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 by 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 by submitting 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 

dischargers 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 fundamentally different from those EPA considered when establishing national effluent 

limits. Applicants must request this type 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 days 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 Fundamentally 

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 apply for a CWA section 301(g) variance if they can show that 

discharging nonconventional pollutants at limits 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 by the states with authority for the NPDES program.

Variance Request Due 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 applicant 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 [1.39–1.40]

Nonmunicipal dischargers apply for this variance [40 CFR 122.21(m)(4)], which extends the 

compliance schedule for BAT up to 2 years. The variance gives dischargers an opportunity (1) to 

develop innovative technologies that will reduce pollutant concentrations beyond BAT levels, or 

(2) to experiment 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 type 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, shellfish, 

and wildlife in the receiving water. The application of this variance includes a description of the 

studies performed and the results of biological, hydrological, and physical 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 submitted to substantiate and justify them. In sum, relief options 

for dischargers to the Great Lakes include mechanisms such as variances from criteria, 

alternative mixing zones, phased-TMDLs, and site-specific criteria. All these mechanisms are 

available under the CWA and existing NPDES programs. Therefore, this ICR includes 

information collection and record-keeping activities associated with analyses and reporting to 

request regulatory relief from guidance requirements that are in excess of what would already be 

covered under other modification and variance activities.

4(b)(i)(1)(A)(1)(1) Non-Stormwater—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 

preliminary 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 currently 

effective NPDES permit, and/or have not been directed by the permitting authority to apply 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, 1.137]

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 by the title, the Basic Application Information 

section collects elementary data for drafting 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

Industrial 

User (IU) Discharges and RCRA/CERCLA wastes, and Combined Sewer Systems, and

applicants 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 system

Additional NPDES Application Requirements for Municipal Dischargers (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 conditions. Section 308 grants permit authorities the power to 

require the owner or operator of any point source to provide supplemental information 

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

complexity and burden 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, during 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 highly 

variable. It ranges from routine water quality and sediment analyses to complex impact analyses 

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 greater 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 dischargers apply for new permits. 

The permit authority reviews all other available sources of information, which may include EISs 

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. To 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 type of modification by showing that the modified effluent 

limitations 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 type of 

modification and does not anticipate receiving such a request. Consequently, 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, see 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 discharges into marine waters. This variance is 

administered by the Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds (OWOW), and it is the subject 

of a separate ICR. Therefore, no respondent burden or cost associated with this requirement is 

reported in this ICR. This information collection and reporting requirement is noted here only to 

ensure completeness.

Modification and Variance 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, 

see section 4(b)(i)(1)(A)(1).

4(b)(i)(1)(A)(2)(1) Non-Stormwater—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 geographic location (e.g., states). In this way, 

permitting authorities can cover a large number of facilities within one permit and establish a 
4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(i) Application/NOI

28

common set of limitations, monitoring requirements, and permit conditions. Non-stormwater 

general permittees are covered by many 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 NOI:

 The legal name and address of the owner or operator; 

 The facility name and address; and 

 The type 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 NOI that 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 

permitting authority as required by 40 CFR 122.47(b)(4). For more information, see 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 reissuance, or termination 

for several reasons. For more information, see section 4(b)(i)(1)(A)(1).

4(b)(i)(1)(B) Stormwater

4(b)(i)(1)(B)(1) Stormwater—Industrial

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 requests 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]

The NOI for stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity under a general permit 

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 states 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 

generally 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 typically consist of many outfalls. Permitting authorities issue one permit covering all 

discharges from a system. The NPDES regulations defined Phase I MS4 areas and required that 

applications be submitted in the early 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:

 Name and mailing address(es) of the permittee(s) that operate the MS4;

 Names and titles of the primary administrative 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-year 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 submit a permit application or NOI. EPA provides three options that an 
4. 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 I MS4 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 typically 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 for 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 by the NPDES permitting authority. EPA expects that all waiver determinations will 

be made by the NPDES permitting authorities before issuing the small MS4 general permit, thus 

negating the need to submit a waiver request. Therefore, this ICR 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 [1.122–1.132]

Construction site operators are required to complete an NOI or file an individual application

using Forms 1 and 2F. Although the NPDES regulations allow the option of submitting 

individual applications instead of an NOI, EPA does not anticipate that many operators will 

choose this option.

Stormwater discharges associated with construction 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 forms for construction activities regulated under Phase I and II. EPA 
4. 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 

developed 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 stormwater 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 type 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 typically 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 Loss 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 

TMDL that addresses the pollutants of concern or, if a TMDL has not been developed or 

approved, an equivalent analysis 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 [1.133–1.136]

When all stormwater discharges associated with construction activity authorized 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 type 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 the site).

4(b)(i)(1)(C) Vessels

Vessel General Permit NOI filing [1.138–1.146]

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 required on the NOI form: 

 Owner/operator information;

 Vessel information;

 General voyage information;

 Discharge information; and

 Certification.

4(b)(i)(2) Respondent Activities

Respondent activities can vary substantially depending on the type and characteristics of the 

respondent and of the authorized state or territory. This ICR explains these activities, in terms of 

the type of information submission they require, in detail in Section 4(b)(i)(1) above. However, 

any respondent can engage in preparing basic information. This includes reading and reviewing 

instructions and regulatory requirements, gathering general information, consulting technical and 

legal officials, reviewing guidance materials, typing 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 ICR.
4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(ii) Plan Development/Special Studies

33

4(b)(ii) Plan Development/Special Studies

4(b)(ii)(1) Data Items

4(b)(ii)(1)(A) Non-Stormwater

4(b)(ii)(1)(A)(1) Non-Stormwater—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 conditions), 

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 (VATIP), 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 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 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 Demonstration 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 

demonstration 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 general, an 

antidegradation demonstration consists of first performing a pollution prevention alternatives 

analysis to identify prudent and feasible alternatives. If no pollution prevention alternatives are 
4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(ii) Plan Development/Special Studies

34

deemed prudent and feasible, the permittee must identify alternative or enhanced treatment 

techniques. Finally, 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 state/tribal or federal 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 quantification 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 required to, direct permittees to use fish monitoring and other 

bio-uptake studies to evaluate PMP performance where WQBELs are established below 

analytical detection limits. Such studies would require sampling and laboratory analysis of fish 

tissue.

4(b)(ii)(1)(A)(1)(1) Non-Stormwater—Nonmunicipal—Biosolids

EPA has not identified any unique activities associated with plan development/special studies for 

these permittees.

4(b)(ii)(1)(A)(2) Non-Stormwater—Municipal Individual

Antidegradation Demonstration under the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [2.23–

2.25]

The antidegradation provisions in the final guidance apply to the discharge of non-deminimis

levels of pollutants to high-quality waters. For more information, see Section 4(b)(ii)(1)(A)(1).

Pollutant Minimization Programs (PMPs) under the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance 

[2.26–2.28]

For more information, see section 4(b)(ii)(1)(A)(1).

Bioconcentration Studies under the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [2.29]

For more information, see section 4(b)(ii)(1)(A)(1).

4(b)(ii)(1)(A)(2)(1) Non-Stormwater—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-Stormwater—Municipal Individual—CSO

CSO Control Policy - Nine Minimum Controls [2.30–2.63]

The CSO Control Policy recommends that municipalities implement the nine minimum controls 

(NMC) and submit documentation demonstrating their implementation activities. NPDES 
4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(ii) Plan Development/Special Studies

35

permitting authorities generally 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 mechanism.

CSO Long-Term Control Plans and Supplementary Information [2.64–2.75]

The CSO Control Policy recommends that permittees develop and submit a Long-Term Control 

Plan (LTCP) within 2 years after the inclusion of LTCP requirements in an NPDES permit or 

other enforceable mechanism. LTCPs should recognize the site-specific nature of CSOs and their 

effects on receiving waters.

4(b)(ii)(1)(A)(3) Non-Stormwater—General Permits

EPA has not identified any unique activities associated with plan development/special studies for 

these permittees.

4(b)(ii)(1)(B) Stormwater

4(b)(ii)(1)(B)(1) Stormwater—Industrial

SWPPP for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity [2.76–2.79]

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 quality of stormwater discharges associated 

with industrial activity from the facility and to describe 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 coverage. All initial plans for Phase I MS4s have been completed, but 

permittees continue to update their SWMPs. For small MS4s, SWMPs are generally 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 [2.82–2.86]

As an NPDES construction permit condition, EPA requires operators of construction sites to 

develop a SWPPP. A SWPPP is typically 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 Activities

Respondent activities can vary substantially depending on the type and characteristics of the 

respondent and of the authorized state or territory. This ICR explains these activities, in terms of 
4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(ii) Plan Development/Special Studies

36

the type of information submission they require, in detail in Section 4(b)(ii)(1) above. However, 

any respondent may engage in generating 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 by permitting authorities, such as developing a SWPPP, LTCP, or NMCs. 

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 

analysis on all samples collected according to the parameters outlined in the facility’s permit. 

The permit also will specify the frequency with which the permittee must conduct sampling and 

analysis.

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 daily, 

weekly, 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 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 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 requirements 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 Compliance Monitoring under the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [3.46]

Information 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-Stormwater—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 year for facilities using or disposing of relatively 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 types 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 considerably among and within permittee categories, all 

permits specify sampling frequency and location as well as other sampling and analysis 

parameters. The permittee must collect and analyze representative samples and must conduct all 

monitoring according to permit 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, see section 4(b)(iii)(A)(1).

WET Data Collection under the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [3.67]

For more information, see section 4(b)(iii)(1)(A)(1).

WQBEL Compliance Monitoring under the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [3.68]

For more information, see section 4(b)(iii)(1)(A)(1).

4(b)(iii)(1)(A)(2)(1) Non-Stormwater—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, see 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-Stormwater—Municipal Individual—CSO

CSO Control Policy - Compliance Monitoring [3.77–3.79]

The policy recommends that municipalities develop CSO 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 permitting 

authority should approve the compliance monitoring program as part of the LTCP review 

process. During the term of this renewal ICR, municipalities will collect information on the 

sampling and analysis of pollutants in CSOs and the effects of CSOs on the quality of the 

receiving waters.

4(b)(iii)(1)(A)(3) Non-Stormwater—General Permits

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, see 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, federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(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, see section 4(b)(iii)(1)(A)(1).

4(b)(iii)(1)(B)(2) Stormwater—Municipal 

MS4 Monitoring [3.95–3.96]

Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(i) outline the monitoring requirements for NPDES 

permittees. For more information, see section 4(b)(iii)(1)(A)(1).

4(b)(iii)(1)(B)(3) Stormwater—Construction

Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity [3.97–3.102]

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 states 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 [3.103–3.111]

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 water tanks and bilges, pumps and oily 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 equipment 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 recordkeeping documentation, signed by 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 analysis of gray water, bilge water, ballast 

water and wastewater discharges from exhaust gas cleaning systems. The monitoring 

requirements vary considerably between the discharge categories and all of the requirements are 

spelled out in the permit.

4(b)(iii)(2) Respondent Activities

Respondent activities can vary substantially depending on the type and characteristics of the 

respondent and of the authorized state or territory. This ICR explains these activities, in terms of

the type 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 

toxicity testing, impact analyses, field monitoring, or other scientific analyses.

