Draft ICR Supporting Statement
Information Collection Request for
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Program (Renewal)

OMB Control No. 2040-0004, EPA ICR No. 0229.22

                                   July 2017

                                 Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wastewater Management
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
                                 Drafted Under
        EPA Contract Number EP-C-11-009
EPA Work Assignment Number 5-22

                                Finalized Under
                        EPA Contract Number EP-C-16-003
                        EPA Work Assignment Number 0-22

Contents
A.	Justification	1
1.	Explain the circumstances that make the collection necessary and explain the legal or administrative requirements relevant to the collection and attach a copy of the statute or regulation authorizing the collection	1
1.1	Short Characterization/Abstract	1
1.2	Need/Authority for the Collection	2
2.	Indicate how, by whom and for what purpose the information is to be used	7
3.	Describe whether and to what extent the collection involves the use of automated processes or information technology to aid with the collection	15
4.	Describe the efforts to identify duplication	16
5.	Explain whether or not the collection impacts small entities	17
6.	Describe the consequences to the program if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently	20
7.	Explain any special circumstances associated with "extraordinary burden" placed on respondents	22
8.	Provide a copy and identify the date and page number of the notice in the Federal Register and describe efforts to consult with persons outside the agency	22
9.	Explain any decision to provide compensation to respondents	23
10.	Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents	23
11.	Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature	23
12.	Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information	23
13.	Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to respondents	24
14.	Provide an estimate of the annualized cost to the federal government	25
15.	Explain the reasons for adjustments reported in items 13 or 14 of OMB Form 83-I	25
16.	Outline any plans for tabulation and publication of the information	29
17.	Explain any requests to not display the expiration date of OMB approval	29
18.	Explain any exceptions to the certification statement 5 CFR 1320.9, "Agency Certifications for Proposed Collections of Information."	29
B.	Statistical Methods (Used for Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods)	29
Appendix A -- Description of the Information Collected and Methodology for Estimating Respondent Burden and Cost of Collection	31
A.1.	Estimating Respondent Burden	31
A.1.1.	Recordkeeping	32
A.1.2.	Individual Permits	32
A.1.3.	National Pretreatment Program	38
A.1.4.	Stormwater	42
A.1.5.	General Permits	43
A.1.6.	Animal Sector	49
A.1.7.	Cooling Water Intake Structures	51
A.1.8.	Other	56
A.1.9.	General State Activities	59
A.2. Estimating Respondent Costs	61
A.2.1. Estimating Labor Costs	61
A.2.2. Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs	62
A.2.3. Capital/Start-up Costs	66
Appendix B -- Detailed Respondent Burden Results by Category	68
Appendix C -- Detailed Agency Burden Estimates	69
Appendix D -- Number of Respondents in Each Input Category	70
Appendix E -- Number of Unique Respondents	71
Appendix F -- Copy of Regulation Authorizing Data Collection and Federal Register Notice	72
F.1	Clean Water Act Section 402	72
F.2	ICR Federal Register Notice	72
Appendix G -- Application Forms	73

