Information Collection 

Request for the Public 

Water System 

Supervision Program

Information Collection 

Request for the Public 

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION........................................... 1

1(a) Title and Number of the Information Collection ...................................................... 1

1(b) Short Characterization .............................................................................................. 1

2 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION .................................................................. 3

2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection ............................................................................ 3

2(b) Use/Users of the Data ............................................................................................... 9

3 NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER.............................................. 11

COLLECTION CRITERIA.......................................................................................................... 11

3(a) Non-duplication ...................................................................................................... 11

3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB .................................... 11

3(c) Consultations........................................................................................................... 11

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection........................................................................ 11

3(f) Confidentiality................................................................................................................ 12

3(g) Sensitive Questions................................................................................................. 12

4 RESPONDENTS AND INFORMATION REQUESTED.................................................... 13

4(a) Respondents/North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Codes.... 13

4(b) Information Requested............................................................................................ 13

4(b)(i) Data Items........................................................................................................... 13

4(b)(ii) Respondent Activities........................................................................................ 23

5 INFORMATION COLLECTED -- AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION 

METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT .......................................... 29

5(a) Agency Activities.................................................................................................... 29

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management............................................................. 31

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility........................................................................................... 32

5(d)Collection Schedule........................................................................................................ 34

6 ESTIMATING BURDEN AND COST OF COLLECTION................................................ 35

6(a) Respondent Burden ........................................................................................................ 35

6(a)(i) Burden to Public Water Systems..................................................................... 35

6(a)(ii) Burden to Primacy Agencies............................................................................. 40

6(a)(iii) Burden to Laboratories .................................................................................. 44

6(b)Respondent Costs........................................................................................................... 45

6(b)(i) Cost to Public Water Systems ........................................................................... 45

6(b)(ii) Cost to Primacy Agencies ................................................................................ 45

6(b)(iii) Cost to Laboratories........................................................................................ 46

6(c) Agency Burden and Costs.............................................................................................. 48

6(d)Estimating Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs...................................... 50

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs........................................................................... 50

6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden....................................................................................... 53

6(f)(i) Restructuring Adjustments.............................................................................. 53

6(f)(ii) Additional Program Adjustments.................................................................... 54

6(g)Burden Statement ........................................................................................................... 57
iv

APPENDICES

Appendix A. Federal Register Notice Soliciting Comment on Information Collection Requests

Appendix B. Consumer Confidence Rule Spreadsheets

Appendix C. Variances and Exemptions Spreadsheets

Appendix D. Capacity Development Spreadsheets

Appendix E. General State Primacy Spreadsheets

Appendix F. Public Notification Spreadsheets

Appendix G. Operator Certification Spreadsheets

Appendix H. Tribal Operator Certification Spreadsheets

Appendix I. Constructed Conveyance Spreadsheets

Appendix J. Proficiency Testing Spreadsheets
Exhibit 1: Structure of OGWDW ICRs

Exhibit 2: PWS Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

Exhibit 3: Primacy Agency Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

Exhibit 4: Laboratories Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirement

Exhibit 5: PWSS Program Requirements for EPA Regions and Headquarters

Exhibit 6: Annual PWS Burden and Cost

Exhibit 7: Annual State Burden and Cost

Exhibit 8: Annual Laboratory Burden and Cost

Exhibit 9: Bottom Line Annual Burden and Cost

Exhibit 10: Summary of Changes in Annual Burden

Exhibit 11: Restructuring Adjustments to the Annual Burden Inventory

for the PWSS Program ICR

Exhibit 12: Adjustments to PWS Burden from Previous ICR Estimates

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

Exhibit 14: Adjustments to Laboratory Burden from Previous ICR Estimates

Exhibit 15: Adjustments to Activities Carried Forward from Previous ICRs

v

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Structure of OGWDW ICRs................................................................

PWS Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements................................

Primacy Agency Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements............................

Laboratories Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements................................

PWSS Program Requirements for EPA Regions and Headquarters

Annual PWS Burden and Cost (April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2015)

Annual State Burden and Cost (April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2015)

Annual Laboratory Burden and Cost (April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2015

Bottom Line Annual Burden and Cost (April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2015

Summary of Changes in Annual Burden ..............................................................

Restructuring Adjustments to the Annual Burden Inventory

for the PWSS Program ICR................................................................

Adjustments to PWS Burden from Previous ICR Estimates ................................

Adjustments to Primacy Agency Burden from Previous ICR Estimates

Adjustments to Laboratory Burden from Previous ICR Estimates.......................

Adjustments to Activities Carried Forward from Previous ICRs .........................

................................................... 5

.............................................. 14

............................ 17

.................................. 22

PWSS Program Requirements for EPA Regions and Headquarters..................... 29

)...................... 47

...................... 47

1, 2012 to March 31, 2015) ............ 48

1, 2012 to March 31, 2015).......... 52

.............................. 53

.................................................. 53

................................ 54

Adjustments to Primacy Agency Burden from Previous ICR Estimates.............. 55

....................... 56

......................... 57
vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Structure of OGWDW ICRs...............................................................4
vii

ACRONYMS

AG Attorney General

AMWA Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies

ASDWA Association of State Drinking Water Administrators

AWWA American Water Works Association

CCR Consumer Confidence Report

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CWS Community Water System

DBP Disinfection Byproduct

DBPR Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule

DDBP/Chem/Rads Disinfectant/Disinfection Byproducts, Chemical, and Radionuclides

DWIG TSA Drinking Water Infrastructure Grant Tribal Set Aside

DWSRF Drinking Water State Revolving Fund

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ERP Enforcement Response Policy

ETT Enforcement Targeting Tool

FR Federal Register

FTE Full Time Equivalent

GWR Ground Water Rule

ICR Information Collection Request

IESWTR Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

LCR Lead and Copper Rule

LT1ESWTR Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

LT2ESWTR Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level

MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal

MRDL Maximum Residual Disinfection Level

MRDLG Maximum Residual Disinfection Level Goal 

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NAWA Native American Water Association

NAWC National Association of Water Companies

NCWS Noncommunity Water System

NDWAC National Drinking Water Advisory Council

NPDWR National Primary Drinking Water Regulation

NRWA National Rural Water Association

NTEC National Tribal Environmental Council

NTNCWS Nontransient Noncommunity Water System

O&M Operation and Maintenance

OGWDW Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PC&B Personnel Compensation and Benefits

PN Public Notification

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act

PT Proficiency Testing
viii

PWS Public Water System

PWSS Public Water System Supervision

SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System

SMCL Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level

SNC Significant Noncompliance or Significant Non-Compliers

SWAP Source Water Assessment Program

SWTR Surface Water Treatment Rule

TCR Total Coliform Rule

TNCWS Transient Noncommunity Water System

UIC Underground Injection Control

V/E Variance and Exemption 
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

1

1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1(a) Title and Number of the Information Collection

Title: Public Water System Supervision Program

OMB Control Number: 2040-0090

EPA Tracking Number: 0270.45

 

1(b) Short Characterization

The Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW) in the Office of Water at 

the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is responsible for 

managing the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program, a national program mandated 

by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Section 1412 of the SDWA requires EPA to establish 

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) for contaminants that may adversely 

impact human health. The Act further requires EPA to monitor and enforce these regulations to 

ensure that the nation’s drinking water dependably complies with the maximum contaminant 

levels (MCLs) and other requirements stipulated in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 40 

CFR part 141, subpart B. 

Section 1445 of the SDWA stipulates that every drinking water supplier must conduct 

monitoring, maintain records, and provide such information as is needed for EPA to implement 

its monitoring and enforcement responsibilities with respect to the Act. State1governments—in 

those states that have assumed primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for public water 

systems (PWSs) under SDWA section 1413—ensure that PWSs are complying with these 

monitoring requirements. In addition, under 40 CFR §§141.23(k)(3), 141.131(b)(2), 141.28, and 

141.24(f)(17), laboratories must successfully participate in Proficiency Testing (PT) studies each

year to be certified to conduct analysis of compliance monitoring samples. 

As part of the PWSS Program, the OGWDW uses the Safe Drinking Water Information 

System (SDWIS) to record some of the data collected as a result of NPDWR requirements. 

SDWIS is a database management system that assists EPA in tracking and interpreting violation

data and other program-related data. These data assist EPA in fulfilling its SDWA obligations. 

This Information Collection Request (ICR) was prepared in accordance with the October 

2009 version of EPA’s Guide to Writing Information Collection Requests Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (or “ICR Handbook”) prepared by EPA’s Office of Environmental 

Information, Office of Information Collection, Collection Strategies Division. The ICR 

Handbook provides the most current instructions for ICR preparation to ensure compliance with 

the 1995 PRA amendments and Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) implementing 

guidelines. 

 

1 Throughout this document, the terms “State” or “States” are used to refer to all types of primacy agencies. There 

are currently 57 primacy entities, including the 50 states, U.S. territories (Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, 

American Samoa, and Northern Marianas), and the Navajo Nation. Though Wyoming and the District of Columbia 

do not have primacy, the EPA burden for these activities is counted as primacy agency burden.
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

2

Many information collection requirements associated with the SDWA and its 

implementing regulations are associated with rulemakings that address specific contaminants or 

groups of contaminants. This ICR examines PWS, primacy agency, laboratory, and EPA burden 

and costs for “cross-cutting” recordkeeping and reporting requirements (i.e., the burden and costs 

for complying with drinking water information requirements that are not associated with 

contaminant-specific rulemakings). These activities include the following—

1) Consumer Confidence Reports (CCRs)

2) Variance and Exemption Rule (V/E Rule)

3) Capacity Development Program

4) General State Primacy Activities

5) Public Notification (PN)

6) Operator Certification and Expense Reimbursement Grants Program

7) Tribal Operator Certification Program

8) Constructed Conveyances

9) Proficiency Testing

This ICR updates the burden and cost estimates provided in the 2008 PWSS Program 

ICR, which expires on March 31, 2012. The ICR estimates costs for April 1, 2012 to March 31, 

2015.

The total annual respondent burden associated with this ICR is estimated to be 

approximately 4.1 million hours per year. The total annual respondent cost associated with this 

ICR is estimated to be approximately $187.6 million. The distribution of annual burden between 

PWSs and primacy agencies is approximately 2.4 million hours and 1.7 million hours, 

respectively. Laboratories conducting Proficiency Testing (PT) incur an annual burden of 

42,892 hours. The distribution of annual costs between PWSs and primacy agencies is 

approximately $116.3 million and $67.8 million, respectively. The annual costs for laboratories 

conducting PT are $3.5 million.

The approximate annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for respondents are $40

million ($39 million for PWSs, $0.77 million for laboratories, and $0 for primacy agencies). 

This represents the “cost burden” as reported in the OMB inventory. Note that these costs are for 

O&M only; there are no capital costs associated with the activities covered by this ICR.

The annual EPA burden for this ICR totals 0.59 million hours, at a cost of approximately

$29.1 million; 0.10 million hours (approximately $6.5 million) is for Headquarters activities and 

0.48 million hours (approximately $21 million) is for EPA Regional office activities. The 

Agency also incurs $1.5 million in O&M costs as part of the tribal operator certification program

and for EPA contractors to manage and maintain the SDWIS database.

The total number of respondents for this ICR is 154,938; 57 of these respondents are 

primacy agencies, 1,902 are laboratories, and the balance (152,979) are PWSs. The total annual 

number of responses for these respondents is 1.0 million (382,658 for PWSs, 1,902 for 

laboratories, and 628,925 for primacy agencies). 
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

3

2 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection

This section identifies the regulatory or statutory authority for the information collection 

activities covered in this ICR and explains EPA’s need for the information. Section 4 of the ICR 

contains a summary of the PWSS Program recordkeeping and reporting requirements covered by

this ICR. 

To allow the public to better understand the impact of the recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements stemming from the SDWA and 40 CFR parts 141 and 142, OGWDW has 

organized its ICRs so that related activities are addressed in the same ICR. Specifically, there 

are three primary ICRs—the Microbial Rules ICR, the Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts, 

Chemical and Radionuclides Rules (DDBP/Chem/Rads Rules) ICR, and the PWSS Program 

ICR. The Microbial Rules ICR includes rules addressing microbial contaminants, such as the 

Total Coliform Rule (TCR), Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), and the Ground Water 

Rule (GWR). The DDBP/Chem/Rads Rules ICR includes rules addressing chemical 

contaminants such as the Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproduct Rule (Stage 1 

DBPR), the Arsenic Rule, and the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR). The PWSS Program ICR 

includes public notification and rules addressing cross-cutting requirements that are not 

associated with contaminant-specific rules. The specific regulations and programs addressed in 

this ICR are— 

1) Consumer Confidence Reports 

2) Variance and Exemption Rule 

3) Capacity Development Program

4) General State Primacy Activities

5) Public Notification

6) Operator Certification and Expense Reimbursement Grants Program

7) Tribal Operator Certification Program

8) Constructed Conveyances

9) Proficiency Testing

As EPA publishes new regulations, it will amend the appropriate ICR to include the new 

rules. 

For a graphical depiction of the structure of the OGWDW ICRs, see Figure 1. A 

complete itemization of the activities included in the three primary ICRs, as well as other 

drinking water program ICRs, is included as Exhibit 1.
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

4
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

5

Exhibit 1

Structure of OGWDW ICRs

Currently covered To be covered in the future

PWSS Program ICR (2040-0090)

Consumer Confidence Reports (CCRs)

Variances & Exemptions

Capacity Development Program

General State Primacy Activities 

Public Notification (PN)

Operator Certification Expense Reimbursement 

Grants Program

Tribal Operator Certification

Constructed Conveyances

Proficiency Testing

Microbial Rules ICR (2040-0205)

Surface Water Treatment Rule, except disinfectant 

residual monitoring and associated activities2 Revised Total Coliform Rule

Total Coliform Rule

Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule 

(IESWTR) 

Filter Backwash Recycling Rule

Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment 

Rule (LT1ESWTR)

Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment 

Rule (LT2ESWTR)

Ground Water Rule

Aircraft Drinking Water Rule

Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts, Chemical, and Radionuclides Rules ICR (2040-0204)

Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts 

Rule

Disinfectant Residual Monitoring and associated 

activities under the SWTR

Stage 2 DBPR

Chemical Phase Rules

Radionuclides Rule 

Arsenic Rule

Lead and Copper Rule

Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP) ICR (2040-0197)

SWAP

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

UIC Base Program Activities Class VI Geologic Sequestration Rule – Under 

current EPA ICR No. 0370.24

Class V Rule

Florida Class I Rule

 

2 Disinfectant residual monitoring and associated activities are included in the DDBP/Chem/Rads Rules ICR.
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

6

Currently covered To be covered in the future

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

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program

Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey ICR (2040-0274)

2011 Needs Survey

Title VI of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002: 

Drinking Water Security and Safety ICR (2040-0253)

Vulnerability Assessments and Emergency 

Response Plans for community water systems 

(CWSs).

