i
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
1
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
1(
a)
Title
and
Number
of
the
Information
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1(
b)
Short
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
2
NEED
FOR
AND
USE
OF
THE
COLLECTION
2(
a)
Need/
Authority
for
the
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
2(
b)
Use/
Users
of
the
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
3
NON­
DUPLICATION,
CONSULTATIONS,
AND
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA
3(
a)
Non­
duplication
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
3(
b)
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
to
OMB
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
3(
c)
Consultations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
3(
d)
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
3(
e)
General
Guidelines
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
16
3(
f)
Confidentiality
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
16
3(
g)
Sensitive
Questions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
16
4
RESPONDENTS
AND
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
4(
a)
Respondents/
NAICS
Codes
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
4(
b)
Information
Requested
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
4(
b)(
i)
Data
Items
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
4(
b)(
ii)
Respondent
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
22
5
INFORMATION
COLLECTED
­­
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY,
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
5(
a)
Agency
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
28
5(
b)
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
29
5(
c)
Small
Entity
Flexibility
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
31
5(
d)
Collection
Schedule
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
32
6
ESTIMATING
BURDEN
AND
COST
OF
COLLECTION
6(
a)
Respondent
Burden
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
33
6(
a)(
i)
Burden
to
Public
Water
Systems
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
33
6(
a)(
ii)
Burden
to
Primacy
Agencies
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
36
6(
b)
Respondent
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
41
6(
b)(
i)
Cost
to
Public
Water
Systems
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
41
6(
b)(
ii)
Cost
to
Primacy
Agencies
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
42
6(
c)
Agency
Burden
and
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
42
6(
d)
Estimating
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Burden
and
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
43
6(
e)
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
44
6(
f)
Reasons
for
Change
in
Burden
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
45
6(
g)
Burden
Statement
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
56
ii
APPENDICES
Appendix
A.
1993
Information
Collection
Request
for
the
Public
Water
Supply
Program
Appendix
B.
Documentation
of
Actions
Affecting
the
PWSS
Program
ICR
Appendix
C.
Consumer
Confidence
Rule
Appendix
D.
Information
Collection
Request
for
the
PWSS
Program
Primacy
Regulation
Appendix
E.
Variance
and
Exemption
Information
Collection
Request
Appendix
F.
Consumer
Confidence
Rule
Spreadsheets
Appendix
G.
Primacy
Spreadsheets
Appendix
H.
Capacity
Development
Spreadsheets
Appendix
I.
State
Workload
Burden
and
Costs
Spreadsheets
Appendix
J.
Response
to
Comment
on
the
Information
Collection
Request
for
the
Consumer
Confidence
Rule
iii
LIST
OF
EXHIBITS
Exhibit
1:
New
Structure
of
OGWDW
ICRs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
Exhibit
2:
PWS
Recordkeeping
and
Reporting
Requirements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
Exhibit
3:
Primacy
Agency
Recordkeeping
and
Reporting
Requirements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
19
Exhibit
4:
PWSS
Program
Requirements
for
EPA
Regions
and
Headquarters
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
28
Exhibit
5:
Annual
PWS
Burden
and
Cost
2002­
2004
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
40
Exhibit
6:
Annual
State
Burden
and
Cost
2002­
2004
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
41
Exhibit
7:
Bottom
Line
Annual
Burden
and
Cost
2002­
2004
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
44
Exhibit
8:
Reasons
for
Change
in
Annual
Burden
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
46
Exhibit
9:
Changes
to
the
Burden
Inventory
for
the
PWSS
Program
ICR
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
47
Exhibit
10:
Reintroduction
of
Incorrectly
Removed
Burden
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
48
Exhibit
11:
Restructuring
Adjustments
to
the
PWSS
Program
ICR
Inventory
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
50
Exhibit
12:
Adjustments
to
Correct
Double­
Counting
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
51
Exhibit
13:
Program
Changes
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
51
Exhibit
14:
Incorporation
of
Stand­
Alone
ICRs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
52
Exhibit
15:
Adjustments
to
PWS
Burden
from
Previous
ICR
Estimates
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
54
Exhibit
16:
Adjustments
to
Primacy
Agency
Burden
from
Previous
ICRs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
55
Exhibit
17:
Adjustments
to
Activities
Carried
Forward
from
Previous
ICRs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
56
iv
ACRONYMS
BLS
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
CCR
Consumer
Confidence
Report
CDC
Centers
for
Disease
Control
and
Prevention
CFR
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
CWS
Community
Water
System
DBPR
Disinfectants
and
Disinfection
Byproducts
Rule
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
Disinfectants
and
Disinfection
Byproducts,
Chemical,
and
Radionuclides
DWSRF
Drinking
Water
State
Revolving
Fund
EPA
Environmental
Protection
Agency
FBRR
Filter
Backwash
Recycling
Rule
FOIA
Freedom
of
Information
Act
FR
Federal
Register
FTE
Full
Time
Equivalent
FY
Fiscal
Year
GWR
Ground
Water
Rule
ICR
Information
Collection
Request
ICW
Information
Correction
Worksheet
IOC
Inorganic
Chemical
IESWTR
Interim
Enhanced
Surface
Water
Treatment
Rule
LCR
Lead
and
Copper
Rule
LT1ESWTR
Long
Term
1
Enhanced
Surface
Water
Treatment
Rule
LT2ESWTR
Long
Term
2
Enhanced
Surface
Water
Treatment
Rule
MCL
Maximum
Contaminant
Level
MCLG
Maximum
Contaminant
Level
Goal
MRDL
Maximum
Residual
Disinfection
Level
MRDLG
Maximum
Residual
Disinfection
Level
Goal
NAICS
North
American
Industry
Classification
System
NCWS
Noncommunity
Water
System
NDWAC
National
Drinking
Water
Advisory
Council
NPDWR
National
Primary
Drinking
Water
Regulation
NTNCWS
Nontransient
Noncommunity
Water
System
O&
M
Operation
and
Maintenance
OGWDW
Office
of
Ground
Water
and
Drinking
Water
OMB
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
PC&
B
Personnel
Compensation
and
Benefits
PN
Public
Notification
PRA
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
PWS
Public
Water
System
PWSS
Public
Water
System
Supervision
SBREFA
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
SDWA
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act
SDWIS
Safe
Drinking
Water
Information
System
SIC
Standard
Industrial
Classification
SNC
Significant
Noncompliance
v
SOC
Synthetic
Organic
Chemical
SWAP
Source
Water
Assessment
Program
SWTR
Surface
Water
Treatment
Rule
TCR
Total
Coliform
Rule
TNCWS
Transient
Noncommunity
Water
System
TTHM
Total
Trihalomethane
VOC
Volatile
Organic
Chemical
UIC
Underground
Injection
Program
UCMR
Unregulated
Contaminant
Monitoring
Rule
V/
E
Variance
and
Exemption
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
1
Throughout
this
document,
the
terms
"
State"
or
"
States"
are
used
to
refer
to
all
types
of
primacy
agencies,
including
U.
S.
territories
and
Indian
tribes.

2
SDWIS
replaced
the
Federal
Reporting
Data
System
as
the
national
drinking
water
database
of
record
on
August
15,
1995.

1
1
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
1(
a)
Title
and
Number
of
the
Information
Collection
Title:
Information
Collection
Request
for
the
Public
Water
System
Supervision
Program
OMB
Control
Number:
2040­
0090
EPA
Tracking
Number:
0270.40
1(
b)
Short
Characterization
The
Office
of
Ground
Water
and
Drinking
Water
(
OGWDW)
in
the
Office
of
Water
at
the
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA
or
the
Agency)
is
responsible
for
managing
the
Public
Water
System
Supervision
(
PWSS)
Program,
a
national
program
mandated
by
the
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act
(
SDWA).
Section
1412
of
the
SDWA
requires
EPA
to
establish
National
Primary
Drinking
Water
Regulations
(
NPDWRs)
for
contaminants
that
may
adversely
impact
human
health.
The
Act
further
requires
EPA
to
monitor
and
enforce
these
regulations
to
ensure
that
the
nation's
drinking
water
dependably
complies
with
the
maximum
contaminant
levels
(
MCLs)
stipulated
in
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
(
CFR),
40
CFR
Part
141,
Subpart
B.

Section
1445
of
the
SDWA
stipulates
that
every
drinking
water
supplier
must
conduct
monitoring,
maintain
records,
and
provide
such
information
as
is
needed
for
EPA
to
implement
its
monitoring
and
enforcement
responsibilities
with
respect
to
the
Act.
State1
governments
 
in
those
States
that
have
assumed
primary
enforcement
responsibility
(
primacy)
for
public
water
systems
(
PWSs)
under
SDWA
Section
1413
 
ensure
that
PWSs
are
complying
with
these
monitoring
requirements.
As
part
of
the
PWSS
Program,
the
OGWDW
uses
the
Safe
Drinking
Water
Information
System
(
SDWIS)
2
to
record
some
of
the
data
collected
as
a
result
of
NPDWR
requirements.
SDWIS
is
a
database
management
system
that
assists
EPA
in
tracking
and
interpreting
monitoring
data
and
other
program­
related
data.
These
data
assist
EPA
in
fulfilling
its
SDWA
obligations.

This
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
was
prepared
in
accordance
with
the
February
1999
version
of
EPA's
Guide
to
Writing
Information
Collection
Requests
Under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(
PRA)
of
1995
(
or
"
ICR
Handbook")
prepared
by
EPA's
Office
of
Environmental
Information,
Office
of
Information
Collection,
Collection
Strategies
Division.
The
ICR
Handbook
provides
the
most
current
instructions
for
ICR
preparation
to
ensure
compliance
with
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
2
the
1995
PRA
amendments
and
Office
of
Management
and
Budget's
(
OMB's)
implementing
guidelines.

Many
information
collection
requirements
associated
with
the
SDWA
and
its
implementing
regulations
are
associated
with
rulemakings
that
address
specific
contaminants
or
groups
of
contaminants.
This
ICR
examines
PWS,
primacy
agency,
and
EPA
burden
and
costs
for
"
cross­
cutting"
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
 
i.
e.,
the
burden
and
costs
for
complying
with
drinking
water
information
requirements
that
are
not
associated
with
contaminant­
specific
rulemakings.
These
activities
include
the
following
 
1)
Consumer
Confidence
Reports
(
CCRs)
2)
Primacy
Regulation
Activities
3)
Variance
and
Exemption
Rule
(
V/
E
Rule)
4)
Capacity
Development
Program
5)
General
State
Primacy
Activities
In
addition,
OGWDW
will
amend
the
PWSS
Program
ICR
to
include
public
notification
(
PN)
activities
before
the
Public
Notification
ICR
(
OMB
No.
2040­
0209)
expires
in
June
of
2002.
The
burden
for
PN
for
the
remainder
of
2002
and
for
2003
and
2004
will
be
amended
to
this
ICR.
Future
renewals
of
this
ICR
will
include
the
burden
for
PN
for
the
entire
3­
year
ICR
renewal
period.

This
ICR
updates
the
burden
and
cost
estimates
provided
in
the
ICR
for
the
PWSS
Program
dated
December
20,
1993,
which
expires
on
September
30,
2001
(
see
Appendix
A).
As
explained
in
Section
2(
a),
some
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
stemming
from
the
1996
Amendments
to
the
SDWA
have
now
been
added
to
the
PWSS
Program
ICR.
Other
activities
(
those
associated
with
contaminant­
specific
rules)
that
were
addressed
in
the
1993
PWSS
Program
ICR
are
now
being
addressed
in
other
ICRs.
The
ICR
estimates
costs
for
years
2002,
2003,
and
2004.

The
total
annual
respondent
burden
associated
with
this
ICR
is
estimated
to
be
approximately
1.84
million
hours
per
year.
The
total
annual
respondent
costs
associated
with
this
ICR
is
estimated
to
be
approximately
$
63.3
million.
The
distribution
of
annual
burden
between
PWSs
and
primacy
agencies
is
approximately
0.68
million
hours
and
1.16
million
hours,
respectively.
The
distribution
of
annual
costs
between
PWSs
and
primacy
agencies
is
approximately
$
29.3
million
and
$
34.0
million,
respectively.

The
approximate
annual
O&
M
costs
are
$
13.6
million
($
13.1
million
for
PWSs
and
$
0.5
million
for
primacy
agencies).
This
represents
the
"
cost
burden"
as
reported
in
the
OMB
inventory.
Note
that
these
costs
are
for
O&
M
only;
there
are
no
capital
costs
associated
with
the
activities
covered
by
this
ICR.

The
Agency
burden
for
this
ICR
totals
490,880
hours
(
or
approximately
$
15.3
million);
91,520
hours
(
approximately
$
3.7
million)
is
for
Headquarters
activities
and
399,360
hours
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
3
(
approximately
$
11.5
million)
is
for
EPA
Regional
office
activities.
Section
6(
f)
summarizes
the
change
in
burden.

The
total
number
of
respondents
for
this
ICR
is
168,302;
57
of
these
respondents
are
primacy
agencies
and
the
balance
are
existing
or
new
PWSs
(
167,837
existing
PWSs
and
408
new
PWSs).
The
total
annual
number
of
responses
for
these
respondents
is
244,209
(
244,152
for
PWSs
and
57
for
primacy
agencies).
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
4
2
NEED
FOR
AND
USE
OF
THE
COLLECTION
2(
a)
Need/
Authority
for
the
Collection
This
section
identifies
the
regulatory
or
statutory
authority
for
the
information
collection
activities
covered
in
this
ICR
and
describes
why
EPA
needs
the
information.
Section
4
of
the
ICR
contains
a
summary
of
the
major
types
of
PWSS
Program
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
covered
by
this
ICR.

To
allow
the
public
to
better
understand
the
impact
of
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
stemming
from
the
SDWA
and
40
CFR
Parts
141
and
142,
OGWDW
has
reorganized
its
ICRs
so
that
related
activities
are
addressed
in
the
same
ICR.

These
include
the
following
C
1)
Consumer
Confidence
Reports
2)
Primacy
Regulation
Activities
(
requirements
for
States
to
adopt
administrative
penalty
order
provisions,
if
so
allowed
by
their
constitutions)
3)
Variance
and
Exemption
Rule
4)
Capacity
Development
Program
5)
General
State
Primacy
Activities
In
addition,
OGWDW
will
amend
the
PWSS
Program
ICR
to
include
PN
activities
when
the
current
PN
ICR
expires
in
June
of
2002.

For
a
graphical
depiction
of
the
previous
structure
of
the
OGWDW
ICRs,
see
Figure
1.
The
ICRs
have
been
restructured
as
shown
in
Figure
2.
A
complete
itemization
of
the
activities
included
in
the
three
primary
ICRs,
as
well
as
other
drinking
water
program
ICRs,
follows
as
Exhibit
1.
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
5
Figure
1.
Previous
Structure
of
OGWDW
ICRs
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
6
Figure
2.
Restructure
of
OGWDW
ICRs
3
Disinfectant
residual
monitoring
and
associated
activities
are
included
in
the
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR.

