SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR EPA INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST # 1608.04 STATE PROGRAM ADEQUACY DETERMINATION:

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS ( MSWLFs) and NON MUNICIPAL, NON HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL UNITS THAT RECEIVE CONDITIONALLY EXEMPT SMALL QUANTITY GENERATOR ( CESQG) HAZARDOUS WASTE ( 40 CFR PART 293) ( RENEWAL) 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ( a) Title and number of the information collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ( b) Short Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ( a) Need and authority for the information collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ( b) Practical utility/ users of the data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 ( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 ( b) Information Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Develop Program Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 ( i) Data items, Including Record keeping Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 ( ii) Respondent Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Adequacy Determination Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ( i) Data items, including Record keeping Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ( ii) Respondent Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED  AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT . . . . . . 6 ( a) Agency Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ( b) Collection Methodology and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 ( c) Small Entity Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 ( d) Collection Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 ( a) Nonduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 ( b) Effects of Less Frequent Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 ( c) Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ( d) General Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ( e) Confidentiality and Sensitive Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ( a) Estimating Respondent Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ( b) Estimating Respondent Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ( d) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ( e) Respondent Universe and Total Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ( f) Reasons For Change in Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ( g) Burden Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2 ( h) Request for Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Exhibit 1: 10 States/ Territories Preparing Applications for Non municipal, Non hazardous Waste Disposal Units that Receive CESQG Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Exhibit 2: 8 States/ Territories Preparing Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Program Applications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Exhibit 3: EPA Regions Responding to 10 Applications for Non municipal, Nonhazardous Waste Disposal Units that Receive CESQG Hazardous Waste . . . . . 15 Exhibit 4: EPA Regions Responding to 8 Applications for MSWLF Permit Programs. . . . 16 Exhibit 5: Total Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 3 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title and Number of the Information Collection This Information Collection Request ( ICR) is entitled " Municipal Solid Waste Landfills ( MSWLFs) and State Program Adequacy Determination Non municipal, Non hazardous Waste Disposal Units that Receive Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator ( CESQG) Hazardous Waste ( Renewal)," ICR number 1608.04.

The request for public comment for this ICR was published in the Federal Register on January 04, 2005 ( 70 FR 356); no comments were received.

1( b) Short Characterization Section 4010( c) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) of 1976 requires that the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) revise the landfill criteria promulgated under paragraph ( 1) of Section 4004( a) and Section 1008( a)( 3). Section 4005( c) of RCRA, as amended by the Hazardous Solid Waste Amendments ( HSWA) of 1984, requires states to develop and implement permit programs to ensure that non municipal, non hazardous waste disposal units that receive household hazardous waste or CESQG hazardous waste and municipal solid waste landfills are in compliance with the revised criteria for the design and operation of non municipal, non hazardous waste disposal units under 40 CFR part 257, subpart B and MSWLFs under 40 CFR part 258. ( 40 CFR part 257, subpart B and 40 CFR part 258 are henceforth referred to as the " revised federal criteria".) Section 4005( c) of RCRA further mandates the EPA Administrator to determine the adequacy of state permit programs to ensure owner/ operator compliance with the revised federal criteria. A state program that is deemed adequate to ensure compliance may afford flexibility to owners/ operators in the approaches they use to meet federal requirements, significantly reducing the burden associated with compliance.

In response to the statutory requirement in § 4005( c), EPA developed 40 CFR part 239, commonly referred to as the State Implementation Rule ( SIR). The SIR describes the state application and EPA review procedures and defines the elements of an adequate state permit program.

The collection of information from the state during the permit program adequacy determination process allows EPA to evaluate whether a program for which approval is requested is appropriate in structure and authority to ensure owner/ operator compliance with the 40 CFR part 257, subpart B and/ or the 40 CFR part 258 criteria. The SIR does not require the use of a particular application form. However, § 239.3 of the SIR requires that all state applications contain the following five components:

( 1) A transmittal letter requesting permit program approval; 4 ( 2) A narrative description of the state permit program, including a demonstration that the state's non municipal, non hazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG hazardous standards are technically comparable to the part 257, subpart B criteria and/ or that its MSWLF standards are technically comparable to the part 258 criteria;

( 3) A legal certification demonstrating that the state has the authority to carry out the program;

( 4) Copies of relevant state laws, regulations, and guidance that the state believes demonstrate program adequacy; and ( 5) Copies of relevant state tribal agreements if the state has negotiated with a tribe for the implementation of a permit program for non municipal, non hazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG hazardous waste and/ or municipal solid waste landfills on Indian Lands.