 Performing routine inspections. This could involve routine site inspections to assess the site 

for information required by the permitting authorities, such as effectiveness of the SWPPP 

and associated BMPs 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 Facility Changes [4.1–4.4]

Consistent with 40 CFR 122.41(l)(1), any 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 alteration 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 submitted 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 typically make this sort of report by a letter that explains the reasons for the 

anticipated noncompliance. The advance notice provided by this reporting requirement enables 

the permitting authority to modify a permit 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.

Facility and Permit Transfer Report [4.9–4.12]

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 stating 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 responsibility, 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 necessary.
4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

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

41

Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous Information [4.13–4.16]

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 the error(s). 

Usually, permittees notify the permitting authority by letter. The permitting authority uses this 

information to set or modify permit conditions or to execute appropriate enforcement actions. 

The information is also used to update permit records.

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 they 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 levels for pollutants, or 

(2) that any 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 usually in effect for 5 years, reports of 

new toxic 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 days following the schedule date of each of the scheduled milestones. A schedule violation 

could result in an enforcement action.

Noncompliance 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 any noncompliance that could endanger human health or the environment (with a 

written follow-up submission within 5 days). 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) any upset that exceeds any 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 if it intends to operate at a production level higher than the lowest 

production level identified in the permit.

Certification 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 certification 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 copy 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 operation of monitoring systems) 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 required to prepare monitoring reports associated with 

collection of daily, weekly, or monthly discharges. The permitting authority must process and 

analyze the reported monitoring data.

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 conditions), 

direct mills associated with the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category also have the 

options to 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 Guidance [4.102]

After state/tribal or federal promulgation of provisions consistent with the Guidance, permittees 

are required to establish pollutant minimization programs (PMPs) for pollutants for which 

WQBELs are below quantification levels. Information collection 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-Stormwater—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 any planned physical 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 justify 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 application 

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 any report to the Director, it must promptly submit such facts or information.

DMRs for Sewage Sludge Facilities [4.111–4.118]

40 CFR 122.41, 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 I sludge 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 types of industrial users discharging to treatment 

works, and previous sewage sludge quality data. Reporting requirements vary considerably 

among and within permittee categories. If a facility chooses to collect and analyze 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 days 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 sewage 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 daily 

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 covered under these reporting requirements.

4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(2) Non-Stormwater—Municipal Individual

Permittee Report of Planned Facility Changes [4.123–4.126]

Consistent with 40 CFR 122.41(l)(1), any planned alteration or addition to a permitted facility 

must be reported to the permitting authority. 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 submitted by the permittee to modify the NPDES permit before the planned facility

changes are made. For more information, see 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, see 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1).

Facility and 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, see 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 report as soon as the permittee learns of the error(s). 

For more information, see 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, see 

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, see Section 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1).

Noncompliance Reports [4.161–4.186]

Requirements in 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6)-(7) specify that a permittee must provide 24-hour oral 

reporting of any noncompliance that could endanger human health or the environment (with a 

written follow-up submission within 5 days. For more information, see Section 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1). 

These reports can include sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) events; however, in this ICR, SSO 

reporting burdens appear as separate line items [4.185–4.186].

Annual Status Report under the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [4.187]

After state/tribal or federal promulgation of provisions consistent with the guidance, permittees 

are required to establish PMPs for pollutants for which WQBELs are below quantification levels. 

Information collection activities associated with PMPs include an annual status report.

4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(2)(1) Non-Stormwater—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 any planned physical alterations or additions to the permitted facility. For 

more information, see 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 activities that permittees must report. 

Permittees typically make this sort of report by a letter that explains the reasons for the 

anticipated noncompliance. The advance notice provided by this reporting requirement enables 

the permitting authority to modify a permit 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, see 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 Report [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 any 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, see 

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 CFR 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 days 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. 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 even if they are not covered under these reporting requirements as 

soon as they occur.

4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(2)(2) Non-Stormwater—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 written follow-up submission within 5 days. For more information, see 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 effects.
4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

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

47

CSO Control Policy—Compliance Monitoring [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 

permitting 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 analysis of pollutants in CSOs and the 

effects 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), any planned alteration or addition to a permitted facility

must be reported to the permitting authority. For more information, see 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1).

Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance [4.218–4.219]

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, see 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. For more information, see Section 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1).

Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous Information [4.222–4.223]

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, see 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1).

DMRs for Non-Stormwater General Permittees [4.224–4.230]

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, see 

4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1).

Noncompliance Reports [4.231–4.242]

Requirements in 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6)-(7) specify that a permittee must provide 24-hour oral 

reporting of any noncompliance that could endanger human health or the environment (with a 

written follow-up submission within 5 days. For more information, see 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), any planned alteration or addition to a permitted facility 

must be reported to the permitting authority. For more information, see Section 

4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1).

Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance [4.245–4.246]

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, see 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1).

Facility and Permit Transfer 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 information, see Section 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1).

Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous Information [4.249–4.250]

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, see 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1).

DMRs for Industrial Stormwater General Permittees [4.251–4.253]

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, see 

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 reports to the permitting authority.

Noncompliance Reports [4.255–4.266]

Stormwater permittees must report any violation of a maximum daily discharge limitation for 

any of the pollutants listed in the permit. For more information, see 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), any planned alteration or addition to a permitted facility 

must be reported to the permitting authority. For more information, see 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 [4.271–4.274]

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, see 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 permit holder. For more information, see 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1).

Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous Information [4.279–4.282]

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, see 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1).

Annual Reports for Small MS4s Covered by a General Permit or Individual Permit [4.283–

4.284]

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-year permit term and twice per permit term thereafter.

Annual Reports for Phase I MS4s [4.285–4.286]

Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.42(c) outline the annual reporting requirements for Phase I

MS4 permittees.

Petitions for Stormwater Individual Permit [4.287–4.288]

Federal regulations (55 FR 48072) allow MS4 operators to petition EPA to require industrial 

facilities discharging through the MS4 to obtain individual NPDES permits. Depending on the 

circumstances, these petitions can come from MS4 operators or any 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 permit. 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 States.

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, see 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 any noncompliance that could endanger human health or the environment (with a 

written follow-up submission within 5 days. For more information, see 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), any planned alteration or addition to a permitted facility 

must be reported to the permitting authority. For more information, see 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1).

Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance [4.321–4.322]

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, see 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1).

Facility and Permit Transfer Report [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 information, see 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 as the permittee learns of the error(s). 

For more information, see 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 any noncompliance that could endanger human health or the environment (with a 

written follow-up submission within 5 days. For more information, see 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 report. Specifically, 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 ensure that permittees are complying with the provisions of the

permit, to learn how vessels are implementing the permit, and to gain a better understanding 

about the universe of permittees covered by this general permit. Owners 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 of Planned Facility Changes [4.348]

Consistent with 40 CFR 122.41(l)(1), any planned alteration or addition to a permitted vessel 

must be reported to the permitting authority. For more information, see 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 [4.349]

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, see Section 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1).

Facility and Permit Transfer Report [4.350]

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 

holder via the e-NOI system. For more information, see Section 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1).

Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous Information [4.351]

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, see 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1).

Noncompliance Reports [4.352–4.354]

Requirements in 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6)-(7) specify that a permittee must provide 24-hour oral 

reporting of any noncompliance that could endanger human health or the environment (with a 

written follow-up submission within 5 days. For more information, see Section 4(b)(iv)(1)(A)(1).

4(b)(iv)(1)(D) State 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 

surveys 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 facilities and activities. 

Comprehensive surveys and inspections are covered under “Inspection and Investigation of 

NPDES Permittees,” discussed below. Surveys 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. 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 EPA 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. Certification 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 compliance 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 must 
4. 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 [4.357–4.360]

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.” 

Information 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 application 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, states 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 proposed 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 require that each EPA Region and authorized state 

prepares quarterly, semiannual, and annual noncompliance reports. These reports are as follows:

 Quarterly Noncompliance Reports (QNCRs). Authorized states must submit to EPA quarterly

reports of noncompliance by 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 by 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 nonmajor permittees reviewed, the number in noncompliance, 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 Sewage Sludge Program Reports [4.364]

Under 40 CFR 501.21, permitting authority 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 year.

4(b)(iv)(2) Respondent Activities

Respondent activities can vary substantially depending on the type and characteristics of the 

respondent and of the authorized state or territory. This ICR explains these activities, in terms of 

the type 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 reading instructions and regulations for report 

requirements, consulting technical, legal, and political staff, reviewing guidance materials, 

gathering general information, typing 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 Keeping

4(b)(v)(1) Data Items

4(b)(v)(1)(A) Non-Stormwater

4(b)(v)(1)(A)(1) Non-Stormwater—Nonmunicipal Individual

NPDES Permit Applicants [5.1–5.3]

All NPDES 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 system, enter 

data, train personnel, and file information. For existing facilities, record keeping entails 

collecting and filing raw data.

Record Keeping of Monitoring Data [5.4–5.12]

Federal regulation in 40 CFR 122.41(j)(2) mandates that, in 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, analytical techniques 

or methods used, and results of such analyses. These data must be readily available to the 

permitting authority during site inspections or at any other time they are needed. This recordkeeping 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. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(v) Record Keeping

54

4(b)(v)(1)(A)(1)(1) Non-Stormwater—Nonmunicipal—Biosolids

Sewage Sludge Permit Applicants [5.13]

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 

system, enter data, train personnel, and file information. For existing facilities, record keeping 

entails collecting and filing raw data.

Record Keeping of Monitoring Data for Sewage Sludge Facilities [5.14–5.21]

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 Loading Rate 

(CPLR) basis.

4(b)(v)(1)(A)(2) Non-Stormwater—Municipal Individual

NPDES Permit Applicants [5.22]

All NPDES 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 system, enter 

data, train personnel, and file information. For existing facilities, record keeping entails 

collecting and filing raw data.

Record Keeping of Monitoring Data [5.23–5.24]

Federal regulations in 40 CFR 122.41(j)(2) mandate that, in 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, see Section 4(b)(v)(1)(A)(1).

4(b)(v)(1)(A)(2)(1) Non-Stormwater—Municipal Individual—Biosolids

Sewage Sludge Permit Applicants [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 might need to develop a record-keeping 

system, enter data, train personnel, and file information. For existing facilities, record keeping 

entails collecting and filing raw data.

Record Keeping 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 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 for cumulative 

amounts of pollutants added to any site by Cumulative Pollutant Land Rates (CPLR) sludge.
4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(v) Record Keeping

55

4(b)(v)(1)(A)(2)(2) Non-Stormwater—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 analysis of 

pollutants in CSOs and the effects of CSOs on the quality of the receiving waters.

4(b)(v)(1)(A)(3) Non-Stormwater—General Permits

NPDES Permit Applicants/NOI [5.35]

All permit applicants and facilities covered by general permits 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 system, enter data, train personnel, and file information. For existing 

facilities, record keeping entails collecting and filing raw data.

Record Keeping of Monitoring Data [5.36]

40 CFR 122.41(j)(2) mandates that, in association with monitoring requirements, NPDES 

permittees, including non-stormwater general 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, 

analytical techniques or methods used, and results of such analyses. These data must be readily

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. This information would otherwise not be available 

to the permitting authority.

