ICR Supporting Statement 

Information Collection Request for 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) Program (Renewal) 

 

OMB Control No. 2040-0004, EPA ICR No. 0229.21 

December 2015

Prepared for

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Science and Technology

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20460

EPA Contract Number EP-C-11-009

EPA Work Assignment Number 4-22

 

 
December 2015 ii

Contents

A. Justification ................................................................................................................. 1

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection necessary and explain the legal or 

administrative requirements relevant to the collection and attach a copy of the statute or 

regulation authorizing the collection....................................................................................1

1.1 Short Characterization/Abstract ....................................................................................1

1.2 Need/Authority for the Collection ..................................................................................1

2. Indicate how, by whom and for what purpose the information is to be used ...............................5

3. Describe whether and to what extent the collection involves the use of automated processes or 

information technology to aid with the collection ..............................................................10

4. Describe the efforts to identify duplication .................................................................................11

5. Explain whether or not the collection impacts small entities......................................................12

6. Describe the consequences to the program if the collection is not conducted or is conducted 

less frequently ...................................................................................................................14

7. Explain any special circumstances associated with “extraordinary burden” placed on 

respondents ......................................................................................................................16

8. Provide a copy and identify the date and page number of the notice in the Federal Register and 

describe efforts to consult with persons outside the agency ............................................16

9. Explain any decision to provide compensation to respondents.................................................16

10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents........................................16

11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature....................................17

12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information.....................................17

13. Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to respondents.......................................17

14. Provide an estimate of the annualized cost to the Federal government..................................18

15. Explain the reasons for an adjustments reported in items 13 or 14 of OMB Form 83-I ..........18

16. Outline any plans for tabulation and publication of the information .........................................20

17. Explain any requests to not display the expiration date of OMB approval ..............................20

18. Explain any exceptions to the certification statement 5 CFR 1320.9, “Agency Certifications for 

Proposed Collections of Information.”...............................................................................21

B. Statistical Methods (used for collection of information employing statistical 

methods) ............................................................................................................ 21

Appendix A – Description of the Information Collected and Methodology for Estimating 

Respondent Burden and Cost of Collection........................................................ 22

A.1. Estimating Respondent Burden..............................................................................................22

A.1.1. Record-keeping ......................................................................................................22

A.1.2. Application Forms...................................................................................................23

A.1.3. Notification..............................................................................................................23

A.1.4. DMR........................................................................................................................24

A.1.5. Stormwater .............................................................................................................25

A.1.6. Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) .........................................................................26

A.1.7. Section 308 Requests ............................................................................................27

A.1.8. Certifications ...........................................................................................................27

A.1.9. Variance Request ...................................................................................................27

A.1.10. Noncompliance Reports .......................................................................................28

A.1.11. Request for Modification, Revocation and Reissuance, or Termination ..............28

A.1.12. Compliance Schedule Reports .............................................................................28

A.1.13. BMP Development................................................................................................28

A.1.14. Vessels .................................................................................................................29

A.1.15. Great Lakes ..........................................................................................................29

A.1.16. General State Activities ........................................................................................30

A.2. Estimating Respondent Costs ................................................................................................31

A.2.1. Estimating Labor Costs ..........................................................................................32

A.2.2. Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs .............................................................32

A.2.3. Capital/Start-up Costs ............................................................................................34
December 2015 iii

Appendix B – Detailed Respondent Burden Results by Category................................. 36

Appendix C – Detailed Agency Burden Estimates ........................................................ 37

Appendix D – Number of Unique Respondents............................................................. 38

Appendix E – Copy of Regulation Authorizing Data Collection and Federal Register 

Notice ................................................................................................................. 39

E.1 Clean Water Act Section 402 ..................................................................................................39

E.2 ICR Federal Register Notice....................................................................................................39
December 2015 1

A. Justification

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection necessary and 

explain the legal or administrative requirements relevant to the

collection and attach a copy of the statute or regulation authorizing 

the collection

1.1 Short Characterization/Abstract

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

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

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

identifies the types of activities regulated under the NPDES program, describes the roles and 

responsibilities of state governments and the Agency, and presents the program areas that 

address the various types of regulated activities. It is an update of the 2011 Information 

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

Number: 0229.20) that consolidated the burden and costs associated with activities previously 

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

Permits Division. This renewal includes the addition of the burden and costs for the Airport 

Deicing Category previously contained in a separate ICR.

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

and biological integrity of the nation’s waters (CWA section 101). The NPDES program, 

established under CWA section 402, is an important tool for controlling pollutant discharges. 

The CWA authorizes the Agency to issue permits for the discharge of pollutants to waters of the 

United States. The Agency regulates point source discharges of pollutants to waters of the United 

States under its NPDES program. CWA section 402(b) allows states (defined to include Indian 

tribes and U.S. territories) to acquire authority for the NPDES program. This authority enables 

them to issue and administer NPDES permits. At present, 46 NPDES-authorized states and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands have NPDES permit program authority, but only eight states have received 

authorization to manage the Biosolids (Sludge) Program. In states that do not have authority for 

these programs, the Agency issues and administers NPDES permits. Because some permit 

applications are processed by states and some by EPA, this ICR calculates government burden 

and costs for both states and EPA. See Appendix E.1 for a copy of the authorizing regulation.

1.2 Need/Authority for the Collection

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

and biological integrity of the nation’s waters” [section 101(a)]. CWA section 402(a) establishes 

the NPDES program to regulate the discharge of any pollutant from point sources1into waters of 

 

1 EPA defines a point source as, “any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to, 

any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, CAFO, landfill leachate 

collection system, vessel or other floating craft from which pollutants are or may be discharged. This term does not 
December 2015 2

the United States. Section 402(a) of the CWA, as amended, authorizes the EPA Administrator to 

issue permits for the discharge of pollutants if those discharges meet the following requirements:

 All applicable requirements of CWA sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, and 403; or

 Any conditions the Administrator determines are necessary to carry out the provisions and 

objectives of the CWA.

The primary mechanism to ensure that the permits are adequately protective of those 

requirements is the permit application process. In particular, CWA section 402(a)(2) requires 

EPA to prescribe permit conditions to assure compliance with requirements “including 

conditions on data and information collection, reporting and such other requirements as [the 

Administrator] deemed appropriate.” EPA’s application forms require applicants to submit data 

that help determine what those conditions should be.

The CWA also establishes an administrative framework for the NPDES permitting program. 

CWA section 402(b) authorizes states (which include U.S. territories and Indian tribes that have 

been authorized in the same manner as a state) to administer the NPDES program once EPA is 

assured that they meet minimum federal requirements. Authorizations vary by program. Table 

1.1 summarizes the number of states authorized for each major program element. Authorized 

states are considered permitting authorities and are responsible for issuing, administering, and 

enforcing permits for most point source discharges within their borders. In states without an 

authorized NPDES program, EPA is the permitting authority and undertakes all permitting 

activities, although CWA section 401 requires states to certify that EPA-issued NPDES permits 

establish “effluent limitations, and monitoring requirements necessary to assure that any 

applicant...will comply with any applicable effluent limitations and other limitations (pursuant to 

the CWA) and with any other appropriate requirement of state law...” states, tribes, and U.S. 

territories may waive their right to certify permits if they wish. CWA section 510 provides that 

states, tribes, and territories may adopt requirements equal to or more stringent than standards 

established pursuant to CWA provisions.

Table 1.1 States with program authorization as of May 2015

Type Number

NPDES Base Permit Program 47*

General Permits Program 47*

Biosolids Program 8

Federal Facilities 43

* includes the U.S. Virgin Islands

CWA section 405 prohibits the discharge of pollutants caused by the disposal of sewage sludge 

except in accordance with an NPDES permit (or an authorized state permit issued to control such 

disposal of sewage sludge). In addition, this section establishes a comprehensive sewage sludge 

permitting program and requires EPA to develop technical criteria for controlling sewage sludge 

disposal and use. CWA section 405 allows states with sludge management authority to issue and 

modify permits that regulate the use and disposal of sewage sludge. EPA implements CWA 

 

include return flows from irrigated agriculture or agricultural stormwater runoff” (40 CFR 122.2).
December 2015 3

section 405 through its NPDES Biosolids Program.

The 1987 Water Quality Act (WQA) added a provision to the CWA [section 402(p)] that 

directed EPA to establish final regulations governing stormwater discharges under the NPDES 

program. EPA considers stormwater requirements as part of the NPDES Permit Program and as 

such, included them in this consolidated ICR. The NPDES program requires permits for 

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

activities, and construction activities disturbing one acre or more. CWA section 402(p) 

establishes the authority for EPA to permit stormwater discharges and identifies the applicable 

requirements, which in some instances are different from the requirements applicable to other 

NPDES permittees.

The NPDES program procedures and requirements are codified in Title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 122, 123, 124, and 125 (and Parts 501 and 503 for Biosolids). 

Regulations governing permit requirements for NPDES discharges and sewage sludge 

management activities are contained in 40 CFR Parts 122, and 501, and 503, respectively. EPA 

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

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

requirements are contained in forms developed by EPA. Table 2.1 in the next section provides an 

overview of the types of respondents required to submit NPDES application forms and identifies 

the form(s) that they must submit.

The specific monitoring, reporting, and record-keeping requirements for NPDES and biosolids 

permits are applicable to both EPA- and state-administered NPDES permit programs, NPDES 

permittees (including stormwater), and treatment works that treat, use, or dispose of sewage 

sludge. CWA section 308 provides EPA with the authority to request this type of information 

from permittees. While these provisions establish EPA’s authority and requirement to collect 

pollutant information, EPA has specific needs for collecting the data. These needs include the 

following:

 To provide information on pollutant discharge trends;

 To provide information to permitting authorities to prioritize permit activities;

 To determine whether permittees are in compliance with their permit conditions; and 

 To provide information to the permit writer to determine the need for permit limits.

Permit modification and variance provisions are found in CWA sections 301(c), (g), (h), (k), (n); 

302(b); and 316(a). Additionally, 40 CFR 122.21, 122.24, 122.41, 122.42, 122.47, 122.62, 

122.63, 122.64, 124.5, 125.3, and 501.15 give states with NPDES or sewage sludge management 

program authority and EPA the flexibility to respond quickly and efficiently to the dynamic 

nature of facility operation, technology advancements, and regulatory changes.

