Information Collection Request: 

National Pretreatment Program (Renewal)

OMB Control No. 2040-0009, EPA ICR No. 0002.14

September 2007

Prepared for

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Wastewater Management

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

EPA Contract Number EP-C-05-046

EPA Work Assignment Number 1-24

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

.Contents

  TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc166405796"  1.
Identification of the Information Collection	  PAGEREF _Toc166405796 \h 
1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc166405797"  1(a).	Title and Number of the
Information Collection	  PAGEREF _Toc166405797 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc166405798"  1(b).	Short Characterization	  PAGEREF
_Toc166405798 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc166405799"  2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION	 
PAGEREF _Toc166405799 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc166405800"  2(a).	Need/Authority for the Collection	
 PAGEREF _Toc166405800 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc166405801"  2(b).	Practical Utility/Users of the
Data	  PAGEREF _Toc166405801 \h  7  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc166405802"  3.	Nonduplication, Consultations, and
Other Collection Criteria	  PAGEREF _Toc166405802 \h  12  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc166405803"  3(a).	Nonduplication	  PAGEREF
_Toc166405803 \h  12  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc166405804"  3(b).	Public Notice Required Prior to
ICR Submission to OMB	  PAGEREF _Toc166405804 \h  13  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc166405805"  3(c).	Consultations	  PAGEREF
_Toc166405805 \h  13  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc166405806"  3(d).	Effects of Less Frequent
Collection	  PAGEREF _Toc166405806 \h  16  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc166405807"  3(e).	General Guidelines	  PAGEREF
_Toc166405807 \h  16  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc166405808"  3(f).	Confidentiality	  PAGEREF
_Toc166405808 \h  17  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc166405809"  3(g)	Sensitive Questions	  PAGEREF
_Toc166405809 \h  17  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc166405810"  4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION
REQUESTED	  PAGEREF _Toc166405810 \h  17  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc166405811"  4(a).	Respondents/NAICS Codes	  PAGEREF
_Toc166405811 \h  17  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc166405812"  4(b).	Information Requested	  PAGEREF
_Toc166405812 \h  20  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc166405813"  4(b)(i).	Data Items	  PAGEREF
_Toc166405813 \h  20  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc166405814"  4(b)(ii).	Respondent Activities	 
PAGEREF _Toc166405814 \h  27  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc166405815"  5.	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED—AGENCY
ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT	  PAGEREF
_Toc166405815 \h  49  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc166405816"  5(a).	Agency Activities	  PAGEREF
_Toc166405816 \h  49  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc166405817"  5(b).	Collection Methodology and
Management	  PAGEREF _Toc166405817 \h  50  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc166405818"  5(c).	Small Entity Flexibility	  PAGEREF
_Toc166405818 \h  50  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc166405819"  5(d).	Collection Schedule	  PAGEREF
_Toc166405819 \h  51  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc166405820"  6.	ESTIMATING BURDEN AND COST OF
COLLECTION	  PAGEREF _Toc166405820 \h  51  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc166405821"  6(a).	Respondent Burden	  PAGEREF
_Toc166405821 \h  51  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc166405822"  6(a)(i).	Burden to States	  PAGEREF
_Toc166405822 \h  52  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc166405823"  6(a)(ii).	Burden to POTWs	  PAGEREF
_Toc166405823 \h  55  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc166405824"  6(a)(iii).	Burden to Industrial Users	 
PAGEREF _Toc166405824 \h  59  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc166405825"  6(b).	Respondent Costs	  PAGEREF
_Toc166405825 \h  66  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc166405826"  6(b)(i).	Cost to States	  PAGEREF
_Toc166405826 \h  66  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc166405827"  6(b)(ii).	Cost to POTWs	  PAGEREF
_Toc166405827 \h  67  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc166405828"  6(b)(iii).	Cost to Industrial Users	 
PAGEREF _Toc166405828 \h  67  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc166405829"  6(c).	Agency Burden and Costs	  PAGEREF
_Toc166405829 \h  68  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc166405830"  6(d).	Estimating the Respondent Universe
and Total Burden and Costs	  PAGEREF _Toc166405830 \h  69  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc166405831"  6(e).	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost
Tables	  PAGEREF _Toc166405831 \h  69  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc166405832"  6(f).	Reasons for Change in Burden	 
PAGEREF _Toc166405832 \h  70  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc166405833"  6(g).	Burden Statement	  PAGEREF
_Toc166405833 \h  70  

 

Exhibits

  TOC \h \z \t "Table Title,1"    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc177443442"  Exhibit
1.	Authority under the pretreatment program	  PAGEREF _Toc177443442 \h 
5  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc177443443"  Exhibit 2.	Responsibilities of each
authority	  PAGEREF _Toc177443443 \h  6  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc177443444"  Exhibit 3A.	Uses of data collected for
program development	  PAGEREF _Toc177443444 \h  8  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc177443445"  Exhibit 3B.	Uses of data collected for
program implementation	  PAGEREF _Toc177443445 \h  9  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc177443446"  Exhibit 3C.	Uses of data collected for
program/categorical determinations	  PAGEREF _Toc177443446 \h  12  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc177443447"  Exhibit 4.	Affected industries and
industrial classifications	  PAGEREF _Toc177443447 \h  18  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc177443448"  Exhibit 5.	Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements for the pretreatment program	  PAGEREF _Toc177443448 \h  21
 

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc177443449"  Exhibit 6.	Average annual state burden
and costs	  PAGEREF _Toc177443449 \h  67  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc177443450"  Exhibit 7.	Average annual POTW burden
and costs	  PAGEREF _Toc177443450 \h  67  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc177443451"  Exhibit 8.	Average annual industrial
user burden and costs	  PAGEREF _Toc177443451 \h  68  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc177443452"  Exhibit 9.	Bottom line average annual
burden and cost	  PAGEREF _Toc177443452 \h  69  

 

Appendices

Appendix A – Assumptions for Developing Burden and Cost Estimates

Appendix B – Detailed burden calculations

Appendix C – Migrated ICRs

Appendix D – Notice of Office of Management and Budget Action

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AA	approval authority

ANPR	Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

BLS	Bureau of Labor Statistics

BMP	best management practice

BMR	baseline monitoring report

CA	control authority

CBI	confidential business information

CFR	Code of Federal Regulations

CIU	categorical industrial user

CWA	Clean Water Act

CWT	Centralized Waste Treatment

DSS	Domestic Sewage Study

EPA	Environmental Protection Agency

FDF	Fundamentally Different Factors

FR	Federal Register

gpd	gallons per day

ICR	Information Collection Request

IU	industrial user

IWS	Industrial Waste Survey

kg	kilogram

MAIL	Maximum Allowable Industrial Loading

mgd	million gallons per day

MP&M	Metal Products and Machinery

NAICS	North American Industry Classification System

NPDES	National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NRDC	Natural Resources Defense Council

NSCIU	nonsignificant categorical industrial user

O&M	operation and maintenance

OA	oversight authority

OMB	Office of Management and Budget

OST	Office of Science and Technology

OW	Office of Water

OWM	Office of Wastewater Management

P2	pollution prevention

PCS	Permit Compliance System

PFPR	Pesticide Formulating, Packaging, and Repackaging

PIRT	Pretreatment Implementation Review Task Force

POTW	publicly owned treatment works

QNCR	Quarterly Noncompliance Report 

RCRA	Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

SBA	Small Business Administration

SBREFA	Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

SIC	Standard Industrial Classification

SIU	significant industrial user

SNC	significant noncompliance

TEC	Transportation Equipment Cleaning

TRI	Toxics Release Inventory

TTO	total toxic organics

1.	Identification of the Information Collection

1(a).	Title and Number of the Information Collection

Title:	National Pretreatment Program (Renewal)

OMB Control No:	2040-0009

EPA ICR No:	0002.14

1(b).	Short Characterization

This Information Collection Request (ICR) calculates the burden and
costs associated with managing and implementing the National
Pretreatment Program as mandated under sections 402(a) and (b) and
307(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA or the Act). This ICR includes all
existing tasks under the National Pretreatment Program, as amended by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent Streamlining
Rule.

EPA’s Office of Wastewater Management (OWM) implements the National
Pretreatment Program on the basis of requirements first promulgated in
the CWA in June 1978. The CWA requires EPA to develop these regulations
to establish responsibilities among federal, state, and local
government, industry, and the public to implement pretreatment standards
to control pollutants that pass through or interfere with publicly owned
treatment works’ (POTW) treatment processes or that may contaminate
sewage sludge. The regulations have been revised numerous times since
they were first published in 1978; currently, they consist of 20
sections and several appendices. The most recent revision, the
Streamlining Rule (Federal Register (FR) vol. 70, page 60134), was
published on October 14, 2005, and became effective November 14, 2005.

Unlike other environmental programs that rely on federal or state
governments to implement and enforce specific requirements, the National
Pretreatment Program places most of the responsibility on local
municipalities. Specifically, the program requires all POTWs with design
flows of more than 5 million gallons per day (mgd), as well as small
POTWs with less than 5 mgd that receive discharges from significant
industrial users (SIUs), to establish local pretreatment programs. POTWs
enforce all national Pretreatment Standards and Requirements, as well as
any more stringent local requirements determined necessary to protect
the POTW and its workers, through local programs. States may opt to
implement statewide pretreatment programs in lieu of requiring POTWs to
do so. In statewide programs, data are exchanged between industrial
users (IUs) and these state control authorities.

Each control authority, in turn, must have its program approved by the
entity responsible for overseeing implementation and enforcement of the
National Pretreatment Program. An approval authority is either a state,
provided it is authorized by EPA to implement the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and National Pretreatment Program,
or an EPA regional office. EPA regional offices are the approval
authorities for states that opt to implement statewide pretreatment
programs rather than requiring their POTWs to implement programs. Data
are routinely exchanged between approval authorities and control
authorities to ensure that the National Pretreatment Program is being
properly implemented.

This ICR estimates the program burden and costs for October 1, 2007,
through September 30, 2010.

Note that four additional effluent limitations guidelines development
ICRs were set to expire in the next three years prior to the next
renewal of this Pretreatment Program ICR. It was EPA’s intention to
transfer some of the burden and cost from those ICRs into the
Pretreatment Program ICR during the previous ICR renewal cycle, but
final action was not taken until March 23, 2007 (See appendix D).
Therefore, the burden and cost associated with indirect dischargers from
those four ICRs is incorporated into this Pretreatment Program ICR as
part of the renewal process. The four ICRs are the following:

1. Pollution Prevention Compliance Alternative; Transportation Equipment
Cleaning Point Source Category (40 CFR Part 442), EPA ICR No. 2018.03,
OMB Control No. 2040-0235 

2. Voluntary Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring
Requirements for Direct and Indirect Discharging Mills in the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard
Manufacturing Category (40 CFR Part 430), EPA ICR No. 2015.02, OMB
Control No. 2040–0242

3. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade Kraft Sulfite Subcategory of the
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category (40 CFR Part 430), EPA
ICR No. 1829.03, OMB Control No. 2040–0207

4. Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Direct and Indirect Discharging
Mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the
Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard
Manufacturing Category (40 CFR Part 430), EPA ICR No. 1878.02, OMB
Control No. 2040–0243

The total annual respondent burden associated with this ICR is estimated
to be 1.80 million hours per year. The total annual respondent costs
associated with this ICR are estimated to be approximately $82.5
million. The estimated annual costs and burden are distributed as
follows: 66,451 hours and $2.5 million for states, 909,849 hours and
$23.4 million for POTWs, and 820,787 hours and $56.6 million for IUs.
The agency burden for the federal government totals 13,406 hours
annually or approximately $0.52 million. The total number of respondents
for this ICR is 24,740, of which 35 are states, 1,512 are POTWs, and
23,193 are SIUs. The total annual number of responses for these
respondents is 99,940.

2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

2(a).	Need/Authority for the Collection 

Section 402(b) of CWA requires EPA to develop national pretreatment
standards to control industrial discharges into sewage systems. The
purpose of these standards is to prevent pollutants from passing through
or interfering with treatment plant operations that might result in
damage to the environment or a threat to public health. As detailed
below, several serious problems can occur when industrial wastes are
discharged into sewage systems.

Pass through of toxic pollutants into receiving waters. Industrial
pollutants that pass through treatment systems into receiving waters can
cause fish kills, destroy aquatic habitat, increase the risk of cancer
in humans, and render receiving waters unsuitable for drinking or
recreation.

Interference with treatment plant operations. Municipal wastewater
treatment systems are designed to handle typical household waste and
biodegradable commercial and industrial wastes. Toxic industrial
compounds that do not pass directly through the system might interfere
with plant operations.

Contamination of sewage sludge. Toxic compounds remaining in sewage
sludge might render it unsuitable for certain disposal methods, such as
land application, placement on a surface disposal site, or incineration.

Corrosion of pipes and equipment. Industrial discharges with extremely
high or low pH values can cause corrosion in the sewage collection
system or the treatment plant, resulting in the need for premature
repair or replacement of pipes and equipment.

Explosion of highly volatile wastes. Industrial wastes can explode under
particular conditions within the sewage collection system or treatment
operations as a result of inadvertent mixing of highly volatile
compounds, causing widespread damage to treatment facilities and posing
a serious risk to plant operators.

Interaction of wastes to produce toxic gases. Industrial discharges such
as highly acidic wastes can interact with other wastes in the collection
system, causing the release of toxic gases.

EPA has developed National Pretreatment Program standards for
circumstances common to all sewage systems, as well as those serving
specific industries. National standards apply regardless of whether the
source is subject to other federal, state, or local pretreatment
standards. The regulations establish general and specific discharge
standards (40 CFR 403.5(a) and (b)) that apply to all IUs. The general
prohibitions forbid the addition of inadequately treated wastes and
forbid the discharge of pollutants that might interfere with or pass
through the treatment works, thereby disrupting treatment capability.
The specific prohibitions forbid the discharge of pollutants that

Create a fire or explosion hazard

Are highly corrosive

Obstruct the treatment processes or system flows

Cause interference or pass through

Increase the temperature of wastewater entering the plant to above 104
degrees Fahrenheit.

Cause worker health or safety problems

Are trucked or hauled to the POTW (except as allowed by the POTW).

In addition to the national pretreatment standards, EPA has developed
specific standards for certain industrial categories; they are called
categorical pretreatment standards. These standards specify quantities
or concentrations of certain pollutants or pollutant properties that IUs
in certain industrial categories may discharge to a POTW. The
categorical standards may also specify other steps that IUs must take to
protect POTWs. EPA develops these categorical standards to restrict the
discharge of certain toxic pollutants that the Agency has identified as
posing the greatest threat to human health or the environment.
Facilities subject to categorical standards must also comply with
national pretreatment standards. Certain categorical standards allow
categorical industrial users (CIUs) to submit periodic certifications or
develop pollution prevention plans to reduce or take the place of
analytical sampling requirements.

Finally, EPA requires the control authority (CA), which is usually the
POTW, to develop and enforce limits according to local, site-specific
situations. These local limits ensure that IUs meet general and specific
prohibitions detailed at 40 CFR 403.5(a) and (b). They are federally
enforceable pretreatment standards, as defined in section 307(d) of the
CWA. If the local limits are more stringent than the categorical
standards, the more stringent limit applies and is enforceable as a
federal standard. The monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements for these three types of pretreatment standards (general,
specific, and local limits) are explained in more detail in section 4.

EPA, together with the various approval authorities and control
authorities, implements these standards through the National
Pretreatment Program. These entities need information to 

Authorize state and local programs

Monitor and enforce compliance with the national standards

Determine the applicability of categorical standards

Develop and enforce local limits

Administer an awards program.

Overall, EPA reduced the amount of information to be collected in these
areas in its Streamlining Rule (70 FR 60134). The rule, however, did
impose a few new data collection requirements for IUs voluntarily
requesting coverage under the pretreatment program, for best management
practice (BMP)-based standards, and for those subject to provisions
concerning equivalent mass and equivalent concentration limits. The rule
may also impose a one-time requirement for a POTW that wants to take
advantage of the flexibility requirements under the rule by requiring
the POTW to modify its pretreatment program procedures and authority. 

The information collection requirements discussed in this ICR are
authorized by sections 301, 307(b), 308, 402(a), and 402(b) of the CWA.
These sections provide for state administration of the NPDES program,
which controls point source discharges of pollutants to waters of the
United States. According to the CWA, states must also develop programs
to ensure POTW compliance with the requirements of the national
pretreatment regulations. Under the same authority, certain POTWs must
identify all IUs that discharge pollutants subject to categorical
standards under section 307(b) of the Act and must develop a
pretreatment program to ensure compliance with these standards.

The administration of the National Pretreatment Program involves three
levels of authority, as described below.

Oversight Authority (OA).  EPA regional offices oversee state
pretreatment programs. They may also assume the responsibilities of the
approval authority (AA) or control authority (CA) if states or POTWs do
not have authorized pretreatment programs.

Approval Authority (AA).  A state with an approved NPDES program must
obtain approval authority for its pretreatment program. The AA approves
POTW pretreatment programs, oversees POTW program implementation, and
assumes the responsibility of the CA for POTWs that do not have a
pretreatment program.

Control Authority (CA).  The CA is responsible for implementing the
pretreatment program, including establishing control mechanisms for
compliance assessment and enforcement of the national standards,
categorical standards, and local limits. A POTW with a pretreatment
program approved by the AA becomes the CA. If the POTW does not obtain
such approval, the state or the EPA region assumes the responsibility of
the CA.

Exhibit 1 shows the possible combinations of authority, while Exhibit 2
outlines the responsibilities of each authority.

Exhibit 1.	Authority under the pretreatment program 

POTW with Approved Pretreatment Program	State with Approved Pretreatment
Program	Control Authority 	Approval Authority	Oversight Authority

Yes	Yes	POTW	State	EPA

Yes	No	POTW	EPA	EPA

No	Yes	State	State	EPA

No	No	EPA	EPA	EPA



Exhibit 2.	Responsibilities of each authority

Oversight Authority

(EPA)

Evaluates pretreatment programs on a national basis and oversees state
pretreatment programs to ensure that they meet federal requirements.

Approves state pretreatment program requests.

Acts as AA or CA in cases where states or POTWs do not have pretreatment
programs.

Approval Authority

(Approved States or EPA Regions)

Reviews POTW pretreatment programs to determine adequacy.

Assists POTWs in ensuring compliance with pretreatment requirements.

Audits/inspects approved POTWs to assess compliance (may also inspect
IUs).

Takes appropriate action against POTWs that fail to implement or enforce
pretreatment standards at IUs not in compliance (where POTW does not
take action).

Acts as CA in cases where the POTW does not have a pretreatment program.

Control Authority

(Approved POTWs, Approved States, or EPA Regions)

Has primary responsibility for implementing the pretreatment program.

Ensures that IUs comply with discharge limitations, reporting
requirements, and certification requirements.

Inspects or reviews self-monitoring reports from IUs.

Enforces against noncomplying IUs.



The procedures and requirements of the National Pretreatment Program are
specified at 40 CFR Part 403. The general framework of Part 403 is as
follows:

Section	Title

403.1	Purpose and Applicability

403.2	Objectives of General Pretreatment Regulations

403.3	Definitions

403.4	State or Local Law

403.5	National Pretreatment Standards: Prohibited Discharges

403.6	National Pretreatment Standards: Categorical Standards

403.7	Removal Credits

403.8	Pretreatment Program Requirements: Development and Implementation
by POTW

403.9	POTW Pretreatment Programs and/or Authorization to Revise
Pretreatment Standards: Submission for Approval

403.10	Development and Submission of NPDES State Pretreatment Programs

403.11	Approval Procedures for POTW Pretreatment Programs and POTW
Granting of Removal Credits

403.12	Reporting Requirements for POTWs and Industrial Users

403.13	Variances from Categorical Pretreatment Standards for
Fundamentally Different Factors

403.14	Confidentiality

403.15	Net/Gross Calculation

403.16	Upset Provision

403.17	Bypass

403.18	Modification of POTW Pretreatment Programs

403.19	Provisions of Specific Applicability to the Owatonna Waste Water
Treatment Facility

403.20	Pretreatment Program Reinvention Pilot Projects Under Project XL



Certain IUs are required at 40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N, to submit
periodic certifications or develop pollution prevention plans to reduce
or eliminate monitoring requirements. Applicable provisions may be found
in the following parts of title 40 of the CFR: 

Part	Title

413	Electroplating Point Source Category

423	Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category

430	Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Source Category

Including Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory (Subpart B).

433	Metal Finishing Point Source Category

437	Centralized Waste Treatment Point Source Category

439	Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Point Source Category

442	Transportation Equipment Cleaning Point Source Category

455	Pesticide Chemicals

465	Coil Coating Point Source Category

466	Porcelain Enameling Point Source Category

467	Aluminum Forming Point Source Category

469	Electrical and Electronic Components



2(b).	Practical Utility/Users of the Data

In general, EPA, states, and POTWs use the information collected under
the National Pretreatment Program for program development and
implementation purposes. Exhibits 3A–3C summarize the information
collected by type and indicate how and by whom the information is used.
Users of the information include oversight authorities, approval
authorities, control authorities, POTWs, IUs, and the public.

