## Information Collection Request: **National Pretreatment Program OMB Control No**  **. 2040**  **- 0009, EP**  **A ICR No**  **. 0002.1**  **5**

November 2011

Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Wastewater Management 1200 Pennsylvania Av enue, NW Washington, DC 20460

EPA Contract Number EP - C - 11 - 0 09 EPA Work Assignment Number 0 - 22THI S PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

.Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request i



### Contents 1. Id entification of the Information Collecti on ................................ ................................ ........... 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 Uti lity

/Users of the Data ................................ ................................ .................. 6 3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria ................................ ............. 11 3(a). Nonduplication ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 11 3(b). Public Notice Required Prior to I CR 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/NAI CS Codes ................................ ................................ .......................... 17 4(b). In formation Requested ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 19 4(b)(i). Data Items ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 19 4(b)(ii). Respondent Activities ................................ ................................ ....................... 26 5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED

— AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTI ON METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ................................ .................. 48 5(a). Agency

Activities ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 48 5(b). Collection Methodology and Management ................................ ................................ ... 48 5(c). Small Entity

Flexibi lity ................................ ................................ ................................ . 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 ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 66Pretreatment 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 c osts ................................ ................................ . 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 

### Ap **pendices** Appendix A

– Assumptions for Developing Burden and Cost Estimates Appendix B

– D etailed burden cal culationsPretreatment Program Information Collection Request iii



### Ab **breviations and A crony**  **ms** AA approval authority ANPR Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics BMP b est management p ractice BMR b aseline monitoring report CA c ontrol authority CBI c onfidential business i nformation CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIU c ategorical i ndustrial u ser CWA Clean Water Act CWT Centralized Waste Treatment DSS Domestic Sewage Study EPA Environmental Protection Agency FDF Fundamentally Different Factors FR Federal Register gpd g al lons p er day ICR Information Collection Request IU i ndustrial u ser IWS Industrial Waste Survey kg kilogram MAIL Maximum Allowable Industrial Loading mgd million g allons per day MP&M Metal Products and Machinery NAICS North American Industry Classif ication System NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council NSCIU n onsignificant c ategorical industrial u ser O&M operation and maintenance OA o versight authority OMB Office of Management and Budget OST Office of Science and Technology OW Office of Water OWM Office of Wastewater Management P2 p ollution prevention PCS Permit Compliance System PFPR Pesticide Formulating, Packaging, and Repackaging PIRT Pretreatment Implementation Review Task Force P OTW publicly o wned treatment w orks QNCR Quarterly Noncompliance Report RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act SBA Small Business Administration SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act SI C Standard Industrial Classification SIU s ignificant i ndustrial u ser SNC s ignificant n oncompliance TEC Transportation Equipment Cleaning TRI Toxics Release Inventory TTO t otal t oxic organicsPretreatment Program Information Collection Request 1



## 1. **Identification of the Information Collection 1(a)**  **. Title and Number of the Information Collectio**  **n** Title: National Pretreatment Program OMB Control No: 2040 - 0009 EPA I CR No: 0002.1 5 

### 1(b) **. Short Characterization**  This Information Collection Request (ICR) calculates the burden and costs associated with managing and implementing the National Pretreatm ent 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 b y the U.S. Environmental P rotection A gency ’s (EPA) Streamlining R ule. 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 am ong 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 sludg e . The regulations have been revised numerous times since they were first published in 1978 ; currentl y , they consist of 20 sections and several appendices . The most recent revision , the S treamlining R ule ( Federal Register [FR] vol. 70, page 60134) , was pub lished on October 14, 2005, and became effective November 14, 2005 . Unlike other environmental programs that rel y on federal or state governments to implement and enforce specific requirements, the National P retreatment P rogram places most of the responsibility

on local municipalitie s . 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 natio nal 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 exchan ged between industrial users (IUs) and these s tate control authorities . Each c ontrol authority , in turn, must have its program approved b y the entity responsible for overseeing implementation and enforcement of the National Pretreatment Program . An a pproval authori t y 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 st ates that opt to implement statewide pretreatment programs rather than requiring their POTWs to implement programs . Data are routinel y exchanged between approval authorities and control authorities to ensure that the National Pretreatment Program is being properly implemented. This I CR estimates the program burden and costs for December 20 1 1 , through November 20 1 4 . The total annual respondent burden associated with this I CR is estimated to be 1. 81 million hours per year . The total annual respondent costs associated with this I CR 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 s tates, 864,513 hours and $ 2 5 . 5 million for POTWs, and 803,346 hours and $ 4 6.7 mi llion for IU s . The a gency burden for the f

ederal government totals 21,741 hours annuall y or approximately $0. 85 million . The total number of respondents for this ICR is 2 4,411 , of which 36 are s tates, 1, 5 48 are POTWs (approved programs) , and 2 2 , 827 are S IU s . The total annual number of responses for these respondents is 9 8 , 438 . 

## 2 **. NEED FOR**  **AN D USE OF THE COLLECTION**  **2(a) .**  **Need/Authority f**  **or t**  **he Collection** Section 402(b) of CWA requires EPA to develop n ational pretreatment standards to control industrial discharges into sewage s ys tems . 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 s ys tems.

 Pass through of toxic pollutants into receiving waters . Industrial pollutants that pass through treatment s ys tems into receiving waters can cause fish kills, destroy aqu atic 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 m ight interfere with plant operations.

 Contamination of sewage sludge . Toxic compounds remaining in sewage sludge might render it unsuit able for certain disposal methods, such as land application, placement on a surface disposal site, or incineration.

 Corrosion of pipes and equipment . Industrial discharges with extremel y high or low pH values can cause corrosion in the sewage collection s ys tem or the treatment plant, resulting in the need for premature repair or replacement of pipes and equipment.

 Explosion of highly volatile wastes . In dustrial wastes can explode under particular conditions within the sewage collection sy stem or treatment operations as a result of inadvertent mixing of highl y 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 highl y ac idic 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 s ys tems, as well as those serv ing specific industries . National standards appl y regardless of whether the source is subject to other f ederal, s tate, or local p retreatment s tandards . 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 m ight interfere with or pass through the treatment works, thereb y disrupting treatment capability . The specific prohibitions forbid the discharge o f pollutants that

 C reate a fire or explosion hazard  Are highl y corrosive  Obstruct the treatment processes o r s ys tem flows  C aus e interference or p ass through  Increase the temperature of wastewater entering the plant to above 104 degrees Fahrenhe it.  C ause wo rker health or safety problems  Are trucked or hauled to the POTW (except as allowed b y the POTW). In addition to the n ational pretreatment standards , EPA has developed specific standards for certain industrial categories ; the y are called categorical pre treatment 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 c ategorical standards may also specify other steps that categoric al industrial users (C IU s ) 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 . Facilitie s subject to categorical standards must also comply with national pretreatment standards . Certain categorical standards allow C IU s to submit periodic certifications or develop pollution prevention plans to reduce or take the place of analy tical sampling re quirements . Finally , EPA requires the co ntrol a uthority (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 C FR 403.5( a) and (b ) . They are federally enforceable pretreatment standards, as defined in s ection 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 f

ederal standard . The monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for these three typ es 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 a uthorities , implements these standards through the National Pretreatment Program . These entities need information to

 Authorize s tate and local programs  M onitor and enforce compliance with the national standardsPretreatment Program Information Collection Request 4

 D etermine the applicability of categori cal standards  D evelop and enforce local limits Overall, EPA reduced the amount of information to be collected in these areas in its S treamlining R ule (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 want s 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 s ections 301, 307(b), 308, 402(a), and 402(b) of the CWA . These sections provide for s tate administration of the NPDES p rogram, which controls point source discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States . According to the CWA , s tates must also develop program s to ensure POTW compliance with the requirements of the national p retreatment regulations . Under the same authority , certain POTWs must identify all IUs that discharge pollutants subject to categorical standards under s ection 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 A uthority (OA) . EPA regional o ffices oversee s tate pretre atment programs . They may also assume the responsibilities of the a pproval a uthority (AA) or c ontrol a uthority (CA) if s tates or POTWs do not have authorized pretreatment programs.