Effluent limitations guidelines and standards are national wastewater limitations that apply to 

specific categories of industrial dischargers. The regulations are promulgated by EPA under the 

authority of CWA sections 301, 304, 306, and 307 and implemented through NPDES permits. In 

some instances, EPA establishes requirements for permittees to provide certification to the 
December 2015 4

permitting authority or develop pollution prevention plans to demonstrate compliance with 

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

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

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

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

Federal Register [FR] 18,688, April 19, 1994). The information collection activities described in 

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

combined sewer systems are (1) developing and implementing combined sewer overflow (CSO)

control programs that are consistent with the CSO Control Policy, and (2) that these CSO control 

programs will meet the requirements of the CWA and will achieve compliance with applicable 

state water quality standards (WQS).

On November 16, 1990, Congress enacted the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act (CPA). Section 

101 of the CPA amends Section 118 of the CWA and directs EPA to publish water quality 

guidance for the Great Lakes System. Provisions of the Guidance are codified in 40 CFR Part 

132. The Guidance establishes minimum water quality criteria, implementation procedures, and 

antidegradation provisions for the Great Lakes System.

In 2008, in response to a court order removing a regulatory exclusion, EPA issued (and has 

subsequently reissued) the NPDES Vessel General Permit (VGP) covering discharges incidental 

to the normal operation of a vessel when operating in a capacity as a means of transportation 

(“incidental discharges”). Specifically, the VGP is available for (1) incidental discharges from

vessels greater than 79 feet in length, and (2) ballast water discharges from vessels of any size. 

The VGP defines effluent limits for multiple discharge categories and specifies certain practices 

for various vessel categories.

The types of vessels eligible for coverage under the VGP include, but are not limited to: cruise 

ships; ferries; barges; oil, petroleum, and chemical tankers; bulk carriers, container ships, and 

other cargo ships; refrigerant ships; research vessels; commercial fishing vessels; and emergency 

response vessels.

In 2014, EPA issued the small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) in anticipation of a requirement for 

non-military, non-recreational vessels less than 79 feet to obtain NPDES permit coverage for 

incidental discharges; however, Congress enacted legislation that extended the incidental 

discharge permitting moratorium (except for ballast water) for these smaller vessels and for 

commercial fishing vessels until December 2017. As such, the sVGP currently is only applicable 

to the control of ballast water from vessels less than 79 feet that were previously able to be 

covered under the VGP. These vessels now have the option of being covered under either the 

VGP or sVGP for their ballast water discharges. While EPA is including the activities and 

burden estimates for the sVGP in this ICR, EPA is assuming that vessels will not begin coverage 

under the sVGP until December 2017. At that point in time, small vessels and commercial 

fishing vessels will be required to obtain permit coverage for all their incidental discharges, not 

just for ballast water, and EPA expects vessels eligible for coverage under that permit will 

choose to do so rather than the more burdensome VGP. EPA acknowledges that some vessels 
December 2015 5

less than 79 feet and covered under the VGP for ballast water discharges, may opt to terminate 

coverage under the VGP prior to December 2017 and obtain coverage instead under the sVGP.

The burden associated with the Airport Deicing Category previously contained in a separate ICR 

(OMB Control No. 2040-0285, EPA ICR No. 2326.03, March 11, 2011) is being incorporated 

into this ICR. In 2012, EPA promulgated wastewater regulations (effluent guidelines and 

standards or ELGs) for airports that conduct deicing operations. Aircraft are deiced by the 

spraying of chemicals called aircraft deicing fluids (ADF), which contain pollutants. Airports 

also apply airfield pavement deicing chemicals to runways, taxiways and ramps. The rule 

requires airports to either certify that they are not using deicers containing urea for airfield 

pavement deicing operations or to monitor their effluent and provide monitoring reports once a 

year. EPA anticipates that airports will discontinue urea use and prepare certification letters, as 

opposed to continuing use of urea-based deicers, because the capture and treatment of airfield 

runoff is prohibitively expensive, much more so than not using urea.

2. Indicate how, by whom and for what purpose the information is to 

be used

This ICR includes information used primarily by permitting authorities, permittees, and EPA. It 

is anticipated that other government agencies, both at the state and federal level, as well as public 

interest groups, private companies, and individuals will also use the data. Much of these data 

must be submitted to permitting authorities, while other information must be maintained on-site 

by the permittee. The information collection provisions associated with the NPDES program -

described in Section 1 include the following:

 Activities directly related to individual permit applications or notices of intent (NOIs) for 

coverage under general permits;

 Activities associated with plan development or special studies;

 Monitoring;

 Reporting, including certification;

 Record-keeping;

 Activities resulting from compliance assessments or enforcement actions; and

 Activities resulting from NPDES program authorization, including approval, 

modifications, transfer or withdrawal of authorization.

Although different permittees submit widely differing information, this information can be 

categorized into two sets: identification information and information related to the facility’s 

discharges or practices.

Permitting authorities collect and use identification information such as the name, location, and 

description of facilities to uniquely identify each applicant seeking individual or general permit 

coverage and to establish a contact person. This information varies in detail and scope according 

to the type of respondent. Because discharges vary in complexity and character, and because 

discharges and activities from related industry groups or treatment works are often similar, EPA 

has developed several different NPDES application forms. Table 2.1 lists the application forms 

and other application requirements and the respondents to the request.
December 2015 6

Table 2.1 Application forms and information requests

Form/Request Respondent type

Form 1 Nonmunicipal NPDES applicants not 

covered under form 2B

Form 2A All POTWs 

Additional NPDES 

Application Requirements 

for Municipal Dischargers 

(Section 308 Request)

Municipal facilities (i.e., POTWs)

Form 2B CAFO Applications and CAAP 

facilities (not covered under this ICR)

Form 2C Existing manufacturing, commercial, 

mining, and silvicultural operations 

that discharge process wastewater

Form 2D New manufacturing and commercial 

facilities that discharge process 

wastewater

Additional NPDES 

Application Requirements 

for Nonmunicipal 

Dischargers (Section 308 

Requests)

Nonmunicipal facilities

Form 2E New or existing nonmunicipal facilities 

that discharge non-process 

wastewater

Form 2F Industrial stormwater dischargers 

applying for an individual permit 

Form 2S POTWs and other treatment works 

treating domestic sewage (TWTDS) 

(covers sludge)

NOI-Industrial Activity 

(NOI-Stormwater)

Industrial stormwater dischargers 

applying for a Multi-Sector General 

Permit (MSGP)

Application for 

Transportation and Utility 

Systems and Facilities On 

Federal Lands (Alaskan 

Lands Application)

Builders and operators of 

transportation and utility projects on 

Alaskan public lands (substitutes for 

Forms 1, 2B, and 2C)

Application for Phase I 

MS4s

Phase I MS4s

Petitions for Individual 

Permit 

Small MS4 operators or any person

NOI Municipal, nonmunicipal, and sewage 

sludge management facilities applying 

for general permit coverage, Vessels 

applying under the VGP and sVGP

Permit Consolidation 

Request

Facilities with multiple permits

Notification of Construction Facilities classified as new sources

Ocean Discharge 

Information

Ocean dischargers

Notice of Termination 

(NOT)

General permittees (stormwater) and 

industrial stormwater dischargers, 

Vessels under the VGP and sVGP

No Exposure Certification Industrial stormwater dischargers
December 2015 7

Form/Request Respondent type

Low Erosivity Waiver 

Certification

General permittees (stormwater)

Annual Report Vessels under the VGP

Permit Authorization and 

Record of Inspection 

(PARI)

Vessels under the VGP and sVGP

Annual Noncompliance 

Form

Vessels under the sVGP

Historically, EPA and authorized states store basic permit information in EPA’s Permit 

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

database. Recently EPA has completed the transition from PCS to ICIS and now uses ICIS 

exclusively for tracking permits. ICIS-NPDES is used to track permit limits, permit expiration 

dates, monitoring data, enforcement and compliance data, and other data and to provide EPA 

with a nationwide inventory of permit holders. EPA and most states store basic information for 

stormwater permittees in databases separate from ICIS-NPDES. EPA uses this information to 

develop reports on permit issuance, backlog, and compliance rates. EPA also uses the 

information to respond to public and congressional inquiries, develop and guide its policies, 

support enforcement action, formulate its budgets, and manage its programs to ensure national 

consistency in permitting. For the most part, states and territories are authorized to implement the 

NPDES permitting program, manage and use the data in a similar fashion to EPA and, as a 

result, incur similar types of burdens.

To meet its obligations under the CWA, National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), and to promote those acts’ goals, EPA must ensure that 

discharges covered under EPA-issued NPDES permits are protective of historic properties, 

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

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

threatened species, and designated critical habitat. Information from this assessment for 

stormwater applicants is provided in the Notice of Intent (NOI) and therefore contained in the 

NOI database. Authorized states are not required to meet the ESA and NHPA obligations, and 

therefore no ESA or NHPA burden is associated with state- (or territory)-issued permits.

From the applications and requests for supplemental information, permitting authorities gather 

information about industrial processes, treatment systems, pollutant characteristics, discharge 

rates and volumes, sewage sludge use and disposal practices, sewage sludge quality, and other 

data such as pollution prevention practices. Additional information collection requirements that 

might be necessary to implement state-, tribal-, or EPA-promulgated provisions consistent with 

the CWA, the Great Lakes Guidance, and other EPA regulatory requirements include monitoring 

(pollutant-specific and whole effluent toxicity or WET), pollutant minimization programs, 

bioassays to support the development of water quality criteria, antidegradation 

policy/demonstrations, and regulatory relief options (i.e., variances from water quality criteria).

The information is used to develop effluent limitations, compliance schedules, and other routine 

and special conditions in permits. EPA may use these data to reevaluate testing requirements or 

to develop or revise effluent standards on a national basis. EPA may also use NOI and 

stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) data as part of a compliance evaluation to ensure 
December 2015 8

that the permittee adheres to procedures laid out in the documents.

