Supporting
Statement
for
the
Information
Collection
Request
for
the
Final
NPDES
and
ELG
Regulatory
Revisions
for
Concentrated
Animal
Feeding
Operations
September
2002
EPA
ICR
NO.
1989.02
Prepared
for:
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Office
of
Wastewater
Management
401
M
Street,
S.
W.
Washington,
D.
C.
20460
Prepared
by:

Science
Applications
International
Corporation
11251
Roger
Bacon
Drive
Reston,
VA
20190
EPA
Contract
#
68­
C­
99­
253
SAIC
Project
#
01­
0833­
08­
1040­
032
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
1
.................................................
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
1
1a......................................................................................
Title
of
the
Information
Collection
1
1b.........................................................................................................
Short
Characterization
1
2
.......................................................................
NEED
FOR
AND
USE
OF
THE
COLLECTION
3
2a....................................................................................
Need
/
Authority
for
the
Collection?
3
2b......................................................................................
Practical
Utility
/
Users
of
the
Data
4
3
...........
NONDUPLICATION,
CONSULTATIONS,
AND
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA
5
3a....................................................................................................................
Nonduplication
5
3b...................................................
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
to
OMB
6
3c.......................................................................................................................
Consultations
6
3d.....................................................................................
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
8
3e..............................................................................................................
General
Guidelines
9
3f
.....................................................................................................................
Confidentiality
9
3g.............................................................................................................
Sensitive
Questions
9
4
..........................................
THE
RESPONDENTS
AND
THE
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
11
4a.................................................................................................
Respondents/
NAICS
Codes
11
4b........................................................................................................
Information
Requested
13
4b(
i)
................................................
Data
Items,
Including
Record
Keeping
Requirements
13
4b(
ii)
........................................................................
Description
of
Respondent
Activities
17
5THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTED
 
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY,
AN
5a................................................................................................................
Agency
Activities
21
5b...........................................................................
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
21
5c........................................................................................................
Small
Entity
Flexibility
21
5d.............................................................................................................
Collection
Schedule
23
6
..............................
ESTIMATING
THE
BURDEN
AND
THE
COST
OF
THE
COLLECTION
25
6a............................................................................................
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
25
6b...............................................................................................
Estimating
Respondent
Costs
32
6c
Estimating
Agency
Burden
and
Cost..............................................................................
36
6d........................................
Estimating
the
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Burden
and
Costs
36
6e
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
Tables
................................................................
37
6f
................................................................................................................
Burden
Statement
38
References
................................................................................................................................
41
Appendix
1.
Legal
Authority.....................................................................................................
43
Appendix
2.
Permit
Application
Form
2B
.................................................................................
76
Appendix
3.
Burden
and
Cost
Exhibits.
....................................................................................
81
ii
LIST
OF
TABLES
Table
4 
1.
CAFO
Standard
Industrial
Classification
Codes
and
Size
Thresholds
.....................
12
Table
4 
2.
Estimated
Number
of
CAFOs
by
Size
and
Animal
Type.........................................
13
Table
5 
1.
SBA
and
EPA
Small
Business
Thresholds
for
Animal
Sectors................................
22
Table
6 
1.
Summary
of
Active
ICRs
Potentially
Containing
NPDES
Burdens
for
CAFOs
.......
26
Table
6 
2.
Burden
Estimates
per
CAFO
by
Activity
................................................................
27
Table
6 
3.
Burden
Estimates
for
an
Approved
State
by
Activity
..............................................
32
Table
6 
4.
Wage
Rates
Used
to
Value
CAFO­
Related
Burdens
...............................................
33
Table
6 
5.
Annual
Cost
per
CAFO
by
Activity
........................................................................
33
Table
6 
6.
Annual
Cost
per
State
Agency
by
Activity..............................................................
34
Table
6 
7.
Annual
Capital
and
O&
M
Cost
per
CAFO..............................................................
35
Table
6 
8.
EPA
Burden
and
Cost
Estimates.............................................................................
36
Table
6 
9.
Summary
of
Average
Annual
CAFO
and
State
Respondents,
Burden
Hours,
and
Costs
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
...............................................................................
38
iii
ACRONYM
LIST
AFO(
s)
 
animal
feeding
operation(
s)
BLS
 
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
BMP(
s)
 
best
management
practice(
s)
BPJ
 
best
professional
judgement
C.
F.
R.
 
