i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title and Number of the Information Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1( b) Short Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2( b) Use/ Users of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3 NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3( a) Non duplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3( c) Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3( e) General Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3( f) Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3( g) Sensitive Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4 RESPONDENTS AND INFORMATION REQUESTED 4( a) Respondents/ NAICS Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4( b) Information Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4( b)( i) Data Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4( b)( ii) Respondent Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5 INFORMATION COLLECTED  AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5( a) Agency Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 5( b) Collection Methodology and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 5( c) Small Entity Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 5( d) Collection Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6 ESTIMATING BURDEN AND COST OF COLLECTION 6( a) Respondent Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6( a)( i) Burden to Public Water Systems and Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6( a)( ii) Burden to Primacy Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6( b) Respondent Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 6( b)( i) Cost to Public Water Systems and Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 6( b)( ii) Cost to Primacy Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 6( c) Agency Burden and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 6( d) Estimating Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 6( g) Burden Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 ii APPENDICES Appendix A. Federal Register Notice Soliciting Comments on Information Collection Requests Appendix B. 1993 Information Collection Request for the Public Water Supply Program Appendix C. Information Collection Request for National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule Appendix D. Information Collection Request for the Filter Backwash Recycling Rule Appendix E. Surface Water Treatment Rule Spreadsheets Appendix F. Total Coliform Rule Spreadsheets Appendix G. Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule Spreadsheets Appendix H. Laboratory QA Program Spreadsheets iii LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: New Structure of OGWDW ICRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Exhibit 2: Collection Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Exhibit 3: Annual PWS and Laboratory Burden and Cost 2002 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Exhibit 4: Annual Primacy Agency Burden and Cost 2002 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Exhibit 5: Bottom Line Annual Burden and Cost 2002 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Exhibit 6: Reasons for Change in Annual Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Exhibit 7: Restructuring Adjustments to the Annual Burden Inventory for the Microbial ICR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Exhibit 8: Program Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Exhibit 9: Adjustments to PWS Burden from Previous ICR Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Exhibit 10: Adjustments to Primacy Agency Burden from Previous ICR Estimates . . . . . . . 38 Exhibit 11: Adjustments to Annual Burden Carried Forward from Previous ICR Estimates . 45 Exhibit 12: Future Adjustment for Addition of FBRR Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 LIST OF FIGURES iv ACRONYMS ASDWA Association of State Drinking Water Administrators BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics CCR Consumer Confidence Report CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CFE Combined Filter Effluent CFR Code of Federal Regulations CPEs Comprehensive Performance Evaluations CWS Community Water System DBP Disinfection Byproduct DBPR Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule DDBP/ Chem/ Rads Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts, Chemical, and Radionuclides DWSRF Drinking Water State Revolving Fund EPA Environmental Protection Agency FACA Federal Advisory Committees Act FBRR Filter Backwash Recycling Rule FOIA Freedom of Information Act FR Federal Register FRDS Federal Reporting Data System FTE Full Time Equivalent FY Fiscal Year GS General Schedule GSA General Services Administration GWR Ground Water Rule GWUDI Ground Water Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water ICR Information Collection Request ICW Information Correction Worksheet IESWTR Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule IFA Individual Filter Assessment IOC Inorganic IPT Initial Performance Testing Lab QA Program Laboratory Quality Assurance Evaluation Program for Analysis of Cryptosporidium in Water LCR Lead and Copper Rule LT1ESWTR Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule LT2ESWTR Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule MCL Maximum Contaminant Level MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal M/ DBP Microbial Contaminants and Disinfection Byproducts MOBIS Management Organizational and Business Improvement Services NAICS North American Industry Classification System NCWS Noncommunity Water System NPDWRs National Primary Drinking Water Regulations NTNCWS Nontransient Noncommunity Water System O& M Operation and Maintenance OGWDW Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water v OMB Office of Management and Budget OPR Ongoing precision and recovery OPT Ongoing Performance Testing QA Quality Assurance QC Quality Control PN Public Notification PRA Paperwork Reduction Act PWS Public Water System PWSS Public Water System Supervision RegNeg Regulatory Negotiation RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis RFA Regulatory Flexibility Analysis SBARP Small Business Advocacy Review Panel SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System SER Small Entity Representative SIC Standard Industrial Classification SNC Significant Non Compliance SWAP Source Water Assessment Program SWTR Surface Water Treatment Rule TCR Total Coliform Rule TNCWS Transient Noncommunity Water System TTHM Total Trihalomethane UCMR Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule UIC Underground Injection Program Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 1 Throughout this document, the terms " State" or " States" are used to refer to all types of primacy agencies. There are currently 57 primacy agencies, including the 50 States, the District of Columbia, U. S. territories ( Puerto Rico, U. S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and Northern Marianas), and Navajo Nation.

2 SDWIS replaced the Federal Reporting Data System as the national drinking water database of record on August 15, 1995.

1 1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title and Number of the Information Collection Title: Microbial Information Collection Request OMB Control Number: 2040 0205 EPA Tracking Number: 1895.02 1( b) Short Characterization The Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water ( OGWDW) in the Office of Water at the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA or the Agency) is responsible for developing National Primary Drinking Water Regulations ( NPDWRs) as mandated by the Safe Drinking Water Act ( SDWA). Section 1412 of the SDWA requires EPA to establish NPDWRs for contaminants that may adversely impact human health. The Act further requires EPA to monitor and enforce these regulations to ensure that the nation's drinking water dependably complies with the maximum contaminant levels ( MCLs) stipulated in the Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR), 40 CFR Part 141, Subpart B.

Section 1445 of the SDWA stipulates that every drinking water supplier must conduct monitoring, maintain records, and provide such information as is needed for EPA to implement its monitoring and enforcement responsibilities with respect to the Act. State1 governments   in those States that have assumed primary enforcement responsibility ( primacy) for public water systems ( PWSs) under SDWA Section 1413   ensure that PWSs are complying with these monitoring requirements. As part of the PWSS Program, the OGWDW uses the Safe Drinking Water Information System ( SDWIS) 2 to record some of the data collected as a result of NPDWR requirements. SDWIS is a database management system that assists EPA in tracking and interpreting monitoring data and other program related data. These data assist EPA in fulfilling its SDWA obligations.

This Information Collection Request ( ICR) was prepared in accordance with the February 1999 version of EPA's Guide to Writing Information Collection Requests Under the Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA) of 1995 ( or " ICR Handbook") prepared by EPA's Office of Environmental Information, Office of Information Collection, Collection Strategies Division. The ICR Handbook provides the most current instructions for ICR preparation to ensure compliance with Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 3 Includes all SWTR components except disinfectant residual monitoring and associated activities, which are included in the Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts, Chemical, and Radionuclides ( DDBP/ Chem/ Rads) ICR. Under the SWTR, systems disinfecting, but not filtering their water, must comply with monitoring requirements for disinfection residuals in the distribution system and disinfection parameters at or near the first customer. Monitoring finished water for disinfection parameters must include the disinfectant residual levels, disinfectant contact time, pH, and water temperature. In addition, systems must identify the disinfectant used and must calculate the contact time ( CT) value on the basis of the disinfection parameters. The CT value is used to determine the operating efficiency in removing or inactivating Giardia and viruses. CT calculation burden is addressed in the DDBP/ Chem/ Rads ICR. All remaining SWTR requirements are included in this Microbial ICR.

4 Currently, only descriptions of FBRR activities are included in this ICR. Burden and costs for the FBRR are described in the Microbial ICR to facilitate their inclusion at a future date. Until then, all burden and cost values have been zeroed out for FBRR activities. The FBRR ICR ( OMB No. 2040 0224) will be effective until an Information Correction Worksheet ( ICW) is submitted to move the FBRR burden and costs into the Microbial ICR. Evaluation of the FBRR's potential impact on the Microbial ICR is included in Section 6( f)( iv).

2 the 1995 PRA amendments and Office of Management and Budget's ( OMB's) implementing guidelines.

This ICR examines PWS, laboratory, primacy agency, and EPA burden and costs for recordkeeping and reporting required in support of microbial contaminant associated rulemakings and programs. These rules and programs include the following   1) Surface Water Treatment Rule ( SWTR) 3 2) Total Coliform Rule ( TCR) 3) Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule ( IESWTR) 4) Laboratory Quality Assurance Evaluation Program for Analysis of Cryptosporidium in Water ( Lab QA Program) 5) Filter Backwash Recycling Rule ( FBRR) 4 This ICR estimates costs for Fiscal Years ( FYs) 2002, 2003, and 2004. In addition, burden for future rules that address microbial contaminants ( Long Term1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule ( LT1ESWTR), Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule ( LT2ESWTR), and the Ground Water Rule ( GWR)) will be added to this ICR as amendments when the regulations are finalized. New rule ICRs explain the burden up to the point that a rule is fully implemented, which is usually more then 3 years. However, only the applicable burden which corresponds to the 3 year period covered in this ICR will be amended. Future renewals of this ICR will include the applicable burden for the new rules for the entire 3 year ICR renewal period. For example, if a microbial rule is promulgated in January of 2003, the Microbial ICR will be amended to add the burden for the new rule for 2003 and 2004. For the next renewal of the Microbial ICR, the burden will cover the new rule for the entire 3 year renewal period.

This ICR updates the burden and cost estimates provided in the IESWTR ICR dated September 18, 1998, which expires on November 30, 2001 ( see Appendix C). The IESWTR ICR is being renamed as the Microbial ICR. To encompass all drinking water regulations and programs that address microbial contaminants, several additional ICR requirements stemming from the 1996 Amendments to SDWA are being updated and consolidated into this single ICR. Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 3 The burden and cost estimates for each rule or program are discussed in greater detail in Section 6 of this document.

