Information Collection Request: 

National Pretreatment Program

OMB Control No. 2040-0009, EPA ICR No. 0002.15

November 2011

Prepared for

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Wastewater Management

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

EPA Contract Number EP-C-11-009

EPA Work Assignment Number 0-22
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

.
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request i

Contents

1. Identification of the Information Collection........................................................................... 1

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

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

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

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

2(b). Practical Utility/Users of the Data .................................................................................. 6

3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria............................................. 11

3(a). Nonduplication.............................................................................................................. 11

3(b). Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB .......................................... 12

3(c). Consultations................................................................................................................. 12

3(d). Effects of Less Frequent Collection.............................................................................. 15

3(e). General Guidelines........................................................................................................ 16

3(f). Confidentiality .............................................................................................................. 16

3(g) Sensitive Questions....................................................................................................... 16

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED.................................. 17

4(a). Respondents/NAICS Codes.......................................................................................... 17

4(b). Information Requested.................................................................................................. 19

4(b)(i). Data Items......................................................................................................... 19

4(b)(ii). Respondent Activities....................................................................................... 26

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED—AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION 

METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT.................................................. 48

5(a). Agency Activities.......................................................................................................... 48

5(b). Collection Methodology and Management................................................................... 48

5(c). Small Entity Flexibility................................................................................................. 48

5(d). Collection Schedule ...................................................................................................... 49

6. ESTIMATING BURDEN AND COST OF COLLECTION................................................ 49

6(a). Respondent Burden....................................................................................................... 50

6(a)(i). Burden to States................................................................................................ 50

6(a)(ii). Burden to POTWs............................................................................................. 52

6(a)(iii). Burden to Industrial Users................................................................................ 56

6(b). Respondent Costs.......................................................................................................... 62

6(b)(i). Cost to States..................................................................................................... 62

6(b)(ii). Cost to POTWs................................................................................................. 63

6(b)(iii). Cost to Industrial Users..................................................................................... 63

6(c). Agency Burden and Costs............................................................................................. 64

6(d). Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs .............................. 64

6(e). Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables................................................................ 65

6(f). Reasons for Change in Burden ..................................................................................... 65

6(g). Burden Statement.......................................................................................................... 66
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request ii

Exhibits

Exhibit 1. Authority under the pretreatment program ............................................................. 5

Exhibit 2. Responsibilities of each authority........................................................................... 5

Exhibit 3A. Uses of data collected for program development ................................................... 7

Exhibit 3B. Uses of data collected for program implementation............................................... 8

Exhibit 3C. Uses of data collected for program/categorical determinations............................ 11

Exhibit 4. Affected industries and industrial classifications ................................................. 17

Exhibit 5. Reporting and recordkeeping requirements for the pretreatment program........... 20

Exhibit 6. Average annual state burden and costs................................................................. 62

Exhibit 7. Average annual POTW burden and costs............................................................. 63

Exhibit 8. Average annual industrial user burden and costs.................................................. 63

Exhibit 9. Bottom line average annual burden and cost ........................................................ 65

Appendices

Appendix A – Assumptions for Developing Burden and Cost Estimates

Appendix B – Detailed burden calculations
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request iii

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AA approval authority

ANPR Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics

BMPbest management practice

BMRbaseline monitoring report

CAcontrol authority

CBIconfidential business information

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CIUcategorical industrial user

CWA Clean Water Act

CWT Centralized Waste Treatment

DSS Domestic Sewage Study

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FDF Fundamentally Different Factors

FR Federal Register

gpdgallons per day

ICR Information Collection Request

IUindustrial user

IWS Industrial Waste Survey

kgkilogram

MAIL Maximum Allowable Industrial Loading

mgdmillion gallons per day

MP&M Metal Products and Machinery

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council

NSCIUnonsignificant categorical industrial user

O&Moperation and maintenance

OAoversight authority

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OST Office of Science and Technology

OW Office of Water

OWM Office of Wastewater Management

P2pollution prevention

PCS Permit Compliance System

PFPR Pesticide Formulating, Packaging, and Repackaging

PIRT Pretreatment Implementation Review Task Force POTW publicly owned treatment works

QNCR Quarterly Noncompliance Report 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

SBA Small Business Administration

SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

SIC Standard Industrial Classification

SIUsignificant industrial user

SNCsignificant noncompliance

TEC Transportation Equipment Cleaning

TRI Toxics Release Inventory

TTOtotal toxic organics
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 1

1. Identification of the Information Collection

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

Title: National Pretreatment Program

OMB Control No: 2040-0009

EPA ICR No: 0002.15

1(b). Short Characterization

This Information Collection Request (ICR) calculates the burden and costs associated with 

managing and implementing the National Pretreatment Program as mandated under sections 

402(a) and (b) and 307(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA or the Act). This ICR includes all 

existing tasks under the National Pretreatment Program, as amended by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA) Streamlining Rule.1

EPA’s Office of Wastewater Management (OWM) implements the National Pretreatment 

Program on the basis of requirements first promulgated in the CWA in June 1978. The CWA 

requires EPA to develop these regulations to establish responsibilities among federal, state, and 

local government, industry, and the public to implement pretreatment standards to control 

pollutants that pass through or interfere with publicly owned treatment works’ (POTW)

treatment processes or that may contaminate sewage sludge. The regulations have been revised 

numerous times since they were first published in 1978; currently, they consist of 20 sections and 

several appendices. The most recent revision, the Streamlining Rule (Federal Register [FR] vol. 

70, page 60134), was published on October 14, 2005, and became effective November 14, 2005.

Unlike other environmental programs that rely on federal or state governments to implement and 

enforce specific requirements, the National Pretreatment Program places most of the 

responsibility on local municipalities. Specifically, the program requires all POTWs with design 

flows of more than 5 million gallons per day (mgd), as well as small POTWs with design flow 

less than 5 mgd that receive discharges from significant industrial users (SIUs), which may pass 

through or interfere with the operation of the POTW, or are otherwise subject to National 

Pretreatment Standards, to establish local pretreatment programs. POTWs enforce all national 

Pretreatment Standards and Requirements, as well as any more stringent local requirements 

determined necessary to protect the POTW and its workers, through local programs. States may

opt to implement statewide pretreatment programs in lieu of requiring POTWs to do so. In

statewide programs, data are exchanged between industrial users (IUs) and these state control 

authorities.

Each control authority, in turn, must have its program approved by the entity responsible for 

overseeing implementation and enforcement of the National Pretreatment Program. An approval 

authority is either a state, provided it is authorized by EPA to implement the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and National Pretreatment Program, or an EPA regional 

 

1

70 FR 60134, October 15, 2005.
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 2

office. EPA regional offices are the approval authorities for states that opt to implement 

statewide pretreatment programs rather than requiring their POTWs to implement programs. 

Data are routinely exchanged between approval authorities and control authorities to ensure that 

the National Pretreatment Program is being properly implemented.

This ICR estimates the program burden and costs for December 2011, through November 2014.

The total annual respondent burden associated with this ICR is estimated to be 1.81 million hours 

per year. The total annual respondent costs associated with this ICR are estimated to be 

approximately $77.7 million. The estimated annual costs and burden are distributed as follows: 

138,657 hours and $5.5 million for states, 864,513 hours and $25.5 million for POTWs, and 

803,346 hours and $46.7 million for IUs. The agency burden for the federal government totals 

21,741 hours annually or approximately $0.85 million. The total number of respondents for this 

ICR is 24,411, of which 36 are states, 1,548 are POTWs (approved programs), and 22,827 are 

SIUs. The total annual number of responses for these respondents is 98,438.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

2(a). Need/Authority for the Collection 

Section 402(b) of CWA requires EPA to develop national pretreatment standards to control 

industrial discharges into sewage systems. The purpose of these standards is to prevent pollutants 

from passing through or interfering with treatment plant operations that might result in damage 

to the environment or a threat to public health. As detailed below, several serious problems can 

occur when industrial wastes are discharged into sewage systems.

 Pass through of toxic pollutants into receiving waters. Industrial pollutants that pass through 

treatment systems into receiving waters can cause fish kills, destroy aquatic habitat, increase 

the risk of cancer in humans, and render receiving waters unsuitable for drinking or 

recreation.

 Interference with treatment plant operations. Municipal wastewater treatment systems are 

designed to handle typical household waste and biodegradable commercial and industrial 

wastes. Toxic industrial compounds that do not pass directly through the system might

interfere with plant operations.

 Contamination of sewage sludge. Toxic compounds remaining in sewage sludge might

render it unsuitable for certain disposal methods, such as land application, placement on a 

surface disposal site, or incineration.

 Corrosion of pipes and equipment. Industrial discharges with extremely high or low pH 

values can cause corrosion in the sewage collection system or the treatment plant, resulting in 

the need for premature repair or replacement of pipes and equipment.

 Explosion of highly volatile wastes. Industrial wastes can explode under particular conditions 

within the sewage collection system or treatment operations as a result of inadvertent mixing 

of highly volatile compounds, causing widespread damage to treatment facilities and posing 

a serious risk to plant operators.
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 3

 Interaction of wastes to produce toxic gases. Industrial discharges such as highly acidic 

wastes can interact with other wastes in the collection system, causing the release of toxic 

gases.

EPA has developed National Pretreatment Program standards for circumstances common to all 

sewage systems, as well as those serving specific industries. National standards apply regardless 

of whether the source is subject to other federal, state, or local pretreatment standards. The 

regulations establish general and specific discharge standards (40 CFR 403.5(a) and (b)) that 

apply to all IUs. The general prohibitions forbid the addition of inadequately treated wastes and 

forbid the discharge of pollutants that might interfere with or pass through the treatment works, 

thereby disrupting treatment capability. The specific prohibitions forbid the discharge of 

pollutants that

 Create a fire or explosion hazard

 Are highly corrosive

 Obstruct the treatment processes or system flows

 Cause interference or pass through

 Increase the temperature of wastewater entering the plant to above 104 degrees Fahrenheit.

 Cause worker health or safety problems

 Are trucked or hauled to the POTW (except as allowed by the POTW).

In addition to the national pretreatment standards, EPA has developed specific standards for 

certain industrial categories; they are called categorical pretreatment standards. These standards 

specify quantities or concentrations of certain pollutants or pollutant properties that IUs in 

certain industrial categories may discharge to a POTW. The categorical standards may also 

specify other steps that categorical industrial users (CIUs) must take to protect POTWs. EPA 

develops these categorical standards to restrict the discharge of certain toxic pollutants that the 

Agency has identified as posing the greatest threat to human health or the environment. Facilities 

subject to categorical standards must also comply with national pretreatment standards. Certain 

categorical standards allow CIUs to submit periodic certifications or develop pollution 

prevention plans to reduce or take the place of analytical sampling requirements.

Finally, EPA requires the control authority (CA), which is usually the POTW, to develop and 

enforce limits according to local, site-specific situations. These local limits ensure that IUs meet 

general and specific prohibitions detailed at 40 CFR 403.5(a) and (b). They are federally

enforceable pretreatment standards, as defined in section 307(d) of the CWA. If the local limits 

are more stringent than the categorical standards, the more stringent limit applies and is 

enforceable as a federal standard. The monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for 

these three types of pretreatment standards (general, specific, and local limits) are explained in 

more detail in section 4.

EPA, together with the various approval authorities and control authorities, implements these 

standards through the National Pretreatment Program. These entities need information to 

 Authorize state and local programs

 Monitor and enforce compliance with the national standards
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 4

 Determine the applicability of categorical standards

 Develop and enforce local limits

Overall, EPA reduced the amount of information to be collected in these areas in its Streamlining 

Rule (70 FR 60134). The rule, however, did impose a few new data collection requirements for 

IUs voluntarily requesting coverage under the pretreatment program, for best management 

practice (BMP)-based standards, and for those subject to provisions concerning equivalent mass

and equivalent concentration limits. The rule may also impose a one-time requirement for a

POTW that wants to take advantage of the flexibility requirements under the rule by requiring 

the POTW to modify its pretreatment program procedures and authority. 

The information collection requirements discussed in this ICR are authorized by sections 301, 

307(b), 308, 402(a), and 402(b) of the CWA. These sections provide for state administration of 

the NPDES program, which controls point source discharges of pollutants to waters of the 

United States. According to the CWA, states must also develop programs to ensure POTW 

compliance with the requirements of the national pretreatment regulations. Under the same 

authority, certain POTWs must identify all IUs that discharge pollutants subject to categorical 

standards under section 307(b) of the Act and must develop a pretreatment program to ensure 

compliance with these standards.

The administration of the National Pretreatment Program involves three levels of authority, as 

described below.

 Oversight Authority (OA). EPA regional offices oversee state pretreatment programs. They

may also assume the responsibilities of the approval authority (AA) or control authority (CA)

if states or POTWs do not have authorized pretreatment programs.

 Approval Authority (AA). A state with an approved NPDES program must obtain approval 

authority for its pretreatment program. The AA approves POTW pretreatment programs,

oversees POTW program implementation, and assumes the responsibility of the CA for 

POTWs that do not have a pretreatment program.

 Control Authority (CA). The CA is responsible for implementing the pretreatment program, 

including establishing control mechanisms for compliance assessment and enforcement of 

the national standards, categorical standards, and local limits. A POTW with a pretreatment 

program approved by the AA becomes the CA. If the POTW does not obtain such approval, 

the state or the EPA region assumes the responsibility of the CA.

Exhibit 1 shows the possible combinations of authority, while Exhibit 2 outlines the 

responsibilities of each authority.
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 5

Exhibit 1. Authority under the pretreatment program 

POTW with 

Approved 

Pretreatment 

Program

State with Approved 

Pretreatment 

Program

Control 

Authority 

Approval 

Authority

Oversight 

Authority

Yes Yes POTW State EPA

Yes No POTW EPA EPA

No Yes State State EPA

No No EPA EPA EPA

Exhibit 2. Responsibilities of each authority

Oversight Authority

(EPA)

 Evaluates pretreatment programs on a national basis and oversees state pretreatment programs to 

ensure that they meet federal requirements.

 Approves state pretreatment program requests.

 Acts as AA or CA in cases where states or POTWs do not have pretreatment programs.

Approval Authority

(Approved States or EPA Regions)

 Reviews POTW pretreatment programs to determine adequacy.

 Assists POTWs in ensuring compliance with pretreatment requirements.

 Audits/inspects approved POTWs to assess compliance (may also inspect IUs).

 Takes appropriate action against POTWs that fail to implement or enforce pretreatment standards 

at IUs not in compliance (where POTW does not take action).

 Acts as CA in cases where the POTW does not have a pretreatment program.

Control Authority

(Approved POTWs, Approved States, or EPA Regions)

 Has primary responsibility for implementing the pretreatment program.

 Ensures that IUs comply with discharge limitations, reporting requirements, and certification 

requirements.

 Inspects or reviews self-monitoring reports from IUs.

 Enforces against noncomplying IUs.

The procedures and requirements of the National Pretreatment Program are specified at 40 CFR 

Part 403. The general framework of Part 403 is as follows:

Section Title

403.1 Purpose and Applicability

403.2 Objectives of General Pretreatment Regulations

403.3 Definitions

403.4 State or Local Law

403.5 National Pretreatment Standards: Prohibited Discharges

403.6 National Pretreatment Standards: Categorical Standards

403.7 Removal Credits

403.8 Pretreatment Program Requirements: Development and Implementation by POTW
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 6

403.9 POTW Pretreatment Programs and/or Authorization to Revise Pretreatment 

Standards: Submission for Approval

403.10 Development and Submission of NPDES State Pretreatment Programs

403.11 Approval Procedures for POTW Pretreatment Programs and POTW Granting of 

Removal Credits

403.12 Reporting Requirements for POTWs and Industrial Users

403.13 Variances from Categorical Pretreatment Standards for Fundamentally Different 

Factors

403.14 Confidentiality

403.15 Net/Gross Calculation

403.16 Upset Provision

403.17 Bypass

403.18 Modification of POTW Pretreatment Programs

403.19 Provisions of Specific Applicability to the Owatonna Waste Water Treatment 

Facility

403.20 Pretreatment Program Reinvention Pilot Projects Under Project XL2

Certain CIUs are required at 40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N, to submit periodic certifications 

or develop pollution prevention plans to reduce or eliminate monitoring requirements. 

Applicable provisions may be found in the following parts of title 40 of the CFR: 

Part Title

413 Electroplating Point Source Category

423 Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category

430 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Source Category

Including Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory (Subpart B).

433 Metal Finishing Point Source Category

437 Centralized Waste Treatment Point Source Category

439 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Point Source Category

442 Transportation Equipment Cleaning Point Source Category

455 Pesticide Chemicals

465 Coil Coating Point Source Category

466 Porcelain Enameling Point Source Category

467 Aluminum Forming Point Source Category

469 Electrical and Electronic Components

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

In general, EPA, states, and POTWs use the information collected under the National 

Pretreatment Program for program development and implementation purposes. Exhibits 3A–3C 

summarize the information collected by type and indicate how and by whom the information is 

used. Users of the information include oversight authorities, approval authorities, control 

authorities, POTWs, IUs, and the public.

 

2

Project XL is covered by a separate ICR, the Regulatory Reinvention Pilot Projects under Project XL: 

Pretreatment Program, OMB Control Number 2010-0026, EPA ICR Number 1755.05.
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 7

Exhibit 3A. Uses of data collected for program development

Type of Data Collected From To Authority/ 

Citation 

(40 CFR)

Uses of the Data

State pretreatment 

program approval request

State OA 403.10 To evaluate the adequacy of the state’s 

pretreatment program in terms of legal 

authority, procedural requirements, and 

appropriate staff and funding

POTW pretreatment 

compliance schedule 

progress report

POTW AA 403.8, 

403.9, 

403.12(k)

To determine whether the POTW is on 

schedule in developing its program so that 

the AA can provide assistance or take 

enforcement action, if necessary

POTW pretreatment 

program approval request

POTW AA 403.8(b), 

403.9

To evaluate the adequacy of the POTW’s 

pretreatment program in terms of legal 

authority, justification of local limits, 

compliance monitoring, administrative 

procedures, and appropriate staff and 

funding

Maintain pretreatment 

program information*

AA, 

OA, 

POTW

Stored 

on-site

403.11(f), 

403.14

To provide public access to information 

characterizing the pretreatment program 

(e.g., information about POTW program

approval submissions)

*This is a recordkeeping requirement, not a reporting requirement. Though no submission is required, AAs, OAs, and 

POTWs incur burden.

Oversight authorities evaluate state pretreatment programs based on information about the 

programs' legal authority, procedural requirements, and staff and funding appropriateness. In 

addition, oversight authorities use information about an IU to determine whether a particular 

categorical standard or subcategory applies to the IU.

Approval authorities use information collected under the pretreatment program to identify and 

locate IUs that might be subject to national pretreatment standards. Approval authorities also use 

information about IUs to protect the POTW and its workers by prohibiting ignitable, obstructive, 

or reactive discharges from IUs. These authorities also use the data to determine whether a 

POTW’s pretreatment program is adequate and properly implemented. In addition, approval 

authorities use the information to monitor a POTW’s compliance with pretreatment program 

requirements.

Control authorities use data from IUs to determine the types and amounts of pollutants that 

industries are discharging to a POTW, to track IU compliance with installation schedules for 

pretreatment equipment, and to ensure IU compliance with applicable certification requirements. 

Control authorities also use IU data to monitor an industry’s compliance with pretreatment 

standards, to enforce these standards, to note changes in the volume or nature of pollutants, and 

to evaluate the effects of an anticipated bypass. In addition, control authorities use IU data to 

determine whether the POTW needs to take steps to reduce the risks of slug, spill, and batch 

discharges.
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 8

Control authorities use information from approval authorities to determine their obligations 

under the national pretreatment regulations, specifically those for operating and maintaining 

equipment and those requiring sampling and reporting of pollutant levels.

IUs use information received from control authorities to understand the pollutant levels that must 

not be exceeded in their discharges and related treatment, sampling, and reporting requirements.

The public also uses information received under the National Pretreatment Program when notices 

of significant noncompliance (SNC) by IUs or control authorities are published in local 

newspapers.

Exhibit 3B. Uses of data collected for program implementation

Type of Data Collected From To Authority/ 

Citation (40 

CFR)

Uses of the Data

Baseline monitoring 

report

IU CA 403.12(b) To ensure compliance with the 

standards by each source; to determine 

whether schedules for compliance are 

reasonable; and to establish, verify, or 

expand records on the types and extent 

of industrial contributions to POTWs

IU compliance schedule 

progress report

IU CA 403.12(c) To determine compliance with 

scheduled deadlines for installation of 

pretreatment technology and categorical 

standards

IU compliance attainment 

report

IU CA 403.12(d) To determine compliance with final 

applicable pretreatment standards and

whether IU needs additional operation 

and maintenance (O&M) or 

pretreatment to attain standards

IU resampling 

compliance report

IU CA 403.12(g) To demonstrate return to compliance.

IU request for coverage 

under general control 

mechanism

IU CA 403.8(f)(1)

(A)(2)

To determine whether an IU qualifies for 

a general permit

IU self-monitoring 

compliance report

IU CA 403.12(e), 

403.12(h)

To ensure continued IU compliance with 

the pretreatment standards and to 

determine whether enforcement actions

are necessary

Pollution prevention plan

(Voluntary)

IU CA 455.41 To ensure that IUs covered by the 

Pesticides Formulating, Packaging, and 

Repackaging effluent guidelines have 

prepared a pollution prevention plan as 

an alternative to zero discharge
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 9

Exhibit 3B. Uses of data collected for program implementation (continued)

Type of Data Collected From To Authority/ 

Citation (40 

CFR)

Uses of the Data

Periodic certifications IU CA Varies** To ensure IUs practicing reduced 

monitoring comply with certification 

requirements and meet criteria for 

reduced monitoring

POTW monitoring 

records and 

documentation of best 

management practices 

(BMPs)*

POTW Stored 

on site

403.12(o), 

403.14(c)

To allow AA to verify POTW compliance 

with national Pretreatment Standards

and Requirements

IU monitoring records

and documentation of 

BMPs*

IU Stored 

on site

403.12(o) To allow CA to verify IU compliance with 

national standards and requirements

Annual POTW reports CA AA 403.12(i) To adequately oversee POTW

pretreatment programs and resulting 

national implementation status; also, to 

ensure compliance with National 

Pretreatment Standards and 

Requirements

Pretreatment Compliance 

Inspection (PCI)

AA OA Compliance

Monitoring 

Strategy

The PCI evaluates the POTW’s 

implementation of its authorized 

pretreatment program. It includes a 

review of the POTW’s records on 

monitoring, inspections, and 

enforcement activities for its industrial 

users. The PCI may be supplemented 

with industrial user inspections.

