i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title and Number of the Information Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1( b) Short Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2( b) Use/ Users of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3 NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3( a) Non duplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3( c) Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3( e) General Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3( f) Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3( g) Sensitive Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4 RESPONDENTS AND INFORMATION REQUESTED 4( a) Respondents/ NAICS Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4( b) Information Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4( b)( i) Data Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4( b)( ii) Respondent Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5 INFORMATION COLLECTED  AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5( a) Agency Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5( b) Collection Methodology and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5( c) Small Entity Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 5( d) Collection Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 6 ESTIMATING BURDEN AND COST OF COLLECTION 6( a) Respondent Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 6( a)( i) Burden to Public Water Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 6( a)( ii) Burden to Primacy Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 6( b) Respondent Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 6( b)( i) Cost to Public Water Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 6( b)( ii) Cost to Primacy Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 6( c) Agency Burden and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 6( d) Estimating Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 6( g) Burden Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 ii APPENDICES Appendix A. 1993 Information Collection Request for the Public Water Supply Program Appendix B. Documentation of Actions Affecting the PWSS Program ICR Appendix C. Consumer Confidence Rule Appendix D. Information Collection Request for the PWSS Program Primacy Regulation Appendix E. Variance and Exemption Information Collection Request Appendix F. Consumer Confidence Rule Spreadsheets Appendix G. Primacy Spreadsheets Appendix H. Capacity Development Spreadsheets Appendix I. State Workload Burden and Costs Spreadsheets Appendix J. Response to Comment on the Information Collection Request for the Consumer Confidence Rule iii LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: New Structure of OGWDW ICRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Exhibit 2: PWS Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Exhibit 3: Primacy Agency Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Exhibit 4: PWSS Program Requirements for EPA Regions and Headquarters . . . . . . . . . . 28 Exhibit 5: Annual PWS Burden and Cost 2002 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Exhibit 6: Annual State Burden and Cost 2002 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Exhibit 7: Bottom Line Annual Burden and Cost 2002 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Exhibit 8: Reasons for Change in Annual Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Exhibit 9: Changes to the Burden Inventory for the PWSS Program ICR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Exhibit 10: Reintroduction of Incorrectly Removed Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Exhibit 11: Restructuring Adjustments to the PWSS Program ICR Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Exhibit 12: Adjustments to Correct Double Counting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Exhibit 13: Program Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Exhibit 14: Incorporation of Stand Alone ICRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Exhibit 15: Adjustments to PWS Burden from Previous ICR Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Exhibit 16: Adjustments to Primacy Agency Burden from Previous ICRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Exhibit 17: Adjustments to Activities Carried Forward from Previous ICRs . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 iv ACRONYMS BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics CCR Consumer Confidence Report CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CFR Code of Federal Regulations CWS Community Water System DBPR Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule DDBP/ Chem/ Rads Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts, Chemical, and Radionuclides DWSRF Drinking Water State Revolving Fund EPA Environmental Protection Agency FBRR Filter Backwash Recycling Rule FOIA Freedom of Information Act FR Federal Register FTE Full Time Equivalent FY Fiscal Year GWR Ground Water Rule ICR Information Collection Request ICW Information Correction Worksheet IOC Inorganic Chemical IESWTR Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule LCR Lead and Copper Rule LT1ESWTR Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule LT2ESWTR Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule MCL Maximum Contaminant Level MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal MRDL Maximum Residual Disinfection Level MRDLG Maximum Residual Disinfection Level Goal NAICS North American Industry Classification System NCWS Noncommunity Water System NDWAC National Drinking Water Advisory Council NPDWR National Primary Drinking Water Regulation NTNCWS Nontransient Noncommunity Water System O& M Operation and Maintenance OGWDW Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water OMB Office of Management and Budget PC& B Personnel Compensation and Benefits PN Public Notification PRA Paperwork Reduction Act PWS Public Water System PWSS Public Water System Supervision SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System SIC Standard Industrial Classification SNC Significant Noncompliance v SOC Synthetic Organic Chemical SWAP Source Water Assessment Program SWTR Surface Water Treatment Rule TCR Total Coliform Rule TNCWS Transient Noncommunity Water System TTHM Total Trihalomethane VOC Volatile Organic Chemical UIC Underground Injection Program UCMR Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule V/ E Variance and Exemption PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 1 Throughout this document, the terms " State" or " States" are used to refer to all types of primacy agencies, including U. S. territories and Indian tribes.

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

1 1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title and Number of the Information Collection Title: Information Collection Request for the Public Water System Supervision Program OMB Control Number: 2040 0090 EPA Tracking Number: 0270.40 1( b) Short Characterization The Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water ( OGWDW) in the Office of Water at the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA or the Agency) is responsible for managing the Public Water System Supervision ( PWSS) Program, a national program mandated by the Safe Drinking Water Act ( SDWA). Section 1412 of the SDWA requires EPA to establish National Primary Drinking Water Regulations ( NPDWRs) for contaminants that may adversely impact human health. The Act further requires EPA to monitor and enforce these regulations to ensure that the nation's drinking water dependably complies with the maximum contaminant levels ( MCLs) stipulated in the Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR), 40 CFR Part 141, Subpart B.

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

This Information Collection Request ( ICR) was prepared in accordance with the February 1999 version of EPA's Guide to Writing Information Collection Requests Under the Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA) of 1995 ( or " ICR Handbook") prepared by EPA's Office of Environmental Information, Office of Information Collection, Collection Strategies Division. The ICR Handbook provides the most current instructions for ICR preparation to ensure compliance with PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 2 the 1995 PRA amendments and Office of Management and Budget's ( OMB's) implementing guidelines.

Many information collection requirements associated with the SDWA and its implementing regulations are associated with rulemakings that address specific contaminants or groups of contaminants. This ICR examines PWS, primacy agency, and EPA burden and costs for " cross cutting" recordkeeping and reporting requirements   i. e., the burden and costs for complying with drinking water information requirements that are not associated with contaminant specific rulemakings. These activities include the following   1) Consumer Confidence Reports ( CCRs) 2) Primacy Regulation Activities 3) Variance and Exemption Rule ( V/ E Rule) 4) Capacity Development Program 5) General State Primacy Activities In addition, OGWDW will amend the PWSS Program ICR to include public notification ( PN) activities before the Public Notification ICR ( OMB No. 2040 0209) expires in June of 2002. The burden for PN for the remainder of 2002 and for 2003 and 2004 will be amended to this ICR. Future renewals of this ICR will include the burden for PN for the entire 3 year ICR renewal period.

This ICR updates the burden and cost estimates provided in the ICR for the PWSS Program dated December 20, 1993, which expires on September 30, 2001 ( see Appendix A). As explained in Section 2( a), some recordkeeping and reporting requirements stemming from the 1996 Amendments to the SDWA have now been added to the PWSS Program ICR. Other activities ( those associated with contaminant specific rules) that were addressed in the 1993 PWSS Program ICR are now being addressed in other ICRs. The ICR estimates costs for years 2002, 2003, and 2004.

The total annual respondent burden associated with this ICR is estimated to be approximately 1.84 million hours per year. The total annual respondent costs associated with this ICR is estimated to be approximately $ 63.3 million. The distribution of annual burden between PWSs and primacy agencies is approximately 0.68 million hours and 1.16 million hours, respectively. The distribution of annual costs between PWSs and primacy agencies is approximately $ 29.3 million and $ 34.0 million, respectively.

The approximate annual O& M costs are $ 13.6 million ($ 13.1 million for PWSs and $ 0.5 million for primacy agencies). This represents the " cost burden" as reported in the OMB inventory. Note that these costs are for O& M only; there are no capital costs associated with the activities covered by this ICR.

The Agency burden for this ICR totals 490,880 hours ( or approximately $ 15.3 million); 91,520 hours ( approximately $ 3.7 million) is for Headquarters activities and 399,360 hours PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 3 ( approximately $ 11.5 million) is for EPA Regional office activities. Section 6( f) summarizes the change in burden.

The total number of respondents for this ICR is 168,302; 57 of these respondents are primacy agencies and the balance are existing or new PWSs ( 167,837 existing PWSs and 408 new PWSs). The total annual number of responses for these respondents is 244,209 ( 244,152 for PWSs and 57 for primacy agencies). PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 4 2 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection This section identifies the regulatory or statutory authority for the information collection activities covered in this ICR and describes why EPA needs the information. Section 4 of the ICR contains a summary of the major types of PWSS Program recordkeeping and reporting requirements covered by this ICR.

To allow the public to better understand the impact of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements stemming from the SDWA and 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142, OGWDW has reorganized its ICRs so that related activities are addressed in the same ICR.

These include the following C 1) Consumer Confidence Reports 2) Primacy Regulation Activities ( requirements for States to adopt administrative penalty order provisions, if so allowed by their constitutions) 3) Variance and Exemption Rule 4) Capacity Development Program 5) General State Primacy Activities In addition, OGWDW will amend the PWSS Program ICR to include PN activities when the current PN ICR expires in June of 2002.

For a graphical depiction of the previous structure of the OGWDW ICRs, see Figure 1. The ICRs have been restructured as shown in Figure 2. A complete itemization of the activities included in the three primary ICRs, as well as other drinking water program ICRs, follows as Exhibit 1. PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 5 Figure 1. Previous Structure of OGWDW ICRs PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 6 Figure 2. Restructure of OGWDW ICRs 3 Disinfectant residual monitoring and associated activities are included in the DDBP/ Chem/ Rads ICR.

7 PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 Exhibit 1 New Structure of OGWDW ICRs Activity ICR in which Activity is Currently Covered Expiration Date PWSS Program ICR ( 2040 0090)

Consumer Confidence Reports ( CCRs) CCR ICR, 2040 0201 9/ 30/ 01 Primacy Regulation Activities Primacy Regulation ICR, 2040 0195 9/ 30/ 01 Variances & Exemptions 1993 PWSS Program ICR, 2040 0090 ( via a 1998 Amendment) 9/ 30/ 01 The Capacity Development Program New Activity N/ A General State Primacy Activities 1993 PWSS Program ICR, 2040 0090 9/ 30/ 01 Public Notification ( PN) ( to be added to the PWSS Program ICR when the PN ICR expires) PN ICR, 2040 0209 6/ 30/ 02 Operator Certification Guidelines and Expense Reimbursement Grants Program ( to be added to the PWSS Program ICR when the program specific ICR expires) Operator Certification Guidelines and Expense Reimbursement Grants Program ICR, 2040 0236 9/ 30/ 03 Microbial ICR ( 2040 0205)

Surface Water Treatment Rule, except disinfectant residual monitoring and associated activities3 1993 PWSS Program ICR, 2040 0090 9/ 30/ 01 Total Coliform Rule 1993 PWSS Program ICR, 2040 0090 9/ 30/ 01 Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule ( IESWTR) 1998 IESWTR ICR, 2040 0205 11/ 30/ 01 Filter Backwash Recycling Rule 2001 FBRR ICR, 2040 0224 8/ 31/ 04 Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule ( LT1ESWTR) ( to be added to the Microbial ICR when the program specific ICR expires) LT1ESWTR 2040 0229 10/ 31/ 04 Laboratory Quality Assurance Program ( to be added to the Microbial ICR when the program specific ICR expires) New Activity for which a new ICR will be developed. Approx. 12/ 31/ 04 Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule ( LT2ESWTR) Future addition N/ A PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 Activity ICR in which Activity is Currently Covered Expiration Date 8 Ground Water Rule Future addition N/ A Disinfectants/ Disinfection Byproducts, Chemical, and Radionuclides ICR ( 2040 0204)

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

SWAP SWAP ICR, 2040 0197 10/ 31/ 04 Underground Injection Control ( UIC) Program ICR ( 2040 0042)

UIC Base Program Activities UIC Program ICR, 2040 0042 9/ 30/ 01 Class V Rule Class V ICR, 2040 0214 11/ 30/ 02 Florida Class I Rule Future addition N/ A Drinking Water State Revolving Fund ( DWSRF) ICR ( 2040 0185)

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

1999 Needs Survey ( complete) Needs Survey ICR, 2040 0198 10/ 31/ 01 PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 4 The dates of the technical corrections were December 28, 1998 ( 63 FR 71375), June 29, 1999 ( 64 FR 34732), and September 14, 1999 ( 64 FR 49671). Rule specific modifications include the following: Radionuclides Rule ( 65 FR 76707; December 7, 2000); Public Notification Rule ( 65 FR 25981; May 4, 2000); Stage 1 Disinfectant and Disinfection Byproducts Rule ( 63 FR 69475; December 16, 1998), and Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule ( 63 FR 69516; December 16, 1998). In addition, as other drinking water rules are promulgated violations of their standards will also be required to be reported in CCRs.