 Approval Authority (AA) . A s tate with an approved NPDES program must obtain a pproval a uthority for its pretreatment program . The AA approves POTW pretreatment program s, oversees POTW program implementation, and assumes the responsibility of the CA for POTWs that do no t 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 b y the AA becomes the CA . If the POTW does not obtain such approval , the s tate or the EPA r egion assumes the responsibility of the CA. Exhibit 1 shows the pos sible combinations of authority , while Exhibit 2 outlines the responsibilities of each authority .Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 5

**Exhibit 1 .**  **Au thority**  **u nder the**  **p retreatment**  **p rogram**  **POTW with Ap**  **proved Pretreatment**  **Program State with A**  **pproved**

**Pretreatment Program**  **Control**

**Au thority**  **Ap proval** 

**Au thority**  **Oversight**

**Au thority**  Yes Yes POTW State EPA Yes No POTW EPA EPA No Yes State Stat e EPA No No EPA EPA EPA **Exhibit 2. Responsibilities of**  **e ach**  **a uthority**  **Oversight A uthority**  (EPA)  Evaluates p retreatment p rogram s on a national basis and oversees s tate pretreatment programs to ensure that they meet federal requirements.  Approves s tate pr etreatment program requests.  Acts as AA or CA in cases where s tates or POTW s do not have pretreatment programs. **Ap proval A**  **uthority** (Approved States or EPA Regions)  Reviews POTW pretreatment programs to determine adequacy.  Assists POTW s in ensuring complia nce with pretreatment requirements.  Audits/inspects approved POTW s to assess compliance (may also inspect IUs ).  Ta kes appropriate action against POTW s that fail to implement or enforce pretreatment standards at IU s not in compliance (where POTW does not ta ke action).  Acts as CA in cases where the POTW does not have a pretreatment program. **Control A uthority**  (Approved POTW s, Approved States, or EPA Regions)  Has primary

responsibility for implementing the pretreatment program.  Ensures that IU s comply with dis charge limitations, reporting requirements, and certification requirements.  Inspects or reviews self- mo nitoring reports from IU s.  Enforces against noncomplying IU s . 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: Prohib ited Discharges 403.6 National Pretreatment Standards: Categorical Standards 403.7 Removal Credits 403.8 Pretreatment Program Requirements: Development and Implementation by POTWPretreatment Program Information Collection Request 6

403.9 POTW Pretreatment Programs and/or Authorization to Revise Pretreatm ent

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 Cre dits 403.12 Reporting Requirements for POTWs and Indu strial 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 By

pass 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 XL 2 Certain C IUs are required at 40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N , to submit periodic certification s 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 In cluding 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 Cat egory 469 Electrical and Electronic Components 

### 2(b) **. Practical Utility/Users o**  **f t he Data**  In general, EPA, states, and POTWs use the information collected under the National Pretreatment Program for program development and implementation purposes . Exhibit s 3A

–3C summarize the information collected b y type and indicate how and b y whom the information is used . Users of the information include o versight authorities, a pproval a uthorities, c ontrol a uthorities, 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 C ontrol Number 2010 - 0026, EPA ICR Number 1755.05.Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 7

**Exhibit 3A .**  **Uses of d**  **a ta**  **c ollected for**  **p rogram**  **d evelopment**  **Ty pe of Data Collected**  **From To**  **Au thority/**  **Citation (40 CFR)**  **Uses of the Data** State p retreatment p rogram a pproval request State OA 403.10 To evaluate the adequacy of the state’s pretreatment program in terms of legal au thority, procedural requirements, and appropriate staff and funding POTW p retreatment c om pliance s chedule p rogress 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 ass istance or take enforcement action, if necessary POTW p retreatment p rogram a pproval 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, com pliance monitori ng, administrative procedures, and appropriate staff and funding Maintain p retreatment p rogram i nformation* AA, OA, POTW Stored

on - site 403.11(f),

403.14 To provide public access to information

characterizing the pretreatment program (e.g., information ab out POTW program approval submissions) *This is a recordkeeping requirement, not a reporting requirement . Though no submission is required, AAs, OAs, and POTW s 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 b y 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 ty pes 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 o f pollutants, and to evaluate the effects of an anticipated b yp ass. 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 informatio n 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) b y IUs or control authorities are published in local newspapers. **Exhibit 3B. Uses of**  **d ata**  **c ollected for**  **p rogram**  **i mplementation**  **Ty pe of Data Collected**  **From To**  **Au thority/**  **Citation (40 CFR)**  **Uses of the Data** Baselin e m onitoring 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 type s and extent of industrial contributions to PO TW s IU c om pliance s chedule p rogress report IU CA 403.12(c) To determine compliance with scheduled deadlines for installation of pretreatment technology and categorical standard s IU c om pliance a ttainment report IU CA 403.12(d) To determine compliance with final applicable pretreatment standards and whether IU needs a dditional operation and maintenance ( O&M ) or pretreatment to attain standards IU resampling c om pliance report IU CA 403.12(g) To dem onstrate return to compliance. IU request for c overage under g eneral c ontrol m echanism IU CA 403.8(f)(1 ) (A)(2) To determine whether an IU qualifies for

a general permit IU s elf- m onitoring c om pliance report IU CA 403.12(e), 403.12(h) To ensure continued IU compliance with

the pretreatment standards and to determine whether enforcement action s are necessary Pollution p revention p lan (Voluntary) IU CA 455.41 To ensure that IUs covered by the P esticides F o rmulating, P ackaging, and R epackaging effluent guidelines have prepared a pollution prevention plan as an alternative to zero dischargePretreatment Program Information Collection Request 9

**Exhibit 3B. Uses of data collected for program implementation (continued)**  **Ty pe of Data Collected**  **From To**  **Au thority/**  **Ci tation (40**  **CFR) Uses of the Data**  Periodic c ertifications IU CA Varies** To ensure IUs practicing reduced mo nitoring comply with certification requirements and meet criteria for reduced monitoring POTW m onitoring records and d ocument ation of b est m anagem ent p ractices (BMPs) * POTW Stored on site 403.12(o),

403.14 (c) To allow AA to verify POTW com pliance

with n ational Pretreatment S tandards and R equirements IU m onitoring records and d ocumentation of BMPs * IU Store d 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 implem entation status ; a lso, to ensure compliance with National Pretreatment Standards and Requirements Pretreatment Compliance Inspection (PCI) AA OA Compliance Monitoring Strategy The PCI evaluates the POTW ’s

im plem entation of its authorized pretreatment prog ram. It includes a review of the POTW ’s records on mo nitoring, inspections, and enforcement activities for its industrial users. The PCI may be supplemented with industrial user inspections. POTW p rogram m odifications CA AA 403.18 To mo dify pretreatment pro grams on the basis of local conditions and to provide AAs with opportunities to accept or deny such requests IU s lug l oad n otification IU CA 403.12(f) To enable the POTW to plan and carry out protective action s 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 conc entration limits based on a production - based standard Notification of c hanged d ischarge IU CA 403.12(j) To ensure that the CA has the necessary information to adequately notify the NPDES permitting authority of substantial changes i n discharge Upset n otification 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 defen s e of the upset for an actionPretreatment Program Information Collection Request 10

**Ty pe of Data Collected**  **From To**  **Au thority/**  **Ci tation (40**  **CFR) Uses of the Data** 

brought for non - compliance By pass 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)**  **Ty pe of Data Col**  **lected From**  **To Au**  **thority/ Citation (40**  **CFR) Uses of the Data**  Notification of c hanged m onitoring l ocation 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 com pliance monitoring and enforcement responsibilities Determination of n on s ignificant c ategorical i ndustrial u sers (NSCIUs) and mi ddle 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 wheth er IU is a n

NSCIU or m iddle t ier CIU and thus subj ect to less stringent reporting, inspection, and sampling requirements Issuance of d ischarge p ermits or o the r c ontrol m echanism s for SIUs CA IU 403.8(f) To give SIUs notice of all pr etreatment requirements and to improve enforcement Inspection and s am pling of IU e ffluent (includ ing s lug control plans ) CA AA 403.8(f) (2)(v) To monitor industrial discharges to POTW treatm ent facilities Public n otification of s igni ficant n oncompliance CA Public 403.8(f) (2)(viii) To inform the public of instances of significant noncompliance Prevention and c ontrol p lan for s pills and b atch d ischarges IU CA CA

AA 403.8(f) (2)(vi) For CAs t o notify SIUs of the need for planning to minimize the risk of slug, spill, and batch discharges . Documentation of the POTW ’s activities mu st 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 plan s . Evaluation of the n eed to revise l ocal l im its CA AA 403.5 (c) To evaluate whether CAs have developed appropriate local limits to control toxic and hazardous pollutants POTW e nforcement resp onse p lan 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 c ollected for**  **p rogram/**  **c ategorical**  **d eterminations**  **Ty pe of Data Collected**  **From To**  **Au thority /**  **Citation (40 CFR)**  **Uses of the Data** Categorical d etermination request IU, CA AA/OA 403.6(a) To enable the AA/OA to d etermine the applicability of a categorical standard or s ubcategory to an IU Alternative l im its m odification 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 d ifferent factors v ariance r equest IU, CA OA 403.13 To provide p lant - specific data necessary for a CA to determine whether an IU's production processes or technologies are fundamentally different from the represe ntative 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/g ross a djustment 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 ) Remo val c redit a pproval request POTW AA 403.7 To enable AA to authorize a POTW to calculate a revised categorical standard reflecting pollutant removal s already resulting from specific POTW design capabilities Removal c redit s elfmo nitor ing report POTW AA 403.7 To enable AA to mo nitor ongoing POTW pollutant removal s, which form the basis for revised categorical standards for the POTW 's users 

## 3. **Nonduplication, Consult ations, and Other Collection**  **Criteria 3(a)**  **. Nondu** 

**plication** 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 els ewhere:

 Permit Compliance System  Management Information and Data S ys tems Division Inventory of Automated Sy stems  Environmental Information ClearinghousePretreatment Program Information Collection Request 12

 Inventory

of ICR s 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 No**  **t**

**ice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB** In compliance with the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), any agency developing a non rule - 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 I CR was published in the Federal Register on August, 25 , 201 1 ( 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 I CR. 