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

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

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

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

in existing permits. Permitting authorities use reapplication data to identify new pollutants or 

other information that could lead the permit writers to take the following actions: specify 

additional permit limitations, assess compliance with applicable effluent and sewage sludge 

guidelines, and place appropriate special conditions in permits.

Permittees use discharge monitoring data or sewage sludge quality data (in the case of publicly 

owned treatment works [POTWs] and privately owned treatment works [PrOTWs]) to perform 

routine operations at their facilities and evaluate facility performance. In addition, they might 

need to collect this information to comply with state-specific program requirements or, in the 

case of POTWs, to administer pretreatment programs which is covered under a separate ICR. For 

these reasons, most permittees collect additional data (i.e., product quality and production 

efficiency information) that may or may not be included with monitoring reports or required by 

their permits. Collection and reporting of data to permitting authorities also improves permittee 

accountability to remain in compliance with their established permit conditions.

As noted above, discharge monitoring data provides EPA and states with authorized NPDES and 

sewage sludge management programs with the information necessary to assess permittee 

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

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

monitoring data to evaluate a plant’s operational aspects; ambient stream monitoring data to 

measure a permit’s effectiveness in protecting water quality; internal waste stream data when 

monitoring at the point of discharge is impractical or infeasible; or visual monitoring (including 

underwater surveys) that might be necessary to determine compliance with permit limits.

A permittee generally informs the permitting authority about its discharge through a Discharge 

Monitoring Report (DMR). The DMR lists all the results from the permittee’s required selfmonitoring of pollutants. The permitting authority reviews this information and compares it with 

permit limits to determine compliance and/or if there is a need to develop additional limits. In 

addition to DMRs, permittees may be required to submit reports on violations of maximum daily 

discharge limitations, as specifically required in their permits. This latter reporting requirement is 

intended to alert the permitting authority of potential health or environmental risks that could 

require a timely response. The data collected by this requirement are more incident-specific than 

the summary information provided on the DMR.

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

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

reports. Furthermore, EPA and states have referred to DMR data on pollutants when developing 

lists of waters impaired by pollutants and point source dischargers that may cause or contribute 

to degradation of the quality of those waters.
December 2015 9

As public information, monitoring data are used by public groups for a variety of purposes. 

Citizen groups review monitoring data to independently assess pollutant discharger compliance 

and noncompliance. In some instances, the data form the basis for citizen suits that are 

authorized under CWA section 505. In addition, environmental groups, academicians, and others 

use monitoring data to estimate toxic pollutant loading to streams, lakes, oceans, and estuaries.

If noncompliance with permit conditions is detected, the permitting authority will determine the 

appropriate enforcement response based on the nature and severity of the violation, the overall 

frequency of noncompliance, and the degree of seriousness of the violation.

There are several exceptions to the general flow of compliance assessment data from the 

permittee to the permitting authority. EPA may require additional information in the form of a 

section 308(a) letter. Another exception to the compliance data information flow from permittee 

to permitting authority occurs in the case of the NPDES stormwater permitting program where 

the regulatory requirement is for records retention rather than reporting. This activity is reflected 

in this ICR as a record-keeping activity.

Permits are modified to change the limits and conditions of existing permits without affecting the 

permit’s term. Information supporting modification requests is collected during the effective 

term of the permit. Variances, alternatively, allow effluent limitation requirements or time 

deadlines to be modified or waived. During the permit development process, the permitting 

authority collects information from facilities to evaluate variance requests. In each case, the 

information collected is used to update or supplement permit application data.

Use of the data provided in each type of modification or variance request varies greatly because 

the information requirements of these items are so diverse. In general, EPA and authorized states 

use the information to determine whether the conditions or requirements that would warrant a 

modification or variance exist, and the progress toward achieving the goals of the CWA will 

continue if the modification or variance is granted.

Information submitted by municipalities under the CSO Control Policy provide NPDES 

permitting authorities with the necessary information to determine whether a municipality’s CSO 

control program is adequate to achieve compliance with CWA requirements and applicable state 

WQS, to establish permit terms and conditions for CSOs, to track performance, to identify and 

assess violations, and to target inspection and enforcement actions. The information is also used 

by EPA Regions and states to develop and evaluate the success of their CSO Control Strategies. 

EPA will also use this data to measure its performance in achieving the goals of the CSO Control 

Policy.

Information collected by EPA is used to evaluate the adequacy of a state’s NPDES or sludge 

program, and to provide EPA with the information necessary to fulfill its function of statutory 

oversight over state program performance and individual permit actions. EPA will also use this 

information to evaluate states’ requests for full or partial program authorization and program 

modifications. To evaluate the adequacy of a state’s proposed program, appropriate information 

must be provided to ensure that proper procedures, regulations, and statutes are in place and 

consistent with CWA requirements.
December 2015 10

In a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), EPA Regions and authorized states define which 

permits the Region will review and which permits it will not review. Generally, the Region must 

be provided the opportunity to review all permits for major facilities, all general permits, and a 

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

all appropriate data necessary for permit review––application forms, fact sheets, draft permits, 

and the like. EPA uses the information submitted by states to review state-issued permits for 

compliance with federal laws. Sewage sludge noncompliance reports serve the same purposes as 

NPDES effluent noncompliance reports. However, sewage sludge reports are required only 

annually.

EPA and the states will use information submitted by airports concerning use of urea chemical to 

determine permittee compliance with the regulations and administer enforcement actions if

needed.

EPA’s ongoing monitoring of authorized state programs ensures continued compliance with the 

goals and requirements of the CWA and state programs. EPA uses information about permittees’ 

noncompliance to do the following:

 Evaluate the effectiveness of state compliance enforcement programs;

 Support its own enforcement actions, if any, against dischargers in authorized states; and 

 Generate and publish noncompliance rates to be used in reports to offices within EPA and 

to OMB and Congress.

3. Describe whether and to what extent the collection involves the use 

of automated processes or information technology to aid with the 

collection

On October 22, 2015, EPA published the final Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) Electronic Reporting Rule (80 Federal Register [FR] 64063,

October 22, 2015) which requires electronic reporting of NPDES information rather than paperbased reports. Implementation will be phased in over five years following the rule’s effective 

date. However, EPA does anticipate that the implementation of the Electronic Reporting Rule in 

future years will reduce reporting burdens for all entities involved. This burden is currently 

covered in a separate ICR.

For activities related to stormwater general permits for industrial facilities, recent revisions to the 

multi-sector general permit (MSGP) that applies to respondents in states where EPA remains as 

the permitting authority require respondents to submit required notices, certifications, reports and

monitoring data electronically via EPA’s electronic NPDES eReporting tools (NeT and 

NetDMR). These respondents however, only comprise approximately 3% of all industrial 

facilities with stormwater permits. Electronic reporting opportunities and requirements for 

respondents where states are the permitting authority vary from state to state.

For activities related to the MSGP, the construction general permit (CGP), the vessels general 

permit (VGP) and the small vessels general permit (sVGP), respondents are required to submit 
December 2015 11

NOIs electronically via EPA's electronic Notice of Intent (eNOI) system. These respondents 

comprise approximately 72% of non-state respondents.

Currently, EPA maintains some application data in data systems such as ICIS-NPDES and the 

eNOI database. EPA Headquarters uses this information to assess permit compliance. This 

technology also reduces the burden to EPA and the states for gathering and analyzing national 

permit and water quality data.

In collecting and analyzing the information associated with NPDES permit coverage 

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

forms; personal computers; and databases to ultimately store the information. EPA will ensure 

accuracy and completeness of the information and is responsible for ensuring that applicable data 

are entered into ICIS-NPDES. Any form that is considered inaccurate or incomplete will not be 

accepted and will be returned to the sender with a letter requesting the missing or inaccurate 

information.

The public may access certain information via ICIS-NPDES or Enforcement and Compliance 

History Online (ECHO). Some of the information is available to the public through Web-based 

interfaces that pull data from ICIS-NPDES and other EPA data systems.

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

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

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

CSO municipalities will submit nine minimum controls (NMC) documentation and Long-Term 

Control Plans (LTCP) in response to a requirement in an NPDES permit or other enforceable 

mechanism. The LTCP-EZ planning template offers some burden reduction to small 

communities and will be discussed more in depth under the discussion for small entity impacts.

The information reported in this ICR related to the NPDES and Sewage Sludge Management 

State Programs is limited to state efforts, including EPA review of state information; it does not 

reflect the burden on the permittee. For general reports, EPA and states are moving toward 

greater automation—for example, computer-generated Quarterly Noncompliance Reports 

(QNCRs). Much of the information is day-to-day, ongoing program information, some of which 

is case-specific.

4. Describe the efforts to identify duplication

Almost all information requested from respondents under this ICR is required by statute or 

regulation and, in most cases, is not available from other sources. EPA has examined all other 

reporting and record-keeping requirements contained in the CWA and 40 CFR Parts 122, 123, 

124, 125, 403, 501, and 503. EPA also has consulted the following sources of information to 

determine if similar or duplicate information is available elsewhere:

 The EPA Inventory of ICRs;

 The Government Information Locator Service; and

 The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).
December 2015 12

EPA has also examined potentially similar reporting requirements for notice of spills under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for duplication of the CWA requirement. 

EPA believes that any duplication between NPDES and RCRA reporting of pollutant releases is 

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

and NPDES focuses on discharge outfalls).

5. Explain whether or not the collection impacts small entities

Many small businesses do not discharge any pollutants. Of the small businesses that do 

discharge, many of them are indirect dischargers to a POTW. These businesses are not required 

to have NPDES permits and thus are not subject to the reporting requirements contained in this 

ICR. Although small business direct dischargers are not treated as a separate class under the 

NPDES program, efforts to minimize the burdens imposed on them by NPDES information 

collection activities are implicit in the existing monitoring/reporting framework. Most small 

businesses permitted under NPDES, except those discharging toxic chemicals, are covered either 

by permits with less rigorous monitoring and reporting requirements or by general permits. This 

tends to impose lower DMR-related workloads on minor permittees and general permittees than 

major individual permittees. In general, monitoring and reporting requirements are based on 

many factors, the most important of which are the volume and environmental significance of 

wastewater discharge. Because small permittees usually discharge small volumes of wastewater, 

their monitoring and reporting burdens tend to be minimal.