A more detailed description of the data elements, respondent activities, and Record keeping requirements associated with each of the information collection requirements is presented in Section 3.

The attached supporting statement provides justification for the information collection requirements included in 40 CFR part 239. It examines the burden to states associated with preparing and submitting a program application that complies with SIR requirements. This ICR also estimates the cost that the federal government will incur in reviewing state program applications and determining the adequacy of state permit programs.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 2( a) Need and Authority for the Information Collection Section 4010( c) of RCRA requires EPA to establish minimum criteria to ensure that nonmunicipal non hazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG hazardous waste and MSWLFs are designed and managed in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment. 40 CFR part 257, subpart B establishes these minimum federal criteria for nonmunicipal non hazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG hazardous waste and 40 CFR part 258 establishes them for MSWLFs. The statute also requires states to adopt permit programs to ensure that owners and operators of both types of waste disposal units comply with the relevant federal criteria.

The need for this collection of information from the states derives from Section 4005( c) of RCRA which requires the EPA Administrator to review state permit programs to determine if they are adequate to ensure compliance with the federal criteria. The SIR ( 40 CFR part 239) establishes the procedures EPA has developed to carry out this mandate. To make the required determination, EPA must collect information from states. That information is provided to the Agency in the context of an application for permit program approval.

States which do not submit the information necessary to make a determination of program adequacy will be deemed to have inadequate programs. Where the state program is deemed inadequate, owners and operators of both non municipal, non hazardous waste disposal units and 5 MSWLFs must comply with the self implementing provisions of the federal revised criteria in 40 CFR part 257, subpart B and 40 CFR part 258, and may not be able to take advantage of the flexibility that may be afforded to owners/ operators by states with approved permit programs.

EPA has granted full approval to 49 states and territories for their MSWLF programs under 40 CFR 258. In addition, EPA has determined that 45 states have adequate provisions in place to require that CESQG waste is disposed in suitable facilities.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The EPA Administrator has delegated the authority to make determinations of adequacy, as contained in the statute, to the EPA Regional Administrators. Therefore, the appropriate EPA Regional Office uses the information provided by each state to determine whether the state's permit program satisfies the statutory test reflected in the requirements of 40 CFR part 239. In all cases, the information is analyzed to determine the adequacy of the state's permit program for ensuring compliance with the federal revised criteria.

3. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 3( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes The universe of respondents involved in this information collection will be limited to states that seek approval of their permit programs or modifications to their previously approved permit programs for non municipal, non hazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG waste and/ or for MSWLFs. This information collection effort includes approved states that revise their criteria for MSWLFs to allow states to issue research, development, and demonstration ( RD& D) permits for new and existing MSWLF units and lateral expansions. No entities with SIC codes will be affected by this information collection.

3( b) Information Requested Develop Program Application States requesting program approval must submit a program application as described in the SIR. Prior to the final submission, EPA encourages the states to submit draft applications for Agency comment and suggestions. The costs of draft application submission are incorporated into the costs of final application submission.

( i) Data Items, Including Record keeping Requirements EPA is not prescribing Record keeping requirements for applicants associated with this rule. The primary data item for the adequacy determination process is the state program application. Data items include:

$ Narrative description of the state program( s)

$ Transmittal letter 6 $ Legal certification $ Copies of relevant statutes, regulations, and guidance $ Copies of relevant state tribal agreements ( ii) Respondent Activities $ Read the SIR and 40 CFR part 257, subpart B and/ or 40 CFR part 258 $ Prepare the narrative program description $ Write the transmittal letter $ Prepare the legal certification $ Compile relevant statutes, regulations, and guidance $ Compile relevant agreements between state and tribe( s)

Adequacy Determination Process The state will submit a formal application containing all required elements, to the appropriate EPA Regional Office. After the formal application has been reviewed by the EPA Region, the Agency may request revisions or additional information from the state, particularly in response to comments received during the public comment period that the Agency is required to provide. The state will meet with the EPA Region to discuss such changes and may need to modify and resubmit the application.