Continuing costs and burden for several existing drinking water regulations are evaluated in this ICR. The total annual burden associated with this ICR is estimated to be approximately 8.20 million hours per year. The total annual cost associated with this ICR is estimated to be approximately $ 287.4 million. The distribution of annual burden between PWSs/ laboratories and primacy agencies is approximately 6.62 million hours and 1.58 million hours, respectively. Laboratory burden accounts for only 0.005 million hours of the total burden. The distribution of annual costs between PWSs / laboratories and primacy agencies is approximately $ 241.8 million and $ 45.6 million, respectively. Laboratory costs account for only $ 0.3 million of the total costs. The Agency burden for this ICR is estimated at 5,385 hours annually, at an annual cost of $ 0.34 million. Section 6( f) summarizes the change in burden.

The total number of respondents for this ICR is 167,954; 57 of these respondents are primacy agencies, 60 respondents are laboratories, and the balance are existing PWSs ( 167,837). The total annual number of responses for these respondents is 22.6 million. ( 20.5 million for PWSs/ laboratories and 2.1 million for primacy agencies). Laboratories account for only 200 of the 22.6 million responses. Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 4 2 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection This section identifies the regulatory or statutory authority for the information collection activities covered in this ICR and describes why EPA needs the information. Section 4 contains a summary of the major recordkeeping and reporting requirements for rules and programs covered by this ICR.

To allow the public to better understand the impact of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements stemming from the SDWA and 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142, OGWDW has reorganized its ICRs so that related activities are addressed in the same ICR. Specifically, three primary ICRs cover OGWDW activities   the Microbial ICR, the Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts, Chemical, and Radionuclides ( DDBP/ Chem/ Rads) ICR, and the PWSS Program ICR. For a graphical depiction of the current and proposed organization of the OGWDW ICRs, see Figures 1 and 2. A complete itemization of activities included in each of the three primary ICRs, as well as other drinking water program ICRs, follows in Exhibit 1.

The Microbial ICR includes the following rules or programs addressing microbial contaminants   1) Surface Water Treatment Rule 2) Total Coliform Rule 3) Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule 4) Laboratory Quality Assurance Evaluation Program for Analysis of Cryptosporidium in Water 5) Filter Backwash Recycling Rule As EPA publishes new regulations addressing microbial contaminants, EPA will amend the Microbial ICR to include these new rules. These new regulations include LT1ESWTR, LT2ESWTR, and the GWR. 5 PWSS Program ICR 2040 0090 Cap Dev V& E's Primacy Reg CCRs State Primacy Activities Stage 1 TTHMs Chems LCR ' 76 Rads ' 00 Rads IESWTR SWTR LT1 LT2 FBRR TCR GWR Arsenic UCMR Stage 2 Radon Red = Activities covered in stand alone ICRs Green = Activities covered by PWSS Program ICR Purple = Activities not covered in current ICRs Gray = Future ICRs Needs Survey Class V ICR Florida ICR UIC Program ICR DW SRF SWAP Op Cert PN Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 Figure 1. Previous Structure of OGWDW ICRs Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 6 PWSS Program ICR 2040 0090 DBP/ Chem/ Rads ICR 2040 0204 Cap Dev V& E's Primacy Reg PN CCRs State Primacy Activities Stage 1 TTHMs Chems LCR ' 76 Rads ' 00 Rads IESWTR SWTR LT1 LT2 Microbial ICR 2040 0205 FBRR TCR GWR Arsenic Stage 2 UCMR Radon Yellow = Activities moving via ICW Red = Activities not moving between ICRs Green = Activities moving during restructuring Blue = Activities moving out of expiring ICRs Purple = Activities not covered in current ICRs Pink = Activities that will move when they expire Gray = Future amendments UIC Program ICR 2040 0042 Needs Survey 2040 0198 Class V Florida UIC Program DW SRF 2040 0185 SWAP 2040 0197 Op Cert Lab QA Figure 2. Restructure of OGWDW ICRs Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 5 Disinfectant residual monitoring and associated activities are included in the DDBP/ Chem/ Rads. See Exhibit 1, page 8.

7 Exhibit 1 New Structure of OGWDW ICRs Activity ICR in which Activity is Currently Covered Expiration Date PWSS Program ICR ( 2040 0090)

Consumer Confidence Reports CCR ICR, 2040 0201 9/ 30/ 01 Operator Certification Guidelines and Expense Reimbursement Grants Program ICR under OMB review. Approx. 9/ 30/ 03 Primacy Regulation Activities Primacy Regulation ICR, 2040 0195 9/ 30/ 01 Variances & Exemptions 1993 PWSS Program ICR, 2040 0090 ( via a 1998 Amendment) 9/ 30/ 01 The Capacity Development Program New Activity N/ A General State Primacy Activities 1993 PWSS Program ICR, 2040 0090 9/ 30/ 01 Public Notification ( PN) ( to be added to the PWSS Program ICR when the PN ICR expires) PN ICR, 2040 0209 6/ 30/ 02 Microbial ICR ( 2040 0205)

Surface Water Treatment Rule, except disinfectant residual monitoring and associated activities5 1993 PWSS Program ICR, 2040 0090 9/ 30/ 01 Total Coliform Rule 1993 PWSS Program ICR, 2040 0090 9/ 30/ 01 Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule ( IESWTR) 1998 IESWTR ICR, 2040 0205 11/ 30/ 01 Laboratory QA Evaluation Program New Activity N/ A Filter Backwash Recycling Rule 2001 FBRR ICR, 2040 0224 8/ 31/ 04 Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule ( LT1ESWTR) Draft ICR under review at OMB. N/ A Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule ( LT2ESWTR) Future addition. N/ A Ground Water Rule ( GWR) Future addition. N/ A Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 Activity ICR in which Activity is Currently Covered Expiration Date 8 Disinfectants/ Disinfection Byproducts, Chemical, and Radionuclides ICR ( 2040 0204)

Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule Stage 1 DBPR ICR, 2040 0204 11/ 30/ 01 Disinfectant Residual Monitoring and Associated Activities under the SWTR PWSS Program ICR, 2040 0090 9/ 30/ 01 Total Trihalomethanes Rule PWSS Program ICR, 2040 0090 9/ 30/ 01 Phase I, II, and V PWSS Program ICR, 2040 0090 9/ 30/ 01 1976 IOCs PWSS Program ICR, 2040 0090 9/ 30/ 01 Lead and Copper Rule LCR ICR, 2040 0210 9/ 30/ 02 Arsenic Rule Arsenic ICR, 2040 0231 1/ 31/ 04 Radionuclides, 1976 Rule PWSS Program ICR, 2040 0090 9/ 30/ 01 Radionuclides, 2000 Rule Rads ICR, 2040 0228 11/ 30/ 03 Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule UCMR ICR, 2040 0208 12/ 31/ 03 Stage 2 DBPR Future addition. N/ A Radon Future addition. N/ A Source Water Assessment Program ( SWAP) ICR ( 2040 0197)

SWAP SWAP ICR, 2040 0197 12/ 30/ 00; Under OMB review Underground Injection Control ( UIC) Program ICR ( 2040 0042)

UIC Base Program Activities UIC Program ICR, 2040 0042 9/ 30/ 01 Class V Rule Class V ICR, 2040 0214 11/ 30/ 02 Florida Class I Rule None. N/ A Drinking Water State Revolving Fund ICR ( 2040 0185)

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund ( DWSRF) Program DWSRF ICR, 2040 0185 6/ 30/ 03 Needs Survey ICR ( 2040 0198)

1999 Needs Survey ( complete) Needs Survey ICR, 2040 0198 10/ 31/ 01 Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 9 The EPA requires the information collected under this ICR to carry out its monitoring and enforcement responsibilities under the SDWA. Without comprehensive, up to date information on drinking water contamination, EPA would not be able to meet the SDWA statutory requirements stated below.

NPDWRs under the SDWA are to include monitoring requirements ( Section 1401 ( 1)( D)). Specifically, the Act requires that   there must be criteria and standards to assure a supply of drinking water which dependably complies with such maximum contaminant levels; including quality control and testing procedures to insure compliance with such levels and to insure proper operation and maintenance of the system, ...

Section 1445 of the SDWA requires that   every person who is a supplier of water, . . . shall establish and maintain such records, make such reports, conduct such monitoring, and provide such information as the Administrator may reasonably require by regulation to assist him in establishing regulations, in determining whether such person has acted or is in compliance with this title, ...

1) Surface Water Treatment Rule The 1986 SDWA Amendments require the EPA to propose and promulgate a NPDWR specifying criteria under which filtration would be required as a treatment technique for public water systems supplied by surface water sources ( Section 1412 ( b)( 7)( C)( i)). In promulgating this regulation and setting the criteria, EPA was required to consider source water quality; protection afforded by watershed management programs; treatment techniques, such as disinfection practices and length of water storage; and other factors relevant to protection of health. The requirements for the SWTR included in this ICR help EPA promote public health through proper operation of filtration techniques. Additional SWTR requirements, such as monitoring and watershed control programs, promote protection of public health in the absence of filtration.

2) Total Coliform Rule The 1986 SDWA Amendments required the EPA to publish maximum contaminant level goals ( MCLGs) and promulgate NPDWRs for the 83 contaminants listed in the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at 47 FR 45502 ( March 4, 1982) and 48 FR 45502 ( October 5, 1983). EPA believes that promulgation of this regulation complied with the statutory requirements for regulating total coliforms in all PWSs. Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 10 3) Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule Sections 1401( 1) and 1412( a)( 3) of the SDWA require that when EPA publishes an MCLG, it must also publish a NPDWR that specifies either a MCL or treatment technique. EPA is authorized to promulgate a NPDWR " that requires the use of a treatment technique in lieu of establishing an MCL," if the Agency finds that " it is not economically or technologically feasible to ascertain the level of the contaminant."

