SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR 

EPA INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST #1608.06 

STATE PROGRAM ADEQUACY DETERMINATION: 

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS (MSWLFs) 

and 

 NON-MUNICIPAL, NON-HAZARDOUS 

 WASTE DISPOSAL UNITS THAT RECEIVE CONDITIONALLY EXEMPT 

SMALL QUANTITY GENERATOR (CESQG) HAZARDOUS WASTE (RENEWAL) 

 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 

(a) Title and number of the information collection ................................................ 3 

(b) Short Characterization .................................................................................. 3 

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 

(a) Need and authority for the information collection ........................................... 4 

(b) Practical utility/users of the data ..................................................................... 5 

3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 

(a) Nonduplication..................................................................................5 

(b) Public Notice.....................................................................................5 

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

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

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

(f) Confidentiality and Sensitive Questions ..................................................6 

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 

(a) Respondents/SIC Codes ............................................................................... 7 

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

 

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED -- AGENCY ACTIVITIES, 

COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 

(a) Agency Activities ........................................................................................... 8 

(b) Collection Methodology and Management .................................................... .9 

(c) Small Entity Flexibility .................................................................................... 9 

(d) Collection Schedule .................................................................................... 10 

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 

(a) Estimating Respondent Burden ................................................................... 11 

(b) Estimating Respondent Costs ..................................................................... 11 

(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost ............................................................ 11 

(d) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs .......................................................... 12 

(e) Respondent Universe and Total Burden ...................................................... 12 

(f) Reasons For Change in Burden ................................................................... 13 

(g) Burden Statement ........................................................................................ 13 

Exhibits 1 - 5 ..........................................................................................14-21 

 
3

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1(a) Title and Number of the Information Collection

This Information Collection Request (ICR) is entitled “State Program Adequacy 

Determination: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (MSWLFs) and Non-Municipal, NonHazardous Waste Disposal Units that Receive Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity 

Generator (CESQG) Hazardous Waste (Renewal),” ICR number 1608.06, OMB number 

2050-0152. 

1(b) Short Characterization

Section 4010(c) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 

1976 requires that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revise the landfill criteria 

promulgated under paragraph (1) of Section 4004(a) and Section 1008(a)(3). Section 

4005(c) of RCRA, as amended by the Hazardous Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 

1984, requires states to develop and implement permit programs to ensure that nonmunicipal, non-hazardous waste disposal units that receive household hazardous waste 

or CESQG hazardous waste and municipal solid waste landfills are in compliance with 

the revised criteria for the design and operation of non-municipal, non-hazardous waste 

disposal units under 40 CFR part 257, subpart B and MSWLFs under 40 CFR part 258. 

(40 CFR part 257, subpart B and 40 CFR part 258 are henceforth referred to as the 

“revised federal criteria”). Section 4005(c) of RCRA further mandates the EPA 

Administrator to determine the adequacy of state permit programs to ensure 

owner/operator compliance with the revised federal criteria. A state program that is 

deemed adequate to ensure compliance may afford flexibility to owners/operators in the 

approaches they use to meet federal requirements, significantly reducing the burden 

associated with compliance. 

In response to the statutory requirement in §4005(c), EPA developed 40 CFR 

part 239, commonly referred to as the State Implementation Rule (SIR). The SIR 

describes the state application and EPA review procedures and defines the elements of 

an adequate state permit program. 

The collection of information from the state during the permit program adequacy 

determination process allows EPA to evaluate whether a program for which approval is 

requested is appropriate in structure and authority to ensure owner/operator compliance 

with the 40 CFR part 257, subpart B and/or the 40 CFR part 258 criteria. The SIR does 

not require the use of a particular application form. However, §239.3 of the SIR 

requires that all state applications contain the following five components: 

(1) A transmittal letter requesting permit program approval; 

(2) A narrative description of the state permit program, including a demonstration that 

the state’s non-municipal, non-hazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG 
4

hazardous standards are technically comparable to the part 257, subpart B criteria 

and/or that its MSWLF standards are technically comparable to the part 258 criteria; 

(3) A legal certification demonstrating that the state has the authority to carry out the 

program; 

(4) Copies of relevant state laws, regulations, and guidance that the state believes 

demonstrate program adequacy; and 

(5) Copies of relevant state-tribal agreements if the state has negotiated with a tribe for 

the implementation of a permit program for non-municipal, non-hazardous waste 

disposal units that receive CESQG hazardous waste and/or municipal solid waste 

landfills on Indian Lands. 

