Draft
for
public
review
with
First
Federal
Register
Notice
B
Has
not
been
submitted
to
OMB
April
2005
DRAFT
for
Public
Review
with
first
Federal
Register
Notice
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
REQUEST
(
ICR)
SUPPORTING
STATEMENT
FOR
THE
301(
h)
PROGRAM
Modification
of
Secondary
Treatment
Requirements
for
Discharges
Into
Marine
Waters,
EPA
ICR
Number
0138.08,
OMB
Control
Number
2040­
0088
April
20025
Draft
for
public
review
with
First
Federal
Register
Notice
B
Has
not
been
submitted
to
OMB
April
2005
2
A.
JUSTIFICATION
1.
Need
for
Information
Collection
As
described
below
in
more
detail,
the
301(
h)
program
involves
collecting
information
from
two
sources:
1)
the
municipal
wastewater
treatment
facility,
commonly
called
a
publicly
owned
treatment
works
(
POTW)
and
2)
the
State
in
which
the
POTW
is
located.
The
POTW
seeking
to
obtain
a
301(
h)
waiver
provides
application,
monitoring,
and
toxic
control
program
information.
The
State
provides
State
determination
and
State
certification
information.
The
statutory
and
regulatory
authorities
for
these
two
aspects
of
the
section
301(
h)
program
are
discussed
in
the
following
sections.

Statutory
Authority
The
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA)
requires
that
POTWs
achieve
compliance
with
uniform
technology­
based
standards
of
secondary
treatment.
These
standards
describe
the
minimum
level
of
effluent
quality
attainable
by
secondary
treatment.
Section
301(
h)
of
the
CWA
provides
that
POTWs
that
discharge
into
certain
marine
waters
specified
in
the
section
may
apply
for
and
obtain
a
waiver
from
secondary
treatment
requirements
for
conventional
pollutants
(
BOD,
SS,
pH)
if
particular
regulatory
criteria
are
met.
According
to
this
section,
such
a
waiver
must
be
issued
by
the
Administrator
of
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
with
the
concurrence
of
the
State.
The
section
also
established
an
application
deadline
of
December
31,
1982,
for
eligible
POTWs
choosing
to
apply.
The
POTW
receiving
a
301(
h)
waiver
benefits
since
it
reduces
costs
of
construction
as
well
as
operation
and
maintenance.
The
Ocean
Pollution
Reduction
Act
of
1994
provided
an
opportunity
for
one
additional
POTW
to
reapply
for
a
301(
h)
waiver
by
April
1995.

Section
301(
h)
lists
nine
criteria
that
an
applicant
must
satisfy
to
ensure
that
any
proposed
less­
than­
secondary
discharge
does
not
adversely
affect
the
marine
receiving
water's
ecosystem
or
beneficial
uses.
To
obtain
a
section
301(
h)
waiver,
a
POTW
must
demonstrate
that
it
meets
the
following
criteria:

1)
An
applicable
water
quality
standard
exists
for
the
pollutant
for
which
the
modification
is
requested.

2)
The
modified
discharge,
alone
or
in
combination
with
pollutants
from
other
sources,
will
not
interfere
with
attaining
or
maintaining
water
quality
that
protects
water
supplies,
biota,
and
recreational
uses.

3)
The
POTW
has
a
monitoring
program
to
measure
the
discharge's
effects
on
the
receiving
waters
and
biota.
Draft
for
public
review
with
First
Federal
Register
Notice
B
Has
not
been
submitted
to
OMB
April
2005
3
4)
The
modified
discharge
will
not
result
in
additional
requirements
on
any
other
point
or
nonpoint
sources.

5)
All
pretreatment
requirements
will
be
enforced.

6)
Special
requirements
for
pollutants
for
which
no
pretreatment
standards
exist
will
be
met.

7)
A
program
to
eliminate
the
entrance
of
toxic
pollutants
from
nonindustrial
sources
will
be
established.

8)
There
will
be
no
new
or
increased
discharges
during
the
term
of
the
permit.

9)
The
discharge
has
received
at
least
primary
or
equivalent
treatment
and
meets
water
quality
criteria
established
under
section
304(
a)(
1)
of
the
CWA.

Once
a
301(
h)
permit
is
issued,
the
POTW
must
monitor
the
effects
of
its
discharge
and
establish
both
a
monitoring
program
and
a
toxics
control
program
for
nonindustrial
and
industrial
sources
as
specified
in
Numbers
3,
5,
6,
and
7
above.

Numbers
6
and
9
of
the
above
criteria
were
added
to
the
original
provisions
of
section
301(
h).
They
correspond
to
sections
303(
c)
and
(
d),
respectively,
of
the
Water
Quality
Act
(
WQA)
and
amend
section
301(
h)
of
the
CWA.
The
WQA
(
Public
Law
100­
4)
was
passed
February
4,
1987.
WQA
section
303(
c)
requires
each
301(
h)
waiver
applicant
serving
a
population
of
over
50,000
to
make
two
demonstrations:
1)
to
demonstrate
that,
with
respect
to
any
toxic
pollutant
introduced
from
an
industrial
source
for
which
there
is
an
applicable
pretreatment
requirement
in
effect,
sources
introducing
waste
into
the
POTW
are
in
compliance
with
all
applicable
pretreatment
requirements;
and
2)
to
demonstrate
that
the
POTW
has
in
effect
a
pretreatment
program
which,
in
combination
with
the
treatment
processes,
removes
the
same
amount
of
such
pollutant
as
if
the
POTW
has
secondary
treatment
and
no
pretreatment
program
exists
for
such
pollutant.
Section
303(
d)
of
the
WQA
states
that,
at
the
time
the
waiver
becomes
effective,
301(
h)
waiver
applicants
must
be
discharging
effluent
that
has
received
at
least­
primary
or
equivalent
treatment
and
meets
water
quality
criteria
after
initial
mixing.

The
State
in
which
the
discharge
originates
is
responsible
for
determining
compliance
with
two
of
the
nine
criteria
listed
aboveCNumber
1,
which
states
that
an
applicable
water
quality
standard
must
exist,
and
Number
4,
which
states
that
the
discharge
must
not
result
in
additional
requirements
for
any
other
point
or
nonpoint
sources.
The
State
is
the
best
entity
to
evaluate
these
criteria
because
compliance
with
state
law
and
impacts
on
other
State
sources
are
matters
of
State
responsibility.
In
addition,
section
301(
h)
provides
that
EPA
may
not
approve
a
301(
h)
modification
if
the
State
does
not
concur
with
the
modification.
Draft
for
public
review
with
First
Federal
Register
Notice
B
Has
not
been
submitted
to
OMB
April
2005
4
Another
section
of
the
CWA
also
relates
to
State
activities.
Section
401(
a)(
1)
of
the
Act
requires
that
States
certify
that
all
EPA­
issued
permits
meet
all
State
laws,
including
State
water
quality
standards.
This
certification
is
relevant
to
301(
h)
modified
permits
because
the
authority
to
make
301(
h)
decisions
has
not
been
delegated
to
the
states.
Every
permit
with
301(
h)
modification
is
issued
either
by
EPA
alone
or
jointly
by
the
State
and
EPA,
in
the
case
of
States
delegated
authority
to
implement
the
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
program.
If
the
State
does
not
concur
with
a
301(
h)
waiver,
or
if
the
State
denies
certification
under
section
401
of
the
CWA,
EPA
may
not
issue
a
permit.
Concurrence
with
a
301(
h)
decision
takes
the
form
of
the
401(
a)(
1)
certification.
Combining
these
two
requirements
ensures
that
any
effort
expended
in
concurring
with
a
301(
h)
requirement
will
not
be
repeated
in
preparing
a
401(
a)(
1)
certification.