Exhibit 3A.	Uses of data collected for program development

Type of Data Collected	From	To	Authority/ Citation (40 CFR)	Uses of the
Data

State pretreatment program approval request	State	OA	403.10	To evaluate
the adequacy of the state’s pretreatment program in terms of legal
authority, procedural requirements, and appropriate staff and funding

POTW pretreatment compliance schedule progress report	POTW	AA	403.8,
403.9, 403.12(k)	To determine whether the POTW is on schedule in
developing its program so that the AA can provide assistance or take
enforcement action, if necessary

POTW pretreatment program approval request	POTW	AA	403.8(b), 403.9	To
evaluate the adequacy of the POTW’s pretreatment program in terms of
legal authority, justification of local limits, compliance monitoring,
administrative procedures, and appropriate staff and funding

Maintain pretreatment program information*	AA, OA, POTW	Stored on-site
403.11(f), 403.14	To provide public access to information characterizing
the pretreatment program (e.g., information about POTW program approval
submissions)

*This is a recordkeeping requirement, not a reporting requirement.
Though no submission is required, AAs, OAs, and POTWs incur burden.

Oversight authorities evaluate state pretreatment programs based on
information about the programs' legal authority, procedural
requirements, and staff and funding appropriateness. In addition,
oversight authorities use information about an IU to determine whether a
particular categorical standard or subcategory applies to the IU.

Approval authorities use information collected under the pretreatment
program to identify and locate IUs that might be subject to national
pretreatment standards. Approval authorities also use information about
IUs to protect the POTW and its workers by prohibiting ignitable,
obstructive, or reactive discharges from IUs. These authorities also use
the data to determine whether a POTW’s pretreatment program is
adequate and properly implemented. In addition, approval authorities use
the information to monitor a POTW’s compliance with pretreatment
program requirements.

Control authorities use data from IUs to determine the types and amounts
of pollutants that industries are discharging to a POTW, to track IU
compliance with installation schedules for pretreatment equipment, and
to ensure IU compliance with applicable certification requirements.
Control authorities also use IU data to monitor an industry’s
compliance with pretreatment standards, to enforce these standards, to
note changes in the volume or nature of pollutants, and to evaluate the
effects of an anticipated bypass. In addition, control authorities use
IU data to determine whether the POTW needs to take steps to reduce the
risks of slug, spill, and batch discharges.

Control authorities use information from approval authorities to
determine their obligations under the national pretreatment regulations,
specifically those for operating and maintaining equipment and those
requiring sampling and reporting of pollutant levels.

IUs use information received from control authorities to understand the
pollutant levels that must not be exceeded in their discharges and
related treatment, sampling, and reporting requirements.

The public also uses information received under the National
Pretreatment Program when notices of significant noncompliance (SNC) by
IUs or control authorities are published in local newspapers.

Exhibit 3B.	Uses of data collected for program implementation

Type of Data Collected	From	To	Authority/ Citation (40 CFR)	Uses of the
Data

Baseline monitoring report 	IU	CA	403.12(b)	To ensure compliance with
the standards by each source; to determine whether schedules for
compliance are reasonable; and to establish, verify, or expand records
on the types and extent of industrial contributions to POTWs

IU compliance schedule progress report	IU	CA	403.12(c)	  SEQ CHAPTER \h
\r 1 To determine compliance with scheduled deadlines for installation
of pretreatment technology and categorical standards 

IU compliance attainment report	IU	CA	403.12(d)	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 To
determine compliance with final applicable pretreatment standards and
whether IU needs additional operation and maintenance (O&M) or
pretreatment to attain standards

IU resampling compliance report	IU	CA	403.12(g)	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 To
detect patterns of repeated or continuing IU noncompliance (i.e., not
single events)

IU request for coverage under general control mechanism	IU	CA
403.8(f)(1)

 (A)(2)	To determine whether an IU qualifies for a general permit

IU self-monitoring compliance report	IU	CA	403.12(e), 403.12(h)	  SEQ
CHAPTER \h \r 1 To ensure continued IU compliance with the pretreatment
standards and to determine whether enforcement actions are necessary

Pollution prevention plan (Voluntary)	IU	CA	455.41	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
To ensure that IUs covered by the Pesticides Formulating, Packaging, and
Repackaging effluent guidelines have prepared a pollution prevention
plan as an alternative to zero discharge

Exhibit 3B.	Uses of data collected for program implementation
(continued)

Type of Data Collected	From	To	Authority/ Citation (40 CFR)	Uses of the
Data

Periodic certifications	IU	CA	Varies**	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 To ensure
IUs practicing reduced monitoring comply with certification requirements
and meet criteria for reduced monitoring

POTW monitoring records and documentation of best management practices
(BMPs)*	POTW	Stored on site	403.12(o), 403.14(c)	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
To allow AA to verify POTW compliance with national Pretreatment
Standards and Requirements

IU monitoring records and documentation of BMPs*	IU	Stored on site
403.12(o)	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 To allow AA to verify IU compliance with
national standards and requirements

Annual POTW reports	CA	AA	403.12(i)	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 To adequately
oversee POTW pretreatment programs and resulting national implementation
status; also, to ensure compliance with National Pretreatment Standards
and Requirements

POTW program modifications	CA	AA	403.18	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 To modify
pretreatment programs on the basis of local conditions and to provide
AAs with opportunities to accept or deny such requests

IU slug load notification	IU	CA	403.12(f)	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 To
enable the POTW to plan and carry out protective actions immediately
after a change in volume or character of an IU discharge

Notification of significant change affecting equivalent mass limits or
concentration limits 	IU	CA	403.6(c)(9)	To ensure that the CA has a
reasonable basis for calculating mass or concentration limits based on a
production-based standard

Notification of changed discharge	IU	CA	403.12(j)

	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 To ensure that the CA has the necessary
information to adequately notify the NPDES permitting authority of
substantial changes in discharge

Upset notification 	IU	CA	403.16	To inform the CA of descriptions of
known upsets at the IU. Reporting of upsets is required only if the IU
wishes to establish the affirmative defense of the upset for an action
brought for non-compliance; therefore, upset reporting is not required

Bypass notification	IU	CA	403.17	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 To inform the CA
of the intentional diversion of wastestreams from any portion of an
IU’s treatment facility



Exhibit 3B.	Uses of data collected for program implementation
(continued)

Type of Data Collected	From	To	Authority/ Citation (40 CFR)	Uses of the
Data

Notification of changed monitoring location	IU	CA	403.6(e)(4)	  SEQ
CHAPTER \h \r 1 To inform the CA of any change in location of an IU's
monitoring point(s) so that the CA may carry out its compliance
monitoring and enforcement responsibilities

Determination of non-significant categorical industrial users (NSCIUs)
and middle tier CIUs (Voluntary)	CA

IU	AA, IU

CA	403.3(v)(2), 403.8(f)(2)(v), 403.12(e), (g), (i), and (q)	For CA to
determine whether IU is an NSCIU or middle tier CIU and thus subject to
less stringent reporting, inspection, and sampling requirements

Issuance of discharge permits or other control mechanisms for SIUs 	CA
IU	403.8(f)	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 To give SIUs notice of all
pretreatment requirements and to improve enforcement

Inspection and sampling of IU and SIU effluent (including slug control
plans)	CA	AA	403.8(f)(2)(v)	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 To monitor industrial
discharges to POTW treatment facilities

Public notification of significant noncompliance	CA	Public
403.8(f)(2)(viii)

	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 To inform the public of instances of significant
noncompliance

Prevention and control plan for spills and batch discharges	IU

CA	CA

AA	403.8(f)(2)(vi)	For CAs t  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 o notify SIUs of the
need for planning to minimize the risk of slug, spill, and batch
discharges. Documentation of the POTW’s activities must be made
available to the AA upon request so the AA can determine whether the
POTW is adequately evaluating whether its SIUs need slug discharge
control plans.

Evaluation of the need to revise local limits	CA	AA	403.5(c)	  SEQ
CHAPTER \h \r 1 To evaluate whether CAs have developed appropriate local
limits to control toxic and hazardous pollutants

POTW enforcement response plan	CA	AA	403.8(f)(5)	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
To assist in determining whether CAs have effective enforcement programs

Excellence Award program information (voluntary)	POTW, AA	OA	105	  SEQ
CHAPTER \h \r 1 To recognize CAs with outstanding pretreatment programs

*This is a recordkeeping requirement, not a reporting requirement.
Though no submission is required, IUs incur burden.

**See section 2(a) of this ICR.





Exhibit 3C.	Uses of data collected for program/categorical
determinations

Type of Data Collected	From	To	Authority / Citation (40 CFR)	Uses of the
Data

Categorical determination request	IU, CA	AA/OA	403.6(a)	To enable the
AA/OA to determine the applicability of a categorical standard or
subcategory to an IU

Alternative limits modification request	IU	CA	403.6(e)	  SEQ CHAPTER \h
\r 1 To notify the CA of any material or significant change in the
values used to calculate an alternative limit

Fundamentally different factors variance request	IU, CA	OA	403.13	  SEQ
CHAPTER \h \r 1 To provide plant-specific data necessary for a CA to
determine whether an IU's production processes or technologies are
fundamentally different from the representative facilities used to
determine the limits specified in a categorical standard and, if so, to
adjust the limits. This information provides the empirical data used to
evaluate the appropriateness of national standards.

Net/gross adjustment request	IU	CA	403.15	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 To
enable CA to determine whether an applicable pretreatment standard
should be revised (i.e., to ensure that an IU is not required to remove
a greater amount of a pollutant than is already present in its intake
water)

Removal credit approval request	POTW	AA	403.7	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 To
enable AA to authorize a POTW to calculate a revised categorical
standard reflecting pollutant removals already resulting from specific
POTW design capabilities

Removal credit self-monitoring report	POTW	AA	403.7	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r
1 To enable AA to monitor ongoing POTW pollutant removals, which form
the basis for revised categorical standards for the POTW's users

3.	Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

3(a).	Nonduplication

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 EPA has examined all other reporting requirements
contained in the CWA and 40 CFR Part 403. In addition, the Agency has
examined the following sources to determine whether similar or
duplicative information is available elsewhere:

Permit Compliance System

Management Information and Data Systems Division Inventory of Automated
Systems

Environmental Information Clearinghouse

Inventory of ICRs

EPA did not find any similar or duplicative reporting requirements. No
other mechanism for obtaining information on continued compliance with
pretreatment standards is available.

3(b).	Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

In compliance with the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), any agency
developing a non-rule-related ICR must solicit public comments before
submitting the ICR to OMB.  These comments, which are used partly to
determine realistic burden estimates for respondents, must be considered
when completing the Supporting Statement that is submitted to OMB.

This ICR was published in the Federal Register on June 27, 2007 (72 FR
35227-35230).  The notice included a request for comments on the content
and impact of these information collection requirements on the regulated
community.  EPA received no comments on this ICR.

3(c).	Consultations

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 On June 26, 1978, EPA promulgated the General
Pretreatment Regulations (43 FR 27736). Between February 1977 and June
1978, 4 public hearings and 16 public meetings concerning the proposed
regulations were held. In addition, EPA received more than 400
individual comments. In response to the comments received, EPA modified
the reporting requirements in the final General Pretreatment Regulations
to minimize the burden on POTWs.

On October 29, 1979, EPA proposed amendments to the General Pretreatment
Regulations (44 FR 62260). After considering numerous comments submitted
on the proposed amendments, EPA developed and published the amended
General Pretreatment Regulations on January 28, 1981 (46 FR 9404). These
amendments were scheduled to take effect on March 13, 1981; however, the
effective date was temporarily deferred to March 30, 1981, by a
Presidential memorandum (46 FR 11972). On March 27, 1981, EPA
indefinitely postponed the amendments' effective date.

Later that year, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a
suit, in which it challenged EPA over the Agency’s deferral of the
amendments to the General Pretreatment Regulations without having first
given public notice. On July 8, 1982, the court held in NRDC v. EPA (No.
81-2068) that EPA’s suspension violated the Administrative Procedure
Act. The court ordered EPA to reinstate all pretreatment amendments
retroactive to March 30, 1981. In the meantime, two stakeholder groups
had recommended that EPA promulgate certain portions of the regulations.
In response to these and other comments, EPA put most of the amendments
into effect.

On February 3, 1984, EPA established the Pretreatment Implementation
Review Task Force (PIRT). The mission of PIRT was to provide EPA with
recommendations for addressing day-to-day problems faced by POTWs,
states, and industries in implementing the National Pretreatment
Program. PIRT was composed of 17 representatives of POTWs, states,
industry, environmental groups, and EPA regional offices. The group
produced a set of recommendations, summarized in a final report to the
Administrator. EPA revised the general pretreatment and NPDES
regulations (40 CFR Parts 122 and 403) on October 17, 1988 (53 FR 40610)
in response to PIRT’s recommendations.

The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) excluded coverage of solid and
dissolved wastes in domestic sewage, meaning such wastes did not have to
meet RCRA standards for hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal.
EPA was required under the amendments to prepare a report to Congress on
the extent to which excluded wastes pass through POTWs.

EPA subsequently submitted the Domestic Sewage Study (DSS) to Congress
on February 7, 1986. The report contained information on 160,000 waste
dischargers from 47 industrial categories and the residential sector.
The report also provided information on the effectiveness of existing
government controls for wastewater discharges, especially federal and
local pretreatment programs and categorical pretreatment standards. In
the DSS, EPA agreed with retaining the domestic sewage exclusion;
however, it recommended that CWA authorities be applied to protect
against hazardous waste discharges to POTWs.

EPA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on August
22, 1986 (51 FR 30166), to improve methods for controlling hazardous
waste discharges to POTWs under the NPDES and general pretreatment
programs. To solicit comments on the ANPR, the Agency held three public
meetings––one each in the District of Columbia, Chicago, and San
Francisco. The Agency summarized the comments received in the Federal
Register on June 22, 1987. It later proposed pretreatment program
changes on November 23, 1988 (53 FR 47632), and it published a final
rule on July 24, 1990 (55 FR 30082).

On November 25, 1992, pursuant to section 405 of the CWA, EPA
promulgated a regulation (40 CFR Part 503) to protect public health and
the environment from the reasonably anticipated adverse effects of
certain pollutants in sewage sludge (58 FR 9248, February 19, 1993 –
Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge – Final Rule). This
regulation established requirements for the following final uses or
disposal of sewage sludge: 

Land application either to condition the soil or to fertilize crops
grown in the soil

Final disposal on the land

Incineration

Also on November 25, 1992, EPA amended the Part 403 general pretreatment
regulations to add a new Appendix G, which included two tables of
pollutants that are eligible for a removal credit if the other
procedural and substantive requirements of 40 CFR Part 503 and 40 CFR
403.7 are met. The first table (Appendix G—Section I) lists, by use or
disposal practice, the pollutants regulated in Part 503 and eligible for
removal credit authorization. The second table (Appendix G–Section II)
lists, by use or disposal practice, additional pollutants that are
eligible for a removal credit if the concentration of the pollutant in
sewage sludge does not exceed a prescribed concentration. The pollutants
in Appendix G—Section II are the pollutants that EPA evaluated and
opted not to regulate during development of the Part 503 regulation (58
FR 9381–5).

On March 5, 1993, Leather Industries of America, Inc., filed a petition
with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit seeking review of the pollutant limits for chromium in Tables
1–4 of 40 CFR 503.13(b). On June 17, 1993, the City of Pueblo,
Colorado, filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the 10th Circuit challenging the selenium pollutant limits in Tables
1–3 of 40 CFR 503.13(b). This latter case was subsequently transferred
to the D.C. Circuit. On November 15, 1994, the D.C. Circuit remanded the
cumulative pollutant loading rate for chromium in Table 2 and the
pollutant concentration limit for chromium and selenium in Table 3 to
the Agency for modification or additional justification (Leather
Industries of America, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 40 F.3d
392, D.C. Cir., 1994).

Effective October 25, 1995, and as a result of EPA’s reconsideration
of certain issues remanded by the U.S. Court of Appeals for additional
justification or modification, the Agency amended 40 CFR Part 503 to
delete the land application pollutant limits for chromium and to change
the land application pollutant concentration limit for selenium.
Accordingly, EPA also amended the list of pollutants (in Appendix G of
40 CFR Part 403) for which a removal credit may be available (60 FR
54764-70).

In 1995, EPA initiated a review of the general pretreatment regulations
to identify opportunities for reducing the implementation and management
burden on affected parties. The 1995 effort culminated in two phases of
“streamlining” the pretreatment regulations: “Streamlined
Procedures for Modifying Approved Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Pretreatment Programs” and “Streamlining the General Pretreatment
Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution.”

On July 30, 1996, EPA proposed amendments to the General Pretreatment
Regulations to revise the procedures for modifying the requirements of
approved POTW Pretreatment Programs incorporated into NPDES permits
issued to POTWs (61 FR 39804). The revisions are designed to reduce the
administrative burden and cost associated with maintaining approved
pretreatment programs without affecting environmental protection. The
final rule was published in the Federal Register on July 17, 1997, and
became effective on August 18, 1997 (62 FR 38406). 

On July 22, 1999, EPA proposed to revise several provisions of the
General Pretreatment Regulations that address restrictions on and
oversight of IUs that introduce pollutants into POTWs (64 FR 39564). EPA
also proposed changes to certain program requirements to make them
consistent with NPDES requirements. The proposals would reduce the
regulatory burden on both IUs and state and POTW CAs without affecting
environmental protection. By finalizing the rule, EPA was to achieve
better environmental results at a lower cost by allowing CAs to better
focus oversight resources where they will do the most good. EPA received
221 comment letters in response to the proposed rule. In addition, the
Agency met with key stakeholder groups during the development of the
final rule.  EPA published the final changes to the General Pretreatment
Regulations (Final Pretreatment Streamlining Rule) on October 14, 2005
(70 FR 60134).

On October 6, 2000, EPA published (65 FR 59738) a final rule to
implement a project under the Project XLC program for certain facilities
in Steele County, Minnesota. The terms of the project were defined in a
Final Project Agreement, which was made available for public review and
comment through a Federal Register notice on December 29, 1999 (64 FR
73047) and signed on May 31, 2000. In addition, EPA promulgated a
site-specific rule, applicable to only the Steele County sponsors who
are participating industrial users, to facilitate implementation of the
project. This site-specific rule provides regulatory changes under the
CWA to implement the Community XL project. EPA received no public
comments on the proposed rule.

On October 6, 2000, EPA proposed (65 FR 59791) a rule that set forth the
mechanism through which POTWs that complete the Project XL process can
seek modification of their programs following the procedures in 40 CFR
403.18 and implement the new local programs as described in their
Project XL Final Project Agreement. EPA received a total of three
comments regarding this rule. The final rule was published on October 3,
2001 (66 FR 50334).

On October 13, 2005, EPA published (70 FR 59848) a final rule
establishing the framework under which it would accept electronic
reports from regulated entities to satisfy certain document submission
requirements in EPA’s regulations. The proposed rule was published on
August 31, 2001 (66 FR 46162). For the proposal, EPA provided a 6-month
public comment period, which closed on February 27, 2002. During that
time, EPA received 184 sets of written comments on the proposed rule.

On October 14, 2005, EPA published (70 FR 60199) an ANPR seeking comment
on two issues concerning the removal credits provisions in the General
Pretreatment Regulations. EPA requested comments on whether to amend the
list of pollutants for which removal credits are available to add
certain pollutants. Comments had to be received on or before December
13, 2005.

3(d).	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 EPA considers the reporting requirements
associated with the pretreatment program (both the one-time and ongoing
monitoring and reporting requirements) the minimum necessary for
effective administration of the program. EPA also considers the
reporting requirements the minimum necessary to ensure effective control
of hazardous wastes and to implement RCRA section 3018(b). Any
alternative to the present set of minimal requirements would entail an
increase in reporting burden to respondents.

In addition, EPA considers the specific requirements for SIUs and for
reporting the discharge of RCRA hazardous substances preferable to
repealing the domestic sewage exclusion.

3(e).	General Guidelines 

The information collection requirements of the National Pretreatment
Program are in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act guidelines at
5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2). Only one provision exceeds the OMB guidelines.
According to 40 CFR 403.12(f), IUs must notify the POTW immediately of
any slug loading. Generally, IUs make such reports by telephone. This is
an emergency provision that aims to provide POTWs with adequate time to
respond to a potentially deleterious situation.