For many reasons, EPA believes the reporting requirements discussed in this ICR do not place an 

unreasonable burden on small business. EPA developed several application forms, and it 

promulgated different application requirements to tailor the information collection demands 

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

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

regularly looked for ways to reduce reporting burdens on businesses of all sizes and approaches 

used to minimize the burden to small entities are discussed below:

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

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

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

applications infrequently, typically once every 5 years. The burden represented by these 

applications cannot be further reduced for small businesses. Permitting authorities need 

certain basic information to make permitting decisions. This basic information is not 

dependent on a facility’s size.

 EPA developed general permit procedures to reduce burdens associated with the 

application process, especially the burden associated with stormwater discharges. 

Applicants for stormwater general permits, for instance, do not need to submit any 

sampling data.

 NOIs for permit coverage for construction sites contain minimal information required to 

characterize the site and construction activity. NOIs are submitted infrequently, typically 

once for each construction activity or twice if the construction activity continues beyond 

the expiration date of the general permit. Most site-related information is contained in the 

SWPPP, which is not required to be submitted to EPA. Furthermore, sites submit NOIs 
December 2015 13

once every 5 years, and the burden represented by these NOIs cannot easily be reduced 

for small businesses because EPA needs certain basic information to make permitting 

decisions. This basic information is not dependent on an organization’s size. The 

construction general permit (CGP) NOI (EPA form 3510-9) was developed specifically 

to reduce the burden for construction activities. The preexisting NOI form (EPA Form 

3510-6) that was replaced in 1998 required more detailed information because the form 

was also used for industrial activities requesting coverage under a general permit. The 

current NOI is simplified and requests only relevant information for construction 

activities.

 With regard to small MS4s regulated under the Phase II Rule, EPA believes that the 

application requirements provide the minimum information required to adequately assess 

the current and future effects of the small MS4 discharges on waters of the United States. 

The NOI and individual permit application requirements for regulated small MS4s 

represent substantially reduced application requirements from those of the Phase I 

stormwater regulation for medium and large MS4s.

 In general, the no-exposure provision of the Stormwater Phase II Rule allows regulatory 

relief for small industrial entities with no exposure. For a few small entities, the 

information collection burden will increase slightly by an estimated 45 minutes because 

of the need to submit a waiver certification.

 Some facilities that do not have toxic pollutants in their effluent are not required to 

provide as much monitoring information on Form 2C as those with toxic discharges. 

Under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(8), coal mines with a probable total annual production less than 

100,000 tons per year and other applicants with gross total annual sales averaging less 

than $100,000 per year (in second quarter 1980 dollars) might qualify as a small business 

and be exempt from the reporting requirements for toxic pollutants.

 EPA developed Form 2E specifically to reduce the reporting burden for certain small 

businesses. These businesses are new or existing manufacturing, commercial, mining, 

and silvicultural NPDES permit applicants that do not discharge process wastewater. This 

form is easier to complete and requires the submission of existing sampling data (i.e., 

sampling and analysis is not required to be conducted as part of the application process). 

EPA’s guidance materials–such as manuals, fact sheets, and training courses on 

development of SWPPPs and LTCPs–also help minimize the burden on small entities by 

giving them easier access to the specific and streamlined requirements applicable to 

them.

 All permittees, regardless of the size of their facilities, are required to report instances of 

noncompliance and keep records of monitoring data. In most cases, these requirements do 

not impose a large burden on small businesses because the information required is simple 

and straightforward.

 For activities related to NPDES modification and variance requests, the NPDES 

regulations do not specify different modification and variance requirements for small 

businesses. The burden incurred as a result of variance requests is voluntary. A small 

business that decides to request a variance from effluent limitations does so on the basis 

of its assessment that the benefits of receiving such a variance outweigh the burdens 

associated with preparing the request. The time and effort required to prepare a small 

facility’s variance request might be less than that required to prepare a similar request for 

a larger, more complex facility.
December 2015 14

 EPA and states also have made extensive use of general permits, which tend to have less 

burdensome monitoring and reporting requirements than individual permits. In fact, the 

majority of stormwater permittees, which compose more than three quarters of all 

NPDES permittees, are covered under general permits.

 To assist communities with combined sewer systems (CSSs) that serve populations of 

fewer than 75,000, the CSO Control Policy recommends that NPDES permitting 

authorities use flexibility when requiring these communities to develop an LTCP. In the 

policy, EPA recommends that small systems be required to document implementation of 

the NMC, prepare LTCPs that give high priority to controlling overflows to sensitive 

areas, and employ public participation in their decision-making process. The intent of this 

recommendation is to focus the limited resources of smaller communities on controlling 

CSOs. The extent of compliance monitoring by small entities should be less extensive 

than monitoring by larger communities because the small systems have fewer CSOs. 

EPA developed an LTCP Template (LTCP EZ) to help small communities develop 

LTCPs. LTCP EZ builds on NMC implementation and provides step-by-step instructions 

for a detailed template. The simple forms can be completed in hard copy format or 

electronically.

The information reported in this ICR related to state NPDES and sewage sludge programs is 

limited to state efforts, including EPA review of state information; it does not reflect the burden 

on the permittee. Therefore, these activities do not affect small businesses.

6. Describe the consequences to the program if the collection is not 

conducted or is conducted less frequently

In most cases, the data collection is mandatory and the consequences of not collecting the 

information would result in a failure of the regulated facilities and/or control authorities to 

comply with the authorizing NPDES regulations. Failure to comply could result in enforcement 

actions including civil or criminal penalties.

EPA recognizes the importance of balancing the need for data collection efforts against 

respondent burden and costs. From the inception of the NPDES program, cost has been one of 

the major factors considered in establishing application requirements, monitoring conditions, and 

report contents and frequencies. In recent years, the executive and legislative branches of the 

U.S. government have stressed the need to evaluate the costs and benefits of regulation and the 

financial impact on the regulated community, state, and local government. EPA regularly seeks 

new opportunities to reduce burden on the regulated community.

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

requirements related to the NPDES program is submitted either one time, at a regular frequency, 

or on an as needed basis. EPA and authorized states need current information about permittees, 

discharge characteristics, enforcement actions, and program performance to fulfill oversight 

responsibilities. In addition, EPA must track permits, compliance activities, and enforcement 

actions to ensure that state programs are carrying out the provisions of the CWA in a timely 

manner. The NPDES burden described in this ICR identifies the burden that EPA has determined 

as necessary to provide sufficient data for EPA to effectively provide guidance for state 

programs, to review or comment on state actions, or to intervene in compliance or enforcement 
December 2015 15

cases.

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

their existing permits expire, generally once every 5 years. The CWA prohibits NPDES permits 

from having terms longer than 5 years. Less frequent permit applications would not provide the 

permitting authority with sufficiently current data to establish effective limitations or conditions 

when reissuing permits. Less frequent permit issuance would also hinder the ability of EPA and 

the regulated community to take advantage of technological improvements as they occur. 

Permits must contain conditions that reflect, for example, the following criteria:

 New industrial processes and waste treatment technologies;

 New kinds of discharges (such as toxic chemicals);

 New detection methods; and

 Changes in the quality of receiving waters.

EPA strives to minimize monitoring-related workloads. For example, EPA developed an 

automated procedure that preprints relevant permittee information, such as discharger name and 

address, pollutants to be monitored, and effluent limitations on the DMR form before sending it 

to the permittee; EPA is also piloting netDMR, which will further streamline reporting. 

Permittees are required to record only their monitoring results and to report any violations. EPA 

continues its efforts to minimize permittee burden associated with monitoring data collection and 

reporting requirements.

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

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

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

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

requested by the Administrator, in response to events such as a spill of oil or a hazardous 

substance, or whenever EPA has reason to believe it needs additional information to determine 

compliance. Compliance schedule reports are submitted only when a permit contains a 

compliance schedule and when a milestone identified in the permit is reached to determine the 

permittee’s compliance with that milestone. Also, alternate level reports are submitted only when 

there is an expected change in the production level at the facility. Therefore, frequency of 

information collection is not an issue for the reporting requirements in this category.

In certain instances, permittees may choose to submit information when requesting a 

modification or variance from otherwise applicable requirements. The information collection and 

reporting requirements associated with NPDES permit modifications and variances are specific, 

would not be supplied in any other report or application, and are submitted as needed. In most 

cases, the decision to submit information is made by the NPDES permittee or permit applicant. 

The exceptions are (1) when outside events trigger the need for a permit modification, and (2) 

when the Administrator decides to invoke a reporting requirement, such as a request for permit 

revocation and reissuance. Because information is submitted only when needed, less frequent 

data collection would not provide the permitting authority and EPA Headquarters with sufficient 

information to meet their responsibilities under the CWA.
December 2015 16

7. Explain any special circumstances associated with “extraordinary 

burden” placed on respondents

There are no special circumstances where “extraordinary burden” is placed on respondents. The 

collection of information is conducted in a manner consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act 

guidelines at 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2). Requests for supplemental information for the purposes of 

emergency response or enforcement activities are exempt from the Paperwork Reduction Act 

requirements.

8. Provide a copy and identify the date and page number of the notice 

in the Federal Register and describe efforts to consult with persons 

outside the agency

In compliance with the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), any agency developing a nonrule-related ICR must solicit public comments prior to submitting the ICR to OMB. These 

comments, which may be used to help determine realistic burden estimates for respondents, must 

be considered when completing the supporting statement that is submitted to OMB.

This ICR was published in the Federal Register on (October 5, 2015) (80 FR 60142). The notice 

included a request for comments on the content and impact of these information collection 

requirements on the regulated community. EPA did not receive any comments on this ICR. A 

copy of the Federal Register Notice can be found in Appendix E.2.