To develop the IESWTR, EPA instituted a formal regulatory negotiation ( RegNeg) process in 1992 with potentially affected parties ( 57 FR 53866; Nov 13, 1992). This RegNeg Committee included representatives from the water industry and other interested industries, State public health and regulatory agencies, environmental groups, consumer groups, and EPA. Through an extensive consensus building effort, the RegNeg Committee agreed that EPA should propose three rules   ° An Information Collection Rule ( ICR) ( finalized in 1996). ° A staged Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule ( the first stage was promulgated in December 1998). ° A staged Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule ( the first stage was promulgated concurrently with the IESWTR). Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 11 The information collection will support the Cryptosporidium data gathering activities that will be required under LT2ESWTR. The Lab QA Program is being implemented in advance of the LT2ESWTR because the Cryptosporidium laboratory evaluation programs must be in place and operational before the implementation of the LT2ESWTR. In addition, EPA plans to propose under the LT2ESWTR that PWSs monitoring their source waters for Cryptosporidium prior to rule implementation may apply to have these data " grandfathered." Implementing the Lab QA Program as soon as possible will help ensure that qualified laboratories are available to PWSs that are interested in pursuing this option.

5) Filter Backwash Recycling Rule SDWA was amended in August 1996, resulting in the addition of new sections that establish new drinking water requirements. SDWA Section 1412( b)( 14) requires the Administrator to promulgate a regulation to govern the recycling of filter backwash water within the treatment process of a PWS. The FBRR satisfies this regulatory requirement.

2( b) Use/ Users of the Data The information described in Section 4 of this ICR will be collected by EPA and made available to the public upon request, as required by the Freedom of Information Act ( 40 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 2). In some cases, SDWA requires that the information be provided to the public or the primacy agency. Primary users of the data collected under this ICR are OGWDW, PWS managers, and primacy agencies, which include State regulators, Indian Tribes, and, in some instances, EPA Regional Administrators. Other users include the following   $ Staff from other EPA programs ( such as Superfund, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance)

$ The Federal Emergency Management Administration $ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC)

$ Military bases $ Farmers Home Administration $ Department of Interior $ Department of Housing and Urban Development $ U. S. Army Corps of Engineers $ White House Task Forces $ American Water Works Association $ Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies $ National Rural Water Association $ National Association of Water Companies $ Association of State Drinking Water Administrators ° Natural Resources Defense Council ° Consumers Federation of America ° News Organizations Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 12 Primacy agencies maintain records compiled from PWS respondents ( § 142.14) and can use these records to track PWS monitoring, compliance violations, and enforcement activities. The primacy agency can also track schedules for PWSs trying to achieve compliance. Primacy agencies also report the number of violations, which will help them to target systems for compliance and take the necessary remedial action.

Primacy agencies report information on PWS violations to SDWIS. This Federal information system allows EPA and States to store and retrieve information over time. Trends in compliance data can be evaluated at the system level, at the State level, and at the national program level. Usually, these data are used by the Agency for maintaining oversight and to support Federal enforcement actions in cases where States fail to enforce. Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 6 The FR notice references updates to the PWSS Program ICR, the original location of many of the microbial rule requirements contained in this ICR.

13 3 NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3( a) Non duplication EPA has made an effort to ensure that the data collection efforts associated with this ICR are not duplicated. EPA consulted State environmental programs, other Federal agencies ( such as the CDC), and regulated entities ( such as PWSs and their representative trade associations). To the best of EPA's knowledge, data currently required by the SDWA ( and its implementing regulations codified at 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142) are not available from any other source.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB To comply with the 1995 Amendments to the PRA, EPA solicited public comment on this ICR for a 60 day period before it was submitted to OMB. Specifically, EPA published a notice in the Federal Register requesting comment on the estimated respondent burden and other aspects of this ICR ( 66 Federal Register ( FR) 21926). 6 In addition, EPA published another FR notice ( 66 FR 29793) requesting comments on the Stage 1 DBPR and IESWTR ICRs. These notices are included in Appendix A.

3( c) Consultations Throughout the development and implementation of various microbial regulations, OGWDW has held numerous meetings with interested stakeholders, including State and EPA Regional personnel and PWS representatives, to identify the value and ease of collecting information needed to fulfill SDWA obligations. As a standard regulatory development practice to promote public involvement, EPA formally solicits public comment on proposed drinking water rules. Before any rule is finalized, EPA logs and evaluates all written comments on proposed rules. Additionally, EPA usually holds public meetings during which any interested party may provide oral testimony for Agency consideration. Such meetings are typically announced in the Federal Register notice accompanying the proposed rule.

In the initial phases of program development, or to confirm assumptions on which rules or guidelines are based, EPA often augments formal meetings with other workshops or meetings to Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 14 gather information. The following are specific examples of meetings and other consultations held by EPA to address the regulations and programs contained in this ICR   ° In 1981, EPA held a workshop on drinking water microbiology.

° In 1985, EPA held a workshop to discuss options for regulating microbial contaminants.

° In 1985, the Federal Register presented a discussion on the need for mandatory filtration and disinfection of surface water. This FR notice also requested public comment on the subject.

° A FR notice was published on May 6, 1988, to discuss additional alternatives for the proposed SWTR.

° The TCR was published on June 29, 1989. A 6 year review for the TCR is currently underway. EPA is now reviewing preliminary comments from major stakeholders, including EPA Regions and industry representatives. Further public comment will be solicited for any changes proposed as part of the 6 year review process. If necessary, EPA will hold public meetings as the review process continues.

° In 1992, EPA instituted a formal regulatory negotiation ( RegNeg) process to discuss proposed amendments to the SDWA with potentially affected parties ( 57 FR 53866; Nov. 13, 1992). This RegNeg Committee included representatives from water utilities and other industries, State public health and regulatory agencies, environmental groups, consumer groups, and EPA. Following an extensive consensus building effort, the RegNeg Committee agreed that EPA should propose three rules: Information Collection Rule ( ICR) ( finalized in 1996), staged Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rules, and staged Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rules ( Stage1 was promulgated concurrently with IESWTR).

° A microbial contaminants and disinfection byproducts ( M/ DBP) advisory committee, formed under the authority of the Federal Advisory Committees Act ( FACA), convened in 1997 to review the data and assumptions used to support the 1994 proposed changes to the SWTR and data that had subsequently been collected. In July 1997, participants signed an agreement in principle, outlining the Committee's recommendations to EPA on the major components of the IESWTR and Stage 1 DBPR.

° Between March and December 1997, the Small System Data Needs Working Group held six meetings to discuss availability of water quality and financial data for small systems. Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 15 ° Twenty four small entity representatives ( SERs) were invited to participate in a teleconference to discuss the FBRR on April 28, 1998. Of the 24 invited SERs, 15 participated in the teleconference.

° On August 21, 1998, a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel ( SBARP) met to discuss the proposed FBRR. Two additional meetings of the SBARP were held between August 21 and October 19, 1998.

° In September 1998, the SBARP distributed information on regulatory approaches and costs to the SERs for review and comment.

° The SBARP and SERs participated in a joint teleconference on September 25, 1998.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection EPA has considered a wide range of alternatives for frequency of data collection. Where possible, EPA has chosen to require the least frequent collection that remains consistent with overall public health protection objectives. If data are collected less frequently, the Primacy agency may not identify in a timely fashion significant contaminant concentrations which might threaten the health and safety of drinking water consumers.

For some microbial contaminant regulations, the State has discretion in adjusting the monitoring schedules. Monitoring frequencies are based on regulatory requirements, which vary based on the number of people served by a system, contaminants likely to be found, and source of raw water supply. The monitoring frequency design also considers that the number of persons served affects exposure to contaminants, as well as the resources available to undertake monitoring activity. Monitoring frequencies have been carefully devised based on the following factors   ° Data quality needed for a representative sample. ° Precision and accuracy needed from the representative sample. ° Number of people served by the system. ° Source of the supply ( e. g., surface water or ground water). ° Contaminants likely to be found. ° Historical variability in contaminant occurrence. Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 16 3( e) General Guidelines This ICR was prepared in accordance with the February 1999 version of EPA's Guide to Writing Information Collection Requests Under the Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA) of 1995 ( or " ICR Handbook") prepared by EPA's Office of Environmental Information, Office of Information Collection, Collection Strategies Division. The ICR Handbook provides the most current instructions for ICR preparation to ensure compliance with the 1995 PRA amendments and OMB's implementing guidelines.

3( f) Confidentiality No confidential information will be collected as a result of this ICR.

3( g) Sensitive Questions No information of a sensitive nature will be collected as a result of this ICR. Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 7 Includes all rule components except disinfectant residual monitoring and associated activities, which are included in the DDBP/ Chem/ Rads ICR. ( See Footnote 3 for more information).

17 4 RESPONDENTS AND INFORMATION REQUESTED 4( a) Respondents/ NAICS Codes Data associated with this ICR are collected and maintained at the PWS, State, and Federal levels. Respondents includeC $ Owners/ operators of PWSs, who must report to the primacy agency.

$ Primacy agencies that must report to EPA Headquarters.

$ Regional EPA Administrators, who must send reports and notices to PWS owners and States.

