****
DRAFT
****

Supporting
Statement
for
the
Information
Collection
Request
for
the
Proposed
NPDES
and
ELG
Regulatory
Revisions
for
Concentrated
Animal
Feeding
Operations
May
2006
EPA
ICR
NO.
1989.03
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Office
of
Wastewater
Management
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
N.
W.
Washington,
DC
20460
Prepared
with
support
from:
Tetra
Tech,
Inc.
10306
Eaton
Place
Fairfax,
VA
22030
EPA
Contract
#
EP­
C­
05­
046
Tetra
Tech
Project
#
16759­
07
This
Page
Intentionally
Left
Blank
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
1.
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION..........................................
1
1(
a)
Title
of
the
Information
Collection...................................................................................
1
1(
b)
Short
Characterization/
Abstract
.......................................................................................
1
1(
c)
Relationship
of
NPDES
CAFO
Program
ICRs
.................................................................
3
2.
NEED
FOR
AND
USE
OF
THE
COLLECTION................................................................
3
2(
a)
Need
and
Authority
for
the
Collection..............................................................................
3
2(
b)
Practical
Utility/
Users
of
the
Data....................................................................................
4
3.
NONDUPLICATION,
CONSULTATIONS,
AND
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA....
5
3(
a)
Nonduplication
................................................................................................................
5
3(
b)
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
to
OMB
...............................................
5
3(
c)
Consultations
...................................................................................................................
6
3(
d)
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
.................................................................................
6
3(
e)
General
Guidelines
..........................................................................................................
6
3(
f)
Confidentiality
.................................................................................................................
7
3(
g)
Sensitive
Questions..........................................................................................................
7
4.
THE
RESPONDENTS
AND
THE
INFORMATION
REQUESTED...................................
7
4(
a)
Respondents/
SIC
Codes...................................................................................................
7
4(
b)
Information
Requested.....................................................................................................
9
5.
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTED 
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY,
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT........................................
12
5(
a)
Agency
Activities
..........................................................................................................
12
5(
b)
Collection
Methodology
and
Management.....................................................................
12
5(
c)
Small
Entity
Flexibility..................................................................................................
13
5(
d)
Collection
Schedule
.......................................................................................................
13
6.
ESTIMATING
THE
BURDEN
AND
COST
OF
THE
COLLECTION
.............................
14
6(
a)
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
......................................................................................
14
6(
b)
Estimating
Respondent
Costs.........................................................................................
17
6(
c)
Estimating
Agency
Burden
and
Cost..............................................................................
19
6(
d)
Estimating
the
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Burden
and
Costs..................................
19
6(
e)
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
Tables.................................................................
22
6(
f)
Reasons
for
Change
in
Burden
.......................................................................................
23
6(
g)
Burden
Statement
..........................................................................................................
25
REFERENCES.........................................................................................................................
28
APPENDIX..............................................................................................................................
29
LIST
OF
TABLES
Table
4 
1.
CAFO
Standard
Industrial
Classification
codes
and
size
thresholds
........................
8
Table
4 
2.
CAFO
universe
and
discharging
CAFOs...............................................................
10
Table
5 
1.
SBA
and
EPA
Small
Business
thresholds
for
animal
sectors.................................
13
Table
6 
1.
CAFO
respondent
burden
.....................................................................................
15
Table
6 
2.
State
respondent
burden........................................................................................
16
Table
6 
3.
Wage
rates
used
to
value
CAFO­
related
burdens
..................................................
18
Table
6 
4.
CAFO
labor
rates..................................................................................................
18
Table
6 
5.
Annual
average
respondents
burden
and
cost
........................................................
20
Table
6 
6.
Annual
average
Agency
burden
and
cost...............................................................
21
Table
6 
7.
CAFO
burden
and
cost
summary
..........................................................................
22
Table
6 
8.
State
burden
and
cost
summary.............................................................................
23
Table
6 
9.
Agency
burden
and
cost
summary
........................................................................
23
Table
6 
10.
Hour
and
burden
totals
for
all
respondents
............................................................
26
1
1.
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
1(
a)
Title
of
the
Information
Collection
ICR:
Proposed
NPDES
and
ELG
Regulatory
Revisions
for
Concentrated
Animal
Feeding
Operations
EPA
ICR:
1989.03
OMB
Control
Number:
2040­
0250
1(
b)
Short
Characterization/
Abstract
On
February
12,
2003,
EPA
promulgated
a
final
rule
that
revised
and
updated
regulations
for
the
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
and
Effluent
Limitations
Guideline
(
ELG)
requirements
for
concentrated
animal
feeding
operations
(
CAFOs)
(
68
FR
7176;
also
see
ICR
1989.02).
Subsequently,
on
February
28,
2005,
the
United
States
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Second
Circuit
vacated
certain
provisions
in
the
2003
regulations
and
remanded
others
to
EPA
(
Waterkeeper
Alliance
et
al.
v.
EPA,
399
F.
3d
486
(
2nd
Cir.
2005)).
In
response
to
the
decision
of
the
Second
Circuit,
referred
to
in
this
ICR
as
the
Waterkeeper
decision,
EPA
has
developed
a
proposed
regulation
that
addresses
the
vacated
and
remanded
regulations.

The
2003
CAFO
rule
was
accompanied
by
an
ICR
that
covered
the
new
CAFO
program
rules
(
ICR
No.
1989.02).
That
ICR
expires
in
July
2006,
and
is
being
renewed
in
a
separate
action
as
ICR
No.
1989.04.

This
ICR
provides
an
estimate
of
the
information
collection
hour
and
cost
burden
impacts
associated
specifically
with
the
proposed
regulation
to
address
the
Waterkeeper
decision
from
2005.1
It
includes
the
burden
and
cost
increase
expected
to
result
from
the
proposed
rule's
response
to
the
court's
decision
to
add
certain
requirements
related
to
Nutrient
Management
Plans
(
NMPs).
It
also
includes
the
burden
and
cost
reductions
expected
to
result
from
the
court's
decision
to
require
NPDES
permits
only
from
dischargers.
This
reduction
was
calculated
from
a
baseline
of
the
paperwork
burden
from
the
2003
CAFO
rule,
as
updated
to
2006.
(
See
Exhibit
G
in
the
Appendix.)

This
ICR
addresses
the
following
proposed
rule
requirements:

C
EPA
has
adjusted
the
number
of
respondents
according
to
the
Court's
determination
that
only
those
CAFOs
that
discharge
or
that
propose
to
discharge
must
apply
for
an
NPDES
permit.

C
EPA
is
proposing
that
Nutrient
Management
Plans
(
NMPs)
required
to
be
prepared
by
CAFOs
under
the
2003
rule
must
be
submitted
to
the
permit
authority
with
the
permit
1
This
ICR
includes
an
appendix
that
describes
aspects
of
this
proposed
rule
that
affect
the
2003
CAFO
ICR,
and
presents
summary
information
regarding
expected
adjustments.
2
application
or
notice
of
intent
to
be
covered
under
a
general
permit.

C
EPA
is
proposing
that
NMPs
submitted
to
the
permit
authority
must
be
reviewed
by
the
permit
authority
and
that
the
permit
authority
must
develop
terms
of
the
NMP
for
the
permit.

C
EPA
is
proposing
that
NMPs
and
terms
of
the
NMP
for
the
permit
be
made
available
to
the
public
for
review
and
comment,
including
potential
hearings.

The
Federal
Water
Pollution
Control
Act
(
1972),
also
known
as
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA),
prohibits
the
discharge
of
pollutants
from
a
point
source
to
waters
of
the
United
States
except
for
discharges
authorized
and
regulated
by
the
NPDES
permit
program
established
by
section
402(
a).
CAFOs
are
classified
as
point
sources
and,
thus,
may
be
subject
to
permit
requirements
at
40
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
(
CFR)
Part
122
and
the
feedlot
ELG
requirements
at
40
CFR
412.
NPDES
permits
typically
include
requirements
for
permit
applications,
recordkeeping,
reporting,
and
other
information
collection
activities.

Section
402(
b)
provides
that
States
(
including
U.
S.
Territories
and
Indian
Tribes)
may
be
authorized
to
administer
NPDES
programs
once
the
Agency
is
assured
that
a
State
program
meets
minimum
federal
requirements.
As
of
September
2005,
45
States
and
one
Territory
(
U.
S.
Virgin
Islands)
had
received
approval
from
EPA
to
administer
the
NPDES
base
program,
which
includes
the
federal
requirements
that
are
applicable
to
CAFOs.
Of
these,
44
are
responsible
for
issuing
NPDES
permits
to
CAFOs
(
called
"
authorized
States"
hereafter).
2
EPA
and
authorized
State
permitting
authorities
typically
receive,
review,
management,
and
report
information
collected
under
the
NPDES
permitting
program,
including
CAFO
permits.

Information
collected
by
the
NPDES
Program
Director
(
of
either
an
authorized
State
or
EPA)
about
waste
management
facilities
and
operating
procedures
will
be
used
to
determine
the
applicability
of
permit
coverage
and
to
document
that
a
permittee
is
in
compliance
with
permit
requirements.
Information
will
be
collected
using
permit
application
forms
and
annual
reports
and
through
compliance
evaluation
inspections.
Permitting
authorities
enter
data
into
Permit
Compliance
System
(
PCS)
or
the
Integrated
Compliance
Information
System
(
ICIS),
the
Agency's
old
and
modernized
NPDES
program
databases.

It
is
noteworthy
that
the
majority
of
the
burden
estimated
under
this
ICR
would
fall
on
the
permit
authorities.
This
ICR
addresses
only
the
burden
associated
with
changes
EPA
is
making
to
the
2003
CAFO
rule
to
address
the
provisions
that
were
vacated
and
remanded
by
the
Second
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals.