9 1) Consumer Confidence Reports Section 114 of the 1996 SDWA amends Section 1414( c) of the Act. The amendments require community water systems ( CWSs) to distribute CCRs to their customers annually. EPA wrote regulations under Subpart O of 40 CFR Part 141 to implement this provision.

The initial Federal Register ( FR) notice containing CCR requirements was published on August 19, 1998 ( 63 FR 44512). These initial requirements have been modified by three technical amendments or other rule specific notices. 4 However, these amendments are assumed to have no affect on the underlying burden.

EPA developed the CCR regulations to satisfy the SDWA requirement, in consultation with CWSs, environmental groups, public interest groups, risk communication experts, States, and other interested parties. The regulations require, at a minimum, that each CWS mail to each of its customers an annual report on the level of contaminants in the drinking water purveyed by that system.

The Governor of a State may waive the mailing requirement for CWSs serving fewer than 10,000 people. These CWSs would then be required to publish the report in a local newspaper and inform their customers, through a newspaper notice, that they will not be mailing the CCR. The CWS would be obliged to make the report available to the public on request. CWSs serving fewer than 500 people that have received the mailing waiver need only post notices announcing the availability of the report.

2) Primacy Regulation Activities The 1996 Amendments to SDWA require that primacy agencies, unless prohibited by their constitutions, have the authority to impose administrative penalties on PWSs in violation of the SDWA. For systems serving a population greater than 10,000 individuals, States must have the authority to impose administrative penalties in an amount that is not less than $ 1,000 per day per violation. For systems serving a population of 10,000 or fewer individuals, States must have the authority to impose administrative penalties that are adequate to ensure compliance with the SDWA. EPA is collecting information from each State that wishes to obtain or retain primacy to determine whether the State's administrative penalty provisions meet the requirements of the SDWA.

This information collection is authorized under the SDWA and 40 CFR 142.11( a)( 6) and ( 7), as amended by the Revisions to State Primacy Requirements to Implement Federal Drinking Water Regulations, and 40 CFR 142.12( a) and ( c). It will be conducted by EPA Regional Offices PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 10 in consultation with OGWDW, the Office of Regulatory Enforcement, and, in some instances, the Office of General Counsel. Specifically, EPA needs this information to determine whether States meet the administrative penalty authority requirements in order to obtain and/ or retain primacy for the PWSS program.

3) Variance & Exemption Rule The 1996 SDWA Amendments established criteria under which PWSs, especially those serving 10,000 or fewer people, could adopt through variance or exemption affordable technologies that improve the quality of their water and move them closer to compliance with national drinking water standards. The information required of PWSs seeking variances or exemptions is needed to determine if the system satisfies SDWA conditions for variances or exemptions. In addition, the information is needed to allow the Administrator and the public to determine that the public had adequate opportunity to review and comment on a decision to grant a small system variance.

4) Capacity Development Program Through the 1996 SDWA Amendments, Congress conveyed the importance of efforts to ensure that PWSs maintain the technical, managerial, and financial capacity to comply with the requirements of the SDWA. To underscore the importance of capacity development, it was linked to the DWSRF through a withholding of 20 percent of the funds to which a State is otherwise entitled if its program does not meet the requirements of EPA's guidelines.

Information collection activities associated with the Capacity Development Program are driven by these withholding provisions. EPA is required under § 1420( a) and ( c) to make an annual determination on whether to withhold a percentage of a State's DWSRF allotment. In order to make these decisions, EPA must collect information from the States as required by EPA guidance. States, in turn, must collect information from water systems as required by their respective programs. All funds that are withheld from, or unawarded to States, will be reallotted to other States that have met the requirements of the guidelines.

The capacity development provisions in the 1996 SDWA Amendments offer a framework within which States and water systems can work together to ensure that systems are capable of achieving the public health protection objectives set forth in the SDWA. Section 1420( a) of the SDWA explains that a State " shall receive only 80 percent of the allotment that the state is otherwise entitled to receive under Section 1452 ( relating to State loan funds) unless the state has obtained the legal authority or other means to ensure that all new community water systems and new nontransient, noncommunity water systems commencing operation after October 1, 1999, demonstrate technical, managerial, and financial capacity with respect to each national primary drinking water regulation in effect, or likely to be in effect, on the date of commencement of operations." In addition, according to Section 1420( c), States will incur a graduated withholding, beginning with 10 percent in fiscal year 2001, 15 percent in fiscal year 2002, and 20 percent in all subsequent fiscal years, if they do not develop and implement a strategy to assist all PWSs in acquiring and maintaining capacity. PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 11 5) General State Primacy Activities To implement its compliance oversight and enforcement responsibilities under the SDWA, EPA requires primacy agencies to report a specified subset of PWS monitoring and related information in SDWIS. Additionally, primacy agencies must maintain records of analysis results and other related activities ( e. g., sanitary survey results). Without comprehensive, up to date information on drinking water contamination ( as provided by SDWIS), EPA would not be able to ensure " a supply of drinking water which dependably complies with such maximum contaminant levels" ( SDWA Section 1401( 1)( d)). If these reporting requirements were voluntary, EPA would not receive timely, comprehensive data on contaminant levels and associated acute and long term public health risks. Specifically, voluntary monitoring would notC $ Reliably occur with sufficient frequency.

$ Follow uniform national standards on quality of sampling, collection, and analysis.

$ Ensure that monitoring addresses all contaminants listed in the regulations.

Without the information collected in this ICR, EPA would not be able to protect the nation's drinking water.

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

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

$ Military bases $ Farmers Home Administration $ Department of Interior $ Department of Housing and Urban Development $ U. S. Army Corps of Engineers $ White House Task Forces $ American Water Works Association $ Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies $ National Rural Water Association $ National Association of Water Companies $ Association of State Drinking Water Administrators $ Natural Resources Defense Council $ Consumers Federation of America $ News Organizations PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 12 Data are used to aid in understanding the quality of drinking water, make regulatory enforcement decisions, oversee State programs, and make decisions regarding EPA grants. This section summarizes the use and users of the data by activity   1) Consumer Confidence Reports. Customers of CWSs will use CCRs to make healthand environment related decisions regarding their drinking water.

2) Primacy Regulation Activities. EPA will use the information to determine whether States, if not constitutionally prohibited from doing so, have adopted the administrative penalty authority necessary in order to obtain and/ or retain primacy for the PWSS program. In addition, EPA could combine the information on the level of administrative penalties in each State with compliance data to evaluate the success of these penalties in promoting compliance with the SDWA. The information may also be useful to individual States. For example, a State may find that its penalties have not increased compliance with the SDWA. This State may want to examine the administrative penalties of other States to see how they promote SDWA compliance. Based on this comparison, the State can evaluate and select a more appropriate level of administrative penalties.

3) Variance and Exemption Rule. EPA and primacy agencies will use the required information to determine if systems meet the criteria for variances and exemptions. The information can also help identify research and development needs for affordable small system treatment technology.

4) Capacity Development Program. States will use the information submitted by water systems to evaluate whether water systems can achieve and maintain technical, financial, and managerial capacity. EPA will use the information submitted by States to determine whether States have adopted and are implementing capacity development programs in accordance with the guidelines developed by EPA and the relevant sections of SDWA. In turn, EPA can make decisions on grant withholding.

5) General State Primacy Activities. Information reported by States and retained in State records has a variety of uses     To evaluate the quality of water delivered to customers and determine water system compliance with national standards.

  To determine whether States are meeting primacy requirements and maintaining eligibility for grants.

  To track compliance progress, identify enforcement targets and systems requiring remedial action, determine if systems are meeting schedules designed to return them to compliance, and determine if States are taking timely and appropriate enforcement action. PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 13   To provide States with necessary data to assess resource needs and capacity, and to evaluate the impact of SDWA requirements on primacy agencies.

  To support responses to information requests from Congress or to requests for information from companies and individual citizens, hundreds of which are processed by EPA every year. For example, the EPA provides SDWIS data to the National Rural Water Association, an EPA grantee, so that it can target technical assistance and training activities toward compliance problems identified by the data. Many Freedom of Information Act ( FOIA) requests from individual citizens concern the compliance status of a specific PWS or geographical area and involve information stored in SDWIS. PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 14 3 NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3( a) Non duplication EPA has made an effort to ensure that the data collection efforts associated with this ICR are not duplicated. EPA has consulted State environmental programs, other Federal agencies ( such as the CDC), and regulated entities ( such as PWSs and their representative trade associations). To the best of EPA's knowledge, data currently required by the SDWA ( and its implementing regulations codified at 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142) are not available from any other source.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB To comply with the 1995 Amendments to the PRA, EPA has solicited public comment on this ICR for a 60 day period before it was submitted to OMB. Specifically, EPA has published notices in the Federal Register requesting comment on the estimated respondent burden and other aspects of this ICR ( 66 FR 21926, see Appendix B).

An additional Federal Register notice will be published prior to submission of this ICR to OMB. The public comment period for this additional notice is 30 days.

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

In the initial phases of program development, or to confirm assumptions on which rules or guidelines are based, EPA often augments formal meetings with other workshops or meetings to gather information. For example, a National Drinking Water Advisory Council ( NDWAC) working group advised EPA on the development of the Guidance on Implementing the Capacity Development Provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The NDWAC Small Systems Working Group consists of 22 members representing small PWSs, environmental and public health advocacy groups, State drinking water programs, public utility commissions, and other interest groups. The group convened on four occasions between February and July 1997 to develop recommendations on how EPA should implement the capacity development provisions. The PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 15 Small Systems Working Group presented its recommendations to the full NDWAC, which in turn presented these recommendations to EPA. The working group's recommendations on the content and format of the resulting guidance were considered and incorporated by EPA. The draft guidance was published in the Federal Register. After a 60 day public comment period, comments were received from approximately 50 parties. EPA responded to these comments and included the comments and responses, as appropriate, in an appendix to the final guidance.

In developing the Primacy Regulation, EPA consulted with a primacy workgroup consisting of EPA Headquarters and Regional representatives. The workgroup participated in conference calls on June 10, 1997, August 26, 1997, October 6, 1997, and November 24, 1997. During these calls, the workgroup discussed the necessity for and the extent of this collection. As part of the CCR Rule regulatory development process, EPA consulted with NDWAC which itself received comments from a working group on CCRs. In addition, EPA solicited input regarding the preparation and distribution of CCRs from a variety of sources, including postal offices and mailing list providers.