The North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS) code for PWSs is 22131. The NAICS code for State agencies that include drinking water programs are classified as 92411 ( Administration of Air and Water Resources and Solid Waste Management Programs) or 92312 ( Administration of Public Health Programs). Ancillary systems ( i. e., those that supplement the function of other establishments like factories, power plants, mobile home parks, etc.) cannot be categorized in a single NAICS code. For ancillary systems, the NAICS code is that of the primary establishment or industry.

4( b) Information Requested 4( b)( i) Data Items 1) Surface Water Treatment Rule7 Provisions of the SWTR require the following data to be collected by PWSs   ° Source water coliform data for unfiltered systems [ § 141.74( b)( 1)]. ° Turbidity data for unfiltered systems [ § 141.74( b)( 2)]. ° Combined filter effluent data for filtered systems [ § 141.74( c)( 1)]. ° Annual summary of watershed control program for unfiltered systems. ° Annual report summarizing the results of on site inspections for unfiltered systems ° A report to the primacy agency within 48 hours following attribution of any waterborne disease outbreak in an unfiltered system.

In addition, primacy agencies must submit special reports as specified in § 142( 15)( c). Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 8 Subpart H systems include all PWSs using surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water as a source ( 40 CFR § 141.2).

18 2) Total Coliform Rule The TCR requires PWSs to collect and report levels of coliform bacteria ( as total coliform) in the distribution system and data on the presence or absence of E. coli or fecal coliform. Primacy agencies must maintain results of sanitary surveys conducted under TCR.

3) Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule The IESWTR requires individual filter monitoring and modifies the turbidity levels specified in the SWTR. For records kept by PWSs, the IESWTR requires the following

Individual filter turbidity measurements ( § 141.174( a)).

Exceptions to turbidity performance for individual filters ( § 141.175).

The IESWTR ( in § 142.14) requires primacy agencies to maintain the following items for each PWS in the State

List of decisions for a system using alternative filtration technologies that has demonstrated that it can achieve 99 percent removal of Cryptosporidium oocysts.

List of systems that report turbidity exceptions.

Records of any other system by system and case by case decisions made by that State under the rule.

Record of PWSs that change their disinfection processes.

Additionally, the primacy agency must report the following ( per § 142.15)

Subpart H8 systems that have had a sanitary survey in the last year.

Evaluation of the State's program for conducting sanitary surveys for all Subpart H systems. Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 19 5) Filter Backwash Recycling Rule FBRR adds the following requirements to PWS reporting and recordkeeping responsibilities ( as itemized in § 141.76.)

Recycle notification, which includes plant schematic, recycle flow, and plant flow.

List of all recycle flows and the frequency with which they are returned.

Average and maximum backwash flow rates through the filters.

Average and maximum duration of the filter backwash process.

Typical filter run length and a written summary of how filter run length is determined.

Type of treatment provided for the recycle flow.

Data on the physical dimensions of the equalization and/ or treatment units, typical and maximum hydraulic loading rates, type of treatment chemicals used, average dose of treatment chemicals, frequency of treatment chemical use, and frequency at which solids are removed, if applicable.

Alternate recycle locations.

4( b)( ii) Respondent Activities PWSs, laboratories, and primacy agencies must complete the activities described in the sections below.

Public Water Systems and Laboratories In general, each PWS is involved in the following collection activities

Gathering information.

Processing, compiling, and reviewing the information collected.

Submitting reports and other documents.

Recording and maintaining the information.

For this ICR, these activities are necessary to complete monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements associated with microbial contaminant related regulations. Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 9 Includes all rule components except disinfectant residual monitoring and associated activities, which are included in the DDBP/ Chem/ Rads ICR. ( See Footnote 3 for more information).

20 1) Surface Water Treatment Rule9 Requirements for reporting under the SWTR are separated into those for systems that use filtration treatment and those for systems that do not use filtration treatment. The reporting requirements for these types of PWSs are summarized in the paragraphs below.

Unfiltered Systems ° Monitor and report information on the results of source water monitoring for total or fecal coliforms and turbidity. ° Submit this information each month that the system is in operation. ° Summarize fecal or total coliform monitoring by including the number of total or fecal coliform samples collected; the values obtained for each measurement; the number of results less than 20/ 100 ml for fecal coliforms or less than 100/ 100 ml for total coliforms during the month; the cumulative number of fecal or total coliform results obtained since the start of the six consecutive month compliance period; and the percent of samples less than the respective performance standard for the 6 month compliance period. ° Summarize turbidity information to includes values obtained for each measurement of CFE; the value and date of each measurement that exceeded five NTUs; and when the system informed its customers to boil their water.

Filtered Systems ° Monitor and report to the State on a monthly basis information regarding CFE turbidity. Turbidity reporting requirements vary according to the filtration technology used.

2) Total Coliform Rule PWSs must conduct the follwoing activities to comply with the TCR   ° Collect water samples at specified intervals, as defined in the Federal or State regulations. ° Collect monitoring data on the level of coliform bacteria ( as total coliform) in the distribution system. ° Collect data on the presence or absence of E. coli or fecal coliform, following a positive routine total coliform sample. ° Report laboratory results and violations to the State at frequencies required by Federal and State regulations. Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 21 3) Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule The IESWTR only applies to systems serving at least 10,000 people; these PWSs are required to do the following   ° Install and monitor individual filter turbidimeters for each filter in the system ( § § 141.170 and 141.174). ° Take individual filter turbidimeter readings at the intervals specified by § 141.174. ° Report individual filter turbidity monitoring results to the State at frequencies specified in the Federal and State regulations. ° Report exceptions to the primacy agency in cases where the monitoring shows exceedances of specific turbidity levels. ° Perform a filter profile, filter assessment, or a CPE if warranted ( § 141.175). ° Provide a CPE report to the State if necessary.

5) Filter Backwash Recycling Rule The FBRR requires each affected PWS to report recycle practice information to the State and maintain records on recycle flows. In general, to comply with FBRR, PWSs must complete some additional collection activities

Mobilization and planning activities.

Meeting with the State regarding changes in recycling practices.

Primacy Agencies In general, primacy agencies conduct the following activities with regard to reporting and recordkeeping   ° Maintaining an inventory of PWSs. ° Compiling results of analyses of drinking water samples. ° Analyzing and reviewing PWS data. ° Making determinations concerning PWSs. Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 22 ° Tracking PWS compliance. ° Listing systems not in compliance with drinking water standards. ° Recordkeeping such as maintaining State approval of plans and specifications, enforcement activities, and variances and exemptions for each PWS.

By conducting these activities, primacy agencies are able to evaluate PWS performance and to identify PWS needs and problem areas. They also identify enforcement targets and systems requiring remedial action. In addition, States serve as respondents when reporting compliance data to the Federal government. Some of these activities are covered in the PWSS Program ICR as general primacy activities. Therefore, only microbial contaminant specific recordkeeping activities have been included in this Microbial ICR.

1) Surface Water Treatment Rule The SWTR states that primacy agencies must conduct the following   ° Collect and maintain information submitted by PWSs. ° Record which systems using surface water are required to provide filtration and which are not. These records must be kept indefinitely. ° Submit a special report to the EPA Administrator listing PWSs that are not required to filter. ° Retain the results of microbiological contaminant analyses of source water samples in the same manner as other microbiological contaminant analytical results.

2) Total Coliform Rule Primacy agencies are required by the TCR to conduct the following activities   ° Analyze monitoring results and identify systems not in compliance with either MCLs ( or performance criteria) or monitoring and reporting frequencies. ° Provide in writing permission for reduced monitoring or monitoring waivers; maintain for 5 years. ° Submit to the EPA Administrator a special report that lists PWSs that have received permission to reduce monitoring requirements [ § 142( 15)( c)]. ° Collect and maintain data regarding the results of sanitary surveys conducted under the TCR.

3) Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule States are required to maintain records of State verification activities and each determination made and to report to EPA in accordance with State reporting requirements ( § 142.15) through the SDWIS. Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 23 Primacy agencies ensure that PWSs are implementing IESWTR ( § 142.16) properly. To meet these responsibilities, States are involved in the following additional activities

Conducting CPEs for PWSs.

Conducting sanitary surveys.

4) Laboratory Quality Assurance Evaluation Program for Analysis of Cryptosporidium in Water No State activities are associated with the Lab QA Program.

5) Filter Backwash Recycling Rule For the FBRR, primacy agencies incur a recordkeeping requirement for maintaining data submitted by conventional and direct filtration PWSs that recycle. Primacy agencies must also maintain written approval for all PWSs with alternate recycle locations ( § 142.14).

Primacy agencies will ensure that PWSs are implementing the FBRR properly ( § 142.16). To meet these responsibilities successfully, EPA anticipates that States will engage in the following additional activities

Training PWS and consultant staff.

Consulting with PWSs on changes in recycling practices.

Conducting follow up inspections. Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 24 5 INFORMATION COLLECTED  AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5( a) Agency Activities As part of its supervisory responsibility, EPA maintains SDWIS and evaluates SDWIS data to determine system compliance. Agency personnel also reformat, distribute, and store these data for a number of uses, including responding to Congressional and public inquiries. EPA also oversees its Regional and State programs, provides technical assistance, and develops policies designed to ensure consistent program implementation. EPA officials serve as respondents when testifying to Congress on the PWSS Program or in the courts for enforcement actions.

Burden and costs for these activities are addressed in the PWSS Program ICR ( OMB No. 2040 0090). Section 5( a) of the PWSS Program ICR contains additional detail regarding the activities supported by the collection of SDWIS data described above.

In addition to these activities, the Agency will also assume the activities performed by the State in those States and territories that do not have primacy. Specifically, the Agency will be involved in the following activities related to microbial contaminant regulations   ° Mobilization, planning, and implementation. ° Training PWS and consultant staff. ° Analyzing and reviewing PWS data. ° Making determinations concerning PWSs. ° Conduct CPEs and sanitary surveys. ° Meeting with PWSs about changes in recycling practices. ° Compliance tracking. ° Recordkeeping.