A.	Justification
1.	Explain the circumstances that make the collection necessary and explain the legal or administrative requirements relevant to the collection and attach a copy of the statute or regulation authorizing the collection
1.1	Short Characterization/Abstract
This consolidated Information Collection Request (ICR) renews the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program ICR. It calculates the burden and costs associated with the NPDES program, identifies the types of activities regulated under the NPDES program, describes the roles and responsibilities of state governments and the Agency, and presents the program areas that address the various types of regulated activities.
The ICR being renewed (Office of Management and Budget [OMB] control no. 2040-0004, EPA ICR no. 0229.21, expiration date 12/31/2017) was submitted in December 2015. It consolidated the burden and costs associated with activities previously reported in 11 of the NPDES program or NPDES-related ICRs administered by EPA's Water Permits Division. This renewal documents the addition of the burden and costs for seven more NPDES programs, raising the total to 18. Those programs were previously addressed by the following separate ICRs:
 Consolidated Animal Sectors (OMB control no. 2040-0250, EPA ICR no. 1989.09, expiration date 5/31/2019)
 Pesticide Applicators (OMB control no. 2040-0284, EPA ICR no. 2397.02, expiration date 3/31/2019)
 National Pretreatment Program (OMB control no. 2040-0009, EPA ICR no. 0002.15, expiration date 4/30/2019)
 Cooling Water Intake Structures Phase I -- New Facilities (OMB control no. 2040-0241, EPA ICR no. 1973.06, expiration date 11/30/2019)
 Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase III Facilities (OMB control no. 2040-0268, EPA ICR no. 2169.05, expiration date 07/31/2017)
 Cooling Water Intake Structures Existing Facilities (OMB control no. 2040-0257, EPA ICR no. 2060.07, expiration date 10/31/2017)
 NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (OMB control no. 2020-0035, EPA ICR no. 2468.02, expiration date 1/31/2019)
The objective of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters (CWA section 101). The NPDES program, established under CWA section 402, is an important tool for controlling pollutant discharges. The CWA authorizes the Agency to issue permits for the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States; the Agency uses the NPDES program to regulate point source discharges. CWA section 402(b) allows states (defined to include Indian tribes and U.S. territories) to acquire authority for the NPDES program, enabling them to issue and administer NPDES permits. At present, 46 states and the U.S. Virgin Islands are authorized to administer the NPDES permit program. In states that do not have authority for these programs, the Agency administers the program and issues NPDES permits. Because some permit applications are processed by states and some by EPA, this ICR calculates government burden and cost for both authorized states and EPA. See Appendix F.1 for a copy of the authorizing regulation.
1.2	Need/Authority for the Collection
General Description of the NPDES Program
CWA section 402(a) establishes the NPDES program to regulate the discharge of any pollutant from point sources into waters of the United States. Section 402(a) of the CWA, as amended, authorizes the EPA Administrator to issue permits for the discharge of pollutants if those discharges meet:
      All applicable requirements of CWA sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, and 403; or
      Any conditions the Administrator determines are necessary to carry out the provisions and objectives of the CWA.
The initial step in ensuring that the permits are adequately protective of those requirements is the permit application process. In particular, CWA section 402(a)(2) requires EPA to prescribe permit conditions to ensure compliance with requirements "including conditions on data and information collection, reporting and such other requirements as [the Administrator] deemed appropriate." EPA's application forms require applicants to submit data that help determine what those permit conditions should be.
The CWA also establishes an administrative framework for the NPDES permitting program. As noted above, CWA section 402(b) authorizes states (which include U.S. territories and Indian tribes that have been authorized in the same manner as a state) to administer the NPDES program once EPA is assured that they meet minimum federal requirements. Authorizations vary by program. Table 1.1 summarizes the number of states authorized for each major program element. Authorized states are considered permitting authorities and are responsible for issuing, administering, and enforcing permits for most point source discharges within their borders. In states without authorized NPDES programs, EPA is the permitting authority and undertakes all permitting activities, although CWA section 401 requires states to certify that EPA-issued NPDES permits establish "effluent limitations...and monitoring requirements necessary to assure that any applicant...will comply with any applicable effluent limitations and other limitations [pursuant to the CWA] and with any other appropriate requirement of state law..." (States, tribes, and U.S. territories may waive their right to certify permits.) CWA section 510 provides that states, tribes, and territories may adopt requirements equal to or more stringent than standards established pursuant to CWA provisions.
Table 1.1 States with Program Authorization as of October 2016
Type
                                    Number
NPDES Base Permit Program
                                                                          47[a]
General Permits Program
                                                                          47[a]
Pretreatment Program
                                                                             36
Biosolids Program
                                                                              8
Federal Facilities
                                                                             43
[a]	Includes the U.S. Virgin Islands.
CWA section 405 prohibits the discharge of pollutants caused by the disposal of sewage sludge, except in accordance with an NPDES permit (or an authorized state permit issued to control such disposal of sewage sludge). It also establishes a comprehensive sewage sludge permitting program and requires EPA to develop technical criteria for controlling sewage sludge disposal and use. CWA section 405 allows states with sludge management authority to issue and modify permits that regulate the use and disposal of sewage sludge. EPA implements CWA section 405 through its NPDES biosolids program.
The 1987 Water Quality Act added a provision to the CWA -- section 402(p) -- that gives EPA the authority to permit stormwater discharges and identifies the applicable requirements, which in some instances are different from the requirements applicable to other NPDES permittees. The NPDES program requires permits for stormwater discharges from certain municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), industrial activities, and construction activities disturbing one acre or more.
The NPDES program procedures and requirements are codified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 122, 123, 124, and 125 (and Parts 501 and 503 for biosolids). EPA has developed its NPDES discharge, intake, and sewage sludge permit application requirements to ensure that the permitting authority obtains adequate information about applicants before it issues permits. Most application requirements are contained in forms developed by EPA. Table 2.1 in the next section provides an overview of the types of respondents required to submit NPDES application forms and identifies the form(s) that they must submit.
The specific monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for NPDES and biosolids permits are applicable to both EPA- and state-administered NPDES permit programs, NPDES permittees (including stormwater), and treatment works that treat, use, or dispose of sewage sludge. CWA section 308 gives EPA the authority to request this type of information from permittees. While these provisions establish EPA's authority and requirement to collect pollutant information, EPA has specific needs for collecting the data. These needs include the following:
      To provide information on pollutant discharge trends for performance measures;
      To provide information to permitting authorities to prioritize permit activities;
      To determine whether permittees are in compliance with their permit conditions; and
      To provide information to the permit writer to determine the need for, and develop, permit limits.
Provisions for permit modifications and variances from technology standards are found in CWA sections 301(c), (g), (h), (k), (n); 302(b); and 316(a). Additionally, 40 CFR 122.21, 122.24, 122.41, 122.42, 122.47, 122.62, 122.63, 122.64, 124.5, 125.3, and 501.15 give permitting authorities the flexibility to respond quickly and efficiently to the dynamic nature of facility operation, technology advancements, and regulatory changes.
Effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs) are national wastewater limitations that apply to specific categories of industrial dischargers. The regulations are promulgated by EPA under the authority of CWA sections 301, 304, 306, and 307 and implemented through NPDES permits. In some instances, EPA establishes requirements for permittees to provide certification to the permitting authority or develop pollution prevention plans to demonstrate compliance with certain aspects of the ELGs, often in lieu of monitoring for one or more pollutants. This ICR also integrates those certifications and planning documents.
Specific NPDES Program Areas
Some NPDES program areas have specific components that require unique data. These are described in greater detail below.
Stormwater. The NPDES stormwater program regulates some stormwater discharges from three potential sources: MS4s, construction activities, and industrial activities. CWA section 402(p) establishes the authority for EPA to permit stormwater discharges and identifies the applicable requirements, which in some instances are different from the requirements applicable to other NPDES permittees.
Combined sewer overflows (CSOs). CWA section 402(q) requires that permits, orders, and decrees that include discharges from combined sewer systems conform to the 1994 Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy (59 FR 18688, April 19, 1994). The information collection activities described in this ICR will provide the minimum data necessary for EPA to ensure that (1) all municipalities with combined sewer systems are developing and implementing CSO control programs that are consistent with the CSO Control Policy and (2) these CSO control programs will meet the requirements of the CWA and will achieve compliance with applicable state water quality standards (WQS).
Great Lakes. On November 16, 1990, Congress enacted the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act. Section 101 of this act amends section 118 of the CWA and directs EPA to publish water quality guidance for the Great Lakes System. Provisions of the Guidance are codified in 40 CFR Part 132. The Guidance establishes minimum water quality criteria, implementation procedures, and antidegradation provisions for the Great Lakes System.
Vessels. In 2008, in response to a court order removing a regulatory exclusion, EPA issued (and has subsequently reissued) the NPDES Vessel General Permit (VGP) covering discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel operating as a means of transportation ("incidental discharges"). Specifically, the VGP is available for (1) incidental discharges from vessels longer than 79 feet and (2) ballast water discharges from vessels of any size. The VGP defines effluent limits for multiple discharge categories and specifies certain practices for various vessel categories.
The types of vessels eligible for coverage under the VGP include, but are not limited to: cruise ships; ferries; barges; oil, petroleum, and chemical tankers; bulk carriers, container ships, and other cargo ships; refrigerant ships; research vessels; commercial fishing vessels; and emergency response vessels.
In 2014, EPA issued the Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) in anticipation of a requirement for non-military, non-recreational vessels shorter than 79 feet to obtain NPDES permit coverage for incidental discharges; however, Congress enacted legislation that extended the incidental discharge permitting moratorium (except for ballast water) for these smaller vessels and for commercial fishing vessels until December 2017. At present, the sVGP only applies to the control of ballast water from vessels shorter than 79 feet that were previously eligible for coverage under the VGP. These vessels now have the option of being covered under either the VGP or sVGP for their ballast water discharges. While this ICR includes the activities and burden estimates for the sVGP, EPA is assuming that vessels will not begin coverage under the sVGP until December 2017. At that time, small vessels and commercial fishing vessels will be required to obtain permit coverage for all their incidental discharges, not just for ballast water, and EPA expects eligible vessels to seek coverage under the sVGP rather than the more burdensome VGP. EPA acknowledges that some vessels shorter than 79 feet and covered under the VGP for ballast water discharges may opt to terminate coverage under the VGP before December 2017 and obtain coverage instead under the sVGP.
Deicing ELG. In 2012, EPA promulgated an ELG at 40 CFR Part 449 for airports that conduct deicing operations. Aircraft are deiced by the spraying of deicing fluids, which contain pollutants. Airports also apply airfield pavement deicing chemicals to runways, taxiways, and ramps. The rule requires airports to either certify that they are not using deicers containing urea for airfield pavement deicing or monitor their effluent and provide monitoring reports once a year. EPA anticipates that airports will discontinue urea use and prepare certification letters, because capturing and treating airfield runoff is considerably more expensive than discontinuing the use of urea.
Program Components Consolidated in This ICR
As mentioned above, this renewal incorporates into the consolidated ICR the burden and costs for several NPDES program components which were previously contained in separate ICRs. The remainder of this section describes those program components and their ICRs.
Pretreatment. The burden associated with the National Pretreatment Program, previously contained in a separate ICR (OMB control no. 2040-0009, EPA ICR no. 0002.15), is being incorporated into this ICR. EPA and authorized states implement the National Pretreatment Program on the basis of requirements first promulgated in the CWA in June 1978. The CWA requires EPA to develop regulations to establish responsibilities among federal, state, and local government; industry; and the public to implement pretreatment standards to control pollutants that pass through or interfere with the treatment processes of publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) or that might contaminate sewage sludge. The regulations have been revised numerous times since they were first published in 1978; currently, they consist of 20 sections and several appendices. The most recent revision, the Streamlining Rule (70 FR 60134), was published on October 14, 2005, and became effective November 14, 2005.
Consolidated animals sector. The burden associated with this sector, previously contained in a separate ICR (OMB control no. 2040-0250, EPA ICR no. 1989.09), is being incorporated into this ICR. On July 30, 2012, EPA published its most recent revisions to the NPDES concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) regulations (77 FR 44494). These revisions were necessary as a result of a 2011 decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in litigation relating to the NPDES CAFO permitting program (National Pork Producers Council v. EPA, 635 F.3d 738, 756 [5th Cir. 2011]). Although the decision narrowed the universe of CAFOs that need to seek NPDES permit coverage, the ELGs for CAFOs and other aspects of the permitting program remain unchanged. Under the terms of the NPDES program, CAFOs are defined as point sources (33 USC Section 1362). Under 33 USC Sections 1311 and 1342, a discharging CAFO must obtain an NPDES permit and comply with the terms of that permit, which may include appropriate conditions on data and information collection.
EPA's NPDES regulations also define when a hatchery, fish farm, or other facility is a concentrated aquatic animal production (CAAP) facility and, therefore, a point source subject to the NPDES permit program (40 CFR 122.24).
Pesticides. The burden associated with general permits for point source discharges from pesticide applications, previously contained in a separate ICR (OMB control no. 2040-0284; EPA ICR no. 2397.02), is being incorporated into this ICR. As a result of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal's decision in 2009 (National Cotton Council, et al., v. EPA), as of October 31, 2011, NPDES permits were required for discharges to waters of the United States from the application of biological pesticides and chemical pesticides that leave a residue. EPA estimates that the Sixth Circuit Court's ruling would affect about 365,000 pesticide applicators nationwide. Given the vast number of operators requiring NPDES permit coverage, EPA and NPDES-authorized states developed general permits for discharges from the application of pesticides. In October 2016, EPA issued the 2016 pesticide general permit (PGP), which contains the same requirements and provisions as the 2011 PGP it replaced. The 2016 PGP included updated versions of the general permit forms with no substantive changes to the currently approved collection.
Cooling water intake structures. Section 316(b) of the CWA provides that "[a]ny standard established pursuant to [CWA section 301] or [CWA section 306] and applicable to a point source shall require that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact."
The 316(b) New Facilities Final Rule (66 FR 65256; December 18, 2001) and minor amendments (68 FR 36749; June 19, 2003) implement section 316(b) as it applies to new facilities that use cooling water intake structures (CWISs). The burden associated with the CWIS New Facilities Rule, previously contained in a separate ICR (OMB control no. 2040-0241; EPA ICR no. 1973.06), is being incorporated into this ICR.
The 316(b) Phase III Facilities Final Rule (71 FR 35006; June 16, 2006) establishes requirements under Part 125, Subpart N, for new offshore oil and gas facilities that use CWISs. The burden associated with this rule, previously contained in a separate ICR (OMB control no. 2040-0268, EPA ICR no. 2169.05), is being incorporated into this ICR.
The 316(b) Existing Facilities Final Rule (79 FR 48300; August 15, 2014) implements section 316(b) as it applies to existing power generating and manufacturing facilities that use CWISs. The burden associated with this rule, previously contained in a separate ICR (OMB control no. 2040-0257; EPA ICR no. 2060.07), is being incorporated into this ICR.
Electronic reporting. On October 22, 2015, EPA published the final NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (80 FR 64063). The NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule replaces select existing paper-based reports with electronic reporting. The ongoing activities burden and burden reductions component associated with the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule, previously contained in a separate ICR (OMB control no. 2020-0035; EPA ICR no. 2468.02), are being incorporated into this ICR.
2.	Indicate how, by whom and for what purpose the information is to be used
This ICR includes information used primarily by permitting authorities, permittees, and EPA. EPA anticipates that other government agencies (both state and federal), as well as public interest groups, private companies, and individuals, will also use the data. Much of these data must be submitted to permitting authorities, while other information must be maintained on-site by the permittee. The information collection provisions associated with the NPDES program described in Section 1 include the following:
       Activities directly related to individual permit applications or notices of intent (NOIs) for coverage under general permits;
 Activities associated with plan development or special studies;
 Monitoring;
 Reporting, including certification;
 Recordkeeping;
 Activities resulting from compliance assessments or enforcement actions; and
 Activities resulting from NPDES program authorization, including modifications, transfer, or withdrawal of authorization.
Although different types of permittees submit widely differing information, this information can be categorized into two sets: identification information and information related to the facility's discharges or practices. Identification information is primarily collected through permit application forms, NOIs, certifications, and other application requirements. Information related to the facility's discharges or practices is most often collected through discharge monitoring reports but can also be included with submissions of application information, plans and studies, certification requests, inspection results, and other reports.
Application and identification information. Permitting authorities collect and use identification information -- such as the names, locations, and descriptions of facilities -- to uniquely identify each applicant seeking individual or general permit coverage and to establish a point of contact. This information varies in detail and scope according to the type of respondent. Discharges vary in complexity and character, indicating a need to collect a wide variety of information; however, discharges and activities from related industry groups or treatment works are often similar, allowing for common means of information collection. As a result, EPA has developed several different NPDES application forms. Table 2.1 lists the application forms and other application requirements and the respondents to the request. Standardized application forms covered under this ICR include Forms 1, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, 2F, and 2S and the Uniform Federal Transportation/Utility System Application Form (see Appendix G). EPA has proposed minor changes to Application Forms 1, 2A, 2B, 2C through 2F, and 2S. EPA has concluded that these proposed changes would not result in an increase in level of effort or information collection. A separate ICR covers these changes (EPA ICR no. 2529.01).
Table 2.1 Application Forms and Information Requests
Form/Request
Respondent Type
Form 1[a]
Nonmunicipal NPDES applicants not covered under Form 2B
Form 2A[a]
All POTWs
Additional NPDES Application Requirements for Municipal Dischargers (Section 308 Request)
Municipal facilities (i.e., POTWs)
Additional NPDES Application Requirements for Nonmunicipal Dischargers (Section 308 Requests)
Nonmunicipal facilities
Form 2B[a]
CAFOs and CAAP facilities
Form 2C[a]
Existing manufacturing, commercial, mining, and silvicultural operations that discharge process wastewater
Form 2D[a]
New manufacturing and commercial facilities that discharge process wastewater
Form 2E[a]
New or existing nonmunicipal facilities that discharge only non-process wastewater
Form 2F[a]
Industrial stormwater dischargers applying for an individual permit
Form 2S[a]
POTWs and other treatment works treating domestic sewage (covers sludge)
NOI -- Industrial Activity (NOI -- Stormwater)
Industrial stormwater dischargers applying for the Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP)
Application for Transportation and Utility Systems and Facilities on Federal Lands (Alaskan Lands Application)[a]
Builders and operators of transportation and utility projects on Alaskan public lands (substitutes for Forms 1, 2B, and 2C)
Application for Phase I Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s)
Phase I MS4s
Petitions for Stormwater Individual Permit Coverage
Small MS4 operators or any person requesting that an industrial facility discharging through an MS4 to obtain coverage under an individual permit
NOI -- State General Permits
Facility owners/operators applying under various state- or Regionally-issued general permits (e.g., CAFOs, CAAPs)
NOI -- Pesticide General Permit (PGP)a
Certain pesticide applicators applying under the PGP
NOI -- Vessels General Permit (VGP)[a]
Vessels applying under the VGP
NOI -- Small Vessels General Permit (sVGP)[a]
Vessels applying under the Small VGP
NOI -- Construction General Permit (CGP)[a]
Construction site owners/operators applying under the construction general permit
NOI -- MSGP[a]
Industrial facility owners/operators applying under the MSGP
Permit Consolidation Request
Facilities with multiple permits
Notification of Construction
Facilities classified as new sources
Ocean Discharge Information
Ocean dischargers
Notice of Termination (NOT) -- PGP[a]
Certain pesticide applicators applying under the PGP
NOT -- VGP[a]
Vessels covered under the VGP
NOT -- sVGP[a]
Vessels covered under the sVGP
NOT -- CGP[a]
Construction permittees covered under the CGP
NOT -- MSGP[a]
Industrial permittees covered under the MSGP
No Exposure Certification (NOE)
Industrial stormwater dischargers
Low Erosivity Waiver Certification
Construction stormwater dischargers
Annual Report
Vessels under the VGP; and certain pesticide applicators applying under the PGP
Permit Authorization and Record of Inspection (PARI)[a]
Vessels under the VGP and sVGP
Annual Noncompliance Form
Vessels under the sVGP
Adverse Incident Report
Pesticide applicators applying under the PGP
Nutrient Management Plan
CAFOs covered by an individual permit or general permit
Pesticide Discharge Management Plan
Certain pesticide applicators applying under the PGP
Cooling Water Intake Structures 122.21(r)(2) - 4
Facilities with CWISs (Phase I, Phase III, and Existing)
Cooling Water Intake Structures 122.21(r)(5) - (8)
Existing facilities CWISs
Cooling Water Intake Structures 122.21(r)(9) - (13)
Existing facilities with CWISs with average intake flow greater than 125 million gallons per day
Cooling Water Intake Structures 122.21(r)(14)
New units at existing facilities with CWISs
[a]	These forms are included in Attachment G.
From the applications and requests for supplemental information, permitting authorities gather information about industrial processes, treatment systems, pollutant characteristics, discharge rates and volumes, sewage sludge use and disposal practices, sewage sludge quality, and other data such as pollution prevention practices. Additional information collection requirements that might be necessary to implement state-, tribal-, or EPA-promulgated provisions consistent with the CWA, the Great Lakes Guidance, and other EPA regulatory requirements include monitoring (pollutant-specific and whole effluent toxicity), pollutant minimization programs, bioassays to support the development of water quality criteria, antidegradation policy/demonstrations, and regulatory relief options (e.g., variances from water quality criteria).
The information is used to develop effluent limitations, compliance schedules, and other routine and special conditions in permits. EPA may also use these data to reevaluate testing requirements or to develop or revise effluent standards on a national basis. Permitting authorities may also use data from NOIs, Nutrient Management Plans (NMPs), Pesticide Discharge Management Plans (PDMPs), stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs), etc., as part of an evaluation to determine whether the permittee adheres to procedures laid out in the documents.
NPDES permits may not be issued for a period more than five years. The reapplication process is the primary mechanism for obtaining up-to-date information on discharges and sewage sludge quality, particularly for new pollutants. Although existing permittees provide pollutant data from self-monitoring activities in routine reports, these reports are usually limited to pollutants listed in existing permits. Permitting authorities use reapplication data to identify new pollutants or other information that could lead them to specify additional permit limitations, assess compliance with applicable effluent and sewage sludge limits, and develop appropriate special conditions in permits.
Routine data collection. Permittees use discharge monitoring data or sewage sludge quality data (in the case of POTWs and privately owned treatment works, or PrOTWs) to perform routine operations at their facilities and evaluate facility performance. In addition, they might need to collect this information to comply with state-specific program requirements or, in the case of POTWs, to administer pretreatment programs.
As noted above, discharge monitoring data give permitting authorities the information necessary to assess permittee compliance. Self-monitoring data also help the permitting authority modify or develop permit limits. Permitting authorities may also require other types of monitoring data, such as influent monitoring data to evaluate a plant's operational aspects, ambient stream monitoring data to measure a permit's effectiveness in protecting water quality, internal waste stream data when monitoring at the point of discharge is impractical or infeasible, or visual monitoring (including underwater surveys) that might be necessary to determine compliance with permit limits.
A permittee generally informs the permitting authority about its discharge through a discharge monitoring report (DMR). The DMR lists all the results from the permittee's required self-monitoring of 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 DMRs, permittees may be required to submit reports on violations of certain discharge limitations (e.g., maximum daily), as specifically required in their permits. This latter reporting requirement is intended to alert the permitting authority to potential health or environmental risks that could require a timely response. The data collected by this requirement are more incident-specific than the summary information provided on the DMR.
Data management. EPA uses the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS-NPDES) as its national system for managing data. ICIS-NPDES is used to track permit limits, permit expiration dates, monitoring data, enforcement and compliance data, and other data. It also provides EPA with a nationwide inventory of permit holders. EPA and most states store basic information for stormwater permittees in databases separate from ICIS-NPDES. EPA uses ICIS-NPDES information to develop reports on permit issuance, backlog, and compliance rates. EPA also uses the information to respond to public and congressional inquiries, develop and guide its policies, support enforcement action, formulate its budgets, and manage its programs to ensure national consistency in permitting. For the most part, states and territories are authorized to implement the NPDES permitting program, manage the data, and use them in a similar fashion to EPA. As a result, EPA and the states and territories incur similar types of burdens associated with data collection and management.
Data use. For individual permits, EPA and states analyze monitoring data when establishing permit conditions. For example, NPDES permit writers may revise permit requirements on the basis of data from monitoring reports. Furthermore, EPA and states have referred to DMR data on pollutants when developing lists of waters impaired by pollutants and point source dischargers that may cause or contribute to degradation of the quality of those waters.
As public information, monitoring data are used by public groups for a variety of purposes. Citizen groups review monitoring data to independently assess discharger compliance and noncompliance. In some instances, the data form the basis for citizen suits that are authorized under CWA section 505. In addition, environmental groups, academicians, and others use monitoring data to estimate toxic pollutant loading to streams, lakes, oceans, and estuaries.
If noncompliance with permit conditions is detected, the permitting authority will use the data to help determine the appropriate enforcement response based on the nature and severity of the violation, the overall frequency of noncompliance, and the degree of seriousness of the violation.
There are several variations in the general flow of compliance-related data from the permittee to the permitting authority. EPA may require more information in the form of a section 308(a) letter. In the case of the NPDES stormwater permitting program, the regulatory requirement is for records retention rather than reporting. This type of activity is reflected in this ICR as a recordkeeping activity.
A permit may be modified to change its limits and conditions without affecting the permit's term. Information supporting modification requests is collected during the effective term of the permit. Variances, alternatively, allow effluent limitation requirements or time deadlines to be modified or waived. During the permit development process, the permitting authority collects information from facilities to evaluate variance requests. In each case, the information collected is used to update or supplement permit application data.
Use of the data provided in each type of modification or variance request varies greatly because the information requirements of these items are so diverse. In general, EPA and authorized states use the information to determine whether the conditions or requirements that would warrant a modification or variance exist, and the progress toward achieving the goals of the CWA continues if the modification or variance is granted.
Reporting by municipalities under the CSO Control Policy gives NPDES permitting authorities the information they need to determine whether a municipality's CSO control program is adequate to achieve compliance with CWA requirements and applicable state WQS, to establish permit terms and conditions for CSOs, to track performance, to identify and assess violations, and to target inspection and enforcement actions. The information is also used by EPA Regions and states to develop and evaluate the success of their CSO Control Strategies. EPA will also use these data to measure its performance in achieving the goals of the CSO Control Policy.