( i) Data Items, including Record keeping Requirements Under this rule, EPA is not prescribing Record keeping requirements for applicants. The primary data item for the adequacy determination process is the state program application.

( ii) Respondent Activities $ Submit an application for state program approval $ Modify the application, if necessary, to respond to comments from the EPA Region and/ or the public $ Resubmit the application, if necessary 4. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED  AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 4( a) Agency Activities 7 Develop Program Application As the states develop and complete their program applications, the appropriate EPA Regions will review them and provide written comments to the state. As part of this process, a Region may conduct meetings with state representatives.

Adequacy Determination Process After a Region determines that a state application is complete, the Region will review it and make a final adequacy determination. The Region will make every attempt to complete its review and make a final determination of adequacy within 180 days of receipt of a complete application; however, submission of an application for program approval does not ensure automatic approval should EPA fail to meet the 180 day time frame. During the review process, the Region will be responsible for the following activities:

$ Review the application for completeness and request additional information if necessary;

$ Review the completed application, draft and forward comments to, and meet with state as needed;

$ After consultation with Regional staff, the Regional Administrator will make a tentative determination;

$ Prepare and publish a Federal Register notice of tentative determination;

$ Hold public hearing( s), if necessary;

$ Respond to public comments if significant comments are received;

$ After meetings between the Regional and state staff to resolve any remaining issues, the Regional Administrator will make a final determination; and $ Prepare and publish a Federal Register notice of final determination.

4( b) Collection Methodology and Management EPA does not prescribe through regulation the manner in which the application is to be submitted: Respondents have flexibility regarding the manner in which they submit information ( i. e., hardcopy or electronically word processed); however, database submission is not practicable. Regions will be required to maintain a copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking for public review and a docket for the final rule. These records may be kept at a public library, where they will require minimal space and upkeep.

4( c) Small Entity Flexibility 8 The rule requires states to submit applications for permit program approval for non municipal, non hazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG hazardous waste and/ or for municipal solid waste landfills. It does not impact the flexibility of small entities.

4( d) Collection Schedule The 40 CFR part 258 criteria were promulgated on October 9, 1991 and were generally effective beginning on October 9, 1993. Criteria for non municipal, non hazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG hazardous waste ( 40 CFR part 257, subpart B) were promulgated on July 1, 1996. Location and record keeping criteria were effective on January 1, 1998 and groundwater monitoring and corrective action requirements became effective on July 1, 1998. Research, Development, and Demonstration Permits for MSWLFs ( 40 CFR part 285.4, subpart A) became effective on April 21, 2004. Requirements for States and Territiories to submit applications for determination of adequacy of their Subtitle D solid waste programs and procedures for EPA determination of adequacy are contained in 40 CFR 239. EPA has determined that 30 states have existing permit programs for CESQG hazardous waste disposal that are adequate to meet the 40 CFR part 257, subpart B requirements.

States have been encouraged to apply for and gain program approval as quickly as possible, to allow the state and facility owners/ operators to fully utilize the flexibility in the part 257, subpart B and part 258 criteria. Schedules submitted in lieu of an application were expected to outline how the state would make progress toward completing its application. States failing to submit an application within the scheduled time frame could be deemed " inadequate."

5. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 5( a) Nonduplication The information collection covered in this ICR is not available from sources other than the respondents. There is no other federal agency that collects information on the adequacy of state non municipal, non hazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG hazardous waste and/ or of MSWLF permit programs. Therefore, this information collection does not represent a duplicative effort by any other source.

5( b) Effects of Less Frequent Collection EPA has encouraged states to work with regional EPA staff, and to submit early drafts to ensure that their applications are complete, with sufficient detail to lessen the potential need for revision. It is anticipated that, due to the extensive interaction between states and the regional EPA staff in the development of both the permit programs and the applications for adequacy determinations, states will not be required to submit revised applications.

