INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST FOR THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM ( NPDES)/ COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT/ CERTIFICATION INFORMATION EPA ICR No. 1427.07 OMB Control No. 2040 0110 FINAL May 7, 2004 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Wastewater Management 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20460 DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page ii March 26, 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1. a Title of the Information Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1. b Short Characterization/ Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2.0 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. a Need and Authority for the Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. a. 1 NPDES Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. a. 2 Storm Water Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. a. 3 Sewage Sludge Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2. a. 4 Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards Certifications . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2. b Practical Utility of the Data and Users of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.0 NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3. a Nonduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3. b Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3. c Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3. d Effects of Less Frequent Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3. e General Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3. f Confidentiality and Sensitive Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.0 THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4. a Respondents and SIC Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4. b Information Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4. c Respondent Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.0 THE INFORMATION COLLECTED: AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5. a Agency Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5. b Collection Methodology and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5. c Small Entity Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5. d Collection Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5. d. 1 Information Collection Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5. d. 2 Information Collection Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6.0 ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 6. a Estimating Respondent Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 6. a. 1 Recordkeeping of Monitoring and Inspection Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6. a. 2 Compliance Schedule Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6. a. 3 Noncompliance Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6. a. 4 Notice of Alternate Level of Actual Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 6. a. 5 Section 308( a) Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 6. a. 6 Certification for Exemption From Monitoring and Notification of Process Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page iii March 26, 2004 6. a. 7 SSO and Unpermitted CSO Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 6. a. 8 Certification and BMP Plan Development Pursuant to 40 CFR Part 435 . . 34 6. b Estimating Respondent Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 6. c Estimating Agency Burden and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 6. c. 1 Recordkeeping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 6. c. 2 Compliance Schedule Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 6. c. 3 Noncompliance Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 6. c. 4 Notice of Alternative Level of Actual Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 6. c. 5 Section 308( a) Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 6. c. 6 Certification for Exemption From Monitoring and Notification of Process Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 6. c. 7 SSO and Unpermitted CSO Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 6. c. 8 Certification of BMPs Under part 435 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 6. d Estimating the Respondent Universe Burden Hours and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 6. e Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 6. f Reasons for Change in Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 6. g Burden Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1. Summary of Burden and Costs to Respondents and State Government . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Exhibit 2. Number of NPDES Permits Issued by EPA and the States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Exhibit 3. Annual Respondent Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Exhibit 4. Annual Average Responses per Respondent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Exhibit 5. Respondent Reporting Burden for Noncompliance Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Exhibit 6. Facilities with Certification Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Exhibit 7. Number of SBF Facilities Affected by ICR Burden Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Exhibit 8. Annual Respondent Recordkeeping and Reporting Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Exhibit 9. Annual Burden to State and Federal Governments as Users of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Exhibit 10. Annual Costs to State and Federal Governments as Users of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Exhibit 11. State and Federal Burden for Noncompliance Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Exhibit 12 . Respondent Universe and Burden and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Exhibit 13. Bottom Line Annual Burden and Costs to Respondents and Government . . . . . . . 49 Exhibit 14. Change in Annual Respondent and State Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 1 1 Following approval of this ICR, it is EPA's intention to ultimately transfer the burden estimates for the plan development and the certification requirements associated with several effluent limitations guidelines ( e. g., OMB Control Nos.: 2040 0202, 2040 0207, 2040 0235, 2040 0239, 2040 0242, and 2040 0243) into this ICR. Appropriate documentation and forms will be developed as that incorporation occurs.

March 26, 2004 1.0 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1. a Title of the Information Collection ICR: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) / Compliance Assessment / Certification Information.

OMB Control No.: 2040 0110.

1. b Short Characterization/ Abstract This document is entitled Information Collection Request ( ICR) for NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification Information and its purpose is to calculate the burden and costs associated with the data requirements necessary for a permitting authority ( either an authorized State or the Enviromental Protection Agency ( EPA)) to determine whether an existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) or sewage sludge permittee is in compliance with the conditions of its permit. This ICR updates the 2000 ICR entitled Information Collection Request for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES)/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification Information ( OMB Control No. 2040 0110, ICR No. 1427.06). This ICR also incorporates a revised burden estimate previously approved by OMB and developed to adjust the ICR to more accurately reflect sanitary sewer overflow ( SSO) reporting and unpermitted combined sewer overflow ( CSO) reporting requirements. Finally, the ICR incorporates the burden estimated for plan development and certification requirements in the ICR for Best Management Practices Alternatives, Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards, Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category ( 40 CFR Part 435), EPA ICR No. 1953.01, OMB Control No. 2040 0230.1 This ICR was prepared according to guidance contained in EPA's February 1999 ICR Handbook. This handbook is the most current guidance available to the Agency for preparing an ICR, and it follows the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and related Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) guidelines.

The Clean Water Act ( CWA) ( 33 U. S. C. 1251 1387) authorizes EPA to issue permits for the discharge of pollutants to " waters of the United States." The Act also authorizes EPA to issue permits for the use or disposal of sewage sludge. EPA regulates discharges to waters of the United States under its NPDES program. Such discharges include domestic wastewater, industrial wastewater, and storm water, among others. The Agency regulates sewage sludge use and disposal activities under its Sewage Sludge Management program. EPA issues permits for both types of activities. DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 2 March 26, 2004 CWA Section 402( b) allows States, including Territories, to acquire authority for the NPDES and Sewage Sludge Management programs. In addition, Section 518( e) authorizes Indian Tribes to obtain NPDES authority. This authority enables States and Tribes to issue permits. At this time, 46 States ( 45 States and 1 U. S. territory) have obtained NPDES authority, while 11 have not. None of the 556 Federally recognized American Indian Tribes have obtained NPDES authority. As of February 2004, five States have obtained authority to operate a sewage sludge management program ( OK, SD, TX, UT and WI). In States or Tribes that have not obtained authority for these programs, EPA issues the permits. Because some permit applications are processed by States and some by EPA, this ICR calculates government burden and costs for both States and EPA.

A permitting authority, EPA, a State or a Federally recognized Tribe, collects information necessary to determine a permittee's compliance with specific permit requirements during the effective term of a given permit. Compliance assessment reporting requirements include routine submittals ( e. g., annual certifications and reports submitted when a compliance schedule milestone is reached) and non routine submittals ( e. g., required when certain conditions occur, such as an unanticipated bypass). NPDES staff writers may use this information to determine if follow up activities are necessary.

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

This ICR includes burden hours and costs associated with sanitary sewer overflows ( SSOs) and unpermitted combined sewer overflows ( CSOs) originally estimated and provided to OMB in the 1998 Summary of Revised Burden Estimates for SSO/ Unpermitted CSO Reporting. This ICR does not, however, include an estimate of the number of respondents associated with these SSO/ unpermitted CSO estimates. Rather, the estimates are based on a national estimate of the number of responses and the associated burden for each. The numbers reflect an increased number of general permittees required to keep records for the first time. DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 3 March 26, 2004 Recordkeeping Number of Recordkeepers 390,352 All permittees except sludge facilities.

Annual Respondent Burden ( hrs.) 1,568,158 Annual Costs ($) $ 62,777,658 Reporting ( w/ o Part 435)

Number of Respondents 26,498 Annual Respondent Burden ( hrs.) 141,122 Annual Costs ($) $ 5,032,350 Part 435 Certification ( new requirement) Facilities that pursue certification and BMP plan development pursuant to 40 CFR Part 435 to control nonaqueous joint fluids. Number of Respondents 68 Annual Respondent Burden ( hrs.) 53,516 Annual Costs for Respondents ($) $ 1,635,944 State Governments ( 45 States and 1 Territory)

Annual Burden ( hrs.) 46,784 Annual Costs ($) $ 1,526,226 Exhibit 1. Summary of Burden and Costs to Respondents and State Government DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 4 March 26, 2004 2.0 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2. a Need and Authority for the Collection 2. a. 1 NPDES Program Section 402( a) of the CWA establishes the NPDES program, which requires issuance of a permit to control the discharge of pollutants, ensuring compliance with provisions of the CWA. Section 402( p) of the CWA requires that these NPDES permits be issued for fixed terms not to exceed 5 years and that they:

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

! Provide for permit termination or modification for cause;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The permitting authority must assess whether the permittee is in compliance with the above conditions on a consistent basis. Permittee compliance is assessed through compliance DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 5 March 26, 2004 inspections, review of permittee self monitoring data, keeping of records, and review of other compliance assessment information required by 40 CFR Parts 122 and 501. The burden for compliance inspections is estimated in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) and Sewage Sludge Management State Program Requirements ICR ( OMB No. 2040 0057), and the burden for the collection and retention of permittee self monitoring data is calculated in the NPDES/ Sewage Sludge Monitoring Reports ICR ( OMB No. 2040 0004). The burden associated with sewage sludge self monitoring is estimated in the same ICR ( OMB No. 2040 0004), as amended. This ICR calculates the burden associated with compliance assessment information ( other than discharge monitoring reports ( DMRs)) required by Parts 122 and 501, and certification or alternative requirements contained in the effluent limitations guidelines and standards ( ELGs) regulations for 12 point source categories and 1 subcategory.

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

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

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

In addition, storm water permittees with discharges associated with industrial activity are required to perform and maintain records of a periodic visual examination of their facilities. DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 6 March 26, 2004 Twenty nine of the 30 industrial facility categories are required to perform this visual examination on a quarterly basis.

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

This NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification Information ICR fully integrates the above storm water requirements, as previously reported in the 1996 and 2000 ICRs for the NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification Information ( ICR No. 1427.06 & OMB No. 2040 0110) and revisions to the 1998 ICR for the Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge ( ICR No. 0229.13 & OMB No. 2040 0004).

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

2. a. 4 Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards Certifications Effluent limitations guidelines and standards are national wastewater limitations that apply to specific categories of industrial dischargers. The regulations are promulgated by EPA under the authority of sections 301, 304, 306, and 307 of the CWA. The limitations are implemented in direct discharge permits under the NPDES program by States and EPA. This NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification Information ICR also fully integrates certifications for exemptions of monitoring requirements for 12 industrial categories and 1 subcategory: electroplating ( 40 CFR 413); metal finishing ( 40 CFR 433); electrical and electronic components ( 40 CFR 469); pesticides formulating, packaging, and repackaging ( 40 CFR 455); aluminum forming ( 40 CFR Part 467); coil coating ( 40 CFR 465); can making DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 7 March 26, 2004 ( a subpart of the coil coating category) ( 40 CFR 465); pharmaceutical manufacturing ( 40 CFR 439); pulp and paper ( 40 CFR 430); builders' paper and board mills ( 40 CFR 431); porcelain enameling ( 40 CFR 456); steam electric ( 40 CFR 423); and oil and gas extraction ( 40 CFR Part 435).

The effluent limitations guidelines and standards for these industrial categories allow permittees to provide certifications that reduce or eliminate monitoring requirements for one or more pollutants. When the permittee chooses to certify, the effluent limitations guidelines and standards may require semi annual, annual, or once per permit cycle reports. For one industrial category, the pesticides formulating, packaging, and repackaging category, there are no pollutantspecific monitoring requirements, but the facility may certify that it is using pollution prevention measures stipulated by EPA and must maintain a pollution prevention plan on site. The burden estimate from certifications were previously reported in the Certification for Exemption from Monitoring and Notification of Process Changes in Effluent Guidelines ICR ( OMB Control No. 2040 0033), then in the 1996 and 2000 NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification Information ICRs, and are now updated, integrated, and reported again in this ICR.

For the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category ( 40 CFR 435), a facility can elect to use the Best Management Practices ( BMPs), including BMP plan development and certification for controlling the discharge of non aqueous drilling fluid ( NAF) cuttings ( pursuant to Addendum B, Appendix 7, Subpart A, Part 435), in lieu of the retort test specified in Appendix 7 ( see Appendix 7, section 4  Procedures, Item 9.)