3(f).	Confidentiality 

The following reporting requirements may contain confidential business
information (CBI), proprietary information, or information containing
compromising trade secrets:

Pretreatment Baseline Monitoring Report (BMR)

IU Compliance Schedule Report

POTW and IU Maintenance of Monitoring Records

Pretreatment Categorical Determination Request

Pretreatment Fundamentally Different Factors (FDF) Variance Request

In such cases, the respondent has the right to request that the
information be treated as CBI. EPA and its agents will handle all data
so designated in accordance with the requirements at 40 CFR 403.14(a): 

In accordance with 40 CFR Part 2, any information submitted to EPA
pursuant to these regulations may be claimed as confidential by the
submitter. Any such claim must be asserted at the time of submission in
the manner prescribed on the application form or instructions, or, in
the case of other submissions, by the words “confidential business
information” on each page containing such information. If no claim is
made at the time of submission, EPA may make the information available
to the public without further notice. If a claim is asserted, the
information will be treated in accordance with the procedures in 40 CFR
Part 2 (Public Information).

The pretreatment regulations, however, stipulate at 40 CFR 403.14(b)
that industrial effluent data “… shall be made available to the
public without restriction.”

3(g)	Sensitive Questions 

The reporting requirements for the National Pretreatment Program do not
require respondents to respond to questions of a sensitive nature.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

4(a).	Respondents/NAICS Codes

Data associated with this ICR are collected and maintained at the IU,
POTW, state, and federal levels. Respondents include POTWs, certain
classifications of IUs, and states submitting requests for program
approval.

The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code for sewerage systems
(POTWs) is 4952; the corresponding North American Industry
Classification (NAICS) code for such systems is 22132 (Sewage Treatment
Facilities). The SIC code for state agencies implementing the National
Pretreatment Program is 9511 (Air and Water Resources and Solid Waste
Management), while the corresponding NAICS code is 92411 (Administration
of Air and Water Resources and Solid Waste Management Programs).

Exhibit 4 provides a list of SIC/NAICS codes for various industrial
categories whose members are potentially subject to the national
pretreatment regulations. Please note that auxiliary systems (those that
provide services to the primary establishment, such as electrical power
to a factory) cannot be categorized in a single SIC or NAICS code. For
auxiliary systems, the SIC or NAICS code is that of the primary
establishment or industry.

Exhibit 4.	Affected industries and industrial classifications

Affected Industry	SIC Code(s)*	NAICS Code(s)**

Adhesive/Sealant	2891	32552

Aluminum Forming	3353, 3354, 3355, 3357, 3363	331315, 331316, 331319,
331521

Asbestos Manufacturing	2621, 3292	33634, 327999

Battery Manufacturing	3691, 3692	335911, 335912

Builder's Paper and Board Mills	267	322222, 322299

Carbon Black Manufacturing	2895	325182

Cement Manufacturing	3241	327310

Centralized Waste Treatment	4953	562211, 562219

Coal Mining 	1221, 1222, 1231, 1241	212111, 212112, 212113, 213113

Coil Coating 	3411, 3479, 3492	332431, 332812

Copper Forming	3351, 3357, 3463	331421, 331422, 332112

Dairy Products Processing	2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2026	311511, 311512,
311513, 311514, 311520

Electrical and Electronic Components	3671, 3674, 3679	334411, 334413,
334419

Electroplating	3471, 3672	332813, 334412

Explosives Manufacturing	2892	325920

Feedlots	0211	112112

Ferroalloy Manufacturing	3313	331112

Fertilizer Manufacturing	2873, 2874, 2875	325311, 325312, 325314

Foundries	332, 3365, 3366	331511, 331512, 331513, 331524, 331525

Fruits and Vegetables Processing 	2033, 2034, 2035, 2037	311411, 311421,
311422, 311423

Glass Manufacturing	3211, 3221, 3296	327211, 327212, 327993

Grain Mills Manufacturing	2041, 2043, 2044, 2045, 2046, 2047	311111,
311211, 311212, 311213, 311221, 311230

Gum and Wood Chemicals	2861	325191

Ink Formulating	2893	325910

Exhibit 4.	Affected industries and industrial classifications
(continued)

Affected Industry	SIC Code(s)*	NAICS Code(s)**

Inorganic Chemicals 	2812, 2813, 2816, 2819	325120, 325131, 325181,
325188

Iron and Steel Manufacturing	3312, 3315, 3316, 3317, 3479	331111,
331210, 331221, 331222, 332812

Leather Tanning and Finishing	3111	316110

Meat Processing	2011, 2013, 2077	311611, 311612, 311613

Metal Finishing	Industry groups: 34, 35, 36, 37, and 38	Industry
subsectors 332, 333, 334, and 336

Metal Molding and Casting	3321, 3322, 3324, 3325, 3365, 3366, 3369
331511, 331512, 331513, 331524, 331525, 331528

Non-Ferrous Metals Forming and Metal Powders	3356, 3357, 3363, 3497,
3499	331422, 331491, 331521, 332117, 332999

Ore Mining and Dressing	1011, 1021, 1031, 1041, 1044, 1061, 1094, 1099
212210, 212221, 212222, 212231, 212234, 212291, 212299

Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers	286	325132, 325211,
325192, 32511, 32512, 325193, 325212, 325199

Paint Formulating	2851	325510

Paving and Roofing (Tars and Asphalt)	2951, 2952, 3996	324121, 324122,
326192

Pesticides Formulating, Packaging, and Repackaging	287	325314

Pesticides Manufacturing	2879	325320

Petroleum Refining	2911	324110

Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing	2833, 2834	325411, 325412

Phosphate Manufacturing	2819, 2874	325188, 325312

Photographic	7221, 7335, 7384, 7819	512199, 541921, 541922, 812921,
812922

Plastics and Synthetics	3081, 3082, 3083, 3084, 3085, 3086, 3087	325991,
326112, 326113, 326121, 326122, 326140, 326150, 326160

Porcelain Enameling	3431, 3469, 3479, 3631, 3632, 3633, 3639	332116,
332812, 332998, 335221, 335222, 335224, 335228

Printing and Publishing	2731	51223, 51113, 323117

Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard	2611, 2621, 2631	322110, 322121, 322122,
322130

Rubber Processing	2822	325212

Seafood Processing, Canning & Preserving 	2091, 2092	311711, 311712

Soaps and Detergents Manufacturing	2841	325611

Steam Electric Power Generating	4911	221112

Textile Mills (410)	2211, 2221, 2231, 2241, 2251, 2252, 2253, 2254,
2257, 2258, 2259, 2261, 2262, 2269, 2273, 2281, 2282, 2284, 2295, 2296,
2297, 2298, 2299	313111, 313112, 313113, 313210, 313221, 313222, 313230,
313241, 313249, 313311, 313312, 313320, 314110, 314121, 314129, 314911,
314912, 314991, 314992, 314999

Exhibit 4.	Affected industries and industrial classifications
(continued)

Affected Industry	SIC Code(s)*	NAICS Code(s)**

Timber Products and Processing	2421, 2435, 2436, 2491, 2493, 2499
321114, 321211, 321212, 321219

Transportation Equipment	4491, 4499, 4741, 7699	484230, 488210, 488320,
488390

*  Note that some industrial sectors are categorized by only two- or
three-digit SIC codes.

** This table might not include all applicable NAICS codes for
industries with one or more codes.



Of the IUs that are respondents, some are considered SIUs on the basis
of certain criteria. SIUs are defined at 40 CFR 403.3(v) as any of the
following types of facilities:

All IUs subject to categorical pretreatment standards (unless the CA
finds that the IU is an NSCIU or has no reasonable potential for
adversely affecting the POTW’s operation or for violating any
pretreatment standards).

All IUs not subject to categorical pretreatment standards that

Discharge an average of 25,000 gallons per day (gpd) or more of process
wastewater (excluding sanitary, noncontact cooling, and boiler blowdown
wastewater);

Contribute a process wastestream equal to or greater than 5 percent or
more of the receiving treatment plant’s average dry weather hydraulic
or organic capacity; or

Have a reasonable potential to adversely affect the POTW’s operation
or violate any pretreatment standard or requirement as determined by the
CA.

4(b).	Information Requested

4(b)(i).	Data Items 

Information is required under the National Pretreatment Program to
facilitate (1) program development, (2) program implementation, and (3)
program/categorical determinations. Exhibit 5 outlines the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements in each of these areas. Please note that most
of the information requirements, particularly those associated with
program development and program/categorical determinations, are one-time
requirements that most states, POTWs, and IUs have already met.

Exhibit 5.	Reporting and recordkeeping requirements for the pretreatment
program

Program Area	Requirement	Regulatory Citation (40 CFR)	From	To	Frequency/
Retention

Program development	POTW pretreatment program approval request	403.8(b),

403.9	POTW	AA	One time

	POTW pretreatment compliance schedule progress report	403.8, 403.9,
403.12(k)	POTW	AA	One time

	State pretreatment program approval request	403.10	State	OA	One time

	Maintain pretreatment program information	403.11(f), 403.14	OA, AA,
POTW	Stored on-site	For minimum of 3 years

Program implementation	Baseline monitoring report	403.12(b)	IU	CA	One
time

	IU compliance schedule progress report 	403.12(c)	IU	CA	One time

	IU compliance attainment report	403.12(d)	IU	CA	One time

	IU resampling compliance requirements	403.12(g)	IU	CA	Once per effluent
violation

	IU request for coverage under general control mechanism	403.8(f) 
(1)(ii)(A) (2)	IU	CA	One time

	IU self-monitoring compliance report	403.12(e), 403.12(h)	IU	CA	Every 6
months or as requested by CA

	Pollution prevention plan	455.41	IU	CA	One time, as needed

	Centralized Waste Treatment initial certification statement	437.41	IU
CA	One time

	Periodic certifications	varies**	IU	CA	Varies from once every 6 months
to once every 5 years

	Maintain POTW monitoring records and documentation of BMPs	403.12(o),
403.14(c)	POTW/CA	Stored on site	For minimum of 3 years

	Maintain IU monitoring records and documentation of BMPs	403.12(o)	IU
Stored on site	For minimum of 3 years

	Annual POTW reports	403.12(i)	CA	AA	Annually

	POTW program modifications	403.18	CA	AA	Once per occurrence

	IU slug load notification	403.12(f)	IU	CA	As needed



Exhibit 5.	Reporting and recordkeeping requirements for the pretreatment
program (continued)

Program Area	Requirement	Regulatory Citation (40 CFR)	From	To	Frequency/
Retention

Program implementation

(continued)	Notification of significant change affecting equivalent mass
limits or concentration limits	IU	CA	403.6 (c)(9)	Once per occurrence

	Notification of changed discharge	403.12(j)	IU	CA	Once per occurrence

	Bypass notification	403.17	IU	CA	Once per occurrence

	Notification of changed monitoring location	403.6(e) (4)	IU	CA	Once per
occurrence

	Determination of NSCIUs and middle tier CIUs	403.3(v) (2), 403.8(f)
(2)(v), 403.12(e), (g), (i), and (q)	CA

IU	AA, IU

CA	One time, as needed

	Issuance of discharge permits or other control mechanisms for SIUs
403.8(f)	CA	IU	Once every 5 years

	Inspection and sampling of IU and SIU effluent	403.8(f)	CA	AA



 	Random sampling and analysis of IUs, surveillance



Intermittent



Inspection and sampling of SIUs



Annually



Evaluation of SIUs for slug control plan



At least once, as needed

	Public notification of significant noncompliance	403.8(f) (2)(viii)	CA
Public	Annually

	Slug control plan	403.8(f) (2)(vi)	IU	CA	One time, as required

	Evaluation of the need to revise local limits	403.5(c)	CA	AA	Once every
5 years

	POTW enforcement response plan	403.8(f)	CA	AA	One time

	Notification of RCRA discharge	403.12(p)	IU	CA, EPA, State	One time, as
needed

	Excellence Award program	105	POTW, AA	OA	Annually (voluntary)



Exhibit 5.	Reporting and recordkeeping requirements for the pretreatment
program (continued)

Program Area	Requirement	Regulatory Citation (40 CFR)	From	To	Frequency/
Retention

Program/ categorical determination	Categorical determination request
403.6(a)	IU, CA	OA, AA	One time (voluntary)

	Alternative limits modification	403.6(e)	IU	CA	Once per occurrence

	Removal  credit approval request	403.7	POTW	AA	Intermittent (voluntary)

	Removal credit self-monitoring report	403.7	POTW	AA	Annually or as
specified by AA

	Fundamentally different factors variance request	403.13	IU, CA	OA	One
time (voluntary)

	Net/gross adjustment request	403.15	IU	CA	Intermittent (voluntary)

*  The IU submits the initial certification statement once, then submits
annual certification statements  thereafter.

** See section 2(a) of this ICR.



Program Development

The reporting requirements for program development apply to states and
POTWs and include the POTW Pretreatment Program Approval Request, POTW
Pretreatment Compliance Schedule Progress Report, and State Pretreatment
Program Approval Request.

The regulations at 40 CFR 403.10 require states to develop a
pretreatment program, provided EPA granted the state NPDES program
authority before the National Pretreatment Program was established. All
other states are required to apply for pretreatment program approval at
the same time they apply for NPDES program authority. In a state’s
request for approval, the state must demonstrate that it has developed
the legal, procedural, and administrative bases for the program and that
it has the necessary funding and staff to operate the program. Once EPA
approves the program, the state becomes the AA. EPA regional offices are
responsible for administering the pretreatment program in states without
approved programs. Currently, 35 states have approved pretreatment
programs.

All POTWs that have design flows of more than 5 mgd and receive
pollutants from IUs, which may pass through or interfere with the
operation of the POTW, or are otherwise subject to National Pretreatment
Standards, must develop local pretreatment programs. The IU is to
reduce, eliminate, or alter harmful industrial pollutants prior to
discharging to the POTW system vis-à-vis the program. POTWs with a
design flow of less than 5 mgd that receive discharges from IUs may also
be required to develop a local program if the nature or volume of the
industrial influent, treatment process upsets, violations of POTW
effluent limitations, contamination of municipal sludge, or other
circumstances warrant to prevent POTW interference or pass through from
occurring. POTWs in a state that acts as the CA for all POTWs in the
state (a 403.10(e) state) are exempt from this requirement. In cases
where POTWs do not have a pretreatment program, the approved
pretreatment state or the EPA regional office assumes the responsibility
of the CA.

The AA must approve local pretreatment programs. The POTW must
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the AA that it possesses the legal
authority and has adequate resources, procedures, and staff to implement
the program. Procedural activities include, but are not limited to,
surveying existing IUs, developing local limits for pollutants of
concern, and developing an enforcement response plan. When a POTW is
developing its program, it is to provide the AA with a schedule
indicating the dates on which it expects to complete or implement each
major program component. Before obtaining final approval, the POTW must
certify that it has met all program requirements as specified at 40 CFR
403.8. The regulations at 40 CFR 403.9 describe the POTW documents that
must be submitted to the AA for program approval and the procedures that
the AA must follow to approve the POTW pretreatment program.

The AA must retain all submissions for pretreatment program approval and
removal credits approval, as well as any comments related to these
submissions. The AA must make this information available to the public
upon request.

Program Implementation 

Once the POTW receives program approval, the POTW or the agency
responsible for administering the pretreatment program (CA) is required
under section 402(b) of the CWA to ensure IU compliance with the
national pretreatment standards. Specific CA reporting and recordkeeping
requirements include the following:  

Annual POTW reports

POTW program modifications

Determination of NSCIUs and middle tier CIUs

Issuance of discharge permits or other control mechanisms for SIUs

Inspection and sampling of industrial user effluent

Public notification of significant noncompliance

Evaluation of the need to revise local limits

POTW enforcement response plan

SIU notification of applicable standards and requirements

Excellence Award program information

Maintain monitoring records and documentation of BMPs

The Streamlining Rule also provided opportunities for CAs to specify
equivalent mass-based limits or equivalent concentration-based limits
for IUs. If the CA voluntarily chooses to take advantage of the
flexibility in the national pretreatment regulations, it must make a
one-time calculation of the limit for any IU it determines is eligible.
The IU, however, must provide the CA with data to make the calculation,
such as actual average daily flow rates for all wastestreams, as
determined from a continuous effluent flow monitoring device, and the
facility’s long-term average production rate.

The Streamlining Rule also included a provision for a CA to reduce
sampling frequency requirements for IUs when it determines that a
required pollutant is not present or is not expected to be present in
the IU’s wastestreams. The CA must make such monitoring reduction
determinations through analysis of sample results at least once every 5
years.

Before EPA’s Streamlining Rule was promulgated, CAs were to evaluate
the need for IUs to have slug control plans once every 2 years. The
Streamlining Rule revised this requirement, and now the CA is required
to conduct this evaluation at least once.

IUs also have a number of reporting and recordkeeping requirements with
respect to program implementation. These include the following:  

Baseline Monitoring Report (BMR)

CIU Compliance Schedule Progress Report

CIU Compliance Attainment Report (“90-day Compliance Report”)

IU Resampling Compliance Report

IU Request for Coverage under General Control Mechanism

IU Self-Monitoring Compliance Report

Pollution prevention plan

Periodic certifications

Maintain monitoring records and documentation of BMPs

IU slug load notification

Notification of changed discharge

Bypass notification

Notification of changed monitoring location

Slug control plan

Notification of RCRA discharge

Within 180 days after the effective date of a categorical standard, an
affected industry (a CIU) must submit a BMR, which is to include, in
part, measurements of pollutant concentrations in the IU’s
wastestream. If the CIU cannot meet pretreatment standards, it usually
has up to 3 years to finance, construct, and operate pollution control
equipment or facilities necessary to achieve compliance. IUs are to
submit a schedule of expected compliance achievement in each BMR.

	

In addition to BMRs, CIUs are to submit Compliance Schedule Progress
Reports and a Compliance Attainment Report. In Compliance Schedule
Progress Reports, IUs indicate the extent to which they have met
compliance deadlines. They are to justify any milestones not met. IUs
submit a Compliance Attainment Report to their respective CAs when they
have achieved all milestones and are in full compliance with applicable
pretreatment standards.

Some POTWs may choose to issue general control mechanisms to IUs with
similar operations and meeting other criteria. To be covered under a
general control mechanism, an IU must file a written request for
coverage with the CA.

On an ongoing basis, SIUs are to monitor for regulated pollutants and
report the results to the CA at least semiannually (twice a year). These
reports are termed IU or SIU Self-Monitoring Reports. CAs have the
discretion to require more frequent monitoring and reporting than that
required under federal law. Certain IUs may provide periodic
certifications or develop pollution prevention plans to reduce or
eliminate monitoring requirements. Both IUs and CAs must maintain
self-monitoring reports and certifications for a minimum of 3 years.
Both entities must also maintain records documenting the design and
implementation of BMPs when these are used.

An IU must notify its CA of any pollutant released at a flow rate and/or
pollutant concentration that will cause interference with the POTW or
will violate a general or specific prohibition of the IU’s permit.
Such an occurrence, known as slug loading, must be reported immediately
to enable the POTW to take appropriate protective actions (40 CFR
403.12(f)). The IU also is to promptly notify the POTW and CA in advance
of any substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants in
its discharge. If a CIU wishes to use “upset” as an affirmative
defense to an action brought for noncompliance, the CIU is to notify the
POTW and CA within 24 hours of becoming aware of an upset or
unanticipated bypass. If the CIU provides notice orally, it has 5 days
to follow up with a written notice. If an IU knows in advance of the
need for a bypass, it is to submit prior notice to the POTW, if possible
at least 10 days before the date of the bypass. Finally, an IU must also
notify the POTW, the state, and EPA if it discharges any substance
defined as hazardous under RCRA.

	Program/Categorical Determinations 

CAs use information reported under this program area to determine
whether specific pretreatment program requirements are applicable to an
IU or to revise specific requirements imposed on an IU. Information is
reported in this program area in the form of the following requests: 

Categorical Determination Requests

Alternative Limits Modification Requests/Combined Wastestream Formula
provision

Fundamentally Different Factors Variance Requests

Net/Gross Adjustment Requests

Removal Credit Approval Requests

Removal Credit Self-Monitoring Reports

Even though the information is required once a request is made, the
decision to make such a request is voluntarily made by the IU, the POTW,
or an interested third party during the implementation phase of a
particular categorical standard.

An IU, or a POTW on behalf of an IU, may request that the OA determine
whether the IU is subject to a particular categorical standard. If the
CIU mixes its process effluent with other wastewater prior to treatment,
it must obtain written concurrence from the CA to apply alternative
discharge limits to the mixed effluent; such alternative limits are
calculated using the Combined Wastestream Formula at 40 CFR 403.6(e). If
the IU (or the interested party) can demonstrate that circumstances
exist that which were not considered when the categorical standard was
developed, it may request a Fundamentally Different Factors Variance
through the procedures at 40 CFR 403.13. If an IU can certify that its
intake waters already contain a restricted pollutant, it may request a
Net/Gross Adjustment to obtain credit for the amount of the given
pollutant that occurs in its intake waters. (The latter request is
restricted to those cases where the intake and the discharge from the
POTW are in and on the same body of water.)