7
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
Exhibit
1
New
Structure
of
OGWDW
ICRs
Activity
ICR
in
which
Activity
is
Currently
Covered
Expiration
Date
PWSS
Program
ICR
(
2040­
0090)

Consumer
Confidence
Reports
(
CCRs)
CCR
ICR,
2040­
0201
9/
30/
01
Primacy
Regulation
Activities
Primacy
Regulation
ICR,
2040­
0195
9/
30/
01
Variances
&
Exemptions
1993
PWSS
Program
ICR,
2040­
0090
(
via
a
1998
Amendment)
9/
30/
01
The
Capacity
Development
Program
New
Activity
N/
A
General
State
Primacy
Activities
1993
PWSS
Program
ICR,
2040­
0090
9/
30/
01
Public
Notification
(
PN)
(
to
be
added
to
the
PWSS
Program
ICR
when
the
PN
ICR
expires)
PN
ICR,
2040­
0209
6/
30/
02
Operator
Certification
Guidelines
and
Expense
Reimbursement
Grants
Program
(
to
be
added
to
the
PWSS
Program
ICR
when
the
program­
specific
ICR
expires)
Operator
Certification
Guidelines
and
Expense
Reimbursement
Grants
Program
ICR,
2040­
0236
9/
30/
03
Microbial
ICR
(
2040­
0205)

Surface
Water
Treatment
Rule,
except
disinfectant
residual
monitoring
and
associated
activities3
1993
PWSS
Program
ICR,
2040­
0090
9/
30/
01
Total
Coliform
Rule
1993
PWSS
Program
ICR,
2040­
0090
9/
30/
01
Interim
Enhanced
Surface
Water
Treatment
Rule
(
IESWTR)
1998
IESWTR
ICR,
2040­
0205
11/
30/
01
Filter
Backwash
Recycling
Rule
2001
FBRR
ICR,
2040­
0224
8/
31/
04
Long
Term
1
Enhanced
Surface
Water
Treatment
Rule
(
LT1ESWTR)
(
to
be
added
to
the
Microbial
ICR
when
the
program­
specific
ICR
expires)
LT1ESWTR
2040­
0229
10/
31/
04
Laboratory
Quality
Assurance
Program
(
to
be
added
to
the
Microbial
ICR
when
the
program­
specific
ICR
expires)
New
Activity
for
which
a
new
ICR
will
be
developed.
Approx.
12/
31/
04
Long
Term
2
Enhanced
Surface
Water
Treatment
Rule
(
LT2ESWTR)
Future
addition
N/
A
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
Activity
ICR
in
which
Activity
is
Currently
Covered
Expiration
Date
8
Ground
Water
Rule
Future
addition
N/
A
Disinfectants/
Disinfection
Byproducts,
Chemical,
and
Radionuclides
ICR
(
2040­
0204)

Stage
1
Disinfectants
and
Disinfection
Byproducts
Rule
Stage
1
DBPR
ICR,
2040­
0204
11/
30/
01
Disinfectant
Residual
Monitoring
and
Associated
Activities
under
the
SWTR
PWSS
Program
ICR,
2040­
0090
9/
30/
01
Total
Trihalomethanes
Rule
PWSS
Program
ICR,
2040­
0090
9/
30/
01
Phases
I,
II,
and
V
PWSS
Program
ICR,
2040­
0090
9/
30/
01
1976
Inorganic
Compounds
(
IOCs)
PWSS
Program
ICR,
2040­
0090
9/
30/
01
Lead
and
Copper
Rule
LCR
ICR,
2040­
0210
9/
30/
02
Arsenic
Rule
Arsenic
ICR,
2040­
0231
1/
31/
04
Radionuclides,
1976
Rule
PWSS
Program
ICR,
2040­
0090
9/
30/
01
Radionuclides,
2000
Rule
Rads
ICR,
2040­
0228
11/
30/
03
Unregulated
Contaminant
Monitoring
Rule
UCMR
ICR,
2040­
0208
12/
31/
03
Stage
2
DBPR
Future
addition
N/
A
Radon
Future
addition
N/
A
Source
Water
Assessment
Program
(
SWAP)
ICR
(
2040­
0197)

SWAP
SWAP
ICR,
2040­
0197
10/
31/
04
Underground
Injection
Control
(
UIC)
Program
ICR
(
2040­
0042)

UIC
Base
Program
Activities
UIC
Program
ICR,
2040­
0042
9/
30/
01
Class
V
Rule
Class
V
ICR,
2040­
0214
11/
30/
02
Florida
Class
I
Rule
Future
addition
N/
A
Drinking
Water
State
Revolving
Fund
(
DWSRF)
ICR
(
2040­
0185)

Drinking
Water
State
Revolving
Fund
Program
DWSRF
ICR,
2040­
0185
6/
30/
03
Needs
Survey
ICR
(
2040­
0198)

1999
Needs
Survey
(
complete)
Needs
Survey
ICR,
2040­
0198
10/
31/
01
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
4
The
dates
of
the
technical
corrections
were
December
28,
1998
(
63
FR
71375),
June
29,
1999
(
64
FR
34732),
and
September
14,
1999
(
64
FR
49671).
Rule­
specific
modifications
include
the
following:
Radionuclides
Rule
(
65
FR
76707;
December
7,
2000);
Public
Notification
Rule
(
65
FR
25981;
May
4,
2000);
Stage
1
Disinfectant
and
Disinfection
Byproducts
Rule
(
63
FR
69475;
December
16,
1998),
and
Interim
Enhanced
Surface
Water
Treatment
Rule
(
63
FR
69516;
December
16,
1998).
In
addition,
as
other
drinking
water
rules
are
promulgated
violations
of
their
standards
will
also
be
required
to
be
reported
in
CCRs.

9
1)
Consumer
Confidence
Reports
Section
114
of
the
1996
SDWA
amends
Section
1414(
c)
of
the
Act.
The
amendments
require
community
water
systems
(
CWSs)
to
distribute
CCRs
to
their
customers
annually.
EPA
wrote
regulations
under
Subpart
O
of
40
CFR
Part
141
to
implement
this
provision.

The
initial
Federal
Register
(
FR)
notice
containing
CCR
requirements
was
published
on
August
19,
1998
(
63
FR
44512).
These
initial
requirements
have
been
modified
by
three
technical
amendments
or
other
rule­
specific
notices.
4
However,
these
amendments
are
assumed
to
have
no
affect
on
the
underlying
burden.

EPA
developed
the
CCR
regulations
to
satisfy
the
SDWA
requirement,
in
consultation
with
CWSs,
environmental
groups,
public
interest
groups,
risk
communication
experts,
States,
and
other
interested
parties.
The
regulations
require,
at
a
minimum,
that
each
CWS
mail
to
each
of
its
customers
an
annual
report
on
the
level
of
contaminants
in
the
drinking
water
purveyed
by
that
system.

The
Governor
of
a
State
may
waive
the
mailing
requirement
for
CWSs
serving
fewer
than
10,000
people.
These
CWSs
would
then
be
required
to
publish
the
report
in
a
local
newspaper
and
inform
their
customers,
through
a
newspaper
notice,
that
they
will
not
be
mailing
the
CCR.
The
CWS
would
be
obliged
to
make
the
report
available
to
the
public
on
request.
CWSs
serving
fewer
than
500
people
that
have
received
the
mailing
waiver
need
only
post
notices
announcing
the
availability
of
the
report.

2)
Primacy
Regulation
Activities
The
1996
Amendments
to
SDWA
require
that
primacy
agencies,
unless
prohibited
by
their
constitutions,
have
the
authority
to
impose
administrative
penalties
on
PWSs
in
violation
of
the
SDWA.
For
systems
serving
a
population
greater
than
10,000
individuals,
States
must
have
the
authority
to
impose
administrative
penalties
in
an
amount
that
is
not
less
than
$
1,000
per
day
per
violation.
For
systems
serving
a
population
of
10,000
or
fewer
individuals,
States
must
have
the
authority
to
impose
administrative
penalties
that
are
adequate
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
SDWA.
EPA
is
collecting
information
from
each
State
that
wishes
to
obtain
or
retain
primacy
to
determine
whether
the
State's
administrative
penalty
provisions
meet
the
requirements
of
the
SDWA.

This
information
collection
is
authorized
under
the
SDWA
and
40
CFR
142.11(
a)(
6)
and
(
7),
as
amended
by
the
Revisions
to
State
Primacy
Requirements
to
Implement
Federal
Drinking
Water
Regulations,
and
40
CFR
142.12(
a)
and
(
c).
It
will
be
conducted
by
EPA
Regional
Offices
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
10
in
consultation
with
OGWDW,
the
Office
of
Regulatory
Enforcement,
and,
in
some
instances,
the
Office
of
General
Counsel.
Specifically,
EPA
needs
this
information
to
determine
whether
States
meet
the
administrative
penalty
authority
requirements
in
order
to
obtain
and/
or
retain
primacy
for
the
PWSS
program.

3)
Variance
&
Exemption
Rule
The
1996
SDWA
Amendments
established
criteria
under
which
PWSs,
especially
those
serving
10,000
or
fewer
people,
could
adopt
through
variance
or
exemption
affordable
technologies
that
improve
the
quality
of
their
water
and
move
them
closer
to
compliance
with
national
drinking
water
standards.
The
information
required
of
PWSs
seeking
variances
or
exemptions
is
needed
to
determine
if
the
system
satisfies
SDWA
conditions
for
variances
or
exemptions.
In
addition,
the
information
is
needed
to
allow
the
Administrator
and
the
public
to
determine
that
the
public
had
adequate
opportunity
to
review
and
comment
on
a
decision
to
grant
a
small
system
variance.

4)
Capacity
Development
Program
Through
the
1996
SDWA
Amendments,
Congress
conveyed
the
importance
of
efforts
to
ensure
that
PWSs
maintain
the
technical,
managerial,
and
financial
capacity
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
the
SDWA.
To
underscore
the
importance
of
capacity
development,
it
was
linked
to
the
DWSRF
through
a
withholding
of
20
percent
of
the
funds
to
which
a
State
is
otherwise
entitled
if
its
program
does
not
meet
the
requirements
of
EPA's
guidelines.

Information
collection
activities
associated
with
the
Capacity
Development
Program
are
driven
by
these
withholding
provisions.
EPA
is
required
under
§
1420(
a)
and
(
c)
to
make
an
annual
determination
on
whether
to
withhold
a
percentage
of
a
State's
DWSRF
allotment.
In
order
to
make
these
decisions,
EPA
must
collect
information
from
the
States
as
required
by
EPA
guidance.
States,
in
turn,
must
collect
information
from
water
systems
as
required
by
their
respective
programs.
All
funds
that
are
withheld
from,
or
unawarded
to
States,
will
be
reallotted
to
other
States
that
have
met
the
requirements
of
the
guidelines.

The
capacity
development
provisions
in
the
1996
SDWA
Amendments
offer
a
framework
within
which
States
and
water
systems
can
work
together
to
ensure
that
systems
are
capable
of
achieving
the
public
health
protection
objectives
set
forth
in
the
SDWA.
Section
1420(
a)
of
the
SDWA
explains
that
a
State
"
shall
receive
only
80
percent
of
the
allotment
that
the
state
is
otherwise
entitled
to
receive
under
Section
1452
(
relating
to
State
loan
funds)
unless
the
state
has
obtained
the
legal
authority
or
other
means
to
ensure
that
all
new
community
water
systems
and
new
nontransient,
noncommunity
water
systems
commencing
operation
after
October
1,
1999,
demonstrate
technical,
managerial,
and
financial
capacity
with
respect
to
each
national
primary
drinking
water
regulation
in
effect,
or
likely
to
be
in
effect,
on
the
date
of
commencement
of
operations."
In
addition,
according
to
Section
1420(
c),
States
will
incur
a
graduated
withholding,
beginning
with
10
percent
in
fiscal
year
2001,
15
percent
in
fiscal
year
2002,
and
20
percent
in
all
subsequent
fiscal
years,
if
they
do
not
develop
and
implement
a
strategy
to
assist
all
PWSs
in
acquiring
and
maintaining
capacity.
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
11
5)
General
State
Primacy
Activities
To
implement
its
compliance
oversight
and
enforcement
responsibilities
under
the
SDWA,
EPA
requires
primacy
agencies
to
report
a
specified
subset
of
PWS
monitoring
and
related
information
in
SDWIS.
Additionally,
primacy
agencies
must
maintain
records
of
analysis
results
and
other
related
activities
(
e.
g.,
sanitary
survey
results).
Without
comprehensive,
up­
to­
date
information
on
drinking
water
contamination
(
as
provided
by
SDWIS),
EPA
would
not
be
able
to
ensure
"
a
supply
of
drinking
water
which
dependably
complies
with
such
maximum
contaminant
levels"
(
SDWA
Section
1401(
1)(
d)).
If
these
reporting
requirements
were
voluntary,
EPA
would
not
receive
timely,
comprehensive
data
on
contaminant
levels
and
associated
acute
and
long­
term
public
health
risks.
Specifically,
voluntary
monitoring
would
notC
$
Reliably
occur
with
sufficient
frequency.

$
Follow
uniform
national
standards
on
quality
of
sampling,
collection,
and
analysis.

$
Ensure
that
monitoring
addresses
all
contaminants
listed
in
the
regulations.

Without
the
information
collected
in
this
ICR,
EPA
would
not
be
able
to
protect
the
nation's
drinking
water.

2(
b)
Use/
Users
of
the
Data
The
information
described
in
the
previous
sections
will
be
collected
by
EPA
and
made
available
to
the
public
upon
request,
as
required
by
the
Freedom
of
Information
Act
(
40
CFR,
Chapter
1,
Part
2).
In
some
cases,
the
SDWA
requires
that
the
information
be
provided
to
the
public
or
the
primacy
agency.
Primary
users
of
the
data
collected
under
this
ICR
are
OGWDW,
PWS
managers,
and
primacy
agencies,
which
include
State
regulators,
Indian
Tribes,
and,
in
some
instances,
EPA
Regional
Administrators.
Other
users
include
 
$
Staff
from
other
EPA
programs
(
such
as
Superfund,
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act,
and
the
Office
of
Enforcement
and
Compliance
Assurance)

$
Federal
Emergency
Management
Administration
$
Centers
for
Disease
Control
and
Prevention
(
CDC)

$
Military
bases
$
Farmers
Home
Administration
$
Department
of
Interior
$
Department
of
Housing
and
Urban
Development
$
U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
$
White
House
Task
Forces
$
American
Water
Works
Association
$
Association
of
Metropolitan
Water
Agencies
$
National
Rural
Water
Association
$
National
Association
of
Water
Companies
$
Association
of
State
Drinking
Water
Administrators
$
Natural
Resources
Defense
Council
$
Consumers
Federation
of
America
$
News
Organizations
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
12
Data
are
used
to
aid
in
understanding
the
quality
of
drinking
water,
make
regulatory
enforcement
decisions,
oversee
State
programs,
and
make
decisions
regarding
EPA
grants.
This
section
summarizes
the
use
and
users
of
the
data
by
activity
 
1)
Consumer
Confidence
Reports.
Customers
of
CWSs
will
use
CCRs
to
make
healthand
environment­
related
decisions
regarding
their
drinking
water.

2)
Primacy
Regulation
Activities.
EPA
will
use
the
information
to
determine
whether
States,
if
not
constitutionally
prohibited
from
doing
so,
have
adopted
the
administrative
penalty
authority
necessary
in
order
to
obtain
and/
or
retain
primacy
for
the
PWSS
program.
In
addition,
EPA
could
combine
the
information
on
the
level
of
administrative
penalties
in
each
State
with
compliance
data
to
evaluate
the
success
of
these
penalties
in
promoting
compliance
with
the
SDWA.
The
information
may
also
be
useful
to
individual
States.
For
example,
a
State
may
find
that
its
penalties
have
not
increased
compliance
with
the
SDWA.
This
State
may
want
to
examine
the
administrative
penalties
of
other
States
to
see
how
they
promote
SDWA
compliance.
Based
on
this
comparison,
the
State
can
evaluate
and
select
a
more
appropriate
level
of
administrative
penalties.

3)
Variance
and
Exemption
Rule.
EPA
and
primacy
agencies
will
use
the
required
information
to
determine
if
systems
meet
the
criteria
for
variances
and
exemptions.
The
information
can
also
help
identify
research
and
development
needs
for
affordable
small
system
treatment
technology.

4)
Capacity
Development
Program.
States
will
use
the
information
submitted
by
water
systems
to
evaluate
whether
water
systems
can
achieve
and
maintain
technical,
financial,
and
managerial
capacity.
EPA
will
use
the
information
submitted
by
States
to
determine
whether
States
have
adopted
and
are
implementing
capacity
development
programs
in
accordance
with
the
guidelines
developed
by
EPA
and
the
relevant
sections
of
SDWA.
In
turn,
EPA
can
make
decisions
on
grant
withholding.

5)
General
State
Primacy
Activities.
Information
reported
by
States
and
retained
in
State
records
has
a
variety
of
uses
 
 
To
evaluate
the
quality
of
water
delivered
to
customers
and
determine
water
system
compliance
with
national
standards.

 
To
determine
whether
States
are
meeting
primacy
requirements
and
maintaining
eligibility
for
grants.

 
To
track
compliance
progress,
identify
enforcement
targets
and
systems
requiring
remedial
action,
determine
if
systems
are
meeting
schedules
designed
to
return
them
to
compliance,
and
determine
if
States
are
taking
timely
and
appropriate
enforcement
action.
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
13
 
To
provide
States
with
necessary
data
to
assess
resource
needs
and
capacity,
and
to
evaluate
the
impact
of
SDWA
requirements
on
primacy
agencies.

 
To
support
responses
to
information
requests
from
Congress
or
to
requests
for
information
from
companies
and
individual
citizens,
hundreds
of
which
are
processed
by
EPA
every
year.
For
example,
the
EPA
provides
SDWIS
data
to
the
National
Rural
Water
Association,
an
EPA
grantee,
so
that
it
can
target
technical
assistance
and
training
activities
toward
compliance
problems
identified
by
the
data.
Many
Freedom
of
Information
Act
(
FOIA)
requests
from
individual
citizens
concern
the
compliance
status
of
a
specific
PWS
or
geographical
area
and
involve
information
stored
in
SDWIS.
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
14
3
NON­
DUPLICATION,
CONSULTATIONS,
AND
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA
3(
a)
Non­
duplication
EPA
has
made
an
effort
to
ensure
that
the
data
collection
efforts
associated
with
this
ICR
are
not
duplicated.
EPA
has
consulted
State
environmental
programs,
other
Federal
agencies
(
such
as
the
CDC),
and
regulated
entities
(
such
as
PWSs
and
their
representative
trade
associations).
To
the
best
of
EPA's
knowledge,
data
currently
required
by
the
SDWA
(
and
its
implementing
regulations
codified
at
40
CFR
Parts
141
and
142)
are
not
available
from
any
other
source.

3(
b)
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
to
OMB
To
comply
with
the
1995
Amendments
to
the
PRA,
EPA
has
solicited
public
comment
on
this
ICR
for
a
60­
day
period
before
it
was
submitted
to
OMB.
Specifically,
EPA
has
published
notices
in
the
Federal
Register
requesting
comment
on
the
estimated
respondent
burden
and
other
aspects
of
this
ICR
(
66
FR
21926,
see
Appendix
B).