Burden for general State primacy activities was estimated using the State Workload Model, which is documented in the Resource Analysis Computer Program for State Drinking Water Agencies, January 1993 ( as updated in 1997). This model was designed to estimate the resources needed to fund State drinking water programs. It contains a comprehensive list of activities required to operate a drinking water program, including estimates of the number of systems impacted.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection EPA has considered a wide range of alternatives for frequency of data collection. The Primacy Regulation involves only one time effort by the States who wish to adopt the administrative penalty authority necessary in order to obtain or retain primacy. The CCR Rule and Capacity Development Program require annual reporting. Distributing CCRs less frequently than annually is not allowed under the SDWA. Annual reporting of capacity development information is essential to enable EPA to make withholding determinations on each fiscal year's funds.

For other information collection activities, EPA has chosen to require the least frequent collection that remains consistent with overall public health preservation objectives. If data are collected less frequently, the State may not identify in a timely fashion significant contaminant concentrations which might threaten the health and safety of drinking water consumers.

3( e) General Guidelines This ICR was prepared in accordance with the February 1999 version of EPA's Guide to Writing Information Collection Requests Under the Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA) of 1995 ( or " ICR Handbook") prepared by EPA's Office of Environmental Information, Office of Information Collection, Collection Strategies Division. The ICR Handbook provides the most current instructions for ICR preparation to ensure compliance with the 1995 PRA amendments and Office of Management and Budget's ( OMB's) implementing guidelines. PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 16 3( f) Confidentiality No confidential information will be collected as a result of this ICR.

3( g) Sensitive Questions No information of a sensitive nature will be collected as a result of this ICR. PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 5As noted above, EPA will add Public Notification requirements to this ICR prior to expiration of the PN ICR. The PN ICR also covers information collection activities that are not associated with contaminant specific rules.

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

$ Primacy agencies that must report to EPA Headquarters.

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

The North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS) code for PWSs is 22131. The NAICS code for State agencies that include drinking water programs are classified as 92411 ( Administration of Air and Water Resources and Solid Waste Management Programs) or 923312 ( Administration of Public Health Programs). Ancillary systems ( i. e., those that supplement the function of other establishments like factories, power plants, mobile home parks, etc.) cannot be categorized in a single NAICS code. For ancillary systems, the NAICS code is that of the primary establishment or industry.

4( b) Information Requested 4( b)( i) Data Items Exhibits 2 and 3 summarize the respondent information collection requirements covered by the PWSS Program ICR. These reflect cross cutting recordkeeping and reporting requirements under the PWSS Program ( i. e., requirements that are not associated with contaminant specific rules). 5 The requirements are discussed following Exhibits 2 and 3. PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 18 Exhibit 2 PWS Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements Requirement Regulatory Citation Report Frequency/ Minimum Retention CCRs Mail copies of CCR to customers 40 CFR 141.155( a) Annually, unless waived per § 141.155( g).

Announce availability of CCR 40 CFR 141.155( b) Annually.

Submit copy of CCR to primacy agency 40 CFR 141.155( c) Annually.

Submit copy of CCR to agencies or clearinghouses identified by the primacy agency 40 CFR 141.155( d) Annually, as required.

Make current year's CCR available to public 40 CFR 141.155( e) As requested.

Post current year's CCR on the Internet ( for systems serving

100,000 people) 40 CFR 141.155( f) Annually.

Publish CCR in local newspaper, if the mailing requirement has been waived 40 CFR 141.155( g)( 1) Annually, except that systems serving  500 can forego per § 141.155( g)( 2).

Retain copy of CCR 40 CFR 141.155( h) For at least 3 years.

VARIANCES AND EXEMPTIONS Retain records concerning variance or exemption grants 40 CFR 141.33 Not less than 5 years after variance/ exemption expiration.

Submit information supporting request for variance 40 CFR 142.41 One time, PWS discretion.

Submit information supporting request for exemption 40 CFR 142.51 One time, PWS discretion.

Submit information supporting request for small system variance 40 CFR 142.306 One time, PWS discretion.

Report on compliance with terms and conditions of the small system variance 40 CFR 142.307 Quarter after granting.

CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT Demonstrate capacity ( new CWSs & NTNCWSs) N/ A One time.

Cooperate with State to demonstrate continued capacity N/ A As needed. PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 19 Exhibit 3 Primacy Agency Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements Requirement Regulatory Citation Report Frequency/ Minimum Retention CCRs Make CCRs available to public 40 CFR 142.16( f)( 2) As requested.

Retain copies of CCRs and certifications that CCRs were distributed 40 CFR 142.16( f)( 3) CCRs: 5 years. Certifications: 1 year.

Report violations of CCR provisions 40 CFR 142.16( f)( 4) Quarterly.

VARIANCES AND EXEMPTIONS Issue variances and exemptions ( for other than small systems) 40 CFR 142.20 At primacy agency discretion.

Consider system V/ E requests ( other than small systems) 40 CFR 142.21 Within 90 days of request.

Review V/ E requests previously granted 40 CFR 142.22 Within 18 months of new standards.

Notify EPA of new variances or exemptions granted 40 CFR 142.15( a)( 3) Quarterly.

Summarize the status of variances or exemptions currently in effect 40 CFR 142.15( b)( 2) Annually.

Propose small system variances and provide supporting information and responses to comments 40 CFR 142.311 & 142.312 When State proposes to grant a small system variance.

Following EPA's notification of objections and proposed modifications to proposed small system variances, respond to EPA 40 CFR 142.311 Before State grants a small community variance to a PWS serving 3,300 or fewer people.

Re propose small system variances 40 CFR 142.312 Before the State grants a small community variance to a PWS serving more than 3,300 and fewer than 10,000 people.

Review each small system variance to determine if the PWS continues to meet eligibility criteria 40 CFR 142.307 Not less than 5 years.

Notice of public meeting on proposed small system variances, with supporting information 40 CFR 142.308 At least 30 days prior to public meeting. PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 Requirement Regulatory Citation Report Frequency/ Minimum Retention 20 CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT Submit evidence to EPA that State has established and continues to implement a Capacity Development Program N/ A Annually.

Submit report to Governor on the status of the Capacity Development Program N/ A Annually.

GENERAL STATE PRIMACY ACTIVITIES Retain State records for public inspection 40 CFR 142.14 Varies.

Retain quarterly SDWIS reports to EPA, make them available for public inspection 40 CFR 142.15( d) Upon completion and submittal by State.

Report any new violation data or enforcement actions 40 CFR 142.15( a)( 1)( 2) Quarterly.

Report any new data related to SDWIS elements or any revisions to existing data 40 CFR 142.15( b)( 1) Annually.

Submit information required for review of State programs, including review of monitoring determinations 40 CFR 142.17 142.18 Annually, as requested.

Request primacy treatment for a State or tribal primacy ( for Indian tribes) 40 CFR 142.76 One time.

Submit initial application for primacy 40 CFR 142.11 One time.

Submit statutory and regulatory provisions authorizing administrative penalties or demonstrate that authority does not exist 40 CFR 142.11( a)( 6) One time.

Submit revised primacy application 40 CFR 142.12 As needed.

1) Consumer Confidence Reports CCRs must identify the source of the water delivered by the CWS, describe whether it is ground water or surface water, and provide the common name and location of bodies of water used as sources. Reports also must define the terms " Maximum Contaminant Level ( MCL)," " Maximum Contaminant Level Goal ( MCLG)," " Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level ( MRDL)," " Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal ( MRDLG)," " variance," and " exemption." Reports must contain a table providing data on contaminant levels detected as well as the MCLG and MCL for these contaminants. If contaminants are detected above the MCL or MRDL, health effects information must also be provided. Reports must indicate any violations of the NPDWRs, including monitoring and reporting, treatment techniques, public notification, recordkeeping, special monitoring requirements, and the terms of a variance, exemption, or PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 21 administrative or judicial order. Reports must explain any granted variance or exemption. Reports must contain a brief explanation regarding contaminants that may be found in drinking water. Reports must also display relevant health information concerning drinking water and potential risks from possible contaminants.

2) Primacy Regulation Activities As part of the primacy review process, States must submit, either in written form or electronically, copies of their relevant laws and regulations. States that believe their constitutions prohibit administrative penalty provisions must submit copies of their constitutions and interpretations of the prohibitions from their Attorneys General. EPA's review will likely also include a request for a State Attorney General to provide an interpretation of the State's authority. Additionally, each State must also submit an explanation of why its chosen level of administrative penalty authority for PWSs serving a population of 10,000 individuals or fewer is adequate to ensure compliance. Furthermore, under 40 CFR 142.11( a)( 7)( ii), as amended by the Revisions to State Primacy Requirements to Implement Federal Drinking Water Regulations, and 40 CFR 142.12( c), EPA may request, if necessary, supplemental information from any State.

3) Variance & Exemption Rule To obtain a variance or exemption, systems must submit a request for a small system variance and supporting information. They must also submit reports on compliance with the terms and conditions of the small system variance.

4) Capacity Development Program Under SDWA § 1420, States are required to submit the following information to EPAC $ A basis of authority for ensuring that all new systems show capacity for implementing regulations ( i. e., State regulations, policies, or other implementing authorities).

$ Identification of at least one " control point" at which the State will execute its authority.

$ A plan for program implementation which includes provisions for evaluating and verifying program implementation in the future.

$ Documentation that the State has solicited public comments on the five required elements for the strategy, including relevant public comments and the State's responses to them.

$ A description of the elements of the State's strategy, including a discussion of why certain listed elements were included or excluded from the strategy.

$ A description of how the selected elements can be rationally considered to constitute a strategy to assist PWSs in acquiring and maintaining capacity.

$ A description of how the State will implement its strategy and evaluate its progress toward improving PWS capacity. PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 22 5) General State Primacy Activities To implement its compliance oversight and enforcement responsibilities under the SDWA, EPA requires primacy agencies to report a specified subset of PWS monitoring information in SDWIS. EPA works with States and other drinking water organizations to obtain the information necessary to determine the resources available now, needed currently, and needed in the future to implement the PWSS program and other SDWA provisions. Information may include estimates of time allotted to certain general State functions, such as enforcement and data management, and rule specific activities ( e. g., conduct of sanitary surveys). Additionally, primacy agencies must maintain records of analysis results and other related activities ( e. g., sanitary survey results). Without comprehensive, up to date information on drinking water contamination ( as provided by SDWIS), EPA would not be able to ensure " a supply of drinking water which dependably complies with such maximum contaminant levels" ( SDWA, Section 1401( 1)( d)). If these reporting requirements were voluntary, EPA would not receive timely, comprehensive data on contaminant levels and associated acute and long term public health risks. Specifically, voluntary monitoring would not   ° Reliably occur with sufficient frequency. ° Follow uniform national standards on quality of sampling, collection, and analysis. ° Ensure that monitoring addresses all contaminants listed in the regulations.

4( b)( ii) Respondent Activities PWSs and primacy agencies must complete the activities described in the sections below. Public Water Systems 1) Consumer Confidence Reports For CCRs, CWSs must conduct the following activities

Compile the report. ° Mail one report to each customer. ° For consumers who do not receive water bills, publish a notice in the newspaper indicating how a consumer may obtain a copy of a CCR. ° Submit one copy of the completed report to the primacy agency annually and retain one copy of the report. ° Certify to the primacy agency that the report has been distributed to customers and that the information is correct. ° Publish the report in a local newspaper rather than mail it, if the State Governor allows CWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people to do so. ° Post an annual notice for customers rather than publishing or mailing a report, if the State Governor allows CWSs serving fewer than 500 people to do so. ° Post the report to a publicly accessible Internet site, for CWSs serving 100,000 or more people. PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 23 2) Primacy Regulation Activities There are no PWS activities associated with the PWSS Program Primacy Regulation.