4(b)(v)(1)(B) Stormwater

4(b)(v)(1)(B)(1) Stormwater—Industrial

NPDES Permit Applicants [5.37–5.39]

All NPDES permit applicants must keep records of the data used to complete their NOIs or

applications for at least 3 years. First-time applicants might need to develop a record-keeping 

system, enter data, train personnel, and file information. For existing facilities, record keeping 

entails collecting and filing raw data.

Record Keeping of Inspections and Monitoring [5.40]

40 CFR 122.44(i)(4)(ii) specifies 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 readily 

available to the permitting authority on request. This information is the minimum compliance 
4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(v) Record Keeping

56

requirement and applies to all stormwater general permittees. 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 Applicants [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 or Individual Permit [5.42]

All regulated small MS4 NPDES permit applicants must keep records of the data used to 

complete their applications or NOIs and annual reports for at least 3 years.

4(b)(v)(1)(B)(3) Stormwater—Construction

Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity [5.43–5.47]

The CGP requires that the SWPPP (as well as any materials required 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 copy of the NOT and supporting 

documentation on file for at least 3 years.

Record Keeping of Inspections and Monitoring [5.48]

40 CFR 122.44(i)(4)(ii) specifies 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 

SWPPP documentation. The SWPPP also requires the construction site operator to keep records 

of biweekly inspections of control measures used for erosion and sediment control. For more 

information, see Section 4(b)(v)(1)(B)(1).

4(b)(v)(1)(C) Vessels

Vessel General Permit Record Keeping [5.49–5.57]

A permittee must keep only one brief record of each inspection, noting when and how it was 

completed and any relevant information discovered during the inspection. Inspection records 

may be kept in any form, provided 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 by 

the permit.
4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(v) Record Keeping

57

4(b)(v)(1)(D) State Record Keeping

Record Keeping of NPDES Program Information [5.58–5.60]

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 also 

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 notices and 

reports required of permittees and other regulated persons.

4(b)(v)(2) Respondent Activities

Respondent activities can vary substantially depending on the type and characteristics of the 

respondent and of the authorized state or territory. This ICR explains these activities, in terms of 

the type of information submission they require, in detail in Section 4(b)(v)(1) above. However, 

any respondent may engage in maintaining records. This includes keeping records of the data for 

at least 3 years, developing record-keeping systems, collecting and entering data, training 

personnel, filing information, or other record-keeping requirements, such as maintaining a

SWPPP on-site for the duration of the project. 

4(b)(vi) Compliance Assessment 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 activities 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 apply 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 facilities or 

vessels. They are, therefore, a compliance-related activity. Because of the nature of these 

requests, the majority of compliance-related Section 308 letters apply to nonmunicipal facilities. 

The burden for this is included in Section 4(b)(vi)(1)(A) above.
4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(vi) Compliance Assessment and Enforcement

58

4(b)(vi)(1)(C) State-Only Activities

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 inspected each year.

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 analysis methodology. 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 types of inspections8are as 

follows:

 Compliance Sampling Inspections (CSI). [6.6–6.7, 6.21–6.22] During the CSI, representative 

samples required by the permit are obtained. Chemical analyses are performed, and the 

results are used to verify the accuracy of the permittee’s self-monitoring program and reports, 

determine the quantity and quality of effluents, develop permits, and provide evidence for 

enforcement proceedings where appropriate. In addition, CSIs include the same objectives

and tasks as a Compliance Evaluation Inspection, discussed below.

 Compliance Evaluation Inspections (CEI). [6.8–6.9, 6.23–6.24] The CEI is 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 types except the Reconnaissance Inspection.

 Performance Audit Inspections (PAI). [6.10-6.11, 6.25-6.26] The PAI is used to evaluate the 

permittee’s self-monitoring program. Like a CEI, the PAI is used to verify the permittee’s 

reported data and compliance through a records check. In a CEI, the inspector 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 analyses, data workup, and 

reporting. The PAI inspector may leave a check sample for the permittee to analyze. 

Compared to a CSI, the PAI is less resource-intensive because sample collection and 

analyses by the state are not included.

 Diagnostic Inspections (DI). [6.12-6.13] The DI primarily 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 analysis and develop a composite correction plan is usually issued.

 

8

The descriptions of the inspections are taken from EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, 

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). [6.14-6.15, 6.27-6.28] 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). [6.16-6.17, 6.29-6.30] The XSI has the same objectives as 

a conventional CSI; however, the XSI places increased emphasis on toxic substances 

regulated by 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 CSI because highly sophisticated techniques are required to sample and analyze toxic 

pollutants.

 Reconnaissance Inspection (RI). [6.18-6.19, 6.31-6.37] The RI is 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 inspector’s experience and judgment to quickly summarize any potential compliance 

problems. The objective of the RI is to expand inspection coverage without increasing 

inspection resources.

 Pretreatment Compliance Inspection (PCI). [6.20] The PCI evaluates the 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 

PCI may be supplemented with industrial user inspections.

 Regulatory Options for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category (40 CFR 

Part 430). [6.38] Permitting authorities must process and analyze 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 CSIs, CEIs, 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 Activities

Respondent 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; periodically 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) above.
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 by states.

Request for NPDES Program Authorization [7.1]

States requesting NPDES program authorization must submit three copies 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, coverage, 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 general 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 responsibilities 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, 

enforcement 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 which 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 types 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. Any state applying 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-year 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 general 
4. 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. If new 

federal requirements are enacted, states have 1 year to update their regulations to meet the 

federal requirements. States have 2 years 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 must also revise their attorney general’s statement, program 

description, or MOA.

Request for Program Transfer/Withdrawal [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 state and a plan for the orderly 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 40 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 the 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 submission 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) Respondent Activities

This ICR explains these activities, in terms of the type of information submission they require, in 

detail in Section 4(b)(vii)(1) above. Respondents associated with each type of request can be 

engaged in drafting letters, developing program descriptions and MOA, consulting with technical 
4. 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 methodology they chose in administering the program. However, any NPDES permitting 

authority could be expected to engage in the following types of activities:

 Maintaining records. States and territories need to develop a record-keeping system, develop 

a master database, train personnel, enter data, and distribute the information to EPA (via 

PCS, NPDES-ICIS) and other interested parties, such as reviewers and enforcement 

personnel.

 Reviewing submitted data. States and territories might need to answer respondent questions 

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—Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

63

5. The Information Collected—Agency Activities, 

Collection Methodology, and Information Management

5(a) Agency Activities

This ICR includes all the reporting 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 modification 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-depth 

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 

regularly review state-issued permits, state compliance reports, and state inspection forms. Most 

of these tasks are delegated to the individual EPA Regions. 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 requirement descriptions

Reporting requirements Citation Description

State program requests

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

CWA section

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 

modify an existing NPDES program.

Request for Program 

Transfer/Withdrawal

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 program implementation

Report on Compliance Evaluation 40 CFR 

123.26(b)(1)

Requires states to submit information on 

compliance evaluation programs.

Record Keeping 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—Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

64

Reporting requirements Citation Description

Record Keeping for Sludge 

Program Information

40 CFR 501.16 Requires states with sludge management 

programs to comply with the record-keeping 

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 program oversight

Submittal 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.

Submittal 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, Semiannual, 

and Annual Reports

40 CFR 123.45 Requires quarterly and semiannual reports of 

major permittee violations, as well as annual 

statistical reports of non-major permittee 

violations and enforcement actions.

Sludge Noncompliance 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 by authorized states and territories. Authorizations vary by

program. For example, the assumption for this ICR 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. For 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 

information. 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 requests).

 Notify dischargers or facilities 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

governed by 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 reviewing applications for permits.
5. The Information Collected—Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

65

Other EPA activities in non-authorized states are more specific to the type of facility applying 

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 NOI 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 would be affected 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 

Phase II regulations consist of processing and reviewing small MS4 NOIs and annual reports; 

processing and reviewing construction permit waiver certifications, NOIs, and NOTs; and 

processing and reviewing 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. Therefore, for the purposes of this ICR, 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 by the NPDES permitting authority (i.e., permit monitoring reports) but in 

no case less than once per 5 years. Review of monitoring records by EPA or the state permitting 

authority might also be helpful to permit writers when developing 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 notify 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—Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

66

o Wastewater Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance;

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 nonconventional pollutants. 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 

recommendations to EPA regarding the issuance of a variance. If an authorized state 

recommends approval of either type of request, EPA will then review it and issue a final 

decision.

 EPA oversees and provides assistance to authorized states that receive variance requests 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 actions. 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 authority 

routinely screens data to identify permit violations and conducts a more thorough technical 

review and follow-up when violations are detected. Follow-up activities can include informal 

contact with the permittee (by 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 general (or state attorney general 

in the case of authorized states).

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/or to support Agency enforcement efforts.

EPA limits its review of data submitted by fully compliant permittees to a simple determination 

of continuing compliance. EPA may reduce monitoring requirements for permittees that 

consistently demonstrate an ability 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 Region). In authorized states, 
5. The Information Collected—Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

67

state environmental agencies generally review permittee data. EPA Regions also may review 

data from permittees in authorized states while performing program oversight functions (i.e.,

during file audits and when compiling statistical compliance summaries).

EPA Regions review data in non-authorized states. The Regional 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 

states, which routinely review data from minor permittees. EPA does not require these nonauthorized states to review data, but several states voluntarily conduct the review and use the 

results in their own programs.

In collecting and analyzing the information associated with this ICR, EPA and authorized states 

enter all applicable data into the PCS or ICIS-NPDES national databases. Information 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, ICIS-NPDES, and the NOI 

database. These systems 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 analyzing the information associated with NPDES permit coverage 

applications, EPA will use PCS, ICIS-NPDES, and electronic NOI (eNOI) systems; paper-based 

forms; personal computers; 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 ICIS-NPDES. Any form 

that 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, ICIS-NPDES, Online 

Tracking Information System (OTIS), or Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO). 

Some of the information is available to the public through Web-based interfaces of these 

databases or other EPA Web-based tools such as Envirofacts.

For activities related to NPDES modification and variance requests, improved information 

technology does not appear to provide opportunities to minimize respondents’ burden because of 

the unique nature of the information that respondents must submit as needed.

CSO municipalities will submit NMC documentation and LTCPs in response to a requirement in 

an NPDES permit or other enforceable mechanism. The LTCP-EZ planning template offers
5. The Information Collected—Agency 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 ICR 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 many reasons, EPA believes the reporting requirements discussed in this ICR 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 

considering, among other factors, the size and complexity of the facility. Generally, as the size of 

a facility increases, the amount of required information increases correspondingly.

Several of the applications (e.g., Form 1 and NOIs) request minimal information, such as the 

name and location of the facility, or merely direct the applicant to complete specific sections of 

the application (e.g., Forms 2A and 2S). Furthermore, facilities submit applications infrequently,

typically once every 5 years. 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 facility’s size.

EPA has regularly 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, typically 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 NOIs once every 5 

years, 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 

information is not dependent on an organization’s size. The CGP NOI (EPA form 3510-9) was 

developed specifically to reduce the burden for construction activities. The preexisting NOI form 

(EPA Form 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 only relevant information for construction activities.