Burden and costs for these activities are accounted for under the primacy agency burden ( see Section 4). Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 10In the next few years, EPA anticipates a substantial reduction in the burden and cost associated with reporting data because of increased efficiency of electronic reporting by PWSs and State agencies. Laboratories are developing the ability to report monitoring data directly to primacy agencies.

25 5( b) Collection Methodology and Management Primacy agencies must report data quarterly to EPA. These data include any new data and revisions or corrections to existing data. This information is maintained in SDWIS, which contains the followingC $ Inventory data for each PWS.

$ Violations.

$ Enforcement actions and some follow up activity.

$ Variances and exemptions.

Primacy agencies transmit SDWIS data to EPA both manually and electronically. In Wyoming and Indian Lands ( except for the Navajo Nation, which has primacy), results of system samples are sent directly to the EPA Region. Virtually all SDWIS data are reported electronically by the primacy agency. 10 SDWIS data support a number of rule implementation and program management activities, which include the followingC

Tracking the status of PWSs that are in significant non compliance ( SNC). This information is provided to the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, as part of the Reporting for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Priorities. These data provide senior management with information on trends in drinking water enforcement.

Supporting data verification. EPA Regions undertake an extensive review of SDWIS dataCthe primary purposes of which is to assess the quality of data and recommend any necessary changes in collection or reporting methodologies.

$ Promoting consistent national program implementation. The process of data verification provides insights into the primacy agency's interpretation of regulations. Such information supports fair and consistent SDWA implementation and enforcement. Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 11 These definitions were taken from § 601 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

26 All costs for rule related data management activities are addressed in the PWSS Program ICR ( OMB No. 2040 0090). Section 5( b) of the PWSS Program ICR contains additional detail regarding the activities supported by the collection of SDWIS data described above.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility In developing this ICR, EPA considered the requirement of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act ( SBREFA) to minimize the burden of information collections on small entities. Small entities include " small businesses," " small organizations" and " small government jurisdictions." These terms are defined below. 11

A small business is any business that is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field as defined by the Small Business Administration regulations under Section 3 of the Small Business Act.

A small organization is any non profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field.

A small governmental jurisdiction is the government of a city, county, town, township, village, school district or special district that has a population of fewer than 50,000. This definition may also include Indian Tribes.

The major requirement under SBREFA is a regulatory flexibility analysis ( RFA) of all rules that have a " significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities." Since this ICR is not currently associated with new rules, it is not currently subject to the SBREFA. Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 27 Throughout the 1992   93 negotiated rulemaking process for the Stage 1 DBPR, the IESWTR, and the July 1994 proposals for these rules, a small PWS was defined as a system serving fewer than 10,000 people. This definition reflects the original 1979 standard for TTHMs which applied only to systems serving at least 10,000 people. The definition thus recognizes that the baseline conditions from which systems serving fewer than 10,000 people would approach disinfection byproduct control and simultaneous control of microbial pathogens would be different than those for systems serving 10,000 or more people. Consistent with the 1994 proposals, EPA is continuing to define a " small system" ( for the purposes of the microbial contaminant regulations) as a PWS that serves fewer than 10,000 people. Subsequent to the 1994 proposals, EPA defined a " small business" for purposes of RFA in drinking water regulations as a PWS serving 10,000 or fewer people. This definition is consistent with the approach used herein and that was noted in the 1996 Congressional amendments to SDWA.

EPA has made significant efforts to minimize the burden for all respondents, particularly for small entities. In setting both MCLs and monitoring requirements, EPA has been able to minimize burden for small entities in the following ways   1) Surface Water Treatment Rule Only a small percentage of small systems use surface water supplies; therefore, this rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Since system size is the key determinant of the monitoring frequency requirements of the SWTR, systems serving fewer than 3,300 persons will have the least stringent monitoring requirements.

EPA will allow a reduction in the frequency of turbidity monitoring from six samples per day to one sample per day for systems using slow sand filtration treatment or other eligible technologies. Systems serving fewer than 500 people may also reduce sampling to once per day regardless of filtration type.

2) Total Coliform Rule The number of required coliform samples varies directly with system size. Specifically, for CWSs, the number of samples range from a minimum of one sample per month for systems serving fewer than 1,000 people to 480 samples per month for those serving 3,960,001 or more people. This requirement is codified at 40 CFR § 141.21( a). Generally, quarterly monitoring must be conducted at NCWSs using only ground water that is not under the direct influence of surface water and serving 1,000 or fewer people. As provided for in § 141.21( a)( 3)( i), however, the primacy agency may reduce the quarterly monitoring frequency, as a result of a sanitary survey.

3) Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule Except for sanitary survey requirements, which are carried out by the primacy agency, the IESWTR only applies to systems serving at least 10,000 people. Accordingly, the rule does not have a significant impact on small entities. Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 28 5) Filter Backwash Recycling Rule The FBRR applies to both large and small systems. Therefore, the rule will have an effect on small entities. Accordingly, as part of the economic analysis for the rule, EPA is certifying that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small systems. As a result, an RFA was not required to be conducted.

5( d) Collection Schedule The collection schedules for each rule are summarized below. Additional information may be obtained by consulting the individual rules for specific collection schedules.

Exhibit 2 Collection Schedule Rule Collection Commencement Year SWTR 1990/ 1993 ( depending on filtration status)

TCR 1991   coliform monitoring 1994   sanitary surveys IEWSTR 2002  turbidity monitoring 2002/ 2004  sanitary surveys ( depending on size and source type)

FBRR 2004 Lab QA Program 2002 6 ESTIMATING BURDEN AND COST OF COLLECTION This section estimates the burden and cost to PWSs, laboratories, primacy agencies, and EPA for complying with drinking water information requirements associated with microbial contaminant rulemakings and related programs. These include the following   Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 12 Includes all rule components except disinfectant residual monitoring and associated activities, which are included in the DDBP/ Chem/ Rads ICR. ( See footnote 1for more information).

13 Currently, only descriptions of FBRR activities are included in this ICR. Burden and costs for the FBRR are described in the Microbial ICR to facilitate their inclusion at a future date. Until then, all burden and cost values have been zeroed out for FBRR activities. Evaluation of the FBRR's potential impact on the Microbial ICR is included in Section 6( f)( iv).

14 The State Workload Model is a spreadsheet model used by States/ Primacy Agencies to estimate resource needs for implementation of drinking water regulations.

15 The most recent frozen SDWIS database pull is from January 2001 and reflects data updated through September 2000.

29 46) Surface Water Treatment Rule ( SWTR) 12 47) Total Coliform Rule ( TCR) 48) Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule ( IESWTR) 49) Laboratory Quality Assurance Evaluation Program for Analysis of Cryptosporidium in Water ( Lab QA Program) 50) Filter Backwash Recycling Rule ( FBRR) 13 This ICR updates the annual burdens and costs associated with these rulemakings and related programs for the 3 year ICR period 2002 through 2004. This section also discusses the assumptions used to estimate cost and burden and describes the change in annual burden, as compared with the current OMB annual burden inventory.

For this update, many assumptions were revised based on program changes and welldocumented changes in some data. EPA is committed to accurately characterizing the burden and costs of rules it promulgates. Consequently, it has maintained communication with interested stakeholders. Based on the information gathered during consultations with these stakeholders, EPA has refined some of the assumptions for calculating the burden and costs associated with implementing the drinking water regulations and programs contained in this ICR.

Specifically, EPA noted several inconsistencies in assumptions used to estimate burden and costs in previous ICRs. To provide a comparable basis on which to calculate the requirements addressed by the Microbial ICR and to address inconsistencies, EPA applied uniform assumptions to all rules and programs. The categories of assumptions are listed below.

$ Labor ratesCfor PWSs, a mean hourly rate of $ 15.02 with an overhead rate of 60 percent; for States, the hourly rate from the most recent State Workload Model. 14 $ PWS inventory figures from the most recent frozen SDWIS database pull. 15 $ Number of entry pointsCderived from the 1993 ASDWA survey ( surface water) and 1995 Community Water System Survey ( ground water).

$ Number of plantsCdata from the 1995 Community Water System Survey ( CWSS).

6( a) Respondent Burden Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 30 6( a)( i) Burden to Public Water Systems and Laboratories The annual PWS and laboratory burden for FYs 2002 through 2004 is estimated to be approximately 6.62 million hours. Exhibit 3 ( at the end of Section 6( b)) shows the breakdown of the annual burden hours on rule or program specific bases. Wherever possible, activity level burden assumptions were carried forward from previous ICRs. However, if updated data were available ( e. g., system inventories), the data were used in burden calculations. Appendices E through H show the assumptions and detailed burden calculations for each rule or program. The following further describes the bases for the burden estimates for each rule or program.

1) Surface Water Treatment Rule Activities associated with the SWTR account for 0.76 million annual burden hours. The assumptions used to calculate the SWTR burden are based largely on assumptions from the 1993 PWSS Program ICR, which maintained the assumptions and burden estimates from the February 1989 Information Collection Request for: National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for the Final Surface Water Treatment Rule. This ICR includes burden estimates for all components of the SWTR except disinfectant residual monitoring and associated activities, which are included in the DDBP/ Chem/ Rads ICR. For unfiltered systems, burden estimates include raw water sampling for coliforms, on site inspections, watershed management, and raw water turbidity monitoring. The burden for filtered systems includes only finished water turbidity monitoring. Section 6( f) describes the reasons for changes between the burden reported in the 1993 PWSS Program ICR and the Microbial ICR. Detailed burden and cost calculations for the SWTR are provided in Appendix E.