3) Variance & Exemption Rule A PWS that elects to apply for a small system variance must either perform the following activities or assist the State in performing these activities

Apply for the variance or exemption and submit any information that the State requires. A PWS, often with assistance from the State, will provide information demonstrating that it is eligible for a small system variance, that it cannot afford to comply with the NPDWR for which a small system variance is sought, that its source water meets the quality standards for installation of the small system variance technology, that it is financially and technically capable of installing, operating, and maintaining the applicable small system variance technology, and that the terms and conditions of the small system variance would ensure adequate protection of human health.

Write and submit a quarterly report on compliance with the terms and conditions of the small system variance.

4) Capacity Development Program Under the Capacity Development Program for new systems, all CWSs and NTNCWSs must demonstrate adequate capacity and comply with all State capacity development requirements. All PWS are asked to cooperate with the State's strategy for existing systems. This includes achieving, maintaining, and improving capacity.

5) General State Primacy Activities There are no PWS activities associated with the General State Primacy Activities.

Primacy Agencies 1) Consumer Confidence Reports As part of the CCR Rule, primacy agencies must   ° Review and retain reports and certifications from CWSs. ° Assist in preparation of reports. PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 24 2) Primacy Regulation Activities Under the PWSS Primacy Regulation, Attorneys General in States that prohibit administrative penalties may

Receive a call from the State Drinking Water Program describing the information that EPA requires.

Read the relevant Federal regulations.

Find the relevant portion of the State constitution.

Prepare a written interpretation of the constitutional prohibition.

Transmit the interpretation and a copy of the relevant portion of the State constitution to EPA.

In States whose constitutions allow administrative penalties, personnel from the State Drinking Water Program may

Read the relevant Federal regulations.

Find the appropriate section( s) of the State's laws and/ or regulations.

Contact the State Attorney General to request assistance in the collection.

Prepare, or assist in preparing, a justification of why the State's administrative penalty authority for systems serving a population of 10,000 or fewer individuals is adequate to ensure compliance.

Transmit the information to EPA.

In States whose constitutions allow administrative penalties, the State Attorney General, may

Receive a call from the State Drinking Water Program describing the information that is being collected and the need for a certification that the State laws and regulations were duly adopted and are enforceable.

Read the relevant Federal regulations.

Provide the certification that the State laws and regulations were duly adopted and are enforceable.

Provide the interpretation of the State's laws and/ or regulations if they use language that significantly differs from that used in the SDWA.

Prepare, or assist in preparing, a justification of why the State's administrative penalty authority for systems serving a population of 10,000 or fewer individuals is adequate to ensure compliance.

Transmit the information. PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 25 If additional information is needed, personnel from the State Drinking Water Program may

Receive a call or letter from EPA requesting additional information. The official at the Drinking Water Program may then contact the State Attorney General to request assistance in gathering this information.

Gather the requested information.

Transmit the information to EPA.

If additional information is needed, the State Attorney General may

Receive a call or a letter from the State Drinking Water Program describing the information that is being collected.

Gather the requested information.

Transmit the information.

3) Variance & Exemption Rule In addition to helping PWSs meet application requirements, States must

Provide EPA with the proposed small system variance, supporting information, and responses to public comments.

Respond to EPA's objections to a proposed small system variance for a PWS serving 3,300 or fewer persons, if the State chooses to pursue the variance.

Revise a proposed small systems variance as necessary to reflect EPA's comments on variance requests for systems that serve more than 3,300 people and fewer than 10,000 people, if the State chooses to pursue the variance.

Submit a quarterly report on any violations of any increments of progress or any other violated term or condition of a small system variance.

Conduct a public meeting on a small system variance request to be proposed, provide notice of the public meeting, and provide supporting information to the public.

Respond to significant public comments on the proposed variance request.

Retain records associated with a granted variance or exemption not less than five years after its expiration.

4) Capacity Development Program As part of its program to ensure new system capacity, States must

Establish statutory and regulatory authority for the new system's program.

Determine at least one control point at which to exercise the authority.

Define technical, financial, and managerial capacity and establish criteria for evaluating systems.

Obtain an Attorney General certification.

Develop a plan for program implementation.

Prepare the initial and annual submittal to EPA. PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 26 As part of its capacity development strategy, States must

Consider the five program elements for the existing system strategy, solicit public comment, and include comments as appropriate.

Develop a plan for implementing the capacity development strategy and a plan for evaluating progress.

Implement a capacity development strategy for existing systems.

Prepare a list of systems in Significant Noncompliance ( SNC) and explain why the systems are on the list.

Report on the success of enforcement mechanisms in helping systems with a history of SNC.

Prepare documentation of program performance and submit it to EPA.

Submit a report to the Governor on the progress and success of the strategy.

5) General State Primacy Activities As part of their General Primacy Activities, primacy agencies must   ° Prepare grant packages requesting funding to operate the program in a State. ° Maintain State drinking water data systems. ° Review monthly violations report to monitor compliance. ° Maintain records submitted by PWSs regarding results of analytical tests and other milestones, such as treatment decisions. ° Take timely and appropriate enforcement actions. ° Review PWS projects regarding design, construction, and treatment modifications. ° Conduct routine inspections to supplement information collected during sanitary surveys.

This ICR assumes that no applications for primacy will be submitted during the next 3 years. However, since a new primacy application is a possibility, the following discussion of possible implications is provided. To obtain primacy, the applicant must   ° Adopt drinking water regulations that are no less stringent than the NPDWRs currently in effect. An agency may also be granted primacy for new or revised EPA regulations if they demonstrate that their approved program has been updated to include regulations no less stringent than those new or revised EPA regulations. ° Adopt adequate procedures for enforcement of these regulations. ° Report these procedures according to EPA's requirements. ° Permit variances and exemptions under conditions no less stringent than those specified by the regulations. ° Adopt and implement an adequate plan for providing safe drinking water under emergency circumstances.

The regulations allow Indian tribes to be granted primacy, although no primacy applications are expected from tribes during the next 3 years. In order for an Indian tribe to receive primacy, they must first apply for and receive designation as a " State." The tribe may then PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 27 apply for a developmental grant to assist it in preparing the necessary infrastructure ( e. g., regulations). Once the regulations are in place, the tribe may apply for primacy.

Under the Indian Primacy Rule promulgated September 26, 1988, Indian tribes that wish to apply for and be designated as a " State" must

Submit evidence that the tribe is recognized by the Secretary of the Interior.

Certify that it is currently " carrying out substantial governmental duties and powers" over a defined area. The Statement must describe the governmental functions currently performed by the Tribal governing body, including, but not limited to, the exercise of police power, taxation, and the exercise of the power of eminent domain. Copies of applicable tribal documents must also be provided.

Prepare and submit a map or legal description of the area over which the Indian tribe asserts jurisdiction for the purposes of the proposed program.

Provide copies of applicable tribal codes, ordinances, etc.

Describe the Indian tribe's capability to administer such a program. PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 28 5 INFORMATION COLLECTED  AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5( a) Agency Activities As part of its supervisory responsibility for the PWSS Program, EPA maintains SDWIS and evaluates the data in SDWIS to determine system compliance. Agency personnel also reformat, distribute, and store these data for a number of uses, including responding to Congressional and public inquiries. EPA also oversees the State and EPA Regional programs, provides technical assistance, and develops policies designed to ensure consistent program implementation. EPA officials serve as respondents when testifying to Congress on the PWSS Program or in the courts for enforcement actions. EPA's recordkeeping requirements are outlined in Exhibit 4 below.

Exhibit 4 PWSS Program Requirements for EPA Regions and Headquarters Requirement CFR Citation Report Frequency/ Minimum Retention Inform primacy agency of PWS noncompliance with any NPDWRs in 40 CFR 141 or with any requirement under SDWA Sections 1415 and 1416. 40 CFR 142.30, 142.15 Quarterly.

Inform primacy agency of substantial abuse of discretion in granting variances and exemptions. 40 CFR 142.23 As needed.

Provide notice of public hearing for States abusing right to grant variances and exemptions. 40 CFR 142.23 As needed.

Notify primacy agencies of failure to prescribe schedules in accordance with SDWA. 40 CFR 142.23 As needed.

Notify primacy agencies of repeal of notice or promulgation of any revisions to schedules or revocation of schedules proposed in notice. 40 CFR 142.23 Within 180 days of first notice given to the State; revised schedule or revocation takes effect 90 days after State is notified.

Notify primacy agencies of objection and proposed modifications to small system variances proposed by States for PWSs serving 3,300 or fewer people. 40 CFR 142.311 Within 90 days of receiving proposal.

Notify primacy agencies of deficiencies in State program for granting small system variances. 40 CFR 142.313 As needed. PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 Requirement CFR Citation Report Frequency/ Minimum Retention 29 Notify PWSs of noncompliance with any NPDWRs in 40 CFR 141 or with any requirement under SDWA Sections 1415 and 1416. 40 CFR 142.30, 142.15 Quarterly.

Provide PWSs with copies of Federal Register notice about PWS failure to comply. 40 CFR 142.23 Within 30 days of notice.

Notify PWSs of denial or grant of variance ( for PWSs in non primacy States). 40 CFR 142.42 Within 90 days of request.

Notify PWSs of denial or grant of exemption ( for PWSs in non primacy States). 40 CFR 142.52 Within 90 days of request.

Notify PWSs of denial or grant of small system variance ( for PWSs in non primacy States). 40 CFR 142.311, 142.312 Within 90 days of request.

Provide notice to PWSs in non primacy States that are no longer eligible for small system variances. 40 CFR 142.307 As needed.

Provide public notice of public meeting on proposed small system variances ( in nonprimacy States), with supporting information. 40 CFR 142.308 At least 30 days prior to public meeting.

Respond to significant public comments. 40 CFR 142.308 Before proposal.

Notify PWSs of proposed granting of small system variances ( in non primacy States), with supporting information. 40 CFR 142.309 At least 15 days prior to granting variance.

Make DWSRF grant withholding decisions with regard to States' Capacity Development Programs. N/ A Annually.

Provide State and PWS assistance and training with regard to recordkeeping and reporting requirements covered in this ICR. N/ A As needed.

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management Primacy agencies must report data quarterly to EPA. These data include any new data and revisions or corrections to existing data. This information is maintained in SDWIS, which contains the following   ° Inventory data for each PWS ° Violations ° Enforcement actions and some follow up activity ° Variances and exemptions PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 6In the next few years, EPA anticipates a substantial reduction in the burden and costs associated with reporting data because of increased efficiency of electronic reporting by PWSs and State agencies. Laboratories are developing the ability to report monitoring data directly to primacy agencies.

30 Primacy agencies transmit SDWIS data to EPA both manually and electronically. In Wyoming and Indian Lands ( except for the Navajo Nation, which has primacy), results of system samples are sent directly to the EPA Region. Virtually all SDWIS data are reported electronically by the primacy agency. 6 Each quarter, EPA Regions must provide Headquarters with information on the status of SNCs. Headquarters then generates a list of SNCs and transmits it to the EPA Regions, which in turn send it to the States. Using this report, States report the current status of the SNCs to the EPA Regions, which in turn report back to Headquarters. This information is provided to the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, as part of the Reporting for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Priorities. These data provide senior management with information on trends in drinking water enforcement.

EPA Regions also undertake extensive data verification of SDWIS inventory, violation, and enforcement data. The methodology for data verification includes review of a statistically valid random sample of PWS inventory, violation, enforcement, milestone, and sample data. EPA Regional staff conduct an on site verification of each sample system's data at the offices of the primacy agency. Then the EPA Regions compare the recorded compliance determined by the data verification process with the information reported to SDWIS and prepare reports summarizing the differences. The report summarizes the State's compliance determination procedures, data verification process, observations, and any recommendations for improving program management.