EPA
estimates
that
the
burden
for
this
information
collection
request
results
in
an
annual
average
decrease
of
777,366
hours
for
all
non­
Federal
respondents,
including
an
increase
in
30,293
hours
for
State
respondents
and
a
reduction
of
807,659
hours
for
all
CAFO
respondents.
This
estimate
includes
the
time
required
to
review
instructions,
search
existing
data
sources,
gather
and
2
EPA
retains
authority
for
NPDES
discharge
permits
for
agricultural
facilities
in
Oklahoma;
thus,
only
44
States
are
authorized
to
issue
permits
to
CAFOs.
EPA
is
not
aware
of
any
CAFOs
in
the
U.
S.
Virgin
Islands.
3
maintain
all
necessary
data,
and
complete
and
review
the
information
collected.
On
average,
there
will
be
approximately
6,356
fewer
CAFO
owners/
operators
respondents
and
46,334
fewer
responses
per
year.
The
capital
or
operation
and
maintenance
(
O&
M)
costs
savings
as
a
result
of
the
proposed
rule
are
estimated
to
be
$
2,679,189.

1(
c)
Relationship
of
NPDES
CAFO
Program
ICRs
The
existing
CAFO
ICR
covers
the
period
from
June
2003
to
June
2006
(
ICR
#
1989.02).
Implementation
of
the
NPDES
CAFO
regulations
that
were
promulgated
in
February
2003
are
addressed
under
the
2003
ICR
(
1989.02).
The
scope
of
this
current
ICR
(
Proposed
Rule
ICR)
is
limited
to
addressing
changes
to
the
2003
NPDES
CAFO
regulations
resulting
from
the
February
2005
Second
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals
decision.
Consistent
with
ICR
requirements,
EPA
will
renew,
in
a
separate
analysis
to
that
herein,
the
entire
ICR
for
the
NPDES
CAFO
program
in
2006
to
address
implementation
of
the
program
through
2009.
The
2006
ICR
will
merge
the
burden
from
the
2003
CAFO
Rule
ICR
(
1989.02)
and
the
burden
reflected
in
this
Proposed
Rule
ICR
into
a
single
CAFO
NPDES
Program
implementation
ICR.
(
This
ICR
uses
updated
baselines
that
will
be
consistent
with
the
upcoming
CAFO
program
ICR
renewal.)

2.
NEED
FOR
AND
USE
OF
THE
COLLECTION
2(
a)
Need
and
Authority
for
the
Collection
EPA
has
authority
to
undertake
the
information
collection
activities
characterized
in
this
document
under
Sections
308
and
402
of
the
CWA,
and
Title
33
Sections
1311,
1318,
and
1342
[
402
counterparts]
of
the
United
States
Code
(
U.
S.
C.).
CAFOs
are
defined
as
point
sources
for
purposes
of
the
NPDES
program
(
33
U.
S.
C.
Sec.
1362).
Under
33
U.
S.
C.
Section
1311
and
Section
1342,
a
CAFO
must
obtain
an
NPDES
permit
and
comply
with
the
terms
of
that
permit,
which
may
include
appropriate
conditions
on
data
and
information
collection.
Furthermore,
33
U.
S.
C.
Section
1318
provides
authority
for
information
collection
(
i.
e.,
record
keeping,
reporting,
monitoring,
sampling,
and
other
information
as
needed),
which
applies
to
point
sources.

EPA
and
authorized
States
need
the
information
generated
by
the
proposed
regulatory
revisions
that
pertain
to
CAFOs
to
respond
to
the
Second
Circuit
Court
of
Appeal's
decision
in
Waterkeeper
Alliance
v.
EPA
and
to
effectively
implement
CWA
requirements.
This
proposed
rule
would
revise
the
final
2003
CAFO
rule,
which
updated
EPA's
original
ELG
(
40
CFR.
Part
412)
and
NPDES
(
40
CFR.
Part
122)
regulations
for
CAFOs
promulgated
in
the
mid­
1970s.

The
proposed
revisions
would
respond
to
the
court
ruling
while
maintaining
the
nation's
water
quality
and
effectively
ensuring
that
CAFOs
properly
manage
the
manure
that
they
generate.
The
revisions
alter
the
mandatory
duty
for
CAFOs
to
apply
for
a
permit,
requiring
only
those
CAFOs
that
discharge
or
propose
to
discharge
to
apply
for
a
permit.
Additionally,
EPA
is
revising
the
2003
CAFO
rule
to
allow
greater
public
participation
in
the
implementation
of
the
4
nutrient
management
plan,
requiring
CAFOs
seeking
permit
coverage
to
submit
their
NMP
to
the
permitting
authority
as
part
of
the
application
or
notice
of
intent
(
NOI)
and
requiring
that
the
permitting
authorities
review
the
plans
and
provide
public
notice
and
an
opportunity
for
public
comment.
As
the
court
decided
that
NMP
is
the
heart
of
the
effluent
limitation
guideline,
NPDES
permits
issued
under
the
proposed
rule
must
include
the
plan's
key
terms
and
conditions.
Finally,
the
100­
year,
24­
hour
storm
containment
structure
standard
for
new
large
swine,
poultry,
and
veal
facilities
would
be
removed.

EPA
needs
to
collect
information
from
authorized
States
to
ensure
that
their
NPDES
programs
implement
the
final
rule.
Under
40
CFR
Part
123,
State
NPDES
programs
must,
at
all
times,
be
in
compliance
with
federal
regulations.
When
new
federal
requirements
are
enacted,
States
have
one
year
to
update
their
regulations
to
meet
the
new
requirements
or
have
2
years
if
they
must
also
update
statutes.

2(
b)
Practical
Utility/
Users
of
the
Data
EPA
and
authorized
State
permitting
authorities
use
the
information
routinely
collected
through
NPDES
applications
and
compliance
evaluations
in
the
following
ways:

C
to
issue
NPDES
permits
with
appropriate
limitations
and
conditions
that
will
protect
human
health
and
the
environment
C
to
allow
for
public
participation
in
the
permitting
process
C
to
update
information
in
EPA's
databases
that
permitting
authorities
use
to
determine
permit
conditions
C
to
calculate
national
permit
issuance,
backlog,
and
compliance
statistics
C
to
evaluate
national
water
quality
C
to
assist
EPA
in
program
management
and
other
activities
that
ensure
national
consistency
in
permitting
C
to
assist
EPA
in
prioritizing
permit
issuance
activities
C
to
assist
EPA
in
policy
development
and
budgeting
C
to
assist
EPA
in
responding
to
Congressional
and
public
inquiries
Other
users
of
the
data
include
regulated
CAFOs
and
the
general
public.
CAFOs
will
use
the
data
they
collect
to
improve
operation
efficiency
and
evaluate
facility
maintenance
needs.
The
general
public
can
use
information
collected
through
the
NPDES
permit
process
to
support
efforts
to
protect
local
environmental
quality
and
quality
of
life.
5
3.
NONDUPLICATION,
CONSULTATIONS,
AND
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA
3(
a)
Nonduplication
The
information
collection
pursuant
to
the
regulatory
changes
is
site­
specific
and,
therefore,
not
available
from
existing
sources
of
information.

As
part
of
its
overall
CAFO
initiative,
EPA
has
undertaken
efforts
to
identify
existing
sources
of
relevant
information
as
well
as
to
coordinate
with
other
Federal
agencies
that
collect
information
in
the
agricultural
sector
[
e.
g.,
United
States
Department
of
Agriculture
(
USDA),
United
States
Geological
Survey
(
USGS),
Food
and
Drug
Administration
(
FDA),
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration,
Centers
for
Disease
Control
(
CDC)]
and
States.
To
support
development
of
the
USDA/
EPA
Unified
National
Strategy
for
animal
feeding
operations
(
AFOs)
and
the
2003
regulatory
changes,
EPA
formed
and
administered
a
data
and
analysis
group
that
included
18
representatives
from
EPA,
USDA,
and
USGS.
This
group
worked
to
identify
and
access
existing
sources
of
CAFO
data.
Although
some
useful
general
data
were
identified,
including
EPA
and
USDA
information
(
e.
g.,
STORET,
305(
b)
and
303(
d)
information),
no
other
Federal
agency
has
the
facility­
specific
data
addressed
under
the
CAFO
regulations.
In
addition,
EPA
used
publicly
available
information
to
a
significant
extent.

There
are
a
few
national
databases
maintained
by
the
Federal
government
that
store
some
information
about
CAFOs.
A
search
for
relevant
databases
identified
the
following:

C
EPA's
Permit
Compliance
System
(
PCS)

C
USDA
Census
of
Agriculture
EPA's
PCS
database
is
used
to
store
information
about
facilities
that
hold
NPDES
permits.
It
helps
EPA
monitor
the
compliance
status
of
permitted
facilities.
PCS
holds
only
data
items
associated
with
existing
NPDES
permits
and
focuses
on
discharge
requirements.
This
information
collection
is
not
duplicative
of
data
already
in
PCS.

USDA's
National
Agricultural
Statistics
Service
(
NASS)
is
responsible
for
maintaining
a
large
amount
of
information
on
agricultural
operations,
including
AFOs,
through
the
Census
of
Agriculture,
which
is
administered
every
5
years.
Census
of
Agriculture
data
are
subject
to
restrictions
with
regard
to
what
type
of
data
may
be
released,
when,
and
to
whom.
Generally,
facility
level
data
may
not
be
released.
Therefore,
the
information
in
the
Census
of
Agriculture
database
cannot
fulfill
EPA's
data
needs
for
purposes
of
administering
the
NPDES
program,
and
this
information
collection
is
not
duplicative
of
the
data
available
from
NASS.

3(
b)
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
to
OMB
A
summary
of
the
ICR
will
be
published
in
the
proposed
rule
notice
in
the
Federal
Register.
The
notice
will
include
a
request
for
comments
on
the
content
and
impact
of
the
proposed
rule
on
the
6
regulated
community.
Comments
on
the
proposed
rule
are
used
to
substantiate
or
refute
the
burden
estimates
for
respondents.
A
summary
of
this
ICR
will
accompany
the
final
rule
submission
to
OMB,
as
will
be
noted
in
the
public
notice
for
the
submission.