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

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

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

! Informal enforcement action. For certain violations, the permitting authority may initially use telephone calls, inspections, warning letters, and other such methods to bring the permittee into compliance. DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 8 March 26, 2004 ! Administrative enforcement action. The permitting authority may pursue more severe actions, including Notices of Violations, administrative orders, or administrative penalty orders.

! Case referral. Ultimately, the permitting authority may refer a permit violation to the Department of Justice for further legal enforcement action.

There are several exceptions to the general flow of compliance assessment data from the permittee to the permitting authority. EPA may require additional information in the form of a Section 308( a) letter ( see Section 4. b. 6 for further explanation).

Another exception to the compliance data information flow from permittee to permitting authority occurs in the case of the NPDES storm water permitting program where the regulatory requirement is for records retention rather than reporting. As discussed earlier, permit compliance for storm water permittees is assessed on a permit by permit basis. The minimum compliance requirement for a storm water permittee is an annual site inspection that identifies any incidents of non compliance and evaluates whether measures to reduce pollutant loadings identified in the storm water pollution prevention plan are adequate and are being properly implemented. Although the permittees are not required to report the inspection information, they are required to retain records of these inspections for at least 3 years. This activity is reflected in this ICR as a recordkeeping activity. As stated previously, EPA estimates that all storm water permittees will be subject to this minimum requirement. DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 9 2 Many of the same environmental controls promoted as part of a BMP Plan currently may be used by industry in storm water pollution prevention plans; spill prevention and response plans ( 30 CFR 254); Occupational Safety and Health Administration ( OSHA) safety plans; fire protection programs; insurance requirements; federal, state, or local requirements; or standard operating procedures. Additionally, permittees may have already developed pollution prevention programs or controls such as source reduction, recycling, and reuse which may be similar to those promoted as part of a BMP Plan. When a BMP issue is already addressed via a separate regulatory program, the BMP Plan is expected to reference those efforts, not duplicate them. Where operating manuals, standard operating plans, or other documents have been developed to address other regulatory requirements ( e. g., OSHA, RCRA, etc.) these may be cross referenced in the BMP Plan.

March 26, 2004 3.0 NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3. a Nonduplication EPA has examined all other reporting requirements contained in the Clean Water Act and 40 CFR Parts 122, 123, 124, 125, 501, and 503. The Agency also has consulted the following sources of information to determine if similar or duplicative information is available elsewhere:

! EPA Information Systems Inventory,

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

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

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

With regard to use of BMPs under Part 435 to control NAFs, EPA has examined all other reporting requirements contained in the Clean Water Act and 40 CFR Parts 122, 123, 124, 125, 501, and 503.2 The Agency has also consulted other sources of information to determine if similar or duplicative information is available elsewhere. There are no additional duplicative reporting requirements as the BMPs are an alternative to numeric limitations and standards and the BMP Plan format allows for cross referencing ( not duplication) of similar efforts.

3. b Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 10 March 26, 2004 In compliance with the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act, any agency developing a nonrule related ICR must solicit public comments for a 60 day period prior to submitting the ICR to OMB. The comments, which are used partly to determine realistic burden estimates for respondents, must be considered when completing the Supporting Statement submitted to OMB. EPA issued the first public notice for the revised ICR in the Federal Register on December 9, 2003 ( 68 FR 68618 68619). EPA received no comments on this notice.

3. c Consultations EPA has solicited public comments on the NPDES Compliance Assessment/ Certification Information ICR numerous times. Most recently, EPA consulted with its contractor to evaluate the appropriateness of the estimates presented in this ICR. EPA contractors are most familiar with the information collected, routinely working with the Agency and respondents to review the information collected as part of this ICR. In addition, consistent with PRA requirements, EPA has public noticed this ICR prior to each renewal. Most recently, EPA has public noticed this ICR on April 9, 1996, March 23, 2000, and December 9, 2003.

The Consolidated Permit Regulations promulgated in May 1980, from which the paperwork burden of this ICR originates, and the subsequent revisions promulgated in September 1984 were both subject to 60 day public comment periods. All comments received during these time periods were reviewed and considered by the Agency. A summary of these comments and EPA reactions to them is presented in the preamble to the final NPDES regulations. Public comment regarding sewage sludge permit conditions were solicited before EPA published the States Sludge Management regulations on May 2, 1989. More recently, the NPDES regulations were revised in April 1995, March 1997, and August 1998. All revisions were subject to a comment period after they were proposed, and EPA considered all public comments received before final promulgation. A summary of comments and EPA's reaction to them were presented in the preamble to the final regulations.

With regard to use of BMPs under Part 435 to control NAFs, EPA has had stakeholder discussions with the following organizations regarding development of the synthetic based fluids ( SBF) regulation and SBF BMP alternative requirements: American Petroleum Institute ( API), National Ocean Industries Association ( NOIA), U. S. Department of Energy ( DOE), U. S. Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service ( MMS), Other States; and Industry Representatives.

3. d Effects of Less Frequent Data Collection The information collected for the NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification ICR is generally required episodically. Some of the information included in this ICR is collected only when certain conditions occur. For example, compliance schedule reports are submitted when a milestone is reached, to determine the permittee's compliance with that milestone. Also, alternate level reports are submitted only when there is an expected change in the production level at the facility. DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 11 March 26, 2004 Some of the information in this ICR that is required to be submitted is collected only after the permittee violates a permit condition. For example, noncompliance reports are submitted when the facility experiences a bypass, an upset, or a violation of a daily maximum limit. Section 308( a) letters are submitted only when requested by the Regional Administrator, in response to events such as a spill of oil or a hazardous substance. Therefore, frequency of information collection is not an issue for the reporting requirements in this category.

With regard to use of BMPs under Part 435 to control NAFs, the Permittee must maintain a copy of the BMP Plan and related documentation ( e. g., training certifications, summary of the monitoring results, records of SBF equipment spills, repairs, and maintenance) at the facility and must make the BMP Plan and related documentation available to the State NPDES Permitting Authority and/ or EPA, upon request. Submission of the BMP Plan and related documentation shall be at the frequency established by the NPDES permitting authority ( i. e., Permit monitoring reports), but in no case less than once per 5 years. As NPDES permits are normally revised every five years, any less frequent submission of the BMP Plan and related documentation would lead to outdated and ineffective BMP Plans.

The BMP alternative requires re fresher training to ensure the proper implementation of the BMP Plan. EPA estimates that re fresher training will take place twice a year with each training course lasting 4 hours. Less frequent review of the BMP Plan will lead to inadequate implementation of the associated beneficial BMPs.

3. e General Guidelines This information collection is consistent with OMB guidelines contained in 5 CFR 1320.5( d)( 2) with the exception of the 24 hour reporting requirements for notice of unanticipated upset or bypass and notice of violation of maximum daily discharge. Twenty four hour reporting, while not a statutory requirement, is required by the NPDES regulations at 40 CFR, § 122.41( l)( 6) because of the potential for severe environmental damage or grave threats to public health resulting from these circumstances. The pollutant discharge limits in a NPDES permit are designed to be protective of the environment and the public. Violation of those limits whether by upset, bypass, or other violation is, therefore, a threat to the receiving stream. The permitting authority must be informed of such violations quickly so that necessary remedial action can be taken as soon as possible.

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

The reporting requirements addressed in this ICR do not include sensitive questions. DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 12 March 26, 2004 4.0 THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 4. a Respondents and NAICS/ SIC Codes An NPDES permit is required any time there is a discharge of pollutants from a point source to the waters of the United States, regardless of a discharger's industrial category. Consequently, any industrial category may be subject to compliance assessment requirements for their NPDES permits. A relatively large portion of permitted facilities, including municipal dischargers, are classified in the sanitary service industrial category ( North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS) code 221320, Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) code 495). Other common permittee classifications include electric services ( NAICS 2211, SIC 491), bituminous coal ( NAICS 212111 and 212112, SIC 121), chemical manufacturing ( NAICS 325, SIC 28), petroleum refining ( NAICS 324110, SIC 291), and gold ores ( NAICS 21222, SIC 104). EPA may request supplemental information from any permittee.

Applicants requesting coverage under the Sewage Sludge Management program include POTWs and privately owned treatment works ( PrOTWs) ( NAICS 221320, SIC 495). In most cases, these facilities will have NPDES permits and will submit information about sewage sludge use and disposal practices as part of their NPDES applications. In some cases, respondents are facilities treating domestic sewage that do not have a NPDES permit but must have a permit for sewage sludge use and disposal activities. These respondents are called " sludge only" applicants.

The respondents using BMPs under Part 435 to control NAFs will be approximately 67 offshore SBF well drilling facilities. These operations fall under NAICS codes 211111 and 213111, SIC code 13. Government respondents are expected to include representatives from EPA Regions 4, 6, 9, and 10, who will revise NPDES permits for implementation of the BMP alternative. The EPA Region 10 respondent will revise the general NPDES permit for the coastal State waters of Cook Inlet, Alaska, as EPA has not yet delegated NPDES authority to the State of Alaska.

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

1. Recordkeeping of Monitoring Data [ § 122.41( j)( 2)]: In association with monitoring requirements, NPDES permittees including non storm water general permittees and a portion of the storm water general permittees must keep records of all monitoring data and reports, including copies of all original monitoring information, for 3 years after the date of sample, measurement, report, or application. Data that must be retained include: date and time of sampling and monitoring, names of individuals who performed sampling and monitoring, analytical techniques or methods used, and results of such analyses. These data must be readily available to the permitting DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 13 March 26, 2004 authority during site inspections or at any other time they are needed. This recordkeeping requirement is intended to ensure that permittees keep files on the raw data used to generate DMR summary information. This information would otherwise not be available to the permitting authority. The recordkeeping burden associated with sewage sludge monitoring is calculated in the Part 503 ICR and is not covered in this ICR.

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

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

4. Noncompliance Reports [ § § 122.41( l)( 6), 122.41( l)( 7), and 501.15( b)( 12)]: A permittee must provide 24 hour oral reporting of any noncompliance which may endanger human health or the environment ( with a written follow up submission within 5 days). The following must be reported within 24 hours to the permitting authority: 1) any unanticipated bypass which exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit; 2) any upset which exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit; and 3) violation of a maximum daily discharge limitation for any of the pollutants listed by the Director in the permit. These reports may include SSO events and unpermitted CSO reporting; however, in this ICR, SSO reporting and unpermitted CSO reporting burdens appear as separate line items in exhibits that follow. In addition, § § 122.41 and 501.15 require permittees to report instances of non compliance with sewage sludge regulations such as noncompliance with sewage sludge pollution standards. Timely reporting is essential in these cases, and thus, separate reporting requirements have been established for reporting bypass, upset, or violation of a maximum daily discharge. If required, the written report of the occurrence shall describe the event, its cause, its duration, and remedial actions taken. In addition, respondents must report other noncompliance situations even if they are not covered under these reporting requirements as soon as they occur. DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 14 March 26, 2004 5. Alternate Level Reports [ § 122.45( b)( 2)( B)( 1)]: The permitting authority may, at its discretion, apply tiered production based effluent limits in an NPDES permit. Tiered permit limits allow facilities to operate under different sets of limits for pollutants based on varying production levels. In the case of automotive factories, however, a reasonable demonstration by the permittee for the requirement for tiered limits obligates the EPA ( not States) to grant tiered limits to the industry. Nevertheless, every facility operating under tiered limits is required to submit a notification to the permitting authority if it intends to operate at a production level higher than the lowest production level identified in the permit.