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule ICR (2040-0270)

Monitoring of Unregulated Contaminants

Laboratory Quality Assurance Evaluation Program for Analysis of Cryptosporidium ICR (2040-

0246)

Proficiency Testing Program for Laboratories 

Analyzing Cryptosporidium Samples

1) Consumer Confidence Reports

Section 114 of the 1996 SDWA amends Section 1414(c) of the Act. The amendments 

require community water systems (CWSs) to distribute CCRs describing CWS water quality to 

their customers annually. EPA wrote regulations under subpart O of 40 CFR part 141 to 

implement this provision. 

The initial Federal Register (FR) notice containing CCR requirements was published on 

August 19, 1998 (63 FR 44512). These initial requirements have since been modified by other 

rulemaking efforts. However, these other rulemakings are assumed to have no effect on the 

underlying burden. 

The information on the CCRs submitted to states by CWSs is needed by EPA to ensure 

compliance with the CCR requirements. 

2) Variance & Exemption Rule

The 1996 SDWA Amendments established criteria under which PWSs, especially those 

serving 10,000 or fewer people, could apply for a variance or exemption. Variances allow 

eligible systems to provide drinking water that does not comply with a NPDWR on the condition 

that the quality of the drinking water is still protective of public health. Exemptions allow PWSs 

additional time above that specified in rule requirements to come into compliance. There are two 

types of variances: general variances are intended for systems that are not able to comply with a 

NPDWR due to the quality of the source water; small system variances are intended for systems 

serving 3,300 persons or fewer that cannot afford to comply with a NPDWR (but may be 

allowed for systems serving up to 10,000 persons). Small system variances are only allowed if 

EPA designates a Small System Variance Technology. The information required of PWSs 

seeking general variances, small system variances, or exemptions is needed to determine if the 

system satisfies SDWA conditions for variances or exemptions. 
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

7

3) Capacity Development Program

Through the 1996 SDWA Amendments, Congress conveyed the importance of efforts to 

ensure that PWSs maintain the technical, managerial, and financial capacity to comply with the 

requirements of the SDWA. To underscore its importance the capacity development program

was linked to the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF); a state is subject to a

withholding of 20 percent of the funds to which it is otherwise entitled if its program does not 

meet EPA’s guidelines. 

Specifically, Section 1420(a) of the SDWA explains that a state “shall receive only 80 

percent of the allotment that the state is otherwise entitled to receive under Section 1452 (relating 

to state loan funds) unless the state has obtained the legal authority or other means to ensure that 

all new CWSs and new nontransient noncommunity water systems (NTNCWSs) commencing 

operation after October 1, 1999, demonstrate technical, managerial, and financial capacity with 

respect to each NPDWR in effect, or likely to be in effect, on the date of commencement of 

operations.” In addition, according to Section 1420(c), states incur a graduated withholding, 

beginning with 10 percent in fiscal year 2001, 15 percent in fiscal year 2002, and 20 percent in 

all subsequent fiscal years, if they do not develop and implement a strategy to assist all PWSs in 

acquiring and maintaining capacity.

EPA needs the information states submit on capacity development to ensure that states 

are implementing appropriate capacity development strategies.

4) General State Primacy Activities

To implement its compliance oversight and enforcement responsibilities under the 

SDWA, EPA requires primacy agencies to report a specified subset of PWS monitoring and 

related information in SDWIS. Additionally, primacy agencies must maintain records of 

analysis results and other related activities (e.g., sanitary survey results). Without 

comprehensive, up-to-date information on drinking water contamination (as provided by

SDWIS), EPA would not be able to assure “a supply of drinking water which dependably 

complies with such maximum contaminant levels” (SDWA Section 1401(1)(d)). If these 

reporting requirements were voluntary, primacy agencies would not receive timely, 

comprehensive data on contaminant levels and associated acute and long-term public health 

risks. Specifically, voluntary monitoring would not—

1) Reliably occur with sufficient frequency.

2) Follow uniform national standards on quality of sampling, collection, and 

analysis.

3) Ensure that monitoring addresses all contaminants listed in the regulations.

5) Public Notification

Section 114 of the 1996 SDWA Amendments required the EPA Administrator to develop 

and issue new regulations for public notification of PWS failure to comply with applicable 

national drinking water standards. Regulations mandating the form, manner, frequency, and 

content of public notification are codified under 40 CFR part 141, Subpart Q. Sections 
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

8

1414(c)(2)(C)(ii) and 1414(c)(2)(D)(ii) of the 1996 Amendments require that notices provide a 

clear and understandable explanation of the violation, the potential adverse health effects, steps 

that the system is taking to correct the violation, and necessity of seeking alternative water 

supplies until the violation is corrected. 

Without the ability to collect information on public notification, EPA could not ensure 

that PWSs were notifying the public of violations that could affect their health.

6) Operator Certification and Expense Reimbursement Grants Program

Through the 1996 SDWA Amendments, Congress conveyed the importance of properly 

trained operators in providing safe drinking water to the public. Congress then established the 

Operator Certification (OpCert) Program to assure that PWSs were being operated by properly 

trained and certified personnel. As a result, the Expense Reimbursement Grant was created to 

provide funding for certification and training costs for small drinking water systems operators. 

Funding was also used by states to develop data management systems to track OpCert 

compliance. To underscore the importance of operator certification, the OpCert program was 

linked to the DWSRF program through a withholding of 20 percent of the funds that a state is 

otherwise entitled to if its program does not meet EPA’s guidelines. 

Although the ERG stops providing funding on December 31, 2012, EPA still requires the 

submission of annual OpCert reports from states. The information collected under this program 

will continue to ensure that states are implementing OpCert programs that meet EPA guidelines.

7) Tribal Operator Certification Program

The purpose of the Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification Program is to improve

public health protection by increasing the training and certification opportunities for personnel at 

drinking water systems in Indian Country. The program guidelines establish seven baseline 

standards. The guidelines also list requirements for organizations that wish to obtain EPA 

approval for their certification programs.

The statutory requirement to develop an operator certification program does not apply to 

Tribes. While there are certain EPA regulations under SDWA that require qualified operators 

for PWSs, whether located in Indian Country or not (see 40 CFR 141.70(c) and 40 CFR 

141.130(c)), this Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification Program for systems in Indian 

Country is voluntary. However, this information collection is driven by the grant eligibility

requirements originally outlined in the Drinking Water Infrastructure Grant Tribal Set-Aside 

Program Final Guidelines (published in October 1998) and the Tribal Operator Certification 

Program Final Guidelines (published in July 2005; 70 FR 43868). 

EPA needs the information collected under this program to reimburse tribal systems and 

third-party certification providers.

8) Constructed Conveyances

In the 1996 Amendments to the SDWA, Section 1401(4) broadened the definition of 

“public water system” to include systems that provide water for human consumption and deliver 

the water via constructed conveyances. Prior to this change, PWSs included only piped water 
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

9

systems. This new definition affects the reporting and recordkeeping burdens for both PWSs and 

states. 

9) Proficiency Testing

Title XIV of the Public Health Service Act of SDWA requires EPA to specify

contaminants that may adversely affect public health when present in PWSs, specify maximum 

contaminant levels for these contaminants, and publish “criteria and procedures to assure a 

supply of drinking water which dependably complies with such maximum contaminant levels.” 

Participation in the PT studies that relate to drinking water analyses is mandated in 40 CFR §§ 

141.23(k)(3), 141.24(f)(17), 141.28, and 141.131(b)(2) for those laboratories that report data to 

support PWS compliance with the NPDWRs. Under 40 CFR 142.10(b)(3), authority for 

certifying drinking water laboratories is provided to states.

In the PT program, private sector companies (i.e., PT vendors) manufacture and distribute 

samples of regulated contaminants, also called standards, to the participating laboratories. The 

vendors know the concentrations of the standards but the laboratories do not. The laboratories 

determine the concentrations of each analyte for which they wish to be certified and then submit 

their results to the vendors. Assuming the laboratories’ results are accurate, PT vendors certify

to the state that the laboratories have successfully completed their PT studies. This certification 

of PT study completion is then used by the states to support the certification of the laboratories to 

conduct drinking water compliance analyses. EPA, states, and laboratory personnel will use the 

results of these studies to identify laboratory problems for resolution, and thereby improve the 

quality of data used to determine regulatory compliance.

2(b) Use/Users of the Data

The information described in the previous sections will be collected by EPA and made 

available to the public upon request, as required by the Freedom of Information Act (40 CFR, 

Chapter 1, Part 2). In some cases, the SDWA requires that the information be provided to the 

public or the primacy agency. Primary users of the data collected under this ICR are OGWDW, 

PWS managers, and primacy agencies, which include state regulators, Indian Tribes, and, in 

some instances, EPA Regional Administrators. Other users include—

 Laboratory personnel

 Staff from other EPA programs (such as Superfund, the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act, and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance)

 Federal Emergency Management Administration

 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

 Military bases

 Farmers Home Administration

 Department of Interior

 Department of Housing and Urban Development

 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

 White House Task Forces

 American Water Works Association (AWWA)

 Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA)

 National Rural Water Association (NRWA)
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

10

 National Association of Water Companies (NAWC)

 Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA)

 Natural Resources Defense Council

 Consumers Federation of America

 News organizations

 Native American Water Association

 Association of American Indian Affairs

 Inter-tribal Environmental Council

 National Tribal Environmental Council

 Other intertribal groups
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

11

3 NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER 

COLLECTION CRITERIA

3(a) Non-duplication

EPA has made an effort to ensure that the data collection efforts associated with this ICR 

are not duplicated. EPA has consulted state environmental programs, other federal agencies 

(such as the CDC), and regulated entities (such as PWSs and their representative trade 

associations). To the best of EPA's knowledge, data currently required by the SDWA (and its 

implementing regulations codified at 40 CFR parts 141 and 142) are not available from any other 

source.

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

To comply with the 1995 Amendments to the PRA, EPA solicited public comment on 

this ICR for a 60-day period before it was submitted to OMB. Specifically, EPA published a 

notice in the Federal Register requesting comment on the estimated respondent burden and other 

aspects of this ICR (76 FR 39092, see Appendix A). EPA did not receive any comments during 

the 60-day comment period.

An additional FR notice will be published prior to submission of this ICR to OMB. The 

public comment period for this additional notice is 30 days.

3(c) Consultations

As part of the revision of the PWSS ICR, in summer 2011 EPA consulted with 

representatives of PWSs and states regarding the accuracy of EPA’s burden estimates. The 

groups consulted were NAWC, AWWA, AMWA, and ASDWA (NRWA was also consulted but 

did not submit comments). These groups’ comments were incorporated into this ICR to the 

extent possible. The consultations revealed that previous estimates for certain categories were 

too low while others were too high. As such, there were large increases in burden estimates for

such things as the Consumer Confidence Reports, Operator Certification Guidelines and Expense 

Reimbursement Grants Program. This was partly offset by a large decrease in burden for Public 

Notification. Each individual model for the PWSS ICR shown in the appendices to this 

document contains a table showing how burden estimates have been revised.

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

EPA has considered a wide range of alternatives for frequency of data collection. The 

CCR Rule and Capacity Development Program require annual reporting. Distributing CCRs less 

frequently than annually is not allowed under the SDWA. Annual reporting of capacity

development information is essential to enable EPA to make withholding determinations on each 

fiscal year’s funds.

Laboratories producing drinking water compliance monitoring data are expected to 

demonstrate adequate analytical proficiency once each year for each analyte they test. Any 

decrease in frequency would not adequately support the states' laboratory certification/evaluation 

programs. 
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

12

For other information collection activities, EPA has chosen to require the least frequent 

collection that remains consistent with overall public health preservation objectives. If data are 

collected less frequently, the primacy agencies may not identify in a timely fashion violations

that might threaten the health and safety of drinking water consumers.

3(e) General Guidelines

This ICR was prepared in accordance with the October 2009 version of ICR Handbook 

prepared by EPA’s Office of Environmental Information, Office of Information Collection, 

Collection Strategies Division. The ICR Handbook provides the most current instructions for 

ICR preparation to ensure compliance with the 1995 PRA amendments and OMB’s 

implementing guidelines.

3(f) Confidentiality 

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

3(g) Sensitive Questions

No information of a sensitive nature will be collected as a result of this ICR.
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

13

4 RESPONDENTS AND INFORMATION REQUESTED

4(a) Respondents/North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Codes

Data associated with this ICR are collected and maintained at the PWS, state, and federal 

levels. Respondents include—

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

 Primacy agencies, which include states, tribes (if they have been authorized to act 

as primacy agencies), and EPA Regions that act as primacy agencies in Indian 

lands and states that do not have primacy. 

 Laboratories conducting PT to achieve state certification, which permits them to 

analyze samples for compliance with NPDWRs. (PT vendors are not considered 

respondents because they are paid for their incurred burden and costs via the 

prices that laboratories pay for the PT standards).

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for PWSs is 22131. 

The NAICS code for state agencies that include drinking water programs is 92411 

(Administration of Air and Water Resources and Solid Waste Management Programs) or 923312 

(Administration of Public Health Programs). Ancillary systems (i.e., those that supplement the 

function of other establishments like factories, power plants, mobile home parks, etc.) cannot be 

categorized in a single NAICS code. For ancillary systems, the NAICS code is that of the 

primary establishment or industry. The code for laboratories that include environmental testing is 

541380 (Testing Laboratories).

Data associated with this ICR are collected and maintained by laboratories seeking 

Primacy Agency certification for the analysis of drinking water samples. 

4(b) Information Requested

4(b)(i) Data Items

Respondent information collection requirements covered by the PWSS Program ICR are 

summarized in Exhibits 2-4 below. These reflect cross-cutting recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements under the PWSS Program (i.e., requirements that are not associated with 

contaminant-specific rules). The requirements are discussed following Exhibits 2-4.
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

14

Exhibit 2

PWS Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

Requirement Regulatory Citation Frequency/Retention

CCRs

Mail copies of CCR to customers. 40 CFR 141.155(a) Annually, unless waived per 

§141.155(g)

Announce availability of CCR. 40 CFR 141.155(b) Annually

Submit copy of CCR to primacy

agency.

40 CFR 141.155(c) Annually

Submit copy of CCR to agencies 

or clearinghouses identified by 

the primacy agency.

40 CFR 141.155(d) Annually, as required

Make current year’s CCR 

available to public.