3(
c)
Consultations
To
facilitate
the
2003
CAFO
regulation
development,
EPA
actively
involved
interested
parties
in
the
development
of
the
final
2003
rule.
As
part
of
those
efforts,
EPA
provided
many
opportunities
for
input
in
the
2003
rule­
making
process,
including
11
public
outreach
meetings
on
the
Draft
Unified
National
AFO
Strategy
and
a
stakeholder
conference
call
including
small
entities.
In
addition,
EPA
meets
with
various
members
of
the
stakeholder
community
on
a
continuing
basis.
Those
meetings
with
environmental
organizations,
producer
groups,
and
producers
representing
various
agricultural
sectors
gave
EPA
the
opportunity
to
interact
with
and
receive
input
from
stakeholders
about
the
Unified
Strategy
and
the
NPDES
and
ELG
regulatory
revisions.
While
most
of
those
outreach
activities
have
not
targeted
small
entities
explicitly,
many
included
small
business
participation.
Examples
of
specific
consultations
were
documented
in
the
2003
CAFO
Rule
ICR
(
OMB
NO:
2040­
0250,
EPA
ICR:
1989.02).

EPA
has
developed
this
proposed
rule
and
accompanying
ICR
in
response
to
the
Court's
vacature
and
remand
of
certain
provisions
in
the
2003
CAFO
rule.
EPA
has
worked
with
EPA
Regions
and
numerous
States,
as
well
as
USDA,
to
develop
the
proposed
requirements
described
in
this
ICR.
During
the
implementation
of
the
2003
NPDES
CAFO
Rule
and
in
developing
this
proposed
rule
in
response
to
the
Second
Circuit
Court
decision,
EPA
has
continued
to
meet
with
environmental
organizations,
producer
groups,
and
producers
representing
various
agricultural
sectors.

3(
d)
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
EPA
has
made
every
effort
to
establish
NPDES
permit
and
associated
information
collection
requirements
that
minimize
the
burden
on
respondents
while
promoting
the
protection
of
water
quality.
NPDES
permit
applications
are
the
primary
form
of
information
collection
for
regulated
CAFOs,
and
these
facilities
must
reapply
for
NPDES
permits
before
their
existing
permits
expire.
Section
402(
p)
of
the
CWA
requires
that
NPDES
permits
be
issued
for
fixed
terms
with
a
maximum
term
of
5
years,
thereby
disallowing
less
frequent
collection
than
anticipated
by
this
ICR.
Compliance
evaluation
inspections
[
and
section
308
requests]
are
conducted
as
needed
to
assure
compliance
and
less
frequent
collection
would
hamper
compliance
assurance
efforts.
Furthermore,
most
inspections
will
be
conducted
by
authorized
States,
which
means
that
collection
frequency
is
largely
a
matter
of
State
discretion.

3(
e)
General
Guidelines
This
information
collection
complies
with
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
guidelines
(
5
CFR.
1320.5(
d)(
2)).
7
3(
f)
Confidentiality
Under
the
proposed
rule,
permitted
CAFOs
must
submit
nutrient
management
plans
and
keep
a
record
on­
site.
These
plans
might
contain
confidential
business
information.
When
this
is
the
case,
the
respondent
can
request
that
such
information
be
treated
as
confidential.
All
confidential
data
will
be
handled
in
accordance
with
40
CFR.
122.7,
40
CFR.
Part
2
(
40
CFR.
2.201
et
seq.),
and
EPA's
Security
Manual
Part
III,
Chapter
9,
dated
August
9,
1976.

Whenever
possible,
EPA
encourages
public
involvement
in
the
NPDES
regulatory
process.
However,
EPA
also
recognizes
the
legitimate
concerns
of
operators
regarding
protection
of
confidential
business
information
and
potential
delays
in
processing
of
permit
applications
and
NOIs.

3(
g)
Sensitive
Questions
This
ICR
does
not
ask
AFO
or
CAFO
operators
sensitive
questions
concerning
private
matters
(
e.
g.,
religious
beliefs).

4.
THE
RESPONDENTS
AND
THE
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
This
ICR
covers
the
information
collection
activities
expected
to
occur
over
the
3­
year
period
from
January
1,
2006,
through
December
31,
2008.3
[
Review
Note
­
The
data
provided
in
this
document
are
valid
for
that
time­
frame.
This
may
need
to
be
adjusted
based
upon
the
ultimate
date
of
publication
for
the
final
rule.]

4(
a)
Respondents/
SIC
Codes
The
two
categories
of
respondents
are
the
owners
or
operators
of
CAFOs
and
the
44
authorized
States
that
issue
permits
to
CAFOs.
Among
CAFO
respondents,
those
that
discharge
must
apply
for
a
permit.

EPA
categorizes
CAFOs
on
the
basis
of
the
primary
type
of
animal
produced
by
the
operation.
Table
4­
1
lists
the
major
categories
along
with
their
North
American
Industry
Classification
System
(
NAICS)
codes
and
the
corresponding
four­
digit
Standard
Industrial
Classification
(
SIC)
codes.
Note
that
some
industry
classification
codes
may
overlap
more
than
one
of
the
categories
defined
by
EPA
under
the
final
regulations.
For
example,
swine
of
any
size
have
the
same
NAICS
or
SIC
codes.

Table
4­
1
also
provides
the
applicable
animal
thresholds.
EPA
uses
these
thresholds
to
distinguish
which
AFOs
are
CAFOs.
All
large
AFOs
are
defined
as
CAFOs.
An
AFO
in
the
medium
size
category
is
defined
as
a
CAFO
if
it
meets
one
of
two
discharge
criteria:

3
Note
that
the
burden
estimated
in
this
ICR
will
be
merged
into
the
CAFO
Program
ICR
(
No.
1989.02)
burden
when
that
ICR
is
renewed.
8
 
pollutants
are
discharged
to
U.
S.
waters
through
a
man­
made
ditch,
flushing
system,
or
other
similar
man­
made
device
 
pollutants
are
discharged
directly
into
U.
S.
waters
that
originate
outside
of
the
facility
and
pass
over,
across,
or
through
the
facility
or
otherwise
come
into
direct
contact
with
the
confined
animals
T
able
4 
1.
CAFO
Standard
Industrial
Classification
codes
and
size
thresholds
Size
thresholds
NAICS
code
(
SIC
code)
Animal
type
Large
Medium
Small
112111
(
0212,
0241),
112112
(
0211)
Beef
cattle,
heifers,
calves
or
veal
for
either
slaughter
or
replacement
>
1,000
300 
1,000
<
300
112111,
112120
(
0241)
Dairy
cattle 
mature
dairy
cattle
(
whether
milked
or
dry
cows)
and
heifer
replacement
>
700
200 
700
<
200
Swine 
each
weighing
over
25
kilograms 
or
approximately
55
pounds
>
2,500
750 
2,500
<
750
112210
(
0213)

Immature
swine 
each
weighing
less
than
25
kilograms,
or
approximately
55
pounds
>
10,000
3,000 
10,000
<
3,000
112310
(
0252)
Chickens 
laying
hens,
using
liquid
manure
handling
system
>
30,000
9,000 
30,000
<
9,000
112310
(
0252)
Chickens 
laying
hens,
if
other
than
liquid
manure
handling
system
>
82,000
25,000 
82,000
<
25,000
112320
(
0251)
Chickens
other
than
laying
hens 
broilers,
fryers
and
roasters,
if
other
than
liquid
manure
handling
system
>
125,000
37,500 
125,000
<
37,500
112330
(
0253)
Turkeys
>
55,000
16,500 
55,000
<
16,500
Ducks,
wet
manure
handling
>
5,000
1,500 
5,000
<
1,500
112390
(
0259)
Ducks,
dry
manure
handling
>
40,000
12,000 
40,000
<
12,000
112410
(
0214)
Sheep
or
lambs
>
10,000
3,000­
10,000
<
3,000
112920
(
0272)
Horses
>
500
150­
500
<
150
An
AFO
in
the
smallest
size
category
may
become
a
CAFO
through
designation
only
following
an
on­
site
inspection.
Medium
AFOs
that
are
not
defined
CAFOs,
may
be
designated
as
CAFOs.
Under
the
2003
CAFO
rule,
all
CAFOs
had
a
duty
to
apply
for
an
NPDES
permit4
either
by
submitting
an
NOI
to
be
covered
by
a
general
permit
or
by
submitting
an
application
for
an
4
Or
seek
a
"
no
potential
to
discharge"
determination.
9
individual
permit.
Under
this
proposed
rule,
this
requirement
is
narrowed
such
that
only
those
CAFOs
that
discharge
or
propose
to
discharge
must
apply
for
a
permit.
5
In
the
interim
period
from
when
the
2003
CAFO
Rule
ICR
was
prepared
and
the
development
of
this
Proposed
Rule
ICR,
the
animal
agricultural
industry
has
continued
to
change.
These
changes
have
included
further
consolidation
reflected
in
an
increased
number
of
AFOs
that
meet
the
threshold
for
being
defined
as
a
Large
CAFO.
The
estimates
also
reflect
better
estimates
from
states
and
EPA
regions.
Table
4­
2
documents
changes
to
the
number
of
Large
CAFOs
between
2003
and
2005
and
reflects
the
numbers
used
in
developing
each
ICR.
This
Proposed
Rule
ICR
accounts
only
for
changes
being
made
to
the
NPDES
CAFO
permit
program
resulting
from
the
Second
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals
decision.
The
2003
Rule
ICR
addresses
all
other
aspects
of
the
NPDES
CAFO
permit
program.
It
is
important
to
consider
changes
to
the
industry
that
have
been
accounted
for
when
comparing
information
in
each
ICR.

Table
4­
2
shows
the
number
of
CAFOs
that
have
operational
characteristics
associated
with
discharges
to
waters
of
the
United
States,
which
subjects
them
to
NPDES
permit
requirements.
The
information
presented
in
Table
4­
2
was
generated
using
data
from
the
1997
and
2002
Census
of
Agriculture,
NASS
bulletins,
National
Animal
Health
Monitoring
System
(
NAHMS)
species
reports,
2003
Demographics
Report
and
industry
data
sources
and
comments.
According
to
this
information,
EPA
estimates
that,
as
of
the
time
of
this
rulemaking,
approximately
14,100
CAFOs
would
discharge
to
waters
of
the
United
States.
(
EPA,
October
14,
2005,
Memo
to
Record:
Estimated
Number
of
Permit
Applications
from
CAFOs.)
These
figures
include
both
facilities
defined
as
CAFOs
that
have
discharges
as
well
as
facilities
designated
as
CAFOs
due
to
discharges.
Table
4­
2
provides
an
accounting
of
the
number
of
CAFOs
by
animal
type
as
well
as
operation
size.
Exhibit
H
in
the
appendix
provides
more
detailed
information
about
the
CAFO
universe,
including
the
total
permitted
facilities
by
year.