6. Section 308 ( a) Letters: Section 308( a) of the CWA gives broad discretion to permitting authorities to request information from a permittee above and beyond routine requirements. The burden on respondents from 308( a) letters requesting information is included under several ICRs. For example, a 308( a) letter may be sent out in response to inadequate information contained in an NPDES permit application. Accordingly, this burden is reflected in the Applications ICR. Section 308( a) letters may also request additional information on other monitoring activities under the Clean Water Act, including spills of oil and hazardous substances from owners or operators of facilities or vessels spilling oil or hazardous substances. They are, therefore, a compliance related activity and the burden associated with responding to this is reflected in this NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification Information ICR.

7. Certification for Exemption From Monitoring and Notification of Process Changes: The effluent limitations guidelines and standards regulations for 12 industrial categories ( 12 categories and 1 subcategory) allow dischargers to submit a certification to exempt them from monitoring one or more pollutants. Of these industrial categories, two categories ( aluminum forming and coil coating) may choose to submit an annual certification requesting exemption from cyanide monitoring; one category ( pharmaceutical manufacturing) may choose to submit a certification requesting exemption from monitoring once every permit cycle ( 5 years); one category ( porcelain enameling) may choose to submit an annual certification requesting exemption from chromium monitoring; certain facilities in the pulp and paper categories, which use a totally chlorine free process, may choose an alternative monitoring program by certification once every permit cycle; one category ( steam electric) may choose to provide a demonstration and certification requesting exemption for monitoring requirements. For one of the subparts to the coil coating category ( can making), the discharger is required to submit a notification if the alloy used in making cans contains less than 1 percent manganese. For certain facilities in the electroplating, metal finishing, and electrical and electronic components categories, permittees may choose to submit a Total Toxic Organics ( TTO) certification semi annually in lieu of TTO monitoring, but must also develop and submit a toxic organic management plan. In addition, for the pesticide formulating and packaging category, the discharger may choose to submit an annual certification to use pollution prevention alternatives. Dischargers submitting a certification for pollution prevention alternative must also develop a pollution prevention plan. DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 15 March 26, 2004 8. Synthetic Based Fluids ( SBF) well drilling operations that elect to control their SBF cuttings discharges through the use of BMPs are required to prepare the following information: ( 1) certification of BMP completion and a copy of the most current BMP Plan; ( 2) records demonstrating periodic review of the BMP Plan ( at a minimum once every five years); ( 3) monitoring reports ( including the operation of monitoring systems) to establish equivalence with a numeric cuttings retention limitation and to detect leaks, spills, and intentional diversion; and ( 4) training reports to document re fresher training necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the BMP Plan.

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

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

! Maintaining records. All NPDES permittees must keep records of all monitoring information and all reports required by the permit. Storm water general permittees must retain records of facility inspections and visual examinations. New permittees need to develop a recordkeeping system, enter data, train personnel, and file information.

! SBF well drilling operations that elect to use BMPs to control their SBF discharges will be involved in the following tasks:

 BMP Plan Development, Review, and Certification: The BMP Plan must be documented in narrative form, and must include any necessary plot plans, drawings or maps, and must be developed in accordance with good engineering practices. At a minimum, the BMP Plan must contain the planning, development and implementation, and evaluation/ reevaluation components.

 Periodic Review and Revision of BMP Plan: For those SBF cuttings discharges controlled through the BMP alternative, the Permittee must amend the BMP Plan whenever there is a change in the facility or in the operation of the facility which materially increases the generation of SBF cuttings or their release or potential DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 16 March 26, 2004 release to the receiving waters. At a minimum the BMP Plan must be reviewed once every five years and amended within three months if warranted.

 Additional Monitoring Reports: Respondents that elect to use the BMP alternative to control SBF cuttings discharges will be required to document additional monitoring activities. These additional monitoring activities and the related documentation activities are required to demonstrate a well ordered and working BMP program. Additional monitoring activities include establishing equivalence with a numeric cuttings retention limitation and detecting SBFcuttings leaks, spills, and intentional diversions.

 Re fresher Training: Such review and endorsement may be performed by the establishment of a program of documented initial and annual refresher training of drilling equipment operators, maintenance personnel, and other technical and supervisory personnel who have responsibility for operating, maintaining, or supervising the operation and maintenance of drilling equipment. DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 17 March 26, 2004 5.0 THE INFORMATION COLLECTED: AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5. a Agency Activities The permitting authority retains all information generated by the permittee as part of the permittee's official file. The information is reviewed to determine if the permittee is in compliance with its permit, and to determine if any noncompliance poses a threat to human health or the environment. In some cases, follow up actions, including enforcement actions, may be necessary. In collecting and analyzing the information associated with this ICR, EPA and authorized states enter all applicable data into a national database, the Permit Compliance System ( PCS) for all major permittees. ( A POTW is considered a major permittee if it discharges 1 million gallons per day or more, or has a service population of 10,000 or more.) The Agency uses PCS to manage the NPDES program, for example, to develop statistical summaries on such things as permit compliance rates. The permitting authority analyzes and processes this information as well. The permitting authority's burden for compiling these reports on compliance rates is estimated in the 1999 ICR for NPDES and Sewage Sludge Management State Program Requirements ( OMB No. 2040 0057, ICR No. 0168.07).

With regard to use of BMPs under Part 435 to control NAFs, permittees must maintain records ( e. g., a copy of the BMP Plan and related documentation, such as training certifications, summary of the monitoring results, records of SBF cuttings spills, repairs, and maintenance) as described in 40 CFR 435 at the facility and must make the BMP Plan and related documentation available to EPA, the NPDES Permit controlling authority, upon request. Submission of the BMP Plan and related documentation shall be at the frequency established by the NPDES permit control authority ( i. e., permit monitoring reports), but in no case less than once per five years. Review of monitoring records by EPA, the permit controlling authority, may also be helpful to permit writers in the development of future NPDES permit conditions.

5. b Collection Methodology and Management The permitting authority will ensure the accuracy and completeness of information collected by reviewing each submittal upon receipt and is responsible for ensuring that applicable data are entered into PCS.

The use of improved information technology does not yet appear to provide additional opportunities for reducing burden on respondents who submit information on an as needed basis using non standardized formats.

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

With regard to use of BMPs under Part 435 to control NAFs, the data collection and management methodology for SBF well drilling operations that elect to use BMPs will include the DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 18 March 26, 2004 submission of the BMP Plan to the NPDES permit control authority at the frequency established by the NPDES permit control authority ( i. e., permit monitoring reports), but in no case less than once per 5 years. The NPDES permit control authority may also request BMP implementation documentation ( e. g., training certifications, maintenance records). The NPDES permit control authority will also review cases where operators are unable to demonstrate compliance with numeric cuttings retention limitations.

5. c Small Entity Flexibility All permittees, regardless of the size of their facilities, are required to report instances of noncompliance and keep records of monitoring data. In most cases, these requirements do not impose a large burden on small business because the information required is simple and straightforward.

Many small businesses do not discharge any pollutants, or they discharge pollutants to a POTW. These businesses are not required to have NPDES permits and thus are not subject to the reporting requirements of this ICR.

With regard to use of BMPs under Part 435 to control NAFs, pursuant to section 605( b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the EPA Administrator certified that this final regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

! Recordkeeping is performed on a continual basis;

! General permittee facility self inspections must occur annually;

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

! Compliance assessment reports are submitted within 14 days of a scheduled milestone; DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 19 March 26, 2004 ! Noncompliance reports are submitted only in cases where the permittee has violated a permit condition;

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

5. d. 2 Information Collection Schedule The information collection schedules for the 12 industrial categories ( 11 categories and 1 subcategory) seeking exemptions or alternative compliance reporting are as follows:

! Facilities in the porcelain enameling, aluminum forming, coil coating, and pesticides formulating and packaging industrial categories may submit certifications annually in lieu of routine monitoring.

! Facilities in the electroplating, metal finishing, and electrical and electronic components industrial categories may submit semiannual certifications in lieu of certain monitoring.

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

! Facilities in the pharmaceutical manufacturing, steam electric, and pulp and paper industrial categories must submit certifications once every permit cycle.

! Facilities subject to 40 CFR Part 435 and that will use BMPs to control NAFs are anticipated to occur under the following schedule:

 The operator shall certify that its BMP Plan is complete, on site, and available upon request to EPA or the NPDES Permit controlling authority. This certification shall identify the NPDES permit number and be signed by an authorized representative of the operator. This certification shall be kept with the BMP Plan. For new or modified NPDES permits, the certification shall be made no later than the effective date of the new or modified permit. For existing NPDES permits, the certification shall be made within one year of permit issuance.

 Submission of records to the permit control authority demonstrating periodic review of the BMP Plan are due at a minimum once every 5 years. DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 20 March 26, 2004  Monitoring reports demonstrating compliance with the BMP Plan are due to the permit control authority at the frequency set by the permit control authority ( e. g., monthly or annually) and may be requested by the permit control authority on demand.

 Re fresher training certifications demonstrating compliance with the BMP Plan are due to the permit control authority at the frequency set by the permit control authority ( e. g., semi annually) and may be requested by the permit control authority on demand. DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 21 3 The facility type indicator field was used in PCS to categorize whether a facility was municipal or nonmunicipal All facilities coded as " M" for " Municipal" were selected as Municipal facilities. All facilities coded as " I" for " Industrial," " F" for " Federal," or " O" for " Other" were selected as Non Municipal facilities.

4 Original source, Angelle and Scott, 2000. Update source, www. rigzone. com ( 2/ 23/ 04). EPA estimates that all 42 deep water rigs ( e. g., semi submersible, drill ships) will use SBFs and therefore be likely candidates to use BMPs. EPA also estimates that 14% of the 185 ( or 26) total shall water rigs ( e. g., jack ups, platform rigs) will use SBFs and therefore be likely candidates to use BMPs.

March 26, 2004 6.0 ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 6. a Estimating Respondent Burden Exhibit 2 presents a summary of the number of State issued and EPA issued permits. The major and minor permit data were compiled from PCS data ( December 2003). 3 Storm water general permittee estimates ( discharges associated with construction activities) were based on estimates from EPA's Economic Analysis conducted in association with the 1998 Storm Water Phase II Rule. The breakdown of State versus EPA construction numbers is based on 2000 Census Bureau data, indicating that 94.7 percent of the U. S. population resides in NPDES States while 5.3 percent resides in non NPDES States. This rationale was used in the July 1999 Storm Water ICR ( Notice of Intent for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activitiy under a NPDES General Permit ( aka: Construction NOI for Stormwater), ICR # 1842.02, OMB # 2040 0188). Estimates of general permittees with discharges of industrial storm water were pulled from the August 1999 Applications for NPDES Discharge Permits and the Sewage Sludge Management Permits ICR ( ICR # 2040 0086, OMB # 0226.15) and then scaled up to reflect likely increases in facilities over the past five years. Census Bureau data from 2000 were once again used to determine the proportion of facilities that are State versus EPA. Finally, the number of " other non storm water general permittees" were obtained from PCS ( December 2003). Total POTW and PrOTW sludge only permit numbers were carried forward from the previous ICR. Numbers have been apportioned between the States and EPA to reflect the two additional States ( for a total of 5 States) that have received sludge program approval since the previous ICR.

The permits shown in Exhibit 2 constitute major and minor municipal individual permittees, storm water and non storm water general permittees, and sludge only permittees. The facilities holding these permits are potential respondents in this NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification Information ICR. Although this ICR includes Federal facility counts, their burden is believed to be insignificant because of the manner in which the data were retrieved from PCS. EPA is not required to include burden estimates imposed on other Federal agencies. State and EPA issued permits have been disaggregated to allow separate reporting of burden and costs to State and Federal governments.