POTW program

modifications

CA AA 403.18 To modify pretreatment programs on 

the basis of local conditions and to 

provide AAs with opportunities to accept 

or deny such requests

IU slug load notification IU CA 403.12(f) To enable the POTW to plan and carry 

out protective actions immediately after 

a change in volume or character of an 

IU discharge

Notification of significant 

change affecting 

equivalent mass limits or 

concentration limits 

IU CA 403.6(c)(9) To ensure that the CA has a reasonable 

basis for calculating mass or 

concentration limits based on a 

production-based standard

Notification of changed 

discharge

IU CA 403.12(j) To ensure that the CA has the 

necessary information to adequately 

notify the NPDES permitting authority of 

substantial changes in discharge

Upset notification IU CA 403.16 To inform the CA of descriptions of 

known upsets at the IU. Reporting of 

upsets is required particularly if IU

wishes to establish the affirmative 

defense of the upset for an action
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 10

Type of Data Collected From To Authority/ 

Citation (40 

CFR)

Uses of the Data

brought for non-compliance

Bypass notification IU CA 403.17 To inform the CA of the intentional 

diversion of wastestreams from any

portion of an IU’s treatment facility

Exhibit 3B. Uses of data collected for program implementation (continued)

Type of Data Collected From To Authority/ 

Citation (40 

CFR)

Uses of the Data

Notification of changed 

monitoring location

IU CA 403.6(e)(4) To inform the CA of any change in 

location of an IU's monitoring point(s) so 

that the CA may carry out its 

compliance monitoring and enforcement 

responsibilities

Determination of nonsignificant categorical 

industrial users (NSCIUs) 

and middle tier CIUs

(Voluntary)

CA

IU

AA, IU

CA

403.3(v)(2), 

403.8(f)(2)(v), 

403.12(e), (g), 

(i), and (q)

For CA to determine whether IU is an

NSCIU or middle tier CIU and thus 

subject to less stringent reporting, 

inspection, and sampling requirements

Issuance of discharge 

permits or other control 

mechanisms for SIUs

CA IU 403.8(f) To give SIUs notice of all pretreatment 

requirements and to improve 

enforcement

Inspection and sampling 

of IU effluent (including

slug control plans)

CA AA 403.8(f)(2)(v) To monitor industrial discharges to 

POTW treatment facilities

Public notification of 

significant noncompliance

CA Public 403.8(f)(2)(viii) To inform the public of instances of 

significant noncompliance

Prevention and control 

plan for spills and batch 

discharges

IU

CA

CA

AA

403.8(f)(2)(vi) For CAs to notify SIUs of the need for 

planning to minimize the risk of slug, 

spill, and batch discharges. 

Documentation of the POTW’s activities 

must be made available to the AA upon 

request so the AA can determine 

whether the POTW is adequately 

evaluating whether its SIUs need slug 

discharge control plans.

Evaluation of the need to 

revise local limits

CA AA 403.5(c) To evaluate whether CAs have 

developed appropriate local limits to 

control toxic and hazardous pollutants

POTW enforcement 

response plan

CA AA 403.8(f)(5) To assist in determining whether CAs 

have effective enforcement programs

*This is a recordkeeping requirement, not a reporting requirement. Though no submission is required, IUs incur 

burden.

**See section 2(a) of this ICR.
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 11

Exhibit 3C. Uses of data collected for program/categorical determinations

Type of Data Collected From To Authority / 

Citation 

(40 CFR)

Uses of the Data

Categorical determination 

request

IU, CA AA/OA 403.6(a) To enable the AA/OA to determine the 

applicability of a categorical standard or 

subcategory to an IU

Alternative limits 

modification request

IU CA 403.6(e) To notify the CA of any material or 

significant change in the values used to 

calculate an alternative limit

Fundamentally different 

factors variance request

IU, CA OA 403.13 To provide plant-specific data necessary 

for a CA to determine whether an IU's 

production processes or technologies are 

fundamentally different from the 

representative facilities used to determine 

the limits specified in a categorical 

standard and, if so, to adjust the limits. 

This information provides the empirical 

data used to evaluate the appropriateness 

of national standards.

Net/gross adjustment 

request

IU CA 403.15 To enable CA to determine whether an 

applicable pretreatment standard should 

be revised (i.e., to ensure that an IU is not 

required to remove a greater amount of a 

pollutant than is already present in its 

intake water)

Removal credit approval 

request

POTW AA 403.7 To enable AA to authorize a POTW to 

calculate a revised categorical standard 

reflecting pollutant removals already 

resulting from specific POTW design 

capabilities

Removal credit selfmonitoring reportPOTW AA 403.7 To enable AA to monitor ongoing POTW

pollutant removals, which form the basis 

for revised categorical standards for the 

POTW's users

3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection 

Criteria

3(a). Nonduplication

EPA has examined all other reporting requirements contained in the CWA and 40 CFR Part 403. 

In addition, the Agency has examined the following sources to determine whether similar or 

duplicative information is available elsewhere:

 Permit Compliance System

 Management Information and Data Systems Division Inventory of Automated Systems

 Environmental Information Clearinghouse
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 12

 Inventory of ICRs

EPA did not find any similar or duplicative reporting requirements. No other mechanism for 

obtaining information on continued compliance with pretreatment standards is available.

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

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

comments, which are used partly to 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 August, 25, 2011 (76 FR 53123). 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.

3(c). Consultations

On June 26, 1978, EPA promulgated the General Pretreatment Regulations (43 FR 27736). 

Between February 1977 and June 1978, 4 public hearings and 16 public meetings concerning the 

proposed regulations were held. In addition, EPA received more than 400 individual comments. 

In response to the comments received, EPA modified the reporting requirements in the final 

General Pretreatment Regulations to minimize the burden on POTWs.

On October 29, 1979, EPA proposed amendments to the General Pretreatment Regulations (44 

FR 62260). After considering numerous comments submitted on the proposed amendments, EPA 

developed and published the amended General Pretreatment Regulations on January 28, 1981 

(46 FR 9404). These amendments were scheduled to take effect on March 13, 1981; however, 

the effective date was temporarily deferred to March 30, 1981, by a Presidential memorandum 

(46 FR 11972). On March 27, 1981, EPA indefinitely postponed the amendments' effective date.

Later that year, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a suit, in which it 

challenged EPA over the Agency’s deferral of the amendments to the General Pretreatment 

Regulations without having first given public notice. On July 8, 1982, the court held in NRDC v.

EPA (No. 81-2068) that EPA’s suspension violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The court 

ordered EPA to reinstate all pretreatment amendments retroactive to March 30, 1981. In the 

meantime, two stakeholder groups had recommended that EPA promulgate certain portions of 

the regulations. In response to these and other comments, EPA put most of the amendments into 

effect.

On February 3, 1984, EPA established the Pretreatment Implementation Review Task Force 

(PIRT). The mission of PIRT was to provide EPA with recommendations for addressing day-today problems faced by POTWs, states, and industries in implementing the National Pretreatment 

Program. PIRT was composed of 17 representatives of POTWs, states, industry, environmental 

groups, and EPA regional offices. The group produced a set of recommendations, summarized in 
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 13

a final report to the Administrator.

3

EPA revised the general pretreatment and NPDES 

regulations (40 CFR Parts 122 and 403) on October 17, 1988 (53 FR 40610) in response to 

PIRT’s recommendations.

The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA) excluded coverage of solid and dissolved wastes in domestic sewage, meaning such 

wastes did not have to meet RCRA standards for hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal. 

EPA was required under the amendments to prepare a report to Congress on the extent to which 

excluded wastes pass through POTWs.

EPA subsequently submitted the Domestic Sewage Study (DSS) to Congress on February 7,

1986. The report contained information on 160,000 waste dischargers from 47 industrial 

categories and the residential sector. The report also provided information on the effectiveness of 

existing government controls for wastewater discharges, especially federal and local 

pretreatment programs and categorical pretreatment standards. In the DSS, EPA agreed with 

retaining the domestic sewage exclusion; however, it recommended that CWA authorities be 

applied to protect against hazardous waste discharges to POTWs.

EPA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on August 22, 1986 (51 FR 

30166), to improve methods for controlling hazardous waste discharges to POTWs under the 

NPDES and general pretreatment programs. To solicit comments on the ANPR, the Agency held 

three public meetings––one each in the District of Columbia, Chicago, and San Francisco. The 

Agency summarized the comments received in the Federal Register on June 22, 1987. It later 

proposed pretreatment program changes on November 23, 1988 (53 FR 47632), and it published 

a final rule on July 24, 1990 (55 FR 30082).

On November 25, 1992, pursuant to section 405 of the CWA, EPA promulgated a regulation (40 

CFR Part 503) to protect public health and the environment from the reasonably anticipated 

adverse effects of certain pollutants in sewage sludge (58 FR 9248, February 19, 1993 –

Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge – Final Rule). This regulation established 

requirements for the following final uses or disposal of sewage sludge: 

 Land application either to condition the soil or to fertilize crops grown in the soil

 Final disposal on the land

 Incineration

Also on November 25, 1992, EPA amended the Part 403 general pretreatment regulations to add 

a new Appendix G, which included two tables of pollutants that are eligible for a removal credit 

if the other procedural and substantive requirements of 40 CFR Part 503 and 40 CFR 403.7 are 

met. The first table (Appendix G—Section I) lists, by use or disposal practice, the pollutants 

regulated in Part 503 and eligible for removal credit authorization. The second table (Appendix 

G–Section II) lists, by use or disposal practice, additional pollutants that are eligible for a 

removal credit if the concentration of the pollutant in sewage sludge does not exceed a 

prescribed concentration. The pollutants in Appendix G—Section II are the pollutants that EPA 

 

3

For a detailed summary of PIRT's recommendations, see the January 30, 1985, EPA publication Pretreatment Review 

Task Force: Final Report to the Administrator.
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 14

evaluated and opted not to regulate during development of the Part 503 regulation (58 FR 9381–

5).

On March 5, 1993, Leather Industries of America, Inc., filed a petition with the U.S. Circuit 

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit seeking review of the pollutant limits for 

chromium in Tables 1–4 of 40 CFR 503.13(b). On June 17, 1993, the City of Pueblo, Colorado,

filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit challenging the 

selenium pollutant limits in Tables 1–3 of 40 CFR 503.13(b). This latter case was subsequently

transferred to the D.C. Circuit. On November 15, 1994, the D.C. Circuit remanded the 

cumulative pollutant loading rate for chromium in Table 2 and the pollutant concentration limit 

for chromium and selenium in Table 3 to the Agency for modification or additional justification 

(Leather Industries of America, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 40 F.3d 392, D.C. Cir., 

1994).

Effective October 25, 1995, and as a result of EPA’s reconsideration of certain issues remanded 

by the U.S. Court of Appeals for additional justification or modification, the Agency amended 40 

CFR Part 503 to delete the land application pollutant limits for chromium and to change the land 

application pollutant concentration limit for selenium. Accordingly, EPA also amended the list of 

pollutants (in Appendix G of 40 CFR Part 403) for which a removal credit may be available (60 

FR 54764-70).

In 1995, EPA initiated a review of the general pretreatment regulations to identify opportunities

for reducing the implementation and management burden on affected parties. The 1995 effort 

culminated in two phases of “streamlining” the pretreatment regulations: “Streamlined 

Procedures for Modifying Approved Publicly Owned Treatment Works Pretreatment Programs” 

and “Streamlining the General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of 

Pollution.”

On July 30, 1996, EPA proposed amendments to the General Pretreatment Regulations to revise 

the procedures for modifying the requirements of approved POTW Pretreatment Programs 

incorporated into NPDES permits issued to POTWs (61 FR 39804). The revisions are designed 

to reduce the administrative burden and cost associated with maintaining approved pretreatment 

programs without affecting environmental protection. The final rule was published in the 

Federal Register on July 17, 1997, and became effective on August 18, 1997 (62 FR 38406). 

On July 22, 1999, EPA proposed to revise several provisions of the General Pretreatment 

Regulations that address restrictions on and oversight of IUs that introduce pollutants into 

POTWs (64 FR 39564). EPA also proposed changes to certain program requirements to make 

them consistent with NPDES requirements. The proposals would reduce the regulatory burden 

on both IUs and state and POTW CAs without affecting environmental protection. By finalizing 

the rule, EPA was to achieve better environmental results at a lower cost by allowing CAs to 

better focus oversight resources where they will do the most good. EPA received 221 comment 

letters in response to the proposed rule. In addition, the Agency met with key stakeholder groups 

during the development of the final rule. EPA published the final changes to the General 

Pretreatment Regulations (Final Pretreatment Streamlining Rule) on October 14, 2005 (70 FR 

60134).
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 15

On October 6, 2000, EPA published (65 FR 59738) a final rule to implement a project under the 

Project XLC program for certain facilities in Steele County, Minnesota. The terms of the project 

were defined in a Final Project Agreement, which was made available for public review and 

comment through a Federal Register notice on December 29, 1999 (64 FR 73047) and signed on 

May 31, 2000. In addition, EPA promulgated a site-specific rule, applicable to only the Steele 

County sponsors who are participating industrial users, to facilitate implementation of the 

project. This site-specific rule provides regulatory changes under the CWA to implement the 

Community XL project. EPA received no public comments on the proposed rule.

On October 6, 2000, EPA proposed (65 FR 59791) a rule that set forth the mechanism through 

which POTWs that complete the Project XL process can seek modification of their programs 

following the procedures in 40 CFR 403.18 and implement the new local programs as described 

in their Project XL Final Project Agreement. EPA received a total of three comments regarding 

this rule. The final rule was published on October 3, 2001 (66 FR 50334).

On August 31, 2001, EPA published (66 FR 46162) a proposed rule establishing the framework 

under which it would accept electronic reports from regulated entities to satisfy certain document 

submission requirements in EPA’s regulations. The final rule was published on October 13, 2005 

(70 FR 59848). For the proposal, EPA provided a 6-month public comment period, which closed 

on February 27, 2002. During that time, EPA received 184 sets of written comments on the 

proposed rule.

On October 14, 2005, EPA published (70 FR 60199) an ANPR seeking comment on two issues 

concerning the removal credits provisions in the General Pretreatment Regulations. EPA 

requested comments on whether to amend the list of pollutants for which removal credits are 

available to add certain pollutants. Comments had to be received on or before December 13, 

2005.

The active ICR (OMB Control No. 2040-0009, EPA ICR No. 0002.13) was published in the 

Federal Register on June 27, 2007 (72 FR 35227-35230). The notice included a request for 

comments on the content and impact of these information collection requirements on the 

regulated community. EPA received no comments.

3(d). Effects of Less Frequent Collection

EPA considers the reporting requirements associated with the pretreatment program (both the 

one-time and ongoing monitoring and reporting requirements) the minimum necessary for 

effective administration of the program. EPA also considers the reporting requirements the 

minimum necessary to ensure effective control of hazardous wastes and to implement RCRA 

section 3018(b). Any alternative to the present set of minimal requirements would entail an 

increase in reporting burden to respondents.

In addition, EPA considers the specific requirements for SIUs and for reporting the discharge of 

RCRA hazardous substances preferable to repealing the domestic sewage exclusion.
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 16

3(e). General Guidelines 

The information collection requirements of the National Pretreatment Program are in accordance 

with the Paperwork Reduction Act guidelines at 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2). Only one provision 

exceeds the OMB guidelines. According to 40 CFR 403.12(f), IUs must notify the POTW 

immediately of any slug loading. Generally, IUs make such reports by telephone. This is an 

emergency provision that aims to provide POTWs with adequate time to respond to a potentially

deleterious situation.

3(f). Confidentiality 

The following reporting requirements may contain confidential business information (CBI), 

proprietary information, or information containing compromising trade secrets:

 Pretreatment Baseline Monitoring Report (BMR)

 IU Compliance Schedule Report

 POTW and IU Maintenance of Monitoring Records

 Pretreatment Categorical Determination Request

 Pretreatment Fundamentally Different Factors (FDF) Variance Request

In such cases, the respondent has the right to request that the information be treated as CBI. EPA 

and its agents will handle all data so designated in accordance with the requirements at 40 CFR 

403.14(a): 

In accordance with 40 CFR Part 2, any information submitted to EPA pursuant to 

these regulations may be claimed as confidential by the submitter. Any such claim 

must be asserted at the time of submission in the manner prescribed on the 

application form or instructions, or, in the case of other submissions, by the words 

“confidential business information” on each page containing such information. If 

no claim is made at the time of submission, EPA may make the information 

available to the public without further notice. If a claim is asserted, the 

information will be treated in accordance with the procedures in 40 CFR Part 2 

(Public Information).

The pretreatment regulations, however, stipulate at 40 CFR 403.14(b) that industrial effluent data 

“... shall be made available to the public without restriction.”

3(g) Sensitive Questions 

The reporting requirements for the National Pretreatment Program do not require respondents to 

respond to questions of a sensitive nature.
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 17

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION 

REQUESTED

4(a). Respondents/NAICS Codes

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

levels. Respondents include POTWs, certain classifications of IUs, and states submitting requests 

for program approval.

The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code for sewerage systems (POTWs) is 4952; the 

corresponding North American Industry Classification (NAICS) code for such systems is 22132 

(Sewage Treatment Facilities). The SIC code for state agencies implementing the National 

Pretreatment Program is 9511 (Air and Water Resources and Solid Waste Management), while 

the corresponding NAICS code is 92411 (Administration of Air and Water Resources and Solid 

Waste Management Programs).

Exhibit 4 provides a list of SIC/NAICS codes for various industrial categories whose members 

are potentially subject to the national pretreatment regulations. Please note that auxiliary systems 

(those that provide services to the primary establishment, such as electrical power to a factory) 

cannot be categorized in a single SIC or NAICS code. For auxiliary systems, the SIC or NAICS 

code is that of the primary establishment or industry.

Exhibit 4. Affected industries and industrial classifications

Affected Industry SIC Code(s)* NAICS Code(s)**

Adhesive/Sealant 2891 32552

Aluminum Forming 3353, 3354, 3355, 3357, 

3363

331315, 331316, 331319, 331521

Asbestos Manufacturing 2621, 3292 33634, 327999

Battery Manufacturing 3691, 3692 335911, 335912

Builder's Paper and Board Mills 267 322222, 322299

Carbon Black Manufacturing 2895 325182

Cement Manufacturing 3241 327310

Centralized Waste Treatment 4953 562211, 562219

Coal Mining 1221, 1222, 1231, 1241 212111, 212112, 212113, 213113

Coil Coating 3411, 3479, 3492 332431, 332812

Copper Forming 3351, 3357, 3463 331421, 331422, 332112

Dairy Products Processing 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 

2026

311511, 311512, 311513, 311514, 

311520

Electrical and Electronic Components 3671, 3674, 3679 334411, 334413, 334419

Electroplating 3471, 3672 332813, 334412

Explosives Manufacturing 2892 325920
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 18

Exhibit 4. Affected industries and industrial classifications (continued)

Affected Industry SIC Code(s)* NAICS Code(s)**

Feedlots 0211 112112

Ferroalloy Manufacturing 3313 331112

Fertilizer Manufacturing 2873, 2874, 2875 325311, 325312, 325314

Foundries 332, 3365, 3366 331511, 331512, 331513, 331524, 

331525

Fruits and Vegetables Processing 2033, 2034, 2035, 2037 311411, 311421, 311422, 311423

Glass Manufacturing 3211, 3221, 3296 327211, 327212, 327993

Grain Mills Manufacturing 2041, 2043, 2044, 2045, 

2046, 2047

311111, 311211, 311212, 311213, 

311221, 311230

Gum and Wood Chemicals 2861 325191

Ink Formulating 2893 325910

Inorganic Chemicals 2812, 2813, 2816, 2819 325120, 325131, 325181, 325188

Iron and Steel Manufacturing 3312, 3315, 3316, 3317, 

3479

331111, 331210, 331221, 331222, 

332812

Leather Tanning and Finishing 3111 316110

Meat Processing 2011, 2013, 2077 311611, 311612, 311613

Metal Finishing Industry groups: 34, 35, 

36, 37, and 38

Industry subsectors 332, 333, 334, 

and 336

Metal Molding and Casting 3321, 3322, 3324, 3325, 

3365, 3366, 3369

331511, 331512, 331513, 331524, 

331525, 331528

Non-Ferrous Metals Forming and 

Metal Powders

3356, 3357, 3363, 3497, 

3499

331422, 331491, 331521, 332117, 

332999

Ore Mining and Dressing 1011, 1021, 1031, 1041, 

1044, 1061, 1094, 1099

212210, 212221, 212222, 212231, 

212234, 212291, 212299

Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and 

Synthetic Fibers

286 325132, 325211, 325192, 32511,

32512, 325193, 325212, 325199

Paint Formulating 2851 325510

Paving and Roofing (Tars and Asphalt) 2951, 2952, 3996 324121, 324122, 326192

Pesticides Formulating, Packaging, 

and Repackaging

287 325314

Pesticides Manufacturing 2879 325320

Petroleum Refining 2911 324110

Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing 2833, 2834 325411, 325412

Phosphate Manufacturing 2819, 2874 325188, 325312

Photographic 7221, 7335, 7384, 7819 512199, 541921, 541922, 812921, 

812922

Plastics and Synthetics 3081, 3082, 3083, 3084, 

3085, 3086, 3087

325991, 326112, 326113, 326121, 

326122, 326140, 326150, 326160
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 19

Exhibit 4. Affected industries and industrial classifications (continued)

Affected Industry SIC Code(s)* NAICS Code(s)**

Porcelain Enameling 3431, 3469, 3479, 3631, 

3632, 3633, 3639

332116, 332812, 332998, 335221, 

335222, 335224, 335228

Printing and Publishing 2731 51223, 51113, 323117

Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard 2611, 2621, 2631 322110, 322121, 322122, 322130

Rubber Processing 2822 325212

Seafood Processing, Canning & 

Preserving 

2091, 2092 311711, 311712

Soaps and Detergents Manufacturing 2841 325611

Steam Electric Power Generating 4911 221112

Textile Mills (410) 2211, 2221, 2231, 2241, 

2251, 2252, 2253, 2254, 

2257, 2258, 2259, 2261, 

2262, 2269, 2273, 2281, 

2282, 2284, 2295, 2296, 

2297, 2298, 2299

313111, 313112, 313113, 313210, 

313221, 313222, 313230, 313241, 

313249, 313311, 313312, 313320, 

314110, 314121, 314129, 314911, 

314912, 314991, 314992, 314999

Timber Products and Processing 2421, 2435, 2436, 2491, 

2493, 2499

321114, 321211, 321212, 321219

Transportation Equipment 4491, 4499, 4741, 7699 484230, 488210, 488320, 488390

* Note that some industrial sectors are categorized by only two- or three-digit SIC codes.

** This table might not include all applicable NAICS codes for industries with one or more codes.

Of the IUs that are respondents, some are considered SIUs on the basis of certain criteria. SIUs 

are defined at 40 CFR 403.3(v) as any of the following types of facilities:

 All IUs subject to categorical pretreatment standards (unless the CA finds that the IU is an 

NSCIU).

 All IUs not subject to categorical pretreatment standards that

- Discharge an average of 25,000 gallons per day (gpd) or more of process wastewater 

(excluding sanitary, noncontact cooling, and boiler blowdown wastewater);

- Contribute a process wastestream equal to or greater than 5 percent or more of the 

receiving treatment plant’s average dry weather hydraulic or organic capacity; or

- Have a reasonable potential to adversely affect the POTW’s operation or violate any 

pretreatment standard or requirement as determined by the CA.

4(b). Information Requested

4(b)(i). Data Items

Information is required under the National Pretreatment Program to facilitate (1) program 

development, (2) program implementation, and (3) program/categorical determinations. Exhibit 

5 outlines the reporting and recordkeeping requirements in each of these areas. Please note that 

most of the information requirements, particularly those associated with program development 
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 20

and program/categorical determinations, are one-time requirements that most states, POTWs, 

and IUs have already met.