Oversight. Information collected by EPA is used to evaluate the adequacy of a state's NPDES or sludge program, and to enable EPA to fulfill its statutory function of oversight over state program performance and individual permit actions. EPA will also use this information to evaluate states' requests for full or partial program authorization and program modifications. To evaluate the adequacy of a state's proposed program, EPA must have appropriate information to ensure that proper procedures, regulations, and statutes are in place and consistent with CWA requirements. EPA's ongoing monitoring of authorized state programs ensures continued compliance with the goals and requirements of the CWA and state programs. EPA uses information about permittees' noncompliance to do the following:
    Evaluate the effectiveness of state compliance enforcement programs;
    Support its own enforcement actions, if any, against dischargers in authorized states; and
    Generate and publish noncompliance rates to be used in reports to offices within EPA and to OMB and Congress.
In a Memorandum of Agreement, EPA Regions and authorized states define which permits the Region will and will not be provided for review. Generally, the Region must be given the opportunity to review all permits for major facilities, all general permits, and a small percentage of permits for minor facilities. The information submitted by states consists of all appropriate data necessary for permit review -  - application forms, fact sheets, draft permits, and the like. EPA uses the information submitted by states to review state-issued permits for compliance with federal laws. Sewage sludge noncompliance reports serve the same purposes as NPDES effluent noncompliance reports. However, sewage sludge reports are required only annually.
Other regulations. To meet its obligations under the CWA, National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and Endangered Species Act (ESA), and to promote those acts' goals, EPA must ensure that discharges covered under EPA-issued NPDES permits are protective of historic properties, endangered and threatened species, and critical habitat. Applicants are required to assess the effects of their discharges on historic properties, federally listed endangered and threatened species, and designated critical habitat. Information from this assessment for stormwater or PGP applicants is provided in the NOI and therefore contained in the NOI database. Authorized states are not required to meet the ESA and NHPA obligations, and therefore no ESA or NHPA burden is associated with state-issued permits.
Recently added NPDES program components are discussed in more detail below.
Airport deicing. EPA and the states will use information submitted by airports concerning use of urea chemicals to determine permittees' compliance with the regulations and administer enforcement actions if needed.
Pretreatment. Unlike other environmental programs that rely on federal or state governments to implement and enforce specific requirements, the National Pretreatment Program places most of the responsibility on local municipalities. These in turn impose information collection, monitoring, and reporting requirements on significant industrial users (SIUs) that discharge to POTWs. Thus, the regulation is perceived as indirectly requiring this data collection.
The Pretreatment Program requires all POTWs with design flows of more than 5 million gallons per day (mgd) -- as well as small POTWs with design flows less than 5 mgd that receive discharges from industrial users (IUs) that may pass through or interfere with the POTWs' operation, or small POTWs otherwise subject to National Pretreatment Standards -- to establish local pretreatment programs. POTWs with approved local pretreatment programs enforce all national Pretreatment Standards and Requirements, as well as any more stringent local requirements determined necessary to protect them and their workers, through local programs. States that are authorized to administer the National Pretreatment Program oversee the approved programs but may also opt to implement statewide pretreatment programs in lieu of requiring POTWs to do so. In statewide pretreatment programs, IUs submit data directly to state control authorities. In non-authorized states, the EPA Regions oversee approved POTWs and indirect industrial dischargers to POTWs without approved programs.
EPA, together with the various approval authorities and control authorities, implements Pretreatment Standards and Requirements through the National Pretreatment Program. These entities need information to:
 Authorize state and local programs;
 Monitor and enforce compliance with the national standards;
 Determine the applicability of categorical standards; and
 Develop and enforce local limits.
CAFOs and CAAPs. Within the consolidated animal sector, information collected by the permitting authority about CAFO facilities and operating procedures is used to develop permit conditions and to ascertain whether a permittee is in compliance with permit requirements. Information is collected using permit application forms and annual reports and through compliance evaluation inspections. Permitting authorities collect and use information from CAAP facilities on the use of investigational new animal drugs and extra-label drugs, which may lead to permit requirements to prevent or minimize further discharges. Information collected from CAAP facilities on structural integrity failures can give the permitting authority some indication of pollutant slugs discharged to the receiving streams.
Cooling water intakes. The CWIS New Facility Rule, CWIS Phase III Rule, and CWIS Existing Facility Rule require facilities to submit several distinct types of information related to their use of CWISs as part of their NPDES permit applications. The rules also require facilities to submit CWIS-related monitoring and reporting data as outlined by the permitting authorities in their NPDES permits. Information collected will be used by facilities, permitting authorities, EPA, and other stakeholders.
Among these groups, the primary users will be permitting authorities (including states authorized to administer the NPDES permitting program) and EPA Regions. Since section 316(b) standards are implemented through NPDES permits, the rule affects permitting authorities in a manner similar to other NPDES program requirements. These authorities will use the information to verify that the NPDES permit application is complete; to assess whether the facility's chosen compliance alternative is appropriate; and to evaluate monitoring data, annual reports, and other information to confirm that the facility remains in compliance throughout its permit term. A permitting authority may also use the information to develop special permit conditions, such as additional protections for threatened or endangered species.
Facilities, meanwhile, may use the collected information to monitor their CWIS performance and the performance of design and construction technologies they are using.
Electronic Reporting Rule. This rule reduces the reporting-related burdens on authorized NPDES programs, EPA, and regulated entities by replacing certain paper-based reports with electronic reports. It primarily affects regulated entities and state and federal regulators, saving them time and resources while improving compliance and better protecting the nation's waters. The rule also requires EPA Regions, states, territories, and tribes to share with EPA the information reported to authorized programs, or information generated with respect to regulated entities. Electronic reporting delivers timelier, consistent, and accurate information to authorized NPDES programs, EPA, and other stakeholders. The shared information increases transparency and accountability, and helps EPA and authorized NPDES programs monitor compliance with NPDES permits.
3.	Describe whether and to what extent the collection involves the use of automated processes or information technology to aid with the collection
The Electronic Reporting Rule requires electronic reporting of NPDES information rather than paper-based reports. Implementation is being phased in over the five years following the rule's December 21, 2015, effective date. The rule required electronic submission for all DMRs and certain reports by December 21, 2016, and for most of the remaining NPDES reports and program data by December 21, 2020. (See section A.1.8.4 for details.) The burden adjustment associated with the Electronic Reporting Rule includes both an initial short-lived (several-year) implementation component, mostly related to the increased burden associated with start-up and training activities, and an ongoing component associated with reductions in burden and costs that becomes greater over time as more entities begin to participate. (EPA estimates that implementing the Electronic Reporting Rule will reduce ongoing reporting burdens for all entities involved over the long term.) The burden adjustments for implementation and ongoing activities for the Electronic Reporting Rule for the three years after the effective date of the Rule are currently covered in a separate ICR (OMB control no. 2020-0035; EPA ICR no. 2468.02) and are being added to this ICR. The estimated burden changes included in this ICR consist mostly of the ongoing administrative burden and substantial reporting burden reductions.
For activities related to general permits, respondents for some EPA-issued permits are currently required to submit NOIs electronically via EPA's electronic Notice of Intent (eNOI) system or the NPDES eReporting Tool (NeT). These permits, all other EPA-issued permits, and some state-issued permits will transition to submitting NOIs through NeT over the next several years.
Currently, EPA maintains some general permit data in ICIS-NPDES. The use of this database is expanding as a result of implementation of the Electronic Reporting Rule. This technology reduces the burden to EPA and the states for gathering and analyzing national permit and water quality data.
In collecting and analyzing the information associated with NPDES individual permit applications, EPA will use ICIS-NPDES to ultimately store the relevant facility and permit information. EPA and the states will ensure accuracy and completeness of the information and are responsible for ensuring that applicable data are entered into ICIS-NPDES. Any application form that is considered inaccurate or incomplete will not be accepted and will be returned to the sender with a letter requesting the missing or inaccurate information.
The public may access certain information via Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO). Some of the information is available to the public through Web-based interfaces that pull data from ICIS-NPDES and other EPA data systems.
For activities related to requests for NPDES permit modifications and variances from technology standards, improved information technology does not appear to provide opportunities to minimize respondents' burden because of the unique nature of the information that respondents must submit as needed.
For compliance reports, EPA and states are moving toward greater automation -- for example, system-generated noncompliance reports in place of the existing Quarterly Noncompliance Reports. This advancement in information technology allows for states to efficiently provide a consistent and accurate set of data while using fewer resources and time.
4.	Describe the efforts to identify duplication
Almost all information requested from respondents under this ICR is required by statute or regulation; in most cases, it is not available from other sources. EPA has examined all other reporting and recordkeeping requirements in the CWA and 40 CFR Parts 122, 123, 124, 125, 403, 501, and 503. EPA also has consulted the following sources of information to determine if similar or duplicate information is available elsewhere:
 The EPA inventory of ICRs;
 The Government Information Locator Service; and
 The Toxics Release Inventory.
EPA has also examined potentially similar reporting requirements for notice of spills under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for duplication of CWA requirements. 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, while NPDES focuses on discharge outfalls).
In addition, EPA has examined potentially similar reporting requirements under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for duplication of CWA requirements. While some of the information required in these general permits may be similar to that already required under FIFRA, the universe of respondents is different or is only a subset of the universe in this ICR. For example, FIFRA has the same adverse reporting requirements as the permits for pesticide registrants, but not applicators. EPA believes the expansion of this requirement to applicators provides a much more comprehensive dataset on which to assess potential impacts from activities covered under these general permits. Another example is the ICR for Certification of Pesticide Applicators (OMB control no. 2070-0029, EPA ICR no. 0155.09) which requires commercial applicators, who are certified by programs administered by non-federal agencies, to keep records on restricted-use pesticides. See 40 CFR Part 171. EPA believes that any duplication between activities required under the NPDES general permits and 40 CFR Part 171 is negligible. The PGP allows applicators to rely on records and documents developed for other obligations, such as requirements under FIFRA, and state or local pesticide programs to meet the recordkeeping requirements, provided all requirements of the permit are satisfied.
5.	Explain whether or not the collection impacts small entities
Of the small businesses that discharge pollutants, many discharge indirectly to POTWs rather than directly to waters of the U.S. Indirect dischargers are not required to have NPDES permits and thus are subject only to the pollution control and reporting requirements associated with the Pretreatment Program. Although small businesses that are direct dischargers are not treated as a separate class under the NPDES program, efforts to minimize the burdens imposed on them by NPDES information collection activities are implicit in the existing monitoring/reporting framework. Most small businesses permitted under NPDES, except those discharging toxic chemicals, are covered either by permits with less rigorous monitoring and reporting requirements or by general permits. In general, monitoring and reporting requirements are based on many factors, the most important of which are the volume and environmental significance of a wastewater discharge. Because small permittees usually discharge small volumes of wastewater, their monitoring and reporting burdens tend to be smaller as well.
For many reasons, EPA believes the reporting requirements discussed in this ICR do not place an unreasonable burden on small business.
This ICR consolidates information collection activities from several other efforts, each of which sought to reduce impacts to small entities. In these efforts, EPA developed several application forms, and promulgated different application requirements to tailor the information collection demands considering, among other factors, the size and complexity of the facility, its discharge, and (where applicable) its intake structure.
Generally, as the size of a facility increases, the amount of required information increases correspondingly. EPA has regularly looked for ways to reduce reporting burdens on businesses of all sizes; approaches used to minimize the burden to small entities include the following:
 Several of the applications (e.g., Form 1 and NOIs) request minimal information, such as the name and location of the facility, or merely direct the applicant to complete specific sections of the application (e.g., Forms 2A and 2S). Furthermore, facilities submit applications infrequently, typically once every five years. The burden represented by these applications cannot be further reduced for small businesses. Permitting authorities need certain basic information to make permitting decisions. This basic information is not dependent on a facility's size.
 EPA developed general permit procedures to reduce burdens associated with the application for coverage and administration of large numbers of dischargers, especially the burden associated with stormwater discharges and pesticide discharges. Certain operators subject to the PGP are covered automatically and need not submit applications.
 NOIs for permit coverage for construction sites and pesticide discharge activities contain minimal information required to characterize the site and activity. NOIs are typically submitted once every five years. Construction sites typically submit an NOI once for each construction activity, or twice if the construction activity continues beyond the expiration date of the general permit. Most site-related information is contained in the SWPPP or PDMP if required, which need not be submitted to EPA. Furthermore, the burden represented by these NOIs cannot easily be reduced for small businesses because EPA needs certain basic information -- not dependent on an organization's size -- to make permitting decisions. The CGP NOI (EPA Form 3510-9) was developed specifically to reduce the burden for construction activities. The preexisting NOI form (EPA Form 3510-6) that was replaced in 1998 required more detailed information because it was also used for industrial activities requesting coverage under a general permit. The current NOI is simplified and requests only relevant information for construction activities.
 With regard to small MS4s regulated under the Phase II Rule, EPA believes that the application requirements provide the minimum information required to adequately assess the current and future effects of the small MS4 discharges on waters of the United States. The NOI requirements for regulated small MS4s are substantially less than those under the Phase I stormwater regulation for medium and large MS4s. The application requirements for the small subset requiring an individual permit are substantially reduced as well.
 In general, the no-exposure provision of the Stormwater Phase II Rule allows regulatory relief for small industrial entities that submit "no exposure" certifications. Small entities that take advantage of this provision to switch from a permitted facility to "no exposure" status experience a substantial reduction in burden.
 Some industrial facilities that do not have toxic pollutants in their effluent are not required to provide as much monitoring information on Form 2C as those with toxic discharges. Under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(8), coal mines with a probable total annual production less than 100,000 tons per year and other applicants with gross total annual sales averaging less than $100,000 per year (in second quarter 1980 dollars) might qualify as a small business and be exempt from the reporting requirements for toxic pollutants.
 EPA developed Form 2E specifically to reduce the reporting burden for certain small businesses. These businesses are new or existing manufacturing, commercial, mining, and silviculture NPDES permit applicants that do not discharge process wastewater. This form is easier to complete and requires the submission of existing sampling data (i.e., sampling and analysis is not required to be conducted as part of the application process).
 EPA's guidance materials -- such as manuals, fact sheets, and training courses on development of SWPPPs and Long Term Control Plans (LTCPs) -- also help minimize the burden on small entities by giving them easier access to the specific and streamlined requirements applicable to them.
 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 businesses because the information required is simple and straightforward.
 For activities related to NPDES permit modification and variance requests, the NPDES regulations do not specify different modification and variance requirements for small businesses. The burden incurred as a result of variance requests is voluntary. A small business that decides to request a variance from effluent limitations does so on the basis of its assessment that the benefits of receiving such a variance outweigh the burdens associated with preparing the request. The time and effort required to prepare a small facility's variance request might be less than that required for a larger, more complex facility to prepare a similar request.
 EPA and states also have made extensive use of general permits, which tend to have less burdensome monitoring and reporting requirements than individual permits. In fact, the majority of stormwater permittees, which compose more than 80 percent of all NPDES permittees, are covered under general permits.
 To help communities with combined sewer systems that serve populations of fewer than 75,000, the CSO Control Policy recommends that NPDES permitting authorities use flexibility when requiring these communities to develop an LTCP. In the Policy, EPA recommends that small systems be required to document implementation of the Nine Minimum Controls (NMC), prepare LTCPs that give high priority to controlling overflows to sensitive areas, and involve the public in their decision-making. The intent of this recommendation is to focus the limited resources of smaller communities on controlling CSOs. Compliance monitoring should be less extensive for small entities than large entities because the small systems have fewer CSOs. EPA developed an LTCP Template (LTCP EZ) to help small communities develop LTCPs. LTCP EZ builds on NMC implementation and provides step-by-step instructions for completing the simple forms in hard copy format or electronically.
 EPA believes the burden on small CAFOs is minimal since reporting is only linked with specific conditions or occurrences at the facility.
The reporting requirements for pretreatment program development affect only state governments and municipal governments (i.e., POTWs). Requirements for pretreatment program implementation and program/categorical determinations involve some small business IUs. The information requested is not available from other sources and is essential for implementing the pretreatment program.
In 2001, EPA estimated that over the next 20 years 11 new CWIS facilities owned by small entities are projected to be subject to the final 316(b) regulation. The exact number of facilities owned by small entities that would be subject to the rule annually is difficult to quantify. If any small entities would be affected, it is estimated, one to two new respondents that are small entities will be added for this three-year ICR renewal period, resulting in an estimated total of 10 respondents that are small entities.
The 316(b) existing CWIS rule facility applicability requirements in section 125.91 exclude most existing small entities from the rule. As a result, the rule affects only a small absolute number of facilities owned by small entities, representing a very small percentage of all facilities owned by small entities in the electric power and manufacturing industries. EPA estimates that between 37 and 91 small entities in the electric power industry and six primary manufacturing industries own facilities subject to this rule. In addition, EPA estimates that five small entities own complying facilities in other industries.
The 316(b) Phase III Rule applies to new offshore oil and gas facilities, and the minimum design intake flow requirements exclude all but one small entity from the compliance requirements.
The information reported in this ICR related to state NPDES and sewage sludge programs is limited to state efforts, including EPA review of state information; it does not reflect the burden on the permittee. Therefore, these activities do not affect small businesses.
6.	Describe the consequences to the program if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently
In most cases, regulations associated with the NPDES program are meant to minimize adverse environmental and public health impacts associated with the discharge of pollutants or the mortality of fish and other aquatic species. Failure to collect the necessary data to implement these regulations would result in significant adverse impacts to the environment and to public health. As well, the data collection is mandatory in most cases; regulated facilities and/or control authorities that do not collect the data would be failing to comply with the NPDES regulations. Failure to comply could result in enforcement actions including civil or criminal penalties.
EPA recognizes the importance of balancing the need for data collection efforts against respondent burden and costs. From the inception of the NPDES program, cost has been a major factor considered in establishing application requirements, monitoring conditions, report content, and reporting frequencies. In recent years, the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government have stressed the need to evaluate the costs and benefits of regulation and the financial impact on the regulated community, states, and local governments. EPA regularly seeks new opportunities to reduce burden on the regulated community.
The information needed to meet permitting, monitoring, reporting, and information collection requirements related to the NPDES program is submitted either once, regularly, or as needed. EPA and authorized states need current information about permittees, discharge characteristics, enforcement actions, and program performance to fulfill oversight responsibilities.
EPA must track permits, compliance activities, and enforcement actions to ensure that state programs are carrying out the provisions of the CWA in a timely manner. EPA has determined that the NPDES burden described in this ICR is necessary to provide sufficient data for EPA to effectively provide guidance for state programs, to review or comment on state actions, or to intervene in compliance or enforcement cases.
Permitted facilities must reapply for NPDES and sewage sludge management permits before their existing permits expire, generally once every five years. The CWA prohibits NPDES permits from having terms longer than five years. Less frequent permit applications would not give the permitting authority current enough data to establish effective limitations or conditions when reissuing permits. Less frequent permit issuance would also hinder the ability of EPA and the regulated community to take advantage of technological improvements as they occur. Permits must contain conditions that reflect, for example, the following criteria:
 New industrial processes and waste treatment technologies;
 New kinds of discharges (such as toxic chemicals);
 New detection methods; and
 Changes in the quality of receiving waters.
EPA strives to minimize monitoring-related workloads. For example, in the past EPA developed an automated procedure that preprints relevant permittee information, such as discharger name and address, pollutants to be monitored, and effluent limitations on the DMR form, before sending it to the permittee; the implementation of the Electronic Reporting Rule eliminates the use of many paper forms (other than for permittees with a waiver), further streamlining reporting. Permittees are required to record only their monitoring results and to report any violations. EPA continues its efforts to minimize permittee burden associated with monitoring data collection and reporting requirements.
EPA considers the reporting requirements associated with the pretreatment program (both the one-time and ongoing monitoring and reporting requirements) to be the minimum necessary for effective administration of the pretreatment program as well as to ensure effective control of hazardous wastes and to implement RCRA section 3018(b). Most alternatives would entail an increase in reporting burden. In addition, EPA considers the specific requirements for SIUs and for reporting the discharge of RCRA hazardous substances preferable to repealing the domestic sewage exclusion. The domestic sewage exclusion is a RCRA provision that excludes domestic sewage and any mixture of domestic sewage and other wastes that pass through a sewer system to a POTW for treatment from being classified as a RCRA hazardous waste.
Some of the information in this ICR that is required to be submitted is collected only after the permittee violates a permit condition or after a certain condition occurs. For example, noncompliance reports are submitted when the facility experiences a bypass, an upset, or a violation of a permit limit. Responses to section 308(a) letters are submitted only when requested by the Administrator in response to events such as a spill of oil or a hazardous substance, or whenever EPA has reason to believe it needs more information to determine compliance. Compliance schedule reports are submitted only when a permit contains a compliance schedule and it is necessary to ascertain a permittee's compliance with a milestone in the compliance schedule. Also, alternate level reports are submitted only when there is an expected change in the production level at the facility.
In certain instances, a permittee may choose to submit information when requesting a modification or variance from otherwise applicable requirements. The information collection and reporting requirements associated with NPDES permit modifications and variances are specific, would not be supplied in any other report or application, and are submitted as needed. In most cases, the decision to submit information is made by the NPDES permittee or permit applicant. The exceptions are (1) when outside events trigger the need for a permit modification and (2) when the Administrator decides to invoke a reporting requirement, such as a request for permit revocation and reissuance. Because information is submitted only when needed, less frequent data collection would not give the permitting authority enough information to meet its responsibilities under the CWA.
7.	Explain any special circumstances associated with "extraordinary burden" placed on respondents
No special circumstances place "extraordinary burden" on respondents. Information is collected in a manner consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) guidelines at 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2). Requests for supplemental information for emergency response or enforcement are exempt from the PRA requirements.
8.	Provide a copy and identify the date and page number of the notice in the Federal Register and describe efforts to consult with persons outside the agency
In compliance with the 1995 PRA, any agency developing a non-rule-related ICR must solicit public comments before submitting the ICR to OMB. These comments, which may be used to help determine realistic burden estimates for respondents, must be considered when completing the supporting statement that is submitted to OMB.
This ICR was published in the Federal Register on (June 29, 2017) (Federal Register Volume 82, Number 124). The notice included a request for comments on the content and impact of these information collection requirements on the regulated community. A copy of the Federal Register Notice can be found in Appendix F.2.
Minimum data collection requirements are mandated and specifically defined by the regulations authorizing collection and are generally not subject to change through consultation. These requirements are often incorporated into the NPDES permit along with other requirements that may be tailored to specific circumstances. The permitting authorities are primarily responsible for determining which collection method and information management strategy is most appropriate. During initial NPDES permit development and during permit reissuance (which occurs every five years), a consultation typically occurs between the permitting authority and the permittee. During this consultation, the permittee has the opportunity to request clarification of instructions, recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting format and to request changes to the data requirements and the frequency of collection and reporting that may be warranted by changing circumstances. Specific changes can then be incorporated in the renewed permit. The five-year frequency for permit renewal is mandated by the regulation. Between renewals, though, the permittee may consult with the permitting authority if its circumstances change significantly and, if warranted, the permitting authority may enact modifications to the permit.
During the development of the Electronic Reporting Rule, EPA conducted meetings and consultations to comply with various statutes and executive orders directing federal agencies, including EPA, to consult with organizations representing elected officials of states, counties, and municipalities, and consult, as required, with tribes and small businesses and small governmental jurisdictions.
In four states, most U.S. territories, and federal Indian lands, the federal government serves as the permitting authority and thus has direct consultations with permittees within those jurisdictions; these are an opportunity for direct input regarding changes to the forms, burden, or other requirements. The federal government provides general oversight of the NPDES program and the approved state programs, including regular consultation with state agencies in direct contact with individual permittees. EPA Headquarters staff responsible for program oversight were also contacted to provide revised information and data for this ICR.
9.	Explain any decision to provide compensation to respondents
No payments or gifts are provided to respondents.
10.	Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents
Permit applications and other respondent reports may contain confidential business information. If this is the case, the respondent may request that such information be treated as confidential. All confidential data will be handled in accordance with 40 CFR 122.7, 40 CFR Part 2, and EPA's Security Manual Part III, Chapter 9, dated August 9, 1976. Any claim of confidentiality must be asserted at the time of submission. However, CWA section 308(b) specifically states that effluent data may not be treated as confidential.
11.	Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature
Questions of a sensitive nature are not found in this information collection.
12.	Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information
The estimate of respondent burden hours covers facilities subject to NPDES program requirements (permittees) and authorized states. Appendix A describes the information collected and the methodology for estimating respondent burden and costs. Appendix B presents a calculated respondent burden estimate grouped by activity type and respondent type. Table 12.1 summarizes the labor burden and associated labor costs for permittees and states with NPDES program authority.
Table 12.1 Summary of Labor Burden and Costs

