## INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST (ICR)

SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR THE 301(h) PROGRAM

Modification of Secondary Treatment Requirements for Discharges into Marine Waters,

EPA ICR Number 0138. 10 , OMB Control Number 2040

- 0088



## January 20142

1. Identification of the Information Collection

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 3 1(a) Title of the Information Collection

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 3 1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 3

2. Need for and use of the Collection

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 3 2(a) Need/Authority for the Co llection

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 3 2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 5 3. Non duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

................................ ................................ ................. 5 3(a) Non duplication

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 5 3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR submission to OMB

................................ ................................ ................. 6 3(c) Consultations

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 6 3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 6 3(e) General Guidelines

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 6 3(f) Confidentiality

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 7 3(g) Sensitive Questions

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 7 4(a) Respondents/NAICS Codes

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 7 4(b) Information Requested

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 9 (i) Data items, including record keeping requirements; Respondent Activities

................................ ..................... 9

5. The Information Collected

– Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

.............. 14 5(a) Agency Activities

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 14 5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 14 5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 14 5(d) Collection Schedule

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 15 6. Estimating The Burden and Cost of the Collection

................................ ................................ ................................ . 15 6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 15 6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 16 (i) Estimating Labor Costs

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 17 (ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs

................................ ................................ .......... 17 6(c) Estimating Agency Burden an d Cost

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 17 6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

................................ ................................ .. 17 6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 17 6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 18 6(g) Burden Statement

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 193



# 1. Identification of the Information Collection

1(a) Title of the Information Collection

Modification of Secondary Treatment Requirements for Discharges into Marine Waters, EPA ICR Number 0138. 10

, OMB Control Number 2040

- 0088



### 1(b) Short Characteriz ation/Abstract

As described below in more detail, the 301(h) program involves collecting information from two sources: 1) the municipal wastewater treatment facility, commonly called a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) and 2) the

State in which the PO TW is located. The POTW seeking to obtain a 301(h) waiver provides application, monitoring, and toxic control program information. The State provides State determination and State certification information. The statutory and regulatory authorities for t hese two aspects of the section 301(h) program are discussed in the following sections



# 2. Need for and use of the Collection

2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection

Statutory Authority

The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that POTWs achieve compliance with uniform technology

- based standards of secondary treatment. These standards describe the minimum level of effluent quality attainable by secondary treatment. Section 301(h) of the CWA provides that POTWs that discharge into certain marine waters specifie d in the section may apply for and obtain a waiver from secondary treatment requirements for conventional pollutants (Biochemical oxygen demand

-- BOD, Suspended solids

-- SS, and pH

-- a measure of acidity or alkalinity) if particular regulatory criteria are me t. According to this section, such a waiver must be issued by the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the concurrence of the State. The section also established an application deadline of December 31, 1982, for eligible P OTWs choosing to apply. The POTW receiving a 301(h) waiver benefits since it reduces costs of construction as well as operation and maintenance. The Ocean Pollution Reduction Act of 1994 provided an opportunity for one additional POTW to reapply for a 30 1(h) waiver by April 1995.

Section 301(h) lists nine criteria that an applicant must satisfy to ensure that any proposed less

- than

secondary discharge does not adversely affect the marine receiving water’s ecosystem or beneficial uses. To obtain

a sectio n 301(h) waiver, a POTW must demonstrate that it meets the following criteria:

1) An applicable water quality standard exists for the pollutant for which the modification is requested.

2) The modified discharge, alone or in combination with pollutants fr om other sources, will not interfere with attaining or maintaining water quality that protects water supplies, biota, and recreational uses.

3) The POTW has a monitoring program to measure the discharge’s effects on the receiving waters and

biota.

4) Th e modified discharge will not result in additional requirements on any other point or non

- point

sources.4 5) All pretreatment requirements will be enforced.

6) Special requirements for pollutants for which no pretreatment standards exist will be met.

7) A program to eliminate the entrance of toxic pollutants from non

- industrial sources will be established.

8) There will be no new or increased discharges during the term of the permit.

9) The discharge has received at least primary or equivalent treatment and meets water quality criteria established under section 304(a)(1) of the CWA.

Once a 301(h) permit is issued, the POTW must monitor the effects of its discharge and establish both a monitoring program and a toxics control program for non

- industrial an d industrial sources as specified in Numbers 3, 5, 6, and 7 above.

Numbers 6 and 9 of the above criteria were added to the original provisions of section 301(h). They correspond to sections 303(c) and (d), respectively, of the Water Quality Act (WQA) and amend section 301(h) of the CWA. The WQA (Public Law 100

- 4) was passed on February 4, 1987. WQA section 303(c) requires each 301(h) waiver applicant serving a population of over 50,000 persons to make two demonstrations: 1) to demonstrate that, with res pect to any toxic pollutant introduced from an industrial source for which there is an applicable pretreatment requirement in effect, sources introducing waste into the POTW are in compliance with all applicable pretreatment requirements; and 2) to demonst rate that the POTW has in effect a pretreatment program which, in combination with the treatment processes, removes the same amount of such pollutant as if the POTW has secondary treatment and no pretreatment program exists for such pollutant. Section 30 3(d) of the WQA states that, at the time the waiver becomes effective, 301(h) waiver applicants must be discharging effluent that has received at least primary or equivalent treatment and meets water quality criteria after initial mixing.