With regard to small 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 effects of the small MS4 discharges on waters of the United States. The NOI and 

individual permit application requirements for regulated small MS4s represent substantially
5. The Information Collected—Agency 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 the Stormwater Phase II Rule allows regulatory relief 

for small industrial entities with no exposure. For a few small entities, defined later in this ICR, 

the information collection burden will increase slightly by 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 probable 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) might qualify as a small business and be exempt from the reporting 

requirements for toxic pollutants.

EPA also developed Form 2E specifically 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 

analysis 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 LTCPs–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 discharge any pollutants. Of the small businesses that do 

discharge, many 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 small 

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 permittees 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 data. In most cases, these requirements do not 

impose a large burden on small businesses 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 burden 
5. The Information Collected—Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

70

incurred as a result of variance requests is voluntary. A small business 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. The time 

and effort required to prepare a small facility’s variance request might be less than that required 

to prepare a similar request for a larger, more complex facility.

The information reported in this ICR 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 systems (CSSs) that serve populations of fewer than 

75,000, the CSO Control Policy recommends that NPDES permitting authorities use flexibility

when requiring these communities to develop an LTCP. In the policy, EPA recommends that

small systems 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 

systems have fewer CSOs. EPA developed an LTCP Template (LTCP EZ) to help small 

communities develop LTCPs. LTCP EZ builds on NMC implementation and provides step-bystep instructions for a detailed template. The simple forms can be completed in hard copy format 

or electronically.

5(d) Collection Schedule

The collection schedule for the activities presented in this ICR varies greatly depending on the 

type of activity and respondent.

Federal regulations require permittees to reapply for permits at least every 5 years because the 

CWA limits the terms of an NPDES permit to 5 years. The regulations also grant permit writers 

the authority to issue permits more frequently. Most respondents submit applications every 5 

years. Both general 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 ICR assumes that every 5 years, industrial stormwater permittees will perform a 

comprehensive reevaluation of the existing SWPPPs 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. Note that the SWPPP is typically 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 least once every 5 years.
5. The Information Collected—Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

71

Since the first year of implementing 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 submit applications each year; (2) new sludge-only

facilities will submit limited background information each year; and (3) some sludge-only

facilities that have already submitted the limited background information will be required by 

EPA to submit permit applications each year.

Some information collection activities included in this ICR 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 processing 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 by 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 ICR do not follow routine schedules; 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 continually;

 General permittee facility self-inspections must occur annually;

 Stormwater permittees with discharges associated with industrial activity must perform 

quarterly visual examinations;

 Compliance assessment reports are submitted within 14 days of a scheduled milestone;

 Noncompliance reports are submitted only in cases where the permittee has violated a permit 

condition;

 Notices of alternate levels of production are submitted at least 2 days before a month in 

which a change in production is anticipated; and

 Response time to section 308(a) information requests varies. EPA (and states under 

applicable state law) sends these when there is reason to believe that there might be 

noncompliance and where enforcement might be an appropriate response.

The information collection schedules for the 14 industrial categories (12 categories 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 their BMP plans are complete, on-site, and available upon 

request to the permitting authorities. This certification identifies the NPDES permit number and 

is signed by an authorized representative of the operator and kept with the BMP Plan. For new or 

modified 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 demonstrating periodic 

review of the BMP Plan is due at a minimum once every 5 years. In addition, monitoring reports 
5. The Information Collected—Agency 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 by the permitting authority (i.e., monthly, annually, or 

semiannually) and may be requested by the permitting authority on demand.

The data items related to NPDES modification and variance requests covered by this ICR must 

be provided only 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 any event, the permittees 

submit data items only when needed.

The information collection process to prepare DMRs includes two distinct collection activities: 

monitoring (sample collection and analysis), and reporting and record keeping. Collection 

frequencies vary for the universe of permittees covered by the NPDES program. However, 

permittees are required, at a minimum, to monitor 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 program 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 ICR, no state programs had been withdrawn.

Once a state is authorized to manage the permit program, it must continuously keep records of 

program information. States must also inspect and investigate 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 quarterly, semiannual, and annual noncompliance

reports; and prepare and submit annual Sewage Sludge Noncompliance Reports.

The CSO Control Policy recommends that municipalities have up to 2 years 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 by 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 directly to 

authorized states. For all other permittees, the information in PCS, NPDES-ICIS, and other EPA 

databases were used to determine the allocation. (For a list of authorized states, see Appendix E).

This ICR calculates annual burden and costs to respondents. These calculations are somewhat 

complicated because there are two types of permittee respondents discussed in this section: 

applicants renewing existing permits, and applicants applying for new permits. Applications for 

permit renewal must be submitted every 5 years. For these respondents, the ICR assumes that the 

number of applicants renewing per year equals one-fifth of the total number of existing permitted 

facilities.

6(a)(i) Application/NOI

To 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 estimates 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 analysis 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 permitting authority 

burden and costs. There are, however, some exceptions to this rule: EPA will always process 

Alaskan Lands Applications and permits in Indian County. As 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 review and mail the completed 
6. 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 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.

PCS and ICIS-NPDES identify 30,169 existing nonmunicipal facilities that must submit Form 1. 

If one-fifth of these file applications each year, the annual number of respondents in this group is 

6,034. In addition, EPA estimates that 785 new nonmunicipal facilities will submit Form 1 each 

year.

Form 2C [1.5–1.6]

EPA estimates that Form 2C requires approximately 33 hours to complete. PCS and ICISNPDES 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, yielding 19,610 nonmunicipal facilities subject to the requirements of Form 2C. If 

one-fifth of all nonmunicipal facilities file applications each year, 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 minor facilities typically 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 year. 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 reviewing routine 

request and 10 hours reviewing medium complexity requests.

EPA may request supplemental information from a facility at any time. Generally, facilities are 

more likely to receive Section 308 requests when they apply or reapply for permits than at other 

times. Therefore, this ICR divides nonmunicipal respondents into two categories: those that are 
6. 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 typically last 5 years, onefifth of all facilities apply for permits each year.

EPA assumes that 5 percent of the major nonmunicipals receive requests when they apply for 

permits, and 10 percent of the remaining receives requests at other times. Of the minor 

nonmunicipals, 1 percent receive requests when they apply 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 [see Section 

6(b)(ii)(1)].

Form 2E [1.18–1.21]

EPA estimates 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 analyzing 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 ICIS-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 one-fifth of all existing permittees file applications each year, the 

annual number of respondents is 2,112. To this figure, EPA adds new nonmunicipal facilities 

that discharge non-process wastewater. EPA estimates that 236 new nonmunicipal facilities will 

file Form 2E each year.

Application for Transportation and Utility Systems and Facilities on Federal Lands

(Alaskan Lands Application) [1.22]

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 year.

Permit Consolidation Request [1.23–1.24]

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, 

typing, 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 year.

Permittee Notice of Regulated Discharge Cessation [1.27–1.30]

When notifying the permitting authority of a facility’s decision to cease regulated discharges, the 

respondent incurs 1 hour of burden to prepare, type, and mail a letter of intent. The annual 

number of respondents is estimated to include 2 percent of all majors and 0.8 percent of all 

minors 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 Reissuance, or Termination [1.31–1.32]

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 Different Factors [1.33–1.34]

The burden for this type 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, technologies, and equipment of the plant. There have been cases in which many more 

FDF variance requests were submitted (i.e., in response to a recently 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 anticipates approximately 6

requests in the 3 years covered by 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 annually.

Variance Request for Non-conventional Pollutants [1.35–1.36]

Permittees seeking this type 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 factors, 40 

hours analyzing a computer dilution model, and 40 hours analyzing 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 incurred by the permitting authority 

in reviewing these requests would be 520 hours (65 work days).

Variance Request due to Economic Capability [1.37–1.38]

Permittees seeking this type 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 analyzing a computer dilution model, and 40 hours analyzing the requested variance’s 

effect on water quality criteria. No variances under this 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 of 
6. 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 year, one in an authorized state and one in a nonauthorized state.

EPA and authorized states receive Variance Requests for Innovative Pollution Control 

Technology. EPA estimates that the effort incurred in this capacity would be 400 hours (50 work 

days) for authorized states as compared to 520 hours (65 work days) 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 hours 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 year, 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 days) for authorized states as compared to 520 hours (65 work days) 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 conservatively 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 

year, 10 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). On the basis of a mid-range of costs to pursue regulatory

relief provided by EPA Regions and states, 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 because some of the burden is accounted for in the Water Quality Standards ICR.

For the state burden associated with regulatory relief requests, EPA estimates 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 notice); and 80 hours to analyze 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 estimates a total of 88 hours for evaluating regulatory relief 

options. 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 analysis conducted in the 

Applications for the NPDES Discharge Permits and the Sewage Sludge Management Permits 

ICR (OMB Control No. 2040-0086; EPA ICR No. 0226.18). The annual number of 758 

respondents consists of NPDES permit renewals (one-fifth of the total universe annually) for 

PrOTWs and sludge-only facilities submitting a permit application. This ICR 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, 1.137]

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 Form 2A—burden per applicant respondent by section10

Activity

Burden 

(hours)

Basic

(Parts A-C)

D

(Expanded 

effluent 

testing data)

E

(Toxicity 

testing 

data)

F

(SIUs or 

RCRA or 

CERCLA

G

(CSOs)

Major POTWs 6.5 6 4.5 5 9

Minor POTWs (0.1–1.0 mgd) 5 3.5 4.5 2 7

Minor POTWs (≺ 0.1 mgd) 4 3.5 4.5 2 7

Note: Most applicants do not complete every 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 percent 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 was 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 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 complex requests 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 any time. Generally, facilities are 

more likely to receive Section 308 requests when they apply or reapply for permits than at other 

times. Therefore, this ICR divides municipal respondents into two categories: those that are 

applying for permits in a year, and those that are not. Because permits typically last 5 years, onefifth of all facilities apply for permits each year. EPA estimates that 7.5 percent major facilities 

and 1 percent of minors will receive a Section 308 request as part of the application process.

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 facilities receive them each year. In addition, 

50 percent of POTWs 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 consultants to conduct ocean discharge studies. These 

studies can include site surveys, effluent monitoring, field monitoring, and data analysis. Field 

monitoring may require scuba diving and the help of a marine biologist. This ICR includes 

consultant labor hours 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 

monitoring. In addition, EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 88 hours reviewing 

these studies. On the basis of permit issuance estimates, EPA believes that there will not be any 

permittees required to submit ocean discharge information in the 3 years covered by this ICR.

Request for Water Quality Related Effluent Limitations Modification [1.86–1.87] 

EPA has never received a request for this type 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 [1.88–1.89]

The total annual number of permittees expected to request a modification, revocation and 

reissuance, or termination of their permit is 748 or 5.5 percent of municipal 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.
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 by 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 ICR. This information collection and reporting requirement is 

noted here only to ensure completeness.

Modification and Variance under the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [1.92–1.93]

EPA conservatively 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 

year, 8 of which are municipal facilities. For more information, see Section 6(a)(i)(A)(1).

