INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 2000 MEAT PRODUCTS INDUSTRY SURVEYS August 2000 PART A i 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1 1( a) Title of The Information Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1( b) Short Characterization / Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 8 3( a) Nonduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3( c) Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3( e) General Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3( f) Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3( g) Sensitive Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 14 4( a) Respondents/ NAICS Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4( b) Information Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 27 5( a) Agency Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 5( b) Collection Methodology and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5( c) Small Entity Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 5( d) Collection Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 31 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 6( b) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 6( c) Bottom Line Burden Hours And Cost Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 6( d) Reasons for Change in Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 6( e) Burden Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 PART B 1. SURVEY OBJECTIVES, KEY VARIABLES, AND OTHER PRELIMINARIES 1( a) Survey Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 1( b) Key variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 1( c) Statistical Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 1( d) Feasibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 ii 2. SURVEY DESIGN 2( a) Target Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 2( b) Sample Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 2( c) Sample Size and Precision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 2( d) Survey Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 3. PRETESTS AND PILOT TESTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 4. COLLECTION METHODS AND FOLLOW UP 4( a) Collection Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 4( b) Survey Response Follow up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 5. ANALYZING AND REPORTING SURVEY RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 5( a) Data Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 5( b) Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 5( c) Reporting Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 2000 Meat Products Industry Detailed Survey Attachment 2 2000 Meat Products Industry Screener Survey Attachment 3 First Federal Register Notice Attachment 4 Summaries of, and Responses to, Public Comments Attachment 5 Draft of Second Federal Register Notice Attachment 6 Copies of the relevant sections of statutes, regulations or judicial/ administrative decrees mentioned in Section 2 1 PART A 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title of The Information Collection U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 2000 Meat Products Industry Survey 1( b) Short Characterization / Abstract The United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA or the Agency), through this Information Collection Request ( ICR) package, requests that the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) review and approve an industry survey of meat products facilities. Through this survey, the Agency will obtain data essential to the review and revision of the Meat Products Effluent Limitations Guidelines ( 40 CFR Part 432) This data collection is authorized by Section 308 of the Clean Water Act ( CWA).

The Engineering and Analysis Division ( EAD) of EPA's Office of Water will administer the development, dissemination and collection of the 2000 Meat Products Industry Surveys. The Detailed Survey, located in Attachment 1, is designed to collect technical and economic data from meat products operations. The Screener Survey, located in Attachment 2, is designed to collect basic characterization information on facilities in the industry. The information received in the surveys will be stored on a database at EPA. EPA will administer the Detailed Survey to approximately 350 facilities and will administer the Screener Survey to approximately 1,650 facilities. EPA does not anticipate sending any follow up surveys.

EPA has determined that the data that will be obtained through the Surveys is necessary for EPA to review and revise the effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the meat products industry. These data will be used to perform detailed technical and economic analyses that will support the Agency's development of technically achievable regulatory options for the meat products industry. Ultimately, EPA will select appropriate regulatory options based on economic achievability, implementation, cost effectiveness, and projected environmental benefits associated with the options.

The Meat Products Industry will devote time and resources to respond to the Surveys. EPA estimates that this survey will involve approximately 2000 respondents and place a total cost burden of $ 858,780 on the Meat Products Industry. Also, the data collection efforts for the development of these guidelines will place an additional burden of approximately 2,800 hours and $ 193,760 on the Meat Products Industry for data collected by industry and submitted to EPA labs for 20 facilities. The survey designs represent a culmination of the Agency's efforts not only to gather sufficient data to perform the analyses required by the CWA, related Acts, and various executive orders, but also to cooperate with the meat products industry to administer a clear and concise data collection that places the lowest possible burden on all respondents. 2 2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE SURVEY 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Survey The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (" Clean Water Act," or CWA), 33 U. S. C. 1251 et seq., established a comprehensive program to " restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters" ( Section 101( a)). Under the authority of the Act, EPA is required to issue effluent limitations guidelines, pretreatment standards, and new source performance standards for industries that generate wastewater. Section 304( m) of the CWA, added by the Water Quality Act of 1987 ( P. L. 100 4, February 4, 1987), calls for EPA to publish biennial effluent guidelines plans, and to establish a schedule for the review and revision of promulgated guidelines.

The Agency published its first biennial plan on January 2, 1990 ( 55 FR 80). The Natural Resources Defense Council ( NRDC) and others filed suit against EPA for alleged inadequacies in the plan. See NRDC, et al. v Reilly, Civ. No. 89 2980 ( D. C. Cir.). The courtapproved consent decree between EPA and NRDC ( January 31, 1992) required the Agency to propose and take final action on seven effluent guidelines already under development, four effluent guidelines already identified, and eight additional effluent guidelines that had not yet been identified by EPA.

In accordance with Section 304( m) of the CWA, EPA is reviewing the meat products effluent limitations guidelines and standards ( 40 CFR Part 432). The Agency originally promulgated effluent guidelines covering the Meat Products Point Source Category in 1974. These guidelines have never been revised to reflect the changes in the industry over the past 25 years. In addition, poultry processing was not included in the guidelines, although limitations were proposed for poultry processors in a separate rulemaking on April 24, 1975 ( 80 FR 18150). Final effluent guidelines for the poultry processing were never promulgated.

Since promulgation of regulations in 1975, the meat products industry, particularly poultry processing, has dramatically increased in capacity, with fewer, but larger and more efficient processing facilities. The existing limitations for the meat products industry also do not address environmental problems such as nutrient pollution that have emerged as issues of concern during the last 25 years. Specifically, Subparts A through D of the meat products guidelines promulgated in 1975 do not include technology based limits for ammonia nitrogen and other potential nutrients that can degrade water quality. Along with concentrated animal feeding operations ( CAFOs), meat product facilities have been identified as potentially significant contributors to nutrient loadings in the Nation's surface waters. The Surveys will provide valuable information on how facilities currently treat their wastewater so that the Agency may more accurately establish baseline conditions under the current regulatory framework. The 2000 Meat Products Industry Surveys are an essential portion of the detailed information gathering process necessary for EPA to determine if the regulations remain appropriate in light of changes throughout the industry. 3 EPA plans to conduct a mail survey of approximately 2000 facilities conducting operations that fall within the meat products industry, including those that are currently regulated by 40 CFR Part 432. Approximately 350 facilities will receive the Detailed Survey and 1,650 facilities will receive the Screener Survey. The surveys request data for 1999, the most recent year for which complete technical and economic data are available. The data collection will be administered under the authority of Section 308 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U. S. C., Section 1318.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data Under the effluent guidelines program, EPA must establish technology based limitations guidelines ( based on the Best Practicable Control Technology ( BPT), Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology ( BCT), and Best Available Technology Economically Achievable ( BAT)), and standards ( Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources ( PSES), New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS), and Pretreatment Standards for New Sources ( PSNS)). BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS apply to direct dischargers ( i. e., sites that discharge directly to navigable waters of the United States), while PSES and PSNS apply to indirect dischargers ( i. e., sites that discharge to publicly owned treatment works ( POTWs)).

To develop technology based limitations and standards, EPA will collect and analyze information pertaining to wastewater characteristics ( e. g., pollutants discharged, wastewater flows), wastewater treatment technologies ( e. g., pollution prevention techniques, endof pipe treatment systems), and the economic impacts of these treatment technologies. Specifically, EPA will use responses to the 2000 Meat Products Industry Detailed Survey to assist in characterizing the pollution discharged from meat product facilities sites and to develop technology options to control these pollutant discharges. The Agency will use the data collected to assist in establishing current baseline estimates of industry wide production normalized wastewater flow rates, pollutant concentrations, and pollutant loadings in order to estimate the engineering costs of compliance and analyze the economic impacts and environmental benefits associated with each regulatory option. EPA will select among appropriate technology options and associated effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the meat products industry based on the results of these analyses. Facilities affected by the regulations ultimately promulgated will have the choice of implementing any combination of technologies that enable them to comply with the effluent limitations guidelines and standards.

EPA has identified the following types of red meat and poultry operations to be included in the 2000 Meat Products Industry Surveys.

Slaughtering;

By product processing;

Rendering;

Further processing.

Under the current regulations ( 40 CFR Part 432, Subparts A through I), poultry processing is not specifically regulated. Instead, these regulations apply to only red meat. EPA anticipates that any 4 new limitations would explicitly cover poultry processing operations, and therefore these facilities are included in the Survey. Subpart J of 40 CFR Part 432 regulates rendering of both red meat and poultry by products.

Analyses Supported by the 2000 Meat Products Industry Survey

Technical Analyses Supported by the 2000 Meat Products Industry Detailed and Screener Surveys EPA engineers, economists, statisticians, and contractors will perform detailed analyses of the data collected through the Surveys. The technical data will include basic site information, manufacturing process information, water use data, wastewater characterization summaries, wastewater treatment system data, and pollution prevention data. Specific analyses using the technical data are described below.

( i) Subcategorization The Agency will survey facilities from the meat products industry to fully capture the range of processes, wastewater types, and in place treatment technologies for the entire sector. Data from the respondents will help the Agency determine whether subcaterorization of the industry is necessary for establishing effluent limitations. Under such a regime, the Agency would develop estimates of pollutant loadings, and estimates of compliance costs associated with proposed regulatory options for each subcategory. It is important that EPA fully understand these differences to construct subcategories that are meaningful, and effluent limitations guidelines and standards that incorporate the differences in production.

( ii) Evaluation of Meat Product Industry Processes and Wastewaters EPA will use data collected through the Surveys to analyze meat products industry manufacturing processes, pollution prevention practices, and wastewater treatment systems. Specifically, EPA will analyze each manufacturing process, including the water use, production, and wastewater discharge rates; pollution prevention techniques associated with each process; and the characteristics of wastewater generated from each process. EPA will also analyze plant wide pollution prevention practices and wastewater treatment systems to determine the wastewaters 5 that require treatment, the treatment technologies that are applicable to those wastewaters, the effectiveness of these systems, and the final discharge characteristics from meat products facilities.

( iii) Technical Feasibility Analysis EPA will select technically feasible technology options, including control technologies and pollution prevention and recycle practices, for all subcategories. The Agency will assess the technical feasibility of each technology option by determining its availability within the industry, as well as the degree to which it effectively eliminates the generation of pollutants and/ or removes or destroys specific pollutants.

( iv) Assessment of Technology Costs EPA will use data collected through the Surveys to estimate the direct costs of the wastewater treatment and control technologies and pollution prevention/ management practices selected as the technology basis options for meat products industry effluent guidelines. These data include wastewater flow rates, production rates, data related to treatment technologies already in place, and pollutant concentrations. EPA will use data collected through the Surveys to assess the following direct costs: treatment equipment capital costs; annual operating expenses ( e. g., power costs, chemical costs); and waste disposal costs.

( v) Calculation of Effluent Limitations EPA will develop preliminary effluent limitations guidelines and standards for each technology option it has developed. The Agency will base these preliminary limitations upon a detailed statistical analysis of treated effluent data from sites that implement the recommended control technologies and pollution prevention/ management practices and that have well operated treatment systems. EPA will develop preliminary effluent limitations for maximum daily and average monthly discharge levels.

In addition, EPA will evaluate the volume of wastewater, as well as the mass of pollutant generated per ton of product ( e. g., gallons of wastewater per pounds of meat slaughtered, pounds of ammonia generated per pound of raw material processed). This evaluation will be used to determine if certain product types generate different types of wastewater, and if subcategorization is appropriate. EPA will develop production normalized flows and/ or pollutant loadings on which to base the limitations calculations for each subcategory.