Finally, a POTW may apply to its AA at any time for authorization to
grant removal credits. To qualify, the POTW must certify that the
pollutant(s) being controlled by the categorical standard is (are) being
consistently treated and removed at the POTW, thereby rendering
additional treatment by the IU unnecessary. In such cases, the AA may
revise the applicable numerical standard(s) for CIUs discharging to that
facility. If a POTW is granted removal credits, it must monitor and
report the results of its analyses to certify that pollutant removal is
ongoing.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 4(b)(ii).	Respondent Activities

Activities undertaken by respondents (such as IUs, POTWs, states, and
EPA regions) to fulfill their respective obligations under the National
Pretreatment Program are described in this section. The activities are
described by program area (i.e., program development, program
implementation, and program/categorical determinations). In general, the
discussion follows the order of activities as they are presented in
Exhibit 5.

	Program Development

	State Pretreatment Program Approval Request

A states seeking approval for its pretreatment program must demonstrate
that it has established the necessary legal, administrative, and
procedural bases for effective monitoring and oversight of POTW
programs. Requests are submitted to the Regional Administrator, who
determines whether they meet the requirements of 40 CFR 403.10 and
section 402(b) of the CWA. State requests must include three copies of
the following items:

A statement by the state’s Attorney General (or the attorney for state
agencies with independent counsel) that the laws of the state provide
adequate authority to implement the program, together with copies of all
relevant state statutes and regulations.

A listing of the full- and part-time personnel available to implement
the program and a description of associated funding levels.

Any modifications or additions to the Memorandum of Agreement (required
at 40 CFR 123.24) that may be necessary for EPA and the state to
implement the program.

The EPA Regional Administrator is to notify the state that EPA has
received its submission and is reviewing it according to the process
established under 40 CFR 123.62. If EPA approves a state’s submission,
the state is to base its pretreatment program on the information in its
submission. If EPA does not approve the state program, it will act as
the AA for POTW pretreatment programs in that state (and will act as the
CA in areas without approved POTW pretreatment programs).

POTW Pretreatment Compliance Schedule Progress Report

Certain POTWs must establish a pretreatment program as stated at 40 CFR
403.8(a). These are POTWs (or combination of POTWs operated by the same
authority) that

Have a total design flow greater than 5 mgd and

Receive industrial pollutants from IUs that pass through or interfere
with POTW operations or

Receive industrial pollutants from IUs that are otherwise subject to
pretreatment standards.

The Administrator may require other POTWs to develop a pretreatment
program if circumstances warrant such action. POTWs in states where the
state is the CA are exempt from the requirement to develop a
pretreatment program.

The compliance schedule contains suggested dates to begin and complete
major program components leading to the development and implementation
of a POTW pretreatment program. Items like legal authority, technical
information, program procedures, and organizational and funding
mechanisms are to be included. The number of activities to be reported
in the compliance schedule varies among states and regions. The elapsed
time between major events in the compliance schedule may be no more than
9 months.

Within 14 days of the deadline for each major event in the compliance
schedule and within 14 days of the final compliance date for completing
the program, the POTW must submit a progress report to the appropriate
AA stating whether it met the deadline. If the POTW did not met the
deadline, it must explain when it will achieve compliance, explain its
reasons for delay, and explain the steps it is taking to return to the
established schedule.

POTW Pretreatment Program Approval Request

A POTW applying for program approval must provide documentation of the
following seven items in its final submission:

Industrial Waste Survey (IWS). The POTW must identify and evaluate the
nondomestic dischargers to its treatment system. To conduct the IWS, the
POTW must:

Compile a master list of potential IUs in the service area

Identify and locate each IU and collect information related to the type
of industry and the quality and quantity of discharge

Summarize the data collected for use in developing the pretreatment
program

Legal Authority. The POTW must have adequate legal authority to apply
and enforce the requirements of the pretreatment regulations and any
other state or local rules needed to control nondomestic discharges.

Technical Elements/Local Limits. The POTW must analyze discharges to its
treatment system and establish local effluent limits to protect the
operation of its treatment plant(s), the quality of its receiving water,
and the quality of its sewage sludge.

Compliance Monitoring. The POTW must develop procedures for monitoring
and inspecting its IUs to determine compliance/noncompliance.

Procedures. The POTW must develop administrative procedures to implement
its pretreatment program.

Resources. The POTW must have sufficient resources (funds, equipment,
and personnel) to operate an effective and ongoing program.

Enforcement Response Plan. The POTW must develop a plan that contains
detailed procedures for investigating and responding to instances of IU
noncompliance.

The AA reviews the submission and determines its adequacy, according to
the requirements at 40 CFR 403.8(f). If the AA determines that the
submission is inadequate, it notifies the POTW of any defects and
provides applicable compliance information. The regulations at 40 CFR
403.9 describe the POTW documents that must be submitted to the AA for
program approval and the procedures that the AA must follow to approve
the POTW pretreatment program.

Within 30 days of approval pursuant to 40 CFR 403.8(f)(6), the CA is to
inform its SIUs in writing of their status and of all applicable
requirements. This gives SIUs notice of all requirements pertaining to
them.

Maintain Pretreatment Program Information

The AA must retain and make available to the public the POTW
pretreatment program approval submissions and any requests for removal
credits. The AA must also keep any comments received regarding these
submissions.

	Program Implementation

Baseline Monitoring Report

According to 40 CFR 403.12(b), all IUs subject to categorical standards
must submit a BMR to the CA within 180 days after the effective date of
the applicable standard. In the case of new sources, the BMR must be
submitted at least 90 days prior to commencement of discharge. At their
discretion, CAs may require some noncategorical IUs to submit similar
reports. The BMR for CIUs must include the following information:

Facility identifying information

List of environmental control permits

Description of operations

Flow measurement data

Measurement of regulated pollutants

Certification (or noncertification) of compliance with the pretreatment
standards

Compliance schedule, if additional pretreatment or O&M is required to
meet standards

This information is submitted only once, after promulgation of a
categorical standard. If a CIU has already submitted this information
during the Industrial Waste Survey or in a permit application, the CIU
is not required to resubmit the information.

For BMRs and Compliance Attainment Reports, the regulations at 40 CFR
403.12(g)(4) require a minimum of four grab samples for pH, cyanide,
total phenols, oil and grease, sulfide, and volatile organic compounds
at facilities for which historical sampling data do not exist.
Furthermore, the regulations at 40 CFR 403.12(g)(3) specify that all
other pollutant samples must be collected as 24-hour composite samples
through flow-proportional composite sampling techniques, unless the CA
authorizes time-proportional composite sampling or grab sampling.

CIU Compliance Schedule Progress Report

As part of a CIU’s BMR, a CIU that cannot currently meet all
categorical pretreatment standards must submit a compliance schedule
indicating the minimum amount of time it needs to construct and operate
additional pretreatment. The schedule is to contain commencement and
completion dates for major milestones. The completion date in the
schedule is to be no later than the compliance date established for the
applicable categorical pretreatment standard.

In addition to the compliance schedule (submitted with the BMR), CIUs
are to provide progress reports within 14 days of completing each major
milestone. The periodic progress reports enable CAs to ensure that the
CIU is progressing toward compliance with categorical standards. In its
progress reports, the CIU is to demonstrate compliance with specific
deadlines. If it has not met a deadline, the CIU must provide the date
on which it expects to achieve the milestone, the reason for the delay,
and the steps it is taking to return to the established schedule. No
more than 9 months is to elapse between deadline dates for specific
milestones.

CIU Compliance Attainment Report (90-day Compliance Report)

IUs are to submit a report to the CA within 90 days following the date
for final compliance with applicable categorical pretreatment standards.
In the case of a new source (as defined at 40 CFR 403.3(m)), the IU must
submit the final report within 90 days of commencing discharge of
wastewater to the POTW. The compliance attainment report must include
the following:

Flow Measurement Data. The measured average daily and maximum daily
flow, in gallons per day, to the POTW from process and other
wastestreams.

Pollutant Data. The results of sampling and analysis identifying the
nature and concentration (or mass, if required) of regulated pollutants
in the discharge from each regulated process. Both daily maximum and
average concentrations (or mass, if required) are to be reported.

Certification Statement. A statement reviewed by an authorized
representative of the IU, and certified to by a qualified professional,
indicating whether the IU is meeting pretreatment standards on a
consistent basis and, if not, whether additional O&M or additional
pretreatment is required for the IU to meet the pretreatment standards.

Industrial User Self-Monitoring Compliance Report and Resampling
Compliance Report 

CIUs subject to categorical pretreatment standards, with the exception
of NSCIUs, are required to submit BMRs, Compliance Attainment Reports,
Self-Monitoring Compliance Reports, and Resampling Compliance Reports.
Noncategorical SIUs are required to submit Self-Monitoring Reports and,
if a violation was detected, Resampling Compliance Reports. All IUs,
regardless of type, are to provide sampling data that are representative
of conditions occurring during the reporting period. IUs are to perform
sampling and report sampling in accordance with the procedures specified
at 40 CFR 403.12 and 40 CFR Part 136. In general, categorical and
noncategorical SIUs are to provide reports semiannually unless the CA
has requested reports at a higher frequency. The CA may reduce the
reporting requirements to once per year for some CIUs if the conditions
at 40 CFR 403.3(v)(2) or 40 CFR 403.12(e)(3) are met.

If sampling performed by an IU indicates a violation, the IU is to
notify the CA within 24 hours of becoming aware of the violation. The IU
is also to repeat the sampling and analysis and submit the results of
the repeat analysis to the CA within 30 days of becoming aware of the
violation. Where the CA has performed the sampling and analysis in lieu
of the IU, the CA must perform the repeat sampling and analysis within
30 days of becoming aware of the violation, unless it notifies the IU of
the violation and requires the IU to perform the repeat analysis. If an
IU monitors any regulated pollutant at the appropriate sampling location
more frequently than required by the CA, the results of this monitoring
are to be included in the IU’s compliance reports.

In cases where a pretreatment standard requires compliance with a BMP
(or pollution prevention alternative), the CA is to require the IU to
submit documentation that will enable the CA to determine the compliance
status of the IU. The CA may also authorize monitoring waivers to some
IUs subject to categorical pretreatment standards, provided the
conditions at 40 CFR 403.12(e) are met. The CA must specify the
monitoring waiver in the IU’s permit or individual control mechanism.
The waiver is valid for only the duration of the permit; in no case may
the waiver be valid for longer than 5 years. IUs granted monitoring
waivers must certify in their self-monitoring reports that they have not
experienced any increase in the pollutant due to their activities. In
the event that a waived pollutant is found to be present or is expected
to be present based on changes that occur in an IU’s operations, the
IU is to immediately comply with the base monitoring requirements for
the pollutant (the requirements specified in the categorical
pretreatment standard) or other more frequent monitoring requirements
imposed by the CA.

	Pollution Prevention Plan

The Pesticides Formulating, Packaging, and Repackaging (PFPR)
Regulations at 40 CFR 455.41 allow facilities to develop a Pollution
Prevention Plan (P2 plan) and submit a P2 Alternative certification in
lieu of complying with the zero discharge requirement. The paperwork
required for compliance with the P2 Alternative includes an initial
certification statement, which must include required descriptions of the
IU’s products and processes, P2 practices, and treatment systems. IUs
must modify the plan as needed to reflect any changes since their last
compliance report.

	Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Indirect Discharging Mills in the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade
Sulfite Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source
Category 

This burden was migrated from OMB Control No. 2040-0243, EPA ICR No.
1878.02. It presents estimates of the burden and costs to the regulated
community and pretreatment approval and control authorities for
monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping, and follow-up actions associated
with implementing the minimum monitoring requirements of the Pulp, Paper
and Paperboard Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards (Cluster
Rules; 40 CFR Part 430), which were published on April 15, 1998 for
mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory (Subpart B)
and the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory (Subpart E). See Appendix C for
more information

	Pollution Prevention Compliance Alternative; Transportation Equipment
Cleaning Point Source Category (40 CFR Part 442).

This burden was migrated from OMB Control No. 2040-0235, EPA ICR No.
2018.02. It presents estimates of the burden and costs from the TEC rule
that established technology-based effluent limitations guidelines, new
source performance standards, and pretreatment standards for the
discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States and into POTWs
by existing and new facilities that perform TEC operations. TEC
facilities are defined as those facilities that generate wastewater from
cleaning the interior of tank trucks, closed-top hopper trucks, rail
tank cars, closed-top hopper rail cars, intermodal tank containers, tank
barges, closed-top hopper barges, and ocean/sea tankers used to
transport materials or cargos that come into direct contact with the
tank or container interior. Facilities that do not engage in cleaning
tank interiors are outside the scope of the rule. See Appendix C for
more information.

Best Management Practices for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper
and Paperboard Point Source Category 

This burden was migrated from OMB Control No. 2040-0207, EPA ICR No.
1829.03. It presents estimates of the burden and costs to the regulated
community (bleached papergrade Kraft, soda, and sulfite mills) and
pretreatment control authorities for data collection and recordkeeping
associated with implementing the best management practices requirements
of the Pulp and Paper Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards (40
CFR 430.03). See Appendix C for more information.

	CWT Initial Certification Statement

Under Subcategory D of the Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT) regulations
at 40 CFR 437.41, facilities that accept waste in multiple subcategories
may opt to develop and submit a demonstration that their treatment
systems obtain removal equivalent to that which is the basis for the
separate subcategory limits. The IU must include in its demonstration
(1) a list and description of the subcategories of wastes accepted at
the facility, (2) the treatment systems in place at the facility, and
(3) the conditions under which the treatment systems operate for each
subcategory of waste accepted. The IU’s demonstration must also
include data to support the IU’s claim that its treatment systems
achieve equivalent treatment, as defined under the CWT regulations.

In the preamble to the CWT regulations (65 FR 81267, December 22, 2000),
EPA reported “that 37 facilities accept wastes from multiple
subcategories” and thus are likely to be “subject to the multiple
wastestream subcategory.”  EPA estimated that 34 of the 37 facilities
are indirect dischargers (91.5 percent of 37 facilities) and were likely
to complete the initial CWT certification statement during the 3-year
period of the previously approved ICR (EPA ICR No. 0002.11). This burden
is no longer included in this pretreatment ICR.

	IU Request for Coverage under General Control Mechanism

CAs may at their discretion use general control mechanisms in
implementing their local pretreatment programs, provided the conditions
at 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1)(iii) are met. Applicable IUs must file a written
request with their CA for coverage under a general control mechanism.
The request for coverage must identify the following information: 

Contact information

Production processes

Types of wastes generated

Location for monitoring all wastes covered by the general control
mechanism

Any request for a monitoring waiver for a pollutant neither present nor
expected to be present in the discharge

Other information requested by the POTW/CA.

The CA is to retain a copy of the general control mechanism,
documentation supporting the CA’s determination that the IU meets the
criteria for a general control mechanism, and a copy of the IU’s
written request for coverage. The CA must retain these materials for 3
years after the expiration date of the general control mechanism. A CA
may not control an SIU through a general control mechanism where the
facility is subject to production-based categorical pretreatment
standards or categorical pretreatment standards expressed as mass of
pollutant discharged per day or for IUs whose limits are based on the
Combined Wastestream Formula or net/gross calculations.

Periodic Certifications

IUs in some industrial categories are eligible under their respective
categorical standards to submit certifications exempting them from
monitoring for one or more pollutants. Certification requirements exist
for the following industrial categories and subcategories: 

Aluminum Forming and Coil Coating Categories. An IU may choose to submit
an annual certification requesting exemption from cyanide monitoring if
the first cyanide sample collected during the calendar year contains
less than 0.07 mg/L of cyanide and the owner or operator certifies in
writing that no cyanide is used.

Canmaking Subpart of Coil Coating Category. The IU is required to submit
a notification if the alloy it uses in making cans contains less than 1
percent manganese. Periodic analyses of cyanide are not required if the
first wastewater sample taken in each calendar year contains less than
0.07 mg/L for cyanide and the owner or operator certifies in writing
that no cyanide is used.

Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Category (for Fermentation Product and
Chemical Synthesis Products subcategory only). An IU may choose to
submit a certification requesting exemption from monitoring for cyanide
and other regulated pollutants provided such pollutants are not used or
generated at the facility.

Pesticide Chemicals Category. An IU may choose to submit a certification
for a pollution prevention allowable discharge that states that the
pollution prevention alternative is being implemented in the manner set
forth in the IU’s control mechanism.

Porcelain Enameling Category. An IU may choose to submit an annual
certification requesting exemption from chromium monitoring if the first
sample collected during the calendar year contains less than 0.08 mg/L
of chromium and the owner or operator certifies in writing that chromium
is not used.

Pulp and Paper Categories.  Certain IUs may choose an alternative
monitoring program by certification once every 5 years if they use a
totally chlorine-free process. Certain facilities in this category may
also submit certifications in lieu of monitoring for pentachlorophenol
and trichlorophenol, provided they do not use these compounds as
biocides.

Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper, and
Paperboard Category.  Facilities that choose to certify any or all of
their fiber lines with their pretreatment control authority, in lieu of
chloroform minimum monitoring required by 40 CFR Part 430, will be
required to submit periodic reports certifying that the fiber line(s)
are operating within the range of certain process and operating
conditions identified during the initial compliance demonstration
period.

Steam Electric Category: IUs may choose to provide a demonstration and
certification that regulated parameters are not detectable in the final
discharge (except for chromium and zinc).

Electroplating, Metal Finishing, and Electrical and Electronic
Components Categories:  IUs may choose to submit a total toxic organics
(TTO) certification semiannually in lieu of performing TTO monitoring;
however, such facilities must also develop and submit a toxic organic
management plan.

Centralized Waste Treatment Category. IUs that opt for regulation under
Subpart D of the CWT regulations must certify annually that they are
operating their treatment systems to provide equivalent treatment as set
forth in their initial certification.

For the purposes of this ICR, EPA assumes that a periodic certification
requires an IU 1 hour to complete. This estimate is consistent with
those contained in the Information Collection Request for the
NPDES/Compliance Assessment/Certification Information (EPA ICR No.
1427.07, OMB No. 2040-0110).

Maintain Monitoring Records and Documentation of BMPs

IUs and POTWs are to maintain records of all information resulting from
monitoring activities specified in 40 CFR 403.12, including
documentation associated with BMPs.

The records for samples are to include the following:

Date, location, method, and time of sampling, and names of the person or
persons taking the samples

Dates of analyses

Names of person or persons performing the analyses

Analytical techniques/methods used

Results of the analyses

IUs and POTWs are to retain the records, including documentation
associated with BMPs, for a minimum of 3 years. IUs and POTWs are to
make these materials available for inspection and copying by the AA and
OA (and the POTW in the case of an IU). The period of retention is
extended during the course of any unresolved litigation regarding the IU
or POTW or when stipulated by the AA or the OA.

In addition, POTWs must retain copies of all BMRs, Compliance Schedule
and Attainment (90-day Compliance) Reports, periodic IU Self-Monitoring
Reports, and periodic certifications. The POTW must retain these records
for a minimum of 3 years and must make these documents available upon
request to the AA and OA for inspection. As with sampling data, the
retention time is extended during the course of any unresolved
litigation regarding the discharge of pollutants by an IU or the
operation of the POTW pretreatment program, or upon the request of the
AA/OA.

Annual POTW Reports

POTWs with approved pretreatment programs are to provide the AA with an
annual report that describes the POTW’s program activities, including
activities of all participating agencies, if more than one jurisdiction
is involved in the local program. The POTW is to submit this report no
later than 1 year after approval of the POTW’s pretreatment program,
and at least annually thereafter. The report is to include, at a
minimum, the following:  

An updated list of the POTW’s IUs, including names and addresses, or a
list of deletions and additions keyed to a previously submitted list.
The POTW is to identify which IUs are subject to categorical
pretreatment standards and to specify which standards are applicable to
each IU. The POTW is also to indicate the IUs that are subject to local
standards that are more stringent than the categorical pretreatment
standards and the IUs that are subject to only local requirements.
Finally, the POTW is to identify the categorical IUs subject to reduced
reporting requirements and the IUs classified as NSCIUs.

A summary of the status of IU compliance over the reporting period.

A summary of compliance and enforcement activities, including
inspections, conducted by the POTW during the reporting period.

A summary of changes to the POTW’s pretreatment program, which have
not been previously reported to the AA.

Any other relevant information requested by the AA.

POTW Program Modifications 

An AA or a POTW with an approved pretreatment program may initiate
program modifications at any time to reflect changing conditions at the
POTW. Program modifications are necessary anytime there is a significant
change in the operation of a POTW pretreatment program that differs from
the information in the POTW submission  approved previously by the OA or
AA. The term substantial modification is defined at 40 CFR 403.18(b),
and such modifications include the following:

Modifications that relax POTW legal authorities (except for
modifications that directly reflect a revision to 40 CFR Part 403 or 40
CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N).