2) Total Coliform Rule Activities associated with the TCR account for a burden of 2.22 million hours per year. The burden estimates include routine total coliform monitoring and repeat sampling for E. coli or fecal coliform. The assumptions used to calculate the TCR burden are based largely on assumptions from the 1993 PWSS Program ICR, which maintained the assumptions and burden estimates from the March 1989 Information Collection Request for: National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for the Total Coliform Rule. Section 6( f) describes the reasons for changes between the burden reported in the 1993 PWSS Program ICR and the Microbial ICR. Appendix F summarizes the assumptions used to calculate the TCR burden and provides the detailed burden and cost calculations.

3) Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule Total annual burden for PWSs for the IESWTR is estimated to be 3.63 million hours. Included in this burden is individual filter turbidity monitoring, turbidity exceptions reporting, and conducting individual filter self assessments ( IFAs). Activity level burden assumptions for this ICR were carried forward from the September 1998 Information Collection Request for the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule ( IESWTR ICR). Reasons for changes in burden between the IESWTR ICR and the Microbial Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 31 ICR are summarized in Section 6( f). Detailed information about assumptions, burden, and calculations are provided in Appendix G.

4) Laboratory Quality Assurance Evaluation Program for Analysis of Cryptosporidium in Drinking Water The Lab QA Program is a new program for laboratories wishing to perform Cryptosporidium analyses for PWSs under the upcoming LT2ESWTR. Any burden incurred under this program is voluntary. The burden for the Lab QA Program is incurred by laboratories, not PWSs. To estimate burden hours, EPA consulted with fewer than nine respondents from the community of laboratories that may voluntarily apply for EPA recognition of laboratory capability to perform Cryptosporidium analyses using EPA Method 1622 and EPA Method 1623. Total annual burden for laboratories under the Lab QA Program is estimated to be 0.005 million hours. Detailed information about assumptions, burden, and calculations are provided in Appendix H.

5) Filter Backwash Recycling Rule Implementation of the FBRR is expected to result in burden hours for activities related to startup, recycle notification, recycle flow information requirements, and alternative location requests. This ICR will incorporate assumptions from the 2001 Information Collection Request for the Filter Backwash Recycling Rule ( FBRR ICR). These burden hours will be incorporated via an ICW after final publication of the Microbial ICR. Section 6( f)( iv) includes a discussion of the impact of these burden hours.

6( a)( ii) Burden to Primacy Agencies The annual burden for primacy agencies for FYs 2002 through 2004 is estimated to be approximately 1.58 million hours. Exhibit 4 ( at the end of Section 6( b)) shows the annual burden hours on a rule or program specific basis. Many other primacy agency activities, such as compliance assurance and data management, cannot be divided among specific rules and are included in the 2001 PWSS Program ICR as general primacy activities. The following briefly describes the bases for the burden estimates included in this ICRC 1) Surface Water Treatment Rule The annual State burden for the SWTR is expected to be 0.17 million hours. All of this burden is associated with review of CFE turbidity monitoring results. Detailed calculations for burden and cost are shown in Appendix E.

2) Total Coliform Rule For primacy agencies, the annual burden associated with the TCR is estimated to be approximately 0.80 million hours. This reflects burden to monitor TCR related activities and to conduct sanitary surveys on systems serving fewer than 4,100 people. Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 32 In the 1993 PWSS Program ICR, burden for sanitary surveys was attributed to PWSs. The rationale for this assumption is drawn from the 1989 TCR ICR, which states   ... although the rule requires that sanitary surveys be conducted by the State or an agent of the State, States will most likely offset the significant costs associated with conducting the surveys by charging user fees or requiring systems to pay outside contractors to conduct the surveys as agents of the State. Therefore, costs and burdens associated with sanitary surveys were attributed to public water systems...

However, since the rule clearly requires the State ( or an agent of the State) to conduct sanitary surveys, this ICR attributes burden for sanitary surveys to the States. Appendix F shows detailed burden and cost calculations.

3) Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule Primacy agencies are expected to expend 0.60 million annual burden hours implementing requirements of the IESWTR. The activities include review of turbidity monitoring results and exceptions reports. Additionally, States conduct CPEs and sanitary surveys for all surface water systems. Detailed cost and burden calculations are included in Appendix G.

4) Laboratory Quality Assurance Evaluation Program for Analysis of Cryptosporidium in Water There is no primacy agency burden associated with the Lab QA Program.

5) Filter Backwash Recycling Rule As with PWS respondents, implementation of the FBRR is expected to result in burden hours related to startup activities, recycle notification, and alternative location requests. This ICR will incorporate assumptions from the 2001 FBRR ICR. These burden hours will be incorporated via an ICW after final publication of the Microbial ICR. Section 6( f)( iv) includes a discussion of the impact of these burden hours.

6( b) Respondent Costs 6( b)( i) Cost to Public Water Systems and Laboratories Exhibit 3 shows the annual costs for PWSs and laboratories over the 3 year ICR period. Annual costs are estimated at approximately $ 241.8 million, which consists of $ 159.1 million in labor costs, $ 64.3 million in O& M costs, and $ 18.4 million in capital costs.

PWS labor costs are based on the number of burden hours times the average hourly wage rate, including overhead. The average hourly wage rate is the rate quoted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS) for SIC Code 51 8031, " Local Government   Water and Liquid Waste Treatment Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 33 Plant and System Operators." The quoted rate was $ 14.69 in 1999 dollars ( see http:// stats. bls. gov/ oes/ 1999/ oesi3_ 903. htm). For consistency, this rate has been inflated to September 2000 dollars using the Employment Cost Index. The inflated rate is $ 15.02. In addition, 60 percent overhead was assumed, bringing the loaded rate to $ 24.03 in September 2000 dollars.

Laboratory labor rates used to calculate Lab QA Program labor costs are also based on the number of burden hours times the average hourly wage rate, including overhead. Laboratory labor rates were obtained through verbal consultation with five laboratories that would likely be participating in the Lab QA Program.

In addition to the labor costs, there are O& M costs associated with the SWTR, TCR, IESWTR, and the Lab QA Program. For the SWTR, these O& M costs reflect non labor costs associated with coliform analysis ( unfiltered systems) and turbidity analysis ( unfiltered and filtered systems). Coliform analysis O& M costs are based on analysis costs as listed in the 1996 Information Collection Rule ICR, updated for inflation. Turbidity analysis O& M costs are based on vendor quotes regarding calibration materials needed to perform turbidity analyses. TCR O& M costs reflect non labor costs associated with coliform and E. coli analysis. These analysis O& M costs are also based on the 1996 Information Collection Rule ICR, updated for inflation. IESWTR O& M costs reflect non labor costs associated with turbidity analysis for individual filters. For the IESWTR, turbidity analysis costs are based on O& M cost equations for operating an integrated Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition ( SCADA) system. These cost equations are carried forward from the IESWTR Regulatory Impact Analysis ( RIA). Lastly, Lab QA Program O& M costs reflect the analysis costs required during the evaluation process. These costs were obtained through verbal consultation with five laboratories that would likely be participating in the Lab QA Program.

The SWTR and IESWTR also include capital costs for turbidity monitoring equipment. For the SWTR, capital costs are estimated based on vendor estimates for in line and bench top turbidimeters needed to comply with CFE monitoring requirements. IESWTR capital costs are based on equipment cost equations developed for the IESWTR RIA, and reflect the annualized ( at 7% cost of capital) cost for installation of a SCADA system to monitor individual filter turbidity. For both the SWTR and the IESWTR, the replacement period for turbidity analysis equipment is estimated to be 7 years.

Further detail on the O& M and capital costs for the SWTR, TCR, IESWTR, and Lab QA Program can be found in Appendices E, F, G, and H, respectively.

6( b)( ii) Cost to Primacy Agencies Exhibit 4 shows that the annual costs to primacy agencies are estimated at approximately $ 45.6 million in labor costs. The labor costs are based on an average FTE cost of $ 60,086 Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 16 According to the ICR Handbook: EPA's Guide to Writing Information Collection Requests Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Revised 2/ 99, an employee works an average of 2,080 hours in one year.

17 FBRR burden and costs will be moved into the Microbial ICR via an ICW after the Microbial ICR is finalized.

34 including overhead, which equates to approximately $ 28.89 per hour. 16 This rate, which has been inflated to year 2000 dollars, is based on the rate ($ 55,000) suggested by the workgroup that developed the State Workload Model in 1997.

There are no O& M or capital costs for primacy agencies under this ICR.

Exhibit 3 Annual PWS and Laboratory Burden and Cost 2002 2004 Activity Annual Burden Hours Cost Annual Respons es Annual Labor Cost ($ K) Annual O& M Cost ($ K) Annual Capital Cost ($ K) Total Annual Cost ($ K)

SWTR 761,516 $ 18,296 $ 3,720 $ 1,704 $ 23,720 16,221,7 TCR 2,220,329 $ 53,345 $ 57,735 $ 0 $ 111,080 886,812 IESWTR 3,634,114 $ 87,312 $ 2,711 $ 16,694 $ 106,717 3,356,87 Lab QA 5,217 $ 132 $ 143 $ 0 $ 275 200 FBRR17 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 0 TOTAL 6,621,176 $ 159,085 $ 64,309 $ 18,398 $ 241,792 20,465,6 21 Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 18 FBRR burden and costs will be moved into the Microbial ICR via an ICW after the Microbial ICR is finalized.