( vi) Environmental Assessment EPA will perform an environmental assessment to determine the potential impacts of meat products industrial discharges on aquatic life and human health, as well as on the proper operation of POTWs and other treatment works. This assessment will characterize the potential risk posed by the discharges and will assist the Agency in projecting the environmental and economic benefits of the regulation. 6 ( vii) Development of Regulatory Options and Selection of Final Option After technology options are assessed, preliminary effluent limitations are calculated, and economic analyses are performed, EPA will develop regulatory options. For each option, EPA will assess the amount of each pollutant removed, the potential costs to the industry, the economic impacts of these costs on businesses ( e. g., if businesses may be forced to close because of the regulatory costs), the cost effectiveness, and the non water quality impacts. Based upon these assessments, EPA will select the best regulatory option for each type of guideline or standard for each subcategory of the meat products industry.

Economic Analyses Supported by the Surveys EPA economists, engineers, statisticians, and contractors will perform detailed economic analyses of the data collected through the 2000 Meat Products Industry Surveys. The economic data will include corporate structure, discount rate, quantities produced, income statement information such as revenues, costs, interest, depreciation, taxes, and net income, balance sheet information such as current and noncurrent assets, current liabilities, long term debt, and retained earnings. These data are collected for two levels the site and the company. Specific analysis using the economic data are described below.

( i) Estimation of Impacts on Sites One element of the economic analysis will be a determination of the proposed regulation's impacts on individual sites. The analysis will combine site specific costs of compliance with site financial data suitably weighted for survey respondents. These results will be statistically weighted to estimate the total costs and impacts of the proposed regulation.

A goal of the analysis will be to identify sites that might close due to pollution control requirements. A standard financial decision model would predict closure if the net present value of future income is negative. The forecasted income for the site is a major determinant of the net present value of continued operations. The income projections are calculated using the revenue information collected in the survey, including the tax status of the site or its business entity. An estimated percentage of costs that the market will allow to pass through to the consumer will be incorporated into the projected revenue estimates. To complete the closure analysis, the survey also provides data relevant to calculating the salvage value of the site, such as current assets, and the book value of land, buildings, and equipment, if deemed appropriate. Direct losses in output, revenue, and employment are calculated directly from the closure analysis results and survey responses.

( ii) Estimation of Impacts on Companies The costs for all meat products sites that a given company owns will be estimated and aggregated. The combined cost to the company will be analyzed in the context of the company's financial status to evaluate the overall impact. The company level impact analysis allows EPA to assess the effect of effluent guideline at a different level of business organization. Companies that own multiple sites may not be able to afford the total cost of upgrading all its facilities, even if it makes economic sense for each individual site. Because such financing decisions are commonly made 7 at company level rather than the site level, EPA needs to assess economic impacts at the company level in addition to the site level. In the case of single establishment firms, this component of the analysis is unnecessary because site level and company level impacts will coincide.

Whenever possible, EPA will collect data needed to assess company level impacts from secondary sources. This reduces the burden on survey recipients. Secondary sources provide data for multi site, publicly reporting companies but are inadequate for single site companies or multi site, non publicly reporting companies.

( iii) Estimation of Secondary Impacts EPA will assess the secondary impacts of projected site closures on other segments of the economy. For example, employment losses and reductions in derived demand for input goods/ services could potentially erode the economic condition of households and firms in communities around closing Meat Products sites. Estimation of these community impacts depends upon employment and labor income data from the Meat Products Industry Detailed Survey effort, macroeconomic multipliers, general economic data, and economic data from secondary sources. EPA also plans to consider the secondary impacts felt by small businesses and foreign trade. EPA will utilize secondary sources whenever possible during these analyses to minimize the burden placed upon survey recipients. Data from secondary sources will include detailed industry trade statistics, labor cost and commodity price indices, labor and commodity input requirement coefficients, regional income multipliers, regional employment, small business statistics, and other relevant secondary source information. 8 3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3( a) Nonduplication The Engineering and Analysis Division ( EAD) of the Agency's Office of Water has made every reasonable attempt to ensure that the 2000 Meat Products Industry Surveys do not request data and information currently available through less burdensome mechanisms.

Specifically, EAD has explored the following databases Online to locate data and information significant to the regulatory development process: the Agency PCS database, USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service's HACCP Databases, USDA's Packers and Stockyards Statistical Report, SEC's EDGAR Database, the 1997 U. S. Census of Manufacturers, Dun & Bradstreet Million Dollar Directory and Hoover's.

USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service maintains databases of firms participating in its Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point ( HACCP) program. The databases contain information on names, addresses, and meat and/ or poultry inspection numbers of facilities participating in the program. This information was used in developing the sampling frame for the survey, but no financial information that could be used in economic impact analysis is contained in the databases.

EPA reviewed data from USDA's Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration ( GIPSA). GIPSA publishes the Packers and Stockyards Statistical Report on the cattle, hog, sheep, and lamb slaughtering industries. While this source provides background information on the industry it does not identify company or facility specific information that can be used for assessing economic impacts.

Without an industry wide survey, the only companies with available detailed financial information are publicly traded companies, which must file a Form 10 K annually with SEC; these are available through SEC= s EDGAR database. SEC Form 10 Ks include descriptions of the company= s operating and financial conditions. The limitation of this data for the estimation of firm level cost impacts is that it includes the finances of the entire company, not solely the meat processing or slaughtering operations.

Data from the 1997 U. S. Census of Manufacturers will be used in developing the aggregate industry profile, including data on the number of companies and establishments, value of shipments, employment, and investment. To a lesser extent, this data is also provided at the state level. However, no data is provided at the individual facility or company level that can be used to analyze potential regulatory impacts.

The Dun & Bradstreet ( D& B) Million Dollar Database provides information on over 1.2 million U. S. leading public and private businesses. Companies are included in this database that have over $ 1 million in annual revenues and branch or single locations with more than 20 employees. Available data includes company address, listings of locations corresponding to SIC code, tradestyles, 9 line of business, annual revenues, employee data, public or private status, date of ownership, and key executives. EPA searched the Million Dollar Directory for SIC codes primary to meat processing ( SICs 2011, 2013, 2015). The financial data collected through D& B is for the entire company, not solely the meat processing or slaughtering operations. For many of the largest meat processors, the slaughtering and processing operations are a small part of the company= s overall revenues. Information is not provided on operating costs. Branch locations do not always indicate the headquarters name and location; this makes it difficult to track companies and their numerous operations.

Hoover= s Online ( www. hoovers. com) provides company and industry information on approximately 14,000 public and private companies, as well as cooperatives. Similar to the D& B database, Hoover= s Online provides little financial data at the company level suitable for conducting impact analyses.

In addition, the Agency has conducted a thorough collection and review of secondary sources, which include data, reports, and analyses published by government agencies; reports and analyses published by the meat products industry and its associated organizations; and publicly available financial information compiled by both government and private organizations.

EPA used the listings of beef processing plants from Cattle Fax, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Iowa State University, and North Dakota State University to identify the location of individual beef slaughtering plants, their parent corporation, and, in some cases, the operational capacity of the individual facility. EPA used the National Pork Producers Council publication to identify the location of hog slaughtering plants, the name of their parent corporation, and the operational capacity of the facility. EPA used WATT PoultryUSA's publications to locate individual poultry slaughtering plants, the types of processes at those plants, and the name of their parent corporation. Urner Barry provided information on location, parent company, and types of processes at the plant for all three sectors. All this data was useful for developing and stratifying the sampling frame, and for developing an industry profile. However, no revenue, cost, or employment data was found in these publications that could be used in assessing potential economic impacts.

The documents cited above were all used by EPA in developing the industry profile, the sampling frame, and stratifying the sampling frame. In addition to these publications, EPA examined many other documents that provided useful overviews and analysis of the meat processing industry.

EPA also conducted general Internet searches by company name. In many cases EPA was able to locate a company web site and in some cases these did provide useful information on plant locations and operations. Some companies make copies of their annual reports available online. Again, this information is provided at the company level, not at the level of the individual facility; in most cases, the slaughtering and processing operations are just one aspect of the company's overall operations, and therefore do not provide information adequate to conduct a impact analysis of meat processors. Finally, data can be obtained on only a small fraction of the industry through this means. The Agency has obtained detailed information on nutrient removal and control in the meat products industry using the Uncover database to identify scientific journals and papers published in the last 15 years. Based on the results of this search, the Agency has acquired information on new 10 and existing wastewater treatment technologies, wastewater recycle and reuse practices, and other potential and existing pollution prevention practices.

EPA has consulted the American Meat Institute, the National Renderers Association and the U. S. Poultry & Egg Association for lists of all member companies and facilities.

Although the consulted sources have provided valuable industry information, and Agency will combine this information with data gathered through the meat products industry Surveys, none of these sources alone can provide the Agency with the complete and up to date, industry wide, sitespecific technical and economic data crucial to the review and revision of the meat products effluent limitations guidelines and standards.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB ( i) Publication of the Federal Register Notice On May 1, 2000, EPA published a notice in the Federal Register, 65 FR 25325, announcing the Agency's intent to submit the Meat Products Industry Survey ICR to OMB. A copy of this notice is included in Attachment 2. The notice includes a description of the entities to be affected by the proposed survey, a brief explanation of the need for the survey, identification of the authority under which the survey will be issued, and an estimate of burden to be incurred by survey respondents. Through the notice, the Agency requested comments and suggestions regarding the survey and the reduction of data collection burden, and asked that the public submit all comments and suggestions within 60 days of the Federal Register notice publication.

( ii) Public Response to the Federal Register Notice EPA received five sets of comments within 60 days of the Federal Register Notice publication from the National Chicken Council, the National Renderers Association, the American Meat Institute, BCR Foods and the U. S. Poultry and Egg Association. EPA received no comments after the close of the 60 day comment period. These written comments are summarized in Attachment 4.

( iii) EPA Action Resulting from Public Comment Only minor revisions were made to the 2000 Meat Products Industry Survey as a result of public comments. Most of the revisions to the survey were made to provide clarification for the respondent. Attachment 4 presents Agency responses to all written comments received. This attachment also includes descriptions of the survey modifications made in response to these comments.

3( c) Consultations 11 Prior to publishing the Federal Register notice announcing the Agency's intent to submit the Meat Products Industry Survey ICR, EPA distributed draft copies of the survey to three trade associations representing the meat products industry. These associations are the American Meat Institute; the National Chicken Council; and the National Renderers Association. The Agency requested that each association conduct a review of the survey and provide comments prior to the publication of the Federal Register notice. Only minor changes were made to the content and format of the survey based on these inititial comments received. Further, EPA asked each association to submit its formal comments on the survey by the deadline published in the Federal Register notice. All comments and suggestions made are reflected in the Agency responses presented in Attachment 4.

EPA met with members of three trade associations ( the American Meat Institute; the National Chicken Council; and the National Renderers Association) at one meeting to discuss the Meat Product Industry project goals with its administration. This meeting provided an important opportunity for Agency attendees and trade association attendees to discuss questions, comments, and concerns regarding the meat products industry regulatory development process.

While planning and developing the data collection activities associated with the Meat Products Industry Survey, project team members have combined innovative ideas with mechanisms that have been used in previous effluent guidelines projects. Several members of the EPA meat products effluent guidelines project team have extensive experience with effluent guidelines projects. Two of the project team members assisted in the development and recent administration of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 1997 Iron and Steel Survey. Several of the team members have assisted in the extensive data collection, maintenance, and analysis activities associated with the development of effluent guidelines for other industrial categories. These team members have made significant contributions to the development of the survey, and to the team's efforts to minimize the burden that the survey will place on the industry.