The State in whi ch the discharge originates is responsible for determining compliance with two of the

nine criteria listed above : Number 1, which states that an applicable water quality standard must exist; and Number
4, which states that the discharge must not result i n additional requirements for any other point or non

- point sources. The State is the best entity to evaluate these criteria because compliance with State law and impacts on other State sources are matters of State responsibility. In addition, section 301 (h) provides that EPA may not approve a 301(h)

modification if the State does not concur with the modification.

Another section of the CWA also relates to State activities. Section 401(a)(1) of the Act requires that States certify that all EPA

- issued per mits meet all State laws, including State water quality standards. This certification is relevant to 301(h) modified permits because the authority to make 301(h) decisions has not been delegated to the states. Every permit with 301(h) modification is iss ued either by EPA alone or jointly by the State and EPA, in the case of States delegated authority to implement the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. If the State does not concur with a 301(h) waiver, or if the State denies certification under section 401 of the CWA, EPA may not issue a permit. Concurrence with a 301(h) decision takes the form of the 401(a)(1) certification. Combining these two requirements ensures that any effort expended in concurring with a 301(h) requir ement will not be repeated in preparing a 401(a)(1) certification.

Regulatory Authority

Regulations implementing section 301(h) of the CWA were originally promulgated by EPA on June 15, 1979, and revised on June 8, 1982, and November 26, 1982. Revisions to these 1982 regulations were published on August 9, 1994, to respond to changes required by the WQA. This supporting statement incorporates the requirements of these revisions to the 301(h) regulations.

The 301(h) regulations, 40 CFR Part 125, Subpart G, incorporate the nine 301(h) criteria listed previously and specify the way in which a POTW that wants to obtain a variance from secondary treatment requirements can

demonstrate that its less

- than

- secondary discharge complies with these criteria. The r egulations establish requirements for applications, for monitoring and toxics control programs, and for State determinations of5

compliance with the two criteria of the CWA discussed in the previous section. The regulations mandating

collection of State ce rtification information are contained in 40 CFR 124.53 and 124.54.



### 2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data

EPA Headquarters and the EPA Regional Offices use the information collected under this information collection request to conduct various activiti es in the 301(h) program. The six collection activities covered by this ICR are listed in Table 3 along with a description of the respondents and the frequency of the collection. The following describes each of the six information collection activities a nd highlights:

 Respondents;

 Processes and techniques used to obtain the information;

 How and by whom the information is used; and

 Flow of the information

- where it is submitted and filed.



# 3. Non duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

3(a) Non duplication

Section 301(h) requires a case

- by

- case demonstration of compliance with criteria in that section, thereby minimizing the potential for duplication of information collection. EPA has taken additional precautions. As described below, the regulations are designed so that applicants can use available information to the maximum extent. Also, EPA is coordinating information requests among related programs. For example, the Ocean Discharge Criteria, 40 CFR Part 125, Subpart M, promulgate d under the authority of CWA section 403(c), presume that section 301(h) permittees comply with the criteria for ocean dischargers (i.e., do not cause unreasonable degradation to the marine environment) for those pollutants to which the waiver applies. In addition, section 301(h) applicants who are also grantees in EPA’s construction grants program provide information under the construction program regulations (40 CFR Part 35), rather than under the Section 301(h) regulations.

In terms of the State’s Non

- duplication effort, determination information is requested from the State because it is the best and only source of such information. This type of information is not requested by other Federal agencies or EPA offices because it relates specifically to the 301(h) program. The office preparing the ICR, the Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds (OWOW), is the EPA office coordinating the 301(h) program.

The criteria and legislative history of section 301(h) clearly indicate that variance applications mus t be

based on site

- specific information regarding the treatment system discharge characteristics, receiving water quality and biological habitats, beneficial uses, oceanographic characteristics, pretreatment program and standards, and impacts of the modifi ed discharges on water quality, biota, and beneficial uses. EPA has considered carefully the possible availability of information collected for other purposes (e.g., water quality management planning, permitting, pretreatment enforcement and research). H owever, none of these other sources, individually, is sufficient to enable EPA to determine compliance with section 301(h) criteria for permit reissuance applications, and revised applications. Collectively, these sources may be sufficient for many POTWs preparing reapplications when organized in response to the application questionnaire. In fact, EPA believes most small applicants are able to complete the application questionnaire using information from a variety of existing sources. Still, it is expect ed that some small applicants and most large applicants will need to collect more data to demonstrate compliance with certain statutory criteria for reapplications, and revised applications.

In such cases, the regulations encourage applicants to submit pl ans of study to EPA for consultation before collecting additional field data. EPA has also developed an extensive, comprehensive set of technical monitoring guidance to aid POTWs in the efficient planning, design and conduct of field data collection. Thi s kind of structured6

communication ensures that available information is used to the maximum extent and additional data needs, if any, are provided in a cost

- effective and timely way. The project plan approach is intended to ensure that an applicant’s

lim ited time and resources will be used only for additional data collection that is essential for making a decision on its application revision and permit reissuance applications.

The State’s decision must be made on a case

- by

- case basis, in order to conside r the particular circumstances of each 301(h) application and draft permit. The State is the best and only source for the determinations because it is most familiar with the information and is most likely to have the information available

to submit to EPA

.