40 CFR 141.155(e) As requested

Post current year’s CCR on the 

Internet (for systems serving 

≥100,000 people).

40 CFR 141.155(f) Annually

Publish CCR in local newspaper, 

if the mailing requirement has 

been waived.

40 CFR 141.155(g)(1) Annually, except that systems 

serving ≤500 can forego per 

§141.155(g)(2)

Retain copy of CCR. 40 CFR 141.155(h) For at least 3 years

VARIANCES AND EXEMPTIONS

Retain records concerning 

variance or exemption grants.

40 CFR 141.33 Not less than 5 years after 

variance/exemption expiration

Submit information supporting 

request for variance.

40 CFR 142.41 One-time, PWS discretion

Submit information supporting 

request for exemption.

40 CFR 142.51 One-time, PWS discretion

Submit information supporting 

request for small system 

variance.

40 CFR 142.306 One-time, PWS discretion

Report on compliance with terms 

and conditions of the small 

system variance.

40 CFR 142.307 Quarterly after granting

CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT

Demonstrate capacity (new 

CWSs & NTNCWSs).

N/A One-time

Cooperate with state to 

demonstrate continued capacity.

N/A As needed

GENERAL STATE PRIMACY ACTIVITIES

PWSs are not involved in general state primacy activities.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION RULE

Notify persons served within 24 

hours of learning of a violation 

which requires Tier 1 public 

notification.

40 CFR 141.202(b)(1) As necessary, within 24 hours

Consult with the primacy agency 

within 24 hours of learning of a 

violation or other situation that

requires Tier 1 public notification.

40 CFR 141.202(b)(2) As necessary, within 24 hours

Comply with any additional 

notification requirements for Tier 

1.

40 CFR 141.202(b)(3) As necessary
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

15

Requirement Regulatory Citation Frequency/Retention

Notify persons served within 30 

days of a violation that requires 

Tier 2 public notification. 

40 CFR 141.203(b)(1) As necessary, within 30 days

Provide repeat notices for 

unresolved violations every three 

months, unless the primacy 

agency determines a different 

frequency.

40 CFR 141.203(b)(2) As necessary, every 3 months

Consult with the primacy agency 

if a violation of the turbidity MCL 

or SWTR/IESWTR treatment 

technique requirements for single 

exceedances of turbidity limits 

occurs.

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

Notify persons served within one 

year of learning of a violation or 

situation that requires Tier 3 

notification. 

40 CFR 141.204(b)(1) As necessary, within 1 year

Provide repeat notices annually 

for unresolved Tier 3 

violations/situations.

40 CFR 141.204(b)(1) As necessary, annually

Notify new customers of ongoing 

violations/situations prior to or at 

the time service begins.

40 CFR 141.206 As necessary

Notify persons served of the 

availability of the results of 

unregulated contaminant 

monitoring.

40 CFR 141.207 As necessary, within 12 months 

of receiving results

Provide special notice to persons 

served for an exceedance of the 

fluoride secondary MCL (SMCL).

40 CFR 141.208 As necessary, within 12 months 

of exceedance

Provide repeat notice of a 

fluoride SMCL exceedance, if 

unresolved.

40 CFR 141.208 As necessary, annually

Notify persons served by 

noncommunity water systems 

(NCWSs) if the primacy agency 

grants permission to exceed the 

nitrate MCL.

40 CFR 141.209 As necessary, within 24 hours

Submit to the state a copy of 

each notice provided (Tiers 1, 2, 

and 3 and any repeat notices) 

and a certification that all PN 

requirements were met.

40 CFR 141.31(d) and 

141.201(c)(3)

As necessary, within 10 days 

after completing notification 

requirements

Retain copies of all notices and 

certifications.

40 CFR 141.33(e) 3 years

OPERATOR CERTIFICATION & EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT GRANTS PROGRAM

Acquire certified operator(s) per 

state requirements.

N/A As necessary

Maintain and renew operator 

certification(s).

N/A As necessary

TRIBAL OPERATOR CERTIFICATION PROGRAM

Acquire certified tribal water 

system operator(s) per EPA 

guidelines.

N/A As necessary

Apply for “grandparent” 

certificate.

N/A One time, if eligible
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

16

Requirement Regulatory Citation Frequency/Retention

CONSTRUCTED CONVEYANCES

Conduct a house-by-house 

survey of water use practices 

and document efforts to ascertain 

water uses.

SDWA 1401(4)(B)(i) On-going

Apply for Other Residential Uses 

Exclusion.

One time, if eligible

Apply for Alternative Water 

Exclusion.

One time, if eligible

Apply for Treatment Exclusion. One time, if eligible

Apply for Certain Piped Irrigation 

Districts Exclusion

SDWA 1401(4)(B)(ii) One time, if eligible

PROFICIENCY TESTING

PWSs are not involved in proficiency testing

Note: Content requirements for public notices are described in 40 CFR 141.205, 141.207, and 141.208.
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

17

Exhibit 3

Primacy Agency Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

Requirement Regulatory Citation Report Frequency/Minimum 

Retention

CCRs

Make CCRs available to public. 40 CFR 142.16(f)(2) As requested

Retain copies of CCRs and 

certifications that CCRs were 

distributed.

40 CFR 142.16(f)(3) CCRs: 5 years

Certifications: 1 year

Report violations of CCR 

provisions.

40 CFR 142.16(f)(4) Quarterly

VARIANCES AND EXEMPTIONS

Issue variances and exemptions 

(for other than small system 

variances).

40 CFR 142.20 At primacy agency discretion

Consider system V/E requests 

(for other than small system 

variances).

40 CFR 142.21 Within 90 days of request

Review V/E requests previously 

granted.

40 CFR 142.22 Within 18 months of new 

standards

Notify EPA of new variances or 

exemptions granted.

40 CFR 142.15(a)(3) Quarterly

Summarize the status of 

variances or exemptions 

currently in effect.

40 CFR 142.15(b)(2) Annually

Propose small system variances 

and provide supporting 

information and responses to 

comments.

40 CFR 142.311 & 142.312 When state proposes to grant a 

small system variance

Following notification of EPA’s 

objections and proposed 

modifications to proposed small 

system variances, respond to 

EPA.

40 CFR 142.311 Before state grants a small 

community variance to a PWS 

serving 3,300 or fewer people

Re-propose small system 

variances.

40 CFR 142.312 Before state grants a small 

community variance to a PWS 

serving more than 3,300 and 

fewer than 10,000 people

Review each small system 

variance to determine if the PWS

continues to meet eligibility 

criteria.

40 CFR 142.307 Not less than 5 years

Notice of public meeting on 

proposed small system 

variances, with supporting 

information.

40 CFR 142.308 At least 30 days prior to public 

meeting

CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT

Submit evidence to EPA that 

state has established and 

continues to implement a 

Capacity Development Program.

N/A Annually

Submit report to Governor on the 

status of the Capacity 

Development Program.

SDWA 1420(c)(3) Every three years
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

18

Requirement Regulatory Citation Report Frequency/Minimum 

Retention

GENERAL STATE PRIMACY ACTIVITIES

Retain state records for public 

inspection.

40 CFR 142.14 Varies

Retain quarterly SDWIS reports 

to EPA, make them available for 

public inspection.

40 CFR 142.15(d) Upon completion and submittal 

by state

Report any new violation data or 

enforcement actions.

40 CFR 142.15(a)(1)-(2) Quarterly

Report any new data related to 

SDWIS elements or any 

revisions to existing data.

40 CFR 142.15(b)(1) Annually

Submit information required for 

review of state programs, 

including review of monitoring 

determinations.

40 CFR 142.17-142.18 Annually, as requested

Request primacy treatment for a 

state or tribal primacy (for Indian 

tribes).

40 CFR 142.76 One-time

Submit initial application for 

primacy.

40 CFR 142.11 One-time

Submit statutory and regulatory 

provisions authorizing 

administrative penalties or 

demonstrate that authority does 

not exist.

40 CFR 142.11(a)(6) One-time

Submit revised primacy

application.

40 CFR 142.12 As needed

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

Primacy agencies may exercise flexibility in the following areas as long as they establish enforceable 

procedures:

Requiring PWSs to notify 

persons served for violations or 

situations other than those 

requiring notice under the PN 

rule.

40 CFR 142.16(a) If necessary

Allowing PWSs to limit 

distribution of a notice to the 

portion of the distribution system 

that is out of compliance.

40 CFR 142.16(a) If necessary

Elevating violations/situations 

from Tiers 2 or 3 to Tier 1.

40 CFR 142.16(a) If necessary

Requiring additional notification 

for Tier 1 as a result of the 24-

hour consultation.

40 CFR 142.16(a) If necessary

Requiring or permitting a different 

form of delivery than is required 

in the PN rule for Tiers 1, 2, or 3.

40 CFR 142.16(a) If necessary

Elevating monitoring/testing 

procedure violations from Tier 3 

to Tier 2.

40 CFR 142.16(a) If necessary

Granting extensions for 

distribution of Tier 2 notices.

40 CFR 142.16(a) If necessary

Allowing less frequent repeat 

notification for Tier 2.

40 CFR 142.16(a) If necessary
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

19

Requirement Regulatory Citation Report Frequency/Minimum 

Retention

Consulting with PWS within 24 

hours for exceedance of turbidity 

limits.

40 CFR 142.16(a) If necessary

Determining the need for 

multilingual content in a notice.

40 CFR 142.16(a) If necessary

Consult with PWSs within 24 

hours for Tier 1

violations/situations. 

40 CFR 141.202(b)(2) As necessary, within 24 hours

Consult with PWSs within 24 

hours for exceedances of 

turbidity MCL or violations of 

turbidity single exceedance 

limits.

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

May give the required public 

notice on behalf of the PWS.

40 CFR 141.210 If necessary

Report violations of the PN Rule 

to EPA.

40 CFR 142.15(a)(1) Quarterly

Retain copies of certification and 

notices submitted by PWSs. 

Also keep records of 

determinations of alternative 

requirements made under 40 

CFR 142.16.

40 CFR 142.14(f) 3 years

OPERATOR CERTIFICATION & EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT GRANTS PROGRAM

Submit a report to EPA 

describing ongoing 

implementation activities of the 

state’s operator certification 

program.

N/A Annually

Submit to EPA a new Attorney 

General (AG) certification and a 

copy of the state’s regulations (if 

the state makes changes to its 

operator certification program)

N/A As necessary

Submit to EPA a report 

describing ongoing 

implementation activities of the 

state’s Expense Reimbursement 

Grant

N/A Annually, as necessary

TRIBAL OPERATOR CERTIFICATION PROGRAM

Primacy agencies are not affected by the Tribal Operator Certification Program

CONSTRUCTED CONVEYANCES

Review data to determine if a 

constructed conveyance should 

be considered a PWS.

SDWA 1401(4) As necessary

Review applications and make 

determinations about Other 

Residential Uses Exclusions.

SDWA 1401(4)(B)(i) As necessary

Review applications and make 

determinations about Alternative 

Water Exclusions.

SDWA 1401(4)(B)(i) As necessary
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

20

Requirement Regulatory Citation Report Frequency/Minimum 

Retention

Review applications and make 

determinations about Treatment 

Exclusions.

SDWA 1401(4)(B)(i) As necessary

Review applications and make 

determinations about Certain 

Piped Irrigation Districts 

Exclusions.

SDWA 1401(B)(ii) As necessary

PROFICIENCY TESTING

States are not involved in the proficiency testing program (they are involved in certification, which is 

addressed under general state primacy activities)

Exhibit 4

Laboratories Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

Requirement Regulatory Citation Report Frequency/Minimum 

Retention

PROFICIENCY TESTING

Analyze standards 40 CFR 141.23(k), 141.24(f)(17), 

141.132(b)(2) 

Annually

Report results to PT vendor N/A Annually

Maintain records N/A Not specified

1) Consumer Confidence Reports

CCRs must identify the source of the water delivered by the CWS, describe whether it is 

ground water or surface water, and provide the common name and location of bodies of water 

used as sources. Reports also must define the terms “Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL),” 

“Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG),” “Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level 

(MRDL),” “Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal (MRDLG),” “variance,” and 

“exemption.” Reports must contain a table providing data on contaminant levels detected as well 

as the MCLG and MCL for these contaminants. If contaminants are detected above the MCL or 

MRDL, health effects information must also be provided. Reports must indicate any violations 

of the NPDWRs, including monitoring and reporting, treatment techniques, public notification, 

recordkeeping, special monitoring requirements, and the terms of a variance, exemption, or 

administrative or judicial order. Reports must explain any granted variance or exemption. 

Reports must contain a brief explanation regarding contaminants that may be found in drinking 

water. Reports must also display relevant health information concerning drinking water and 

potential risks from possible contaminants.

2) Variance & Exemption Rule

To obtain a variance or exemption, systems must submit a request for the variance or 

exemption that contains supporting information. Systems that are granted a variance or 

exemption must also provide public notice within one year after operating under the variance or 

exemption. They must also maintain records associated with the granting of the variance or 

exemption. States must review the information contained in variance/exemption applications.
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

21

3) Capacity Development Program

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

 An annual report that describes ongoing implementation activities for both the 

new systems’ programs (SDWA 1420(a)) and the existing systems’ strategies 

(SDWA 1420(c)). A triennial report to the Governor on the status of the capacity 

development program (EPA receives a courtesy copy of each state report). A 

triennial list of systems that are historical significant non-compliers and, to the 

extent practicable, the reason(s) for noncompliance.

Systems must document their financial, technical, and managerial capacity, as 

required by the state.

4) General State Primacy Activities

Section 142.14(a) stipulates, “Each state which has primary enforcement responsibility

shall maintain records of tests, measurements, analyses, decisions, and determinations performed 

on each PWS to determine compliance with applicable provisions of state primary drinking 

water regulations.” Further, Section 141.14(g) states, “Records required to be kept under this 

section shall be made available to the Regional Administrator upon request.” Under section 

142.17, EPA may request information from a state in order to determine compliance of the state 

with requirements of 40 CFR 142 subpart B. Information requested may include state 

determinations made under Section 142.19 and records kept by states in accordance with Section 

142.14. 

To implement its compliance oversight and enforcement responsibilities under the 

SDWA, EPA requires primacy agencies to report a specified subset of PWS monitoring 

information in SDWIS. Additionally, primacy agencies must maintain records of analysis results 

and other related activities (e.g., sanitary survey results).

Systems are not required to submit any data under this program.

