INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST FOR THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM ( NPDES)/ COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT/ CERTIFICATION INFORMATION EPA ICR No. 1427.06 OMB Control No. 2040 0110 DRAFT July 7, 2000 Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Wastewater Management 401 M Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20460 Prepared by Science Applications International Corporation 11251 Roger Bacon Drive Reston, Virginia 20190 EPA Contract No. 68 C4 0034 Work Assignment No. IM 5 2 SAIC Project No. 01 0833 08 2994 003 Compliance Assessment ICR Page ii July 7, 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1. a Title of the Information Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1. b Short Characterization/ Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2.0 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. a Need and Authority for the Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. a. 1 NPDES Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. a. 2 Storm Water Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. a. 3 Sewage Sludge Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. a. 4 Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards Certifications . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. b Practical Utility of the Data and Users of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.0 NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3. a Nonduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3. b Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3. c Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3. d Effects of Less Frequent Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3. e General Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3. f Confidentiality and Sensitive Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.0 THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4. a Respondents and SIC Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4. b Information Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4. c Respondent Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.0 THE INFORMATION COLLECTED: AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5. a Agency Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5. b Collection Methodology and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5. c Small Entity Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5. d Collection Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5. d. 1 Information Collection Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5. d. 2 Information Collection Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6.0 ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6. a Estimating Respondent Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6. a. 1 Recordkeeping of Monitoring and Inspection Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6. a. 2 Compliance Schedule Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6. a. 3 Noncompliance Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6. a. 4 Notice of Alternate Level of Actual Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6. a. 5 Section 308( a) Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Compliance Assessment ICR Page iii July 7, 2000 6. a. 6 Certification for Exemption From Monitoring and Notification of Process Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 6. a. 7 SSO and Unpermitted CSO Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 6. b Estimating Respondent Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 6. c Estimating Agency Burden and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 6. c. 1 Recordkeeping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 6. c. 2 Compliance Schedule Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 6. c. 2 Compliance Schedule Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 6. c. 3 Noncompliance Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 6. c. 4 Notice of Alternative Level of Actual Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 6. c. 5 Section 308( a) Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 6. c. 6 Certification for Exemption From Monitoring and Notification of Process Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 6. c. 7 SSO and Unpermitted CSO Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 6. d Estimating the Respondent Universe and Burden Hours and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 6. e Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs to Respondents and Government . . . . . . . . . . 45 6. f Reasons for Change in Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 6. g Burden Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47 LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1. Summary of Burden and Costs to Respondents and State Government . . . . . . . . . . 2 Exhibit 2. Number of NPDES Permits Issued by EPA and the States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Exhibit 3. Annual Respondent Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Exhibit 4. Annual Average Responses per Respondent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Exhibit 5. Respondent Reporting Burden for Noncompliance Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Exhibit 6. Facilities with Certification Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Exhibit 7. Annual Respondent Recordkeeping and Reporting Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Exhibit 8. Annual Burden to State and Federal Governments as Users of Data . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Exhibit 9. Annual Costs to State and Federal Governments as Users of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Exhibit 10. State and Federal Burden for Noncompliance Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Exhibit 11. Respondent Universe and Burden and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45 Exhibit 12. Bottom Line Burdent Hours and Costs to Respondents and Government . . . . . . . . .45 Exhibit 13. Change in Annual Respondent and State Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Compliance Assessment ICR Page 1 July 7, 2000 1.0 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1. a Title of the Information Collection ICR: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES)/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification Information.

OMB Control No.: 2040 0110.

1. b Short Characterization/ Abstract This Information Collection Request ( ICR) is entitled Information Collection Request for NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification Information and its purpose is to calculate the burden and costs associated with the data requirements necessary for a permitting authority ( either an authorized State or EPA) to determine whether an existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) or sewage sludge permittee is in compliance with the conditions of its permit. This ICR updates the 1996 ICR entitled Information Collection Request for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES)/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification Information ( OMB Control No. 2040 0110, ICR No. 1427.05). This ICR also incorporates a revised burden estimate approved by OMB on March 24, 1998 and developed to adjust the ICR to more accurately reflect sanitary sewer overflow ( SSO) reporting and unpermitted combined sewer overflow ( CSO) reporting requirements.

This ICR was prepared according to the guidance contained in the Office of Policy's ( OP) February 1999 ICR Handbook. This handbook is the Agency's most current guidance document for preparing an ICR and follows the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) guidelines.

The Clean Water Act ( CWA) authorizes the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) to issue permits for the discharge of pollutants to the waters of the United States. The Act also authorizes EPA to issue permits for the use or disposal of sewage sludge. EPA regulates discharges to waters of the United States under its NPDES program. Such discharges include domestic wastewater, industrial wastewater, and storm water, among others. The Agency regulates sewage sludge use and disposal activities under its Sewage Sludge Management program. EPA issues permits for both types of activities.

CWA Section 402( b) allows States ( including territories) to acquire authority for the NPDES and Sewage Sludge Management programs. In addition, Section 518( e) authorizes Indian Tribes to be treated in the same manner as States and to obtain NPDES authority. This authority enables States and Tribes to issue permits. At this time, 44 States ( 43 States and 1 U. S. territory) have obtained NPDES authority, and 13 have not. None of the 556 Federally Recognized American Indian Tribes have obtained NPDES authority. As of February 2000, three States have obtained authority to operate a sewage sludge management program. In States or Tribes that have not obtained authority for these programs, EPA issues permits. Because some Compliance Assessment ICR Page 2 July 7, 2000 permit applications are processed by States and some by EPA, this ICR calculates government burden and costs for both States and EPA.

Information that is necessary for a permitting authority to determine a permittee's compliance with its permit is collected during the effective term of the permit. Compliance assessment reporting requirements include routine submittals, for example annual certifications and reports submitted when a compliance schedule milestone is reached and non routine submittals, which are required when certain conditions occur ( e. g., an unanticipated bypass). In addition, permit writers may use this information to determine if follow up activities are necessary.

Exhibit 1 provides a summary of the burden and costs to respondents and State government associated with the compliance assessment recordkeeping and reporting requirement of this ICR.

This ICR includes burden hours and costs provided in the 1998 Summary of Revised Burden Estimates for SSO/ Unpermitted CSO reporting, but does not reflect the number of responses, responses per respondent, or response time per respondent for these SSO and CSO events. In addition, this ICR reflects an increased number of general permittees covered by this ICR and required to keep records for the first time since the previous ICR. Recordkeeping Number of Recordkeepers 217,478 All permittees except sludge facilities.

Annual Respondent Burden ( hrs.) 827,968 Recordkeeping Time ( hrs.) per Recordkeeper 3.81 Annual Costs ($) 19,161,763 Reporting Number of Respondents 16,532 Number of Responses 35,509 Number of Responses per Respondent 2.15 Annual Respondent Burden ( hrs.) 147,207 Response Time ( hrs.) per Response 4.15 Annual Costs ($) 3,884,689 Total Annual Burden for Respondents ( hrs.) 975,175 Total Annual Costs for Respondents ($) 23,046,452 State Governments Annual Burden ( hrs.) 51,089 Annual Costs ($) 1,472,488 Exhibit 1. Summary of Burden and Costs to Respondents and State Government Compliance Assessment ICR Page 3 July 7, 2000 2.0 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2. a Need and Authority for the Collection 2. a. 1 NPDES Program Section 402( a) of the CWA establishes the NPDES program, which requires issuance of a permit to control the discharge of pollutants, ensuring compliance with provisions of the CWA. Section 402( p) of the CWA requires that these NPDES permits be issued for fixed terms not to exceed 5 years and that they:

! Contain and ensure compliance with discharge limitations based on effluent guidelines or water quality standards;

! Provide for permit termination or modification for cause;

! Require discharge monitoring and reporting to assess compliance with permit conditions or to assist in development of effluent limitations; and ! Require other reports as necessary in order for the permitting authority to ensure compliance with the objectives of the Act.

The NPDES program procedures and requirements are established in 40 Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR) Parts 122, 123, 124, and 125.

Once the NPDES or sewage sludge permit is issued, a permittee is subject to certain conditions for the term of the permit. Permit conditions are established in 40 CFR Part 122 for NPDES permits and Part 501 for sewage sludge permits. These include:

! Specific effluent limitations, standards, and/ or prohibitions [ § 122.44];

! Compliance schedules which may specify milestones for installing wastewater treatment equipment and processes [ § 122.41( e)( 5)];

! Monitoring and reporting requirements [ § 122.41( j) and ( l)];

! Inspection and record keeping requirements [ § 122.44( i)( 4)( i) and ( ii)]; and ! Provisions concerning events including bypass and upset of treatment facilities. Bypass is prohibited in most instances and upset can only be used as an affirmative defense for the permittee under specified conditions [ § 122.41( m) and ( n)].

The permitting authority must assess whether the permittee is in compliance with these conditions on a consistent basis. Permittee compliance is assessed through compliance inspections, review of Compliance Assessment ICR Page 4 July 7, 2000 permittee self monitoring data, keeping of records, and review of other compliance assessment information required by 40 CFR Parts 122 and 501. The burden for compliance inspections is estimated in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) and Sewage Sludge Management State Program Requirements ICR ( OMB No. 2040 0057); and the burden for the collection and retention of permittee self monitoring data is calculated in the NPDES/ Sewage Sludge Monitoring Reports ICR ( OMB No. 2040 0004). The burden associated with sewage sludge self monitoring is estimated in the same ICR ( OMB No. 2040 0004), as amended. This ICR calculates the burden associated with compliance assessment information other than discharge monitoring reports ( DMRs) required by Parts 122 and 501, and certification or alternative requirements contained in the effluent limitations guidelines and standards ( ELGs) regulations for 11 point source categories and 1 subcategory.

The information that is collected can lead the permitting authority to follow through with one or more of the following actions: informal discussions with the permittee by telephone or letter, permit modification, or enforcement action.

The most common way in which a permittee informs the permitting authority about its discharge is by using the DMR. The DMR lists all of the results from the permittee's selfmonitoring of required pollutants. The permitting authority reviews this information and compares it with permit limits to determine compliance and/ or the need to develop additional limits. In addition to the DMR, permittees may be required to submit reports on violations of maximum daily discharge limitations as specifically required in a permit. This latter reporting requirement is intended to alert the permitting authority of potential health or environmental risks that could require a timely response. The data collected by this requirement are more incident specific than the summary information provided on the DMR.

2. a. 2 Storm Water Program In addition, in the 1987 amendments to the CWA, Congress established a program to control storm water discharges associated with industrial activity. Permit compliance for storm water permittees with discharges associated with industrial activity is assessed on a case by case basis. Under § 122.44( i)( 4)( i) and ( ii), the minimum compliance requirement for a storm water permittee with discharges associated with industrial activity is an annual site inspection performed by the permittee that identifies any incidents of non compliance and evaluates whether measures to reduce pollutant loadings identified in the storm water pollution prevention plan are adequate and being properly implemented. Although the permittees are not required to report the inspection information, they are required to retain records of the inspection for at least 3 years. All storm water general permittees ( industrial and construction) are required to fulfill this minimum requirement. It should be noted that the numbers reflected in this ICR for general permits refer to the individual notices of intent ( NOIs). That is, it reflects the number of permittees regulated via a general permit, not the number of different general permits.

In addition, storm water permittees with discharges associated with industrial activity are required to perform a periodic visual examination of their facilities and maintain records of the Compliance Assessment ICR Page 5 July 7, 2000 visual examination. Twenty nine of the thirty industrial facility categories are required to perform this visual examination on a quarterly basis.