Regulatory
Authority
Regulations
implementing
section
301(
h)
of
the
CWA
were
originally
promulgated
by
EPA
on
June
15,
1979,
and
revised
on
June
8,
1982,
and
November
26,
1982.
Revisions
to
these
1982
regulations
were
published
on
August
9,
1994,
to
respond
to
changes
required
by
the
WQA.
This
supporting
statement
incorporates
the
requirements
of
these
revisions
to
the
301(
h)
regulations.

The
301(
h)
regulations,
40
CFR
Part
125,
Subpart
G,
incorporate
the
nine
301(
h)
criteria
listed
previously
and
specify
the
way
in
which
a
POTW
that
wants
to
obtain
a
variance
from
secondary
treatment
requirements
can
demonstrate
that
its
less­
than­
secondary
discharge
complies
with
these
criteria.
The
regulations
establish
requirements
for
applications,
for
monitoring
and
toxics
control
programs,
and
for
State
determinations
of
compliance
with
the
two
criteria
of
the
CWA
discussed
in
the
previous
section.
The
regulations
mandating
collection
of
State
certification
information
are
contained
in
40
CFR
124.53
and
124.54.

Program
Status
and
Information
Needs
As
indicated
above,
the
application
deadline
for
301(
h)
waivers
has
passed;
EPA
received
208
applications
by
the
1982
deadline.
The
application
received
pursuant
to
the
Ocean
Pollution
Reduction
Act
of
1994
is
for
a
POTW
that
previously
withdrew
from
the
301(
h)
program.
Table
1
lists
the
POTWs
that
have
received
waivers
or
have
decisions
pending.
Draft
for
public
review
with
First
Federal
Register
Notice
B
Has
not
been
submitted
to
OMB
April
2005
5
TABLE
1.
STATUS
OF
POTWs
AS
OF
APRIL
2002
Current
301(
h)
Waiver
Recipients
Name
State
EPA
REGION
I
Bayville
Village
Boothbay
Harbor
Bucksport
Eastport
Eastport/
Quoddy
Jonesport
Lubec
Milbridge
Newton
Highlands
(
Squirrel
Is)
North
Haven
Northport
Village
(
Belfast)
Searsport
Winterport
Gloucester
Gosnold
Portsmouth
EPA
REGION
II
Bayamon/
Puerto
Nuevo
Carolina
EPA
REGION
IX
Tafuna
(
Pago
Pago)
Utulei
Goleta
Morro
Bay
Orange
County
San
Diego
(
Pt.
Loma)*
Honouliuli
(
Honolulu)
Sand
Island
(
Honolulu)
Agana
Agat
Northern
District
(
Dededo)
EPA
REGION
X
Anchorage
Haines
Ketchikan
Pelican
Petersburg
Sitka
Skagway
Whittier
Wrangell
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
MA
MA
NH
PR
PR
AS
AS
CA
CA
CA
CA
HI
HI
GU
GU
GU
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
Total
=
38
*
San
Diego
reapplied
for
a
301(
h)
waiver
in
April
1995,
pursuant
to
Ocean
Pollution
Reduction
Act
of
1994.
San
Diego
(
Pt.
Loma)
was
in
the
original
universe
of
208
applicants
for
a
301(
h)
waiver,
and
withdrew
its
application.
It
is
listed
here
to
reflect
its
current
status.
Draft
for
public
review
with
First
Federal
Register
Notice
B
Has
not
been
submitted
to
OMB
April
2005
6
TABLE
1
(
continued)

301(
h)
Applications
Pending
Final
Decision
Name
State
EPA
REGION
I
Stonington
EPA
REGION
II
Aguadilla
Arecibo
Ponce
ME
PR
PR
PR
Total
=
4
At
this
time
in
the
301(
h)
program
evolution,
EPA
has
obtained
most
of
the
information
it
needs
from
POTWs
to
make
decisions
on
waiver
applications.
However,
application
information
from
POTWs
is
still
needed
in
two
situations:
1)
when
that
POTW
elects
to
submit
a
revised
application
and
2)
when
a
301(
h)
permit
is
nearing
its
expiration
date
and
the
permittee
desires
to
renew
its
permit.
EPA
also
needs
two
types
of
information
from
the
States
for
these
revised
and
renewed
301(
h)
permit
applications:
1)
determinations
on
whether
a
proposed
301(
h)
discharge
meets
State
water
quality
standards
and
whether
the
discharge
will
result
in
additional
treatment
requirements
for
another
point
source
and
2)
a
401(
a)(
1)
certification
before
EPA
can
issue
a
draft
modified
NPDES
permit
under
the
301(
h)
program.

Based
on
the
status
of
the
program
and
the
associated
statutory
and
regulatory
requirements,
EPA
needs
six
types
of
information
to
conduct
the
301(
h)
program
during
the
3­
year
term
of
the
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR):
1)
application
revision
information;
2)
permit
reissuance
information;
3)
monitoring
program
information;
4)
toxics
control
program
information;
5)
State
determination
information;
and
6)
State
certification
information.
Table
2
summarizes
information
needs
of
the
301(
h)
program
and
the
regulatory
requirements
that
mandate
the
collection
of
this
information.
Draft
for
public
review
with
First
Federal
Register
Notice
B
Has
not
been
submitted
to
OMB
April
2005
7
TABLE
2.
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
ACTIVITIES
FOR
THE
301(
h)
PROGRAM
Activity
Regulatory
Authority
Application
Revision
40
CFR
125.59(
d),
(
f)
and
(
g)

Permit
Reissuance
40
CFR
125.59
(
c),
(
f)
and
(
g)

Monitoring
Program
40
CFR
125.68(
c)
and
(
d)
40
CFR
125.63(
b),
(
c),
and
(
d)

Toxics
Control
Program
40
CFR
125.66
State
Determination
40
CFR
125.61(
b)(
2)
and
125.64(
b)

State
Certification
40
CFR
124.53
and
124.54
The
status
of
the
301(
h)
program
drives
the
relative
emphases
on
types
and
amounts
of
information
needed
by
the
EPA
from
the
POTWs
and
States.
Much
of
the
information
EPA
needs
at
this
time
is
ongoing
information
about
the
monitoring
and
toxics
control
programs
from
all
301(
h)
permittees.
The
Agency's
need
for
application
revision
information
will
be
reduced
as
decisions
are
made
on
the
pending
and
tentative
decision
applications,
while
the
need
for
updated
information
for
permit
renewals
will
continue
to
have
importance
as
the
301(
h)
permits
reach
their
expiration
dates.