### 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 propos ed 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. L ater 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 G eneral P retreatment 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 . Inthe meantime, two stakeholder groups had recommended that EP A 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- to day problems faced by

POTWs, s tates , and industries in implementing the National Pretreatment Program . PIRT was composed of 17 representatives of POTWs, s tates, industry , environmental groups, and EP A region al offices . The group produced a set of recommendations , summarized inPretreatment Program Information Collection Request 13

a final report to the Administrator . 3 EPA revised the g eneral p retreatment 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 hazardou s 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, especiall y f ederal 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 POT Ws . 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, 19 88 (53 FR 47632) , and it published a final rule on July

24, 1990 (55 FR 30082) . On November 25, 1992, pursuant to s ection 405 of the CWA, EPA promulgated a regulation (40 CFR Part 503) to protect public health and the environment from the reasonably antic ipated 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 slu dge:

 Land application either to condition the soil or to fertilize crops grown in the soil  Final disposal on the land  In cineration Also on November 25, 1992, EPA amended the Part 403 g eneral p retreatment regulations to add a new Appendix G , which include d 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 Fo r 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 remand ed 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 Pro tection 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 . Accordingl y, 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 “ s treamlining” the p retreatment 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 re duce 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 (6 2 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 s tate and POTW CAs without affecting environmental protection . By finalizing the rule, EPA was to achieve better environmental results at a lower cost by allowing C As 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 developm ent 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 XL C 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, 19 99 (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 p articipating industrial u sers, to facilitate implementation of the project. This site - specific rule provi des 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 Proj ect 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 submis sion 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 c omments on the proposed rule. On October 14, 2005 , EPA published (70 FR 60199) an A NPR 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 IC R (OMB Control No. 2040 - 0009, EPA I CR No. 0002.13) was published in the Federal Register on June 27, 200 7 (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), IU s must notify the POTW immediately

of any slug loading . Generally , IUs make such r eports b y telephone . This is an emergency

provision that aim s 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)  IUCompliance Schedule Report  POTW and IU Maintenance of Monitoring Records  Pretreatment Categorical Determination Request  P retreatment 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 word s “c onfidential business informatio n” 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**  **AN D THE INFORM**  **AT ION**  **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 s tates submi tting requests for program approval . The Standard Industrial Classification (SI C) code for sewerag e s ys tems (POTWs) is 4952; the corresponding North American Industry Classification (NAI CS) code for such sy stems is 22132 (Sewage Treatment Facilities) . The SI C code for s tate agencies implementing the National Pretreatment Program is 9511 (Air and Water Resource s 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 SI C/NAICS codes for various industrial categories whose members are potentiall y subject to the nati onal pretreatment regulations . Please note that auxiliary s ys tems (those that provide services to the primary establishm ent, such as electrical power to a factory) cannot be categorized in a single SIC or NAICS code . For auxiliary s ys tems, the SI C or NAI CS code is that of the primary establishment or industry . **Exhibit 4 .**  **Af**

**fected i**  **ndustries and i**  **ndustrial c**  **lassifications A**  **ffected Industry SIC Code(s)** * **NA ICS Code(s)** ** Adhesive/ S ealant 2891 32552 Alum inum Forming 3353, 3354, 3355, 3357, 3363 331315, 331316, 331319, 331521 Asbestos Manufacturing 2621, 3292 33634, 327999 Battery Manufacturing 3691, 3692 335911, 335912 Buil der's Paper and Board Mills 267 322222, 322299 Carbon Black Manufacturing 2895 325182 Cement Manufacturing 3241 327310 Centralized Wa ste Treatment 4953 562211, 562219 Coal Mining 1221, 1222, 1231, 1241 212111, 212112, 212113, 213113 Coil Coating 341 1, 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, 33441 9 Electroplating 3471, 3672 332813, 334412 Explosives Manufacturing 2892 325920Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 18

**Exhibit 4. Af** 

**fected industries and industrial classifications (continued) Af**  **fected Industry SIC Code(s)** * **NA ICS Code(s)** ** Feedlots 0211 112112 Ferroalloy Manufacturing 331 3 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 Wo od Chemicals 2861 325191 Ink Formulating 2893 325910 Inorganic Chemicals 2812, 2813, 2816, 2819 32 5120, 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 gro ups: 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 Sy nthetic 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 Ref ining 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, 326160Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 19

**Exhibit 4. Af** 

**fected industries and industrial classifications (continued) Af**  **fected Industry SIC Code(s)** * **NA ICS Code(s)** ** Porcelain Enameling 3431, 3469, 3479, 3631, 3632, 3633, 36 39 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 & Preservi ng 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 Ti mb er Products and Processing 2421, 2435, 2436, 2491, 2493, 2499 32111 4, 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 m ight not include all applicable NAICS code s 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

- D ischarge an average of 25,000 gallons per day (gpd) or more of process wastewater (excluding sanitary , noncontact cooling, and boi ler blowdown wastewater);

- C ontribute 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

- H ave a reasonable potential to adversel y 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** In formation 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 the se areas . Please note that m ost of the information requirements, particularl y those associated with program developmentPretreatment Program Information Collection Request 20

and program/categorical determination s , are one - time requirements that most states, POTWs, and IUs have already met . **Exhibit 5 .**  **Reporting and r** **ecordkeeping r** **equirements for the p**  **retreatment p**  **rogram Program A**  **rea Requirement**  **Regulatory Citation**  **(40 CFR) From**  **To Freq**  **uency/ Retention**  Program development POTW pretreatment

program approval request 403.8(b), 403.9 POTW AA One time POTW pretreatment com pliance 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

ye ars Program im plem entation 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 me chanism 403.8(f) (1)(ii)(A) (2) IU C A One time IU self- mo nitoring com pliance 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 Wa ste Treatment initial certification statement 437.41 IU CA One ti me Periodic certifications varies** IU CA Varies from once every 6 m onths to once every 5 ye ars Maintain POTW monitoring records and documentation of BMPs 403.12(o), 403.14(c) POTW /

CA Stored on site For minimum of 3

ye ars Maintain IU monitoring records and documentation of BMPs 403.12(o) IU Stored on site For minimum of 3

ye ars Annual POTW reports 403.12(i) CA AA Annually Pretreatment Compliance Inspection (PCI) Compliance Monitoring Strategy AA OA At least 3 every 5 ye ars. Assumed Annually for 80 %Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 21

**Exhibit 5. Reporting and recordkeeping requirements for the pretreatment program (continued)**  **Program A rea**  **Requirement Regulatory**  **Citation (40 CFR)**  **From To**  **Frequency/ Retention**  Program im plem entation (continued) IU slug load notification 403.12(f) IU C A As needed

POTW program mo difications 403.18 CA AA Once per occurrence Notification of significant change affecting equivalent ma ss limits or concentration lim its IU CA 403.6 (c)(9) Once per

occurrence Notification of changed discharge 403.12(j) IU CA Once per occurrence By pass notification 403.17 IU CA Once per occurrence Notification of changed mo nitoring 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 me chanisms 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 IU s, 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 p lan 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 tim e, as neededPretreatment Program Information Collection Request 22

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

**Program Development** The reporting requirements fo r program development apply to states and POTWs and include the POTW Pretreatment Program Approval Request, POTW Pretreatment Comp liance S chedule Progress Report, and State Pretreatment Program Approval Request . The regulations at 40 CFR 403.10 require s tates to develop a pretreatment program , provided EPA granted the state NPDES program autho rity before the National Pretreatment Program was established . All other s tates are required to appl y for pretreatment program approval at the same time they appl y 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 st ate becomes the AA . EPA regional offices are responsible for administering the pretreatment program in states without approved programs. Currentl y, 36 s tates have approved pretreatment programs. All POTWs that have design flows of more than 5 mgd and receiv e 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 discharg ing to the POTW system vis - à - vis the program. POTWs with design flow of le ss than 5 mgd that receive discharge s 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 s tate that act s as **Program A rea**  **Requirement Regulatory**  **Citation (40 CFR)**  **From To**  **Frequency/ Retention**  Program/ c ategorical d etermination Categorical d etermination

req uest 403.6(a) IU, CA OA, AA One time (voluntary) Alternative l im its m odification 403.6(e) IU CA Once per occurrence Removal c redit a pproval request 403.7 POTW AA Intermittent (voluntary) Removal c redit se lfm onitoring report 403.7 POTW AA Annually o r as specified by AA Fundamentally d ifferent factors v ariance r equest 403.13 IU, CA OA One time (voluntary) Net/g ross a djustment request 403.15 IU CA Intermittent (voluntary) * The IU submits the initial certification statement once, then submits ann ual certification statements thereafter. ** See s ection 2(a) of this ICR.Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 23

the CA for all POTWs in the s tate ( a 403.10(e) s tate) are exempt from this requirement. In cases where POTWs do not have a pretreatment program, the approved pretreatment s tate or the EPA regional o ffice assume s 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 ade quate resources , procedures, and staff to implement the program . Procedural activities include , but are not limited to, surveying existing IU s, develop ing local limits for pollutants of concern , and develop ing 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 a s 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 subm issions for pretreatment program approval and removal credits approval , as well as any comments related to the se 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 s ection 402(b) of the CWA to ensure IU compliance with the n ational p retreatment s tandards . Specific CA reporting and recordkeeping requirements include the following: 1. Annual POTW reports 2. POTW p rogram m odifications 3. Determination of NSCIUs and middle tier CIUs 4 4. Issuance of discharge p ermits or o ther c ontrol m echanisms for SIUs 5 5. Inspection and s ampling of industrial u ser e ffluent 6 6. Public n otificatio n of s ignificant n oncompliance 7. Evaluation of the n eed to revise l ocal l imits 8. POTW enforcement r esponse p lan 9. SIU n otification of a