A portion of all storm water general permittees may also be required to maintain records of monitoring data. EPA estimates that approximately 49.5 percent of the storm water general permittees will be required to maintain monitoring records in addition to their annual site inspection recordkeeping requirements and their visual examination requirements.

This NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification Information ICR fully integrates the above storm water requirements previously reported in the 1996 NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification Information ICR and the revisions to the NPDES Storm Water Implementation Requirements ( modification of OMB No. 2040 0004).

2. a. 3 Sewage Sludge Program Section 405 of the CWA requires EPA to regulate the use and disposal of sludge produced by publicly owned treatment works ( POTWs) and other treatment works treating domestic sewage. The CWA also requires the development of technical criteria for the control of sewage sludge disposal and use. EPA has promulgated sewage sludge use or disposal standards at 40 CFR Part 503. The CWA also requires that any NPDES permit issued to a POTW or other treatment works treating domestic sewage, incorporate appropriate sludge controls in order to protect public health and the environment. As a result of this requirement, permit conditions regarding sewage sludge are included in POTW permits in cases where sewage sludge disposal is of concern. In addition, EPA issued a final rule under 40 CFR Part 501 concerning State sewage sludge management program requirements, for which a modification ICR was developed and approved by OMB in 1989. Sewage sludge permits include standards for the use or disposal of sewage sludge. These may include pollutant limitations, monitoring requirements, and compliance schedules. The compliance assessment requirements for sewage sludge permits, like those for NPDES permits, allow the permitting authority to assess permit compliance. The burden for the compliance assessment components for sewage sludge requirements have since been incorporated into this NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification Information ICR.

2. a. 4 Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards Certifications Effluent limitations guidelines and standards are national wastewater limitations that apply to specific categories of industrial dischargers. The regulations are promulgated by EPA under the authority of sections 301, 304, 306, and 307 of the CWA. The limitations are implemented in direct discharge permits under the NPDES program by States and EPA. This NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification Information ICR also fully integrates certifications for exemptions of monitoring requirements for 11 industrial categories and 1 subcategory: electroplating ( 40 CFR 413); metal finishing ( 40 CFR 433); electrical and electronic components ( 40 CFR 469); pesticides formulating, packaging, and repackaging ( 40 CFR 455); aluminum forming ( 40 CFR Part 467); coil coating ( 40 CFR 465); can making ( a subpart of the coil coating category) ( 40 CFR 465); pharmaceutical manufacturing ( 40 CFR 439); pulp and paper ( 40 FR 430); builders' paper and board mills ( 40 CFR 431); porcelain Compliance Assessment ICR Page 6 July 7, 2000 enameling ( 40 CFR 456); and steam electric ( 40 CFR 423). The effluent limitations guidelines and standards for these 11 industrial categories allow permittees to provide certifications that reduce or eliminate monitoring requirements for one or more pollutants. When the permittee chooses to certify, the effluent limitations guidelines and standards may require semi annual, annual, or once per permit cycle reports. For one industrial category, the pesticides formulating, packaging, and repackaging category, there are no pollutant specific monitoring requirements but the facility may certify that it is using pollution prevention measures stipulated by EPA and must maintain a pollution prevention plan on site. The burden estimate from certifications were previously reported in the Certification for Exemption from Monitoring and Notification of Process Changes in Effluent Guidelines ICR ( OMB Control No. 2040 0033), then in the 1996 NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification Information ICR and are now updated, integrated, and reported in this ICR.

2. b Practical Utility of the Data and Users of the Data Most compliance assessment data is generated by permittees and submitted to the appropriate permitting authority. The permitting authority then uses this information to determine compliance with permit conditions. If noncompliance is detected, the permitting authority will take the appropriate enforcement action based on the frequency and degree of seriousness of the violation. The permitting authority may take one or more of the following actions:

! Permit modification. If a permit violation occurs consistently, the permitting authority may modify the permit, although the permittee still must comply with all appropriate provisions of the CWA. For example, a permit may be modified to include a compliance schedule for installation of new technology. Such a modification might enable the permittee to meet effluent limits or sewage sludge quality standards it was previously unable to attain.

! Technical assistance to permittees. Under certain circumstances, the permitting authority may provide technical assistance to the permittee to assist it in attaining compliance.

! Informal enforcement action. For certain violations, the permitting authority may initially use telephone calls, inspections, warning letters, and other such methods to bring the permittee into compliance.

! Administrative enforcement action. The permitting authority may take more severe actions including Notices of Violations, administrative orders, or administrative penalty orders.

! Case referral. Ultimately, the permitting authority may refer a permit violation to the Department of Justice for further legal enforcement action. Compliance Assessment ICR Page 7 July 7, 2000 There are several exceptions to the general flow of compliance assessment data from permittee to permitting authority. EPA may require additional information in the form of a Section 308( a) letter ( see Section 4. b. 6 for further explanation).

Another exception to the compliance data information flow from permittee to permitting authority occurs in the case of the NPDES storm water permitting program where the regulatory requirement is for records retention rather than reporting. As discussed earlier, permit compliance for storm water permittees is assessed on a permit by permit basis. The minimum compliance requirement for a storm water permittee is an annual site inspection that identifies any incidents of non compliance and evaluates whether measures to reduce pollutant loadings identified in the storm water pollution prevention plan are adequate and being properly implemented. Although the permittees are not required to report the inspection information, they are required to retain records of these inspections for at least 3 years. This activity is reflected in this ICR as a recordkeeping activity. As stated earlier, EPA estimates that all storm water permittees will be subject to this minimum requirement. Compliance Assessment ICR Page 8 July 7, 2000 3.0 NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3. a Nonduplication EPA has examined all other reporting requirements contained in the Clean Water Act and 40 CFR Parts 122, 123, 124, 125, 501, and 503. The Agency also has consulted the following sources of information to determine if similar or duplicative information is available elsewhere:

! EPA Information Systems Inventory,

! Government Information Locator System ( GILS), and ! Toxic Chemical Release Inventory.

Examination of these databases revealed no duplicative reporting requirements. In addition, EPA prepared an ICR for the Part 503 sludge technical standards rule and is preparing an ICR for Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Public Notification for the Proposed Sanitary Sewer Overflow Regulations. EPA has compared these ICRs to ensure there is no duplication.

EPA has examined a similar reporting requirement for notice of spills under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) for duplication of the CWA requirement. EPA believes that any duplication between NPDES and RCRA reporting of pollutant releases is negligible because they focus on different areas of a facility ( RCRA focuses on on site activities and NPDES focuses on discharge outfalls). EPA has concluded that there is no other way to obtain the compliance assessment information addressed in this ICR.

3. b Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB In compliance with the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act, any agency developing a nonrule related ICR must solicit public comments for a 60 day period prior to submitting the ICR to OMB. The comments, which are used partly to determine realistic burden estimates for respondents, must be considered when completing the Supporting Statement that is submitted to OMB. EPA public noticed the first Federal Register for the revised ICR on March 23, 2000 ( 65 FR 15633). EPA received comments to this notice. A summary of comments and response to comments are enclosed.

3. c Consultations EPA solicited public comments on the 1996 draft NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification Information ICR on April 9, 1996 ( 61 FR 15801). There were no comments. In addition, EPA has solicited public comments on the NPDES issues contained in this ICR on several occasions. The Consolidated Permit Regulations promulgated in May 1980 and the subsequent revisions promulgated in September 1984 were both subject to 60 day public Compliance Assessment ICR Page 9 July 7, 2000 comment periods. All comments received during these time periods were reviewed and considered by the Agency. A summary of these comments and EPA reactions to them is presented in the preamble to the final NPDES regulations. Public comment regarding sewage sludge permit conditions were solicited before EPA published the States Sludge Management regulations on May 2, 1989. More recently, the NPDES regulations were revised in April 1995, March 1997, and August 1998. All revisions were subject to a comment period after they were proposed and EPA considered all public comments received before final promulgation. A summary of comments and EPA's reaction to them were presented in the preamble to the final regulations.

3. d Effects of Less Frequent Data Collection The information collection requirements for this NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification Information ICR are generally required episodically. Some of the information included in this ICR is collected only when certain conditions occur. For example, compliance schedule reports are submitted when a milestone is reached, to determine the permittee's compliance with that milestone. Also, alternate level reports are submitted only when there is an expected change in the production level at the facility.

Some of the information in this ICR that is required to be submitted is collected only after the permittee violates a permit condition. For example, noncompliance reports are submitted when the facility experiences a bypass, an upset, or a violation of a daily maximum limit. Section 308( a) letters are submitted only when requested by the Regional Administrator, in response to events such as a spill of oil or a hazardous substance. Therefore, frequency of information collection is not an issue for the reporting requirements in this category.

3. e General Guidelines This information collection is consistent with OMB guidelines contained in 5 CFR 1320.5( d)( 2) with the exception of the 24 hour reporting requirements for notice of unanticipated upset or bypass and notice of violation of maximum daily discharge. Twenty four hour reporting is required by the NPDES regulations at 40 CFR, § 122.41( l)( 6) because of the potential for severe environmental damage or grave threats to public health resulting from these circumstances. The pollutant discharge limits in a NPDES permit are designed to be protective of the environment and the public. Violation of those limits whether by upset, bypass, or other violation is, therefore, a threat to the receiving stream. The permitting authority must be informed of such violations quickly so that necessary remedial action can be taken as soon as possible.

3. f Confidentiality and Sensitive Questions Compliance Assessment ICR Page 10 July 7, 2000 Where information submitted in conjunction with this ICR contains trade secrets or similar confidential business information, the respondent has the authority to request that this information be treated as confidential business information. All data so designated will be handled pursuant to 40 CFR Part 2. This information will be maintained according to procedures outlined in EPA's Security Manual Part III, Chapter 9, dated August 9, 1976. Pursuant to Section 308( b) of the CWA, effluent data may not be treated as confidential.

The reporting requirements addressed in this ICR do not include sensitive questions. Compliance Assessment ICR Page 11 July 7, 2000 4.0 THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 4. a Respondents and SIC Codes An NPDES permit is required any time there is a discharge of pollutants from a point source to the waters of the United States, regardless of a discharger's industrial category. Consequently, industries of almost any category may be subject to compliance assessment requirements for their NPDES permits. A relatively large portion of permitted facilities, including municipal dischargers, are classified in the sanitary service ( Standard Industrial Code ( SIC) number 495) industrial category. Other common permittee classifications include the electric services ( SIC 491), bituminous coal ( SIC 121), industrial organic ( SIC 286), petroleum refining ( SIC 291), and gold ores ( SIC 104) industrial categories. Similarly, EPA may request supplemental information from any permittee.

Applicants requesting coverage under the Sewage Sludge Management program include POTWs and privately owned treatment works ( PrOTWs) ( SIC 495). In most cases, these facilities will have NPDES permits and will submit information about sewage sludge use and disposal practices as part of their NPDES applications. In some cases, respondents are facilities treating domestic sewage that do not have a NPDES permit but must have a permit for sewage sludge use and disposal activities. These respondents are called " sludge only" applicants.

4. b Information Requested EPA requires permittees to maintain and/ or submit certain information. The following recordkeeping and reporting requirements are covered by this ICR and are used by the permitting authority to determine a permittee's compliance with its permit requirements:

1. Recordkeeping of Monitoring Data [ § 122.41( j)( 2)]: In association with monitoring requirements, NPDES permittees including non storm water general permittees and a portion of the storm water general permittees must keep records of all monitoring data and reports, including copies of all original monitoring information, for 3 years after the date of sample, measurement, report, or application. Data that must be retained include: date and time of sampling and monitoring, names of individuals who performed sampling and monitoring, analytical techniques or methods used, and results of such analyses. These data must be readily available to the permitting authority during site inspections or at any other time they are needed. This recordkeeping requirement is intended to ensure that permittees keep files on the raw data used to generate DMR summary information. This information would otherwise not be available to the permitting authority. The recordkeeping burden associated with sewage sludge monitoring is calculated in the Part 503 ICR and is not covered in this ICR.