A more detailed description of the data elements, respondent activities, and 

Record keeping requirements associated with each of the information collection 

requirements is presented in Section 3. 

The attached supporting statement provides justification for the information 

collection requirements included in 40 CFR part 239. It examines the burden to states 

associated with preparing and submitting a program application that complies with SIR 

requirements. This ICR also estimates the cost that the federal government will incur in 

reviewing state program applications and determining the adequacy of state permit 

programs. 

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

2(a) Need and Authority for the Information Collection

Section 4010(c) of RCRA requires EPA to establish minimum criteria to ensure 

that non-municipal, non-hazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG 

hazardous waste and MSWLFs are designed and managed in a manner that is 

protective of human health and the environment. 40 CFR part 257, subpart B 

establishes these minimum federal criteria for non-municipal, non-hazardous waste 

disposal units that receive CESQG hazardous waste and 40 CFR part 258 establishes 

them for MSWLFs. The statute also requires states to adopt permit programs to ensure 

that owners and operators of both types of waste disposal units comply with the relevant 

federal criteria. 

The need for this collection of information from the states derives from Section 

4005(c) of RCRA which requires the EPA Administrator to review state permit programs 

to determine if they are adequate to ensure compliance with the federal criteria. The 

SIR (40 CFR part 239) establishes the procedures EPA has developed to carry out this 

mandate. To make the required determination, EPA must collect information from 
5

states. That information is provided to the Agency in the context of an application for 

permit program approval. 

States which do not submit the information necessary to make a determination of 

program adequacy will be deemed to have inadequate programs. Where the state 

program is deemed inadequate, owners and operators of both non-municipal, nonhazardous waste disposal units and MSWLFs must comply with the self-implementing 

provisions of the federal revised criteria in 40 CFR part 257, subpart B and 40 CFR part 

258, and may not be able to take advantage of the flexibility that may be afforded to 

owners/operators by states with approved permit programs. 

EPA has granted full approval to 50 states and territories for their MSWLF 

programs under 40 CFR 258. In addition, EPA has determined that 45 states have 

adequate provisions in place to require that CESQG waste is disposed in suitable 

facilities. 

2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The EPA Administrator has delegated the authority to make determinations of 

adequacy, as contained in the statute, to the EPA Regional Administrators. Therefore, 

the appropriate EPA Regional Office uses the information provided by each state to 

determine whether the state’s permit program satisfies the statutory test reflected in the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 239. In all cases, the information is analyzed to determine 

the adequacy of the state’s permit program for ensuring compliance with the federal 

revised criteria. 

3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

3(a) Nonduplication

The information collection covered in this ICR is not available from sources other 

than the respondents. There is no other federal agency that collects information on the 

adequacy of state non-municipal, non-hazardous waste disposal units that receive 

CESQG hazardous waste and/or of MSWLF permit programs. Therefore, this 

information collection does not represent a duplicative effort by any other source. 

3(b) Public Notice 

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, EPA issued a public 

notice in the Federal Register on September 21, 2011 (76 FR 58496) and provided a 60 

day comment period for this ICR. No comments were received. 
6

3(c) Consultations

EPA made substantial efforts to consult with state officials during the 

development of the State Implementation Rule. During this time EPA met with the 

following people: Tom Kennedy and Kerry Callahan, Association of State and Territorial 

Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO); Richard Barlow, Connecticut; James 

Dunbar, Georgia; Thomas Epstein, Rhode Island; Bill Cass and Carol Ansheles, 

Northeast Waste Management Officials Association (NEWMOA); Hector Mendietta, 

Texas; Jim Warner, Minnesota; Neil Weber, New Mexico; Mark Witherspoon, Arkansas; 

and other state personnel. EPA, through ASTSWMO, provided copies of drafts for the 

State Implementation Rule, at various stages in its development, to provide all states 

and territories an opportunity for input on the procedures used to assess the adequacy 

of affected state permitting programs.