5) Public Notification

Under the public notification regulations, systems must notify all system users of any 

violation of drinking water regulations. The methods and deadlines for notification are based on 

a three-tier system. Tier 1 violations, which require 24-hour notice, are those that risk serious 

health effects from short term exposure. Tier 2 violations, which require 30-day notice, are any

violations that pose a health risk that are not Tier 1 violations. Tier 3 violations and situations 

are any not covered under the first two tiers; they include monitoring violations, exceeding the 

fluoride secondary standard, operating under a variance or exemption, and announcing the 

availability of unregulated contaminant monitoring results. Tier 3 public notification must take 

place within a year of the violation and may be included in the system’s CCR. Systems must 

consult with primacy agencies within 24 hours of a turbidity violation to determine if the 

violation is Tier 1 or Tier 2. Primacy agencies must consult with any systems with Tier 1 

violations within 24 hours of the violation. They may also decide to elevate certain Tier 2 or 

Tier 3 violations. Primacy agencies must report all violations to EPA and keep records for three 

years after the violation.
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

22

 

6) Operator Certification and Expense Reimbursement Grants Program

To satisfy §1419 of SDWA (regarding EPA’s Operator Certification Guidelines), states 

are required to submit the following information to EPA—

 An annual report that describes ongoing implementation activities of a state’s 

operator certification program. A new Attorney General (AG) certification and a 

copy of the state’s regulations if a state makes changes to its operator certification 

program. An annual report that describes ongoing implementation activities of a 

state’s Expense Reimbursement Grant (note that the Expense Reimbursement 

Grant program will end in December 2012).

Systems must document that they have certified operators, and their operators must 

maintain certification as required by the state program.

7) Tribal Operator Certification Program

Although this program is voluntary, previously established Drinking Water Infrastructure 

Grant Tribal Set Aside (DWIG TSA) Final Guidelines (October 1998) state that after EPA has 

developed a Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification Program for operators of systems in 

Indian Country, “any system to be assisted with TSA funds must be operated by an adequately 

trained and certified operator” in order for a tribe to receive a grant for that system.

The program guidelines establish seven baseline standards for the program and list the 

certification program requirements that must be met for organizations that certify operators of 

drinking water systems in Indian Country to receive approval from EPA. 

Any current certification provider or organization interested in establishing an operator 

certification program in Indian Country may submit programs to EPA for review and approval. 

EPA will be responsible for implementing this voluntary Tribal Drinking Water Operator 

Certification Program in Indian Country and for tracking the number of water systems with 

certified operators. Certification providers will be responsible for tracking training taken and 

operator status and for reporting this information to EPA.

System operators must obtain and renew certifications as required by the EPA guidelines.

8) Constructed Conveyances

In order to comply with the 1996 SDWA Amendments, systems and states must work 

together to determine if the system meets the new definition of “public water system.” In 

addition, Section 1401(4)(B) of the 1996 SDWA Amendments provides several exemption 

options. If a system is eligible for one of these exemptions, the system must submit an 

application to the state. The state must then review the exemption applications and make 

determinations.

9) Proficiency Testing

In all laboratory PT studies, laboratories submit the results of analyses for all 

contaminants for which they wish to be certified to conduct drinking water analyses.
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

23

 

4(b)(ii) Respondent Activities

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

Public Water Systems

1) Consumer Confidence Reports

For CCRs, CWSs must conduct the following activities—

 Compile the report.

 Mail one report to each customer.

 For consumers who do not receive water bills, publish a notice in the newspaper

indicating how a consumer may obtain a copy of a CCR.

 Submit one copy of the completed report to the primacy agency annually and

retain one copy of the report.

 Submit copy of CCR to agencies or clearinghouses identified by the primacy

agency.

 Certify to the primacy agency that the report has been distributed to customers

and that the information is correct.

 Publish the report in a local newspaper rather than mail it, if the state Governor

allows CWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people to do so.

 Post an annual notice for customers rather than publishing or mailing a report, if

the state Governor allows CWSs serving fewer than 500 people to do so.

 Post the report to a publicly accessible Internet site, for CWSs serving 100,000 or

more people.

2) Variance & Exemption Rule

A PWS that elects to apply for a variance or exemption must either perform the following 

activities or assist the state in performing these activities—

 Apply for the variance or exemption and submit any information that the state 

requires. For small system variances, a system must demonstrate that it cannot 

afford to comply with the NPDWR for which the small system variance is sought, 

that its source water meets the quality standards for installation of the small 

system variance technology, that it is financially and technically capable of 

installing, operating, and maintaining the applicable small system variance 

technology, and that the terms and conditions of the small system variance would 

ensure adequate protection of human health.

 Work with the state to hold a public hearing on the proposed variance or 

exemption and provide public notice within one year after operating under the 

variance or exemption.

 Write and submit a quarterly report on compliance with the terms and conditions 

of the small system variance. 

 Retain records associated with the variance or exemption.
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

24

3) Capacity Development Program

Under the Capacity Development Program for new systems, all CWSs and NTNCWSs 

must demonstrate adequate capacity and comply with all state capacity development 

requirements. All PWSs are asked to cooperate with the state’s strategy for existing systems. 

This includes achieving, maintaining, and improving capacity. 

4) General State Primacy Activities

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

5) Public Notification

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

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

 Distribute the notice to all persons served within the applicable time frame 

(§§141.202,141.203, and 141.204).

 If the violation or situation requires public notification within 24 hours, consult 

with primacy agency within the 24-hour period to determine subsequent actions 

(§141.202(b)(2)). Consultation is also required for exceedances of the maximum 

allowable turbidity level (§141.203(b)(3)).

 If a violation is unresolved, prepare an updated notice for repeat distribution 

(§§141.205, 141.206, 141.207, and 141.208).

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

 Take any additional actions required by the primacy agency (§§141.201 and 

141.202).

 Submit certification to the primacy agency along with copies of all public 

notifications that were distributed.

 Retain records of all notices and certifications.

6) Operator Certification and Expense Reimbursement Grants Program

Systems are required to comply with the state requirements for operator certification. 

Systems must—

 Acquire certified operator(s) holding a valid certification equal to or greater than 

the classification of the system.

 Maintain/renew certification(s) as needed.

7) Tribal Operator Certification Program

For the voluntary Tribal Operator Certification Program, tribal water systems are 

expected to have a certified operator available. To become certified, a tribal water system 

operator must pass an exam and have the appropriate education and/or experience. EPA 

subsidizes the training and certification of operators in Indian Country.
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

25

8) Constructed Conveyances

In order to adhere to the broadened definition of “public water system” introduced by the 

1996 SDWA Amendments, PWSs may complete the following activities—

 Conduct a house-by-house survey of water use practices and document efforts to 

ascertain water uses.

 Apply for an Other Residential Uses Exclusion.

 Apply for an Alternative Water Exclusion.

 Apply for a Treatment Exclusion.

 Apply for a Certain Piped Irrigation Districts Exclusion

Primacy Agencies

1) Consumer Confidence Reports

As part of the CCR Rule, primacy agencies must—

 Review and retain reports and certifications from CWSs.

 Assist in preparation of reports as needed.

 Report compliance to EPA.

2) Variance & Exemption Rule

In addition to helping PWSs meet application requirements, states must—

 Provide EPA with the proposed small system variance, supporting information, 

and responses to public comments.

 Respond to EPA’s objections to a proposed small system variance for a PWS 

serving 3,300 or fewer persons, if the state chooses to pursue the variance.

 Revise a proposed small systems variance as necessary to reflect EPA’s 

comments on variance requests for systems that serve more than 3,300 people and 

fewer than 10,000 people, if the state chooses to pursue the variance.

 Submit a quarterly report on violations of increments of progress or any other 

violated term or condition of a small system variance.

 Conduct a public meeting on a small system variance request, provide notice of 

the public meeting, and provide supporting information to the public.

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

 Retain records associated with a granted variance or exemption not less than five 

years after its expiration.
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

26

3) Capacity Development Program

States must—

 Submit an annual report that describes ongoing implementation activities for both 

the new systems’ programs (SDWA 1420(a)) and the existing systems’ strategies 

(SDWA 1420(c)).

 Submit a triennial report to the Governor on the status of the capacity 

development program (EPA receives a courtesy copy of each state report).

Note that Section 1420(b)(1) of the SDWA requires that “... each state shall prepare, 

periodically update, and submit to the Administrator a list of community water 

systems and nontransient, noncommunity water systems that have a history of 

significant noncompliance... and, to the extent practicable, the reasons for 

noncompliance.” However, EPAs Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

(OECA) released a new enforcement approach in December 2009, the Enforcement 

Response Policy (ERP), replacing the existing contaminant-by-contaminant 

compliance strategy, often referred to as "Significant Non-Compliers" (SNC) and 

“Historical Significant Non-Compliers,” with a system-wide approach using the 

Enforcement Targeting Tool (ETT). The ETT assigns a point value to specific 

violations for each system to bring attention to drinking water systems with the most 

serious and unaddressed violations. In light of this change, EPA will utilize the 

spreadsheet output generated by the ETT on a quarterly basis. Currently, as part of the 

ETT implementation, EPA and states meet on a quarterly basis to discuss the status of 

public water systems on this list and identify steps to enable systems to return to 

compliance. EPA believes that the current approach of establishing quarterly

meetings with the states to discuss the output generated by the ETT is a more 

proactive approach than the current activity of addressing the reasons for noncompliance only every three years.

4) General State Primacy Activities

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

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

 Maintain state drinking water data systems.

 Review monthly violations reports to monitor compliance.

 Maintain records submitted by PWSs regarding results of analytical tests and 

other milestones, such as treatment decisions.

 Take timely and appropriate enforcement actions.

 Review PWS projects regarding design, construction, and treatment 

modifications.

 Conduct routine inspections to supplement information collected during sanitary

surveys.

 Certify laboratories to analyze drinking water samples for compliance with 

drinking water regulations.
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

27

This ICR assumes that no applications for primacy will be submitted during the next 

three years. However, since a new primacy application is a possibility, the following discussion 

of possible implications is provided. To obtain primacy, the applicant must—

 Adopt drinking water regulations that are no less stringent than the NPDWRs 

currently in effect. An agency may also be granted primacy for new or revised 

EPA regulations if they demonstrate that their approved program has been 

updated to include regulations no less stringent than those new or revised EPA 

regulations.

 Adopt adequate procedures for enforcement of these regulations.

 Report these procedures according to EPA's requirements.

 Permit variances and exemptions under conditions no less stringent than those 

specified by the regulations.

 Adopt and implement an adequate plan for providing safe drinking water under 

emergency circumstances.

The regulations allow Indian tribes to be granted primacy, although no primacy

applications are expected from tribes during the next three years. In order for an Indian tribe to 

receive primacy, they must first apply for and receive designation as a “state.” The tribe may

then apply for a developmental grant to assist it in preparing the necessary infrastructure (e.g., 

regulations). Once the regulations are in place, the tribe may apply for primacy. 

Under the Indian Primacy Rule promulgated September 26, 1988, an Indian tribe that 

wishes to apply for and be designated as a “state” must—

 Submit evidence that the tribe is recognized by the Secretary of the Interior.

 Certify that it is currently “carrying out substantial governmental duties and 

powers” over a defined area. The statement must describe the governmental 

functions currently performed by the tribal governing body, including, but not 

limited to, the exercise of police power, taxation, and the exercise of the power of 

eminent domain. Copies of applicable tribal documents must also be provided.

 Prepare and submit a map or legal description of the area over which the Indian 

tribe asserts jurisdiction for the purposes of the proposed program.

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

 Describe the Indian tribe's capability to administer such a program.

5) Public Notification

The PN Rule requires primacy agencies to consult with the violating PWS to determine 

appropriate follow up actions. Additionally, the primacy agencies must receive and review PN 

certifications submitted by PWSs. Primacy agencies must submit quarterly reports of PN Rule 

violations to EPA.

Primacy agencies may give notice on behalf of a PWS (40 CFR 141.210). However, no 

data is available for estimating how often this occurs. For the purposes of this ICR, the burden 

for preparing and distributing public notification is assumed to be incurred by the PWS.
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

28

6) Operator Certification and Expense Reimbursement Grants Program

A state complying with the program must— 

 Submit an annual report that describes ongoing implementation activities of a 

state’s operator certification program.

 Submit a new AG certification and a copy of the state’s regulations if a state 

makes changes to its operator certification program.

 Submit an annual report that describes ongoing implementation activities 

associated with the state’s expense reimbursement grant (note that the expense 

reimbursement grant program will end in December 2012).

7) Tribal Operator Certification Program

States are not affected by the Tribal Operator Certification Program.

8) Constructed Conveyances

To comply with the broadened definition of “public water system” introduced by the 

1996 SDWA Amendments, states may complete the following activities—

 Review data to determine if a constructed conveyance should be considered a 

PWS.

 Review applications for Other Residential Uses Exclusions and make 

determinations about the exemption applications.

 Review applications for Alternative Water Exclusions and make determinations 

about the exemption applications.

 Review applications for Treatment Exclusions and make determinations about the 

exemption applications.

 Review applications for Certain Piped Irrigation Districts Exclusions and make 

determinations about the exemption applications.

Laboratories

Proficiency Testing

The primary burden involves analyzing and reporting results for relevant study samples 

according to instructions. Samples may be analyzed for inorganics, disinfection byproducts 

and/or organic chemicals. Respondents will participate in the following activities—

 Read instructions

 Plan activities

 Analyze inorganic chemicals

 Analyze Disinfection Byproducts (DBPs)

 Analyze organic chemicals

 Report results to the proficiency testing vendor

 Maintain records

Laboratories are not subject to any of the other collections covered in this ICR.
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

29

5 INFORMATION COLLECTED -- AGENCY ACTIVITIES, 

COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION 

MANAGEMENT

5(a) Agency Activities

As part of its supervisory responsibility for the PWSS Program, EPA oversees 

contractors who maintain SDWIS and assist EPA in evaluating the data in SDWIS to determine 

compliance rates. EPA instructs contractors to reformat, distribute, and store these data for a 

number of uses, including responding to Congressional and public inquiries. EPA also oversees 

the state programs, provides technical assistance, and develops policies designed to ensure 

consistent program implementation. EPA also oversees the tribal operator certification program.

In addition to its management activities, EPA directly implements the Aircraft Drinking Water 

Rule (see the microbial ICR for more information). EPA officials serve as respondents when 

testifying to Congress on the PWSS Program or in the courts for enforcement actions. EPA’s 

recordkeeping requirements are outlined in Exhibit 4 above.

Exhibit 5

PWSS Program Requirements 

for EPA Regions and Headquarters

Requirement CFR Citation Report Frequency/Minimum 

Retention

Review initial and revised 

applications for primacy.