Average Annual Respondents
Average Annual Total Burden (hours)
Average Annual Total Labor Costs (2016$)
Permittees
                                                                       934,383
                                                                     26,385,587
                                                                 $1,348,910,138
States, tribes, territories, and D.C.[a]
                                                                            637
                                                                      1,853,675
                                                                    $83,674,896
Totals
                                                                       935,020
                                                                    28,239,262
                                                                 $1,432,585,035
[a] 	590 of these 637 are not authorized to administer the NPDES program and respond to only one information item (certification of EPA-issued permits).
13.	Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to respondents
This section presents an estimate of annual operating and maintenance (O&M) and capital and start-up costs. The majority of the burden and cost calculations in this ICR are the result of labor costs only. The ICR does, however, account for O&M costs for certain testing/analysis plus certain capital and start-up costs incurred by respondents that perform activities outside the normal operation practices. All costs presented have been adjusted using the Consumer Price Index to August 2016 dollars. This ICR estimates that there are no O&M or capital and start-up costs for state agencies or the federal government.
Permittee O&M costs. The permittee O&M costs are linked to the following activities:
 NPDES permit application and renewal requirements;
 Monitoring and reporting, including, electronic reporting rule cost reductions for printing and mailing.
 Baseline determination and estimate of the incremental monitoring burden and cost for remining sites;
 Minimum monitoring requirements for direct discharging mills in the "bleached papergrade kraft and soda" and "papergrade sulfite" subcategories of the "pulp, paper, and paperboard" point source category;
 Animal sector testing/analysis and public notice costs;
 SIU discharge monitoring under the Pretreatment Program;
 CWIS Phase I and Existing Facility annual activities such as operation and upkeep of capital equipment, as well as purchase of contracted services such as laboratory analyses and other direct costs (ODCs);
 CWIS Phase III (offshore oil and gas) facility entrainment monitoring sample analysis if performed by an outside laboratory;
 CWIS existing facility equipment O&M, contract services, and ODCs; and
Details on the methodology used to derive these costs are provided in section A.2.2 of Appendix A.
Permittee capital and start-up costs. The permittee capital and start-up costs are linked to the activities listed below:
 CSO notification;
 Baseline determination and estimate of the incremental monitoring burden and cost for remining sites;
 Start-up costs for the animal sector;
 CWIS Phase I purchase and installation of pilot study technology; and
 CWIS Phase III (offshore oil & gas) cost for installing remote monitoring devices.
Details on the methodology used to derive these costs are provided in section A.2.3 of Appendix A. Table 13.1 summarizes annual O&M and capital and start-up costs.
Table 13.1 Summary of Annual O&M and Capital and Start-up Costs