Non EPA Persons Consulted on Any Aspect of the Collection: 1.) Dr. James Heminover, DVM of USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service phone number ( 402) 221 7402. 2.) Gary Gaol of USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service   phone number ( 202) 720 4856. 3.) Sherry Edwards of the American Meat Institute phone number ( 703) 841 2400. 4.) Rob Sherman of Kraft Foods and the American Meat Institute phone number ( 608) 285 6882. 5.) Paul Halberstadt of ConAgra and the American Meat Institute   phone number ( 630) 512 1190. 6.) John Starkey of the U. S. Poultry and Egg Association   phone number ( 770) 493 9401.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection 12 EPA will distribute the 2000 Meat Products Industry Survey once for the purpose of gathering the necessary data to review and revise the current effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the Meat Products Industry.

3( e) General Guidelines The 2000 Meat Products Industry Surveys will be conducted in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 5 CFR 1320.5( d)( 2)), and will adhere to OMB general guidelines for information collections.

3( f) Confidentiality In accordance with 40 CFR, Part 2, Subpart B, Section 2.203, the 2000 Meat Products Industry Surveys inform respondents of their right to claim information as confidential. Each survey provides instructions for claiming confidentiality, and informs respondents of the terms and rules governing the protection of Confidential Business Information ( CBI) under the Clean Water Act and 40 CFR 2.203( B). Each survey question which requests potentially confidential information is accompanied by a CBI box. Survey respondents are requested to check all CBI boxes which accompany responses they claim as confidential.

EPA and its contractors will follow EAD's existing procedures to protect data labeled as CBI. These procedures include the following:

Ensure secure handling of completed surveys to preclude access by unauthorized personnel;

Store completed surveys and databases in secured areas of offices, and restrict access to authorized EPA and contractor personnel only;

Restrict any publication or dissemination of confidential study results or findings to aggregate statistics and coded listings. Individual respondents will not be identified in summary reports and EPA contractors will not release respondents' names to unauthorized individuals.

Each EPA contractor that collects, processes, or stores CBI is responsible for the proper handling of that data. Each contractor shall safeguard information as described in Section 2.211 ( d) of Subpart B and is obligated to use or disclose information only as permitted by the contract under which the information is furnished.

3( g) Sensitive Questions The 2000 Meat Products Industry Survey does not include sensitive questions regarding sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, or other personal matters. 13 4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 4( a) Respondents/ NAICS Codes EPA will distribute the Surveys to Meat Products facilities currently regulated under 40 CFR 432 Subparts A through J. In addition, the Surveys will be provided to facilities classified as poultry processing sites. The Agency believes that these types of meat products facilities sites generate and discharge the majority of Meat Product Industry wastewaters and pollutant loadings. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes are associated with meat products industry sites that are affected by the data collection effort covered under this ICR:

311611  Animal ( except Poultry) Slaughtering;

311612  Meat Processed from Carcasses;

311613  Rendering and Meat By Product Processing; and

311615  Poultry Processing.

4( b) Information Requested ° Detailed Description of the 2000 Meat Products Industry Detailed Survey The Detailed Survey, presented in Attachment 1, is divided into five parts. The first four parts collect general facility and technical data, which will be used to determine industry production rates, water use and reuse in the processes ( including factors that affect water use and reuse), wastewater generation rates ( including factors that affect wastewater generation), types of pollutants and pollutant loadings ( including factors that affect types of pollutants and pollutant loadings), pollution prevention and wastewater management techniques, and treatment and disposal costs and practices. The fifth part of the Detailed Survey collects financial and economic data, which will be used to characterize the economic status of the industry and to estimate potential economic impacts of wastewater regulations.

The introduction to the Detailed Survey contains instructions for completion, as well as one question and a choice of two certification statements. The question asks whether the site is engaged in meat product processes. If the answer is " no", the respondent does not have to complete the survey, but must certify their response using certification statement # 2 and indicate why the survey is not applicable ( e. g., the site is a sales office). If the answer is " yes", the respondent is directed to complete the Detailed Survey and certify their response using certification statement # 1 when that part is complete.

In the technical portion of the Detailed Survey, the Agency requests process flow diagrams ( PFDs) for different operations at the site. These questions include a checklist of required information to include on the PFD. A burden reducing feature included by EPA allows the respondent to submit existing site diagrams, as long as the existing diagrams reflect all requested information. 14 ° General and Technical Information The first four parts of the Detailed Survey collect technical data. The first set of questions request general facility site information. The second set of questions request production data, while the last two sections focus on wastewater characteristics and current treatment practices, respectively. The Agency needs information collected in these four sections in order to evaluate the meat products industry processes and wastewaters, to analyze technically feasible control technologies, to assess technology costs, to evaluate the current and potential future subcategorization of the meat products industry, to calculate pollutant loadings and the pollutant reductions associated with the likely technology based options, and to assess environmental impacts made by the meat products industry.

The following is a description and justification of each question in technical sections of the Detailed Survey.

Questions 1 8: General Facility Information Questions 1 8 request general facility information, including mailing and site addresses, and technical and financial contact information. The information provided in response to these questions will allow EPA to better characterize the industry in terms of geography, distribution among sector subcategories, and type of ownership.

Question 1 requests verification of the site's mailing address. Likewise, Question 2 requests verification of the site's street ( i. e., physical) address. EPA needs this verification in order to correct or complete erroneous or incomplete portions of meat products industry addresses on the survey mailing list, and to ensure that proper addresses are used for any follow up activities performed to clarify responses. Due to the significant effort the Agency has already made to ensure the accuracy and completeness of all information on the 2000 Meat Products Industry mailing list, the Agency expects that a minimum number of sites will have to provide mailing and address information to correct EPA's records. In addition, EPA relies on location information when surveying companies that operate numerous sites throughout the United States. The Agency needs accurate site location information in order to address possible subcategorization of the industrial category based on geographic location, and to evaluate the impact that meat products industry sites make on local water quality.

Question 3 requests the name and address of the company that owns the site. The data will be used to group sites by company in order to aggregate costs and evaluate impacts on the company level. Question 4 requests names, titles, telephone numbers, and facsimile numbers of technical and financial contacts at the site regarding information supplied in the survey. With this information, EPA will be able to contact responsible individuals at the site if response clarification or follow up is required.

Question 5 requests the year during which site operations related to the meat products industry were initiated. EPA needs this identification in order to consider the potential impact that a site's age may have on the feasibility of, or cost associated with, each candidate control technology. 15 Question 6 asks the respondent to list up to five ( primary, secondary, and other applicable) Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) codes or North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes which apply to the meat products operations at the site in 1999. EPA will use SIC and/ or NAICS codes to assists in characterizing and categorizing the meat products industry processes at the site.

Question 7 requests the type of inspection program the site operates under; Question 8 asks if the site files annual reports with Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration ( GIPSA). The U. S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service ( FSIS) and GIPSA both generate large amounts of publicly available information. These questions will permit EPA to better access and utilize public information on the Meat Products industry.

Question 9 12: Production Information Questions 9  12 request information on facility production processes and production output by meat type ( i. e., red meat or poultry). EPA needs production data in order to understand the actual production that could be expected at meat products facilities. Production is also used to determine the production basis for technology based options, and associated effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the rule.

Question 9 asks which Subcategory of the existing effluent guidelines at 40 CFR Part 432 ( Meat Products Point Source Category) the site would be classified in for 1999. If the respondent answers " yes", the respondent is asked to identify which Subcategory ( A  J) of 40 CFR Part 432 applies to the facility. If the respondent answers " no" they are directed to skip to Question 11 of the Survey. EPA needs this information to help classify meat product facilities into subcategories so that differences in production processes can be taken into account while developing technology based options.

Question 10( a)( 1) asks if in 1999 the site slaughtered or further processed any type of red meat. Four additional questions identify whether the facility only slaughtered red meat on site; slaughtered and further processed red meat from on site slaughtering; slaughtered and further processed red meat from both on site and off site slaughtering; further processed red meat that had been slaughtered off site. This question assists the Agency in tracking the site's red meat slaughtering and processing operations.

Question 10( a)( 2) asks if in 1999 the site rendered any type of animal by products. Three additional questions identify whether the facility only rendered by products from on site operations; rendered by products from both on site and off site operations; or rendered by products from off site operations only. If the facility only rendered by products from off site operations, the Survey points out that they should have checked Question 9J above and that they should complete Table 10.3 below. This question assists the Agency in tracking the site's rendering operations.

Question 10( a)( 3) asks how many days in 1999 was the facility in operation. This information is necessary to provide a basis for EPA to calculate production and waste generation on a daily basis. 16 Question 10( a)( 4) asks for the weight of meat and meat by products received for slaughtering and processing and the weight of by products processed on site and sent off site in red meat operations. Respondents are asked to complete Table 10.1, entering values in either units of 1,000 pounds or 1,000 kilograms. The table requests data by animal type ( with columns for cattle, calves, hogs, sheep and lambs, and other) and by each listed type of meat product ( rows). Data requested for each primary meat product include weight of animals slaughtered on site as Live Weight Killed ( LWK), and the slaughtered animals, animal parts, or by products received from off site for processing at the facility. Respondents are also asked to provide weights of all by products ( blood, hides, hair, viscera) derived from animals slaughtered on site, and whether these by products were rendered on site by either wet or dry process. Sites are also asked to supply the total annual weight of all finished products produced at the site in 1999 for each animal type. Finally, sites are asked to provide the total annual weight of all by products sent off site for further processing. Collecting the weight of meat products processed at each site will help EPA understand the size of the production operation, and will assist in determining the relationship between meat products industry operations and expected effluent characteristics. Likewise, data concerning quantity of meat products processed at a site may be used to establish guidelines based on production at the site. Finally, collecting the weight of by products sent off site will provide EPA with the knowledge of how much by product is produced per live weight killed and if this ratio differs greatly between facilities.

Question 10( b) asks if the facility is classified under Subcategories E  I of 40 CFR Part 432. If so, sites are asked to specify, in Table 10.2, which Subcategory ( E  I) of 40 CFR Part 432 applies to the facility, and to specify the products produced and the weight of these final manufactured products in either 1,000 pound or 1,000 kilogram units. Definitions of " finished product" from 40 CFR Part 432 Subcategories E  I are supplied as part of the question. This information will help EPA link specific production processes with wastewater types. Data concerning quantity of finished products at a site will be evaluated as a potential production normalizing basis for effluent limitations guidelines and standards.

Question 10( c) asks if the site is classified under Subcategory J ( Renderer) of 40 CFR Part 432. The site is asked to list in Table 10.3 the type and quantity ( in either 1,000 pound or 1,000 kilogram units) of raw material rendered in 1999. This information will help EPA differentiate between rendering wastewaters and wastewaters generated by other meat products facilities ( e. g. slaughtering, processing). EPA may subcategorize the industry based on processing versus rendering operations, as was done in 40 CFR Part 432.

Question 11( a) asks if in 1999 the site slaughtered or further processed any type of poultry. The question includes four specific questions which ask whether the facility slaughtered poultry onsite slaughtered and further processed poultry on site; slaughtered and further processed poultry that had been slaughtered both on site and off site; or further processed poultry that had been slaughtered off site. This question helps the Agency track the site's poultry slaughtering and processing operations. If the site did not slaughter or further process any type of poultry, respondents are instructed to skip to Question 13. Question 11( a) is particularly necessary because poultry processing is not specifically identified under current regulations ( 40 CFR Part 432). Identifying poultry products operations and poultry processing effluent characteristics will be an important part of the development of EPA effluent guidelines for this sector of the meat products industry. 17 Question 11( b) asks how many days in 1999 did the facility operate. This information is necessary to help EPA calculate production and waste generation on a daily basis.