EPA's
need
for
the
six
types
of
information
is
explained
in
more
detail
below.

Application
Revision
Information
Section
125.59(
d)
of
40
CFR
allows
a
POTW
to
revise
its
application
one
time
only,
following
a
tentative
decision
by
EPA
to
deny
the
waiver
request.
In
its
application
revision,
the
POTW
usually
corrects
deficiencies
and
changes
proposed
treatment
levels
as
well
as
outfall
and
diffuser
locations.
The
application
revision
is
a
voluntary
submission
for
the
applicant.
In
addition,
40
CFR
Section
125.59(
g)
allows
applicants
that
are
authorized
or
requested
to
submit
additional
information
to
submit
a
revised
application
where
the
information
supports
changes
in
proposed
treatment
levels
and/
or
outfall
location
and
diffuser
design.
EPA
needs
this
information
to
evaluate
revised
applications
and
to
determine
whether
the
modified
discharge
will
ensure
receiving
water
quality,
biological
habitats,
and
beneficial
uses
of
the
receiving
waters.

Permit
Reissuance
Information
Draft
for
public
review
with
First
Federal
Register
Notice
B
Has
not
been
submitted
to
OMB
April
2005
8
When
permits
with
301(
h)
waivers
reach
their
expiration
dates,
EPA
must
have
updated
information
on
the
discharge
to
determine
whether
the
301(
h)
criteria
are
still
being
met
and
whether
the
301(
h)
variance
should
be
reissued.
Under
40
CFR
125.59(
f),
each
301(
h)
permittee
is
required
to
submit
an
application
for
a
new
section
301(
h)
modified
permit
within
180
days
of
the
existing
permit's
expiration
date;
40
CFR
Part
125.59(
c)
lists
the
information
required
for
a
modified
permit.
The
information
that
EPA
needs
to
determine
whether
the
POTW's
reapplication
meets
the
section
301(
h)
criteria
previously
listed
is
outlined
in
the
questionnaire
attached
to
40
CFR
Part
125,
Subpart
G.
The
questionnaire
is
similar
to
the
two
used
by
POTWs
for
their
original
applications.

The
revisions
to
40
CFR
Part
125
covered
by
this
supporting
statement
include
revisions
to
the
two
questionnaires.
The
main
change
is
that
originally
two
questionnaires
were
usedCone
for
small
POTWs
(
contributing
population
less
than
50,000
people
and
average
dry
weather
flows
less
than
5
million
gallons
per
day
[
mgd])
and
the
other
questionnaire
for
large
POTWs
(
contributing
populations
more
than
50,000
people
and
average
dry
weather
flows
greater
than
5
mgd).
The
revised
regulations
now
contain
one
questionnaire.
The
breakdown
of
information
required
of
small
and
large
POTWs
is
the
same
in
the
merged
questionnaire
as
in
the
previous
separate
questionnaire
for
small
and
large
POTWs.
Although
the
two
questionnaires
have
been
merged,
small
POTWs
are
not
required
to
submit
all
the
information
required
of
large
POTWs.

Monitoring
and
Toxics
Control
Program
Information
Once
a
waiver
has
been
granted,
EPA
must
continue
to
assess
whether
the
discharge
is
meeting
the
criteria
listed
on
pages
2
and
3
and
that
the
receiving
water
quality,
biological
habitats,
and
beneficial
uses
are
protected.
To
do
this,
EPA
needs
monitoring
information
furnished
by
the
permittee.
According
to
40
CFR
125.68(
d),
any
permit
issued
with
a
301(
h)
variance
must
contain
the
monitoring
requirements
of
40
CFR
125.63(
b),
(
c),
and
(
d)
for
biomonitoring,
water
quality
criteria
and
standards
monitoring,
and
effluent
monitoring,
respectively.
Section
125.68(
d)
also
requires
reporting
at
the
frequency
specified
in
the
monitoring
program.
In
addition
to
monitoring
information,
EPA
needs
information
on
the
toxics
control
program
to
ensure
that
the
permittee
is
minimizing
industrial
and
nonindustrial
toxic
pollutant
and
pesticide
discharges
into
the
treatment
works
(
40
CFR
125.66).

State
Determination
Information
For
revised
or
renewed
301(
h)
permit
applications,
EPA
also
needs
a
State
determination.
The
State
determines
whether
all
State
laws
(
including
water
quality
standards)
are
met
to
ensure
that
receiving
water
quality,
biological
habitats,
and
beneficial
uses
of
the
receiving
waters
are
protected.
Additionally,
the
State
must
determine
if
the
applicant's
discharge
will
result
in
additional
treatment,
pollution
control,
or
any
other
requirement
for
any
other
point
or
nonpoint
sources.
This
process
allows
the
State's
views
to
be
taken
into
account
when
EPA
reviews
the
301(
h)
application
and
develops
permit
conditions.
As
mentioned
previously,
the
State
is
the
best
Draft
for
public
review
with
First
Federal
Register
Notice
B
Has
not
been
submitted
to
OMB
April
2005
9
source
for
this
information
because
it
is
aware
of
State
laws
and
on
combined
effects
of
discharges
in
the
State.

State
Certification
Information
For
revised
and
renewed
301(
h)
permit
applications,
EPA
also
needs
the
401(
a)(
1)
information
to
ensure
that
all
State
laws
are
met
by
any
permit
it
issues
with
a
301(
h)
modification
and
that
the
State
accepts
all
the
permit
conditions.
This
information
is
the
vehicle
by
which
the
State
can
exercise
its
authority
to
concur
with
or
deny
a
301(
h)
decision
made
by
the
EPA
Regional
Office.

2.
Description
and
Practical
Utility
of
the
Information
Collection
Activity
EPA
Headquarters
and
the
EPA
Regional
Offices
use
the
information
collected
under
this
information
collection
request
to
conduct
various
activities
in
the
301(
h)
program.
The
six
collection
activities
covered
by
this
ICR
are
listed
in
Table
3
along
with
a
description
of
the
respondents
and
the
frequency
of
the
collection.
The
following
describes
each
of
the
six
information
collection
activities
and
highlight:

$
Respondents;

$
Processes
and
techniques
used
to
obtain
the
information;

$
How
and
by
whom
the
information
is
used;
and
$
Flow
of
the
informationCwhere
it
is
submitted,
filed,
etc.