With regard to use of BMPs under Part 435 to control NAFs, EPA estimates that 68 facilities annually will be affected by this ICR. 4 These SBF wells are outlined in Exhibit 7. Appendix A presents all of the input data and assumptions used to develop the ICR burden estimate. Appendix B presents eight tables of burden and cost estimates, organized into three DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 22 March 26, 2004 categories: Initial Burden and Costs ( Tables 1 3); Recurring Annual Burden and Costs ( Tables 4 6); and Summary Burden and Costs ( Tables 7 8).

As shown in Exhibit 3, EPA estimates the total annual burden to respondents to be approximately 1,762,796 hours. Of this total, 1,568,158 hours are for recordkeeping, while 194,638 hours are for reporting. Exhibit 3 provides a detailed breakdown of hours by specific record or report. The information requirements in this ICR potentially affect 392,602 respondents, or all of the permittees identified in Exhibit 2. Of this population, 390,352 respondents will incur a record keeping burden. This number includes all State and EPA major, minor, and general permittees but excludes sludge permittees because the recordkeeping burden for sludge permittees has been estimated in another ICR ( see Section 4. b).

In accordance with OMB's instructions, this ICR calculates burden and costs to respondents on an annual basis. To calculate the total annual respondent burden, the ICR first calculates the annual burden for each compliance assessment requirement. The ICR then adds these together. Thus, the total annual burden is the sum of the annual burdens for each individual compliance assessment requirement. This section explains the respondent burden estimates for each compliance assessment requirement.

Type of Permit States EPA Total MAJOR PERMITS Municipal 3,598 527 4,125 Non Municipal 2,080 360 2,440 SUBTOTAL 5,678 887 6,565 MINOR PERMITS Municipal 9,885 770 10,655 Non Municipal 32,587 1,717 34,304 SUBTOTAL 42,472 2,487 44,959 GENERAL PERMITTEES 0 Storm Water 0 0 Industrial 87,247 4,883 92,130 Construction 193,026 10,803 203,829 Other 34,229 8,640 42,869 SUBTOTAL 314,502 24,326 338,828 SLUDGE ONLY PERMITS POTWs 185 1,925 2,110 PrOTWs 12 128 140 SUBTOTAL 197 2,053 2,250 TOTAL 362,849 29,753 392,602 Source of data: PCS ( December 2003); 1998 Storm Water Phase II Rule Economic Analysis; ICRs # 1427.06, # 1842.02, and # 2040 0086. Exhibit 2. Number of NPDES Permits Issued by EPA and the States DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 23 March 26, 2004 Exhibit 3. Annual Respondent Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden Item/ Type of Respondent Respondents per Year ( A) Burden ( Hrs.) per Respondent ( B) Total Annual Burden ( Hrs.) ( A) × ( B) Recordkeeping Major Municipal Permittees 4,125 6.0 24,750 Major Non Municipal Permittees 2,440 6.0 14,640 Minor Municipal Permittees 10,655 1.2 12,786 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 34,304 1.2 41,165 Storm Water General Permittees   Industrial* 92,130 6.6 608,058 Storm Water General Permittees   Construction 203,829 4.0 815,316 Other General Permittees 42,869 1.2 51,443 SUBTOTAL 390,352 1,568,158 Compliance Schedule Reports Major Municipal Permittees 3,094 1.125 3,481 Major Non Municipal Permittees 1,830 1.125 2,059 Minor Municipal Permittees 533 1.125 600 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 1,715 1.125 1,929 Sludge Permit Conditions Compliance Schedule Reports POTWs 100 1.5 150 PrOTWs 32 1.5 48 SUBTOTAL 7,304 8,267 Noncompliance Reports Unanticipated Bypass/ Upset Report Verbal Reports Major Municipal Permittees 619 5 3,095 Major Non Municipal Permittees 366 5 1,830 Minor Municipal Permittees 533 5 2,665 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 1,715 5 8,575 Written Reports Major Municipal Permittees 464 2 928 Major Non Municipal Permittees 275 2 550 Minor Municipal Permittees 400 2 800 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 1,286 2 2,572 SUBTOTAL 5,658 21,015 Maximum Daily Violation Report Verbal Reports Major Municipal Permittees 619 6 3,714 Major Non Municipal Permittees 366 6 2,196 Minor Municipal Permittees 533 3 1,599 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 1,715 3 5,145 Storm Water Permittees 2,280 3 6,840 DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 24 Exhibit 3. Annual Respondent Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden Item/ Type of Respondent Respondents per Year ( A) Burden ( Hrs.) per Respondent ( B) Total Annual Burden ( Hrs.) ( A) × ( B)

March 26, 2004 Written Reports Major Municipal Permittees 310 4 1,240 Major Non Municipal Permittees 183 4 732 Minor Municipal Permittees 267 2 534 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 858 2 1,716 Storm Water Permittees 1,140 2 2,280 SUBTOTAL 8,271 25,996 Other Noncompliance Reports Major Municipal Permittees 83 5 415 Major Non Municipal Permittees 49 5 245 Minor Municipal Permittees 107 5 535 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 343 5 1,715 Sludge Permit Conditions   Noncompliance Reports POTWs 31 5.2 161 PrOTWs 10 5.2 52 SUBTOTAL 623 3,123 Notice of Alternate Level of Production 0 0 0 Section 308( a) Letters 1,200 8 9,600 Pollution Prevention Alternative Pesticides Packaging and Repackaging 54 20 1,080 Certifications Pesticides Packaging and Repackaging 163 1 163 Aluminum Forming 57 1 57 Coil Coating 76 1 76 Can Making ( subcategory of coil coating) 14 1 14 Porcelain Enameling 27 1 27 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 39 1 39 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard 217 0.2 43 Building Paper and Board Mills 131 1 131 Steam Electric 1,029 1 1,029 Electroplating 0 2 0 Metal Finishing 1,524 2 3,048 Electrical and Electronic Components 43 2 86 SUBTOTAL 3,320 4,713 SSO Reporting** N/ A N/ A 62,144 Unpermitted CSO Reporting** N/ A N/ A 5,184 Part 435 Certification Oil and Gas Extraction*** 68 N/ A 53,516 TOTAL 416,850 1,762,796 * Only 49.5 percent of the 92,130 industrial storm water permittees are estimated to be required to maintain monitoring data; thus, the average burden hours per respondent is 6.6 hours. ** These burden hours were taken directly from the 1998 Summary of Revised Burden Estimates and are based on an estimated number of events per year, rather than the number of respondents. For further explanation of these estimates see the 1998 Summary of Revised Burden Estimates for SSO/ Unpermitted CSO Reporting. *** Part 435 burden and costs are presented in detail in Appendix B. DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 25 March 26, 2004 Exhibit 4. Annual Average Responses per Respondent Item/ Type of Respondent Respondents per Year ( A) Responses per Year ( B) Total Annual Responses [( A) × ( B)]

Compliance Schedule Reports Major Municipal Permittees 3,094 1.5 4,641 Major Non Municipal Permittees 1,830 1.5 2,745 Minor Municipal Permittees 533 1.5 800 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 1,715 1.5 2,573 Sludge Permit Conditions Compliance Schedule Reports POTWs 100 2 200 PrOTWs 32 2 64 SUBTOTAL 7,304 11,023 Noncompliance Reports Unanticipated Bypass/ Upset Report Verbal Reports Major Municipal Permittees 619 1 619 Major Non Municipal Permittees 366 1 366 Minor Municipal Permittees 533 1 533 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 1,715 1 1,715 Written Reports Major Municipal Permittees 464 1 464 Major Non Municipal Permittees 275 1 275 Minor Municipal Permittees 400 1 400 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 1,286 1 1,286 SUBTOTAL 5,658 5,658 Maximum Daily Violation Report Verbal Reports Major Municipal Permittees 619 2 1,238 Major Non Municipal Permittees 366 2 732 Minor Municipal Permittees 533 1 533 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 1,715 1 1,715 Storm Water Permittees 2,280 1 2,280 Written Reports Major Municipal Permittees 310 2 620 Major Non Municipal Permittees 183 2 366 Minor Municipal Permittees 267 1 267 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 858 1 858 Storm Water Permittees 1,140 1 1,140 SUBTOTAL 8,271 9,749 DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 26 Exhibit 4. Annual Average Responses per Respondent Item/ Type of Respondent Respondents per Year ( A) Responses per Year ( B) Total Annual Responses [( A) × ( B)]

March 26, 2004 Other Noncompliance Reports Major Municipal Permittees 83 1 83 Major Non Municipal Permittees 49 1 49 Minor Municipal Permittees 107 1 107 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 343 1 343 Sludge Permit Conditions   Noncompliance Reports POTWs 31 1 31 PrOTWs 10 1 10 SUBTOTAL 623 623 Notice of Alternate Level of Production 0 0 0 Section 308( a) Letters 1,200 1 1,200 Pollution Prevention Alternative Pesticides Packaging and Repackaging 54 1 54 Certifications *

Pesticides Packaging and Repackaging 163 1 163 Aluminum Forming 57 1 57 Coil Coating 76 1 76 Can Making ( subcategory of coil coating) 14 1 14 Porcelain Enameling 27 1 27 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 39 1 39 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard 217 .2 43 Building Paper and Board Mills 131 1 131 Steam Electric 1,029 1 1,029 Electroplating 0 2 0 Metal Finishing 1,524 2 3,048 Electrical and Electronic Components 43 2 86 SUBTOTAL 3,320 4,713 SSO Reporting N/ A 41,087 N/ A Unpermitted CSO Reporting N/ A 3,840 N/ A Part 435 Certification Oil & Gas Extraction 68 N/ A** N/ A**

TOTAL 26,498 33,020 * Estimated number of respondents in each category is described in Section 6. a. 6. ** See Appendix B.

In general, the larger the facility, the greater the number of outfalls, and the greater the discharge of pollutants ( particularly toxics). Larger facilities are also likely to produce larger volumes of sewage sludge. Because of these factors, larger facilities tend to incur greater burdens DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 27 March 26, 2004 for completing mandatory reports. The more often a facility violates its permit conditions, the larger the burden associated with reporting noncompliance ( i. e., explaining reasons and proposing solutions).

6. a. 1 Recordkeeping of Monitoring and Inspection Data The following discussion is presented in table format in Exhibits 2 and 3. EPA estimates that all NPDES permittees ( except for certain storm water permittees as discussed below) will incur an annual burden for recordkeeping of discharge monitoring and other monitoring data. The burden associated with this recordkeeping requirement depends on the size of the facility. In the previous NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification Information ICR, EPA estimated that 6.0 hours per year ( 0.5 hours per month) for major permittees and 1.2 hours per year ( 0.1 hours per month) for minor permittees are necessary to organize and file the appropriate existing monitoring data. These estimates are consistent with current recordkeeping requirements and are retained in this ICR. Therefore, 6,565 major permittees ( 4,125 municipal plus 2,440 nonmunicipal will spend 6.0 hours per year on recordkeeping activities, resulting in a total annual burden of 39,390 hours. All 44,959 minor municipal and non municipal permittees ( 10,655 and 34,304, respectively) will incur a total annual burden of 53,951 hours for recordkeeping.

All 295,959 storm water general permittees are required to conduct and maintain records of their annual site inspections. These activities are expected to result in an annual burden of 4 hours per respondent for an annual burden of 1,183,836 hours. All of the 92,130 storm water general permittees with industrial discharges are required to conduct quarterly visual examinations. EPA estimates these permittees will spend 0.5 hours for each visual examination, for a total of 2.0 hours per year and a total annual burden of 184,260 hours.