### 3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR submission to OMB

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq .), EPA requested comment from the public on this ICR through a Federal Register notice published on September 26, 2013, (78 FR 

### 59345)

. EPA

received one comment, which is addressed below

.

Response: EPA appreciates that the commenter expressed that while it does spend funds to comply with the 301(h) information collection requirements, it also allows the commenter to save reso urces that would be needed to upgrade the facility to full secondary treatment. Comments regarding the status of any waiver are beyond the scope of this request for comments. The commenter suggested that the burdens could be reduced by collecting only

info rmation that is common to all facilities. EPA notes that this is a waiver program where EPA must conduct a

case

- by

- case site specific analysis for each application. EPA takes into account the quality of the receiving wate rs and hydrodynamic conditions, th e outfall location and design, the volumes, and quality of the discharge, among other factors. This analysis and evaluation by its nature requires more than limited information common to all

facilities.



### 3(c) Consultations

Lines of communication with the small known universe of respondents are kept open, and respondents have numerous opportunities to comment to EPA, States, or EPA’s contractor(s) concerning the information collection activities of the 301(h) program. EPA generally has a contractor prepar e the Technical Review Reports for 301(h) applications.

EPA solicited comments on the information collection request during initial rule promulgation as well as during each renewal of the ICR over the past two decades, and as such the current estimates ar e well established. As noted above, EPA received only one comment during the most recent that did not a ddress the substance of the ICR

.



### 3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

Application revision information is submitted once and only if the POTW elec ts to revise its original application. Reapplication information is submitted every 5 years as the permit expires. Similarly, the State

determination information and State certification information is submitted one time for each revised or renewed permit application, and draft permit. Therefore, frequency of collection is not an issue for these four categories of

information collection.

The frequency of collection for monitoring and toxics program information is determined on a case

- by

- case basis. The information is collected as frequently as necessary to conduct the 301(h) program; frequency can be minimized because the requirement is developed for each respondent based on its particular circumstances.



### 3(e) General Guidelines

This ICR meets the requi rements contained in 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2).7



### 3(f) Confidentiality

The information covered by this ICR involves treatment plant operating data, effects of POTWs’ discharges on marine environments, and States’ viewpoints on issues concerning effects of POTWs’ discharges on marine environments. None of this information is confidential; thus confidentiality is not an issue.



### 3(g) Sensitive Questions

No information of a sensitive nature is requested by this ICR.



# 4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(a) Respondents/

NAICS Codes

Respondents are those municipalities that currently have section 301(h) waivers from secondary treatment, have applied for a renewal of a section 301(h) waiver, and the States within which these municipalities are located.

The SIC number for POTWs (sewerage systems) is 22132, and the SIC number for State governments is 92411.

As indicated previously, the application deadline for 301(h) waivers has passed; EPA received 208 applications by the 1982 deadline. The application rece ived pursuant to the Ocean Pollution Reduction Act of 1994 is for a POTW that previously withdrew from the 301(h) program. Table 1 lists the POTWs that currently have waivers or have decisions pending.8

TABLE 1. STATUS OF POTWs AS OF DECEMBER 2013

Cur rent 301(h) Waiver Recipients

Name State

EPA REGION I Bayville Village Eastport Eastport/Quoddy

Lubec

North Haven Northport Village (Belfast) Searsport Stonington
Gloucester
Gosnold
EPA REGION II Aguadilla

Arecibo Bayamon/Puerto Nuevo
Carolina

Ponce
EPA REGION IX Tafuna (Pago Pago)

Utulei
Goleta Morro Bay San Diego (Pt. Loma)* Honouliuli (Honolulu) Sand Island (Honolulu)

EPA REGION X Anchorage
Haines

Ketchikan

Pelican Petersburg
Sitka Skagway

Whittier Wrangell ME

ME

ME

ME

ME

ME

ME

ME

MA

MA

PR

PR

PR

PR

PR

AS
AS
CA
CA
CA

HI

HI

AK

AK

AK

AK

AK

AK

AK

AK

AK

AK

Total = 3 19

*San Diego reapplied for a 301(h) waiver in April 1995, pursuant to Ocean Pollution Reduction Act of 1994. San Diego (Pt. Loma) was in th e original universe of 208 applicants for a 301(h) waiver, and withdrew its application. It is listed here to reflect its current status.



### 4(b) Information Requested

(i) Data items, including record keeping requirements ; Respondent Activities

Progra m Status and Information Needs

At this time in the 301(h) program evolution, EPA has obtained most of the information it needs from POTWs to make decisions on waiver applications. However, application information from POTWs is still needed in

two situati ons: 1) when that POTW elects to submit a revised application and 2) when a 301(h) permit is nearing its expiration date and the permittee desires to renew its permit. EPA also needs two types of information from the

States for these revised and renewed 3 01(h) permit applications: 1) determinations on whether a proposed 301(h) discharge meets State water quality standards and whether the discharge will result in additional treatment requirements for another point source and 2) a 401(a)(1) certification bef ore EPA can issue a draft modified NPDES permit under the 301(h) program.

Based on the status of the program and the associated statutory and regulatory requirements, EPA needs six types of information to conduct the 301(h) program during the three

- year t erm of the Information Collection Request (ICR): 1) application revision information; 2) permit reissuance information; 3) monitoring program information; 4) toxics control program information; 5) State determination information; and 6) State certification information. Table 2 summarizes information needs of the 301(h) program and the regulatory requirements that

mandate the collection of this information.