Permit
Reissuance
Information
The
first
two
types
of
information
collection
covered
by
this
ICR
are
used
in
the
application
process.
Permit
reissuance
information
is
submitted
by
301(
h)
permittees
nearing
the
expiration
date
of
their
permits.
The
permittee
must
submit
an
application
for
a
renewed
section
301(
h)
permit
180
days
prior
to
the
expiration
of
its
existing
permit.
Each
POTW
must
submit
a
new
application
questionnaire
(
which
may
reference
previous
submittals
to
the
extent
they
are
relevant
and
not
out
of
date),
along
with
any
other
NPDES
permit
application
information
required
by
the
Region.
The
data
requested
by
the
questionnaire
consist
of
general
information
on
the
treatment
system,
the
effluent,
the
receiving
water
characteristics,
the
biological
conditions
in
the
receiving
waters,
and
the
State
and
Federal
laws
that
affect
the
discharge.
The
questionnaire
also
provides
a
framework
to
assess
the
effects
of
the
discharge
and
requests
appropriate
data
for
these
analyses.
In
addition,
data
are
requested
on
physical
characteristics
of
the
discharge,
compliance
with
applicable
water
quality
standards,
existence
of
pretreatment
standards
or
secondary
or
equivalent
levels
of
treatment
for
toxic
pollutants
from
industrial
sources,
impact
on
public
water
supplies,
biological
impact
of
the
discharge,
effects
on
other
point
and
nonpoint
sources,
and
the
proposed
monitoring
and
toxics
control
programs.
Draft
for
public
review
with
First
Federal
Register
Notice
B
Has
not
been
submitted
to
OMB
April
2005
10
TABLE
3.
301(
h)
PROGRAM
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
ACTIVITIES,
RESPONDENT
DESCRIPTIONS,
AND
FREQUENCY
Activity
Respondents
Frequency
Permit
Reissuance
Any
301(
h)
permittee
nearing
expiration
date
of
permit.
Once
every
5
years
beginning
with
permit
issuance.

Application
Revision
Original
301(
h)
waiver
applicants
that
have
not
yet
received
a
final
decision.
One
time.

Monitoring
Program
All
301(
h)
permittees.
Varies
case­
by­
case
as
individual
permit
specifies.

Toxics
Control
Program
All
301(
h)
permittees.
Varies
case­
by­
case.

State
Determination
States
in
which
POTWs
with
draft
301(
h)
permits
are
located.
Once
every
5
years
beginning
with
permit
issuance.

State
Certification
States
in
which
POTWs
with
draft
301(
h)
permits
are
located.
Same
as
above
regarding
permit
reissuance.

Many
of
the
required
data
are
available
to
the
POTW
from
the
studies
and
monitoring
performed
during
the
life
of
the
permit,
from
implementation
of
toxics
control
and
pretreatment
programs,
and
from
initial
studies
performed
for
the
original
waiver
application.
To
obtain
reapplication
information,
the
POTW
can
review
existing
data
on
monitoring,
treatment
plant
operation,
and
pretreatment
and
toxics
control,
and,
if
necessary,
conduct
new
studies
of
the
receiving
waters,
the
discharge,
and
the
impacts
of
the
discharge
on
receiving
waters.

EPA
uses
the
information
to
determine
whether
the
criteria
of
section
301(
h)
(
as
amended
by
WQA
Section
303)
are
being
met
and
whether
the
receiving
water
quality,
biological
habitats,
and
beneficial
uses
will
be
protected.
For
the
initial
waiver
applications,
EPA
conducted
very
involved
technical
evaluations.
The
Agency
expects
that
similar
but
reduced
effort
will
be
required
to
evaluate
the
permit
reissuance
information.
Once
EPA
makes
a
decision
regarding
the
reapplication
for
a
waiver,
it
uses
the
data
provided
by
the
POTW
to
develop
permit
conditions
and
specify
the
monitoring
program
that
will
be
incorporated
in
the
NPDES
permit.
EPA
specifies
the
parameters
to
be
measured,
techniques
to
be
used,
and
frequency
of
monitoring.
In
addition,
EPA
uses
the
data
to
make
recommendations
for
the
toxics
control
and
pretreatment
programs.
Draft
for
public
review
with
First
Federal
Register
Notice
B
Has
not
been
submitted
to
OMB
April
2005
11
Permit
reissuance
information
is
submitted
to
the
appropriate
EPA
Regional
Offices,
where
it
is
evaluated.
These
data
are
then
filed
at
the
Regional
Office
and
can
be
retrieved
as
required.

Application
Revision
Information
The
second
type
of
information
used
in
the
application
process
is
the
application
revision
information.
These
data
are
submitted
once
by
any
original
applicant
for
a
301(
h)
waiver
that
has
received
a
tentative
decision
when
the
applicant
desires
to
revise
its
original
application.
Revisions
of
the
proposed
treatment
levels
and/
or
outfall
and
diffuser
location
and
design,
and
data
to
correct
any
deficiencies
can
be
included
in
the
revised
application.
This
one­
timeopportunity
is
generally
used
by
POTWs
that
have
received
tentative
denials
of
the
301(
h)
waiver.
Four
POTWs
currently
have
applications
with
pending
waiver
decisions.
Applicants
authorized
or
asked
to
submit
additional
information
under
40
CFR
125.59(
g)
may
also
submit
a
revised
application
where
that
information
supports
changes
in
proposed
treatment
levels
and/
or
outfall
location
and
diffuser
design.

As
with
the
first
type
of
information,
these
data
are
used
by
the
EPA
Regional
Office
to
determine
whether
the
revised
proposed
discharge
meets
the
criteria
specified
under
section
301(
h).
If
the
criteria
are
met,
EPA
may
issue
a
decision
to
approve
the
waiver.
The
application
revision
information
is
also
used
to
make
decisions
on
the
monitoring
and
toxics
programs
requirements
and
is
then
filed
and
retained
by
the
EPA
Regional
Office.

Monitoring
and
Toxics
Control
Program
Information
The
next
two
information
collection
elementsCmonitoring
and
toxics
control
program
dataCare
used
by
EPA
in
the
ongoing
administration
of
the
301(
h)
program.
The
type
and
frequency
of
information
submitted
varies
among
the
POTWs,
depending
on
their
particular
circumstances.
POTWs
may
be
required
to
conduct
biological,
water
quality,
and
effluent
monitoring.
Certain
small
POTWs
may
be
required
to
conduct
only
periodic
surveys
of
the
biological
communities
most
likely
to
be
affected
by
the
discharge
and
may
not
need
to
provide
the
bioaccumulation,
sediment
sampling,
and
fisheries
data
required
of
larger
POTWs.
Monitoring
data
are
used
by
the
EPA
Region
to
evaluate
the
continuing
impact
of
the
modified
discharge
on
the
marine
biota,
to
evaluate
continuing
compliance
with
applicable
water
quality
standards
and/
or
criteria,
to
measure
the
toxic
substances
and
pesticides
in
the
effluent,
and
to
assess
compliance
with
permit
requirements.
These
data
are
also
used
to
evaluate
the
continued
effectiveness
of
the
toxics
control
program.