The primary purposes of the data verification program are to assess the accuracy and quality of data collected and reported by the States and to recommend any necessary changes in collection or reporting. In addition, the process of verification provides insights into the primacy agency's program implementation. During data verification, the EPA Regional Office is able to gain greater understanding of how the primacy agencies interpret and implement regulations. For example, EPA Regional Offices can perform the following activities   ° Evaluate procedures used to manage the program. ° Critique implementation methods used for follow up activity, in cases of violation. ° Verify the flow of information through the State to ensure that the data reflect actual State experience. ° Observe how the program is implemented in various primacy agencies.

The data verification process also enables EPA Regional Offices to educate States about the SDWA regulations and to standardize interpretations and implementation procedures. For example, a State's definition of compliance with the Federal regulations may differ from the official definition. These discrepancies become evident during the data verification process and PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 7These definitions were taken from Section 601 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

31 can be corrected by EPA Regional and State staff. Thus, the data verification process plays a crucial role in standardizing State implementation and enforcement of the SDWA.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility In developing this ICR, EPA considered the requirement of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act ( SBREFA) to minimize the burden of information collections on small entities. Small entities include " small businesses," " small organizations" and " small government jurisdictions." These terms are defined below. 7 A small business is any business that is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field as defined by the Small Business Administration regulations under Section 3 of the Small Business Act.

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

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

The major requirement under SBREFA is a regulatory flexibility analysis of all rules that have a " significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities." This ICR is not associated with new rules. Therefore, this ICR is not subject to the SBREFA.

However, EPA has made significant efforts to minimize the burden for all respondents, particularly for small entities. In setting both maximum contaminant levels and monitoring requirements, EPA has been able to minimize burden for small entities as detailed below.

1) Consumer Confidence Reports EPA's regulations allow systems serving fewer than 10,000 people to publish a newspaper notice in lieu of sending reports to customers. Under 40 CFR 141.155( g)( 2), CWSs serving 500 or fewer people may forego the notice publishing requirement, provided they give notice at least annually to their customers by mail, door to door delivery, or posting in an appropriate location that the CCR is available upon request. In addition, only very large systems ( those serving more than 100,000 people) must provide CCR information on the Internet.

2) Primacy Regulation Activities There are no PWS activities associated with the PWSS Program Primacy Regulation. PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 32 3) Variance & Exemption Rule The V/ E Rule includes procedures and conditions under which the primacy agency ( or the EPA Administrator in non primacy States) may issue small system variances or exemptions to public water systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons. The V/ E Rule is intended to provide regulatory relief, while still protecting public health. Specifically, it permits primacy agencies to issue variances to small PWSs that cannot comply with the national primary drinking water standards due to source water quality or affordability. These variances generally allow a system to provide drinking water that may be above the MCL if the drinking water quality is still protective of public health. Duration of these small system variances generally coincides with the life of the technology. Exemptions are intended to allow a small system with compelling circumstances additional time to comply with applicable SDWA requirements. An exemption is limited to 3 years after the initial compliance date stated in the regulations.

4) Capacity Development Program EPA's guidelines provide States with maximum flexibility in developing and implementing the capacity development program. As mentioned above, EPA published a document entitled, Small System Regulatory Requirements Under the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, which, among other things, explains the requirements of the Capacity Development Program. In addition, EPA published a Handbook for Capacity Development: Developing Water System Capacity Under the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 and is working on several other tools to help small systems comply.

5) General State Primacy Activities There are no PWS activities associated with the General State Primacy Activities.

5( d) Collection Schedule Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 of this document contain summaries of the collection schedules for each rule. Additional information may be obtained by consulting the individual rules for specific collection schedules. PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 33 6 ESTIMATING BURDEN AND COST OF COLLECTION This section estimates the burden and cost to PWSs, primacy agencies, and EPA for complying with drinking water information requirements that are not associated with contaminant specific rulemakings. These activities include the following   1) Consumer Confidence Reports 2) Primacy Regulation Activities 3) Variance and Exemption Rule 4) Capacity Development Program 5) General State Primacy Activities This section also discusses the assumptions used to estimate costs and burden and describes the change in burden, as compared with the 1993 PWSS Program ICR ( the currently effective PWSS Program ICR).

6( a) Respondent Burden 6( a)( i) Burden to Public Water Systems The annual PWS burden for years 2002 through 2004 is estimated to be approximately 0.68 million hours. Exhibit 5 ( at the end of Section 6( a)) shows the breakdown of the annual burden hours on an activity specific basis. The bases for the burden estimates are detailed below.

1) Consumer Confidence Reports Consumer Confidence Report regulations require, at a minimum, that each CWS mail to each of its customers an annual report on the level of contaminants in the drinking water purveyed by that system. EPA estimates that CCR requirements will affect approximately 54,072 PWSs, all of which are CWSs, during the course of this ICR period. Activities associated with the preparation and delivery of CCRs account for 527,137 burden hours per year, which includes burden for both CCR development and distribution.

Appendix F summarizes the assumptions used to calculate the CCR burden and provides detailed burden and cost calculations. The assumptions used to calculate the CCR burden are based largely on assumptions from the 1998 Consumer Confidence Reports for Community Water Systems ICR. For the 2001 PWSS Program ICR, these assumptions have been augmented or supplanted where updated data were available. Section 6( f) describes the reasons for changes in burden and shows the affects of any new assumptions on the CCR burden estimates.

Report Development Preparing a CCR includes assembling data, writing the report, ensuring that the notice meets regulatory requirements, and printing the document. Burden estimates range from 4 hours for CWSs serving 500 or fewer people to 23 hours for CWSs serving at least 10,000 people. After completion of CCR preparation activities, all CWSs, regardless of size, are assumed to have PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 34 the same burden ( 0.12 hours) for submitting to the State a copy of the CCR distributed to customers. Certification that the reports were, in fact, distributed is also required along with the report. Finally, all CWSs, regardless of size, are assumed to have the same burden ( 0.25 hours) for maintaining a copy of the CCR and making it publicly available, if requested.

Report Delivery The burden estimate for CCR delivery includes the following activities and assumptions   $ Except for CWSs serving 500 or fewer people, all CWSs incur a burden for publishing a notice about obtaining a CCR. The burden per system for this activity is 0.25 hours. For systems serving at least 10,000 people, publication is in addition to report delivery to customers. For systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, this ICR assumes that 50 percent of systems will publish a notice in lieu of sending reports to customers.

$ Under 40 CFR 141.155( g)( 2), CWSs serving 500 or fewer people may forego the notice publishing requirement, provided they give notice at least annually to their customers by mail, door to door delivery, or posting in an appropriate location that the CCR is available upon request. This ICR assumes that 50 percent of these CWSs post the report and 50 percent deliver the report to their customers as part of their standard water bill. Those that post the CCR are estimated to incur a burden of 0.12 hours for this activity.

$ Regardless of CWS size category, this ICR assumes a burden of 1 hour per system for coordinating delivery of the CCR as a bill stuffer. CWSs serving 10,000 or more people must deliver the CCR to all service connections. However, CWSs serving fewer than 10,000 people may apply to the State Governor ( or Tribal Leader) for a waiver of this requirement to deliver a CCR to each customer. This ICR assumes that half of such CWSs will receive a waiver. For CWSs serving 500 or fewer people, the 50 percent without a waiver are assumed to include the CCR along with the normal water bill ( instead of sending the CCR in a separate mailing). For CWSs serving between 501 and 10,000 people, half of the systems without a waiver ( or 25 percent of the total number of CWSs in this size category) are assumed to include the CCR as a bill stuffer, and the remaining systems will mail the CCR separately.

$ Under § 141.155( f), CWSs serving at least 100,000 people must post a copy of the current CCR on a publicly accessible Internet site. This burden is estimated at 0.5 hours per system.

2) Primacy Regulation Activities There is no PWS burden associated with Primacy Regulation activities. 3) Variance and Exemption Rule The 1998 V/ E ICR recognized that an exact burden could not be estimated because the number of requested variances and exemptions was impossible to estimate, given that EPA had PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 8The 2001 PWSS Program ICR, like the 1998 V/ E ICR, addresses variances and exemptions for NPDWRs, regardless of whether the monitoring requirements for the standards are included in the PWSS Program ICR.

35 not yet identified cases in which small system variances would be available. 8 Instead, the 1998 V/ E ICR provided a hypothetical variance/ exemption burden by considering possible requests for the Chemical Phase Rules and the Lead and Copper Rule. Specifically, that ICR assumed that all systems incurring either a treatment technique or MCL violation would apply for a variance. Under this hypothetical scenario, the annual burden for PWSs was estimated at 13,050 hours.

Because EPA has not yet specified variance technologies for new or existing drinking water standards, an exact burden for associated activities remains impossible to estimate. Therefore, the V/ E burden included in the 2001 PWSS Program ICR has been carried forward from the 1998 V/ E ICR. There have been no programmatic changes in the V/ E program that would require changes in these burden estimates.

4) Capacity Development The Capacity Development Program, which was added pursuant to the 1996 SDWA Amendments, is a State effort to help drinking water systems improve their finances, management, infrastructure, and operations so they can provide safe drinking water consistently, reliably, and cost effectively. EPA estimates that capacity development will affect approximately 43,747 PWSs, including CWSs, NTNCWSs, and transient noncommunity water systems ( TNCWSs), during the course of this ICR period. The Capacity Development Program consists of two major components   ( 1) Implementation of a program to ensure that all new CWSs and NTNCWSs demonstrate the capacity to comply with NPDWRs.

( 2) Implementation of a strategy to assist existing PWSs in acquiring and maintaining capacity to comply with the SDWA.

The burden estimate associated with new and existing capacity development efforts is based on expert opinions, including opinions provided by members of the NDWAC Small Systems Workgroup. Specifically, the burden estimate includes the following activities and assumptions

New systems must demonstrate capacity in order to obtain approval. Each new system applying for approval will require 40 hours to prepare and submit new system approval materials to the State. This burden estimate does not include compliance with State technical requirements since these were generally unaffected by the capacity development provisions. EPA estimates that there will be an average of 8 new systems per State per year.

Some new systems must improve capacity in order to obtain approval. An estimated 20 percent of new systems applying for approval will be required to submit supplemental materials before approval is granted by the State. To develop and PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 36 submit these materials, it is estimated that each system denied initial approval will require an additional 20 hours. As with the approval application, it is estimated that there will be 8 new systems per State per year ( 20 percent of which will be required to submit supplementary materials) and that the burden estimate does not include the time needed to comply with technical requirements.

Some existing systems will incur burden for complying with State capacity development strategies. Each year, EPA estimates that 20 percent of CWSs, 7 percent of NTNCWSs, and 2.5 percent of TNCWSs will incur a burden to comply with State capacity development strategy efforts. EPA estimates that these systems will spend, on average, 8 hours per year participating in capacity development strategy activities ( primarily consultations with States).

Based on these assumptions, EPA estimates that the average annual burden to PWSs will be approximately 136,723 hours for capacity development activities.

5) General State Primacy Activities There is no PWS burden associated with general State primacy activities.

6( a)( ii) Burden to Primacy Agencies The annual burden for State primacy agencies for years 2002 through 2004 is estimated to be approximately 1.16 million hours. Exhibit 6 ( at the end of Section 6( a)) shows the annual burden hours on an activity specific basis. The following briefly describes the bases for the burden estimates:

1) Consumer Confidence Reports Primacy agencies are expected to incur a burden for information collection activities associated with preparation assistance, review, and filing of CCRs. The total annual State burden is estimated at 112,368 hours.

Appendix F contains detailed burden and cost assumptions and calculations for primacy agencies.