TABLE 2. INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITIES FOR THE 301(h) PROGRAM



### Activity Regulatory Authori ty

Application Revision 40 CFR 125.59(d), (f) and (g)

Permit Reissuance 40 CFR 125.59 (c), (f) and (g)

Monitoring Program 40 CFR 125.68(c) and (d) 40 CFR 125.63(b), (c), and (d)

Toxics Control Program 40 CFR 125.66

State Determination 40 CFR 125.61(b)(2) and 125.64(b)

State Certification 40 CFR 124.53 and 124.54

The status of the 301(h) program drives the relative emphases on types and amounts of information needed by the EPA from the POTWs and States. Much of the information EPA n eeds at this time is ongoing information about the monitoring and toxics control programs from all 301(h) permittees. The Agency’s need for application revision information will be reduced as decisions are made on the tentative decision applications, whil e the need for10

updated information for permit renewals will continue to have importance as the 301(h) permits reach their expiration dates.

EPA’s need for the six types of information is explained in greater detail below.

Application Revision Information

Section 125.59(d) of 40 CFR allows a POTW to revise its application one time only, following a tentative decision by EPA to deny the waiver request. In its application revision, the POTW usually corrects deficiencies and changes proposed treatment level s as well as outfall and diffuser locations. The application revision is a voluntary submission for the applicant. In addition, 40 CFR Section 125.59(g) allows applicants that are authorized or requested to submit additional information to submit a revis ed application where the information supports changes in proposed treatment levels and/or outfall location and diffuser design. EPA needs this information to evaluate revised applications and to determine whether the modified discharge will ensure receivi ng water quality, biological habitats, and beneficial uses of the receiving waters.

Permit Reissuance Information

When permits with 301(h) waivers reach their expiration dates, EPA must have updated information on the discharge to determine whether the 3 01(h) criteria are still being met and whether the 301(h) variance should be reissued. Under 40 CFR 125.59(f), each 301(h) permittee is required to submit an application for a new section 301(h) modified permit within 180 days of the existing permit’s exp iration date; 40 CFR Part 125.59(c) lists the information required for a modified permit. The information that EPA needs to determine whether the POTW’s reapplication meets the section 301(h) criteria previously listed is outlined in the questionnaire att ached to 40 CFR Part 125, Subpart G. The questionnaire is similar to the two used by POTWs for their original applications.

The revisions to 40 CFR Part 125 covered by this supporting statement include revisions to the two questionnaires. The main chang e is that originally two questionnaires were used - one for small POTWs
(contributing population less than 50,000 people and average dry weather flows less than 5 million gallons per day [mgd]) and the other questionnaire for large POTWs (contributing popu lations more than 50,000 people and average dry weather flows greater than 5 mgd). The current regulations now contain one questionnaire. The breakdown of information required of small and large POTWs is the same in the merged questionnaire as in the pre vious separate questionnaire for small and large POTWs. Although the two questionnaires have been merged, small POTWs are not required to submit all the information required of large POTWs.

Monitoring and Toxics Control Program Information

Once a waiver has been granted, EPA must continue to assess whether the discharge is meeting the criteria listed on Pages 2 and 3 and that the receiving water quality, biological habitats, and beneficial uses are protected. To do this, EPA needs monitoring information furnished by the permittee. According to 40 CFR 125.68(d), any permit issued with a 301(h) variance must contain the monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 125.63(b), (c), and (d) for biomonitoring, water quality criteria and standards monitoring, and effluen t monitoring, respectively. Section 125.68(d) also requires reporting at the frequency specified in the monitoring program. In addition to monitoring information, EPA needs information on the toxics control program to ensure that the permittee is minimiz ing

industrial and non

- industrial toxic pollutant and pesticide discharges into the treatment works (40 CFR 125.66).

State Determination Information

For revised or renewed 301(h) permit applications, EPA also needs a State determination. The State

deter mines whether all State laws (including water quality standards) are met to ensure that receiving water quality, biological habitats, and beneficial uses of the receiving waters are protected. Additionally, the State must determine if the applicant’s disc harge will result in additional treatment, pollution control, or any other requirement for any other point or non

- point sources. This process allows the State’s views to be taken into account when EPA reviews the 301(h) application and develops permit con ditions. As mentioned previously, the State is the best source for this information because it is aware of State laws and on combined effects of discharges in the State.11

State Certification Information

For revised and renewed 301(h) permit applications, EPA also needs the 401(a)(1) information to ensure that all State laws are met by any permit it issues with a 301(h) modification and that the State accepts all the permit conditions. This information is the vehicle by which the State can exercise its au thority to concur with or deny a 301(h) decision made by the EPA Regional Office.

Permit Reissuance Information

The first two types of information collection covered by this ICR are used in the application process.

Permit reissuance information is subm itted by 301(h) permittees nearing the expiration date of their permits. The permittee must submit an application for a renewed section 301(h) permit 180 days prior to the expiration of its existing permit. Each POTW must submit a new application questio nnaire (which may reference previous

submittals to the extent that they are relevant and not out of date), along with any other NPDES permit application information required by the Region. The data requested by the questionnaire consist of general informa tion on the treatment system, the effluent, the receiving water characteristics, the biological conditions in the receiving waters, and the State and Federal laws that affect the discharge. The questionnaire also provides a framework to assess the

effects of the discharge and requests appropriate data for these analyses. In addition, data are requested on physical characteristics of the discharge, compliance with applicable water quality standards, existence of pretreatment standards or secondary or equiv alent levels of treatment for toxic pollutants from industrial sources, impact on public water supplies, biological impact of the discharge, effects on other point and non

- point sources, and the proposed monitoring and toxics control programs.