An
additional
Federal
Register
notice
will
be
published
prior
to
submission
of
this
ICR
to
OMB.
The
public
comment
period
for
this
additional
notice
is
30
days.

3(
c)
Consultations
Throughout
the
development
and
implementation
of
the
PWSS
Program,
OGWDW
has
held
numerous
meetings
with
interested
stakeholders,
including
State
and
EPA
Regional
personnel
and
PWS
representatives,
to
identify
the
value
and
ease
of
collecting
information
needed
to
fulfill
SDWA
obligations.
As
a
standard
regulatory
development
practice
to
promote
public
involvement,
EPA
formally
solicits
public
comment
on
proposed
drinking
water
rules.
Before
any
rule
is
finalized,
EPA
logs
and
evaluates
all
written
comments
on
proposed
rules.
Additionally,
EPA
usually
holds
public
meetings
during
which
any
interested
party
may
provide
oral
testimony
for
Agency
consideration.
Such
meetings
are
typically
announced
in
the
Federal
Register
notice
accompanying
the
proposed
rule.

In
the
initial
phases
of
program
development,
or
to
confirm
assumptions
on
which
rules
or
guidelines
are
based,
EPA
often
augments
formal
meetings
with
other
workshops
or
meetings
to
gather
information.
For
example,
a
National
Drinking
Water
Advisory
Council
(
NDWAC)
working
group
advised
EPA
on
the
development
of
the
Guidance
on
Implementing
the
Capacity
Development
Provisions
of
the
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act.
The
NDWAC
Small
Systems
Working
Group
consists
of
22
members
representing
small
PWSs,
environmental
and
public
health
advocacy
groups,
State
drinking
water
programs,
public
utility
commissions,
and
other
interest
groups.
The
group
convened
on
four
occasions
between
February
and
July
1997
to
develop
recommendations
on
how
EPA
should
implement
the
capacity
development
provisions.
The
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
15
Small
Systems
Working
Group
presented
its
recommendations
to
the
full
NDWAC,
which
in
turn
presented
these
recommendations
to
EPA.
The
working
group's
recommendations
on
the
content
and
format
of
the
resulting
guidance
were
considered
and
incorporated
by
EPA.
The
draft
guidance
was
published
in
the
Federal
Register.
After
a
60­
day
public
comment
period,
comments
were
received
from
approximately
50
parties.
EPA
responded
to
these
comments
and
included
the
comments
and
responses,
as
appropriate,
in
an
appendix
to
the
final
guidance.

In
developing
the
Primacy
Regulation,
EPA
consulted
with
a
primacy
workgroup
consisting
of
EPA
Headquarters
and
Regional
representatives.
The
workgroup
participated
in
conference
calls
on
June
10,
1997,
August
26,
1997,
October
6,
1997,
and
November
24,
1997.
During
these
calls,
the
workgroup
discussed
the
necessity
for
and
the
extent
of
this
collection.
As
part
of
the
CCR
Rule
regulatory
development
process,
EPA
consulted
with
NDWAC
which
itself
received
comments
from
a
working
group
on
CCRs.
In
addition,
EPA
solicited
input
regarding
the
preparation
and
distribution
of
CCRs
from
a
variety
of
sources,
including
postal
offices
and
mailing
list
providers.

Burden
for
general
State
primacy
activities
was
estimated
using
the
State
Workload
Model,
which
is
documented
in
the
Resource
Analysis
Computer
Program
for
State
Drinking
Water
Agencies,
January
1993
(
as
updated
in
1997).
This
model
was
designed
to
estimate
the
resources
needed
to
fund
State
drinking
water
programs.
It
contains
a
comprehensive
list
of
activities
required
to
operate
a
drinking
water
program,
including
estimates
of
the
number
of
systems
impacted.

3(
d)
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
EPA
has
considered
a
wide
range
of
alternatives
for
frequency
of
data
collection.
The
Primacy
Regulation
involves
only
one­
time
effort
by
the
States
who
wish
to
adopt
the
administrative
penalty
authority
necessary
in
order
to
obtain
or
retain
primacy.
The
CCR
Rule
and
Capacity
Development
Program
require
annual
reporting.
Distributing
CCRs
less
frequently
than
annually
is
not
allowed
under
the
SDWA.
Annual
reporting
of
capacity
development
information
is
essential
to
enable
EPA
to
make
withholding
determinations
on
each
fiscal
year's
funds.

For
other
information
collection
activities,
EPA
has
chosen
to
require
the
least
frequent
collection
that
remains
consistent
with
overall
public
health
preservation
objectives.
If
data
are
collected
less
frequently,
the
State
may
not
identify
in
a
timely
fashion
significant
contaminant
concentrations
which
might
threaten
the
health
and
safety
of
drinking
water
consumers.

3(
e)
General
Guidelines
This
ICR
was
prepared
in
accordance
with
the
February
1999
version
of
EPA's
Guide
to
Writing
Information
Collection
Requests
Under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(
PRA)
of
1995
(
or
"
ICR
Handbook")
prepared
by
EPA's
Office
of
Environmental
Information,
Office
of
Information
Collection,
Collection
Strategies
Division.
The
ICR
Handbook
provides
the
most
current
instructions
for
ICR
preparation
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
1995
PRA
amendments
and
Office
of
Management
and
Budget's
(
OMB's)
implementing
guidelines.
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
16
3(
f)
Confidentiality
No
confidential
information
will
be
collected
as
a
result
of
this
ICR.

3(
g)
Sensitive
Questions
No
information
of
a
sensitive
nature
will
be
collected
as
a
result
of
this
ICR.
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
5As
noted
above,
EPA
will
add
Public
Notification
requirements
to
this
ICR
prior
to
expiration
of
the
PN
ICR.
The
PN
ICR
also
covers
information
collection
activities
that
are
not
associated
with
contaminant­
specific
rules.

17
4
RESPONDENTS
AND
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
4(
a)
Respondents/
NAICS
Codes
Data
associated
with
this
ICR
are
collected
and
maintained
at
the
PWS,
State,
and
Federal
levels.
Respondents
includeC
$
Owners/
operators
of
PWSs,
who
must
report
to
the
primacy
agency.

$
Primacy
agencies
that
must
report
to
EPA
Headquarters.

$
Regional
EPA
administrators,
who
must
send
reports
and
notices
to
PWS
owners
and
States.

The
North
American
Industry
Classification
System
(
NAICS)
code
for
PWSs
is
22131.
The
NAICS
code
for
State
agencies
that
include
drinking
water
programs
are
classified
as
92411
(
Administration
of
Air
and
Water
Resources
and
Solid
Waste
Management
Programs)
or
923312
(
Administration
of
Public
Health
Programs).
Ancillary
systems
(
i.
e.,
those
that
supplement
the
function
of
other
establishments
like
factories,
power
plants,
mobile
home
parks,
etc.)
cannot
be
categorized
in
a
single
NAICS
code.
For
ancillary
systems,
the
NAICS
code
is
that
of
the
primary
establishment
or
industry.

4(
b)
Information
Requested
4(
b)(
i)
Data
Items
Exhibits
2
and
3
summarize
the
respondent
information
collection
requirements
covered
by
the
PWSS
Program
ICR.
These
reflect
cross­
cutting
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
under
the
PWSS
Program
(
i.
e.,
requirements
that
are
not
associated
with
contaminant­
specific
rules).
5
The
requirements
are
discussed
following
Exhibits
2
and
3.
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
18
Exhibit
2
PWS
Recordkeeping
and
Reporting
Requirements
Requirement
Regulatory
Citation
Report
Frequency/
Minimum
Retention
CCRs
Mail
copies
of
CCR
to
customers
40
CFR
141.155(
a)
Annually,
unless
waived
per
§
141.155(
g).

Announce
availability
of
CCR
40
CFR
141.155(
b)
Annually.

Submit
copy
of
CCR
to
primacy
agency
40
CFR
141.155(
c)
Annually.

Submit
copy
of
CCR
to
agencies
or
clearinghouses
identified
by
the
primacy
agency
40
CFR
141.155(
d)
Annually,
as
required.

Make
current
year's
CCR
available
to
public
40
CFR
141.155(
e)
As
requested.

Post
current
year's
CCR
on
the
Internet
(
for
systems
serving

100,000
people)
40
CFR
141.155(
f)
Annually.

Publish
CCR
in
local
newspaper,
if
the
mailing
requirement
has
been
waived
40
CFR
141.155(
g)(
1)
Annually,
except
that
systems
serving

500
can
forego
per
§
141.155(
g)(
2).

Retain
copy
of
CCR
40
CFR
141.155(
h)
For
at
least
3
years.

VARIANCES
AND
EXEMPTIONS
Retain
records
concerning
variance
or
exemption
grants
40
CFR
141.33
Not
less
than
5
years
after
variance/
exemption
expiration.

Submit
information
supporting
request
for
variance
40
CFR
142.41
One­
time,
PWS
discretion.

Submit
information
supporting
request
for
exemption
40
CFR
142.51
One­
time,
PWS
discretion.

Submit
information
supporting
request
for
small
system
variance
40
CFR
142.306
One­
time,
PWS
discretion.

Report
on
compliance
with
terms
and
conditions
of
the
small
system
variance
40
CFR
142.307
Quarter
after
granting.

CAPACITY
DEVELOPMENT
Demonstrate
capacity
(
new
CWSs
&
NTNCWSs)
N/
A
One­
time.

Cooperate
with
State
to
demonstrate
continued
capacity
N/
A
As
needed.
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
19
Exhibit
3
Primacy
Agency
Recordkeeping
and
Reporting
Requirements
Requirement
Regulatory
Citation
Report
Frequency/
Minimum
Retention
CCRs
Make
CCRs
available
to
public
40
CFR
142.16(
f)(
2)
As
requested.

Retain
copies
of
CCRs
and
certifications
that
CCRs
were
distributed
40
CFR
142.16(
f)(
3)
CCRs:
5
years.
Certifications:
1
year.

Report
violations
of
CCR
provisions
40
CFR
142.16(
f)(
4)
Quarterly.

VARIANCES
AND
EXEMPTIONS
Issue
variances
and
exemptions
(
for
other
than
small
systems)
40
CFR
142.20
At
primacy
agency
discretion.

Consider
system
V/
E
requests
(
other
than
small
systems)
40
CFR
142.21
Within
90
days
of
request.

Review
V/
E
requests
previously
granted
40
CFR
142.22
Within
18
months
of
new
standards.

Notify
EPA
of
new
variances
or
exemptions
granted
40
CFR
142.15(
a)(
3)
Quarterly.

Summarize
the
status
of
variances
or
exemptions
currently
in
effect
40
CFR
142.15(
b)(
2)
Annually.

Propose
small
system
variances
and
provide
supporting
information
and
responses
to
comments
40
CFR
142.311
&
142.312
When
State
proposes
to
grant
a
small
system
variance.

Following
EPA's
notification
of
objections
and
proposed
modifications
to
proposed
small
system
variances,
respond
to
EPA
40
CFR
142.311
Before
State
grants
a
small
community
variance
to
a
PWS
serving
3,300
or
fewer
people.

Re­
propose
small
system
variances
40
CFR
142.312
Before
the
State
grants
a
small
community
variance
to
a
PWS
serving
more
than
3,300
and
fewer
than
10,000
people.

Review
each
small
system
variance
to
determine
if
the
PWS
continues
to
meet
eligibility
criteria
40
CFR
142.307
Not
less
than
5
years.

Notice
of
public
meeting
on
proposed
small
system
variances,
with
supporting
information
40
CFR
142.308
At
least
30
days
prior
to
public
meeting.
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
Requirement
Regulatory
Citation
Report
Frequency/
Minimum
Retention
20
CAPACITY
DEVELOPMENT
Submit
evidence
to
EPA
that
State
has
established
and
continues
to
implement
a
Capacity
Development
Program
N/
A
Annually.

Submit
report
to
Governor
on
the
status
of
the
Capacity
Development
Program
N/
A
Annually.

GENERAL
STATE
PRIMACY
ACTIVITIES
Retain
State
records
for
public
inspection
40
CFR
142.14
Varies.

Retain
quarterly
SDWIS
reports
to
EPA,
make
them
available
for
public
inspection
40
CFR
142.15(
d)
Upon
completion
and
submittal
by
State.

Report
any
new
violation
data
or
enforcement
actions
40
CFR
142.15(
a)(
1)­(
2)
Quarterly.

Report
any
new
data
related
to
SDWIS
elements
or
any
revisions
to
existing
data
40
CFR
142.15(
b)(
1)
Annually.

Submit
information
required
for
review
of
State
programs,
including
review
of
monitoring
determinations
40
CFR
142.17­
142.18
Annually,
as
requested.

Request
primacy
treatment
for
a
State
or
tribal
primacy
(
for
Indian
tribes)
40
CFR
142.76
One­
time.

Submit
initial
application
for
primacy
40
CFR
142.11
One­
time.

Submit
statutory
and
regulatory
provisions
authorizing
administrative
penalties
or
demonstrate
that
authority
does
not
exist
40
CFR
142.11(
a)(
6)
One­
time.

Submit
revised
primacy
application
40
CFR
142.12
As
needed.

1)
Consumer
Confidence
Reports
CCRs
must
identify
the
source
of
the
water
delivered
by
the
CWS,
describe
whether
it
is
ground
water
or
surface
water,
and
provide
the
common
name
and
location
of
bodies
of
water
used
as
sources.
Reports
also
must
define
the
terms
"
Maximum
Contaminant
Level
(
MCL),"
"
Maximum
Contaminant
Level
Goal
(
MCLG),"
"
Maximum
Residual
Disinfectant
Level
(
MRDL),"
"
Maximum
Residual
Disinfectant
Level
Goal
(
MRDLG),"
"
variance,"
and
"
exemption."
Reports
must
contain
a
table
providing
data
on
contaminant
levels
detected
as
well
as
the
MCLG
and
MCL
for
these
contaminants.
If
contaminants
are
detected
above
the
MCL
or
MRDL,
health
effects
information
must
also
be
provided.
Reports
must
indicate
any
violations
of
the
NPDWRs,
including
monitoring
and
reporting,
treatment
techniques,
public
notification,
recordkeeping,
special
monitoring
requirements,
and
the
terms
of
a
variance,
exemption,
or
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
21
administrative
or
judicial
order.
Reports
must
explain
any
granted
variance
or
exemption.
Reports
must
contain
a
brief
explanation
regarding
contaminants
that
may
be
found
in
drinking
water.
Reports
must
also
display
relevant
health
information
concerning
drinking
water
and
potential
risks
from
possible
contaminants.

2)
Primacy
Regulation
Activities
As
part
of
the
primacy
review
process,
States
must
submit,
either
in
written
form
or
electronically,
copies
of
their
relevant
laws
and
regulations.
States
that
believe
their
constitutions
prohibit
administrative
penalty
provisions
must
submit
copies
of
their
constitutions
and
interpretations
of
the
prohibitions
from
their
Attorneys
General.
EPA's
review
will
likely
also
include
a
request
for
a
State
Attorney
General
to
provide
an
interpretation
of
the
State's
authority.
Additionally,
each
State
must
also
submit
an
explanation
of
why
its
chosen
level
of
administrative
penalty
authority
for
PWSs
serving
a
population
of
10,000
individuals
or
fewer
is
adequate
to
ensure
compliance.
Furthermore,
under
40
CFR
142.11(
a)(
7)(
ii),
as
amended
by
the
Revisions
to
State
Primacy
Requirements
to
Implement
Federal
Drinking
Water
Regulations,
and
40
CFR
142.12(
c),
EPA
may
request,
if
necessary,
supplemental
information
from
any
State.

3)
Variance
&
Exemption
Rule
To
obtain
a
variance
or
exemption,
systems
must
submit
a
request
for
a
small
system
variance
and
supporting
information.
They
must
also
submit
reports
on
compliance
with
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
small
system
variance.

4)
Capacity
Development
Program
Under
SDWA
§
1420,
States
are
required
to
submit
the
following
information
to
EPAC
$
A
basis
of
authority
for
ensuring
that
all
new
systems
show
capacity
for
implementing
regulations
(
i.
e.,
State
regulations,
policies,
or
other
implementing
authorities).

$
Identification
of
at
least
one
"
control
point"
at
which
the
State
will
execute
its
authority.

$
A
plan
for
program
implementation
which
includes
provisions
for
evaluating
and
verifying
program
implementation
in
the
future.

$
Documentation
that
the
State
has
solicited
public
comments
on
the
five
required
elements
for
the
strategy,
including
relevant
public
comments
and
the
State's
responses
to
them.

$
A
description
of
the
elements
of
the
State's
strategy,
including
a
discussion
of
why
certain
listed
elements
were
included
or
excluded
from
the
strategy.

$
A
description
of
how
the
selected
elements
can
be
rationally
considered
to
constitute
a
strategy
to
assist
PWSs
in
acquiring
and
maintaining
capacity.