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
CAFO(
s)
 
concentrated
animal
feeding
operation(
s)
CDC
 
Centers
for
Disease
Control
CWA
 
Clean
Water
Act
DMR
 
Discharge
Monitoring
Report
ELG
 
Effluent
Limitations
Guidelines
EPA
 
Environmental
Protection
Agency
FDA
 
Food
and
Drug
Administration
GS
 
General
Schedule
ICR
 
information
collection
request
MOA
 
Memorandum
of
Agreement
NAICS
 
North
American
Industry
Classification
System
NASS
 
National
Agricultural
Statistics
Service
NCBA
 
National
Cattlemen's
Beef
Association
NMP
 
nutrient
management
plan
NMPF
 
National
Milk
Producers
Federation
NODA
 
notice
of
data
availability
NOI
 
notice
of
intent
NPDES
 
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
NPPC
 
National
Pork
Producers
Council
NPTD
 
no
potential
to
discharge
NRDC
 
Natural
Resources
Defense
Council
NTF
 
National
Turkey
Federation
O&
M
 
operation
and
maintenance
OMB
 
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
OPM
 
Office
of
Personnel
Management
PCS
 
Permit
Compliance
System
SBA
 
Small
Business
Administration
SERs
 
Small
Entity
Representatives
SIC
 
Standard
Industrial
Classification
SOC
 
Standard
Occupational
Classification
STORET
 
Storage
and
Retrieval
(
EPA
database)
U.
S.
EPA
 
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
U.
S.
C.
 
United
States
Code
UEP/
UEA
 
United
Egg
Producers
and
the
United
Egg
Association
USDA
 
United
States
Department
of
Agriculture
USGS
 
United
States
Geological
Survey
iv
This
page
intentionally
left
blank.
1
1
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
1a
Title
of
the
Information
Collection
ICR:
Final
NPDES
and
ELG
Regulatory
Revisions
for
Concentrated
Animal
Feeding
Operations
EPA
ICR:
1989.02
1b
Short
Characterization
This
ICR
provides
an
estimate
of
the
information
collection
burden
for
respondents
subsequent
to
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
(
EPA
or
the
Agency)
final
regulatory
revisions
to
the
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
permit
program
for
concentrated
animal
feeding
operations
(
CAFOs)
and
the
Effluent
Limitations
Guidelines
(
ELG)
for
Feedlots.
It
was
prepared
according
to
guidance
prepared
by
EPA
(
1999).

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).
Section
308
of
the
CWA
requires
that
EPA
collect
from
dischargers
any
information
that
may
be
reasonably
required
to
carry
out
the
objectives
and
provisions
of
the
CWA.
Thus,
point
sources
incur
mandatory
record
keeping
and
reporting
burdens
when
they
apply
for
NPDES
permits
and
in
the
course
of
complying
with
NPDES
program
requirements
established
by
EPA.
1
Section
402(
b)
authorizes
States
(
which
includes
U.
S.
Territories
and
Indian
Tribes
that
have
been
approved
in
the
same
manner
as
a
State)
to
administer
their
NPDES
program
once
the
Agency
has
approved
a
State
program
and
is
assured
that
it
meets
minimum
federal
requirements.
As
of
June
2002,
44
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
(
U.
S.
EPA,
2001).
Of
these,
43
are
responsible
for
issuing
NPDES
permits
to
CAFOs
(
called
"
approved
States"
hereafter).
2
In
the
course
of
adopting,
modifying,
and
administering
their
NPDES
programs,
approved
States
incur
record
keeping
and
reporting
burdens
to
provide
EPA
with
the
information
it
needs
to
ensure
that
State
programs
meet
the
minimum
requirements
established
by
federal
regulations
and
that
approved
State
agencies
have
adequate
authority
to
fully
implement
their
programs.

CAFOs
are
classified
as
point
sources
in
40
C.
F.
R.
Part
122
and
are
subject
to
the
feedlot
ELG
revisions
in
40
C.
F.
R.
412.
The
final
rule
revises
these
regulations
in
ways
that
will
affect
1
Nonfederal
regulatory
agencies
may
impose
additional
information
collection
requirements
on
regulated
point
sources.
Because
those
collections
exceed
the
federal
requirement,
the
burdens
incurred
are
not
included
in
the
estimate
of
burdens
to
meet
federal
information
collection
needs.