40 CFR 142.11-142.12 As needed

Inform primacy agency of PWS 

noncompliance with any 

NPDWRs in 40 CFR 141 or with 

any requirement under SDWA 

Sections 1415 and 1416.

40 CFR 142.30, 142.15 Quarterly

Review existing state primacy

programs.

40 CFR 142.17 Annually

Review state monitoring 

determinations.

40 CFR 142.18 As needed

Review state implementation of 

LCR.

40 CFR 142.19 As needed

Inform primacy agency of 

substantial abuse of discretion in 

granting variances and 

exemptions.

40 CFR 142.23 As needed

Provide notice of public hearing 

for states abusing right to grant 

variances and exemptions.

40 CFR 142.23 As needed

Notify primacy agencies of failure 

to prescribe schedules in 

accordance with SDWA.

40 CFR 142.23 As needed

Notify primacy agencies of repeal 

of notice or promulgation of any 

revisions to schedules or 

revocation of schedules 

proposed in notice.

40 CFR 142.23

Within 180 days of first notice 

given to the state; revised 

schedule or revocation takes 

effect 90 days after state is 

notified.
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

30

Requirement CFR Citation Report Frequency/Minimum 

Retention

Notify primacy agencies of 

objection and proposed 

modifications to small system 

variances proposed by states for 

PWSs serving 3,300 or fewer 

people.

40 CFR 142.311 Within 90 days of receiving 

proposal

Notify primacy agencies of 

deficiencies in state program for 

granting small system variances.

40 CFR 142.313 As needed

Notify PWSs of noncompliance 

with any NPDWRs in 40 CFR 

141 or with any requirement 

under SDWA Sections 1415 and 

1416.

40 CFR 142.30, 142.15 Quarterly

Provide PWSs with copies of 

Federal Register notice about 

PWS failure to comply.

40 CFR 142.23 Within 30 days of notice

Notify PWSs of denial or grant of 

variance (for PWSs in nonprimacy states).40 CFR 142.42 Within 90 days of request

Notify PWSs of denial or grant of 

exemption (for PWSs in nonprimacy states).40 CFR 142.52 Within 90 days of request

Notify PWSs of denial or grant of 

small system variance (for PWSs 

in non-primacy states).

40 CFR 142.311, 142.312 Within 90 days of request

Provide notice to PWSs in nonprimacy states that are no longer 

eligible for small system 

variances.

40 CFR 142.307 As needed

Provide public notice of public 

meeting on proposed small 

system variances (in nonprimacy states), with supporting 

information.

40 CFR 142.308 At least 30 days prior to public 

meeting

Respond to significant public 

comments. 40 CFR 142.308 Before proposal

Notify public of proposed small 

system variance (in non-primacy

states), with supporting 

information.

40 CFR 142.309

No later than 15 days after 

receiving small system variance 

proposal.

Make DWSRF grant withholding 

decisions with regard to States’ 

Capacity Development 

Programs.

SDWA Section 1420(a), (c)

35 CFR 35.3515(b)ii Annually

Make DWSRF grant withholding 

decisions with regards to States’ 

Operator Certification Programs.

SDWA Section 1419(b) Annually

Provide state and PWS 

assistance and training with 

regard to recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements covered 

in this ICR

N/A As needed

Maintain SDWIS. N/A As needed
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

31

Requirement CFR Citation Report Frequency/Minimum 

Retention

Review data in SDWIS. N/A Quarterly

Implement tribal operator 

certification program N/A As needed

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

Primacy agencies must report data quarterly to EPA. In Wyoming and Indian Country 

(except for the Navajo Nation, which has primacy), results of system samples are sent directly to 

the EPA Region. Virtually all SDWIS data are reported electronically by the primacy agency.

These data include any new data and revisions or corrections to existing data. This information 

is maintained in SDWIS, which contains the following—

 Inventory data for each PWS

 Violations 

 Enforcement actions and some follow-up activity

 Variances and exemptions

 Lead and Copper Rule information

 Limited sample results

On a quarterly basis, EPA uses the ETT to generate a list of PWSs that are considered 

“priority systems” for enforcement. Together, the ERP and ETT will help EPA and primacy

agencies prioritize and direct enforcement response to systems with the most systemic 

noncompliance by considering all violations incurred by a system in a comprehensive way. The 

policy and tool identify priority systems for enforcement response; provide a model to escalate 

responses to violations; define timely and appropriate actions; and clarify what constitutes a 

formal action. If a state has failed to take timely and appropriate action, EPA may become 

directly involved in enforcement by issuing an administrative order. If the system does not 

comply with the order, EPA may seek an administrative penalty or court action. EPA may also 

take action against a PWS before it becomes a priority system.

EPA also undertakes PWSS file reviews of SDWIS inventory, violation, and enforcement 

data. The methodology for the file reviews includes the review of a targeted sample of PWS 

inventory. EPA Headquarters and Regional staff, with contractor support, conduct an on-site 

verification of each sample system’s data at the offices of the primacy agency. The team

compares the recorded compliance determined by the file review process with the information 

reported to SDWIS and prepares reports summarizing the differences. The report summarizes 

the state’s compliance determination procedures, observations, and any recommendations for 

improving program management. 

The primary purposes of the file review program are to assess the accuracy and quality of 

data collected and reported by the states and to recommend any necessary changes in collection 

or reporting. In addition, the process of verification provides insights into the primacy agency’s 

program implementation. During file review, EPA is able to gain greater understanding of how 

the primacy agencies interpret and implement regulations. For example, EPA can perform the 

following activities—
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

32

 Evaluate procedures used to manage the program.

 Critique implementation methods used for follow-up activity, in cases of 

violation.

 Verify the flow of information through the state to ensure that the data reflect 

actual state experience.

 Observe how the program is implemented in various primacy agencies.

The file review process also enables EPA to educate states about the SDWA regulations 

and to standardize interpretations and implementation procedures. For example, a state's 

definition of compliance with the federal regulations may differ from the official definition. 

These discrepancies become evident during the file review process and can be corrected by EPA 

and state staff. Thus, the file review process plays a role in standardizing state implementation 

of the SDWA.

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

In developing this ICR, EPA considered the requirement of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) to minimize the burden of information 

collections on small entities. Small entities include “small businesses,” “small organizations” 

and “small government jurisdictions.” These terms are defined below.3

 A small business is any business that is independently owned and operated and 

not dominant in its field as defined by the Small Business Administration 

regulations under Section 3 of the Small Business Act.

 A small organization is any non-profit enterprise that is independently owned 

and operated and not dominant in its field.

 A small governmental jurisdiction is the government of a city, county, town, 

township, village, school district, or special district that has a population of fewer 

than 50,000. This definition may also include Indian Tribes.

The major requirement under SBREFA is a regulatory flexibility analysis of all new rules 

that have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” This ICR is 

not associated with new rules. Therefore, this ICR is not subject to the SBREFA. 

However, EPA has made significant efforts to minimize the burden for all respondents, 

particularly for small entities. In setting both MCLs and monitoring requirements, EPA has been 

able to minimize burden for small entities as detailed below. 

1) Consumer Confidence Reports

EPA’s regulations allow systems serving fewer than 10,000 people to publish a 

newspaper notice in lieu of sending reports to customers. Under 40 CFR 141.155(g)(2), CWSs 

serving 500 or fewer people may forego the notice-publishing requirement, provided they give 

notice at least annually to their customers by mail, door-to-door delivery, or posting in an 

 

3 These definitions were taken from Section 601 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

33

appropriate location that the CCR is available upon request. In addition, only very large systems 

(those serving more than 100,000 people) must provide CCR information on the Internet.

2) Variance & Exemption Rule

The V/E Rule includes procedures and conditions under which the primacy agency (or 

the EPA Administrator in non-primacy states) may issue variances or exemptions to PWSs. The 

V/E Rule is intended to provide regulatory relief, while still protecting public health. 

Specifically, it permits primacy agencies to issue variances to PWSs that cannot comply with the 

national primary drinking water standards due to source water quality or affordability. These 

variances generally allow a system to provide drinking water that may be above the MCL if the 

drinking water quality is still protective of public health. Duration of small system variances 

generally coincides with the life of the technology. Exemptions are intended to allow a small 

system with compelling circumstances additional time to comply with applicable SDWA 

requirements. An exemption is generally limited to three years after the initial compliance date 

stated in the regulations. 

3) Capacity Development Program

EPA’s guidelines provide states with maximum flexibility in developing and 

implementing the capacity development program. As mentioned above, EPA published a 

document entitled, Small System Regulatory Requirements Under the Safe Drinking Water Act 

Amendments of 1996, which, among other things, explains the requirements of the Capacity 

Development Program. In addition, EPA published a Handbook for Capacity Development: 

Developing Water System Capacity Under the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 

and is working on several other tools to help small systems comply. 

4) General State Primacy Activities

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

5) Public Notification

EPA allows systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons several options for delivering 

public notices, such as hand delivery and posting in a prominent location. 

6) Operator Certification and Expense Reimbursement Grants Program

EPA’s Guidelines provide states with maximum flexibility in developing and 

implementing their operator certification programs. Furthermore, funding is available for 

training and certification expenses of small system operators through the Expense 

Reimbursement Grants program, and EPA’s Guidelines permit the use of circuit riders (certified 

operators who are responsible for multiple systems) as determined to be appropriate by the state. 

Note that the Expense Reimbursement Grants program will be ending in December 2012.

7) Tribal Operator Certification Program

Since the Tribal Operator Certification Program is voluntary, the program provides tribes 

with maximum flexibility in seeking operator certification. Water system operators in Indian 

Country can decide if they would like to be certified by an EPA-approved tribal certification 
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

34

provider or by a state program. Furthermore, EPA subsidizes the training and certification of 

tribal water system operators in Indian Country. 

Additionally, certification providers have flexibility in developing and implementing 

their tribal operator certification programs. 

8) Constructed Conveyances

The broadened definition of “public water system” could financially affect small 

constructed conveyance systems that would now be considered PWSs. Consequently, the 1996 

SDWA Amendments provided several exemption options. Examples of these exclusions 

include—

 If water provided by a supplier is used exclusively for purposes other than 

residential uses (drinking, bathing, cooking, and similar uses), then a system may

apply for an “Other Than Residential Uses” exclusion.

 If a water supplier provides adequate health protection through means specified in 

section 1401(4)(B)(i)(II) and (III), then the system may apply for an “Alternative 

Water Treatment” Exclusion.

 If the water supply will be used for drinking, cooking, or bathing, then the water 

must be treated either centrally or at the point-of-entry at each connection. To 

receive a “Treatment” Exclusion, a system must demonstrate that this treatment is 

occurring.

 If an irrigation district existed prior to May 18, 1994, and if the district provides 

primarily agricultural service through piped water systems (with incidental 

residential use), the system may be eligible for a “Certain Piped Irrigation 

Districts” Exclusion.

9) Proficiency Testing

The proficiency testing program is not part of a rule, so it is not subject to the 

requirements of SBREFA. The PT program applies only to those laboratories that wish to be 

certified to conduct drinking water analyses.

5(d) Collection Schedule

Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 of this document contain summaries of the collection schedules for 

each rule. Additional information may be obtained by consulting the individual rules for specific 

collection schedules.
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

35

6 ESTIMATING BURDEN AND COST OF COLLECTION

This section estimates the burden and cost to PWSs, primacy agencies, and EPA for 

complying with drinking water information requirements that are not associated with 

contaminant-specific rulemakings. These activities include the following—

1) Consumer Confidence Reports

2) Variance and Exemption Rule

3) Capacity Development Program

4) General State Primacy Activities

5) Public Notification

6) Operator Certification and Expense Reimbursement Grants Program

7) Tribal Operator Certification Program

8) Constructed Conveyances

9) Proficiency Testing

This section also discusses the assumptions used to estimate costs and burden and 

describes the change in burden, as compared with the 2008 PWSS Program ICR. Note that the 

burden incorporates the results of consultations with representatives of states and PWSs.

6(a) Respondent Burden

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

The annual PWS burden for April 1, 2012, to March 31, 2015, is estimated to be 

approximately 2.4 million hours. Exhibit 6 shows the breakdown of the annual burden hours on 

an activity-specific basis. The bases for the burden estimates are detailed below.

1) Consumer Confidence Reports

CCR regulations require, at a minimum, that each CWS mail to each of its customers an 

annual report on the level of contaminants in the drinking water purveyed by that system. EPA 

estimates that CCR requirements will affect approximately 51,460 PWSs, all of which are 

CWSs, during the course of this ICR period. Activities associated with the preparation and 

delivery of CCRs account for 963,561 burden hours per year, which includes burden for both 

CCR development and distribution for PWSs.

Appendix B summarizes the assumptions used to calculate the CCR burden and provides 

detailed burden and cost calculations. The assumptions used to calculate the CCR burden are 

based largely on assumptions from the 2008 PWSS Program ICR. For the PWSS Program ICR 

renewal, these assumptions have been augmented or supplanted where updated data were 

available. Section 6(f) describes the reasons for changes in burden and shows the effects of any

new assumptions on the CCR burden estimates.

Report Development

Preparation of a CCR includes assembling data, writing the report, ensuring that the 

notice meets regulatory requirements, and printing the document. Burden estimates range from 4 

hours for CWSs serving 500 or fewer people to 160 hours for CWSs serving 100,000 people or 
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

36

more. After completion of CCR preparation activities, all CWSs, regardless of size, are assumed 

to have the same burden (0.5 hours) for submitting to the state a copy of the CCR distributed to 

customers. Certification that the reports were, in fact, distributed is also required along with the 

report. Finally, all CWSs, regardless of size, are assumed to have the same burden (0.25 hours) 

for maintaining a copy of the CCR and making it publicly available, if requested. 

Report Delivery

The burden estimate for CCR delivery includes the following activities and 

assumptions—

 Except for CWSs serving 500 or fewer people, all CWSs incur a burden for 

publishing a notice about obtaining a CCR. The burden per system for this activity is 

0.25 hours. For systems serving at least 10,000 people, publication is in addition to 

report delivery to customers. For systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, this ICR 

assumes that 50 percent of systems will publish a notice in lieu of sending reports to 

customers. 

 Under 40 CFR 141.155(g)(2), CWSs serving 500 or fewer people may forego the 

notice-publishing requirement, provided they give notice at least annually to their 

customers by mail, door-to-door delivery, or posting in an appropriate location that 

the CCR is available upon request. This ICR assumes that 50 percent of these CWSs 

post the report and 50 percent deliver the report to their customers as part of their 

standard water bill. Those that post the CCR are estimated to incur a burden of 0.12 

hours for this activity. 