$
A
description
of
how
the
State
will
implement
its
strategy
and
evaluate
its
progress
toward
improving
PWS
capacity.
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
22
5)
General
State
Primacy
Activities
To
implement
its
compliance
oversight
and
enforcement
responsibilities
under
the
SDWA,
EPA
requires
primacy
agencies
to
report
a
specified
subset
of
PWS
monitoring
information
in
SDWIS.
EPA
works
with
States
and
other
drinking
water
organizations
to
obtain
the
information
necessary
to
determine
the
resources
available
now,
needed
currently,
and
needed
in
the
future
to
implement
the
PWSS
program
and
other
SDWA
provisions.
Information
may
include
estimates
of
time
allotted
to
certain
general
State
functions,
such
as
enforcement
and
data
management,
and
rule­
specific
activities
(
e.
g.,
conduct
of
sanitary
surveys).
Additionally,
primacy
agencies
must
maintain
records
of
analysis
results
and
other
related
activities
(
e.
g.,
sanitary
survey
results).
Without
comprehensive,
up­
to­
date
information
on
drinking
water
contamination
(
as
provided
by
SDWIS),
EPA
would
not
be
able
to
ensure
"
a
supply
of
drinking
water
which
dependably
complies
with
such
maximum
contaminant
levels"
(
SDWA,
Section
1401(
1)(
d)).
If
these
reporting
requirements
were
voluntary,
EPA
would
not
receive
timely,
comprehensive
data
on
contaminant
levels
and
associated
acute
and
long­
term
public
health
risks.
Specifically,
voluntary
monitoring
would
not
 
°
Reliably
occur
with
sufficient
frequency.
°
Follow
uniform
national
standards
on
quality
of
sampling,
collection,
and
analysis.
°
Ensure
that
monitoring
addresses
all
contaminants
listed
in
the
regulations.

4(
b)(
ii)
Respondent
Activities
PWSs
and
primacy
agencies
must
complete
the
activities
described
in
the
sections
below.
Public
Water
Systems
1)
Consumer
Confidence
Reports
For
CCRs,
CWSs
must
conduct
the
following
activities
 

Compile
the
report.
°
Mail
one
report
to
each
customer.
°
For
consumers
who
do
not
receive
water
bills,
publish
a
notice
in
the
newspaper
indicating
how
a
consumer
may
obtain
a
copy
of
a
CCR.
°
Submit
one
copy
of
the
completed
report
to
the
primacy
agency
annually
and
retain
one
copy
of
the
report.
°
Certify
to
the
primacy
agency
that
the
report
has
been
distributed
to
customers
and
that
the
information
is
correct.
°
Publish
the
report
in
a
local
newspaper
rather
than
mail
it,
if
the
State
Governor
allows
CWSs
serving
10,000
or
fewer
people
to
do
so.
°
Post
an
annual
notice
for
customers
rather
than
publishing
or
mailing
a
report,
if
the
State
Governor
allows
CWSs
serving
fewer
than
500
people
to
do
so.
°
Post
the
report
to
a
publicly
accessible
Internet
site,
for
CWSs
serving
100,000
or
more
people.
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
23
2)
Primacy
Regulation
Activities
There
are
no
PWS
activities
associated
with
the
PWSS
Program
Primacy
Regulation.

3)
Variance
&
Exemption
Rule
A
PWS
that
elects
to
apply
for
a
small
system
variance
must
either
perform
the
following
activities
or
assist
the
State
in
performing
these
activities
 

Apply
for
the
variance
or
exemption
and
submit
any
information
that
the
State
requires.
A
PWS,
often
with
assistance
from
the
State,
will
provide
information
demonstrating
that
it
is
eligible
for
a
small
system
variance,
that
it
cannot
afford
to
comply
with
the
NPDWR
for
which
a
small
system
variance
is
sought,
that
its
source
water
meets
the
quality
standards
for
installation
of
the
small
system
variance
technology,
that
it
is
financially
and
technically
capable
of
installing,
operating,
and
maintaining
the
applicable
small
system
variance
technology,
and
that
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
small
system
variance
would
ensure
adequate
protection
of
human
health.


Write
and
submit
a
quarterly
report
on
compliance
with
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
small
system
variance.

4)
Capacity
Development
Program
Under
the
Capacity
Development
Program
for
new
systems,
all
CWSs
and
NTNCWSs
must
demonstrate
adequate
capacity
and
comply
with
all
State
capacity
development
requirements.
All
PWS
are
asked
to
cooperate
with
the
State's
strategy
for
existing
systems.
This
includes
achieving,
maintaining,
and
improving
capacity.

5)
General
State
Primacy
Activities
There
are
no
PWS
activities
associated
with
the
General
State
Primacy
Activities.

Primacy
Agencies
1)
Consumer
Confidence
Reports
As
part
of
the
CCR
Rule,
primacy
agencies
must
 
°
Review
and
retain
reports
and
certifications
from
CWSs.
°
Assist
in
preparation
of
reports.
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
24
2)
Primacy
Regulation
Activities
Under
the
PWSS
Primacy
Regulation,
Attorneys
General
in
States
that
prohibit
administrative
penalties
may
 

Receive
a
call
from
the
State
Drinking
Water
Program
describing
the
information
that
EPA
requires.


Read
the
relevant
Federal
regulations.


Find
the
relevant
portion
of
the
State
constitution.


Prepare
a
written
interpretation
of
the
constitutional
prohibition.


Transmit
the
interpretation
and
a
copy
of
the
relevant
portion
of
the
State
constitution
to
EPA.

In
States
whose
constitutions
allow
administrative
penalties,
personnel
from
the
State
Drinking
Water
Program
may
 

Read
the
relevant
Federal
regulations.


Find
the
appropriate
section(
s)
of
the
State's
laws
and/
or
regulations.


Contact
the
State
Attorney
General
to
request
assistance
in
the
collection.


Prepare,
or
assist
in
preparing,
a
justification
of
why
the
State's
administrative
penalty
authority
for
systems
serving
a
population
of
10,000
or
fewer
individuals
is
adequate
to
ensure
compliance.


Transmit
the
information
to
EPA.

In
States
whose
constitutions
allow
administrative
penalties,
the
State
Attorney
General,
may
 

Receive
a
call
from
the
State
Drinking
Water
Program
describing
the
information
that
is
being
collected
and
the
need
for
a
certification
that
the
State
laws
and
regulations
were
duly
adopted
and
are
enforceable.


Read
the
relevant
Federal
regulations.


Provide
the
certification
that
the
State
laws
and
regulations
were
duly
adopted
and
are
enforceable.


Provide
the
interpretation
of
the
State's
laws
and/
or
regulations
if
they
use
language
that
significantly
differs
from
that
used
in
the
SDWA.


Prepare,
or
assist
in
preparing,
a
justification
of
why
the
State's
administrative
penalty
authority
for
systems
serving
a
population
of
10,000
or
fewer
individuals
is
adequate
to
ensure
compliance.


Transmit
the
information.
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
25
If
additional
information
is
needed,
personnel
from
the
State
Drinking
Water
Program
may
 

Receive
a
call
or
letter
from
EPA
requesting
additional
information.
The
official
at
the
Drinking
Water
Program
may
then
contact
the
State
Attorney
General
to
request
assistance
in
gathering
this
information.


Gather
the
requested
information.


Transmit
the
information
to
EPA.

If
additional
information
is
needed,
the
State
Attorney
General
may
 

Receive
a
call
or
a
letter
from
the
State
Drinking
Water
Program
describing
the
information
that
is
being
collected.


Gather
the
requested
information.


Transmit
the
information.

3)
Variance
&
Exemption
Rule
In
addition
to
helping
PWSs
meet
application
requirements,
States
must
 

Provide
EPA
with
the
proposed
small
system
variance,
supporting
information,
and
responses
to
public
comments.


Respond
to
EPA's
objections
to
a
proposed
small
system
variance
for
a
PWS
serving
3,300
or
fewer
persons,
if
the
State
chooses
to
pursue
the
variance.


Revise
a
proposed
small
systems
variance
as
necessary
to
reflect
EPA's
comments
on
variance
requests
for
systems
that
serve
more
than
3,300
people
and
fewer
than
10,000
people,
if
the
State
chooses
to
pursue
the
variance.


Submit
a
quarterly
report
on
any
violations
of
any
increments
of
progress
or
any
other
violated
term
or
condition
of
a
small
system
variance.


Conduct
a
public
meeting
on
a
small
system
variance
request
to
be
proposed,
provide
notice
of
the
public
meeting,
and
provide
supporting
information
to
the
public.


Respond
to
significant
public
comments
on
the
proposed
variance
request.


Retain
records
associated
with
a
granted
variance
or
exemption
not
less
than
five
years
after
its
expiration.

4)
Capacity
Development
Program
As
part
of
its
program
to
ensure
new
system
capacity,
States
must
 

Establish
statutory
and
regulatory
authority
for
the
new
system's
program.


Determine
at
least
one
control
point
at
which
to
exercise
the
authority.


Define
technical,
financial,
and
managerial
capacity
and
establish
criteria
for
evaluating
systems.


Obtain
an
Attorney
General
certification.


Develop
a
plan
for
program
implementation.


Prepare
the
initial
and
annual
submittal
to
EPA.
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
26
As
part
of
its
capacity
development
strategy,
States
must
 

Consider
the
five
program
elements
for
the
existing
system
strategy,
solicit
public
comment,
and
include
comments
as
appropriate.


Develop
a
plan
for
implementing
the
capacity
development
strategy
and
a
plan
for
evaluating
progress.


Implement
a
capacity
development
strategy
for
existing
systems.


Prepare
a
list
of
systems
in
Significant
Noncompliance
(
SNC)
and
explain
why
the
systems
are
on
the
list.


Report
on
the
success
of
enforcement
mechanisms
in
helping
systems
with
a
history
of
SNC.


Prepare
documentation
of
program
performance
and
submit
it
to
EPA.


Submit
a
report
to
the
Governor
on
the
progress
and
success
of
the
strategy.

5)
General
State
Primacy
Activities
As
part
of
their
General
Primacy
Activities,
primacy
agencies
must
 
°
Prepare
grant
packages
requesting
funding
to
operate
the
program
in
a
State.
°
Maintain
State
drinking
water
data
systems.
°
Review
monthly
violations
report
to
monitor
compliance.
°
Maintain
records
submitted
by
PWSs
regarding
results
of
analytical
tests
and
other
milestones,
such
as
treatment
decisions.
°
Take
timely
and
appropriate
enforcement
actions.
°
Review
PWS
projects
regarding
design,
construction,
and
treatment
modifications.
°
Conduct
routine
inspections
to
supplement
information
collected
during
sanitary
surveys.

This
ICR
assumes
that
no
applications
for
primacy
will
be
submitted
during
the
next
3
years.
However,
since
a
new
primacy
application
is
a
possibility,
the
following
discussion
of
possible
implications
is
provided.
To
obtain
primacy,
the
applicant
must
 
°
Adopt
drinking
water
regulations
that
are
no
less
stringent
than
the
NPDWRs
currently
in
effect.
An
agency
may
also
be
granted
primacy
for
new
or
revised
EPA
regulations
if
they
demonstrate
that
their
approved
program
has
been
updated
to
include
regulations
no
less
stringent
than
those
new
or
revised
EPA
regulations.
°
Adopt
adequate
procedures
for
enforcement
of
these
regulations.
°
Report
these
procedures
according
to
EPA's
requirements.
°
Permit
variances
and
exemptions
under
conditions
no
less
stringent
than
those
specified
by
the
regulations.
°
Adopt
and
implement
an
adequate
plan
for
providing
safe
drinking
water
under
emergency
circumstances.

The
regulations
allow
Indian
tribes
to
be
granted
primacy,
although
no
primacy
applications
are
expected
from
tribes
during
the
next
3
years.
In
order
for
an
Indian
tribe
to
receive
primacy,
they
must
first
apply
for
and
receive
designation
as
a
"
State."
The
tribe
may
then
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
27
apply
for
a
developmental
grant
to
assist
it
in
preparing
the
necessary
infrastructure
(
e.
g.,
regulations).
Once
the
regulations
are
in
place,
the
tribe
may
apply
for
primacy.

Under
the
Indian
Primacy
Rule
promulgated
September
26,
1988,
Indian
tribes
that
wish
to
apply
for
and
be
designated
as
a
"
State"
must
 

Submit
evidence
that
the
tribe
is
recognized
by
the
Secretary
of
the
Interior.


Certify
that
it
is
currently
"
carrying
out
substantial
governmental
duties
and
powers"
over
a
defined
area.
The
Statement
must
describe
the
governmental
functions
currently
performed
by
the
Tribal
governing
body,
including,
but
not
limited
to,
the
exercise
of
police
power,
taxation,
and
the
exercise
of
the
power
of
eminent
domain.
Copies
of
applicable
tribal
documents
must
also
be
provided.


Prepare
and
submit
a
map
or
legal
description
of
the
area
over
which
the
Indian
tribe
asserts
jurisdiction
for
the
purposes
of
the
proposed
program.


Provide
copies
of
applicable
tribal
codes,
ordinances,
etc.


Describe
the
Indian
tribe's
capability
to
administer
such
a
program.
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
28
5
INFORMATION
COLLECTED
­­
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY,
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
5(
a)
Agency
Activities
As
part
of
its
supervisory
responsibility
for
the
PWSS
Program,
EPA
maintains
SDWIS
and
evaluates
the
data
in
SDWIS
to
determine
system
compliance.
Agency
personnel
also
reformat,
distribute,
and
store
these
data
for
a
number
of
uses,
including
responding
to
Congressional
and
public
inquiries.
EPA
also
oversees
the
State
and
EPA
Regional
programs,
provides
technical
assistance,
and
develops
policies
designed
to
ensure
consistent
program
implementation.
EPA
officials
serve
as
respondents
when
testifying
to
Congress
on
the
PWSS
Program
or
in
the
courts
for
enforcement
actions.
EPA's
recordkeeping
requirements
are
outlined
in
Exhibit
4
below.

Exhibit
4
PWSS
Program
Requirements
for
EPA
Regions
and
Headquarters
Requirement
CFR
Citation
Report
Frequency/
Minimum
Retention
Inform
primacy
agency
of
PWS
noncompliance
with
any
NPDWRs
in
40
CFR
141
or
with
any
requirement
under
SDWA
Sections
1415
and
1416.
40
CFR
142.30,
142.15
Quarterly.

Inform
primacy
agency
of
substantial
abuse
of
discretion
in
granting
variances
and
exemptions.
40
CFR
142.23
As
needed.

Provide
notice
of
public
hearing
for
States
abusing
right
to
grant
variances
and
exemptions.
40
CFR
142.23
As
needed.

Notify
primacy
agencies
of
failure
to
prescribe
schedules
in
accordance
with
SDWA.
40
CFR
142.23
As
needed.

Notify
primacy
agencies
of
repeal
of
notice
or
promulgation
of
any
revisions
to
schedules
or
revocation
of
schedules
proposed
in
notice.
40
CFR
142.23
Within
180
days
of
first
notice
given
to
the
State;
revised
schedule
or
revocation
takes
effect
90
days
after
State
is
notified.

Notify
primacy
agencies
of
objection
and
proposed
modifications
to
small
system
variances
proposed
by
States
for
PWSs
serving
3,300
or
fewer
people.
40
CFR
142.311
Within
90
days
of
receiving
proposal.

Notify
primacy
agencies
of
deficiencies
in
State
program
for
granting
small
system
variances.
40
CFR
142.313
As
needed.
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
Requirement
CFR
Citation
Report
Frequency/
Minimum
Retention
29
Notify
PWSs
of
noncompliance
with
any
NPDWRs
in
40
CFR
141
or
with
any
requirement
under
SDWA
Sections
1415
and
1416.
40
CFR
142.30,
142.15
Quarterly.

Provide
PWSs
with
copies
of
Federal
Register
notice
about
PWS
failure
to
comply.
40
CFR
142.23
Within
30
days
of
notice.

Notify
PWSs
of
denial
or
grant
of
variance
(
for
PWSs
in
non­
primacy
States).
40
CFR
142.42
Within
90
days
of
request.

Notify
PWSs
of
denial
or
grant
of
exemption
(
for
PWSs
in
non­
primacy
States).
40
CFR
142.52
Within
90
days
of
request.

Notify
PWSs
of
denial
or
grant
of
small
system
variance
(
for
PWSs
in
non­
primacy
States).
40
CFR
142.311,
142.312
Within
90
days
of
request.

Provide
notice
to
PWSs
in
non­
primacy
States
that
are
no
longer
eligible
for
small
system
variances.
40
CFR
142.307
As
needed.

Provide
public
notice
of
public
meeting
on
proposed
small
system
variances
(
in
nonprimacy
States),
with
supporting
information.
40
CFR
142.308
At
least
30
days
prior
to
public
meeting.

Respond
to
significant
public
comments.
40
CFR
142.308
Before
proposal.

Notify
PWSs
of
proposed
granting
of
small
system
variances
(
in
non­
primacy
States),
with
supporting
information.
40
CFR
142.309
At
least
15
days
prior
to
granting
variance.

Make
DWSRF
grant
withholding
decisions
with
regard
to
States'
Capacity
Development
Programs.
N/
A
Annually.

Provide
State
and
PWS
assistance
and
training
with
regard
to
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
covered
in
this
ICR.
N/
A
As
needed.