2
EPA
retains
authority
for
NPDES
discharge
permits
for
agricultural
facilities
in
Oklahoma;
thus
only
43
States
are
authorized
to
issue
permits
to
CAFOs.
EPA
is
not
aware
of
any
CAFOs
in
the
U.
S.
Virgin
Islands
and,
therefore,
bases
its
burden
analysis
on
the
43
approved
States.
2
CAFO­
related
record
keeping
and
reporting
burdens.
For
instance,
EPA
expects
the
number
of
applicants
for
NPDES
permit
coverage
to
increase
and
States
with
NPDES
programs
will
need
to
update
their
programs
to
incorporate
regulatory
changes.
Most
active
ICRs
that
cover
the
NPDES
program
do
not
adequately
reflect
expected
burdens
following
the
rule's
effective
date,
January
2003
and,
furthermore,
are
scheduled
to
expire
shortly
thereafter.
Consequently,
this
ICR
enumerates
record
keeping
and
reporting
burdens
associated
with
NPDES
permits
for
CAFOs
and
accounts
for
the
majority
of
the
total
burden
estimated
for
the
3­
year
period
from
January
1,
2003
to
December
31,
2005.
Some
of
the
burden
is
already
covered
by
the
active
ICR
for
Applications
for
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
Discharge
Permits
and
the
Sewage
Sludge
Management
Permits
(
EPA
ICR
No.
0226.15),
which
expires
on
April
30,
2003.
This
ICR
excludes
the
record
keeping
and
reporting
burden
for
CAFOs
already
covered
by
ICR
0226.15
for
the
four­
month
period
of
overlap
from
January
1,
2003
through
April
30,
2003.
The
excluded
burden
pertains
to
individual
permit
applications
and
NOIs
for
general
permit
coverage.

Information
collected
by
the
NPDES
Program
Director
(
for
either
an
approved
State
or
EPA)
about
waste
management
facilities
and
operating
procedures
will
be
used
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
application
data
into
Permit
Compliance
System
(
PCS),
the
Agency's
database
for
tracking
permit
compliance.

EPA
estimates
that
the
public
burden
for
this
information
collection
request
includes
an
annual
average
of
1.89
million
hours
for
all
respondents
including
CAFO
owners/
operators
and
States.
This
estimate
includes
the
time
required
to
review
instructions,
search
existing
data
sources,
gather
and
maintain
all
necessary
data,
and
complete
and
review
the
information
collected.
On
average,
there
will
be
approximately
11,941
respondents
and
100,879
responses
per
year
and
average
annual
capital
and
O&
M
costs
will
total
$
7.9
million.
3
2
NEED
FOR
AND
USE
OF
THE
COLLECTION
2a
Need
/
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.)
(
See
Appendix
1).
CAFOs
are
defined
as
point
sources
for
purposes
of
the
NPDES
program
(
33
U.
S.
C.
Sec.
1362).
Under
33
U.
S.
C.
Sec.
1311
and
Sec.
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.
Sec.
1318
provides
authority
for
information
collection
(
i.
e.,
record
keeping,
reporting,
monitoring,
sampling,
and
other
information
as
needed),
which
applies
to
point
sources
including
actual
and
potential
dischargers.

EPA
and
approved
States
need
the
information
generated
by
the
final
regulatory
revisions
that
pertain
to
CAFOs
to
more
fully
and
effectively
implement
CWA
requirements.
The
final
rule
revises
EPA's
original
ELG
and
NPDES
regulations
for
CAFOs,
which
were
promulgated
in
the
mid­
1970s,
to
meet
the
following
goals.

1)
Address
reports
of
continued
discharge
and
runoff
of
manure
and
nutrients
from
livestock
and
poultry
farms.

In
spite
of
existing
regulatory
controls,
there
are
persistent
reports
of
discharge
and
runoff
of
manure
and
manure
nutrients
from
livestock
and
poultry
farms.
Pollutants
associated
with
animal
wastes
include
excessive
nutrients
(
such
as
nitrogen
and
phosphorus),
heavy
metals,
ammonia,
organic
matter,
sediment,
pathogens,
antibiotics,
and
hormones.
Such
pollutants
may
contribute
to
severe
oxygen
depletion
(
hypoxia),
algal
blooms,
fish
kills,
and
the
contamination
of
ground
water
sources
of
drinking
water.
The
final
revisions
to
the
existing
ELG
and
NPDES
regulations
for
CAFOs
are
expected
to
mitigate
future
water
quality
impairment
and
the
associated
human
health
and
ecological
risks
by
reducing
pollutant
contributions
from
animal
agriculture.

2)
Update
the
existing
regulations
to
reflect
structural
changes
in
these
industries
over
the
last
few
decades.