35 Exhibit 4 Annual Primacy Agency Burden and Cost 2002 2004 Activity Annual Burden Hours Cost Annual Respons es Annual Labor Cost ($ K) Annual O& M Cost ($ K) Annual Capital Cost ($ K) Total Annual Cost ($ K)

SWTR 168,007 $ 4,853 $ 0 $ 0 $ 4,853 66,719 TCR 804,996 $ 23,256 $ 0 $ 0 $ 23,256 2,005,89 IESWTR 604,238 $ 17,455 $ 0 $ 0 $ 17,455 63,986 Lab QA N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A FBRR18 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 0 TOTAL 1,577,241 $ 45,564 $ 0 $ 0 $ 45,564 2,136,60 1 6( c) Agency Burden and Costs Burden and costs to the Federal government are incurred by EPA's drinking water program at Headquarters and EPA Regions to assist primacy agencies in implementing drinking water regulations. EPA burden and costs for on going general activities for all EPA drinking water regulations ( not just those listed in this ICR) Burden and costs included in the PWSS Program ICR cover all cross cutting ( non rule specific) regulatory activities associated with compliance tracking, regulatory enforcement, and rule development activities. There are no rule specific activities expected for EPA under any of the rules or programs covered by this ICR. However, EPA is expected to incur burden and costs under the Lab QA Program.

EPA burden and costs specific to the Lab QA Program are included in this ICR and are based on activities completed by both EPA and supporting contractors. Burden hours are Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 19 For several of these entities, primacy activities are actually implemented by EPA Regional offices. However, as a simplifying assumption, they are included with the States for respondent calculations under this ICR.

36 estimated at 5,385 annually at an annual cost of $ 0.34 million. Labor costs are calculated by multiplying the number of annual burden hours by applicable labor rates. For EPA personnel, labor rates are based on the 2001 General Schedule ( GS) for the Washington DC/ Baltimore area and the standard government benefits multiplication factor of 1.6. EPA estimates an average hourly cost of $ 67.36/ hour for Agency legal staff, $ 57.25/ hour for Agency management staff, $ 34.00/ hour for Agency technical staff, and $ 14.77/ hour for Agency clerical staff. Contractor labor rates are based on the standard labor rates under the General Services Administration ( GSA) Management Organizational and Business Improvement Services ( MOBIS) time and materials contract vehicle under which Lab QA Program work will be performed. As a time and materials contract, the labor rates are already loaded and require no additional adjustment factors. Loaded labor rates for contractor burden hours were estimated at $ 132.50/ hour for expert staff, $ 69.08/ hour for management staff, $ 58.32/ hour for technical staff, and $ 23.44/ hour for intern staff.

The Agency will also incur O& M and capital costs associated with the Lab QA Program. Annual Lab QA Program O& M and capital costs are estimated at $ 0.07 million and $ 0.02 million, respectively, and reflect costs for analyses and related equipment required during the evaluation process. These costs were obtained through verbal consultation with five laboratories that would likely be participating in the Lab QA Program.

Detail regarding Agency burden and costs calculations for the Lab QA Program can be found in Appendix H.

6( d) Estimating Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs Respondents for this ICR include PWSs, laboratories, and primacy agencies. This ICR estimates that the number of PWS respondents is 167,837 existing PWSs. All PWSs are not necessarily subject to each of the information collection requirements contained in this ICR. Each rule or program associated with this ICR identifies the types of PWSs that are subject to that particular requirement. The numbers, by type, of PWSs affected for each rule or program are identified in the appendices. Under the Lab QA Program, this ICR estimates a total of 60 laboratory respondents.

In addition to the PWS and laboratory respondents, this ICR assumes 57 primacy agencies ( 50 States plus DC, U. S. Territories, and Indian Nations). 19 Therefore, the total number of respondents is 167,954.

The total costs and burden for these respondents are summarized in Exhibits 3 and 4.

6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 37 The bottom line burden hours and costs for this ICR appear in Exhibit 5. The total annual respondent burden associated with this ICR, which includes burden for PWSs, laboratories, and primacy agencies, is estimated to be approximately 8.20 million burden hours. The corresponding total annual respondent costs are estimated to be $ 287.4 million. Accounting for the annual EPA burden and cost is estimated to add 5,385 hours and $ 0.43 million to the respondent totals.

Exhibit 5 Bottom Line Annual Burden and Cost 2002 2004 Number of Annual Respondents 167,954 = 167,837 + 60 + 57 Existing PWSs Laboratories Primacy agencies Total Annual Responses 22,602,222 = 20,465,621 + 2,136,601 PWS and Lab responses ( see Exhibit 3) Primacy agency responses ( see Exhibit 4)

Number of Responses per Respondent 134.6 = 22,602,222 / 167,954 Total annual responses from above Total number of respondents from above Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours 8,198,417 = 6,621,176 + 1,577,241 PWS and Lab hours ( see Exhibit 3) Primacy agency hours ( see Exhibit 4)

Hours per Response 0.36 = 8,198,417 / 22,602,222 Total respondent burden hours from above Total annual responses from above Total Annual Respondent Cost $ 287,356k = $ 241,792k + $ 45,564k For PWSs and Labs ( see Exhibit 3) For primacy agencies ( see Exhibit 4)

Total Annual Hours ( resp. plus Agency) 8,203,802 = 8,198,417 + 5,385 Total respondent hours from above Total EPA hours Total Annual Cost ( resp. plus Agency) $ 287,788k = $ 287,356k +$ 432k Total respondent cost from above Total EPA cost 6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden This section presents the change in burden and explains the reasons for the change in burden. The discussion is divided into four partsC Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 38

Section 6( f)( i) summarizes the restructuring adjustments being made to consolidate the burden for each of the regulations being incorporated into the Microbial ICR. See Exhibit 7.

Section 6( f)( ii) summarizes program changes for new activities to be added to the Microbial ICR. See Exhibit 8.

Section 6( f)( iii) summarizes other adjustments to the annual burden estimates associated with each rule or program incorporated into the Microbial ICR. See Exhibits 9 through 11.

Section 6( f)( iv) summarizes the expected impact on burden from the addition of FBRR activities. This section is provided based on the expected addition of FBRR burden via an ICW after finalization of the Microbial ICR. This burden is presented solely for information purposes and is not included in the burden inventory currently being requested under the Microbial ICR. See Exhibit 12.

Exhibit 6 summarizes how each of these changes ( with the exception of the FBRR changes) affects the overall burden inventory for the Microbial ICR.

Exhibit 6 Reasons for Change in Annual Burden Type of Change Change Running Total Comment Burden Estimated in the 1998 IESWTR ICR. 150,557 150,557 This burden serves as the baseline for the Microbial ICR.

Restructuring AdjustmentsCsee Section 6( f)( i) 4,498,781 4,649,338 Microbial ICR inventory based on cumulative OMB inventory for current rule specific ICRs.

Program changesCsee Section 6( f)( ii) 5,217 4,654,555 Burden after adding new program ( Lab QA Program).

Other Adjustments to BurdensCsee Section 6( f)( iii) 3,543,862 8,198,417 Burden for which EPA seeks approval in this ICR.

6( f)( i) Restructuring Adjustments Several restructuring adjustments are being made to consolidate the burden for each of the regulations being incorporated into the Microbial ICR. These adjustments are discussed below and summarized in Exhibit 7. Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 39

Burden associated with the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. The annual burden estimated in the 1998 IESWTR ICR is 150,557 hours. This includes 94,258 annual burden hours for PWSs and 56,299 annual burden hours for States ( Figure 2 of the 1998 IESWTR ICR). This burden serves as the baseline burden for the Microbial ICR. The IESWTR ICR is being renamed the Microbial ICR. The Microbial ICR will retain the control number from the IESWTR ICR ( OMB No. 2040 0205).

rules, EPA is requesting that all these hours, except those associated with disinfection residual monitoring and associated activities, be moved to the Microbial ICR ( OMB No. 2040 0205). Since the burden associated with disinfection residual monitoring is estimated to be 719,098 hours, the remaining 948,983 hours will be moved to the Microbial ICR.

Burden associated with the Total Coliform Rule. The 1993 PWSS ICR includes a total of 3,549,798 hours per year for TCR activities. This includes 1,037,585 hours for NCWSs ( Exhibit 8 of the 1993 PWSS Program ICR), 1,988,213 hours for CWSs ( also Exhibit 8), and 524,000 hours for State primacy agencies ( Exhibit 7 of the 1993 PWSS Program ICR). In order to consolidate microbial contaminant related rules, EPA is requesting that these hours be moved to the Microbial ICR ( OMB No. 2040 0205).

Exhibit 7 Restructuring Adjustments to the Annual Burden Inventory for the Microbial ICR ( Includes both PWS and Primacy Agency Burden)

Action Annual Burden Hours Brief Explanation N/ A 150,557 Opening Inventory from 1998 IESWTR carried forward as the baseline Microbial ICR inventory.

Add 948,983 This represents the current SWTR burden inventory associated with microbial contaminant related activities. This inventory is being moved from the 1993 PWSS Program ICR ( 2040 0090) and into the Microbial ICR. Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 40 Add 3,549,798 This represents the current TCR burden inventory. This inventory is being moved from the 1993 PWSS Program ICR ( 2040 0090) and into the Microbial ICR.

Total 4,649,338 Microbial ICR inventory based on current burden inventories 6( f)( ii) Program Changes This ICR includes one program changeCthe addition of the burden associated with the EPA's Lab QA Program. EPA developed this voluntary program based on anticipated laboratory evaluation needs for the LT2ESWTR. The estimated respondent burden for laboratory quality assurance evaluation activities is 5,217 hours per year for participating laboratories. Exhibit 8 shows the affect of this program change. Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 41 Exhibit 8 Program Changes Action Annual Burden Hours Brief Explanation None 4,649,338 Microbial ICR inventory based on current burden inventories ( see Exhibit 7).