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

EPA has encouraged states to work with regional EPA staff, and to submit early 

drafts to ensure that their applications are complete, with sufficient detail to lessen the 

potential need for revision. It is anticipated that, due to the extensive interaction 

between states and the regional EPA staff in the development of both the permit 

programs and the applications for adequacy determinations, states will not be required 

to submit revised applications. 

Additional review and revision of state programs may be needed when federal or 

state statutory or regulatory authorities are subsequently altered or when the state shifts 

permit program responsibility from one agency to another. The Regional Administrator 

will determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether subsequent statutory or regulatory 

changes warrant revision of the state program or modifications to a state’s original 

program approval application. Procedures for this process are detailed in 40 CFR part 

239.12 and are designed to minimize state burdens. 

3(e) General Guidelines

This ICR adheres to guidelines stated in the 1980 Paperwork Reduction Act, as 

amended in 1995, OMB’s implementing regulations, OMB’s Information Collection 

Review Handbook, and other applicable OMB guidance. 

3(f) Confidentiality and Sensitive Questions

The information that states would submit is public information; therefore, no 

problems of confidentiality or sensitive questions arise. 
7

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

4(a) Respondents/NAICS or SIC Codes

The universe of respondents involved in this information collection will be limited 

to states that seek approval of their permit programs or modifications to their previously 

approved permit programs for non-municipal, non-hazardous waste disposal units that 

receive CESQG waste and/or for MSWLFs. This information collection effort includes 

approved states that revise their criteria for MSWLFs to allow states to issue Research, 

Development, and Demonstration (RD&D) permits for new and existing MSWLF units 

and lateral expansions. No entities with NAICS or SIC codes will be affected by this 

information collection. 

4(b) Information Requested

Develop Program Application

States requesting program approval must submit a program application as 

described in the SIR. Prior to the final submission, EPA encourages the states to submit 

draft applications for Agency comment and suggestions. The costs of draft application 

submission are incorporated into the costs of final application submission. 

(i) Data Items, Including Record keeping Requirements 

EPA is not prescribing Record keeping requirements for applicants associated 

with this rule. The primary data item for the adequacy determination process is the 

state program application. Data items include: 

• Narrative description of the state program(s) 

• Transmittal letter 

• Legal certification 

• Copies of relevant statutes, regulations, and guidance 

• Copies of relevant state-tribal agreements 

(ii) Respondent Activities 

• Read the SIR and 40 CFR part 257, subpart B and/or 40 CFR part 258 

• Prepare the narrative program description 

• Write the transmittal letter 
8

• Prepare the legal certification 

• Compile relevant statutes, regulations, and guidance 

• Compile relevant agreements between state and tribe(s) 

Adequacy Determination Process

The state will submit a formal application containing all required elements, to the 

appropriate EPA Regional Office. After the formal application has been reviewed by the 

EPA Region, the Agency may request revisions or additional information from the state, 

particularly in response to comments received during the public comment period that 

the Agency is required to provide. The state will meet with the EPA Region to discuss 

such changes and may need to modify and resubmit the application. 

(i) Data Items, including Record keeping Requirements 

Under this rule, EPA is not prescribing Record keeping requirements for 

applicants. The primary data item for the adequacy determination process is the state 

program application. 

(ii) Respondent Activities 

• Submit an application for state program approval 

• Modify the application, if necessary, to respond to comments from the 

EPA Region and/or the public 

• Resubmit the application, if necessary 

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED -- AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION 

METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

5(a) Agency Activities

Develop Program Application

As the states develop and complete their program applications, the appropriate 

EPA Regions will review them and provide written comments to the state. As part of 

this process, a Region may conduct meetings with state representatives. 