EPA's
final
revisions
also
address
changes
that
have
occurred
in
animal
agricultural
production
in
the
United
States
since
the
development
of
the
existing
regulations.
The
continued
trend
toward
fewer,
but
larger
operations,
coupled
with
greater
emphasis
on
more
intensive
production
methods
and
specialization,
is
concentrating
more
manure
nutrients
and
other
animal
waste
constituents
within
some
geographic
areas.
This
trend
has
coincided
with
increased
reports
of
accidental
large­
scale
spills
from
these
facilities
and
has
fueled
concern
that
manure
runoff
is
contributing
to
the
overnutrification
of
certain
vulnerable
waterways
in
the
United
States.

3)
Improve
effectiveness
of
the
CAFO
regulations.
4
EPA's
revisions
of
the
existing
regulations
will
improve
their
effectiveness.
Continued
reports
of
discharge
and
runoff
from
AFOs,
in
conjunction
with
evidence
of
mismanagement
under
some
prevailing
industry
practices,
highlights
the
need
for
revision
of
the
existing
regulations.
Under
the
current
regulatory
framework,
few
of
the
estimated
15,400
CAFOs
have
NPDES
permits.
EPA's
final
revisions
will
ensure
that
CAFOs,
as
defined
under
the
revised
regulations,
are
permitted.

EPA
needs
to
collect
information
from
approved
States
to
ensure
that
their
NPDES
programs
implement
the
final
rule.
Under
40
C.
F.
R.
123.62(
e),
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.
States
have
two
years
if
they
must
also
update
statutes.

The
final
rule
addresses
other
Agency
obligations.
It
partially
fulfills
EPA's
obligation
to
comply
with
the
consent
agreement
entered
in
NRDC
v.
Whitman.
The
ELG
for
feedlots
is
one
of
three
effluent
limitations
guidelines
that
the
Agency
is
required
to
revise
under
the
agreement.
The
consent
agreement
requires
that
EPA
finalize
regulations
that
revise
the
feedlot
ELG
as
well
as
the
NPDES
regulations
for
CAFOs
by
December
15,
2002.
Finally,
in
1999,
the
USDA
and
EPA
issued
the
USDA/
EPA
Unified
National
Strategy
for
Animal
Feeding
Operations
(
the
"
National
Strategy").
The
National
Strategy
 
a
key
action
item
identified
in
the
1998
Clean
Water
Action
Plan
 
underwent
extensive
public
review.
The
final
rule
is
consistent
with
the
final
National
Strategy.

2b
Practical
Utility
/
Users
of
the
Data
EPA
and
approved
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
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
3a
Nonduplication
The
information
collection
pursuant
to
the
regulatory
changes
is
site­
specific
and,
therefore,
not
available
from
existing
sources.
EPA
has
coordinated
with
USDA
in
developing
the
final
regulatory
changes
and
has
used
aggregated
USDA
data
to
the
extent
such
data
are
relevant
and
available
to
EPA.
Because
USDA
does
not
divulge
site­
specific
data,
EPA
cannot
obtain
the
site­
specific
information
from
USDA.
Furthermore,
no
other
Federal
agency
possesses
such
data.

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.,
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
AFOs
and
these
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
needed.
In
addition,
EPA
utilized
publicly
available
information
to
a
significant
extent.
For
example,
EPA
has
developed
a
document
entitled
State
Compendium:
Programs
and
Regulatory
Activities
Related
to
Animal
Feeding
Operations,
which
characterizes
CAFO
regulations
in
all
50
States
based
on
a
variety
of
publicly
available
information
sources.

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)
database
C
USDA
Census
of
Agriculture
C
Agricultural
Compliance
Center
AFO
database
(
under
development).

EPA's
PCS
database
is
used
to
store
information
about
facilities
that
hold
NPDES
permits.
It
aids
EPA
in
monitoring
the
compliance
status
of
permitted
facilities.
PCS
only
holds
data
items
associated
with
existing
NPDES
permits.
It
does
not
contain
any
site­
specific
information
for
CAFOs
that
are
not
permitted
under
the
program,
and
information
updates
from
permits
renewed
after
the
effective
date
are
covered
by
this
ICR.
Therefore,
this
information
collection
is
not
duplicative
of
data
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
five
years.
Although
the
Census
of
Agriculture
asks
operators
for
a
headcount
of
animals
on
their
facilities,
it
does
not
ask
operators
about
the
confinement
of
animals,
and
there
are
no
Census
questions
about
waste
generation
or
waste
6
management.
Moreover,
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
the
EPA's
data
needs
for
purposes
of
administering
the
NPDES
program,
and
this
information
collection
is
not
duplicative
of
the
data
available
from
NASS.