5(
b)
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
Primacy
agencies
must
report
data
quarterly
to
EPA.
These
data
include
any
new
data
and
revisions
or
corrections
to
existing
data.
This
information
is
maintained
in
SDWIS,
which
contains
the
following
 
°
Inventory
data
for
each
PWS
°
Violations
°
Enforcement
actions
and
some
follow­
up
activity
°
Variances
and
exemptions
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
6In
the
next
few
years,
EPA
anticipates
a
substantial
reduction
in
the
burden
and
costs
associated
with
reporting
data
because
of
increased
efficiency
of
electronic
reporting
by
PWSs
and
State
agencies.
Laboratories
are
developing
the
ability
to
report
monitoring
data
directly
to
primacy
agencies.

30
Primacy
agencies
transmit
SDWIS
data
to
EPA
both
manually
and
electronically.
In
Wyoming
and
Indian
Lands
(
except
for
the
Navajo
Nation,
which
has
primacy),
results
of
system
samples
are
sent
directly
to
the
EPA
Region.
Virtually
all
SDWIS
data
are
reported
electronically
by
the
primacy
agency.
6
Each
quarter,
EPA
Regions
must
provide
Headquarters
with
information
on
the
status
of
SNCs.
Headquarters
then
generates
a
list
of
SNCs
and
transmits
it
to
the
EPA
Regions,
which
in
turn
send
it
to
the
States.
Using
this
report,
States
report
the
current
status
of
the
SNCs
to
the
EPA
Regions,
which
in
turn
report
back
to
Headquarters.
This
information
is
provided
to
the
Office
of
Enforcement
and
Compliance
Assurance,
as
part
of
the
Reporting
for
Enforcement
and
Compliance
Assurance
Priorities.
These
data
provide
senior
management
with
information
on
trends
in
drinking
water
enforcement.

EPA
Regions
also
undertake
extensive
data
verification
of
SDWIS
inventory,
violation,
and
enforcement
data.
The
methodology
for
data
verification
includes
review
of
a
statistically
valid
random
sample
of
PWS
inventory,
violation,
enforcement,
milestone,
and
sample
data.
EPA
Regional
staff
conduct
an
on­
site
verification
of
each
sample
system's
data
at
the
offices
of
the
primacy
agency.
Then
the
EPA
Regions
compare
the
recorded
compliance
determined
by
the
data
verification
process
with
the
information
reported
to
SDWIS
and
prepare
reports
summarizing
the
differences.
The
report
summarizes
the
State's
compliance
determination
procedures,
data
verification
process,
observations,
and
any
recommendations
for
improving
program
management.

The
primary
purposes
of
the
data
verification
program
are
to
assess
the
accuracy
and
quality
of
data
collected
and
reported
by
the
States
and
to
recommend
any
necessary
changes
in
collection
or
reporting.
In
addition,
the
process
of
verification
provides
insights
into
the
primacy
agency's
program
implementation.
During
data
verification,
the
EPA
Regional
Office
is
able
to
gain
greater
understanding
of
how
the
primacy
agencies
interpret
and
implement
regulations.
For
example,
EPA
Regional
Offices
can
perform
the
following
activities
 
°
Evaluate
procedures
used
to
manage
the
program.
°
Critique
implementation
methods
used
for
follow­
up
activity,
in
cases
of
violation.
°
Verify
the
flow
of
information
through
the
State
to
ensure
that
the
data
reflect
actual
State
experience.
°
Observe
how
the
program
is
implemented
in
various
primacy
agencies.

The
data
verification
process
also
enables
EPA
Regional
Offices
to
educate
States
about
the
SDWA
regulations
and
to
standardize
interpretations
and
implementation
procedures.
For
example,
a
State's
definition
of
compliance
with
the
Federal
regulations
may
differ
from
the
official
definition.
These
discrepancies
become
evident
during
the
data
verification
process
and
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
7These
definitions
were
taken
from
Section
601
of
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act.

31
can
be
corrected
by
EPA
Regional
and
State
staff.
Thus,
the
data
verification
process
plays
a
crucial
role
in
standardizing
State
implementation
and
enforcement
of
the
SDWA.

5(
c)
Small
Entity
Flexibility
In
developing
this
ICR,
EPA
considered
the
requirement
of
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
(
SBREFA)
to
minimize
the
burden
of
information
collections
on
small
entities.
Small
entities
include
"
small
businesses,"
"
small
organizations"
and
"
small
government
jurisdictions."
These
terms
are
defined
below.
7
A
small
business
is
any
business
that
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
not
dominant
in
its
field
as
defined
by
the
Small
Business
Administration
regulations
under
Section
3
of
the
Small
Business
Act.

A
small
organization
is
any
non­
profit
enterprise
that
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
not
dominant
in
its
field.

A
small
governmental
jurisdiction
is
the
government
of
a
city,
county,
town,
township,
village,
school
district
or
special
district
that
has
a
population
of
fewer
than
50,000.
This
definition
may
also
include
Indian
Tribes.

The
major
requirement
under
SBREFA
is
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
of
all
rules
that
have
a
"
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities."
This
ICR
is
not
associated
with
new
rules.
Therefore,
this
ICR
is
not
subject
to
the
SBREFA.

However,
EPA
has
made
significant
efforts
to
minimize
the
burden
for
all
respondents,
particularly
for
small
entities.
In
setting
both
maximum
contaminant
levels
and
monitoring
requirements,
EPA
has
been
able
to
minimize
burden
for
small
entities
as
detailed
below.

1)
Consumer
Confidence
Reports
EPA's
regulations
allow
systems
serving
fewer
than
10,000
people
to
publish
a
newspaper
notice
in
lieu
of
sending
reports
to
customers.
Under
40
CFR
141.155(
g)(
2),
CWSs
serving
500
or
fewer
people
may
forego
the
notice­
publishing
requirement,
provided
they
give
notice
at
least
annually
to
their
customers
by
mail,
door­
to­
door
delivery,
or
posting
in
an
appropriate
location
that
the
CCR
is
available
upon
request.
In
addition,
only
very
large
systems
(
those
serving
more
than
100,000
people)
must
provide
CCR
information
on
the
Internet.

2)
Primacy
Regulation
Activities
There
are
no
PWS
activities
associated
with
the
PWSS
Program
Primacy
Regulation.
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
32
3)
Variance
&
Exemption
Rule
The
V/
E
Rule
includes
procedures
and
conditions
under
which
the
primacy
agency
(
or
the
EPA
Administrator
in
non­
primacy
States)
may
issue
small
system
variances
or
exemptions
to
public
water
systems
serving
fewer
than
10,000
persons.
The
V/
E
Rule
is
intended
to
provide
regulatory
relief,
while
still
protecting
public
health.
Specifically,
it
permits
primacy
agencies
to
issue
variances
to
small
PWSs
that
cannot
comply
with
the
national
primary
drinking
water
standards
due
to
source
water
quality
or
affordability.
These
variances
generally
allow
a
system
to
provide
drinking
water
that
may
be
above
the
MCL
if
the
drinking
water
quality
is
still
protective
of
public
health.
Duration
of
these
small
system
variances
generally
coincides
with
the
life
of
the
technology.
Exemptions
are
intended
to
allow
a
small
system
with
compelling
circumstances
additional
time
to
comply
with
applicable
SDWA
requirements.
An
exemption
is
limited
to
3
years
after
the
initial
compliance
date
stated
in
the
regulations.

4)
Capacity
Development
Program
EPA's
guidelines
provide
States
with
maximum
flexibility
in
developing
and
implementing
the
capacity
development
program.
As
mentioned
above,
EPA
published
a
document
entitled,
Small
System
Regulatory
Requirements
Under
the
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act
Amendments
of
1996,
which,
among
other
things,
explains
the
requirements
of
the
Capacity
Development
Program.
In
addition,
EPA
published
a
Handbook
for
Capacity
Development:
Developing
Water
System
Capacity
Under
the
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act
Amendments
of
1996
and
is
working
on
several
other
tools
to
help
small
systems
comply.

5)
General
State
Primacy
Activities
There
are
no
PWS
activities
associated
with
the
General
State
Primacy
Activities.

5(
d)
Collection
Schedule
Exhibits
2,
3,
and
4
of
this
document
contain
summaries
of
the
collection
schedules
for
each
rule.
Additional
information
may
be
obtained
by
consulting
the
individual
rules
for
specific
collection
schedules.
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
33
6
ESTIMATING
BURDEN
AND
COST
OF
COLLECTION
This
section
estimates
the
burden
and
cost
to
PWSs,
primacy
agencies,
and
EPA
for
complying
with
drinking
water
information
requirements
that
are
not
associated
with
contaminant­
specific
rulemakings.
These
activities
include
the
following
 
1)
Consumer
Confidence
Reports
2)
Primacy
Regulation
Activities
3)
Variance
and
Exemption
Rule
4)
Capacity
Development
Program
5)
General
State
Primacy
Activities
This
section
also
discusses
the
assumptions
used
to
estimate
costs
and
burden
and
describes
the
change
in
burden,
as
compared
with
the
1993
PWSS
Program
ICR
(
the
currently
effective
PWSS
Program
ICR).

6(
a)
Respondent
Burden
6(
a)(
i)
Burden
to
Public
Water
Systems
The
annual
PWS
burden
for
years
2002
through
2004
is
estimated
to
be
approximately
0.68
million
hours.
Exhibit
5
(
at
the
end
of
Section
6(
a))
shows
the
breakdown
of
the
annual
burden
hours
on
an
activity­
specific
basis.
The
bases
for
the
burden
estimates
are
detailed
below.

1)
Consumer
Confidence
Reports
Consumer
Confidence
Report
regulations
require,
at
a
minimum,
that
each
CWS
mail
to
each
of
its
customers
an
annual
report
on
the
level
of
contaminants
in
the
drinking
water
purveyed
by
that
system.
EPA
estimates
that
CCR
requirements
will
affect
approximately
54,072
PWSs,
all
of
which
are
CWSs,
during
the
course
of
this
ICR
period.
Activities
associated
with
the
preparation
and
delivery
of
CCRs
account
for
527,137
burden
hours
per
year,
which
includes
burden
for
both
CCR
development
and
distribution.

Appendix
F
summarizes
the
assumptions
used
to
calculate
the
CCR
burden
and
provides
detailed
burden
and
cost
calculations.
The
assumptions
used
to
calculate
the
CCR
burden
are
based
largely
on
assumptions
from
the
1998
Consumer
Confidence
Reports
for
Community
Water
Systems
ICR.
For
the
2001
PWSS
Program
ICR,
these
assumptions
have
been
augmented
or
supplanted
where
updated
data
were
available.
Section
6(
f)
describes
the
reasons
for
changes
in
burden
and
shows
the
affects
of
any
new
assumptions
on
the
CCR
burden
estimates.

Report
Development
Preparing
a
CCR
includes
assembling
data,
writing
the
report,
ensuring
that
the
notice
meets
regulatory
requirements,
and
printing
the
document.
Burden
estimates
range
from
4
hours
for
CWSs
serving
500
or
fewer
people
to
23
hours
for
CWSs
serving
at
least
10,000
people.
After
completion
of
CCR
preparation
activities,
all
CWSs,
regardless
of
size,
are
assumed
to
have
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
34
the
same
burden
(
0.12
hours)
for
submitting
to
the
State
a
copy
of
the
CCR
distributed
to
customers.
Certification
that
the
reports
were,
in
fact,
distributed
is
also
required
along
with
the
report.
Finally,
all
CWSs,
regardless
of
size,
are
assumed
to
have
the
same
burden
(
0.25
hours)
for
maintaining
a
copy
of
the
CCR
and
making
it
publicly
available,
if
requested.

Report
Delivery
The
burden
estimate
for
CCR
delivery
includes
the
following
activities
and
assumptions
 
$
Except
for
CWSs
serving
500
or
fewer
people,
all
CWSs
incur
a
burden
for
publishing
a
notice
about
obtaining
a
CCR.
The
burden
per
system
for
this
activity
is
0.25
hours.
For
systems
serving
at
least
10,000
people,
publication
is
in
addition
to
report
delivery
to
customers.
For
systems
serving
fewer
than
10,000
people,
this
ICR
assumes
that
50
percent
of
systems
will
publish
a
notice
in
lieu
of
sending
reports
to
customers.

$
Under
40
CFR
141.155(
g)(
2),
CWSs
serving
500
or
fewer
people
may
forego
the
notice­
publishing
requirement,
provided
they
give
notice
at
least
annually
to
their
customers
by
mail,
door­
to­
door
delivery,
or
posting
in
an
appropriate
location
that
the
CCR
is
available
upon
request.
This
ICR
assumes
that
50
percent
of
these
CWSs
post
the
report
and
50
percent
deliver
the
report
to
their
customers
as
part
of
their
standard
water
bill.
Those
that
post
the
CCR
are
estimated
to
incur
a
burden
of
0.12
hours
for
this
activity.

$
Regardless
of
CWS
size
category,
this
ICR
assumes
a
burden
of
1
hour
per
system
for
coordinating
delivery
of
the
CCR
as
a
bill
stuffer.
CWSs
serving
10,000
or
more
people
must
deliver
the
CCR
to
all
service
connections.
However,
CWSs
serving
fewer
than
10,000
people
may
apply
to
the
State
Governor
(
or
Tribal
Leader)
for
a
waiver
of
this
requirement
to
deliver
a
CCR
to
each
customer.
This
ICR
assumes
that
half
of
such
CWSs
will
receive
a
waiver.
For
CWSs
serving
500
or
fewer
people,
the
50
percent
without
a
waiver
are
assumed
to
include
the
CCR
along
with
the
normal
water
bill
(
instead
of
sending
the
CCR
in
a
separate
mailing).
For
CWSs
serving
between
501
and
10,000
people,
half
of
the
systems
without
a
waiver
(
or
25
percent
of
the
total
number
of
CWSs
in
this
size
category)
are
assumed
to
include
the
CCR
as
a
bill
stuffer,
and
the
remaining
systems
will
mail
the
CCR
separately.

$
Under
§
141.155(
f),
CWSs
serving
at
least
100,000
people
must
post
a
copy
of
the
current
CCR
on
a
publicly
accessible
Internet
site.
This
burden
is
estimated
at
0.5
hours
per
system.

2)
Primacy
Regulation
Activities
There
is
no
PWS
burden
associated
with
Primacy
Regulation
activities.
3)
Variance
and
Exemption
Rule
The
1998
V/
E
ICR
recognized
that
an
exact
burden
could
not
be
estimated
because
the
number
of
requested
variances
and
exemptions
was
impossible
to
estimate,
given
that
EPA
had
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
8The
2001
PWSS
Program
ICR,
like
the
1998
V/
E
ICR,
addresses
variances
and
exemptions
for
NPDWRs,
regardless
of
whether
the
monitoring
requirements
for
the
standards
are
included
in
the
PWSS
Program
ICR.

35
not
yet
identified
cases
in
which
small
system
variances
would
be
available.
8
Instead,
the
1998
V/
E
ICR
provided
a
hypothetical
variance/
exemption
burden
by
considering
possible
requests
for
the
Chemical
Phase
Rules
and
the
Lead
and
Copper
Rule.
Specifically,
that
ICR
assumed
that
all
systems
incurring
either
a
treatment
technique
or
MCL
violation
would
apply
for
a
variance.
Under
this
hypothetical
scenario,
the
annual
burden
for
PWSs
was
estimated
at
13,050
hours.

Because
EPA
has
not
yet
specified
variance
technologies
for
new
or
existing
drinking
water
standards,
an
exact
burden
for
associated
activities
remains
impossible
to
estimate.
Therefore,
the
V/
E
burden
included
in
the
2001
PWSS
Program
ICR
has
been
carried
forward
from
the
1998
V/
E
ICR.
There
have
been
no
programmatic
changes
in
the
V/
E
program
that
would
require
changes
in
these
burden
estimates.

4)
Capacity
Development
The
Capacity
Development
Program,
which
was
added
pursuant
to
the
1996
SDWA
Amendments,
is
a
State
effort
to
help
drinking
water
systems
improve
their
finances,
management,
infrastructure,
and
operations
so
they
can
provide
safe
drinking
water
consistently,
reliably,
and
cost­
effectively.
EPA
estimates
that
capacity
development
will
affect
approximately
43,747
PWSs,
including
CWSs,
NTNCWSs,
and
transient
noncommunity
water
systems
(
TNCWSs),
during
the
course
of
this
ICR
period.
The
Capacity
Development
Program
consists
of
two
major
components
 
(
1)
Implementation
of
a
program
to
ensure
that
all
new
CWSs
and
NTNCWSs
demonstrate
the
capacity
to
comply
with
NPDWRs.

(
2)
Implementation
of
a
strategy
to
assist
existing
PWSs
in
acquiring
and
maintaining
capacity
to
comply
with
the
SDWA.

The
burden
estimate
associated
with
new
and
existing
capacity
development
efforts
is
based
on
expert
opinions,
including
opinions
provided
by
members
of
the
NDWAC
Small
Systems
Workgroup.
Specifically,
the
burden
estimate
includes
the
following
activities
and
assumptions
 

New
systems
must
demonstrate
capacity
in
order
to
obtain
approval.
Each
new
system
applying
for
approval
will
require
40
hours
to
prepare
and
submit
new
system
approval
materials
to
the
State.
This
burden
estimate
does
not
include
compliance
with
State
technical
requirements
since
these
were
generally
unaffected
by
the
capacity
development
provisions.
EPA
estimates
that
there
will
be
an
average
of
8
new
systems
per
State
per
year.