Exhibit 5. Reporting and recordkeeping requirements for the pretreatment program

Program Area Requirement Regulatory 

Citation

(40 CFR)

From To Frequency/ 

Retention

Program 

development

POTW pretreatment 

program approval request

403.8(b),

403.9

POTW AA One time

POTW pretreatment 

compliance schedule 

progress report

403.8, 

403.9, 

403.12(k)

POTW AA One time

State pretreatment program 

approval request

403.10 State OA One time

Maintain pretreatment 

program information

403.11(f), 

403.14

OA, 

AA, 

POTW

Stored 

on-site

For minimum of 3 

years

Program 

implementation

Baseline monitoring report 403.12(b) IU CA One time

IU compliance schedule 

progress report 

403.12(c) IU CA One time

IU compliance attainment 

report

403.12(d) IU CA One time

IU resampling compliance 

requirements

403.12(g) IU CA Once per effluent 

violation

IU request for coverage 

under general control 

mechanism

403.8(f) 

(1)(ii)(A) (2)

IU CA One time

IU self-monitoring 

compliance report

403.12(e), 

403.12(h)

IU CA Every 6 months or 

as requested by CA

Pollution prevention plan 455.41 IU CA One time, as 

needed

Centralized Waste 

Treatment initial certification 

statement

437.41 IU CA One time

Periodic certifications varies** IU CA Varies from once 

every 6 months to 

once every 5 years

Maintain POTW monitoring 

records and documentation 

of BMPs

403.12(o), 

403.14(c)

POTW/

CA

Stored 

on site

For minimum of 3 

years

Maintain IU monitoring 

records and documentation 

of BMPs

403.12(o) IU Stored 

on site

For minimum of 3 

years

Annual POTW reports 403.12(i) CA AA Annually

Pretreatment Compliance 

Inspection (PCI)

Compliance

Monitoring 

Strategy

AA OA At least 3 every 5 

years. Assumed 

Annually for 80%
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 21

Exhibit 5. Reporting and recordkeeping requirements for the pretreatment program (continued)

Program Area Requirement Regulatory 

Citation 

(40 CFR)

From To Frequency/ 

Retention

Program 

implementation

(continued)

IU slug load notification 403.12(f) IU CA As needed

POTW program

modifications

403.18 CA AA Once per 

occurrence

Notification of significant 

change affecting equivalent 

mass limits or concentration 

limits

IU CA 403.6 

(c)(9)

Once per 

occurrence

Notification of changed 

discharge

403.12(j) IU CA Once per 

occurrence

Bypass notification 403.17 IU CA Once per 

occurrence

Notification of changed 

monitoring location

403.6(e) (4) IU CA Once per 

occurrence

Determination of NSCIUs 

and middle tier CIUs

403.3(v) 

(2), 403.8(f) 

(2)(v), 

403.12(e), 

(g), (i), and 

(q)

CA

IU

AA, IU

CA

One time, as 

needed

Issuance of discharge 

permits or other control 

mechanisms for SIUs

403.8(f) CA IU Once every 5 years

Inspection and sampling of 

IU and SIU effluent

403.8(f) CA AA

Random sampling and 

analysis of IUs, 

surveillance

Intermittent

Inspection and sampling 

of SIUs

Annually

Evaluation of SIUs for 

slug control plan

At least once, as 

needed

Public notification of 

significant noncompliance

403.8(f) 

(2)(viii)

CA Public Annually

Slug control plan 403.8(f) 

(2)(vi)

IU CA One time, as 

required

Evaluation of the need to 

revise local limits

403.5(c) CA AA Once every 5 years

POTW enforcement 

response plan

403.8(f) CA AA One time

Notification of RCRA 

discharge

403.12(p) IU CA, 

EPA, 

State

One time, as 

needed
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 22

Exhibit 5. Reporting and recordkeeping requirements for the pretreatment program (continued)

Program Development

The reporting requirements for program development apply to states and POTWs and 

include the POTW Pretreatment Program Approval Request, POTW Pretreatment

Compliance Schedule Progress Report, and State Pretreatment Program Approval 

Request.

The regulations at 40 CFR 403.10 require states to develop a pretreatment program, 

provided EPA granted the state NPDES program authority before the National 

Pretreatment Program was established. All other states are required to apply for 

pretreatment program approval at the same time they apply for NPDES program 

authority. In a state’s request for approval, the state must demonstrate that it has 

developed the legal, procedural, and administrative bases for the program and that it has 

the necessary funding and staff to operate the program. Once EPA approves the program, 

the state becomes the AA. EPA regional offices are responsible for administering the 

pretreatment program in states without approved programs. Currently, 36 states have 

approved pretreatment programs.

All POTWs that have design flows of more than 5 mgd and receive pollutants from IUs, 

which may pass through or interfere with the operation of the POTW, or are otherwise 

subject to National Pretreatment Standards, must develop local pretreatment programs. 

The IU is to reduce, eliminate, or alter harmful industrial pollutants prior to discharging

to the POTW system vis-à-vis the program. POTWs with design flow of less than 5 mgd

that receive discharges from IUs may also be required to develop a local program if the 

nature or volume of the industrial influent, treatment process upsets, violations of POTW 

effluent limitations, contamination of municipal sludge, or other circumstances warrant to 

prevent POTW interference or pass through from occurring. POTWs in a state that acts as 

Program Area Requirement Regulatory 

Citation 

(40 CFR)

From To Frequency/ 

Retention

Program/ 

categorical 

determination

Categorical determination 

request

403.6(a) IU, CA OA, AA One time 

(voluntary)

Alternative limits 

modification

403.6(e) IU CA Once per 

occurrence

Removal credit approval 

request

403.7 POTW AA Intermittent

(voluntary)

Removal credit selfmonitoring report403.7 POTW AA Annually or as 

specified by AA

Fundamentally different 

factors variance request

403.13 IU, CA OA One time 

(voluntary)

Net/gross adjustment 

request

403.15 IU CA Intermittent

(voluntary)

* The IU submits the initial certification statement once, then submits annual certification statements thereafter.

** See section 2(a) of this ICR.
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 23

the CA for all POTWs in the state (a 403.10(e) state) are exempt from this requirement. 

In cases where POTWs do not have a pretreatment program, the approved pretreatment 

state or the EPA regional office assumes the responsibility of the CA.

The AA must approve local pretreatment programs. The POTW must demonstrate to the 

satisfaction of the AA that it possesses the legal authority and has adequate resources, 

procedures, and staff to implement the program. Procedural activities include, but are not 

limited to, surveying existing IUs, developing local limits for pollutants of concern, and 

developing an enforcement response plan. When a POTW is developing its program, it is 

to provide the AA with a schedule indicating the dates on which it expects to complete or 

implement each major program component. Before obtaining final approval, the POTW 

must certify that it has met all program requirements as specified at 40 CFR 403.8. The 

regulations at 40 CFR 403.9 describe the POTW documents that must be submitted to the 

AA for program approval and the procedures that the AA must follow to approve the 

POTW pretreatment program.

The AA must retain all submissions for pretreatment program approval and removal 

credits approval, as well as any comments related to these submissions. The AA must 

make this information available to the public upon request.

Program Implementation

Once the POTW receives program approval, the POTW or the agency responsible for 

administering the pretreatment program (CA) is required under section 402(b) of the 

CWA to ensure IU compliance with the national pretreatment standards. Specific CA 

reporting and recordkeeping requirements include the following: 

1. Annual POTW reports

2. POTW program modifications

3. Determination of NSCIUs and middle tier CIUs4

4. Issuance of discharge permits or other control mechanisms for SIUs5

5. Inspection and sampling of industrial user effluent6

6. Public notification of significant noncompliance

7. Evaluation of the need to revise local limits

8. POTW enforcement response plan

9. SIU notification of applicable standards and requirements

10. Maintain monitoring records and documentation of BMPs

 

4 The Streamlining Rule introduced two new categories of IUs to the National Pretreatment Program for the purpose 

of reducing implementation and reporting burdens on the IUs that fall into these categories. Control authorities may 

designate an IU that never discharges more than 100 gpd of total categorical wastewater as a non-significant 

categorical industrial user (NSCIU). CAs may also classify some CIUs as middle tier CIUs, meaning they are 

subject to more stringent reporting requirements than those for NSCIUs but less than those for CIUs that are SIUs. 

These voluntary regulatory changes reduce the number of respondents for many National Pretreatment Program 

requirements. In turn, these changes reduce program management and implementation burdens on CAs, AAs, and 

OAs.

5

Ibid.

6

Ibid.
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 24

The Streamlining Rule also provided opportunities for CAs to specify equivalent massbased limits or equivalent concentration-based limits for CIUs. If the CA voluntarily

chooses to take advantage of the flexibility in the national pretreatment regulations, it 

must make a one-time calculation of the limit for any CIU it determines is eligible. The 

CIU, however, must provide the CA with data to make the calculation, such as actual 

average daily flow rates for all wastestreams, as determined from a continuous effluent 

flow monitoring device, and the facility’s long-term average production rate.

The Streamlining Rule also included a provision for a CA to reduce sampling frequency

requirements for CIUs when it determines that a required pollutant is not present or is not 

expected to be present in the CIU’s wastestreams. The CA must make such monitoring 

reduction determinations through analysis of sample results at least once every 5 years.

Before EPA’s Streamlining Rule was promulgated, CAs were to evaluate the need for 

IUs to have slug control plans once every 2 years. The Streamlining Rule revised this 

requirement, and now the CA is required to conduct this evaluation at least once.

IUs also have a number of reporting and recordkeeping requirements with respect to 

program implementation. These include the following: 

1. Baseline Monitoring Report (BMR)

2. CIU Compliance Schedule Progress Report

3. CIU Compliance Attainment Report (“90-day Compliance Report”)

4. IU Resampling Compliance Report

5. IU Request for Coverage under General Control Mechanism

6. IU Self-Monitoring Compliance Report

7. Pollution prevention plan

8. Periodic certifications

9. Maintain monitoring records and documentation of BMPs

10. IU slug load notification

11. Notification of changed discharge

12. Bypass notification

13. Notification of changed monitoring location

14. Slug control plan

15. Notification of RCRA discharge

Within 180 days after the effective date of a categorical standard, an affected industry (a 

CIU) must submit a BMR, which is to include, in part, measurements of pollutant 

concentrations in the CIU’s wastestream. If the CIU cannot meet pretreatment standards, 

it usually has up to 3 years to finance, construct, and operate pollution control equipment 

or facilities necessary to achieve compliance. CIUs are to submit a schedule of expected 

compliance achievement in each BMR.

In addition to BMRs, CIUs are to submit Compliance Schedule Progress Reports and a 

Compliance Attainment Report. In Compliance Schedule Progress Reports, CIUs indicate 
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 25

the extent to which they have met compliance deadlines. They are to justify any 

milestones not met. CIUs submit a Compliance Attainment Report to their respective 

CAs when they have achieved all milestones and are in full compliance with applicable 

pretreatment standards.

Some POTWs may choose to issue general control mechanisms to SIUs with similar 

operations and meeting other criteria. To be covered under a general control mechanism, 

a SIU must file a written request for coverage with the CA.

On an ongoing basis, SIUs are to monitor for regulated pollutants and report the results to 

the CA at least semiannually (twice a year). These reports are termed IU or SIU SelfMonitoring Reports. CAs have the discretion to require more frequent monitoring and 

reporting than that required under federal law. Certain IUs may provide periodic 

certifications or develop pollution prevention plans to reduce or eliminate monitoring 

requirements. Both IUs and CAs must maintain self-monitoring reports and certifications 

for a minimum of 3 years. Both entities must also maintain records documenting the 

design and implementation of BMPs when these are used.

An IU must notify its CA of any pollutant released at a flow rate and/or pollutant 

concentration that will cause interference with the POTW or will violate a general or 

specific prohibition of the IU’s permit. Such an occurrence, known as slug loading, must 

be reported immediately to enable the POTW to take appropriate protective actions (40 

CFR 403.12(f)). The IU also is to promptly notify the POTW and CA in advance of any 

substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants in its discharge. If a CIU 

wishes to use “upset” as an affirmative defense to an action brought for noncompliance, 

the CIU is to notify the POTW and CA within 24 hours of becoming aware of an upset or 

unanticipated bypass. If the CIU provides notice orally, it has 5 days to follow up with a 

written notice. If an IU knows in advance of the need for a bypass, it is to submit prior 

notice to the POTW, if possible at least 10 days before the date of the bypass. Finally, an

IU must also notify the POTW, the state, and EPA if it discharges any substance defined 

as hazardous under RCRA.

Program/Categorical Determinations

CAs use information reported under this program area to determine whether specific 

pretreatment program requirements are applicable to an IU or to revise specific 

requirements imposed on an IU. Information is reported in this program area in the form 

of the following requests: 

 Categorical Determination Requests

 Alternative Limits Modification Requests/Combined Wastestream Formula provision

 Fundamentally Different Factors Variance Requests

 Net/Gross Adjustment Requests

 Removal Credit Approval Requests

 Removal Credit Self-Monitoring Reports
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 26

Even though the information is required once a request is made, the decision to make 

such a request is voluntarily made by the IU, the POTW, or an interested third party 

during the implementation phase of a particular categorical standard.

An IU, or a POTW on behalf of an IU, may request that the OA determine whether the IU 

is subject to a particular categorical standard. If the CIU mixes its process effluent with 

other wastewater prior to treatment, it must obtain written concurrence from the CA to 

apply alternative discharge limits to the mixed effluent; such alternative limits are 

calculated using the Combined Wastestream Formula at 40 CFR 403.6(e). If an IU (or the 

interested party) can demonstrate that circumstances exist that which were not considered 

when the categorical standard was developed, it may request a Fundamentally Different 

Factors Variance through the procedures at 40 CFR 403.13. If an IU can certify that its 

intake waters already contain a restricted pollutant, it may request a Net/Gross 

Adjustment to obtain credit for the amount of the given pollutant that occurs in its intake 

waters. (The latter request is restricted to those cases where the intake and the discharge 

from the POTW are in and on the same body of water.)

Finally, a POTW may apply to its AA at any time for authorization to grant removal 

credits. To qualify, the POTW must certify that the pollutant(s) being controlled by the 

categorical standard is (are) being consistently treated and removed at the POTW, 

thereby rendering additional treatment by the CIU unnecessary. In such cases, the AA

may revise the applicable numerical standard(s) for CIUs discharging to that facility. If a 

POTW is granted removal credits, it must monitor and report the results of its analyses to 

certify that pollutant removal is ongoing.

4(b)(ii). Respondent Activities

Activities undertaken by respondents (such as IUs, POTWs, states, and EPA regions) to fulfill 

their respective obligations under the National Pretreatment Program are described in this 

section. The activities are described by program area (i.e., program development, program 

implementation, and program/categorical determinations). In general, the discussion follows the 

order of activities as they are presented in Exhibit 5.

Program Development

State Pretreatment Program Approval Request

A state seeking approval for its pretreatment program must demonstrate that it has

established the necessary legal, administrative, and procedural bases for effective 

monitoring and oversight of POTW programs. Requests are submitted to the Regional 

Administrator, who determines whether they meet the requirements of 40 CFR 403.10 

and section 402(b) of the CWA. State requests must include three copies of the following 

items:

1. A statement by the state’s Attorney General (or the attorney for state agencies with 

independent counsel) that the laws of the state provide adequate authority to 

implement the program, together with copies of all relevant state statutes and 

regulations.
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 27

2. A listing of the full- and part-time personnel available to implement the program and 

a description of associated funding levels.

3. Any modifications or additions to the Memorandum of Agreement (required at 40 

CFR 123.24) that may be necessary for EPA and the state to implement the program.

The EPA Regional Administrator is to notify the state that EPA has received its 

submission and is reviewing it according to the process established under 40 CFR 123.62. 

If EPA approves a state’s submission, the state is to base its pretreatment program on the 

information in its submission. If EPA does not approve the state program, it will act as 

the AA for POTW pretreatment programs in that state (and will act as the CA in areas 

without approved POTW pretreatment programs).

POTW Pretreatment Compliance Schedule Progress Report

Certain POTWs must establish a pretreatment program as stated at 40 CFR 403.8(a). 

These are POTWs (or combination of POTWs operated by the same authority) that

 Have a total design flow greater than 5 mgd and

 Receive industrial pollutants from IUs that pass through or interfere with POTW 

operations or

 Receive industrial pollutants from IUs that are otherwise subject to pretreatment 

standards.

The Administrator may require other POTWs to develop a pretreatment program if 

circumstances warrant such action. POTWs in states where the state is the CA are exempt 

from the requirement to develop a pretreatment program.

The compliance schedule contains suggested dates to begin and complete major program 

components leading to the development and implementation of a POTW pretreatment 

program. Items like legal authority, technical information, program procedures, and 

organizational and funding mechanisms are to be included. The number of activities to be 

reported in the compliance schedule varies among states and regions. The elapsed time 

between major events in the compliance schedule may be no more than 9 months.

Within 14 days of the deadline for each major event in the compliance schedule and 

within 14 days of the final compliance date for completing the program, the POTW must 

submit a progress report to the appropriate AA stating whether it met the deadline. If the 

POTW did not met the deadline, it must explain when it will achieve compliance, explain 

its reasons for delay, and explain the steps it is taking to return to the established 

schedule.

POTW Pretreatment Program Approval Request

A POTW applying for program approval must provide documentation of the following 

seven items in its final submission:
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 28

1. Industrial Waste Survey (IWS). The POTW must identify and evaluate the 

nondomestic dischargers to its treatment system. To conduct the IWS, the POTW 

must:

 Compile a master list of potential IUs in the service area

 Identify and locate each IU and collect information related to the type of industry 

and the quality and quantity of discharge

 Summarize the data collected for use in developing the pretreatment program

2. Legal Authority. The POTW must have adequate legal authority to apply and enforce 

the requirements of the pretreatment regulations and any other state or local rules 

needed to control nondomestic discharges.

3. Technical Elements/Local Limits. The POTW must analyze discharges to its 

treatment system and establish local effluent limits to protect the operation of its 

treatment plant(s), the quality of its receiving water, and the quality of its sewage 

sludge.

4. Compliance Monitoring. The POTW must develop procedures for monitoring and 

inspecting its SIUs to determine compliance/noncompliance.

5. Procedures. The POTW must develop administrative procedures to implement its 

pretreatment program.

6. Resources. The POTW must have sufficient resources (funds, equipment, and 

personnel) to operate an effective and ongoing program.

7. Enforcement Response Plan. The POTW must develop a plan that contains detailed 

procedures for investigating and responding to instances of IU noncompliance.

The AA reviews the submission and determines its adequacy, according to the 

requirements at 40 CFR 403.8(f). If the AA determines that the submission is inadequate, 

it notifies the POTW of any defects and provides applicable compliance information. The 

regulations at 40 CFR 403.9 describe the POTW documents that must be submitted to the 

AA for program approval and the procedures that the AA must follow to approve the 

POTW pretreatment program.

Within 30 days of approval pursuant to 40 CFR 403.8(f)(6), the CA is to inform its SIUs 

in writing of their status and of all applicable requirements. This gives SIUs notice of all 

requirements pertaining to them.

Maintain Pretreatment Program Information

The AA must retain and make available to the public the POTW pretreatment program 

approval submissions and any requests for removal credits. The AA must also keep any 

comments received regarding these submissions.

Program Implementation

Baseline Monitoring Report

According to 40 CFR 403.12(b), all IUs subject to categorical standards must submit a 

BMR to the CA within 180 days after the effective date of the applicable standard. In the 
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 29

case of new sources, the BMR must be submitted at least 90 days prior to commencement 

of discharge. At their discretion, CAs may require some noncategorical IUs to submit 

similar reports. The BMR for CIUs must include the following information:

 Facility identifying information

 List of environmental control permits

 Description of operations

 Flow measurement data

 Measurement of regulated pollutants

 Certification (or noncertification) of compliance with the pretreatment standards

 Compliance schedule, if additional pretreatment or O&M is required to meet 

standards

This information is submitted only once, after promulgation of a categorical standard. If a 

CIU has already submitted this information during the Industrial Waste Survey or in a 

permit application, the CIU is not required to resubmit the information.

For BMRs and Compliance Attainment Reports, the regulations at 40 CFR 403.12(g)(4) 

require a minimum of four grab samples for pH, cyanide, total phenols, oil and grease, 

sulfide, and volatile organic compounds at facilities for which historical sampling data do 

not exist. Furthermore, the regulations at 40 CFR 403.12(g)(3) specify that all other 

pollutant samples must be collected as 24-hour composite samples through flowproportional composite sampling techniques, unless the CA authorizes time-proportional 

composite sampling or grab sampling.

CIU Compliance Schedule Progress Report

As part of a CIU’s BMR, a CIU that cannot currently meet all categorical pretreatment 

standards must submit a compliance schedule indicating the minimum amount of time it 

needs to construct and operate additional pretreatment. The schedule is to contain 

commencement and completion dates for major milestones. The completion date in the 

schedule is to be no later than the compliance date established for the applicable 

categorical pretreatment standard.

In addition to the compliance schedule (submitted with the BMR), CIUs are to provide 

progress reports within 14 days of completing each major milestone. The periodic 

progress reports enable CAs to ensure that the CIU is progressing toward compliance 

with categorical standards. In its progress reports, the CIU is to demonstrate compliance 

with specific deadlines. If it has not met a deadline, the CIU must provide the date on 

which it expects to achieve the milestone, the reason for the delay, and the steps it is 

taking to return to the established schedule. No more than 9 months is to elapse between 

deadline dates for specific milestones.
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 30

CIU Compliance Attainment Report (90-day Compliance Report)

CIUs are to submit a report to the CA within 90 days following the date for final 

compliance with applicable categorical pretreatment standards. In the case of a new 

source (as defined at 40 CFR 403.3(m)), the CIU must submit the final report within 90 

days of commencing discharge of wastewater to the POTW. The compliance attainment 

report must include the following:

 Flow Measurement Data. The measured average daily and maximum daily flow, in 

gallons per day, to the POTW from process and other wastestreams.

 Pollutant Data. The results of sampling and analysis identifying the nature and 

concentration (or mass, if required) of regulated pollutants in the discharge from each 

regulated process. Both daily maximum and average concentrations (or mass, if 

required) are to be reported.

 Certification Statement. A statement reviewed by an authorized representative of the 

CIU, and certified to by a qualified professional, indicating whether the CIU is 

meeting pretreatment standards on a consistent basis and, if not, whether additional 

O&M or additional pretreatment is required for the CIU to meet the pretreatment 

standards.

Industrial User Self-Monitoring Compliance Report and Resampling Compliance 

Report 

CIUs subject to categorical pretreatment standards are required to submit BMRs, 

Compliance Attainment Reports, Self-Monitoring Compliance Reports, and Resampling 

Compliance Reports. Noncategorical SIUs are required to submit Self-Monitoring 

Reports and, if a violation was detected, Resampling Compliance Reports. Qualifying 

NSCIUs may submit annual certification statements in lieu of self-monitoring compliance 

reports. All IUs, regardless of type, are to provide sampling data that are representative of 

conditions occurring during the reporting period. IUs are to perform sampling and report 

sampling in accordance with the procedures specified at 40 CFR 403.12 and 40 CFR Part 

136. In general, categorical and noncategorical SIUs are to provide reports semiannually

unless the CA has requested reports at a higher frequency. The CA may reduce the 

reporting requirements to once per year for some CIUs if the conditions at 40 CFR 

403.3(v)(2) or 40 CFR 403.12(e)(3) are met.

If sampling performed by an IU indicates a violation, the IU is to notify the CA within 24 

hours of becoming aware of the violation. The IU is also to repeat the sampling and 

analysis and submit the results of the repeat analysis to the CA within 30 days of 

becoming aware of the violation. Where the CA has performed the sampling and analysis 

in lieu of the IU, the CA must perform the repeat sampling and analysis within 30 days of 

becoming aware of the violation, unless it notifies the IU of the violation and requires the 

IU to perform the repeat analysis. If an IU monitors any regulated pollutant at the 

appropriate sampling location more frequently than required by the CA, the results of this 

monitoring are to be included in the IU’s compliance reports.