 Regardless of CWS size category, this ICR assumes a burden of 10 hours per system 

for coordinating delivery of the CCR as a bill stuffer. CWSs serving 10,000 or more 

people must deliver the CCR to all service connections. However, CWSs serving 

fewer than 10,000 people may apply to the state Governor (or Tribal Leader) for a 

waiver of the requirement to deliver a CCR to each customer. This ICR assumes that 

half of such CWSs will receive a waiver. For CWSs serving 500 or fewer people, the 

50 percent without a waiver are assumed to include the CCR along with the normal

water bill (instead of sending the CCR in a separate mailing). For CWSs serving 

between 501 and 10,000 people, half of the systems without a waiver (or 25 percent 

of the total number of CWSs in this size category) are assumed to include the CCR as 

a bill stuffer, and the remaining systems will mail the CCR separately. 

 Under §141.155(f), CWSs serving at least 100,000 people must post a copy of the 

current CCR on a publicly accessible Internet site. This burden is estimated at 2

hours per system.

2) Variance and Exemption Rule 

In the 2012 PWSS Program ICR, data for exemptions are carried forward from the 2008 

OMB approved ICR, which was derived from April 2008 EPA data on the total number of actual 

exemptions applied for under the Arsenic Rule (286 systems). The number of systems applying 

for variances, however, is carried forward from the 1998 V/E ICR, and the number of systems 
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

37

completing each task is based on the percentages of systems completing each task in the 1998 

V/E ICR (assuming a total of 411 systems in 1998).

Based on the above estimates, it is estimated that the average annual burden to PWSs will 

be approximately 9,066 hours. Appendix C summarizes the assumptions used to calculate the 

Variances and Exemptions Rule burden and provides detailed burden and cost calculations. 

3) Capacity Development

EPA estimates that capacity development will affect approximately 14,109 PWSs, 

including CWSs, NTNCWSs, and transient noncommunity water systems (TNCWSs), during the 

course of this ICR period, as explained below. The Capacity Development Program consists of 

two major components—

1) Implementation of a program to ensure that all new CWSs and NTNCWSs 

demonstrate the capacity to comply with NPDWRs.

2) Implementation of a strategy to assist existing PWSs in acquiring and 

maintaining capacity to comply with the SDWA. 

The burden estimate associated with new and existing capacity development efforts is 

based on expert opinions, including opinions provided by members of the NDWAC Small 

Systems Workgroup, and consultations with drinking water industry representatives. 

Specifically, the burden estimate includes the following activities and assumptions—

 New systems must demonstrate capacity in order to obtain approval. Each new 

system applying for approval will require 40 hours to prepare and submit new system 

approval materials to the state. This burden estimate does not include compliance 

with state technical requirements since these were generally unaffected by the 

capacity development provisions. EPA estimates that there will be an average of 8 

new systems per state per year. 

 Some new systems must improve capacity in order to obtain approval. An estimated 

20 percent of new systems applying for approval will be required to submit 

supplemental materials before approval is granted by the state. To develop and 

submit these materials, it is estimated that each system denied initial approval will 

require an additional 40 hours. As with the approval application, it is estimated that 

there will be 8 new systems per state per year (20 percent of which will be required to 

submit supplemental materials) and that the burden estimate does not include the time 

needed to comply with technical requirements. 

 Some existing systems will incur burden for complying with state capacity 

development strategies. Each year, EPA estimates that 20 percent of CWSs, 7 

percent of NTNCWSs, and 2.5 percent of TNCWSs will incur a burden to comply

with state capacity development strategy efforts. EPA estimates that these systems 

will spend, on average, 8 hours per year participating in capacity development 

strategy activities (primarily consultations with states). 
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

38

Based on these assumptions, EPA estimates that the average annual burden to PWSs will 

be approximately 131,114 hours for capacity development activities. 

Appendix D summarizes the assumptions used to calculate the Capacity Development 

Program burden and provides detailed burden and cost calculations. 

4) General State Primacy 

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

5) Public Notification

Only PWSs with one or more violations during the year incur a burden. (PWSs with no 

violations have no requirements under this rule.) The information collection burden for systems 

that do experience a violation is estimated to average 7.6 hours per violation per year (1.0 million

hours divided by 136,789 violations). This estimate includes time for preparing, copying, 

mailing, submitting, or posting public notices, as well as time for maintaining records of PN 

activities.

In preparing this ICR, EPA assumed that each PWS will deliver a public notice to 

persons served. A “person served” is defined as an individual who normally receives water 

provided by the PWS. Under the statute, PWSs are required to reach persons served, including 

those who ordinarily do not receive water bills (e.g., residents of apartment buildings, students 

and staff at schools, etc.).

Under the PN Rule, CWSs providing a Tier 1 notice are expected either to hand deliver 

the notice to all residences or to contact all media outlets serving the affected community, 

including television and radio stations, and submit a press release to them. Burden for 

distribution of Tier 1 notices is estimated at 12 hours for posting and hand delivery and/or use of 

mass media. NCWSs providing a Tier 1 notice are likely to post the notice or hand deliver the 

notice to customers. All water systems are required to take other reasonably calculated steps to 

ensure all the persons served by the system receive the notice. Although the rule does not 

specify such actions, PWSs are assumed to place telephone calls to centers of sensitive 

populations, such as hospitals, nursing homes, and schools. Finally, water systems are expected 

to prepare a notice suitable for posting in rest areas, government-owned buildings, libraries, and 

other facilities served by the water system.

Systems providing a Tier 2 or Tier 3 notice must mail or otherwise directly deliver one 

notice to each billing customer. The PN Rule also permits NCWSs to post the notice in lieu of 

direct delivery or mailing. All water systems must also take other reasonably calculated steps to 

reach other persons not reached by mail, direct delivery, or routine posting. Estimated burden 

hours for delivering Tier 2 notices are 9 hours for CWSs under 500 in size, and 30 hours for 

larger CWSs. NTNCWS and TNCWS are estimated to incur 9 burden hours per system. 

The burden estimate for mailing assumes that half the CWSs bill their customers less 

frequently than every month or use postcards rather than envelopes to send bills. Therefore, if a 

CWS experiences a violation requiring a Tier 2 notice more than 30 days prior to a regular 

billing date, that CWS is required to send a separate mailing specifically for the public notice. 

Water systems that bill on a monthly basis and do not use postcards, or those sending out other 
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

39

mailings to the customers, including annual CCRs, will be able to incorporate the notice as a 

stuffer in one of the system’s other mailings. Because the mailing alone will not reach all 

persons served, the burden estimate includes other methods of information dissemination to 

ensure all persons served receive the notice.

The burden for preparation of these notices was calculated separately from the burden for 

delivering the notices. For Tier 1 systems serving up to 10,000 customers, the burden estimate 

per system is 15 hours. Systems over 10,000 customers can expect a burden of 30 hours per 

system. Systems with Tier 2 notices have an estimated burden of 3.5 hours, regardless of size, 

while CWSs with Tier 3 notices have an estimated burden of 3 hours and NTNCWSs and 

TNCWSs have an estimated 3.5 burden hours.

If repeated notices are necessary, the estimated PWS respondent burden for developing 

and distributing repeat public notification is 3 hours per system. 

Based on the above estimates, it is estimated that the average annual burden to PWSs will 

be approximately 1.0 million hours. 

Appendix F summarizes the assumptions used to calculate the PN Rule burden and 

provides detailed burden and cost calculations. 

6) Operator Certification Guidelines and Expense Reimbursement Grant Program

EPA estimates that 33,031 CWSs and NTNCWSs will be affected annually by the 

Operator Certification Program. The burden for PWSs involves operators renewing their 

certifications. The burden is estimated to be 263,018 hours annually for PWSs. Specifically, it

is estimated that for systems the burden hours per operator will be 8.0 hours.

Appendix G summarizes the assumptions used to calculate the Operator Certification 

Program burden and provides detailed burden and cost calculations. 

7) Tribal Operator Certification Program

Burden for tribal PWSs involves obtaining and renewing certification of their operators. 

The total burden for all three years is estimated to be 14,216 hours. Annually that is an average 

burden of 4,739 hours. It is estimated that tribal systems will require 40 hours for new Level 1 

certifications, 26 hours for new Level 2 certifications and 26 hours for new Level 3 

certifications. Other activities include 40 hours for certification renewals, and 0.5 hours to 

complete paperwork for reimbursement of certification costs. Appendix H summarizes the 

assumptions used to calculate the Tribal Operator Certification burden and provides detailed 

burden and cost calculations. 
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

40

8) Constructed Conveyances

Certain PWSs may incur burden to adhere to the broadened definition of “public water 

system” introduced by the 1996 SDWA Amendments. It is estimated that, on average, up to 371 

PWSs may complete one or more of the following activities annually—

 Conduct a house-by-house survey of water use practices and document efforts to 

ascertain water uses.

 Apply for exclusions.

 Communicate with the primacy agency.

 Recordkeeping.

The total annual burden to carry out these activities is estimated to be 7,496 hours. It is 

estimated that surveys and data collection will require 20 hours per PWS. Each of four exclusion 

applications available (other residential uses, alternative water, treatment, and certain piped 

irrigation districts) will take 10 hours each per system. Communication with the primacy agency

is estimated to take 10 hours and recordkeeping is estimated at 1 hour per system. Appendix I

summarizes the assumptions used to calculate the burden for adherence to the constructed 

conveyance requirements under the revised PWS definition and provides detailed burden and 

cost calculations. 

6(a)(ii) Burden to Primacy Agencies

The annual burden for state primacy agencies for April 1, 2012, to March 31, 2015, is 

estimated to be approximately 1.7 million hours. Exhibit 7 shows the annual burden on an 

activity-specific basis. The following briefly describes the bases for the burden estimates –

1) Consumer Confidence Reports

Primacy agencies are expected to incur a burden for information collection activities 

associated with preparation assistance, review, and filing of CCRs. The total annual state burden 

is estimated at 75,698 hours. Assisting in the preparation of reports for small CWSs is estimated 

at 2 hours per system. State recordkeeping activities, including receiving and reviewing CWS 

reports and filing reports, are estimated at 0.50 hours and 0.10 hours, respectively. Appendix B 

contains detailed burden and cost assumptions and calculations for primacy agencies. 

2) Variance and Exemption Rule

The burden for states is based on the number of systems applying for variances and 

exemptions. In the 2012 PWSS Program ICR, data for exemptions are carried forward from the 

2008 OMB approved ICR, which was derived from April 2008 EPA data on the total number of 

actual exemptions applied for under the Arsenic Rule. The number of systems applying for 

variances, however, is carried forward from 1998 V/E ICR, and the number of systems 

completing each task is based on percentages of systems completing each task in the1998 V/E 

ICR.

Based on the above estimates, it is estimated that the average annual burden to primacy

agencies will be approximately 76,293 hours. Appendix C summarizes the assumptions used to 
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

41

calculate the Variances and Exemptions Rule burden and provides detailed burden and cost 

calculations. 

3) Capacity Development Program

As discussed in Section 6(a)(i), the Capacity Development Program, which was added 

pursuant to the 1996 SDWA Amendments, is a state effort to help drinking water systems 

improve their finances, management, infrastructure, and operations so they can provide safe 

drinking water consistently, reliably, and cost-effectively. The program consists of two major 

components—

1) Implementation of a program to ensure that all new CWSs and NTNCWSs 

demonstrate the capacity to comply with NPDWRs.

2) Implementation of a strategy to assist existing PWSs in acquiring and 

maintaining capacity to comply with the SDWA. 

The burden estimate associated with new and existing capacity development efforts is 

based on expert opinions, including opinions provided by members of the NDWAC Small 

Systems Workgroup, and consultations with drinking water industry representatives. 

Specifically, the burden estimate assumes that—

 States must review and approve applications for new systems. This ICR assumes 

that, on average, there will be 8 new systems per state per year. It will take state 

personnel an estimated 100 hours per system to review new system documentation 

and information.

 Some applications for new systems will require state follow up. Upon initial review, 

all new systems likely will not meet states’ capacity criteria. An estimated 20 percent 

of new systems applying for approval each year will be required to submit 

supplemental materials. It is estimated that a state will need 8 hours per system to 

review these materials. 

 States must provide capacity development assistance to some existing systems. One 

element that states must consider in their capacity development strategies is how to 

identify and prioritize the PWSs most in need of improving capacity. In estimating 

this burden, EPA assumed that states will assist 20 percent of CWSs, 7 percent of 

NTNCWSs, and 2.5 percent of TNCWSs each year. EPA estimates that, on average, 

a state will dedicate 4 hours of assistance to each of these existing systems.

 Every three years, the primacy agency must submit a report to the state's Governor on 

the progress and success of its strategy. It will take an estimated 40 hours to 

coordinate and prepare this report, for an average annual burden of 13.3 hours per 

state. 

In total, the average annual state burden for capacity development efforts is 103,983

hours per year. Appendix D summarizes the assumptions used to calculate the Capacity 

Development Program burden and provides detailed burden and cost calculations. 
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

42

4) General State Primacy Activities

As illustrated in Exhibit 7, approximately 75 percent of the state burden—or 1,242,199

hours—is for activities that cannot be associated with specific drinking water rules or programs. 

These “general primacy activities” include—

 Submission of grant applications. Primacy agencies are eligible to receive program 

grants from EPA to implement their PWSS programs. To receive the grants they 

must prepare program plans describing their planned activities and use of the grant 

funds. Primacy agencies must apply for the grants on an annual basis. This activity is 

estimated to require 1,040 hours annually per state. 

 File management (recordkeeping). Each primacy agency is required to maintain 

records of tests, measurements, analyses, decisions, and determinations performed on 

each PWS to assess compliance with the provisions of the state’s primary drinking 

water regulations. File management is estimated to take 1,040 hours annually per 

state.

 Maintenance of data systems is estimated to require 1,040 hours annually per state. 

Each primacy agency must develop a method of storing all PWS inventory, 

compliance, and enforcement information that it uses to operate its PWSS oversight 

program. While EPA does not prescribe a storage method, states generally store this 

information electronically because of the volume of data involved. States must 

routinely enter new inventory, compliance, and enforcement data into their data 

systems. States must also modify their data systems as necessary.

 Submission of ongoing violation reports is estimated to require 1,040 hours annually

per state. Each primacy agency must provide EPA with information regarding all 

violations of the state drinking water regulations and with other selected water system 

information that is necessary to determine compliance with the drinking water 

requirements. States must also provide new and updated water system inventory

information on an annual basis.