Question 12 asks for the total annual weight of poultry slaughtered or further processed at the site in 1999. Respondents are asked to complete Table 12.1 which requests the weight poultry products processed by the poultry type ( broiler and other young chickens; hens and other chickens; turkeys; and other poultry and small game). Values may be entered in units of either 1,000 pounds or 1,000 kilograms. Table 12.1 is very similar to Table 10.1 ( Question 10( a)( 3)) in the red meat section of the survey. Respondents are also asked to provide weights of all by products ( blood and feathers) derived from birds slaughtered on site, as well as the weight of by products rendered on site ( by either wet or dry process). Sites are asked to supply the weight of all finished products produced at the site in 1999 for each poultry type. Finally, sites are asked to supply the weight of by products sent off site for rendering. Collecting the weight of poultry products and by products processed at each site will help EPA understand the size of the production operation, and will assist in determining the relationship between poultry products industry operations and expected effluent characteristics. Likewise, data concerning quantity of poultry products processed at a site will be evaluated as a potential production normalizing basis for effluent limitations guidelines and standards. Finally, collecting the weight of by products sent off site will provide EPA with the knowledge of how much by product is produced per live weight killed and if this ratio differs greatly between facilities.

° Wastewater Information Question 13 of the 1999 Meat Products Industry Detailed Survey asks questions concerning the wastewater generated by the site. These data will be used in EPA's analysis of baseline impacts of meat products industry effluents on the environment, the effectiveness of current treatment practices's, and in EPA's assessment of candidate technology options that could serve as a basis for proposing effluent limitations guidelines and standards.

Question 13( a) requests information related to the type( s) and quantity of process wastewaters generated from red meat operations at the site in 1999. Respondents may check up to 18 boxes ( 14 of which are specific to red meat processing) to identify applicable types of wastewater generated during red meat operations. For each wastewater type, the site is asked to provide the volume of wastewater generated ( in gallons of wastewater per year), whether the wastewater is treated on site, and the final disposal method. A list of final disposal method codes are provided in Appendix A of the Detailed Survey. EPA needs to identify each type of process wastewater generated, the volume generated, and whether it is treated on site in order to consider the wastewaters for regulation. The ultimate disposal method information will be used to perform the environmental benefits analyses and in order to evaluate how Meat Products Industry wastewaters discharges are ultimately released to the environment.

Question 13( b) characterizes wastewater from poultry operations at the site in 1999. Respondents may check any of 22 boxes to identify applicable types of wastewater generated during poultry operations. For each wastewater type, the site is asked to provide the volume of wastewater generated ( in gallons of wastewater per year), whether the wastewater is treated on site, and the final disposal method. A list of final disposal method codes are provided in Appendix A of the Detailed Survey. EPA needs to identify each type of process wastewater generated, the volume generated, 18 and whether it is treated on site in order to consider the wastewaters for regulation. The ultimate disposal method will be used to perform the environmental benefits analyses and in order to evaluate how poultry processing wastewaters discharges are ultimately released to the environment.

Treatment Information Questions 14  22 of the 2000 Meat Products Industry Detailed Survey asks questions concerning the treatment of Meat Product Industry wastewater; wastewater disposal practice and permit information; and effluent data from NPDES permit and non permit monitoring. These data will be used in EPA's analysis of baseline impacts of meat products industry effluents on the environment, the effectiveness of current treatment practices's, and in EPA's assessment of candidate technologies for the proposed effluent guidelines.

Question 14( a) asks the respondent to identify all types of on site treatment used to treat the process wastewater stream( s) identified in Question 13. To assist the respondent, a list of 55 potentially applicable treatment unit processes are listed below the question. Question 14( c) asks the respondent if any of the treatment processes listed in 14( a) are used for nutrient removal and to specify which ones if the answer is " yes." Question 14( c) asks the respondent if trisodium phosphate is used in their wastewater treatment system. Both 14( b) and 14( c) are necessary because knowledge of nutrient control is important in this industry. Question 14( d) asks the site to attach any readily available information that is available on the design, construction costs, and operation and maintenance costs pertinent to the on site treatment processes. EPA is not soliciting detailed and voluminous design specifications and cost information, but instead desires general information related to the design and operation of the wastewater treatment system. Knowledge of on site wastewater treatment already in use is necessary for EPA to determine the treatment basis for regulatory options, as well as to accurately cost out these options. EPA may follow up responses from a limited number of facilities to obtain selected details of design and cost information for installed systems in order to verify Agency developed cost data for control and treatment technologies.

Question 15 asks for the average amount of sludge ( on a dry weight basis) generated from the treatment of process waters identified in Question 13 for 1999. Question blanks are provided for the quantity of sludge and the units used to measure this quantity. EPA will use this information to estimate sludge generation rates from Meat Product Industry wastewater treatment, which will assist in assessing the non water quality impacts of proposed effluent guidelines.

Question 16( a) asks the site to provide the total land area occupied by the site, as well as the units used to describe land area. Questions 16( b g) ask for specific land area occupied by first processing, further processing, by product rendering, waste treatment, warehousing, parking, administrative facilities, utilities, undeveloped land and other uses. Question 16( h) asks if undeveloped area is suitable for the construction of additional wastewater treatment systems. If the answer is no, then the respondent is asked to provide a brief written explanation of why the undeveloped area is unsuitable for construction of additional wastewater treatment systems. EPA needs this information to determine the potential capacity of existing facilities to accommodate additional wastewater treatment systems that might be required as a result of any regulatory options considered. 19 Question 17 asks how many discharge locations ( outfalls) and other permit monitoring locations are present at the site. Respondents are instructed to include discharges to surface waters, publically owned treatment works ( POTWs), and privately owned treatment works ( PrOTWs). The Detailed Survey contains a table for the site to categorize up to four outfalls by wastewater type and discharge destination. To assist the respondent, a list of wastewater types with checkoff boxes is provided in the table for each outfall. EPA requires this information to understand how meat product facilities discharge their effluents into the environment.

Question 18( a) asks if the site discharges wastewater by pipeline, sewer, or other conveyance to surface water. Question 18( b) asks if the site has an National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permit or a state issued discharge permit which authorizes and/ or regulates the discharge of process waters, nonprocess waters, or stormwaters. If yes, the respondent is instructed to provide the permit number and attach a copy of the NPDES permit to the survey. EPA will use permit information to examine the site's NPDES permit and/ or state issued discharge permit for additional technical data, and to consult with the permitting authority regarding issues associated with the meat products regulatory development process.

Question 19( a) asks the respondent to indicate the type of facility to which the site discharges process wastewater by pipeline, sewer or other conveyance. Sites indicate whether wastewater is discharged to a POTW, a PrOTW, or neither a POTW or PrOTW. If respondents indicate " neither", then they may skip to Question 20. Question 19( b) asks if the site has a treatment works written control mechanism which includes the discharge of process, non process, or stormwater wastewater. If yes, then the site is asked to attach a copy of that permit or agreement to the survey. If no, then the site should answer Question 19( c) and 19( d). EPA will use this information to identify sites with written permits, and to ensure that respondents at these sites have provided the permit information requested in Question 19( d). If the site is regulated under a local ordinance, the respondent is directed to attach the applicable portions of the local ordinance to the survey response in Question 19( c). If the site does not hold a permit with the POTW/ PrOTW, the respondent is directed to Question 19( c) and 19( d) to provide discharge information.

Question 19( d) which requests the identification of the POTW/ PrOTW and contact information, the permit number for the site, the permit number for the POTW/ PrOTW ( only if known), and the expiration date of the site's permit. EPA needs the identification of the POTW/ PrOTW in order to perform the environmental benefits analyses and in order to evaluate how meat products discharges are ultimately released to the environment. EPA will use permit information to examine the site's discharge permit and the treatment works' NPDES permit for additional technical data, and to consult with the permitting authority regarding issues associated with the meat products industrial category regulatory development process. EPA needs the identification of a contact so the Agency may consult with the contact regarding the site's permit, or regarding discharges that the treatment works accepts from the site, but does not regulate through a written permit.

Question 20 requests at least one general process flow diagram ( PFD) that displays the onsite production process( es) and the final product( s), as well as the input of the starting materials. The respondent is not required to develop a new diagram if an existing diagram has all required information. The respondent is asked to mark each diagram with the site ID number and a PFD 20 number, so EPA survey reviewers may effectively locate and correlate all PFDs included in the survey response. If the site wishes the PFD to be treated as confidential, the respondent may stamp or write " Confidential" across the top of the attached PFD.

A PFD presents a significant amount of technical data in a simple visual representation. EPA needs the PFD( s) requested in this question in order to better understand the operations performed at the site as they relate to the volume and pollutants contained in process and non process wastewaters that are generated. EPA will use the information presented in these materials to supplement information gathered through the survey and through mechanisms other than the survey. For example, the Agency will use site layouts to identify how close process areas are to each other to identify when it may be feasible for, and/ or the cost for, wastewater to be reused in another process area. The reviewer of the survey may also use these overview materials to become familiar with the site before reviewing the detailed question responses.

Question 21( a)( 1) asks for analytical water sampling data collected for purposes of NPDES or state discharge permit compliance. The data to be entered in the Question 21( a)( 1) table is similar to the information requested in Question 21( b)( 4). Question 21( a)( 2) asks what percentage of process wastewater at each monitoring location is from meat product operations.

Question 21 requires wastewater data collected by the site from both permitted and nonpermitted monitoring locations in 1999 using EPA approved methods ( 40 CFR Part 136) or alternative methods. Question 21( b)( 1) asks if the site has collected any wastewater data collected at nonpermitted monitoring locations. Question 21 ( b)( 2) asks the site to indicate whether this data was collected simultaneously at both influent and effluent streams from a wastewater treatment system or a treatment unit, or if the data was collected at a separate nonpermitted location. Question 21( b)( 3) also asks for any other wastewater characterization data the site may have collected at nonpermitted monitoring locations in 1997 or 1998.

The Detailed Survey provides an information table that defines 28 pollutant parameter codes that are necessary for the completion of Question 21. Standard codes help speed the processing of this survey. In addition, two other information tables provide instruction concerning the method for calculating average concentration when some or all samples are reported as not detected ( ND) for one or more pollutant parameters. Since laboratories may report pollutant parameters as ND, EPA expects that the site will also use the NDs in calculating the average concentration. There are several methods which may be used to calculate an average pollutant parameter concentration when ND values have been reported by the laboratory. EPA requires the site to identify which method the site used to calculate an average pollutant parameter concentration.

If any of the data requested in Questions 21( a) or 21( b) are readily available in the requested format, the respondent may attach it to the survey in lieu of responding to each question in the reply table. If any of the data requested in Question 21( a) or 21( b) are readily available in an electronic format ( e. g., spreadsheet), the site is asked to submit a disk along with the hard copy output of the electronic file, and send it in with the survey.

Question 21( b)( 4) asks if the site has collected any water quality parameter data simultaneously at both influent and effluent streams, or if the site has collected data for any parameter 21 from nonpermitted monitoring locations at the facility. A table is provided for the site to input parameter data. Question 21( b)( 4) requires the site to assign a unique sampling point ( SP) number to each sampling location, describe the location the unique sampling point, identify the range of dates in which data were collected, and provide the SP number at the top of the table for each question. Each part of this question is formatted in a table to specify the following information: the pollutant analyzed; the EPA or alternative analytical method used; whether the samples were collected as grabs or as composites; the total number of samples collected at that sampling point for that pollutant; the number of samples in which the pollutant was not detected; the typical detection limit or range of detection limits for that sampling point for that pollutant; the average concentration of the pollutant; the calculation methodology used to determine the average concentration when some or all measurements were not detected ( see the following detailed description); the maximum concentration of the pollutant; the minimum concentration of the pollutant; and the estimated or measured average flow rate at this sampling point during the sampling period for that pollutant. Question 20( b)( 5) asks what percentage of process wastewater at each monitoring location is from meat product operations.