In cases where a pretreatment standard requires compliance with a BMP (or pollution 

prevention alternative), the CA is to require the IU to submit documentation that will 
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 31

enable the CA to determine the compliance status of the IU. The CA may also authorize 

monitoring waivers to some IUs subject to categorical pretreatment standards, provided 

the conditions at 40 CFR 403.12(e) are met. The CA must specify the monitoring waiver 

in the CIU’s permit or individual control mechanism. The waiver is valid for only the 

duration of the permit; in no case may the waiver be valid for longer than 5 years. CIUs 

granted monitoring waivers must certify in their self-monitoring reports that they have 

not experienced any increase in the pollutant due to their activities. In the event that a 

waived pollutant is found to be present or is expected to be present based on changes that 

occur in a CIU’s operations, the CIU is to immediately comply with the base monitoring 

requirements for the pollutant (the requirements specified in the categorical pretreatment 

standard) or other more frequent monitoring requirements imposed by the CA.

Pollution Prevention Plan

The Pesticides Formulating, Packaging, and Repackaging (PFPR) Regulations at 40 CFR 

455.41 allow facilities to develop a Pollution Prevention Plan (P2 plan) and submit a P2 

Alternative certification in lieu of complying with the zero discharge requirement. The 

paperwork required for compliance with the P2 Alternative includes an initial 

certification statement, which must include required descriptions of the IU’s products and 

processes, P2 practices, and treatment systems. IUs must modify the plan as needed to 

reflect any changes since their last compliance report.

Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Indirect Discharging Mills in the Bleached 

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

Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category 

This burden was migrated from OMB Control No. 2040-0243, EPA ICR No. 1878.02. It

presents estimates of the burden and costs to the regulated community and pretreatment 

approval and control authorities for monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping, and follow-up 

actions associated with implementing the minimum monitoring requirements of the Pulp, 

Paper and Paperboard Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards (Cluster Rules; 40 

CFR Part 430), which were published on April 15, 1998 for mills in the Bleached 

Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory (Subpart B) and the Papergrade Sulfite 

Subcategory (Subpart E).

Pollution Prevention Compliance Alternative; Transportation Equipment Cleaning 

Point Source Category (40 CFR Part 442).

This burden was migrated from OMB Control No. 2040-0235, EPA ICR No. 2018.02. It 

presents estimates of the burden and costs from the TEC rule that established technologybased effluent limitations guidelines, new source performance standards, and 

pretreatment standards for the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States and 

into POTWs by existing and new facilities that perform TEC operations. TEC facilities 

are defined as those facilities that generate wastewater from cleaning the interior of tank 

trucks, closed-top hopper trucks, rail tank cars, closed-top hopper rail cars, intermodal 

tank containers, tank barges, closed-top hopper barges, and ocean/sea tankers used to 

transport materials or cargos that come into direct contact with the tank or container 

interior. Facilities that do not engage in cleaning tank interiors are outside the scope of 

the rule. 
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 32

Best Management Practices for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory 

and the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Point 

Source Category

This burden was migrated from OMB Control No. 2040-0207, EPA ICR No. 1829.03. It 

presents estimates of the burden and costs to the regulated community (bleached 

papergrade Kraft, soda, and sulfite mills) and pretreatment control authorities for data 

collection and recordkeeping associated with implementing the best management 

practices requirements of the Pulp and Paper Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 

Standards (40 CFR 430.03). 

CWT Initial Certification Statement

Under Subcategory D of the Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT) regulations at 40 CFR 

437.41, facilities that accept waste in multiple subcategories may opt to develop and 

submit a demonstration that their treatment systems obtain removal equivalent to that 

which is the basis for the separate subcategory limits. The CIU must include in its 

demonstration (1) a list and description of the subcategories of wastes accepted at the 

facility, (2) the treatment systems in place at the facility, and (3) the conditions under 

which the treatment systems operate for each subcategory of waste accepted. The CIU’s 

demonstration must also include data to support the CIU’s claim that its treatment 

systems achieve equivalent treatment, as defined under the CWT regulations.

In the preamble to the CWT regulations (65 FR 81267, December 22, 2000), EPA 

reported “that 37 facilities accept wastes from multiple subcategories” and thus are likely 

to be “subject to the multiple wastestream subcategory.” EPA estimated that 34 of the 37 

facilities are indirect dischargers (91.5 percent of 37 facilities) and were likely to 

complete the initial CWT certification statement during the 3-year period of the 

previously approved ICR (EPA ICR No. 0002.11). This burden is no longer included in 

this pretreatment ICR.

IU Request for Coverage under General Control Mechanism

CAs may at their discretion use general control mechanisms in implementing their local 

pretreatment programs, provided the conditions at 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1)(iii) are met. 

Applicable IUs must file a written request with their CA for coverage under a general 

control mechanism. The request for coverage must identify the following information: 

 Contact information

 Production processes

 Types of wastes generated

 Location for monitoring all wastes covered by the general control mechanism

 Any request for a monitoring waiver for a pollutant neither present nor expected to be 

present in the discharge

 Other information requested by the POTW/CA.

The CA is to retain a copy of the general control mechanism, documentation supporting 

the CA’s determination that the IU meets the criteria for a general control mechanism, 

and a copy of the IU’s written request for coverage. The CA must retain these materials 
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 33

for 3 years after the expiration date of the general control mechanism. A CA may not 

control an SIU through a general control mechanism where the facility is subject to 

production-based categorical pretreatment standards or categorical pretreatment standards 

expressed as mass of pollutant discharged per day or for CIUs whose limits are based on 

the Combined Wastestream Formula or net/gross calculations.

Periodic Certifications

CIUs in some industrial categories are eligible under their respective categorical 

standards to submit certifications exempting them from monitoring for one or more 

pollutants. Certification requirements exist for the following industrial categories and 

subcategories: 

 Aluminum Forming and Coil Coating Categories. A CIU may choose to submit an 

annual certification requesting exemption from cyanide monitoring if the first cyanide 

sample collected during the calendar year contains less than 0.07 mg/L of cyanide and 

the owner or operator certifies in writing that no cyanide is used.

 Canmaking Subpart of Coil Coating Category. The CIU is required to submit a 

notification if the alloy it uses in making cans contains less than 1 percent manganese. 

Periodic analyses of cyanide are not required if the first wastewater sample taken in 

each calendar year contains less than 0.07 mg/L for cyanide and the owner or 

operator certifies in writing that no cyanide is used.

 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Category (for Fermentation Product and Chemical 

Synthesis Products subcategory only). A CIU may choose to submit a certification 

requesting exemption from monitoring for cyanide and other regulated pollutants 

provided such pollutants are not used or generated at the facility.

 Pesticide Chemicals Category. A CIU may choose to submit a certification for a 

pollution prevention allowable discharge that states that the pollution prevention 

alternative is being implemented in the manner set forth in the CIU’s control 

mechanism.

 Porcelain Enameling Category. A CIU may choose to submit an annual certification 

requesting exemption from chromium monitoring if the first sample collected during 

the calendar year contains less than 0.08 mg/L of chromium and the owner or 

operator certifies in writing that chromium is not used.

 Pulp and Paper Categories. Certain CIUs may choose an alternative monitoring 

program by certification once every 5 years if they use a totally chlorine-free process. 

Certain facilities in this category may also submit certifications in lieu of monitoring 

for pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol, provided they do not use these 

compounds as biocides.

 Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper, and 

Paperboard Category. Facilities that choose to certify any or all of their fiber lines 

with their pretreatment control authority, in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring 

required by 40 CFR Part 430, will be required to submit periodic reports certifying 

that the fiber line(s) are operating within the range of certain process and operating 

conditions identified during the initial compliance demonstration period.
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 34

 Steam Electric Category: CIUs may choose to provide a demonstration and 

certification that regulated parameters are not detectable in the final discharge (except 

for chromium and zinc).

 Electroplating, Metal Finishing, and Electrical and Electronic Components 

Categories: CIUs may choose to submit a total toxic organics (TTO) certification 

semiannually in lieu of performing TTO monitoring; however, such facilities must 

also develop and submit a toxic organic management plan.

 Centralized Waste Treatment Category. CIUs that opt for regulation under Subpart D

of the CWT regulations must certify annually that they are operating their treatment 

systems to provide equivalent treatment as set forth in their initial certification.

For the purposes of this ICR, EPA assumes that a periodic certification requires a CIU 1 

hour to complete. This estimate is consistent with those contained in the Information 

Collection Request for the NPDES/Compliance Assessment/Certification Information 

(EPA ICR No. 1427.07, OMB No. 2040-0110).

Maintain Monitoring Records and Documentation of BMPs

IUs and POTWs are to maintain records of all information resulting from monitoring 

activities specified in 40 CFR 403.12, including documentation associated with BMPs.

The records for samples are to include the following:

 Date, location, method, and time of sampling, and names of the person or persons 

taking the samples

 Dates of analyses

 Names of person or persons performing the analyses

 Analytical techniques/methods used

 Results of the analyses

IUs and POTWs are to retain the records, including documentation associated with 

BMPs, for a minimum of 3 years. IUs and POTWs are to make these materials available 

for inspection and copying by the AA and OA (and the POTW in the case of an IU). The 

period of retention is extended during the course of any unresolved litigation regarding 

the IU or POTW or when stipulated by the AA or the OA.

In addition, POTWs must retain copies of all BMRs, Compliance Schedule and 

Attainment (90-day Compliance) Reports, periodic IU Self-Monitoring Reports, and 

periodic certifications. The POTW must retain these records for a minimum of 3 years 

and must make these documents available upon request to the AA and OA for inspection. 

As with sampling data, the retention time is extended during the course of any unresolved 

litigation regarding the discharge of pollutants by an IU or the operation of the POTW 

pretreatment program, or upon the request of the AA/OA.

Annual POTW Reports

POTWs with approved pretreatment programs are to provide the AA with an annual 

report that describes the POTW’s program activities, including activities of all 

participating agencies, if more than one jurisdiction is involved in the local program. The 
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 35

POTW is to submit this report no later than 1 year after approval of the POTW’s 

pretreatment program, and at least annually thereafter. The report is to include, at a 

minimum, the following: 

 An updated list of the POTW’s IUs, including names and addresses, or a list of 

deletions and additions keyed to a previously submitted SIU list [see 403.8(f)(6) and 

403.12(i)]. The POTW is to identify which IUs are subject to categorical pretreatment 

standards and to specify which standards are applicable to each IU. The POTW is 

also to indicate the IUs that are subject to local standards that are more stringent than 

the categorical pretreatment standards and the IUs that are subject to only local 

requirements. Finally, the POTW is to identify the categorical IUs subject to reduced 

reporting requirements and the IUs classified as NSCIUs.

 A summary of the status of IU compliance over the reporting period.

 A summary of compliance and enforcement activities, including inspections,

conducted by the POTW during the reporting period.

 A summary of changes to the POTW’s pretreatment program, which have not been 

previously reported to the AA.

 Any other relevant information requested by the AA.

POTW Program Modifications

An AA or a POTW with an approved pretreatment program may initiate program 

modifications at any time to reflect changing conditions at the POTW. Program 

modifications are necessary anytime there is a significant change in the operation of a 

POTW pretreatment program that differs from the information in the POTW submission 

approved previously by the OA or AA. The term substantial modification is defined at 40 

CFR 403.18(b), and such modifications include the following:

 Modifications that relax POTW legal authorities (except for modifications that 

directly reflect a revision to 40 CFR Part 403 or 40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N).

 Changes that relax a POTW’s local limits, with the exception of modifications to 

local limits for pH and reallocations of the Maximum Allowable Industrial Loading 

(MAIL) of a pollutant that do not increase the total industrial loadings for the 

pollutant, which are reported pursuant to paragraph (d) of 40 CFR 403.18. MAIL 

means the total mass of a pollutant that all IUs of a POTW (or a subgroup of IUs 

identified by the POTW) may discharge pursuant to limits developed under 40 CFR 

403.5(c).

 Changes to the POTW’s IU control mechanism.

 Decreases in the frequency of self-monitoring or reporting required of IUs.

 Decreases in the frequency of IU inspections and sampling by the POTW.

 Changes to the POTW’s confidentiality procedures.

 Other modifications designated as substantial by the AA on the basis that the 

modification could have a significant impact on the operation of the POTW’s 
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 36

pretreatment program, could result in an increase in pollutant loadings at the POTW, 

or could result in less stringent requirements being imposed on IUs of the POTW.

If the AA approves the substantial modification to the POTW’s program, it is to publish a

notice of approval (unless the notice of request of for approval states that the request will 

be approved if no comments are received by a date specified in the notice; no substantive 

comments are received; and the request is approved without change). The POTW is to 

notify the AA of any nonsubstantial program modifications 45 days prior to 

implementation by the POTW. The AA, in turn, has 45 days in which to notify the 

POTW of its decision to approve or disapprove the nonsubstantial modification. If the 

AA does not notify the POTW within 45 days, the POTW may implement the 

nonsubstantial modification. The AA is to incorporate all modifications into the POTW’s 

NPDES permit upon approval.

Industrial User Slug Load Notification

Under 40 CFR 403.12(f), all IUs are required to immediately notify the POTW of all 

discharges that could cause problems to the POTW, including any slug loadings by the 

IU. The specific discharge prohibitions are defined at 40 CFR 403.5(b) and include the 

following:

 Pollutants that create a fire or explosion hazard in the POTW, including wastestreams 

with a closed-cup flashpoint of less than 140 degrees Fahrenheit or 60 degrees 

Celsius using the test methods specified at 40 CFR 261.21.

 Pollutants that will cause corrosive structural damage to the POTW, and in no case 

discharges with pH lower than 5.0, unless the POTW is specifically designed to 

accommodate such discharges.

 Solid or viscous pollutants in amounts that will cause obstruction to the flow in the 

POTW resulting in interference.

 Any pollutant, including oxygen-demanding pollutants (e.g., biochemical oxygen 

demand) released in a discharge at a flow rate and/or pollutant concentration that will 

cause interference with the POTW.

 Heat in amounts that will inhibit biological activity in the POTW resulting in 

interference, and in no case heat in such quantities that the temperature at the POTW 

exceeds 104 F (40 C), unless the AA, upon request of the POTW, approves 

alternative temperature limits.

 Petroleum oil, nonbiodegradable cutting oil, or products of mineral oil origin in 

amounts that will cause interference or pass through.

 Pollutants that result in the presence of toxic gases, vapors, or fumes within the 

POTW in a quantity that may cause acute worker health and safety problems.

 Any trucked or hauled pollutants, except at discharge points designated by the

POTW.

The term interference is defined at 40 CFR 403.3(k) as a discharge that inhibits or 

disrupts the POTW; its treatment process or operations; or its processes, uses, and 
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 37

disposal of sludge. Such discharges cause the POTW to violate the requirements of its 

NPDES permit or prevent sewage sludge use or disposal in compliance with statutory

provisions and regulations or permits.

The term pass through is defined at 40 CFR 403.3(p) as “a discharge which exits the 

POTW into waters of the United States in quantities or concentrations which, alone or in 

conjunction with a discharge or discharges from other sources, is a cause of a violation of 

any requirement of the POTW’s NPDES permit (including an increase in the magnitude 

or duration of a violation).”

Notification of Changed Discharge

IUs are to promptly notify the CA (and the POTW if the POTW is not the CA) in 

advance of any substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants in their 

discharge, including the listed or characteristic hazardous wastes for which the IU has 

submitted initial notification under 40 CFR 403.12(p).

Upset Notification

IUs are required to immediately notify CAs of all discharges that could cause problems to 

the POTW under 40 CFR 403.12(f) (see slug load notification requirements). The 

regulations more specifically define the term upset as “an exceptional incident in which 

there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with categorical pretreatment 

standards because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the CIU. An upset does not 

include noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed 

treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, or 

careless or improper action.” Reporting an upset is particularly required if the CIU wishes 

to establish the affirmative defense for an action brought for noncompliance with 

categorical pretreatment standards.

The pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR 403.16 specify the conditions CIUs must meet to 

demonstrate that an upset has occurred and for which an affirmative defense may be 

brought for noncompliance with categorical pretreatment standards if the CIU

demonstrates, through properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant 

evidence, that

 An upset occurred and the CIU can identify the cause(s) of the upset.

 The facility was at the time being operated in a prudent manner and in compliance 

with applicable O&M procedures.

 The CIU has submitted required information to the POTW and CA within 24 hours of 

becoming aware of the upset. If the CIU provides the information orally, it must 

submit a written report within 5 days. The type of information the CIU must provide 

includes:

- A description of the indirect discharge and cause of noncompliance

- The period of noncompliance, including the exact dates and times or, if not 

corrected, the anticipated time the noncompliance is expected to continue

- The steps being taken or planned to reduce, eliminate and prevent recurrence of 

the noncompliance.
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 38

In the event of an upset, the CIU is to control production or all discharges to the extent 

necessary to maintain compliance with categorical pretreatment standards upon 

reduction, loss, or failure of its treatment facility until the facility is restored or an 

alternative method of treatment is provided. This requirement applies in the situation 

where, among other things, the primary source of power of the treatment facility is 

reduced, is lost, or fails.

Bypass Notification

The pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR 403.17 require IUs to notify the POTW of a 

bypass, which is defined as “the intentional diversion of wastestreams from any portion 

of an IU’s treatment facility.” If the IU knows of the need for a bypass in advance, it is to 

submit prior notice to the POTW, if possible at least 10 days before the date of the 

bypass. For an unanticipated bypass, the IU is to notify the POTW orally within 24 hours 

from the time it became aware of the bypass. The IU must follow up with a written notice 

to the POTW within 5 days.

Notification of Significant Change Affecting Equivalent Mass Limits or Concentration 

Limits 

The pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR 403.6(c)(9) specify that any IU operating under a 

control mechanism incorporating equivalent mass or concentration limits calculated from 

a production-based standard must notify the CA within two business days after the IU has 

a reasonable basis to know that the production level will significantly change within the 

next calendar month. Any IU not notifying the CA of such anticipated change will be 

required to meet the mass or concentration limits in its control mechanism that were 

based on the original estimate of the long-term average production rate.

Notification of Changed Monitoring Location

This requirement affects CIUs that treat wastes from multiple processes. The regulations 

at 40 CFR 403.6(e)(4) enable the CIU to change monitoring locations from segregated 

wastestreams to the combined wastestream. The CIU may change monitoring points only

after receiving approval from the CA. The CA must ensure that any change in a CIU’s 

monitoring point(s) will not allow the CIU to substitute dilution for adequate treatment to 

achieve compliance with applicable standards.

Determination of NSCIUs and Middle Tier CIUs

EPA finalized several revisions to the pretreatment regulations as part of the Streamlining 

Rule. One provision allows CAs to reduce certain oversight responsibilities, including 

permitting, sampling, and inspection requirements, for a newly established class of 

indirect dischargers, the nonsignificant categorical industrial user (NSCIU). The rule 

also allows CAs to reduce the reporting requirements for another new class of indirect 

dischargers, the middle tier CIUs. Both provisions are optional, so neither the state nor 

the CA is required to incorporate these changes into its pretreatment program.

These provisions might affect local pretreatment programs that accept wastes from 

indirect dischargers eligible for the NSCIU and/or the middle tier CIU categories. Local 

programs and states that choose not to implement these provisions are not affected. These 

provisions also potentially affect qualifying CIUs..
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 39

The regulations at 40 CFR 403.3(v)(2) stipulate that for a CIU to qualify as an NSCIU, 

the CIU must never discharge more than 100 gpd of total categorical wastewater and 

must also

 Have consistently complied with all applicable categorical Pretreatment Standards 

and Requirements, and

 Annually submit a certification statement (40 CFR 403.12(q)) together with any

additional information necessary to support the certification statement, and

 Never discharge any untreated concentrated wastewater

The regulations at 40 CFR 403.12(e)(3) stipulate that a CIU may be designated by the CA 

as a middle tier CIU if its discharge of categorical wastewater does not exceed the 

following:

 0.01 percent of the design dry weather hydraulic capacity of the POTW, or 5,000 gpd, 

whichever is smaller, and

 0.01 percent of the design dry weather organic treatment capacity of the POTW, and

 0.01 percent of the maximum allowable headworks loading for any pollutant 

regulated by the applicable categorical pretreatment standard for which approved 

local limits were developed by the POTW

To classify a CIU as a middle tier CIU, the CA must also demonstrate that the CIU has 

not been in SNC for any time in the past 2 years and that the reduced reporting 

requirements would still result in data that are representative of conditions occurring at 

the facility and in the discharge during the reporting period.

An indirect discharger that has been designated a NSCIU by its CA is no longer an SIU, 

so there is no requirement to control it through a permit or other control mechanism. But 

if the CA determines that an existing NSCIU no longer meets a required criterion for 

being categorized as nonsignificant, the IU becomes an SIU and must be issued a control 

mechanism. The CA always has the option of issuing a control mechanism to a non-SIU.

A middle tier CIU is still an SIU. CAs must issue control mechanisms to CIUs in the 

middle tier category.

With respect to reporting, inspection, and sampling requirements for NSCIUs, the 

following conditions apply:

 The CA may reduce sampling and reporting requirements for an NSCIU as it deems 

appropriate, but the facility must annually report and certify that it still meets the 

definition of an NSCIU, including certification that it complied with the applicable 

categorical pretreatment standards during the reporting period.

 The CA must evaluate, at least once per year, whether each NSCIU still meets the 

nonsignificant criteria at 40 CFR 403.3(v)(2).
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 40

 NSCIUs are still categorical dischargers and, as such, are still required to comply

with applicable categorical pretreatment standards.

With respect to reporting, inspection, and sampling requirements for middle tier CIUs, 

the following conditions apply:

 The CA may reduce the submission frequency of the required periodic monitoring 

report for middle tier CIUs from a minimum of twice a year to a minimum of once a

year.

 Reports submitted at this reduced frequency must still be based on data that are 

representative of the conditions occurring during the entire reporting period, 

consistent with 40 CFR 403.12(g)(3).

 The CA may also reduce its own obligation to inspect and sample middle tier CIUs 

from once a year to once every 2 years.

 Middle tier CIUs are still categorical dischargers and, as such, are still required to 

comply with applicable categorical pretreatment standards.

The CA is not required to adopt these provisions. If the CA chooses not to implement 

these new CIU categories, it need not do anything. However, if the CA wants to 

implement the provisions, it must submit a program modification to the AA before it may

implement the new classifications for CIUs.

Issuance of Discharge Permits or Other Control Mechanisms for SIUs

The pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1) require the POTW to issue discharge 

permits or equivalent individual control mechanisms to SIUs. These discharge permits 

must include, at a minimum, the following:

 A statement of duration of the permit (in no case more than 5 years)

 A statement of non-transferability without prior POTW approval and provision of a 

copy of the existing control mechanism to the new owner or operator

 Effluent limits, including BMPs, based on applicable general pretreatment standards, 

categorical pretreatment standards, local limits, and state and local law

 Applicable monitoring, sampling, reporting, notification, and recordkeeping 

requirements, including identification of the pollutants to be monitored (including the 

process for seeking a waiver for a pollutant neither present nor expected to be present 

in the discharge in accordance with 40 CFR 403.12(e)(2), or a specified waived 

pollutant in the case of an individual control mechanism), sampling location, 

sampling frequency, and sample type

 Statement of applicable civil and criminal penalties for violation of Pretreatment 

Standards and Requirements and any applicable compliance schedule

 Requirements to control slug discharges if determined necessary by the POTW
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 41

EPA’s Streamlining Rule provided opportunities for CIUs to make a one-time submission

of information requesting equivalent mass limits. To be eligible for equivalent mass 

limits, CIUs must demonstrate that they employ water conservation methods and 

technologies that substantially reduce water use during the term of their control 

mechanism; that they currently use control and treatment technologies adequate to 

achieve compliance with categorical pretreatment standards (without using dilution as a 

substitute for treatment); that they provide sufficient information to establish, based on 

data from a continuous effluent flow monitoring device, the facility’s actual average daily 

flow rate for all wastestreams and the facility’s baseline long-term average production 

rate, both of which are representative of current operating conditions; that they do not 

have daily flow rates, production rates, or pollutant levels that fluctuate to such a degree 

that an equivalent mass limit cannot be appropriately established to control the discharge; 

and that they have been in consistent compliance with all applicable categorical 

pretreatment standards. After equivalent mass limits are in effect, the CIU must maintain 

and operate its treatment technologies adequately to achieve compliance with the 

equivalent mass limits, record the facility’s flow rates using a continuous effluent flow 

monitoring device, record the facility’s production rates, notify the CA whenever 

production rates are expected to vary by more than 20 percent from the baseline 

production rate, and employ the same or comparable water conservation methods and 

technologies already implemented.