 Laboratory certifications are estimated to require 728 hours annually per state. The 

state PWSS programs require that water systems conduct routine monitoring of water 

quality to ensure that the water produced meets all regulatory standards. States must 

have some method of ensuring that the laboratories conducting these analyses are 

qualified and capable of performing the tests. As a result, states must establish and 

maintain a program for certifying laboratories that may conduct the required 

compliance monitoring for PWSs.

 Plan and project reviews. Primacy agencies must establish and maintain a program 

that assures the design and construction of new or modified water system facilities 

that are capable of complying with the state primary drinking water regulations. Most 

states achieve this assurance by requiring state review and approval of plans and 

specifications for drinking water facility construction. Reviewing plans for major 

projects for systems with more than 10,000 customers, between 3,301 and 10,000, 

and less than 3,300 customers is estimated to require 312, 416, and 5,200 hours 
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

43

annually per state, respectively. Reviewing plans for minor projects for systems 

greater than 500 customers and fewer than 500 customers is estimated to require 

1,040 and 2,600 hours annually per state, respectively. Routine inspections are 

estimated to require 832 burden hours annually per state. 

 Oversight of compliance monitoring (including issuing notices of violation and 

ensuring appropriate follow-up activities). States must ensure that water systems 

monitor in accordance with the regulations. Where monitoring does not occur, states 

must take action to ensure that systems monitor so that the quality of water is known 

and so that any appropriate actions can be taken. Where violations occur and are not 

expeditiously corrected, states must take appropriate enforcement follow-up actions. 

States must maintain administrative penalty authority and the right to sue to ensure 

the effectiveness of their enforcement programs. These programs require an estimated 

average of 2,309 hours annually per state.

 Training activities. Primacy agencies conduct rule training for both state staff and for 

PWS owners and operators. Training is ongoing for all program components (for 

new staff and owners/operators). Training accounts for 338 hours annually per state.

Appendix E summarizes the assumptions used to calculate the General State Primacy

Activities burden and provides detailed burden and cost calculations. 

5) Public Notification

The burden to primacy agencies for the Public Notification Rule results from consulting 

with PWSs, reviewing the PWS compliance certification and notice copies, preparing quarterly 

reports to EPA, and filing and maintaining the PN records. The burden for primacy agencies for 

these activities is estimated to be 107,175 hours annually. This amounts to 1,880 hours per 

primacy agency. Tier 1 consultation activities require an estimated 3.0 hours annually per system

in violation, Tier 2 consultation requires an average of 1.1 hours and Tier 3 requires 0.5 hours. 

The burden for receiving/reviewing PN certification is 0.2 hours and filing reports is 0.1 hours. 

Appendix F summarizes the assumptions used to calculate the Public Notification burden and 

provides detailed burden and cost calculations. 

6) Operator Certification Guidelines and Expense Reimbursement Grants Program

The burden to primacy agencies for implementing an EPA-approved Operator 

Certification Program includes the ongoing certification of operators and tracking fulfillment of 

operator certification requirements. It is assumed that 95 percent of states will opt to contract 

with third parties to provide group training to small system operators and that 5 percent will opt 

to reimburse individual operators for training. The burden to primacy agencies also includes 

annual reporting to EPA on program implementation for operator certification and expense 

reimbursement grants. Note that the grant reimbursement program is ending in December 2012.

The total annual burden estimated for primacy agencies is 3,565 hours. It is estimated that 

submitting a yearly report on the status of implementation will require 16 hours per state.

Documenting the actual uses of previous fiscal year’s allotment will require 8 hours, and 

administering grants will require 520 hours annually per state; however, the burden for these two 

activities will be incurred only during the first year of this ICR period, as the expense 

reimbursement grant program will end in December 2012. In addition, a subset of states will 
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

44

complete tasks associated with the grant program during this ICR period, since some states have 

already received and used all their grant money. Appendix G summarizes the assumptions used 

to calculate the Operator Certification Program burden and provides detailed burden and cost 

calculations. 

7) Tribal Operator Certification Program

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

8) Constructed Conveyances

Primacy agencies incur burden to adhere to the broadened definition of “public water 

system” introduced by the 1996 SDWA Amendments for oversight of PWS activities. These 

activities include—

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

 Reviewing applications for exclusions: estimated at 10 hours for each of four types of 

exclusions (other residential uses, alternative water, treatment, and certain piped 

irrigation districts exclusions).

 Communications with PWSs: estimated at 10 hours per PWS.

 Recordkeeping: estimated at 60 hours per PWS.

The total annual burden associated with these activities is estimated to be 44,175 hours. 

Appendix H summarizes the assumptions used to calculate the burden for primacy agencies and 

provides detailed burden and cost calculations. 

6(a)(iii) Burden to Laboratories

The annual laboratory burden for April 1, 2012, to March 31, 2015, is estimated to be 

approximately 42,892 hours. Exhibit 8 shows the annual burden to laboratories associated with 

Proficiency Testing. The bases for the burden estimate are detailed below.

1) Proficiency Testing

This section describes the estimated average annual burden and costs for the information 

collection activities for Proficiency Testing (PT) studies that will be conducted by drinking water 

laboratories. There is no burden for PT vendors or primacy agencies. The burden for 

laboratories for these activities is estimated to be 42,892 hours annually. This estimate includes 

burden for participating laboratories to read instructions, plan activities, analyze samples, submit 

data to the PT vendors, and maintain records. 

EPA assumes that the respondent burden will be divided among three labor categories: 

manager, chemist, and records clerk. The labor associated with each of the ICR activities is

discussed in more detail below. 

 Read instructions: EPA assumes that each of the 1,902 respondents will require 4.0 

hours to read the instructions provided by the vendor. The burden will be evenly

divided between a manager and chemist.
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

45

 Plan activities: EPA assumes that the manager of each laboratory will require 1.5

hours to plan activities associated with the PT studies.

 Analyze inorganic chemicals: EPA assumes that 871 laboratories will require 

approximately 16 hours to analyze PT standards for 29 inorganic chemicals. All 

hours will be incurred by a chemist.

 Analyze DBPs: Chemists in 701 laboratories are assumed to require 8.0 hours to 

analyze PT standards for 9 DBPs. 

 Analyze organic chemicals: Chemists in 330 laboratories are assumed to require 16.0 

hours to analyze PT standards for 52 organic chemicals. 

 Report results: EPA assumes that each of the 1,902 respondents will require 2.0 

hours to report the results of the study to the PT vendor. The burden will be divided 

between a manager and records clerk. 

 Maintain records: EPA assumes that a records clerk and manager in each of the 1,902

laboratories will require 1.0 hour each to maintain the files from the PT study.

6(b) Respondent Costs

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

Exhibit 6 shows the total costs for PWSs over the 3-year ICR period. Annual costs are 

estimated at approximately $116 million, which consists of $77 million in labor costs and $39

million in O&M costs. 

Labor costs are based on the number of burden hours times the average hourly wage rate, 

including overhead. In addition to the labor costs, there are O&M costs associated with the 

CCR, the Public Notification Rule, and Operator Certification Programs and the Tribal Operator

Certification Program. For the CCR, these costs reflect non-labor costs associated with printing, 

delivery, posting, and publishing CCRs. These costs were carried forward from the previous 

ICRs, updated with current cost information (e.g., postage rates), and adjusted for inflation. 

CCR O&M costs and associated calculations are presented in greater detail in Appendix B. For 

the Public Notification Rule these costs reflect non-labor costs to print and distribute notices of 

violation. These costs were carried forward from the 2008 PWSS Program ICR. Appendix F 

shows the costs for the Public Notification Rule in more detail. For the Operator Certification 

Program and Tribal Operator Certification, O&M costs reflect renewal fees paid by operators to 

renew their certifications. These costs were carried forward from the 2008 ICR and are shown in 

more detail in Appendices G and H, respectively.

There are no capital costs associated with this ICR. 

6(b)(ii) Cost to Primacy Agencies

Exhibit 7 shows that the annual costs to primacy agencies are estimated at approximately

$68 million. All costs incurred by primacy agencies are labor costs. Labor costs are based on 

the number of burden hours times the average hourly wage rate, including overhead. Labor rates 
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

46

in 2010 dollars are used and are loaded with a 60 percent overhead factor. A loaded labor rate of

$43.79 per hour in 2010 dollars was used for state labor.

6(b)(iii) Cost to Laboratories

Exhibit 8 shows the total costs for laboratories over the three-year ICR period. Annual 

costs are estimated at approximately $3.5 million, which consists of $0.8 million in O&M costs 

(fees for PT standards) and $2.8 million in labor costs (numbers may not add due to rounding). 

Labor costs are based on the number of burden hours times the average hourly wage rate, 

including overhead. Labor rates in 2010 dollars are used and are loaded with a 60 percent 

overhead factor. Loaded hourly labor rates in 2010 dollars for the three labor categories include 

a manager at an hourly rate of $99.47, a data entry clerical person at an hourly rate of $28.80, 

and a skilled technician or chemist to conduct the measurements at an hourly rate of $56.34. 

O&M costs for laboratories are all costs related to providing personnel with the space, 

equipment, and materials necessary to perform the tasks required for PT studies. Since 

laboratories are driven by their compliance monitoring requirements to purchase the analytical 

instrumentation and computers and not by PT requirements, no capital costs can be considered 

associated with PT studies. Only the cost associated with purchasing the PT standards is 

appropriate for consideration in this category. 

Laboratories may participate in the PT studies for some or all of the regulated 

contaminants. Because EPA does not have sufficient information to estimate how many analytes 

are contained in the PT samples sent to each laboratory, EPA has estimated a "worst case" 

scenario by assuming that a single PT set contains standards for each possible regulated analyte. 

Therefore, laboratories participating in the inorganic PT study are assumed to receive and run 

analyses for 29 analytes. Similarly, those participating in the PT study for DBPs and/or organic 

chemicals will receive samples for each of 9 analytes and/or each of 52 analytes, respectively. 

EPA estimates the costs of each PT standard to be $15.73 (i.e., $15.73 per analyte). 
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

47

Exhibit 6

Annual PWS Burden and Cost

April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2015

Exhibit 7

Annual State Burden and Cost

April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2015

Annual Labor

Cost ($K)

Annual O&M

Cost ($K)

Total Annual

Cost ($K)

Consumer Confidence 

Reports 963,561 $ 31,204 $ 18,129 $ 49,333 210,453 

Variance and Exemptions 9,066 $ 294 $ - $ 294 286 

Capacity Development 131,114 $ 4,246 $ - $ 4,246 14,200 

General State Primacy - $ - $ - $ - - 

Public Notification 1,038,435 $ 33,629 $ 9,617 $ 43,245 136,789 

Operator Certification 263,018 $ 7,291 $ 11,507 $ 18,798 19,726 

Tribal Operator

Certification 4,739 $ 153 $ 0 $ 154 234 

Constructed Conveyances 7,496 $ 243 $ - $ 243 969 

Proficiency Testing - $ - $ - $ - - 

TOTAL 2,417,427 $ 77,059 $ 39,252 $ 116,312 382,658 

Note: Detail may not add exactly to totals due to rounding.

Activity

Annual Burden 

Hours Annual Responses

Cost

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

Consumer Confidence 

Reports 75,698 $ 3,315 $ - $ 3,315 125,331 

Variance and

Exemptions 76,293 $ 3,341 $ - $ 3,341 2,393 

Capacity Development 103,983 $ 4,554 $ - $ 4,554 14,200 

General State Primacy 1,242,199 $ 54,398 $ - $ 54,398 152,979 

Public Notification 107,175 $ 107 $ - $ 107 313,326 

Operator Certification 3,565 $ 156 $ - $ 156 19,726 

Tribal Operator

Certification - $ - $ - $ - - 

Constructed 

Conveyances 44,175 $ 1,935 $ - $ 1,935 969 

Proficiency Testing - $ - $ - $ - - 

TOTAL 1,653,088 $ 67,806 $ - $ 67,806 628,925 

Note: Detail may not add exactly to totals due to rounding.

Activity Annual Responses

Annual Burden 

Hours

Annual Cost
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

48

Exhibit 8

Annual Laboratory Burden and Cost

April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2015

6(c) Agency Burden and Costs

EPA’s drinking water program incurs burden both at Headquarters and regional offices to 

assist states in implementing drinking water regulations. In previous ICRs for the PWSS 

Program, burden associated with EPA’s enforcement and compliance activities at Headquarters 

and the Regions was also included in the Agency’s burden and cost estimates. With the 

implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act in Federal Fiscal Year 1999, it 

has become difficult to isolate the resources (full time equivalents (FTEs) and dollars) for 

drinking water enforcement and compliance activities from the overall Office of Enforcement 

and Compliance Assurance operating plan. Thus, this section presents only the burden and costs 

incurred by EPA’s water program, especially drinking water protection, at Headquarters and in

Regions. It is important to note that the burden and costs presented below cover ongoing 

activities for all EPA drinking water programs (not just those listed in this ICR), including rule 

development activities.

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

Consumer Confidence 

Reports - - - - -

Variance and

Exemptions - - - - -

Capacity Development - - - - -

General State Primacy - - - - -

Public Notification - - - - -

Operator Certification - - - - -

Tribal Operator

Certification - - - - -

Constructed 

Conveyances - - - - -

Proficiency Testing

42,892 $2,763 $767 $3,529 1,902

TOTAL 42,892 $2,763 $767 $3,529 1,902

Note: Detail may not add exactly to totals due to rounding.

Activity

Annual Burden 

Hours Annual Responses

Annual Cost
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

49

EPA Headquarters

There are 49.7 Headquarters FTEs dedicated to drinking water protection implementation 

activities. The following assumptions were used to develop a cost estimate for Headquarters—

 The average salary and benefits (i.e., personnel compensation and benefits (PC&B)) 

of the 49.7 FTEs is at the GS 13, Step 5 level of $129,9684.

 An FTE is 2,080 hours/year.

Given these assumptions, the following calculations yield the annual labor cost for 

Headquarters—

 The 49.7 FTEs equal 103,376 hours (49.7*2,080).

 The labor cost of 49.7 FTEs is $6,459,410 (49.7*$129,968).

For most of the programs and regulations covered in the PWSS ICR, there are no O&M 

costs. However, EPA incurs O&M costs for the tribal operator certification program and for EPA 

contractors to manage the SDWIS database.

The O&M costs for the tribal operator certification program are associated with 

reimbursing providers for training courses and reimbursing PWS operators for travel costs 

associated with training. Regions are assumed to incur 93 percent of these costs and 

Headquarters incurs 7 percent. The annual tribal operator certification O&M cost for 

Headquarters is $9,371 (see Appendix H).