All
monitoring
data
are
submitted
by
the
POTW
to
the
EPA
Regional
Office.
These
data
are
stored
in
the
Ocean
Data
Evaluation
System
(
ODES),
described
in
section
3,
and
can
be
easily
retrieved,
or
stored
in
the
new
STORET
Office
of
Water
Storage
and
Retrieval
System
or
an
equivalent
database,
and
analyzed,
as
determined
by
the
EPA
Regional
Office.
Draft
for
public
review
with
First
Federal
Register
Notice
B
Has
not
been
submitted
to
OMB
April
2005
12
The
toxics
control
program
information
includes
any
information
EPA
can
use
to
determine
whether
the
POTW
is
implementing
effective
industrial
and
nonindustrial
toxics
control
programs.
POTWs
must
develop
a
public
education
program
for
nonindustrial
source
control
and
submit
this
program
to
EPA
within
18
months
of
the
modification
approval.
Additional
and
continued
information
associated
with
this
program
may
also
be
required.

State
Determination
Information
The
final
two
types
of
information
collection
covered
by
this
ICR,
State
determinations
and
State
certifications,
are
collected
and
submitted
by
States,
not
POTWs
as
in
the
first
four
activities.
The
State
determination
is
used
in
the
application
process.
Applicants
for
301(
h)
waivers
must
submit
with
their
application
revision
or
reapplication
two
determinations
signed
by
the
appropriate
State
or
interstate
agency
of
the
State
where
the
discharge
originates:
1)
a
determination
that
the
modified
discharge
will
comply
with
State
law
including
water
quality
standards
and
2)
a
determination
indicating
whether
the
applicant's
discharge
will
result
in
additional
treatment,
pollution
control,
or
other
requirements
for
any
other
point
or
nonpoint
sources.
Both
determinations
must
outline
the
reasons
for
the
conclusions
reached
in
the
State
determination.
Therefore,
the
respondents
of
this
information
collection
are
the
States
in
which
a
proposed
301(
h)
discharge
originates.

The
appropriate
State
agency
or
department
has
the
background
information
available
to
make
these
determinations.
For
the
first
determination,
the
State
needs
to
identify
and
interpret
the
applicable
State
requirements
and
then
evaluate
the
application
data
as
they
relate
to
these
standards,
using
applicable
analytical
techniques.
For
the
second
determination,
the
State
must
review
information
contained
in
State
files
or
databases
and
employ
appropriate
technical
evaluations
to
determine
the
effects
of
the
proposed
discharge
on
other
sources.

The
State
submits
this
determination
information
to
the
applicant,
which,
in
turn,
submits
the
information
to
the
Regional
Administrator.
The
information
is
reviewed
and
filed
at
the
Region
along
with
other
301(
h)
application
information.
The
State
determinations
must
be
received
by
the
EPA
Regional
Office
no
later
than
90
days
after
the
application,
reapplication,
or
application
revision
is
submitted
to
EPA.
EPA
will
not
begin
review
of
a
301(
h)
application
revision
unless
it
has
received
favorable
determinations
from
the
State.
If
the
State
submits
an
unfavorable
determination,
the
State
is
deemed
not
to
concur
with
the
proposed
variance.
Consequently,
if
the
State
provides
an
unfavorable
determination,
EPA
must
deny
the
application
without
further
review.
If
the
determination
is
favorable,
EPA
uses
the
information
to
assess
the
State's
position
on
these
issues
and
to
incorporate
the
State's
views
when
deciding
on
both
a
variance
application
and
a
draft
permit.
In
addition,
EPA
uses
this
information
to
explain
the
State's
reasoning
to
any
applicants
that
challenge
the
State's
position.

State
Certification
Information
Draft
for
public
review
with
First
Federal
Register
Notice
B
Has
not
been
submitted
to
OMB
April
2005
13
The
last
type
of
information
under
this
ICR,
the
401(
a)
certification,
is
used
after
the
301(
h)
application
process
is
complete,
during
the
permit
issuance
process.
Certification
information
is
submitted
only
if
EPA
tentatively
approves
the
301(
h)
waiver
application
and
has
prepared
a
draft
permit
incorporating
a
301(
h)
waiver.
The
certification
is
required
for
both
the
original
draft
permit
with
a
301(
h)
variance
and
each
subsequent,
or
reissued,
permit
containing
such
a
variance.
When
an
EPA
Regional
Administrator
issues
a
tentative
approval
on
a
301(
h)
variance,
he
or
she
forwards
the
decision
to
the
State
and
specifies
a
reasonable
time
(
not
more
than
60
days)
for
the
State
to
submit
the
certification.
If
the
State
does
not
submit
the
certification
by
this
time,
the
State
is
deemed
to
have
concurred
with
the
variance.

The
State
certification
must
contain
the
following
information:

$
Any
additional
or
more
stringent
conditions
than
the
draft
permit
necessary
to
ensure
compliance
with
applicable
CWA
sections
208(
e),
301,
302,
303,
306,
and
307
and
with
appropriate
requirements
of
State
law.
If
the
State
finds
that
more
stringent
conditions
are
necessary,
it
must
cite
the
CWA
or
State
law
references
on
which
the
condition
is
based.

$
A
statement
of
the
extent
to
which
each
condition
of
the
draft
permit
can
be
made
less
stringent
without
violating
the
requirements
of
State
law,
including
water
quality
standards.

The
State
must
review
the
appropriate
State
laws
and
CWA
sections
in
reference
to
the
particular
conditions
in
the
draft
permit.
To
obtain
the
information
for
the
certification,
the
State
uses
the
information
it
derived
from
preparing
its
determination
of
compliance
with
State
laws
and
water
quality
standards.
It
uses
appropriate
technical
evaluations
to
obtain
the
other
information
required
for
the
certification.
The
background
data
that
the
State
needs
to
prepare
the
certification
should
be
available
in
State
files,
and
the
State
should
be
familiar
with
the
analytical
techniques
it
must
use.
In
addition,
the
State
has
available
all
background
information
and
calculations
that
EPA
used
to
make
the
301(
h)
waiver
decision
and
to
establish
permit
conditions.
This
information
is
particularly
useful
to
the
State
in
reviewing
very
complex
permits
and
in
assessing
aspects
of
the
draft
permit
and
the
301(
h)
modification
for
which
it
does
not
have
extensive
experience.
In
these
situations,
the
State
has
the
benefit
of
EPA's
expertise
and
technical
evaluation.