pplicable s tandards and r equirements 10. Maintain m onitoring 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 catego rical 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 SI Us. 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 S treamlining R

ule also provided opportunities for CAs to specify equivalent mass based limits or equivalent concentration - based limits for C IU s . If the CA voluntarily chooses to take advantage of the flexibility in the national pretreatment regulations, it must make a one - time calculati on of the limit for any C IUit determines is eligible . The C IU , however, must provide the CA with data to make the calculation, such as actual average dail y flow rates for all wastestreams , as determined from a continuous effluent flow monitoring device, and the facility ’s long - term average production rate . The S treamlining R

ule also included a provision for a CA to reduce sampling frequency requirements for C IUs when it determines that a required pollutant is not present or is not expected to be present in the C IU ’ s wastestreams . The CA must make such monitoring reduction determinations through anal ys is of sample results at least once every 5 years . Before EPA’s S treamlining R ule was promulgated , CAs were to evaluate the need for IUs to have slug control plans once every 2 ye ars . The S treamlining R ule 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. C IU Compliance Schedule Progress Report 3. C IU Compliance Attainment Report (“90 - day Compliance Report”) 4. IU Resampling Compliance Report 5. IU Request for Coverage under General Control Mechanism 6. IU Sel f

- Monitoring Compliance Report 7. Pollution p revention p lan 8. Periodic c ertifications 9. Maintain m onitoring records and documentation of BMPs 10. IU s lug l oad n otification 11. Notification of changed discharge 12. By pass n otification 13. Notification of changed m onitoring l ocati on 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 C IU’s was testream . If the C IUcannot meet pretreatment standards, it usually has up to 3 years to finance, construct, and operate p ollution control equipment or facilities necessary

to achieve compliance . C IU s are to submit a schedule of expected compliance achievement in each BMR . In addition to BMRs, C IUs are to submit Compliance Schedule Progress Reports an d a Compliance Attainment Report . In Compliance Schedule Progress Reports , C IU s indicatePretreatment Program Information Collection Request 25

the extent to which they have met co mpliance deadlines . They are to justify any milestones not met . C IU s 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 S IU s with similar operations and meeting other criteria . To be covered under a general control mechanism, a S IU must file a written request for coverage with the CA . On an ongoing basis, S IUs are to monitor for regulated pollutants and report the results to the CA at least semiannual ly (twice a ye ar) . These reports are termed IU or SIU SelfMonitoring Reports . C As have the discretion to require more frequent monitoring and reporting than that required under federal law . Certain IUs may provide p eriodic certifications or develop pollution prevention plans to reduce or eliminate monitoring requirements . Both IUs and CA s must maintain self - monitoring reports and certifications for a minimum of 3 ye ars . Both entities must also maintain records documenting the design and implementatio n 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 C IU wishes to use “upset” as an affirmative defense to an action brought for noncompliance, the C IUis to notify

the POTW and CA within 24 hours of becoming aware of an upset or unanticipated by

pass . If the C IU 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 b ypass, it is to submit prior notice to the POTW, if possible at least 10 days before the date of the by pass . Finally , an IUmust also notify

the POTW, the s tate, and EPA if it discharges any substance defined as hazardous under RCRA. **Program/Categorical Determination s**  CA s 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 . In formation is reported in this program area in the form of the following requests:

 Categorical Determination Request s  Alternative Limits Modification Request s /C ombined Wastestream Formula provision  Fundamentall y Different Factors Variance Request s  Net/Gross Adjustment Request s  Removal Credit Approval Request s  Removal Credit Self

- Monitoring Report sPretreatment 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 b y 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 O A determine whether the IU is subject to a particular categorical standard . If the C IU 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 . (Th e 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, thereb y rendering additional treatment b y the C IU unnecessary . In such cases, the AA may revise the applicable numerical standard(s) for C IUs discharging to that facility . If a POTW is granted removal credits, it must monitor and report the results of its analy ses to certify that pollutant removal is ongoing. 

### 4(b)(ii) **. Respondent A** **ctivities** Activi ties undertaken b y 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 b y 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 Re** **quest** A s tate 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 A dministrator, who determines whether they meet the requirements of 40 CFR 403.10 and s ection 402(b) of the CWA . State requests must include three copies of the following items: 1. A statement by

the s tate’s Attorney

General (or the attorney

for s tate agencie s with independent counsel) that the laws of the s tate provide adequate authority to implement the program, together with copies of all relevant s tate statutes and regulations.Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 27

2. A listing of the full - and part - time personnel available to implement the progr am 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 s tate 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 s tate is to base its pretreatment program on the information in its submission . If EPA do es 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 e stablish a pretreatment program as stated at 40 CFR 403.8(a) . These are POTWs (or combination of POTWs operated b y the same authority) that

 Have a total design flo w greater than 5 mgd and  Receive industrial pollutants from IUs that p ass 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 s tates 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 pro gram . 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 s chedule varies among s tates and regions . The elapsed time between major event s 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 establishe d schedule . **P OTW 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 W

aste Survey (IWS) . The POTW must identify and evaluate the nondomestic dischargers to its treatment system . To conduct the IWS, the POTW must:

 C ompile a master list of potential IUs in the service area  I dentify

and locate each IU and collect information related to the type of industry and the qu ality

and quantity

of discharg e  S ummarize the data collected for use in developing the pretreatment program 2. Legal Authority . The POTW must have adequate legal authority to appl y and enforce the requirements of the p retreatment regulations and any other s tate or local rules needed to co ntrol nondomestic discharges. 3. Technical Elements/Local Limits . The POTW must analyze discharges to its treatment s ys tem and establish local effluent limits to protect the operation of its treatment plant(s), the quality of its receiving water, and the qual ity of its sewage sludge. 4. Compliance Monitoring. The POTW must develop procedures for monitoring and inspecting its S IUs 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 applica ble 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 CF R 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 thePretreatment Program Information Collection Request 29

case of new sources, the BMR must be submitted at least 90 day s 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 i dentifying information  List of environmental control permits  Description of operations  Flow measur ement 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 C IUhas 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 C ompliance 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 flow proportional composite sampling techniques, unless the CA authorizes time -proportional composite sampling or grab sampling. **C IU**  **Com pliance Schedule Progress Report**  As part of a CIU’s BMR, a C IU 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 comp liance date established for the applicable categorical pretreatment standard. In addition to the comp liance schedule (submitted with the BMR), C IUs are to provide progress reports within 14 days of completing each major milestone . The periodic progress reports enable CAs to ensure that the C IUis progressing toward compliance with categorical standards . In its progress reports, the C IUis to demonstrate compliance with specific deadlines . If it has not met a deadline, the C IU 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

**C IU**  **Compliance Attainment Report (90** **- day Compliance Report)**  C IU s 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 n ew s ource (as defined at 40 CFR 403.3(m) ) , the C IU 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 anal ys is identifying the nature and con centration (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 b y an authorized representative of the C IU , and certified to b y a qualified professional, indicating whether the C IUis meeting pretreatment standards on a consistent basis and, if not, whether additional O&M or additional pretreatment is required for the C IU to meet the p retreatment standards . **Industrial User Self** 

**- Monitoring Compliance Report and R**  **esampling Compliance**  **Report** C IU s subject to cat egorical pretreatment standards are required to submit BMRs , Compliance Attainment Reports, Self - Monitoring Compliance Reports , an d Resampling Compliance Reports . Noncategorical S IUs 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 ty pe, 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 40 3.12 and 40 CFR Part 136 . Ingeneral, categorical and noncategorical S IUs are to provide reports semiannual ly unless the CA has requested reports at a higher frequency . The CA may reduce the reporting requirements to once per ye ar for some C IU s 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 anal ys is and submit the results of the repeat anal ysis to the CA within 30 days of becoming aware of the violation . Where the CA has performed the sampling and anal ys is in lieu of the IU, the CA must perform the repeat sampling and anal ys is within 30 days of becoming aware o f the violation , unless it notifies the IU of the violation and requires the IUto perform the repeat anal ys is . If an IU monitors any regulated pollutant at the appropriate sampling location more frequently than required by

the CA, the results of this moni toring 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 willPretreatment 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 C IU ’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 . C IUs granted monitoring waivers must certify in their self

- monitoring reports that th ey have not experienced any increase in the pollutant due to their activities . Inthe event that a waived pollutant is found to be present or is expected to be present based on changes that occur in a C IU ’s operations, the C IUis 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 fac ilities 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 s ys tems . IU s must modify the plan as needed to reflect any changes since the ir last compliance report . **Mini mum 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 I CR 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 I CR 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 car s, 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 interior s ar e 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 N o. 2040 - 0207 , EPA I CR 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 implem enting the b est m anagement p ractices 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 Was te 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 s ys tems obtain removal equivalent to that which is the basis for the separate subcategory limits . The C IUmust 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 s ys tems operate for each subcategory of waste accepted . The C IU’s demonstration must also include data to support the C IU’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 likel y 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 IC R (EPA I CR No. 0002.11) . This burden i s 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 program s , 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  Ty pes of wastes generated  L ocation for monitoring all wastes covered b y 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 cri teria for a general control mechanism, and a cop y of the IU’s written request for coverage . The CA must retain these materialsPretreatment 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 C IUs whose limits are based on the C ombined W astestream F ormula or net/gross calculations. **Periodic Certifications** C IU s in some industrial categories are eligible under their respective categorical standards to submit certification s 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 C IU 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 Categor y . The C IU is required to submit a notification if the alloy it uses in making cans contains less than 1 percent manganese . Periodic anal ys es of cyanide are not required if the first wastewater sample taken in each calendar ye ar contains less than 0.07 mg/L for cyanide and the owner or operator certifies in writing that no cyanide is used.