Minimum data collection requirements are mandated and specifically defined by the regulations 

authorizing collection are not subject to change through consultation. These requirements are 

often incorporated into the NPDES permit. The Directors of NPDES programs are primarily 

responsible for determining which collection method and information management strategy is 

most appropriate. During the initial NPDES permit development and during permit reissuance 

which occurs every five years a consultation occurs between the Director and permittee. During 

this consultation, the permittee has the opportunity to request clarification of instructions, recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting format and to request changes to the data requirements and the 

frequency of collection and reporting that may be warranted by changing circumstances. Specific 

changes can then be incorporated in the renewed permit. This consultation occurs on an 

individual basis with each respondent. The permit renewal five year frequency is mandated by 

the regulation. However, during the interim period the permittee may consult with the Director if 

significant changes to circumstances of the permittee occur, and, if warranted, the Director may 

enact modifications to the permit.

9. Explain any decision to provide compensation to respondents

No payments or gifts are provided to respondents.

10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents

Permit applications and other respondent reports may contain confidential business information. 

If this is the case, the respondent may request that such information be treated as confidential. 

All confidential data will be handled in accordance with 40 CFR 122.7, 40 CFR Part 2, and 

EPA’s Security Manual Part III, Chapter 9, dated August 9, 1976. Any claim of confidentiality 

must be asserted at the time of submission. However, CWA section 308(b) specifically states that 
December 2015 17

effluent data may not be treated as confidential.

11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive 

nature

Questions of a sensitive nature are not found in this information collection.

12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of 

information

The estimated of respondent burden hours includes facilities subject to NPDES program 

requirements (permittees) and authorized states. Appendix A provides a description of the 

information collected and the methodology for estimating respondent burden and costs. 

Appendix B presents a calculated respondent burden estimate grouped by activity type and 

respondent type. Table 12.1 summarizes the labor burden and associated labor costs for 

permittees and states with NPDES program authority.

Table 12.1 Summary of labor burden and costs

Average Annual 

Respondents

Average Annual 

Total Burden 

(hours) 

Average Annual 

Total Labor Costs 

(2014$)

Permittees 531,886 19,451,518 $946,410,935

States, Tribes, territories and 

DC* 637 1,589,589 $69,242,490

Totals 532,523 21,041,107 $1,015,653,425

*590 of these 637 are not states or territories and respond to only one information item 

(certification of EPA-issued permits).

13. Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to 

respondents

This section presents an estimate of annual O&M and capital and start-up costs. The majority of 

the burden and cost calculations in this ICR are the result of labor costs only. The ICR does, 

however, account for O&M costs for certain testing/analysis plus certain capital and start-up 

costs incurred by respondents that perform activities outside the normal operation practices. All 

costs presented have been adjusted using the Consumer Price Index to November 2014 dollars. 

This ICR estimates that there are no O&M or capital and start-up costs for state agencies or the 

Federal Government.

The permittee O&M costs are linked to the three distinctive activities listed below:

 Application Requirements for NPDES Permits;

 Baseline Determination and Estimate of the Incremental Monitoring Burden and Cost for 

Remining Sites; and

 Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Direct Discharging Mills in the Bleached 

Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory of the 

Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category

Details regarding the methodology used to derive these costs are provided in Section A.2.2 of 
December 2015 18

Appendix A.

The permittee capital and start-up costs are linked to two distinctive activities listed below:

 CSO Control Policy

 Baseline Determination and Estimate of the Incremental Monitoring Burden and Cost for 

Remaining Sites

Details regarding the methodology used to derive these costs are provided in Section A.2.3 of 

Appendix A. Table 13.1 presents a summary of annual O&M and capital and start-up costs.

Table 13.1 Summary of annual O&M and capital and start-up costs

Permittees States/Tribes/Territories

Costs (capital and start-up) $255,948 $0

Costs (O&M) $20,198,011 $0

Total annual costs $20,234,452 $0

14. Provide an estimate of the annualized cost to the Federal 

government

In states without approved NPDES programs, the Federal Government (through its’ EPA 

Regional Offices) issues and administers NPDES permits. These burdens are similar to those 

incurred by the states and are calculated using the same methodology and assumptions. The 

details for program administration which applies to both the Federal Government in nonapproved states and to states with approved programs are presented in Appendix A. Appendix C 

Table C.1 presents a calculated respondent burden estimates grouped by activity type. The 

Federal Government also provides general program oversight of the NPDES program and the 

approved state programs. The details of the program oversight costs are presented in Appendix C

Table C.2. Table 14.1 provides a summary of the average annual Agency burden hours and costs. 

Table 14.1 Summary of Agency Annualized Burden and Costs

Program 

Administration in 

Non-Approved 

States 

(Appendix C 

Table C.1)

NPDES Program 

Oversight 

(Appendix C

Table C.2)

Total

Responses (number) 394,173 879 395,052

Burden (hours) 170,451 8,338 178,789

Costs (labor) $7,226,595 $346,622 $7,573,218

Costs (capital) $0 $0 $0

Costs (O&M) $0 $0 $0

Total costs $7,226,595 $346,622 $7,573,218

15. Explain the reasons for an adjustments reported in items 13 or 14 
December 2015 19

of OMB Form 83-I

The current burden approved by OMB for the existing ICR (OMB Control No. 2040-0004, EPA 

ICR No. 0229.20) is 21,324,741 hours. The burden request in this ICR is 283,634 hours less than 

the current approved burden, a reduction of 1.3%. Adjustments to the burden estimates include: 

the addition of the burden associated with the airport deicing category; changes in the burden 

associated with agency actions related to changes in the VGP; addition of burden associated with 

the issuance of the small vessels general permit (sVGP) classified here as a new statute; and 

changes in the estimated burden associated with revised estimates of number of respondents. A 

detailed description of these changes is below.

One minor adjustment in this renewal is the incorporation of the burden associated with the 

airport deicing category which had previously been included under a separate ICR (OMB 

Control No. 2040-0285, EPA ICR No. 2326.03, March 11, 2011). A annual total of 198 airport 

respondents are expected to spend one hour completing a certification form for a total of 198 

hours per year. The associated burden to Federal and state permitting control authorities was 

estimated to be minimal.

Another adjustment that results from an agency action involves changes to the requirements for 

vessels covered under the VGP. The replacement of the onetime reporting requirement with an 

annual report for the 72,942 vessel respondents resulted in a net increase in average annual 

burden of 71,411 hours. Also, a portion of vessels covered under the VGP are required submit a 

Permit Authorization and Record of Inspection Form (PARI) resulting in a net change in annual 

average burden of 513 hours. Finally, changes in the monitoring requirements resulted in a net 

increase in annual average burden of 4,800 hours.

Another adjustment involves the issuance of the small Vessel General Permit (sVGP). These 

requirements for the sVGP for completion of a PARI and related self-inspections and 

recordkeeping which will begin occurring in December 2017 resulted in increase in annual 

average burden of 21,496 hours.

This ICR also includes an adjustment of 2,627 hours to account for implementation of EPA’s 

Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Compliance Monitoring 

Strategy (revised July 2014, replacing the October 2007 NPDES CMS). The 2014 NPDES CMS 

provides clarity to NPDES authorized states regarding the transmittal to EPA of annual CMS 

plans and end-of-year reports. EPA developed an optional template for the CMS plans and 

reports in order to streamline implementation of the 2014 NPDES CMS. The estimate of 2,627 

hours is based on state utilization of the template.

Regarding changes in the estimated burden associated with revised estimates of number of 

respondents, the majority of input data used to estimate respondent burden was obtained from 

queries to the ICIS NPDES database which includes data fields that describe the facility type, 

permit type, and other descriptive information used to classify the permits. In the past few years, 

EPA has been transferring data from the older PCS database to the ICIS database which is now 

completed. In the previous ICR, these data were divided between the PCS and ICIS database and 

counts of various types of permits used to estimate burden were based on the sum of counts from 

both databases. The data fields within the two databases are not identical and some changes in 
December 2015 20

permit classification and in interpretation of classification in the database queries may have 

occurred as a result of the transfer of permit data between the databases. Changes in estimated 

permit numbers may also reflect updating of permit entries within the database.

The increase in annual cost burden was primarily due to adjustments for inflation (to 2014 

dollars) and to a lesser extent adjustments in respondent burden estimates described above. The 

cost adjustment for inflation was the result of a 7% adjustment from 2011 to 2014 dollars but 

also included a 25% adjustment for inflation for a longer period from 2004 to 2014 for O&M 

costs of monitoring for paper mills because these costs had not been adjusted in previous ICR 

estimates.

Table 15.1 Summary of Adjustment in Respondent Burden Hours and Costs Between 

Renewed ICR and OMB Inventory

Total 

Requested

Change due to: 

Previously 

Approved 

Percent 

Change 

Total

New 

Statute

Agency 

Actions 

(New Rules, 

etc.)

Revised 

Estimates

Annual 

Number of 

Responses 5,058,182 85,983 74,308 -83,026 4,980,917 1.6%

Annual Time 

Burden (Hour) 21,041,107 21,496 79,350 -384,480 21,324,741 -1.3%

Annual Cost 

Burden 

(Dollars) $20,234,453 $0 $0 $1,471,530 $18,762,922 8%

16. Outline any plans for tabulation and publication of the information

EPA maintains some application data in databases such as ICIS-NPDES and the NOI database. 

These systems provide EPA with a nationwide inventory of all permit holders. EPA 

Headquarters uses this information to assess permit compliance. This technology also reduces 

the burden to EPA and the states for gathering and analyzing national permit and water quality 

data. ICIS is the national computerized management information system that automates entry, 

updates, and facilitates retrieval of NPDES data and tracks permit issuance, permit limits and 

monitoring data, and other data pertaining to facilities regulated under NPDES. Permit data can 

be accessed by the public in one of two ways:

 via an on-line query using EPA’s Envirofacts Data Warehouse and Applications website 

at http://www.epa.gov/enviro/index_java.html. Accessing data via Envirofacts provides a 

method to combine ICIS data with other EPA databases and mapping tools.

 via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by submitting a request to EPA or the state.

17. Explain any requests to not display the expiration date of OMB 

approval

EPA has not made a request regarding display of the expiration date.
December 2015 21

18. Explain any exceptions to the certification statement 5 CFR 

1320.9, “Agency Certifications for Proposed Collections of 

Information.”

The agency is able to certify compliance with all provisions under Item 19 of OMB Form 83-I.B.