Permittees
States/Tribes/Territories
Costs (capital and start-up)
                                                                       $809,813
                                                                             $0
Costs (O&M)
                                                                    $42,537,808
                                                                       $359,021
Total annual costs
                                                                    $43,299,988
                                                                       $359,021
14.	Provide an estimate of the annualized cost to the federal government
The federal government burden includes activities related to administration of NPDES permits in non-authorized states, territories, and federal Indian lands as well as oversight of NPDES programs. In states without approved NPDES programs, the federal government (through its EPA Regional Offices) issues and administers NPDES permits. These burdens are similar to those incurred by the states and are calculated using the same methodology and assumptions. Appendix A provides program administration burden estimates for authorized states; in many cases, these also apply to the federal government in non-authorized states. Appendix C, Table C.1, presents calculated respondent burden estimates grouped by activity type. Details of the federal government burden and costs associated with general oversight of the NPDES program and the approved state programs are presented in Appendix C, Table C.2. Table 14.1 summarizes the average annual Agency burden hours and costs.
Table 14.1 Summary of Agency Annualized Burden and Costs

NPDES Program Administration in Non-authorized States
(Appendix C, Table C.1)
NPDES Program Oversight
(Appendix C, Table C.2)
Total
Responses (number)
                                                                        411,460
                                                                          5,761
                                                                        417,221
Burden (hours)
                                                                         44,542
                                                                         27,758
                                                                         72,300
Costs (labor)
                                                                     $1,907,288
                                                                     $1,188,581
                                                                     $3,095,869
Costs (capital)
                                                                             $0
                                                                             $0
                                                                             $0
Costs (O&M)
                                                                       $322,940
                                                                           $312
                                                                       $323,251
Total costs
                                                                     $2,230,228
                                                                     $1,188,893
                                                                     $3,419,120
15.	Explain the reasons for adjustments reported in items 13 or 14 of OMB Form 83-I
The current OMB-approved burden for the existing NPDES ICR (OMB control no. 2040-0004, EPA ICR no. 0229.21) is 21,041,107 hours. The current combined OMB-approved burden for the seven ICRs being consolidated into today's ICR plus the current NPDES ICR is 27,402,973 hours. The combined burden requested in today's ICR is 28,239,262 hours. Overall, the burden request in today's ICR is 836,289 hours (3.1percent) more than the combined previously approved burdens of the component ICRs.
As indicated below, significant adjustments to the burden estimates occurred within three component ICRs: NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule, CWIS Existing Facility, and Consolidated Animal Sectors. Adjustments to the burden estimates reflect the following adjustments to each component ICR:
       A burden reduction of 164 percent within the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule ICR component;
       A burden increase of 140 percent within the CWIS Existing Facility ICR component;
       A burden decrease of 12 percent within the Consolidated Animal Sectors ICR component; and
       A burden increase of 3 percent within the previous Consolidated NPDES ICR component.
One minor part of the adjustments to the burden results from changes in the estimated number of respondents in many of the categories shown in Appendix D. Many of these changes reflect updates to permit entries within the ICIS-NPDES database plus revised EPA estimates. In addition, EPA revised the estimates to explicitly include the burden for states to conduct compliance evaluation inspections for stormwater-related permittees, resulting in a 2 percent burden hour increase in the consolidated NPDES component (see section A.1.9.2). Except for the animal sector and the Electronic Reporting Rule, these changes resulted in minor adjustments from those approved in the source ICR of up to several percent in the number of responses and burden hours. Also, changes to the capital and O&M cost burden shown in Table 15.3 include adjustments for inflation to August 2016 dollars, which ranged from 1.2 to 5.5 percent depending on the basis year for the source ICR.
The implementation of the Electronic Reporting Rule requires respondents to switch from paper-based reporting to electronic reporting. This burden applies to many respondents across different permit types. The major components of the Electronic Reporting Rule that contributed to the burden estimates and adjustments include:
 An initial increase in burden associated with implementation of the electronic reporting system;
 Significant reductions in the O&M cost burden to permittees associated with reductions in the preparation and mailing of paper-based forms;
 Significant net reductions in burden associated with a reduction in data entry by permitting authorities (state and federal); and
 Significant cost reduction associated with the reductions in the preparation and mailing of blank forms from state agencies to permittees.
Two of the newly added ICR components (CWIS Existing Facilities and Electronic Reporting Rule) are still in the implementation phase, which features one-time activities that will, over time, be replaced by recurring activities as respondent participation increases. As a result, the burden adjustments mostly reflect the year-to-year differences corresponding to the different timeframes between the original ICR and this consolidated ICR. These adjustments are described in greater detail below.
As described in section A.1.8.4, the burden estimated in today's ICR is for the later portion of years 2 through 4 after rule promulgation and does not include implementation. The 58 percent increase in the number of responses shown in Table 15.1 is the result of the substantial increase in the number of DMRs and reports switching from paper submission to electronic transmission and being input in the ICIS database after year 1. The net decrease in labor burden shown in Table 15.2 includes an increase in burden associated with facility passcode updates and state activities related to managing data transfer, maintenance of the electronic system, technical support, and programmatic data entry. This increase is more than offset by reductions in data entry by the states for both DMRs and other reports that will no longer be received via paper submission. Similarly, the reduction in costs shown in Table 15.3 is associated with the fact that respondents no longer need to print and mail the DMRs and reports.
For the CWIS Existing Facility component, Tables 15.1 through 15.3 show an increase in the number of responses, burden hours, and costs of 30, 140, and 79 percent, respectively. These increases were primarily due to the fact that this ICR spans part of the implementation phase of the rule -- a period associated with a higher burden than other years. Much of this burden involves permittee requirements to perform monitoring and prepare analyses and reports during the first existing permit renewal. In the original ICR, the permittees were not expected to begin preparing the required CWIS monitoring, biological and engineering analyses, and related documents until after the first year of the previous ICR period. Also, several monitoring requirements are estimated to require two years to complete. The permit renewals are staggered over five years, and the first permit renewal will involve the greatest burden. As a result, the burden increases during years 1 and 2 and is highest in years 3, 4, 5, and 6 after promulgation of the rule. This ICR covers years 4 through 6, or three of these four high-burden years.
For the animal sector, over time, many of the activities that were required in the 2003 rule have become part of standard business practice as many have been incorporated into USDA standards and guidelines. Thus, many activities are no longer directly attributable to the NPDES regulations. In addition, continuing consolidation in the industry means that far fewer facilities might be subject to regulation. In this ICR, EPA has revised the estimated number of responses, burden hours, and costs to account for these changes in the industry (see section A.1.6 for more details).
Tables 15.1, 15.2, and 15.3 summarize adjustments in the number of respondents, burden hours, and cost burden. For greater clarity, burden estimates and the adjustments relative to the source ICR for each contributing ICR listed above are presented separately.
Table 15.1 Summary of Adjustment in Number of Responses
Source ICR
Previously Approved
Total Responses Requested
Change Due to:
Percent change total