2) Primacy Regulation Activities Revisions to State Primacy Requirements to Implement Federal Drinking Water Regulations was promulgated on April 28, 1998. With extensions, a State has until April 28, 2002, to submit a primacy revision application for administrative penalty authority. This ICR covers the extension period for the States that have not yet submitted their revision applications. For the period covered by this ICR, the average annual burden associated with all of the activities PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 9 All burden for Primacy Regulation activities will occur before April 28, 2002. However, the 116 hour annual burden represents the burden distributed over the 3 year ICR period.

37 associated with the Primacy Regulations is estimated to be 116 hours. 9 Appendix G provides detailed burden and cost calculations associated with each activity.

3) Variance and Exemption Rule As discussed in Section 6( a)( i), an exact burden for variance and exemption activities is impossible to estimate because EPA has not yet specified variance technologies for new or existing drinking water standards. Therefore, the V/ E annual burden included in the 2001 PWSS Program ICRC109,080 hours per year for primacy agenciesC has been carried forward from the 1998 V/ E ICR. Section 6( a)( i) explains the derivation of this burden. There have been no programmatic changes in the V/ E program that would require changes in these burden estimates.

4) Capacity Development Program As discussed in Section 6( a)( i), the Capacity Development Program, which was added pursuant to the 1996 SDWA Amendments, is a State effort to help drinking water systems improve their finances, management, infrastructure, and operations so they can provide safe drinking water consistently, reliably, and cost effectively. The program consists of two major components   ( 1) Implementation of a program to ensure that all new CWSs and NTNCWSs demonstrate the capacity to comply with NPDWRs.

( 2) Implementation of a strategy to assist existing PWSs in acquiring and maintaining capacity to comply with the SDWA.

The burden estimate associated with new and existing capacity development efforts is based on expert opinions, including opinions provided by members of the NDWAC Small Systems Workgroup. Specifically, the burden estimate assumes that

States must review and approve applications for new systems. This ICR assumes that, on average, there will be 8 new systems per State per year. It will take State personnel an estimated 16 hours per system to review new system documentation and information. Because all States already had rigorous technical review requirements, the capacity development provisions will not change existing State effort. Therefore, the estimated burden does not include the review of technical information.

Some applications for new systems will require State followup. Upon initial review, all new systems likely will not meet States' capacity criteria. An estimated 20 percent of new systems applying for approval each year will be required to submit supplemental materials. It is estimated that a State will need 8 hours per system to review these materials. PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 38

States must provide capacity development assistance to some existing systems. One element that States must consider in their capacity development strategies is how to identify and prioritize the PWSs most in need of improving capacity. In estimating this burden, EPA assumed that States will assist 20 percent of CWSs, 7 percent of NTNCWSs, and 2.5 percent of TNCWSs each year. EPA estimates that, on average, a State will dedicate 4 hours of assistance to each of these existing systems.

States must develop and submit an SNC list. States must submit to EPA a list of CWSs and NTNCWSs that have a history of SNC and, to the extent practicable, the reasons for their noncompliance. States must submit the list every 3 years. Therefore, burden for one list per State has been included in this ICR. It will take an estimated 24 hours per State to prepare this list, for an average annual burden of 8 hours per State.

Each State must write and submit to the Governor a report on the progress and success of its strategy. Not later than two years after a State adopts a capacity development strategy, and every three years thereafter, the primacy agency must submit a report to the State's Governor on the progress and success of its strategy. The first such report is due no later than August 6, 2002. It will take an estimated 40 hours to coordinate and prepare this report, for an average annual burden of 13.3 hours per State.

In total, the average annual State burden for capacity development efforts is 69,851 hours per year.

5) General State Primacy Activities As illustrated in Exhibit 6, approximately 868,000 hoursCis for activities that cannot be associated with specific drinking water rules or programs. These " general primacy activities" include   ° Submission of grant applications. Primacy agencies are eligible to receive program grants from EPA to implement their PWSS programs. To receive the grants they must prepare program plans describing their planned activities and use of the grant funds. Primacy agencies must apply for the grants on an annual basis.

° File management ( recordkeeping). Each primacy agency is required to maintain records of tests, measurements, analyses, decisions, and determinations performed on each PWS to assess compliance with the provisions of the State's primary drinking water regulations.

° Maintenance of data systems, including PWS inventory. Each primacy agency must develop a method of storing all PWS inventory, compliance, and enforcement information that it uses to operate its PWSS oversight program. While EPA does not prescribe a storage method, States generally store this information electronically because of the volume of data involved. States must routinely enter new inventory, PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 39 compliance, and enforcement data into their data systems. States must also modify their data systems as necessary.

° Submission of ongoing violation reports. Each primacy agency must provide EPA with information regarding all violations of the State drinking water regulations and with other selected water system information that is necessary to determine compliance with the drinking water requirements. States must also provide new and updated water system inventory information on an annual basis.

° Laboratory certifications. The State PWSS programs require that water systems conduct routine monitoring of water quality to ensure that the water produced meets all regulatory standards. States must have some method of ensuring that the laboratories conducting these analyses are qualified and capable of performing the tests. As a result, States must establish and maintain a program for certifying laboratories that may conduct the required compliance monitoring for PWSs.

° Plan and project reviews. Primacy agencies must establish and maintain a program that assures the design and construction of new or modified water system facilities that are capable of complying with the State primary drinking water regulations. Most States achieve this assurance by requiring State review and approval of plans and specifications for drinking water facility construction.

° Oversight of compliance monitoring, including issuing notices of violation and ensuring appropriate follow up activities. States must ensure that water systems monitor in accordance with the regulations. Where monitoring does not occur, States must take action to ensure that systems monitor so that the quality of water is known and so that any appropriate actions can be taken. Where violations occur and are not expeditiously corrected, States must take appropriate enforcement follow up actions. States must maintain administrative penalty authority and the right to sue to ensure the effectiveness of their enforcement programs.

° Training activities. Primacy agencies conduct training for both State staff and for PWS owners and operators. Training is ongoing for all program components ( for new staff and owners/ operators).

° Participation in program reviews. EPA conducts annual reviews of each State primacy program to ensure that the current program activities are consistent with the current program direction and goals and with the program plan submitted as part of the PWSS grant application. States routinely participate in other reviews, such as data audits of their State data management programs.

Burden for these activities was estimated using the State Workload Model. This model was designed to estimate the resources needed to fund State drinking water programs. It contains a comprehensive list of activities required to operate a drinking water program, including estimates of the number of systems impacted. PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 40 Exhibit 5 Annual PWS Burden and Cost 2002 2004 Activity Annual Burden Hours Annual Cost Responses O& M Cost ($ K) Labor Cost ($ K) Total Cost ($ K)

CCR 527,137 $ 13,052 $ 12,667 $ 25,719 220,415 Primacy Regulations N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A V/ E 13,050 $ 0 $ 314 $ 314 8,665 Capacity Development 136,723 $ 0 $ 3,285 $ 3,285 15,072 General State Primacy N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A TOTAL 676,910 $ 13,052 $ 16,266 $ 29,318 244,152 PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 41 Exhibit 6 Annual State Burden and Cost 2002 2004 Activity Annual Burden Hours Annual Cost O& M Cost ($ K) Labor Cost ($ K) Total Cost ($ K)

CCR 112,368 $ 0 $ 3,246 $ 3,246 Primacy Regulation 116 $ 0 $ 7 $ 7 V/ E 109,080 $ 0 $ 3,151 $ 3,151 Capacity Development 69,851 $ 0 $ 2,018 $ 2,018 General State Primacy 867,933 $ 500 $ 25,072 $ 25,572 TOTAL 1,159,348 $ 500 $ 33,494 $ 33,994 6( b) Respondent Costs 6( b)( i) Cost to Public Water Systems Exhibit 5 shows the total costs for PWSs over the 3 year ICR period. Annual costs are estimated at approximately $ 29.3 million, which consists of $ 13.0 million in operation and maintenance ( O& M) costs and $ 16.3 million in labor costs.

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

In addition to the labor costs, there are O& M costs associated with the CCR. These costs reflect non labor costs associated with printing, delivery, posting, and publishing CCRs. These costs were carried forward from the 1998 CCR ICR, updated with current cost information ( e. g., postage rates), and adjusted for inflation. CCR O& M costs and associated calculations are presented in greater detail in Appendix F.

There are no capital costs associated with this ICR. PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 10 According to the ICR Handbook, an employee works an average of 2,080 hours in one year.

11 The salaries of the State Attorneys General were taken from The Book of the States, vol. 31 ( Lexington: The Council of State Governments, 1996).

42 6( b)( ii) Cost to Primacy Agencies Exhibit 6 shows that the annual costs to primacy agencies is estimated at approximately $ 34.0 million. O& M costs account for $ 0.5 million, and the remaining $ 33.5 million are labor costs. The labor costs are based on an average full time equivalent ( FTE) cost of $ 60,086 including overhead, which equates to approximately $ 28.89 per hour. 10 This rate, which has been inflated to year 2000 dollars, is based on the rate ($ 55,000) suggested by the workgroup that developed the State Workload Model in 1997. For activities associated with the Primacy Regulation, EPA used an average rate of $ 68.60 per hour ( in year 2000 dollars) for those activities carried out by State Attorneys General. 11 No other State activities have significant costs at this higher rate.

The O& M costs under General State Primacy Activities ($ 0.5 million) are associated with maintenance of State data systems. This is a rough estimate based on input from the State Workload Model.

6( c) Agency Burden and Costs Costs to the Federal government are incurred by EPA's drinking water program in Headquarters and Regions to assist States in implementing drinking water regulations. In previous ICRs for the PWSS Program, costs associated with EPA's enforcement and compliance activities in Headquarters and the Regions were also included in the Agency's burden and cost estimates. With the implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act in Federal Fiscal Year 1999, it is difficult to glean the resources ( FTEs and dollars) for drinking water enforcement and compliance activities from the overall Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance operating plan. Thus, this section presents only the burden and costs incurred by EPA's water program, especially drinking water protection, in Headquarters and Regions. It is important to note that the burden and costs presented below cover ongoing activities for all EPA drinking water programs ( not just those listed in this ICR),

EPA Headquarters There are 44 Headquarters FTEs dedicated to drinking water protection implementation activities in the Federal Fiscal Year 2001 ( FY01) operating plan. The following assumptions were used to develop a cost estimate for Headquarters   $ The average salary and benefits ( i. e., personnel compensation and benefits ( PC& B)) of the 44 FTEs is at the GS 13, Step 5 level of $ 85,200.

$ There are 2,080 hours per person year.

Given these assumptions, the following calculations yield the annual cost for Headquarters   PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 12This is a simplifying assumption. Primacy activities for Wyoming and the District of Columbia are actually carried out by the respective EPA Regional offices.

43

The 44 FTEs equal 91,520 hours ( 44* 2,080).

The labor cost of 44 FTEs is $ 3,748,800 ( 44*$ 85,200).

EPA Regional Offices There are 192 Regional FTEs dedicated to drinking water protection implementation activities in the Federal FY01 operating plan. The following assumptions are used to develop a cost estimate for the Regions   $ The average salary and benefits ( i. e., PC& B) of the192 FTEs is at the GS 11, Step 5 level of $ 60,000.

$ There are 2,080 hours per person year.

Given these assumptions, the following calculations yield the annual cost for the 10 EPA Regional offices   $ The 192 FTEs equal 399,360 hours ( 192* 2,080).

$ The labor cost of 192 FTEs is $ 11,520,000 ( 192*$ 60,000).

The total cost to the Federal government is the cost to Headquarters ($ 3,748,800) and the cost to EPA Regional offices ($ 11,520,000) for a total of $ 15,268,800. Similarly, the total burden to the Federal government ( HQ and Regions) is 490,880 hours for 236 FTEs.