B. Statistical Methods (used for collection of information 

employing statistical methods)

Statistical methods are not used with this collection.
December 2015 22

Appendix A – Description of the Information Collected and 

Methodology for Estimating Respondent Burden and Cost of 

Collection

This appendix provides the details regarding the methodology for estimating respondent burden 

and costs. Section A.1 provides the methodology for deriving respondent burden and breakdown 

of capital/start-up cost, while the derivation of labor costs is provided in section A.2.

A.1. Estimating Respondent Burden

This section presents a description of the methodology for estimating respondent burden for the

information requests. Facilities subject to NPDES program requirements (also referred to as 

permit holders or permittees) and authorized states are included as respondents in this section. 

Methodologies that apply to NPDES authorized states also apply to EPA Regions acting as 

permitting authority in non-NPDES authorized states. However, the EPA permitting authority 

burden and costs are not included in the respondent burden and cost estimates.

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

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

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

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

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

facilities. Respondents will apply for each type of new permit only once and the annual number 

is estimated based on the expected average number of new permit applications that will be 

submitted over the three year period covered by this ICR.

The following section summarizes the input data and assumptions for each of the categories of 

respondent activities shown in the table in Appendix B. The values shown in Appendix B for 

total hours per response represent weighted averages based on the estimated number of 

respondents and the estimated response duration for different types of permits and permit 

activities. In some cases, the “total number of respondents” and “annual number of respondents” 

shown in Appendix B may include double counting of individual respondents because the 

category may include multiple activities for the same respondent. For example, a permittee may 

be required to submit different types of notices to the permitting authority. This is particularly 

true for record-keeping, which can involve multiple types of record-keeping activities.

A.1.1. Record-keeping

Record-keeping activities include those associated with data collected, DMRs, permit 

documents, notices, and correspondence. Frequency may range from ongoing to once every five 

years. The estimated time required per response ranges from 10 minutes (0.17 hours) for sludge 

permits to 6-7 hours for general stormwater and major industrial NPDES permits. The average 

hour per response is higher for private permittees primarily due to the greater record-keeping 

burden for stormwater general permittee self-inspections.

The estimated time required for state respondents for permit oversight record-keeping ranges 

from a per state aggregate of 0.33 hours for the CSO program to 50 hours for sludge programs to 
December 2015 23

300 hours for the NPDES program

A.1.2. Application Forms

Below are NPDES application forms that are submitted initially for new permits and are 

resubmitted upon permit renewal every five years. These forms and the applicable facilities are 

included in Table 2.1 in Section A Item 2 of the main document. The burdens for application 

forms accounted for separately for Form 1, Forms 2C-2F, Forms for POTWs & PrOTWs, Ocean 

Discharge Application and Alaskan Lands due to the wide variety in response times for each 

type and are discussed separately below.

A.1.2.1. Form 1

The estimated time required per response for Form 1 ranges from 1 to 3 hours.

The estimated burden hours for state respondent for review of Form 1 is 0.5 hours per form.

A.1.2.2. Forms 2C-2F

The estimated time required per response for Forms 2C-2F ranges from 14 hours for Form 2E to 

46 hours for Form 2D.

Estimated burden hours for state respondents to review of Forms 2C-2F ranges from 0.5 hours to 

2 hours per form.

A.1.2.3. Forms for POTWs & PrOTWs

The estimated time required per response for Forms for POTWs & PrOTWs (Form 2A - Basic, 

Form 2A - Part D, Form 2A - Part E, Form 2A - Part F, Form 2A - Part G) range from 4 to 18 

hours. There are non-labor operating costs associated with Forms for POTWs & PrOTWs due to 

requirements for testing and analysis. See section A.2 for details.

Estimated burden hours for state respondents to review Forms for POTWs & PrOTWs ranges 

from 0.67 hours to 4 hours per application.

A.1.2.4. Ocean Discharge Application

The estimated total hours per response for applications for ocean discharges is 778 hours but no 

applications are anticipated for the three year period for this ICR renewal.

Estimated burden hours for state respondents to review applications for ocean discharges is 88

hours per application.

A.1.2.5. Alaskan Lands

The estimated total hours per response for submission of an application for Transportation and 

Utility Systems and Facilities On Federal Lands (Alaskan Lands Application) is 30 hours per 

application.

A.1.3. Notification

Notification activities can include submission of notices to the permitting authority concerning 

the following:
December 2015 24

 Facility and Permit Transfer Report

 Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous Information

 Alternate Level Reports

 Permittee Report of Planned Facility Changes

 Request for Water Quality Related Effluent Limitations Modification

 New Introduction of Pollutants to POTWs

 Notice of Construction for Construction Sites

 Notification of New or Increase Discharge

 Permittee Notice of Regulated Discharge Cessation

 Request for Water Quality Related Effluent Limitations Modification

The estimated time required per response for these activities ranges from 1 to 4 hours. There is 

no set frequency because these activities are often triggered by unplanned events. The 

frequencies used to derive the burden estimates are based on experience and assumptions 

regarding expected occurrence of each.

The estimated time required for state respondents for to review and process notifications is 

typically 4 hours per notification but can range from 0.6 for Notice of Construction to 20 hours

for Permittee Report of Planned Facility Changes.

A.1.4. DMR

A.1.4.1. DMR Reporting 

DMR preparation is expected to require about 2 hours per outfall. Some permittees, especially 

nonmunicipal industrial facilities tend to have multiple outfalls. The required frequency of DMR 

reporting ranges from monthly to annually (monthly, bimonthly, quarterly, semi-annually, and 

yearly) and is dependent on facility type and permit type.

The estimated time required for state respondent to review and process DMRs are based on 10 

minutes per DMR per outfall plus 20 percent of the submitted DMRs are expected to require 30 

minutes for follow-up.

A.1.4.2. DMR Sampling

Estimates of the hours per response for DMR sampling are generally based on number of 

outfalls, reporting frequency plus duration and number of sampling episodes per reporting 

period. Typical sampling episodes are estimated to require about 2 to 2.75 hours.

There is no permit oversight activity.

A.1.4.3. DMR Analyses

This category refers to chemical analyses that are conducted in-house. Estimates of the hours per 

response for DMR analyses are generally based on 0.5 hours per parameter analysis plus the 

estimated number of outfalls, number of samples per response and number of parameters per 

sample.
December 2015 25

The estimate of 10 hours for state respondents applies only to review of post-baseline monitoring 

data for coal remining permits.

A.1.5. Stormwater

A.1.5.1. Notice of Intent

Activities include preparation and submittal of Notices of Intent (NOI), no exposure certification 

request for small industrial entities, and requests for waiver certification for small construction 

sites. The estimates of the hours per response range from 0.75 for no exposure certification 

requests to 20 hours for NOIs requiring formal Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation, but 

typically require about 1.5 hours. Frequency of occurrence includes; once per construction site 

start; annually for no exposure certification request and requests for waiver certification; and 

every 5 years for general stormwater permits.

The estimates of the hours for state respondents for review and processing NOIs ranges from 

0.25 to 4 hours per NOI.

A.1.5.2. Notice of Termination

The estimate of the hours per response for Notices of Termination is 0.5 with a frequency of 

once per permit.

The estimated time required for state respondents to review and process NOTs is 0.25 hours per 

NOT.

A.1.5.3. Stormwater Plans

The estimated hours per respondent for development of stormwater pollution prevention plans 

(SWPPP) for stormwater discharges associated with construction activity is 22.7 hours, 36.4 

hours, and 80 hours for small construction site (<5 acre), large construction site (>5 acre), and 

nonmunicipal permits, respectively. The frequency is once per permit. The estimated hours per 

respondent required to update a stormwater management plans (SWMP) is 200 hours for 

municipal permits and 8 hours for nonmunicipal permits. The frequency is once every 5 years.

The estimated time required for state respondents to review and process SWPPPs and SWMPs 

are 1 hour and 20 hours, respectively.

A.1.5.4. Stormwater Site Self-Inspections

The estimated hours per respondent for construction site self-inspections conducted bi-weekly

ranges from 0.25 hours to 0.5 hours. Estimates for annual self-inspections are 0.25 hours and 4 

hours for industrial and general permits, respectively.

There is no permit oversight activity

A.1.5.5. MS4 Permit Application

The estimated time required per respondent for MS4 Permit Application are 60 hours and 80 
December 2015 26

hours for small and large MS4 systems, respectively. The frequency is once every 5 years.

The estimated time required for state respondents to review and process MS4 permit applications 

is 20 hours for small and large MS4 systems.

A.1.5.6 MS4 Permit Reports

The estimated time required per respondent for a petition for individual permit is 40 hours and 

occurs on an as needed basis. The estimated time required per respondent for preparing and 

submitting annual reports are 100 hours and 250 hours for small and Phase I MS4s, respectively. 

The frequency is once every 5 years.

The estimated time required for state respondents to review and process permit reports are 8 

hours, 1.6 hours, and 40 hours for petitions, small MS4 reports and Phase I MS4 reports, 

respectively.

A.1.6. Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)

A.1.6.1. Long-term Control Plans (LTCP)

The estimated time required per respondent for writing long-term control plans varies 

considerably depending system size and on whether the system has already conducted studies. 

Respondent time can range from 300 hours for small systems that have existing studies to 6,000 

hours for large systems without existing studies. These activities occur once per permit term.

The estimated time required for state respondents to review and process LCTPs are 20, 33, and

53 hours for small, medium, and large POTWs, respectively.

A.1.6.2. CSO Monitoring

The estimated time required per respondent for CSO monitoring are 27 hours, 18 hours, 20

hours, and 2 hours for sampling, analysis, estimating flow parameters, and reporting, 

respectively. The frequency is semi-annually.

The estimated time required for state respondent to review and process monitoring reports are 10 

minutes and 0.5 hours for follow-up.

A.1.6.3. CSO Notification

The estimated time required per respondent for CSO notification are 2 hours for signs and 5 

hours for public advisories with a frequency of once. There are capital costs for installation of 

signs (See section A.2 for details).

There is no permit oversight activity.