Additional review and revision of state programs may be needed when federal or state statutory or regulatory authorities are subsequently altered or when the state shifts permit program 9 responsibility from one agency to another. The Regional Administrator will determine, on a caseby case basis, whether subsequent statutory or regulatory changes warrant revision of the state program or modifications to a state's original program approval application.. Procedures for this process are detailed in 40 CFR part 239.12 and are designed to minimize state burdens.

5( c) Consultations EPA made substantial efforts to consult with state officials during the development of the State Implementation Rule. During this time EPA met with the following people: Tom Kennedy and Kerry Callahan, Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials ( ASTSWMO); Richard Barlow, Connecticut; James Dunbar, Georgia; Thomas Epstein, Rhode Island; Bill Cass and Carol Ansheles, Northeast Waste Management Officials Association ( NEWMOA); Hector Mendietta, Texas; Jim Warner, Minnesota; Neil Weber, New Mexico; Mark Witherspoon, Arkansas; and other state personnel. EPA, through ASTSWMO, provided copies of drafts for the State Implementation Rule, at various stages in its development, to provide all states and territories an opportunity for input on the procedures used to assess the adequacy of affected state permitting programs.

5( d) General Guidelines This ICR adheres to guidelines stated in the 1980 Paperwork Reduction Act, as amended in 1995, OMB's implementing regulations, OMB's Information Collection Review Handbook, and other applicable OMB guidance.

5( e) Confidentiality and Sensitive Questions The information that states would submit is public information; therefore, no problems of confidentiality or sensitive questions arise.

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION The following burden and cost estimates are based upon EPA's experience in processing state MSWLF permit program adequacy determinations. The estimates also reflect the Agency's burden and costs from reviewing similar activities of other regulatory programs, and from discussions with states.

Under 40 CFR part 257, subpart B, owners/ operators of non municipal, non hazardous disposal units that receive CESQG hazardous waste must comply with location restrictions, ground water monitoring, and corrective action standards. EPA has determined that 45 states have existing permit programs for CESQG hazardous waste disposal that are adequate to meet the 40 CFR part 257, subpart B requirements. Over the next three years, EPA expects up to 5 additional states/ territories to seek permit program adequacy determinations for non municipal, nonhazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG hazardous waste. The burden and cost estimates for the permit program adequacy determinations for non municipal, non hazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG hazardous waste will be higher than for the streamlined approval process used for the 45 states already approved, but less than for the MSWLF permit program adequacy determinations because the requirements for non municipal, non hazardous 10 disposal units that receive CESQG hazardous waste are less cumbersome than those required for MSWLFs.

To date, EPA has fully or partially approved 54 state/ territorial MSWLF permit programs. Over the next three years, EPA expects to receive permit program applications from the remaining 2 states/ territories and expects up to 5 states/ territories to modify previously approved programs. EPA expects 9 approved states over the next three years to seek RD& D approval for MSWLFs.

6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden EPA estimates respondent burden hours associated with all of the requirements covered in this ICR in Exhibits 1 5. Separate scenarios were developed for MSWLF and non municipal, nonhazardous waste permit program approval applications. Each is presented in a chart at the end of this statement which shows the estimated burden hours and costs for each collection activity.

$ Exhibit 1 assumes that 5 states/ territories will submit permit program approval applications for non municipal, non hazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG hazardous waste.

$ Exhibit 2 assumes that 2 states/ territories will submit an application for MSWLF permit program approval ( Exhibit 2a) and that 5 states will modify their existing approved programs ( Exhibit 2b).

6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs The average hourly salary rates contained in the current ICR for this rule were from 2001. For this ICR renewal request EPA used rates from the 2004 GS salary table, Step 5 and applied an overhead factor of 1.6.

For states and territories, EPA estimates an average hourly salary rate of $ 64.59 ( GS 14) for legal staff, $ 75.97 ( GS 15) for managerial staff, $ 45.97 ( GS 12) for technical staff, and $ 25.90 ( GS 7) for clerical staff. These rates include the overhead factor of 1.6.

6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost In estimating Agency burden hours and costs associated with activities in this ICR, EPA examined ICRs that had already been approved by OMB. ICRs reviewed include those for the UST program, Subtitle C program, and the original ICR that is now being renewed.