4(
b)
Information
Requested
4(
b)(
i)
Data
Items,
Including
Record­
keeping
Requirements
CAFO
Data
Items
Submittal
of
Nutrient
Management
Plan
(
NMP).
(
Proposed
40
CFR.
122.21(
i)(
1)(
x))
An
NMP
must
be
part
of
an
NPDES
permit
application.
In
addition,
an
NOI
to
obtain
coverage
under
a
general
permit
must
include
an
NMP.
The
2003
CAFO
rule
required
that
facilities
required
to
develop
an
NMP
had
to
maintain
the
NMP
on­
site
and
make
it
available
to
the
permit
authority
upon
request.
The
2003
rule
specifies
the
content
of
the
NMP,
which
has
not
changed
under
this
proposed
rule.

Major
Modification
to
NMP.
(
Proposed
40
CFR.
122.62(
a)(
17))
Any
substantial
changes
to
an
NMP
must
be
made
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
for
a
permit
modification
under
section
5
This
change
took
effect
following
the
Second
Circuit
decision,
but
is
being
first
codified
under
this
proposed
rule.
10
122.62
(
e.
g.,
draft
permit,
notice,
comment,
opportunity
for
public
hearing).
Nonsubstantial
modifications
may
be
incorporated
as
minor
modifications
under
proposed
section
122.63(
h),
provided
the
revised
NMP
is
submitted
to
the
permit
authority.

Table
4 
2.
CAFO
universe
and
discharging
CAFOs
Animal
type
2003
CAFO
Universe
2003­
2005
Projected
%
change
2005
CAFO
Universe
a
2005
CAFOs
needing
permits
b
2006­
2008
Increase
in
number
of
CAFOs
during
3­
year
ICR
period
due
to
industry
growth
Large
CAFOs
Beef
1,766
1.02
1,801
1,540
53
Veal
12
0.99
12
8
0
Heifer
242
1.02
247
200
15
Dairy
1,450
1.13
1,639
1,657
857
Swine
3,924
1.41
5,533
4,019
4,409
Broilers
1,632
1.32
2,154
245
492
Layers:
Dry
729
1.02
744
74
0
Layers:
Wet
383
0.98
375
375
2
Ducks
21
1.21
25
18
8
Horses
195
1.10
215
179
28
Turkeys
388
1.07
415
42
10
TOTAL
Large
CAFOs
10,742
13,160
8,363
Medium
CAFOs
c
4,625
1.22
5,641
5,641
TOTAL
15,367
18,801
14,100
5,874
Notes
a.
Projection
based
on
NAHMS
species
reports,
2003
Demographics
Report,
and
2002
Census
of
Agriculture
changes
from
1997
Census.
(
This
reflects
the
percent
increase
in
column
2
times
the
number
of
CAFOs
in
column
1)
b.
The
figures
by
sector
include
both
facilities
defined
as
CAFOs
that
have
discharges
as
well
as
facilities
designated
as
CAFOs
due
to
discharges.
c.
Medium­
sized
CAFOs,
because
of
how
they
are
defined,
will
still
need
permits.
Sources:
U.
S.
EPA
(
2002).
Estimates
of
CAFO
Universe
EPA
ICR
No.
1989.02.
EPA,
October
14,
2005,
Memo
to
Record:
Estimated
Number
of
Permit
Applications
from
CAFOs
11
State
Data
Items
Submittal
of
NMP.
(
Proposed
40
CFR.
122.21(
i)(
1)(
x))
Authorized
States
receive
the
NMPs
as
part
of
each
NPDES
permit
application
or
NOI
to
obtain
coverage
under
an
NPDES
general
permit.

Public
Notice/
Comment.
(
Proposed
40
CFR.
122.21(
i)(
1)(
x)
and
122.42(
e)(
1))
Authorized
States
must
provide
notice
and
opportunity
for
comment
on
draft
NMPs
and
NMP
terms
for
permits.
(
Existing
NPDES
regulations
require
notice
and
comment
on
draft
NPDES
permits 
see
40
CFR
124.10,
and
ICRs
0168.08,
0226.17,
1427.07,
and
0029.08.)

Major
Modification
to
NMP.
(
Proposed
40
CFR.
122.62(
a)(
17))
Authorized
States
must
review
major
modifications
to
NMPs.

Public
Hearing.
(
Proposed
40
CFR.
122.21(
i)(
1)(
x)
and
122.42(
e)(
1))
Authorized
States
must
provide
opportunity
for
a
public
hearing
when
there
is
significant
public
interest
in
the
NMP
provisions
of
a
draft
NPDES
CAFO
permit.
(
Existing
NPDES
regulations
provide
for
the
opportunity
for
a
public
hearing
for
a
draft
NPDES
permit 
see
40
CFR
124.11,
and
ICRs
0168.08,
0226.17,
1427.07,
and
0029.08.)

4(
b)(
ii)
Respondent
Activities
CAFO
Activities
Submittal
of
NMP.
(
Proposed
40
CFR.
122.21(
i)(
1)(
x))
All
CAFOs
that
discharge
or
propose
to
discharge
must
submit
an
NMP
as
part
their
NPDES
permit
application.
In
addition,
NOIs
to
obtain
coverage
under
an
NPDES
general
permit
must
include
an
NMP.
For
purposes
of
comparison,
the
2003
CAFO
rule
required
that
facilities
required
to
develop
an
NMP
had
to
maintain
the
NMP
on­
site
and
make
it
available
to
the
permit
authority
upon
request.

Major
Modification
to
NMP.
(
Proposed
40
CFR.
122.62(
a)(
17))
Permitted
CAFOs
that
make
substantial
changes
to
their
NMP
must
comply
with
the
requirements
for
a
permit
modification
under
section
122.62
(
e.
g.,
draft
permit,
notice,
comment,
opportunity
for
public
hearing).
Nonsubstantial
modifications
may
be
incorporated
as
minor
modifications
under
proposed
section
122.63(
h),
provided
the
revised
NMP
is
submitted
to
the
permit
authority.

State
Activities
Review
of
NMP.
(
Proposed
40
CFR
122.21(
i)(
1)(
x))
Authorized
States
must
review
the
NMP,
as
part
of
the
permit
application
and
permit,
for
compliance
with
applicable
NPDES
CAFO
regulations.
(
Existing
regulations
require
the
review
of
application
information,
the
use
of
application
information
in
developing
permit
requirements,
and
the
drafting
of
permit
conditions
on
the
basis
for
the
permit
record.
See,
40
CFR
sections
124.3,
124.6
and
124.9,
as
well
as
123.25.
Also
see
ICRs
0168.08,
0226.17,
1427.07,
and
0029.08.)
Note:
The
burden
for
developing
the
NMP
terms
for
the
permit
is
not
costed
in
this
ICR
since
the
permit
development
burden
is
not
typically
included
in
information
collection
analysis.
12
Public
Notice/
Comment.
(
Proposed
40
CFR
122.21(
i)(
1)(
x)
and
122.42(
e)(
1))
Authorized
States
must
provide
public
notice
and
an
opportunity
for
comment
on
the
NMP
and
the
NMP
terms
for
the
permit.
(
Existing
NPDES
regulations
require
notice
and
comment
on
draft
NPDES
permits 
see
40
CFR
124.10,
and
ICRs
0168.08,
0226.17,
1427.07,
and
0029.08.)

Major
Modification
to
NMP.
(
Proposed
40
CFR
122.62(
a)(
17))
Authorized
States
must
review
any
major
modifications
to
an
NMP.

Public
Hearing.
(
Proposed
40
CFR
122.21(
i)(
1)(
x)
and
122.42(
e)(
1))
Authorized
States
must
conduct
a
public
hearing
when
there
is
significant
public
interest
in
the
NMP
provisions
of
a
draft
NPDES
CAFO
permit.

5.
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTED 
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY,
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
5(
a)
Agency
Activities
EPA
has
permitting
responsibilities
in
the
six
States
where
it
is
the
permitting
authority
for
CAFOs.
In
those
States,
the
Agency's
permitting
activities
would
be
similar
to
the
activities
described
for
authorized
States
(
see
section
4(
b)
of
this
document).
These
activities
are
not
included
in
the
burden
and
cost
estimates
for
this
ICR
in
accordance
with
the
1999
EPA
ICR
Handbook.

The
active
CAFOS
NPDES
ICR
(
OMB
NO:
2040 
0250,
EPA
ICR:
1989.02)
accounts
for
burden
to
evaluate
the
requests
for
program
modifications
submitted
by
authorized
States
to
implement
the
final
rule.
EPA
expects
any
additional
changes
resulting
from
the
amended
rule
to
be
minor.

5(
b)
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
CAFO
respondents
will
submit
the
requested
information
to
their
NPDES
permitting
authority.
EPA
will
manage
a
portion
of
the
information
collected
electronically.
As
under
the
existing
NPDES
program,
respondent
data
pertaining
to
facilities
permitted
under
the
revised
regulations
would
be
catalogued
in
the
automated
PCS
or
ICIS
NPDES
database.
The
PCS
database
is
a
national
database
that
contains
information
on
permit
issuance,
permit
limits
and
monitoring,
and
other
facility
information.
It
is
being
replaced
by
a
modernized
system,
ICIS
 
NPDES.
Appropriate
information
provided
on
permit
application
forms
or
NOI
forms
will
be
entered
into
PCS
(
or
ICIS­
NPDES)
or
an
NOI
database.
13
5(
c)
Small
Entity
Flexibility
The
current
NPDES
program
distinguishes
Small
CAFOs
on
the
basis
of
the
number
or
concentration
of
animals.
Small,
medium,
and
large
operations
are
defined
in
Table
4­
1.

Whereas
EPA
establishes
thresholds
on
the
basis
of
the
number
of
animals,
the
Small
Business
Administration
(
SBA)
uses
revenue­
based
thresholds
to
distinguish
small
agricultural
operations
from
larger
operations.
Consequently,
EPA
developed
a
model
to
convert
the
SBA's
revenue
thresholds
to
the
number
of
animals
by
sector.
EPA
used
the
SBA's
revenue­
based
definitions
(
except
for
laying
hens)
and
data
from
USDA
and
the
industry
for
this
effort.
The
SBA
and
EPA
thresholds
are
shown
for
each
sector
in
Table
5 
1.
A
comparison
of
the
SBA­
based
animal
thresholds
with
EPA's
animal
thresholds
indicates
that
most
medium
and
small
CAFOs
are
small
entities
and
some
large
CAFOs
will
be
small
entities
as
well.