A.1.6.4. Documenting Nine Minimum Control Measures

The estimated time required per respondent for collecting necessary information for large, 

medium and small systems are 200 hours, 43 hours, and 29 hours respectively. EPA estimates 

that no municipalities will submit NMC documentation in the next 3 years.
December 2015 27

A.1.7. Section 308 Requests

The time required per respondent for preparing responses to Section 308 requests can vary 

considerably and is estimated to be 5-8 hours, 50 hours, and 1,000 hours for routine requests and 

letters, medium complexity requests, and complex municipal facility requests, respectively. The 

frequency is on an as needed basis.

The estimated time required for state respondents to review and process submitted information 

ranges from 1 to 20 hours depending on permit type.

A.1.8. Certifications

A.1.8.1. Certification for Exemption from Monitoring and Notification of Process 

Changes

The estimated time required per respondent for preparing certification for exemption documents 

will typically be one hour and with a frequency of once per year.

The estimated time required for state respondents to review and process certification documents

is 1 hour for each certification.

A.1.8.2. Part 435 Certification Oil and Gas Extraction

The estimated time required per respondent for activities associated with certification of 

preparation and implementation of BMP plans for control of discharges of synthetic-based 

drilling fluids cuttings under 40 CFR Part 435 for oil and gas extraction permits is 787 hours and 

occurs at a frequency of once per year.

A.1.8.3. Pollution Prevention Alternative Certification (Pesticides Packaging & 

Repackaging

The estimated time required per respondent for preparing pollution prevention alternative 

certifications for pesticides formulating, packaging, and repackaging category facilities is 20 

hours and occurs annually.

A.1.9. Variance Request

Variance requests include the following:

 Great Lakes Modification and variance request. The estimated burden is 418 hours.

 Variance Request for Fundamentally Different Factors. The estimated burden is 160 

hours.

 Variance Request for Nonconventional Pollutants. The estimated burden is 150 hours.

 Variance Request for Innovative Pollution Control Technology. The estimated burden is 

60 hours.

 Variance Request Regarding Thermal Discharges (New). The estimated burden is 400 

hours.

 Variance Request Regarding Thermal Discharges (Renewal). The estimated burden is 4 

hours.

The number of respondents for each type are based on assumed percentages of different types of 
December 2015 28

permits. The frequency of occurrence is on an as needed basis.

The estimated time required for state respondents to review and process variance requests ranges 

from 44 to 520 hours for each type of variance request.

A.1.10. Noncompliance Reports

Noncompliance report burden estimates include the following:

 Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance

 Unanticipated Bypass / Upset Reports

 Maximum Daily Violation Reports (Verbal Reports)

 SSO Reporting

 Unpermitted CSO Reporting

 Unanticipated Bypass / Upset Reports (Verbal Reports)

 Other Noncompliance Reports

The estimated time required for respondents for preparing and submitting noncompliance reports 

either written or verbally ranges from 1 hour to 10 hours and occurs on an as needed basis.

The estimated time required for state respondents to review and process noncompliance reports 

ranges from 1 to 10 hours for each different report type and permit type.

A.1.11. Request for Modification, Revocation and Reissuance, or Termination

The estimated time required per respondent for preparing and submitting a request for 

modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination is 5 hours and occurs on an as needed 

basis.

The estimated time required for state respondents to review and process request for modification, 

revocation and reissuance, or termination are 40 hours for each request.

A.1.12. Compliance Schedule Reports

The estimated time required per respondent for preparing and submitting compliance schedule 

reports is 0.75 hours and occurs on an annual basis.

The estimated time required for state respondents to review and process compliance schedule 

reports is 0.25 hours for municipal and 4 hours for nonmunicipal permits.

A.1.13. BMP Development

The estimated time required per respondent for amendment and review of BMP Plan for certain 

industrial permits are 50 hours and 40 hours for associated refresher training and occur on an as 

needed basis for the BMP plan and semi-annually for the training.

The estimated time required for state respondents for BMP plan review is 5 hours.
December 2015 29

A.1.14. Vessels

A.1.14.1 Vessels (VGP)

Activities for vessels includes:

 Annual Report

 NOI Filing

 Routine Inspections

 Annual Inspections

 Drydock Inspections

 Monitoring

The estimated time required per respondent for performing the above items ranges from 0.5 

hours to 2 hours for reporting and self-inspections and 6 hours for monitoring. Frequency ranges 

from once to every 5 years with routine self-inspections occurring on an as need basis.

A.1.14.2 Vessel (sVGP)

Activities related to the small vessels general permit includes:

 Permit Authorization and Record of Inspection (PARI) submission

 PARI Inspection Documentation

The frequency of submission for the PARI is once every five years and is estimated to require 15 

minutes to complete. Small vessels are required to conduct and document a self-inspection on a 

quarterly basis which is estimated to require 15 minutes to complete. Performance of these 

activities is not expected to occur until December 2017, so average annual burden reported in 

this ICR represents one year (2018) of activity divided over three years.

A.1.15. Great Lakes

The activities in this category apply to NPDES permits that discharge within the Great Lake 

watershed and the application of EPA’s Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance. Activities include:

 Great Lakes Antidegradation Demonstration with BCCs.

2 The estimated burden is 22.2 

hours and 11.1 hours for municipal and nonmunicipal permits, respectively.

 Great Lakes Antidegradation Demonstration without BCCs. The estimated burden is 14.8 

hours and 7.4 hours for municipal and nonmunicipal permits, respectively.

 Great Lakes PMP Implementation. The estimated burden is 1.2 hours and 1.4 hours for 

municipal and nonmunicipal permits, respectively.

 Great Lakes Approvable Strategy. The estimated burden is 104 hours and 142 hours for 

municipal and nonmunicipal permits, respectively.

 

2 The criteria for when an antidegradation demonstration must be performed are different for bioaccumulative 

chemicals of concern (BCCs) and non-BCCs.
December 2015 30

 Great Lakes Annual Report. The estimated burden is 20.9 hours and 32.4 hours for 

municipal and nonmunicipal permits, respectively.

 Great Lakes Bioconcentration Studies. The estimated burden is 73 hours

 Great Lakes Collecting Data and Monitoring for WET Limits. The estimated burden is 

10,877 hours total and 6,841 hours total for all municipal and nonmunicipal permits, 

respectively.

 Great Lakes WQBEL Compliance Monitoring. The estimated burden is 0.5 hours.

Frequency ranges from ongoing for PMP implementation to annually for monitoring and 

strategies/studies/reports to once every 5 years for antidegradation demonstrations.

The burden applies only to the 7 Great Lake states and the estimated time required per state 

respondent ranges from 4 to 8 hours for each item.

A.1.16. General State Activities

This category applies to activities associated with state agencies and EPA Regional Offices in 

non-authorized state that are not directly attributable to the individual categories described 

above.

A.1.16.1. Certification of EPA-issued Permits

When EPA issues permits in non-authorized states, it must ensure that the permits are in 

compliance with state laws, including WQS. EPA may not issue a permit in a non-authorized 

state until the state certifies that the permit is in compliance with state laws. The respondents to 

this item are the estimated 590 entities including non-authorized states, tribes, and U.S. 

territories without NPDES programs that must certify EPA-issued permits. The average 

respondent burden is estimated to be 4 hours.

A.1.16.2. Inspection & Investigation

Authorized states are required to maintain a “program for periodic inspections of facilities and 

activities subject to regulation.” 40 CFR 123.26(b)(2). Under EPA’s Clean Water Act National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Compliance Monitoring Strategy (available at 

http://www2.epa.gov/compliance/clean-water-act-national-pollutant-discharge-eliminationsystem-compliance-monitoring), authorized states prepare annual Compliance Monitoring 

Strategy (CMS) plans that articulate commitments for compliance monitoring activities (e.g., 

inspections) and end-of-year reports that summarize CMS plan implementation over the prior 

year. EPA has developed a template for states to use when preparing CMS plans and end-of-year 

reports. 

The various types of compliance monitoring activities conducted by permitting authorities 

include:

 Compliance Sampling Inspection (CSI). The estimated burden for this inspection is 120 

hours.

 Compliance Evaluation Inspection (CEI). The estimated burden for this inspection is 24 

hours.

 Performance Audit Inspection (PAI). The estimated burden for this inspection is 96 
December 2015 31

hours.

 Diagnostic Inspection (DI). The estimated burden for this inspection is 128 hours.

 Compliance Biomonitoring Inspection (CBI). The estimated burden for this inspection is 

240 hours.

 Toxic Sampling Inspection (XSI). The estimated burden for this inspection is 280 hours.

 Reconnaissance Inspection (RI). The RI is the briefest of all NPDES inspections; the 

estimated burden for this inspection is 8 hours.

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

Part 430). Authorized state staff might need to conduct follow-up actions in instances of 

DMR noncompliance. EPA estimates that recurring incremental state burden for this

follow-up action requires an average of 0.5 hour (30 minutes) per facility per DMR and 

will occur 20 percent of the time.

The list of compliance monitoring activities described above is not the complete set of activities 

that EPA and regions conduct pursuant to the CMS. EPA estimates that on an annual basis for 

major facilities 15 percent receive CSIs, 60 percent receive CEIs, 15 percent receive PAIs, 17 

percent receive CBIs, 4 percent receive XSIs, 40 percent receive RIs,

3

and an additional 5 

percent of municipal facilities receive DIs. Of the minor facilities, 3 percent receive CSIs and 17 

percent receive CEIs. In addition, 10 percent of industrial stormwater general permittees, 5 

percent of large (> 5 acres) construction stormwater general permittees, 2.5 percent of small (1-5 

acres) construction stormwater general permittees, 20 percent of Phase I MS4s, and one-seventh 

of Phase II MS4s receive RIs.

A.1.16.3. Submittal of Permit Information to EPA

This item applies to requirements for authorized states to make available to EPA for review any 

information obtained or used in the administration of a state program. The burden estimate 

assumes that states must submit all major permits, about 5 percent of minor permits, and all 

general permits. Time required is estimated to be 10 minutes each and applies to 70 percent of 

the major, 5 percent of the minor, and 100 percent of the general permits transmitted to EPA. 

The remaining 30 percent of major permits require 2 hours of transmittal time.