Estimates of Agency burden hours and costs associated with all of the requirements of this ICR are provided in Exhibits 3 and 4. EPA Regional Offices will be involved in these activities.

$ Exhibit 3 estimates EPA's burden and costs for responding to permit program approval applications for non municipal, non hazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG hazardous waste. 11 $ Exhibit 4 estimates EPA's burden and costs for responding to both new and modified MSWLF permit program applications.

Agency Burden Estimates Agency burden figures are based on EPA's experience in undertaking and completing this activity to date. Since it is not possible to accurately estimate how many respondents will submit applications in a given year, the estimates show total estimated burden and costs during the three year period suggested for submission in the regulation. Average annual burden is obtained by dividing the total burden by three.

Agency Labor Costs The average hourly salary rates contained in the current ICR for this rule were from 2001. For this ICR renewal request EPA used rates from the 2004 GS salary table, Step 5 and applied an overhead factor of 1.6.

EPA estimates an average hourly Regional labor cost of $ 64.59 ( GS 14) for legal staff, $ 75.97 ( GS 15) for managerial staff, $ 45.97 ( GS 12) for technical staff, and $ 25.90 ( GS 7) for clerical staff. These hourly rates include the standard government overhead factor of 1.6.

6( d) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs Exhibit 5 shows the total burden and cost to respondents and the State and government for all information collection requirements covered in this ICR. EPA estimates that the total bottom line burden for this information collection activity is $ 352,758 or $ 117,586 per year.

6( e) Respondent Universe and Total Burden Costs The total number of respondents are 12 and the total burden hours are 7,214 over 3 years, or 2,405 hours per year. The total cost burden is $ 352,758 over 3 years, or $ 117,586 per year.

6( f) Reasons For Change in Burden This ICR replaces ICR 1608.03, approved by OMB through June 30, 2005. Burden hours for this ICR continue to decrease. For the prior ICR renewal all mention of burden estimates for tribes which were contained in the original ICR were removed. In addition, since the last clearance, additional states and territories have been moving through the approval process for their MSWLF permit programs. Therefore, the number of state and territorial remaining to obtain MSWLF permit program adequacy determinations has decreased from 3 to 2. In addition, EPA estimates that as many as 5 states may choose to submit modifications to their approved programs.

Under the July 1, 1996 rulemaking for non municipal, non hazardous waste disposal units that may receive CESQG hazardous waste, 45 states/ territories have received CESQG hazardous 12 waste permit program adequacy determinations. EPA estimates that no more than 5 additional States will apply for an adequacy determination during the next 3 years.

6( g) Burden Statement The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 242 hours per response. 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.