 Pharmac eutical Manufacturing C ategory ( f or Fermentation Product and Chemical Synthesis Products subcategory only) . A C IU 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 C IU 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 C IU’s control mechanism.

 Porcelain Enameling Category. A C IU may choose to submit an annual certification requesting exemp tion from chromium monitoring if the first sample collected during the calendar ye ar contains less than 0.08 mg/L of chro mium and the owner or operator certifies in writing that chromium is not used.

 Pulp and Paper C

ategories . Certain C IUs may choose an alternative monitoring program b y certification once every 5 ye ars if they use a totally

chlorine - free process . Certain facilities in this category may also submit certifications in lieu of monitoring for pentachlorophenol and trichlorop henol, provided they do not use the se 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 b y 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 : C IU s may choose to provide a demonstration and certification that regulated parameters are not detectable in the final discharge (except for chromium and zinc) .  Electroplating, M

etal F inishing, and Electrical and Electronic C omponents Categories : C IU s may

choose to submit a total toxic o rganics (TTO) certification semiannually

in li eu of performing TTO monitoring ; however, such facilities must also develop and submit a toxic organic management plan .  Centralized W

aste Treatment Category . C IUs that opt for regulation under Subpart D of the CWT regulations must certify annuall y that the y 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 require s a C IU 1 hour to complete . This estimate is consistent with those contained in the Information Collection Request for the NPDES/Compliance Assessment/ Certification Information ( EPA I CR No. 1427.07, OMB No. 204 0 - 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 anal ys es  Names of person or persons performing the anal yses  Analy tical techniques/methods used  Results of the anal ys es IUs and POTWs are to retain the records, including documentation associated with BMP s , for a minimum o f 3 ye ars . IUs and POTWs are to make these materials available for inspection and cop ying 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 ye ars 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 activitie s of all participating agencies, if more than one jurisdiction is involved in the local program . ThePretreatment Program Information Collection Request 35

POTW is to submit this report no later than 1 ye ar after approval of the POTW’s pretreatment program, and at least annuall y thereafter . The report is to in clude, 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 co mpliance and enforcement ac tivities, including inspections, conducted b y 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 reques ted b y 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 follow ing:

 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 POT W ’ s local limits, with the exception of modifications to local l imits 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 purs uant 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 b y the POTW .  Changes to the POTW ’s confidentiality procedures.

 Other modifications designated as substantial b y the AA on the basis that the modification could have a significant impact on the operation of the POTW’sPretreatment 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 PO TW’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 b y 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 nonsubs tantial modification . If the AA does not notify

the POTW within 45 day s, 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 f ollowing:

 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 Ce lsius 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 wi ll 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 p ass through .  Pollutants that result in the presence of toxic gases, vapors, or fumes within the POTW in a quantity

that may cause acute wo rker 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 , andPretreatment Program Information Collection Request 37

disposal of sludge . Such discharges cause the POTW to violat e the requirements of its NPDES permit or prevent sewage sludge use or disposal in compliance with statutory provisions and regulations or permits . The term p ass 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 requir ement 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 u pset as “an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncomplianc e with categorical pretreatment standards because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the C IU . An u pset does not include noncompliance to the extent caused b y operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, or careless or improper action.” Reporting an u pset is particularl y required if the C IU wishes to establish the affirmative defense for an action brought for noncompliance with categorical p retreatment s tandards . The pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR 403.16 specify the conditions C IU s must meet to demonstrate that an u

pset has occurred and for which an affirmative defense may be brought for noncompliance with categorical pretreatment standards if the C IU demonstrates, through properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence , that

 An upset occurred and the C IU 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 C IU has submitted required information to the POTW and CA within 24 hours of becoming aware of the upset . If the C IU provides the information orall y, it must submit a written report within 5 days . The type of information the C IU must p rovide 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 C IU 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 by pass in advance , it is to submit prior notice to the POTW, if possible at least 10 days before the date of the by pass . For an unanticipated by pass, the IU is to notify

the POTW orall y within 24 hours from the time it became aware of the b yp ass . The IU must follow up with a written notice to the POTW within 5 days . **Notification of S** 

**ignificant C** 

**hange A**  **ffecting E** **quivalent M** 

**ass L**  **imits or C** 

**oncentration L**  **imits** 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 significa ntl y 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 producti on 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 C IU to change monitoring locations from segregated wastestreams to the combined w astestream . The C IUmay change monitoring points only after receiving approval from the CA . The CA must ensure that any change in a C IU ’s monitoring point(s) will not allow the C IUto 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 S treamlining R ule . 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 discharger s, the middle tier CIUs . Both provisions are option al , 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 disch argers 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 consistentl y 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 design at ed b y 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 b y the applicable categorical pretreatment standard for which approved local limits were developed by th e POTW T o 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 ye ars 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 b y 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 m iddle 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 re quirements for an NSCIU as it deems appropriate, but the facility must annuall y 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 ye ar, 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 ye ar to a minimum of once a ye ar.

 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 ye ars.

 Middle tier CIUs are still categorical dischargers and, as such, are still required to comply with applicable categorical pretreatment stan dards. The CA is not required to adopt these provisions . If the CA chooses not to implement these new CIU categories, it need not do any thing . 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 mo re than 5 years)

 A statement of non - transferabil ity without prior POTW approval and provision of a copy of the existing control me chanism 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 , an d 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 sp ecified waived pollutant in the case of an individual control mechanism), sampling location, sampling frequency , and sample ty pe

 Statement of applicable civil and criminal penalties for violation of Pretreatment Standards and Requirements and any applicabl e compliance schedule

 Requirements to control slug discharges if determined necessary by the POTWPretreatment Program Information Collection Request 41

EPA’s S treamlining R

ule provided opportunities for CIUs to make a one - time submi ssion of information requesting equivalent mass limits . To be eligible for equivalent mass limits, C IU s 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 dail y 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 dail y flow rates, production rates, or pollutant levels that fluctuate to such a degree that an equivalent mass limit cannot be appropriate ly 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 C IU must maintain and operate its treatment technologies adequatel y 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 producti on 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 S treamlining R

ule al so 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), P arts 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 non process wastewater or wastewater from other processes . **Inspection and Sampling of IU Effluent** C As must randomly

sample and anal yz e the effluent from IUs and conduct surveillance activities to identify , independent of information supplied by the IU s, 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 fo llowing 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 C IU’s individual control mechanism .  Where the POTW h as determined that an IU meets the criteria for classification as an NSCIU, the POTW would need to evaluate at least once per ye ar whether the IU continues to meet the criteria .  For C IUs subject to reduced reporting requirements under 40 CFR 403.12(e)(3), the POTW would randomly

sample and anal yz e the effluent and conduct inspections at least once every 2 ye ars . If the C IU no longer meets the condition s for reducedPretreatment Program Information Collection Request 42 reporting, the POTW would need to immediately begin sampling and inspecting the C IUat least once a ye ar . **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 pol lutant 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 p ass 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 schedule d date, a co mpliance 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 B aseline M onitoring Reports, 90 - day C ompliance Reports, periodic self - monitoring reports , and reports on compliance with schedules

 Failure to accuratel y report noncompliance

 Any other violation or group of violations, which may include a violation of BMPs, that th e POTW determines will adversel y 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 n eeds 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 design ation . 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 reasonablePretreatment 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 impact s 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 ye ars, 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 re sponse p lan . The plan is to describe the POTW’s procedures for investigating and responding to instances of IUnoncompliance , the types of escalating enforcement responses the POTW will take in response to all anticipated ty pes of IU violations , and the time periods within whic h such responses will take place . The plan is to identify

by title the officials responsible for each type of response and adequatel y 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 s tate hazardous waste permitting authorities of any discharge into the POTW of a substance that is a listed or characteristic waste under s ection 3001 of RCRA [ 40 CFR 403.12(p)] . Inaddition, 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 s ection 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 withPretreatment Program Information Collection Request 44

pretreatment program approval) provide written certification o f 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 n ew s ource must request this certification before commencing discharge . Where a request for certification is submitted by a POTW, the POTW must notify any a ffected 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) describ es which categories and sub categories might be applicable and (2) c it es evidence and reasons why a particular subcategory is applicable and others are not . The application is to be certified b y an official of the organization submitting the application , as described at 40 CFR 403.6 (a)(2)(ii ) . EPA or the state notif ies the applicant if its request is deficient and provide s 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 . EP A or the state make s final decisions on complete applications within 60 days of their receipt . EPA or the state send s a cop y of the determination to the affected IU and applicable POTW . The IU (of POTW if applicant) may submit a petition to contest the dec ision 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 C IU with the written concurrence of the CA, to establish fixed alternative discharge limits . When deriving alternative categorical limits, the CA or C IU is to calculate both an alternative dail y maximum value (using the dail y maximum values specifie d 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 C IU is to comply with the alternative dail y maximum and monthly average limits fixed by

the CA until the CA modifies the limits or approves a C IU ’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 day s . **Removal Credit Approval Request** The p retreatment 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 b y the POTW of the pollutants specified in the c ategorical 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 it s discretion ,Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 45

l ower than its consistent removal rate . Upon being granted a removal credit, each affected C IUis to calculate its revised discharge limits in accordance with specified criteria . Removal credits may

be given for indicator or surrogate pollutants regulate d in a categorical pretreatment standard onl y 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 ar e proposed