A.1.16.4. NPDES Program Authorization

This category includes: state requests that an authorized program be transferred back to EPA 

with a burden estimate of 480 hours; state requests for NPDES program modifications with a 

burden estimate of 250 hours; and state request for sewage sludge program approval under Part 

501 with a burden estimate of 750 hours. EPA estimates that 3 authorized states over the three 

year period will requests that an authorized program be transferred, 12 over the three year period

will request program modification to update their legal authorities in response to the multiple 

rulemakings anticipated in the NPDES program, and one over the 3 year period will request a

sewage sludge program approval.

A.2. Estimating Respondent Costs

Once burden hours are estimated, the next step is to estimate the labor cost for respondents and 

 

3 The estimate that 40 percent receive RIs is a conservative (high side) estimate based on EPA policy.
December 2015 32

the capital costs required to complete each activity. The total cost for each respondent activity is 

composed of the following:

 Labor Cost;

 Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Cost; and

 Capital/Start-up Cost.

The results of the respondents’ costs analysis are presented in the Detailed Respondent Burden 

Results by Category table in Appendix B.

A.2.1. Estimating Labor Costs

When calculating respondent labor costs, EPA makes the following assumptions:

 EPA used a labor rate of $43.56 per hour for all authorized state and territory respondent 

activities defined in this ICR. This hourly rate was based on the average hourly wage for 

state and municipal employees as determined by the U.S. Department of Labor. It is based on 

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee 

Compensation, Table 3: Employer costs per hour worked for employee compensation and 

costs as a percent of total compensation: state and local government workers, by major 

occupational and industry group, September 2014.

 The average hourly rate for municipal employees, which account for all POTW and MS4 

costs, as determined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, is $40.76

(including overhead costs of 50 percent). Updated rates are derived from the U.S. 

Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, in a table titled May 2013 National 

Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, NAICS Industry 999300 -

Local Government (OES designation), which is part of: NAICS 999000 - Federal, State, and 

Local Government (OES designation), and adjusted to September 2014 dollars using the 

seasonally adjusted Employment Cost Index (ECI) for state and local government employees.

 EPA assumes the average hourly rate in the private sector is $53.56 as determined by the 

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Total Compensation for Management, 

professional, and related. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, Table 5- Employer 

costs per hour worked for employee compensation and costs as a percent of total 

compensation: Private industry, by major occupational group and bargaining status, 

September 2014.

A.2.2. Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

Most calculations in this ICR account for labor costs only. The ICR does, however, account for 

certain testing/analysis costs incurred by respondents that perform activities outside the normal 

operation practices. All costs presented in this section have been adjusted with the Consumer 

Price Index to November 2014 dollars. These costs are linked to the three distinctive activities 

described below.

A.2.2.1. Application Requirements for NPDES Permits (Forms for POTWs and 

PrOTWs)

Assumptions and estimates for these O&M costs (i.e., testing/contractor costs) are detailed in 
December 2015 33

Tables A.1 to A.3. These assumptions come from the prior ICR (EPA ICR Number: 0226.18, 

OMB Control No. 2040-0086).

Table A.1 Estimate of POTWs that contract out Form 2A testing for pollutants

Facility type

Basic 

conventional and 

nonconventional

Additional 

conventional 

and 

nonconventional

Priority 

pollutants and 

state WQS

Multiple species 

biomonitoring

% testing inhouse% testing inhouse% testing inhouse% testing inhouse

≺ 0.1 mgd, no 

priority pollutants.

60%

0.1–1.0 mgd, no 

priority pollutants. 80% 80%

Minors, with priority 

pollutants. 85% 85% 50% 85%

Majors, no priority 

pollutants. 85% 85% 10% 75%

Majors, with priority 

pollutants. 90% 90% 70% 85%

Table A.2 Estimate of POTWs that contract out Form 2S testing for pollutants

Facility type

Basic conventional and 

nonconventional

% testing in-house

NPDES POTWs 95%

NPDES PrOTWs 95%

Sludge Only POTWs 50%

Sludge Only PrOTWs 50%

Table A.3 Testing/contractor costs (O&M costs)

Tests/year Cost per test 

($)

Total $

Form 2A

Basic conventional and nonconventional3 $116 $193,488

Additional conventional and nonconventional3 $233 $243,951

Priority Pollutants/state WQS 3 $1,338 $3,034,584

Multiple Species Biomonitoring 1 $9,311 $1,964,621

Form 2S

NPDES and sludge-only facilities 1 $233 $67,570

Section 308 Requests

Municipal (complex) 1 $1,338 $4,683

Nonmunicipal (medium) 1 $1,164 $6,111

A.2.2.2. Baseline Determination and Estimate of the Incremental Monitoring 

Burden and Cost for Remining Sites (DMR Sampling Analysis)

EPA assumes that baseline determination monitoring and annual monitoring costs will be 

required for all the reporting requirements for mining sites in Indiana (5), Kentucky (7), and 
December 2015 34

Tennessee (9). EPA assumes a sample analysis and mileage cost of $33.00/sample adjusted to 

November 2014 using the CPI (Source: Baseline Standards and BMPs for the Coal Mining Point 

Source Category-Coal Remining Subcategory and Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory 

ICR; OMB Control No. 2040-0239; EPA ICR No. 1944.03).

A.2.2.3. Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Direct Discharging Mills in the 

Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite 

Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category (DMR 

Sampling Analysis)

To estimate O&M costs associated with these activities, EPA assumes that mills will send their 

collected samples to outside laboratories for analysis. Some facilities could perform in-house 

analysis for some pollutants (i.e., adsorbable organic halides (AOX) and/or chloroform). 

However, for the purposes of this ICR, EPA assumed that all analyses will be contracted to 

outside laboratories to express the full potential analytical costs of minimum monitoring on 

Subparts B and E mills. In the future, facilities might elect to conduct analysis in house, 

particularly AOX analyses, because the monitoring requirement is daily.

Analytical costs performed at outside laboratories were taken from the Minimum Monitoring 

Requirements for Direct Discharging Mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda 

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

Source Category ICR (OMB Control No. 2040-0243; EPA ICR No. 1878.02). These costs are 

$179 for AOX, $1,300 for TCDD/TCDF, $742 for chlorinated phenolics, and $400 for 

chloroform.

Seventy-five Subpart B Bleached Papergrade Kraft & Soda mills perform daily sampling for 

AOX, weekly sampling for chloroform, and monthly grab sampling for TCDD, TCDF, and 

chlorinated phenolics. Thirty-eight Subpart B Bleached Papergrade Kraft & Soda mills perform 

monthly composite sampling for TCDD, TCDF, and chlorinated phenolics. Five of the Subpart E 

Ca / Sodium / Mg Sulfite mills perform daily AOX sampling. Two each for the Subpart E 

Ammonium Sulfite and Specialty Grade perform monthly sampling for TCDD, TCDF, and 

chlorinated phenolics.

A.2.3. Capital/Start-up Costs

Most calculations in the ICR account for labor costs only. The ICR does, however, account for 

certain capital and start-up costs incurred by respondents that perform activities outside the 

normal operating practices. All costs presented in this section have been adjusted with the 

Consumer Price Index to November 2014 dollars. These costs are linked to two distinctive 

activities.

A.2.3.1. CSO Control Policy (CSO Notification)

The capital costs associated with public notification of CSO locations, events, and public health 

and environmental effects are included in this ICR. The costs are those for municipalities to 

purchase notification signs. From estimates presented in the previous CSO Control Policy ICR 

(OMB Control No. 2040-0170; EPA ICR No. 1680.04) each sign is estimated to cost $117 and 

be used once.
December 2015 35

A.2.3.2. Baseline Determination and Estimate of the Incremental Monitoring 

Burden and Cost for Remining Sites (DMR Sampling Analysis)

EPA assumes that flow metering from an installed weir is required for mining sites in Indiana 

and Tennessee. For all other states, EPA assumes that flow metering is already required and 

installed as part of the state Rahall remining permit program.

For Indiana and Tennessee, EPA assumes installed weir costs of $1,538 on the basis of an 

escalation of 2004 cost estimates from previous the Baseline Standards and BMPs for the Coal 

Mining Point Source Category-Coal Remining Subcategory and Western Alkaline Coal Mining 

Subcategory ICR (OMB Control No. 2040-0239; EPA ICR No. 1944.03) (originally from Weir 

& Flume Sales Company and Tarco Tech Industries). Indiana will have 5 sites/year × 4 

preexisting discharge points/site. Tennessee will have 9 sites/year × 4 preexisting discharge 

points/site. These costs are annualized using a 7 percent discount rate and an estimated 10-year 

life for the weir.
December 2015 36

Appendix B – Detailed Respondent Burden Results by 

Category 

Table B.1 presents the calculated respondent burden and cost estimates grouped by activity type 

and respondent type. This table includes a section for respondents that are permit holders (which 

can include both private and municipal entities), a section for respondents which are states acting 

as the NPDES permitting authority, and a section for EPA Regions acting as the NPDES 

permitting authority. The latter are federal costs and are included in Table 14.1.

(See attached PDF document)
December 2015 37

Appendix C – Detailed Agency Burden Estimates

Table C.1 presents a summary of the Agency burden associated with administration of individual 

permits similar to the state activities in Appendix B. Table C.1 presents a summary of the 

Agency burden that is associated with NPDES program oversight.

(See attached PDF document)
December 2015 38

Appendix D – Number of Unique Respondents 

Table D.1 presents a summary of the number of respondents in each permit category. Estimates 

for the number of each type of permit respondent are based on queries to the NPDES-ICIS 

database conducted in early 2015. On the basis of 2010 U.S. Census data, an estimated 94.85 

percent of the population resides in states authorized to issue general permits. This population 

percentage has been applied to the respondent values to estimate those stormwater general 

permittees that report directly to authorized states. For all other permittees, the information in 

NPDES-ICIS and other EPA databases were used to determine the allocation.

(See attached PDF document)
December 2015 39

Appendix E – Copy of Regulation Authorizing Data Collection

and Federal Register Notice

E.1 Clean Water Act Section 402

(See attached PDF document)

E.2 ICR Federal Register Notice

(See attached PDF document)