Changes that relax a POTW’s local limits, with the exception of
modifications to local limits for pH and reallocations of the Maximum
Allowable Industrial Loading (MAIL) of a pollutant that do not increase
the total industrial loadings for the pollutant, which are reported
pursuant to paragraph (d) of 40 CFR 403.18. MAIL means the total mass of
a pollutant that all IUs of a POTW (or a subgroup of IUs identified by
the POTW) may discharge pursuant to limits developed under 40 CFR
403.5(c).

Changes to the POTW’s IU control mechanism.

Decreases in the frequency of self-monitoring or reporting required of
IUs.

Decreases in the frequency of IU inspections and sampling by the POTW.

Changes to the POTW’s confidentiality procedures.

Other modifications designated as substantial by the AA on the basis
that the modification could have a significant impact on the operation
of the POTW’s pretreatment program, could result in an increase in
pollutant loadings at the POTW, or could result in less stringent
requirements being imposed on IUs of the POTW.

If the AA approves the substantial modification to the POTW’s program,
it is to publish a notice of approval (unless the notice of request of
for approval states that the request will be approved if no comments are
received by a date specified in the notice; no substantive comments are
received; and the request is approved without change). The POTW is to
notify the AA of any nonsubstantial program modifications 45 days prior
to implementation by the POTW. The AA, in turn, has 45 days in which to
notify the POTW of its decision to approve or disapprove the
nonsubstantial modification. If the AA does not notify the POTW within
45 days, the POTW may implement the nonsubstantial modification. The AA
is to incorporate all modifications into the POTW’s NPDES permit upon
approval.

	Industrial User Slug Load Notification

Under 40 CFR 403.12(f), all IUs are required to immediately notify the
POTW of all discharges that could cause problems to the POTW, including
any slug loadings by the IU. The specific discharge prohibitions are
defined at 40 CFR 403.5(b) and include the following:

Pollutants that create a fire or explosion hazard in the POTW, including
wastestreams with a closed-cup flashpoint of less than 140 degrees
Fahrenheit or 60 degrees Celsius using the test methods specified at 40
CFR 261.21.

Pollutants that will cause corrosive structural damage to the POTW, and
in no case discharges with pH lower than 5.0, unless the POTW is
specifically designed to accommodate such discharges.

Solid or viscous pollutants in amounts that will cause obstruction to
the flow in the POTW resulting in interference.

Any pollutant, including oxygen-demanding pollutants (e.g., biochemical
oxygen demand) released in a discharge at a flow rate and/or pollutant
concentration that will cause interference with the POTW.

F (40 C), unless the AA, upon request of the POTW, approves
alternative temperature limits.

Petroleum oil, nonbiodegradable cutting oil, or products of mineral oil
origin in amounts that will cause interference or pass through.

Pollutants that result in the presence of toxic gases, vapors, or fumes
within the POTW in a quantity that may cause acute worker health and
safety problems.

Any trucked or hauled pollutants, except at discharge points designated
by the POTW.

The term interference is defined at 40 CFR 403.3(k) as a discharge that
inhibits or disrupts the POTW; its treatment process or operations; or
its processes, uses, and disposal of sludge. Such discharges cause the
POTW to violate the requirements of its NPDES permit or prevent sewage
sludge use or disposal in compliance with statutory provisions and
regulations or permits.

The term pass through is defined at 40 CFR 403.3(p) as “a discharge
which exits the POTW into waters of the United States in quantities or
concentrations which, alone or in conjunction with a discharge or
discharges from other sources, is a cause of a violation of any
requirement of the POTW’s NPDES permit (including an increase in the
magnitude or duration of a violation).”

Notification of Changed Discharge

IUs are to promptly notify the CA (and the POTW if the POTW is not the
CA) in advance of any substantial change in the volume or character of
pollutants in their discharge, including the listed or characteristic
hazardous wastes for which the IU has submitted initial notification
under 40 CFR 403.12(p).

Upset Notification

IUs are required to immediately notify CAs of all discharges that could
cause problems to the POTW under 40 CFR 403.12(f) (see slug load
notification requirements). The regulations more specifically define the
term upset as “an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional
and temporary noncompliance with categorical pretreatment standards
because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the IU. An upset
does not include noncompliance to the extent caused by operational
error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment
facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, or careless or improper
action.” Reporting an upset is particularly required if the IU wishes
to establish the affirmative defense for an action brought for
noncompliance with categorical pretreatment standards.

The pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR 403.16 specify the conditions IUs
must meet to demonstrate that an upset has occurred and for which an
affirmative defense may be brought for noncompliance with categorical
pretreatment standards if the IU demonstrates, through properly signed,
contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence, that

An upset occurred and the IU can identify the cause(s) of the upset.

The facility was at the time being operated in a prudent manner and in
compliance with applicable O&M procedures.

The IU has submitted required information to the POTW and CA within 24
hours of becoming aware of the upset. If the IU provides the information
orally, it must submit a written report within 5 days. The type of
information the IU must provide includes:

A description of the indirect discharge and cause of noncompliance

The period of noncompliance, including the exact dates and times or, if
not corrected, the anticipated time the noncompliance is expected to
continue

The steps being taken or planned to reduce, eliminate and prevent
recurrence of the noncompliance.

In the event of an upset, the IU is to control production or all
discharges to the extent necessary to maintain compliance with
categorical pretreatment standards upon reduction, loss, or failure of
its treatment facility until the facility is restored or an alternative
method of treatment is provided. This requirement applies in the
situation where, among other things, the primary source of power of the
treatment facility is reduced, is lost, or fails.

Bypass Notification

The pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR 403.17 require IUs to notify the
POTW of a bypass, which is defined as “the intentional diversion of
wastestreams from any portion of an IU’s treatment facility.” If the
IU knows of the need for a bypass in advance, it is to submit prior
notice to the POTW, if possible at least 10 days before the date of the
bypass. For an unanticipated bypass, the IU is to notify the POTW orally
within 24 hours from the time it became aware of the bypass. The IU must
follow up with a written notice to the POTW within 5 days.

Notification of Significant Change Affecting Equivalent Mass Limits or
Concentration Limits 

The pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR 403.6(c)(9) specify that any IU
operating under a control mechanism incorporating equivalent mass or
concentration limits calculated from a production-based standard must
notify the CA within two business days after the IU has a reasonable
basis to know that the production level will significantly change within
the next calendar month. Any IU not notifying the CA of such anticipated
change will be required to meet the mass or concentration limits in its
control mechanism that were based on the original estimate of the
long-term average production rate.

Notification of Changed Monitoring Location

This requirement affects categorical IUs that treat wastes from multiple
processes. The regulations at 40 CFR 403.6(e)(4) enable the IU to change
monitoring locations from segregated wastestreams to the combined
wastestream. The IU may change monitoring points only after receiving
approval from the CA. The CA must ensure that any change in an IU’s
monitoring point(s) will not allow the IU to substitute dilution for
adequate treatment to achieve compliance with applicable standards.

Determination of NSCIUs and Middle Tier CIUs

EPA finalized several revisions to the pretreatment regulations as part
of the Streamlining Rule. One provision allows CAs to reduce certain
oversight responsibilities, including permitting, sampling, and
inspection requirements, for a newly established class of indirect
dischargers, the nonsignificant categorical industrial user (NSCIU). The
rule also allows CAs to reduce the reporting requirements for another
new class of indirect dischargers, the middle tier CIUs. Both provisions
are optional, so neither the state nor the CA is required to incorporate
these changes into its pretreatment program.

These provisions might affect local pretreatment programs that accept
wastes from indirect dischargers eligible for the NSCIU and/or the
middle tier CIU categories. Local programs that choose not to implement
these provisions are not affected. These provisions also potentially
affect qualifying CIUs, as well as states that plan to amend state law
to allow local pretreatment programs the discretion to authorize this
type of CIU oversight. CIUs that are in states or in POTW services areas
that choose not to implement these provisions will not be affected.

The regulations at 40 CFR 403.3(v)(2) stipulate that for a CIU to
qualify as an NSCIU, the CIU must never discharge more than 100 gpd of
total categorical wastewater and must also 

Have consistently complied with all applicable categorical Pretreatment
Standards and Requirements, and

Annually submit a certification statement (40 CFR 403.12(q)) together
with any additional information necessary to support the certification
statement, and

Never discharge any untreated concentrated wastewater

The regulations at 40 CFR 403.12(e)(3) stipulate that a CIU may be
designated by the CA as a middle tier CIU if its discharge of
categorical wastewater does not exceed the following:

0.01 percent of the design dry weather hydraulic capacity of the POTW,
or 5,000 gpd, whichever is smaller, and

0.01 percent of the design dry weather organic treatment capacity of the
POTW, and

0.01 percent of the maximum allowable headworks loading for any
pollutant regulated by the applicable categorical pretreatment standard
for which approved local limits were developed by the POTW

To classify a CIU as a middle tier CIU, the CA must also demonstrate
that the CIU has not been in SNC for any time in the past 2 years and
that the reduced reporting requirements would still result in data that
are representative of conditions occurring at the facility and in the
discharge during the reporting period.

An indirect discharger that has been designated a NSCIU by its CA is no
longer an SIU, so there is no requirement to control it through a permit
or other control mechanism. But if the CA determines that an existing
NSCIU no longer meets a required criterion for being categorized as
nonsignificant, the IU becomes an SIU and must be issued a control
mechanism. The CA always has the option of issuing a control mechanism
to a non-SIU.

A middle tier CIU is still an SIU. CAs must issue control mechanisms to
CIUs in the middle tier category.

With respect to reporting, inspection, and sampling requirements for
NSCIUs, the following conditions apply:

The CA may reduce sampling and reporting requirements for an NSCIU as it
deems appropriate, but the facility must annually report and certify
that it still meets the definition of an NSCIU, including certification
that it complied with the applicable categorical pretreatment standards
during the reporting period.

The CA must evaluate, at least once per year, whether each NSCIU still
meets the nonsignificant criteria at 40 CFR 403.3(v)(2).

NSCIUs are still categorical dischargers and, as such, are still
required to comply with applicable categorical pretreatment standards.

With respect to reporting, inspection, and sampling requirements for
middle tier CIUs, the following conditions apply:

The CA may reduce the submission frequency of the required periodic
monitoring report for middle tier CIUs from a minimum of twice a year to
a minimum of once a year.

Reports submitted at this reduced frequency must still be based on data
that are representative of the conditions occurring during the entire
reporting period, consistent with 40 CFR 403.12(g)(3).

The CA may also reduce its own obligation to inspect and sample middle
tier CIUs from once a year to once every 2 years.

Middle tier CIUs are still categorical dischargers and, as such, are
still required to comply with applicable categorical pretreatment
standards.

The CA is not required to adopt these provisions. If the CA chooses not
to implement these new CIU categories, it need not do anything. However,
if the CA wants to implement the provisions, it must submit a program
modification to the AA before it may implement the new classifications
for CIUs.

Issuance of Discharge Permits or Other Control Mechanisms for SIUs

The pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1) require the POTW to
issue discharge permits or equivalent individual control mechanisms to
SIUs. These discharge permits must include, at a minimum, the following:

A statement of duration of the permit (in no case more than 5 years)

A statement of non-transferability without prior POTW approval and
provision of a copy of the existing control mechanism to the new owner
or operator

Effluent limits, including BMPs, based on applicable general
pretreatment standards, categorical pretreatment standards, local
limits, and state and local law

Applicable monitoring, sampling, reporting, notification, and
recordkeeping requirements, including identification of the pollutants
to be monitored (including the process for seeking a waiver for a
pollutant neither present nor expected to be present in the discharge in
accordance with 40 CFR 403.12(e)(2), or a specified waived pollutant in
the case of an individual control mechanism), sampling location,
sampling frequency, and sample type

Statement of applicable civil and criminal penalties for violation of
Pretreatment Standards and Requirements and any applicable compliance
schedule

Requirements to control slug discharges if determined necessary by the
POTW

EPA’s Streamlining Rule provided opportunities for categorical IUs to
make a one-time submission of information requesting equivalent mass
limits. To be eligible for equivalent mass limits, IUs must demonstrate
that they employ water conservation methods and technologies that
substantially reduce water use during the term of their control
mechanism; that they currently use control and treatment technologies
adequate to achieve compliance with categorical pretreatment standards
(without using dilution as a substitute for treatment); that they
provide sufficient information to establish, based on data from a
continuous effluent flow monitoring device, the facility’s actual
average daily flow rate for all wastestreams and the facility’s
baseline long-term average production rate, both of which are
representative of current operating conditions; that they do not have
daily flow rates, production rates, or pollutant levels that fluctuate
to such a degree that an equivalent mass limit cannot be appropriately
established to control the discharge; and that they have been in
consistent compliance with all applicable categorical pretreatment
standards. After equivalent mass limits are in effect, the IU must
maintain and operate its treatment technologies adequately to achieve
compliance with the equivalent mass limits, record the facility’s flow
rates using a continuous effluent flow monitoring device, record the
facility’s production rates, notify the CA whenever production rates
are expected to vary by more than 20 percent from the baseline
production rate, and employ the same or comparable water conservation
methods and technologies already implemented.

EPA’s Streamlining Rule also provided opportunities for categorical
IUs to make a one-time submittal of information requesting equivalent
concentration limits. CAs establishing concentration-based pretreatment
standards instead of flow-based mass limits must document that dilution
is not being used as a substitute for treatment (see 40 CFR 403.6(d),
414.111(a), parts 419 and 455). In addition, the CA is required to
adjust permit limits using the combined wastestream formula in 40 CFR
403.6(e) when the wastestream used for demonstrating compliance with the
permit limits is mixed with non-process wastewater or wastewater from
other processes.

Inspection and Sampling of IU Effluent

CAs must randomly sample and analyze the effluent from IUs and conduct
surveillance activities to identify, independent of information supplied
by the IUs, occasional and continuing noncompliance with pretreatment
standards. The regulations at 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(v) stipulate that POTWs
are to inspect and sample the effluent from each SIU at least once a
year, with the following exceptions:

For CIUs that certify that a pollutant is “neither present nor
expected to be present,” the CA would need to sample for the
applicable pollutants only once during the duration of the IU’s
individual control mechanism.

Where the POTW has determined that an IU meets the criteria for
classification as an NSCIU, the POTW would need to evaluate at least
once per year whether the IU continues to meet the criteria.

For IUs subject to reduced reporting requirements under 40 CFR
403.12(e)(3), the POTW would randomly sample and analyze the effluent
and conduct inspections at least once every 2 years. If the IU no longer
meets the conditions for reduced reporting, the POTW would need to
immediately begin sampling and inspecting the IU at least once a year.

Public Notification of Significant Noncompliance

The regulations at 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(viii) require a POTW to publish a
list of IUs that have been in SNC during the previous 12 months in a
newspaper(s) of general circulation that provides meaningful public
notice in the area in which the violations occurred. An SIU is in SNC if
its violation meets one or more of the following criteria:

Chronic violations of wastewater discharge limits (66 percent or more of
all the measurements taken for the same pollutant during a 6-month
period exceeds by any magnitude a numeric pretreatment standard or
requirement, including instantaneous limits)

Technical Review Criteria (TRC) violations (33 percent or more of all of
the measurements taken for the same pollutant during a 6-month period
equal or exceed the product of the numeric pretreatment standard or
requirement, including instantaneous limits, multiplied by the
applicable TRC [TRC = 1.4 for biochemical oxygen demand; total suspended
solids; and fats, oil and grease and 1.2 for all other pollutants except
pH])

Any other violation of a pretreatment standard or requirement that the
POTW determines has caused, alone or in combination with other
discharges, interference or pass through

Any discharge of a pollutant that has caused imminent endangerment to
human health or welfare or to the environment or has resulted in the
POTW’s exercise of its emergency authority to halt or prevent such a
discharge

Failure to meet, within 90 days after the scheduled date, a compliance
schedule milestone contained in a local control mechanism or enforcement
order for starting construction, completing construction, or attaining
final compliance

Failure to provide within 45 days after the due date required reports
such as Baseline Monitoring Reports, 90-day Compliance Reports, periodic
self-monitoring reports, and reports on compliance with schedules

Failure to accurately report noncompliance

Any other violation or group of violations, which may include a
violation of BMPs, that the POTW determines will adversely affect the
operation or implementation of the local pretreatment program

Slug Control Plan 

The pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vi) require POTWs to
evaluate through inspections (see above) whether each SIU needs a plan
or other action to control slug discharges. For IUs identified as
significant before November 14, 2005, the POTW was to complete the
evaluation by October 14, 2006. POTWs are to evaluate additional SIUs
within 1 year of their significant designation. The regulations define a
slug discharge as “any Discharge of a non-routine, episodic nature,
including but not limited to an accidental spill or a non-customary
batch Discharge, which has a reasonable potential to cause Interference
or Pass Through, or in any other way violate the POTW’s regulations,
local limits or Permit conditions.” An IU must notify the POTW
immediately of any changes at its facility affecting the potential for
slug discharges. If the POTW decides that a slug control plan is needed,
the plan must include the following elements:

Description of discharge practices, including non-routine batch
discharges	

Description of stored chemicals

Procedures for immediately notifying the POTW of slug discharges,
including any discharge that would violate the general pretreatment
prohibition at 40 CFR 403.5(b), along with procedures for follow-up
written notification within 5 days

If necessary, procedures to prevent adverse impacts from accidental
spills, including inspection and maintenance of storage areas, handling
and transfer of materials, loading and unloading operations, control of
plant site runoff, worker training, building of containment structures
or equipment, measures for containing toxic organic pollutants
(including solvents), and/or measures and equipment for emergency
response

Evaluation of the Need to Revise Local Limits

Every 5 years, POTWs must report to the AA on the need to revise local
limits. This information is necessary for the AA to evaluate whether
POTWs have developed appropriate local limits to control toxic and
hazardous pollutants.

	POTW Enforcement Response Plan

The regulations at 40 CFR 403.8(f)(5) require every approved POTW to
develop and implement an enforcement response plan. The plan is to
describe the POTW’s procedures for investigating and responding to
instances of IU noncompliance, the types of escalating enforcement
responses the POTW will take in response to all anticipated types of IU
violations, and the time periods within which such responses will take
place. The plan is to identify by title the officials responsible for
each type of response and adequately reflect the POTW’s primary
responsibility to enforce all applicable Pretreatment Standards and
Requirements.

Notification of RCRA Discharge

Each IU must notify its POTW and federal and state hazardous waste
permitting authorities of any discharge into the POTW of a substance
that is a listed or characteristic waste under section 3001 of RCRA. In
addition, the IU is to estimate the volume of hazardous waste it expects
to discharge in the next 12 months. This reporting requirement applies
to all IUs, including small-quantity generators (less than 100 kilograms
RCRA waste per calendar month); the requirement implements section
3018(d) of RCRA.

Excellence Award Program Information

Annually, EPA sponsors the National Pretreatment Program Excellence
Awards, a program that allows exemplary POTWs to be publicly recognized.
The program is intended to heighten overall public awareness of
industrial wastewater control measures and encourage public support of
programs aimed at protecting the operations of treatment facilities, the
health and safety of municipal employees, the quality of receiving
waters, and the reuse and recycling of effluent and sewage sludge.

States and regions nominate POTWs that they believe have demonstrated a
commitment to protecting and improving the quality of the Nation’s
waters through outstanding implementation and enforcement of local
pretreatment programs. EPA screens nominees using Quarterly
Noncompliance Reports (QNCRs) and other permit compliance data sources,
such as the Permit Compliance System (PCS) database. The guidelines for
selecting nominees include the following: 

The POTW should be operating an exemplary pretreatment program.

The POTW should be in full compliance with all pretreatment requirements
at 40 CFR Part 403, its approved program, and its NPDES permit.

The POTW must not be operating under any enforcement order, which was
issued for any pretreatment violation.

The POTW must not have been listed on any QNCRs during the previous four
quarters for violations of its approved pretreatment program or NPDES
permit.

States and EPA regions typically nominate up to four POTWs each year.
EPA requires nominated POTWs that pass the screening test to complete an
award application. EPA selects and names award winners on the basis of
its review of award applications.

	Program/Categorical Determination

Categorical Determination Request

Within 60 days after the effective date of a pretreatment standard for a
subcategory under which an IU may be included, the IU or POTW may
request that EPA (or a state with pretreatment program approval) provide
written certification of whether the IU falls within the particular
subcategory. If an IU adds or changes a process or operation that may be
included in a subcategory, the existing IU must request this
certification before commencing discharge from the added or changed
processes or operation. A new source must request this certification
before commencing discharge. Where a request for certification is
submitted by a POTW, the POTW must notify any affected IU of the
submission. The IU may provide written comments on the POTW submission
to the state or EPA within 30 days of notification.