EPA needs this information to support its effort to accurately characterize wastewater influent and effluents generated at meat products industry facilities. Carefully reported wastewater flow data are very important to calculation of pollutant mass loadings. Some of the data will be used to document the expected performance ( effectiveness) of treatment processes for pollutants of concern in the meat products industry. EPA will combine the wastewater sampling data requested in this question with data collected through other mechanisms to characterize meat products industry wastewaters, and to estimate industry pollutant loadings. Also, EPA will use the requested data to study the systems that meat products processing sites are using to meet the requirements of the current rule. As part of the rulemaking effort, EPA may sample wastewater to characterize treatment system technologies at some meat products industry sites. Finally, the data will also help the Agency to establish a baseline from which the benefits of proposed treatment alternatives can be measured.

Question 22 requests information on environmental management or pollution prevention practices. Site information to address this question could include and description of affected processes, wastewater streams, targeted pollutants, cost information. EPA will use the information requested in this question to identify and study operational practices that minimize the generation of pollutants of concern, and that minimize the presence of pollutants of concern in wastewater streams.

° Economic Information The financial and economic information collected in the survey is necessary to complete the economic analysis of the proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the Meat Products Industry. To minimize the burden of responding to the survey, EPA has limited the information it requests. The questions are phrased with commonly used terminology and the tables are organized in formats familiar to financial officers in the respondent industry.

For some questions, three years of data are needed to provide information to identify industry trends, to resolve data anomalies, and to identify potential irregularities caused by events outside of the Meat Products Industry's control. EPA requests financial and economic information for the fiscal years ending 1997, 1998, and 1999 the most recent years for which data are available. 22 Information contact and site identification. Question 1 requests the name and address of the company that owns the site. The data will be used to group sites by company in order to aggregate costs and evaluate impacts on the company level.

Background information. Question 7 requests the type of inspection program the site operates under; Question 8 asks if the site files annual reports with Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration ( GIPSA). The U. S. Department of Agriculture= s Food Safety and Inspection Service ( FSIS) and GIPSA both generate large amounts of publicly available information. These questions will permit EPA to better access and utilize public information on the Animal Processing industry.

Corporate type. Questions 23 and 24 request the site= s corporation type and ask whether the site is publicly or privately owned. This information is necessary to determine a site= s tax status and the availability of public data for the economic analysis.

Employment. Question 25 requests employment data for fiscal year 1999. The question requests data on the average number of full time equivalent ( FTE) employees at the site and at the company. This data will be used to estimate direct employment losses as the result of site closure. The number of employees at the company allows EPA to identify small businesses if the latter are in an SIC code with that criterion. EPA will also use the employment data to develop estimates of direct community wide impacts.

Work Shifts. Question 26 asks if the site typically operates on a single shift or a double shift. In the beef and hog sectors, double shifts are associated with economies of scale. Thus the information in Question 26 will assist EPA in evaluating and interpreting the cost information requested in Questions 31 through 33.

Discount rate. Questions 27 and 28 request the site= s discount rate or cost of capital and the estimated interest rate to finance capital improvements. Question 29 asks about the appropriate mix of debt ( Question 27) and equity ( Question 28) used to finance capital improvements. The economic analysis will use these data to annualize the cost of future wastewater treatment investments.

Other Sites Owned by the Same Company. Question 30 asks the respondent to identify the number of meat products sites owned by the company. The response to Question 30 combined with Question 1 allows EPA to verify its findings when it aggregates data from the site level to the company level. Information concerning whether a site was constructed or acquired will enable EPA to assess the rate of growth and concentration in the Meat Products Industry, as well as allow EPA to identify sites for possible site visits.

Income statement information. Questions 31, 32 and 33 request income statement information that the respondent completes for the company and site in fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999. It is in a format familiar to financial officers. Item a, sales, is used in SBREFA tests. Item b, other income, allows EPA to evaluate the importance of business activities not related to the rule to the site and company. Item c, total revenues, is the sum of items a and b. Costs are requested in items d through f. Depreciation is requested as a separate entry to allow EPA to calculate cash flow. Item g is the total of costs and expenses. Item h, earnings before interest and taxes ( EBIT), is the 23 difference between revenues ( item c) and costs ( item g). It is a common component in financial ratios. Items i and jC interest expense and taxes, respectivelyCmay only be allocated at the company level and not the site level. The inclusion or exclusion of interest and taxes will help EPA interpret the responses given for net income for the company and site. All sites are expected to be able to complete an income statement through EBIT. Sites that do not maintain tax and interest records at the site level are not required to complete the question from EBIT to net income, but all companies are expected to provide that information. Site income plays a crucial role in the site closure analysis. Multiple years are requested so that EPA can identify unusually good or bad years, and so EPA can use forecasting techniques to predict variations in site cash flow.

Balance sheet information. Question 34 requests 1999 balance sheet information for both the site and the company. A comparison of the company and site entries allows EPA to evaluate the relative importance of the site to the company and what liabilities are or are not recorded on the site= s books. Entries are included for inventories, current assets excluding inventories, land, buildings, equipment, other noncurrent assets, and cumulative depreciation for both the site and the company. Liability data is also requested. Entries are included for current liabilities, long term debt, retained earnings, and owner equity. The balance sheet data can be used to calculate a series of financial ratios that indicate financial health ( e. g., current ratio, working capital to debt, and debt to assets). Combined, Questions 31 through 34 supply the basic information for evaluating site and company impacts through cash flow and financial ratio analyses.

Total quantities of meat and meat byproduct shipped by product category. Question 35 requests the total quantities of meat and meat byproducts shipped from the site by product categories and in total for fiscal year 1999. Question 36 allows EPA to adjust quantity totals for shipping between sites owned by the same company to prevent double counting of output. When aggregated over all sites, the information will be cross referenced with industry and government data to identify and understand the relationship among the confidential and public data. This, in turn, allows EPA to make better use of public data for 2000 and future years.

Value of meat and meat byproduct shipments. Question 37 requests the total value of meat and meat byproduct shipments from the site by product category and in total for fiscal year 1999. Question 37 is necessary to determine the impact of regulation on certain product categories; where products correspond to subcategories, EPA is required to evaluate economic achievability by subcategory. Combined with the quantity of product shipments data from Question 35, this data may be used to identify the relative importance of each revenue source to the site's, and the industry= s financial health. Value of shipments ( Question 37) divided by quantities shipped ( Question 35) estimates unit prices; combined with the quantity data, this forms the basis for a market model analysis.

Site financial statements. Question 38 asks respondents to provide copies of 1999 financial statements with accompanying notes for the company owning the site. The information supplied in Question 38 allows EPA to verify the information provided in Questions 31 through 34. The notes to the financial statements may explain any potential discrepancies in the data provided in Questions 31 through 34 prior to EPA contacting the respondent for additional data.

$ Detailed Description of the 2000 Meat Products Industry Screener Survey 24 The Screener Survey, presented in Attachment 2, consists of 7 questions. The Screener Survey collects general facility and technical data, which will be used to describe: industry operations, wastewater generation rates, and wastewater disposal practices. Also, the number of employees at each entity will identify the facility as small or large according to the small business regulations.

The introduction to the Screener Survey contains instructions for completion, as well as one question and a choice of two certification statements. The introduction question asks whether the site is engaged in meat product processes. If the answer is " no", the respondent does not have to complete the survey, but must certify their response using certification statement # 2 and indicate why the survey is not applicable ( e. g., the site is a sales office). If the answer is " yes", the respondent is directed to complete the Screener Survey and certify their response using certification statement # 1 when that part is complete.

The first four questions request general facility site information. The fifth and sixth questions request operational data, wastewater production data and wastewater discharge information. The last question asks how many employees are at the site and at the company which owns the site. The Agency needs information collected in these seven questions in order to characterize the Meat Products Industry.

The following is a description and justification of each question in the Screener Survey.

Questions 1 4: General Facility Information Questions 1 4 request general facility information, including mailing and site addresses, and technical and financial contact information. The information provided in response to these questions will allow EPA to better characterize the industry in terms of geography, distribution among subsector categories, and type of ownership.

Question 1 requests verification of the site's mailing address. Likewise, Question 2 requests verification of the site's street ( i. e., physical) address. EPA needs this verification in order to correct or complete erroneous or incomplete portions of meat products industry addresses on the survey mailing list, and to ensure that proper addresses are used for any follow up activities. Due to the significant effort the Agency has already made to ensure the accuracy and completeness of all information on the 2000 Meat Products Industry mailing list, the Agency expects that a minimum number of sites will have to provide mailing and address information to correct EPA's records. In addition, EPA relies on location information when surveying companies that operate numerous sites throughout the United States. The Agency needs accurate site location information in order to address possible subcategorization of the industrial category based on geographic location, and to evaluate the impact that meat products industry sites make on local water quality.

Question 3 requests the name and address of the company that owns the site. The data will be used to group sites by company in order to aggregate costs and evaluate impacts on the company level. 25 Question 4 requests the name, title, telephone number, and facsimile number for the contact at the site regarding information supplied in the survey. With this information, EPA will be able to contact responsible individuals at the site if response clarification or follow up is required.

Question 5 asks if in 1999 the site slaughtered, further processed, or rendered any type of red meat or poultry and to identify which operations were performed for which types of animals. This question assists the Agency in characterizing the Meat Products Industry.

Question 6 asks if any types of process wastewater were generated for Meat Products Operations for 1999. If the answer is " yes" the respondent is directed to indicate the discharge status of the process wastewater( s) and identify the amount discharged in 1999 in gallons/ year. EPA needs to identify if process wastewater is generated and the volume generated in order to determine if the facility would potentially be covered by the regulation being developed. The ultimate disposal method information will be used to perform the environmental benefits analyses and in order to evaluate how Meat Products Industry wastewaters discharges are ultimately released to the environment.

Question 7 requests employment data for fiscal year 1999. The question requests data on the average number of full time equivalent ( FTE) employees at the site and at the company. This data will be used to estimate direct employment losses as the result of site closure. The number of employees at the company allows EPA to identify small businesses if the latter are in an SIC or NAICS code with that criterion. EPA will also use the employment data to develop estimates of direct community wide impacts. 26 5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5( a) Agency Activities The 2000 Meat Products Industry Detailed Survey has been developed by EPA's Engineering and Analysis Division ( EAD). EAD has planned for and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management of the information to be collected. EPA is conducting the following activities in administering the 2000 Meat Products Industry Surveys:

Design the survey instrument;

Create a mailing list database;

Provide copies of the survey instruments to industry trade associations for review;

Discuss the data collection and the burden associated with its administration with trade association representatives;

Publish a notice in the Federal Register to announce the upcoming ICR;

Consider and respond to all comments received, and revise the data collection based on these comments;

Develop the ICR package, and submit the package to OMB;

Design a system to track mailing and receipt activities;

Mail survey instruments;

Develop and maintain Help Lines and Internet addresses for technical and economic assistance ( budget permitting);

Maintain the tracking system;

Implement appropriate procedures for handling CBI responses;

Develop guidelines for reviewing and coding the responses;

Develop electronic databases, data entry systems, and documentation;

Review and code survey responses for input to an electronic database;

Collect missing information;

Enter and verify data in the database. 27 The Agency will use the data collected through the 2000 Meat Products Industry Surveys to characterize pollutant discharges from meat products sites, and to develop regulatory options to control these pollutant discharges. Specifically, EPA will establish current baseline estimates of industry wide production normalized wastewater flow rates, pollutant concentrations, and loadings in order to analyze the engineering costs of compliance, economic impacts, and environmental benefits of each regulatory option. Ultimately, the Agency will select appropriate regulatory options for the industry, and will revise the Meat Products Industry effluent limitations guidelines and standards to reflect any new model technologies chosen by the Agency as the basis for these guidelines and standards.