EPA’s Streamlining Rule also provided opportunities for CIUs to make a one-time 

submittal of information requesting equivalent concentration limits. CAs establishing 

concentration-based pretreatment standards instead of flow-based mass limits must 

document that dilution is not being used as a substitute for treatment (see 40 CFR 

403.6(d), 414.111(a), Parts 419 and 455). In addition, the CA is required to adjust permit 

limits using the combined wastestream formula in 40 CFR 403.6(e) when the 

wastestream used for demonstrating compliance with the permit limits is mixed with nonprocess wastewater or wastewater from other processes.

Inspection and Sampling of IU Effluent

CAs must randomly sample and analyze the effluent from IUs and conduct surveillance 

activities to identify, independent of information supplied by the IUs, occasional and 

continuing noncompliance with pretreatment standards. The regulations at 40 CFR 

403.8(f)(2)(v) stipulate that POTWs are to inspect and sample the effluent from each SIU 

at least once a year, with the following exceptions:

 For CIUs that certify that a pollutant is “neither present nor expected to be present,”

the CA would need to sample for the applicable pollutants only once during the 

duration of the CIU’s individual control mechanism.

 Where the POTW has determined that an IU meets the criteria for classification as an 

NSCIU, the POTW would need to evaluate at least once per year whether the IU 

continues to meet the criteria.

 For CIUs subject to reduced reporting requirements under 40 CFR 403.12(e)(3), the 

POTW would randomly sample and analyze the effluent and conduct inspections at 

least once every 2 years. If the CIU no longer meets the conditions for reduced 
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 42

reporting, the POTW would need to immediately begin sampling and inspecting the 

CIU at least once a year.

Public Notification of Significant Noncompliance

The regulations at 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(viii) require a POTW to publish a list of IUs that 

have been in SNC during the previous 12 months in a newspaper(s) of general circulation 

that provides meaningful public notice in the area in which the violations occurred. An 

SIU is in SNC if its violation meets one or more of the following criteria:

 Chronic violations of wastewater discharge limits (66 percent or more of all the 

measurements taken for the same pollutant during a 6-month period exceeds by any 

magnitude a numeric pretreatment standard or requirement, including instantaneous 

limits)

 Technical Review Criteria (TRC) violations (33 percent or more of all of the 

measurements taken for the same pollutant during a 6-month period equal or exceed 

the product of the numeric pretreatment standard or requirement, including 

instantaneous limits, multiplied by the applicable TRC [TRC = 1.4 for biochemical 

oxygen demand; total suspended solids; and fats, oil and grease and 1.2 for all other 

pollutants except pH])

 Any other violation of a pretreatment standard or requirement that the POTW 

determines has caused, alone or in combination with other discharges, interference or 

pass through

 Any discharge of a pollutant that has caused imminent endangerment to human health

or welfare or to the environment or has resulted in the POTW’s exercise of its 

emergency authority to halt or prevent such a discharge

 Failure to meet, within 90 days after the scheduled date, a compliance schedule 

milestone contained in a local control mechanism or enforcement order for starting 

construction, completing construction, or attaining final compliance

 Failure to provide within 45 days after the due date required reports such as Baseline

Monitoring Reports, 90-day Compliance Reports, periodic self-monitoring reports, 

and reports on compliance with schedules

 Failure to accurately report noncompliance

 Any other violation or group of violations, which may include a violation of BMPs, 

that the POTW determines will adversely affect the operation or implementation of 

the local pretreatment program

Slug Control Plan 

The pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vi) require POTWs to evaluate 

through inspections (see above) whether each SIU needs a plan or other action to control 

slug discharges. For IUs identified as significant before November 14, 2005, the POTW 

was to complete the evaluation by October 14, 2006. POTWs are to evaluate additional 

SIUs within 1 year of their significant designation. The regulations define a slug 

discharge as “any Discharge of a non-routine, episodic nature, including but not limited 

to an accidental spill or a non-customary batch Discharge, which has a reasonable 
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 43

potential to cause Interference or Pass Through, or in any other way violate the POTW’s 

regulations, local limits or Permit conditions.” An IU must notify the POTW immediately

of any changes at its facility affecting the potential for slug discharges. If the POTW 

decides that a slug control plan is needed, the plan must include the following elements:

 Description of discharge practices, including non-routine batch discharges

 Description of stored chemicals

 Procedures for immediately notifying the POTW of slug discharges, including any 

discharge that would violate the general pretreatment prohibition at 40 CFR 403.5(b),

along with procedures for follow-up written notification within 5 days

 If necessary, procedures to prevent adverse impacts from accidental spills, including 

inspection and maintenance of storage areas, handling and transfer of materials, 

loading and unloading operations, control of plant site runoff, worker training, 

building of containment structures or equipment, measures for containing toxic 

organic pollutants (including solvents), and/or measures and equipment for 

emergency response

Evaluation of the Need to Revise Local Limits

Every 5 years, POTWs must report to the AA on the need to revise local limits [40 CFR 

122.44(j)(2)(ii)]. This information is necessary for the AA to evaluate whether POTWs 

have developed appropriate local limits to control toxic and hazardous pollutants.

POTW Enforcement Response Plan

The regulations at 40 CFR 403.8(f)(5) require every approved POTW to develop and 

implement an enforcement response plan. The plan is to describe the POTW’s procedures 

for investigating and responding to instances of IU noncompliance, the types of 

escalating enforcement responses the POTW will take in response to all anticipated types 

of IU violations, and the time periods within which such responses will take place. The 

plan is to identify by title the officials responsible for each type of response and 

adequately reflect the POTW’s primary responsibility to enforce all applicable 

Pretreatment Standards and Requirements.

Notification of RCRA Discharge

Each IU must notify its POTW and federal and state hazardous waste permitting 

authorities of any discharge into the POTW of a substance that is a listed or characteristic 

waste under section 3001 of RCRA [40 CFR 403.12(p)]. In addition, the IU is to estimate 

the volume of hazardous waste it expects to discharge in the next 12 months. This 

reporting requirement applies to all IUs, including small-quantity generators (less than 

100 kilograms RCRA waste per calendar month); the requirement implements section 

3018(d) of RCRA.

Program/Categorical Determination

Categorical Determination Request

Within 60 days after the effective date of a pretreatment standard for a subcategory under 

which an IU may be included, the IU or POTW may request that EPA (or a state with 
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 44

pretreatment program approval) provide written certification of whether the IU falls 

within the particular subcategory. If an IU adds or changes a process or operation that 

may be included in a subcategory, the existing IU must request this certification before

commencing discharge from the added or changed processes or operation. A new source 

must request this certification before commencing discharge. Where a request for 

certification is submitted by a POTW, the POTW must notify any affected IU of the

submission. The IU may provide written comments on the POTW submission to the state 

or EPA within 30 days of notification.

The applications for a category determination must contain a statement that (1) describes

which categories and subcategories might be applicable and (2) cites evidence and 

reasons why a particular subcategory is applicable and others are not.

The application is to be certified by an official of the organization submitting the 

application, as described at 40 CFR 403.6(a)(2)(ii). EPA or the state notifies the applicant 

if its request is deficient and provides the applicant at least 30 days to correct the 

deficiency. EPA or the state denies the request if the deficiencies are not corrected in the 

allotted time frame.

EPA or the state makes final decisions on complete applications within 60 days of their 

receipt. EPA or the state sends a copy of the determination to the affected IU and 

applicable POTW. The IU (of POTW if applicant) may submit a petition to contest the 

decision of EPA or the state.

Alternative Limits Modification Request

Before treating regulated wastewater, some CIUs mix process effluent with wastewater 

that is not from the regulated process. The pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR 403.6(e) 

allow for CAs, or the CIU with the written concurrence of the CA, to establish fixed 

alternative discharge limits. When deriving alternative categorical limits, the CA or CIU 

is to calculate both an alternative daily maximum value (using the daily maximum values 

specified in the appropriate categorical pretreatment standard) and an alternative 

consecutive sampling day average value (using the monthly average values specified in 

the appropriate categorical pretreatment standards). The CIU is to comply with the 

alternative daily maximum and monthly average limits fixed by the CA until the CA 

modifies the limits or approves a CIU’s modification request. Modification is authorized 

whenever there is a material or significant change in the values used in the calculation to 

fix alternative limits for the regulated pollutant. An IU must immediately report any such 

material or significant change to the CA. Where appropriate, new alternative categorical 

limits are to be calculated within 30 days.

Removal Credit Approval Request

The pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR 403.7 provide that any POTW receiving wastes 

from an IU to which a categorical pretreatment standard applies may, at its discretion, 

grant removal credits to reflect removal by the POTW of the pollutants specified in the 

categorical pretreatment standards. Pollutants that are eligible for removal credits, 

contingent to the intended POTW sludge use or disposal practice, are listed in Appendix 

G to 40 CFR 403. The POTW may grant a removal credit equal to or, at its discretion, 
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 45

lower than its consistent removal rate. Upon being granted a removal credit, each affected 

CIU is to calculate its revised discharge limits in accordance with specified criteria. 

Removal credits may be given for indicator or surrogate pollutants regulated in a 

categorical pretreatment standard only if the categorical pretreatment standard so 

specifies.

To obtain a removal credit, the POTW must have an approved pretreatment program or 

have such approval pending. The POTW submits a removal credit request and 

supporting information to the Approval Authority, either the EPA or the state with 

pretreatment program authority. According to 40 CFR 403.7, the POTW's request must 

include the following information:

 A list of pollutants for which removal credits are proposed

 POTW influent and effluent data demonstrating consistent pollutant removal

 A description of the POTW’s analytical methods used in sampling

 The calculations involved in determining the POTW’s consistent pollutant removal

 A list of the industrial subcategories for which discharge limits will be revised

 The calculations used to determine revised categorical standards

 A certification that the POTW has an approved pretreatment program or qualifies for 

an exemption to this requirement

 A description of the POTW’s current sludge management practices and certification 

that granting removal credits will not cause a violation of an applicable sludge 

requirement

 Certification that granting removal credits will not cause a violation of the POTW’s 

NPDES permit.

Within 20 days after determining that the request submitted meets the requirements at 40 

CFR 403.7(d) and 40 CFR 403.9(d), the AA is to issue a public notice that the request has 

been received. Notices of the request are mailed to the agencies responsible for 

developing plans under CWA section 208; to federal and state fish, shellfish, and wildlife 

resource agencies; and to any other interested persons requesting notification. The public 

notice period lasts for at least 30 days, during which time all written comments are to be 

submitted to the AA. In addition, the AA is to publish the request in a newspaper of 

general circulation that provides meaningful public notice within the POTW’s 

jurisdiction. If the public expresses significant interest in the issues involving the 

POTW’s request for a removal credit, the AA Director must hold a public hearing to 

consider the POTW’s removal allowance request. After the 30-day notice, but within 180 

days, the AA Director approves or denies the removal allowance request and notifies the 

POTW of the decision.

Removal Credit Self-Monitoring Report

A POTW that has obtained removal credit approval must submit to the AA an initial 

report that demonstrates consistent pollutant removal and sludge quality maintenance. 
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 46

Thereafter, the POTW must continue to substantiate its removal credit with periodic 

reports to the AA. These reports are to be submitted at least annually.

The reports are necessary to establish the POTW’s rate of consistent removal and, as 

specified in section 307(b)(1) of the CWA, to demonstrate that the POTW’s sludge use 

and disposal practices will not be adversely affected. According to the regulations at 40 

CFR 403.7, each report must include POTW influent and effluent data demonstrating 

consistent pollutant removal.

AAs are to evaluate each report to determine whether the POTW’s pollutant removal and 

sewage sludge quality maintenance continue to justify the approved removal credit. If the 

POTW has not justified the removal credit, the AA may rescind the removal credit after 

notifying the POTW.

Fundamentally Different Factors Variance Request

The pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR 403.13 enable an AA to issue a variance to an IU 

(or POTW on behalf of an IU) from the limits specified in a categorical pretreatment

standard due to fundamentally different factors (FDF). In certain cases, an individual 

discharger’s production processes or technologies might be fundamentally different from 

the representative facilities used to determine the limits. The IU must submit a specific 

categorical pretreatment standard variance request when it believes that factors relating to 

its discharge are fundamentally different from those considered when EPA established 

the categorical standard. A POTW or other interested party may also submit an FDF 

variance request.

The factors that may be considered fundamentally different are outlined at 40 CFR 

403.13(d). They include the following:

 Nature or quality of pollutants contained in the raw waste load of the IU’s process 

wastewater

 Volume of the IU’s process wastewater and effluent discharged

 Non-water-quality environmental impact of control and treatment of the IU’s raw 

waste load

 Energy requirements of the application of control and treatment technology

 Age, size, land availability, and configuration as they relate to the IU’s equipment or 

facilities, the processes employed, process changes, and engineering aspects of the 

application of control technology

 Cost of compliance with the required control technology

The FDF variance request must contain the following data:

 The name and address of the person making the request

 Identification of the interest of the requester affected by the categorical pretreatment 

standard for which the variance is requested
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 47

 Identification of the POTW currently receiving waste from the IU for which 

alternative discharge limits are requested

 Identification of the categorical pretreatment standards applicable to the IU

 A list of each pollutant or pollutant parameter for which an alternative discharge limit 

is sought

 The alternative discharge limits proposed by the requester for each pollutant or 

pollutant parameter for which an alternative discharge limit is sought

 A description of the IU’s existing water pollution control facilities

 A schematic flow representation of the IU’s water system, including water supply, 

process wastewater systems, and points of discharge

 A statement of facts clearly establishing the reason that the variance request should 

receive approval, including detailed supporting data, documentation, and evidence 

necessary to fully evaluate the merits of the request (e.g., technical and economic data 

collected by EPA and used in developing each pollutant discharge limit in the 

pretreatment standard)

As specified at 40 CFR 403.13(g)(2), an IU must submit a variance request within 180 

days of the categorical pretreatment standard’s promulgation. If the IU has requested a 

categorical determination as provided by 40 CFR 403.6(a), the FDF request must be 

submitted within 30 days after the categorical determination. The AA is to circulate the 

variance request to all interested parties (public review). Following this public comment 

period of not less than 30 days, the AA is to approve or deny the variance request.

Net/Gross Adjustment Request

The pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR 403.15 specify the conditions under which a CA 

may adjust a CIU’s categorical pretreatment standard based on the presence of the 

applicable pollutant in the CIU’s intake water. The adjustments given are called net/gross 

credits. When granting an adjustment, the CA revises the applicable pretreatment 

standard to offset the pollutant load already present in the CIU’s intake water. If the CIU, 

however, has treatment technologies in place that will partially or entirely remove the 

pollutant in question, the CA adjusts the standard only to the extent that the pollutant is 

not removed by the CIU’s treatment technology.

CAs are not to grant credit for generic pollutants, such as biochemical oxygen demand, 

total suspended solids, and oil and grease, unless the CIU demonstrates that the 

constituents of the generic measure in the user’s effluent are substantially similar to the 

constituents of the generic measure in the intake water, or unless appropriate additional 

limits are placed on process water pollutants at the outfall or elsewhere. CAs are to grant 

credits only to the extent necessary for CIUs to meet applicable categorical standards, up 

to a maximum value equal to the influent value. The CA may require additional 

monitoring to determine eligibility for credits and compliance with adjusted standards. 

Finally, the CA may grant credits only if the intake water is withdrawn from the same 

water body into which the POTW discharges. The CA, however, may waive this 

requirement if it finds that no environmental degradation will result.
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 48

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED—AGENCY 

ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND 

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

5(a). Agency Activities 

EPA personnel complete a number of tasks in implementing the National Pretreatment Program.

These tasks and the associated burden and costs for conducting them are outlined in section 6(c) 

of this ICR.

EPA regional offices operate as the oversight authority (OA) under the National Pretreatment 

Program. In this role, they approve state program requests, and they review and approve various 

program implementation requests, such as pretreatment categorical determination requests and 

FDF requests.

EPA regional offices also operate as the AA in states that do not have approved pretreatment 

programs. As the AA, a regional office reviews POTW pretreatment programs for adequacy, 

audits and inspects approved POTWs, enforces against POTWs for failure to implement 

pretreatment regulations, and enforces pretreatment standards when IUs are not in compliance 

(where the POTW has not taken action). An AA may also inspect IUs to assess compliance.

EPA regional offices also act as the CA in instances where neither the state nor the POTW has an 

approved pretreatment program. As CA, a regional office has primary responsibility for 

implementing the pretreatment program. A regional office, acting as CA, notifies SIUs of their 

status and obligations under the program, reviews applications for control mechanisms, and 

determines the IUs that must act to reduce the risk of spills or batch discharges. The CA also 

ensures that IUs comply with discharge limitations and reporting requirements, inspects IUs, 

reviews self-monitoring reports from IUs, enforces against non-complying IUs, and notifies the 

public when IUs are in significant noncompliance.

5(b). Collection Methodology and Management 

In general, IUs and POTWs provide written requests and reports. IUs and POTWs give oral 

notices in emergencies; however, the IUs and POTWs follow these notices with written ones. 

EPA uses the Permit Compliance System and the Integrated Compliance Information System to 

store, track, and access pretreatment-related program information.

5(c). Small Entity Flexibility 

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

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) to minimize the burden of information collections on small 

entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions, all of which are defined as follows in section 601 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act:

 A small business is any business that is independently owned and operated and not 

dominant in its field, as defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) 

Regulations under section 3 of the Small Business Act.
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 49

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

operated and not dominant in its field.

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

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

50,000. This definition may also include Indian tribes.

The reporting requirements for pretreatment program development affect only state governments 

and municipal governments (i.e., POTWs). Requirements for pretreatment program 

implementation and program/categorical determinations involve some small businesses. The 

information requested, however, is not available from other sources and is essential for 

implementing the pretreatment program.

Overall, the burden for small industries is likely to be inherently smaller than that for other IUs 

because their facilities are less complex. Reporting burdens are less for SIUs than for CIUs. 

Under the Streamlining Rule, EPA modified some of the sampling requirements for CIUs to 

provide greater flexibility; these changes will benefit some of the smaller CIUs. Under the 

Streamlining Rule, EPA also provided states and POTWs opportunities to remove from 

regulatory requirements CIUs that never discharge more than 100 gpd of total process 

wastewater. POTWs and states may also categorize some CIUs as middle tier, meaning they, too,

may be subject to fewer reporting requirements. A number of small facilities are likely to fall 

into these categories.

5(d). Collection Schedule 

Many reporting requirements associated with the National Pretreatment Program are one-time 

only. Therefore, the frequency of data collection is relevant to only the following requirements:

 IU and SIU self-monitoring reports

 Periodic certifications

 Annual POTW reports, including updating the SIU list

 Pretreatment Compliance Inspection (PCI)

 Issuance of control mechanisms for SIUs

 Inspection and sampling the effluent of IUs and SIUs

 Public notification of significant noncompliance

 Evaluation of the need to revise local limits

 Prevention and control plan for spills and batch discharges

 Removal credit self-monitoring reports

Exhibit 5 (in section 4) summarizes reporting requirements for the pretreatment program.

6. ESTIMATING BURDEN AND COST OF COLLECTION

This section estimates the burden and cost to states, POTWs, and IUs for complying with the 

National Pretreatment Program requirements detailed in section 4. This section also discusses the 

assumptions used to estimate costs and burden in addition to describing the change in burden 

compared with the 2007 National Pretreatment Program ICR (OMB Control No. 2040-0009, 
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 50

EPA ICR No. 0002.13). Additional detail about assumptions is provided in Appendix A. 

Detailed burden and cost calculations are shown in Appendix B.

6(a). Respondent Burden

EPA’s Streamlining Rule resulted in changes to respondent reporting and recordkeeping burden. 

Specifically, the Streamlining Rule enables CAs to designate certain NSCIUs and other CIUs as 

middle tier CIUs. Those CIUs designated as NSCIUs and Middle tier CIUs may have reduced 

reporting burdens. Based on data from annual reports, award applications, public comments, and 

other EPA sources, 9.3 percent of existing CIUs discharge more than 0 gpd, but less than 100 

gpd. An additional 5.7 percent of existing CIUs are zero dischargers. Approximately 30 percent 

of existing CIUs are assumed to have flows more than 100 gpd, but less than 5,000 gpd and less 

than 0.01 percent of their POTW’s design flow (referred to as middle tier CIUs).

Based on discussions between EPA OWM and EPA regional staff, all zero-discharging CIUs 

may be considered NSCIUs. Based on data collected from eight POTW programs, EPA 

estimates that 71 percent of small CIUs currently monitor more frequently than the minimum 

requirement of twice a year. Therefore, this ICR assumes that the monitoring and reporting 

frequency will not change for IUs that already monitor and report more frequently than the

current minimum requirement, twice a year. In addition, EPA estimates that CAs will not reduce

the frequency with which they issue permits, monitor, or conduct inspections for these systems 

(i.e., 71 percent of small CIUs). NSCIUs (the remaining 29 percent along with all zerodischarging CIUs) will complete annual certifications in lieu of annual monitoring and reporting. 

To gather data to complete this certification, IUs with flows greater than zero will monitor once 

every 5 years, on average. CAs will discontinue control mechanism issuance and formal 

inspections for this 29 percent of NSCIUs with flows greater than zero (along with all zerodischarging CIUs); instead, CAs will conduct an annual 2-hour evaluation, as required by the 

revised regulations.

EPA estimates that 29 percent of the middle tier CIUs will be authorized to reduce their 

monitoring and reporting requirements from semiannually to annually. This estimate is based on

the estimate that 71 percent are currently subject to monitoring and reporting requirements that 

exceed the minimum requirements. In addition, this ICR assumes that for 29 percent of potential 

middle tier CIUs, CAs will reduce inspections to once every 2 years instead of once a year.

The Streamlining Rule also enables zero-discharging CIUs that previously reported data 

semiannually to instead conduct an annual certification. CAs, in turn, will shift from issuing 

control mechanisms and conducting annual inspections of these facilities to conducting an annual 

evaluation. EPA estimates that the burden for this evaluation to be 2 hours. 

6(a)(i). Burden to States

For the 3-year ICR period, the annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for states (including 

the burden for states as users of the data) is estimated to be 138,657 hours. Exhibit 6 at the end of 

section 6(a) shows the annual burden hours on an activity-specific basis, and Appendix A

summarizes the assumptions EPA made in developing the estimates. The following paragraphs 

briefly describe the bases for the burden estimates.
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 51

Program Development

State Pretreatment Program Approval Request

Pursuant to consultation with the National Pretreatment Coordinator and EPA regional 

offices, EPA does not anticipate any states to seek pretreatment program authority during 

this 3-year ICR period. 

Program Implementation

Issuance of SIU Discharge Permits

EPA assumes that all approved pretreatment states (36) will issue some permits to SIUs. 

EPA assumes that some of these states might issue general control mechanisms in place 

of individual permits. The number of responses per year is calculated based on 

information submitted by states and EPA regions that indicate that states directly regulate 

9.62 percent of all SIUs. (See Appendix A for additional information about this 

assumption.) CAs will no longer be required to issue permits to NSCIUs. Because some 

SIUs can now be regulated with general control mechanisms, EPA estimates that 2 

percent of SIUs will no longer require an individual permit. Thus, the number of 

responses for each state will fall by 2 percent. EPA also estimates that it takes 20 burden 

hours for a CA to issue a discharge permit; this estimate is carried forward in this ICR.