6(a)(i)(A)(2)(1) Non-Stormwater—Municipal Individual—Biosolids

Form 2S [1.94–1.97]

EPA estimates that respondents will spend 8.7 hours reviewing instructions, gathering and 

recording information, and completing Form 2S according to the analysis conducted in the 

Applications for the NPDES Discharge Permits and the Sewage Sludge Management Permits 

ICR (OMB Control No. 2040-0086; EPA ICR 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-only facilities submitting a permit application. This ICR 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)(3) Non-Stormwater—General Permits

NOI to be Covered Under a Non-Stormwater General Permit [1.98–1.99]

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 ICIS-NPDES data indicate that 62,425 non-stormwater general permittees exist. Onefifth 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, type, and mail a letter of intent. The annual 

number of respondents includes 1 percent of non-stormwater general 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 [1.102–1.103] 

EPA does not anticipate any general permittee to be affected by a permit modification, 

revocation and reissuance, or termination because individual facility changes do not affect the 

general permit. Permittees would either file an NOT or apply 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 [1.104–1.107]

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 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 previously 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.

PCS and ICIS-NPDES identify 783 individual stormwater permittees that must submit Form 1. If 

one-fifth of these file applications each year, the annual number of respondents in this group is 

157. In addition, EPA estimates that 86 new facilities each year 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 on spills and leaks, sampling and 

analyzing their discharges, and completing Form 2F (see Table 12 in OMB Control No. 2040-

0086; EPA ICR 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 NOIs 

received for stormwater general permits by EPA and the states, number of group applicants, and 

the 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 ICIS-NPDES indicate that there are only 783 facilities with industrial 

stormwater permits. Dividing this number by the 5 permit years gives approximately 157

individual applicants per year.

NOI for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity [1.110–1.113]

EPA estimates that respondents will spend approximately 1.5 hours completing the state’s 

NOI-Stormwater form, except for those facilities covered by 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 that 89,415 facilities have coverage under this type of general permits (e.g., state or 

EPA-issued MSGP). One-fifth of those (17,883) would reapply 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 each 
6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(i) Application/NOI

82

year. EPA estimates that 36,377 industrial respondents will be eligible for the no-exposure

provision over a 5-year 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 

system (1 hour each).

Notice of Termination (NOT) for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial 

Activity [1.114–1.115]

EPA estimates that on average, general permittees will spend 0.5 hour filling out an NOT. On the 

basis of the previous NPDES Applications ICR (OMB Control No. 2040-0086; EPA ICR No. 

0226.18), EPA estimates that 6,857 MSGP NOTs will be filed annually. 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-fifth of them will submit applications each year (35

permits). All Phase I MS4s have previously applied for a permit, and therefore this ICR 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 system. EPA 

estimates that authorized states will spend 20 hours reviewing reapplications for MS4s.

NOI or Individual Permit Application for Small MS4s [1.120–1.121]

The respondent activities for operators of regulated small MS4s include submitting an NOI or 

individual permit application. EPA estimates that respondents will each spend an average of 60

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 CFR 122.33(b)(2). According to 

EPA’s internal analysis, the Agency estimates that there are 6,632 permitted small MS4s. EPA 

assumes that one-fifth of them (1,326) will submit applications each year. The burden incurred 

by authorized states for administering the small MS4 program includes 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 [1.122–1.132]

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 seek coverage using an application for an individual permit. 

EPA estimates that nationwide, there will be an annual average of 36,503 construction starts of 5 
6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(i) Application/NOI

83

acres or more in the period covered by this ICR (on the basis of the Construction Effluent 

Limitation 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 Species Act (ESA) consultation needed, be the following:

 No consultation in 60 percent of the cases: 1.5 hours;

 Informal 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 specifically provided for by the state. Therefore, for the purposes of this ICR, only

construction sites in non-authorized states might incur burden in consultations 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 completing the NOI, while in areas where EPA is 

the permitting authority, the burden depends 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 

responding to any inquiries. EPA estimates that the average time for an authorized state to 

process and review an NOI is 1 hour.

The respondent activities for construction sources of 1 to 5 acres include preparing and 

submitting a waiver certification or preparing 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 

year. As such, burden estimates for each construction permittee are based on operation for 1 

year. 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 requirements, 

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 by 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 year. These construction respondents are expected to perform 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 year. 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 program 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 [1.133–1.136]

EPA estimates that on average, stormwater construction 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 [1.138–1.146]

The NOI filing requirement is applicable only 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 required to file an NOI for a general 

permit. On the basis of information presented in the Economic and Benefits Analysis of the 2013

Vessel General Permit (VGP), September 2011, EPA estimates that a total of 60,852 vessels are

required to seek permit coverage, for 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 develop a pollution prevention plan. 

As in the previous ICR, this ICR 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, and 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 (VATIP)

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 year per mill for periodic 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 any new plans in the period covered by this ICR. For those plans previously 

developed, EPA anticipates 50 hours of mill labor for amending and periodically reviewing a 
6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

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

85

BMP Plan and has based the ICR 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 Subcategory 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 by the Surface Mining Permit Applications - Minimum Requirements for 

Reclamation and Operation Plan - 30 CFR part 780 ICR, OMB Control No. 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 Demonstration 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 year 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 Quality Standards ICR.

On 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 year, 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 annually. The burden was divided by two since some because 

some of the burden is accounted for in the Water Quality Standards ICR.

Pollutant Minimization Programs (PMPs) under the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance 

[2.19–2.21]

EPA estimates that about 40 nonmunicipal facilities will be required to develop approvable 

control strategies for pollutant minimization. Total respondent burden for establishing PMPs is 

estimated from the first Great Lakes Water Quality 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 reduced 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 year implementing it. EPA estimates 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 states in the Great Lakes watershed, EPA does not 

anticipate receiving any bioconcentration studies in the next 3 years.

6(a)(ii)(A)(1)(1) Non-Stormwater—Nonmunicipal—Biosolids

EPA has not identified any unique activities associated with plan development/special studies for 

these permittees.

6(a)(ii)(A)(2) Non-Stormwater—Municipal Individual

Antidegradation Demonstration 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 Lakes watershed 

(approximately 53) will discharge BCCs, and another 5 percent of the permittees (approximately

53) are likely to request an increase in permit limits for non-BCCs. For more information, see 

Section 6(a)(ii)(A)(1).

Pollutant Minimization Programs (PMPs) under the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance 

[2.26–2.28]

EPA estimates that about 20 municipal facilities will be required to develop approvable control 

strategies. Total respondent burden for establishing PMPs was estimated from the first Great 

Lakes Water Quality Guidance ICR published in 1995, which cites the Final Assessment of 

Compliance Costs Resulting from Implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance. 

EPA estimates 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 [2.29]

On the basis of a consultation with EPA Regions with states in the Great Lakes watershed, EPA 

does not anticipate receiving any bioconcentration studies in the next 3 years.

6(a)(ii)(A)(2)(1) Non-Stormwater—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-Stormwater—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. The 
6. 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 widely among systems 

because of the varying size of systems documenting the NMC’s implementation. Furthermore, 

the cost of actually implementing a control measure, for example, purchasing netting to control 

floating debris, is not included in the ICR because it is not an information collection activity.

The burden of collecting information to support the documentation will vary widely among 

systems because some might already have available information and others might not. For large 

systems, this burden is 200 hours per system, for medium systems 43 hours, and for small 

systems it is 29 hours. The state burden to review the documentation is estimated to be 40 hours 

per system.

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.

CSO Long-Term Control Plans and Supplementary Information [2.64–2.75]

Following are information collection burdens calculated for components of the LTCP. The 

burdens are calculated assuming that the permit requires that the permittee develop the LTCP 

and that the permittee address each component of the LTCP. 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 LTCP components included in the policy, (2) the small system 

consideration in the policy might relieve small systems 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 for small systems 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 systems, 33 hours for medium systems, and 53 

hours for large systems.

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 (LTCP) which will result in 

compliance with the technology and water quality-based requirements 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 systems) termed large, (2) those serving between 10,000 

and 75,000 persons (approximately 31 systems) termed medium, and (3) those serving fewer 

than 10,000 persons (approximately 10 systems) termed small [allocation is based on previous 

CSO Control Policy ICR (OMB No. 2040-0170; EPA ICR 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 system, consideration of 

sensitive areas could be tied closely with consideration of control alternatives, while for another 

system, no identifiable sensitive area exists. Finally, the amount of information collection 

required to support the LTCP will vary greatly from system to system.

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) Stormwater

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 estimates to 

develop a new SWPPP, 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 years.

6(a)(ii)(B)(3) Stormwater—Construction

SWPPP for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity [2.82–2.86]

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 respondent 
6. 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 onetime 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:

 The 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 typical 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 by ownership (public vs. private), major/minor, effluent flow, or industrial 

classification; however, burden values vary significantly within these respondent categories. 

Accordingly, 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 ICR No. 0229.15) EPA estimated typical values using information from 

interviews with EPA staff, data from the PCS database, the NOI Processing Center, the previous 

DMR ICRs, and two prior NPDES Streamlining Rules. Values and assumptions from the 

previous DMR ICRs were used, to the extent that they were considered reasonable estimates.

Estimates of the number of major and minor NPDES permittees and the frequency at which they

are required to submit DMRs are based on current data from PCS, ICIS-NPDES, and on the 

previous DMR ICR (OMB Control No. 2040-0004; EPA ICR 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 samples or both. These 

respondents can collect samples either automatically or manually. The samples can be either grab 

or composite (which involves collecting individual samples and combining them into one sample 

representative of a daily discharge). Burdens for collecting samples vary depending on the types 

of samples taken. For example, economies of scale are realized when a single sample can be used 

for many 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 manually 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 ICR 

No. 0229.16). After facilities have collected wastewater or sludge samples, they are analyzed. 

The assumptions (i.e., number of parameters analyzed, hours to conduct analysis) used to 

calculate the analysis burden are based on the previous DMR ICR (OMB Control No. 2040-

0004; EPA ICR 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 wastewater treatment system 

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 of 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 NSPS 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 analysis was 

estimated in the original ICR (OMB ICR No. 2040–0243). These additional times depend on the 

type 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 hour
6. 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 originally presented in OMB ICR No. 2040–0239. For this analysis EPA 

includes collecting baseline determination and monitoring 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 Remining is covered by the 

Surface Mining Permit Applications - Minimum Requirements for Reclamation and Operation 

Plan—30 CFR Part 780 ICR, OMB ICR No. 1029-0036.

WET Data Collection under the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [3.45]

On the basis of the first Great Lakes Water Quality 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 year 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 estimates that an additional 

250 facilities will require WQBEL monitoring for 69 pollutants as a result of implementing

state/tribal or federal provisions consistent with the guidance. EPA estimates that 0.5 hour will

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 year.

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, see Section 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, see Section 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 Quality 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 Compliance 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 estimates that an additional 
6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(iii) Monitoring

92

170 facilities will require WQBEL monitoring for 237 pollutants as a result of implementing

state/tribal or federal provisions consistent with the guidance. EPA estimates that 0.5 hour will 

be required for each monitoring event (i.e., each pollutant) per year. This results in a monitoring 

burden of just under 147 hours each year 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, see Section 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 ICR, EPA estimates 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 wetweather 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 analysis, taken from the CSO 

Control Policy ICR (OMB Control No. 2040-0170; EPA ICR No. 1680.04), are 27 hours for 

sampling, 18 hours for analysis, and 20 hours for estimating the flow parameters.