2. Recordkeeping of Inspection Data [ § 122.44( i)( 4)( ii)]: A storm water general permittee must keep records of annual on site inspection data for 3 years after the Compliance Assessment ICR Page 12 July 7, 2000 date of inspection. The inspection data must summarize the results of the inspection, and identify any incidents of noncompliance and evaluate measures that reduce pollutant loadings identified in the storm water pollution prevention plan. This data must be readily available to the permitting authority on request. This information is the minimum compliance requirement and applies to all storm water general permittees. In addition, storm water permittees with discharges associated with industrial activity are required to perform periodic visual examinations of their facilities and maintain records of these visual examinations.

3. Compliance Schedule Reports [ § § 122.41( l)( 5) and 501.15( a)( 6)]: Adherence to an NPDES or sewage sludge permittee's compliance schedule is determined by evaluation of the compliance schedule reports submitted by the permittee. This information is used to assess the permittee's progress in installing the treatment facilities ( or " milestones") necessary to meet discharge limitations or sewage sludge quality standards. Compliance schedule reports must be submitted within 14 days following the schedule date of each of the scheduled milestones. A schedule violation could result in an enforcement action.

4. Noncompliance Reports [ § § 122.41( l)( 6), 122.41( l)( 7), and 501.15( b)( 12)]: A permittee must provide 24 hour oral reporting of any noncompliance which may endanger human health or the environment ( with a written follow up submission within 5 days). The following must be reported within 24 hours to the permitting authority: 1) any unanticipated bypass which exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit; 2) any upset which exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit; and 3) violation of a maximum daily discharge limitation for any of the pollutants listed by the Director in the permit. These reports may include SSO events and unpermitted CSO reporting; however, in this ICR, SSO reporting and unpermitted CSO reporting burdens appear as separate line items in exhibits that follow. In addition, § § 122.41 and 501.15 require permittees to report instances of non compliance with sewage sludge regulations such as noncompliance with sewage sludge pollution standards. Timely reporting is essential in these cases, and thus, separate reporting requirements have been established for reporting bypass, upset, or violation of a maximum daily discharge. If required, the written report of the occurrence shall describe the event, its cause, its duration, and remedial actions taken. In addition, respondents must report other noncompliance situations even if they are not covered under these reporting requirements as soon as they occur.

5. Alternate Level Reports [ § 122.45( b)( 2)( B)( 1)]: The permitting authority may, at its discretion, apply tiered production based effluent limits in an NPDES permit. Tiered permit limits allow facilities to operate under different sets of limits for pollutants based on varying production levels. In the case of automotive factories, however, a reasonable demonstration by the permittee for the requirement for tiered limits obligates the EPA ( not States) to grant tiered limits to the industry. Nevertheless, every facility operating under tiered limits is required to submit a notification to the permitting authority if it intends to operate at a production level higher than the lowest production level identified in the permit. Compliance Assessment ICR Page 13 July 7, 2000 6. Section 308 ( a) Letters: Section 308( a) of the CWA gives broad discretion to permitting authorities to request information from a permittee above and beyond routine requirements. The burden on respondents from 308( a) letters requesting information is included under several ICRs. For example, a 308( a) letter may be sent out in response to inadequate information contained in an NPDES permit application. Accordingly, this burden is reflected in the Applications ICR. Section 308( a) letters may also request additional information on other monitoring activities under the Clean Water Act, including spills of oil and hazardous substances from owners or operators of facilities or vessels spilling oil or hazardous substances. They are, therefore, a compliance related activity and the burden associated with responding to this is reflected in this NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification Information ICR.

7. Certification for Exemption From Monitoring and Notification of Process Changes: The effluent limitations guidelines and standards regulations for 11 industrial categories ( 11 categories and 1 subcategory) allow dischargers to submit a certification to exempt them from monitoring one or more pollutants. Of these industrial categories, two categories ( aluminum forming and coil coating) may choose to submit an annual certification requesting exemption from cyanide monitoring; one category ( pharmaceutical manufacturing) may choose to submit a certification requesting exemption from monitoring once every permit cycle ( 5 years); one category ( porcelain enameling) may choose to submit an annual certification requesting exemption from chromium monitoring; certain facilities in the pulp and paper categories, which use a totally chlorine free process, may choose an alternative monitoring program by certification once every permit cycle; one category ( steam electric) may choose to provide a demonstration and certification requesting exemption for monitoring requirements. For one of the subparts to the coil coating category ( can making), the discharger is required to submit a notification if the alloy used in making cans contains less than 1 percent manganese. For certain facilities in the electroplating, metal finishing, and electrical and electronic components categories, permittees may choose to submit a Total Toxic Organics ( TTO) certification semi annually in lieu of TTO monitoring, but must also develop and submit a toxic organic management plan . In addition, for the pesticide formulating and packaging category, the discharger may choose to submit an annual certification to use pollution prevention alternatives. Dischargers submitting a certification for pollution prevention alternative must also develop a pollution prevention plan.

4. c Respondent Activities Respondent activities can vary substantially, depending on the type of permittee and its ability to comply with its NPDES or sewage sludge permit. This ICR explains these activities, in terms of the type of information submission they require, in detail in Section 4. b above. However, to submit the required information, any particular respondent may engage in the following types of activities:

! Preparing basic information. This includes reviewing regulatory and permit requirements, responding to information requests, reporting production levels to the Compliance Assessment ICR Page 14 July 7, 2000 permitting authority, gathering general information for reports, preparing documents for submission, making telephone calls to the permitting authority, drafting letters, reviewing materials for submission, preparing certifications, and mailing completed submissions.

! Maintaining records. All NPDES permittees must keep records of all monitoring information and all reports required by the permit. Storm water general permittees must retain records of facility inspections and visual examinations. New permittees need to develop a recordkeeping system, enter data, train personnel, and file information. Compliance Assessment ICR Page 15 July 7, 2000 5.0 THE INFORMATION COLLECTED: AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5. a Agency Activities The permitting authority retains all information generated by the permittee as part of the permittee's official file. The information is reviewed to determine if the permittee is in compliance with its permit, and to determine if any noncompliance poses a threat to human health or the environment. In some cases, follow up actions, including enforcement actions, may be necessary. In collecting and analyzing the information associated with this ICR, EPA enters all applicable data into a national database, the Permit Compliance System ( PCS) for all major permittees ( a POTW is considered a major permittee if it discharges 1 million gallons per day or more, or has a service population of 10,000 or more). The Agency uses PCS to develop statistical summaries on such things as permit compliance rates. The permitting authority analyzes and processes this information as well. The permitting authority's burden for compiling these reports on compliance rates is estimated in the NPDES and Sewage Sludge Management State Program Requirements ICR ( OMB No. 2040 0057, ICR No. 0168).

5. b Collection Methodology and Management The permitting authority will ensure the accuracy and completeness of information collected by reviewing each submittal upon receipt.

Since EPA maintains national compliance assessment data in PCS, there is a reduced burden to the permitting authority for gathering and analyzing national permit and water quality data.

The use of improved information technology does not yet appear to provide additional opportunities for reducing burden on the respondents. This is due to a non standardized format for information that is submitted on an as needed basis.

The public may access certain PCS data upon request to EPA.

5. c Small Entity Flexibility All permittees, regardless of the size of their facilities, are required to report instances of noncompliance and keep records of monitoring data. In most cases, these requirements do not impose a large burden on small business because the information required is simple and straightforward. Compliance Assessment ICR Page 16 July 7, 2000 Many small businesses do not discharge any pollutants, or they discharge pollutants to a POTW. These businesses are not required to have NPDES permits and thus are not subject to the reporting requirements of this ICR.

5. d Collection Schedule 5. d. 1 Information Collection Activities With the exception of the certifications allowed by the effluent limitations guidelines and standards and the storm water related inspections and visual examinations, the information collection activities included in this ICR do not follow routine schedules; they are submitted on an as needed basis. The time frames for collecting and submitting compliance assessment information are outlined below:

! Recordkeeping is performed on a continual basis;

! General permittee facility self inspections must occur annually;

! Storm water permittees with discharges associated with industrial activity must perform quarterly visual examinations;

! Compliance assessment reports are submitted within 14 days of a scheduled milestone;

! Noncompliance reports are submitted only in cases where the permittee has violated a permit condition;

! Notices of alternate levels of production are submitted at least 2 days prior to a month in which a change in production is anticipated; and ! Response time to Section 308( a) requests varies. These letters are sent by the Regional Administrator when specific information is needed where no enforcement action is contemplated, or for information from entities that may need to be regulated under the CWA.

5. d. 2 Information Collection Schedule The information collection schedules for the 11 industrial categories ( 11 categories and 1 subcategory) seeking exemptions or alternative compliance reporting are as follows:

! Facilities in the porcelain enameling, aluminum forming, coil coating, and pesticides formulating and packaging industrial categories may submit certifications annually in lieu of routine monitoring. Compliance Assessment ICR Page 17 July 7, 2000 ! Facilities in the electroplating, metal finishing, and electrical and electronic components industrial categories may submit semiannual certifications in lieu of certain monitoring.

! Facilities in the can making category, a subcategory of the coil coating industrial category, must submit a notification only when a process change is anticipated.

! Facilities in the pharmaceutical manufacturing, steam electric, and pulp and paper industrial categories must submit certifications once every permit cycle. Compliance Assessment ICR Page 18 1 SIC data in PCS were used to categorize whether a facility was municipal or non municipal. For approximately 5 percent of the facilities, these data were not currently available in PCS ( e. g., data field was blank). Therefore, these facilities were apportioned to either the municipal or non municipal category based on the relative numbers of municipal and non municipal facilities.

2 EPA estimates that over the next 6 years that it will receive approximately 51,730 NOIs from permittees with discharges associated with construction activities and that delegated States will also receive approximately 72,700 NOIs from these storm water permittees. Estimating that these permits will have an average life of 1 year results in a total of 20,739 permittees with discharges associated with construction activities as potential respondents to this ICR annually.

July 7, 2000 6.0 ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 6. a Estimating Respondent Burden Exhibit 2 presents a summary of the number of State issued and EPA issued permits. The major and minor permit data were compiled from PCS data ( December 1999). 1 Storm water general permittee estimates ( discharges associated with industrial activities and construction activities) were based on data from the EPA Notice of Intent ( NOI) Data Processing Center. Where State data were not readily available from the NOI Data Processing Center, these data were obtained from States through discussions with EPA Regions and accounted for a total of 41 States. For the remaining States where no data were available from either of these sources, storm water general permit numbers were extrapolated based on State industrial population information. 2 Other non storm water general permittee estimates were based on data submitted by EPA Regions in December 1999 and January 2000. Total POTW and PrOTW sludge only permit numbers were taken from the previous ICR. Additional more accurate data were not believed to be available at the time of revisions to this ICR. Numbers were apportioned between State and EPA to reflect the three States that have received sludge program approval since the previous ICR. The permits shown in Exhibit 2 constitute major and minor municipal individual permittees, storm water and non storm water general permittees, and sludge only permittees. The facilities holding these permits are potential respondents in this NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification Information ICR. Although this ICR includes Federal facility counts because of the manner in which the data were retrieved from PCS, their burden is believed to be insignificant. EPA is not required to include burden estimates imposed on other Federal agencies. State and EPA issued permits have been disaggregated to allow separate reporting of burden and costs to State and Federal governments.