As stated above, the O&M costs associated with SDWIS/state and SDWIS/FED are for 

EPA contractors to manage the SDWIS database. These O&M costs are directly related to the 

collection of the information discussed in this ICR and include SDWIS/state and SDWIS/FED 

maintenance and user support for the system. The SDWIS O&M cost for Headquarters is 

$1,313,4645.

Note that because the EPA burden and labor costs calculated above address burden for all 

drinking water programs, including tribal operator certification, the EPA burden and labor costs 

calculated for tribal operator certification in Appendix H were not added to the labor burden 

discussed in this section.

 

4 Base salary, United States Office of Personnel Management (http://www.opm.gov/oca/10tables/html/gs.asp). 2010

pay schedule. Loaded with a 60 percent loading factor.

5

SDWIS O&M costs based on comments received from EPA COR, Matthew Reed (11/16/2011)
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

50

EPA Regional Offices

There are 231.9 Regional FTEs dedicated to drinking water protection implementation 

activities.6The following assumptions are used to develop a cost estimate for the Regions—

 The average salary and benefits (i.e., PC&B) of the 231.9 FTEs is at the GS 11, Step 

5 level of $91,1867.

 An FTE is 2,080 hours/year.

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

Regional offices—

 The 231.9 FTEs equal 482,352 hours (231.9*2,080).

 The labor cost of 231.9 FTEs is $21,145,941 (231.9*$91,186).

The annual Agency O&M cost to the Regions associated with tribal operator certification 

is $133,867.

The total cost to the federal government is the sum of the labor cost to Headquarters 

($6,459,410), the labor cost to EPA Regional offices ($21,145,941), O&M cost to Headquarters 

($1,322,835), and the O&M cost to EPA Regional offices ($133,867) for a total of $29,062,053. 

Similarly, the total burden to the federal government (Headquarters and Regions) is 585,728 

hours for 281.6 FTEs.

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

Respondents for this ICR include PWSs, laboratories, and states or other primacy

agencies. This ICR estimates the number of PWS respondents at 152,979. Not every PWS is 

necessarily subject to each of the information collection requirements contained in this ICR. The 

regulations associated with each ICR will identify the types of PWSs that are subject to each 

particular drinking water regulation. 

In addition to the PWS respondents, this ICR assumes 57 primacy agencies (50 states 

plus the District of Columbia, U.S. territories, and the Navajo Nation)8, and 1,902 laboratories. 

Therefore, the total number of respondents is 154,938. 

The total costs and burden for these respondents are summarized in Exhibits 6–8. 

Agency costs and burden are detailed in Section 6(c).

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs

The bottom line burden hours and costs are presented in Exhibit 9. The total annual 

respondent burden associated with this ICR is estimated to be approximately 4.1 million burden 

hours. The corresponding total annual respondent costs are estimated to be $187.6 million. The 

 

6

FTE figures based on e-mail correspondence from EPA COR, Matthew Reed (09/23/2011).

7 Base salary, United States Office of Personnel Management (http://www.opm.gov/oca/10tables/html/gs.asp). 2010

pay schedule. Loaded with a 60 percent loading factor.

8 This is a simplifying assumption. Primacy activities for Wyoming and the District of Columbia are actually 

carried out by the respective EPA Regional offices.
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

51

total national burden, including respondent burden and EPA burden, is estimated to be 4.7

million hours annually. The total national cost, for respondents and EPA, is estimated to be $217

million annually.
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

52

Exhibit 9

Bottom Line Annual Burden and Cost

April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2015

154,938 (=)

152,979 (+) Existing PWSs

57 (+) Primacy agencies

1,902 Laboratories

1,013,485 (=)

382,658 (+) PWS responses (see Exhibit 6)

628,925 (+) Primacy agency responses (see Exhibit 7)

1,902 Laboratory responses (see Exhibit 8)

6.5 (=)

1,013,485 (/) Total annual responses from above

154,938 Total number of respondents from above

4,113,408 (=)

2,417,427 (+) PWS hours (see Exhibit 6)

1,653,088 (+) Primacy agency hours (see Exhibit 7)

42,892 Laboratory hours (see Exhibit 8)

4.06 (=)

4,113,408 (/) Total annual respondent hours from above

1,013,485 Total annual responses from above

$40,019 (=)

$39,252 (+) Total PWS O&M costs (see Exhibit 6)

$0 (+) Total primacy agency O&M costs (see Exhibit 7)

$767 Total laboratory O&M costs (see Exhibit 8)

$187,647 (=)

$116,312 (+) For PWSs (see Exhibit 6)

$67,806 (+) For primacy agencies (see Exhibit 7)

$3,529 For laboratories (see Exhibit 8)

Total Annual Hours (resp. plus Agency) 4,699,136 (=)

4,113,408 (+) Total respondent hours

585,728 (+) Total EPA hours

Total Annual Cost (resp. plus Agency) ($K) $216,709 (=)

$187,647 (+) Total respondent cost

$29,062 Total EPA Cost

Note: Detail may not add exactly to totals due to rounding.

1No capital costs are associated with the PWSS ICR in this evaluation period.

Total annual EPA hours and cost reflect the combined burden and cost for Headquarters staff (approximately 50 FTEs) and regional staff 

(approximately 232 FTEs). Costs also include O&M costs incurred for Tribal Operator Certification ($143,238) and for EPA contractors 

to manage the SDWIS database ($1,313,464).

Total Annual Respondent Cost (Labor, Capital, 

and O&M) ($K)

Number of Respondents

Number of Responses per Respondent

Hours per Response

Annual Respondent O&M and Capital Cost ($K)1

Total Respondent Hours

Total Annual Responses
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

53

6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden

This section presents the change in burden and explains the reasons for the change in 

burden. The discussion is divided into two parts—

 Section 6(f)(i) summarizes the differences between the burden estimated in the 2008 

PWSS Program ICR and the current OMB inventory for the PWSS Program ICR. 

See Exhibit 11.

 Section 6(f)(ii) summarizes other adjustments to the annual burden estimates 

associated with each rule in the PWSS Program ICR. See Exhibits 12-14.

Exhibit 10 summarizes how each of these changes has affected the overall burden 

inventory for the PWSS Program ICR. 

Exhibit 10

Summary of Changes in Annual Burden

(Includes PWS, Primacy Agency, and Laboratory Burden)

6(f)(i) Restructuring Adjustments

No restructuring adjustments are being made for the addition of new stand-alone ICRs to 

the PWSS ICR, as shown in Exhibit 11. In the next revision to the PWSS ICR, burden from 

relevant standalone ICRs that have expired will be newly incorporated into the PWSS ICR. 

Exhibit 11

Restructuring Adjustments to the 

Annual Burden Inventory for the PWSS Program ICR 

(Includes PWS, Primacy Agency, and Laboratory Burden)

Type of Change Burden (hours) Running Total Comment

Burden Estimated in the 2008 

PWSS Program ICR 3,913,544 3,913,544

This burden serves as the 

baseline for the 2012 PWSS 

Program ICR.

Restructuring 

Adjustments–see Section 

6(f)(i) 0 3,913,544

2012 PWSS Program ICR is not 

appended with burden from any 

new ICRs.

Other Adjustments to 

Burden–see Section 6(f)(ii) 199,864 4,113,408

Burden for which EPA seeks 

approval in this ICR.

Note: Detail may not add exactly to totals due to rounding.

Action Annual Burden Hours Brief Explanation

N/A 3,913,544 Inventory for the 2008 PWSS Program ICR carried forward as the baseline 

for 2012 PWSS Program ICR.

Add 0 2012 PWSS Program ICR is not appended with burden from any new ICRs.

Total 3,913,544 PWSS Program ICR inventory based on current burden inventories.
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

54

6(f)(ii) Additional Program Adjustments

The remaining changes in burden consist of program adjustments for activities that were 

carried forward from existing ICRs to this PWSS Program ICR renewal. Changes in calculated 

burden are a result of updating relevant baseline information for each rule with the most current 

and accurate information on activity compliance. Exhibits 12-14 summarize reasons for these 

changes and quantify the changes by activity. Burden adjustments associated with PWS 

activities resulted in a burden increase of 235,959 hours and are shown in Exhibit 12. Burden 

adjustments for primacy agencies resulted in a decrease of 61,697 hours per year, as shown in 

Exhibit 13. Burden adjustments for laboratories resulted in a burden increase of 25,601 hours, as 

shown in Exhibit 14. 

Exhibit 12

Adjustments to PWS Burden from Previous ICR Estimates

Activity

Previous Annual

Burden Estimate

(Hours)

2012 Annual

Burden Estimate

(Hours)

Annual Change in 

Burden

(Hours) Reason for Change in Burden

Consumer Confidence 

Reports 527,168 963,561 436,393 The change in burden results from the incorporation of consultation results.

Variance and Exemptions

 9,066 9,066 - 

Because no updated information was available on the number of variances

and exemptions applied for and granted, the assumptions from the previous 

ICR were used.

Capacity Development 130,939 131,114 175 The change in burden results from the incorporation of consultation results.

General State Primacy - - - N/A

Public Notification 1,422,405 1,038,435 (383,970)

The change in burden results from a change in the way events that trigger

notice under the Ground Water Rule are calculated, from increases in the 

number of violations in SDWIS between 2007 and 2010 (SDWIS data from 

2010 was used to calculate the public notification burden for this ICR) and 

from the incorporation of consultation results.

Operator Certification 

Guidelines and Expense 

Reimbursement Grants

Program 79,682 263,018 183,336 Change in burden is due to the incorporation of consultation results. 

Tribal Operator

Certification Program 4,712 4,739 27 

The change in burden is due to a slight increase in the number of tribal

systems.

Constructed Conveyances 7,496 7,496 (1)

Because no updated information was available on the number of new public

water systems identified as meeting the revised PWS definition, the 

assumptions from the previous ICR were used.

Proficiency Testing - - - N/A

TOTAL 2,181,468 2,417,427 235,959 PWS change in burden after adjustments.

Note: Detail may not add exactly to totals due to rounding.
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

55

Exhibit 13

Adjustments to Primacy Agency Burden 

from Previous ICR Estimates

Activity

Previous Annual

Burden Estimate

(Hours)

2012 Annual

Burden Estimate

(Hours)

Annual Change 

in Burden 

(Hours)

Reason for Change in Burden

Consumer Confidence 

Reports

 106,831 75,698 (31,133) The change in burden results from the incorporation 

of consultation results. 

Variance and Exemptions 89,231 76,293 (12,938)

The change in burden results from the removal of 

burden for regulation adoption; states are assumed 

to have completed adopting V/E regulations during 

previous ICR periods.

Capacity Development 104,503 103,983 (520)

The change in burden results from the removal of the 

burden for compilation of a list of significant noncompliers. This burden was removed because EPA

has developed a new enforcement tracking system.

General State Primacy 1,204,022 1,242,199 38,177 

The change in burden is based on updates to and 

QA of the model for this program.

Public Notification 143,790 107,175 (36,615)

Primacy agency burden is based on the number of 

violations requiring public notification. The change 

in system burden results from changes in the way 

events that trigger notice under the Ground Water

Rule are calculated, changes in the number of 

violations in SDWIS between 2007 and 2010 (SDWIS 

data from 2010 was used to calculate the public

notification burden for this ICR). In addition, this 

model incorporates consultation results.

Operator Certification

Guidelines and Expense

Reimbursement Grants

Program

 22,233 3,565 (18,668)

The change in burden is due to the removal of most 

of the burden for the expense reimbursement grants

program from years 2 and 3 and part of year 1 of this 

ICR period; the grant program will be ending in

December 2012.

Tribal Operator

Certification Program

 - - - N/A

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

Proficiency Testing - - - N/A

TOTAL 1,714,785 1,653,088 (61,697) Adjusted Primacy Agency Burden

Note: Detail may not add exactly to totals due to rounding.
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

56

Exhibit 14

Adjustments to Laboratory Burden 

from Previous ICR Estimates

Exhibit 15 shows the effect of these adjustments on the bottom line burden. Adding 

235,959 hours to account for the adjustment for the PWS burden, subtracting 61,697 hours to 

account for the adjustment for the primacy agency burden, and adding 25,601 hours to account 

for the adjustment to the laboratory burden yields 4,113,408 hours.

Activity

Previous Annual

Burden Estimate

(Hours)

2012 Annual

Burden Estimate

(Hours)

Annual Change in

Burden (Hours)

Reason for Change in Burden

Consumer Confidence 

Reports

 - - - N/A

Variance and 

Exemptions

 - - - N/A

Capacity Development - - - N/A

General State Primacy - - - N/A

Public Notification - - - N/A

Operator Certification 

Guidelines and

Expense 

Reimbursement 

Grants Program

 - - - N/A

Tribal Operator

Certification Program

 - - - N/A

Constructed 

Conveyances

 - - - N/A

Proficiency Testing 17,291 42,892 25,601 

The change in burden is due to incorporation of

consultation results and a change in the number of 

certified laboratories.

TOTAL 17,291 42,892 25,601 Adjusted Laboratory Burden

Note: Detail may not add exactly to totals due to rounding.
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

57

Exhibit 15

Adjustments to Activities Carried Forward from Previous ICRs

(Includes PWS, Primacy Agency, and Laboratory Burden)

6(g) Burden Statement

The public reporting burden for collections included in this ICR is detailed in Exhibit 15

above. The annual respondent burden is estimated to average approximately 4.1 million hours, of 

which 2.4 million hours are attributable to PWSs, 1.7 million hours to primacy agencies, and 

0.04 million hours to laboratories. These estimates include time for gathering information as well 

as developing and maintaining records. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by people to 

generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a federal agency. This 

includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology, 

and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 

comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection 

of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct 

or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for information collection unless 

it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA’s 

regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided 

burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the 

use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under 

Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0443, 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), 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 at www.regulations.gov. This site can be used to submit or view 

Action Annual Burden Hours Brief Explanation

None 3,913,544 

Inventory after restructuring adjustments, and other adjustments to burden 

(see Exhibit 11)

Add 235,959 

Adjustments for PWS activities carried forward from previous ICRs (see 

Exhibit 12)

Add (61,697)

Adjustment for primacy agency activities carried forward from previous ICRs

(see Exhibit 13)

Add 25,601 

Adjustment for laboratory activities carried forward from previous ICRs (see 

Exhibit 14)

Total 4,113,408 Equals hours requested in 2012 PWSS Program ICR. (See Exhibit 9)

Note: Detail may not add exactly to totals due to rounding.

Adjustments to Activities Carried Forward from Previous ICRs

(Includes PWS, Primacy Agency, and Laboratory Burden)
Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

58

public comments, to access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access 

those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. 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, 725 17th 

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA 

Docket ID Number (EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0443) and the OMB Control Number 2040-0090 in any 

correspondence.