Adequacy Determination Process
9

After a Region determines that a state application is complete, the Region will 

review it and make a final adequacy determination. The Region will make every attempt 

to complete its review and make a final determination of adequacy within 180 days of 

receipt of a complete application; however, submission of an application for program 

approval does not ensure automatic approval should EPA fail to meet the 180 day time 

frame. During the review process, the Region will be responsible for the following 

activities: 

• Review the application for completeness and request additional 

information if necessary; 

• Review the completed application, draft and forward comments to, and 

meet with state as needed; 

• After consultation with Regional staff, the Regional Administrator will make 

a tentative determination; 

• Prepare and publish a Federal Register notice of tentative determination; 

• Hold public hearing(s), if necessary; 

• Respond to public comments if significant comments are received; 

• After meetings between the Regional and state staff to resolve any 

remaining issues, the Regional Administrator will make a final 

determination; and 

• Prepare and publish a Federal Register notice of final determination. 

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

EPA does not prescribe through regulation the manner in which the application is 

to be submitted: Respondents have flexibility regarding the manner in which they 

submit information (i.e., hardcopy or electronically word processed); however, database 

submission is not practicable. Regions will be required to maintain a copy of the notice 

of proposed rulemaking for public review and a docket for the final rule. These records 

may be kept at a public library, where they will require minimal space and upkeep. 

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

The rule requires states to submit applications for permit program approval for 

non-municipal, non-hazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG hazardous 

waste and/or for municipal solid waste landfills. It does not impact the flexibility of small 

entities. 
10

5(d) Collection Schedule

The 40 CFR part 258 criteria were promulgated on October 9, 1991 and were 

generally effective beginning on October 9, 1993. Criteria for non-municipal, nonhazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG hazardous waste (40 CFR part 

257, subpart B) were promulgated on July 1, 1996. Location and record keeping criteria 

were effective on January 1, 1998 and groundwater monitoring and corrective action 

requirements became effective on July 1, 1998. Research, Development, and 

Demonstration Permits for MSWLFs (40 CFR part 285.4, subpart A) became effective 

on April 21, 2004. Requirements for States and Territiories to submit applications for 

determination of adequacy of their Subtitle D solid waste programs and procedures for 

EPA determination of adequacy are contained in 40 CFR 239. EPA has determined 

that 30 states have existing permit programs for CESQG hazardous waste disposal that 

are adequate to meet the 40 CFR part 257, subpart B requirements. 

States have been encouraged to apply for and gain program approval as quickly 

as possible, to allow the state and facility owners/operators to fully utilize the flexibility in 

the part 257, subpart B and part 258 criteria. Schedules submitted in lieu of an 

application were expected to outline how the state would make progress toward 

completing its application. States failing to submit an application within the scheduled 

time frame could be deemed “inadequate.” 

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

The following burden and cost estimates are based upon EPA’s experience in 

processing state MSWLF permit program adequacy determinations. The estimates also 

reflect the Agency’s burden and costs from reviewing similar activities of other 

regulatory programs, and from discussions with states. 

Under 40 CFR part 257, subpart B, owners/operators of non-municipal, nonhazardous disposal units that receive CESQG hazardous waste must comply with 

location restrictions, ground-water monitoring, and corrective action standards. EPA 

has determined that 45 states have existing permit programs for CESQG hazardous 

waste disposal that are adequate to meet the 40 CFR part 257, subpart B requirements. 

Over the next three years, EPA expects up to 5 additional states/territories to seek 

permit program adequacy determinations for non-municipal, non-hazardous waste 

disposal units that receive CESQG hazardous waste. The burden and cost estimates 

for the permit program adequacy determinations for non-municipal, non-hazardous 

waste disposal units that receive CESQG hazardous waste will be higher than for the 

streamlined approval process used for the 45 states already approved, but less than for 

the MSWLF permit program adequacy determinations because the requirements for 

non-municipal, non-hazardous disposal units that receive CESQG hazardous waste are 

less cumbersome than those required for MSWLFs. 
11

To date, EPA has fully or partially approved 54 state/territorial MSWLF permit 

programs. Over the next three years, EPA expects to receive permit program 

applications from the remaining 2 states/territories and expects up to 5 states/territories 

to modify previously approved programs. EPA expects 9 approved states over the next 

three years to seek RD&D approval for MSWLFs. 