6(a)(iii)(A)(3) Non-Stormwater—General Permits

DMRs for Non-Stormwater General Permittees [3.80–3.91]

Respondent burden is a function of factors that are specified in each NPDES permit. For detailed 

information, see Section 6(a)(iii)(A)(1).

6(a)(iii)(B) Stormwater

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 hours per respondent per year to complete this 
6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(iii) Monitoring

93

activity. Additional routine inspections (EPA assumes quarterly half hour inspections) would add 

2 hours per year for a total of 4 hours per year 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, see Section 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, see Section 6(a)(iii)(A)(1).

6(a)(iii)(B)(3) Stormwater—Construction

Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity [3.97–3.102]

The permittee burden to conduct routine site inspections for construction sources of 5 acres or 

more was estimated using BPJ. This ICR assumes that inspections will be conducted by a project 

manager, biweekly, with each inspection expected to take 0.5 hour, including documentation 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 biweekly self-inspections will be 

conducted.

The respondent activities for construction sources of 1 to 5 acres include conducting 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 part of their permits, with each monitoring episode taking 1.5 hours.

6(a)(iii)(C) Vessels

Vessel General Permit Routine Inspections [3.103–3.111]

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 annually required of small vessels (including freight 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 effect of routine inspections on foreign vessels will be 20 percent of that for domestic 

vessels, because 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 0.5 
6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(iii) Monitoring

94

hour will be annually required of small vessels, and 2 additional hours will be annually required 

of large vessels. EPA estimates that the effect of annual inspections on 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 analysis 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 percent 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.

Permittee 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 planning, 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 nonmunicipal 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 burden 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 minor 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 burden 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 typical 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 Increased Discharge [4.17–4.20]

The respondent burden associated with this requirement will 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 analysis is required to complete the 

report. 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 report.

DMRs for Major and Minor Individual Permittees [4.21–4.34]

Reporting of monitoring data involves compiling data from various pollutant analyses and 

calculating average pollutant concentrations and/or loadings. The respondent records this 

information on DMRs. When preprinted DMRs are used, the respondent spends time for 

reporting only the analytical 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 states for processing and analyzing monitoring data is a function of two factors: 

(1) the number of DMRs received by the permitting authority, and (2) the time it takes to process 

and analyze monitoring data (including entry into the PCS and ICIS-NPDES databases). In 

addition to entering monitoring data into PCS or ICIS-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 substantiate 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 ICIS-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 per DMR. In addition, EPA is working toward 

implementing Web-based submission of DMR data (netDMR). 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 previous Compliance Assessment/Certification ICR (OMB Control 

No. 2040-0110; EPA ICR No. 1427.08), EPA estimates that permittees will submit an average of 

1.5 reports per year, and the burden to complete each report will be 0.75 hour. This is equivalent 
6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

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

96

to 1.125 hours per year for each respondent. This burden represents the time required to both 

prepare and send the compliance schedule report.

EPA expects that 20 percent of the major facilities and 5 percent of the minor facilities will 

submit compliance schedule reports per year, on the basis of the results of Permit Quality

Reviews in 15 states.

EPA estimates that states require 0.25 hours to review each compliance schedule report 

submitted by permittees who are in compliance. According to the QNCR, approximately 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 

verbally notify the permitting authority within 24 hours of the noncompliance. 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 bypass or upset of the treatment works is readily 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 bypass or upset as an affirmative defense for violating 

their permit limits [40 CFR 122.41(n)(3)]. Thus, if proper procedures for reporting bypass 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 bypass 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 bypass 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 

noncompliance 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. In 
6. 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 verbally notify the permitting authority within 24 hours of the violation. 

The permittee must follow the verbal report by a written report, unless the permitting authority 

waives it. Permittees that have daily 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 only 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 (permitting 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 waived, and submit the report to the permitting authority.

EPA 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 report 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

discharge limit. EPA estimates that the major facilities will submit an average of two reports per 

year, while the minors will submit an average of one report annually.

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 immediate action to mitigate the 

problem for 25 percent of the verbal and written responses.

Other Noncompliance [4.61-4.66]. When any type 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 by other requirements 

of this ICR, EPA expects very few respondents to be affected annually. Approximately 2 percent 

(42) of the 2,116 major and 1 percent (286) of the 28,643 minor nonmunicipal facilities are 
6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

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

98

expected to submit one report per year. EPA estimates that an average of 2 hours is required for 

the permitting authority to 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 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 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 year. 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 categories 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 Assessment/Certification ICR (OMB Control No. 2040-0110; EPA 

ICR No. 1427.08) and cross-referencing it with facility SIC code data by CFR category. EPA 

estimates that each 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 

certification 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 

subcategory 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 Pulp, 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 chlorophenolic 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 Builders’ Paper and Board Mills category, EPA 

estimates that 75 percent 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 Steam Electric category

choose to provide a demonstration and certification requesting an exemption from monitoring 

requirements.

EPA estimates that approximately 50 percent of the eligible electrical and electronic components 

facilities will choose to submit a TTO Certification (semiannually) in lieu of TTO monitoring, 

and 75 percent of the metal finishing facilities will choose to submit this (semiannual) TTO 

certification. Note: There are no known electroplating facilities that discharge directly into a 

water of the United States (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 facilities 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 annually will be affected by this ICR. EPA estimates the public reporting (i.e., all 

information collection) burden for the selected BMP option as 787 hours per respondent per 

year.

Regulatory Options for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category (40 CFR 

Part 430) [4.93–4.101]

EPA anticipates that 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 required by 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 year 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 analyses and 

calculating average pollutant concentrations and/or loadings. 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 discharging mills. These activities were originally presented in 

OMB ICR No. 2040–0243.

Activities were originally 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 to confirm that for the certified fiber lines, the facility is not using 
6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

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

100

elemental chlorine or hypochlorite 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 estimates that about 250 nonmunicipal facilities will be required to submit annual status 

reports of their PMPs. Total respondent burden associated with establishing PMPs is estimated 

from the first Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance ICR 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, see 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, see 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, see 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, see 6(a)(iv)(A)(1).

DMRs for Sewage Sludge Facilities [4.111–4.118]

Reporting of monitoring data involves compiling data from various pollutant analyses and 

calculating average pollutant concentrations and/or loadings. For more information, see 

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, see 6(a)(iv)(A)(1). EPA anticipates that each 

year, 32 PrOTWs are required to submit compliance schedule reports regarding sewage sludge 

permit conditions and, further, that these facilities are required to submit and average of two 

reports per year. EPA estimates that the burden to complete each report is 0.75 hour.

Noncompliance Reports [4.121–4.122]

EPA estimates that 10 PrOTWs will be required to submit an average of one noncompliance 

report per year regarding sewage sludge permit conditions (generally noncompliance with 

pollutant limitations). EPA assumes that the burden to complete these reports equals 5.2 hours. 

EPA estimates that 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)

101

6(a)(iv)(A)(2) Non-Stormwater—Municipal Individual

Permittee Report of Planned Facility Changes [4.123–4.126]

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, 

see 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, see 6(a)(iv)(A)(1).

Facility and Permit Transfer 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, see 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, see 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 will 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 of 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 [4.143–4.154]

Reporting of monitoring data involves compiling data from various pollutant analyses and 

calculating average pollutant concentrations and/or loadings. All 4,123 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, see 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, see 6(a)(iv)(A)(1). EPA estimates that 825

major and 474 minor municipal facilities will submit these reports every year.

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 respondents and associated with 
6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

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

102

these noncompliance reports. For a detailed description of the burden associated with each 

report, see Section 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 4,123 major and 5 percent (474) of the 9,471 minor municipal facilities upset or 

bypass annually, thereby requiring a verbal notification. In addition, EPA estimates that 75 

percent (820) of the 1,092 facilities submitting a verbal notification will also be required to 

submit a written report.

24-Hour Report of Violation of Maximum Daily Discharge [4.171-4.180]. EPA estimates that 15 

percent (618) of the 4,123 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 year, 309 major and 237 minor municipals are expected to 

submit written reports of violations of the maximum daily discharge limit.

Other Noncompliance [4.181-4.184]. Approximately 2 percent (82) of the 4,123 major facilities 

and 1 percent (95) of the 9,471 minor municipal facilities are expected to submit one report per 

year. 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]. In 1998 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 ICR (OMB Control No. 2040-0110; EPA 

ICR No. 1427.08) includes burden hours and costs associated with SSOs and unpermitted CSOs 

originally estimated and provided to OMB in the 1998 Summary of Revised Burden Estimates for 

SSO/Unpermitted CSO Reporting. The ICR does 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 ICR, EPA estimates that the 

burden per SSO event for respondents is 1.51 (62,144/41,087) hours per event.

The 2004 Report 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 

ICIS (13,685), EPA estimates that each POTW will experience on average 3.4 SSO events per 

year. On the basis of the information in the previous Compliance Assessment/Certification ICR, 

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 estimates that about 170 municipal facilities will be required to submit annual status reports 

of their PMPs. The total burden (2,860.9 hours) associated with establishing PMPs was reported 

in the first Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance ICR published in 1995, which cites the Final 
6. 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, see Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1).

Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance [4.190–4.191]

EPA estimates that each year 153 municipal treatment works will be required to respond to this 

item because of their sewage sludge permit conditions. For more information, see Section 

6(a)(iv)(A)(1).

Facility and Permit Transfer Report [4.192–4.193]

EPA estimates that the annual number of respondents includes 0.5 percent of municipal biosolids 

facilities. For more information, see 6(a)(iv)(A)(1).

Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous Information [4.194–4.195]

EPA estimates that the annual number of respondents includes 1 percent of municipal biosolids 

facilities. For more information, see 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 analyses and 

calculating average pollutant concentrations and/or loadings. For more information, see 

6(a)(iv)(A)(1). EPA estimates that the annual number of respondents includes 946 sludge-only 

Class I facilities, 1 sludge-only non-Class I facilities, 6,573 POTWs Class I facilities, and 6,401

POTWs non-Class I facilities. 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, see 6(a)(iv)(A)(1). EPA anticipates that each 

year, 100 POTWs are required to submit compliance schedule reports regarding sewage sludge 

permit conditions and, further, that these facilities are required to submit and average of two 

reports per year. EPA estimates that the burden to complete each report is 0.75 hour.

Noncompliance Reports [4.206–4.207]

EPA estimates that 31 POTWs will be required to submit an average of one noncompliance 

report per year regarding sewage sludge permit conditions (generally 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 Section 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 year and the associated DMR, 

24-hour and 5-day reports.

The previous Compliance Assessment/Certification ICR (OMB Control No. 2040-0110; EPA 

ICR No. 1427.08) includes burden hours and costs associated with SSOs and unpermitted CSOs 

originally estimated and provided to OMB in the 1998 Summary of Revised Burden Estimates for 

SSO/Unpermitted CSO Reporting. The ICR does 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 ICR, EPA estimates that the 

burden per CSO event for respondents 1.35 (5,184/3,840) 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 conservatively 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 ICR, EPA estimates that the state burden per CSO event is 1.4 (5,280/3,840) 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 will 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 by in-house staff, and none 

are contracted out.

