SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR

EPA INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST #1608.07

STATE PROGRAM ADEQUACY DETERMINATION:

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS (MSWLFs) 

and

NON-MUNICIPAL, NON-HAZARDOUS

WASTE DISPOSAL UNITS THAT RECEIVE CONDITIONALLY EXEMPT 

SMALL QUANTITY GENERATOR (CESQG) HAZARDOUS WASTE (RENEWAL)
TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

(a) Title and number of the information collection ................................................... 4

(b) Short Characterization.................. ..................................................................... 4

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

(a) Need and authority for the information collection............................................... 6

(b) Practical utility/users of the data....................................................................... 7

3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

(a) Nonduplication.............................................................................................8

 (b) Public Notice .............................................................................................8

(c) Consultations...............................................................................................8

(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection .............................................................9

(e) General Guidelines...................................................................................... 8

(f) Confidentiality and Sensitive Questions ........................................................ 9

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

(a) Respondents/SIC Codes............. ................................................................... 10

(b) Information Requested ................. .................................................................... 11

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED -- AGENCY ACTIVITIES,

COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

(a) Agency Activities.......................... ....................................................................13

(b) Collection Methodology and Management ...................................................15

(c) Small Entity Flexibility .................. ....................................................................15

(d) Collection Schedule...................... ....................................................................15
6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

(a) Estimating Respondent Burden.... ....................................................................17

(b) Estimating Respondent Costs ...... ....................................................................18

(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost.................................................................18

(d) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs .............................................................20

(e) Respondent Universe and Total Burden ..........................................................20

(f) Reasons for Change in Burden .... ....................................................................21

(g) Burden Statement......................... ...................................................................21

Exhibits 1 - 5 ......................................................................................................23-34 
4

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1(a) Title and Number of the Information Collection

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

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

Generator (CESQG) Hazardous Waste (Renewal),” ICR number 1608.07, OMB number 

2050-0152.

1(b) Short Characterization

Section 4010(c) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Administrator to determine the adequacy of state permit programs to ensure 

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

deemed adequate to ensure compliance may afford flexibility to owners/operators in the 
5

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

associated with compliance. 

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

2(a) Need and Authority for the Information Collection

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

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

and MSWLFs are designed and managed in a manner that is protective of human health 

and the environment. 40 CFR part 257, subpart B establishes these minimum federal 

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

hazardous waste and 40 CFR part 258 establishes them for MSWLFs. The statute also 

requires states to adopt permit programs to ensure that owners and operators of both 

types of waste disposal units comply with the relevant federal criteria.

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

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

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

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

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

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

program approval. 

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

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

program is deemed inadequate, owners and operators of both non-municipal, non-
6

hazardous waste disposal units and MSWLFs must comply with the self-implementing 

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

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

owners/operators by states with approved permit programs.

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

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

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

2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The EPA Administrator has delegated the authority to make determinations of 

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

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

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

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

of the state’s permit program for ensuring compliance with the federal revised criteria.

3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

3(a) Nonduplication

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

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

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

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

collection does not represent a duplicative effort by any other source.
7

3(b) Public Notice

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

notice in the Federal Register on December 11, 2014 (79 FR 73574) and provided a 60 

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

3(c) Consultations

In an effort to verify EPA’s development this ICR, EPA contacted state solid waste 

officials to review and comment on this document. EPA is grateful the following people 

reviewed this document: 1) Ed Dexter, of the Maryland Department of the Environment; 

telephone (410) 537-3315, 2) Geoff Christe, of the Virginia Department of Environmental 

Quality; telephone (804) 698-4283, 3) Robert Grefe, of the Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources; telephone (608) 266-2178, and 4) Bob Doctor, of the Wyoming Solid 

Waste Permitting and Corrective Action Division, telephone (307) 473-3468.

EPA made substantial efforts to consult with state officials during the development 

of the State Implementation Rule. During this time EPA met with the following people: 

Tom Kennedy and Kerry Callahan, Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste 

Management Officials (ASTSWMO); Richard Barlow, Connecticut; James Dunbar, Georgia; 

Thomas Epstein, Rhode Island; Bill Cass and Carol Ansheles, Northeast Waste 

Management Officials Association (NEWMOA); Hector Mendietta, Texas; Jim Warner, 

Minnesota; Neil Weber, New Mexico; Mark Witherspoon, Arkansas; and other state 

personnel. EPA, through ASTSWMO, provided copies of drafts for the State 

Implementation Rule, at various stages in its development, to provide all states and 
8

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

affected state permitting programs.

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

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

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

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

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

applications for adequacy determinations, states will not be required to submit revised 

applications.

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

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

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

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

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

approval application. Procedures for this process are detailed in 40 CFR part 239.12 and 

are designed to minimize state burdens.