TABLE 3. 301(h) PROGRAM INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITIES, RESPONDENT DESCRIPTIONS, AND FREQUENCY

Activity Respondents Frequency

Permit Reissuance Any 301(h) permittee nearing expiration date of permit. Once every five years beginning with permit issua nce.

Application Revision Original 301(h) waiver applicants that have not yet received a final

decision. One time.

Monitoring Program All 301(h) permittees. Varies case

- by

- case as individual permit specifies.

Toxics Control Program All 301(h) pe rmittees. Varies case

- by

- case.

State Determination States in which POTWs with draft 301(h) permits are located. Once every five years beginning with permit issuance.

State Certification States in which POTWs with draft 301(h) permits are located. Same as above regarding permit

reissuance.

Many of the required data are available to the POTW from the studies and monitoring performed during the life of the permit, from implementation of toxics control and pretreatment programs, and from initial stu dies performed for the original waiver application. To obtain reapplication information, the POTW can review existing data on monitoring, treatment plant operation, and pretreatment and toxics control, and, if necessary, conduct new

studies of the receivi ng waters, the discharge, and the impacts of the discharge on receiving waters.12

EPA uses the information to determine whether the criteria of section 301(h) (as amended by WQA Section 303) are being met and whether the receiving water quality, biological habitats, and beneficial uses will be protected. For the initial waiver applications, EPA conducted very involved technical evaluations. The Agency expects that similar but reduced effort will be required to evaluate the permit reissuance information. O nce EPA makes a decision regarding the reapplication for a waiver, it uses the data provided by the POTW to develop permit conditions and to specify the monitoring program that will be incorporated in the NPDES permit. EPA specifies the parameters to be m easured, techniques to be used, and frequency of monitoring. In addition, EPA uses the data to make recommendations for the toxics control and pretreatment programs.

Permit reissuance information is submitted to the appropriate EPA Regional Offices, whe re it is evaluated. These data are then filed at the Regional Office and can be retrieved as required.

Application Revision Information

The second type of information used in the application process is the application revision information.

These data a re submitted once by any original applicant for a 301(h) waiver that has received a tentative decision when the applicant desires to revise its original application. Revisions of the proposed treatment levels and/or outfall and diffuser location and desig n, and data to correct any deficiencies can be included in the revised application. This one

- time

- opportunity is generally used by POTWs that have received tentative denials of the 301(h) waiver. Applicants authorized or asked to submit additional inform ation under 40 CFR 125.59(g) may also submit a revised application where that information supports changes in proposed treatment levels and/or outfall location and diffuser design.

As with the first type of information, these data are used by the EPA Regi onal Office to determine whether the revised proposed discharge meets the criteria specified under section 301(h). If the criteria are met, EPA may issue a decision to approve the waiver. The application revision information is also used to make decision s on the monitoring and toxics programs requirements and is then filed and retained by the EPA Regional Office.

Monitoring and Toxics Control Program Information

The next two information collection elements - monitoring and toxics control program data - are used by
EPA in the ongoing administration of the 301(h) program. The type and frequency of information submitted varies among the POTWs, depending on their particular circumstances. POTWs may be required to conduct biological, water quality, and effl uent monitoring. Certain small POTWs may be required to conduct only periodic surveys of the biological communities most likely to be affected by the discharge and may not need to provide the bioaccumulation, sediment sampling, and fisheries data required of larger POTWs. Monitoring data are used by the EPA Region to evaluate the continuing impact of the modified discharge on the marine biota, to evaluate continuing compliance with applicable water quality standards and/or criteria, to measure the toxic s ubstances and pesticides in the effluent, and to assess compliance with permit requirements. These data are also used to evaluate the continued effectiveness of the toxics control program.

All monitoring data are submitted by the POTW to the EPA Regional Office. These data are stored and can be easily retrieved, or stored and analyzed in the new STORET Office of Water Storage and Retrieval System or an equivalent database, described in Section 3, as determined by the EPA Regional Office.13

The toxics con trol program information includes any information EPA can use to determine whether the POTW is implementing effective industrial and non

- industrial toxics control programs. POTWs must develop a public education program for non

- industrial source control an d submit this program to EPA within 18 months of the modification approval. Additional and continued information associated with this program may also be required.

State Determination Information

The final two types of information collection covered by this ICR, State determinations and State certifications, are collected and submitted by States, not POTWs as in the first four activities. The State determination is used in the application process. Applicants for 301(h) waivers must submit with their ap plication revision or reapplication two determinations signed by the appropriate State or interstate agency of the State where the discharge originates: 1) a determination that the modified discharge will comply with State law including water quality stand ards, and 2) a determination indicating whether the applicant’s discharge will result in additional treatment, pollution control, or other requirements for any other point or non

- point sources. Both determinations

must outline the reasons for the conclusi ons reached in the State determination. Therefore, the respondents of this information collection are the States in which a proposed 301(h) discharge originates.