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden

EPA estimates respondent burden hours associated with all of the requirements 

covered in this ICR in Exhibits 1-5. Separate scenarios were developed for MSWLF 

and non-municipal, non-hazardous waste permit program approval applications. Each is 

presented in a chart at the end of this statement which shows the estimated burden 

hours and costs for each collection activity. 

• Exhibit 1 assumes that 5 states/territories will submit permit program 

approval applications for non-municipal, non-hazardous waste disposal 

units that receive CESQG hazardous waste. 

• Exhibit 2 assumes that 2 states/territories will submit an application for 

MSWLF permit program approval (Exhibit 2a) and that 5 states will modify 

their existing approved programs (Exhibit 2b). 

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

The average hourly salary rates contained in the current ICR for this rule were 

from 2008. For this ICR renewal request EPA used rates from the 2011 GS salary 

table, Step 5 and applied an overhead factor of 1.6. 

For states and territories, EPA estimates an average hourly salary rate of $73.58 

(GS 14) for legal staff, $86.56 (GS 15) for managerial staff, $52.37 (GS 12) for technical 

staff, and $29.52 (GS 7) for clerical staff. These rates include the overhead factor of 

1.6. 

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

In estimating Agency burden hours and costs associated with activities in this 

ICR, EPA examined ICRs that had already been approved by OMB. ICRs reviewed 

include those for the UST program, Subtitle C program, and the original ICR that is now 

being renewed. 

Estimates of Agency burden hours and costs associated with all of the requirements of 

this ICR are provided in Exhibits 3 and 4. EPA Regional Offices will be involved in 

these activities. 
12

• Exhibit 3 estimates EPA’s burden and costs for responding to 

permit program approval applications for non-municipal, nonhazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG hazardous 

waste. 

• Exhibit 4 estimates EPA’s burden and costs for responding to both 

new and modified MSWLF permit program applications. 

Agency Burden Estimates

Agency burden figures are based on EPA’s experience in undertaking and 

completing this activity to date. Since it is not possible to accurately estimate how many 

respondents will submit applications in a given year, the estimates show total estimated 

burden and costs during the three year period suggested for submission in the 

regulation. Average annual burden is obtained by dividing the total burden by three. 

Agency Labor Costs

The average hourly salary rates contained in the current ICR for this rule were 

from 2008. For this ICR renewal request EPA used rates from the 2011 GS salary 

table, Step 5 and applied an overhead factor of 1.6. 

EPA estimates an average hourly Regional labor cost of $73.58 (GS 14) for legal 

staff, $86.56 (GS 15) for managerial staff, $52.37 (GS 12) for technical staff, and $29.52 

(GS 7) for clerical staff. These hourly rates include the standard government overhead 

factor of 1.6. 

Agency Burden          

Total 3 YR     Annual     

4,310 Hours 1,437 Hours per year

$240,393 Cost $80,131 Cost per year

6(d) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs

Exhibit 5 shows the total burden and cost to respondents and the State and 

government for all information collection requirements covered in this ICR. EPA 

estimates that the total bottom line burden for this information collection activity is

$401,898 or $133,966 per year. 

6(e) Respondent Universe and Total Burden Costs 
13

The total number of respondents is 12 and the total burden hours are 2,405 

hours per year. Of the 2,045 hours, 1,437 is the burden for EPA Regions, and 968 

hours is the burden for States. The total cost burden is $133,966 per year. Of the 

$133,966, $80,131 is the cost to EPA Regions (Agency), and $53,835 is the cost to 

States. All costs are labor costs, there are no capital/start-up or O&M costs associated 

with this ICR. 

Respondent Burden       

Total 3 YR     Annual    

2,904 Hours 968 Hours per year

$161,505   Cost $53,835   Cost per year

6(f) Reasons For Change in Burden

This ICR replaces ICR 1608.05, approved by OMB through February 29, 2012. 