3(e) General Guidelines

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

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

Handbook, and other applicable OMB guidance.

3(f) Confidentiality and Sensitive Questions
9

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

problems of confidentiality or sensitive questions arise.

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

4(a) Respondents/NAICS or SIC Codes

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

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

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

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

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

development, and demonstration (RD&D) permits for new and existing MSWLF units and 

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

information collection.

4(b) Information Requested

Develop Program Application

States requesting program approval must submit a program application as described 

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

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

submission are incorporated into the costs of final application submission.

(i) Data Items, Including Record keeping Requirements
10

EPA is not prescribing Record keeping requirements for applicants associated with 

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

program application. Data items include:

• Narrative description of the state program(s)

• Transmittal letter

• Legal certification

• Copies of relevant statutes, regulations, and guidance

• Copies of relevant state-tribal agreements

(ii) Respondent Activities

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

• Prepare the narrative program description

• Write the transmittal letter

• Prepare the legal certification

• Compile relevant statutes, regulations, and guidance
11

• Compile relevant agreements between state and tribe(s)

Adequacy Determination Process

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

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

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

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

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

changes and may need to modify and resubmit the application.

(i) Data Items, including Record keeping Requirements

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

The primary data item for the adequacy determination process is the state program 

application.

(ii) Respondent Activities

• Submit an application for state program approval

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

Region and/or the public

• Resubmit the application, if necessary
12

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED -- AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION 

METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

5(a) Agency Activities

Develop Program Application

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

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

process, a Region may conduct meetings with state representatives.

Adequacy Determination Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

activities:

• Review the application for completeness and request additional information if 

necessary;

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

with state as needed;
13

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

tentative determination;

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

• Hold public hearing(s), if necessary;

• Respond to public comments if significant comments are received;

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

remaining issues, the Regional Administrator will make a final determination; 

and

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

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

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

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

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

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

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

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

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility
14

The rule requires states to submit applications for permit program approval for nonmunicipal, non-hazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG hazardous waste 

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

5(d) Collection Schedule

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

generally effective beginning on October 9, 1993. Criteria for non-municipal, nonhazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG hazardous waste (40 CFR part 257, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

were expected to outline how the state would make progress toward completing its 

application. States failing to submit an application within the scheduled time frame could 

be deemed “inadequate.”

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION
15

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

processing state MSWLF permit program adequacy determinations. The estimates also 

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

programs, and from discussions with states. 

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

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

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

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

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

program adequacy determinations for non-municipal, non-hazardous waste disposal units 

that receive CESQG hazardous waste. The burden and cost estimates for the permit 

program adequacy determinations for non-municipal, non-hazardous waste disposal units 

that receive CESQG hazardous waste will be higher than for the streamlined approval 

process used for the 45 states already approved, but less than for the MSWLF permit 

program adequacy determinations because the requirements for non-municipal, nonhazardous disposal units that receive CESQG hazardous waste are less cumbersome than 

those required for MSWLFs. 

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

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

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

previously approved programs. EPA expects 9 approved states over the next three years 

to seek RD&D approval for MSWLFs.
16

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden

EPA estimates respondent burden hours associated with all of the requirements 

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

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

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

and costs for each collection activity.

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

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

that receive CESQG hazardous waste.

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

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

their existing approved programs (Exhibit 2b).

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

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

2011. For this ICR renewal request EPA used rates from the 2014 GS salary table, Step 

5 and applied an overhead factor of 1.6.

For states and territories, EPA estimates an average hourly salary rate of $74.32 

(GS 14) for legal staff, $87.42 (GS 15) for managerial staff, $52.90 (GS 12) for technical 

staff, and $29.82 (GS 7) for clerical staff. These rates include the overhead factor of 1.6.
17

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

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

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

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

renewed.

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

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

these activities.

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

program approval applications for non-municipal, non-hazardous 

waste disposal units that receive CESQG hazardous waste.

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

new and modified MSWLF permit program applications.

Agency Burden Estimates

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

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

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

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

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

Agency Labor Costs
18

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

2011. For this ICR renewal request EPA used rates from the 2014 GS salary table, Step 

5 and applied an overhead factor of 1.6.

EPA estimates an average hourly Regional labor cost of $74.32 (GS 14) for legal 

staff, $87.42 (GS 15) for managerial staff, $52.90 (GS 12) for technical staff, and 

$29.82 (GS 7) for clerical staff. These hourly rates include the standard government 

overhead factor of 1.6.

Agency Burden

Total 3 year Annual

4,310 Hours 1,437 Hours per year

$242,814 Cost $80,938 Cost per year

6(d) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs

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

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

that the total bottom line burden for this information collection activity is $405,946 or 

$135,315 per year. 