 POTW influent and effluent data demonstrating consistent pollutant removal

 A description of the POTW ’ s analy tical 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

 C ertification that granting removal credits will not cause a violation of the POTW ’ s NPDES permit. W ithin 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 responsibl e for developing plans under CWA s ection 208 ; to f ederal and s tate 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 . Inaddition, 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 issue s 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 demonstrat es 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 annuall y . The reports are necessary to establish the POTW ’ s rate of consistent removal and, as specified in s ection 307 (b)(1) of the CWA , to demonstrate that the POTW ’ s sludge use and disposal practices will not be adversel y 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 403.1 3 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 (F DF ) . In certain cases, an individual discharger ’ s production processes or technologies m ight 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 m ay be considered fundamentally different are outlined at 40 CFR 403.13(d) . They

include the following:

 N ature or quality

of pollutants contained in the raw waste load of the IU ’ s process wastewater

 V olume of the IU ’ s process wastewater and effluent discharged

 N on - 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 mu st contain the following data:

 The name and address of the person making the request

 Id entification of the interest of the requester affected by the categorical pretreatment standard for which the variance is requestedPretreatment Program Information Collection Request 47  Id entification of the POTW currently receiving waste from the IU for which alternative discharge limits are requested

 Id entification 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 sy stem , including water supply , process wastewater s ys tems, 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 b y 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 b y 40 CFR 403.6(a), the FDF request must be submitted within 30 days after the categorical dete rmination . The AA is to circulate the variance request to all interested parties (public review) . Following this public comment period of not less than 30 day s, 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 C IU ’ s categorical pretreatment standard based on the presence of the applicable pollutant in the C IU ’ s intake water . The adjustments given are called net/gross credits . When granting an adjustment, the CA revises the applic able pretreatment standard to offset the pollutant load already present in the C IU ’ s intake water . If the C IU , however, has treatment technologies in place that will partially or entirel y remove the pollut ant in question, the CA adjust s the standard only to the extent that the pollutant is not removed b y the C IU ’ 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 C IU demonstrates that the constituents of the generic measure in the u ser’s effluent are substantiall y similar to the constituents of the generic measure in the intake water , or unless appropriate additional l imits are placed on process water pollutants at the outfall or elsewhere . CAs are to grant credits only

to the extent necessary

for C IUs 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 . F inally , 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 n o environmental degradation will result.Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 48



## 5. **THE INFORM AT**  **ION COLLECTED —** **AG ENCY**  **AC TIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY**  **, AND INFORM**  **AT ION MA**  **NA GEMENT**  **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 s ection 6(c) of this I CR . EPA regional offices operate as the o versight a uthority (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 o ffices also operate as the AA in s tates 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 p retreatment 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 o ffices also act as the CA in instances where neither the s tate 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 - compl ying IUs, and notifies the public when IUs are in significant noncompliance . 

### 5(b) **. Collection Methodology a**  **nd 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 s tore, track, and access pretreatment - related program information. 

### 5(c) **. Small Entity Flexibility**  In developing this I CR, 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 sm all 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 b y the Small Business Administration (SBA) Regulations under section 3 of the Small Business Ac t.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 distri ct that has a population fewer than 50,000 . This definition may also include Indian tribes. The reporting requirements for pretreatment program development affect only s tate governments and municipal governments (i.e., POTWs) . Requirements for pretreatment program implementation and program/categorical determination s involve some small businesses . Th e information requested, however, is not available from o ther source s and is essential for implementing the pretreatment program . Overall, the burden for smal l industries is likely to be inherentl y smaller than that for other IUs because their facilities are less complex . Reporting burdens are less for SIUs than for CIUs . Under the S treamlining R ule, EPA modified some of the sampling requirements for CIUs to provide greater flexibility ; these changes will benefit some of the smaller CIUs . Under the S treamlining R

ule, EPA also provided states and POTWs opportunities to remove from regulatory

requirements CIUs that never discharge more than 100 gpd of total proces s wastewate r . 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 likel y to fall into these categories. 

### 5(d) **. Collection Schedule**  Many reporting re quirements associated with the National Pretreatment Program are one - time only . Therefore, the frequency of data collection is relevant to onl y the following requirements:

 IUand SIU s elf

- m onitoring r eports  Periodic c ertifications  Annual POTW reports, including updating the SIU l ist  Pretreatment Compliance Inspection (PCI)  Issuance of control mechanisms for SIUs  Inspection and s ampling the e ffluent of IUs and SIUs  Public n otification of s ignificant n oncompliance  Evaluation of the n eed to revise l ocal l imits  Prevention and c ontrol p lan for spills and b atch discharges  Removal credit s elf

- m onitoring r eports Exhibit 5 (in section 4) summarizes reporting requirements for the p retreatment p rogram. 

## 6 **. ESTIM**  **AT ING BURDEN**  **AN D COST OF COLLECTION**  This section estim ates the burden and cost to s tates, 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 200 7 National Pretreatment Program IC R (OMB Control No. 2040 - 0009,Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 50

EPA I CR No. 0002.13) . Additional detail about assumptions is provided in Appendix A . Detailed burden and cost calculations are shown in Appendix B . 

### 6(a) **. Responde**  **nt Burden** EPA’s S treamlining R

ule resulted in changes to respondent reporting and recordkeeping burden . Specificall y, the S treamlining R ule 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 exis ting 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 b etween EPA OWM and EPA regional staff, all zero - discharg ing 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 ye ar . Therefore, this I CR 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 ye ar . In addition, EPA estimates that CAs will not reduce the frequency

with which they

issue permits, monitor, or conduct inspections for these s ys tems (i.e., 71 percent of small CIUs) . NSCIUs (the remaining 29 percent along with all zero discharging CIUs) will complete annual certifications in lieu of annual monitoring and reporting . T o gather data to complete this certification, IUs with flows greater than zero will monitor once every 5 ye ars, 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 zero discharging CIUs); instead , CAs will conduct an annual 2 - hour evaluation, as required b y the revised regulations . EPA estimates that 29 percent of the middle tier CIUs will be authorized to reduce their monitoring and reporting requirements from semiannual ly to annual ly . This estimate is based on the estimate that 71 percent are currentl y subject to monitoring and reporting requirements that exceed the minimum requirements . In addition, this I CR assumes that for 29 percent of potential middle tier CIUs, CAs will reduce inspections to once every 2 ye ars instead of once a ye ar . The S treamlining R

ule also enables zero - discharging CIUs that previously report ed data semiannual ly 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 - ye ar ICR period, the annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for s tates (including the burden for s tates as users of the data) is estimated to be 138,657 hours . Exhibit 6 at the end of s ection 6(a) shows the annual burden hours on an activity- specific ba sis, and Appendix A summarizes the assumptions EPA made in developing th e estimates . The following paragraphs briefl y describe the bases for the burden estimates.Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 51

**Program Development State Pretreatment Program Approval Request**  Pursuant to consultation w ith the National Pretreatment Coordinator and EPA regional offices , EPA does not anticipate any states to seek pretreatment program authority during this 3 - ye ar 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 s tates directly regulate 9.62 percent of all SIUs . (See Appendix A for additional infor mation about this assumption.) CAs will no longer be required to issue permits to NSCIUs . Because some SIUs can now be regulat ed 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 I CR. **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 ye ar for 9.62 percent of all SIUs . Middle - Tier SIUs will be inspected less frequentl y (every other ye ar instead of every

year) . This includes the time necessary to collect an effluent sample. Sampling and Anal ys is : All p retreatment s tates are assumed to perform in - house anal ys es for the SIUs that they

regulate. This I CR estimates an average sample anal ysis burden of 15.2 hours. This burden was estimated based on r egional feedback during the development of the ICR for the Streamlining Rule , and it is carri ed forward in this I CR. 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 e stimates 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 1 1 POTWs per s tate (a total of 5 5 POTWs in the five 403.10(e) s tate s) receive discharges from SIUs . One - third of the POTWs in these s tates (approximately 1 8 POTWs, or 4 per s tate) are estimated to have SIUs in SNC in a given year . EPA estimate s that 3 burden hours are required to complete this activity . **Evaluation of th e Need to Revise Local Limits**  This I CR assumes that only the five 40 CFR 403.10(e) s tates will be required to develop local limits for their POTWs . Each POTW for which the s tate has assumed CAPretreatment Program Information Collection Request 52

responsibility

( 5 5 total) will require local limits development once every 5 years . The Agency estimates a burden of 5 0 hours for this activity . **Program/Categorical Determination** There is no burden for s tates associated with program/categorical determination s . **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 B 8 in Appendix B calculates the burden to state a gencies as users of the se data . When s tates are the AA ( i.e., for 7 3. 85 percent of pretreatment programs), the s tates 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 s tates (as AAs) has been apportioned accordingl y . The numbers of respondents and responses are linked directl y to the corresponding activities. In addition to AA activities, s tates are the CAs for approximately 9.62 percent of SIUs . As CA s , the s tates 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 s tate review burden associated with the afo rementioned activities. **Recordkeeping Maintain Pretreatment Program Information**  This I CR assumes that each pretreatment s tate (as the AA) spends 50 hours per year maintaining records from POTW pretreatment programs . In addition, s tates act as CAs for 9. 62 percent of SIUs . An additional burden of 5 hours per SIU per ye ar (i. e., 5 * 2,197 ) is included for s tates acting as C As . (See Appendix B , Table B - 5 , for the calculations.) The S treamlining R

ule 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 e xpect the S treamlining R ule changes to result in changes in the recordkeeping burden. 