A portion of the storm water general permittees with industrial discharges are required to keep monitoring records. Based on information submitted by these permittees to the NOI Data Processing Center, this number is estimated to be 49.5 percent or 45,604 permittees. EPA estimates that 1.2 hours will be spent by these storm water permittees in keeping monitoring records, resulting in a total annual burden of 54,725 hours. Note: Because only a portion of the 92,130 storm water permittees with industrial discharges are required to maintain monitoring data, the average burden hours for these storm water permittees is 6.6 hours.

EPA estimates that all 42,869 non storm water general permittees will incur a recordkeeping burden of 1.2 hours annually for maintaining monitoring data. This results in a total annual burden of 51,443 hours.

The facilities submitting certifications are a very small subset of the major and minor permittees and the recordkeeping burden for these certifications is believed to be adequately reflected in the recordkeeping burden discussed above.

The total recordkeeping burden for all respondents is therefore estimated to be 1,568,158 hours. Note that recordkeeping requirements for sewage sludge permittees are accounted for in the Sewage Sludge Use or Disposal Standards ICR and, thus, are not included in this ICR. DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 28 March 26, 2004 6. a. 2 Compliance Schedule Reports Permittees must submit reports that state whether compliance schedule milestones contained in their permits have been met. EPA assumes that most NPDES permittees will engage a contractor to undertake the construction necessary to meet these milestones. The Agency further assumes that the permittees will receive periodic detailed progress reports from their contractors on the status of construction. Therefore, EPA expects this requirement to place very little additional burden upon permittees. According to the previous NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification Information ICR, it is estimated that permittees will submit an average of 1.5 reports per year, and the burden to complete each report will be 0.75 hours. This is equivalent to 1.125 hours per year for each respondent. This burden represents the time required to both prepare and send the compliance schedule report.

It is expected that 75 percent of the major facilities and 5 percent of the minor facilities will submit compliance schedule reports per year. General permittees will not incur a burden as they are not required to submit compliance schedule reports. At 1.125 hours per year, the total annual burden to major facilities is 5,540 hours, while the total annual burden to minor facilities is 2,529 hours.

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

The total annual burden to respondents to prepare and file compliance schedule reports is therefore 8,267 hours.

6. a. 3 Noncompliance Reports When a permittee violates a permit condition, it must submit a noncompliance report to the permitting authority. The following subsections discuss the burden estimates associated with these noncompliance reports, except for those reports associated with SSOs and unpermitted CSOs. The burden estimates associated with these noncompliance reports are discussed in Section 6. a. 7.

24 Hour Report of Unanticipated Bypass or Upset Where noncompliance at a permittee's facility may endanger human health or the environment, the permittee is required to verbally notify the permitting authority within 24 hours of the noncompliance. The verbal report must be followed by a written report, unless it is waived by the permitting authority. EPA assumes that permittees closely monitor the operation of their facilities so that the occurrence of a bypass or upset of the treatment works is readily apparent to operators. Because of the potential for serious environmental damage, grave threats to public DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 29 March 26, 2004 health, and injury to facility employees, permittees should act quickly in the event of such an occurrence. Permittees must make these reports if they wish to use unanticipated bypass or upset as an affirmative defense for violating their permit limits [ § 122.41( n)( 3)]. Thus, if proper procedures for reporting bypass or upset are followed, the permittee may use the 24 hour report as a defense for violating its permit conditions, because it is a timely report of the occurrence.

EPA estimates that 15 percent ( 985) of the 6,565 major facilities and 5 percent ( 2,248) of the 44,959 minor facilities upset or bypass annually, thereby requiring a verbal notification. EPA estimates that these respondents will submit one report per year at 5 hours of burden. In addition, EPA estimates that 75 percent ( 2,425) of the 3,233 facilities submitting a verbal notification will also be required to submit a written report. The written report is expected to require an additional 2 hours of burden. The burden represents the time required to investigate the bypass or cause of upset; determine the duration or expected duration of the incident; determine the corrective actions to be taken; prepare the written report ( if the requirement is not waived); and to send the report to the permitting authority. As illustrated in Exhibit 3, the total annual respondent burden for submitting the verbal and written notification is 21,015 hours.

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

EPA assumes that the permittees required to submit verbal notices will incur a burden of 3 hours per notice. In addition, EPA assumes that 50 percent of those permittees giving notice will be required to submit written notices ( the remaining 50 percent will have this requirement waived), with an estimated burden of 2 hours per written report. The burden represents the time required to gather information and prepare the verbal notice, prepare the written report if the requirement is not waived, and submit the report to the permitting authority.

EPA estimates that 15 percent ( 985) of the 6,565 major facilities and 5 percent ( 2,248) of the 44,959 minor facilities will violate their maximum daily discharge limitations for which a 24 hour report is required. Of these permittees, EPA expects the written report submittal requirement to be waived in 50 percent of the cases. Thus, 310 major municipals, 183 major nonmunicipals 267 minor municipals, and 858 minor non municipals are expected to submit written reports of violations of the maximum daily discharge limit. EPA estimates that the major facilities will submit an average of 2 reports per year, while the minors will submit an average of 1 report annually. In addition to the major and minor permittees, EPA expects 5 percent of the 49.5 storm water general permittees with industrial discharges to violate their maximum daily discharge limits. This 5 percent is expected to be inclusive of the 10 percent of storm water general DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 30 March 26, 2004 permittees with coal pile runoff effluent limits that are expected, as estimated in the previous ICR, to violate their maximum daily discharge limits. As a result, 2,280 such permittees will be required to provide verbal notice of the violation, of which 50 percent, or 1,140, will be required to submit written reports. In summary, for all categories of respondents who must submit reports for maximum daily violations, the associated total annual burden is 25,996 hours.

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

Because most instances of NPDES noncompliance reporting are covered by other requirements of this ICR and by the NPDES/ Sewage Sludge Monitoring Reports ICR, EPA expects very few respondents to be affected annually. Approximately 2 percent ( 131) of the 6,565 major facilities and 1 percent ( 450) of the 44,959 minor facilities are expected to submit 1 report per year. Therefore, at 5 hours per response, the total annual burden associated with these reports is 660 hours for major facilities and 2,250 hours for minor facilities.

In addition, EPA anticipates that each year 31 POTWs and 10 PrOTWs will be required to submit an average of one noncompliance report per year regarding sewage sludge permit conditions ( generally noncompliance with pollutant limitations). The Agency assumes that the burden to complete these reports equals 5 hours for a total annual burden of 213 hours. The total annual burden associated with other noncompliance reports is 3,123 hours.

Exhibit 4 shows the annual average number of responses per respondent. The total annual burden for all three types of noncompliance reports, as discussed above, is 50,134 hours. This is summarized in Exhibit 5. This exhibit does not include the respondent burden associated with SSO and CSO reporting. This latter information can be found in Exhibit 8. DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 31 March 26, 2004 6. a. 4 Notice of Alternate Level of Actual Production The permitting authority may, at its discretion, apply tiered production based effluent limits in an NPDES permit. Tiered permit limits allow facilities to operate under different sets of limits for pollutants based on varying production levels. In the case of automotive factories, however, a reasonable demonstration by the permittee for the requirement for tiered limits obligates the EPA ( not States) to grant tiered limits to the industry. Nevertheless, every facility operating under tiered limits is required to submit a notification to the permitting authority if it intends to operate at a production level higher than the lowest production level identified in the permit.

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

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

Unanticipated Bypass/ Upset Report Major Facilities 6,403 Minor Facilities 14,612 Maximum Daily Violation Report Major Facilities 7,882 Minor Facilities 8,994 Storm Water Permittees 9,120 Other Noncompliance Reports Major Facilities 660 Minor Facilities 2,250 Sludge only POTWs 161 Sludge only PrOTWs 52 Total Annual Respondent Burden 50,134 Exhibit 5. Respondent Reporting Burden for Noncompliance Reports DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 32 March 26, 2004 EPA estimates the burden associated with this latter type of collection to be 8 hours per response. This estimate represents the time required for the permittee to gather existing information, consult specialists, such as engineers and lawyers, and prepare a short, direct report.

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

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

In the pesticide formulating and packaging category, EPA estimates that 50 percent of the facilities will choose to submit an annual certification to use pollution prevention alternatives [ i. e., ( 326)(. 50) = ( 163 resp./ yr.)( 1 hrs./ resp.) = 163 hrs./ yr.]. As part of this certification, each facility must develop a pollution prevention plan. As in the previous ICR, this ICR estimates that one third of these facilities will develop a pollution prevention plan on an annual basis and that each plan will take 20 hours to develop [ i. e., 163/ 3 = ( 54 resp./ yr.)( 20 hr./ resp.) = 1080 hrs./ yr.].

EPA estimates that approximately 75 percent of the aluminum forming facilities and coil coating facilities will choose to submit an annual certification requesting an exemption from cyanide monitoring [ i. e., aluminum forming: ( 76)(. 75) = ( 57 resp./ yr.)( 1 hrs./ resp.) = 57 hrs./ yr.]; [ i. e., coil coating: ( 101)(. 75) = ( 76 resp./ yr.)( 1 hrs./ resp.) = 76 hrs./ yr.]; [ i. e., can making: ( 18)(. 75) = ( 14 resp./ yr.)( 1 hrs./ resp.) = 14 hrs./ yr.].

EPA estimates that 50 percent of the porcelain enameling facilities will choose to submit an annual certification requesting an exemption from chromium monitoring [ i. e., ( 54)(. 50) = ( 27 resp./ yr.)( 1 hrs./ resp.) = 27 hrs./ yr.].

Additionally, of the eligible pharmaceutical facilities, EPA estimates from effluent guideline development documents that approximately 40 percent of the pharmaceutical facilities are in a subcategory that potentially use cyanide. Of these, EPA estimates that 75 percent will choose to submit a certification once every permit cycle requesting an exemption from monitoring [ i. e., ( 130)(. 40)(. 75) = ( 39 resp./ yr.)( 1 hrs./ resp.) = 39 hrs./ yr.]. DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 33 March 26, 2004 In the pulp, paper, and paperboard category, EPA estimates from effluent guideline development documents that approximately 80 percent of the facilities use a chlorine free process and are eligible to choose an alternative monitoring program. These facilities may certify once every permit cycle that their process does not use chlorophenolic biocides. EPA estimates that of these 80 percent eligible, that 75 percent will choose to certify [ i. e., ( 361)(. 80)(. 75) = ( 217 resp./ yr.)( 0.2 hrs./ resp.) = 43 hrs./ yr.]. Similarly, for the builders' paper and board mills category, EPA estimates that 75 percent of the facilities will certify [ i. e., ( 174)(. 75) = ( 131 resp./ yr.)( 1 hrs./ resp.) = 131 hrs./ yr.].

EPA estimates that approximately 75 percent of the facilities in the steam electric category will choose to provide a demonstration and certification requesting an exemption from monitoring requirements [ i. e., ( 1372)(. 75) = ( 1029 resp./ yr.)( 1 hrs./ resp.) = 1029 hrs./ yr.].

EPA estimates that approximately 50 percent of the eligible electrical and electronic components facilities will choose to submit a Total Toxic Organic ( TTO) Certification ( semiannually in lieu of TTO monitoring, and 75 percent of the metal finishing facilities will choose to submit this ( semi annual) TTO certification [ i. e., electrical and electronic components: ( 86)(. 50) = ( 43 resp./ yr.)( 2 hrs./ resp.) = 86 hrs./ yr.]; [ i. e., metal finishing: ( 2032)(. 75) = ( 1524 resp./ yr.)( 2 hrs./ resp.) = 3048 hrs./ yr.]. Note: At this time there are no known electroplating direct discharging facilities.