6( d) Estimating Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs Respondents for this ICR include both PWSs and States or other primacy agencies. This ICR estimates the number of PWS respondents at 168,245, which reflects 167,837 existing PWSs and 408 new PWSs that must meet information collection requirements associated with capacity development. All PWSs are not necessarily subject to each of the information collection requirements contained in this ICR. The regulations associated with each ICR will identify the types of PWSs that are subject to each particular drinking water regulation.

In addition to the PWS respondents, this ICR assumes 57 primacy agencies ( 50 States plus D. C., U. S. territories, and the Navajo Nation). 12 Therefore, the total number of respondents is 168,302.

The total costs and burden for these respondents are summarized in Exhibits 5 and 6. Agency costs and burden are detailed in Section 6( c).

6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 13 This represents the " cost burden" as reported in the OMB inventory. Note that there are no capital costs associated with this ICR.

44 The bottom line burden hours and costs appear in Exhibit 7. The total annual respondent burden associated with this ICR is estimated to be approximately 1.84 million burden hours. The corresponding total annual respondent costs are estimated to be $ 63.3 million. The total national burden, including respondent burden and EPA burden, is estimated to be 2.33 million hours annually. The total national cost, for respondents and EPA, is estimated to be $ 78.6 million annually.

Exhibit 7 Bottom Line Annual Burden and Cost 2002 2004 Number of Respondents 168,302 = 167,837 + 408 + 57 Existing PWSs New PWSs Primacy agencies Total Annual Responses 244,209 = 244,152 + 57 PWS responses Responses from primacy agencies ( assumed 1 response/ respondent)

Number of Responses per Respondent 1.45 = 244,209 / 168,302 Total annual responses from above Total respondents from above Total Respondent Hours 1,836,258 = 676,910 + 1,159,348 PWS hours Primacy agency hours Hours per Response 7.5 = 1,836,258 / 244,209 Total annual hours from above Total responses from above Annual O& M and Capital Cost13 13,552k = 13,052k 500k Total PWS O& M costs Total primacy agency O& M costs Total Respondent Cost $ 63,312k = $ 29,318k + $ 33,994k For PWSs For primacy agencies Total Hours ( resp. plus Agency) 2,327,138 = 1,836,258 + 490,880 Total respondent hours Total EPA hours Total Cost ( resp. plus Agency) $ 78,581k = $ 63,312k $ 15,269k Total respondent cost Total EPA cost Note: Detail may not add exactly to total due to independent rounding.

6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden This section presents the change in burden and explains the reasons for the change in burden. The discussion is divided into seven parts   PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 45

Section 6( f)( i) summarizes the differences between the burden estimated in the December 20, 1993, PWSS Program ICR and the current OMB inventory for the PWSS Program ICR. See Exhibit 9.

Section 6( f)( ii) summarizes an adjustment to the current OMB inventory to reintroduce burden hours that were inadvertently removed more than once. See Exhibit 10.

Section 6( f)( iii) summarizes restructuring adjustments to the inventory that are expected to take affect before approval of the PWSS Program ICR. See Exhibit 11.

Section 6( f)( iv) summarizes adjustments to correct the ICR for activities that are currently accounted for both in the PWSS Program ICR inventory and in the inventory for another ICR. See Exhibit 12.

Section 6( f)( v) summarizes program changes that address activities recently added to the PWSS Program ICR. See Exhibit 13.

Section 6( f)( vi) summarizes adjustments to burden for incorporating ICRs that were previously stand alone ICRs into the current PWSS Program ICR. See Exhibit 14.

Section 6( f)( vii) summarizes other adjustments to the burden estimates associated with rules that remain in the PWSS Program ICR. See Exhibit 17.

Exhibit 8 summarizes how each of these changes has affected the overall burden inventory for the PWSS Program ICR. PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 46 Exhibit 8 Reasons for Change in Annual Burden ( Includes both PWS and Primacy Agency Burden)

Type of Change Change Running Total Comment Burden Estimated in the 1993 PWSS Program ICR 11,214,547 11,214,547 This is the burden estimated in the December 20, 1993, PWSS Program ICR.

Changes and Adjustments to the Inventory C see Section 6( f)( i) ( 1,683,375) 9,531,172 Current OMB inventory.

Reintroduction of Hours Incorrectly Removed from Inventory C see Section 6( f)( ii) 105,002 9,636,174 Revised inventory after reintroduction of hours that were incorrectly removed.

Pending Adjustments to the Inventory C see Section 6( f)( iii) ( 8,349,789) 1,286,385 Anticipated OMB inventory after PWSS ICR restructuring.

Adjustments to correct for " double counting" C see Section 6( f)( iv) ( 965,173) 321,212 Burden after removing items that are also addressed in other ICRs.

Program changes C see Section 6( f)( v) 206,574 527,786 Burden after adding new programs ( Capacity Development).

Incorporation of stand alone ICRs C see Section 6( f)( vi) 558,600 1,086,386 Burden after incorporating standalone ICRs ( CCR and Primacy Regulations).

Adjustments to rules carried forward from existing ICRs C see Section 6( f)( vii) 749,872 1,836,258 Burden for which EPA seeks approval in this ICR.

Note: Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.

6( f)( i) Burden Changes Approved by OMB The burden estimated in the December 20, 1993, PWSS Program ICRCand approved by OMBCwas 11,214,547 hours. Since then, the actions summarized below have been made to the official OMB inventory. These changes are summarized in Exhibit 9; documentation of these changes is included in Appendix B.

September 27, 1995: OMB approved the Public Notification ICR: In response to PRA amendments that required EPA to estimate burden associated with public education and notification, the PN ICR amended the PWSS Program ICR. It added 1,276,735 hours for public notification, bringing the new inventory to 12,491,282.

March 27, 1996: Proposed Modifications to the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: As a result of anticipated minor revisions to the LCR, a downward revision of 105,002 hours per year was made to the LCR burden in PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 47 the PWSS Program ICR inventory, resulting in a new burden total of 12,386,280 hours.

September 29, 1998: OMB re approved the 1993 ICR, making it effective until September 30, 2001.

September 30, 1998: Variance and Exemption ICR: The V/ E ICR amended the PWSS Program ICR. It added 122,130 burden hours, resulting in a new total of 12,508,410 hours.

October 5, 1999: Removal of Lead and Copper Burden: The 1999 LCR ICR estimated the impact of the regulatory amendments and incorporated all burden associated with the LCR. Through a PRA Change Worksheet ( OMB 83 C), 2,977,238 burden hours associated with the LCR were removed from the PWSS inventory, resulting in a new total of 9,531,172 hours. The 2,977,238 hours included 1,235,694 hours for non public education activities, 321,544 hours for public education and public notification, and 1,420,000 hours of State burden. These burden hours represent all of the approved LCR burden in the 1993 PWSS Program ICR.

Exhibit 9 Changes to the Burden Inventory for the PWSS Program ICR ( Includes both PWS and Primacy Agency Burden)

Action Annual Burden Hours Brief Explanation N/ A 11,214,547 Opening Inventory from 1993 PWSS Program ICR ( includes SWTR; TCR; TTHMs; 1976 inorganic standards; 1976 radionuclides standards; Phase I VOCs; Phase II SOCs, VOCs, IOCs, and unregulated contaminants; Phase IIB; Phase V IOCs, SOCs, and VOCs; and the LCR)

Add 1,276,735 Public Notification ( 1995)

Subtotal 12,491,282 Updated Inventory after Addition of Public Notification ICR ( see OMB Approval Form in Appendix B)

Subtract 105,002 Adjustment in burden based on anticipated minor revisions to the LCR ( 1996)

Subtotal 12,386,280 Re approved inventory, as of 9/ 29/ 98 Add 122,130 Variance & Exemption ICR ( 1998)

Subtotal 12,508,410 OMB Inventory, as of 9/ 30/ 98 Subtract 2,977,238 Lead and Copper Rule Change Worksheet ( 1999)

Subtotal 9,531,172 Updated Inventory, as of 6/ 1/ 01 PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 48 6( f)( ii) Reintroduction of Burden Hours Inadvertently Removed from Inventory As stated in Section 6( f)( i), in 1996, 105,002 burden hours were removed from the annual PWSS Program ICR burden in response to anticipated minor revisions to the LCR. In 1999, 2,977,238 burden hours associated with the LCR were also removed from the PWSS. However, the 2,977,238 hours did not account for the hours already removed in 1996. Therefore, these 105,002 hours were effectively removed twice. In order to correct for this oversight, 105,002 hours are being reintroduced into the PWSS Program ICR annual burden. Exhibit 10 summarizes this reintroduction of hours.

Exhibit 10 Reintroduction of Incorrectly Removed Burden ( Includes both PWS and Primacy Agency Burden)

Action Annual Burden Hours Brief Explanation None 9,531,172 Current OMB Inventory ( see Exhibit 9)

Add 105,002 Reintroduction of incorrectly removed LCR burden Total 9,636,174 Inventory after reintroduction of LCR burden hours 6( f)( iii) Restructuring Adjustments to the Approved OMB Inventory for the PWSS Program ICR As summarized in Exhibit 11, EPA anticipates six adjustments that will remove burden from the PWSS Program ICR. In all cases, the Agency believes that the burden is more appropriately addressed in other ICRs. The six adjustments are detailed below.

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

Burden associated with the Surface Water Treatment Rule ( all rule components except disinfection residual monitoring and associated activities). The 1993 PWSS ICR includes a total of 1,668,081 hours per year for SWTR activities. This includes 289,970 hours for NCWSs ( Exhibit 8 of the 1993 PWSS Program ICR), 955,715 hours for CWSs ( also Exhibit 8), and 422,396 hours for primacy agencies ( Exhibit 7 of the 1993 PWSS Program ICR). In order to consolidate microbial contaminant related activities, EPA is requesting that all these hours, except those associated with disinfection residual monitoring and associated activities, be moved to the IESWTR ICR ( OMB No. 2040 0205), which has been resubmitted as the Microbial Rules ICR. PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 49 Since the burden associated with disinfection residual monitoring and associated activities is estimated to be 719,098, the remaining 948,983 hours will be moved to the IESWTR ICR.

Burden associated with the existing total trihalomethanes ( TTHM) standard. The 1993 PWSS Program ICR includes an annual burden of 39,943 ( Exhibit 8 of the PWSS Program ICR). This burden was incurred by CWSs serving more than 10,000 people. The Stage 1 DBPR subsumes the existing TTHM monitoring requirements and expands the requirements to apply to all CWSs and NTNCWSs that add a chemical disinfectant. To avoid double counting, however, the 1998 Stage 1 DBPR did not reflect burden already addressed in the 1993 PWSS Program ICR. Rather, it addressed burden for newly regulated systems only. In order to consolidate chemical contaminant related activities, EPA is requesting that the TTHM hours be moved from the PWSS Program ICR to the Stage 1 DBPR ICR ( OMB No. 2040 0204), which has been resubmitted as the DDBP/ Chem/ Rads ICR.

Burden associated with Chemical Monitoring. The 1993 PWSS ICR includes a total of 3,086,330 hours per year for Chemical Monitoring activities ( Phase I Volatile Organic Chemicals ( VOCs), Phase II Synthetic Organic Chemicals ( SOCs), Phase II VOCs, Phase II Inorganic Chemicals ( IOCs), Phase IIB, Phase V IOCs, Phase V SOCs, Phase V VOCs, and the IOCs not re regulated under the " Phase" rules). This includes 1,694,663 hours for PWSs ( Exhibit 8 of the 1993 PWSS Program ICR) and 1,391,667 hours for State primacy agencies ( Exhibit 7 of the 1993 PWSS Program ICR). In order to consolidate chemical contaminant related activities, EPA is requesting that the Chemical Monitoring hours be moved from the PWSS Program ICR to the Stage 1 DBPR ICR ( OMB No. 2040 0204), which has been resubmitted as the DDBP/ Chem/ Rads ICR.