The
EPA
Regional
Office
uses
the
information
contained
in
the
State
certification
to
ensure
that
the
State
concurs
with
any
301(
h)
modifications
it
has
approved
and
to
ensure
that
the
conditions
in
the
draft
and
final
permits
meet,
and
will
continue
to
meet,
all
State
laws
and
water
quality
standards.
The
certification
is
also
used
by
EPA
to
ensure
a
State
is
fully
aware
of
all
permit
conditions
imposed
on
a
discharger
in
that
State
and
that
all
permit
conditions
are
workable
for
the
State.
In
addition,
EPA
uses
the
information
to
make
any
necessary
revisions
to
the
draft
permit
before
issuing
a
final
permit.
Draft
for
public
review
with
First
Federal
Register
Notice
B
Has
not
been
submitted
to
OMB
April
2005
14
The
401(
a)(
1)
certification
is
submitted
to
the
EPA
Regional
Office
within
the
time
specified
by
EPA.
The
information
is
used
by
EPA
in
developing
the
final
permit
and
is
filed
at
the
Regional
Office
with
all
the
permit
application
data
for
that
POTW.

3.
Use
of
Improved
Information
Technology
to
Minimize
Burden
EPA
has
developed
a
user­
friendly
computer
system
for
the
301(
h)
program,
the
Ocean
Data
Evaluation
System
(
ODES).
It
has
been
used
by
both
POTWs
and
EPA
to
store
and
analyze
marine
environmental
data.
EPA
has
recently
developed
a
new
user­
friendly
STORET
(
STOrage
and
RETrieval)
system
for
water
quality
data.
STORET
is
the
standard
data
storage
system
within
EPA's
Office
of
Water.
The
new
STORET
system
provides
access
for
POTWs
to
submit
data
directly
to
the
STORET
system.
Regional
Offices
have
developed
equivalent
databases.
A
POTW
can
use
ODES
to
prepare
information
that
EPA
requires
for
the
301(
h)
program
such
as
impact
assessment
and
evaluation,
monitoring
program
designs,
and
statistical
analysis
and
modeling
of
marine
and
estuarine
data.
EPA
can
use
ODES
to
store
data,
primarily
monitoring
data,
provided
under
the
301(
h)
program
by
POTWs;
for
national
environmental
assessments,
impact
assessments,
and
evaluations;
and
for
permit
compliance
determinations.
There
are
other
statistical
analytical
packages
available
that
can
be
used
for
data
analysis
as
determined
by
the
EPA
Regional
Office.
Improvements
in
monitoring
technology
also
afford
advantages
to
acquire
measurements
of
important
environmental
parameters
electronically.
These
data
are
more
easily
collected,
managed
and
can
be
imported
with
fewer
errors,
and
with
less
time
and
effort
for
storage,
retrieval,
analysis
and
reporting.

The
State
determinations
and
State
certifications,
however,
must
be
made
on
a
case­
bycase
basis.
No
particular
format
for
the
response
is
required,
and
the
response
does
not
involve
repetitive
reporting
or
frequent
updating.

4.
Nonduplication
Section
301(
h)
requires
a
case­
by­
case
demonstration
of
compliance
with
criteria
in
that
section,
thereby
minimizing
the
potential
for
duplication
of
information
collection.
EPA
has
taken
additional
precautions.
As
described
below,
the
regulations
are
designed
so
that
applicants
can
use
available
information
to
the
maximum
extent.
Also,
EPA
is
coordinating
information
requests
among
related
programs.
For
example,
the
Ocean
Discharge
Criteria,
40
CFR
Part
125,
Subpart
M,
promulgated
under
the
authority
of
CWA
section
403(
c),
presume
that
section
301(
h)
permittees
comply
with
the
criteria
for
ocean
dischargers
(
i.
e.,
do
not
cause
unreasonable
degradation
to
the
marine
environment)
for
those
pollutants
to
which
the
waiver
applies.
In
addition,
section
301(
h)
applicants
who
are
also
grantees
in
EPA's
construction
grants
program
provide
information
under
the
construction
program
regulations
(
40
CFR
Part
35),
rather
than
under
the
Section
301(
h)
regulations.
Draft
for
public
review
with
First
Federal
Register
Notice
B
Has
not
been
submitted
to
OMB
April
2005
15
In
terms
of
the
State's
Nonduplication
effort,
determination
information
is
requested
from
the
State
because
it
is
the
best
and
only
source
of
such
information.
This
type
of
information
is
not
requested
by
other
Federal
agencies
or
EPA
offices
because
it
relates
specifically
to
the
301(
h)
program.
The
office
preparing
the
ICR,
the
Office
of
Wetlands,
Oceans
and
Watersheds
(
OWOW),
is
the
only
EPA
office
involved
in
the
301(
h)
program.

5.
Consideration
of
Alternatives
The
criteria
and
legislative
history
of
section
301(
h)
clearly
indicate
that
variance
applications
must
be
based
on
site­
specific
information
regarding
the
treatment
system
discharge
characteristics,
receiving
water
quality
and
biological
habitats,
beneficial
uses,
oceanographic
characteristics,
pretreatment
program
and
standards,
and
impacts
of
the
modified
discharges
on
water
quality,
biota,
and
beneficial
uses.
EPA
has
considered
carefully
the
possible
availability
of
information
collected
for
other
purposes
(
e.
g.,
water
quality
management
planning,
permitting,
pretreatment
enforcement
and
research).
However,
none
of
these
other
sources,
individually,
is
sufficient
to
enable
EPA
to
determine
compliance
with
section
301(
h)
criteria
for
permit
reissuance
applications,
and
revised
applications.
Collectively,
these
sources
may
be
sufficient
for
many
POTWs
preparing
reapplications
when
organized
in
response
to
the
application
questionnaire.
In
fact,
EPA
believes
most
small
applicants
are
able
to
complete
the
application
questionnaire
using
information
from
a
variety
of
existing
sources.
Still,
it
is
expected
that
some
small
applicants
and
most
large
applicants
will
need
to
collect
more
data
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
certain
statutory
criteria
for
reapplications,
and
revised
applications.

In
such
cases,
the
regulations
encourage
applicants
to
submit
plans
of
study
to
EPA
for
consultation
before
collecting
additional
field
data.
This
kind
of
structured
communication
ensures
that
available
information
is
used
to
the
maximum
relevant
extent
and
additional
data
needs,
if
any,
are
provided
in
a
cost­
effective
and
timely
way.
The
project
plan
approach
is
intended
to
ensure
that
an
applicants's
limited
time
and
resources
will
be
used
only
for
additional
data
collection
that
is
essential
for
making
a
decision
on
its
application
revision
and
permit
reissuance
applications.

The
State's
decision
must
be
made
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
in
order
to
consider
the
particular
circumstances
of
each
301(
h)
application
and
draft
permit.
The
State
is
the
best
and
only
source
for
the
determinations
because
it
is
most
familiar
with
the
information
and
is
most
likely
to
have
the
information
available
to
submit
to
EPA.