The applications for a category determination must contain a statement
that (1) describes which categories and subcategories might be
applicable and (2) cites evidence and reasons why a particular
subcategory is applicable and others are not.

The application is to be certified by an official of the organization
submitting the application, as described at 40 CFR 403.6(a)(2)(ii). EPA
or the state notifies the applicant if its request is deficient and
provides the applicant at least 30 days to correct the deficiency. EPA
or the state denies the request if the deficiencies are not corrected in
the allotted time frame.

EPA or the state makes final decisions on complete applications within
60 days of their receipt. EPA or the state sends a copy of the
determination to the affected IU and applicable POTW. The IU (of POTW if
applicant) may submit a petition to contest the decision of EPA or the
state.

	Alternative Limits Modification Request

Before treating regulated wastewater, some categorical IUs mix process
effluent with wastewater that is not from the regulated process. The
pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR 403.6(e) allow for CAs, or the IU
with the written concurrence of the CA, to establish fixed alternative
discharge limits. When deriving alternative categorical limits, the CA
or IU is to calculate both an alternative daily maximum value (using the
daily maximum values specified in the appropriate categorical
pretreatment standard) and an alternative consecutive sampling day
average value (using the monthly average values specified in the
appropriate categorical pretreatment standards). The IU is to comply
with the alternative daily maximum and monthly average limits fixed by
the CA until the CA modifies the limits or approves an IU’s
modification request. Modification is authorized whenever there is a
material or significant change in the values used in the calculation to
fix alternative limits for the regulated pollutant. An IU must
immediately report any such material or significant change to the CA.
Where appropriate, new alternative categorical limits are to be
calculated within 30 days.

Removal Credit Approval Request

The pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR 403.7 provide that any POTW
receiving wastes from an IU to which a categorical pretreatment standard
applies may, at its discretion, grant removal credits to reflect removal
by the POTW of the pollutants specified in the categorical pretreatment
standards. Pollutants that are eligible for removal credits, contingent
to the intended POTW sludge use or disposal practice, are listed in
Appendix G to 40 CFR 403. The POTW may grant a removal credit equal to
or, at its discretion, lower than its consistent removal rate. Upon
being granted a removal credit, each affected IU is to calculate its
revised discharge limits in accordance with specified criteria. Removal
credits may be given for indicator or surrogate pollutants regulated in
a categorical pretreatment standard only if the categorical pretreatment
standard so specifies.

To obtain a removal credit, the POTW must have an approved pretreatment
program or have such approval pending.  The POTW submits a removal
credit request and supporting information to the Approval Authority,
either the EPA or the state with pretreatment program authority. 
According to 40 CFR 403.7, the POTW's request must include the following
information:

A list of pollutants for which removal credits are proposed

POTW influent and effluent data demonstrating consistent pollutant
removal

A description of the POTW’s analytical methods used in sampling

The calculations involved in determining the POTW’s consistent
pollutant removal

A list of the industrial subcategories for which discharge limits will
be revised

The calculations used to determine revised categorical standards

A certification that the POTW has an approved pretreatment program or
qualifies for an exemption to this requirement

A description of the POTW’s current sludge management practices and
certification that granting removal credits will not cause a violation
of an applicable sludge requirement

Certification that granting removal credits will not cause a violation
of the POTW’s NPDES permit.

Within 20 days after determining that the request submitted meets the
requirements at 40 CFR 403.7(d) and 40 CFR 403.9(d), the AA is to issue
a public notice that the request has been received. Notices of the
request are mailed to the agencies responsible for developing plans
under CWA section 208; to federal and state fish, shellfish, and
wildlife resource agencies; and to any other interested persons
requesting notification. The public notice period lasts for at least 30
days, during which time all written comments are to be submitted to the
AA. In addition, the AA is to publish the request in a newspaper of
general circulation that provides meaningful public notice within the
POTW’s jurisdiction. If the public expresses significant interest in
the issues involving the POTW’s request for a removal credit, the AA
Director must hold a public hearing to consider the POTW’s removal
allowance request. After the 30-day notice, but within 180 days, the AA
Director approves or denies the removal allowance request and notifies
the POTW of the decision.

Removal Credit Self-Monitoring Report

A POTW that has obtained removal credit approval must submit to the AA
an initial report that demonstrates consistent pollutant removal and
sludge quality maintenance. Thereafter, the POTW must continue to
substantiate its removal credit with periodic reports to the AA. These
reports are to be submitted at least annually.

The reports are necessary to establish the POTW’s rate of consistent
removal and, as specified in section 307(b)(1) of the CWA, to
demonstrate that the POTW’s sludge use and disposal practices will not
be adversely affected. According to the regulations at 40 CFR 403.7,
each report must include POTW influent and effluent data demonstrating
consistent pollutant removal.

AAs are to evaluate each report to determine whether the POTW’s
pollutant removal and sewage sludge quality maintenance continue to
justify the approved removal credit. If the POTW has not justified the
removal credit, the AA may rescind the removal credit after notifying
the POTW.

Fundamentally Different Factors Variance Request

The pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR 403.13 enable an AA to issue a
variance to an IU (or POTW on behalf of an IU) from the limits specified
in a categorical pretreatment standard due to fundamentally different
factors (FDF). In certain cases, an individual discharger’s production
processes or technologies might be fundamentally different from the
representative facilities used to determine the limits. The IU must
submit a specific categorical pretreatment standard variance request
when it believes that factors relating to its discharge are
fundamentally different from those considered when EPA established the
categorical standard. A POTW or other interested party may also submit
an FDF variance request.

The factors that may be considered fundamentally different are outlined
at 40 CFR 403.13(d). They include the following:

Nature or quality of pollutants contained in the raw waste load of the
IU’s process wastewater

Volume of the IU’s process wastewater and effluent discharged

Non-water-quality environmental impact of control and treatment of the
IU’s raw waste load

Energy requirements of the application of control and treatment
technology

Age, size, land availability, and configuration as they relate to the
IU’s equipment or facilities, the processes employed, process changes,
and engineering aspects of the application of control technology

Cost of compliance with the required control technology

The FDF variance request must contain the following data:

The name and address of the person making the request

Identification of the interest of the requester affected by the
categorical pretreatment standard for which the variance is requested

Identification of the POTW currently receiving waste from the IU for
which alternative discharge limits are requested

Identification of the categorical pretreatment standards applicable to
the IU

A list of each pollutant or pollutant parameter for which an alternative
discharge limit is sought

The alternative discharge limits proposed by the requester for each
pollutant or pollutant parameter for which an alternative discharge
limit is sought

A description of the IU’s existing water pollution control facilities

A schematic flow representation of the IU’s water system, including
water supply, process wastewater systems, and points of discharge

A statement of facts clearly establishing the reason that the variance
request should receive approval, including detailed supporting data,
documentation, and evidence necessary to fully evaluate the merits of
the request (e.g., technical and economic data collected by EPA and used
in developing each pollutant discharge limit in the pretreatment
standard)

As specified at 40 CFR 403.13(g)(2), an IU must submit a variance
request within 180 days of the categorical pretreatment standard’s
promulgation. If the IU has requested a categorical determination as
provided by 40 CFR 403.6(a), the FDF request must be submitted within 30
days after the categorical determination. The AA is to circulate the
variance request to all interested parties (public review). Following
this public comment period of not less than 30 days, the AA is to
approve or deny the variance request.

Net/Gross Adjustment Request

The pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR 403.15 specify the conditions
under which a CA may adjust an IU’s categorical pretreatment standard
based on the presence of the applicable pollutant in the IU’s intake
water. The adjustments given are called net/gross credits. When granting
an adjustment, the CA revises the applicable pretreatment standard to
offset the pollutant load already present in the IU’s intake water. If
the IU, however, has treatment technologies in place that will partially
or entirely remove the pollutant in question, the CA adjusts the
standard only to the extent that the pollutant is not removed by the
IU’s treatment technology.

CAs are not to grant credit for generic pollutants, such as biochemical
oxygen demand, total suspended solids, and oil and grease, unless the IU
demonstrates that the constituents of the generic measure in the
user’s effluent are substantially similar to the constituents of the
generic measure in the intake water, or unless appropriate additional
limits are placed on process water pollutants at the outfall or
elsewhere. CAs are to grant credits only to the extent necessary for IUs
to meet applicable categorical standards, up to a maximum value equal to
the influent value. The CA may require additional monitoring to
determine eligibility for credits and compliance with adjusted
standards. Finally, the CA may grant credits only if the intake water is
withdrawn from the same water body into which the POTW discharges. The
CA, however, may waive this requirement if it finds that no
environmental degradation will result.

5.	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED—AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

5(a).	Agency Activities 

EPA personnel complete a number of tasks in implementing the National
Pretreatment Program. These tasks and the associated burden and costs
for conducting them are outlined in section 6(c) of this ICR.

EPA regional offices operate as the oversight authority (OA) under the
National Pretreatment Program. In this role, they approve state program
requests, and they review and approve various program implementation
requests, such as pretreatment categorical determination requests and
FDF requests.

EPA regional offices also operate as the AA in states that do not have
approved pretreatment programs. As the AA, a regional office reviews
POTW pretreatment programs for adequacy, audits and inspects approved
POTWs, enforces against POTWs for failure to implement pretreatment
regulations, and enforces pretreatment standards when IUs are not in
compliance (where the POTW has not taken action). An AA may also inspect
IUs to assess compliance.

EPA regional offices also act as the CA in instances where neither the
state nor the POTW has an approved pretreatment program. As CA, a
regional office has primary responsibility for implementing the
pretreatment program. A regional office, acting as CA, notifies SIUs of
their status and obligations under the program, reviews applications for
control mechanisms, and determines the IUs that must act to reduce the
risk of spills or batch discharges. The CA also ensures that IUs comply
with discharge limitations and reporting requirements, inspects IUs,
reviews self-monitoring reports from IUs, enforces against non-complying
IUs, and notifies the public when IUs are in significant noncompliance.

5(b).	Collection Methodology and Management 

In general, IUs and POTWs provide written requests and reports. IUs and
POTWs give oral notices in emergencies; however, the IUs and POTWs
follow these notices with written ones. EPA uses the Permit Compliance
System and the Integrated Compliance Information System to store, track,
and access pretreatment-related program information.

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, all of which are defined as follows in section 601 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act:

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 (SBA) 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 fewer than 50,000. This definition may also include Indian
tribes.

The reporting requirements for pretreatment program development affect
only state governments and municipal governments (i.e., POTWs).
Requirements for pretreatment program implementation and
program/categorical determinations involve some small businesses. The
information requested, however, is not available from other sources and
is essential for implementing the pretreatment program.

Overall, the burden for small industries is likely to be inherently
smaller than that for other IUs because their facilities are less
complex. Reporting burdens are less for SIUs than for CIUs. Under the
Streamlining Rule, EPA modified some of the sampling requirements for
CIUs to provide greater flexibility; these changes will benefit some of
the smaller CIUs. Under the Streamlining Rule, EPA also provided states
and POTWs opportunities to remove from regulatory requirements CIUs that
never discharge more than 100 gpd of total process wastewater. POTWs and
states may also categorize some CIUs as middle tier, meaning they, too,
may be subject to fewer reporting requirements. A number of small
facilities are likely to fall into these categories.

5(d).	Collection Schedule 

Many reporting requirements associated with the National Pretreatment
Program are one-time only. Therefore, the frequency of data collection
is relevant to only the following requirements:

IU and SIU self-monitoring reports

Periodic certifications

Annual POTW reports, including updating the SIU list

Issuance of control mechanisms for SIUs

Inspection and sampling the effluent of IUs and SIUs

Public notification of significant noncompliance

Evaluation of the need to revise local limits

Prevention and control plan for spills and batch discharges

Excellence Award program information

Removal credit self-monitoring reports

Exhibit 5 (in section 4) summarizes reporting requirements for the
pretreatment program.

6.	ESTIMATING BURDEN AND COST OF COLLECTION

This section estimates the burden and cost to states, POTWs, and IUs for
complying with the National Pretreatment Program requirements detailed
in section 4. This section also discusses the assumptions used to
estimate costs and burden in addition to describing the change in burden
compared with the 2000 National Pretreatment Program ICR. Additional
detail about assumptions is provided in Appendix A. Detailed burden and
cost calculations are shown in Appendix B.

For many of the activities described in this section, the estimated
burden that respondents incur is carried forward from the Pretreatment
Streamlining ICR (Revision of the Information Collection Request for the
National Pretreatment Program of September 22, 2005 [EPA ICR No:
0002.12, OMB Control No. 2040-0009,]). The September 2005 ICR
recalculated the entire pretreatment program, including activities
resulting from provisions not modified by the Streamlining Rule. All
burden assumptions were subject to public review, and EPA did not
receive any comments related to them.

6(a).	Respondent Burden

As noted in the Revision of the Information Collection Request for the
National Pretreatment Program of September 22, 2005 (OMB Control No:
2040-0009, EPA ICR No: 0002.12), EPA’s Streamlining Rule resulted in
changes to respondent reporting and recordkeeping burden. Specifically,
the Streamlining Rule enables CAs to designate certain NSCIUs and other
CIUs as middle tier CIUs. Those CIUs designated as NSCIUs are no longer
subject to the regulatory requirements. Middle tier CIUs may have
reduced reporting burdens. Based on data from annual reports, award
applications, public comments, and other EPA sources, 9.3 percent of
existing CIUs discharge more than 0 gpd, but less than 100 gpd. An
additional 5.7 percent of existing CIUs are zero dischargers.
Approximately 30 percent of existing CIUs are assumed to have flows more
than 100 gpd, but less than 5,000 gpd and less than 0.01 percent of
their POTW’s design flow (referred to as middle tier CIUs).

Based on discussions between EPA OWM and EPA regional staff, all
zero-discharging CIUs may be considered NSCIUs. Based on data collected
from eight POTW programs, EPA estimates that 71 percent of small CIUs
currently monitor more frequently than the minimum requirement of twice
a year. Therefore, this ICR assumes that the monitoring and reporting
frequency will not change for IUs that already monitor and report more
frequently than the current minimum requirement, twice a year. In
addition, EPA estimates that CAs will not reduce the frequency with
which they issue permits, monitor, or conduct inspections for these
systems (i.e., 71 percent of small CIUs). NSCIUs (the remaining 29
percent along with all zero-discharging CIUs) will complete annual
certifications in lieu of annual monitoring and reporting. To gather
data to complete this certification, IUs with flows greater than zero
will monitor once every 5 years, on average. CAs will discontinue
control mechanism issuance and formal inspections for this 29 percent of
NSCIUs with flows greater than zero (along with all zero-discharging
CIUs); instead, CAs will conduct an annual 2-hour evaluation, as
required by the revised regulations.

EPA estimates that 29 percent of the middle tier CIUs will be authorized
to reduce their monitoring and reporting requirements from semiannually
to annually. This estimate is based on the estimate that 71 percent are
currently subject to monitoring and reporting requirements that exceed
the minimum requirements. In addition, this ICR assumes that for 29
percent of potential middle tier CIUs, CAs will reduce inspections to
once every 2 years instead of once a year.

The Streamlining Rule also enables zero-discharging CIUs that previously
reported data semiannually to instead conduct an annual certification.
CAs, in turn, will shift from issuing control mechanisms and conducting
annual inspections of these facilities to conducting an annual 2-hour
evaluation. 

6(a)(i).	Burden to States

For the 3-year ICR period, the annual reporting and recordkeeping burden
for states (including the burden for states as users of the data) is
estimated to be 66,451 hours. Exhibit 6 at the end of section 6(a) shows
the annual burden hours on an activity-specific basis, and Appendix A
summarizes the assumptions EPA made in developing the estimates. The
following paragraphs briefly describe the bases for the burden
estimates.

	Program Development

	State Pretreatment Program Approval Request

Pursuant to consultation with the National Pretreatment Coordinator and
EPA regional offices, four states may seek pretreatment program
authority during this 3-year ICR period. EPA estimates that this
activity requires 300 burden hours. This estimate is carried forward
from the assumptions in the recalculation of the entire pretreatment
program, which was done as part of the Streamlining Rule ICR (EPA ICR
No. 0002.12) and is explained at the beginning of section 6.

	Program Implementation

	Issuance of SIU Discharge Permits 

EPA assumes that all approved pretreatment states (35) will issue some
permits to SIUs. EPA assumes that some of these states might issue
general control mechanisms in place of individual permits. Therefore,
the number of responses per year is calculated based on the assumption
that states directly regulate 3.55 percent of all SIUs. (See Appendix A
for additional information about this assumption.) CAs will no longer be
required to issue permits to NSCIUs. Because some SIUs can now be
regulated with general control mechanisms, EPA estimates that 2 percent
of SIUs will no longer require an individual permit. Thus, the number of
responses for each state will fall by 2 percent. EPA also estimates that
it takes 20 burden hours for a CA to issue a discharge permit; this
estimate is carried forward in this ICR.

	Inspection and Sampling of SIUs 

Inspection:  EPA estimates that all 35 pretreatment states will provide
oversight for some SIUs. This ICR assumes 8 burden hours to perform one
inspection per year for 3.55 percent of all SIUs. Middle-Tier SIUs will
be inspected less frequently (every other year instead of every year).
This includes the time necessary to collect an effluent sample.

Sampling and Analysis: All pretreatment states are assumed to perform
in-house analyses for the SIUs that they regulate. This ICR estimates an
average sample analysis burden of 15.2 hours. This burden was estimated
based on regional feedback during the development of the ICR for the
Streamlining Rule, and it is carried forward in this ICR. PFPR
facilities opting for the pollution prevention option are excluded
because there are no monitoring requirements.

	Evaluation of SIUs for Slug Control Plan 

In previous ICRs for the National Pretreatment Program, EPA estimated
that CAs would require 0.5 hour to assess whether an SIU needs a slug
control plan on a biannual basis for the 3.55 percent of all SIUs that
are directly regulated by states. The Streamlining Rule, however,
eliminated the frequency requirement that a CA evaluate whether its IUs
require a slug control plan every 2 years. Therefore, EPA estimates zero
burden for this requirement.

	Public Notification of Significant Noncompliance

In this ICR, EPA estimates that only the five states that directly
implement the pretreatment program at the local level (40 CFR 403.10(e)
states) will be required to publish notices of SNC for their POTWs. EPA
estimates that, on average, approximately 10 POTWs per state (a total of
51 POTWs in the 5 403.10(e) states) receive discharges from SIUs.
One-third of the POTWs in these states (approximately 17 POTWs, or 3 per
state) are estimated to have SIUs in SNC in a given year. EPA estimates
that 3 burden hours are required to complete this activity. These
estimate is carried forward from the assumptions in the recalculation of
the entire pretreatment program done as part of the Streamlining Rule
ICR (EPA ICR No. 0002.12) and explained at the beginning of section 6.
EPA’s Streamlining Rule made some minor changes to the public
notification requirements; however, EPA does not expect that these
changes will result in any reduced or increased respondent burden.

	Evaluation of the Need to Revise Local Limits 

This ICR assumes that only the five 40 CFR 403.10(e) states will be
required to develop local limits for their POTWs. Each POTW for which
the state has assumed CA responsibility (51 total) will require local
limits development once every 5 years. The Agency estimates a burden of
50 hours for this activity. This estimate is carried forward from the
assumptions in the recalculation of the entire pretreatment program,
which was done as part of the Pretreatment Streamlining ICR (EPA ICR No.
0002.12) and is explained at the beginning of section 6.

	Excellence Award Program Information 

This ICR assumes that 30 states (i.e., 35 pretreatment states minus the
5 40 CFR 403.10(e) states that do not have eligible POTWs) will receive
Excellence Award packages from pretreatment POTWs. In addition, this ICR
assumes that each state, on average, will receive 1.5 Excellence Award
packages from pretreatment POTWs. This estimate is carried forward from
the assumptions in the recalculation of the entire pretreatment program,
which was done as part of the Pretreatment Streamlining ICR (EPA ICR No.
0002.12) and is explained at the beginning of section 6.

	Program/Categorical Determination

	There is no burden for states associated with program/categorical
determinations.

	States as Users of the Data

Under the National Pretreatment Program, AAs (or the state acting as a
CA) must receive, review, and store various requests and reports filed
by IUs and POTWs. Table B-8 in Appendix B calculates the burden to state
agencies as users of these data.

When states are the AA (i.e., for 73.74 percent of pretreatment
programs), the states review reports generated by pretreatment POTWs.
Therefore, the associated review burden for IU and POTW activities
described below and in Appendix B (Table B-3) for which reports or data
are submitted to states (as AAs) has been apportioned accordingly. The
numbers of respondents and responses are linked directly to the
corresponding activities.