Table
5 
1.
SBA
and
EPA
Small
Business
thresholds
for
animal
sectors
NAICS
code
(
SIC
code)
Animal
sector
SBA
threshold
(
revenue
in
millions)
a
Corresponding
SBA
animal
threshold
(
number
of
animals)
CAFO
Size
Threshold
(
number
of
animals)
112112
(
0211)
Beef
cattle
feedlots
$
1.5
1,400
Large:
>
1,000
112111,
112120
(
0241)
Dairy
farms
and
dairy
heifer
replacement
production
$
0.75
300
b
Large
>
700
Medium
>
200
112210
(
0213)
Hogs
$
0.75
2,100
c
Large
>
2,500
Medium
>
750
112310
(
0252)
Chicken
eggs
$
1.5
d
61,000
Large
>
30,000
112320
(
0251)
Broiler,
fryer,
roaster
chickens
$
0.75
375,000
Large
>
125,000
112330
(
0253)
Turkeys
and
turkey
eggs
$
0.75
37,500
Large
>
55,000
a.
SBA
thresholds
effective
February
22,
2002.
Classification
is
met
if
the
operation
has
revenue
equal
to
or
less
than
the
threshold
cited.
b.
Mature
dairy
cattle.
c.
Each
weighing
over
25
kilograms.
d.
EPA
consulted
with
SBA
on
the
use
of
this
alternative
definition;
the
original
threshold
is
$
9.0
million.
Note:
Certain
animal
sectors
(
e.
g.,
sheep
and
lambs,
horses,
and
ducks)
are
not
subject
to
ELG
requirements,
and
EPA
has
not
developed
corresponding
small
business
animal
thresholds
for
those
sectors.

As
in
the
2003
CAFO
rule,
EPA's
premise
continues
to
be
that
any
regulatory
burden
should
focus
on
those
operations
posing
the
greatest
risk
to
water
quality
and
public
health 
especially
operations
with
large
numbers
of
animals.
As
section
6
shows,
this
proposed
rule
would
result
in
a
net
reduction
in
burden
on
CAFO
respondents,
including
small
entities,
due
to
the
reduced
number
of
operations
that
would
be
required
to
obtain
a
permit.
In
addition,
any
new
estimates
of
burden
on
small
entities
are
relatively
small.
The
proposed
rule
does
not
alter
the
fact
that
the
CAFO
ELG
requirements
apply
to
Large
CAFOs,
and
that
permitting
authorities,
which
are
14
mainly
State
agencies,
will
establish
technology­
based
requirements
for
Small
and
Medium
CAFOs
on
the
basis
of
best
professional
judgment.

5(
d)
Collection
Schedule
This
ICR,
when
final,
will
cover
the
initial
3­
year
period
following
promulgation
of
the
final
rule.
For
this
Proposed
Rule
ICR,
estimates
are
based
on
the
three­
year
period
from
January
1,
2006,
through
December
31,
2008.

The
requirement
for
permitting
only
those
CAFOs
that
discharge
became
effective
upon
the
Court's
ruling
of
February
28,
2005.
This
change,
which
is
being
initially
codified
in
regulations
under
the
proposed
rule,
will
have
the
effect
of
reducing
the
information
collection
burden
on
CAFOs
relative
to
the
2003
CAFO
rule.
Thus,
the
burden
and
cost
reflected
in
the
ICR
developed
for
the
2003
CAFO
Rule
ICR
has
been
reduced,
and
these
reductions
are
reflected
in
this
ICR.
In
some
instances,
these
reductions
may
be
affected
by
industry
changes
such
as
continuing
consolidation.

Under
the
proposed
rule
to
address
the
Second
Circuit
Court
decision,
an
NMP
must
be
submitted
as
part
of
the
permit
application.
This
ICR
assumes
that
one­
fifth
of
existing
permitted
CAFOs
would
renew
their
permits
in
each
year
covered
by
the
ICR
(
based
on
the
5­
year
NPDES
permit
term).
In
addition,
a
specific
number
of
new
and
designated
CAFOs
were
assumed
to
seek
permits
in
each
of
these
years.

Based
on
EPA's
experience
with
other
permit
modifications,
changes
to
existing
NMPs
are
assumed
to
be
made
to
one
percent
of
permitted
CAFOs.
These
changes
would
trigger
permit
modification
requirements.

6.
ESTIMATING
THE
BURDEN
AND
COST
OF
THE
COLLECTION
The
summaries
below
provide
brief
descriptions
of
the
CAFO
and
State
activities,
and
Tables
6­
6
and
6 
7
summarize
the
burden
assumptions.

Exhibits
A
through
F
in
the
Appendix
provide
additional
information
regarding
the
burden
and
cost
assumptions.
Because
none
of
the
technical
requirements
were
affected
by
the
court's
decision,
no
separate
Economic
Analysis
was
conducted
to
support
these
proposed
requirements.

6(
a)
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
CAFO
Burden
For
the
active
CAFO
NPDES
ICR
(
OMB
NO:
2040 
0250,
EPA
ICR:
1989.02),
EPA
calculated
average
plan
development
burden
for
average
CAFO
by
animal
type.
These
numbers
were
used
to
calculate
a
weighted
average
plan
burden
of
approximately
50.7
hours
according
to
the
number
of
CAFOs
of
each
type.
For
purposes
of
this
ICR,
EPA
estimates
that
the
burden
to
15
modify
an
NMP
would
be
20
percent
of
the
development
burden.
EPA's
burden
estimate
for
submitting
the
plan
is
30
minutes.

Under
the
proposed
rule
to
address
the
Second
Circuit
Court
decision,
CAFOs
will
incur
burden
associated
with
submitting
NMPs
to
the
permit
authority
and
submitting
significant
modifications
to
the
permit
authority.
Note
that
all
other
burden
associated
with
the
2003
CAFO
rule
are
addressed
in
the
existing
EPA
ICR
No.
1989.02.
Table
6­
1
specifies
the
burden
hours
per
response
for
each
CAFO
under
this
proposed
rule.

All
CAFOs
that
discharge
or
propose
to
discharge
must
submit
an
NMP
as
part
their
NPDES
permit
application
(
proposed
40
CFR.
122.21(
i)(
1)(
x)).
In
addition,
NOIs
to
obtain
coverage
under
an
NPDES
general
permit
must
include
an
NMP.
For
purposes
of
comparison,
the
2003
CAFO
rule
required
that
facilities
required
to
develop
an
NMP
had
to
maintain
the
NMP
on­
site
and
make
it
available
to
the
permit
authority
upon
request.
EPA
estimates
that
submittal
of
an
NMP
will
require
0.5
hours
every
5
years.

Table
6 
1.
CAFO
respondent
burden
Activities
Hours
per
response
Frequency
of
response
Nutrient
Management
Plan
Modify
Nutrient
Management
Plan
a,
b
10.1
every
year
Submit
Nutrient
Management
Plan
0.5
every
5
years
a.
It
was
assumed
that
every
year,
1
percent
of
NMPs
would
change
enough
to
trigger
review.
b.
The
burden
estimate
is
20
percent
of
the
burden
to
develop
an
NMP.
See
active
CAFOS
NPDES
ICR
(
OMB
NO:
2040­
0250,
EPA
ICR:
1989.02)

In
addition,
permitted
CAFOs
that
make
substantial
changes
to
their
NMP
must
comply
with
the
requirements
for
a
permit
modification
under
section
122.62
(
e.
g.,
draft
permit,
notice,
comment,
opportunity
for
public
hearing).
Nonsubstantial
modifications
may
be
incorporated
as
minor
modifications
under
proposed
section
122.63(
h),
provided
the
revised
NMP
is
submitted
to
the
permit
authority
(
proposed
40
CFR.
122.62(
a)(
17)).
EPA
estimates
that
permit
modifications
will
result
in
a
burden
of
10.1
hours.

Under
the
proposed
rule
to
address
the
Second
Circuit
Court
decision,
the
provision
in
the
2003
CAFO
rule
that
required
that
all
CAFOs
had
a
duty
to
apply
for
an
NPDES
permit,
either
by
submitting
an
NOI
to
be
covered
by
a
general
permit,
or
by
submitting
an
application
for
an
individual
permit
was
narrowed
such
that
only
those
CAFOs
that
discharge
or
propose
to
discharge
must
apply
for
a
permit.
This
change
will
reduce
the
CAFO
facility
information
collection
burden
associated
with
all
of
the
items
covered
under
the
2003
CAFO
rule
ICR
(
e.
g.,
permit
application,
NMP
development,
recordkeeping
and
reporting,
no
potential
to
discharge
notification,
etc)
16
State
Burden
Under
the
proposed
rule
to
addressed
the
Second
Circuit
Court
decision,
authorized
States
will
incur
burden
associated
with
reviewing
NMPs
and
providing
public
notice
of
the
NMP
portion
of
each
permit,
opportunity
to
comment
and,
potentially,
public
hearings.
All
other
categories
of
burden
associated
with
the
2003
CAFO
rule
are
addressed
in
the
existing
EPA
ICR
No.
1989.02.
Table
6­
2
specifies
the
burden
hours
per
response
for
each
permit
authority
under
this
proposed
rule.

Authorized
States
must
review
the
NMP,
as
part
of
the
permit
application
and
permit,
for
compliance
with
applicable
NPDES
CAFO
regulations.
(
Existing
NPDES
regulations
require
the
review
of
application
information,
the
use
of
application
information
in
developing
permit
requirements,
and
the
drafting
of
permit
conditions.
See
40
CFR
sections
124.3,
124.6
and
124.9,
as
well
as
123.25.
Also
see
ICRs
0168.08,
0226.17,
1427.07,
and
0029.08.)
(
See
proposed
40
CFR.
122.21(
i)(
1)(
x)).