6.
Minimizing
the
Burden
for
Small
Applicants
The
section
301(
h)
regulations
and
application
questionnaire
(
40
CFR
Part
125,
Subpart
G)
are
designed
to
simplify
application
requirements
for
all
applicants
and
to
reduce
the
cost
burden
for
small
applicants.
Small
applicants
are
defined
in
the
regulations
as
municipalities
having
POTW
service
populations
of
less
than
50,000
or
discharge
design
flows
of
less
than
5
Draft
for
public
review
with
First
Federal
Register
Notice
B
Has
not
been
submitted
to
OMB
April
2005
16
mgd.
EPA's
evaluation
of
applications
showed
that
most
small
applicants
are
able
to
complete
the
application
questionnaire
using
available
information
on
their
wastewater
treatment
system,
outfall
configuration,
discharge
characteristics,
receiving
water
quality,
biological
habitats,
oceanographic
characteristics,
and
beneficial
uses.
Hence,
for
most
small
applicants,
the
cost
of
permit
reissuance
application
and
application
revision
is
minimized.
Also,
small
applicants
have
the
flexibility
to
design
ongoing
biological,
water
quality,
and
discharge
monitoring
programs
that
are
cost­
effective
for
their
individual
circumstances.
Finally,
small
applicants
do
not
have
the
burden
of
substantial
elements
of
the
requirements
for
development
and
implementation
of
toxics
control
programs
if
they
certify
that
there
are
no
known
or
suspected
sources
of
toxics
or
associated
water
quality
or
biological
problems.
Therefore,
EPA
believes
that
the
costs
to
small
section
301(
h)
applicants
and
small
section
301(
h)
permittees
are
minimized
by
the
regulations
and
questionnaire
while
compliance
with
section
301(
h)
criteria
is
ensured.

7.
Consideration
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
Application
revision
information
is
submitted
once
and
is
submitted
only
if
the
POTW
elects
to
revise
its
original
application.
Reapplication
information
is
submitted
every
5
years
as
the
permit
expires.
Similarly,
the
State
determination
information
and
State
certification
information
is
submitted
one
time
for
each
revised
or
renewed
permit
application,
and
draft
permit.
Therefore,
frequency
of
collection
is
not
an
issue
for
these
four
categories
of
information
collection.

The
frequency
of
collection
for
monitoring
and
toxics
program
information
is
determined
on
a
case­
by­
case
bases.
The
information
is
collected
as
frequently
as
is
necessary
to
conduct
the
301(
h)
program;
frequency
can
be
minimized
because
the
requirement
is
developed
for
each
respondent
based
on
its
particular
circumstances.

8.
General
Requirements
This
ICR
meets
the
requirements
contained
in
5
CFR
1320.5(
d)(
2).

9.
Consultations
Lines
of
communication
with
the
respondents
are
kept
open,
and
respondents
have
numerous
opportunities
to
comment
to
EPA,
States,
or
EPA's
contractor(
s)
concerning
the
information
collection
activities
of
the
301(
h)
program.
EPA
generally
has
a
contractor
prepare
the
Technical
Review
Reports
for
301(
h)
applications.

In
addition,
comments
were
formally
requested
in
the
Federal
Register
(
56
FR
2814,
January
24,
1991)
on
the
proposed
revised
301(
h)
regulations
that
included
the
information
collection
requirements
covered
by
a
previous
ICR,
and
again
upon
publication
of
the
revised
regulations
on
August
9,
1994
(
59
FR
40642),
covered
in
the
February
1996
ICR.
No
comments
were
received.
Draft
for
public
review
with
First
Federal
Register
Notice
B
Has
not
been
submitted
to
OMB
April
2005
17
As
part
of
the
process
to
prepare
and
submit
the
previous
and
this
current
information
collection
request
to
OMB,
EPA
solicited
comments
on
the
information
request,
required
by
5
CFR
1320.8(
d)
(
63
FR
71112,
December
23,
1998;
67
FR
71245
January
3,
2002).
EPA
received
no
comments.

10.
Confidentiality
The
information
covered
by
this
ICR
involves
treatment
plant
operating
data,
effects
of
POTWs'
discharges
on
marine
environments,
and
States'
viewpoints
on
issues
concerning
effects
of
POTWs'
discharges
on
marine
environments.
None
of
this
information
is
confidential;
thus
confidentiality
is
not
an
issue.

11.
Sensitive
Questions
No
information
of
a
sensitive
nature
is
requested
by
this
ICR.

12.
Cost
to
the
Government
and
to
the
Respondents
The
review
costs
to
the
Federal
government
and
preparation
costs
to
the
respondents
(
both
POTWs
and
States)
for
the
six
information
collection
activities
covered
under
this
ICR
are
summarized
in
Tables
A­
1
and
A­
2
of
the
appendix.
For
respondents,
the
labor
hour
burden
used
in
these
cost
estimates
is
derived
under
the
next
item,
Section
13.
For
the
Federal
government
burden
hour
estimates
used
in
computing
the
estimated
costs
in
Table
A­
1
are
summarized
in
Table
A­
3
of
the
appendix.
These
burden
hour
estimates
for
the
Federal
government
address
decisions
on
applications,
review
of
State
determinations
and
State
certifications,
and
evaluating
the
adequacy
of
permittee
monitoring
and
toxics
control
programs.

13.
Estimation
of
Respondent
Burden
This
section
describes
how
the
burden
to
respondents
of
the
six
301(
h)
information
collection
activities
is
estimated.
The
burden
is
divided
into
two
categories:
1)
POTW
respondent
burden
and
2)
State
respondent
burden.
For
the
six
information
collection
activities,
the
burden
estimate
is
dependent
upon
the
size
of
the
POTW
applying
for
a
section
301(
h)
variance.
Small
POTWs,
defined
by
EPA
as
those
with
flows
of
less
than
5
mgd
and/
or
those
that
serve
a
population
of
less
than
50,000
people,
have
reduced
burdens
in
responding
to
each
information
requirement.
Correspondingly,
it
is
less
burdensome
for
States
to
make
determinations
and
certifications
for
these
small
POTWs
than
for
large
POTWs
with
flows
greater
than
5
mgd
and
serving
populations
larger
than
50,000
people.
The
burden
to
POTWs
is
also
not
evenly
distributed
over
the
years
covered
by
this
ICR
because
of
changes
in
the
program
status
and
associated
information
needs.
Draft
for
public
review
with
First
Federal
Register
Notice
B
Has
not
been
submitted
to
OMB
April
2005
18
Annual,
total,
and
average
burdens
and
number
of
respondents
for
each
of
the
six
information
activities
are
compiled
on
Table
A­
4
of
the
appendix.
Individual
tables
for
each
of
the
six
information
collection
activities
are
summarized
on
Tables
A­
6,
A­
7,
A­
8,
A­
10
and
A­
11
of
the
appendix.
POTW
respondents
to
these
activities
must
complete
five
general
tasks:

1)
Read
instructions
supplied
by
EPA
and
contained
in
the
regulations.

2)
Plan
activitiesCdetermine
what
data
are
required
and
what
must
be
done
to
obtain
the
data.

3)
Create
information
using
field
surveys
and
other
techniques.

4)
Gather
information
through
literature
searches,
interviews,
and
analyses
of
field
survey
and
monitoring
data.