For these certification and pollution prevention activities, EPA estimates a total annual burden of 5,793 hours ( see Exhibit 3). Type of Respondent State EPA Total Pesticides Packaging and Repackaging 322 4 326 Aluminum Forming 69 7 76 Coil Coating 94 7 101 Can Making ( subcategory of coil coating) 15 3 18 Porcelain Enameling* 42 12 54 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 117 13 130 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard 326 35 361 Building Paper and Board Mills 144 30 174 Steam Electric 1,221 151 1,372 Electroplating** 0 0 0 Metal Finishing 1,939 93 2,032 Electrical and Electronic Components 79 7 86 TOTAL 4,368 362 4,730 * Categorical data taken from the previous ICR and apportioned between State and EPA based on the ratio of delegated to non delegated States. ** All electroplaters believed to be indirect dischargers. Exhibit 6. Facilities with Certification Potential DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 34 March 26, 2004 6. a. 7 SSO and Unpermitted CSO Reporting In 1998, EPA conducted an evaluation of SSOs and gathered information on the number and frequency of SSOs and unpermitted CSOs. At that time, EPA developed a Summary of Revised Burden Estimate for SSO/ Unpermitted CSO Reporting that was approved by OMB in March 1998. This revised burden summary estimates the SSO and CSO respondent burdens to be 62,144 hours and 5,184 hours, respectively. The SSO burden is based on an estimated 41,087 SSO events per year and the associated DMR, 24 hour and 5 day reports. The CSO burden is based on an estimated 3,840 events per year and the associated DMR, 24 hour and 5 day reports. For further explanation of the assumptions used to arrive at these burden estimates, see the 1998 Summary of Revised Burden Estimate for SSO/ Unpermitted CSO Reporting. Note: EPA is in the process of revising these burden estimates as part of an SSO rulemaking effort.

6. a. 8 Certification and BMP Plan Development Pursuant to 40 CFR Part 435 With regard to use of Best Management Practices ( BMPs) under Part 435 to control nonaqueous drilling fluids ( NAFs), EPA also estimates that each SBF well drilling facility will drill, on average, three SBF wells per year ( Johnston, 2000). Therefore the annual number of SBF wells per year is 204 [ i. e., ( 68 fac./ year) x ( 3 SBF wells/ fac.) = 204 SBF wells/ year]. The duration of this ICR is three years. The maximum number of potential respondents over the three year time frame is 68, as operators may elect not to use the BMP alternative to reduce SBF cuttings monitoring. EPA also estimates that no drilling operations in offshore California will use SBFs ( Henry, 2000). EPA is also promulgating a zero discharge requirement for SBF cuttings in Coastal Cook Inlet, Alaska with an exemption for those operators that are technically unable to perform zero discharge operations for their SBF cuttings. EPA estimates that Coastal Cook Inlet operators will be able to perform zero discharge based on current technical capabilities. Therefore, EPA estimates no additional respondents in either offshore California or Cook Inlet, Alaska.

Exhibit 7. Number of SBF Facilities Affected by ICR Burden Estimate Rig Type Number Shallow Water Rigs: Jackup Rigs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Platform Rigs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SUBTOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Shallow Water Rigs using SBFs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 69 185 ( 185)( 0.14) = 26 Deep Water Rigs: Floating Rigs ( Semi submersible and Drill Ships) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Deep Water Rigs using SBFs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 42 TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Sources: Angelle and Scott, 2000 and Rigzone, February 2004 DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 35 March 26, 2004 EPA expects that virtually all SBF cuttings discharges will take place in offshore areas ( i. e., Federal waters). EPA estimates that SBF cuttings discharges in Coastal Cook Inlet, Alaska, will be a rare occurrence due to technical limitations prohibiting operators from performing zero discharge. EPA has not yet delegated NPDES permitting authority to the State of Alaska. There are four EPA Regions ( i. e., Regions 4, 6, 9 and 10) estimated to be impacted by the BMP ICR requirements.

Operators are assumed to use specialty contractors to assist them in developing their BMP Plans. These specialty contractors are expected to perform site screening analyzes and summarize their findings for operators. After consultation with operators, the contractors are expected to prepare a draft BMP Plan for operators to review, modify, and certify. Contractor labor hours dedicated to the development, review, and certification of the BMP Plan are estimated to be 150 hours per facility. For all contractor hours, 75 percent is engineering labor ($ 65/ hr) and 25 percent is senior management labor ($ 100/ hr).

Facility engineering labor hours dedicated to the development, review, and certification of the BMP Plan are estimated to be 100 hours per facility. For all in hours facility hours, 75 percent is engineering labor ($ 65/ hr) and 25 percent is senior management labor ($ 100/ hr).

The facility burden and cost estimates for amendment and review of the BMP Plan, reporting, monitoring, record keeping, and training BMP requirements are detailed in this section. Tables 4, 5, and 6 in Appendix B summarize all burden and cost estimates for the BMP Plan alternative.

Annual facility labor estimates are 30 hours per facility. For all in house facility hours for BMP Plan amendment and review, 75 percent is engineering labor ($ 65/ hr) and 25 percent is senior management labor ($ 100/ hr).

EPA estimates that there are three SBF spills per SBF well and that each spill requires 4 hours of labor for reporting and documenting the spill details. Therefore, the annual burden per SBF facility is 36 hours: [ i. e., ( 3 SBF spills / SBF well)( 4 hr / SBF spill)( 3 SBF wells / SBF fac.) = 36 hours / SBF fac.]. In house engineering labor ($ 65/ hr) is expected to complete each SBF spill report.

Two elements of the SBF BMPs require additional monitoring and reporting. These elements are:

S The establishment of operating and maintenance procedures for solids control equipment: 3 hr/ day, and S Daily retort analyses: 3 hr/ day.

EPA assumes that equipment operators ($ 20/ hr) perform these additional monitoring and reporting requirements. The total industry burden for additional monitoring and reporting requirement is 36,720 hours: [ i. e., ( 204 SBF wells / yr)( 1 month / SBF well)( 30 days / month)( 3 hr / day + 3 hr / day) = 36,720 hr], where 3 hours per day are spent on identifying, documenting, and repairing leaking SBF equipment and 3 hours per day are spent on daily retort analyses. DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 36 March 26, 2004 Estimates are based on 2 hours per month for operators/ shift supervisors over current shift log record keeping ($ 20/ hr), 2 hours per month for engineering technicians ($ 65/ hr), and 2 hours per month for clerical support ($ 15/ hr). Therefore the total burden is estimated at 1,206 hours per year: [ i. e., ( 204 SBF wells/ year)( 1 month/ SBF well)( 6 hours/ month) = 1,224 hours/ year]. Applying the labor rates above, the total cost across the industry per year is $ 40,800 for this record keeping.

EPA estimates that re fresher training takes place twice a year and each training session is 4 hours long. Each training session includes nine operators ($ 20/ hr) and one consultant acting as trainer ($ 65/ hr). The total annual burden per SBF facility for refresher training is 72 hours of operator effort and 8 hours of consultant effort. Therefore the total burden across the industry is 5,440 hours and $ 133,280.

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

! This ICR estimates the private industry hourly rate based on the wages and salary values for all workers in private industry given in " Table 5. Private Industry, by major industry group" of the U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. The total hourly compensation rate for all workers in the goods producing industry in September 2003 dollars is $ 26.79. This rate is adjusted to account for fully loaded labor rates ( 50%) for a per hour rate of $ 40.19.

! This ICR estimates the municipal POTW employee hourly rate in September 2003 dollars to be $ 33.62 based on wages and salary values provided in " Table 3. State and local government, by selected characteristics" of the U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

! This ICR estimates the State employee hourly rate based on an overall wage and salary value for State and local government workers given in " Table 3. State and local government, by selected characteristics" of the U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. The total hourly compensation rate for all workers in State and local governments in September 2003 dollars is $ 33.62 per hour.

Labor costs for Part 435 certification are in Appendix A due to their distinct breakout. Exhibit 8 shows the estimated cost of recordkeeping and reporting for the compliance assessment activities discussed in this ICR. EPA estimates that the total annual cost is $ 62,777,658 for recordkeeping and $ 5,032,350 for reporting for a total respondent cost of $ 67,810,008.

Respondent costs associated with use of BMPs under Part 435 to control NAFs are described in section 6. a. 8 above. DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 37 March 26, 2004 6. c Estimating Agency Burden and Cost Government workers must enter the compliance assessment data into EPA's Permit Compliance System ( PCS) and file the data in the permittee's official file. In some cases, the government must also perform substantive follow up. The compliance assessment requirements accounted for in this ICR affect the Federal government and the State government, depending on which entity is the permitting authority. Forty five States and one Territory are authorized currently to administer the NPDES program. Five States are currently authorized to administer State sludge management programs. In addition, EPA expects additional States to obtain full or partial State sludge programs during the life of this ICR or an annual average of six States with sludge program approval. As this happens, the burden should remain the same, but some of it will shift from the Federal to State government. The costs to State and Federal governments associated with processing and analyzing compliance assessment information are a function of three factors: 1) the number of compliance reports received by State and Federal governments, 2) the time it takes to process and analyze those reports and, 3) the salary and overhead costs associated with the time the State and Federal workers spend processing and analyzing the reports.

! Estimates of government costs associated with this ICR have been prepared using Federal Salary Table 2003 GS. The 2003 annual salary for a Federal GS 9, Step 10 employee is $ 46,175. At 2,080 labor hours per year, the hourly rate is $ 22.20. Overhead costs for Federal employees are expected to be 50 percent, or $ 11.10, yielding a total hourly rate of $ 33.30.

The estimated burden and costs to the government ( State and Federal) for handling and reviewing compliance assessment information, as discussed in this ICR, are presented in Exhibits 9 and 10. EPA estimates that the government will spend approximately 64,823 hours reviewing compliance assessment information each year. Of the total government burden, 46,784 hours will be spent by State governments and 18,039 hours will be spent by the Federal government.

As presented in Exhibit 10, the total annual government cost is estimated to be $ 2,084,306. Of this total government cost, $ 1,526,227 will be borne by State governments, while $ 558,079 will be borne by the Federal government.

With regard to use of BMPs under Part 435 to control NAFs, Appendix B presents eight tables of burden and cost estimates, organized into three categories: Initial Burden and Costs ( Tables 1 3); Recurring Annual Burden and Costs ( Tables 4 6); and Summary Burden and Costs ( Tables 7 8). EPA estimates the initial burden to EPA Regional NPDES permitting authorities to be 8 hours per facility for preparation of NPDES permit provisions and an annual burden of 3 hours for reviewing ( e. g., annual or semi annual) monitoring reports and conducting compliance reviews. The cost of this burden is estimated to be $ 33.30 per hour based on recent estimates of government labor rates. DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 38 March 26, 2004 6. c. 1 Recordkeeping Recordkeeping costs for the government are incorporated into the burden for each of the components discussed below and are not reported separately in this ICR.