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 reporting 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 50 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 response in the Respondents Activities Table 

in Appendix B is taken from the CSO Control Policy ICR (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 will be required to respond to this item. For more information, see 

Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1).

Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance [4.218–4.219]

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, see 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 will be required to respond to this item. For more information, see 

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 62 respondents 

annually. For more information, see 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 analyses and 

calculating average pollutant concentrations and/or loadings. For more information, see Section 

6(a)(iv)(A)(1).

Noncompliance Reports [4.231–4.242]

When a permittee violates a permit condition, it must submit a noncompliance report to the 

permitting authority. For 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 bypass annually, thereby

requiring a verbal notification. In addition, EPA estimates that 75 percent (2,341) of the 3,121 

facilities submitting 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 annually.

Other Noncompliance [4.241-4.242]. Because most instances of NPDES noncompliance 

reporting are covered by other requirements of this ICR, 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) Stormwater

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 will be required to respond to this item. For more information, see 

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, see 

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 will 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, see 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, see 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 analyses and 

calculating average pollutant concentrations and/or loadings. For more information, see 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 year 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. For 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 [4.255-4.259]. EPA estimates that 0.1 percent 

(89) of the 89,415 stormwater general permittees with industrial discharges upset or bypass 

annually, thereby requiring a verbal notification. In addition, EPA estimates that 75 percent (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 44,26013 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 permittees to EPA’s NOI Data Processing Center, this number is 

estimated to be 49.5 percent of 89,415 or 44,260 permittees
6. 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 by other requirements of this ICR, 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 year.

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 (133) of small MS4s that will be required to respond to this item. For more information, 

see Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1).

Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance [4.271–4.274]

EPA estimates the annual number of respondents to be 1 percent (2) of Phase I MS4s and 1 

percent (66) of small MS4s that will be required to respond to this item. For more information, 

see Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1).

Facility and Permit Transfer Report [4.275–4.278]

EPA does not anticipate permit transfers for these types 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 will be required to respond to this item. For more information, 

see Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1).

Annual Reports for Small MS4s Covered by a General or Individual Permit [4.283–4.284]

The respondent activities for operators of regulated small MS4s 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 hours 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 hours 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 any other person. On the basis of information supplied by

contractors, EPA estimates that an average petition requires 40 hours to prepare. Municipal 

sewer systems may petition permitting authorities to require dischargers using their systems 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, see Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1). EPA estimates 

that 9 Phase I and 332 small MS4s will submit these reports every year.

Noncompliance Reports [4.295–4.318]

When a permittee violates a permit condition, it must submit a noncompliance report to the 

permitting authority. For 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 [4.295-4.304]. EPA estimates that 1 percent 

(2) of the 176 Phase I MS4s and 1 percent (66) of the 6,632 small MS4s bypass annually, thereby 

requiring a verbal notification. In addition, EPA estimates that 75 percent (2 and 47, 

respectively) 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 this type of report from MS4s.

Other Noncompliance [4.315-4.318]. Because most instances of NPDES noncompliance 

reporting are covered by other requirements of this ICR, 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 410 annual respondents. For more information, see 

Section 6(a)(iv)(A)(1).

Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance [4.321–4.322]

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. For more information, see 

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. 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, see 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, see Section 

6(a)(iv)(A)(1).

Noncompliance Reports [4.327–4.338]

When a permittee violates a permit condition, it must submit a noncompliance report to the 

permitting authority. For 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 bypass annually, thereby 

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 3,89214 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 Noncompliance [4.337-4.338]. Because most instances of NPDES noncompliance 

reporting are covered by other requirements of this ICR, EPA expects very few respondents to be 

affected annually. EPA estimates that approximately 1 percent (821) of the 82,074 construction 

stormwater general permittees will submit one report per year.

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 covered by 

the general permit for a total of 304 annual respondents. For more information, see 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 by 

the general permit for a total of 61 annual respondents. For more information, see 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 to 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 by 

the general permit for a total of 61 annual respondents. For more information, see 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. For 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 [4.352-4.353]. EPA estimates that 0.1 percent 

(61) of the 60,852 vessels covered by the general permit upset or bypass 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 noncompliance reporting are 

covered by other requirements of this ICR, EPA expects very few respondents to be affected 

annually. EPA estimates that approximately 1 percent (609) of the 60,852 vessels covered by the 

general permit will submit one report per year.

6(a)(iv)(D) State Reporting & Certification

Report on NPDES Program Authorization Compliance Evaluation [4.355]

Surveys 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 compilation, index, or 

inventory of such facilities and activities available to the EPA Regional Administrator upon 

request. During the life of this ICR, 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 590 entities15 without NPDES programs. As of 

July 2011, there were 811 EPA-issued permits: 110 major permits, 674 minor permits, and 27

general permits. EPA assumes that each year it reissues 20 percent of these permits, or an 

average of 162 permits each year. On the basis of new permits reported in PCS and ICISNPDES, EPA estimates that on average the number of new permits issued each year 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, 590 entities, 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 assumes that the states treat this information collection as an ongoing 

activity, rather than as a set of discrete reports. The annual burden 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 ICR. Each permit can have a life span of 5 years, so an 

average of 1,210 major, 7,386 minor, and approximately 99 general permits will be issued 

each year.

 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 year of the ICR is 1,229 (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 permits (367) require 2 hours of transmittal time. The total number of 

NPDES submittals of permits equals an average of 2,602 per year (858+ 19+ 444 + 785 + 

114 + 15 + 367).

Submittal of CSO Permit Information [4.361]

EPA expects to receive information covering 87 CSO permits over a 3-year period, yielding 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-year period, yielding an average of 13

reports per year. 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 (see Section 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 burden for 

these reports has been reduced, this ICR assumes (for simplicity) that each authorized state 

prepares the equivalent of five QNCRs each year. The work involved ranges from manually

preparing reports, which includes reviewing individual inspection reports, to copying data 

generated by 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 states with sewage sludge 

programs (8 currently 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 Permit Applicants [5.1–5.3]

All permittees must maintain, for at least 3 years, records of all data used to complete their 

permit applications. The burden associated with record keeping depends on the type of permit, 

the size of the facility, and whether the facility already has a record-keeping system. Estimates 

from EPA, PCS, and ICIS-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 number 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 year.

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 Keeping of Monitoring Data [5.4–5.7]

EPA estimates that all NPDES permittees (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 ICR (OMB Control No. 

2040-0110; EPA ICR No. 1427.08), EPA estimated that 6 hours per year (0.5 hour per month) 

for major permittees and 1.2 hours per year (0.1 hour per month) for minor permittees 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 ICR. Therefore, 

2,116 major permittees will each spend 6 hours per year on record-keeping activities. All 28,643

minor nonmunicipal permittees will each incur 1.2 hours per year for record keeping.

The facilities submitting certifications are a very small subset of the major and minor permittees, 

and the record-keeping burden for these 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: implementing BMPs and minimum monitoring requirements. The record-keeping 

burden for BMPs was originally presented in OMB ICR No. 2040–0207. The 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 monitoring requirements activities were originally presented in OMB ICR No. 2040–

0243. EPA assumes that the time devoted to record keeping for monitoring requirements

generally involves copying 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 quarterly reports for a total annual monitoring record-keeping burden of 2.71 hours 

per mill.

6(a)(v)(A)(1)(1) Non-Stormwater—Nonmunicipal—Biosolids

Sewage Sludge Permit Applicants [5.13]

EPA estimates that 329 nonmunicipal sludge-only facilities will apply for sludge permits. This 

equals 66 nonmunicipal sludge-only facilities filing applications per year. These facilities are 

expected to spend 1.5 hours in record-keeping activities.

Record Keeping 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 estimates this burden to be 0.17 hour 

(10 minutes) per DMR submitted. 

Some sewage sludge facilities are required to monitor but are required only 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 Permit Applicants [5.22]

Estimates from EPA, PCS, and ICIS-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 applying for an NPDES 

permit is expected to spend 1 hour maintaining permit application records the year it applies for a 

permit.

Record Keeping of Monitoring Data [5.23–5.24]

Major municipal permittees (4,123) will spend 6 hours per year on record-keeping activities. All 

9,471 minor municipal permittees will incur 1.2 hours per year for record keeping. For more 

information, see Section 6(a)(v)(A)(1).

6(a)(v)(A)(2)(1) Non-Stormwater—Municipal Individual—Biosolids

Sewage Sludge Permit Applicants [5.25]

EPA estimates that 954 municipal sludge-only facilities will apply for sludge permits. This 

equals 191 municipal sludge-only facilities filing applications per year. 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 Keeping 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 estimates 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 only to maintain records 

of their monitoring data (i.e., they do not have to report monitoring data). The annual recordkeeping burden per facility is assumed to be 1.5 hours.

6(a)(v)(A)(2)(2) Non-Stormwater—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 analysis of pollutants in CSOs 

and the effects of CSOs on the quality of the receiving waters. EPA estimates the time required 

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 applies for a permit.

Record Keeping of Monitoring Data [5.36]

EPA estimates that all 62,425 non-stormwater general permittees will incur a record-keeping 

burden of 1.2 hours annually for maintaining monitoring data.

6(a)(v)(B) Stormwater

6(a)(v)(B)(1) Stormwater—Industrial

NPDES Permit Applicants [5.37–5.39]

Estimates from EPA, PCS, and ICIS-NPDES list a total of 783 individual stormwater permits. 

Assuming that one-fifth of all permittees file applications each year, 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 application records the year it 

applies for a permit. EPA predicts that 86 additional facilities will apply for individual 

stormwater permits each year. These and the 17,883 facilities per year applying for coverage 

under a stormwater general permit are expected to spend 1.5 hours each.

Record Keeping of Inspections 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 assumes that each will conduct quarterly 
6. 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 only 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 large and 88 medium MS4s will apply for separate storm sewer system 

permits each year. Each is expected to spend 5 hours developing record-keeping system, entering 

data, training personnel, 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 NOI and 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, 

respectively.

Record Keeping of Inspections and Monitoring [5.48]

All 82,074 construction stormwater general permittees are required to conduct and maintain 

records of their comprehensive site 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 assumes that a small incremental number of hours is 

required for record keeping. EPA estimates that 0.5 additional hours is annually required of 

smaller 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 effect of record keeping on foreign vessels is 50 percent of 

that for domestic 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 Activities

Record Keeping 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 only to the state program, there is no federal burden associated 

with this information requirement. The respondents keeping this information are the 47 NPDES 

authorized states assumed to have been authorized for this ICR.

Two programs – CSOs and biosolids - have average record-keeping burdens of more than 50 

hours. EPA anticipates that the biosolids program will 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 documentation.

6(a)(vi) Compliance Assessment 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-stormwater municipal 

facilities, respectively.

6(a)(vi)(B) Stormwater

Section 308(a) Letters [6.3–6.5]

A complete discussion of these letters is presented in Section 6(a)(vi)(A). EPA estimates the 

burden associated with this type 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 construction stormwater general permittees.
6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(v) Record Keeping

118

6(a)(vi)(D) State-Only Activities

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 

types of inspections 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). [6.14–6.15, 6.27–6.28] The estimated burden 

for this inspection is 240 hours.