Burden associated with Radionuclides. The 1993 PWSS ICR includes a total of 5,637 hours per year for Radionuclides Rule activities. All of these hours are for CWSs ( Exhibit 8 of the 1993 PWSS Program ICR). In order to consolidate chemical contaminant related activities, EPA is requesting that the Radionuclides hours be moved from the PWSS Program ICR to the Stage 1 DBPR ICR ( OMB No. 2040 0204), which has been resubmitted as the DDBP/ Chem/ Rads ICR. PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 14 These hours were derived from the 1989 SWTR ICR, as carried forward to the 1993 PWSS Program ICR.

50 Exhibit 11 Restructuring Adjustments to the PWSS Program ICR Inventory ( Includes both PWS and Primacy Agency Burden)

Action Annual Burden Hours Brief Explanation None 9,636,174 Inventory after reintroduction of burden hours ( see Exhibit 10)

Subtract 3,549,798 TCR hours ( to be moved to 2040 0205)

Subtract 1,668,081 948,983 SWTR hours 719,098 SWTR hours Subtract 39,943 TTHMs hours ( to be moved to 2040 0204)

Subtract 3,086,330 Chemical Monitoring hours ( to be moved to 2040 0204)

Subtract 5,637 Radionuclides hours ( to be moved to 2040 0204)

Total 1,286,385 Inventory after reintroduction of burden hours and restructuring adjustments 6( f)( iv) Adjustment to Correct Double Counting Exhibit 12 summarizes the adjustments to the burden to correct for double counting. As shown in the exhibit, there are two activities which are currently included both in the PWSS Program ICR and in another drinking water ICR

Public Notification. As discussed in Section 6( f)( i), a 1995 amendment to the PWSS Program ICR added 1,276,735 hours to the PWSS Program inventory for public notification activities. The 1999 change worksheet associated with the Lead and Copper Rule removed the public notification and public education burden associated with that rule   321,544 hours, leaving 955,191 hours for PN. The 1995 Public Notification Rules were amended in 2000, and a separate ICR was prepared to include all public notification activities. As a result, the public notification burden ( for rules other than the LCR) is counted in both the 1993 PWSS Program ICR and the 2000 Public Notification ICR ( OMB No. 2040 0209). To remedy this situation, the remaining public notification burden of 955,191 hours is being removed from the 2001 PWSS Program ICR. This burden is expected to be re incorporated into the PWSS Program ICR upon expiration of the current PN ICR.

Unregulated contaminant monitoring. The 1993 PWSS Program ICR includes an annual burden of 9,982 hours for unregulated contaminant monitoring ( see Exhibit 8 of the 1993 PWSS Program ICR   sum of burden for unregulated IOCs and unregulated SOCs). All unregulated contaminant monitoring is now accounted for in PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 51 the ICR for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule ( OMB No. 2040 0208). Therefore, 9,982 hours are being removed from the PWSS Program ICR.

Exhibit 12 Adjustments to Correct Double Counting ( Includes both PWS and Primacy Agency Burden)

Action Annual Burden Hours Brief Explanation None 1,286,385 Inventory after reintroduction of burden hours and restructuring adjustments ( see Exhibit 11)

Subtract 955,191 Public notification hours ( also addressed in 2040 0209)

Subtract 9,982 Unregulated contaminants hours ( also addressed in 2040 0208)

Total 321,212 Inventory after reintroduction of burden hours, restructuring adjustments, and correcting for double counting 6( f)( v) Program Changes This ICR includes one program changeCthe addition of the burden associated with the Capacity Development Program. EPA developed this program based on requirements of the 1996 SDWA Amendments. The estimated burden for Capacity Development activities is 206,574 hours per year ( 136,723 hours for PWSs and 69,851 hours for primacy agencies). Exhibit 13 shows the affect of these program changes.

Exhibit 13 Program Changes ( Includes both PWS and Primacy Agency Burden)

Action Annual Burden Hours Brief Explanation None 321,212 Inventory after reintroduction of burden hours, restructuring adjustments, and correcting for double counting ( see Exhibit 12)

Add 206,574 Capacity Development hours Total 527,786 Inventory after reintroduction of burden hours, restructuring adjustments, correcting for double counting, and adding program changes 6( f)( vi) Incorporation of Stand alone ICRs into the Current PWSS Program ICR Two ICRs that are currently approved as stand alone ICRsCthe CCR and Primacy RegulationCare incorporated into the current PWSS Program ICR. The current CCR ICR annual burden is 459,674 hours for PWS activities and 98,230 hours for State activities for an annual total of 557,904 hours. The Primacy Regulations ICR includes only a total burden of 696 hours PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 15 This 696 hour burden is not annualized in the Primacy Regulations ICR, but is counted as an annual burden in the current OMB inventory. Therefore, for the purposes of this PWSS Program ICR, the total 696 hour burden has been annualized for the 3 year ICR period. The annual burden for Primacy Regulations is 232 hours ( for States only).

52 for States. 15 Exhibit 14 shows the affects of these changes on the 1993 PWSS Program ICR inventory.

Exhibit 14 Incorporation of Stand Alone ICRs ( Includes both PWS and Primacy Agency Burden)

Action Annual Burden Hours Brief Explanation None 527,786 Inventory after reintroduction of burden hours, restructuring adjustments, correcting for double counting, and adding program changes ( see Exhibit 13)

Add 557,904 Consumer Confidence Reports hours Add 696 Primacy Regulations hours Total 1,086,386 Inventory after reintroduction of burden hours, restructuring adjustments, correcting for double counting, adding program changes, and incorporating stand alone ICRs 6( f)( vii) Additional Program Adjustments The remaining changes in burden consist of program adjustments for activities that were carried forward from existing ICRs to the 2001 PWSS Program ICR. Exhibits 15 and 16 summarize reasons for these changes and quantify the changes by activity. Burden adjustments associated with PWS activities resulted in a burden increase of 67,463 hours and are shown in Exhibit 15. Burden adjustments for primacy agencies resulted in an increase of 682,408 hours per year, as shown in Exhibit 16. This large increase in primacy agency burden is discussed below.

Most of the increase in burden for primacy agencies ( 675,343 hours) is in the category of General State Primacy Activities. In the 1993 ICR, State burden was included for the base program ( elements under 40 CFR 142.10 through 142.15 and 40 CFR 35 for program grants) and listed in the table titled " Annual Burden and Cost to Primacy Agencies" ( Exhibit 7 of the 1993 PWSS Program ICR). State burden was also included for rules covered in that ICR and categorized by rule. The State burden for rules promulgated since the 1996 SDWA amendments was included in rule specific ICRs.

The restructuring of this ICR moved most State burden into this ICRCaccounting for much of the 675,343 hour increase. Some rule specific burden is included in other ICRs. An example is the burden for sanitary surveys for the Total Coliform Rule, which will be included in the Microbial Rules ICR. The State burden estimates in this restructured ICR are based on the PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 53 1997 State Workload Model that was developed based on implementation experience. A chart listing the elements of State burden in this ICR is included in Appendix I.

Use of the State Workload Model has led to changes in the general State primacy burden. For example, the Federal Reporting Data System ( FRDS), which is now SDWIS, was updated in 1995 to include program data based on implementation experience and new program requirements. In the 1993 PWSS Program ICR, State burden estimates were based on FRDS, the predecessor of SDWIS.

Lastly, the implementation of new rules ( Stage 1 DBPR, IESWTR, CCR Rule, and V/ E Rule) has contributed significantly to an increase in general primacy activities which are now consolidated in this 2001 PWSS Program ICR. The addition of more rules increases the general State primacy burden for activities such as data management, compliance monitoring, and enforcement actions.

An additional 7,065 hours were added to the annual primacy agency burden as a result of changes in the burden estimates for the CCR Rule, Primacy Regulations, Indian Primacy, and the V/ E Rule. These changes are detailed in Exhibit 16. PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 54 Exhibit 15 Adjustments to PWS Burden from Previous ICR Estimates Activity Previous Estimate 2001 Annual Burden Estimate Annual Change in Burden Reason for Change in Burden CCR 459,674 527,137 67,463 Assumptions regarding the burden per activity were not changed. The change in burden results from an increase in the number of systems for which the burden was calculated. This ICR includes burden estimates both for systems that treat all of their own water ( nonpurchased systems) and for systems that purchase water from another system ( purchased systems). The CCR requirements apply to both types of systems, but the previous CCR ICR did not include burden estimates for purchased water systems.

Primacy Regulations N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A V/ E 13,050 13,050 0 N/ A General State Primacy N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 Activity Previous Estimate 2001 Annual Burden Estimate Annual Change in Burden Reason for Change in Burden 55 TOTAL ( Does not include all ICR activities) 472,724 540,187 67,463 PWS burden and change in burden after adjustments. PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 56 Exhibit 16 Adjustments to Primacy Agency Burden from Previous ICRs Activity Previous Burden Estimates 2001 Annual Burden Estimates Annual Change in Burden Reason for Change in Burden CCR 98,230 112,368 14,138 Assumptions regarding the burden per activity were not changed. The change in burden results from an increase in the number of systems due to the inclusion of both purchased and nonpurchased systems. See Exhibit 15 for more detail.

Primacy Regulations 696 116 ( 580) The current OMB inventory reports the total burden ( 696 hours) from the Primacy Regulations ICR as an annual burden. This ICR annualizes that total burden ( 232 hours annually). The annual burden is then adjusted based on the assumption that half of the States have completed this activity in the prior ICR period, resulting in an annual burden of 116 hours.

V/ E 109,080 109,080 0 N/ A General State Primacy 192,590 867,933 675,343 The 1993 PWSS Program ICR included many general State activities in rule specific estimates. See write up in Section 6( f)( vi).

Indian Primacy 6,493 0 ( 6,493) No Indian primacy applications are expected during the 3 year period of this ICR.

TOTAL ( Does not include all ICR activities) 407,089 1,089,497 682,408 Primacy agency burden and change in burden after adjustments.

Exhibit 17 shows the effects of these adjustments on the bottom line burden. There is an annual burden of 1,086,386 hours after the pending restructuring adjustments, corrections regarding double counting, the addition of program changes, and the incorporation of stand alone ICRs. Adding 67,463 hours to account for adjustment to the PWS burden and adding 682,408 hours to account for the adjustments to the primacy burden yields 1,836,258 hours. PWSS Program ICR November 28, 2001 57 Exhibit 17 Adjustments to Activities Carried Forward from Previous ICRs ( Includes both PWS and Primacy Agency Burden)

Action Annual Burden Hours Brief Explanation None 1,086,386 Inventory after reintroduction of burden hours, restructuring adjustments, correcting for double counting, adding program changes, and incorporating stand alone ICRs ( see Exhibit 14)

Add 67,463 Program adjustment for PWS activities carried forward from previous ICRs ( see Exhibit 15)

Add 682,408 Program adjustment for primacy agency activities carried forward from previous ICRs ( see Exhibit 16)

Total 1,836,258 Equals hours requested in 2001 PWSS Program ICR. ( See Exhibit 7)

Note: Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.

6( g) Burden Statement The public reporting burden for collections included in this ICR is detailed above. The total annual respondent burden ( for years 2002 through 2004) imposed by these collections is estimated to be 1.84 million hours, of which 0.68 million hours are attributable to PWSs and 1.16 million hours to primacy agencies. These estimates include time for gathering information as well as developing and maintaining records.

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

Please send comments on the Agency's need for this information, accuracy of the burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques to Director, Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2822), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N. W., Washington, D. C. 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA ICR number ( 0270.40) and OMB control number ( 2040 0090) in any correspondence.