6. c. 2 Compliance Schedule Reports EPA estimates that the government requires 0.25 hours to review each compliance schedule report submitted by permittees who are in compliance. See Section 6. a. 2 for a discussion of how many permittees are estimated to be required to submit compliance schedules. As shown in Exhibit 9, a total of 7,172 respondents are expected to submit reports each year. As explained in Section 6. a. 2., a respondent is expected to submit an average of 1.5 reports per year. The burden equates to approximately 0.4 hours per year per respondent ( 1.5 reports per year at 0.25 hours per report). Of the 7,172 reporting facilities, 6,382 are expected to report to State governments, while 790 are expected to report to the Federal government. DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 39 March 26, 2004 Exhibit 8. Annual Respondent Recordkeeping and Reporting Cost Item/ Type of Respondent Total Annual Respondent Burden ( Hrs.) ( A) Respondent Labor Cost Per Hour ( B) Total Annual Respondent Cost [( A) x ( B)]

Recordkeeping Major Municipal Permittees 24,750 $ 33.62 $ 832,095 Major Non Municipal Permittees 14,640 $ 40.19 $ 588,382 Minor Municipal Permittees 12,786 $ 33.62 $ 429,865 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 41,165 $ 40.19 $ 1,654,421 Storm Water General Permittees   Industrial 608,058 $ 40.19 $ 24,437,851 Storm Water General Permittees   Construction 815,316 $ 40.19 $ 32,767,550 Other General Permittees 51,443 $ 40.19 $ 2,067,494 SUBTOTAL 1,568,158 $ 62,777,658 Compliance Schedule Reports Major Municipal Permittees 3,481 $ 33.62 $ 117,031 Major Non Municipal Permittees 2,059 $ 40.19 $ 82,751 Minor Municipal Permittees 600 $ 33.62 $ 20,172 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 1,929 $ 40.19 $ 77,527 Sludge Permit Conditions Compliance Schedule Reports POTWs 150 $ 33.62 $ 5,043 PrOTWs 48 $ 40.19 $ 1,929 SUBTOTAL 8,267 $ 304,453 Noncompliance Reports Unanticipated Bypass/ Upset Report Verbal Reports Major Municipal Permittees 3,095 $ 33.62 $ 104,054 Major Non Municipal Permittees 1,830 $ 40.19 $ 73,548 Minor Municipal Permittees 2,665 $ 33.62 $ 89,597 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 8,575 $ 40.19 $ 344,629 Written Reports Major Municipal Permittees 928 $ 33.62 $ 31,199 Major Non Municipal Permittees 550 $ 40.19 $ 22,105 Minor Municipal Permittees 800 $ 33.62 $ 26,896 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 2,572 $ 40.19 $ 103,369 SUBTOTAL 21,015 $ 795,397 DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 40 Exhibit 8. Annual Respondent Recordkeeping and Reporting Cost Item/ Type of Respondent Total Annual Respondent Burden ( Hrs.) ( A) Respondent Labor Cost Per Hour ( B) Total Annual Respondent Cost [( A) x ( B)]

March 26, 2004 Maximum Daily Violation Report Verbal Reports Major Municipal Permittees 3,714 $ 33.62 $ 124,865 Major Non Municipal Permittees 2,196 $ 40.19 $ 88,257 Minor Municipal Permittees 1,599 $ 33.62 $ 53,758 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 5,145 $ 40.19 $ 206,778 Storm Water Permittees 6,840 $ 40.19 $ 274,900 Written Reports Major Municipal Permittees 1,240 $ 33.62 $ 41,689 Major Non Municipal Permittees 732 $ 40.19 $ 29,419 Minor Municipal Permittees 534 $ 33.62 $ 17,953 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 1,716 $ 40.19 $ 68,966 Storm Water Permittees 2,280 $ 40.19 $ 91,633 SUBTOTAL 25,996 $ 998,218 Other Noncompliance Reports Major Municipal Permittees 415 $ 33.62 $ 13,952 Major Non Municipal Permittees 245 $ 40.19 $ 9,847 Minor Municipal Permittees 535 $ 33.62 $ 17,987 Minor Non Municipal Permittees 1,715 $ 40.19 $ 68,926 Sludge Permit Conditions   Noncompliance Reports POTWs 161 $ 33.62 $ 5,413 PrOTWs 52 $ 40.19 $ 2,090 SUBTOTAL 3,123 $ 118,215 Notice of Alternate Level of Production 0 $ 40.19 $ 0 Section 308( a) Letters 9,600 $ 33.30 $ 319,680 Pollution Prevention Alternative Pesticides Packaging and Repackaging 1,080 $ 40.19 $ 43,405 DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 41 Exhibit 8. Annual Respondent Recordkeeping and Reporting Cost Item/ Type of Respondent Total Annual Respondent Burden ( Hrs.) ( A) Respondent Labor Cost Per Hour ( B) Total Annual Respondent Cost [( A) x ( B)]

March 26, 2004 Certifications Pesticides Packaging and Repackaging 163 $ 40.19 $ 6,551 Aluminum Forming 57 $ 40.19 $ 2,291 Coil Coating 76 $ 40.19 $ 3,054 Can Making ( subcategory of coil coating) 14 $ 40.19 $ 563 Porcelain Enameling 27 $ 40.19 $ 1,085 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 39 $ 40.19 $ 1,567 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard 43 $ 40.19 $ 1,728 Building Paper and Board Mills 131 $ 40.19 $ 5,265 Steam Electric 1,029 $ 40.19 $ 41,356 Electroplating 0 $ 40.19 $ 0 Metal Finishing 3,048 $ 40.19 $ 122,499 Electrical and Electronic Components 86 $ 40.19 $ 3,456 SUBTOTAL 4,713 $ 189,415 SSO Reporting 62,144 $ 33.62 $ 2,089,281 Unpermitted CSO Reporting 5,184 $ 33.62 $ 174,286 TOTAL 1,709,280 $ 67,810,008 * Part 435 burden and costs are presented in Exhibit 12 detailed in Appendix B. DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 42 March 26, 2004 Exhibit 9. Annual Burden to State and Federal Governments as Users of Data Item/ Type of Respondent Respondents per Year Hrs. per Response Total Annual Burden ( Hrs.)

State Federal State Federal Total Recordkeeping 0 0 0 0 0 0 Compliance Schedule Reports Total Permittees 6,382 790 0.4 2,553 316 2,869 Noncomplying Permittees 1,276 158 6.0 7,656 948 8,604 Sludge Permittees 7 125 0.5 4 63 67 SUBTOTAL 7,665 1,073 10,213 1,327 11,540 Noncompliance Reports Unanticipated Bypass/ Upset Report Verbal Notification 2,975 257 1.0 2,975 257 3,232 Written Report 2,231 193 2.0 4,462 386 4,848 Federal Assistance to States N/ A 112 2.0 N/ A 224 224 Immediate Action 744 64 2.0 1,488 128 1,616 Additional Federal Review N/ A 260 2.0 N/ A 520 520 SUBTOTAL 5,950 886 8,925 1,515 10,440 Maximum Daily Violation Report Verbal Notification 2,975 257 1.0 2,975 257 3,232 Written Report 1,488 129 2.0 2,976 258 3,234 Federal Assistance to States N/ A 74 2.0 N/ A 148 148 Immediate Action 744 64 2.0 1,488 128 1,616 Additional Federal Review N/ A 223 2.0 N/ A 446 446 SUBTOTAL 5,207 747 7,439 1,237 8,676 Other Noncompliance Reports NPDES Permittee Reports 963 67 2.0 1,926 134 2,060 Additional Federal Review N/ A 48 1.0 N/ A 48 48 Sludge Permittee Reports 2 39 0.3 1 12 13 SUBTOTAL 965 154 1,927 194 2,121 Notice of Alternate Level of Production 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 Section 308( a) Letters N/ A 1,200 8.0 0 9,600 9,600 Pollution Prevention Alternative Pesticides Packaging and Repackaging N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 43 Exhibit 9. Annual Burden to State and Federal Governments as Users of Data Item/ Type of Respondent Respondents per Year Hrs. per Response Total Annual Burden ( Hrs.)

State Federal State Federal Total March 26, 2004 Certifications Pesticides Packaging and Repackaging 161 2 1.0 161 2 163 Aluminum Forming 52 5 1.0 52 5 57 Coil Coating 71 5 1.0 71 5 76 Can Making ( subcategory of coil coating) 11 2 1.0 11 2 13 Porcelain Enameling 21 6 1.0 21 6 27 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 35 4 1.0 35 4 39 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard 196 21 0.2 39 4 43 Building Paper and Board Mills 108 23 1.0 108 23 131 Steam Electric 916 113 1.0 916 113 1,029 Electroplating 0 0 2.0 0 0 0 Metal Finishing 1,454 70 2.0 2,908 140 3,048 Electrical and Electronic Components 40 4 2.0 80 8 88 SUBTOTAL 3,065 255 4,402 312 4,714 SSO Reporting N/ A N/ A N/ A 9,654 2,413 12,067 Unpermitted CSO Reporting N/ A N/ A N/ A 4,224 1,056 5,280 Part 435 Certification Oil & Gas Extraction* 0 68 N/ A 0 385 385 TOTALS 22,852 4,383 46,784 18,039 64,823 Annual burden hours reflect updated burden estimates for SSOs and unpermitted CSOs from the 1998 Summary of Revised Burden Estimates. Total number of respondents do not include SSO/ unpermitted CSO estimates. * Initial and annual burden. DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 44 March 26, 2004 Exhibit 10. Annual Costs to State and Federal Governments as Users of Data Item/ Type of Respondent Annual Burden ( Hrs.) Agency Labor Cost/ Hour Annual Cost State Federal State Federal State Federal Total Recordkeeping 0 0 $ 33.62 $ 33.30 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Compliance Schedule Reports Total Permittees 2,553 316 $ 33.62 $ 33.30 $ 85,832 $ 10,523 $ 96,355 Non complying Permittees 7,656 948 $ 33.62 $ 33.30 $ 257,395 $ 31,568 $ 288,963 Sludge Permittees 4 63 $ 33.62 $ 33.30 $ 134 $ 2,098 $ 2,232 SUBTOTAL 10,213 1,327 $ 33.62 $ 33.30 $ 343,361 $ 44,189 $ 387,550 Noncompliance Reports Unanticipated Bypass/ Upset Report Verbal Notification 2,975 257 $ 33.62 $ 33.30 $ 100,019 $ 8,558 $ 108,578 Written Report 4,462 386 $ 33.62 $ 33.30 $ 150,012 $ 12,854 $ 162,866 Federal Assistance to States N/ A 224 $ 33.62 $ 33.30 N/ A $ 7,459 $ 7,459 Immediate Action 1,488 128 $ 33.62 $ 33.30 $ 50,027 $ 4,262 $ 54,289 Additional Federal Review N/ A 520 $ 33.62 $ 33.30 N/ A $ 17,316 $ 17,316 SUBTOTAL 8,925 1,515 $ 33.62 $ 33.30 $ 300,059 $ 50,450 $ 350,508 Maximum Daily Violation Report Verbal Notification 2,975 257 $ 33.62 $ 30.36 $ 100,019 $ 7,803 $ 107,822 Written Report 2,976 258 $ 33.62 $ 30.36 $ 100,053 $ 7,833 $ 107,886 Federal Assistance to States N/ A 148 $ 33.62 $ 30.36 N/ A $ 4,493 $ 4,493 Immediate Action 1,488 128 $ 33.62 $ 30.36 $ 50,027 $ 3,886 $ 53,913 Additional Federal Review N/ A 446 $ 33.62 $ 30.36 N/ A $ 13,541 $ 13,541 SUBTOTAL 7,439 1,237 $ 33.62 $ 30.36 $ 250,099 $ 37,555 $ 287,655 Other Noncompliance Reports NPDES Permittee Reports 1,926 134 $ 33.62 $ 30.36 $ 64,752 $ 4,068 $ 68,820 Additional Federal Review N/ A 48 $ 33.62 $ 30.36 N/ A $ 1,457 $ 1,457 Sludge Permittee Reports 1 12 $ 33.62 $ 30.36 $ 34 $ 364 $ 398 SUBTOTAL 1,927 194 $ 33.62 $ 30.36 $ 64,786 $ 5,890 $ 70,676 Notice of Alternate Level of Production 0 0 $ 33.62 $ 30.36 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Section 308( a) Letters N/ A 9,600 $ 33.62 $ 30.36 $ 0 $ 291,456 $ 291,456 Pollution Prevention Alternative Pesticides Packaging and Repackaging N/ A N/ A $ 33.62 $ 30.36 N/ A N/ A N/ A Certifications Pesticides Packaging and Repackaging 161 2 $ 33.62 $ 33.30 $ 5,361 $ 67 $ 5,428 Aluminum Forming 52 5 $ 33.62 $ 33.30 $ 1,732 $ 167 $ 1,898 Coil Coating 71 5 $ 33.62 $ 33.30 $ 2,364 $ 167 $ 2,531 Can Making ( subcategory of coil coating) 11 2 $ 33.62 $ 33.30 $ 366 $ 67 $ 433 DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 45 Exhibit 10. Annual Costs to State and Federal Governments as Users of Data Item/ Type of Respondent Annual Burden ( Hrs.) Agency Labor Cost/ Hour Annual Cost State Federal State Federal State Federal Total March 26, 2004 Porcelain Enameling 21 6 $ 33.62 $ 33.30 $ 699 $ 200 $ 899 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 35 4 $ 33.62 $ 33.30 $ 1,166 $ 133 $ 1,299 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard 39 4 $ 33.62 $ 33.30 $ 1,299 $ 133 $ 1,432 Building Paper and Board Mills 108 23 $ 33.62 $ 33.30 $ 3,596 $ 766 $ 4,362 Steam Electric 916 113 $ 33.62 $ 33.30 $ 30,503 $ 3,763 $ 34,266 Electroplating 0 0 $ 33.62 $ 33.30 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Metal Finishing 2,908 140 $ 33.62 $ 33.30 $ 96,836 $ 4,662 $ 101,498 Electrical and Electronic Components 80 8 $ 33.62 $ 33.30 $ 2,664 $ 266 $ 2,930 SUBTOTAL 4,402 312 $ 146,587 $ 10,390 $ 156,976 SSO Reporting 9,654 2,413 $ 33.62 $ 30.36 $ 293,095 $ 73,259 $ 366,354 Unpermitted CSO Reporting 4,224 1,056 $ 33.62 $ 30.36 $ 128,241 $ 32,060 $ 160,301 Part 435 Certification Oil & Gas Extraction* 0 385 $ 0 $ 12,831 $ 12,831 TOTALS 46,784 18,402 $ 1,526,227 $ 558,079 $ 2,084,306 * Part 435 labor costs are presented in Appendix A.