As shown in Exhibit 3, EPA estimates that the total annual burden to respondents is approximately 975,175 hours. Of this total, 827,968 of the burden hours are for recordkeeping and 147,207 of the burden hours are for reporting. Exhibit 3 provides a detailed breakdown of these hours for each request. The information requirements in this ICR potentially affect 219,728 respondents, or all of the permittees identified in Exhibit 2. Of this population, 217,478 respondents will incur a record keeping burden. This number includes all State and EPA major, minor, and general permittees but excludes sludge permittees because the recordkeeping burden for sludge permittees has been estimated in another ICR ( see Section 4. b). Compliance Assessment ICR Page 19 July 7, 2000 Exhibits 2 and 3 also list number of respondents for several independent reporting requirements. The number of respondents reporting one type of information ( e. g., upset/ bypass reports) may or may not be the same respondents reporting another type of information ( e. g., violation of maximum daily discharge report). Because of the possibility of double counting respondents, the Agency estimated the total number of respondents required to report compliance information based on program experience. EPA estimates that the total number of respondents reporting to State and Federal governments is 16,532 respondents. This number includes 90 percent ( 6,047) of all major permittees, 15 percent ( 8,168) of all minor permittees, 5 percent of the 49.5 percent of the storm water permittees that perform monitoring ( 2,185), and 132 sludge only permittees. As shown in Exhibit 4, the total annual average responses per respondent is 2.15.

In accordance with OMB's instructions, this ICR calculates burden and costs to respondents on an annual basis. To calculate the total annual respondent burden, the ICR first calculates the annual burden for each compliance assessment requirement. The ICR then adds these together. Thus, the total annual burden is the sum of the annual burdens for each individual compliance assessment requirement. This section explains the respondent burden estimates for each compliance assessment requirement. Type of Permit States EPA Total MAJOR PERMITS Municipal 3,740 348 4,088 Non Municipal 2,382 249 2,631 SUBTOTAL 6,122 597 6,719 MINOR PERMITS Municipal 17,026 539 17,565 Non Municipal 35,256 1,631 36,887 SUBTOTAL 52,282 2,170 54,452 GENERAL PERMITTEES Storm Water Industrial 83,860 4,413 88,273 Construction 12,117 8,622 20,739 Other 29,439 17,856 47,295 SUBTOTAL 125,416 30,891 156,307 SLUDGE ONLY PERMITS POTWs 111 1,999 2,110 PrOTWs 7 133 140 SUBTOTAL 118 2,132 2,250 TOTAL 183,938 35,790 219,728 Source of data: PCS ( December 1999), EPA Notice of Intent Data Processing Center, previous ICR. Exhibit 2. Number of NPDES Permits Issued by EPA and the States Compliance Assessment ICR Page 20 July 7, 2000 Exhibit 3. Annual Respondent Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden Item/ Type of Respondent Respondents per Year ( A) Burden ( Hrs.) per Respondent ( B) Total Annual Burden ( Hrs.) ( A) × ( B) Recordkeeping Major Municipal Permittees 4,088 6.0 24,528 Major Non Municipal Permittees 2,631 6.0 15,786 Minor Municipal Permittees 17,565 1.2 21,078 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 36,887 1.2 44,264 Storm Water General Permittees   Industrial* 88,273 6.6 582,602 Storm Water General Permittees   Construction 20,739 4.0 82,956 Other General Permittees 47,295 1.2 56,754 SUBTOTAL 217,478 827,968 Compliance Schedule Reports Major Municipal Permittees 3,066 1.125 3,449 Major Non Municipal Permittees 1,973 1.125 2,220 Minor Municipal Permittees 878 1.125 988 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 1,844 1.125 2,075 Sludge Permit Conditions Compliance Schedule Reports POTWs 100 1.5 150 PrOTWs 32 1.5 48 SUBTOTAL 7,893 8,930 Noncompliance Reports Unanticipated Bypass/ Upset Report Verbal Reports Major Municipal Permittees 613 5 3,065 Major Non Municipal Permittees 395 5 1,975 Minor Municipal Permittees 878 5 4,390 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 1,844 5 9,220 Written Reports Major Municipal Permittees 460 2 920 Major Non Municipal Permittees 296 2 592 Minor Municipal Permittees 659 2 1,318 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 1,383 2 2,766 SUBTOTAL 6,528 24,246 Maximum Daily Violation Report Verbal Reports Major Municipal Permittees 613 6 3,678 Major Non Municipal Permittees 395 6 2,370 Minor Municipal Permittees 878 3 2,634 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 1,844 3 5,532 Storm Water Permittees 2,185 3 6,555 Compliance Assessment ICR Page 21 Exhibit 3. Annual Respondent Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden Item/ Type of Respondent Respondents per Year ( A) Burden ( Hrs.) per Respondent ( B) Total Annual Burden ( Hrs.) ( A) × ( B)

July 7, 2000 Written Reports Major Municipal Permittees 307 4 1,228 Major Non Municipal Permittees 198 4 792 Minor Municipal Permittees 439 2 878 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 922 2 1,844 Storm Water Permittees 1,093 2 2,186 SUBTOTAL 8,874 27,697 Other Noncompliance Reports Major Municipal Permittees 82 5 410 Major Non Municipal Permittees 53 5 265 Minor Municipal Permittees 176 5 880 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 369 5 1,845 Sludge Permit Conditions   Noncompliance Reports POTWs 31 5.2 161 PrOTWs 10 5.2 52 SUBTOTAL 721 3,613 Notice of Alternate Level of Production 0 0 0 Section 308( a) Letters 1,200 8 9,600 Pollution Prevention Alternative Pesticides Packaging and Repackaging 54 20 1,080 Certifications Pesticides Packaging and Repackaging 163 1 163 Aluminum Forming 57 1 57 Coil Coating 76 1 76 Can Making ( subcategory of coil coating) 14 1 14 Porcelain Enameling 27 1 27 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 39 1 39 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard 217 0.2 43 Building Paper and Board Mills 131 1 131 Steam Electric 1,029 1 1,029 Electroplating 0 2 0 Metal Finishing 1,524 2 3,048 Electrical and Electronic Components 43 2 86 SUBTOTAL 3,320 4,713 SSO Reporting N/ A N/ A 62,144 Unpermitted CSO Reporting N/ A N/ A 5,184 TOTAL 246,068 975,175 * Only a portion ( 49.5 percent) of these 88,273 industrial storm water permittees are estimated to be required to maintain monitoring data; thus, the average burden hours per respondent is 6.6 hours. ** These burdens were taken directly from the 1998 Summary of Revised Burden Estimates and are based on an estimated number of events per year, rather than the number of respondents. For further explanation of these estimates see the 1998 Summary of Revised Burden Estimates for SSO/ Unpermitted CSO Reporting. Compliance Assessment ICR Page 22 July 7, 2000 Exhibit 4. Annual Average Responses per Respondent Item/ Type of Respondent Respondents per Year ( A) Responses per Year ( B) Total Annual Responses [( A) × ( B)]

Compliance Schedule Reports Major Municipal Permittees 3,066 1.5 4,599 Major Non Municipal Permittees 1,973 1.5 2,960 Minor Municipal Permittees 878 1.5 1,317 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 1,844 1.5 2,766 Sludge Permit Conditions Compliance Schedule Reports POTWs 100 2 200 PrOTWs 32 2 64 SUBTOTAL 7,893 11,906 Noncompliance Reports Unanticipated Bypass/ Upset Report Verbal Reports Major Municipal Permittees 613 1 613 Major Non Municipal Permittees 395 1 395 Minor Municipal Permittees 878 1 878 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 1,844 1 1,844 Written Reports Major Municipal Permittees 460 1 460 Major Non Municipal Permittees 296 1 296 Minor Municipal Permittees 659 1 659 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 1,383 1 1,383 SUBTOTAL 6,528 6,528 Maximum Daily Violation Report Verbal Reports Major Municipal Permittees 613 2 1,226 Major Non Municipal Permittees 395 2 790 Minor Municipal Permittees 878 1 878 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 1,844 1 1,844 Storm Water Permittees 2,185 1 2,185 Written Reports Major Municipal Permittees 307 2 614 Major Non Municipal Permittees 198 2 396 Minor Municipal Permittees 439 1 439 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 922 1 922 Storm Water Permittees 1,093 1 1,093 SUBTOTAL 8,874 10,387 Compliance Assessment ICR Page 23 Exhibit 4. Annual Average Responses per Respondent Item/ Type of Respondent Respondents per Year ( A) Responses per Year ( B) Total Annual Responses [( A) × ( B)]

July 7, 2000 Other Noncompliance Reports Major Municipal Permittees 82 1 82 Major Non Municipal Permittees 53 1 53 Minor Municipal Permittees 176 1 176 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 369 1 369 Sludge Permit Conditions   Noncompliance Reports POTWs 31 1 31 PrOTWs 10 1 10 SUBTOTAL 721 721 Notice of Alternate Level of Production 0 0 0 Section 308( a) Letters 1,200 1 1,200 Pollution Prevention Alternative Pesticides Packaging and Repackaging 54 1 54 Certifications Pesticides Packaging and Repackaging 163 1 163 Aluminum Forming 57 1 57 Coil Coating 76 1 76 Can Making ( subcategory of coil coating) 14 1 14 Porcelain Enameling 27 1 27 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 39 1 39 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard 217 .2 43 Building Paper and Board Mills 131 1 131 Steam Electric 1,029 1 1,029 Electroplating 0 2 0 Metal Finishing 1,524 2 3,048 Electrical and Electronic Components 43 2 86 SUBTOTAL 3,320 4,713 SSO Reporting N/ A 41,087 N/ A Unpermitted CSO Reporting N/ A 3,840 N/ A TOTAL 28,590 35,509 Annual average number of responses per respondent ( Column C ÷ 16,532)* = 2.15. This does not include SSO and CSO events. * The total number of respondents per year is estimated to be 16,532 ( not the sum of Column A). See Section 6.0. Compliance Assessment ICR Page 24 July 7, 2000 In general, the larger the facility, the greater the number of outfalls, and the greater the discharge of pollutants ( particularly toxics). Larger facilities are also likely to produce larger volumes of sewage sludge. Because of these factors, larger facilities tend to incur greater burdens for completing mandatory reports. The more often a facility violates its permit conditions, the larger the burden associated with reporting noncompliance, explaining reasons, and proposing solutions.

6. a. 1 Recordkeeping of Monitoring and Inspection Data The following discussion is presented in table format in Exhibit 3. EPA estimates that all NPDES permittees ( except for certain storm water permittees, as discussed below) will incur an annual burden for recordkeeping of discharge monitoring and other monitoring data. The burden associated with this recordkeeping requirement depends on the size of the facility. In the previous NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification Information ICR, EPA estimated that 6.0 hours per year ( 0.5 hours per month) for major permittees and 1.2 hours per year ( 0.1 hours per month) for minor permittees are necessary to organize and file the appropriate existing monitoring data. These estimates are consistent with current recordkeeping requirements and are retained in this ICR. Therefore, 6,719 major permittees ( 4,088 major municipal permittees plus 2,631 major non municipal permittees) will spend 6.0 hours per year on recordkeeping activities, resulting in a total annual burden of 40,314 hours. All 54,452 minor municipal and non municipal permittees will incur an annual burden for record keeping of monitoring data. The burden for keeping these records for minor facilities is estimated to take 1.2 hours per year per respondent resulting in a total annual burden of 65,342 hours.