Some
new
systems
must
improve
capacity
in
order
to
obtain
approval.
An
estimated
20
percent
of
new
systems
applying
for
approval
will
be
required
to
submit
supplemental
materials
before
approval
is
granted
by
the
State.
To
develop
and
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
36
submit
these
materials,
it
is
estimated
that
each
system
denied
initial
approval
will
require
an
additional
20
hours.
As
with
the
approval
application,
it
is
estimated
that
there
will
be
8
new
systems
per
State
per
year
(
20
percent
of
which
will
be
required
to
submit
supplementary
materials)
and
that
the
burden
estimate
does
not
include
the
time
needed
to
comply
with
technical
requirements.


Some
existing
systems
will
incur
burden
for
complying
with
State
capacity
development
strategies.
Each
year,
EPA
estimates
that
20
percent
of
CWSs,
7
percent
of
NTNCWSs,
and
2.5
percent
of
TNCWSs
will
incur
a
burden
to
comply
with
State
capacity
development
strategy
efforts.
EPA
estimates
that
these
systems
will
spend,
on
average,
8
hours
per
year
participating
in
capacity
development
strategy
activities
(
primarily
consultations
with
States).

Based
on
these
assumptions,
EPA
estimates
that
the
average
annual
burden
to
PWSs
will
be
approximately
136,723
hours
for
capacity
development
activities.

5)
General
State
Primacy
Activities
There
is
no
PWS
burden
associated
with
general
State
primacy
activities.

6(
a)(
ii)
Burden
to
Primacy
Agencies
The
annual
burden
for
State
primacy
agencies
for
years
2002
through
2004
is
estimated
to
be
approximately
1.16
million
hours.
Exhibit
6
(
at
the
end
of
Section
6(
a))
shows
the
annual
burden
hours
on
an
activity­
specific
basis.
The
following
briefly
describes
the
bases
for
the
burden
estimates:

1)
Consumer
Confidence
Reports
Primacy
agencies
are
expected
to
incur
a
burden
for
information
collection
activities
associated
with
preparation
assistance,
review,
and
filing
of
CCRs.
The
total
annual
State
burden
is
estimated
at
112,368
hours.

Appendix
F
contains
detailed
burden
and
cost
assumptions
and
calculations
for
primacy
agencies.

2)
Primacy
Regulation
Activities
Revisions
to
State
Primacy
Requirements
to
Implement
Federal
Drinking
Water
Regulations
was
promulgated
on
April
28,
1998.
With
extensions,
a
State
has
until
April
28,
2002,
to
submit
a
primacy
revision
application
for
administrative
penalty
authority.
This
ICR
covers
the
extension
period
for
the
States
that
have
not
yet
submitted
their
revision
applications.
For
the
period
covered
by
this
ICR,
the
average
annual
burden
associated
with
all
of
the
activities
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
9
All
burden
for
Primacy
Regulation
activities
will
occur
before
April
28,
2002.
However,
the
116­
hour
annual
burden
represents
the
burden
distributed
over
the
3­
year
ICR
period.

37
associated
with
the
Primacy
Regulations
is
estimated
to
be
116
hours.
9
Appendix
G
provides
detailed
burden
and
cost
calculations
associated
with
each
activity.

3)
Variance
and
Exemption
Rule
As
discussed
in
Section
6(
a)(
i),
an
exact
burden
for
variance
and
exemption
activities
is
impossible
to
estimate
because
EPA
has
not
yet
specified
variance
technologies
for
new
or
existing
drinking
water
standards.
Therefore,
the
V/
E
annual
burden
included
in
the
2001
PWSS
Program
ICRC109,080
hours
per
year
for
primacy
agenciesC
has
been
carried
forward
from
the
1998
V/
E
ICR.
Section
6(
a)(
i)
explains
the
derivation
of
this
burden.
There
have
been
no
programmatic
changes
in
the
V/
E
program
that
would
require
changes
in
these
burden
estimates.

4)
Capacity
Development
Program
As
discussed
in
Section
6(
a)(
i),
the
Capacity
Development
Program,
which
was
added
pursuant
to
the
1996
SDWA
Amendments,
is
a
State
effort
to
help
drinking
water
systems
improve
their
finances,
management,
infrastructure,
and
operations
so
they
can
provide
safe
drinking
water
consistently,
reliably,
and
cost­
effectively.
The
program
consists
of
two
major
components
 
(
1)
Implementation
of
a
program
to
ensure
that
all
new
CWSs
and
NTNCWSs
demonstrate
the
capacity
to
comply
with
NPDWRs.

(
2)
Implementation
of
a
strategy
to
assist
existing
PWSs
in
acquiring
and
maintaining
capacity
to
comply
with
the
SDWA.

The
burden
estimate
associated
with
new
and
existing
capacity
development
efforts
is
based
on
expert
opinions,
including
opinions
provided
by
members
of
the
NDWAC
Small
Systems
Workgroup.
Specifically,
the
burden
estimate
assumes
that
 

States
must
review
and
approve
applications
for
new
systems.
This
ICR
assumes
that,
on
average,
there
will
be
8
new
systems
per
State
per
year.
It
will
take
State
personnel
an
estimated
16
hours
per
system
to
review
new
system
documentation
and
information.
Because
all
States
already
had
rigorous
technical
review
requirements,
the
capacity
development
provisions
will
not
change
existing
State
effort.
Therefore,
the
estimated
burden
does
not
include
the
review
of
technical
information.


Some
applications
for
new
systems
will
require
State
followup.
Upon
initial
review,
all
new
systems
likely
will
not
meet
States'
capacity
criteria.
An
estimated
20
percent
of
new
systems
applying
for
approval
each
year
will
be
required
to
submit
supplemental
materials.
It
is
estimated
that
a
State
will
need
8
hours
per
system
to
review
these
materials.
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
38

States
must
provide
capacity
development
assistance
to
some
existing
systems.
One
element
that
States
must
consider
in
their
capacity
development
strategies
is
how
to
identify
and
prioritize
the
PWSs
most
in
need
of
improving
capacity.
In
estimating
this
burden,
EPA
assumed
that
States
will
assist
20
percent
of
CWSs,
7
percent
of
NTNCWSs,
and
2.5
percent
of
TNCWSs
each
year.
EPA
estimates
that,
on
average,
a
State
will
dedicate
4
hours
of
assistance
to
each
of
these
existing
systems.


States
must
develop
and
submit
an
SNC
list.
States
must
submit
to
EPA
a
list
of
CWSs
and
NTNCWSs
that
have
a
history
of
SNC
and,
to
the
extent
practicable,
the
reasons
for
their
noncompliance.
States
must
submit
the
list
every
3
years.
Therefore,
burden
for
one
list
per
State
has
been
included
in
this
ICR.
It
will
take
an
estimated
24
hours
per
State
to
prepare
this
list,
for
an
average
annual
burden
of
8
hours
per
State.


Each
State
must
write
and
submit
to
the
Governor
a
report
on
the
progress
and
success
of
its
strategy.
Not
later
than
two
years
after
a
State
adopts
a
capacity
development
strategy,
and
every
three
years
thereafter,
the
primacy
agency
must
submit
a
report
to
the
State's
Governor
on
the
progress
and
success
of
its
strategy.
The
first
such
report
is
due
no
later
than
August
6,
2002.
It
will
take
an
estimated
40
hours
to
coordinate
and
prepare
this
report,
for
an
average
annual
burden
of
13.3
hours
per
State.

In
total,
the
average
annual
State
burden
for
capacity
development
efforts
is
69,851
hours
per
year.

5)
General
State
Primacy
Activities
As
illustrated
in
Exhibit
6,
approximately
868,000
hoursCis
for
activities
that
cannot
be
associated
with
specific
drinking
water
rules
or
programs.
These
"
general
primacy
activities"
include
 
°
Submission
of
grant
applications.
Primacy
agencies
are
eligible
to
receive
program
grants
from
EPA
to
implement
their
PWSS
programs.
To
receive
the
grants
they
must
prepare
program
plans
describing
their
planned
activities
and
use
of
the
grant
funds.
Primacy
agencies
must
apply
for
the
grants
on
an
annual
basis.

°
File
management
(
recordkeeping).
Each
primacy
agency
is
required
to
maintain
records
of
tests,
measurements,
analyses,
decisions,
and
determinations
performed
on
each
PWS
to
assess
compliance
with
the
provisions
of
the
State's
primary
drinking
water
regulations.

°
Maintenance
of
data
systems,
including
PWS
inventory.
Each
primacy
agency
must
develop
a
method
of
storing
all
PWS
inventory,
compliance,
and
enforcement
information
that
it
uses
to
operate
its
PWSS
oversight
program.
While
EPA
does
not
prescribe
a
storage
method,
States
generally
store
this
information
electronically
because
of
the
volume
of
data
involved.
States
must
routinely
enter
new
inventory,
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
39
compliance,
and
enforcement
data
into
their
data
systems.
States
must
also
modify
their
data
systems
as
necessary.

°
Submission
of
ongoing
violation
reports.
Each
primacy
agency
must
provide
EPA
with
information
regarding
all
violations
of
the
State
drinking
water
regulations
and
with
other
selected
water
system
information
that
is
necessary
to
determine
compliance
with
the
drinking
water
requirements.
States
must
also
provide
new
and
updated
water
system
inventory
information
on
an
annual
basis.

°
Laboratory
certifications.
The
State
PWSS
programs
require
that
water
systems
conduct
routine
monitoring
of
water
quality
to
ensure
that
the
water
produced
meets
all
regulatory
standards.
States
must
have
some
method
of
ensuring
that
the
laboratories
conducting
these
analyses
are
qualified
and
capable
of
performing
the
tests.
As
a
result,
States
must
establish
and
maintain
a
program
for
certifying
laboratories
that
may
conduct
the
required
compliance
monitoring
for
PWSs.

°
Plan
and
project
reviews.
Primacy
agencies
must
establish
and
maintain
a
program
that
assures
the
design
and
construction
of
new
or
modified
water
system
facilities
that
are
capable
of
complying
with
the
State
primary
drinking
water
regulations.
Most
States
achieve
this
assurance
by
requiring
State
review
and
approval
of
plans
and
specifications
for
drinking
water
facility
construction.

°
Oversight
of
compliance
monitoring,
including
issuing
notices
of
violation
and
ensuring
appropriate
follow­
up
activities.
States
must
ensure
that
water
systems
monitor
in
accordance
with
the
regulations.
Where
monitoring
does
not
occur,
States
must
take
action
to
ensure
that
systems
monitor
so
that
the
quality
of
water
is
known
and
so
that
any
appropriate
actions
can
be
taken.
Where
violations
occur
and
are
not
expeditiously
corrected,
States
must
take
appropriate
enforcement
follow­
up
actions.
States
must
maintain
administrative
penalty
authority
and
the
right
to
sue
to
ensure
the
effectiveness
of
their
enforcement
programs.

°
Training
activities.
Primacy
agencies
conduct
training
for
both
State
staff
and
for
PWS
owners
and
operators.
Training
is
ongoing
for
all
program
components
(
for
new
staff
and
owners/
operators).

°
Participation
in
program
reviews.
EPA
conducts
annual
reviews
of
each
State
primacy
program
to
ensure
that
the
current
program
activities
are
consistent
with
the
current
program
direction
and
goals
and
with
the
program
plan
submitted
as
part
of
the
PWSS
grant
application.
States
routinely
participate
in
other
reviews,
such
as
data
audits
of
their
State
data
management
programs.

Burden
for
these
activities
was
estimated
using
the
State
Workload
Model.
This
model
was
designed
to
estimate
the
resources
needed
to
fund
State
drinking
water
programs.
It
contains
a
comprehensive
list
of
activities
required
to
operate
a
drinking
water
program,
including
estimates
of
the
number
of
systems
impacted.
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
40
Exhibit
5
Annual
PWS
Burden
and
Cost
2002­
2004
Activity
Annual
Burden
Hours
Annual
Cost
Responses
O&
M
Cost
($
K)
Labor
Cost
($
K)
Total
Cost
($
K)

CCR
527,137
$
13,052
$
12,667
$
25,719
220,415
Primacy
Regulations
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
V/
E
13,050
$
0
$
314
$
314
8,665
Capacity
Development
136,723
$
0
$
3,285
$
3,285
15,072
General
State
Primacy
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
TOTAL
676,910
$
13,052
$
16,266
$
29,318
244,152
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
41
Exhibit
6
Annual
State
Burden
and
Cost
2002­
2004
Activity
Annual
Burden
Hours
Annual
Cost
O&
M
Cost
($
K)
Labor
Cost
($
K)
Total
Cost
($
K)

CCR
112,368
$
0
$
3,246
$
3,246
Primacy
Regulation
116
$
0
$
7
$
7
V/
E
109,080
$
0
$
3,151
$
3,151
Capacity
Development
69,851
$
0
$
2,018
$
2,018
General
State
Primacy
867,933
$
500
$
25,072
$
25,572
TOTAL
1,159,348
$
500
$
33,494
$
33,994
6(
b)
Respondent
Costs
6(
b)(
i)
Cost
to
Public
Water
Systems
Exhibit
5
shows
the
total
costs
for
PWSs
over
the
3­
year
ICR
period.
Annual
costs
are
estimated
at
approximately
$
29.3
million,
which
consists
of
$
13.0
million
in
operation
and
maintenance
(
O&
M)
costs
and
$
16.3
million
in
labor
costs.

Labor
costs
are
based
on
the
number
of
burden
hours
times
the
average
hourly
wage
rate,
including
overhead.
The
average
hourly
wage
rate
is
the
rate
quoted
by
the
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
(
BLS)
for
Standard
Industrial
Classification
(
SIC)
Code
51­
8031,
"
Local
GovernmentCWater
and
Liquid
Waste
Treatment
Plant
and
System
Operators."
The
quoted
rate
was
$
14.69
in
1999
dollars
(
see
http://
stats.
bls.
gov).
For
consistency,
this
rate
has
been
inflated
to
September
2000
dollars
using
the
Employment
Cost
Index.
The
inflated
rate
is
$
15.02.
In
addition,
60
percent
overhead
was
assumed,
bringing
the
loaded
rate
to
$
24.03
in
September
2000
dollars.

In
addition
to
the
labor
costs,
there
are
O&
M
costs
associated
with
the
CCR.
These
costs
reflect
non­
labor
costs
associated
with
printing,
delivery,
posting,
and
publishing
CCRs.
These
costs
were
carried
forward
from
the
1998
CCR
ICR,
updated
with
current
cost
information
(
e.
g.,
postage
rates),
and
adjusted
for
inflation.
CCR
O&
M
costs
and
associated
calculations
are
presented
in
greater
detail
in
Appendix
F.

There
are
no
capital
costs
associated
with
this
ICR.
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
10
According
to
the
ICR
Handbook,
an
employee
works
an
average
of
2,080
hours
in
one
year.

11
The
salaries
of
the
State
Attorneys
General
were
taken
from
The
Book
of
the
States,
vol.
31
(
Lexington:
The
Council
of
State
Governments,
1996).

42
6(
b)(
ii)
Cost
to
Primacy
Agencies
Exhibit
6
shows
that
the
annual
costs
to
primacy
agencies
is
estimated
at
approximately
$
34.0
million.
O&
M
costs
account
for
$
0.5
million,
and
the
remaining
$
33.5
million
are
labor
costs.
The
labor
costs
are
based
on
an
average
full
time
equivalent
(
FTE)
cost
of
$
60,086
including
overhead,
which
equates
to
approximately
$
28.89
per
hour.
10
This
rate,
which
has
been
inflated
to
year
2000
dollars,
is
based
on
the
rate
($
55,000)
suggested
by
the
workgroup
that
developed
the
State
Workload
Model
in
1997.
For
activities
associated
with
the
Primacy
Regulation,
EPA
used
an
average
rate
of
$
68.60
per
hour
(
in
year
2000
dollars)
for
those
activities
carried
out
by
State
Attorneys
General.
11
No
other
State
activities
have
significant
costs
at
this
higher
rate.

The
O&
M
costs
under
General
State
Primacy
Activities
($
0.5
million)
are
associated
with
maintenance
of
State
data
systems.
This
is
a
rough
estimate
based
on
input
from
the
State
Workload
Model.

6(
c)
Agency
Burden
and
Costs
Costs
to
the
Federal
government
are
incurred
by
EPA's
drinking
water
program
in
Headquarters
and
Regions
to
assist
States
in
implementing
drinking
water
regulations.
In
previous
ICRs
for
the
PWSS
Program,
costs
associated
with
EPA's
enforcement
and
compliance
activities
in
Headquarters
and
the
Regions
were
also
included
in
the
Agency's
burden
and
cost
estimates.
With
the
implementation
of
the
Government
Performance
and
Results
Act
in
Federal
Fiscal
Year
1999,
it
is
difficult
to
glean
the
resources
(
FTEs
and
dollars)
for
drinking
water
enforcement
and
compliance
activities
from
the
overall
Office
of
Enforcement
and
Compliance
Assistance
operating
plan.
Thus,
this
section
presents
only
the
burden
and
costs
incurred
by
EPA's
water
program,
especially
drinking
water
protection,
in
Headquarters
and
Regions.
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
burden
and
costs
presented
below
cover
ongoing
activities
for
all
EPA
drinking
water
programs
(
not
just
those
listed
in
this
ICR),

EPA
Headquarters
There
are
44
Headquarters
FTEs
dedicated
to
drinking
water
protection
implementation
activities
in
the
Federal
Fiscal
Year
2001
(
FY01)
operating
plan.
The
following
assumptions
were
used
to
develop
a
cost
estimate
for
Headquarters
 
$
The
average
salary
and
benefits
(
i.
e.,
personnel
compensation
and
benefits
(
PC&
B))
of
the
44
FTEs
is
at
the
GS
13,
Step
5
level
of
$
85,200.