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

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

Exhibit 9 shows that the total annual burden to the State government for compliance schedule reporting activities is 10,213 hours while the total annual burden to the Federal government is 1,327 hours. Exhibit 10 shows that the costs to State and Federal governments for compliance schedule activities are $ 343,361 and $ 44,189, respectively. DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 46 March 26, 2004 6. c. 3 Noncompliance Reports 24 Hour Report of Unanticipated Upset or Bypass EPA estimates that 1 hour is required for the government to receive and process each verbal noncompliance notice, and 2 hours are required for the government to receive and process each written noncompliance report. As discussed in Section 6.1, approximately 75 percent of those permittees that must submit verbal reports are also required to submit written reports. EPA anticipates that the remaining 25 percent will have their written report requirement waived. In addition, it is estimated that 2 hours are required for immediate action to mitigate the problem for 25 percent of the responses. Also, an additional Federal burden is calculated ( estimated to be 5 percent of the number of written reports submitted to States) for a portion of the responses that are submitted to States which need Federal assistance.

It is estimated that 5 percent ( 112) of the 2,231 written responses submitted to States will incur an additional 2 hours of Federal burden per response. In addition, 5 percent ( 260) of the 5,206 verbal and written State responses will need 2 hours additional Federal review time after the State response.

As shown in Exhibit 9, 2,975 State permittees and 257 Federal permittees are expected to submit one verbal report of noncompliance per year. Of these, 75 percent ( 2,231 State and 193 Federal) are expected to submit a written report. In addition, 808 respondents ( 744 State and 64 Federal) are expected to require immediate action to mitigate a problem.

As shown in Exhibit 9, the resulting annual burden for noncompliance reports to State and Federal governments are 8,925 and 1,515 hours, respectively. As shown in Exhibit 10, the annual costs to State and Federal governments are $ 300,059 and $ 50,450, respectively.

24 Hour Report of Violation of Maximum Daily Discharge EPA estimates that 1 hour is required for the government to receive and process each verbal violation notice and 2 hours are required to receive and process each written violation report. As mentioned earlier, in 50 percent of the cases the requirement for the written report is waived. In addition, 2 hours are estimated for immediate action to mitigate the problem for 25 percent of the verbal and written responses.

As shown in Exhibit 9, State governments and the Federal government will handle verbal notices of violation from 2,975 and 257 respondents, respectively. Fifty percent of the respondents submitting verbal notices of violation will be required to submit written reports resulting in States and the Federal government handling 1,488 and 129 written responses, respectively.

In addition, a total of 744 and 64 respondents will require immediate action to mitigate a problem from States or the Federal government, respectively. Also, an additional Federal DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 47 March 26, 2004 burden is calculated for a portion of the responses that are submitted to States which need Federal assistance. It is estimated that 5 percent of written responses submitted to States, or 74 responses, will require an additional 2 hours of Federal burden per response. In addition, 223, or 5 percent of the total responses submitted to States ( 2,975 verbal and 1,488 written), will result in 2 hours of additional Federal review time after the State response.

As shown in Exhibit 9, annual burden from this activity to State governments and Federal government is 7,439 and 1,237 hours, respectively. As shown in Exhibit 10, the annual costs to States and the Federal government are $ 250,099 and $ 37,555, respectively.

Other Noncompliance It is estimated that an average of 2 hours is required for the government to receive and process each report. EPA expects 2 percent ( 131) of the 6,565 major permittees and 1 percent ( 450) of the 44,959 minor permittees to submit 1 report per year. As shown in Exhibit 9, this results in States and the Federal governments handling 963 and 67 annual responses, respectively. Also, 2 hours are required for additional Federal assistance to 5 percent ( 48) of the 963 State responses.

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

Exhibit 9 shows that the estimated annual burden to States and the Federal government for handling other noncompliance reports are 1,927 and 194 hours, respectively. Exhibit 10 shows that the estimated annual costs to States and the Federal governments for this activity are $ 64,786 and $ 5,890, respectively.

Exhibit 11 presents the total annual burden from noncompliance reports to the States and the Federal government. These numbers do not include the burden associated with SSO and CSO reporting, which can be found in Exhibit 10.

6. c. 4 Notice of Alternative Level of Actual Production As discussed earlier, EPA expects no burden to respondents from this requirement. DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 48 March 26, 2004 6. c. 5 Section 308( a) Letters The Federal government is the sole recipient of each of these responses. It is estimated that 8 hours are required for the Federal government to issue the letter, review the response, and evaluate the need for additional enforcement action for each response. As shown in Table 9, it is expected that 1,200 letters will be processed annually. This will result in an annual burden of 9,600 hours and $ 291,456 in costs to the Federal government ( see Table 10).

6. c. 6 Certification for Exemption From Monitoring and Notification of Process Changes Review of certifications are estimated to take 1 hour per certification and occur annually, except those for pulp, paper, and paperboard facilities. These facilities are required to submit certifications once per permit cycle. The electroplating, metal finishing, and electric and electronic components facilities must submit semiannual certifications. The certification, pollution prevention alternative and process change activities are estimated, as shown in Table 9, to involve 3,065 annual responses to States and 255 annual responses to the Federal government, resulting in a total annual burden of 4,402 hours for the States and 312 hours for the Federal government ( see Exhibit 9). The annual costs to the States and the Federal government for these activities are $ 146,587 and $ 10,390, respectively ( see Exhibit 10). Activity/ Facility Type Total Annual Burden ( Hrs.)

Unanticipated Bypass/ Upset Report NPDES Facilities ( State) 8,925 NPDES Facilities ( Federal) 1,515 Maximum Daily Violation Report NPDES Facilities ( State) 7,439 NPDES Facilities ( Federal) 1,237 Other Noncompliance Reports NPDES Facilities ( State) 1,926 NPDES Facilities ( Federal) 182 Sludge Facilities ( State) 1 Sludge Facilities ( Federal) 12 Total Annual Government Burden:

State Government 18,291 Federal Government 2,946 TOTAL 21,237 Exhibit 11. State and Federal Burden for Noncompliance Reports DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 49 March 26, 2004 6. c. 7 SSO and Unpermitted CSO Reporting The Summary of Revised Burden Estimate for SSO/ Unpermitted CSO Reporting estimates the government burden associated with SSOs and CSOs to be 12,067 hours and 5,280 hours, respectively. The SSO burden is based on an estimated 41,087 SSO events per year where 95 percent of the reports are included as part of DMR reporting and 5 percent require 24 hour verbal reports. In addition, a portion of these events require written 5 day reports, immediate action, and additional review. The CSO burden is based on an estimated 3,840 events per year potentially requiring DMR reporting, verbal and written reports, immediate actions, and additional review. Government burden hours have been apportioned in Exhibit 8 between the State and Federal governments based on the number of delegated ( 45) to non delegated ( 5) States.

6. c. 8 Certification of BMPs Under part 435 With regard to the use of BMPs under Part 435 to control NAFs, EPA estimates the public reporting ( i. e., all information collection) burden for the selected BMP option as 787 hours per respondent per year [ i. e., ( 17,000 initial hours/ 3 years + 47,872 annual hours/ year) / 68 SBF well operators]. EPA also estimated the annual burden for EPA Regions, the NPDES permit controlling authorities, to review BMPs and ensure compliance. EPA estimates that essentially all of the SBF discharges will occur in Federal offshore waters or in Cook Inlet, Alaska, where EPA Region 10 retains NPDES permit controlling authority. The EPA Regional burden for reviewing BMP Plans is estimated at 385 hours per year [ i. e., ( 544 initial hours/ 3 years + 204 annual hours/ year)].

EPA estimates the public reporting costs as $ 24,058 per respondent per year [ i. e., ($ 1,253,666 initial costs/ 3 years + $ 1,218,050 annual costs/ year) / 68 SBF well operators]. The EPA Regional costs for reviewing BMP Plans is estimated at approximately $ 12,831 per year [ i. e., ($ 18,115 initial costs/ 3 years + $ 6,793 annual costs/ year)].

6. d Estimating the Respondent Universe Burden Hours and Costs Exhibit 12 presents the total annual burden hours and costs to respondents and the State government. It summarizes the burden and cost calculations previously presented in Exhibits 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10. Exhibit 12 . Respondent Burden and Costs Annual Burden ( Hrs.) Annual Costs Recordkeeping 1,568,158 $ 62,777,658 Reporting ( w/ o Part 435) 141,122 $ 5,032,350 Part 435 Certification 53,516 $ 1,635,944 Total for Respondents 1,762,796 $ 69,445,952 State Governments 46,784 $ 1,526,227 TOTAL 1,809,580 $ 70,972,179 DRAFT FINAL Compliance Assessment ICR Page 50 March 26, 2004 The annual burden for respondents is 1,809,580 hours and the annual burden to State governments is 46,784 hours.

6. e Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs The total annual bottom line burden hours and costs for respondents, States and the Federal government are 1,827,619 burden hours and $ 71,542,335. This is summarized in Exhibit 13 below.

Table 8 of Attachment B presents the bottom line initial and recurring burden hours and costs for respondents, States, and EPA for the use of BMPs under Part 435 to control NAFs.

6. f Reasons for Change in Burden Exhibit 14 presents the change in respondent burden for each information item covered by this ICR. As shown in Exhibit 14 the revised ICR estimates an increase in burden from 1,422,580 hours to 1,809,580 hours, or 27 percent. The primary reason for the increase is due to better estimates of and the increased number of general permittees required to keep records and report compliance activities. The changes in respondent burden are described below for each activity.