New Statute
Agency Actions (New Rules, Etc.)
Revised Estimates

Electronic Reporting Rule[a]
                                                                      1,213,854
                                                                      1,916,880
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                        703,026
                                                                            58%
CWIS Existing Facilities[b]
                                                                          6,684
                                                                          8,722
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                          2,038
                                                                            30%
Animal Sector[c]
                                                                      3,167,930
                                                                      1,768,877
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                     -1,399,053
                                                                           -44%
Consolidated NPDES (2015 Component)
                                                                      5,058,182
                                                                      5,223,084
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                        164,902
                                                                           3.3%
Pesticide Applicators
                                                                      1,283,531
                                                                      1,283,531
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                           0.0%
Pretreatment Program
                                                                         95,462
                                                                         95,462
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                           0.0%
CWIS Phase I
                                                                          1,045
                                                                          1,045
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                           0.0%
CWIS Phase III
                                                                            251
                                                                            255
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              4
                                                                           1.7%
Total
                                                                     10,826,939
                                                                     10,297,856
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                       -529,083
                                                                            -5%
[a]	Substantial increase was due to the increased participation in electronic filing of forms and reports as the rule is implemented.
[b]	Substantial increase was due to the coincidence of the period of greatest implementation burden with the three-year ICR period.
[c]	Substantial decrease was due to revised EPA estimates based on changes in industry practice, development of USDA guidelines, and industry consolidation.
Table 15.2 Summary of Adjustment in Number of Burden Hours
Source ICR
Previously Approved
Total Hours Requested
Change Due to:
Percent change total