All 109,012 storm water general permittees will be required to conduct and maintain records of their annual site inspections. These activities are expected to result in an annual burden of 4 hours per respondent for an annual burden of 436,048 hours.

All of the 88,273 storm water general permittees with discharges associated with industrial activity are required to conduct visual examinations quarterly. EPA estimates 0.5 hours for each visual examination will be spent by these permittees for a total of 2.0 hours per year and a total annual burden of 176,546 hours. A portion of the storm water general permittees with discharges associated with industrial activity are required to keep monitoring records. Based on information submitted by these storm water permittees to the NOI Data Processing Center indicating that they perform monitoring, this number is estimated to be 49.5 percent of these permittees or 43,695 permittees. EPA estimates that 1.2 hours will be spent by these storm water permittees in keeping monitoring records resulting in a total annual burden of 52,434 hours. Note: Because only a portion of the 88,273 storm water permittees with discharges associated with industrial activity are required to maintain monitoring data, the average burden hours for these storm water permittees is 6.6 hours. In addition, all 47,295 non storm water general permittees will incur a recordkeeping burden for maintaining monitoring data. EPA estimates these other general permittees will spend 1.2 hours annually in keeping monitoring records resulting in an annual burden of 56,754 hours. Compliance Assessment ICR Page 25 July 7, 2000 The facilities submitting certifications are a very small subset of the major and minor permittees and the recordkeeping burden for these certifications is believed to be adequately reflected in the recordkeeping burden discussed above.

The total recordkeeping burden for all respondents is, therefore, estimated to be 827,968 hours. Note that recordkeeping requirements for sewage sludge permittees are accounted for in the Sewage Sludge Use or Disposal Standards ICR and thus not included in this ICR.

6. a. 2 Compliance Schedule Reports Permittees must submit reports that state whether compliance schedule milestones contained in their permits have been met. EPA assumes that most NPDES permittees will engage a contractor to undertake the construction necessary to meet these milestones. The Agency further assumes that the permittee will be receiving periodic detailed progress reports from their contractor on the status of the construction. Therefore, EPA expects this requirement to place very little additional burden upon the respondent. According to the previous NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification Information ICR, permittees are estimated to be required to submit an average of 1.5 reports per year, and the burden to complete each report is estimated to be 0.75 hours. This is equivalent to 1.125 hours per year for each respondent. This burden represents the time required to prepare and send the compliance schedule report.

It is expected that 75 percent of the major facilities and 5 percent of the minor facilities will be required to submit compliance schedule reports per year. General permittees do not incur a burden as they are not required to submit compliance schedule reports. At 1.125 hours per year, this is equivalent to a total annual burden of 5,669 hours for major facilities and 3,063 hours for minor facilities.

In addition, the Agency anticipates that each year, 100 POTWs and 32 PrOTWs will be required to submit compliance schedule reports regarding sewage sludge permit conditions, and that these facilities will be required to submit and average of 2 reports per year. The Agency estimates that the burden to complete each report is 0.75 hours, for a total annual burden of 198 hours.

The total annual burden to respondents, therefore, for compliance schedule reports is 8,930 hours.

6. a. 3 Noncompliance Reports When a permittee violates a permit condition, it must submit a noncompliance report to the permitting authority. The following estimates are for the burden associated with these noncompliance reports, except for reports associated with SSOs and unpermitted CSOs. The burden associated with these noncompliance reports are included in Section 6. a. 7. Compliance Assessment ICR Page 26 July 7, 2000 24 Hour Report of Unanticipated Bypass or Upset Where noncompliance at a permittee's facility may endanger human health or the environment, the permittee is required to verbally notify the permitting authority within 24 hours of the noncompliance. The verbal report must be followed by a written report, unless it is waived by the permitting authority. EPA is assuming that permittees closely monitor the operation of their facilities so that the occurrence of a bypass or upset of the treatment works should be readily apparent to the operator. Because of the potential for serious environmental damage, grave threats to public health, and injury to facility employees, permittees should act quickly in the event of such an occurrence. Permittees must make this report if they wish to use unanticipated bypass or upset as an affirmative defense for violating their permit limits [ § 122.41( n)( 3)}. Thus, if proper procedures for reporting bypass or upset are followed, the permittee may use this 24 hour report as a defense for violating its permit conditions, because it is a timely report of the occurrence.

EPA estimates that 15 percent ( 1,008) of the 6,719 major facilities and 5 percent ( 2,723) of the 54,452 minor facilities upset or bypass annually requiring a verbal notification. EPA estimates that these respondents will submit one report per year and that the burden associated with a verbal notification is 5 hours. In addition, EPA estimates 75 percent ( 2,798) of the 3,730 facilities submitting a verbal notification will also be required to submit a written report. The written report is estimated by EPA to take an additional 2 hours to complete and submit. The burden represents the time required to investigate the bypass or upset cause, the duration or expected duration, and the corrective actions to be taken; to prepare the written report ( if the requirement is not waived); and send the report to the permitting authority. As shown in Exhibit 3, the total annual respondent burden for submitting the verbal and written notification is 24,246 hours.

24 Hour Report of Violation of Maximum Daily Discharge When a permittee exceeds its maximum daily discharge limitation for pollutants specified in its permit, the permittee is required to verbally notify the permitting authority within 24 hours of the violation. The verbal report must be followed by a written report, unless it is waived by the permitting authority. Permittees that have daily maximum discharge limits are already required to monitor for that pollutant and report the results of their sampling to the permitting authority on a DMR. Because the permittee's DMR requirements are already accounted for in the Discharge Monitoring Report ICR ( as discussed above), the verbal and written notice requirements under this ICR adds only an incremental burden to the permittee's regular reporting requirements.

EPA assumes that the permittees required to submit verbal notices will incur a burden of 3 hours per notice. In addition, EPA assumes that 50 percent of these permittees giving notice will be required to submit written notices ( the remaining 50 percent will have this requirement waived), with an estimated burden of 2 hours per written report. The burden represents the time required to gather information and prepare the verbal notice; prepare the written report, if requirement is not waived; and submit the report to the permitting authority. Compliance Assessment ICR Page 27 July 7, 2000 EPA estimates that 15 percent ( 1,008) of the 6,719 major facilities and 5 percent ( 2,723) of the 54,452 minor facilities will violate their maximum daily discharge limitations for which a 24 hour report is required. Of these permittees, EPA expects the written report submittal requirement to be waived in 50 percent of the cases. Thus, 307 major municipals, 198 major nonmunicipals 439 minor municipals, and 922 minor non municipals are expected to submit written reports of violations of the maximum daily discharge limit. EPA estimates that the major facilities will submit an average of 2 reports per year while the minors will submit an average of 1 report annually. In addition to the major and minor permittees, EPA expects 5 percent of the 49.5 storm water general permittees with discharges associated with industrial activities to violate their maximum daily discharge limits. This 5 percent is expected to be inclusive of the 10 percent of the storm water general permittees with coal pile runoff effluent limits that were estimated in the previous ICR to be expected to violate their maximum daily discharge limits. As a result, 2,185 such permittees will be required to provide verbal notice of the violation, of which 50 percent, or 1,093, will be required to submit written reports. As shown in Exhibit 3, the total annual burden associated with this requirement is 27,697 hours.

Other Noncompliance When any type of noncompliance occurs that is not covered by standard compliance assessment reports ( i. e. DMRs, compliance schedule reports, 24 hour reports or planned changes), the permittee is still required to report noncompliance. Usually, a permittee makes these types of reports when conditions other than those described above cause them to violate the conditions of their permits. EPA estimates the average burden to be 5 hours per response. This burden represents the time required to gather the information, prepare and present/ conduct the verbal notice, and prepare and submit a written report.

Because most instances of NPDES noncompliance reporting are covered by other requirements of this ICR and by the NPDES/ Sewage Sludge Monitoring Reports ICR, EPA expects very few respondents to be affected annually. Approximately 2 percent ( 134) of the 6,719 major facilities and 1 percent ( 545) of the 54,452 minor facilities are expected to submit 1 report per year. Therefore, at 5 hours per response, the total annual burden associated with these reports is 670 hours for major facilities and 2,723 hours for minor facilities.

In addition, EPA anticipates that each year 31 POTWs and 10 PrOTWs will be required to submit an average of one noncompliance report per year regarding sewage sludge permit conditions ( generally noncompliance with pollutant limitations). The Agency assumes that the burden to complete these reports equals 5 hours for a total annual burden of 213 hours. The total annual burden associated with other noncompliance reports is 3,613 hours.

The annual average responses per respondent are presented in Exhibit 4 and the total annual burden for all three types of noncompliance reports discussed above is 55,556 hours and is summarized in Exhibit 5 below. This exhibit does not include the respondent burden associated with SSO and CSO reporting which can be found in Exhibit 7. Compliance Assessment ICR Page 28 July 7, 2000 6. a. 4 Notice of Alternate Level of Actual Production The permitting authority may, at its discretion, apply tiered production based effluent limits in an NPDES permit. Tiered permit limits allow facilities to operate under different sets of limits for pollutants based on varying production levels. In the case of automotive factories, however, a reasonable demonstration by the permittee for the requirement for tiered limits obligates the EPA ( not States) to grant tiered limits to the industry. Nevertheless, every facility operating under tiered limits is required to submit a notification to the permitting authority if it intends to operate at a production level higher than the lowest production level identified in the permit.

No burden is estimated for this requirement at this time since it is believed that there are very few applicable facilities that change production levels within a given permit cycle.

6. a. 5 Section 308( a) Letters As discussed in Section 4. b, Section 308( a) of the CWA gives broad discretion to permitting authorities to request information from a permittee above and beyond routine requirements. This burden on respondents from Section 308( a) letters requesting information is included under several ICRs. For example, a Section 308( a) letter may be sent out in response to inadequate information contained in an NPDES permit application. Accordingly, this burden is reflected in the Applications ICR. Section 308( a) letters requesting additional information pertaining to spills of oil and hazardous substances, however, are a compliance related activity and the burden associated with responding to this type of Section 308( a) letter is reflected in this NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification Information ICR. Activity/ Facility Type Total Annual Burden ( Hrs.)

Unanticipated Bypass/ Upset Report Major Facilities 6,552 Minor Facilities 17,694 Maximum Daily Violation Report Major Facilities 8,068 Minor Facilities 10,888 Storm Water Permittees 8,741 Other Noncompliance Reports Major Facilities 675 Minor Facilities 2,725 Sludge only POTWs 161 Sludge only PrOTWs 52 Total Annual Respondent Burden 55,556 Exhibit 5. Respondent Reporting Burden for Noncompliance Reports Compliance Assessment ICR Page 29 July 7, 2000 EPA estimates the burden associated with this collection to be 8 hours per response. This estimate represents the time required for a permittee to gather existing information; consult engineers, lawyers, etc. and prepare a short, direct report.

EPA estimates that 1,200 permittees will be required to respond to a Section 308( a) letter each year. In the past, virtually all respondents have been non municipal permittees with EPA as the permitting authority. At 8 hours per response, as discussed above, this is equivalent to a total annual respondent burden of 9,600 hours.

6. a. 6 Certification for Exemption From Monitoring and Notification of Process Changes As discussed in Section 4. b, the effluent limitations guidelines contain provisions that allow facilities in certain industrial categories to request exemptions from monitoring requirements. Also, the effluent limitations guidelines contain provisions for one category ( pesticides formulating, packaging, and repackaging) to develop a pollution prevention plan. Exhibit 6 provides an estimate of the number of facilities in each of these industrial categories. These estimates were estimated using PCS and by cross referencing facility SIC code data with CFR category. Each certification is estimated to require 1 hour to prepare.