Burden hours for this ICR remains the same. For the prior ICR renewal all mention of 

burden estimates for tribes which were contained in the original ICR were removed. In 

addition, since the last clearance, additional states and territories have not been moving 

through the approval process for their MSWLF permit programs as we hoped they 

would. Therefore, the number of state and territorial remaining to obtain MSWLF permit 

program adequacy determinations has remained to 2. In addition, EPA estimates that 

as many as 5 states may choose to submit modifications to their approved programs. 

Under the July 1, 1996 rulemaking for non-municipal, non-hazardous waste 

disposal units that may receive CESQG hazardous waste, 45 states/territories have 

received CESQG hazardous waste permit program adequacy determinations. EPA 

estimates that no more than 5 additional States will apply for an adequacy 

determination during the next 3 years. 

6(g) Burden Statement 

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

estimated to average 242 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 

provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review 

instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology 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 

collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The 
14

OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR 

Chapter 15. 

To comment on EPA 's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided 

burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, 

including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public 

docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-0752, which is 

available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the RCRA 

Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 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 RCRA Docket is (202) 566-0270. An electronic version of the public docket is 

available at www.regulations.gov. This site can be used to submit or view public 

comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access 

those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the 

system, select “search,” then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you 

can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: 

Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-RCRA2011-0752 and OMB Control Number 2050-0152 in any correspondence.

 
15

EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT 1: 5 STATES/TERRITORIES APPLICATIONS FOR NON-MUNICIPAL, NONHAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL UNITS THAT RECEIVE CESQG HAZARDOUS WASTE 

PERMIT PROGRAMS

Collection Activities: Burden Hours per Applicant: 

 Legal

 $73.58 

 per hour 

 Manager

 $86.56 

 per hour 

Technical

 $52.37 

 per hour 

 Clerical

 $29.52 

per hour 

 Total

 Hours

Read 40 CFR part 239 and 40 CFR part 

257, subpart B 

5 10 32.5 0 47.5 

Prepare narrative program description 0 20 80 20 120 

Write transmittal memorandum 0 0.5 1 0.5 2 

Prepare legal certification 1.5 0.5 0 0.5 2.5 

Compile copies of relevant statutes, 

regulations, and guidance 

4 0 4 7.5 15.5 

Modify application, as necessary 4 10 40 10 64 

Total hours per Respondent 14.5 41 157.5 38.5 251.5 

Total cost per Respondent $1,066.91 $3,548.96 $8,248.28 $1,136.52 $14,000.67 

Total Burden: Hour Total (251.5) x No. of Respondents (5) = 1,258 Hours 

Total Cost: Cost Total ($14,000.67) x No. of Respondents (5) = $70,003.35 

Regions = Agency Burden 
16

EXHIBIT 2: 7 STATE/TERRITORIES PREPARING APPLICATIONS FOR MSWLF PERMIT 

PROGRAMS

EXHIBIT 2a: 2 STATES/TERRITORIES PREPARING NEW APPLICATIONS 

Collection Activities: Burden Hours per Applicant: 

 Legal

 $73.58 

 per hour 

 Manager

 $86.56 

 per hour 

 Technical

 $52.37 

 per hour 

 Clerical

 $29.52 

per hour 

 Total

 Hours

Read 40 CFR part 239 and 40 CFR part 

258 

10 20 65 0 95 

Prepare narrative program description 0 40 160 40 240 

Write transmittal memorandum 0 1 2 1 4 

Prepare legal certification 3 1 0 1 5 

Compile copies of relevant statutes, 

regulations, and guidance 

8 0 8 15 31 

Modify application, as necessary 8 20 80 20 128 

Total hours per Respondent 29 82 315 77 503 

Total cost per Respondent $2,133.82 $7,097.92 $16,496.55 $2,273.04 $28,001.33 

Total Burden: Hour Total (503) x No. of Respondents (2) = 1,006 Hours 

Total Cost: Cost Total ($28,001.33) x No. of Respondents (2) = $56,002.66 

 
17

EXHIBIT 2b: 5 STATES/TERRITORIES MODIFYING APPROVED PROGRAMS 

Collection Activities: Burden Hours per Applicant: 