6( h) Request for Comments To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. RCRA 2004 0020, which is available for public viewing at the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response ( OSWER) Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the OSWER Docket is ( 202) 566 0270. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search," then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. ( RCRA 2004 0020) and OMB control number ( 2050 0152) in any correspondence. 13 EXHIBITS EXHIBIT 1: 5 STATES/ TERRITORIES APPLICATIONS FOR NON MUNICIPAL, NONHAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL UNITS THAT RECEIVE CESQG HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT PROGRAMS Collection Activities Burden Hours per Applicant Legal $ 64.59 per hour Manager $ 75.97 per hour Technical $ 45.97 per hour Clerical $ 25.90 per hour Total Hours Read 40 CFR part 239 and 40 CFR part 257, subpart B 5 10 32.5 0 47.5 Prepare narrative program description 0 20 80 20 120 Write transmittal memorandum 0 0.5 1 0.5 2 Prepare legal certification 1.5 0.5 0 0.5 2.5 Compile copies of relevant statutes, regulations, and guidance 4 0 4 7.5 15.5 Modify application, as necessary 4 10 40 10 64 Total hours per Respondent 14.5 41 157.5 38.5 251.5 Total cost per Respondent $ 936.56 $ 3,114.77 $ 7,240.28 $ 997.15 $ 12,288.76 Total Burden: Hour Total ( 251.5) x No. of Respondents ( 5) = 1,258 Hours Total Cost: Cost Total ($ 12,288.76) x No. of Respondents ( 5) = $ 61,443.80. 14 EXHIBIT 2: 7 STATE/ TERRITORIES PREPARING APPLICATIONS FOR MSWLF PERMIT PROGRAMS EXHIBIT 2a: 2 STATES/ TERRITORIES PREPARING NEW APPLICATIONS Collection Activities Burden Hours per Applicant Legal $ 64.59 per hour Manager $ 75.97 per hour Technical $ 45.97 per hour Clerical $ 25.90 per hour Total Hours Read 40 CFR part 239 and 40 CFR part 258 10 20 65 0 95 Prepare narrative program description 0 40 160 40 240 Write transmittal memorandum 0 1 2 1 4 Prepare legal certification 3 1 0 1 5 Compile copies of relevant statutes, regulations, and guidance 8 0 8 15 31 Modify application, as necessary 8 20 80 20 128 Total hours per Respondent 29 82 315 77 503 Total cost per Respondent $ 1,873.11 $ 6,229.54 $ 14,480.55 $ 1,994.30 $ 24,577.50 Total Burden: Hour Total ( 503) x No. of Respondents ( 2) = 1,006 Hours Total Cost: Cost Total ($ 24,577.50) x No. of Respondents ( 2) = $ 49,155 EXHIBIT 2b: 5 STATES/ TERRITORIES MODIFYING APPROVED PROGRAMS Collection Activities Burden Hours per Applicant Legal $ 64.59 per hour Manager $ 75.97 per hour Technical $ 45.97 per hour Clerical $ 25.90 per hour Total Hours Modify program, as necessary 8 20 80 20 128 Total hours per Respondent 8 20 80 20 128 Total cost per Respondent $ 516.72 $ 1,519.40 $ 3,677.60 $ 518.00 $ 6,231.72 Total Burden: Hour Total ( 128) x No. of Respondents ( 5) = 640 Hours Total Cost: Cost Total ($ 6,231.72) x No. of Respondents ( 5) = $ 31,158.60.