The appropriate State agency or department has the background information available to make these determinations. For the first determination, the State needs to identify and interpret the applicable State requirements and then evaluate the application data as they relate to these standards, using applicable analytical techniques. For the secon d determination, the State must review information contained in State files or databases and employ appropriate technical evaluations to determine the effects of the proposed discharge on other sources.

The State submits this determination information to the applicant, which, in turn, submits the information to the Regional Administrator. The information is reviewed and filed at the Region along with other 301(h) application information. The State determinations must be received by the EPA Regional Offic e no later than 90 days after the application, reapplication, or application revision is submitted to EPA. EPA will not begin review of a 301(h) application revision unless it has received favorable determinations from the State. If the State submits an unfavorable determination, the State is deemed not to concur with the proposed variance. Consequently, if the State provides an unfavorable determination, EPA must deny the application without further review. If the determination is favorable, EPA uses t he information to assess the State’s position on these issues and to incorporate the State’s views when deciding on both a variance application and a draft permit. In addition, EPA uses this information to explain the State’s reasoning to any applicants t hat challenge the State’s position.

State Certification Information

The last type of information under this ICR, the 401(a) certification, is used after the 301(h) application process is complete, during the permit issuance process. Certification inform ation is submitted only if EPA tentatively approves the 301(h) waiver application and has prepared a draft permit incorporating a 301(h) waiver. The certification is required for both the original draft permit with a 301(h) variance and each subsequent, o r reissued, permit containing such a variance. When an EPA Regional Administrator issues a tentative approval on a 301(h) variance, he or she forwards the decision to the State and specifies a reasonable time (not more than 60 days)

for the State to submi t the certification. If the State does not submit the certification by that time, the State is

deemed to have concurred with the variance.

The State certification must contain the following information:

 Any additional or more stringent conditions than t he draft permit necessary to ensure compliance with applicable CWA sections 208(e), 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 and with appropriate requirements of State law. If the State finds that more stringent conditions are necessary, it must cite the CWA or State law references on

which the condition is based.

 A statement of the extent to which each condition of the draft permit can be made less stringent without violating the requirements of State law, including water quality standards.14

The State must review the appropriate State laws and CWA sections in reference to the particular conditions in the draft permit. To obtain the information for the certification, the State uses the information it derived from preparing its determination of compliance with State la ws and water quality standards. It uses appropriate technical evaluations to obtain the other information required for the certification. The background data that the State needs to prepare the certification should be available in State files, and the St ate should be familiar with the analytical techniques it must use. In addition, the State has available all background information and calculations that EPA used to make the 301(h) waiver decision and to establish permit conditions. This information is p articularly useful to the State in reviewing very complex permits and in assessing aspects of the draft permit and the 301(h) modification for which it does not have extensive experience. In these situations, the State has the benefit of EPA’s expertise a nd technical evaluation.

The EPA Regional Office uses the information contained in the State certification to ensure that the State concurs with any 301(h) modifications it has approved, and to ensure that the conditions in the draft and final permits mee t, and will continue to meet, all State laws and water quality standards. The certification is also used by EPA to ensure a State is fully aware of all permit conditions imposed on a discharger in that State and that all permit

conditions are workable for the State. In addition, EPA uses the information to make any necessary revisions to the draft permit before issuing a final permit.

The 401(a)(1) certification must be submitted to the EPA Regional Office within the time specified by

EPA. The informati on is used by EPA in developing the final permit and is filed at the Regional Office with all the permit application data for that POTW.



# 5. The Information Collected

– Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

5(a) Agency Activi ties

Agency activities are discussed in conjunction with the respondent activities in section 4(b)(i) above.



### 5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

EPA developed a user

- friendly computer system for the 301(h) program, the Ocean Data Evaluation System (ODES). It has been used by both POTWs and EPA to store and analyze marine environmental data. EPA developed a user

- friendly STORET (STOrage and RETrieval) system for water quality data. STORET is the standard data storage system within EPA’s Office of Water. The STORET system provide s access for POTWs to submit data directly to the STORET system. Regional Offices have developed equivalent databases. A POTW can use these databases to prepare information that EPA requires for the 301(h) program such a s impact assessment and evaluation, monitoring program designs, and statistical analysis and modeling of marine and estuarine data. EPA can use these databases to store data, primarily monitoring data, provided under the 301(h) program by POTWs; for

natio nal environmental assessments, impact assessments, and evaluations; and for permit compliance determinations. There are other statistical analytical packages available that can be used for data analysis as determined by the EPA Regional Office. Improveme nts in monitoring technology also afford advantages to acquire measurements of important environmental parameters electronically. These data are more easily collected, managed and can be imported with fewer errors, and with less time and effort for storag e, retrieval, analysis and reporting.

The State determinations and State certifications, however, must be made on a case

- by

- case basis. No particular format for the response is required, and the response does not involve repetitive reporting or frequent updating.