 Legal

 $73.58 

 per hour 

 Manager

 $86.56 

 per hour 

 Technical

 $52.37 

 per hour 

 Clerical

 $29.52 

 per hour 

 Total

 Hours

Modify program, as necessary 8 20 80 20 128 

Total hours per Respondent 8 20 80 20 128 

Total cost per Respondent $588.64 $1,731.20 $4,189.60 $590.40 $7,099.84 

Total Burden: Hour Total (128) x No. of Respondents (5) = 640 Hours 

Total Cost: Cost Total ($7,099.84) x No. of Respondents (5) = $35,499.20 

 EXHIBIT 2 

 

 TOTAL BURDEN (2a+2b): 1,646 Hours 

 TOTAL COST (2a+2b): $91,501.86

 
18

Regions = Agency Burden 

EXHIBIT 3: EPA REGIONS RESPONDING TO 5 APPLICATIONS FOR NON-MUNICIPAL, 

NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL UNITS THAT RECEIVE CESQG HAZARDOUS 

WASTE PERMIT PROGRAMS

Collection Activities: Burden Hours per Application: 

 Legal

 $73.58 

 per hour 

 Manager

 $86.56 

 per hour 

 Technical

 $52.37 

 per hour 

 Clerical

 $29.52 

 per hour 

Total

 Hours

Review and comment on draft 

application, including meetings 

with applicant 

5 5 40 8 58 

Process and distribute 

application 

0 0 5 4 9 

Review application for 

completeness, and request 

additional information 

5 5 40 1 51 

Review complete application 1 5 20 8 34 

Regional Administrator makes 

tentative determination 

2 5 5 0 12 

Prepare and publish Federal 

Register notice 

0 0.5 5 2.5 8 

Hold public hearing 0 0 8 2.5 10.5 

Respond to significant 

comments 

2 2 20 2.5 26.5 

Regional Administrator makes 

final determination 

2 5 5 0 12 

Prepare and publish Federal 

Register notice 

2 0.5 8 2.5 13 

Total hours per Application 19 28 156 31 234 

Total cost per Application $1,398.02 $2,423.68 $8,169.72 $915.12 $12,906.54 

Total Burden: Hour (234) x No. of Respondents (5) = 1170 Hours 

Total Cost: Cost ($12,906.54) x No. of Respondents (5) = $64,532.70 
19

Regions = Agency Burden 

EXHIBIT 4: EPA REGIONS RESPONDING TO 7 APPLICATIONS FOR MSWLF PERMIT 

PROGRAMS

EXHIBIT 4a: EPA REGIONS RESPONDING TO 2 “NEW” APPLICATIONS 

Collection Activities: Burden Hours per Application: 

 Legal

 $73.58 

 per hour 

 Manager

 $86.56 

 per hour 

 Technical

 $52.37 

 per hour 

 Clerical

 $29.52 

 per hour 

Total

 Hours

Review and comment on draft 

application, including meetings 

with applicant 

10 10 80 16 116 

Process and distribute 

application 

0 0 10 8 18 

Review application for 

completeness, and request 

additional information 

10 10 80 2 102 

Review complete application 2 10 40 16 68 

Regional Administrator makes 

tentative determination 

4 10 10 0 24 

Prepare and publish Federal 

Register notice 

0 1 10 5 16 

Hold public hearing 0 0 16 5 21 

Respond to significant 

comments 

4 4 40 5 53 

Regional Administrator makes 

final determination 

4 10 10 0 24 

Prepare and publish Federal 

Register notice 

4 1 16 5 26 

Total hours per Application 38 56 312 62 468 

Total cost per Application $2,796.04 $4,847.36 $16,339.44 $1,830.24 $25,813.08 

Total Burden: Hour (468) x No. of Respondents (2) = 936 Hours 

Total Cost: Cost ($25,813.08) x No. of Respondents (2) = $51,626.16. 
20

EXHIBIT 4b: EPA REGIONS RESPONDING TO 5 “MODIFIED” APPLICATIONS 

Regions = Agency Burden 

Collection Activities: Burden Hours per Application: 