Authorized
States
must
provide
public
notice
and
an
opportunity
for
comment
on
the
NMP
portion
of
draft
NPDES
CAFO
permits.
(
Existing
NPDES
regulations
require
notice
and
comment
on
all
other
elements
of
draft
NPDES
permits 
see
40
CFR
124.10,
and
ICRs
0168.08,
0226.17,
1427.07,
and
0029.08.)
(
See
proposed
40
CFR.
122.21(
i)(
1)(
x)
and
122.42(
e)(
1)).

Authorized
States
must
review
major
changes
to
an
NMP
which
result
in
modification
of
the
permit,
and
must
provide
an
opportunity
for
public
comment
if
indicated.
(
See
proposed
40
CFR.
122.62(
a)(
17)).

Table
6 
2.
State
respondent
burden
Activities
Hours
per
response
Frequency
of
response
State
General
NPDES
Permit
Application
Activities
Public
hearings
200.0
every
5
years
Review
NMP
(
administrative)
20.0
every
5
years
State
Individual
Permit
Application
Activities
Review
NMP
(
administrative)
20.0
every
5
years
State
General
NPDES
Permit
Application
Activities
Due
to
Significant
NMP
Modificationsa
Review
and
approve
NOIs/
record
keeping
4.0
every
year
Public
hearings
40.0
every
year
Review
NMP
(
administrative)
4.0
every
year
Notify
public,
respond
to
comments
1.0
every
year
State
Individual
Permit
Application
Activities
Due
to
Significant
NMP
Modificationsa
Review
and
approve
permits/
record
keeping
20.0
every
year
Public
hearings
40.0
every
year
Review
NMP
(
administrative)
4.0
every
year
Notify
public,
respond
to
comments
1.0
every
year
a.
It
was
assumed
that
every
year,
1
percent
of
NMPs
would
change
enough
to
trigger
review.
17
Note
that
all
other
burden
associated
with
the
2003
CAFO
rule
is
addressed
in
the
existing
EPA
ICR
No.
1989.02.
Table
6­
2
specifies
the
burden
hours
per
response
for
each
CAFO
under
this
proposed
rule.
For
the
State
burden
estimate,
most
of
the
assumptions
regarding
level
of
effort
and
frequency
of
response
were
carried
forward
from
the
2003
CAFO
Rule
CAFOS
NPDES
ICR
(
OMB
NO:
2040­
0250,
EPA
ICR:
1989.02).
New
assumptions
for
this
ICR
are:

 
Based
on
communication
from
EPA
Regional
staff,
EPA
estimates
that
certain
states
already
go
beyond
the
2003
rule
requirements
in
that
49
percent
of
CAFOs
are
currently
required
to
submit
their
NMP
to
the
permit
authority,
and
24
percent
of
CAFOs
in
authorized
States
are
subject
to
comprehensive
technical
review
of
their
NMP.
 
Nonauthorized
states
have
3.4
percent
of
CAFOs
(
Kellogg
et
al.,
2000).
This
number
is
used
for
purposes
of
estimating
the
number
of
CAFOs
where
EPA
is
the
permitting
authority.

Under
the
proposed
rule
to
address
the
Second
Circuit
Court
decision,
the
provision
in
the
2003
CAFO
rule
that
required
that
all
CAFOs
had
a
duty
to
apply
for
an
NPDES
permit
either
by
submitting
an
NOI
to
be
covered
by
a
general
permit
or
by
submitting
an
application
for
an
individual
permit
was
narrowed
such
that
only
those
CAFOs
that
discharge
or
propose
to
discharge
must
apply
for
a
permit.
This
change
in
which
CAFOs
must
apply
for
an
NPDES
permit
will
reduce
the
state
information
collection
burden
in
all
items
covered
under
the
2003
CAFO
rule
ICR
(
e.
g.,
facility
inspection,
annual
report
review)

6(
b)
Estimating
Respondent
Costs
This
section
describes
how
EPA
derived
the
cost
per
respondent
for
each
of
the
activities
described
above.

6(
b)(
i)
Estimating
Labor
Costs
CAFO
Labor
Costs
To
obtain
cost
estimates
at
the
CAFO
level,
EPA
multiplied
the
burdens
reported
in
Table
6­
1
by
the
wage
rates
in
Table
6 
3.
Table
6 
4
identifies
the
wage
rate
used
for
each
activity
and
reports
the
annual
cost
per
CAFO
by
activity.
18
Table
6 
3.
Wage
rates
used
to
value
CAFO­
related
burdens
Labor
category
Original
rate
Source
Conversion
Hourly
rate
($
2005)

Farm
Operator/
Owner
$
18.50/
hr
BLS:
45­
1011
First­
Line
Supervisors/
Managers
of
Farming,
Fishing,
and
Forestry
Workers
2004
to
2005
1.5
benefits
multiplier
$
28.48
Farm
Laborer
$
9.07/
hr
BLS:
45­
2093
Farmworkers,
Farm
and
Ranch
Animals
2004
to
2005
1.5
benefits
multiplier
$
13.96
Agronomist
2
$
26.67
BLS:
BLS:
19­
1013
Soil
and
Plant
Scientists
2004
to
2005
1.5
benefits
multiplier
$
41.06
Note:
Original
rates
are
from
the
May
2004
National
Industry­
Specific
Occupational
Employment
and
Wage
Estimates
from
the
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics.
EPA
adjusted
the
wage
to
2005
dollars
using
the
Employer
Costs
for
Employee
Compensation
Index
values
for
the
first
quarter
of
2004
(
16.71)
and
the
first
quarter
of
2005
(
17.15)
and
a
fringe
rate
of
50
percent.

Table
6 
4.
CAFO
labor
rates
Activities
Labor
rate
used
Labor
rate
Nutrient
Management
Plan
Modify
Nutrient
Management
Plan
Agronomist
$
41.06
Submit
Nutrient
Management
Plan
Farm
Manager
$
28.48
State
Labor
Costs
EPA
used
a
wage
rate
of
$
37.98
to
value
State
labor
burden,
which
was
based
on
the
mean
hourly
wage
rate
of
$
23.13
for
Conservation
Scientists
(
SOC
19­
1031)
from
the
May
2004
National
Industry­
Specific
Occupational
Employment
and
Wage
Estimates
for
NAICS
999200 
State
Government
(
OES
designation).
EPA
adjusted
the
wage
to
2005
dollars
using
the
Employer
Costs
for
Employee
Compensation
Index
values
for
the
first
quarter
of
2004
(
16.71)
and
the
first
quarter
of
2005
(
17.15)
and
a
fringe
rate
of
60
percent.

Agency
Labor
Costs
EPA
used
an
hourly
wage
rate
for
a
GS12,
Step
One
Federal
employee
to
estimate
the
cost
of
the
Agency
staff.
The
U.
S.
Office
of
Personnel
Management
2005
General
Schedule
reported
an
hourly
rate
of
$
25.98.
Multiplying
this
rate
by
1.6
to
incorporate
typical
Federal
benefits
(
OPM,
1999),
EPA
obtained
a
final
hourly
rate
of
$
41.57.

6(
b)(
ii)
Estimating
Capital
and
Operation
and
Maintenance
(
O&
M)
Costs
CAFO
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
The
proposed
rule
to
respond
to
the
Second
Circuit
Court
decision
would
not
impose
additional
capital
or
O&
M
costs
on
CAFOs.
On
the
contrary,
due
to
the
Second
Circuit
Court
decision
that
only
those
CAFOs
that
discharge
or
propose
to
discharge
must
apply
for
a
permit,
the
capital
and
19
O&
M
costs
estimated
in
the
2003
CAFO
rule
ICR
will
be
reduced
since
fewer
facilities
need
to
comply
with
these
regulations.
These
reductions
are
not
reflected
in
this
ICR
but
will
be
reflected
in
the
renewal
of
the
2003
CAFO
ICR.

State
O&
M
Costs
The
proposed
rule
to
respond
to
the
Second
Circuit
Court
decision
would
not
impose
O&
M
costs
on
states.

6(
b)(
iii)
Capital
Start­
up
vs.
Operation
and
Maintenance
(
O&
M)
Costs
See
6(
b)(
ii),
above.

6(
b)(
iv)
Annualizing
Capital
Costs
See
6(
b)(
ii),
above.

6(
c)
Estimating
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
EPA
has
the
same
burden
as
states
for
the
five
States
where
it
is
the
NPDES
permitting
authority
for
CAFOs.
For
unauthorized
States,
EPA
will
incur
burden
associated
with
reviewing
NMPs,
providing
public
notice,
opportunity
to
comment,
and,
potentially,
hearings.

6(
d)
Estimating
the
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Burden
and
Costs
Table
6 
5
presents
the
annual
burden
and
costs
for
all
respondents
to
the
proposed
rule
to
address
the
Second
Circuit
Court
decision.
In
Table
6 
6
annual
agency
cost
and
burden
is
presented.
20
Table
6 
5.
Annual
average
respondents
burden
and
cost
Burden
per
response
(
hours)
Labor
rate
($)
Cost
per
response
Responses
(
number)
Total
burden
(
hours)
Costs
(
labor)
Costs
(
capital)
Costs
(
O&
M)
Total
costs
CAFOs
Nutrient
Management
Plan
Modify
NMP
10.1
$
41.06
$
414.7
177
1,788
$
73,403
$
0
$
0
$
73,403
Submit
NMP
0.5
$
28.48
$
14.2
2,608
1,304
$
37,143
$
0
$
0
$
37,143
CAFOs
Increase
(
new
provisions
to
address
the
Waterkeeper
ruling)
3,092
$
110,546
$
0
$
0
$
110,546
CAFOs
Decrease
(
NPDES
permits
only
from
dischargers)
810,751
$
13,434,707
$
123,242
$
1,907,469
$
15,465,417
Total
Net
CAFOs
Change
(
807,659)
($
13,324,161)
($
123,242)
($
1,907,469)
($
15,354,871)