New Statute
Agency Actions (New Rules, Etc.)
Revised Estimates

Electronic Reporting Rule[a]
                                                                       -197,236
                                                                       -521,053
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                       -323,817
                                                                          -164%
CWIS Existing Facilities[b]
                                                                        634,596
                                                                      1,522,660
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                        888,064
                                                                           140%
Animal Sector[c]
                                                                      3,136,800
                                                                      2,775,871
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                       -360,929
                                                                           -12%
Consolidated NPDES
                                                                     21,041,107
                                                                     21,672,817
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                        631,711
                                                                           3.0%
Pesticide Applicators
                                                                        834,756
                                                                        834,756
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                           0.0%
Pretreatment Program
                                                                      1,744,406
                                                                      1,744,406
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                           0.0%
CWIS Phase I
                                                                        151,789
                                                                        151,789
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                           0.0%
CWIS Phase III
                                                                         56,755
                                                                         58,016
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                          1,261
                                                                           2.2%
Total
                                                                     27,402,973
                                                                     28,239,262
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                        836,289
                                                                           3.1%
[a] 	Substantial decrease was due to the reduced duplication of activities and effort required to generate reporting forms due to permittees' participation in electronic filing of forms and reports as the rule is implemented.
[b]	Substantial increase was due to the coincidence of the period of greatest implementation burden with the three-year ICR period.
[c]	Substantial decrease was due to revised EPA universe estimates based on changes in industry practice, development of USDA guidelines, and industry consolidation.
Table 15.3 Summary of Adjustment in the Capital/Startup and O&M Cost Burden
Source ICR
Previously Approved
Total Cost Burden Requested
Change due to:
Percent change total
Previous ICR Cost Basis

New Statute
Agency Actions (New Rules, Etc.)
Revised Estimates

Electronic Reporting Rule[a]
                                                                    -$1,075,782
                                                                    -$1,325,498
                                                                             $0
                                                                             $0
                                                                      -$249,717
                                                                           -23%
Mar. 2015
CWIS Existing Facilities[b]
                                                                     $8,525,907
                                                                    $15,265,236
                                                                             $0
                                                                             $0
                                                                     $6,739,329
                                                                            79%
Oct. 2014
Animal Sector[c]
                                                                     $8,607,000
                                                                     $2,730,272
                                                                             $0
                                                                             $0
                                                                     $5,876,728
                                                                           -68%
Mar. 2013
Consolidated NPDES
                                                                    $20,234,453
                                                                    $21,113,711
                                                                             $0
                                                                             $0
                                                                       $879,258
                                                                           4.3%
Nov. 2014
Pesticide Applicators
                                                                             $0
                                                                             $0
                                                                             $0
                                                                             $0
                                                                             $0
                                                                           0.0%
NA
Pretreatment Program
                                                                     $2,515,470
                                                                     $2,568,121
                                                                             $0
                                                                             $0
                                                                        $52,651
                                                                           2.1%
Nov. 2014
CWIS Phase I
                                                                     $2,267,728
                                                                     $2,294,962
                                                                             $0
                                                                             $0
                                                                        $27,234
                                                                           1.2%
Sept. 2014
CWIS Phase III
                                                                       $959,190
                                                                     $1,012,205
                                                                             $0
                                                                             $0
                                                                        $53,015
                                                                           5.5%
Mar. 2013
Total
                                                                    $42,033,966
                                                                    $43,659,009
                                                                             $0
                                                                             $0
                                                                     $1,625,043
                                                                           3.9%
NA
[a] 	Substantial decrease was due to the reduced need for mailing of forms due to increased participation in electronic filing of forms and reports as the rule is implemented.
[b] 	Substantial increase was due to the coincidence of the period of greatest implementation burden with the three-year ICR period.
[c] 	Substantial decrease was due to revised EPA universe estimates based on changes in industry practice, development of USDA guidelines, and industry consolidation.
EPA promulgated revised regulations for the "steam electric power generating" category on September 30, 2015. No ICR was associated with this rule because EPA concluded that the burden was already covered under the existing NPDES ICR and the Pretreatment ICR that is being incorporated as discussed above. Thus, there was no additional burden to be incorporated into this ICR.
16.	Outline any plans for tabulation and publication of the information
EPA maintains some application data in databases such as ICIS-NPDES and the eNOI database. These systems provide EPA with a nationwide inventory of all permit holders. EPA Headquarters uses this information to assess permit compliance. This technology also reduces the burden to EPA and the states for gathering and analyzing national permit and water quality data. ICIS is the national computerized management information system that automates entry of, updates, and facilitates retrieval of NPDES data and tracks permit issuance, permit limits and monitoring data, and other data on facilities regulated under NPDES. The public can access permit data in three ways:
 Using EPA's Envirofacts Data Warehouse and Applications website at https://www3.epa.gov/enviro/. Envirofacts lets users combine ICIS data with other EPA databases and mapping tools.
 Using EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) website at https://echo.epa.gov/. ECHO gives the public access to compliance-history-related data for permittees by geographic area.
 Via the Freedom of Information Act by submitting a request to EPA or the state.
17.	Explain any requests to not display the expiration date of OMB approval
EPA has not made a request regarding display of the expiration date.
18.	Explain any exceptions to the certification statement 5 CFR 1320.9, "Agency Certifications for Proposed Collections of Information."
The agency is able to certify compliance with all provisions under item 19 of OMB Form 83-I.B.
B.	Statistical Methods (Used for Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods)
Statistical methods are not used with this collection.