5)
Complete
permit
reissuance
application
and
transmit
to
EPA.

The
effort
required
to
complete
these
activities
for
permit
reapplication
and
application
revision
is
estimated
in
Table
A­
5
of
the
appendix.
The
estimates
in
this
table
are
based
on
EPA's
experience
in
evaluating
numerous
original
applications
and
application
revisions.
It
is
assumed
that
preparation
of
reapplications
will
require
less
effort
than
preparation
of
original
applications.
In
addition,
in
breaking
down
the
estimates
of
effort
for
small
and
large
applicants,
it
is
assumed
that
little
or
no
field
work
is
performed
by
small
POTWs
and
that
a
field
study
is
conducted
by
each
large
POTW.

For
application
revision
and
reapplication,
the
number
of
respondents
and
total
burden
hours
for
the
3
years
covered
by
this
ICR
are
presented
in
Tables
A­
6
and
A­
7
of
the
appendix,
respectively.
The
number
of
POTW
respondents
for
each
year
varies
depending
on
the
program
status
and
the
associated
information
needs,
such
as
how
many
301(
h)
permits
are
nearing
their
expiration
dates.
These
numbers
are
projected
by
EPA
based
on
applicable
program
data
and
program
experience.

The
burden
estimates
for
the
monitoring
program
and
for
the
toxics
control
program
are
presented
in
Table
A­
8
of
the
appendix.
The
monitoring
program
effort
estimates
are
for
typical
small
and
large
permittees
and
include
the
design
and
execution
of
necessary
field
studies
plus
analyses
and
report
writing.
EPA
has
estimated
the
burden
based
on
experience
plus
estimates
from
consulting
firms
contacted
for
this
purpose.
The
toxics
control
program
estimates
are
also
for
typical
small
and
large
permittees
and
include
estimates
for
developing
and
implementing
nonindustrial
source
control
programs.

The
burdens
for
State
determinations
and
State
certifications
activities
are
summarized
in
Tables
A­
9,
A­
10,
and
A­
11
of
the
appendix.
Respondents
to
these
activities
must
complete
four
Draft
for
public
review
with
First
Federal
Register
Notice
B
Has
not
been
submitted
to
OMB
April
2005
19
general
tasks:
1)
identify
applicable
State
requirements;
2)
analyze
material;
3)
review
accuracy;
and
4)
report
information.
For
example,
in
deciding
whether
the
discharge
will
comply
with
State
law,
the
State
needs
to
identify
and
interpret
applicable
State
requirements.
The
State
would
then
review
the
application
data,
which
contain
information
on
effluent
and
ambient
water
quality
characteristics,
in
order
to
consider
the
validity
of
the
data
and
select
appropriate
data
points
and
conditions
under
which
compliance
will
be
determined.
In
addition,
the
State
may
wish
to
review
information
contained
in
State
files
in
order
to
check
or
verify
the
applicant's
data.
Following
this,
the
State
would
select
the
technical
evaluations
it
wishes
to
employ
and
apply
them
to
the
data
selected.
Finally,
the
State
would
check
the
accuracy
of
its
approach
and
calculations,
and
submit
its
determinations.

EPA
realizes
that
the
State
burden
will
vary,
depending
on
the
complexity
of
the
issues
raised
by
a
particular
application.
A
State
determination
and
certification
of
an
applicant
with
a
large
discharge
from
multiple
pollutant
sources
may
take
more
time
to
review
than
an
application
from
a
small
POTW.
EPA's
past
experiences
have
involved
a
wide
range
of
extremes
from
relatively
simple
to
complex
applications,
and
this
experience
has
been
considered
in
developing
typical
burdens.
In
addition,
EPA
has
not
specified
in
detail
the
nature
of
the
States'
submissions,
nor
has
EPA
required
the
States
to
follow
certain
review
procedures.
As
a
result,
the
burden
will
also
vary
depending
on
the
level
of
effort
and
review
procedures
that
the
State
chooses
to
adopt
in
reaching
its
concurrence
decision.
The
burden
in
providing
401
certification
under
40
CFR
Part
124
similarly
draws
on
Agency
experience
and
reflects
the
fact
that
the
work
done
by
the
State
in
making
its
determinations
under
40
CFR
Part
125
will
not
be
duplicated
at
the
401
certification
stage.
The
effort
required
to
complete
these
activities
is
estimated
in
Table
A­
9
of
the
appendix.
The
numbers
of
respondents
and
burden
hours
for
State
determinations
and
State
certifications
for
the
3
years
covered
by
this
ICR
are
presented
in
Tables
A­
10
and
A­
11
of
the
appendix.
The
average
annual
burdens
for
all
six
information
collection
activities
are
summarized
in
Table
A­
12
of
the
appendix.

14.
Reasons
for
Change
in
Burden
Since
the
last
ICR
was
submitted,
the
universe
of
POTWs
in
the
301(
h)
program
and
subject
to
the
301(
h)
information
requirements
has
decreased.
This
is
because
some
POTWs
have
withdrawn
from
the
program.
There
are
also
changes
in
the
distribution
of
the
burden
over
the
3
years
covered
by
this
ICR
because
of
changes
in
program
status
and
information
needs.
As
a
result,
information
requirements
and
the
total
burden
hours
in
the
current
ICR
are
reduced.
Table
A­
13
of
the
appendix
explains
the
reasons
for
the
changes.
The
average
annual
burden
estimate
for
this
ICR
is
65,057
hours.

15.
Scheduling
This
information
collection
activity
does
not
involve
a
survey.
Draft
for
public
review
with
First
Federal
Register
Notice
B
Has
not
been
submitted
to
OMB
April
2005
20
16.
Standard
Industrial
Classification
(
SIC)

The
SIC
number
for
POTWs
(
sewerage
systems)
is
4952,
and
the
SIC
number
for
State
governments
is
9511.

17.
Burden
Statement
The
annual
public
reporting
and
recordkeeping
burden
for
this
collection
of
information
is
estimated
to
average
667
hours
per
response
for
POTWs
and
86
hours
per
response
for
States.
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,
Office
of
Information
Collection,
Collection
Strategies
Division
(
2822T),
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
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.

B.
COLLECTION
OF
INFORMATION
EMPLOYING
STATISTICAL
METHODS
This
information
collection
activity
does
not
employ
statistical
methods.
Draft
for
public
review
with
First
Federal
Register
Notice
B
Has
not
been
submitted
to
OMB
April
2005
APPENDIX
See
docket
attachment
1­­
ICRSuppTableA
for
draft
recalculated
costs
for
2005
as
markup
of
table
representing
costs
in
2002­
2005.
Highlighted
info
is
estimated
cost
for
POTWs
to
implement
their
monitoring
programs
for
the
universe
of
small
and
large
301(
h)
POTWs.
Re­
calculated
based
on
2005
labor
costs.

See
docket
attachment
2­­
ICRtables_
8cleanfinald1
for
Draft
Supporting
statement
tables