$
There
are
2,080
hours
per
person­
year.

Given
these
assumptions,
the
following
calculations
yield
the
annual
cost
for
Headquarters
 
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
12This
is
a
simplifying
assumption.
Primacy
activities
for
Wyoming
and
the
District
of
Columbia
are
actually
carried
out
by
the
respective
EPA
Regional
offices.

43

The
44
FTEs
equal
91,520
hours
(
44*
2,080).


The
labor
cost
of
44
FTEs
is
$
3,748,800
(
44*$
85,200).

EPA
Regional
Offices
There
are
192
Regional
FTEs
dedicated
to
drinking
water
protection
implementation
activities
in
the
Federal
FY01
operating
plan.
The
following
assumptions
are
used
to
develop
a
cost
estimate
for
the
Regions
 
$
The
average
salary
and
benefits
(
i.
e.,
PC&
B)
of
the192
FTEs
is
at
the
GS
11,
Step
5
level
of
$
60,000.

$
There
are
2,080
hours
per
person­
year.

Given
these
assumptions,
the
following
calculations
yield
the
annual
cost
for
the
10
EPA
Regional
offices
 
$
The
192
FTEs
equal
399,360
hours
(
192*
2,080).

$
The
labor
cost
of
192
FTEs
is
$
11,520,000
(
192*$
60,000).

The
total
cost
to
the
Federal
government
is
the
cost
to
Headquarters
($
3,748,800)
and
the
cost
to
EPA
Regional
offices
($
11,520,000)
for
a
total
of
$
15,268,800.
Similarly,
the
total
burden
to
the
Federal
government
(
HQ
and
Regions)
is
490,880
hours
for
236
FTEs.

6(
d)
Estimating
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Burden
and
Costs
Respondents
for
this
ICR
include
both
PWSs
and
States
or
other
primacy
agencies.
This
ICR
estimates
the
number
of
PWS
respondents
at
168,245,
which
reflects
167,837
existing
PWSs
and
408
new
PWSs
that
must
meet
information
collection
requirements
associated
with
capacity
development.
All
PWSs
are
not
necessarily
subject
to
each
of
the
information
collection
requirements
contained
in
this
ICR.
The
regulations
associated
with
each
ICR
will
identify
the
types
of
PWSs
that
are
subject
to
each
particular
drinking
water
regulation.

In
addition
to
the
PWS
respondents,
this
ICR
assumes
57
primacy
agencies
(
50
States
plus
D.
C.,
U.
S.
territories,
and
the
Navajo
Nation).
12
Therefore,
the
total
number
of
respondents
is
168,302.

The
total
costs
and
burden
for
these
respondents
are
summarized
in
Exhibits
5
and
6.
Agency
costs
and
burden
are
detailed
in
Section
6(
c).

6(
e)
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
13
This
represents
the
"
cost
burden"
as
reported
in
the
OMB
inventory.
Note
that
there
are
no
capital
costs
associated
with
this
ICR.

44
The
bottom
line
burden
hours
and
costs
appear
in
Exhibit
7.
The
total
annual
respondent
burden
associated
with
this
ICR
is
estimated
to
be
approximately
1.84
million
burden
hours.
The
corresponding
total
annual
respondent
costs
are
estimated
to
be
$
63.3
million.
The
total
national
burden,
including
respondent
burden
and
EPA
burden,
is
estimated
to
be
2.33
million
hours
annually.
The
total
national
cost,
for
respondents
and
EPA,
is
estimated
to
be
$
78.6
million
annually.

Exhibit
7
Bottom
Line
Annual
Burden
and
Cost
2002­
2004
Number
of
Respondents
168,302
=
167,837
+
408
+
57
Existing
PWSs
New
PWSs
Primacy
agencies
Total
Annual
Responses
244,209
=
244,152
+
57
PWS
responses
Responses
from
primacy
agencies
(
assumed
1
response/
respondent)

Number
of
Responses
per
Respondent
1.45
=
244,209
/
168,302
Total
annual
responses
from
above
Total
respondents
from
above
Total
Respondent
Hours
1,836,258
=
676,910
+
1,159,348
PWS
hours
Primacy
agency
hours
Hours
per
Response
7.5
=
1,836,258
/
244,209
Total
annual
hours
from
above
Total
responses
from
above
Annual
O&
M
and
Capital
Cost13
13,552k
=
13,052k
500k
Total
PWS
O&
M
costs
Total
primacy
agency
O&
M
costs
Total
Respondent
Cost
$
63,312k
=
$
29,318k
+
$
33,994k
For
PWSs
For
primacy
agencies
Total
Hours
(
resp.
plus
Agency)
2,327,138
=
1,836,258
+
490,880
Total
respondent
hours
Total
EPA
hours
Total
Cost
(
resp.
plus
Agency)
$
78,581k
=
$
63,312k
$
15,269k
Total
respondent
cost
Total
EPA
cost
Note:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
total
due
to
independent
rounding.

6(
f)
Reasons
for
Change
in
Burden
This
section
presents
the
change
in
burden
and
explains
the
reasons
for
the
change
in
burden.
The
discussion
is
divided
into
seven
parts
 
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
45

Section
6(
f)(
i)
summarizes
the
differences
between
the
burden
estimated
in
the
December
20,
1993,
PWSS
Program
ICR
and
the
current
OMB
inventory
for
the
PWSS
Program
ICR.
See
Exhibit
9.


Section
6(
f)(
ii)
summarizes
an
adjustment
to
the
current
OMB
inventory
to
reintroduce
burden
hours
that
were
inadvertently
removed
more
than
once.
See
Exhibit
10.


Section
6(
f)(
iii)
summarizes
restructuring
adjustments
to
the
inventory
that
are
expected
to
take
affect
before
approval
of
the
PWSS
Program
ICR.
See
Exhibit
11.


Section
6(
f)(
iv)
summarizes
adjustments
to
correct
the
ICR
for
activities
that
are
currently
accounted
for
both
in
the
PWSS
Program
ICR
inventory
and
in
the
inventory
for
another
ICR.
See
Exhibit
12.


Section
6(
f)(
v)
summarizes
program
changes
that
address
activities
recently
added
to
the
PWSS
Program
ICR.
See
Exhibit
13.


Section
6(
f)(
vi)
summarizes
adjustments
to
burden
for
incorporating
ICRs
that
were
previously
stand­
alone
ICRs
into
the
current
PWSS
Program
ICR.
See
Exhibit
14.


Section
6(
f)(
vii)
summarizes
other
adjustments
to
the
burden
estimates
associated
with
rules
that
remain
in
the
PWSS
Program
ICR.
See
Exhibit
17.

Exhibit
8
summarizes
how
each
of
these
changes
has
affected
the
overall
burden
inventory
for
the
PWSS
Program
ICR.
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
46
Exhibit
8
Reasons
for
Change
in
Annual
Burden
(
Includes
both
PWS
and
Primacy
Agency
Burden)

Type
of
Change
Change
Running
Total
Comment
Burden
Estimated
in
the
1993
PWSS
Program
ICR
11,214,547
11,214,547
This
is
the
burden
estimated
in
the
December
20,
1993,
PWSS
Program
ICR.

Changes
and
Adjustments
to
the
Inventory
C
see
Section
6(
f)(
i)
(
1,683,375)
9,531,172
Current
OMB
inventory.

Reintroduction
of
Hours
Incorrectly
Removed
from
Inventory
C
see
Section
6(
f)(
ii)
105,002
9,636,174
Revised
inventory
after
reintroduction
of
hours
that
were
incorrectly
removed.

Pending
Adjustments
to
the
Inventory
C
see
Section
6(
f)(
iii)
(
8,349,789)
1,286,385
Anticipated
OMB
inventory
after
PWSS
ICR
restructuring.

Adjustments
to
correct
for
"
double­
counting"
C
see
Section
6(
f)(
iv)
(
965,173)
321,212
Burden
after
removing
items
that
are
also
addressed
in
other
ICRs.

Program
changes
C
see
Section
6(
f)(
v)
206,574
527,786
Burden
after
adding
new
programs
(
Capacity
Development).

Incorporation
of
stand­
alone
ICRs
C
see
Section
6(
f)(
vi)
558,600
1,086,386
Burden
after
incorporating
standalone
ICRs
(
CCR
and
Primacy
Regulations).

Adjustments
to
rules
carried
forward
from
existing
ICRs
C
see
Section
6(
f)(
vii)
749,872
1,836,258
Burden
for
which
EPA
seeks
approval
in
this
ICR.

Note:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.

6(
f)(
i)
Burden
Changes
Approved
by
OMB
The
burden
estimated
in
the
December
20,
1993,
PWSS
Program
ICRCand
approved
by
OMBCwas
11,214,547
hours.
Since
then,
the
actions
summarized
below
have
been
made
to
the
official
OMB
inventory.
These
changes
are
summarized
in
Exhibit
9;
documentation
of
these
changes
is
included
in
Appendix
B.


September
27,
1995:
OMB
approved
the
Public
Notification
ICR:
In
response
to
PRA
amendments
that
required
EPA
to
estimate
burden
associated
with
public
education
and
notification,
the
PN
ICR
amended
the
PWSS
Program
ICR.
It
added
1,276,735
hours
for
public
notification,
bringing
the
new
inventory
to
12,491,282.


March
27,
1996:
Proposed
Modifications
to
the
National
Primary
Drinking
Water
Regulations
for
Lead
and
Copper:
As
a
result
of
anticipated
minor
revisions
to
the
LCR,
a
downward
revision
of
105,002
hours
per
year
was
made
to
the
LCR
burden
in
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
47
the
PWSS
Program
ICR
inventory,
resulting
in
a
new
burden
total
of
12,386,280
hours.


September
29,
1998:
OMB
re­
approved
the
1993
ICR,
making
it
effective
until
September
30,
2001.


September
30,
1998:
Variance
and
Exemption
ICR:
The
V/
E
ICR
amended
the
PWSS
Program
ICR.
It
added
122,130
burden
hours,
resulting
in
a
new
total
of
12,508,410
hours.


October
5,
1999:
Removal
of
Lead
and
Copper
Burden:
The
1999
LCR
ICR
estimated
the
impact
of
the
regulatory
amendments
and
incorporated
all
burden
associated
with
the
LCR.
Through
a
PRA
Change
Worksheet
(
OMB
83­
C),
2,977,238
burden
hours
associated
with
the
LCR
were
removed
from
the
PWSS
inventory,
resulting
in
a
new
total
of
9,531,172
hours.
The
2,977,238
hours
included
1,235,694
hours
for
non­
public
education
activities,
321,544
hours
for
public
education
and
public
notification,
and
1,420,000
hours
of
State
burden.
These
burden
hours
represent
all
of
the
approved
LCR
burden
in
the
1993
PWSS
Program
ICR.

Exhibit
9
Changes
to
the
Burden
Inventory
for
the
PWSS
Program
ICR
(
Includes
both
PWS
and
Primacy
Agency
Burden)

Action
Annual
Burden
Hours
Brief
Explanation
N/
A
11,214,547
Opening
Inventory
from
1993
PWSS
Program
ICR
(
includes
SWTR;
TCR;
TTHMs;
1976
inorganic
standards;
1976
radionuclides
standards;
Phase
I
VOCs;
Phase
II
SOCs,
VOCs,
IOCs,
and
unregulated
contaminants;
Phase
IIB;
Phase
V
IOCs,
SOCs,
and
VOCs;
and
the
LCR)

Add
1,276,735
Public
Notification
(
1995)

Subtotal
12,491,282
Updated
Inventory
after
Addition
of
Public
Notification
ICR
(
see
OMB
Approval
Form
in
Appendix
B)

Subtract
105,002
Adjustment
in
burden
based
on
anticipated
minor
revisions
to
the
LCR
(
1996)

Subtotal
12,386,280
Re­
approved
inventory,
as
of
9/
29/
98
Add
122,130
Variance
&
Exemption
ICR
(
1998)

Subtotal
12,508,410
OMB
Inventory,
as
of
9/
30/
98
Subtract
2,977,238
Lead
and
Copper
Rule
Change
Worksheet
(
1999)

Subtotal
9,531,172
Updated
Inventory,
as
of
6/
1/
01
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
48
6(
f)(
ii)
Reintroduction
of
Burden
Hours
Inadvertently
Removed
from
Inventory
As
stated
in
Section
6(
f)(
i),
in
1996,
105,002
burden
hours
were
removed
from
the
annual
PWSS
Program
ICR
burden
in
response
to
anticipated
minor
revisions
to
the
LCR.
In
1999,
2,977,238
burden
hours
associated
with
the
LCR
were
also
removed
from
the
PWSS.
However,
the
2,977,238
hours
did
not
account
for
the
hours
already
removed
in
1996.
Therefore,
these
105,002
hours
were
effectively
removed
twice.
In
order
to
correct
for
this
oversight,
105,002
hours
are
being
reintroduced
into
the
PWSS
Program
ICR
annual
burden.
Exhibit
10
summarizes
this
reintroduction
of
hours.

Exhibit
10
Reintroduction
of
Incorrectly
Removed
Burden
(
Includes
both
PWS
and
Primacy
Agency
Burden)

Action
Annual
Burden
Hours
Brief
Explanation
None
9,531,172
Current
OMB
Inventory
(
see
Exhibit
9)

Add
105,002
Reintroduction
of
incorrectly
removed
LCR
burden
Total
9,636,174
Inventory
after
reintroduction
of
LCR
burden
hours
6(
f)(
iii)
Restructuring
Adjustments
to
the
Approved
OMB
Inventory
for
the
PWSS
Program
ICR
As
summarized
in
Exhibit
11,
EPA
anticipates
six
adjustments
that
will
remove
burden
from
the
PWSS
Program
ICR.
In
all
cases,
the
Agency
believes
that
the
burden
is
more
appropriately
addressed
in
other
ICRs.
The
six
adjustments
are
detailed
below.


Burden
associated
with
the
Total
Coliform
Rule.
The
1993
PWSS
ICR
includes
a
total
of
3,549,798
hours
per
year
for
TCR
activities.
This
includes
1,037,585
hours
for
noncommunity
water
systems
(
NCWSs)
(
Exhibit
8
of
the
1993
PWSS
Program
ICR),
1,988,213
hours
for
CWSs
(
also
Exhibit
8),
and
524,000
hours
for
State
primacy
agencies
(
Exhibit
7
of
the
1993
PWSS
Program
ICR).
In
order
to
consolidate
microbial
contaminant­
related
activities,
EPA
is
requesting
that
these
hours
be
moved
to
the
IESWTR
ICR
(
OMB
No.
2040­
0205),
which
has
been
resubmitted
as
the
Microbial
Rules
ICR.


Burden
associated
with
the
Surface
Water
Treatment
Rule
(
all
rule
components
except
disinfection
residual
monitoring
and
associated
activities).
The
1993
PWSS
ICR
includes
a
total
of
1,668,081
hours
per
year
for
SWTR
activities.
This
includes
289,970
hours
for
NCWSs
(
Exhibit
8
of
the
1993
PWSS
Program
ICR),
955,715
hours
for
CWSs
(
also
Exhibit
8),
and
422,396
hours
for
primacy
agencies
(
Exhibit
7
of
the
1993
PWSS
Program
ICR).
In
order
to
consolidate
microbial
contaminant­
related
activities,
EPA
is
requesting
that
all
these
hours,
except
those
associated
with
disinfection
residual
monitoring
and
associated
activities,
be
moved
to
the
IESWTR
ICR
(
OMB
No.
2040­
0205),
which
has
been
resubmitted
as
the
Microbial
Rules
ICR.
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
49
Since
the
burden
associated
with
disinfection
residual
monitoring
and
associated
activities
is
estimated
to
be
719,098,
the
remaining
948,983
hours
will
be
moved
to
the
IESWTR
ICR.


Burden
associated
with
the
existing
total
trihalomethanes
(
TTHM)
standard.
The
1993
PWSS
Program
ICR
includes
an
annual
burden
of
39,943
(
Exhibit
8
of
the
PWSS
Program
ICR).
This
burden
was
incurred
by
CWSs
serving
more
than
10,000
people.
The
Stage
1
DBPR
subsumes
the
existing
TTHM
monitoring
requirements
and
expands
the
requirements
to
apply
to
all
CWSs
and
NTNCWSs
that
add
a
chemical
disinfectant.
To
avoid
double­
counting,
however,
the
1998
Stage
1
DBPR
did
not
reflect
burden
already
addressed
in
the
1993
PWSS
Program
ICR.
Rather,
it
addressed
burden
for
newly
regulated
systems
only.
In
order
to
consolidate
chemical
contaminant­
related
activities,
EPA
is
requesting
that
the
TTHM
hours
be
moved
from
the
PWSS
Program
ICR
to
the
Stage
1
DBPR
ICR
(
OMB
No.
2040­
0204),
which
has
been
resubmitted
as
the
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR.