In addition to AA activities, states are the CAs for approximately 3.55
percent of SIUs. As CAs, the states are responsible for receipt and
review of 3.55 percent of all reports, certifications, and data
submitted by SIUs. Table B-8 in Appendix B, therefore, includes burden
for these activities. Exhibit 6 shows the total state review burden
associated with the aforementioned activities.

	Recordkeeping

	Maintain Pretreatment Program Information 

This ICR assumes that each pretreatment state (as the AA) spends 50
hours per year maintaining records from POTW pretreatment programs. In
addition, states act as CAs for 3.55 percent of SIUs. An additional
burden of 5 hours per SIU per year (i.e., 5 * 823) is included for
states acting as CAs. (See Appendix B, Table B-5, for the calculations.)
EPA based the estimates on assumptions used in the Pretreatment
Streamlining ICR (EPA ICR No. 0002.12).

The Streamlining Rule amended the pretreatment regulations to require
that states maintain records for IUs regulated under general control
mechanisms, for IU’s initial samples to demonstrate pollutants not
present nor expected to be present, and for POTWs that request a
significant modification. Because states already maintain records on IUs
under individual permits, IU sampling records, and records on POTW
significant modification requests, EPA does not expect the Streamlining
Rule changes to result in changes in the recordkeeping burden.

6(a)(ii).	Burden to POTWs

For the 3-year ICR period, the annual reporting and recordkeeping burden
for POTWs (including the burden for POTWs as users of the data) is
estimated to be 909,849 hours. Exhibit 7 (at the end of section 6(a))
shows the annual burden hours on an activity-specific basis, and
Appendix B details these burden calculations. The following paragraphs
briefly describe the bases for the burden estimates.

	Program Development

	POTW Pretreatment Program Approval Request 

EPA regions have indicated that they expect 64 new programs over the
next 3 years. EPA estimates that preparing a program approval request
will require 250 burden hours. This estimate is carried forward from the
assumptions in the recalculation of the entire pretreatment program,
which was done as part of the Pretreatment Streamlining ICR (EPA ICR No.
0002.12) and is explained at the beginning of section 6.

The regulations also require all approved POTWs to develop and implement
enforcement response plans describing procedures for investigating and
responding to IU noncompliance. EPA assumes that POTWs will have
completed this requirement as part of their approval request and
therefore has not included any additional burden for this activity. This
burden was included in the 250 hours for a new program.

The Streamlining Rule did not make any changes to the pretreatment
regulations that affect program development burden.

	POTW Pretreatment Compliance Schedule Progress Report 

EPA expects 46 POTWs per year to be under pretreatment-related
compliance schedules. The Agency estimates that each schedule will
require the submission of three reports (responses) per year. EPA
estimates that each report will require 5 burden hours to complete. This
estimate is carried forward from the assumptions in the recalculation of
the entire pretreatment program, which was done as part of the
Pretreatment Streamlining ICR (EPA ICR No. 0002.12) and is explained at
the beginning of section 6.

Program Implementation

Annual POTW Report 

For this program activity, EPA assumes one report per program per year.
EPA further estimates that report preparation will take each POTW 40
burden hours. This estimate is carried forward from the assumptions in
the recalculation of the entire pretreatment program, which was done as
part of the Pretreatment Streamlining ICR (EPA ICR No. 0002.12) and is
explained at the beginning of section 6.

	POTW Program Modifications 

EPA estimates that 20 percent of approved programs will request program
modifications of some type each year. EPA estimates that preparing
program approval requests will take each POTW 40 burden hours. This
estimate is carried forward from the assumptions in the recalculation of
the entire pretreatment program, which was done as part of the
Pretreatment Streamlining ICR (EPA ICR No. 0002.12) and is explained at
the beginning of section 6.

Issuance of Discharge Permits or Other Control Mechanisms for SIUs 

Because SIU control mechanisms typically have 5-year terms, EPA assumes
that each year POTWs (as CAs) will issue control mechanisms to 20
percent of the SIUs that are regulated by POTWs (96.45 percent of all
SIUs). Under Streamlining, POTWs will not be required to issue permits
to NSCIUs. In addition, because POTWs may regulate some SIUs with
general control mechanisms, EPA estimates that 2 percent of SIUs will no
longer require an individual control mechanism. Thus, the number of
responses for each POTW will fall by 2 percent. EPA estimates that POTWs
will require 20 hours to issue a control mechanism. EPA’s estimate of
the number of SIUs to be covered by general control mechanisms is
carried forward from the Pretreatment Streamlining ICR. EPA’s estimate
of the number of hours POTWs will require to issue individual control
mechanisms is carried forward from the Pretreatment Program ICR.

	Inspection and Sampling of CIU and SIU Effluent

Inspection:  This ICR assumes 8 burden hours to perform one inspection
per year for all SIUs regulated by POTWs. Middle-Tier SIUs will be
inspected less frequently (every other year instead of every year). This
includes the time necessary to collect an effluent sample. This
assumption was carried forward from the previous ICR.

Sampling and Analysis: EPA assumes that in-house sampling and analysis
will require 15.2 hours. The burden estimates are carried forward from
the Pretreatment Streamlining ICR (EPA ICR No. 0002.12). PFPR facilities
opting for the pollution prevention option are excluded because there
are no monitoring requirements.

Mass Limits

POTWs establishing equivalent mass limits as an alternative to
concentration limits to meet concentration-based categorical
pretreatment standards must determine whether the application of a mass
limit is appropriate. POTWs will perform these demonstrations.
Currently, 14 Pretreatment Standards categories are expressed as
concentration limits alone and are therefore eligible for equivalent
mass limits under 40 CFR 403.6(c )(5). The following categories are
included in this list:

Inorganic Chemicals (§ 415)

Fertilizer manufacturing (§ 418)

Petroleum refining (§ 419)

Steam Electric Power Generating (§ 423)

Leather Tanning (§ 425)

Glass Manufacturing (§ 426)

Rubber Manufacturing (§ 428)

Metal Finishing (§ 433)

Pharmaceutical Manufacturing (§ 439)

Transportation Equipment Cleaning (§ 442)

Paving and Roofing Materials (§ 443)

Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustors Subcategory of the Waste
Combustors Point Source Category (§ 444)

Carbon Black Manufacturing (§ 458)

Electrical and Electronic Components (§ 469)

EPA estimates that there are approximately 12,000 such facilities and
that 1 percent of them will request that the POTW assess flow
variability, an assessment that will require 8 burden hours to complete.
These estimates are carried forward from the assumptions in the
recalculation of the entire pretreatment program, which was done as part
of the Pretreatment Streamlining ICR (EPA ICR No. 0002.12) and is
explained at the beginning of section 6.

	Equivalent Concentration Limits

CAs establishing concentration-based pretreatment standards instead of
mass-based limits must document that dilution is not being used as a
substitute for treatment (see 40 CFR 403.6(d) and 414.111(a) and Part
419). In addition, the CA is required to adjust permit limits using the
combined wastestream formula in 40 CFR 403.6(e) when the wastestream
used for demonstrating compliance with the permit limits is mixed with
non-process wastewater or wastewater from other processes. The POTW will
perform these demonstrations. Currently, three Pretreatment Standards
categories are eligible to benefit from this provision––Organic
Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF); Petroleum Refining;
and Pesticide Chemical manufacturing facilities. EPA estimates that
there are 420 such facilities. EPA further estimates that 4 percent of
these facilities will request that the POTW assess flow variability;
each assessment will require a POTW 8 burden hours to complete. These
estimates are carried forward from the assumptions in the recalculation
of the entire pretreatment program, which was done as part of the
Pretreatment Streamlining ICR (EPA ICR No. 0002.12) and is explained at
the beginning of section 6.

Evaluation of SIUs for Slug Control Plan 

The final regulatory changes eliminate the requirement that POTWs
evaluate the need for a slug control plan for each SIU every 2 years.
POTWs may now review the need for slug control plans as part of their
ongoing oversight of IUs. Therefore, EPA estimates no burden for this
requirement.

	Public Notification of Significant Noncompliance 

EPA expects POTWs to require 3 hours for public notification activities.
EPA assumes that one-third of POTWs with pretreatment programs will have
SIUs in SNC in a given year. This estimate is carried forward from the
assumptions in the recalculation of the entire pretreatment program,
which was done as part of the Pretreatment Streamlining ICR (EPA ICR No.
0002.12) and is explained at the beginning of section 6. Although the
Streamlining Rule made minor changes to the public notification
requirements, those changes do not affect POTW reporting or
recordkeeping burden.

	Evaluation of the Need to Revise Local Limits 

EPA assumes in this ICR that all pretreatment programs will reevaluate
the need to develop local limits once every 5 years. EPA estimates that
POTWs will require 50 hours to complete this activity. This estimate is
carried forward from the assumptions in the recalculation of the entire
pretreatment program, which was done as part of the Pretreatment
Streamlining ICR (EPA ICR No. 0002.12) and is explained at the beginning
of section 6.

	SIU Notification of Applicable Standards and Regulations

EPA has not promulgated any new categorical standards, nor does it
expect to do so, over the 3-year life of this ICR. Therefore, EPA
estimates no burden for this activity.

	Excellence Award Program Information 

Based on the number of packages received in 2006, EPA expects to receive
10 POTW pretreatment program Excellence Award packages per year. EPA
estimates the burden to POTWs of developing a package to be 12 hours.

	Program/Categorical Determination

	Removal Credit Approval Requests 

Based on input from EPA regional offices, the Agency estimates three
respondents per year. EPA further estimates that a POTW will require 125
hours to prepare and submit each request. This estimate is carried
forward from the assumptions in the recalculation of the entire
pretreatment program, which was done as part of the Pretreatment
Streamlining ICR (EPA ICR No. 0002.12) and is explained at the beginning
of section 6.

Removal Credit Self-Monitoring Reports  

EPA estimates 25 respondents per year based on the number of POTWs with
approved removal credit variances as reported by EPA regional offices.
EPA assumes that a POTW will require 40 hours per report. This estimate
is carried forward from the assumptions in the recalculation of the
entire pretreatment program, which was done as part of the Pretreatment
Streamlining ICR (EPA ICR No. 0002.12) and is explained at the beginning
of section 6.

POTWs as Users of the Data

Most of the IU respondents described below and in Exhibit 8 (at the end
of section 6(a)) generate reports, information, or data that CAs must
receive, review, and store. Table B-9 in Appendix B calculates the
burden to POTWs as users of these data. As CAs, POTWs are responsible
for receiving and reviewing 96.45 percent of all reports,
certifications, and data submitted by SIUs. EPA has, therefore,
apportioned the review burden for reports or data submitted by SIUs to
POTWs (as CAs). The numbers of respondents and responses are linked
directly to the corresponding activities. Exhibit 7 shows the total POTW
review burden associated with each activity.

	Recordkeeping

	Maintenance of Monitoring Records 

EPA expects each pretreatment POTW to spend 100 hours per year
maintaining SIU monitoring records. This estimate is carried forward
from the assumptions in the recalculation of the entire pretreatment
program, which was done as part of the Pretreatment Streamlining ICR
(EPA ICR No. 0002.12) and is explained at the beginning of section 6.
Changes in the pretreatment regulations due to the Streamlining Rule
means that POTWs will have to maintain records for IUs regulated under
general control mechanisms, as well as IUs’ initial samples to
demonstrate pollutants neither present nor expected to be present.
Because POTWs already maintain records on IUs under individual permits
and IU sampling records, EPA has not estimated any additional
recordkeeping burden for POTWs as a result of the Streamlining Rule.

6(a)(iii).	Burden to Industrial Users

For the 3-year ICR period, the annual IU reporting and recordkeeping
burden is estimated to be 820,787 hours. Exhibit 8 (at the end of
section 6(a)) shows the estimated annual burden hours for each type of
information collected, and Appendix B details these burden calculations.
The bases for the burden estimates are detailed below.

	Program Development

	EPA assumes no IU reporting and recordkeeping burden program
development.

	Program Implementation

The program implementation burden estimates for IUs were calculated per
activity, as detailed below.

	Baseline Monitoring Report 

For new sources, EPA assumes a 2 percent gross annual growth in the
number of CIUs. This estimate is carried forward from the assumptions in
the recalculation of the entire pretreatment program, which was done as
part of the Pretreatment Streamlining ICR (EPA ICR No. 0002.12) and is
explained at the beginning of section 6. EPA does not anticipate
promulgation of new effluent guidelines for indirect dischargers, which
would result in associated BMR requirements, during the 3 years covered
by this ICR.

EPA assumes 14.3 hours for new source CIUs conducting baseline
monitoring analysis and 28 burden hours for preparing a Baseline
Monitoring Report.

	IU Compliance Schedule Progress Report 

For new sources, EPA assumes a 2 percent gross annual growth in the
number of CIUs. EPA does not anticipate promulgation of new effluent
guidelines for indirect dischargers, which would result in associated IU
Compliance Schedule Progress Report requirements, during the 3 years
covered by this ICR. In the recalculation of the entire pretreatment
program, done as part of the Pretreatment Streamlining ICR (EPA ICR No.
0002.12) and explained at the beginning of section 6, EPA estimated that
25 percent of new sources or facilities subject to new effluent
guidelines would need to complete compliance schedules. The Agency
further assumed an IU would require 4 hours to prepare each compliance
schedule progress report. EPA is carrying forward these assumptions for
this ICR.

	IU Compliance Attainment Report 

CIUs must complete a compliance attainment report within 90 days
following the date for final compliance with a categorical pretreatment
standard. New source CIUs must provide such a report within 90 days of
commencing discharge of the categorically regulated wastestream to the
POTW. EPA has annualized the burden for new sources over the 3-year ICR
period. EPA estimates that IUs will require 20 hours to prepare the
compliance attainment reports and 14.3 hours to conduct the associated
analyses. This estimate is carried forward from the assumptions in the
recalculation of the entire pretreatment program, which was done as part
of the Pretreatment Streamlining ICR (EPA ICR No. 0002.12) and is
explained at the beginning of section 6.

	IU Resampling Compliance Report

All IUs are required to notify the CA immediately of all discharges that
could potentially cause problems for the POTW. IUs are further required
to notify the CA and resample following a violation. EPA assumes that 10
percent of all IUs will need to resample every year. The 1,500 IUs with
PFPR P2 certification are not included in the estimate because the
resampling requirements do not apply to these facilities. EPA assumes
that an IU will require 4 hours for sampling, 12 hours for analysis, and
1 hour for reporting each year. This estimate is carried forward from
the assumptions in the recalculation of the entire pretreatment program,
which was done as part of the Pretreatment Streamlining ICR (EPA ICR No.
0002.12) and is explained at the beginning of section 6.

	IU Self-Monitoring Compliance Report 

Under the Streamlining Rule, NSCIUs are not required to conduct periodic
self-monitoring; instead, they are required to submit annual
certifications. (This ICR assumes that sampling and analysis is required
once every 5 years to complete this certification.) In addition, certain
middle tier CIUs will monitor and report once a year instead of twice a
year. These assumption are carried forward from the Pretreatment
Streamlining ICR.

The Streamlining Rule ICR assumed that a CIU will require 11.6 hours and
a non-categorical SIU will require 9.5 hours to complete the report
twice per year. EPA has excluded PFPR facilities opting for the P2
option from the estimate because these facilities have no monitoring
requirements.

	Pollution Prevention Plans

This ICR assumes that all PFPR facilities (1,500 facilities) will opt
for the P2 alternative and that all 1,500 facilities have already
prepared and submitted an initial certification for the P2 alternative.
Consistent with the assumptions in the preamble for the PFPR rule (61 FR
57541), this ICR assumes that 10 percent of the facilities that are
implementing a P2 alternative plan will submit modifications to P2
plans. The burden for the periodic certification requirements is
discussed below under “Periodic Certifications.”

Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Indirect Discharging Mills in the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade
Sulfite Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source
Category

Based on EPA ICR No. 1878.02, OMB Control Number 2040-0243, EPA
estimates that 10 facilities would be subject to these requirements. See
Appendix C for more detailed information.

Pollution Prevention Compliance Alternative; Transportation Equipment
Cleaning Point Source Category.

On the basis of EPA ICR No. 2018.02, OMB Control Number 2040-0235, EPA
estimates that 84 facilities would be subject to these requirements. For
more detailed information, see Appendix C.

Best Management Practices for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper
and Paperboard Point Source Category 

Based on EPA ICR No. 1829.03, OMB Control Number 2040-0207, EPA
estimates that 10 facilities would be subject to these requirements. See
Appendix C for more detailed information.

	CWT Initial Certification Statement

According to the CWT preamble (65 FR 81267), 37 facilities “accept
wastes from multiple subcategories and could be subject to the multiple
wastestream subcategory.” EPA estimated that 34 of the 37 facilities
are indirect dischargers (91.5 percent of 37 facilities) and were likely
to complete the initial CWT certification statement during the 3-year
ICR period of the previously approved ICR. This burden is not included
in this pretreatment ICR.

	Request for Coverage Under a General Control Mechanism

This ICR assumes that 1,500 IUs will request coverage under a general
control mechanism once every 5 years. EPA estimates that an IU will
require 0.5 hour to complete each request.

Periodic Certifications

Below is a summary of assumptions about the universe of indirect
dischargers with certification potential (the number of facilities
covered by the relevant part or subpart(s) of 40 CFR, Chapter I,
Subchapter N). EPA assumes in this ICR that periodic certifications
require IUs 1 hour to complete, which is consistent with the Information
Collection Request for the NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification
Information (OMB No. 2040-0110, EPA ICR No. 1427.07). Assumptions
regarding the percentage of facilities that will undertake
certifications activities are summarized below. Except where noted,
these assumptions are also consistent with the Information Collection
Request for the NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification Information.
Assumptions regarding the number of responses per year are also
explained below.

Aluminum Forming Point Source Category (Part 467). The estimated number
of indirect dischargers in the Aluminum Forming Point Source Category
(72 facilities) is from the Development Document for Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Aluminum Forming: Point
Source Category (EPA 440184073, June 1984). EPA estimates that
approximately 75 percent of these 72 aluminum forming facilities will
choose to submit an annual certification requesting an exemption from
cyanide monitoring.

Canmaking (Part 465, Subpart D). Canmaking facilities covered by Part
465, Subpart D, are required to submit a one-time notification if the
alloy used in making cans contains less than 1 percent manganese. For
indirect dischargers, EPA expects few (if any) such notifications in the
future. As a conservative estimate, this ICR assumes one such
notification during the next 3 years.

Centralized Waste Treatment Point Source Category (Part 437). The
preamble to the final Central Waste Treatment Rule indicates that 37
facilities “accept wastes from multiple subcategories and could be
subject to the multiple wastestream subcategory” (65 FR 81267). Based
on data in the development document for the final rule, approximately
91.5 percent of CWT facilities are indirect dischargers (pp. 4–6). In
this ICR, EPA applies the overall percentage of indirect dischargers to
the total number of dischargers that accept wastes from multiple
subcategories to arrive at 34 indirect discharger that accept waste from
multiple subcategories (37 * 91.5% = 34). EPA also assumes that 34
respondents complete initial certification statements for coverage under
Part 437, Subpart D. Each of these 34 facilities must submit an annual
certification. (This burden was discussed in the 2003 Pretreatment
Program ICR, but it is repeated here for completeness.)

Coil Coating Point Source Category (Part 465). The estimated number of
indirect dischargers in the Coil Coating Point Source Categories (41
facilities) is from the Technical Support Document for the 2004 Effluent
Guidelines Program Plan (EPA-821-R-04-014, August 2004) (“the TSD”).
EPA estimates that approximately 75 percent of these 41 coil coating
facilities will choose to submit an annual certification requesting an
exemption from cyanide monitoring. This information collection item does
not apply to canmaking facilities (Part 465, Subpart D) because they are
not required to monitor for cyanide. 	

Electrical and Electronic Components (Part 469). The number of indirect
dischargers in the Electrical and Electronic Components Point Source
Category (91 facilities) is also from the August 2004 TSD, which in turn
uses Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data. EPA estimates that
approximately 50 percent of these 91 electrical and electronic
components facilities will choose to submit a total toxic organic (TTO)
certification in lieu of TTO monitoring. Certifications must be
submitted twice a year.

Electroplating Point Source Category (Part 413) and Metal Finishing
Point Source Category. The estimated number of indirect dischargers in
the Electroplating and Metal Finishing Point Source Categories (7,644
total) is from data compiled by EPA’s Office of Science and Technology
(OST) during the development of the Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M)
rule. The categories are combined because the facilities’ operations
are similar. EPA estimates that approximately 75 percent of these 7,644
electroplating and metal finishing facilities will choose to submit a
TTO certification semiannually in lieu of TTO monitoring. This
assumption is consistent with the assumptions associated with the Metal
Finishing category.