States
State
general
NPDES
permit
application
activities
Public
hearings
200
$
37.98
$
7,596.0
387
77,467
$
2,942,184
$
0
$
0
$
2,942,184
Review
NMP
(
administrative)
20
$
37.98
$
759.6
2,453
49,070
$
1,863,675
$
0
$
0
$
1,863,675
State
Individual
Permit
Application
Activities
Review
NMP
(
administrative)
20
$
37.98
$
759.6
1,051
21,030
$
798,718
$
0
$
0
$
798,718
State
general
NPDES
permit
application
activities
due
to
significant
NMP
modifications
Review
and
approve
NOIs/

record
keeping
4
$
37.98
$
151.9
120
479
$
18,180
$
0
$
0
$
18,180
Public
hearings
40
$
37.98
$
1,519.2
14
573
$
21,775
$
0
$
0
$
21,775
Review
NMP
(
administrative)
4
$
37.98
$
151.9
120
479
$
18,180
$
0
$
0
$
18,180
Notify
public,
respond
to
comments
1
$
37.98
$
38.0
120
120
$
4,545
$
0
$
0
$
4,545
State
individual
permit
application
activities
sue
to
significant
NMP
modifications
Review
and
approve
permits/

record
keeping
20
$
37.98
$
759.6
51
1,026
$
38,958
$
0
$
0
$
38,958
Public
hearings
40
$
37.98
$
1,519.2
6
240
$
9,115
$
0
$
0
$
9,115
Review
NMP
(
administrative)
4
$
37.98
$
151.9
51
205
$
7,792
$
0
$
0
$
7,792
Notify
public,
respond
to
comments
1
$
37.98
$
38.0
51
51
$
1,948
$
0
$
0
$
1,948
State
Increase
(
new
provisions
to
address
the
Waterkeeper
ruling)
150,739
$
5,725,071
$
0
$
0
$
5,725,071
State
Decrease
(
NPDES
permits
only
from
dischargers)
120,446
$
4,574,549
$
0
$
648,478
$
5,223,027
Total
Net
State
Change
30,293
$
1,150,522
$
0
($
648,478)
$
502,044
Total
Respondents
Net
Change
(
777,366)
($
12,173,639)
($
123,242)
($
2,555,947)
($
14,852,827)
21
Table
6 
6.
Annual
average
Agency
burden
and
cost
Burden
per
response
(
hours)
Labor
rate
($)
Cost
per
response
Responses
(
number)
Total
Burden
(
hours)
Costs
(
labor)
Costs
(
capital)
Costs
(
O&
M)
Total
Costs
Agency
Federal
general
NPDES
permit
application
activities
Review
NMP
(
administrative)
20
$
41.57
$
831.4
114
2,280
$
94,791
$
0
$
0
$
94,791
Federal
Individual
Permit
Application
Activities
Review
NMP
(
administrative)
20
$
41.57
$
831.4
49
977
$
40,625
$
0
$
0
$
40,625
Federal
General
NPDES
Permit
Application
Activities
Due
to
Significant
NMP
Modifications
Review
and
approve
NOIs/

record
keeping
4
$
41.57
$
166.3
4
16
$
703
$
0
$
0
$
703
Public
hearings
40
$
41.57
$
1,662.8
1
27
$
1,109
$
0
$
0
$
1,109
Review
NMP
(
administrative)
4
$
41.57
$
166.3
4
17
$
703
$
0
$
0
$
703
Notify
public,
respond
to
comments
1
$
41.57
$
41.6
4
4
$
176
$
0
$
0
$
176
Federal
individual
permit
application
activities
due
to
significant
NMP
modifications
Review
and
approve
permits/

record
keeping
20
$
41.57
$
831.4
2
36
$
1,507
$
0
$
0
$
1,507
Public
hearings
40
$
41.57
$
1,662.8
­
­
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Review
NMP
(
administrative)
4
$
41.57
$
166.3
2
7
$
301
$
0
$
0
$
301
Notify
public,
respond
to
comments
1
$
41.57
$
41.6
2
2
$
75
$
0
$
0
$
75
Agency
Increase
(
new
provisions
to
address
the
Waterkeeper
ruling)
3,351
$
139,990
$
0
$
0
$
139,990
Agency
Decrease
(
NPDES
permits
only
from
dischargers)
4,290
$
178,315
$
47,708
$
0
$
226,023
Total
Net
Agency
Change
(
939)
($
38,325)
($
47,708)
$
0
($
86,033)
22
6(
e)
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
Tables
Table
6­
7
presents
a
yearly
cost
increase
breakdown
and
3­
year
ICR
period
summary
for
CAFOs
subject
to
the
new
provisions
in
the
proposed
rule
that
addresses
the
Second
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals
decision.
There
will
be
a
total
of
7,825
CAFO
respondents
over
the
3­
year
period
with
an
average
of
2,608
respondents
for
each
year
under
this
ICR.
Total
CAFO
respondent
costs
over
the
3­
year
period
will
be
$
331,637
with
an
average
annual
total
cost
for
all
respondents
of
$
110,546.

Respondents
for
each
year
represent
the
facilities
that
will
incur
additional
information
collection
activities
as
a
result
of
the
new
provisions
in
the
proposed
rule
that
addresses
the
Second
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals
decision.
These
are
either
new
facilities
or
facilities
due
to
renew
their
permits.

Table
6 
7.
CAFO
burden
and
cost
increase
from
new
provisions
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Item
Jan
2006 
Dec
2006
Jan
2007 
Dec
2007
Jan
2008 
Dec
2008
3­
Year
total
Annual
average
Burden
(
hours)
2,791
3,077
3,408
9,276
3,092
Respondents
(
number)
2,431
2,598
2,796
7,825
2,608
Responses
(
number)
2,587
2,774
2,995
8,356
2,785
Costs
(
labor)
$
99,312
$
109,984
$
122,342
$
331,637
$
110,546
Costs
(
capital)
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Costs
(
O&
M)
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Total
Costs
$
99,312
$
109,984
$
122,342
$
331,637
$
110,546
Table
6­
8
presents
a
yearly
cost
increase
breakdown
and
3­
year
ICR
period
summary
for
the
44
States
authorized
to
issue
NPDES
permits.
These
numbers
reflect
only
burden
and
cost
associated
with
the
new
provisions
in
the
proposed
regulatory
changes
to
the
NPDES
CAFO
regulations
that
address
the
February
2005
Second
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals
decision.
There
will
be
a
total
of
13,277
responses
during
the
3­
year
ICR
period
with
an
average
of
4,426
responses
for
each
year
under
this
ICR.
Total
State
burden
over
the
3­
year
period
is
452,217
hours
with
an
average
annual
average
state
burden
of
150,739
hours.
State
costs
will
total
$
17,175,213
for
the
3­
year
ICR
period
with
an
average
annual
cost
of
$
5,725,071.
23
Table
6 
8.
State
burden
and
cost
increase
from
new
provisions
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Item
Jan
2006 
Dec
2006
Jan
2007 
Dec
2007
Jan
2008 
Dec
2008
3­
Year
total
Annual
average
Burden
(
hours)
140,789
150,181
161,247
452,217
150,739
Respondents
(
number)
44
44
44
44
44
Responses
(
number)
4,112
4,408
4,757
13,277
4,426
Costs
(
labor)
$
5,347,182
$
5,703,888
$
6,124,143
$
17,175,213
$
5,725,071
Costs
(
O&
M)
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Total
Costs
$
5,347,182
$
5,703,888
$
6,124,143
$
17,175,213
$
5,725,071
Table
6 
9
presents
a
yearly
cost
increase
and
3­
year
ICR
period
summary
for
EPA.
EPA
is
responsible
for
the
implementation
of
the
NPDES
CAFO
permit
program
where
no
other
agency
has
been
authorized
to
do
so.
These
numbers
reflect
only
burden
and
cost
associated
with
the
new
provisions
in
the
proposed
regulatory
changes
to
the
NPDES
CAFO
regulations
that
address
the
February
2005
Second
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals
decision.
There
will
be
a
total
of
3,753
responses
during
the
3­
year
ICR
period
with
an
average
of
1,251
responses
for
each
year
under
this
ICR.
Total
agency
burden
is
10,103
hours
for
the
3­
year
period
with
an
average
annual
burden
of
3,368
hours.
Agency
costs
will
total
$
419,970
for
the
3­
year
ICR
period
with
an
average
annual
cost
of
$
139,990.

T
able
6 
9.
Agency
burden
and
cost
increase
from
new
provisions
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Item
Jan
2006­
Dec
2006
Jan
2007­
Dec
2007
Jan
2008­
Dec
2008
3­
year
total
Annual
average
Burden
(
hours)
3,121
3,368
3,613
10,103
3,368
Responses
(
number)
1,130
1,245
1,378
3,753
1,251
Costs
(
labor)
$
129,759
$
140,014
$
150,198
$
419,970
$
139,990
Costs
(
O&
M)
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Total
Costs
$
129,759
$
140,014
$
150,198
$
419,970
$
139,990
Table
6­
10
presents
a
yearly
breakdown
and
3­
year
ICR
period
summary
for
the
burden
and
cost
reduction
expected
to
be
experienced
by
CAFOs
as
a
result
of
the
court's
decision
in
2005
to
require
NPDES
permits
only
from
dischargers.
There
will
be
a
total
of
19,068
fewer
CAFO
respondents
over
the
3­
year
ICR
compared
with
what
would
have
been
required
under
the
2003
CAFO
rule
period
as
a
result
of
the
Second
Circuit
decision
to
require
NPDES
permits
only
from
dischargers
(
under
the
2003
rule
there
would
have
been
72,107
CAFOs
that
required
permit,
under
this
ICR
over
the
3­
year
ICR
period
53,038
CAFOs
are
estimated
to
require
permits).
The
difference
(
19,068)
represents
fewer
CAFO
respondents
over
the
3­
year
ICR
period
that
will
be
subject
to
the
regulations.
Under
this
ICR
there
will
be
an
average
of
6,356
fewer
CAFO
respondents
for
each
year.
Total
CAFO
respondent
costs
will
be
$
46,396,251
less
than
it
would
24
have
been
under
the
2003
CAFO
rule,
with
an
average
annual
total
cost
of
reduction
to
CAFOs
of
$
15,465,417.