 Toxic Sampling Inspection (XSI). [6.16–6.17, 6.29–6.30] The estimated burden for this 

inspection is 280 hours.

 Reconnaissance Inspection (RI). [6.18–6.19, 6.31–6.37] The RI is the briefest 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 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 20 percent of the DMRs 

submitted will require follow-up action by the authorized states, particularly 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 30,881 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 CSIs, 

60 percent receive CEIs, 15 percent receive PAIs, 17 percent receive CBIs, 4 percent receive 

XSIs, 40 percent receive RIs, and an additional 5 percent of municipal facilities receive DIs. Of 

the minor facilities (both nonmunicipal and municipal), 3 percent receive CSIs and 17 percent 

receive CEIs. In addition, 10 percent of general stormwater permittees with industrial discharges, 

5 percent of large (> 5 acres) construction stormwater general permittees, 2.5 percent of small 

(1–5 acres) construction stormwater general permittees, 20 percent of Phase I MS4s, and oneseventh 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 information items in this ICR. 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 states will request full program authorization during the life of this ICR. 

The estimated average time to prepare a state NPDES program application can vary from a 

relatively small burden to several work years where complete regulatory and statutory changes 

are necessary. 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 ICR. 

Because the 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

anticipates that all authorized states 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 ICR, EPA uses a burden estimate of 250 hours for any program modifications.

Request for Program Transfer/Withdrawal [7.6]

On the basis of the analysis for this ICR, EPA estimates that an average of three transfer petitions 

per year will be submitted in the next several years. EPA estimates that on average, developing

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 Sludge 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 only 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 composed of the following:

 Labor Cost;

 Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Cost; and

 Capital/Start-up Cost.

The results of the respondents’ costs analysis 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 for 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, as determined by 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 

Industry-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 

seasonally adjusted Employment Cost Index (ECI) for state and local government employees.

 EPA assumes the average hourly rate in the private sector is $49.46 as determined by the 

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Total Compensation for Management, 

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 this ICR account for labor costs only. The ICR does, however, account for 

certain testing/analysis 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) Application 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 assumptions come from EPA ICR Number: 0226.18, OMB Control No.

2040-0086.

Table 6.2 Estimate of Form 2A facilities that contract out testing for pollutants

Facility type

Annual # of 

respondents

Basic 

conventional and 

nonconventional

Additional 

conventional 

and 

nonconventional

Priority 

pollutants and 

state WQS

Multiple species 

biomonitoring

% 

testing

in-house

# not 

testing

inhouse

% 

testing

in-house

# not 

testing

inhouse

% 

testing

in-house

# not 

testing

inhouse

% 

testing

in-house

# not 

testing

inhouse

≺ 0.1 mgd, no 

priority pollutants. 656 60% 263

0.1–1.0 mgd, no 

priority pollutants. 1,164 80% 233 80% 233

Minors, with priority 

pollutants. 38 85% 6 85% 6 50% 19 85% 6

Majors, no priority 

pollutants. 871 85% 131 85% 131 10% 784 75% 218

Majors, with priority 

pollutants. 7 90% 1 90% 1 70% 2 85% 1

Total minors 1,859 502 239 19 6

Total majors 878 132 132 786 219

Table 6.3 Estimate of Form 2S facilities that contract out testing for pollutants

Facility type

Annual # of 

respondents

Basic conventional and nonconventional

% testing in-house # not testing in-house

NPDES POTWs 2,737 95% 137

NPDES PrOTWs 692 95% 35

Sludge Only POTWs 29 50% 14

Sludge Only PrOTWs 66 50% 33

Table 6.4 Testing/contractor costs (O&M costs)

Respondents Tests/year

Cost per test 

($) Total $

Form 2A

Basic conventional and nonconventional 634 3 $109.00 $207,318.00 

Additional conventional and nonconventional 371 3 $217.00 $241,521.00 

Priority Pollutants/state WQS 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 $217.00 $65,100.00

Section 308 Requests

Municipal (complex) 4 1 $1,248.00 $4,368.00 

Nonmunicipal (medium) 5 1 $1,085.00 $5,696.25
6. 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 mining sites in Indiana (5), Kentucky (7), and 

Tennessee (9). EPA assumes a sample analysis 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 ICR 

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 will send their 

collected samples to outside laboratories for analysis. Some facilities could perform in-house

analysis for some pollutants (i.e., adsorbable organic halides (AOX) and/or chloroform). 

However, for the purposes of this ICR, EPA assumed that all analyses will be contracted to 

outside laboratories to express the full potential analytical costs of minimum monitoring on 

Subparts B and E mills. In the future, facilities might elect to conduct analysis in house, 

particularly AOX analyses, because the monitoring requirement is daily.

Analytical 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 ICR (OMB Control No. 2040-0243; EPA ICR No. 1878.02). These costs are 

$159 for AOX, $1,156 for TCDD/TCDF, $660 for chlorinated 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 daily AOX sampling. Two each for the Subpart E 

Ammonium Sulfite and Specialty Grade perform monthly sampling for TCDD, TCDF, and 

chlorinated phenolics

6(b)(iii) 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 by respondents that perform activities outside the 

normal operating 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)(iii)(1) CSO Control Policy [4.210–4.211]

The capital costs associated with public notification of CSO locations, events, and public health 

and environmental effects are included in this ICR. The costs are those for municipalities to 
6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

123

purchase notification signs. From estimates presented in the previous CSO Control Policy ICR

(OMB Control No. 2040-0170; EPA ICR No. 1680.04) each sign is estimated to cost $104 and 

be used once.

6(b)(iii)(2) Baseline Determination and Estimate 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 mining 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 Point Source Category-Coal Remining Subcategory and Western Alkaline Coal Mining 

Subcategory ICR (OMB Control No. 2040-0239; EPA ICR No. 1944.03) (originally from Weir 

& Flume Sales Company and Tarco Tech Industries). Indiana will have 5 sites/year × 4 

preexisting 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-year 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 employment cost of federal employees using methodology

established in previous ICRs. According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2011

General Schedule (2011-GS), the average annual salary of a government employee at the GS-9, 

Step 10 level is $54,028. At 2,080 hours per year, the hourly wage is $25.98. Assuming overhead 

costs of 60 percent, or $15.59 per hour, the fully loaded cost of employment 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 by 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 [EPA48]

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 always process Alaskan Lands Applications. As a result, the burden and cost for this activity

will belong to the federal government exclusively. EPA estimates 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 does not include analysis 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 will

be 400 hours (50 work days) as compared to 520 hours (65 work days) 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 will be 400 

hours (50 work days) as compared to 520 hours (65 work days) for evaluating a request 

submitted directly to EPA in non-authorized states. In addition, an estimated 1 hour will 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 Point Source Category [EPA174–

EPA175]

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, EPA129]

Agency burden is calculated for a portion of the responses that are submitted to states that need 

Agency assistance. EPA estimates that 5 percent of written responses submitted to states will 

require an additional 2 hours of Agency burden per response. In addition, 5 percent of the total 

responses submitted to states will result in 2 each hours of additional federal review time after 

the state response.

24-Hour Report of Violation of Maximum Daily Discharge [EPA132, EPA134]

Agency burden is calculated for a portion of the responses that are submitted to states that need 

federal assistance. EPA estimates that 5 percent of written responses submitted to states will 

require an additional 2 hours of Agency burden per response. In addition, 5 percent of the total 

responses submitted to states will result in 2 each hours of additional federal review time after 

the state response.

Other Noncompliance [EPA136]

EPA estimates that the Agency will require 1 hour for additional Agency assistance to 5 percent 

of the state responses.

Section 308(a) Letters [EPA140]

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 [EPA8–EPA14]

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—Like 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 Issue 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 request.

 Request for Pretreatment Program Authorization—this activity is covered under the ICR for 

the National Pretreatment Program (OMB Control No. 2040-0009; EPA ICR No. 0002.14).

Compliance Inspection Report (CIR) [EPA15–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 initial 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 by EPA Regions and by EPA 

headquarters. EPA estimates the burden for this information item to be 15 hours, including 8 

hours of review by EPA Regions and 7 hours of review by EPA headquarters.

Submittal of Noncompliance Information for Sludge Management Programs Annual 

Sewage Sludge Program Reports [EPA18]

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–EPA165]

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 review 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 Quality Guidance [EPA199]

EPA estimates 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 [EPA200]

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 and 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 

Section 6(a). Results 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 ICR.
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 by 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 Tally

Permittees States/tribes/territories Totals

Unique Respondents (number) a397,703 637 398,340

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. 590 of these 637 states respond to only one information item (certification of EPA-issued permits) [4.356]

6(e)(ii) The Agency Tally

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 ICR. Table 6.6 provides a 

summary of the average annual Agency burden hours and costs. A more detailed summary is in 

the Agency Activities Table in Appendix C.

Table 6.6 Agency Tally

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 ICR does not include any programmatic changes to the NPDES permit 

program; it is simply an update of the 2008 consolidated ICR. Any 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 ICR estimates a total burden that is 9,618,566 hours less than the currently

approved burden. This decrease in burden corresponds to 31 percent of the overall burden. The 

main reasons for the change in burden is that EPA generated a new estimate of construction sites

based on data collected for the development of the final Construction Effluent Limitation 
6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(g) Burden Statement

128

Guidelines. The Agency revised its estimate of the number of large and small construction sites 

covered by this ICR downward from 243,076 to 84,472 sites annually. 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 its PCS and ICIS-NPDES. This 

change could reflect more accurate data rather than a significant change in the number of 

permits actually administered. This change is particularly important for activities related to 

general permittees because in previous ICRs, EPA based the calculation on best professional 

estimates; whereas, for this ICR, the Agency has real inventory numbers from PCS and ICISNPDES.

 All CSO permits or enforcement orders have fulfill the obligation of Phase I technologybased CSO control requirements (Nine Minimum Controls) 

 Previously, EPA accounted for 6 hours per CAAP facilities to submit Form 2b and 0.5 hours 

per application per state to process and review the form. This burden from CAAP facilities 

and states has been transferred to the Animal Sectors ICR (OMB Control No. 2040-0250).

 In the previous ICR, EPA accounted for the state burden of 24 hours per pretreatment 

compliance inspection, but this burden has been transferred to the Pretreatment ICR (OMB 

Control No. 2040-0009).

 For this ICR, 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 ICR cover the burden and costs for EPA, authorized states, and 

operators of regulated facilities. This ICR estimates a burden of 19,666,765 hours annually for

397,703 operator respondents at a cost of $948 million. Burden for the state respondents is

1,657,976 hours annually at a cost of $67 million. Agency burden is 91,568 hours annually 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 by persons to generate, 

maintain, or disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for 

the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining 

information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with 

any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to 

a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise disclose 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 numbers 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 any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated 

collection techniques, the Agency has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-OW-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 holidays. The telephone number for the Reading 

Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is 202-566-2426. An 

electronic version of the public docket is available through the Federal Docket Management 

System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov/. Use FDMS to submit or view public comments, 

to access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access documents in the 

public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in the docket ID number 

identified above. You can also send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, 

Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-

0719 and OMB Control No. 2040-0004 in any correspondence.