Inspection and Sampling of SIUs

Inspection: EPA estimates that all 36 pretreatment states will provide oversight for some 

SIUs. This ICR assumes 8 burden hours to perform one inspection per year for 9.62

percent of all SIUs. Middle-Tier SIUs will be inspected less frequently (every other year 

instead of every year). This includes the time necessary to collect an effluent sample.

Sampling and Analysis: All pretreatment states are assumed to perform in-house analyses 

for the SIUs that they regulate. This ICR estimates an average sample analysis burden of 

15.2 hours. This burden was estimated based on regional feedback during the 

development of the ICR for the Streamlining Rule, and it is carried forward in this ICR.

PFPR facilities opting for the pollution prevention option are excluded because there are 

no monitoring requirements.

Public Notification of Significant Noncompliance

In this ICR, EPA estimates that only the five states that directly implement the 

pretreatment program at the local level (40 CFR 403.10(e) states) will be required to 

publish notices of SNC for their POTWs. EPA estimates that, on average, approximately

11 POTWs per state (a total of 55 POTWs in the five 403.10(e) states) receive discharges 

from SIUs. One-third of the POTWs in these states (approximately 18 POTWs, or 4 per 

state) are estimated to have SIUs in SNC in a given year. EPA estimates that 3 burden 

hours are required to complete this activity. 

Evaluation of the Need to Revise Local Limits

This ICR assumes that only the five 40 CFR 403.10(e) states will be required to develop 

local limits for their POTWs. Each POTW for which the state has assumed CA 
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 52

responsibility (55 total) will require local limits development once every 5 years. The 

Agency estimates a burden of 50 hours for this activity.

Program/Categorical Determination

There is no burden for states associated with program/categorical determinations.

States as Users of the Data

Under the National Pretreatment Program, AAs (or the state acting as a CA) must 

receive, review, and store various requests and reports filed by IUs and POTWs. Table B8 in Appendix B calculates the burden to state agencies as users of these data.

When states are the AA (i.e., for 73.85 percent of pretreatment programs), the states 

review reports generated by pretreatment POTWs. Therefore, the associated review 

burden for IU and POTW activities described below and in Appendix B (Table B-3) for 

which reports or data are submitted to states (as AAs) has been apportioned accordingly. 

The numbers of respondents and responses are linked directly to the corresponding 

activities.

In addition to AA activities, states are the CAs for approximately 9.62 percent of SIUs. 

As CAs, the states are responsible for receipt and review of 9.62 percent of all reports, 

certifications, and data submitted by SIUs. Table B-8 in Appendix B, therefore, includes 

burden for these activities. Exhibit 6 shows the total state review burden associated with 

the aforementioned activities.

Recordkeeping

Maintain Pretreatment Program Information 

This ICR assumes that each pretreatment state (as the AA) spends 50 hours per year 

maintaining records from POTW pretreatment programs. In addition, states act as CAs

for 9.62 percent of SIUs. An additional burden of 5 hours per SIU per year (i.e., 5 * 

2,197) is included for states acting as CAs. (See Appendix B, Table B-5, for the

calculations.) 

The Streamlining Rule amended the pretreatment regulations to require that states 

maintain records for IUs regulated under general control mechanisms, for IU’s initial 

samples to demonstrate pollutants not present nor expected to be present, and for POTWs 

that request a significant modification. Because states already maintain records on IUs 

under individual permits, IU sampling records, and records on POTW significant 

modification requests, EPA does not expect the Streamlining Rule changes to result in 

changes in the recordkeeping burden.

6(a)(ii). Burden to POTWs

For the 3-year ICR period, the annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for POTWs (including 

the burden for POTWs as users of the data) is estimated to be 864,513 hours. Exhibit 7 (at the 

end of section 6(a)) shows the annual burden hours on an activity-specific basis, and Appendix B

details these burden calculations. The following paragraphs briefly describe the bases for the 

burden estimates.
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 53

Program Development

POTW Pretreatment Program Approval Request

EPA regions have indicated that they expect 64 new programs over the next 3 years. EPA 

estimates that preparing a program approval request will require 250 burden hours. The 

regulations also require all approved POTWs to develop and implement enforcement 

response plans describing procedures for investigating and responding to IU 

noncompliance. EPA assumes that POTWs will have completed this requirement as part 

of their approval request and therefore has not included any additional burden for this 

activity. This burden was included in the 250 hours for a new program.

The Streamlining Rule did not make any changes to the pretreatment regulations that 

affect program development burden.

POTW Pretreatment Compliance Schedule Progress Report

EPA expects 46 POTWs per year to be under pretreatment-related compliance schedules.

The Agency estimates that each schedule will require the submission of three reports 

(responses) per year. EPA estimates that each report will require 5 burden hours to 

complete.

Program Implementation

Annual POTW Report

For this program activity, EPA assumes one report per program per year. EPA further 

estimates that report preparation will take each POTW 40 burden hours. 

POTW Program Modifications

EPA estimates that 20 percent of approved programs will request program modifications 

of some type each year. EPA estimates that preparing program approval requests will 

take each POTW 40 burden hours. 

Issuance of Discharge Permits or Other Control Mechanisms for SIUs

Because SIU control mechanisms typically have 5-year terms, EPA estimates that each 

year POTWs (as CAs) will issue control mechanisms to 20 percent of the SIUs that are 

regulated by POTWs (90.4 percent of all SIUs). Under Streamlining, POTWs will not be 

required to issue permits to NSCIUs. In addition, because POTWs may regulate some 

SIUs with general control mechanisms, EPA estimates that 2 percent of SIUs will no 

longer require an individual control mechanism. Thus, the number of responses for each 

POTW will fall by 2 percent. EPA estimates that POTWs will require 20 hours to issue a 

control mechanism. EPA’s estimate of the number of SIUs to be covered by general 

control mechanisms is carried forward from the Pretreatment Streamlining ICR. EPA’s

estimate of the number of hours POTWs will require to issue individual control 

mechanisms is carried forward from the Pretreatment Program ICR.

Inspection and Sampling of CIU and SIU Effluent

Inspection: This ICR assumes 8 burden hours to perform one inspection per year for all 

SIUs regulated by POTWs. Middle tier CIUs will be inspected less frequently (every 
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 54

other year instead of every year). This includes the time necessary to collect an effluent 

sample. This assumption was carried forward from the previous ICR.

Sampling and Analysis: EPA assumes that in-house sampling and analysis will require

15.2 hours. PFPR facilities opting for the pollution prevention option are excluded 

because there are no monitoring requirements.

Mass Limits

POTWs establishing equivalent mass limits as an alternative to concentration limits to 

meet concentration-based categorical pretreatment standards must determine whether the 

application of a mass limit is appropriate. POTWs will perform these demonstrations. 

Currently, 14 Pretreatment Standards categories are expressed as concentration limits 

alone and are therefore eligible for equivalent mass limits under 40 CFR 403.6(c )(5). 

The following categories are included in this list:

 Inorganic Chemicals (§ 415)

 Fertilizer manufacturing (§ 418)

 Petroleum refining (§ 419)

 Steam Electric Power Generating (§ 423)

 Leather Tanning (§ 425)

 Glass Manufacturing (§ 426)

 Rubber Manufacturing (§ 428)

 Metal Finishing (§ 433)

 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing (§ 439)

 Transportation Equipment Cleaning (§ 442)

 Paving and Roofing Materials (§ 443)

 Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustors Subcategory of the Waste Combustors 

Point Source Category (§ 444)

 Carbon Black Manufacturing (§ 458)

 Electrical and Electronic Components (§ 469)

EPA estimates that there are approximately 12,000 such facilities and that 1 percent of 

them will request that the POTW assess flow variability, an assessment that will require 8 

burden hours to complete. These estimates are carried forward from the assumptions in 

the recalculation of the entire pretreatment program, which was done as part of the 

Pretreatment Streamlining ICR (EPA ICR No. 0002.12) and is explained at the beginning 

of section 6.

Equivalent Concentration Limits

CAs establishing concentration-based pretreatment standards instead of mass-based limits 

must document that dilution is not being used as a substitute for treatment (see 40 CFR 

403.6(d) and 414.111(a) and Part 419). In addition, the CA is required to adjust permit 

limits using the combined wastestream formula in 40 CFR 403.6(e) when the 

wastestream used for demonstrating compliance with the permit limits is mixed with nonprocess wastewater or wastewater from other processes. The POTW will perform these 

demonstrations. Currently, three Pretreatment Standards categories are eligible to benefit 

from this provision––Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF);
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 55

Petroleum Refining; and Pesticide Chemical manufacturing facilities. EPA estimates that 

there are 420 such facilities. EPA further estimates that 4 percent of these facilities will 

request that the POTW assess flow variability; each assessment will require a POTW 8 

burden hours to complete. These estimates are carried forward from the assumptions in 

the recalculation of the entire pretreatment program, which was done as part of the 

Pretreatment Streamlining ICR (EPA ICR No. 0002.12) and is explained at the beginning 

of section 6.

Evaluation of SIUs for Slug Control Plan

The final regulatory changes eliminate the requirement that POTWs evaluate the need for 

a slug control plan for each SIU every 2 years. POTWs may now review the need for slug 

control plans as part of their ongoing oversight of IUs. Therefore, EPA estimates no 

burden for this requirement.

Public Notification of Significant Noncompliance 

EPA expects POTWs to require 3 hours for public notification activities. EPA assumes 

that one-third of POTWs with pretreatment programs will have SIUs in SNC in a given 

year..

Evaluation of the Need to Revise Local Limits

EPA assumes in this ICR that all pretreatment programs will reevaluate the need to 

develop local limits once every 5 years. EPA estimates that POTWs will require 50 hours 

to complete this activity.

SIU Notification of Applicable Standards and Regulations

At the time of promulgation of this ICR EPA has not promulgated any new categorical 

standards. EPA is in the process of developing new categorical standards that may be in 

effect during the 3-year life of this ICR. At this time the expected impacts of the new 

standards are not possible to be assessed. Therefore, EPA will developed burden 

estimates once these new standards are finalized.

Program/Categorical Determination

Removal Credit Approval Requests

Based on input from EPA regional offices, the Agency estimates three respondents per 

year. EPA further estimates that a POTW will require 125 hours to prepare and submit 

each request.

Removal Credit Self-Monitoring Reports 

EPA estimates 25 respondents per year based on the number of POTWs with approved 

removal credit variances as reported by EPA regional offices. EPA assumes that a POTW 

will require 40 hours per report.

POTWs as Users of the Data

Most of the IU respondents described below and in Exhibit 8 (at the end of section 6(a)) 

generate reports, information, or data that CAs must receive, review, and store. Table B-9

in Appendix B calculates the burden to POTWs as users of these data. As CAs, POTWs 

are responsible for receiving and reviewing 90.4 percent of all reports, certifications, and 
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 56

data submitted by SIUs. EPA has, therefore, apportioned the review burden for reports or 

data submitted by SIUs to POTWs (as CAs). The numbers of respondents and responses 

are linked directly to the corresponding activities. Exhibit 7 shows the total POTW 

review burden associated with each activity.

Recordkeeping

Maintenance of Monitoring Records

EPA expects each pretreatment POTW to spend 100 hours per year maintaining SIU 

monitoring records. Changes in the pretreatment regulations due to the Streamlining Rule 

means that POTWs will have to maintain records for IUs regulated under general control 

mechanisms, as well as IUs’ initial samples to demonstrate pollutants neither present nor 

expected to be present. Because POTWs already maintain records on IUs under 

individual permits and IU sampling records, EPA has not estimated any additional 

recordkeeping burden for POTWs as a result of the Streamlining Rule.

6(a)(iii). Burden to Industrial Users

For the 3-year ICR period, the annual IU reporting and recordkeeping burden is estimated to be 

803,346 hours. Exhibit 8 (at the end of section 6(a)) shows the estimated annual burden hours for 

each type of information collected, and Appendix B details these burden calculations. The bases 

for the burden estimates are detailed below.

Program Development

EPA assumes no IU reporting and recordkeeping burden program development.

Program Implementation

The program implementation burden estimates for IUs were calculated per activity, as 

detailed below.

Baseline Monitoring Report

For new sources, EPA assumes a 2 percent gross annual growth in the number of CIUs. 

EPA does not anticipate promulgation of new effluent guidelines for indirect dischargers, 

which would result in associated BMR requirements, during the 3 years covered by this 

ICR.

EPA assumes 14.3 hours for new source CIUs conducting baseline monitoring analysis 

and 28 burden hours for preparing a Baseline Monitoring Report.

IU Compliance Schedule Progress Report

For new sources, EPA assumes a 2 percent gross annual growth in the number of CIUs.

7

.

In the recalculation of the entire pretreatment program, done as part of the Pretreatment 

Streamlining ICR (EPA ICR No. 0002.12) and explained at the beginning of section 6,

EPA estimated that 25 percent of new sources or facilities subject to new effluent 

guidelines would need to complete compliance schedules. The Agency further assumed 

 

7 EPA is in the process of developing new categorical standards that may be in effect during the 3-year life of this 

ICR. At this time the expected impacts of the new standards are not possible to be assessed. Therefore, EPA will 

developed burden estimates once these new standards are finalized.
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 57

an IU would require 4 hours to prepare each compliance schedule progress report. EPA is 

carrying forward these assumptions for this ICR.

IU Compliance Attainment Report

CIUs must complete a compliance attainment report within 90 days following the date for 

final compliance with a categorical pretreatment standard. New source CIUs must 

provide such a report within 90 days of commencing discharge of the categorically

regulated wastestream to the POTW. EPA has annualized the burden for new sources 

over the 3-year ICR period. EPA estimates that CIUs will require 20 hours to prepare the 

compliance attainment reports and 14.3 hours to conduct the associated analyses.

IU Resampling Compliance Report

All IUs are required to notify the CA immediately of all discharges that could potentially

cause problems for the POTW. IUs are further required to notify the CA and resample 

following a violation. EPA assumes that 10 percent of all IUs will need to resample every

year. The 1,500 IUs with PFPR P2 certification are not included in the estimate because 

the resampling requirements do not apply to these facilities. EPA assumes that an IU will 

require 4 hours for sampling, 12 hours for analysis, and 1 hour for reporting each year. 

IU Self-Monitoring Compliance Report

Under the Streamlining Rule, NSCIUs are not required to conduct periodic selfmonitoring; instead, they are required to submit annual certifications. (This ICR assumes 

that sampling and analysis is required once every 5 years to complete this certification.) 

In addition, certain middle tier CIUs will monitor and report once a year instead of twice 

a year. These assumptions are carried forward from the Pretreatment Streamlining ICR.

The Streamlining Rule ICR assumed that a CIU will require 11.6 hours and a noncategorical SIU will require 9.5 hours to complete the report twice per year. EPA has 

excluded PFPR facilities opting for the P2 option from the estimate because these 

facilities have no monitoring requirements.

Pollution Prevention Plans

This ICR assumes that all PFPR facilities (1,500 facilities) will opt for the P2 alternative 

and that all 1,500 facilities have already prepared and submitted an initial certification for 

the P2 alternative. Consistent with the assumptions in the preamble for the PFPR rule (61 

FR 57541), this ICR assumes that 10 percent of the facilities that are implementing a P2 

alternative plan will submit modifications to P2 plans. The burden for the periodic 

certification requirements is discussed below under “Periodic Certifications.”

Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Indirect Discharging Mills in the Bleached 

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

Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category

EPA estimates that 10 facilities would be subject to these requirements. EPA estimates 

that the burden to respondents associated with collecting, reporting and maintaining 

records of monitoring data is 826 hours.
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 58

Pollution Prevention Compliance Alternative; Transportation Equipment Cleaning 

Point Source Category.

EPA estimates that 84 facilities would be subject to these requirements.

Best Management Practices for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory 

and the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Point 

Source Category 

EPA estimates that 10 facilities would be subject to these requirements. 

CWT Initial Certification Statement

According to the CWT preamble (65 FR 81267), 37 facilities “accept wastes from 

multiple subcategories and could be subject to the multiple wastestream subcategory.” 

EPA estimated that 34 of the 37 facilities are indirect dischargers (91.5 percent of 37 

facilities) and were likely to complete the initial CWT certification statement during the 

3-year ICR period of the previously approved ICR. This burden is not included in this 

pretreatment ICR.

Request for Coverage Under a General Control Mechanism

This ICR assumes that 2 percent of all SIUs will be covered under a general control 

mechanism. EPA estimates that an IU will require 0.5 hour to complete each request.

Periodic Certifications

Below is a summary of assumptions about the universe of indirect dischargers with 

certification potential (the number of facilities covered by the relevant part or subpart(s) 

of 40 CFR, Chapter I, Subchapter N). EPA assumes in this ICR that periodic 

certifications require CIUs 1 hour to complete, which is consistent with the Information 

Collection Request for the NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification Information 

(OMB No. 2040-0110, EPA ICR No. 1427.07). Assumptions regarding the percentage of 

facilities that will undertake certifications activities are summarized below. Except where 

noted, these assumptions are also consistent with the Information Collection Request for 

the NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification Information. Assumptions regarding 

the number of responses per year are also explained below.

 Aluminum Forming Point Source Category (Part 467). The estimated number of 

indirect dischargers in the Aluminum Forming Point Source Category (72 facilities) is 

from the Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards 

for the Aluminum Forming: Point Source Category (EPA 440184073, June 1984). 

EPA estimates that approximately 75 percent of these 72 aluminum forming facilities 

will choose to submit an annual certification requesting an exemption from cyanide 

monitoring.

 Canmaking (Part 465, Subpart D). Canmaking facilities covered by Part 465, Subpart 

D, are required to submit a one-time notification if the alloy used in making cans 

contains less than 1 percent manganese. For indirect dischargers, EPA expects few (if 

any) such notifications in the future. As a conservative estimate, this ICR assumes 

one such notification during the next 3 years.
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 59

 Centralized Waste Treatment Point Source Category (Part 437). The preamble to the 

final Central Waste Treatment Rule indicates that 37 facilities “accept wastes from 

multiple subcategories and could be subject to the multiple wastestream subcategory” 

(65 FR 81267). Based on data in the development document for the final rule, 

approximately 91.5 percent of CWT facilities are indirect dischargers (pp. 4–6). In 

this ICR, EPA applies the overall percentage of indirect dischargers to the total 

number of dischargers that accept wastes from multiple subcategories to arrive at 34 

indirect discharger that accept waste from multiple subcategories (37 * 91.5% = 34). 

EPA also assumes that 34 respondents complete initial certification statements for 

coverage under Part 437, Subpart D. Each of these 34 facilities must submit an annual 

certification. (This burden was discussed in the 2003 Pretreatment Program ICR, but

it is repeated here for completeness.)

 Coil Coating Point Source Category (Part 465). The estimated number of indirect 

dischargers in the Coil Coating Point Source Categories (41 facilities) is from the 

Technical Support Document for the 2004 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (EPA821-R-04-014, August 2004) (“the TSD”).8

EPA estimates that approximately 75 

percent of these 41 coil coating facilities will choose to submit an annual certification 

requesting an exemption from cyanide monitoring. This information collection item 

does not apply to canmaking facilities (Part 465, Subpart D) because they are not 

required to monitor for cyanide. 

 Electrical and Electronic Components (Part 469). The number of indirect dischargers 

in the Electrical and Electronic Components Point Source Category (91 facilities) is 

also from the August 2004 TSD, which in turn uses Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)

data. EPA estimates that approximately 50 percent of these 91 electrical and 

electronic components facilities will choose to submit a total toxic organic (TTO) 

certification in lieu of TTO monitoring. Certifications must be submitted twice a year.

 Electroplating Point Source Category (Part 413) and Metal Finishing Point Source 

Category. The estimated number of indirect dischargers in the Electroplating and 

Metal Finishing Point Source Categories (7,644 total) is from data compiled by

EPA’s Office of Science and Technology (OST) during the development of the Metal 

Products and Machinery (MP&M) rule. The categories are combined because the

facilities’ operations are similar. EPA estimates that approximately 75 percent of 

these 7,644 electroplating and metal finishing facilities will choose to submit a TTO 

certification semiannually in lieu of TTO monitoring. This assumption is consistent 

with the assumptions associated with the Metal Finishing category.

 Pesticide Chemicals (Part 455). The estimated number of indirect dischargers 

covered by PFPR regulations (1,500 facilities) is from the preamble to the PFPR rule 

(61 FR 57541). Consistent with that preamble, EPA assumes in this ICR that all 1,500 

 

8 The TSD estimates the number of indirect dischargers based on data from the TRI. There are limitations associated 

with these TRI data. Because neither small establishments (fewer than 10 employees) nor facilities that do not meet 

the reporting thresholds are required to report, facilities reporting to TRI might be a very small subset of an industry. 

Also, because facilities are identified by SIC code, not by point source category, it might be difficult or impossible 

to identify the point source category that is the source of the toxic wastewater releases for some SIC codes. For 

example, coil coating is an operation that is part of canmaking (3411, metal cans). Some of these facilities have coil 

coating operations, but they cannot be identified from the data in TRI.
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 60

indirect dischargers in the PFPR category will opt for the P2 alternative and that all 

1,500 facilities will submit two certifications per year. These assumptions are 

consistent with the 1996, 2000, and 2005 pretreatment program ICRs and with the 

preamble to the PFPR rule (61 FR 57541). For consistency with the Information 

Collection Request for the NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification 

Information, EPA assumes that certifications will require IUs 1 hour each.

 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Point Source Category (Part 439). The estimated 

number of facilities (286) subject to guidelines for the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 

Point Source Category is based on data gathered by OST during the development of 

the 1998 final rule. EPA estimates, on the basis of data in effluent guideline 

development documents, that approximately 40 percent of the pharmaceutical 

facilities are in a subcategory that potentially uses cyanide. Of these, EPA estimates 

that 75 percent will choose to submit a certification once every permit cycle (once 

every 5 years).

 Porcelain Enameling Point Source Category (Part 466). The estimated number of 

indirect dischargers in the Porcelain Enameling Category (146) is from data collected 

by OST during development of the TSD but not included in the final TSD. The 

estimate includes TRI data from facilities with SIC codes 3431, 3469, 3479, 3631, 

3633, 3632, and 3639, each of which reported transfers of TRI chemicals to POTWs 

in 2000. Although this number represents EPA’s best estimate, the Agency is 

uncertain about the fit between these SIC codes and indirect dischargers covered in 

the Porcelain Enameling Category because operations in these SIC codes could be 

covered by the Metal Finishing Category. EPA estimates that 50 percent of these 146 

porcelain enameling facilities will choose to submit an annual certification requesting 

an exemption from chromium monitoring 

 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Source Category (Part 430). To estimate the universe 

of potentially affected facilities, EPA has used estimates in this ICR from the 

Supplemental Technical Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines 

and Standards for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category: Subpart B (Bleached 

Papergrade Kraft and Soda) and Subpart E (Papergrade Sulfite) and from EPA’s 

Guidance Manual for Pulp, Paper and Paperboard and Builders’ Paper and Board 

Mills Pretreatment Standards (September 21, 1984). EPA estimates that 119 of the 

Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category not including Subpart B (Bleached Papergrade 

Kraft and Soda) and Subpart E (Papergrade Sulfite) will choose to submit an annual 

certification requesting an exemption Based on EPA ICR No. 2015.02, OMB Control 

Number 2040-0242, EPA estimated that six Subpart B (Bleached Papergrade Kraft 

and Soda) facilities would certify.

 Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (Part 423). The estimated 

number of facilities in the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category is 

from the Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards 

and Pretreatment Standards for the Steam Electric Point Source Category 

(November 1982). EPA estimates that approximately 75 percent of these 117 

facilities will choose to provide an annual demonstration and provide a certification 

requesting an exemption from monitoring requirements for priority pollutants other 

than chromium and zinc.
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 61

IU Slug Load Notification

In this ICR, EPA assumes that 100 SIUs per year will be required to provide a slug load 

notification. EPA estimates the average burden per CIU response to be 2 hours. The 

Agency further estimates that an additional 450 non-categorical SIUs per year will be 

required to provide a slug load notification. EPA estimates the average burden per SIU 

response to be 0.25 hour. 

Notification of Changed Discharge

EPA assumes that 1,000 IUs per year will provide notification of a changed discharge. 

EPA estimates that this notification will require 4 burden hours. 

Bypass Notification

In this ICR, EPA assumes that 1,427 SIUs per year will report bypasses and that CAs will 

require 75 percent of these SIUs (1,070 SIUs) to conduct follow-up activities. EPA 

assumes IUs will require 5 hours for bypass notification and 2 hours for follow-up

activities. 

Notification of Changed Monitoring Location

For this ICR, EPA estimates that 50 SIUs will provide notification of a changed 

monitoring location per year. EPA estimates the SIUs will require 1 hour to provide 

notification. 

Slug Control Plan

EPA estimates that 10 percent of all new SIUs will need to develop a slug control plan. 

EPA based the number of new SIUs on an assumed growth rate of 2 percent for existing 

CIUs and to account for any facilities that will be covered under new categorical 

standards. However, no new effluent guidelines are anticipated during this ICR cycle. 

The Agency estimates that this activity will require 2 hours per SIU. 

Program/Categorical Determination

Categorical Determination Request

The deadline for a categorical determination request has passed for all existing effluent 

guidelines, and no new guidelines affecting indirect discharges are anticipated during this 

ICR cycle. Therefore, no formal categorical determination requests are anticipated during 

the 3-year ICR period. A New Source must request this certification prior to commencing 

discharge.

Alternative Limits Modification Request

In this ICR, EPA assumes that 10 percent of all new CIUs will request alternative limits 

(i.e., use the combined wastestream formula). EPA estimates that an IU will require 2 

hours to complete a request. 

Fundamentally Different Factors Variance Request

FDF variance requests must be submitted within 180 days following publication of a new 

effluent guideline. EPA knows of no pending FDF variance requests associated with 

recently promulgated guidelines. Because no new guidelines affecting indirect 

dischargers are anticipated during the next 3 years, no new respondents are anticipated. In 
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 62

addition, no new dischargers under existing guidelines are anticipated because facilities 

are required to submit requests no later than 180 days after promulgation of the 

categorical pretreatment standard.

Net/Gross Adjustment Request

Based on information provided by EPA Regional Pretreatment Coordinators, EPA 

estimates that two net/gross adjustment requests will be submitted each year. The Agency

further estimates that IUs will require 50 hours per request.

Recordkeeping

Maintain Monitoring Records

All SIUs must maintain monitoring records. EPA estimates that SIUs will require 2 hours 

per year to maintain pretreatment records. Based on changes made to the pretreatment 

regulations by the Streamlining Rule, IUs with general control mechanisms will have to 

maintain associated records. CIUs that request a variance for pollutants neither present 

nor expected to be present will also have to maintain sampling and reporting records. 

Because IUs already maintain individual permit and sampling records, EPA estimates no 

additional SIU reporting and recordkeeping burden.

6(b). Respondent Costs

6(b)(i). Cost to States

Exhibit 6 shows that the annual costs to states are approximately $4.6 million. The labor costs, 

which account for all state costs, are based on the average hourly wage for state employees as 

determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the 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, by selected characteristics (June 2010), in 

March 2010, to be $39.81.

Exhibit 6. Average annual state burden and costs

Activity Annual 

Burden 

Hours

Annual Cost ($K) Responses

Capital and 

O&M Cost

Labor Cost Total Cost

Program development 0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 0.0

Program implementation 57,256 $0.0 $2,279.3 $2,279.3 2,706

Program/categorical 

determination 0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 0

States as users of data 68,616 $0.0 $2,731.6 $2,731.6 NA

Recordkeeping 12,785 $0.0 $509.0 $509.0 NA

Total 138,657 $0.0 $5,519.9 $5,519.9 2,706

NOTE: Detail may not add due to independent rounding. Costs in thousands of dollars.
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 63

6(b)(ii). Cost to POTWs

Exhibit 7 shows that the annual costs to POTWs are approximately $25.4 million. The average 

hourly rate for municipal employees, which account for all POTW costs, as determined by the 

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, is $29.44 (including 50% overhead). 

Updated rates are derived from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, in a 

table entitled May 2009 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage 

Estimates and adjusted to March 2010 dollars using the ECI.

Exhibit 7. Average annual POTW burden and costs

Activity Annual 

Burden 

Hours

Annual Cost ($K) Responses

Capital and 

O&M Cost

Labor Cost Total Cost

Program development 6,015 $0.0 $177.1 $177.1 159.3

Program implementation 622,971 $0.0 $18,338.4 $18,338.4 27,749

Program/categorical 

determination 1,375 $0.0 $40.5 $40.5 28

POTWs as users of data 79,353 $0.0 $2,335.9 $2,335.9 NA

Recordkeeping 154,800 $0.0 $4,556.8 $4,556.8 NA

Total 864,513 $0.0 $25,448.6 $25,448.6 27,937

NOTE: Detail may not add due to independent rounding. Costs in thousands of dollars.

6(b)(iii). Cost to Industrial Users

Exhibit 8 shows the total costs for IUs over the 3-year ICR period. Annual costs are 

approximately $46.7 million, comprised of labor and capital and O&M cost.

Labor costs are based on the number of burden hours times the average hourly wage rate, 

including overhead. For all IU activities, EPA used the median industrial engineer wage of 

$36.11 per hour. After adjusting this rate for inflation, compensation, and overhead the rate is 

$55.22 per hour. There are capital costs incurred by IUs that receive mass limits as an alternative 

to concentration based standards.

Exhibit 8. Average annual industrial user burden and costs

Activity Annual 

Burden 

Hours

Annual Cost ($k) Responses

Capital and 

O&M Cost

Labor Cost Total Cost

Program development 0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0

Program implementation 757,552 $2,318.9 $41,831.4 $44,150.3 67,773

Program/categorical 

determination 140 $0.0 $7.7 $7.7 22

IUs as users of data 0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 NA

Recordkeeping 45,654 $0.0 $2,521.0 $2,521.0 NA

Total 803,346 $2,318.9 $44,360.1 $46,679.0 67,796

NOTE: Detail may not add due to independent rounding. Costs in thousands of dollars.
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 64

6(c). Agency Burden and Costs

Appendix B, Table B-10, provides detailed information about the burden to the Agency as a user 

of the information. The total burden to the Agency is 21,741 hours per year.

The federal government (EPA regions and headquarters) incurs burden and costs to process, 

analyze, and maintain the information collected. EPA regions, in their role as OAs, are users of 

the State Program Approval Requests, Categorical Determination Requests, FDF Variance 

Requests, and other types of information.

Most of the respondent activities described in section 5 of this ICR generate reports, information, 

or data, which must be received, reviewed, and stored by an OA. Table B-10 in Appendix B

calculates the burden to federal agencies (primarily EPA regions) as users of these data. Where 

EPA is the AA (i.e., in 26.15 percent of pretreatment programs), the Agency reviews reports 

generated by pretreatment POTWs. Therefore, the associated review burden for the activities 

detailed in Appendix B, Table B-3, and described in section 4(b)(ii), for which reports or data are 

submitted to federal agencies (as AAs) has been apportioned accordingly.

Appendix B, Table B-10, outlines the hours per response, number of responses per year, and 

total hours per year expended by the federal government (EPA) for reviewing state and POTW 

reports. The annual average number of hours expended by EPA as a user of the data is 21,741. 

Based on an average hourly rate of $38.979for a federal employee, the estimated annual cost to 

EPA is $847,264.

In addition, EPA is the OA for states acting as AAs. Data or reports generated by the activities 

listed in Table B-2 of Appendix B will be sent to EPA regions for review. The burden for these 

review activities is also included in Appendix B, Table B-10. Total annual EPA burden and cost 

estimates are also included in Exhibit 9.

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

Costs

Respondents for this ICR include IUs, POTWs, and states, for a total of 24,411 respondents. This 

ICR estimates the number of IUs at 22,827. In addition to the IUs, this ICR assumes 36 states (31

states that authorize POTWs to implement pretreatment programs and 5 states covered by 40 

CFR 403.10(e)) and 1,548 approved pretreatment programs.

The total costs and burden for these respondents are summarized in Exhibits 6, 7, and 8. Agency

costs and burden are detailed in Appendix B, Table B-10.

 

9 The hourly employment cost of federal employees was determined using a methodology established in previous 

ICRs. According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, January 2010 General Schedule (2010-GS), the 

average annual salary of a government employee at the GS-9, Step 10, level is $54,028. At 2,080 hours per year, the 

hourly wage would be $25.98. Assuming overhead costs of 50 percent, or $12.99 per hour, the fully loaded cost of 

employment for a federal employee would be $38.97.
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 65

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

The bottom line burden hours and costs appear in Exhibit 9 below. This exhibit summarizes the 

burden and cost calculations from Exhibits 6, 7, 8, and Appendix B, Table B-10. (Appendix B

provides detailed cost and burden calculations.) The total annual respondent burden associated 

with this ICR is estimated to be 1.81 million burden hours. The corresponding total annual 

respondent costs are estimated to be $77.7 million. The total national burden, including 

respondent burden and Agency burden, is estimated to be 1.83 million hours annually. The total 

national cost, for respondents and EPA, is estimated to be $78.5 million annually.

Exhibit 9. Bottom line average annual burden and cost

Number of Respondents 24,411 = 36 States

+ 1,548 POTWs

+ 22,827 Industrial Users

Total Annual Responses 98,438 = 2,706 States

+ 27,937 POTWs

+ 67,796 Industrial Users

Total Respondent Hours 1,806,517 = 138,657 States

+ 864,513 POTWs

+ 803,346 Industrial Users

Hours per Response 18.35 = 1,806,517 Total annual hours from above

÷ 98,438 Total annual responses from above

Annual Respondent Labor Cost $75,328,623 = $5,519,929 States

+ $25,448,626 POTWs

+ $44,360,068 Industrial Users

Annual Respondent O&M and 

Capital Cost

$2,318,913 = $0 States

+ $0 POTWs

+ $2,318,913 Industrial Users

Total Respondent Cost $77,647,536 = $5,519,929 States

+ $25,448,626 POTWs

+ $46,678,981 Industrial Users

Total Hours (Respondents & EPA) 1,828,258 = 1,806,517 Respondents

+ 21,741 EPA

Total Cost (Respondents & EPA) $78,494,800 = $77,647,536 Respondents

+ $847,264 EPA

NOTE: Detail may not add due to independent rounding. 

6(f). Reasons for Change in Burden

This section explains the burden changes from the September 2007 ICR which is the current 

inventory kept by OMB. The current burden approved by OMB for the existing ICR is 

1,797,087. That is 9,430 (0.5%) fewer hours than are being requested in this ICR. Most of the 

increase in burden is attributable to the transfer of the burden associated with Pretreatment 

Compliance Inspection (PCI) from the NPDES Program ICR (OMB Control No. 2040-0004, 

EPA ICR No. 0229.20). There are also additional burden increases in other areas. For example, 

the number of state respondents has increased from 35 to 36, and the number of approved 

programs has increased to 1,548 from 1,512. 

However, the increases in burden are partially offset by a decrease in burden attributable to the 

decrease in the number of SIUs. EPA revised the estimated number of SIUs and pretreatment 

programs after extensive consultation with the EPA regions and a thorough examination of PCS 
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 66

data. The revised number of SIUs drives the decrease in respondent burden because SIUs 

constitute the bulk of respondents. This ICR shows a shift in burden from POTWs to States as a 

consequence of EPA’s updated estimates of SIUs regulated by POTWs and States. However, 

EPA does not believe this is the result of programmatic changes but simply a reflection of more 

accurate information about the implementation of the pretreatment program. 

Other minor decreases in burden in this ICR are the result of:

 Moving the burden to participate in the Clean Water Act awards for pretreatment programs 

from this ICR to the Recognition Application for Sustainable Water Leadership Program 

(EPA ICR No. 1287.10 OMB Control No. 2040-0101)

 EPA’s anticipation that no state will seek pretreatment program authority during this 3-year 

ICR period. 

For this ICR, labor rates have been updated to March 2010 dollars. These changes affect the 

estimated costs of reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the National Pretreatment 

Program.

6(g). Burden Statement 

The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for collections included in this ICR is detailed in 

Exhibit 9 and Appendix B The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this 

collection of information is estimated to average 74.0 hours per respondent per year, or 18.35 

hours per response. This burden is attributed to states, POTWs, and IUs.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by people to generate, 

maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the 

time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology, and systems 

for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining 

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

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

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

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

sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for information collection unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA’s 

regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

To comment on 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, the Agency has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0719, which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the 

EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, 

Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading 

Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is 202-566-2426. An 

electronic version of the public docket is available at http://www.regulations.gov/. Use 

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

contents of the public docket, and to access documents in the public docket that are available 
Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 67

electronically. Once in the system, key in the docket ID number identified above. You can also 

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

Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please 

include the EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0719 and OMB Control No. 2040-0009 in 

any correspondence.
Appendix A
Draft Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request A-1

Appendix A. Assumptions for Developing Burden and Cost 

Estimates

Table 1 provides a list of the key data inputs used to determine burden hours and costs for the National 

Pretreatment Program ICR. This appendix provides a description of the source of these data elements. 

In addition, the ICR relied on several assumptions regarding the relative percentages of respondents 

performing various tasks. The appendix also summarizes these key assumptions.

Table 1 Data and Assumptions Used in Pretreatment ICR

Pretreatment Program Data Numbers

1. Total Number of SIUs 22,827

2. Number of CIUs 9,844

3. Number of noncategorical-SIUs 12,983

4. Number of Zero-Discharge NSCIUs 566

5. Number of CIUs that Discharge > 0 and < 100 gpd 911

6. Number of Non-Zero-Discharge NSCIUs 264

7. Number of NSCIUs 830

8. Number of Middle Tier CIUs 2,953

9. Number of Middle Tier CIUs that reduce monitoring 856

10. Number of State Run POTW Pretreatment Programs in 40 CFR §403.10(e) States 55

11. Total Number of Approved Programs 1,548

12. Number of 40 CFR §403.10(e) States 5

13. Number of States with approved Pretreatment Programs 36

14. Number of SIUs with POTWs as Control Authority 20,630

15. Percentage of SIUs with POTWs as Control Authority 90.38%

16. Number of SIUs with State/EPA as Control Authority 2,197

17. Percentage of SIUs with State/EPA as Control Authority 9.62%

18. Percentage of SIUs Resampling (for violations) 10%

19. Hourly Rate for Federal employees (50% Overhead (OH)) 38.97

20. Hourly Rate for State employees (50% OH) 39.81

21. Hourly Rate for POTW employees (50% OH) 29.44

22. Hourly Rate for Private Industry employees (100% OH) 55.22

23. Number of New Source CIUs 201

24. Number of POTWs with EPA as Approval Authority 405

25. Percentage of POTWs with EPA as Approval Authority 26.15%

26. Number of POTWs with State as Approval Authority 1,143

27. Percentage of POTWs with State as Approval Authority 73.85%

28.

Number of POTWs projected to develop a pretreatment program during the three-year 

ICR period 64

29. Removal Credit Approval Requests 3

ICR Input Data

1. Total Number of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) - This number is derived from Permit 

Compliance System (PCS) and Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) data, as 

obtained from an October 2010 query and updated/corrected through January 2011 with input 

from EPA headquarters and regional staff responsible for overseeing the pretreatment program.
Draft Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request A-2

2. Number of Categorical Industrial Users (CIU) - This number is derived from Permit 

Compliance System (PCS) and Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) data, as 

obtained from an October 2010 query and updated/corrected through January 2011 with input 

from EPA headquarters and regional staff responsible for overseeing the pretreatment program.

3. Number of Non-Categorical SIUs - The mathematical difference between 1 and 2 above.

4. Number of Zero-Discharge NSCIUs - The percentage of zero-discharge NSCIUs (5.75% is 

derived from data from annual Pretreatment Program Reports, Pretreatment Excellence Awards 

applications, and public comments on the proposed Streamlining Rule. This estimate is carried 

forward from the assumptions in the recalculation of the entire pretreatment program, which was 

done as part of the Streamlining Rule ICR (EPA ICR No. 0002.12) and is explained at the 

beginning of this section. The percentage is applied to the number of CIUs. All zero-discharge 

CIUs are assumed to be NSCIUs.

5. Number of CIUs that Discharge > 0 and < 100 gpd - The percentage of CIUs with flows of 

less than 100 gpd but greater than zero (9.26%) is derived from data from annual Pretreatment 

Program Reports, Pretreatment Excellence Awards applications, and public comments on the 

proposed Streamlining Rule. This estimate is carried forward from the assumptions in the 

recalculation of the entire pretreatment program, which was done as part of the Streamlining 

Rule ICR (EPA ICR No. 0002.12) and is explained at the beginning of this section. The 

percentage is applied to the number of CIUs.

6. Number of Non-Zero Discharge NSCIUs - The percentage of dischargers with flows of less 

than 100 gpd but greater than zero that will be deemed non-significant is based on data carried 

forward from the assumptions in the recalculation of the entire pretreatment program, which was 

done as part of the Streamlining Rule ICR (EPA ICR No. 0002.12) and is explained at the 

beginning of this section. on compliance reporting requirements in eight POTW programs. 

These data showed that 71% of small CIUs were required to monitor more than twice per year. 

It was assumed that compliance reporting requirements continued for these 71%. Twenty-nine 

percent (1 – 71%) were assumed to be NSCIUs. The percentage is applied to the number derived 

in Item 5.

7. Number of NSCIUs - This number was calculated by adding the number of zero discharging 

CIUs to the number of CIUs that discharge between 0 and 100 gallons per day that will be 

deemed NSCIUs.

8. Number of Middle-Tier CIUs - The percentage of Middle-Tier CIUs (approximately 30%) is 

derived from data from annual Pretreatment Program Reports combined with data from the 

Metal Products and Machinery Database. This estimate is carried forward from the assumptions 

in the recalculation of the entire pretreatment program, which was done as part of the 

Streamlining Rule ICR (EPA ICR No. 0002.12) and is explained at the beginning of this section.

The percentage is applied to the number of CIUs.

9. Number of Middle-Tier CIUs With Reduced Monitoring - The percentage of Middle-Tier 

CIUs that will become subject to reduced compliance reporting requirements is based on data 

carried forward from the assumptions in the recalculation of the entire pretreatment program, 

which was done as part of the Streamlining Rule ICR (EPA ICR No. 0002.12) and is explained 

at the beginning of this section. on compliance reporting requirements in eight POTW programs. 
Draft Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request A-3

These data showed that 71% of small CIUs were required to monitor more than twice per year. 

It was assumed that compliance reporting requirements continued for these 71%. Twenty-nine 

percent (1 – 71%) were assumed reduce monitoring frequency to once per year. The percentage 

is applied to the number derived in Item 8.

10. Number of State-Run POTW Pretreatment Programs in 40 CFR 403.10(e) States - This 

number was estimated by dividing the total number of SIUs regulated by States/EPA (and not by 

approved POTW Pretreatment Programs) by the average number of SIUs per approved 

pretreatment program.

11. Total Number of Approved Programs - This number is derived from Permit Compliance 

System (PCS) and Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) data, as obtained from an 

October 2010 query and updated/corrected through January 011 with input from EPA 

headquarters and regional staff responsible for overseeing the pretreatment program.

12. Number of 40 CFR 403.10(e) States - Five: Alabama, Connecticut, Mississippi, Nebraska, and 

Vermont.

13. Number of States with Approved Pretreatment Programs - 36, per EPA Headquarters.

15.-16 Number and Percentage of SIUs with POTWs as Control Authority – This number is 

derived from Permit Compliance System (PCS) and Integrated Compliance Information System 

(ICIS) data, as obtained from an October 2010 query and updated/corrected through January

2011 with input from EPA headquarters and regional staff responsible for overseeing the 

pretreatment program.

17.-18 Number and Percent of SIUs with State/EPA as Control Authority - This number is derived 

from Permit Compliance System (PCS) and Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) 

data, as obtained from an October 2010 query and updated/corrected through January 2011 with 

input from EPA headquarters and regional staff responsible for overseeing the pretreatment 

program. It includes SIUs in 40 CFR 403.10(e) States, as well as SIUs regulated by States/EPA 

in non-pretreatment cities.

19. Percentage of SIUs Resampling - This assumption is carried forward from the recalculation of 

the entire pretreatment program, which was done as part of the Streamlining Rule ICR (EPA ICR 

No. 0002.12) and is explained at the beginning of this section.

20. Hourly Rate for Federal Employees - The hourly employment cost of federal employees was 

determined using methodology established in previous ICRs. According to the U.S. Office of 

Personnel Management, January 2010 General Schedule (2007-GS), the average annual salary of 

a government employee at the GS-9, Step 10 level is $54,028. At 2,080 hours per year, the 

hourly wage would be $25.98. Assuming overhead costs of 50 percent, or $12.99 per hour, the 

fully loaded cost of employment for a federal employee would be $38.97.

21. Hourly Rate for State Employees - The average hourly rate for municipal employees as 

determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the 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, by selected characteristics (June
Draft Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request A-4

2010), adjusted to a March 2010 dollars using the Employment Cost Index (ECI). A 50 percent 

overhead rate was added to this rate to arrive at an hourly rate of $39.81.

22. Hourly Rate for POTW Employees - The average hourly rate for municipal employees, which 

account for all POTW costs, as determined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, is $29.44 (including overhead). Updated rates are derived from the U.S. Department of 

Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, in a table entitled May 2009 National Industry-Specific 

Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates and adjusted to March 2010 dollars using the 

ECI.

23. Hourly Rate for Private Sector Employees - EPA used the median industrial engineer wage of 

$36.11 per hour. After adjusting this rate for inflation, compensation, and overhead the rate is 

$55.22 per hour.

24. Number of New Source CIUs - Assumed a 2 percent annual increase in the number of 

operational CIUs. This assumption is based on US Census Bureau data and is carried forward 

from the recalculation of the entire pretreatment program, which was done as part of the 

Streamlining Rule ICR (EPA ICR No. 0002.12) and is explained at the beginning of this section.

25-26. Number and Percentage of POTWs with EPA as Approval Authority - These numbers are

derived from Permit Compliance System (PCS) data, as obtained from a October 2010 query, 

GPRA data from October 2010, and input from EPA headquarters and regional staff responsible 

for overseeing the pretreatment program. This is based on the number of POTWs in nonapproved states.

27-28. Number and Percentage of POTWs with State as Approval Authority - These numbers are 

derived from Permit Compliance System (PCS) data, as obtained from a October 2010 query, 

GPRA data from October 2010, and input from EPA headquarters and regional staff responsible 

for overseeing the pretreatment program. This is the based on the number of POTWs in approved 

states.

29. Number of POTWs projected to develop a Pretreatment Program during the life of this 

ICR – Based on projections from EPA regional offices.