Add 5,217 Lab QA Program.

Total 4,654,555 Inventory after restructuring adjustments and adding program changes.

6( f)( iii) Other Burden Adjustments The remaining changes in burden are a result of adjustments to individual rule burden calculations. Changes in calculated burden are a result of updating relevant baseline information for each rule or program with the most current and accurate information available ( e. g, PWS inventories). Estimated violation rates have also been updated to reflect current information on rule compliance ( this affects TCR predicted burden). For the IESWTR, a large increase in annual burden reflects movement from startup activities to the actual monitoring compliance period. For primacy agency activities, changes in the levels of rule specific activity tend to mirror the changes in PWS activities. Exhibits 9 and 10 summarize reasons for these changes and quantify the changes, by rule. Burden adjustments associated with PWS activities resulted in a burden increase of 2,787,224 hours and are detailed in Exhibit 9. Burden adjustments for primacy agencies result in an increase of 756,638 hours per year, as shown in Exhibit 10. Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 42 Exhibit 9 Adjustments to PWS Burden from Previous ICR Estimates Activity Previous Estimate 2001 Burden Estimate Change in Burden Reason for Change in Burden SWTR 708,679 761,516 52,837 The increase in burden results from an increase in the number of systems affected by the rule.

TCR 3,025,798 2,220,329 ( 805,469) The decrease in burden is driven by three major factors: 1) Use of actual violation rates compiled after rule implementation. Actual violation rates were found to be lower than those estimated in the initial ICR estimates. 2) Sanitary surveys for small surface water and GWUDI systems are now covered under the IESWTR. 3) Sanitary surveys for small ground water systems are the responsibility of the primacy agency. This burden was incorrectly counted as a PWS burden in the previous ICR and has been moved to the primacy agency burden.

IESWTR 94,258 3,634,114 3,539,856 The large increase in burden hours is the result of the commencement of monitoring activities under the IESWTR. The previous ICR included only startup activities.

TOTAL 3,828,735 6,615,959 2,787,224 Adjusted PWS Burden Note: Detail may not add exactly to total due to independent rounding. Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 43 Exhibit 10 Adjustments to Primacy Agency Burden from Previous ICR Estimates Activity Previous Estimate 2001 Burden Estimate Change in Burden Reason for Change in Burden SWTR 240,304 168,007 ( 72,297) Because primacy agency burden is derived from the State Workload Model, a single burden value is given for the SWTR. Therefore, primacy agency burden hours must be apportioned between discrete activities based on the relative proportion of burden hours for each activity. The decrease in burden listed here results from a decrease in the number of burden hours accounted for in this ICR relative to those counted elsewhere ( hours for disinfectant residuals monitoring and associated activities are counted under the DDBP/ Chem/ Rads ICR).

TCR 524,000 804,996 280,996 The increase in burden is due to incorporation of sanitary surveys into primacy agency estimates. This burden was incorrectly counted as a PWS burden in the previous ICR.

IESWTR 56,299 604,238 547,939 The large increase in burden hours is the result of the commencement of monitoring activities under the IESWTR. The previous ICR included only startup activities.

TOTAL 820,603 1,577,241 756,638 Adjusted Primacy Agency Burden Exhibit 11 shows the effects of these adjustments on the bottom line burden. Exhibit 8 shows an annual burden of 4,654,555 hours after the restructuring adjustments and adding program changes. Adding 2,787,224 hours to account for the adjustment for the PWS burden and 756,638 hours to account for the upward adjustment for the primacy burden yields 8,198,417 hours. Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 44 Exhibit 11 Adjustments to Annual Burden Carried Forward from Previous ICR Estimates ( Includes both PWS and Primacy Agency Burden)

Action Annual Burden Hours Brief Explanation None 4,654,555 Inventory after restructuring adjustments and adding program changes.

Add 2,787,224 Adjustment to PWS activities carried forward from previous ICRs ( see Exhibit 9).

Add 756,638 Adjustment to primacy agency activities carried forward from previous ICRs ( see Exhibit 10).

Total 8,198,417 Equals hours requested in 2001 Microbial ICR ( See Exhibit 5).

6( f)( iv) Addition of FBRR Burden This section summarizes the expected impact on burden from the addition of FBRR activities. This burden calculation is not included in the burden inventory currently being requested under the Microbial ICR. In the future, in order to consolidate microbial contaminantrelated rules, EPA will move these hours into Microbial ICR ( OMB No. 2040 0205) via an Information Correction Worksheet. The 2001 FBRR ICR includes a total of 66,363 hours per year for FBRR activities. This includes 60,514 hours for PWSs and 5,849 hours for primacy agencies ( Figure 11 of the 2001 FBRR ICR). Exhibit 12 summarizes the impact of this adjustment. Microbial ICR August 16, 2001 45 Exhibit 12 Future Adjustment for Addition of FBRR Burden ( Includes both PWS and Primacy Agency Burden)

Action Annual Burden Hours Brief Explanation None 8,198,417 Inventory of hours requested in the 2001 Microbial ICR ( see Exhibit 10).

Add 66,363 FBRR inventory to be moved into the 2001 Microbial ICR via an ICW.

Total 8,264,780 Inventory of hours in the 2001 Microbial ICR after inclusion of FBRR hours.

Note: This exhibit is provided for informational purposes only. Burden presented here does not represent the burden currently being requested under this ICR.

6( g) Burden Statement The public reporting burden for collections included in this ICR is detailed above. The total annual burden ( 3 year average for FYs 2002 through 2004) imposed by these collections is estimated to be 8.20 million hours, of which 6.62 million hours are attributable to PWSs and laboratories and 1.58 million hours to primacy agencies. These estimates include time for gathering information as well as developing and maintaining records.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by people to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions, adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements, train personnel to respond to the information collection request, search data sources, complete and review the collection of information, and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for information collection unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

Please send comments on the Agency's need for this information, accuracy of the burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques to Director, Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2822), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N. W., Washington, D. C. 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA ICR number ( 1895.02) and OMB control number ( 2040 0205) in any correspondence.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 12637]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05161]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0642; FRL-9943-42-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Mexico; and Albuquerque/Bernalillo County; Revisions To Establish
Small Business Stationary Source Technical and Environmental Compliance
Assistance Programs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the New Mexico State Implementation Plan (SIP) for
both the State and Albuquerque/Bernalillo County. These proposed
revisions establish Small Business Stationary Assistance Source
Technical and Environmental Compliance Assistance Programs. The EPA is
proposing to approve these revisions pursuant to sections 110 and
507(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before April 11, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by following the detailed
instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located
in the rules section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Walser,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Rules and Regulations section of this
Federal Register, the EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a
direct rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this
action, no further activity is contemplated. If the EPA receives
relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and
all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final
rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second
comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action
should do so at this time.
    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is
located in the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: February 24, 2016.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2016-05161 Filed 3-9-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:08/22/2014
FROM: 		Laura Farris/EPA Region 8
TO:CLEAN Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602
SUBJECT:	R8 State HUB Call - August 7, 2014

SUMMARY:
EPA Headquarters staff, led by Janet McCabe, and EPA R8 Regional Administrator Shaun McGrath and staff, participated in a conference call with the EPA R8 States on Friday, August 7, 2014, to discuss common questions related to the proposed rule under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. The rule was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES:

EPA Headquarters
McCabe, Janet
Sherry, Christopher
Clouse, Matt
Conlin, Beth
Wilson, Erika
Mark, Jeremy
DeYoung, Robyn
Critchfield, James
Harvey, Reid
Dunham, Sarah
Cortelyou-Lee, Jan
Dalcher, Debra
Solomon, David
Santiago, Juan
Ketcham-Colwill, Jim
Kurlansky, Ellen
Topham, Nathan
Cohen, Michael
Eschmann, Erich
Hight, Cate

EPA Region 8
Shaun McGrath
Joan Card
Callie Videtich
Darcy O'Connor
Carl Daly
Laura Farris

External Participants
Brian Gustafson, SD DEQ, and staff along with representatives from the SD PUC and Energy Office
Will Allison, CO CDPHE, and staff along with representatives from the CO PUC and Energy Office
Bryce Bird, UT DEQ, and staff along with representatives from the UT PUC and Energy Office
Dave Klemp, MT DEQ, and staff along with representatives from the MT PUC and Energy Office
Steve Dietrich, WY DEQ, and staff along with representatives from the WY PUC and Energy Office
Terry O'Clair, ND DEQ, and staff along with representatives from the ND PUC and Energy Office

Discussion Topics
   oo Can EPA walk through the conversion from a rate based to a mass based standard, or provide the numbers?
   oo If a state fails to meet its goals, what are the consequences?
   oo Can EPA describe how the accounting for EE works.
   oo Does EPA have any plans to work with other Feds on new transmission, RE, and natural gas pipeline siting issues; streamlining the NEPA process; and addressing the Sage Grouse issue regarding energy development? These are major issues related RE development and the increased use of NGCCs.
   oo Can EPA discuss what might be acceptable regarding multi-state plans? Do states still submit individual state plans? Can they include more than one multi-state program or initiative? What if one state drops out of the Plan during the review or compliance period?
   oo Does a plant have to go through NSR when it is trying to achieve HRIs?
   oo Can EPA discuss the RE accounting mechanisms, both in goal setting and in compliance? Can the HRI's work the same way?
   oo How do states redispatch to NGCC units located in non-attainment areas?