EPA estimates that approximately 50 percent of the eligible electroplating and electrical and electronic components facilities will choose to submit a Total Toxic Organic Certification ( semi annually) in lieu of TTO monitoring and that 75 percent of the metal finishing facilities will choose to submit this ( semi annual) TTO certification. Note, at this time there are no known electroplating direct discharging facilities. Type of Respondent State EPA Total Pesticides Packaging and Repackaging 322 4 326 Aluminum Forming 69 7 76 Coil Coating 94 7 101 Can Making ( subcategory of coil coating) 15 3 18 Porcelain Enameling* 42 12 54 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 117 13 130 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard 326 35 361 Building Paper and Board Mills 144 30 174 Steam Electric 1,221 151 1,372 Electroplating 0 0 0 Metal Finishing 1,939 93 2,032 Electrical and Electronic Components 79 7 86 TOTAL 4,368 362 4,730 * Data were not available in PCS and therefore taken from the previous ICR and apportioned between State and EPA based on the ratio of delegated to non delegated States. Exhibit 6. Facilities with Certification Potential Compliance Assessment ICR Page 30 July 7, 2000 EPA estimates that approximately 75 percent of the aluminum forming facilities and coil coating facilities will choose to submit an annual certification requesting exemption from cyanide monitoring.

In addition, EPA estimates that for can making facilities ( one of the subcategories within coil coating category), that 75 percent of the can making facilities will choose to submit notification if the alloy used in making cans contains less than 1 percent manganese.

Additionally of the eligible pharmaceutical facilities, EPA estimates from effluent guideline development documents that approximately 40 percent of the pharmaceutical facilities are in a subcategory that potentially use cyanide and of those 40 percent, EPA estimates that 75 percent of those facilities will choose to submit a certification once every permit cycle requesting exemption from monitoring.

EPA estimates that 50 percent of the porcelain enameling facilities will choose to submit an annual certification requesting exemption from chromium monitoring.

In the pulp, paper, and paperboard category, EPA estimates from effluent guideline development documents that approximately 80 percent of the pulp and paper facilities use a chlorine free process and are eligible to choose an alternative monitoring program. These facilities may certify once every permit cycle that their process does not use chlorophenolic biocides and EPA estimates that of these 80 percent eligible, that 75 percent will choose to certify. Similarly, for the builders' paper and board mills category, EPA estimates that 75 percent of the facilities will certify.

EPA estimates that approximately 75 percent of the facilities in the steam electric category will choose to provide a demonstration and certification requesting exemption from monitoring requirements.

Lastly, in the pesticide formulating and packaging category, EPA estimates that 50 percent of the facilities will choose to submit an annual certification to use pollution prevention alternatives. As part of this certification, each facility must develop a pollution prevention plan. As in the previous ICR, this ICR estimates that one third of these facilities will develop a pollution prevention plan on an annual basis and that each plan will take 20 hours to develop. EPA estimates that there will be a total annual burden of 5,793 hours for these activities.

6. a. 7 SSO and Unpermitted CSO Reporting In 1998, EPA conducted an evaluation of SSOs and gathered information on the number and frequency of SSOs and unpermitted CSOs. At that time, EPA developed a Summary of Revised Burden Estimate for SSO/ Unpermitted CSO Reporting that was approved by OMB in March 1998. This revised burden summary estimates the SSO and CSO respondent burdens to be 62,144 hours and 5,184 hours, respectively. The SSO burden is based on an estimated 41,087 SSO events per year and the associated DMR, 24 hour and 5 day reports. The CSO burden is based on an estimated 3,840 events per year and the associated DMR, 24 hour and 5 day reports. Compliance Assessment ICR Page 31 July 7, 2000 For further explanation of the assumptions used to arrive at these burden estimates, see the 1998 Summary of Revised Burden Estimate for SSO/ Unpermitted CSO Reporting. Note: EPA is in the process of revising these burden estimates as part of the SSO rulemaking effort and associated ICR.

6. b Estimating Respondent Costs The cost imposed on permittees to the requirements discussed in this ICR is a function of the burden placed on them for recordkeeping and reporting the information described above and the wages of a typical worker performing these activities.

Estimates of government and respondent costs associated with this information collection have been prepared using the Federal Salary Table 2000 GS and a link to EPA's ICR page on the Internet at http:// stats. bls. gov/ news. release/ ecec. toc. htm.

! This ICR estimates the average annual salary for a Federal employee is equivalent to a GS 9, Step 10 and a salary of $ 42,091. At 2,080 labor hours per year, the hourly rate is $ 20.24. Overhead costs for Federal employees are expected to be 50 percent, or $ 10.12, yielding a total hourly rate of $ 30.36.

! This ICR estimates the State employee hourly rate based on wages and salary values for State and local government workers given in " Table 3. State and local government, by selected characteristics" of the U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, http:// stats. bls. gov/ news. release/ ecec. t03. htm. This table provides an hourly total compensation rate for all workers in State and local governments of $ 28.00 per hour including wages and salaries as well as total benefits.

! This ICR estimates the private industry hourly rate based on the wages and salary values for all workers in private industry given in " Table 5. Private Industry, by major industry group" of the U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics http:// stats. bls. gov/ news. release/ ecec. t05. htm. This table provides an hourly compensation rate for all workers in goods producing industry of $ 22.86 per hour including wages and salaries as well as total benefits.

! This ICR estimates the municipal POTW employee hourly rate based on wages and salary values for State and local government workers as noted in " Table 3. State and local government, by selected characteristics" of the U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics http:// stats. bls. gov/ news. release/ ecec. t03. htm. This table provides an hourly total compensation rate for all workers in State and local governments of $ 28.00 per hour including wages and salaries as well as total benefits. Compliance Assessment ICR Page 32 July 7, 2000 Exhibit 7 shows the estimated cost to recordkeeping and reporting for the compliance assessment activities discussed in this ICR. EPA estimates that the total annual cost is $ 19,161,763 for recordkeeping and $ 3,884,689 for reporting for a total respondent cost of $ 23,046,452.

6. c Estimating Agency Burden and Cost Government workers must enter the compliance assessment data into EPA's Permit Compliance System ( PCS) and file the data in the permittee's official file. In some cases, the government must also perform substantive follow up. The compliance assessment requirements accounted for in this ICR affect the Federal government and the State government, depending on which is the permitting authority. Three States are currently authorized to administer State sludge management programs. In addition, EPA expects additional States to obtain full or partial State sludge programs during the life of this ICR or an annual average of six States with sludge program approval. As this happens, the burden should remain the same, but some of it will shift from the Federal to State government. The costs to State and Federal governments associated with processing and analyzing compliance assessment information are a function of three factors: 1) the number of compliance reports received by State and Federal governments, 2) the time it takes to process and analyze those reports and, 3) the salary and overhead costs associated with the time the State and Federal workers spend processing and analyzing the reports.

The estimated burden and costs to the government ( State and Federal) for handling and reviewing compliance assessment information discussed in this ICR are presented in Exhibits 8 and 9. EPA estimates that the government will spend approximately 68,768 hours reviewing compliance assessment information each year. Of the total government burden, 51,089 hours will be spent by State governments and 17,679 hours will be spent by the Federal government.

As presented in Exhibit 9, the total annual government cost is estimated to be $ 2,009,221. Of this total government cost, $ 1,472,488 will be borne by State governments while $ 536,733 will be borne by the Federal government.

6. c. 1 Recordkeeping Recordkeeping costs for the government are incorporated into the burden for each of the components discussed below and are not reported separately in this ICR.

6. c. 2 Compliance Schedule Reports EPA estimates that the government requires 0.25 hours to review each compliance schedule report submitted by permittees that are in compliance with their schedule. See Section 6 for discussion of how many permittees are estimated to be required to submit compliance schedules. As shown in Exhibit 8, a total of 7,762 respondents are expected to submit reports each year. As explained in Section 6, a respondent is expected to submit an average of 1.5 reports per year ( for 1.5 reports per year at 0.25 hours per report this is approximately 0.4 hours per year per respondent). Of these 7,762 facilities, 7,206 are expected to report to State governments while 556 are expected to report to the Federal government. Compliance Assessment ICR Page 33 July 7, 2000 Exhibit 7. Annual Respondent Recordkeeping and Reporting Cost Item/ Type of Respondent Total Annual Respondent Burden ( Hrs.) ( A) Respondent Labor Cost Per Hour ( B) Total Annual Respondent Cost [( A) x ( B)]

Recordkeeping Major Municipal Permittees 24,528 $ 28.00 $ 686,784 Major Non Municipal Permittees 15,786 $ 22.86 $ 360,868 Minor Municipal Permittees 21,078 $ 28.00 $ 590,184 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 44,264 $ 22.86 $ 1,011,875 Storm Water General Permittees   Industrial 582,602 $ 22.86 $ 13,318,282 Storm Water General Permittees   Construction 82,956 $ 22.86 $ 1,896,374 Other General Permittees 56,754 $ 22.86 $ 1,297,396 SUBTOTAL 827,968 $ 19,161,763 Compliance Schedule Reports Major Municipal Permittees 3,449 $ 28.00 $ 96,572 Major Non Municipal Permittees 2,220 $ 22.86 $ 50,749 Minor Municipal Permittees 988 $ 28.00 $ 27,664 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 2,075 $ 22.86 $ 47,435 Sludge Permit Conditions Compliance Schedule Reports POTWs 150 $ 28.00 $ 4,200 PrOTWs 48 $ 22.86 $ 1,097 SUBTOTAL 8,930 $ 227,717 Noncompliance Reports Unanticipated Bypass/ Upset Report Verbal Reports Major Municipal Permittees 3,065 $ 28.00 $ 85,820 Major Non Municipal Permittees 1,975 $ 22.86 $ 45,149 Minor Municipal Permittees 4,390 $ 28.00 $ 122,920 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 9,220 $ 22.86 $ 210,769 Written Reports Major Municipal Permittees 920 $ 28.00 $ 25,760 Major Non Municipal Permittees 592 $ 22.86 $ 13,533 Minor Municipal Permittees 1,318 $ 28.00 $ 36,904 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 2,766 $ 22.86 $ 63,231 SUBTOTAL 24,246 $ 604,086 Compliance Assessment ICR Page 34 Exhibit 7. Annual Respondent Recordkeeping and Reporting Cost Item/ Type of Respondent Total Annual Respondent Burden ( Hrs.) ( A) Respondent Labor Cost Per Hour ( B) Total Annual Respondent Cost [( A) x ( B)]

July 7, 2000 Maximum Daily Violation Report Verbal Reports Major Municipal Permittees 3,678 $ 28.00 $ 102,984 Major Non Municipal Permittees 2,370 $ 22.86 $ 54,178 Minor Municipal Permittees 2,634 $ 28.00 $ 73,752 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 5,532 $ 22.86 $ 126,462 Storm Water Permittees 6,555 $ 22.86 $ 149,847 Written Reports Major Municipal Permittees 1,228 $ 28.00 $ 34,384 Major Non Municipal Permittees 792 $ 22.86 $ 18,105 Minor Municipal Permittees 878 $ 28.00 $ 24,584 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 1,844 $ 22.86 $ 42,154 Storm Water Permittees 2,186 $ 22.86 $ 49,972 SUBTOTAL 27,697 $ 676,422 Other Noncompliance Reports Major Municipal Permittees 410 $ 28.00 $ 11,480 Major Non Municipal Permittees 265 $ 22.86 $ 6,058 Minor Municipal Permittees 880 $ 28.00 $ 24,640 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 1,845 $ 22.86 $ 42,177 Sludge Permit Conditions   Noncompliance Reports POTWs 161 $ 28.00 $ 4,508 PrOTWs 52 $ 22.86 $ 1,189 SUBTOTAL 3,613 $ 90,052 Notice of Alternate Level of Production 0 $ 22.86 $ 0 Section 308( a) Letters 9,600 $ 28.00 $ 268,800 Pollution Prevention Alternative Pesticides Packaging and Repackaging 1,080 $ 22.86 $ 24,689 Compliance Assessment ICR Page 35 Exhibit 7. Annual Respondent Recordkeeping and Reporting Cost Item/ Type of Respondent Total Annual Respondent Burden ( Hrs.) ( A) Respondent Labor Cost Per Hour ( B) Total Annual Respondent Cost [( A) x ( B)]