6(e) Respondent Universe and Total Burden Costs

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

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

the burden for States. The total cost burden is $135,315 per year. Of the $135,315, 
19

$80,938 is the cost to EPA Regions, and $54,374 is the cost to States. All costs are 

labor costs, there are no capital/start-up or O&M costs associated with this ICR.

Respondent Burden

Total 3 year Annual

2,904 Hours 968 Hours per year

$163,123 Cost $54,374 Cost per year

6(f) Reasons For Change in Burden

This ICR replaces ICR 1608.06, approved by OMB through April 30, 2015. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CESQG hazardous waste permit program adequacy determinations. EPA estimates that 

no more than 5 additional States will apply for an adequacy determination during the next 

3 years.

6(g) Burden Statement
20

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

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

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

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

instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes 

of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, 

and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond 

to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for 

EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

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

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

the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this 

ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2014-0839, which is available for public 

viewing at the RCRA Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), WJC West, Room 

3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Docket Center Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the 

telephone number for the RCRA Docket is (202) 566-0270. An electronic version of the 

public docket is available for online viewing at http://www.regulations.gov . Use 

http://www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of 

the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that 

are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID 
21

number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, 

DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. 

(EPA-HQ-RCRA-2014-0839) and OMB control number (2050-0152) in any 

correspondence. 

EXHIBITS

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

PERMIT PROGRAMS

Collection Activities: Burden Hours per Applicant:

Legal

$74.32

per hour

Manager

$87.42

per hour

Technical

$52.90

per hour

Clerical

$29.82

per hour

Total

Hours

Read 40 CFR part 239 and 40 CFR part 

257, subpart B

5 10 32.5 0 47.5

Prepare narrative program description 0 20 80 20 120

Write transmittal memorandum 0 0.5 1 0.5 2

Prepare legal certification 1.5 0.5 0 0.5 2.5

Compile copies of relevant statutes, 

regulations, and guidance

4 0 4 7.5 15.5

Modify application, as necessary 4 10 40 10 64
22

Total hours per Respondent 14.5 41 157.5 38.5 251.5

Total cost per Respondent $1,077.64 $3,584.22 $8,331.75 $1,148.07 $14,141.68

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

Total Cost: Cost Total ($14,141.68) x No. of Respondents (5) = $70,708.40

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

PROGRAMS

EXHIBIT 2a: 2 STATES/TERRITORIES PREPARING NEW APPLICATIONS

Collection Activities: Burden Hours per Applicant:

Legal

$74.32

per hour

Manager

$87.42

per hour

Technical

$52.90

per hour

Clerical

$29.82

per hour

Total

Hours

Read 40 CFR part 239 and 40 CFR part 

258

10 20 65 0 95

Prepare narrative program description 0 40 160 40 240

Write transmittal memorandum 0 1 2 1 4

Prepare legal certification 3 1 0 1 5

Compile copies of relevant statutes, 

regulations, and guidance

8 0 8 15 31
23

Modify application, as necessary 8 20 80 20 128

Total hours per Respondent 29 82 315 77 503

Total cost per Respondent $2,155.28 $7,168.44 $16,663.50 $2,296.14 $28,283.36

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

Total Cost: Cost Total ($28,283.36) x No. of Respondents (2) = $56,566.72

EXHIBIT 2b: 5 STATES/TERRITORIES MODIFYING APPROVED PROGRAMS

Collection Activities: Burden Hours per Applicant:

Legal

$74.32

per hour

Manager

$87.42

per hour

Technical

$52.90

per hour

Clerical

$29.82

per hour

Total

Hours

Modify program, as necessary 8 20 80 20 128

Total hours per Respondent 8 20 80 20 128

Total cost per Respondent $594.56 $1,748.40 $4,232.00 $596.40 $7,171.36

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

Total Cost: Cost Total ($7,171.36) x No. of Respondents (5) = $38,856.80
24

EXHIBIT 2

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

TOTAL COST (2a+2b): $92,423.52

EXHIBIT 3: EPA REGIONS RESPONDING TO 5 APPLICATIONS FOR NON-MUNICIPAL, NONHAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL UNITS THAT RECEIVE CESQG HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT 

PROGRAMS

Collection Activities: Burden Hours per Application:

Legal

$74.32

per hour

Manager

$87.42

per hour

Technical

$52.90

per hour

Clerical

$29.82

per hour

Total

Hours

Review and comment on draft 

application, including meetings 

with applicant

5 5 40 8 58

Process and distribute application 0 0 5 4 9

Review application for 

completeness, and request 

additional information

5 5 40 1 51

Review complete application 1 5 20 8 34
25

Regional Administrator makes 

tentative determination

2 5 5 0 12

Prepare and publish Federal 

Register notice

0 0.5 5 2.5 8

Hold public hearing 0 0 8 2.5 10.5

Respond to significant comments 2 2 20 2.5 26.5

Regional Administrator makes 

final determination

2 5 5 0 12

Prepare and publish Federal 

Register notice

2 0.5 8 2.5 13

Total hours per Application 19 28 156 31 234

Total cost per Application $1,412.08 $2,447.76 $8,252.40 $924.42 $13,036.66

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

Total Cost: Cost ($13,036.66) x No. of Respondents (5) = $65,183.30
26

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

PROGRAMS

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

Collection Activities: Burden Hours per Application:

Legal

$74.32

per hour

Manager

$87.42

per hour

Technical

$52.90

per hour

Clerical

$29.82

per hour

Total

Hours

Review and comment on draft 

application, including meetings 

with applicant

10 10 80 16 116

Process and distribute 

application

0 0 10 8 18

Review application for 

completeness, and request 

additional information

10 10 80 2 102

Review complete application 2 10 40 16 68
27

Regional Administrator makes 

tentative determination

4 10 10 0 24

Prepare and publish Federal 

Register notice

0 1 10 5 16

Hold public hearing 0 0 16 5 21

Respond to significant 

comments

4 4 40 5 53

Regional Administrator makes 

final determination

4 10 10 0 24

Prepare and publish Federal 

Register notice

4 1 16 5 26

Total hours per Application 38 56 312 62 468

Total cost per Application $2,824.16 $4,895.52 $16,504.80 $1,848.84 $26,073.32

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

Total Cost: Cost ($26,073.32) x No. of Respondents (2) = $52,146.64.
28

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

Collection Activities: Burden Hours per Application:

Legal

$74.32

per hour

Manager

$87.42

per hour

Technical

$52.90

per hour

Clerical

$29.82

per hour

Total

Hours

Review complete application 2 10 40 16 68

Regional Administrator makes 

tentative determination

4 10 10 0 24

Prepare and publish Federal 

Register notice

0 1 10 5 16

Hold public hearing 0 0 16 5 21

Respond to significant 

comments

4 4 40 5 53

Regional Administrator makes 

final determination

4 10 10 0 24

Prepare and publish Federal 

Register notice

4 1 16 5 26
29

Total hours per Application 18 36 142 36 232

Total cost per Application $1,337.76 $3,147.12 $7,511.80 $1,073.52 $13,070.20

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

Total Cost: Cost ($13,070.20) x No. of Respondents (5) = $65,351.00.

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

Collection Activities: Burden Hours per Application:

Legal

$74.32

per hour

Manager

$87.42

per hour

Technical

$52.90

per hour

Clerical

$29.82

per hour

Total

Hours

Review complete application 1 5 20 2 28

Regional Administrator makes 

tentative determination

2 5 5 0 12

Prepare and publish Federal 

Register notice

0 1 4 3 8

Hold public hearing 0 0 8 5 13

Respond to significant 

comments

4 4 20 5 33

Regional Administrator makes 

final determination

2 5 5 0 12
30

Prepare and publish Federal 

Register notice

2 1 4 3 10

Total hours per Application 11 21 66 18 116

Total cost per Application $817.52 $1,835.82 $3,491.40 $536.76 $6,681.50

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

Total Cost: Cost ($6,681.50) x No. of Respondents (9) = $60,133.50

EXHIBIT 4

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

TOTAL COST (4a+4b+4c): $177,631.14
31

EXHIBIT 5: TOTAL BURDEN

EXHIBIT 5a: TOTAL HOUR BURDEN:

Regions States/Territories Total

Preparing Non-Municipal, NonHazardous Waste Disposal 

Units that Receive CESQG 

Hazardous Waste Permit 

Program Applications

1,170 1,258 2,428

Preparing MSWLF Permit 

Program Applications 

3,140 1,646 4,786

Total Burden 4,310 2,904 7,214 

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

GRAND TOTAL HOUR BURDEN: 7,214 hours over 3 years, or 2,405 hours per year
32

EXHIBIT 5b: TOTAL COST BURDEN (Dollars):

Regions States/Territories Total

Preparing Non-Municipal, NonHazardous Waste Disposal 

Units that Receive CESQG 

Hazardous Waste Permit 

Program Applications

$65,183 $70,708 $135,891

Preparing MSWLF Permit 

Program Applications

$177,631 $92,424 $270,055

Total Burden $242,814 $163,123 $405,946

States/Territories Total Cost Burden (Dollars): $163,123 over 3 years or $54,374 per year.

GRAND TOTAL COST BURDEN (Dollars): $405,946 over 3 years or $135,315 per year.
33