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management The Agency will administer the Meat Products Industry Detailed Survey to approximately 350 of 7,981 sites and will administer the Screener Survey to approximately 1,650 sites; including, simple and complex slaughterhouse sites, low and high processing packing housing sites, small processor sites, meat cutters, sausage and luncheon meat processors, ham processor sites, and poultry processing sites. The Agency specifically designed a short Detailed Survey for the Meat Products Industry and is focusing the distribution of this Detailed Survey on slaughtering facilities, which are expected to contribute a majority of the pollutant loading generated by this industry. This collection instrument has not been pretested but the Agency has received comments from the industry regarding how long they believe it will take to complete the survey. Also, the Agency is relying on past experience with similar surveys to determine the burden on the industry. The Agency designed the survey mailing list database using information from the following sources:

° The United States Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Office of Field Operations, Field Automation and Information Management Division( FAIM) list of facilities covered under the HACCP guidelines at http:// www. fsis. usda. gov/ OA/ haccp/ imphaccp. htm   the federally inspected lists were dated 3/ 9/ 00 and the state inspected lists were dated 5/ 10/ 00. These lists are updated periodically.

! The United States Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Office of Field Operations publication of the Meat and Poultry Inspection Directory for December 1999 ! Urner Barry Meat and Poultry Directory 2000 ! Member lists from the following trade associations:

S National Renderers Association S American Meat Institute S US Poultry and Egg Association ! EPA Permit Compliance System ( PCS) database ! EPA state and regional personnel 28 ! Porkfacts 2000, NPPC ! The Market Advisor report on top meat packers for 1998 at http:// www. ag. ndsu. nodak. edu/ cow/ topics/ marketshare. htm All of the above listed sources were used to determine the list of potential recipients for the Survey ( 7,981 sites). Some of these sources were cross referenced with one another to obtain site level information and to ensure the accuracy and applicability of each site's information before inclusion in the potential survey mailing list.

Site level information was available for some Survey recipients. Specifically, site level information was available for large and small facilities in the USDA's HACCP database that had corresponding information in the Urner Barry Meat and Poultry Directory 2000.

EPA will administer the 2000 Meat Products Industry Surveys in hard copy format. Respondents may download additional copies of the surveys from EPA's web site or contact EPA if additional blank copies are necessary. However, the Agency requires that respondents submit their completed surveys in signed, certified, hard copy format.

EPA considered administering the data collection surveys in an interactive, electronic format. However, the development of electronic surveys is not considered efficient for the following reasons:

The expense of developing and testing an electronic survey is not cost effective because this data collection is a one time survey effort. Because the surveys will not be reused, neither the respondents nor the EPA would benefit from an electronic copy of the survey.

Due to the amount of detailed information required for the effective review and revision of meat products industry effluent limitations guidelines and standards, the Survey is complex. EPA has used several features, including nested questions, to increase the efficiency with which the respondent can complete the survey form. EPA would incur an increased burden in programming these special features into an interactive, electronic format.

EPA could not be sure the software at respondent facilities would be compatible or that electronic responses would be correctly formatted. If the survey were administered in interactive, electronic format, it may be necessary for EPA to make an increased effort to clarify responses.

The Agency would incur an increased burden in maintaining a computer support Help Line, in addition to the potential ( budget permitting) technical information and financial and economic information Help Lines.

Through other effluent guidelines projects, EPA has established mechanisms, including double key entry, verification, and resolution systems, for effective and efficient data entry from hard copy surveys. If the surveys were administered in 29 electronic format, EPA would incur increased burden in designing a front end electronic system.

EPA has determined that the option to administer the 2000 Meat Products Industry Surveys in electronic format is precluded by the added cost and increased burden that would be incurred.

Although EPA has chosen not to administer the survey in an interactive, electronic format, the Agency has used information technology throughout the development of the surveys, and will continue to use this technology to optimize the efficiency of both Agency and respondent activities associated with the survey. The Federal Register notice accompanying the ICR submission to OMB includes an Internet address at which commenters and interested members of the public may download the entire 2000 Meat Products Industry Survey ICR package. Finally, EPA will provide technical information and economic information Internet addresses through which survey respondents may obtain Help Line assistance.

EPA will distribute the survey instruments via Federal Express or a comparable carrier that requires a signature to acknowledge receipt of delivery. Through this process, EPA will ensure that each designated site receives the survey, and that a preliminary point of contact ( the signee) has been identified. From the date of receipt, meat products industry sites will have 60 calendar days to respond and return the completed Detailed Survey to the Agency. Recipients of the Screener Survey will have 20 days to respond and return the completed survey to the Agency.

Budget permitting, EPA will maintain a toll free technical information Help Line and a tollfree financial and economic information Help Line for all survey respondents. These Help Lines will be staffed with trained contractor personnel during normal business hours. In addition, EPA will provide Internet electronic mailing addresses that respondents may use to obtain assistance. In every case, Help Line and Internet staff will work to provide respondents with immediate assistance.

Each mailed survey will have a unique site identification number. EPA will use an electronic tracking system to record, for each identification number, the date the survey package was distributed, the date the site received the survey package ( i. e., the date on which a respondent signed for the delivery of the survey package), the dates of any necessary follow up letters or telephone calls to respondents, and the date EPA receives the completed survey. The identification number will also serve as a site identification code for data entry in the survey database.

EPA and its contractors will review completed surveys and perform coding and data entry of survey responses. Follow up phone calls will be made to survey respondents as necessary to ensure quality responses. The coded survey responses will be entered into a database designed to ensure the retrieval of all data necessary for thorough technical and economic analyses.

In addition to these surveys, EPA intends to request wastewater sampling data from 20 facilities in the Meat Products Industry that are in the identified universe. Specific sites to be sampled for 5 day periods will be identified by EPA at a later date.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility 30 EPA has taken many steps to ensure that the respondent burden is minimized for small entities, while collecting sufficient data to evaluate regulatory flexibility for small entities. EPA will identify the size of the business entity according to Small Business Administration definitions from survey information through sales revenues or company employment. The financial and economic information collected in the survey is necessary to perform the economic analysis of the proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the Meat Products industry in order to meet the requirements of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act ( SBREFA). To minimize the burden of responding to the survey, EPA has developed a Screener Survey consisting of only seven questions to send to the majority of the facilities identified as most likely to be small entities and has limited the number of Detailed Surveys it is sending to these facilities. Also, EPA had limited the information it requests in the Detailed Survey. Finally, the questions are phrased with commonly used terminology and the tables are organized in formats familiar to financial officers in the respondent industry.

5( d) Survey Schedule The schedule for the data collection activities associated with the 2000 Meat Products Industry Survey is presented in Table 5 1:

TABLE 5 1 SURVEY SCHEDULE Action Approximate Number of Calendar Days Following OMB Approval Until Action is Completed Surveys mailed 15 Receive all Survey responses 80 Review and code all Survey responses 100 Collect all missing or incomplete information 115 Enter all coded responses in database 130 6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE SURVEY 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The 2000 Meat Products Industry Screener Survey and Detailed Survey will require recipient facilities to devote time ( i. e., as measured by staff person hours) and resources ( i. e., copies of documents and response mailings) to produce acceptable responses to the EPA surveys. EPA expects that engineers, supervisors, technical and administrative staff at the sites will devote time toward gathering and preparing the final responses. The costs to the respondents' facilities associated with these time commitments can be estimated by multiplying the time spent in each labor category by an appropriately loaded hourly rate. Because labor rates vary so widely among the personnel involved in completing the survey, EPA generally uses an average loaded hourly rate which is representative 31 of the average salary for the respondent industry. The basis for the labor rate that will be used for purposes of this cost estimate is the average hourly rate for white collar workers in March 1999 in the goods producing manufacturing industries ($ 30.77 per hour). These average hourly rates are published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics each year. Assuming a fringe rate of 50 percent and a 50 percent overhead and profit rate, the hourly rate for a goods producing manufacturing white collar worker would be $ 69.23 per hour.

To develop burden estimates, EPA estimates the number of hours that will be required to complete all of the questions in the Screener Survey and Detailed Survey ( including reviewing instructions, researching data sources, typing or writing the information requested, reviewing responses, and returning the survey) and then multiplies these results by the respondent hourly rate to generate a cost estimate. EPA has based the estimates for number or hours necessary to complete the Screener Survey and the Detailed Meat Products Industry Survey on results from pretest surveys and industry comments on previous EPA surveys of similar length. The Agency estimates that the 1999 Meat Products Industry Screener Survey should take 1 hour to complete and that the Detailed Survey should take 30 hours to complete. Tables 6 1 and 6 2 breakdown the burden ( in hours) per anticipated respondent activity presumed necessary to complete the Screener Survey and Detailed Survey, respectively.

TABLE 6 1 RESPONDENT AVERAGE BURDEN TO COMPLETE SCREENER SURVEY Respondent Activity Total Burden Per Activity ( Hours)

Read Instructions .25 Gather Information / Data .25 Complete Survey Form .25 Review Survey Responses .25 All Activities 1.0 TABLE 6 2 RESPONDENT AVERAGE BURDEN PER DETAILED SURVEY RESPONSE ACTIVITY Respondent Activity Total Burden Per Activity ( Hours)

Read Instructions 1.0 Gather Information / Data 14.0 Complete Survey Form 14.0 Review Survey Responses 1.0 All Activities 30.0 Operation and maintenance ( O& M) costs estimates are based on the one time costs each respondent will incur in responding to the surveys. These costs are assumed to include the cost of copying and mailing each survey. Using a rate of $ 0.05 per impression, the average cost of 32 copying the 3 page Screener Survey and the 30 page Meat Products Industry Survey is $. 15 and $ 1.50, respectively. To determine the survey mailing rate of $ 7.50 per pound, the Agency assumed that site respondents will return completed surveys and attached discharge monitoring reports via Federal Express economy delivery or a comparable economy delivery carrier that requires a signature to acknowledge receipt of delivery. Because survey respondents will not be required to purchase any goods, including equipment or machinery, to respond to the 1999 Meat Products Industry Screener and Detailed Surveys, the Agency does not expect capital costs to result from the administration of the data collection surveys.

Table 6 3 presents an estimate of the total respondent burden and costs expected for completing the 1999 Meat Products Industry Screener Survey and Detailed Survey. As shown in Table 6 3, the average respondent labor costs for each Screener is expected to be about $ 69 and the respondent labor cost for the detailed survey is estimated at $ 2,076. Also shown in the table, EPA estimates that a total national respondent burden of 12,150 hours and a cost of $ 844,543 ( including O& M costs) will be required to complete the Screener and the Detailed Survey.