July 7, 2000 Certifications Pesticides Packaging and Repackaging 163 $ 22.86 $ 3,726 Aluminum Forming 57 $ 22.86 $ 1,303 Coil Coating 76 $ 22.86 $ 1,737 Can Making ( subcategory of coil coating) 14 $ 22.86 $ 320 Porcelain Enameling 27 $ 22.86 $ 617 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 39 $ 22.86 $ 892 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard 43 $ 22.86 $ 983 Building Paper and Board Mills 131 $ 22.86 $ 2,995 Steam Electric 1,029 $ 22.86 $ 23,523 Electroplating 0 $ 22.86 $ 0 Metal Finishing 3,048 $ 22.86 $ 69,677 Electrical and Electronic Components 86 $ 22.86 $ 1,966 SUBTOTAL 4,713 $ 107,739 SSO Reporting 62,144 $ 28.00 $ 1,740,032 Unpermitted CSO Reporting 5,184 $ 28.00 $ 145,152 TOTAL 975,175 $ 23,046,452 Exhibit 8. Annual Burden to State and Federal Governments as Users of Data Item/ Type of Respondent Respondents per Year Hrs. per Response Total Annual Burden ( Hrs.)

State Federal State Federal Total Recordkeeping 0 0 0 0 0 0 Compliance Schedule Reports Total Permittees 7,206 556 0.4 2,882 222 3,104 Noncomplying Permittees 1,441 111 6.0 8,646 666 9,312 Sludge Permittees 7 125 0.5 4 63 67 SUBTOTAL 8,654 792 11,532 951 12,483 Noncompliance Reports Unanticipated Bypass/ Upset Report Verbal Notification 3,532 198 1.0 3,532 198 3,730 Written Report 2,649 149 2.0 5,298 298 5,596 Federal Assistance to States N/ A 132 2.0 N/ A 264 264 Immediate Action 883 50 2.0 1,766 100 1,866 Additional Federal Review N/ A 309 2.0 N/ A 618 618 SUBTOTAL 7,064 838 10,596 1,478 12,074 Compliance Assessment ICR Page 36 Exhibit 8. Annual Burden to State and Federal Governments as Users of Data Item/ Type of Respondent Respondents per Year Hrs. per Response Total Annual Burden ( Hrs.)

State Federal State Federal Total July 7, 2000 Maximum Daily Violation Report Verbal Notification 3,532 198 1.0 3,532 198 3,730 Written Report 1,766 99 2.0 3,532 198 3,730 Federal Assistance to States N/ A 88 2.0 N/ A 176 176 Immediate Action 883 50 2.0 1,766 100 1,866 Additional Federal Review N/ A 265 2.0 N/ A 530 530 SUBTOTAL 6,181 700 8,830 1,202 10,032 Other Noncompliance Reports NPDES Permittee Reports 1,168 55 2.0 2,336 110 2,446 Additional Federal Review N/ A 58 1.0 N/ A 58 58 Sludge Permittee Reports 2 39 0.3 1 12 13 SUBTOTAL 1,170 152 2,337 180 2,517 Notice of Alternate Level of Production 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 Section 308( a) Letters N/ A 1,200 8.0 0 9,600 9,600 Pollution Prevention Alternative Pesticides Packaging and Repackaging N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A Certifications Pesticides Packaging and Repackaging 161 2 1.0 161 2 163 Aluminum Forming 52 5 1.0 52 5 57 Coil Coating 71 5 1.0 71 5 76 Can Making ( subcategory of coil coating) 11 2 1.0 11 2 13 Porcelain Enameling 21 6 1.0 21 6 27 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 35 4 1.0 35 4 39 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard 196 21 0.2 39 4 43 Building Paper and Board Mills 108 23 1.0 108 23 131 Steam Electric 916 113 1.0 916 113 1,029 Electroplating 0 0 2.0 0 0 0 Metal Finishing 1,454 70 2.0 2,908 140 3,048 Electrical and Electronic Components 40 4 2.0 80 8 88 SUBTOTAL 3,065 255 4,402 312 4,714 SSO Reporting N/ A N/ A N/ A 9,316 2,752 12,068 Unpermitted CSO Reporting N/ A N/ A N/ A 4,076 1,204 5,280 TOTALS 26,134 3,937 51,089 17,679 68,768 Annual burden hours reflect revised burden estimates for SSOs and CSOs from 1998 Summary of Revised Burden Estimates. Respondent totals do not reflect these revised burden estimates. Compliance Assessment ICR Page 37 July 7, 2000 Exhibit 9. Annual Costs to State and Federal Governments as Users of Data Item/ Type of Respondent Annual Burden ( Hrs.) Agency Labor Cost/ Hour Annual Cost State Federal State Federal State Federal Total Recordkeeping 0 0 $ 28.00 $ 30.36 0 0 0 Compliance Schedule Reports Total Permittees 2,882 222 $ 28.00 $ 30.36 80,696 6,740 87,436 Non complying Permittees 8,646 666 $ 28.00 $ 30.36 242,088 20,220 262,308 Sludge Permittees 4 63 $ 28.00 $ 30.36 112 1,913 2,025 SUBTOTAL 11,532 951 $ 28.00 $ 30.36 322,896 28,873 351,769 Noncompliance Reports Unanticipated Bypass/ Upset Report Verbal Notification 3,532 198 $ 28.00 $ 30.36 98,896 6,011 104,907 Written Report 5,298 298 $ 28.00 $ 30.36 148,344 9,047 157,391 Federal Assistance to States N/ A 264 $ 28.00 $ 30.36 N/ A 8,015 8,015 Immediate Action 1,766 100 $ 28.00 $ 30.36 49,448 3,036 52,484 Additional Federal Review N/ A 618 $ 28.00 $ 30.36 N/ A 18,762 18,762 SUBTOTAL 10,596 1,478 $ 28.00 $ 30.36 296,688 44,871 341,559 Maximum Daily Violation Report Verbal Notification 3,532 198 $ 28.00 $ 30.36 98,896 6,011 104,907 Written Report 3,532 198 $ 28.00 $ 30.36 98,896 6,011 104,907 Federal Assistance to States N/ A 176 $ 28.00 $ 30.36 N/ A 5,343 5,343 Immediate Action 1,766 100 $ 28.00 $ 30.36 49,448 3,036 52,484 Additional Federal Review N/ A 530 $ 28.00 $ 30.36 N/ A 16,091 16,091 SUBTOTAL 8,830 1,202 $ 28.00 $ 30.36 247,240 36,492 283,732 Other Noncompliance Reports NPDES Permittee Reports 2,336 110 $ 28.00 $ 30.36 65,408 3,340 68,748 Additional Federal Review N/ A 58 $ 28.00 $ 30.36 N/ A 1,761 1,761 Sludge Permittee Reports 1 12 $ 28.00 $ 30.36 28 364 392 SUBTOTAL 2,337 180 $ 28.00 $ 30.36 65,436 5,465 70,901 Notice of Alternate Level of Production 0 0 $ 28.00 $ 30.36 0 0 0 Section 308( a) Letters N/ A 9,600 $ 28.00 $ 30.36 0 291,456 291,456 Pollution Prevention Alternative Pesticides Packaging and Repackaging N/ A N/ A $ 28.00 $ 30.36 N/ A N/ A N/ A Compliance Assessment ICR Page 38 Exhibit 9. Annual Costs to State and Federal Governments as Users of Data Item/ Type of Respondent Annual Burden ( Hrs.) Agency Labor Cost/ Hour Annual Cost State Federal State Federal State Federal Total July 7, 2000 Certifications Pesticides Packaging and Repackaging 161 2 $ 28.00 $ 30.36 4,888 61 4,949 Aluminum Forming 52 5 $ 28.00 $ 30.36 1,579 152 1,731 Coil Coating 71 5 $ 28.00 $ 30.36 2,156 152 2,308 Can Making ( subcategory of coil coating) 11 2 $ 28.00 $ 30.36 334 61 395 Porcelain Enameling 21 6 $ 28.00 $ 30.36 638 182 820 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 35 4 $ 28.00 $ 30.36 1,063 121 1,184 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard 39 4 $ 28.00 $ 30.36 1,184 121 1,305 Building Paper and Board Mills 108 23 $ 28.00 $ 30.36 3,279 698 3,977 Steam Electric 916 113 $ 28.00 $ 30.36 27,810 3,431 31,241 Electroplating 0 0 $ 28.00 $ 30.36 0 0 0 Metal Finishing 2,908 140 $ 28.00 $ 30.36 88,287 4,250 92,537 Electrical and Electronic Components 80 8 $ 28.00 $ 30.36 2,429 243 2,672 SUBTOTAL 4,402 312 133,647 9,472 143,119 SSO Reporting 9,316 2,752 $ 28.00 $ 30.36 282,834 83,551 366,385 Unpermitted CSO Reporting 4,076 1,204 $ 28.00 $ 30.36 123,747 36,553 160,300 TOTALS 51,089 17,679 1,472,488 536,733 2,009,221 6. c. 2 Compliance Schedule Reports EPA estimates that the government requires 0.25 hours to review each compliance schedule report submitted by permittees that are in compliance with their schedule. See Section 6 for discussion of how many permittees are estimated to be required to submit compliance schedules. As shown in Exhibit 8, a total of 7,762 respondents are expected to submit reports each year. As explained in Section 6, a respondent is expected to submit an average of 1.5 reports per year ( for 1.5 reports per year at 0.25 hours per report this is approximately 0.4 hours per year per respondent). Of these 7,762 facilities, 7,206 are expected to report to State governments while 556 are expected to report to the Federal government.

According to the Quarterly Noncompliance Report ( QNCR), approximately 20 percent of permittees that submit these reports are not in compliance with their scheduled milestones. EPA estimates that the government requires 4 hours to review and conduct follow up activities ( phone calls, letters) for each report submitted by permittees that are not in compliance with their schedule milestones ( for 1.5 reports per year this equals 6 hours per year per respondent).

EPA expects 100 POTWs and 32 privately owned treatment works, for a total of 132 facilities, to report compliance schedule progress. Each facility is expected to submit an average Compliance Assessment ICR Page 39 July 7, 2000 of 2 reports per year under 40 CFR Part 503. Each report is expected to take 0.25 hours to review and process.

Exhibit 8 shows that the total annual burden to the State government for compliance schedule reporting activities is 11,532 hours while the total annual burden to the Federal government is 951 hours. Exhibit 9 shows that the costs to State and Federal governments for compliance schedule activities are $ 322,896 and $ 28,873, respectively.

6. c. 3 Noncompliance Reports 24 Hour Report of Unanticipated Upset or Bypass EPA estimates that 1 hour is required for the government to receive and process each verbal noncompliance notice, and 2 hours are required for the government to receive and process each written noncompliance report. As discussed in Section 6.1, approximately 75 percent of those permittees that must submit verbal reports are also required to submit written reports. EPA anticipates that the remaining 25 percent will have their written report requirement waived. In addition, it is estimated that 2 hours are required for immediate action to mitigate the problem for 25 percent of the responses. Also, an additional Federal burden is calculated ( estimated to be 5 percent of the number of written reports submitted to States) for a portion of the responses that are submitted to States which need Federal assistance.