### 5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

The section 301(h) regulations and application questionnaire (40 CFR Part 125, Subpart G) are designed to simplify application requirements for all applicants and to reduce the cost burden for small applicants. Sm all15

applicants are defined in the regulations as municipalities having POTW service populations of less than 50,000 persons or discharge design flows of less than 5 mgd. EPA’s evaluation of applications showed that most small applicants are able to comple te the application questionnaire using available information on their wastewater treatment system, outfall configuration, discharge characteristics, receiving water quality, biological habitats, oceanographic characteristics, and beneficial uses. Hence, f or most small applicants, the cost of permit reissuance application and application revision is minimized. Also, small applicants have the flexibility to design ongoing biological, water quality, and discharge monitoring programs that are cost

- effective f or their individual circumstances. Finally, small applicants do not have the burden of substantial elements of the requirements for development and implementation of toxics control programs if they certify that there are no known or suspected

sources of t oxics or associated water quality or biological problems. Therefore, EPA believes that the costs to small section 301(h) applicants and small section 301(h) permittees are minimized by the regulations and questionnaire, while compliance with section 301(h ) criteria is ensured.



### 5(d) Collection Schedule

Application revision information is submitted once and only if the POTW elects to revise its original application. Reapplication information is submitted every 5 years as the permit expires. Similarly, th e State

determination information and State certification information is submitted one time for each revised or renewed permit application, and draft permit. The frequency of collection for monitoring and toxics program information is

determined on a case

- by

- case basis.



# 6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden

This section describes how the burden to respondents of the six 301(h) information collection activities is

estimated. The burden is divided into two c ategories: 1) POTW respondent burden and 2) State respondent burden. For the six information collection activities, the burden estimate is dependent upon the size of the POTW applying for a section 301(h) variance. Small POTWs, defined by EPA as those wi th flows of less than 5 mgd and/or those that serve a population of less than 50,000 people, have reduced burdens in responding to each information requirement. Correspondingly, it is less burdensome for States to make determinations and certifications fo r these small POTWs than for large POTWs with flows greater than 5 mgd and serving populations larger than 50,000 people. The burden to POTWs is also not evenly distributed over the years covered by this ICR because of changes in the program status and as sociated information needs.

Annual, total, and average burdens and number of respondents for each of the six information activities are compiled on Table A

- 4 of the appendix. Individual tables for each of the six information collection activities are

sum marized on Tables A

- 6, A

- 7, A

- 8, A

- 10 and A

- 11 of the appendix. POTW respondents to these activities must complete five general tasks:

1) Read instructions supplied by EPA and contained in the regulations.

2) Plan activities - determine what data are re quired and what must be done to obtain the data.

3) Create information using field surveys and other techniques.

4) Gather information through literature searches, interviews, and analyses of field survey and monitoring

data.

5) Complete permit reissuan ce application and transmit to EPA.16 The effort required to complete these activities for permit reapplication and application revision is

estimated in Table A

- 5 of the appendix. The estimates in this table are based on EPA’s experience in evaluating

nume rous original applications and application revisions. It is assumed that preparation of reapplications will require less effort than preparation of original applications. In addition, in breaking down the estimates of effort for small and large applicant s, it is assumed that little or no field work is performed by small POTWs and that a field study is conducted by each large POTW.

For application revision and reapplication, the number of respondents and total burden hours for the three years covered by t his ICR are presented in Tables A

- 6 and A

- 7 of the appendix, respectively. The number of POTW respondents for each year varies depending on the program status and the associated information needs, such as how many 301(h) permits are nearing their expirati on dates. These numbers are projected by EPA based on applicable program data and program experience.

The burden estimates for the monitoring program and for the toxics control program are presented in Table

A

- 8 of the appendix. The monitoring program e ffort estimates are for typical small and large permittees and include the design and execution of necessary field studies plus analyses and report writing. EPA has estimated the burden based on experience plus estimates from consulting firms contacted fo r this purpose. The toxics control program estimates are also for typical small and large permittees and include estimates for developing and implementing non

industrial source control programs.

The burdens for State determinations and State certificatio ns activities are summarized in Tables A

- 9, A

10, and A

- 11 of the appendix. Respondents to these activities must complete four general tasks: 1) identify applicable State requirements; 2) analyze material; 3) review accuracy; and 4) report information. F or example, in deciding whether the discharge will comply with State law, the State needs to identify and interpret applicable State requirements. The State would then review the application data, which contain information on effluent and ambient

water qu ality characteristics, in order to consider the validity of the data and select appropriate data points and conditions under which compliance will be determined. In addition, the State may wish to review information

contained in State files in order to ch eck or verify the applicant’s data. Following this, the State would select the technical evaluations it wishes to employ and apply them to the data selected. Finally, the State would check the accuracy of its approach and calculations, and submit its det erminations.

EPA realizes that the State burden will vary, depending on the complexity of the issues raised by a particular application. A State determination and certification of an applicant with a large discharge from multiple pollutant sources may ta ke more time to review than an application from a small POTW. EPA’s past experiences have involved a wide range of extremes from relatively simple to complex applications, and this experience has been considered in developing typical burdens. In addition , EPA has not specified in detail the nature of the States’ submissions, nor has EPA required the States to follow certain review procedures. As a result, the burden will also vary depending on the level of effort and review procedures that the State choo ses to adopt in reaching its concurrence decision. The burden in providing 401 certification under 40 CFR Part 124 similarly draws on Agency experience and reflects the fact that the work done by the State in making its determinations under 40 CFR Part 12 5 will not be duplicated at the 401 certification stage. The effort required to complete these activities is estimated in

Table A

- 9 of the appendix. The numbers of respondents and burden hours for State determinations and State

certifications for the thr ee years covered by this ICR are presented in Tables A

- 10 and A

- 11 of the appendix. The average annual burdens for all six information collection activities are summarized in Table A

- 12 of the appendix.