Burden
associated
with
Chemical
Monitoring.
The
1993
PWSS
ICR
includes
a
total
of
3,086,330
hours
per
year
for
Chemical
Monitoring
activities
(
Phase
I
Volatile
Organic
Chemicals
(
VOCs),
Phase
II
Synthetic
Organic
Chemicals
(
SOCs),
Phase
II
VOCs,
Phase
II
Inorganic
Chemicals
(
IOCs),
Phase
IIB,
Phase
V
IOCs,
Phase
V
SOCs,
Phase
V
VOCs,
and
the
IOCs
not
re­
regulated
under
the
"
Phase"
rules).
This
includes
1,694,663
hours
for
PWSs
(
Exhibit
8
of
the
1993
PWSS
Program
ICR)
and
1,391,667
hours
for
State
primacy
agencies
(
Exhibit
7
of
the
1993
PWSS
Program
ICR).
In
order
to
consolidate
chemical
contaminant­
related
activities,
EPA
is
requesting
that
the
Chemical
Monitoring
hours
be
moved
from
the
PWSS
Program
ICR
to
the
Stage
1
DBPR
ICR
(
OMB
No.
2040­
0204),
which
has
been
resubmitted
as
the
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR.


Burden
associated
with
Radionuclides.
The
1993
PWSS
ICR
includes
a
total
of
5,637
hours
per
year
for
Radionuclides
Rule
activities.
All
of
these
hours
are
for
CWSs
(
Exhibit
8
of
the
1993
PWSS
Program
ICR).
In
order
to
consolidate
chemical
contaminant­
related
activities,
EPA
is
requesting
that
the
Radionuclides
hours
be
moved
from
the
PWSS
Program
ICR
to
the
Stage
1
DBPR
ICR
(
OMB
No.
2040­
0204),
which
has
been
resubmitted
as
the
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR.
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
14
These
hours
were
derived
from
the
1989
SWTR
ICR,
as
carried
forward
to
the
1993
PWSS
Program
ICR.

50
Exhibit
11
Restructuring
Adjustments
to
the
PWSS
Program
ICR
Inventory
(
Includes
both
PWS
and
Primacy
Agency
Burden)

Action
Annual
Burden
Hours
Brief
Explanation
None
9,636,174
Inventory
after
reintroduction
of
burden
hours
(
see
Exhibit
10)

Subtract
3,549,798
TCR
hours
(
to
be
moved
to
2040­
0205)

Subtract
1,668,081
948,983
SWTR
hours
719,098
SWTR
hours
Subtract
39,943
TTHMs
hours
(
to
be
moved
to
2040­
0204)

Subtract
3,086,330
Chemical
Monitoring
hours
(
to
be
moved
to
2040­
0204)

Subtract
5,637
Radionuclides
hours
(
to
be
moved
to
2040­
0204)

Total
1,286,385
Inventory
after
reintroduction
of
burden
hours
and
restructuring
adjustments
6(
f)(
iv)
Adjustment
to
Correct
Double­
Counting
Exhibit
12
summarizes
the
adjustments
to
the
burden
to
correct
for
double­
counting.
As
shown
in
the
exhibit,
there
are
two
activities
which
are
currently
included
both
in
the
PWSS
Program
ICR
and
in
another
drinking
water
ICR
 

Public
Notification.
As
discussed
in
Section
6(
f)(
i),
a
1995
amendment
to
the
PWSS
Program
ICR
added
1,276,735
hours
to
the
PWSS
Program
inventory
for
public
notification
activities.
The
1999
change
worksheet
associated
with
the
Lead
and
Copper
Rule
removed
the
public
notification
and
public
education
burden
associated
with
that
rule
 
321,544
hours,
leaving
955,191
hours
for
PN.
The
1995
Public
Notification
Rules
were
amended
in
2000,
and
a
separate
ICR
was
prepared
to
include
all
public
notification
activities.
As
a
result,
the
public
notification
burden
(
for
rules
other
than
the
LCR)
is
counted
in
both
the
1993
PWSS
Program
ICR
and
the
2000
Public
Notification
ICR
(
OMB
No.
2040­
0209).
To
remedy
this
situation,
the
remaining
public
notification
burden
of
955,191
hours
is
being
removed
from
the
2001
PWSS
Program
ICR.
This
burden
is
expected
to
be
re­
incorporated
into
the
PWSS
Program
ICR
upon
expiration
of
the
current
PN
ICR.


Unregulated
contaminant
monitoring.
The
1993
PWSS
Program
ICR
includes
an
annual
burden
of
9,982
hours
for
unregulated
contaminant
monitoring
(
see
Exhibit
8
of
the
1993
PWSS
Program
ICR
 
sum
of
burden
for
unregulated
IOCs
and
unregulated
SOCs).
All
unregulated
contaminant
monitoring
is
now
accounted
for
in
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
51
the
ICR
for
the
Unregulated
Contaminant
Monitoring
Rule
(
OMB
No.
2040­
0208).
Therefore,
9,982
hours
are
being
removed
from
the
PWSS
Program
ICR.

Exhibit
12
Adjustments
to
Correct
Double­
Counting
(
Includes
both
PWS
and
Primacy
Agency
Burden)

Action
Annual
Burden
Hours
Brief
Explanation
None
1,286,385
Inventory
after
reintroduction
of
burden
hours
and
restructuring
adjustments
(
see
Exhibit
11)

Subtract
955,191
Public
notification
hours
(
also
addressed
in
2040­
0209)

Subtract
9,982
Unregulated
contaminants
hours
(
also
addressed
in
2040­
0208)

Total
321,212
Inventory
after
reintroduction
of
burden
hours,
restructuring
adjustments,
and
correcting
for
double­
counting
6(
f)(
v)
Program
Changes
This
ICR
includes
one
program
changeCthe
addition
of
the
burden
associated
with
the
Capacity
Development
Program.
EPA
developed
this
program
based
on
requirements
of
the
1996
SDWA
Amendments.
The
estimated
burden
for
Capacity
Development
activities
is
206,574
hours
per
year
(
136,723
hours
for
PWSs
and
69,851
hours
for
primacy
agencies).
Exhibit
13
shows
the
affect
of
these
program
changes.

Exhibit
13
Program
Changes
(
Includes
both
PWS
and
Primacy
Agency
Burden)

Action
Annual
Burden
Hours
Brief
Explanation
None
321,212
Inventory
after
reintroduction
of
burden
hours,
restructuring
adjustments,
and
correcting
for
double­
counting
(
see
Exhibit
12)

Add
206,574
Capacity
Development
hours
Total
527,786
Inventory
after
reintroduction
of
burden
hours,
restructuring
adjustments,
correcting
for
double­
counting,
and
adding
program
changes
6(
f)(
vi)
Incorporation
of
Stand­
alone
ICRs
into
the
Current
PWSS
Program
ICR
Two
ICRs
that
are
currently
approved
as
stand­
alone
ICRsCthe
CCR
and
Primacy
RegulationCare
incorporated
into
the
current
PWSS
Program
ICR.
The
current
CCR
ICR
annual
burden
is
459,674
hours
for
PWS
activities
and
98,230
hours
for
State
activities
for
an
annual
total
of
557,904
hours.
The
Primacy
Regulations
ICR
includes
only
a
total
burden
of
696
hours
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
15
This
696­
hour
burden
is
not
annualized
in
the
Primacy
Regulations
ICR,
but
is
counted
as
an
annual
burden
in
the
current
OMB
inventory.
Therefore,
for
the
purposes
of
this
PWSS
Program
ICR,
the
total
696­
hour
burden
has
been
annualized
for
the
3­
year
ICR
period.
The
annual
burden
for
Primacy
Regulations
is
232
hours
(
for
States
only).

52
for
States.
15
Exhibit
14
shows
the
affects
of
these
changes
on
the
1993
PWSS
Program
ICR
inventory.

Exhibit
14
Incorporation
of
Stand­
Alone
ICRs
(
Includes
both
PWS
and
Primacy
Agency
Burden)

Action
Annual
Burden
Hours
Brief
Explanation
None
527,786
Inventory
after
reintroduction
of
burden
hours,
restructuring
adjustments,
correcting
for
double­
counting,
and
adding
program
changes
(
see
Exhibit
13)

Add
557,904
Consumer
Confidence
Reports
hours
Add
696
Primacy
Regulations
hours
Total
1,086,386
Inventory
after
reintroduction
of
burden
hours,
restructuring
adjustments,
correcting
for
double­
counting,
adding
program
changes,
and
incorporating
stand­
alone
ICRs
6(
f)(
vii)
Additional
Program
Adjustments
The
remaining
changes
in
burden
consist
of
program
adjustments
for
activities
that
were
carried
forward
from
existing
ICRs
to
the
2001
PWSS
Program
ICR.
Exhibits
15
and
16
summarize
reasons
for
these
changes
and
quantify
the
changes
by
activity.
Burden
adjustments
associated
with
PWS
activities
resulted
in
a
burden
increase
of
67,463
hours
and
are
shown
in
Exhibit
15.
Burden
adjustments
for
primacy
agencies
resulted
in
an
increase
of
682,408
hours
per
year,
as
shown
in
Exhibit
16.
This
large
increase
in
primacy
agency
burden
is
discussed
below.

Most
of
the
increase
in
burden
for
primacy
agencies
(
675,343
hours)
is
in
the
category
of
General
State
Primacy
Activities.
In
the
1993
ICR,
State
burden
was
included
for
the
base
program
(
elements
under
40
CFR
142.10
through
142.15
and
40
CFR
35
for
program
grants)
and
listed
in
the
table
titled
"
Annual
Burden
and
Cost
to
Primacy
Agencies"
(
Exhibit
7
of
the
1993
PWSS
Program
ICR).
State
burden
was
also
included
for
rules
covered
in
that
ICR
and
categorized
by
rule.
The
State
burden
for
rules
promulgated
since
the
1996
SDWA
amendments
was
included
in
rule­
specific
ICRs.

The
restructuring
of
this
ICR
moved
most
State
burden
into
this
ICRCaccounting
for
much
of
the
675,343
hour
increase.
Some
rule­
specific
burden
is
included
in
other
ICRs.
An
example
is
the
burden
for
sanitary
surveys
for
the
Total
Coliform
Rule,
which
will
be
included
in
the
Microbial
Rules
ICR.
The
State
burden
estimates
in
this
restructured
ICR
are
based
on
the
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
53
1997
State
Workload
Model
that
was
developed
based
on
implementation
experience.
A
chart
listing
the
elements
of
State
burden
in
this
ICR
is
included
in
Appendix
I.

Use
of
the
State
Workload
Model
has
led
to
changes
in
the
general
State
primacy
burden.
For
example,
the
Federal
Reporting
Data
System
(
FRDS),
which
is
now
SDWIS,
was
updated
in
1995
to
include
program
data
based
on
implementation
experience
and
new
program
requirements.
In
the
1993
PWSS
Program
ICR,
State
burden
estimates
were
based
on
FRDS,
the
predecessor
of
SDWIS.

Lastly,
the
implementation
of
new
rules
(
Stage
1
DBPR,
IESWTR,
CCR
Rule,
and
V/
E
Rule)
has
contributed
significantly
to
an
increase
in
general
primacy
activities
which
are
now
consolidated
in
this
2001
PWSS
Program
ICR.
The
addition
of
more
rules
increases
the
general
State
primacy
burden
for
activities
such
as
data
management,
compliance
monitoring,
and
enforcement
actions.

An
additional
7,065
hours
were
added
to
the
annual
primacy
agency
burden
as
a
result
of
changes
in
the
burden
estimates
for
the
CCR
Rule,
Primacy
Regulations,
Indian
Primacy,
and
the
V/
E
Rule.
These
changes
are
detailed
in
Exhibit
16.
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
54
Exhibit
15
Adjustments
to
PWS
Burden
from
Previous
ICR
Estimates
Activity
Previous
Estimate
2001
Annual
Burden
Estimate
Annual
Change
in
Burden
Reason
for
Change
in
Burden
CCR
459,674
527,137
67,463
Assumptions
regarding
the
burden
per
activity
were
not
changed.
The
change
in
burden
results
from
an
increase
in
the
number
of
systems
for
which
the
burden
was
calculated.
This
ICR
includes
burden
estimates
both
for
systems
that
treat
all
of
their
own
water
(
nonpurchased
systems)
and
for
systems
that
purchase
water
from
another
system
(
purchased
systems).
The
CCR
requirements
apply
to
both
types
of
systems,
but
the
previous
CCR
ICR
did
not
include
burden
estimates
for
purchased
water
systems.

Primacy
Regulations
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
V/
E
13,050
13,050
0
N/
A
General
State
Primacy
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
Activity
Previous
Estimate
2001
Annual
Burden
Estimate
Annual
Change
in
Burden
Reason
for
Change
in
Burden
55
TOTAL
(
Does
not
include
all
ICR
activities)
472,724
540,187
67,463
PWS
burden
and
change
in
burden
after
adjustments.
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
56
Exhibit
16
Adjustments
to
Primacy
Agency
Burden
from
Previous
ICRs
Activity
Previous
Burden
Estimates
2001
Annual
Burden
Estimates
Annual
Change
in
Burden
Reason
for
Change
in
Burden
CCR
98,230
112,368
14,138
Assumptions
regarding
the
burden
per
activity
were
not
changed.
The
change
in
burden
results
from
an
increase
in
the
number
of
systems
due
to
the
inclusion
of
both
purchased
and
nonpurchased
systems.
See
Exhibit
15
for
more
detail.

Primacy
Regulations
696
116
(
580)
The
current
OMB
inventory
reports
the
total
burden
(
696
hours)
from
the
Primacy
Regulations
ICR
as
an
annual
burden.
This
ICR
annualizes
that
total
burden
(
232
hours
annually).
The
annual
burden
is
then
adjusted
based
on
the
assumption
that
half
of
the
States
have
completed
this
activity
in
the
prior
ICR
period,
resulting
in
an
annual
burden
of
116
hours.

V/
E
109,080
109,080
0
N/
A
General
State
Primacy
192,590
867,933
675,343
The
1993
PWSS
Program
ICR
included
many
general
State
activities
in
rule­
specific
estimates.
See
write­
up
in
Section
6(
f)(
vi).

Indian
Primacy
6,493
0
(
6,493)
No
Indian
primacy
applications
are
expected
during
the
3­
year
period
of
this
ICR.

TOTAL
(
Does
not
include
all
ICR
activities)
407,089
1,089,497
682,408
Primacy
agency
burden
and
change
in
burden
after
adjustments.

Exhibit
17
shows
the
effects
of
these
adjustments
on
the
bottom
line
burden.
There
is
an
annual
burden
of
1,086,386
hours
after
the
pending
restructuring
adjustments,
corrections
regarding
double­
counting,
the
addition
of
program
changes,
and
the
incorporation
of
stand­
alone
ICRs.
Adding
67,463
hours
to
account
for
adjustment
to
the
PWS
burden
and
adding
682,408
hours
to
account
for
the
adjustments
to
the
primacy
burden
yields
1,836,258
hours.
PWSS
Program
ICR
November
28,
2001
57
Exhibit
17
Adjustments
to
Activities
Carried
Forward
from
Previous
ICRs
(
Includes
both
PWS
and
Primacy
Agency
Burden)

Action
Annual
Burden
Hours
Brief
Explanation
None
1,086,386
Inventory
after
reintroduction
of
burden
hours,
restructuring
adjustments,
correcting
for
double­
counting,
adding
program
changes,
and
incorporating
stand­
alone
ICRs
(
see
Exhibit
14)

Add
67,463
Program
adjustment
for
PWS
activities
carried
forward
from
previous
ICRs
(
see
Exhibit
15)

Add
682,408
Program
adjustment
for
primacy
agency
activities
carried
forward
from
previous
ICRs
(
see
Exhibit
16)

Total
1,836,258
Equals
hours
requested
in
2001
PWSS
Program
ICR.
(
See
Exhibit
7)

Note:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.

6(
g)
Burden
Statement
The
public
reporting
burden
for
collections
included
in
this
ICR
is
detailed
above.
The
total
annual
respondent
burden
(
for
years
2002
through
2004)
imposed
by
these
collections
is
estimated
to
be
1.84
million
hours,
of
which
0.68
million
hours
are
attributable
to
PWSs
and
1.16
million
hours
to
primacy
agencies.
These
estimates
include
time
for
gathering
information
as
well
as
developing
and
maintaining
records.

Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
people
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
disclose,
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions,
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements,
train
personnel
to
respond
to
the
information
collection
request,
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
request
for
information
collection
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.

Please
send
comments
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
accuracy
of
the
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques
to
Director,
Office
of
Environmental
Information,
Collection
Strategies
Division,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
2822),
Ariel
Rios
Building,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
N.
W.,
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.
Please
include
the
EPA
ICR
number
(
0270.40)
and
OMB
control
number
(
2040­
0090)
in
any
correspondence.