Finally,
EPA's
Office
of
Enforcement
and
Compliance
Assurance
is
developing
a
database
of
AFOs
through
the
Agricultural
Compliance
Assistance
Center.
This
database,
however,
is
only
intended
to
provide
the
Federal
and
State
agencies
with
an
up­
to­
date
count
of
AFOs
and
CAFOs
across
the
United
States
and
it
will
not
provide
other
necessary
information
items
regarding
compliance
status
of
facilities
with
the
NPDES
program.

3b
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
to
OMB
A
summary
of
the
ICR
was
published
as
part
of
the
proposed
rule
notice
in
the
Federal
Register
on
January
12,
2001
(
66
FR
2959).
The
notice
included
a
request
for
comments
on
the
content
and
impact
of
the
proposed
rule
on
the
regulated
community.
Comments
on
the
proposed
rule
were
used
to
substantiate
or
refute
the
burden
estimates
for
respondents.
A
summary
of
this
ICR
accompanies
the
final
rule
submission
to
OMB,
as
noted
in
the
public
notice
for
the
submission.

3c
Consultations
To
facilitate
regulation
development,
EPA
has
actively
involved
interested
parties
in
the
development
of
the
final
rule.
As
part
of
these
efforts,
EPA
has
provided
many
opportunities
for
input
in
this
rulemaking
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.
These
meetings
with
environmental
organizations,
producer
groups,
and
producers
representing
various
agricultural
sectors
give
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
these
outreach
activities
have
not
targeted
small
entities
explicitly,
many
have
included
small
business
participation.

In
the
fall
of
1998,
EPA
and
USDA
conducted
eleven
public
outreach
meetings
designed
to
allow
public
comment
on
the
Draft
USDA/
EPA
Unified
National
AFO
Strategy.
The
meetings
were
held
in
the
following
cities:
Tulsa,
Oklahoma;
Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania;
Ontario,
California;
Madison,
Wisconsin;
Seattle,
Washington;
Des
Moines,
Iowa;
Chattanooga,
Tennessee;
Indianapolis,
Indiana;
Fort
Worth,
Texas;
Denver,
Colorado;
and
Annapolis,
Maryland.
Each
meeting
included
a
pre­
meeting
between
State
officials,
regional
officials,
EPA,
and
USDA
representatives
to
discuss
the
draft
strategy
and
water
quality
issues
related
to
CAFOs.
All
participants
in
the
public
sessions
were
given
the
opportunity
to
provide
their
comments
to
a
panel
comprising
EPA,
USDA,
and
local
representatives.
EPA
and
USDA
used
these
comments
to
develop
the
final
National
Strategy.
EPA
also
considered
these
comments
in
developing
the
various
regulatory
options
for
CAFOs
that
are
the
subject
of
this
ICR.
The
transcripts
of
these
meetings
are
available
at
the
EPA
Web
Site
(
www.
epa.
gov/
owm/
afo.
htm).
7
EPA
conducted
over
50
site
visits
to
learn
more
about
swine
and
poultry
animal
feeding
operations
and
waste
management
practices.
EPA
visited
6
broiler,
12
layer,
and
6
turkey
facilities
in
Georgia,
Arkansas,
North
Carolina,
Virginia,
West
Virginia,
Maryland,
Delaware,
Pennsylvania,
Ohio,
Indiana,
and
Wisconsin.
EPA
visited
approximately
30
swine
facilities
in
North
Carolina,
Pennsylvania,
Ohio,
Iowa,
Minnesota,
Texas,
Oklahoma,
and
Utah.
These
facilities
were
chosen
with
the
assistance
of
the
National
Pork
Producers
Council,
United
Egg
Producers,
United
Egg
Association,
National
Turkey
Federation,
National
Resources
Defense
Council,
the
Clean
Water
Network,
university
experts,
State
Co­
op
and
extension
services,
and
State
and
EPA
regional
representatives.
During
these
site
visits,
EPA
also
visited
locations
demonstrating
centralized
treatment
or
new
and
innovative
technologies.
EPA
has
also
attended
USDA­
sponsored
farm
tours,
as
well
as
tours
offered
at
industry,
academic,
and
government
conferences.