### 6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

The review costs to the Federal government and preparation costs to the respondents (both POTWs and States) for the six information collection activities covered under this ICR are summarized in Tables A

- 1 and A

- 2 of the appendix. For respondents, the labor hour burden us ed in these cost estimates is derived under the next item

. Federal government burden hour estimates used in computing the estimated costs in Table A

- 1 are summarized in

Table A

- 3 of the appendix. These burden hour estimates for the Federal government add ress decisions on applications, review of State determinations and State certifications, and evaluating the adequacy of permittee monitoring and toxics control programs.17



### (i) Estimating Labor Costs

Detailed estimates for labor costs are shown in Table A

- 2 of the appendix. The average annual labor cost is $ 11,285,624 for to POTWs and $ 43,984 for States. Total annual labor costs are thus estimated to be $ 1,329,608

.



### (ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs

There are no Capital or Oper ations and Maintenance costs associated with maintaining a Section 301(h)

waiver.



### 6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

Detailed estimates for cost and burden to the EPA are shown in Tables A

- 1 and A

- 3, respectively. The total annual cost is $ 465 ,915 and the total annual burden is 9

, 04 8 hours

.



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

There are 31 POTWs and 7 States who will respond during the three

- year period of this ICR. Total burden

and costs are detailed in the attached tables and copied in the following section

. The total annual burden to states and

POTWs is 49, 664 hours and $ 1,329,608

.



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

TABLE A

- 12. SUMMARY TABLE a

Respondent/Activity Number of Respondents/Responses Hours p er Response b Average

Annual

Burden

POTWs Application Revision 3 853 2,559 Reapplication 6 568 3409 Monitoring Program 31 744 23,056 Toxics Control Program 31 614 19,040

TOTAL: POTWs 31 48,064

STATES

Determinations 9 133 1,200

Certificati ons 9 44 400

TOTAL: STATES 7 1600
TOTAL: POTWs AND
STATES 38 49,664

a Average of 3 years divided by 3.

b Hours per response were calculated by dividing the average annual burden by the number of respondents. Values have been
rounded to the nea rest hour.



### TABLE A

- 2. COST TO POTW AND STATE

RESPONDENTS18

Activity Average
Annual

Burden

Hours Hourly

Cost Average

Annual
Cost

COST TO POTW RESPONDENTS

Application Revision 2,559 $ 74.70 a $ 191,157

Reapplication 3,409 $ 74.70 a $ 25 4,652

Monitoring Program 23,056 $ 19.95 b $ 459,967

Toxics Control Program 19,040 $ 19.95 b $ 379,848

TOTAL 48,064 $ 1,285,624
COST TO STATE
RESPONDENTS

Determination 1,200 $27.49 c $ 32,988

Certification 400 $27.49 c $ 10,996

TOTAL 1,600 $ 43,984

TOTAL POTW AND STATE
RESPONDENTS 49,664 $ 1,329,608

a It is assumed that much of the reapplication and additional information is prepared by a contractor with specialized expertise and equipment. It is further assumed that the salary level of a contractor working on the 301(h) program is 15 percent higher than that of a
GS

- 9, Step 10, $ 67,787 , or $ 77,955 /year . Thus, based on 2,080 working hours/year, the average hourly salary of a contractor is $ 37.35 /hour . Assuming 100 percen t overhead costs for the private sector, the labor cost for contractors is $ 74.70 /hour. (Hourly rate

based on 2014 DC

- B salary rate table.)

b It is assumed that the salary level of a typical local government employee working on the 301(h) program is a GS

- 5, Step 4, or $ 37,859 . Based on 2,080 working hours/year, the average hourly salary of a local employee is $ 18.14 /hour. Assuming 10 percent overhead costs, the labor cost for local government employees is $ 19.95 /hour. (Hourly

rate based on 2014 DC

- B sal ary rate table.)

c It is assumed that the salary level of a typical State government employee working on the 301(h) program is a GS

- 9, Step 1, or $ 52,146 /year. Based on 2,080 working hours/year, the average hourly salary of a State government employee is $ 24.99 /hour. Assuming 10 percent overhead costs, the labor cost for State government employees is $ 27.49 /hour. (Hourly rate based on 2014 DC

- B salary rate table .)



### 6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden

Since the last ICR was submitted, the universe of POTW s in the 301(h) program and subject to the 301(h) information requirements has decreased. This is because six POTWs have withdrawn from the program, or been

denied a waiver renewal. Also, there is one fewer State respondent . There are also changes in th e distribution of the burden over the three years covered by this ICR because of changes in program status and information needs. As a result, the total burden in the current ICR has been reduced by 9,706 hours . Table A

- 13 of the appendix explain s the

re asons for the changes.19



### 6(g) Burden Statement

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to

average 677 hours per response for POTWs and 89 hours per response for States. Burden means the total t ime, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, 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 a nd 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 requireme nts; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is no t 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.

To comment on the Agency's need for this in formation, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 20 03

- 0033 , which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov , or in person viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Roo m 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 dock et is available at www.regulations.gov. This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the system, select “search,” then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget at oira_submission@omb.eop.gov . Please include the EPA

Docket ID Number EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2003

- 0033 and OMB Control Number 2040

- 0088 in any correspondence.