Pesticide Chemicals (Part 455). The estimated number of indirect
dischargers covered by PFPR regulations (1,500 facilities) is from the
preamble to the PFPR rule (61 FR 57541). Consistent with that preamble,
EPA assumes in this ICR that all 1,500 indirect dischargers in the PFPR
category will opt for the P2 alternative and that all 1,500 facilities
will submit two certifications per year. These assumptions are
consistent with the 1996, 2000, and 2005 pretreatment program ICRs and
with the preamble to the PFPR rule (61 FR 57541). For consistency with
the Information Collection Request for the NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/
Certification Information, EPA assumes that certifications will require
IUs 1 hour each.

Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Point Source Category (Part 439). The
estimated number of facilities (286) subject to guidelines for the
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Point Source Category is based on data
gathered by OST during the development of the 1998 final rule. EPA
estimates, on the basis of data in effluent guideline development
documents, that approximately 40 percent of the pharmaceutical
facilities are in a subcategory that potentially uses cyanide. Of these,
EPA estimates that 75 percent will choose to submit a certification once
every permit cycle (once every 5 years).

Porcelain Enameling Point Source Category (Part 466). The estimated
number of indirect dischargers in the Porcelain Enameling Category (146)
is from data collected by OST during development of the TSD but not
included in the final TSD. The estimate includes TRI data from
facilities with SIC codes 3431, 3469, 3479, 3631, 3633, 3632, and 3639,
each of which reported transfers of TRI chemicals to POTWs in 2000.
Although this number represents EPA’s best estimate, the Agency is
uncertain about the fit between these SIC codes and indirect dischargers
covered in the Porcelain Enameling Category because operations in these
SIC codes could be covered by the Metal Finishing Category. EPA
estimates that 50 percent of these 146 porcelain enameling facilities
will choose to submit an annual certification requesting an exemption
from chromium monitoring 

Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Source Category (Part 430). To estimate the
universe of potentially affected facilities, EPA has used estimates in
this ICR from the Supplemental Technical Development Document for
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Pulp, Paper, and
Paperboard Category: Subpart B (Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda) and
Subpart E (Papergrade Sulfite) and from EPA’s Guidance Manual for
Pulp, Paper and Paperboard and Builders’ Paper and Board Mills
Pretreatment Standards (September 21, 1984). EPA estimates that 119 of
the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category not including Subpart B
(Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda) and Subpart E (Papergrade Sulfite)
will choose to submit an annual certification requesting an exemption
Based on EPA ICR No. 2015.02, OMB Control Number 2040-0242, EPA
estimated that six Subpart B (Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda)
facilities would certify.

Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (Part 423). The
estimated number of facilities in the Steam Electric Power Generating
Point Source Category is from the Development Document for Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards and Pretreatment Standards for the
Steam Electric Point Source Category (November 1982). EPA estimates that
approximately 75 percent of these 117 facilities will choose to provide
an annual demonstration and provide a certification requesting an
exemption from monitoring requirements for priority pollutants other
than chromium and zinc.

	IU Slug Load Notification

In this ICR, EPA assumes that 100 SIUs per year will be required to
provide a slug load notification. EPA estimates the average burden per
CIU response to be 2 hours. The Agency further estimates that an
additional 450 non-categorical SIUs per year will be required to provide
a slug load notification. EPA estimates the average burden per SIU
response to be 0.25 hour. This estimate is carried forward from the
assumptions in the recalculation of the entire pretreatment program,
which was done as part of the Pretreatment Streamlining ICR (EPA ICR No.
0002.12) and is explained at the beginning of section 6.

	Notification of Changed Discharge 

EPA assumes that 1,000 IUs per year will provide notification of a
changed discharge. EPA estimates that this notification will require 4
burden hours. This estimate is carried forward from the assumptions in
the recalculation of the entire pretreatment program, which was done as
part of the Pretreatment Streamlining ICR (EPA ICR No. 0002.12) and is
explained at the beginning of section 6.

	Bypass Notification 

In this ICR, EPA assumes that 1,427 SIUs per year will report bypasses
and that CAs will require 75 percent of these SIUs (1,070 SIUs) to
conduct follow-up activities. EPA assumes IUs will require 5 hours for
bypass notification and 2 hours for follow-up activities. These
assumptions are carried forward from the assumptions in the
recalculation of the entire pretreatment program, which was done as part
of the Pretreatment Streamlining ICR (EPA ICR No. 0002.12) and is
explained at the beginning of section 6.

	Notification of Changed Monitoring Location 

For this ICR, EPA estimates that 50 SIUs will provide notification of a
changed monitoring location per year. EPA estimates the SIUs will
require 1 hour to provide notification. This estimate is carried forward
from the assumptions in the recalculation of the entire pretreatment
program, which was done as part of the Pretreatment Streamlining ICR
(EPA ICR No. 0002.12) and is explained at the beginning of section 6.

	Slug Control Plan

EPA estimates that 10 percent of all new SIUs will need to develop a
slug control plan. EPA based the number of new SIUs on an assumed growth
rate of 2 percent for existing CIUs and to account for any facilities
that will be covered under new categorical standards. However, no new
effluent guidelines are anticipated during this ICR cycle. The Agency
estimates that this activity will require 2 hours per SIU. This estimate
is carried forward from the assumptions in the recalculation of the
entire pretreatment program, which was done as part of the Pretreatment
Streamlining ICR (EPA ICR No. 0002.12) and is explained at the beginning
of section 6.

	Program/Categorical Determination

	Categorical Determination Request 

The deadline for a categorical determination request has passed for all
existing effluent guidelines, and no new guidelines affecting indirect
discharges are anticipated during this ICR cycle. Therefore, no formal
categorical determination requests are anticipated during the 3-year ICR
period. A New Source must request this certification prior to commencing
discharge.

	Alternative Limits Modification Request 

In this ICR, EPA assumes that 10 percent of all new CIUs will request
alternative limits (i.e., use the combined wastestream formula). EPA
estimates that an IU will require 2 hours to complete a request. This
estimate is carried forward from the assumptions in the recalculation of
the entire pretreatment program, which was done as part of the
Pretreatment Streamlining ICR (EPA ICR No. 0002.12) and is explained at
the beginning of section 6.

	Fundamentally Different Factors Variance Request 

FDF variance requests must be submitted within 180 days following
publication of a new effluent guideline. EPA knows of no pending FDF
variance requests associated with recently promulgated guidelines.
Because no new guidelines affecting indirect dischargers are anticipated
during the next 3 years, no new respondents are anticipated. In
addition, no new dischargers under existing guidelines are anticipated
because facilities are required to submit requests no later than 180
days after promulgation of the categorical pretreatment standard.

	Net/Gross Adjustment Request 

Based on information provided by EPA Regional Pretreatment Coordinators,
EPA estimates that two net/gross adjustment requests will be submitted
each year. The Agency further estimates that IUs will require 50 hours
per request. This estimate is carried forward from the assumptions in
the recalculation of the entire pretreatment program, which was done as
part of the Pretreatment Streamlining ICR (EPA ICR No. 0002.12) and is
explained at the beginning of section 6.

	Recordkeeping

	Maintain Monitoring Records 

All SIUs must maintain monitoring records. EPA estimates that SIUs will
require 2 hours per year to maintain pretreatment records. Based on
changes made to the pretreatment regulations by the Streamlining Rule,
IUs with general control mechanisms will have to maintain associated
records. IUs that request a variance for pollutants neither present nor
expected to be present will also have to maintain sampling and reporting
records. Because IUs already maintain individual permit and sampling
records, EPA estimates no additional SIU reporting and recordkeeping
burden.

6(b).	Respondent Costs

6(b)(i).	Cost to States

Exhibit 6 shows that the annual costs to states are approximately $2.5
million. The labor costs, which account for all state costs, are based
on the average hourly wage for state employees as determined by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation, Table 3- Employer costs per hour worked for employee
compensation and costs as a percent of total compensation: state and
local government, by selected characteristics (September 2006), adjusted
to a December 2006 dollars using the December 2006 Employment Cost Index
(ECI). A 50 percent overhead rate was added to this rate to arrive at an
hourly rate of $38.21.

Exhibit 6.	Average annual state burden and costs

Activity	Annual Burden Hours	Annual Cost ($K)	Responses



Capital and O&M Cost	Labor Cost	Total Cost

	Program development	400	$0.0	$15.3	$15.3	1.3

Program implementation	19,936	$0.0	$761.7	$761.7	986

Program/categorical determination	0	$0.0	$0.0	$0.0	0

States as users of data	40,250	$0.0	$1,537.8	$1,537.8	NA

Recordkeeping	5,865	$0.0	$224.1	$224.1	NA

Total	66,451	$0.0	$2,538.8	$2,538.8	987

NOTE:  Detail may not add due to independent rounding. Costs in
thousands of dollars.

6(b)(ii).	Cost to POTWs

Exhibit 7 shows that the annual costs to POTWs are approximately $23.4
million. The average hourly rate for municipal employees, which account
for all POTW costs, as determined by the U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, is $25.68 (including overhead). Updated
rates are derived from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, in a table entitled May 2005 National Industry-Specific
Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates and adjusted to December 2006
dollars using the December 2006 ECI.

Exhibit 7.	Average annual POTW burden and costs

Activity	Annual Burden Hours	Annual Cost ($K)	Responses



Capital and O&M Cost	Labor Cost	Total Cost

	Program development	6,015	$0.0	$154.4	$154.4	159.3

Program implementation	663,112	$0.0	$17,026.3	$17,026.3	29,738

Program/categorical determination	1,375	$0.0	$35.3	$35.3	28

POTWs as users of data	88,147	$0.0	$2,263.3	$2,263.3	NA

Recordkeeping	151,200	$0.0	$3,882.3	$3,882.3	NA

Total	909,849	$0.0	$23,361.6	$23,361.6	29,925

NOTE:  Detail may not add due to independent rounding. Costs in
thousands of dollars.

6(b)(iii).	Cost to Industrial Users

Exhibit 8 shows the total costs for IUs over the 3-year ICR period.
Annual costs are approximately $56.6 million, comprised of labor and
capital and O&M cost.

Labor costs are based on the number of burden hours times the average
hourly wage rate, including overhead. For all IU activities, this ICR
uses a labor rate for private sector employees, including overhead, of
$66.48 in December 2006 dollars. This rate is consistent with rates used
in other recent OWM ICR submittals. This ICR accounts for annual O&M
costs of $1,993,205 that were migrated per notice on 03/23/2007 (See
Appendix D). There are capital costs incurred by IUs that receive mass
limits as an alternative to concentration based standards.

Exhibit 8.	Average annual industrial user burden and costs

Activity	Annual Burden Hours	Annual Cost ($k)	Responses



Capital and O&M Cost	Labor Cost	Total Cost

	Program development	0	$0.0	$0.0	$0.0	0

Program implementation	774,256	$2,003.2	$51,470.5	$53,473.7	69,004

Program/categorical determination	145	$0.0	$9.6	$9.6	25

IUs as users of data	0	$0.0	$0.0	$0.0	NA

Recordkeeping	46,386	$0.0	$3,083.6	$3,083.6	NA

Total	820,787	$2,003.2	$54,563.8	$56,567.0	69,029

NOTE:  Detail may not add due to independent rounding. Costs in
thousands of dollars.

6(c).	Agency Burden and Costs

Appendix B, Table B-10, provides detailed information about the burden
to the Agency as a user of the information. The total burden to the
Agency is 13,406 hours per year.

The federal government (EPA regions and headquarters) incurs burden and
costs to process, analyze, and maintain the information collected. EPA
regions, in their role as OAs, are users of the State Program Approval
Requests, Categorical Determination Requests, FDF Variance Requests, and
other types of information.

Most of the respondent activities described in section 5 of this ICR
generate reports, information, or data, which must be received,
reviewed, and stored by an OA. Table B-10 in Appendix B calculates the
burden to federal agencies (primarily EPA regions) as users of these
data. Where EPA is the AA (i.e., in 26.26 percent of pretreatment
programs), the Agency reviews reports generated by pretreatment POTWs.
Therefore, the associated review burden for the activities detailed in
Appendix B, Table B-3, and described in section 4(b)(ii), for which
reports or data are submitted to federal agencies (as AAs) has been
apportioned accordingly.

Appendix B, Table B-10, outlines the hours per response, number of
responses per year, and total hours per year expended by the federal
government (EPA) for reviewing state and POTW reports. The annual
average number of hours expended by EPA as a user of the data is 13,406.
Based on an average hourly rate of $39.06 for a federal employee, the
estimated annual cost to EPA is $523,658.

In addition, EPA is the OA for states acting as AAs. Data or reports
generated by the activities listed in Table B-2 of Appendix B will be
sent to EPA regions for review. The burden for these review activities
is also included in Appendix B, Table B-10. Total annual EPA burden and
cost estimates are also included in Exhibit 9.

6(d).	Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

Respondents for this ICR include IUs, POTWs, and states, for a total of
24,740 respondents. This ICR estimates the number of IUs at 23,193. In
addition to the IUs, this ICR assumes 35 states (30 states that
authorize POTWs to implement pretreatment programs and 5 states covered
by 40 CFR 403.10(e)) and 1,512 approved pretreatment programs.

The total costs and burden for these respondents are summarized in
Exhibits 6, 7, and 8. Agency costs and burden are detailed in Appendix
B, Table B-10.

6(e).	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

The bottom line burden hours and costs appear in Exhibit 9 below. This
exhibit summarizes the burden and cost calculations from Exhibits 6, 7,
8, and Appendix B, Table B-10. (Appendix B provides detailed cost and
burden calculations.) The total annual respondent burden associated with
this ICR is estimated to be 1.80 million burden hours. The corresponding
total annual respondent costs are estimated to be $82.5 million. The
total national burden, including respondent burden and Agency burden, is
estimated to be 1.81 million hours annually. The total national cost,
for respondents and EPA, is estimated to be $83.0 million annually.

Exhibit 9.	Bottom line average annual burden and cost

Number of Respondents	24,740	=	35	States



+	1,512	POTWs



+	23,193	Industrial Users

Total Annual Responses	99,940	=	987	States



+	29,925	POTWs



+	69,029	Industrial Users

Total Respondent Hours	1,797,087	=	66,451	States



+	909,849	POTWs



+	820,787	Industrial Users

Hours per Response	17.98	=	1,797,087	Total annual hours from above



÷	99,940	Total annual responses from above

Annual Respondent Labor Cost	$80,464,162	=	$2,538,799	States



+	$23,361,558	POTWs



+	$54,563,805	Industrial Users

Annual Respondent O&M and Capital Cost	$2,003,205	=	$0	States



+	$0	POTWs



+	$2,003,205	Industrial Users

Total Respondent Cost	$82,467,367	=	$2,538,799	States



+	$23,361,558	POTWs



+	$56,567,010	Industrial Users

Total Hours (Respondents & EPA)	1,810,493	=	1,797,087	Respondents



+	13,406	EPA

Total Cost (Respondents & EPA)	$82,991,024	=	$82,467,367	Respondents



+	$523,658	EPA

NOTE:  Detail may not add due to independent rounding. 

6(f).	Reasons for Change in Burden

The Pretreatment Streamlining ICR (Revision of the Information
Collection Request for the National Pretreatment Program of September
22, 2005 [EPA ICR No: 0002.12, OMB Control No. 2040-0009,]) recalculated
the entire pretreatment program, including activities resulting from
provisions not modified by the Streamlining Rule. This section explains
the burden changes from the September 2005 ICR which is the current
inventory kept by OMB. 

The current burden approved by OMB for this ICR is 1,978,132. That is
181,045 (9.2%) more hours that are being requested. Most of the decrease
in burden is attributed to the decrease in the number of SIUs. EPA
revised the estimated number of SIUs and pretreatment programs after
extensive consultation with the EPA regions and a thorough examination
of PCS data. The revised number of SIUs drives the decrease in
respondent burden because SIUs constitute the bulk of respondents.  It
accounts from close to 90% of the change in annual burden.

Although the overall burden decreases, there are also burden increases
in some areas. For example, the number of state respondents has
increased to 35, and the number of approved programs has increased to
1,512. 

As part of EPA’s effort to consolidate its ICRs, this ICR now includes
the burden and costs related to indirect dischargers from the four ICRs
shown below.  The previous supporting statement (EPA ICR No: 0002.12,
OMB Control No. 2040-0009) did not account for the burden and costs from
these ICRs, but OMB’s did per action dated March 23, 2007. (See
Appendix D)

1.	Pollution Prevention Compliance Alternative; Transportation Equipment
Cleaning Point Source Category (40 CFR Part 442), EPA ICR No. 2018.02,
OMB Control No. 2040-0235 

2.	Voluntary Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring
Requirements for Direct and Indirect Discharging Mills in the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard
Manufacturing Category (40 CFR Part 430), EPA ICR No. 2015.01, OMB
Control No. 2040–0242

3.	Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade Kraft Sulfite Subcategory of the
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category (40 CFR Part 430), EPA
ICR No. 1829.02, OMB Control No. 2040–0207

4.	Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Direct and Indirect Discharging
Mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the
Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard
Manufacturing Category (40 CFR Part 430), EPA ICR No. 1878.01, OMB
Control No. 2040–0243

For this ICR, labor rates have been updated to end of 2006 dollars.
These changes affect the estimated costs of reporting and recordkeeping
requirements of the National Pretreatment Program.

6(g).	Burden Statement 

The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for collections included
in this ICR is detailed in Exhibit 9 and Appendix B. The annual
respondent reporting burden is estimated to average 64.4 hours per
respondent per year, and annual respondent recordkeeping burden is
estimated to average 8.2 hours per respondent per year. This burden is
attributed to states, POTWs, and IUs.

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; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology, and
systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to
be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 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.

To comment on EPA’s need for this information, the accuracy of the
provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
the Agency has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2007-0142, which is available for public viewing at the
Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is
202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is
202-566-2426. An electronic version of the public docket is available
through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
http://www.regulations.gov/. Use FDMS to submit or view public comments,
to access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to
access documents in the public docket that are available electronically.
Once in the system, key in the Docket ID number identified above. You
can also send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the
EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2007-0142 and OMB Control No. 2040-0009 in
any correspondence.

 70 FR 60134, October 15, 2005.

 Copies of the approved supporting statements for these ICRs are
included as Appendix C. Note that this supporting statement does not go
into the details of the specific provisions of each of those programs.
Nevertheless, the activities are mentioned in the text and the tables
and calculations include the migrated burden.

 Project XL is covered by a separate ICR, the Regulatory Reinvention
Pilot Projects under Project XL: Pretreatment Program, OMB Control
Number 2010-0026, EPA ICR Number 1755.05.

 Migrated from Information Collection Request: Pollution Prevention
Compliance Alternative; Transportation Equipment Cleaning Point Source
Category (40 CFR Part 442), OMB Control No. 2040-0235, EPA ICR No.
2018.02.

 For a detailed summary of PIRT's recommendations, see the January 30,
1985, EPA publication Pretreatment Review Task Force: Final Report to
the Administrator.

 The Streamlining Rule introduced two new categories of IUs to the
National Pretreatment Program for the purpose of reducing implementation
and reporting burdens on the IUs that fall into these categories.
Control authorities may designate an IU that never discharges more than
100 gpd of total categorical wastewater as a non-significant categorical
industrial user (NSCIU). CAs may also classify some CIUs as middle tier
CIUs, meaning they are subject to more stringent reporting requirements
than those for NSCIUs but less than those for CIUs that are SIUs. These
voluntary regulatory changes reduce the number of respondents for many
National Pretreatment Program requirements. In turn, these changes
reduce program management and implementation burdens on CAs, AAs, and
OAs.

 Ibid.

 Ibid.

 The TSD estimates the number of indirect dischargers based on data from
the TRI. There are limitations associated with these TRI data. Because
neither small establishments (fewer than 10 employees) nor facilities
that do not meet the reporting thresholds are required to report,
facilities reporting to TRI might be a very small subset of an industry.
Also, because facilities are identified by SIC code, not by point source
category, it might be difficult or impossible to identify the point
source category that is the source of the toxic wastewater releases for
some SIC codes. For example, coil coating is an operation that is part
of canmaking (3411, metal cans). Some of these facilities have coil
coating operations, but they cannot be identified from the data in TRI.

 The hourly employment cost of federal employees was determined using a
methodology established in previous ICRs. According to the U.S. Office
of Personnel Management, January 2007 General Schedule (2007-GS), the
average annual salary of a government employee at the GS-9, Step 10,
level is $54,155. At 2,080 hours per year, the hourly wage would be
$26.04. Assuming overhead costs of 50 percent, or $13.02 per hour, the
fully loaded cost of employment for a federal employee would be $39.06.

DRAFT Pretreatment Program ICR		 Page   PAGE  iii 

OMB Control No. 2040-0009		September 2007

EPA ICR No. 0002.13

Pretreatment Program ICR		Page   PAGE  8 

OMB Control No.2040-0009	September 2007

EPA ICR No. 0002.13