Many
organizations
have
actively
participated
in
developing
revisions
to
the
swine
and
poultry
effluent
guidelines
by
assisting
in
site
visit
selection,
submitting
supplemental
data,
reviewing
EPA's
draft
descriptions
of
the
industry
and
waste
management
practices,
and
participating
in
or
hosting
industry
meetings
with
EPA.
The
National
Pork
Producers
Council
(
NPPC),
United
Egg
Producers
and
the
United
Egg
Association
(
UEP/
UEA),
National
Turkey
Federation
(
NTF),
and
the
National
Chicken
Council
are
trade
associations
that
represent
the
swine
and
poultry
industries.
NPPC
is
a
marketing
organization
and
trade
association
made
up
of
44
affiliated
state
pork
producer
associations.
The
UEP/
UEA
undertakes
programs
in
the
following
areas:
price
discovery;
production
and
marketing
information;
unified
industry
leadership;
USDA
relationships;
Washington
presence;
and
promotional
efforts.
The
NTF
is
the
national
advocate
for
all
segments
of
the
turkey
industry,
providing
services
and
conducting
activities
which
increase
demand
for
its
members'
products.
The
National
Chicken
Council
represents
the
vertically
integrated
companies
which
produce
and
process
about
95
percent
of
the
chicken
market
in
the
United
States.

In
addition,
EPA
visited
approximately
60
sites
to
study
beef
and
dairy
animal
feeding
operations
and
waste
management
practices.
EPA
visited
approximately
30
beef
feedlots
in
Texas,
Oklahoma,
Kansas,
Colorado,
California,
Indiana,
Nebraska,
and
Iowa,
and
three
veal
operations
in
Indiana.
The
capacities
of
the
beef
feedlots
varied
from
500
to
120,000
head.
EPA
also
visited
approximately
25
dairies
in
Pennsylvania,
Florida,
California,
Wisconsin,
and
Colorado,
with
the
total
mature
dairy
cattle
at
the
operations
ranging
from
40
to
4,000
cows.
EPA
chose
these
facilities
with
the
assistance
of
the
National
Cattlemen's
Beef
Association,
National
Milk
Producers
Federation,
Western
United
Dairymen,
and
State
and
EPA
regional
representatives.

Two
organizations
have
actively
participated
in
developing
the
beef
and
dairy
effluent
guideline
by
assisting
in
site
visit
selection,
submitting
supplemental
data,
reviewing
EPA's
draft
documents
presenting
descriptions
of
the
industry
and
waste
management
practices,
and
participating
in
or
hosting
industry
meetings
with
EPA.
The
National
Cattlemen's
Beef
Association
(
NCBA)
and
the
National
Milk
Producers
Federation
(
NMPF)
are
two
trade
associations
that
represent
the
beef
and
dairy
industries.
NCBA
is
a
marketing
organization
and
trade
association
for
cattle
farmers
and
ranchers.
NMPF
deals
with
milk
quality
and
standards,
animal
health
and
food
safety
issues,
dairy
product
labeling
and
standards,
and
legislation
8
affecting
the
dairy
industry.
Other
beef
and
dairy
organizations
have
also
provided
assistance
to
EPA.
For
example,
the
Western
United
Dairymen,
a
dairy
organization
in
California,
organized
and
participated
in
site
visits
and
a
conference
call
meeting
with
EPA.
In
addition,
EPA
contacted
the
American
Veal
Association
to
obtain
further
information
on
veal
operations.
EPA
distributed
background
information
and
materials
to
small
business
representatives
on
two
separate
dates
 
September
3,
1999
and
September
9,
1999.
On
September
17,
1999,
EPA
held
a
conference
call
in
Washington,
D.
C.
for
a
pre­
panel
forum
of
small
business
representatives
to
provide
input
on
key
issues
relating
to
the
final
regulatory
changes
to
the
NPDES
permitting
requirements
for
CAFOs.
Small
business
representatives
from
the
beef,
dairy,
swine,
poultry,
and
exotic
animal
livestock
industries
participated
in
the
call.
Following
the
conference
call,
at
EPA's
request,
19
of
the
41
small
business
advisors
and
national
organizations
invited
to
participate
provided
written
comments.

The
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel
for
the
proposed
rule
was
convened
on
December
16,
1999.
On
December
28,
1999,
the
Panel
distributed
an
outreach
package
to
a
group
of
small
entity
representatives
(
SERs),
which
included
many
of
the
participants
in
EPA's
September
17,
1999
outreach
conference
call.
The
SERs
were
asked
to
review
the
information
package
and
provide
verbal
comments
to
the
Panel
during
a
January
5,
2000
conference
call,
which
included
participation
by
22
SERs.
During
this
conference
call,
SERs
were
also
encouraged
to
submit
written
comments.
SERs
were
given
an
additional
opportunity
to
make
verbal
comments
during
a
second
conference
call
which
was
held
on
January
11,
2000
and
included
participation
by
20
SERs.