Table
6 
10.
CAFO
burden
and
cost
reductions
summary
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Item
Jan
2006 
Dec
2006
Jan
2007 
Dec
2007
Jan
2008 
Dec
2008
3­
Year
total
Annual
average
Burden
(
hours)
711,713
805,165
915,375
2,432,253
810,751
Respondents
(
number)
5,543
6,310
7,214
19,068
6,356
Responses
(
number)
37,465
42,434
48,296
128,195
42,732
Costs
(
labor)
$
11,888,814
$
13,347,017
$
15,068,288
$
40,304,120
$
13,434,707
Costs
(
capital)
$
103,771
$
122,075
$
143,880
$
369,725
$
123,242
Costs
(
O&
M)
$
1,666,575
$
1,893,982
$
2,161,849
$
5,722,406
$
1,907,469
Total
Costs
$
13,659,160
$
15,363,074
$
17,374,017
$
46,396,251
$
15,465,417
Table
6­
11
presents
a
yearly
breakdown
and
3­
year
ICR
period
summary
for
the
44
States
that
have
been
authorized
to
implement
the
NPDES
CAFO
permit
program.
These
numbers
reflect
only
burden
and
cost
reduction
expected
to
result
from
the
court's
decision
in
2005
to
require
NPDES
permits
only
from
dischargers.
There
will
be
a
total
of
32,440
fewer
responses
during
the
3­
year
ICR
period
with
an
average
of
10,813
responses
for
each
year
under
this
ICR.
Total
State
burden
reduction
is
361,339
hours
with
an
average
annual
average
reduction
of
120,446
hours.
State
total
costs
will
be
reduced
by
$
15,669,081
for
the
3­
year
ICR
period
with
an
average
annual
cost
reduction
of
$
5,223,027.

Table
6 
11.
State
burden
and
cost
reduction
summary
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Item
Jan
2006 
Dec
2006
Jan
2007 
Dec
2007
Jan
2008 
Dec
2008
3­
Year
total
Annual
average
Burden
(
hours)
109,462
119,794
132,083
361,339
120,446
Respondents
(
number)
0
0
0
0
0
Responses
(
number)
9,631
10,746
12,063
32,440
10,813
Costs
(
labor)
$
4,157,357
$
4,549,786
$
5,016,503
$
13,723,646
$
4,574,549
Costs
(
O&
M)
$
603,148
$
645,677
$
696,610
$
1,945,435
$
648,478
Total
Costs
$
4,760,505
$
5,195,464
$
5,713,113
$
15,669,081
$
5,223,027
25
Table
6 
12
presents
a
yearly
breakdown
and
3­
year
ICR
period
summary
for
EPA.
EPA
is
responsible
for
the
implementation
of
the
NPDES
CAFO
permit
program
where
no
other
agency
has
been
authorized
to
do
so.
These
numbers
reflect
only
burden
and
cost
reduction
expected
to
result
from
the
court's
decision
in
2005
to
require
NPDES
permits
only
from
dischargers.
There
will
be
a
total
of
7,486
fewer
responses
over
the
3­
year
ICR
compared
with
what
would
have
been
required
under
the
2003
CAFO
rule
period
as
a
result
of
the
Second
Circuit
decision
to
require
NPDES
permits
only
from
dischargers,
with
an
average
of
2,495
responses
for
each
year
under
this
ICR.
Total
agency
burden
reduction
is
12,869
hours
with
an
average
annual
reduction
of
4,290
hours.
Agency
total
costs
will
be
$
678,068
less
for
the
3­
year
ICR
period
with
an
average
annual
cost
reduction
of
$
226,023.

T
able
6 
12.
Agency
burden
and
cost
reduction
summary
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Item
Jan
2006­
Dec
2006
Jan
2007­
Dec
2007
Jan
2008­
Dec
2008
3­
year
total
Annual
average
Burden
(
hours)
3,865
4,202
4,801
12,869
4,290
Responses
(
number)
2,239
2,482
2,765
7,486
2,495
Costs
(
labor)
$
160,680
$
174,684
$
199,581
$
534,945
$
178,315
Costs
(
O&
M)
$
44,377
$
47,508
$
51,238
$
143,123
$
47,708
Total
Costs
$
205,058
$
222,192
$
250,818
$
678,068
$
226,023
6(
f)
Reasons
for
Change
in
Burden
This
is
a
proposed
rule
ICR
to
address
the
Second
Circuit
Court
decision
and
is
not
a
renewal
or
modification
of
an
existing
ICR.
Calculations
from
this
ICR
will
be
merged
with
the
overall
CAFO
program
ICR
when
that
ICR
is
renewed
in
July
2006.

6(
g)
Burden
Statement
Table
6 
13
summarizes
the
total
increased
burden
and
cost
of
changes
to
CAFOs
and
States
associated
with
the
new
requirements
in
the
proposed
rule
to
address
the
Waterkeeper
decision.

The
annual
public
reporting
and
recordkeeping
burden
increase
associated
with
the
new
provisions
from
the
proposed
regulatory
changes
is
estimated
to
average
153,831
hours,
including
150,739
hours
for
State
respondents
and
3,092
hours
for
all
CAFO
respondents.
The
annual
average
estimate
of
2,652
respondents
includes
44
States
and
2,608
CAFO
respondents.
The
annual
average
number
of
responses
is
7,211,
which
includes
4,426
State
responses
and
2,785
CAFO
responses.
The
annual
average
burden
per
State
response
is
34
hours
and
1.1
hours
for
CAFO
responses
26
Table
6 
13.
Hour
and
burden
increase
for
all
respondents
from
new
provisions
Item
3­
year
total
Annual
average
Total
respondent
burden
(
hours)
461,493
153,831
Total
respondents
(
number)
7,869
2,652
Total
responses
(
number)
21,633
7,211
Total
respondent
labor
costs
$
17,506,850
$
5,835,617
Total
respondent
capital
and
O&
M
costs
$
0
$
0
Total
respondent
cost
for
all
activities
$
17,506,850
$
5,835,617
Table
6 
14
summarizes
the
total
net
change
in
labor
burden
and
cost
from
the
proposed
rule
to
address
the
Waterkeeper
decision.
These
calculations
reflect
both
the
burden
increase
due
to
the
added
NMP
provisions
as
well
as
the
burden
reduction
resulting
from
the
court's
decision
to
require
NPDES
permits
only
from
dischargers.
This
information
is
broken
down
by
category
of
respondent
in
Table
6­
5.

Table
6 
14.
Hour
and
burden
change
for
all
respondents
Item
3­
year
total
Annual
average
Total
respondent
burden
(
hours)
­
2,332,099
­
777,366
Total
respondents
(
number)
­
19,068
­
6,356
Total
responses
(
number)
­
139,002
­
46,334
Total
respondent
labor
costs
$(
36,520,916)
$(
12,173,639)
Total
respondent
capital
and
O&
M
costs
$(
8,037,567)
$(
2,679,189)
Total
respondent
cost
for
all
activities
$(
44,558,483)
$(
14,852,827)

Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
use
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
An
agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to,
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
at
40
CFR
Part
9
and
48
CFR
Chapter
15.

To
comment
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques,
EPA
has
established
a
public
docket
for
this
ICR
under
Docket
ID
Number
EPA­
HQ­
OW­
2005­
0037,
which
is
available
for
online
viewing
at
www.
regulations.
gov,
or
in
person
viewing
at
the
Water
Docket
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
D.
C.
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
27
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Water
Docket
is
(
202)
566­
2426.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
at
www.
regulations.
gov.
This
site
can
be
used
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
When
in
the
system,
select
"
search,"
then
key
in
the
Docket
ID
Number
identified
above.
Also,
you
can
send
comments
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
Street,
NW,
Washington,
D.
C.
20503,
Attention:
Desk
Officer
for
EPA.
Please
include
the
EPA
Docket
ID
Number
EPA­
HQ­
OW­
2005­
0037
and
OMB
Control
Number
2040­
0250
in
any
correspondence.
28
REFERENCES
Kellogg,
R.
L.,
C.
H.
Lander,
D.
C.
Moffitt,
and
N.
Gollehon.
2000.
Manure
Nutrients
Relative
to
the
Capacity
of
Cropland
and
Pastureland
to
Assimilate
Nutrients:
Spatial
and
Temporal
Trends
for
the
United
States.
United
States
Department
of
Agriculture,
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service,
Economic
Research
Service,
Washington,
D.
C.
[
http://
www.
nrcs.
usda.
gov/
technical/
land/
pubs/
manntr.
pdf])

USDA
(
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture).
1999.
1997
Census
of
Agriculture.
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture,
National
Agricultural
Statistics
Service,
Washington,
D.
C.

USDA
(
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture).
2004.
2002
Census
of
Agriculture.
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture,
National
Agricultural
Statistics
Service,
Washington,
D.
C.

USEPA
(
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency).
February
1999.
ICR
Handbook:
EPA's
Guide
to
Writing
Information
Collection
Requests
Under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
of
1995.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Environmental
Information,
Collection
Strategies
Division,
Washington,
D.
C.

USEPA
(
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency).
October
14,
2005.
Memo
to
Record:
Estimated
Number
of
Permit
Applications
from
CAFOs.
(
Docket
ID
No.
EPA­
HQ­
OW­
2005­
0037.)

USEPA
(
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency).
December
2002.
Supporting
Statement
for
the
Information
Collection
Request
for
the
Final
NPDES
and
ELG
Regulatory
Revisions
for
Concentrated
Animal
Feeding
Operations
(
EPA
ICR
NO.
1989.02).
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Wastewater
Management,
Washington,
D.
C.

USDOL
(
U.
S.
Department
of
Labor).
2005.
Employer
Cost
for
Employee
Compensation.
U.
S.
Department
of
Labor,
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics,
Washington,
D.
C.

USDOL
(
U.
S.
Department
of
Labor).
2004.
May
2004
National
Industry­
Specific
Occupational
Employment
and
Wage
Estimates.
U.
S.
Department
of
Labor,
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics,
Washington,
D.
C.

OPM
(
Office
of
Personnel
Management).
1999.
Work
Years
and
Personnel
Costs:
Fiscal
Year
1998.
OMSOE­
OWI­
98­
1,
Office
of
Personnel
Management,
Washington,
D.
C.

OPM
(
Office
of
Personnel
Management).
2005.
Salary
Table
2005­
GS,
Hourly/
Overtime
Rates
by
Grade
and
Step.
Office
of
Personnel
Management,
Washington,
D.
C.

Waterkeeper
Alliance
et
al.
v.
EPA,
399
F.
3d
486
(
2nd
Cir.
2005)
29
APPENDIX
30
This
Page
Intentionally
Left
Blank