TABLE 6 3 1999 MEAT PRODUCTS INDUSTRY SCREENER AND SURVEY TOTAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COSTS Survey Total Number of Responses Average Burden per Respondent ( in hours) Total Burden ( in hours) Average Labor Costs per Respondent ( in dollars) Total Labor Costs ( in dollars) Average O& M Costs per Respondent ( in dollars) Total O& M Cost ( in Dollars) Total Costs ( in dollars)

Screener Survey 1,650 1 1,650 $ 69 $ 114,230 $ 0.15 $ 248 $ 114,478 Detailed Survey 350 30 10,500 $ 2,076 $ 726,915 $ 9.00 $ 3,150 $ 730,065 Total 2,000  12,150  $ 841,145  $ 3,398 $ 844,543 In addition to the Screener Survey and Detailed Survey, EPA intends to seek new sampling data from a selected group of 20 facilities. These facilities will perform one week long sampling to collect data on meat processing effluent characteristics. Half the facilities will implement a sampling protocol estimated to require 120 person hours and the other half will implement a sampling protocol estimated to require 156 person hours. Tables 6 4 and 6 5, present estimated burdens on a per facility basis to conduct the 5 day sample ( 120 hour and 156 hour sampling protocol). The difference in hours is due to the fact the sampling at 10 facilities will take place at two locations and sampling at the other sites will take place at four locations because of the presence of rendering operations at the latter sites. 33 TABLE 6 4 ESTIMATED BURDEN FOR 5 DAY INTENSIVE SAMPLING EFFORT FOR A MEAT PROCESSING AND RENDERING PLANT .

Activity Meat Processing and Meat Rendering Influent & Effluent # of hours each day Preparatory work Hours People 11Planning, purchasing supplies, labeling bottles, organizing packing materials. 3 6 Sampling Hours People Total hours 12Take 2 grab samples at each site every 4 hours for 24 hour period, and adding it to the plastic and the glass composite sample bottles   do this at both processing and rendering influent and effluent sites 13Take DO, pH, temp, and flow with multiprobe at the beginning, middle, and end of the sampling period. Do this for meat processing influent and effluent and rendering influent and effluent 14Refill buckets with ice as needed 6 1 6 Separating into bottles, preserving, packing, and shipping Hours People Total hours 15Collect, label, and add preservatives to bottles. Seal bottles and prepare for shipment 16For each cooler, fill out traffic report for the lab, with all sample information for each particular cooler and seal in zip lock bag; fill out fedex slip for the lab that corresponds to each cooler. Prepare and seal coolers for shipment 17Take to fed ex and ship 2.5 2 0.5 2 3 2 12 Total hours for each day of sampling 20 Total hours for 5 day sampling period 120 34 TABLE 6 5. ESTIMATED BURDEN FOR 5 DAY INTENSIVE SAMPLING EFFORT FOR A MEAT PROCESSING AND RENDERING PLANT Activity Meat Processing and Meat Rendering Influent & Effluent # of hours each day Preparatory work Hours People 1. Planning, purchasing supplies, labeling bottles, organizing packing materials. 3 6 Sampling Hours People Total hours 2. Take 2 grab samples at each site every 4 hours for 24 hour period, and adding it to the plastic and the glass composite sample bottles   do this at both processing and rendering influent and effluent sites 3. Take DO, pH, temp, and flow with multiprobe at the beginning, middle, and end of the sampling period. Do this for meat processing influent and effluent and rendering influent and effluent 4. Refill buckets with ice as needed 6 2 12 Separating into bottles, preserving, packing, and shipping Hours People Total hours 5. Collect, label, and add preservatives to bottles. Seal bottles and prepare for shipment 6. For each cooler, fill out traffic report for the lab, with all sample information for each particular cooler and seal in zip lock bag; fill out fed ex slip for the lab that corresponds to each cooler. Prepare and seal coolers for shipment 7. Take to fed ex and ship 2.5 2.25 .5 2 3 2 13.25 Total hours for each day of sampling 31.25 Total hours for 5 day sampling period 156.25 Table 6 6 presents estimates of the total burden and cost to all facilities performing the sampling effort. The per facility cost range from $ 8308 to $ 10,800 depending on whether a facility is sampling at two or four locations. The total industry burden is estimated at $ 191,080. 35 TABLE 6 6 MEAT PRODUCTS INDUSTRY FACILITY SAMPLING TOTAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COSTS Facility Type Total Number of Sites Average Burden per Site hours) Total Burden ( in hours) Average Labor Costs per Responde nt ( in dollars) Total Labor Costs ( in dollars) Total Costs ( in dollars)

Processing Only 10 120 1,200 $ 8,308 $ 83,080 $ 83,080 Processing and Renderer 10 156 1,560 $ 10,800 $ 108,000 $ 108,000 Total 20  2,760  $ 191,080 $ 191,080 6( b) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost Table 6 7 presents an estimate of the burden that EPA will incur to administer the 1999 Meat Products Industry Screener and Survey. The table identifies the collection administration tasks to be performed by Agency employees and contractors, and the associated hours required for each grouping of related tasks. EPA determined Agency labor costs by multiplying Agency burden figures by the hourly Agency labor rate of $ 52.91. The EPA determined this rate by using the year 2000 GS 13, Step 5 hourly rate for the Washington Baltimore Area which is $ 33.07, and then multiplying the figure by a benefits multiplication factor of 1.6. EPA determined contractor labor costs by multiplying contractor burden figures by a contractor labor rate of $ 50. This rate is consistent with current Agency contracts. Table 6 7 also includes estimates of the one time operating and maintenance ( O& M) costs associated with printing, photocopying, and postage for both the Agency and the contractor. EPA estimated these costs based on experience with similar Surveys. Total Agency costs ( including contractor and O& M costs are estimated to total $ 313,857. Labor costs for responding to comments and analyzing survey responses contribute to the majority of total costs.

The Agency and its contractors will also incur cost to help facilities administer the anticipated sampling effort at 20 meat processing facilities. The Agency expects to incur costs associated with sampling design, coordination of data, and data analysis. These estimated burdens and costs are presented in Table 6 8. 36 TABLE 6 7 AGENCY BURDEN AND COST ( INCLUDING CONTRACTOR COST) FOR ADMINISTRATION OF SCREENING AND DETAILED SURVEYS Activities Agency Burden ( Hours) Agency O& M ( Dollars) Total Agency Labor Cost Contract or Burden ( Hours) Contractor O& M ( Dollars) Total Contractor Labor Cost $ 52.91/ hr $ 50.00/ hr Develop the collection mechanism; Provide the draft Detailed Survey mechanism to industry trade associations for review; Meet with trade association representatives; Publish notice of anticipated ICR in Federal Register; Respond to all comments received; Revise Survey mechanism based on comments from reviewers. 200 $ 10,582 120 $ 6,000 Develop a mailing list database; Develop a system to track mailing and receipt activities; Mail data collection surveys. 150 $ 7,937 360 $ 18,000 Develop and maintain Help Line and Internet address. 120 $ 6,349 360 $ 18,000 Maintain response tracking system; Implement appropriate procedures for handling CBI responses; Review and code responses; Collect missing information. 600 $ 31,746 2,250 $ 112,500 Enter and verify data. 300 $ 15,783 1,500 $ 75,000 TOTAL BURDEN AND COST 1,370 $ 10,119 $ 72,397 $ 7,280 $ 229,500 37 TABLE 6 8 AGENCY BURDEN AND COST ( INCLUDING CONTRACTOR COST) FOR ADMINISTRATION OF SAMPLING ACTIVITIES Activities Agency Burden ( Hours) Agency O& M ( Dollars) Total Agency Labor Cost Contract or Burden ( Hours) Contractor O& M ( Dollars) Total Contractor Labor Cost $ 52.91/ hr $ 50.00/ hr Selecting facilities for sampling Compiling and entering data in database Analyzing data $ 10,582 200 $ 10,000 TOTAL BURDEN AND COST 200  $ 10,582 10,000  $ 10,000 6 ( c) Bottom Line Burden Hours And Cost Table Tables 6 9 summarizes the total costs that the meat products industry and the EPA will incur as the result of the 1999 Meat Products Industry Screening and Detailed Surveys administration and administration of sampling activities.

TABLE 6 10 TOTAL ESTIMATED RESPONDENT AND AGENCY BURDEN AND COST SUMMARY FOR SCREENING AND DETAILED SURVEYS AND SAMPLING Surveys Total Burden ( Hours) Total Labor Cost Total O& M Cost Total Cost All Respondents 12,150 $ 841,145 $ 3,398 $ 844,543 Agency and Contractor 5,960 $ 301,987 $ 11,870 $ 313,857 Sampling Effort Total Burden ( Hours) Total Labor Cost Total O& M Cost Total Cost Selected Facilities 2,760 $ 191,080  $ 191,080 Agency and Contractor 400 $ 20,582  $ 20,582 Total All Activities 21,270 $ 1,354,794 $ 15,268 $ 1,370,062 38 6( d) Reasons for Change in Burden Because the 1999 Meat Products Industry Survey Information Collection Request is not associated with the renewal or modification of any existing ICR, the burden estimate associated with this survey does not represent a change in any existing ICR burden estimate.

6( e) Burden Statement The one time public reporting and record keeping burden for these Surveys is estimated to be 30 hours per response for the Detailed Survey and 1 hour per response for the Screener Survey ( i. e., a total of 12,150 hours of burden divided among the 2000 respondents). Also, the burden for the sampling is estimated to be 120 to 156 hours per respondent ( i. e., a total of 2,760 hours of burden divided among the 20 respondents). Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

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

TOTAL ESTIMATED RESPONDENT COST SUMMARY FOR SCREENING AND DETAILED SURVEYS AND SAMPLING Surveys Total Labor Cost Total O& M Cost Total Cost All Respondents $ 841,145 $ 3,398 $ 844,543 Sampling Effort Total Labor Cost Total O& M Cost Total Cost Selected Facilities $ 191,080  $ 191,080 TOTAL ESTIMATED RESPONDENT COST SUMMARY FOR SCREENING AND DETAILED SURVEYS AND SAMPLING 39 Total All Activities $ 1,032,225 $ 3,398 $ 1,035,623 PART B 1. Survey Objectives, Key Variables, and Other Preliminaries 1( a) Survey Objectives The Meat Products survey effort will provide information essential to establishing a need for and developing, as necessary, revised regulations under Section 304( m) of the Clean Water Act. Survey data is essential for characterizing the nationwide and industry specific status of meat products facility location, the types of operations, wastewater characteristics, wastewater management technology, and for assessing the financial status of meat products industry potentially affected by proposed regulations.

1( b) Key Variables Please refer to Part A, Section 4( b), of this ICR for information on this topic .

1( c) Statistical Approach The objectives of the survey information collection effort can be achieved by a sample survey at considerably lower cost and burden ( to EPA and respondents) than would be required for a census. A statistically designed sample survey is necessary to achieve the objectives, in particular to ensure that the resulting inferences and analyses are as statistically unbiased and as precise as is practicable.

Development of technical questions and technical analyses of the Detailed Survey will be provided by Tetra Tech, Inc, 10309 Eaton Place, Suite 340, Fairfax, VA 22030. This support will be provided under EPA Contract No. 68 C 99 263, which is monitored by the Chemicals Branch, Engineering Analysis Division of EPA's Office of Science and Technology.

Development of economic and financial related questions; operation of a help line; and economic and financial analyses of Detailed Survey data will be provided by Eastern Research Group, Eastern Research Group, Inc. ( ERG), 110 Hartwell Avenue, Lexington, MA 02421 3136. This support will be provided under EPA Contract No. 68 C6 0022, which is monitored by the Economics and Statistics Branch, Engineering Analysis Division of EPA's Office of Science and Technology.

Westat will conduct the surveys. Westat, at 1650 Research Blvd, Rockville, MD 20850, will provide technical support for sample frame development and validation; data entry; design and quality assurance ( QA) review of the survey response database; and statistical analysis and 40 reporting of survey responses. This support will be provided under EPA Contract No. 68 C 99 242, which is monitored by the Economics and Statistical Analysis Branch, Engineering Analysis Division of EPA's Office of Science and Technology ( OST). Westat will also provide technical support for collation, mail out; help line operation; development and maintenance of survey tracking systems; and analysis of survey data.