Appendix A -- Description of the Information Collected and Methodology for Estimating Respondent Burden and Cost of Collection
This appendix provides detailed information regarding the methodology for estimating respondent burden and costs. Section A.1 provides the methodology for deriving respondent burden and breakdown of capital/start-up cost, while the derivation of costs is provided in section A.2.
A.1.	Estimating Respondent Burden
 This section describes the methodology for estimating respondent burden for the information requests. Facilities subject to NPDES program requirements (also referred to as permit holders or permittees) and authorized states are included as respondents in this section. Methodologies that apply to NPDES-authorized states also apply to federal burden associated with EPA Regions acting as permitting authority in non-NPDES-authorized states. However, the EPA permitting authority burden and costs are not included in the respondent burden and cost estimates.
This ICR calculates annual burden and costs to respondents. These calculations are complicated because there are two types of permittee respondents discussed in this section: permittees renewing existing permits and applicants for new permits. Applications for NPDES permit renewal must be submitted every 5 years. For these respondents, the ICR assumes that the number of applicants renewing per year equals one-fifth of the total number of existing permitted facilities. For new permits, respondents will apply for each type of new permit only once and the annual number is estimated based on the expected average number of new permit applications that will be submitted over the three-year period covered by this ICR. In subsequent ICRs, new permits will transition to renewal permits.
This section summarizes the input data and assumptions for each category of respondent activity shown in Appendix B. In some cases, the "total number of respondents" and "annual number of respondents" shown in Appendix B may reflect double-counting of individual respondents because the respondent values are summed values within the category which may include multiple activities for the same respondent. For example, a permittee may be required to submit different types of notices to the permitting authority. This is particularly true for recordkeeping, which can involve multiple types of recordkeeping activities.
To simplify the burden estimation process, Appendix A identifies respondent categories that can be used as input values to adjust the burden estimates during each ICR cycle. For each respondent input category, estimates for number of responses, labor hours, O&M costs, and capital/start-up costs are derived from previous ICR estimates. These previous ICR estimates are then adjusted based on revisions to the number of respondents in each respondent input category and wherever underlying assumptions change. The revised number of respondents in each input category are listed in Appendix D and represent various subsets of the unique respondents listed in Appendix E. The basic assumptions used to derive the ICR estimates are described below.
A.1.1.	Recordkeeping
Permittees. Recordkeeping activities include those associated with data collected, DMRs, permit documents, notices, and correspondence. Frequency may range from ongoing to once every five years. The estimated time required per response ranges from 10 minutes (0.17 hours) for sludge permits to 6-7 hours for general stormwater and major industrial NPDES permits.
States. The estimated time required for state respondents for permit oversight recordkeeping ranges from a per-state aggregate of 0.33 hours for the CSO program to 50 hours for sludge programs to 300 hours for the NPDES program.
A.1.2.	Individual Permits
A.1.2.1. Application Forms
Below are NPDES application forms that are submitted initially for new permits and resubmitted upon permit renewal every five years. These forms and the facilities that submit them are included in Table 2.1 in Item 2 of Section A (Justification) above. Due to the wide variety in response times, the burdens for different types of application forms are discussed separately below.
Form 1
Permittees. Form 1 requirements apply to all nonmunicipal individual permits and individual stormwater permits. The estimated time required per permittee respondent for Form 1 ranges from 1 to 3 hours.
States/federal. The estimated burden hours for state/federal respondents to review Form 1 is 0.5 hours per form.
Forms 2C-2F
Permittees. The estimated time required per permittee respondent for Forms 2C-2F ranges from 14 hours for Form 2E to 46 hours for Form 2D.
States/federal. Estimated burden hours for state/federal respondents to review Forms 2C-2F ranges from 0.5 hours to 2 hours per form.
Forms for POTWs and PrOTWs
Permittees. The estimated time required per permittee respondent for Forms for POTWs and PrOTWs (Form 2A - Basic, Form 2A - Part D, Form 2A - Part E, Form 2A - Part F, Form 2A - Part G) ranges from 4 to 18 hours. There are non-labor operating costs associated with Forms for POTWs and PrOTWs due to requirements for testing and analysis. See section A.2 for details.
States. Estimated burden hours for a state respondent to review Forms for POTWs and PrOTWs ranges from 0.67 hours to 4 hours per application.
Ocean Discharge Application
Permittees. The estimated total hours per permittee respondent for applications for ocean discharges is 778 hours but no applications are anticipated for the three year-period for this ICR renewal.
States/federal. Estimated burden hours for state/federal respondents to review applications for ocean discharges is 88 hours per application. As stated above, no applications are anticipated for the three years covered by this ICR renewal.
A.1.2.2. DMRs
Permittees. DMR preparation is expected to require about 2 hours per outfall. Some permittees, especially industrial facilities, have multiple outfalls. The required frequency of DMR reporting (monthly, bimonthly, quarterly, semi-annually, or yearly) depends on facility type and permit type. The implementation of the Electronic Reporting Rule is not expected to change the time necessary to prepare the DMR but will reduce mailing costs. These cost adjustments are calculated separately (see section A.1.8.4) and deducted from the total cost burden estimate.
States/federal. The estimated time required for state/federal respondents to review and process DMRs non-electronically is 10 minutes per DMR per outfall; additionally, 20 percent of the submitted DMRs are expected to require 30 minutes for follow-up. The adjustments in burden due to implementation of the Electronic Reporting Rule requirements affect these estimates and are calculated separately and deducted from the total based on pre-rule estimates (see sections A.1.8.4 and A.2.2.9).
A.1.2.3. Reports
Report activities in this category can include submission of notices to the permitting authority concerning the following:
 Facility and Permit Transfer Report;
 Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous Information;
 Alternate Level Reports;
 Permittee Report of Planned Facility Changes;
 Request for Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations Modification;
 Non-compliance Reports;
 Compliance Schedule Reports; and
 Unanticipated Bypass/Upset Reports.
Permittees. In general, the estimated time required per response for these activities ranges from 1 to 5 hours. There is no set frequency because these activities are often triggered by unplanned events. The frequencies used to derive the burden estimates are based on experience and assumptions regarding expected occurrence of each. The estimated time required per respondent for preparing and submitting compliance schedule reports is 0.75 hours and occurs on an annual basis.
States/federal. The estimated time required for state/federal respondents to review and process notifications is typically 4 hours per notification but can take up to 20 hours for Permittee Report of Planned Facility Changes. The estimated time required for state/federal respondents to review and process compliance schedule reports is 0.25 hours for municipal and 4 hours for nonmunicipal permits.
A.1.2.4. Permittee Monitoring
Sampling
Permittees. Estimates of the hours per response for DMR sampling are generally based on number of outfalls, reporting frequency, and duration and number of sampling episodes per reporting period. Typical sampling episodes are estimated to require about 2 to 2.75 hours each.
States. Any state activities related to monitoring data are covered under the analyses section below.
Analyses
Permittees. This category refers to chemical analyses that are conducted in-house. Estimates of the hours per response for DMR analyses are generally based on 0.5 hours per parameter analyzed multiplied by the estimated number of outfalls, number of samples per response and number of parameters per sample.
States/federal. The estimated time required for state/federal respondents to review and process monitoring reports is 10 minutes and 0.5 hours for follow-up. The estimate of 10 hours for state respondents applies only to review of post-baseline monitoring data for coal remining permits.
CSO Permittee Monitoring
Permittees. The estimated time required per respondent for CSO monitoring is 27 hours, 18 hours, 20 hours, and 2 hours for sampling, analysis, estimating flow parameters, and reporting, respectively. The frequency is semi-annually.
States. Any state activities related to CSO monitoring data are covered under section A.1.2.2 (DMRs).
A.1.2.5. CSO Notification
Permittees. The estimated time required per respondent for CSO notification is 0.5 hours per sign for inspection and maintenance of notification signs and 5 hours for public advisories with a frequency of 10 times per year for public advisories. There are capital costs for replacement of signs (see section A.2 for details).
States. The estimated time for state oversight of CSO notification is 4 hours per permit every 5 years.
A.1.2.6. Other
Activities in this category include:
 Request for Modification, Revocation and Reissuance, or Termination;
 Section 308(a) Letters;
 New Introduction of Pollutants to POTWs;
 Notification of New or Increased Discharge;
 Permittee Notice of Regulated Discharge Cessation;
 Variance Request;
 Certifications;
 Documenting Nine Minimum Control Measures;
 Writing Long-term Control Plans;
 Part 435 Certification Oil and Gas Extraction; and
 BMP Development.
Request for Modification, Revocation and Reissuance, or Termination
Permittees. The estimated time required per respondent for preparing and submitting a request for modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination is 5 hours and occurs on an as-needed basis.
States/federal. The estimated time required for state/federal respondents to review and process request for modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination is 40 hours for each request.
Section 308 Requests
Permittees. The time required per respondent for preparing responses to Section 308 requests can vary considerably and is estimated to be 5-8 hours, 50 hours, and 1,000 hours for routine requests and letters, medium complexity requests, and complex municipal facility requests, respectively. The frequency is on an as-needed basis.
States/federal. The estimated time required for state/federal respondents to review and process submitted information ranges from 1 to 20 hours depending on permit type.
New Introduction of Pollutants to POTWs
Permittees. The time required per respondent to prepare and submit to the permitting authority a notice of substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants being introduced into that POTW is estimated to be 3 hours and occurs at an approximate frequency of 200 per year.
States/federal. The time required to review and process each notice is 4 hours.
Notification of New or Increased Discharge
Permittees. The time required per respondent to prepare and submit to the permitting authority a notice of new or increased discharge is estimated to be 4 hours and occurs for 5 percent of all major and 3 percent of all minor nonmunicipal permits.
States/federal. The time required to review and process each notice is 4 hours.
Permittee Notice of Regulated Discharge Cessation
Permittees. The time required per respondent to prepare and submit to the permitting authority a notice of new or increased discharge is estimated to be 4 hours and occurs annually for 2 percent of all major and 0.8 percent of all minor nonmunicipal permits.
States/federal. The time required to review and process each notice is 4 hours.
Variance Request
Permittees. Variance requests for individual permits include the following:
 Great Lakes Modification and variance request. The estimated burden is 418 hours.
 Variance Request for Fundamentally Different Factors. The estimated burden is 160 hours.
 Variance Request for Nonconventional Pollutants. The estimated burden is 150 hours.
 Variance Request for Innovative Pollution Control Technology. The estimated burden is 60 hours.
 Variance Request Regarding Thermal Discharges (New). The estimated burden is 400 hours.
 Variance Request Regarding Thermal Discharges (Renewal). The estimated burden is 4 hours.
The number of respondents for each type is based on assumed percentages of different types of permits. The frequency of occurrence is on an as-needed basis.
States/federal. The estimated time required for state/federal respondents to review and process variance requests ranges from 44 to 520 hours for each type of variance request. Time for review and processing of thermal discharge variance renewals is 1 hour.
Long-term Control Plans (LTCPs)
Permittees. The estimated time required per respondent to write an LTCP varies considerably depending on system size and on whether the system has already conducted studies. Respondent time can range from 300 hours for a small system that has existing studies to 6,000 hours for a large system without existing studies.
States/federal. The estimated time required for state/federal respondents to review and process LTCPs is 20, 33, and 53 hours for small, medium, and large combined sewer systems, respectively.
Documenting Nine Minimum Control (NMC) Measures
Permittees. The estimated time required per respondent for collecting necessary information for small, medium and large systems is 29 hours, 43 hours and 200 hours, respectively. EPA estimates that no municipalities will submit NMC documentation in the next 3 years.
States. No state respondent burden is anticipated for this activity.
Certification for Exemption from Monitoring and Notification of Process Changes
The effluent limitations guidelines and standards regulations for 14 industrial categories (12 categories and 2 subcategories) allow dischargers to submit a certification to exempt them from monitoring one or more pollutants.
Permittees. The estimated time required per respondent for preparing certification for exemption documents will typically be one hour and with a frequency of once per year.
States/federal. The estimated time required for state/federal respondents to review and process certification documents is 1 hour for each certification.
Part 435 Certification Oil and Gas Extraction (Synthetic Based Drilling Fluid)
Permittees. The estimated time required per respondent for activities associated with certification of preparation and implementation of BMP plans for control of discharges of synthetic-based drilling fluids cuttings under 40 CFR Part 435 for oil and gas extraction permits is 787 hours and occurs at a frequency of once per year.
Federal. The estimated time required for federal respondents to review and process certification documents is 5.7 hour for each certification.
Pollution Prevention Alternative Certification (Pesticides Packaging and Repackaging)
Permittees. The estimated time required per respondent for preparing pollution prevention alternative certifications for pesticides formulating, packaging, and repackaging category facilities is 20 hours and occurs annually.
States/federal. The estimated time required for state/federal respondents to review and process certification documents is 1 hour for each certification.
BMP Development
Permittees. The estimated time required per respondent is 50 hours for amendment and review of BMP Plans for certain industrial permits and 40 hours for associated refresher training. Recurrence is on an as-needed basis for the BMP plan and semi-annually for the training.
States. The estimated time required for state respondents for BMP plan review is 5 hours.
A.1.2.7. Great Lakes
The activities in this category apply to NPDES permittees that discharge within the Great Lakes watershed and are subject to EPA's Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance.
Permittees. Activities include:
 Great Lakes Antidegradation Demonstration with bioaccumulative chemicals of concern (BCCs). The estimated burden is 22.2 hours and 11.1 hours for municipal and nonmunicipal permits, respectively.
 Great Lakes Antidegradation Demonstration without BCCs. The estimated burden is 14.8 hours and 7.4 hours for municipal and nonmunicipal permits, respectively.
 Great Lakes pollutant minimization plan (PMP) Implementation. The estimated burden is 1.2 hours and 1.4 hours for municipal and nonmunicipal permits, respectively.
 Great Lakes Approvable Strategy. The estimated burden is 104 hours and 142 hours for municipal and nonmunicipal permits, respectively.
 Great Lakes Annual Report. The estimated burden is 20.9 hours and 32.4 hours for municipal and nonmunicipal permits, respectively.
 Great Lakes Bioconcentration Studies. The estimated burden is 73 hours.
 Great Lakes Collecting Data and Monitoring for WET Limits. The estimated burden is 10,877 hours total and 6,841 hours total for all municipal and nonmunicipal permits, respectively.
 Great Lakes WQBEL Compliance Monitoring. The estimated burden is 0.5 hours.
Frequency ranges from ongoing for PMP implementation to annually for monitoring and strategies/studies/reports to once every 5 years for antidegradation demonstrations.
States. The burden applies only to the 7 Great Lake states and the estimated time required per state respondent ranges from 4 to 8 hours for each item.
A.1.3.	National Pretreatment Program
The activities in this category are related to the administration of the pretreatment program included in the National Pretreatment Program ICR Supporting Statement (OMB control no. 2040-0009; EPA ICR no. 0002.15). All activities were grouped and allocated on the basis of the type of respondent. Below is a list of the possible types of input variables:
 Total number of SIUs;
 Total number of CIUs;
 Total number of approved pretreatment programs;
 Number of approved states; and
 Estimated number of new pretreatment programs over the next three years.
Burden estimates for each respondent type in the Pretreatment ICR were updated using the current estimate of the number of each respondent type listed above (see Appendix D). Historically, ICIS has been a poor source of information regarding respondent numbers related to the pretreatment program. Consequently, the updated estimates were verified through consultation with the Regional and State pretreatment coordinators. There are no capital or start-up costs. Burden estimates for POTWs, IUs, state, and federal government are associated with the following types of activities related to the Pretreatment Program:
 Program development (POTWs and state/federal);
 Program implementation (POTWs, IUs and state/federal);
 Limits modification requests and removal credits (POTWs and IUs);
 POTWs as users of the data (POTWs);
 Recordkeeping (POTWs, IUs and states);
 States as users of the data; and
 Recordkeeping.
Industrial Users. The underlying assumptions regarding burden estimates for industrial users are summarized in Table A.1. Certain industrial user activities are presented as percentages to reflect that they are projections, based on the industrial user universe. In some cases, values are based on estimates that EPA developed for a previous ICR; values were not recalculated as there is no readily available source or indication that these assumptions are incorrect or require revision.
Table A.1 Summary of Burden Assumptions Related to Industrial Users
Industrial User Activity
Frequency
Burden (hours)
Baseline monitoring and report
New sources equivalent to 2 percent of CIUs per year
                                                                           42.3
IU compliance schedule progress report
25 percent of new sources per year
                                                                              4
IU compliance attainment analysis and report
New sources equivalent to 2 percent of CIUs per year
                                                                           34.3
IU resampling compliance report
10 percent of all IUs per year excluding 1,500 Pesticides Formulating Packaging & Repackaging (PFPR) facilities
                                                                             17
IU self-monitoring compliance sampling and report[a]
Once every 5 years excluding PFPR facilities
                                                                    14.5 - 16.6
Pollution prevention plans
10 percent of PFPR facilities per year
                                                                             20
Minimum monitoring requirements for Paper Mills in specific categories
10 mills per year
                                                                            826
Pollution prevention compliance alternative; transportation equipment cleaning
84 facilities per year
                                                                      209 - 235
Best management practices for Paper Mills in specific categories
10 facilities per year
                                                                            617