On
January
12,
2001
(
66
Fed.
Reg.
2959),
EPA
published
a
proposal
to
revise
and
update
the
NPDES
provisions
that
define
which
operations
are
CAFOs
and
establish
permit
requirements,
and
the
effluent
guidelines,
for
feedlots
(
beef,
dairy,
swine
and
poultry
subcategories).
In
the
proposal,
EPA
specifically
solicited
comment
on
28
issues
(
66
Fed.
Reg.
3133),
in
addition
to
general
comment
solicitation
on
all
aspects
of
the
proposed
regulations.
EPA
received
comments
from
various
stakeholders,
including
State,
Tribal
and
Federal
regulatory
authorities,
environmental
groups,
industry
groups,
land
grant
university
researchers,
and
private
citizens.
EPA
considered
changes
to
aspects
of
the
rule
in
response
to
the
data
and
comments
provided.

On
November
21,
2001
(
66
Fed.
Reg.
58556),
EPA
published
a
notice
of
data
availability
(
NODA).
The
NODA
made
available
data
and
comments
associated
with
the
proposed
rule.
In
the
NODA,
EPA
solicited
comment
on
the
issues
and
information
provided
in
the
notice
and
in
the
administrative
record
supporting
the
notice.
Again,
EPA
received
comments
from
various
stakeholders,
including
State,
Tribal
and
Federal
regulatory
authorities,
environmental
groups,
industry
groups,
land
grant
university
researchers,
and
private
citizens.
This
ICR
reflects
the
comments
received.

On
July
17,
2002
EPA
signed
a
new
NODA,
which
was
published
on
July
23,
2002
(
67
Fed.
Reg.
48099).
The
public
will
have
30
days
to
comment
on
the
new
data
and
methods.
Their
comments
will
be
considered
for
the
final
rule.

3d
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
9
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
five
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
approved
States,
which
means
that
collection
frequency
is
largely
a
matter
of
State
discretion.
Finally,
State
requests
for
approval
of
NPDES
program
modifications
prompted
by
the
final
CAFO
rule
are
expected
to
be
a
onetime
information
collection
for
the
Agency.

3e
General
Guidelines
This
information
collection
complies
with
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
guidelines
(
5
C.
F.
R.
1320.5(
d)(
2)),
except
for
the
requirement
for
CAFOs
to
maintain
the
records
on­
site
for
five
years
to
demonstrate
permit
compliance.
The
records
that
this
requirement
pertains
to
are
listed
below
in
Section
4b(
i).

3f
Confidentiality
CAFOs
must
keep
nutrient
management
plans
on
site
and
make
them
available
to
the
permitting
authority
on
request.
These
plans
may
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
C.
F.
R.
122.7,
40
C.
F.
R.
Part
2
(
40
C.
F.
R.
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.

3g
Sensitive
Questions
This
ICR
does
not
ask
AFO
or
CAFO
operators
sensitive
questions
concerning
private
matters
(
e.
g.,
religious
beliefs).
10
This
page
left
intentionally
blank
11
4
THE
RESPONDENTS
AND
THE
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
This
ICR
covers
the
information
collection
activities
expected
to
occur
over
the
three­
year
ICR
approval
period
from
January
1,
2003
through
December
31,
2005.
During
this
period,
CAFO
and
approved
State
respondents
will
collect
and
report
information
to
obtain
NPDES
permit
coverage
and
meet
permit
conditions.

4a
Respondents/
NAICS
Codes
The
two
categories
of
respondents
are
the
owners
or
operators
of
CAFOs
and
the
43
approved
States
that
issue
permits
to
CAFOs.

EPA
categorizes
CAFOs
based
on
the
primary
type
of
animal
produced
on
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
animal
thresholds
adopted
in
the
final
rule.
EPA
uses
these
thresholds
to
distinguish
which
animal
feeding
operations
(
AFOs)
are
CAFOs.
Under
the
final
rule,
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:

$
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.

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.
The
final
rule
does
not
change
the
requirements
for
designation.

All
CAFOs
have
a
duty
to
apply
for
a
NPDES
permit
either
by
submitting
a
notice
of
intent
(
NOI)
to
be
covered
by
a
general
permit
or
by
submitting
an
application
for
an
individual
permit.