1( d) Feasibility The survey will be conducted under the authority of Section 308 of the Clean Water Act ( 33 U. S. C. 1318). Surveys will be mailed to meat and poultry facilities. A toll free telephone help line will be provided by contractors. Respondents are provided information regarding these help lines in the General Information and Instructions sections of the survey.

The collection schedule ( see Section 5( d) in Part A of this ICR) accounts for the events and response times leading up to final analysis of survey data. This project will involve the design of analyses, computer programs, and report formats in advance of data entry of survey responses. This approach will ensure that key results are reported promptly once data entry and data quality checks are finished. Completion of these tasks will require planning and coordination among the contractors for statistical, technical, and financial analyses. It will also require that the survey database be designed ( and a mock up of the database be completed) well before data entry begins so that analytical programs can be tested.

2. Survey Design 2( a) Target Population To obtain valuable information on meat products industry's wastewater management practice, we have targeted meat and poultry product facilities with slaughtering, by product processing, rendering, and further processing operations. The basic 7 domains of interest are: 1) Poultry slaughterers, 2) Beef slaughterers, 3) Pork slaughterers, 4) Poultry processors, 5) Beef processors, 6) Pork processors, and 7) Renderers.

2( b) Sampling Design The survey effort sampling design will be a stratified random probability sample.

( i) Sampling Frame The Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points ( HACCP) database produced by USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service ( FSIS) will be used as the primary source of EPA's sample frame. This database provides a list of 7,891 federally and state inspected meat and poultry facilities. The list is dated March 9, 2000 for the federally inspected facilities and is dated May 10, 2000 for the state inspected facilities. The eligible HACCP population is variable, with many establishments regularly entering and leaving the population. The HACCP database provides a 41 single point in time from which to sample. The HACCP database will be supplemented with a list of approximately 231 renderers provided by the National Renderers Association ( NRA).

( ii) Sample Size and Their Allocation The entire HACCP frame is stratified into Large, Small, and Very Small facilities, corresponding to more than 500 employees, 10 500 employees, and less than 10 employees, respectively. The renderers are not stratified by size. Information merged onto the frame from Urner Barry Meat and Poultry Directory 2000 identifies the stage and product information as slaughterer/ processor and poultry/ beef/ pork/ other for at least 242 of the 292 large facilities ( 82 percent) and 1,236 of the 2,381 small facilities ( 52 percent). No stratification information is available for the remaining large and small facilities, or for any of the 5,308 very small facilities. Thus stratification information is available for 19 percent of the 7,981 HACCP facilities, but a much higher proportion of the larger facilities. Given the fluidity of the eligibility of some frame members, some of the sampled establishments will turn out not to be eligible. Also, given that two thirds of the establishments are missing stratification information, it is impossible to accurately predict the number of eligible establishments that will be sampled in each stratum.

EPA will survey approximately 350 facilities with the Detailed Survey. Also, EPA will survey approximately 1,650 facilities with the Screener Survey ( 7 questions) to collect frame stratification data that will be used to improve the accuracy of estimates from the Detailed Surveys, without incurring significant respondent burden.

( iii) Stratification Variables Stratification increases precision ( reducing one source of uncertainty) for estimates of costs, benefits and other quantities. The strata will be based on the stage of operation ( slaughter, processor, renderer) and the animals used ( beef, pork, poultry). The frame is also stratified by size, based on number of employees. A size measure based on water discharged would be preferable, but this information does not exist on any available database. It is assumed that the largest water dischargers will have a large number of employees, so using employment as a stratification variable is a logical alternative.

( iv) Sampling Methods The sample for the Detailed Survey will be a probability sample with stratification as described above. The sampling unit will be the facility.

Approximately 50 facilities will be selected with certainty to obtain information determined to be necessary for evaluating facility operations and best technology options. Since most of the interest will focus on the characteristics of larger facilities, larger facilities will be oversampled in the sample design. The oversampling rates will be 6: 3: 1, meaning that the large facilities will be sampled at 6 times the rate of the very small facilities, and the small facilities at 3 times the rate of the very small. Also, it is anticipated that many of the very small facilities will not 42 be eligible for the survey ( e. g., out of business, not discharging water). Thus, EPA will sample approximately 200 large, 1000 small, and 750 very small facilities with additional 50 facilities selected with certainty. The Detailed Surveys will be sent to approximately 32 of the 200 large, 153 of the 1000 small, 115 of the 750 very small facilities; and, 50 facilities will be selected with certainty for the Detailed Survey.

In drawing a sample, EPA will use systematic sampling ( with a random starting point in the frame) within each stratum.

2( c) Sample Size and Precision ( i) Precision based on Selected Sample Size A sample of 2,000 facilities will receive the Surveys. The Detailed Survey will be sent to 350 facilities and the Screener Survey will be sent to 1,650 facilities. To estimate the precision of the estimates from the sample, it is necessary to make assumptions about the eligibility rate. The precision estimates provided in Table 2 1 are based on the following assumptions:

! All large facilities are eligible;

! 90% of small facilities are eligible;

! 50% of very small facilities are eligible;

! The unstratified small and very small facilities will be slaughters and processors in the same proportion as the stratified small facilities. Similarly, products of unstratified facilities will occur in the same proportions as for unstratified facilities. The population proportion characteristics of large unstratified facilities will resemble those for large stratified facilities.

The results indicate that increasing the sample size will definitely improve the accuracy of the estimates. Oversampling the large facilities at 6 times the rate of the very small and the small at 3 times the rate of the very small ( the middle columns of the table) will definitely increase the number of completed eligible facilities obtained from the survey ( assuming the stratification is correlated with eligibility). However, the more extreme oversampling rate shown in the right hand column does not show any advantage over the 6: 3: 1 oversampling rate.

The sample size of 2000 with oversampling ratio 6: 3: 1 will result in confidence intervals for proportionsx that are in the range of 8% to 12% for the proportion of all slaughterers. 43 TABLE 2 1 CONFIDENCE INTERVAL HALF WIDTHS FOR A 95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL FOR A POPULATION PROPORTION No Oversampling Oversampling Larger Facilities ( 6: 3: 1 ) Oversampling Larger Facilities ( 9: 3: 1 )

Sample Size Proportion Eligible Completes Poultry Slaughterers* All Slaughterers Eligible Completes Poultry Slaughterers* All Slaughterers Eligible Completes Poultry Slaughterers* All Slaughterers 250 0.5 177 0.31 0.19 202 0.26 0.19 203 0.26 0.19 0.1 177 0.19 0.11 202 0.16 0.11 203 0.16 0.11 300 0.5 210 0.26 0.17 240 0.23 0.17 243 0.24 0.17 0.1 210 0.16 0.10 240 0.14 0.10 243 0.14 0.10 400 0.5 273 0.21 0.14 315 0.20 0.14 319 0.20 0.15 0.1 273 0.13 0.08 315 0.12 0.09 319 0.12 0.09 2000 0.5 1289 0.09 0.06 1526 0.08 0.06 1550 0.08 0.06 0.1 1289 0.06 0.04 1526 0.05 0.04 1550 0.05 0.04 * This column is similar for the other two slaughterer domains, beef processors, and renderers. Accuracy will be better for poultry and pork processors.

( ii) Nonsampling Errors Nonresponse is relatively low for surveys sent under the authority of Section 308 of the Clean Water Act. EPA will employ several measures to reduce nonresponses. The cover letter and instructions for the surveys will explain the legal authority, responsibility to respond, reasons for the survey, and penalty for nonresponse. Delivery or nondelivery of the surveys will be tracked using Federal Express, thus a signature of recipient will be required. A help line will be operated while the surveys are in the field so that technical, financial and administrative questions regarding the survey can be addressed. Recipients not responding to the Detailed Survey by the deadline date may be telephoned to encourage response, to answer questions, and to determine the reasons for the nonresponse.

Inaccurate or incomplete responses can occur due to misunderstandings or the misinterpretation of questions and the unintentional skipping of questions by respondents. Errors can occur when responses are coded, edited and entered into the database. The design and 44 implementation of the Detailed Surveys will employ a number of quality assurance techniques to reduce the frequency of such errors. These techniques include the following:

Review of questions for ambiguity and clarity

Use of an easily followed sequence of questions and stopping points

Avoidance of questions requiring an open ended response

Provision of a limited number of carefully considered responses to each question

Provision of clear definitions of units of measurement and of technical terms

Provision of clear instructions with references to the definitions

Provision of a " help line" with a toll free number to assist respondents

Review of questions by engineers, scientists, and economists who will telephone respondents to obtain missing information and resolve problems and inconsistencies

Use of double entry keypunch verification on all surveys

Conduct of computerized comparison of selected responses to detect inconsistencies and illogical responses

Conduct of computerized analyses to screen for out of range and inconsistent numerical values

Conduct of computerized analyses to detect missing numerical data and missing units 2( d) Survey Design Please refer to Part A, Section 4( b) of this ICR for information on this topic.

3. Pretests and Pilot Tests Please refer to Part A, Section 6( a), of this ICR for information on this topic .

4. Collection Methods and Follow up 4( a) Collection Methods Please refer to Section 5( b), Part A of this ICR for information on this topic. 45 4( b) Survey Response and Follow Up Please refer to Section 5( b), Part A of this ICR for information on this topic 5. Analyzing and Reporting Survey Results 5( a) Data Preparation EPA will prepare the meat products industry survey data in a manner consistent with other survey efforts at the agency ( e. g., past effluent guidelines surveys). Upon receipt of the completed surveys, the data will be entered and reviewed for coding consistency, missing data, and obvious inconsistencies in reported data by engineering and economic staff. Any inconsistencies will be resolved through call backs and any changes made will be documented. Contractor resources will be used for this effort as well as for data entry. Once the data is entered into a database, numerous manual and electronic QA activities are performed and the results provided to engineering and economic staff for further resolution and documentation.

5( b) Analysis Analyses of the surveys will have the objectives of ( a) producing narrative and quantitative characterizations of meat and poultry product industry group, meat and poultry product operations, process wastewater and treatment technologies, ( b) characterizing plant specific and site specific factors that distinguish potential for adverse environmental impact, ( c) characterizing plant specific and site specific factors that distinguish technology options and costs for reducing adverse environmental impact, ( d) estimating costs of regulatory options and impacts, ( e) estimating benefits of regulatory options.

5( c) Reporting Results All responses containing or consisting of CBI will be so identified in the survey database. Regulations governing confidentiality of business information appear at 40 CFR Part 2 Subpart B, and these are adhered to strictly by EPA and its contractors. Safeguards and procedures for CBI are described in written plans maintained by EPA and its contractors.

Information not classified as CBI could potentially be shared with any interested parties. Such information is subject to Freedom of Information Act ( FOIA) requests. Results of EPA's analyses become publicly available most often in three ways: ( 1) within proposed and final rules published in the Federal Register, ( 2) within development and supporting documents otherwise published in support of rulemaking, and ( 3) within materials placed in the rulemaking docket. The first two classes of documents are being made available by EPA on the Internet with increasing frequency; and this mode of reporting is a possibility for the results of the surveys described in this ICR. ATTACHMENT 6 Relevant Sections of Statutes, Regulations, or Judicial/ Administrative Decrees 1.) The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (" Clean Water Act"), 33 U. S. C. can be found at www. epa. gov/ epahome/ laws. htm.

2.) The Meat Products Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards published at 40 CFR Part 432 can be found at www. epa. gov/ docs/ epacfr40/ chapt I. info/ subch N/.