30. Removal Credit Approval Requests – EPA estimates four respondents per year. Based on 

projections from EPA regional offices.
Table B-1. Summary of Total Annual Average Respondent Burden

Reporting and Analysis Burden:

States 36 57,256 1590.43

POTWs 1,548 630,361 407.21

IUs 22,827 757,692 33.19

Subtotal 24,411 1,445,309 59.21

Recordkeeping:

States 36 12,785 355.14

POTWs 1,548 154,800 100.00

IUs 22,827 45,654 2.00

Subtotal 24,411 213,239 8.74

TOTAL 24,411 1,658,548 67.94

Respondent

Number

of Respondents

Burden

(hours/year)

Average Burden

per Respondent

November 2011 Draft Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request B-1
(2) (3) (4)

Annual

Hours Responses

Per Number of Per Hours

Item Response Respondents Respondent Per Year

State Pretreatment 300.0 0.0 1.0 0.0

Program Approval

Request

Issuance of SIU Discharge Permits 20.0 36.0 12.0 8612.2

Inspection and Sampling of SIUs Not Including the Middle Tier

- Inspection 8.0 36.0 58.7 16916.6

- Sampling and Analysis 15.2 36.0 54.7 29981.2

Inspection and Sampling of Middle-Tier CIUs

- Inspection 8.0 36.0 1.1 329.7

- Sampling and Analysis 15.2 36.0 1.1 627.2

Evaluation of NSCIUs 2.0 36.0 2.2 159.7

Evaluation of SIUs for SCP 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Public Notification 3.0 5.0 3.7 55.0

of Significant Noncompliance

Evaluation of the Need 50.0 5.0 2.2 550.0

to Revise Local Limits*

Minimum Monitoring Requirements for

Indirect Discharging Mills in the Bleached

Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and

the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory 2.4 10.0 1.0 24.0

TOTAL ALL ITEMS 57,256

Note: Values in spreadsheet generally do not display decimals, however decimals are carried

through in all calculations.

* States that implement pretreatment programs for their POTWs must evaluate the need to

revise local limits once every five years. Therefore, the number of respondents is equal to the

number of States that implement pretreatment programs for their POTWs (5). The number of

evaluations/responses per year is equal to the average number of pretreatment programs in

each State divided by five to obtain a number of average annual responses.

Table B-2. Respondent Burden for States

(5)=

(2)*(3)*(4)

November 2011 Draft Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request B-2
(2) (3) (4)

Annual

Hours Responses

Per Number of Per Hours

Item Response Respondents Respondent Per Year

POTW Pretreatment Compliance 5.0 46.0 3.0 690.0

Schedule Progress Report*

POTW Pretreatment Program 250.0 21.3 1.0 5325.0

Approval Request*

Annual POTW Reports 40.0 1548.0 1.0 61920.0

POTW Program Modification 40.0 309.6 1.0 12384.0

Approval Request**

Issuance of SIU Discharge Permits 20.0 1548.0 2.6 80869.6

Mass Limits* 8.0 1548.0 0.02 192.0

Equivalent Concentration* 8.0 1548.0 0.004 45.3

Inspection and Sampling of SIUs Not Including Middle-Tier SIUs

- Inspection 8.0 1548.0 12.8 158848.0

- Sampling and Analysis, In-house 15.2 1548.0 6.0 140602.8

- Sampling and Analysis, Contract 15.2 1548.0 6.0 140602.8

Inspection and Sampling of Middle-Tier CIUs

- Inspection 8.0 1548.0 0.3 3096.0

- Sampling and Analysis, In-house 15.2 1548.0 0.1 2941.2

- Sampling and Analysis, Contract 15.2 1548.0 0.1 2941.2

Evaluation of NSCIUs 2.0 1548.0 0.5 1500

Evaluation of SIUs for SCPs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Public Notification of 3.0 516.0 1.0 1548.0

Significant Noncompliance

Evaluation of the Need to 50.0 309.6 1.0 15480.0

Revise Local Limits

Removal Credit 125.0 3.0 1.0 375.0

Approval Request*

Removal Credit Self- 40.0 25.0 1.0 1000.0

Monitoring Report

TOTAL ALL ITEMS 630,361

* These are one-time only reporting requirements. The total number of respondents anticipated over the next

three years has been spread out over the three-year time span for calculation of average annual burden.

Note: Values in spreadsheet generally do not display decimals, however decimals are carried through in all

calculations.

** This reporting requirement is based on an event which occurs sporadically. A single response is all that is

required for each occurrence.

Table B-3. Respondent Burden for POTWs

(5)=

(2)*(3)*(4)

November 2011 Draft Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request B-3
(1) (2) (3)

Annual

Hours Responses

Per Number of Per Hours

Item Response Respondents Respondent Per Year

Baseline Monitoring

Report/Reporting*

-New Sources 28.0 201.0 1.0 5628.0

Baseline Monitoring

Report/Analysis*

-New Sources 14.3 201.0 1.0 2866.2

IU Compliance

Schedule Report

-New Sources 4.0 50.3 1.0 201.0

CIU Compliance

Attainment Report/Reporting*

-New Sources 20.0 201.0 1.0 4020.0

CIU Compliance

Attainment Report/Analysis*

-New Sources 14.3 201.0 1.0 2866.2

IU Resampling Compliance Report

-Sampling 4.0 2132.7 1.0 8530.8

-Analysis 11.7 2132.7 1.0 24944.8

-Reporting 1.0 2132.7 1.0 2132.7

IU/SIU Self-Monitoring Report

Categorical SIUs, Not Including NSCIUs and Middle-Tier CIUs

-Sampling 4.0 7487.6 2.0 59900.6

-Analysis*** 11.6 7487.6 2.0 173236.9

-Reporting 1.0 8987.6 2.0 17975.1

Non-Categorical SIUs

-Sampling 4.0 12983.0 2.0 103864.0

-Analysis 9.5 12983.0 2.0 245508.1

-Reporting 1.0 12983.0 2.0 25966.0

Nonsignificant CIUs > 0 and <100 GPD

-Sampling 4.0 264 0.2 211.4

-Analysis 11.6 264 0.2 611.3

-Reporting/Annual Certicification 1.0 264 1.0 264.2

Middle Tier

-Sampling 4.0 856 1.0 3425.7

-Analysis 11.6 856 1.0 9907.4

-Reporting 1.0 856 1.0 856.4

Nonsignificant CIUs - Zero dischargers

-Reporting 1.0 566 1.0 565.5

PFPR P2 Plan

-Initial Plan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

-Modifications 20.0 150.0 1.0 3000.0

Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Indirect

Discharging Mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft

and Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite

Subcategory 826.0 10.0 1.0 8260.0

Pollution Prevention Compliance Alternative. Transportation Equipment Cleaning (TEC)

-Prepare and submit a statement of intent 1.0 20.0 1.0 19.0

-Prepare and submit a PMP 24.9 5.0 1.0 124.5

-Collect information and maintain records 186.8 84.0 1.0 15691.2

-Perform operator training 22.0 84.0 1.0 1848.0

BMPs for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

Subcategory 617.0 10.0 1.0 6170.0

CWT Multiple Wastestream Category

-Initial Certification Statement 60.0 0.0 1.0 0.0

Periodic Certifications

-Electroplating & Metal Finishing 1.0 5733.0 2.0 11466.0

-Electrical and Electronic Components 1.0 45.5 2.0 91.0

-Steam Electric Power Generating 1.0 87.8 1.0 87.8

-Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard 1.0 119.0 0.2 23.8

- Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard 0.5 6.0 12.0 36.0

-Centralized Waste Treatment 1.0 34.0 1.0 34.0

-Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 1.0 85.8 0.2 17.2

-Pesticide Chemicals 1.0 1500.0 2.0 3000.0

-Coil Coating 1.0 30.8 1.0 30.8

-Can Making 1.0 1.0 0.3 0.3

-Porcelain Enameling 1.0 73.0 1.0 73.0

-Aluminum Forming 1.0 54.0 1.0 54.0

IU Slug Load Notification 2.0 100.0 1.0 200.0

(Categorical)

IU Slug Load Notification 0.3 450.0 1.0 112.5

(Non-Categorical)

Notification of Changed Discharge 4.0 1000.0 1.0 4000.0

Bypass Notification 5.0 1427.0 1.0 7135.0

Follow-Up 2.0 1070.0 1.0 2140.0

Notification of Changed 1.0 50.0 1.0 50.0

Monitoring Location

Slug Control Plan 2.0 20.1 1.0 40.2

Categorical Determination 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Request

Alternative Limits Modification Requests/Combined

Wastestream Formula 2.0 20.1 1.0 40.2

Fundamentally Different Factors 160.0 0.0 1.0 0.0

Variance Request

Net/Gross Adjustment Request 50.0 2.0 1.0 100.0

Request for Mass Limits* 8.0 40.0 1.0 320.0

Request for Coverage Under GCM 0.5 91.3 1.0 45.7

TOTAL ALL ITEMS (IUs) 757,692

** These reporting requirements are based on events which occur sporadically. A single response is all that is required for

each occurrence.

(4)=

(1)*(2)*(3)

* These are one-time only reporting requirements. Total number of respondents anticipated over the next three years has

been spread out over the three-year time span for calculation of annual burden.

Table B-4. Respondent Burden for Industrial Users

Note: Values in spreadsheet generally do not display decimals, however decimals are carried through in all calculations.

Note: Values in spreadsheet generally do not display decimals, however decimals are carried through in all calculations.

* These are one-time only reporting requirements. Total number of respondents anticipated over the next three years has

been spread out over the three-year time span for calculation of annual burden.

** These reporting requirements are based on events which occur sporadically. A single response is all that is required for

each occurrence.

November 2011 Draft Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request B-4
(2) (3) (4)=(2)*(3)

Hours per Number of Hours

Item Recordkeeper Recordkeepers Per Year

IU Maintenance of Monitoring Records 2 22,827 45,654

POTW Maintenance of Monitoring

Records

100 1,548 154,800

Approval Authority Maintenance of Info. 50 36 1,800

Approval Authority Maintenance of

Monitoring Records *

2,197 5 10,985

TOTAL ALL ITEMS 213,239

Table B-5. Recordkeeping Burden for Industrial Users, POTWs, and States

Note: Values in spreadsheet generally do not display decimals, however decimals are carried

through in all calculations.

* Additional burden due to States that act as Control Authorities. Assumes 5 hours per SIU per

year.

November 2011 Draft Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request B-5
(1) (2) (3)=(1)*(2)

Type Title Number of Responses Responses

Respondents Per Respondent Per Year

Program Development State Pretreatment Program Approval Request 0.0 1.0 0.0

POTW Pretreatment Compliance Schedule 46.0 3.0 138.0

Progress Report

POTW Pretreatment Program Approval Request 21.3 1.0 21.3

Program Implementation Baseline Monitoring Report & Analysis

-New Sources 201.0 1.0 201.0

CIU Compliance Schedule Progress Report

-New Sources 50.3 1.0 50.3

CIU Compliance Attainment Reporting & Analysis

-New Sources 201.0 1.0 201.0

IU Resampling Compliance Report

-Sampling & Reporting 2,132.7 1.0 2,132.7

IU/SIU Self-Monitoring Compliance Report

Categorical SIUs

-Sampling, Analysis, and Reporting 8,987.6 2.0 17,975.1

Non-Categorical SIUs

-Sampling, Analysis, and Reporting 12,983.0 2.0 25,966.0

Nonsignificant CIUs

-Sampling, Analysis, and Reporting 264.2 1.0 264.2

Middle Tier 856.4 1.0 856.4

Nonsignificant CIUs - Zero dischargers

-Sampling, Analysis, and Reporting 565.5 1.0 565.5

PFPR P2 Plan

-Initial Plan 0.0 0.0 0.0

-Modifications 150.0 1.0 150.0

Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Indirect Discharging Mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory 10.0 1.0 10.0

Pollution Prevention Compliance Alternative. Transportation Equipment Cleaning (TEC)

-Prepare and submit a statement of intent 20.0 1.0 20.0

-Prepare and submit a PMP 5.0 1.0 5.0

-Collect information and maintain records 84.0 1.0 84.0

-Perform operator training 84.0 1.0 84.0

BMPs for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory 10.0 1.0 10.0

CWT Multiple Wastestream Category

-Initial Certification Statement 0.0 1.0 0.0

Periodic Certifications

-Electroplating & Metal Finishing 5,733.0 2.0 11,466.0

-Electrical and Electronic Components 45.5 2.0 91.0

-Steam Electric Power Generating 87.8 1.0 87.8

-Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard 119.0 0.2 23.8

- Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard 6.0 12.0 72.0

-Centralized Waste Treatment 34.0 1.0 34.0

-Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 85.8 0.2 17.2

-Pesticide Chemicals 1,500.0 2.0 3,000.0

-Coil Coating 30.8 1.0 30.8

-Can Making 1.0 0.3 0.3

-Porcelain Enameling 73.0 1.0 73.0

-Aluminum Forming 54.0 1.0 54.0

Annual POTW Reports 1,548.0 1.0 1,548.0

POTW Program Modifications 309.6 1.0 309.6

IU Slug Load Notification (Categorical) 100.0 1.0 100.0

IU Slug Load Notification (Non-Categorical) 450.0 1.0 450.0

Notification of Changed Discharge 1,000.0 1.0 1,000.0

Program Implementation Bypass Notification 1,427.0 1.0 1,427.0

(Continued)

Follow-up 1,070.0 1.0 1,070.0

Notification of Changed Monitoring Location 50.0 1.0 50.0

Issuance of Discharge Permits for SIUs

States 36.0 12.0 430.6

POTWs 1,548.0 2.6 4,043.5

Mass Limits 1,548.0 0.0 24.0

Equivalent Concentration 1,548.0 0.0 5.7

State Inspection and Sampling the Effluent

of IUs and SIUs

Inspection and Sampling of SIUs 36.0 58.7 2,114.6

Inspection and Sampling of Middle-Tier CIUs 36.0 1.1 41.2

Inspection of NSCIUs 36.0 2.2 79.9

Evaluation of SIUs for SCP 0.0 0.0 0.0

POTW Inspection and Sampling the Effluent

of IUs and SIUs

Inspection and Sampling of SIUs 1,548.0 12.8 19,856.0

Inspection and Sampling of Middle-Tier CIUs 1,548.0 0.3 387.0

Inspection of NSCIUs 1,548.0 0.5 749.9

Evaluation of SIUs for SCP 0.0 0.0 0.0

Public Notification of Significant Noncompliance

States 5.0 3.7 18.3

POTWs 516.0 1.0 516.0

Slug Control Plan 20.1 1.0 20.1

Evaluation of the Need to Revise

Local Limits

States 5.0 2.2 11.0

POTWs 309.6 1.0 309.6

Request for Mass Limits 40.0 1.0 40.0

Request for General Permit 91.3 1.0 91.3

Categorical Determination Request 0.0 0.0 0.0

Program/Categorical

Minimum Monitoring Requirements for in the

Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory

and the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory 10.0 1.0 10.0

Determination

Alternative Limits Modification Requests/Combined Wastestream Formula 20.1 1.0 20.1

Fundamentally Different Factors 0.0 1.0 0.0

Variance Request

Net/Gross Request 2.0 1.0 2.0

Removal Credit Approval Request 3.0 1.0 3.0

Removal Credit Self-Monitoring Report 25.0 1.0 25.0

Total: 98,437.7

Number of Respondents Per Year (From Table 1): 24,411.0

TOTAL ANNUAL AVERAGE RESPONSES PER RESPONDENT: 4.03

Table B-6. Average Annual Responses per Respondent

November 2011 Draft Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request B-6
Respondent

Burden hours

per year Labor rate Cost

State 70,041 $39.81 $2,788,316

POTWs 785,161 $29.44 $23,112,727

IUs 803,346 $55.22 $44,360,068

TOTAL 1,658,548 $70,261,111

Table B-7. Average Annual Respondent Costs

November 2011 Draft Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request B-7
Table B-8. Labor Hours for State Governments as Users of the Data

(2) (3) (4) (5)

Hours Number of Hours Per

per Number of Responses Year

Item Response Respondents Per Year (2)*(3)*(4)

State Pretreatment Program N/A N/A N/A N/A

Approval Request*

POTW Pretreatment Compliance 2 34 1 ** 68

Schedule Progress Report***

POTW Pretreatment Program 40 16 1 ** 629

Approval Request***

POTW Pretreatment Program 20 229 1 4,573

Modification Approval Request***

Baseline Monitoring

Report

-New Sources 24 19 1 ** 464

IU Compliance

Schedule Progress Report

-New Sources 1 5 1 ** 5

CIU Compliance

Attainment Report

-New Sources 2 19 1 ** 39

IU Resampling Compliance Report 4 205 1 ** 821

IU/SIU Self-Monitoring Compliance Report

Categorical SIUs 2 1,027 2 4,109

Non-Categorical SIUs 1 1,250 2 2,499

PFPR P2 Plan

-Initial Plan 10 0 1 * 0

-Modifications 3 14.4 1 43

Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Indirect

Discharging Mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and

Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite

Subcategory 7 1.0 1 7

Pollution Prevention Compliance Alternative.

Transportation Equipment Cleaning (TEC) 2 8.1 1 18

BMPs for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda

Subcategory 10 1.0 1 10

Periodic Certifications

-Electroplating & Metal Finishing 1.0 551.8 2.0 1,104

-Electrical and Electronic Components 1.0 4.4 2.0 9

-Steam Electric Power Generating 1.0 8.4 1.0 8

-Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard 1.0 11.5 0.2 2

- Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory

of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard 1.0 0.6 0.2 0

-Centralized Waste Treatment 1.0 3.3 1.0 3

-Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 1.0 8.3 0.2 2

-Pesticide Chemicals 1.0 144.4 2.0 289

-Coil Coating 1.0 3.0 1.0 3

-Can Making 1.0 0.1 0.3 0

-Porcelain Enameling 1.0 7.0 1.0 7

-Aluminum Forming 1.0 5.2 1.0 5

IU Slug Load Notification 0.25 10 1 # 2

(Categorical)

IU Slug Load Notification 0.25 43 1 # 11

(Non-Categorical)

Notification of Changed 2 96 1 # 192

Discharge

Annual POTW Reports*** 20 1,143 1 22,863

Inspection and Sampling 0.5 1,143 15 8,428

of IU and SIU Effluent

Pretreatment Compliance Inspection (PCI) 24 915 1 21,948

Slug Control Plan 1 2 1 2

Evaluation of the Need to 1 229 ## 1 229

Revise Local Limits***

Categorical Determination N/A N/A N/A N/A

Request*

Alternative Limits Modification Requests/Combined

Wastestream Formula 2 2 1 4

Fundamentally Different Factors N/A N/A N/A N/A

Variance Request*

Net/Gross Adjustment Request 10.0 2.0 1.0 ** 20

Request for GCM 0.5 8.8 1 4

Removal Credit 80.0 2.2 1.0 ** 177

Approval Request***

Removal Credit 1 18 1 18

Self-Monitoring Report***

TOTAL ALL ITEMS 68,616

# These reporting requirements are based on events that occur sporadically, if at all. A single response is all that is

required for each occurrence.

## Control Authorities evaluate the need to revise local limits once every five years. Therefore, the number of respondents

divided by 5 to obtain the average annual burden.

Note: Values in spreadsheet generally do not display decimals, however decimals are carried through in all calculations.

** These are one-time only reporting requirements. The total number of respondents anticipated over the next three

years has been spread out over the three-year time span for calculation of average annual burden.

* All burden for this activity will fall on the Federal Government.

*** For these activities, burden is apportioned to the States only where the State is the Approval Authority.

November 2011 Draft Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request B-8
Table B-9. Labor Hours for POTWs as Users of the Data

(2) (3) (4) (5)

Hours Number of Hours Per

per Number of Responses Year

Item Response Respondents Per Year (2)*(3)*(4)

Baseline Monitoring

Report

-New Sources 24 182 1 4,360

IU Compliance

Schedule Progress Report

-New Sources 1.0 181.7 1.0 181.7

CIU Compliance

Attainment Report

-New Sources 2 182 1 363

IU Resampling Compliance Report 4 1,927 1 * 7,710

IU/SIU Self-Monitoring Compliance Report

Categorical SIUs 2 6,767 2 27,068

Non-Categorical SIUs 1 11,733 2 23,467

PFPR P2 Plan

-Initial Plan 10 0 1 * 0

-Modifications 3 136 1 407

Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Indirect Discharging Mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite Subcate7.2 9 1 65

Pollution Prevention Compliance Alternative. Transportation Equipment Cleaning (TEC) 2.2 76 1 167

BMPs for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory 10 9 1 90

Periodic Certifications

-Electroplating & Metal Finishing 1.0 5181.2 2.0 10,362

-Electrical and Electronic Components 1.0 41.1 2.0 82

-Steam Electric Power Generating 1.0 79.3 1.0 79

-Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard 1.0 107.5 0.2 22

- Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard 1.0 5.4 0.2 1

-Centralized Waste Treatment 1.0 30.7 1.0 31

-Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 1.0 77.5 0.2 16

-Pesticide Chemicals 1.0 1355.6 2.0 2,711

-Coil Coating 1.0 27.8 1.0 28

-Can Making 1.0 0.9 0.3 0

-Porcelain Enameling 1.0 66.0 1.0 66

-Aluminum Forming 1.0 48.8 1.0 49

IU Slug Load Notification 0.25 90 1 ** 23

(Categorical)

IU Slug Load Notification 0.25 407 1 ** 102

(Non-Categorical)

Notification of Changed 2 904 1 ** 1,808

Discharge

Slug Control Plan 1 18 1 18

Alternative Limits Modification Requests/Combined Wastestream Formula 2 18 1 36

Request for GCM 0.5 82.5 1 41

TOTAL ALL ITEMS 79,353

*These are one-time only reporting requirements. The total number of respondents anticipated over the next three

years has been spread out over the three-year time span for calculation of average annual burden.

Note: Values in spreadsheet generally do not display decimals, however decimals are carried through in all

calculations.

** These reporting requirements are based on events which occur sporadically, if at all. A single response is all that

is required for each occurrence.

November 2011 Draft Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request B-9
Table B-10. Labor Hours for Federal Government As Users of the Data

(2) (3) (4) (5)

Hours Number of Hours Per

per Number of Responses Year

Item Response Respondents Per Year (2)*(3)*(4)

State Pretreatment Program 325 0.00 1 * 0

Approval Request

POTW Pretreatment Compliance 2 12 1 * 24

Schedule Progress Report**

POTW Pretreatment Program 40 6 1 * 223

Approval Request**

POTW Pretreatment Program 20 81 1 1,619

Modification Approval Request**

Annual POTW Reports** 20 405 1 8,098

Pretreatment Compliance Inspection (PCI) 24 324 1 7,773

Initial Review Pretreatment Compliance

Inspection (PCI)

0.5 823 1 412

Intensive Review Pretreatment

Compliance Inspection (PCI)

5 91 1 457

Inspection and Sampling 0.5 405 14.7 2985.1

of IU and SIU Effluent**

Evaluation of the Need to 1 81 1 81

Revise Local Limits**

Categorical Determination 20 0 1 * 0

Request

Fundamentally Different Factors 400 0 1 * 0

Variance Request

Removal Credit 80 1 1 * 63

Approval Request**

Removal Credit 1 7 1 7

Self-Monitoring Report**

TOTAL ALL ITEMS 21,741

Note: Values in spreadsheet generally do not display decimals, however decimals are carried

through in all calculations.

* These are one-time only reporting requirements. The total number of respondents anticipated

over the next three years has been spread out over the three-year time span for calculation of

average annual burden.

** For these activities, burden is apportioned to the Federal Government only where the Federal

Government is the Approval Authority.

November 2011 Draft Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request B-10
Table B-11. Total Average Annual Respondent Burden and Costs

Annual Burden Hours Annual Costs

Respondent reporting burden 1,445,309 $62,674,329

Respondent recordkeeping burden 213,239 $7,586,782

147,969 $5,067,512

Total 1,806,517 $75,328,623

Note: Federal Government incurs a burden of 21,741 hours as user of the data (see Table 10)

State and Municipal Government burden

(Users of the Data)

November 2011 Draft Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request B-11