### 6(a)(ii) **. Burden to**  **POTWs** For the 3 - ye ar 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 s ection 6(a)) shows the annual burden hours on an activity- specific basis, and Appendix B details these burden calculations . The following paragraphs briefl y 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 p lans describing procedures for investigating and responding to IU noncompliance . EPA assumes that POTWs will have completed this requirement as part of the ir 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 S treamlining R

ule 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 submi ssion of three reports (responses) per ye ar . EPA estimates that each report will require 5 burden hours to complete. **Program Implementation Annual POTW Report**  For this program activity , EPA as sumes one report per program per ye ar . 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 ty

pe each ye ar . EP A estimates that preparing program approval request s will take each POTW 40 burden hours. **I ssuance of Discharge Permits or Other Control Mechanisms for SIUs**  Because SIU control mechanisms ty picall y have 5 - ye ar terms, EPA estimates that each ye ar POTWs (as CAs) will issue control mechanisms to 20 percent of the SIUs that are regulated b y POTWs ( 90.4 percent of all SIUs) . Under S treamlining, 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 carrie d forward from the Pretreatment P rogram ICR . **Inspection and Sampling of C**  **IU and SIU Effluent** Inspection: This I CR assumes 8 burden hours to perform one inspection per year for all SIUs regulated b y POTWs. Middle tier C IUs will be inspected less frequentl y (everyPretreatment 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 Anal ys is : EPA assumes that in - house sampling and anal ys is 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 catego rical pretreatment standards must determine whether the application of a mass limit is appropriate . POTWs will perform these demonstrations . Currently , 14 P retreatment Stan dards 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 ass ess 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 fo r 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 i s mixed with non process 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 Sy nthetic 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 exp lained 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 s lug c ontrol p lan for each SIU every 2 years . POTWs may now review the need for slug c ontrol 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 on e - third of POTWs with pretreatment programs will have SIUs in SNC in a given ye ar . . **Evaluation of the Need to Revise Local Limits** EPA assumes in this I CR that all pretreatment programs will reevaluate the need to develop local limits once every 5 years . EPA estimate s that POTWs will require 50 hours to complete this activity . **SIU Notification of Applicable Standards and Regulations** At the time of promulgation of this I CR EPA has not promulgated any new categorical standards . EPA is in the process of deve loping new categorical standards that may be in effect during the 3 - ye ar 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 f inalized . **Program/Categorical Determination Removal Credit Approval Requests**  Based on input from EPA regional offices, the Agency estimates three respondents per ye ar . EPA further estimates that a POTW will require 125 hours to prepare and submit each r equest. **Removal Credit Self**

**- Monitoring Reports**  EPA estimates 25 respondents per ye ar based on the number of POTWs with approved removal credit variances as reported b y 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 o f these data . As CAs, POTWs are responsible for receiving and reviewing 90.4 percent of all reports, certificatio ns, andPretreatment 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 C As) . 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 p retreatment POTW to spend 100 hours per ye ar maintaining SIU monitoring records . Changes in the pretreatment regulations due to the S treamlining R ule means that POTWs will have to maintain records for IUs regulated under general control mechanisms, as well as IUs’ initial samp les to demonstrate pollutants n either 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 S treamlining R ule. 

### 6(a)(iii) **. Burden to Industrial Users**  For the 3 - ye ar 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 ty pe of information collected, and Appendix B details these burden calculations . The bases for the burden estimates are detailed below. **Program Development** EPA assumes n o 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 ye ars covered b y this ICR . EPA assumes 14 .3 hours for new source CIUs conducting baseline monitoring anal ys is and 28 burden hours for preparing a B aseline M onitoring Report . **IU Compliance Schedule Progress Report** For new sources, EPA a ssumes 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 S treamlining 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 p rocess of developing ne w categorical standards that may be in effect during the 3 - year life of this ICR. At this time the expected impacts of the ne w standards are not possible to be assessed. Therefore, EPA will developed burden estimates once these new s tandards are finalized.Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 57

an IU would re quire 4 hours to prepare each compliance schedule progress repor t . EPA is carrying forward these assumptions for this I CR. **IU Compliance Attainment Report** CIUs must complete a compliance attainment report within 90 days following the date for final compl iance with a categorical pretreatment standard . New source CIUs must provide such a report within 90 day s of commencing discharge of the categorically regulated wastestream to the POTW . EPA has annualized the burden for new sources over the 3 - ye ar IC R peri od . EPA estimates that C IUs will require 20 hours to prepare the compliance attainment report s and 14 .3 hours to conduct the associated analy ses. **IU Resampling**  **Compliance Report** All IUs are required to notify the CA immediately

of all discharges that coul d potentially cause problems for the POTW . IU s 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 ye ar . 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 anal ys is, and 1 hour for reporting each ye ar. **IU Self -**  **Monitoring Compliance**  **Report** Under the S treaml ining R ule, NSCIUs are not required to conduct periodic selfmonitoring ; instead, they are required to submit annual certifications . (This I CR assumes that sampling and anal ys is is required once every 5 ye ars to complete this certification.) In addition, c ertain m iddle tier CIUs will monitor and report once a ye ar instead of twice a ye ar . These assumption s are carried forward from the Pretreatment S treamlining IC R . The Streamlining Rule ICR assumed that a CIU will require 11.6 hours and a non categorical S IU will require 9 .5 hours to complete the report twice per ye ar . EPA has excluded PFPR facilities opting for the P2 option from the estimate because these facilities have no monitoring requirements. **Pollution Prevention Plans** This I CR assumes that all PFP R 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 r ule (61 FR 5754 1), this I CR assumes that 10 percent of the facilities that are implementing a P2 alternative plan will submit modifications to P2 plans . The b urden for the periodic certification requirements is discussed below under “Periodic Certifications.” **Minimum Mon itoring 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 Categ** **ory**

**.** 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** E PA 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 likel y to complete the initial CWT certification statement during the 3 - ye ar IC R period of the previously approved IC R. This burden i s no t included in this pretreatment I CR. **Request for Coverage Under a General Control Mechanism** This I CR assumes that 2 percent of all S IUs 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 a ssumptions about the universe of indirect dischargers with certification potential (the number of facilities covered b y the relevant part or subpart(s) of 40 CFR, Chapter I, Subchapter N) . EPA as sumes in this I CR that periodic certifications require C IUs 1 hour to complete, which is consistent with the Information Collection Request for the NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification Information (OMB No. 2040 - 0110, EPA I CR No. 1427.07) . Assumption s regarding the percent age of facilities that will undertake certifications a ctivities are summarized below . Except where noted, these assumptions are also consistent with the Information Collection Request for the NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/ Certificati on Information . A ssumptions 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 I CR assumes one such notification during the next 3 years .Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request 59  Centralized W

aste Treatment Point Source Catego ry (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 I CR, 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 I CR, 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 (EPA 821 - R- 04 - 014, August 2004) (“the TSD”). 8 EPA estimates that approximately 75 percent of these 41 coil coating facilities will cho ose 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 Elec tronic 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 T oxics Release Inventory (T RI) data . EPA estimates that approximately 50 percent of these 91 electrical and electronic components facilities will choose to submit a total toxic o rganic (TTO) certification in lieu of TTO monitoring . Certifications must be submitted twice a ye ar.