It is estimated that 5 percent ( 132) of the 2,649 written responses submitted to States will incur an additional 2 hours of Federal burden per response. In addition, 5 percent ( 309) of the 6,181 verbal and written State responses will need 2 hours additional Federal review time after the State response.

As shown in Exhibit 8, 3,532 State permittees and 198 Federal permittees are expected to submit one verbal report of noncompliance per year. Of these, 75 percent ( 2,649 State and 149 Federal) are expected to submit a written report. In addition, 933 respondents ( 883 State and 50 Federal) are expected to require immediate action to mitigate a problem.

As shown in Exhibit 8, the resulting annual burden to State and Federal governments are 10,596 and 1,478 hours, respectively. As shown in Exhibit 9, the annual costs to State and Federal governments are $ 247,240 and $ 36,492, respectively.

24 Hour Report of Violation of Maximum Daily Discharge EPA estimates that 1 hour is required for the government to receive and process each verbal violation notice and 2 hours are required to receive and process each written violation report. As mentioned earlier, in 50 percent of the cases the requirement for the written report is waived. In addition, 2 hours are estimated for immediate action to mitigate the problem for 25 percent of the verbal and written responses. Compliance Assessment ICR Page 40 July 7, 2000 As shown in Exhibit 8, State governments and the Federal government will handle verbal notices of violation from 3,532 and 198 respondents, respectively. Fifty percent of the respondents submitting verbal notices of violation will be required to submit written reports resulting in States and the Federal government handling 1,766 and 99 written responses, respectively.

In addition, a total of 883 and 50 respondents will require immediate action to mitigate a problem from States or the Federal government, respectively. Also, an additional Federal burden is calculated for a portion of the responses that are submitted to States which need Federal assistance. It is estimated that 5 percent of written responses submitted to States, or 88 responses, will require an additional 2 hours of Federal burden per response. In addition, 265, or 5 percent of the total responses submitted to States ( 3,532 verbal and 1,766 written) will result in 2 hours of additional Federal review time after the State response.

As shown in Exhibit 8, annual burden from this activity to State governments and Federal government is 8,830 and 1,202 hours, respectively. As shown in Exhibit 9, the annual costs to State and Federal governments are $ 247,240 and $ 36,492, respectively.

Other Noncompliance It is estimated that an average of 2 hours is required for the government to receive and process each report. EPA expects 2 percent ( 134) of the 6,719 major permittees and 1 percent ( 545) of the 54,452 minor permittees to submit 1 report per year. As shown in Exhibit 8, this results in States and the Federal governments handling 1,168 and 55 annual responses, respectively. Also, 2 hours are required for additional Federal assistance to 5 percent ( 58) of the 1,168 State responses.

In addition, EPA estimates that 21 POTWs and 1 PrOTW, or 22 total facilities, will be required to submit noncompliance reports regarding noncompliance with sewage sludge regulations. It is estimated that these reports will be submitted once per year. Each report is expected to take 0.25 hours to review and process resulting in an annual burden of 5.5 hours.

Exhibit 8 shows that the estimated annual burden for this activity for States and Federal governments are 2,337 and 180 hours, respectively. Exhibit 9 shows that the estimated annual costs to States and the Federal governments for this activity are $ 65,436 and $ 5,465, respectively.

Exhibit 10 presents the total annual burden from noncompliance reports to the State and Federal governments. These numbers do not include the burden associated with SSO and CSO reporting which can be found in Exhibit 8.

6. c. 4 Notice of Alternative Level of Actual Production As discussed earlier, EPA expects no burden to respondents from this requirement. Compliance Assessment ICR Page 41 July 7, 2000 6. c. 5 Section 308( a) Letters The Federal government is the sole recipient of each of these responses. It is estimated that 8 hours are required for the Federal government to issue the letter, review the response, and evaluate the need for additional enforcement action for each response. It is expected that 1,200 letters will be processed annually. This will result in an annual burden of 9,600 hours and $ 291,456 in costs to the Federal government.

6. c. 6 Certification for Exemption From Monitoring and Notification of Process Changes Review of certifications are estimated to take 1 hour per certification and occur annually except for pulp, paper, and paperboard facilities which are required to submit certifications once per permit cycle and electroplating, metal finishing, and electric and electronic components facilities that must submit semiannual certifications. The certification, pollution prevention alternative, and process change activities are estimated to involve 3,065 annual responses to States and 255 annual responses to the Federal government resulting in a total annual burden of 4,402 hours for the States and 312 hours for the Federal government. The costs to State and Federal governments are $ 133,647 and $ 9,472, respectively.

6. c. 7 SSO and Unpermitted CSO Reporting The Summary of Revised Burden Estimate for SSO/ Unpermitted CSO Reporting estimates the government burden associated with SSOs and CSOs to be 12,068 hours and 5,280 Activity/ Facility Type Total Annual Burden ( Hrs.)

Unanticipated Bypass/ Upset Report NPDES Facilities ( State) 10,596 NPDES Facilities ( Federal) 1,478 Maximum Daily Violation Report NPDES Facilities ( State) 8,830 NPDES Facilities ( Federal) 1,202 Other Noncompliance Reports NPDES Facilities ( State) 2,337 NPDES Facilities ( Federal) 168 Sludge Facilities ( State) 1 Sludge Facilities ( Federal) 12 Total Annual Government Burden:

State Government 21,763 Federal Government 2,860 TOTAL 24,623 Exhibit 10. State and Federal Burden for Noncompliance Reports Compliance Assessment ICR Page 42 July 7, 2000 hours, respectively. The SSO burden is based on an estimated 41,087 SSO events per year where 95 percent of the reports are included as part of DMR reporting and 5 percent require 24 hour verbal reports. In addition, a portion of these events require written 5 day reports, immediate action, and additional review. The CSO burden is based on an estimated 3,840 events per year potentially requiring DMR reporting, verbal and written reports, immediate actions, and additional review. Government burden hours have been apportioned in Exhibit 8 between the State and Federal governments based on the number of delegated ( 44) to non delegated ( 13) States.

6. d Estimating the Respondent Universe and Burden Hours and Costs Exhibit 11 presents the figures for total annual burden and costs to respondents and the State government. It summarizes burden and cost calculations in Exhibits 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10.

Exhibit 11 . Respondent Universe and Burden and Costs Annual Burden ( Hrs.) Annual Costs Recordkeeping 827,968 19,161,763 Reporting 147,207 3,884,689 Total for Respondents 975,175 23,046,452 State Governments 51,089 1,472,488 TOTAL 1,026,264 24,518,940 The annual burden for respondents is 975,175 hours and the annual burden to State governments is 51,089 hours.

6. e Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs The total annual bottom line burden hours and costs for respondents, State and Federal governments are 1,043,943 burden hours, and $ 25,055,673 respectively.

Annual Burden ( Hrs.) Annual Costs Recordkeeping 827,968 19,161,763 Reporting 147,207 3,884,689 Total for Respondents 975,175 23,046,452 State Governments 51,089 1,472,488 Federal Governments 17,679 536,733 TOTAL 1,026,264 24,518,940 Exhibit 12. Bottom Line Annual Burden and Costs to Respondents and Government Compliance Assessment ICR Page 43 July 7, 2000 6. f Reasons for Change in Burden Exhibit 13 presents the change in respondent burden for each information item covered by this ICR. As shown in Exhibit 13, the revised ICR estimates an increase in burden from 744,865 hours to 1,026,264 hours, or 38 percent. The primary reason for the increase is due to better estimates of and the increased number of general permittees required to keep records and report compliance activities. The changes in respondent burden are described below for each activity.

! Recordkeeping. This burden increase of 27 percent from the previous ICR represents an increase in the number of general permits, the growth of the storm water general permitting program and the resultant improvements in estimates of the number of permittees subject to its specific recordkeeping and inspection requirements. In addition, quarterly examinations required to be conducted by storm water general permittees with discharges associated with industrial activity were not reflected in the previous ICR.

! Compliance Schedule Reports. The burden associated with this requirement is essentially unchanged from the previous ICR.

! Noncompliance Reports. The burden on respondents for submitting noncompliance reports increased by approximately 16 percent. This was due in part to better estimates of the number of permittees in general and more precise counts of the Item/ Type of Respondent Previous ICR ( A) Current ICR ( B) Change ( C) ( B   A) Percent Change ( C ÷ A)

Recordkeeping 652,873 827,968 175,095 26.82%

Compliance Schedule Reports 8,949 8,930  19  0.21%

Noncompliance Reports Unanticipated Bypass/ Upset Report 24,139 24,246 107 0.44%

Maximum Daily Violation Report 18,858 27,697 8,839 46.87%

Other Noncompliance Reports 3,596 3,613 17 0.47%

Notice of Alternate Level of Production 0 0 0 0.00%

Section 308( a) Letters 9,600 9,600 0 0.00%

Pollution Prevention Alternative 171 1,080 909 531.58%

Certifications and Notice of Process Changes 399 4,713 4,314 1,081.20%

SSO Reporting* 0 62,144 N/ A 100.00%

Unpermitted CSO Reporting* 0 5,184 N/ A 100.00%

Burden to State Governments as Users of Data 26,280 51,089 24,809 94.40%

TOTAL 744,865 1,026,264 281,399 37.78%

* Previous ICR did not separately account for SSO and CSO burden, which was incorporated in 1998. Exhibit 13. Change in Annual Respondent and State Burden Compliance Assessment ICR Page 44 July 7, 2000 number of storm water permittees estimated to be required to submit maximum daily violation reports.

! Notice of Alternate Level of Production. No burden is associated with this requirement.

! Section 308( a) Letters. The burden associated with this requirement did not change.

! Pollution Prevention Alternative. A 532 percent increase in the burden is estimated to be associated with the pollution prevention alternative for exemption from monitoring. This increase is due to the availability through PCS of better estimates of the number of facilities for which this option may apply. EPA estimates, however, that there is no real change in burden from this activity.

! Certification for Exemption From Monitoring and Notification of Process Changes. A 1,081 percent increase in burden is estimated to be associated with certifications for exemptions from monitoring. This increase is due in part to the inclusion of three industrial categories not previously included as eligible for this certification option, as well as the availability through PCS of better estimates of the number of facilities for which this certification may apply. EPA estimates, however, that there is no real change in burden from this activity.

! SSO Reporting and Unpermitted CSO Reporting. Changes reflect revised burden estimates not included in the previous ICR, but subsequently developed by EPA in Summary of Revised Burden Estimate for SSO/ Unpermitted CSO Reporting and approved by OMB in 1998. These numbers reflect information gathered at that time about the number and frequency of SSOs and unpermitted CSOs and are currently being updated as part of the SSO ICR.

! Change in State Burden. The 94 percent difference in State burden is the result of an increase in the estimated number of permittees in delegated States as well as the SSO and CSO burden not included as part of the previous ICR.

6. g Burden Statement The public reporting burden for collecting information is estimated to be an average of 2.15 hours per respondent. This estimate includes the time required to review the instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain all necessary data, and complete and review the information collection. The public recordkeeping burden is estimated to be an average of 6.0 hours per respondent.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable Compliance Assessment ICR Page 45 July 7, 2000 instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, OP Regulatory Information Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2137), 401 M St., S. 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. Include the EPA ICR number and OMB control number in any correspondence.