EXHIBIT 2 TOTAL BURDEN ( 2a+ 2b): 1,646 Hours TOTAL COST ( 2a+ 2b): $ 80,313.60 15 EXHIBIT 3: EPA REGIONS RESPONDING TO 5 APPLICATIONS FOR NON MUNICIPAL, NON HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL UNITS THAT RECEIVE CESQG HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT PROGRAMS Collection Activities Burden Hours per Application Legal $ 64.59 per hour Manager $ 75.97 per hour Technical $ 45.97 per hour Clerical $ 25.90 per hour Total Hours Review and comment on draft application, including meetings with applicant 5 5 40 8 58 Process and distribute application 0 0 5 4 9 Review application for completeness, and request additional information 5 5 40 1 51 Review complete application 1 5 20 8 34 Regional Administrator makes tentative determination 2 5 5 0 12 Prepare and publish Federal Register notice 0 0.5 5 2.5 8 Hold public hearing 0 0 8 2.5 10.5 Respond to significant comments 2 2 20 2.5 26.5 Regional Administrator makes final determination 2 5 5 0 12 Prepare and publish Federal Register notice 2 0.5 8 2.5 13 Total hours per Application 19 28 156 31 234 Total cost per Application $ 1,227.21 $ 2,127.16 $ 7,171.32 $ 802.90 $ 11,328.59 Total Burden: Hour ( 234) x No. of Respondents ( 5) = 1170 Hours Total Cost: Cost ($ 11,328.59) x No. of Respondents ( 5) = $ 56,642.95. 16 EXHIBIT 4: EPA REGIONS RESPONDING TO 7 APPLICATIONS FOR MSWLF PERMIT PROGRAMS EXHIBIT 4a: EPA REGIONS RESPONDING TO 2 " NEW" APPLICATIONS Collection Activities Burden Hours per Application Legal $ 64.59 per hour Manager $ 75.97 per hour Technical $ 45.97 per hour Clerical $ 25.90 per hour Total Hours Review and comment on draft application, including meetings with applicant 10 10 80 16 116 Process and distribute application 0 0 10 8 18 Review application for completeness, and request additional information 10 10 80 2 102 Review complete application 2 10 40 16 68 Regional Administrator makes tentative determination 4 10 10 0 24 Prepare and publish Federal Register notice 0 1 10 5 16 Hold public hearing 0 0 16 5 21 Respond to significant comments 4 4 40 5 53 Regional Administrator makes final determination 4 10 10 0 24 Prepare and publish Federal Register notice 4 1 16 5 26 Total hours per Application 38 56 312 62 468 Total cost per Application $ 2,454.42 $ 4,254.32 $ 14,342.64 $ 1,605.80 $ 22,657.18 Total Burden: Hour ( 468) x No. of Respondents ( 2) = 936 Hours Total Cost: Cost ($ 22,657.18) x No. of Respondents ( 2) = $ 45,314.36. 17 EXHIBIT 4b: EPA REGIONS RESPONDING TO 5 " MODIFIED" APPLICATIONS Collection Activities Burden Hours per Application Legal $ 64.59 per hour Manager $ 75.97 per hour Technical $ 45.97 per hour Clerical $ 25.90 per hour Total Hours Review complete application 2 10 40 16 68 Regional Administrator makes tentative determination 4 10 10 0 24 Prepare and publish Federal Register notice 0 1 10 5 16 Hold public hearing 0 0 16 5 21 Respond to significant comments 4 4 40 5 53 Regional Administrator makes final determination 4 10 10 0 24 Prepare and publish Federal Register notice 4 1 16 5 26 Total hours per Application 18 36 142 36 232 Total cost per Application $ 1,162.62 $ 2,734.92 $ 6,527.74 $ 932.40 $ 11,357.68 Total Burden: Hour ( 232) x No. of Respondents ( 5) = 1,160 Hours Total Cost: Cost ($ 11,357.68) x No. of Respondents ( 5) = $ 56,788.40. 18 EXHIBIT 4c: EPA REGIONS RESPONDING TO 9 " RD& D" APPLICATIONS Collection Activities Burden Hours per Application Legal $ 64.59 per hour Manager $ 75.97 per hour Technical $ 45.97 per hour Clerical $ 25.90 per hour Total Hours Review complete application 1 5 20 2 28 Regional Administrator makes tentative determination 2 5 5 0 12 Prepare and publish Federal Register notice 0 1 4 3 8 Hold public hearing 0 0 8 5 13 Respond to significant comments 4 4 20 5 33 Regional Administrator makes final determination 2 5 5 0 12 Prepare and publish Federal Register notice 2 1 4 3 10 Total hours per Application 11 21 66 18 116 Total cost per Application $ 710.49 $ 1,595.37 $ 3,034.02 $ 466.20 $ 5,806.08 Total Burden: Hour ( 116) x No. of Respondents ( 9) = 1,044 Hours Total Cost: Cost ($ 5,806.08) x No. of Respondents ( 9) = $ 52,254.72 EXHIBIT 4 TOTAL BURDEN ( 4a+ 4b+ 4c): 3,140 Hours TOTAL COST ( 4a+ 4b+ 4c): $ 154,357.48 19 EXHIBIT 5: TOTAL BURDEN EXHIBIT 5a: TOTAL HOUR BURDEN Regions States/ Territories Total Preparing Non Municipal, Non Hazardous Waste Disposal Units that Receive CESQG Hazardous Waste Permit Program Applications 1,170 1,258 2,428 Preparing MSWLF Permit Program Applications 3,140 1,646 4,786 Total Burden 4,310 2,904 7,214 States/ Territories Total Hour Burden: 2,904 hours over 3 years, or 968 hours per year GRAND TOTAL HOUR BURDEN: 7,214 hours over 3 years, or 2,405 hours per year EXHIBIT 5b: TOTAL COST BURDEN ( Dollars)

Regions States/ Territories Total Preparing Non Municipal, Non Hazardous Waste Disposal Units that Receive CESQG Hazardous Waste Permit Program Applications $ 56,643 $ 61,444 $ 118,087 Preparing MSWLF Permit Program Applications $ 154,357 $ 80,314 $ 234,671 Total Burden $ 211,000 $ 141,758 $ 352,758 States/ Territories Total Cost Burden ( Dollars): $ 141,798 over 3 years or $ 47,249 per year GRAND TOTAL COST BURDEN ( Dollars): $ 352,758 over 3 years or $ 117,586 per year