 Electroplating Point Source Category (Part 413) and Metal Finishing Point Source Category . The estimated number of indirect dischargers in the Electroplating and Metal Finishing P oint S ource C ategories (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 M etal F inishing category .  Pesticide Chemicals (Part 455) . The estimated number of indirect dischargers covere d 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 I CR 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 p rogram 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 wil l require IU s 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 pharma ceutical facilities are in a subcategory that potentiall y use s 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 es timate d 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 c odes 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 Porce lain Enameling Category because operations in these SI C codes could be covered b y 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 I CR 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 I CR 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 e stimates 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 Lo ad Notification**  In this ICR , EPA assumes that 100 S IU s 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 ye ar 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 b ypasses and that CAs will require 75 percent of these SIUs (1,070 SIUs) to conduct follow - up activities . EP A assume s IUs will require 5 hours for b ypass notification and 2 hours for follow - up activities . **Notification of Changed Monitoring Location** For this I CR, EPA estimates that 50 SIUs will provide notification of a changed monitoring location per year . EP A 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/Categ orical 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 . Theref

ore, no formal categorical determination requests are anticipated during the 3 - ye ar 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 o f all new CIUs will request alternative limits (i.e., use the combined wastestream formula) . EPA estimate s that an IU will require 2 hours to complete a request . **Fundamentally Different Factors Variance Request** FDF variance requests must be submitted wi thin 180 days following publication of a new effluent guideline . EPA knows of no pending FDF variance requests associated with recentl y promulgated guidelines . Because no new guidelines affecting indirect dischargers are anticipated during the next 3 years , no new respondents are anticipated . InPretreatment 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 day s after promulgation of the categorical pretreatment standard. **Net/Gros s Adjustment Request**  Based on information provided by EPA Regional Pretreatment Coordinators, EPA estimates that two net/gross adjustment requests will be submitted each ye ar . The Agency further estimates that IUs will require 50 hours per request. **Rec o**  **rdkeeping 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 S treamlining R

ule, IUs w ith general control mechanism s 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 hourl y wage for state employees as determined b y 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. Av**  **erage a**  **nnual s**  **tate b**  **urden and c**  **osts**

**Activity An**  **nual Burden**  **Hours An**  **nual 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 $ 2 5 . 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 o f 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 .**  **Av erage**  **a nnual POTW**  **b urden and**  **c osts** 

**Activity An**  **nual Burde**  **n Hours**  **An nual 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 POTW s 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). **C ost to Industrial Users**  Exhibit 8 shows the total costs for IUs over the 3 - year ICR period. Annual costs are approximately

$ 4 6 .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 .**  **Av erage**  **a nnual**  **i ndustrial**  **u ser**  **b urden and**  **c osts** 

**Activity An**  **nual Burden**  **Hours An**  **nual Cost ($k) Responses** 

**Capital and O&M**  **Cost Labor Cost**  **Total Cost** Program de velopment 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 803,3**  **46 $2,318.9**  **$44,360.1 $46,679.0**  **67,796** NOTE: Detail may not add due to independent rounding . Costs in thousa nds 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 t otal burden to the Agency is 21,741 hours per year. The f ederal government (EPA regions and h eadquarters) incurs burden and costs to process, anal yz e, and maintain the information collected . EPA regions, in their role as OA s , are user s 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 I CR generate reports, information, or data, which must be received, reviewed, and stored by an O A . Table B - 10 in Appendix B calculates the burden to f ederal a gencies (primarily EPA r egions) as users of these data . Where EPA is the AA (i.e., in 2 6 . 15 percent of pretreatment programs), the Agency reviews reports g enerated 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 f

ederal a gencies (as AAs) has been apportioned accordingly . Appendix B , Table B - 10 , outlines the hours per response, number of responses per ye ar, and total hours per year expended by the f ederal go vernment (EPA) for review ing s tate 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 $ 38.97 9 for a f

ederal emplo ye e, the estimated annual cost to EPA is $847,264 . In addition, EPA is the OA for s tates acting as AA s . Data or reports generated by the activities listed in Table B - 2 of Appendix B will be sent to EPA regions for review . The b urden 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 I CR include IUs, POTWs, and s tates, for a total of 2 4,411 respondents . This ICR estimates the number of IUs at 22,827 . In addition to the IUs, this I CR assumes 36 s tates ( 31 s tates that authorize POTWs to imp lement pretreatment programs and 5 s tates 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, T able 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 em ployment 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 det ailed cost and burden calculations.) The total annual respondent burden associated with this I CR 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, inc luding respondent burden and Agency burden, is estimated to be 1. 8 3 million hours annually . The total national cost, for respondents and EPA, is estimated to be $ 7 8 . 5 million annually . **Exhibit 9 .**  **Bottom l**  **ine a**  **verage a**  **nnual b**  **urden and c**  **ost** Number of Respon dents 24,411 = 36 States + 1,548 POTW s + 22,827 Industrial Users Total Annual Responses 98,438 = 2,706 States + 27,937 POTW s + 67,796 Industrial Users Total Respondent Hours 1,806,517 = 138,657 States + 864,513 POTW s + 803,346 Indust rial 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 POTW s + $44,360,068 Industrial Users Annual Re spondent O&M and Capital Cost $2,318,913 = $0 States + $0 POTW s + $2,318,913 Industrial Users Total Respondent Cost $77,647,536 = $5,519,929 States + $25,448,626 POTW s + $46,678,981 Industrial Users Total Hours (Respondents & EPA) 1,828,25 8 = 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 200 7 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 th an are being requested in this I CR . M ost of the increase in burden is attribut able to the transfer of the burden associated with Pretreatm ent Compliance Inspection (PCI) from the NPDES Program I CR (OMB Control No. 2040 - 0004, EPA I CR 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 partiall y offset by a decrease in burden attribut able 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 PCSPretreatment Program Information Collection Request 66

data . The revised number of SIUs drives the decrease in respondent burden because SIUs co nstitute the b ulk o f respondents . This I CR shows a shift in burden from POTWs to States as a consequence of EPA’s updated estimates of SIUs regulated b y POTWs and States. However, EPA does not believe this is the result of programmatic changes but simply a reflection o f more accurate information about the implementation of the pretreatment program. Other minor decreases in burden in this I CR are the result of :  M oving the burden to participate in the Clean Water Act awards for pretreatment programs from this I CR to the Recognition Application for Sustainable Water Leadership Program ( EPA I CR No. 1287.10 OMB Control No. 2040 - 0101 )  EPA’s anticipation that no state will seek pretreatment program authority during this 3 - ye ar ICR period. For this I CR, 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 thi s I CR 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 s tat es, POTWs, and IUs. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended b y 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 s ys tems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing way s to comply with any previo usl y 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 n ot 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 fo r this ICR un der Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2008 - 0 719 , 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 availa ble 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 availablePretreatment Program Information Collection Request 67

electronically . Once in the sys tem, 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 th e EPA Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2008 - 0 719 and OMB Control No. 2040 - 0009 in any corresponden ce.

## Ap **pendix A**Draft Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request A - 1 

## Ap **pendix A**  **. As**  **sumptions for Dev eloping 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 I CR. This appendix provides a descriptio n of the source of these data elements. In addition, the I CR relied on several assumptions regarding the relative percentages of respondents performing various tasks. The appendix also summarizes these key assumptions. **Table 1 Data and A ssumptions 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. Nu mb er 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 Num ber 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 POTW s as Control Authority 20,630 15. Percentage of SIUs with POTW s 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. Ho urly

Rate for State employees (50% OH) 39.81 21. Hourly Rate for POTW em plo yees (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 POTW s with EPA as Approval Authority 405 25. Percentage of POTW s with EPA as Approval Authority 26.15% 26. Number of POTW s with State as Approval Authority 1,143 27. Percentage of POTW s with State as Approval Authority 73.85% 28. Number of POTW s projected to develop a pretreatment program during t he 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 (I CI S) 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 deriv ed from Permit Compliance System (PCS) and Integrated Compliance Information System (I CI S) data, as obtained from an October 2010 query and updated/corrected through January 2011 with input from EPA headquarters and regional staff responsible for overseein g 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 I CR (EPA ICR No. 0002.12) and is explained at the beginning of this section . The percentage i s 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 I CR (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 pretreatm ent program, which was done as part of the Streamlining Rule I CR (EPA ICR No. 0002.12) and is explained at the beginning of this section. on compliance reporting requirements in eight POTW programs. These data show ed that 71% of small CIUs were required to monitor more than twice per ye ar. It wa s assumed that compliance reporting requirements continue d 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%) i s 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 a s part of the Streamlining Rule ICR (EPA I CR 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 I CR No. 0002.12) and is exp lained at the beginning of this section. on compliance reporting requirements in eight POTW programs.Draft Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request A - 3

These data show ed that 71% of small CIUs were required to monitor more than twice per ye ar. It wa s assumed that compliance reporting requirements continue d 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 b y dividing the total number of SIUs regulated b y States/EPA (and not b y approved POTW Pretreatment Programs) b y 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 (I CI S) 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** - 3 6 , per EPA Headquarters. 15. - 16 **Number and Percentage of SIUs with POTWs as C**  **ontrol Authority**

– This number is derived from Permit Compliance System (PCS) and Integrated Compliance Information Sy stem (I CI S) 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 (I CI S) 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 regul ated 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 I CR (EPA ICR No. 0002.12) and is explained at the beginning of this section. 20. **Hourly Rate for Federal Employees** - The hourly employ ment cost of federal employees was determined using methodology established in previous I CRs. According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, J anuary 20 10 General Schedule (2007 - GS), the average annual salary of a government emplo ye e at the GS - 9, Step 10 level is $54,028. At 2,080 hours per ye ar, the hourly wage would be $25.98. Assuming overhead costs of 50 percent, or $12.99 per hour, the fully loaded cost of employ ment for a federal employee would be $38.97 . 21. **Hourly Rate for State Employees** - The average hourly rate for municipal employees as determined b y 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 ( JuneDraft Pretreatment Program Information Collection Request A - 4

20 10 ) , adjusted to a March 20 10 dollars using the Employ ment Cost Index (ECI). A 50 pe rcent 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 b y the U.S. Department of Labor, Burea u 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 W age 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. **Nu mber 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 I CR 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 number s 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 non approved states. 27 - 28 . **Number and Percentage of POTWs wi th State as Approval Authority**  - These number s 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 Requ ests** 

– 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-6Respondent 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-7Table 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-8Table 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 Subcategory 7.2 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-9Table 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-10Table 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