 Legal

 $73.58 

 per hour 

 Manager

 $86.56 

 per hour 

 Technical

 $52.37 

 per hour 

 Clerical

 $29.52 

 per hour 

Total

 Hours

Review complete application 2 10 40 16 68 

Regional Administrator makes 

tentative determination 

4 10 10 0 24 

Prepare and publish Federal 

Register notice 

0 1 10 5 16 

Hold public hearing 0 0 16 5 21 

Respond to significant 

comments 

4 4 40 5 53 

Regional Administrator makes 

final determination 

4 10 10 0 24 

Prepare and publish Federal 

Register notice 

4 1 16 5 26 

Total hours per Application 18 36 142 36 232 

Total cost per Application $1,324.44 $3,116.16 $7,436.54 $1,062.72 $12,939.86 

Total Burden: Hour (232) x No. of Respondents (5) = 1,160 Hours 

Total Cost: Cost ($12,939.86) x No. of Respondents (5) = $64,699.30. 

 
21

EXHIBIT 4c: EPA REGIONS RESPONDING TO 9 “RD&D” APPLICATIONS 

Regions = Agency Burden 

Collection Activities: Burden Hours per Application: 

 Legal

 $73.58 

 per hour 

 Manager

 $86.56 

 per hour 

 Technical

 $52.37 

 per hour 

 Clerical

 $29.52 

 per hour 

Total

 Hours

Review complete application 1 5 20 2 28 

Regional Administrator makes 

tentative determination 

2 5 5 0 12 

Prepare and publish Federal 

Register notice 

0 1 4 3 8 

Hold public hearing 0 0 8 5 13 

Respond to significant 

comments 

4 4 20 5 33 

Regional Administrator makes 

final determination 

2 5 5 0 12 

Prepare and publish Federal 

Register notice 

2 1 4 3 10 

Total hours per Application 11 21 66 18 116 

Total cost per Application $809.38 $1,817.76 $3,456.42 $531.36 $6,614.92 

Total Burden: Hour (116) x No. of Respondents (9) = 1,044 Hours 

Total Cost: Cost ($6,614.92) x No. of Respondents (9) = $59,534.28 

 EXHIBIT 4 

 

TOTAL BURDEN (4a+4b+4c): 3,140 Hours 

TOTAL COST (4a+4b+4c): $175,859.74 
22

EXHIBIT 5: TOTAL BURDEN

EXHIBIT 5a: TOTAL HOUR BURDEN: 

 (Agency) 

 Regions States/Territories Total 

Preparing Non-Municipal, 

Non-Hazardous Waste 

Disposal Units that Receive 

CESQG Hazardous Waste 

Permit Program Applications 

1,170 1,258 2,428 

Preparing MSWLF Permit 

Program Applications 

3,140 1,646 4,786 

Total Burden 4,310 2,904 7,214 

States/Territories Total Hour Burden: 2,904 hours over 3 years, or 968 hours per year 

GRAND TOTAL HOUR BURDEN: 7,214 hours over 3 years, or 2,405 hours per year 

EXHIBIT 5b: TOTAL COST BURDEN (Dollars): 

 (Agency) 

 Regions States/Territories Total 

Preparing Non-Municipal, 

Non-Hazardous Waste 

Disposal Units that Receive 

CESQG Hazardous Waste 

Permit Program Applications 

$64,533 $70,003 $134,536 

Preparing MSWLF Permit 

Program Applications 

 $175,860 $91,502 $267,362 

Total Burden $240,393 $161,505 $401,898 

States/Territories Total Cost Burden (Dollars): $161,505 over 3 years or $53,835 per year. 

GRAND TOTAL COST BURDEN (Dollars): $401,898 over 3 years or $133,966 per year.