Using
data
from
the
1997
Census
of
Agriculture,
NASS
bulletins,
and
industry
data
sources
and
comments,
EPA
estimated
that
there
are
approximately
238,000
AFOs
in
the
United
States
(
U.
S.
EPA,
2002c).
Of
those,
EPA
estimates
that
almost
15,600
would
meet
the
definition
of
a
CAFO
or
be
designated
as
a
CAFO.
Table
4­
2
provides
an
accounting
of
the
number
of
CAFOs
by
animal
type
as
well
as
operation
size.
12
Table
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
13
Table
4 
2.
Estimated
Number
of
CAFOs
by
Size
and
Animal
Type
Defined
CAFOs
Designated
CAFOs
Animal
Type
Large
CAFOs
Medium
CAFOs
Medium
CAFOs
Small
CAFOs
Beef
1,766
308
13
2
Veal
12
7
0
0
Heifer
242
230
3
0
Dairy
1,450
1,949
28
2
Swine
3,924
1,485
50
2
Layers
(
wet)
383
48
1
1
Layers
(
dry)
729
70
7
1
Broilers
1,632
520
50
2
Turkeys
388
37
8
2
Ducks
21
4
0
0
Horses
195
0
0
0
Total
10,742
4,658
160
12
Source:
U.
S.
EPA
(
2002c)

4b
Information
Requested
4b(
i)
Data
Items,
Including
Record
Keeping
Requirements
CAFO
Data
Items
CAFO
Application
for
NPDES
Permit.
All
CAFO
operations
have
a
duty
to
apply
for
an
NPDES
permit
by
preparing
and
submitting
either
an
application
for
an
individual
NPDES
permit
for
CAFOs
under
40
C.
F.
R.
122.21
or
a
Notice
of
Intent
for
coverage
under
the
general
NPDES
permit
for
CAFOs
under
40
C.
F.
R.
122.28.

The
individual
permit
application
for
CAFOs
comprises
two
standard
NPDES
forms:
Forms
1
and
2B.
On
Form
1,
applicants
provide
basic
information
necessary
to
all
EPA
permit
programs,
including
name,
address,
type
of
facility,
and
number
of
outfalls.
Applicants
must
also
submit
topographic
maps
and
lists
of
all
EPA
and
State
permits
presently
held.
Most
facilities
applying
for
a
NPDES
permit
submit
Form
1
along
with
a
second,
industry­
specific
form.
As
a
result
of
the
final
rule,
CAFOs
will
provide
the
following
types
of
information
on
Form
2B:

$
the
name
of
the
owner
or
operator
[
40
C.
F.
R.
122.21(
i)(
1)(
i)]

$
the
facility
location
and
mailing
addresses
[
40
C.
F.
R.
122.21(
i)(
1)(
ii)]

$
latitude
and
longitude
of
the
production
area
(
entrance
to
production
area)
[
40
C.
F.
R.
122.21(
i)(
1)(
iii)]

$
a
topographic
map
of
the
entire
operation,
including
the
production
area
and
land
application
area,
in
accordance
with
40
C.
F.
R.
122.21(
f)(
7)
[
40
C.
F.
R.
122.21(
i)(
1)(
iv)]

$
specific
information
about
the
number
and
type
of
animals
in
open
confinement
and
housed
under
roof
(
beef
cattle,
broilers,
layers,
swine
below
25
kilograms,
swine
above
25
kilograms,
dairy
heifers,
veal,
sheep,
lambs,
mature
dairy
cows,
horses,
ducks,
turkeys,
other)
[
40
C.
F.
R.
122.21(
i)(
1)(
v)]
14
$
the
type
of
containment
(
anaerobic
lagoon,
roofed
storage
shed,
storage
ponds,
underfloor
pits,
aboveground
storage
tanks,
belowground
storage
tanks,
concrete
pad,
impervious
soil
pad,
other)
and
total
capacity
for
manure
and
process
wastewater
storage
(
tons/
gallons)
[
40
C.
F.
R.
122.21(
i)(
1)(
vi)]

$
the
total
number
of
acres
under
control
of
the
applicant
available
for
land
application
[
40
C.
F.
R.
122.21(
i)(
1)(
vii)]

$
estimated
amount
of
manure
and
process
wastewater
generated
per
year
(
tons/
gallons)
[
40
C.
F.
R.
122.21(
i)(
1)(
viii)]

$
estimated
amount
of
manure
and
process
wastewater
sent
off­
site
per
year
(
tons/
gallons)
[
40
C.
F.
R.
122.21(
i)(
1)(
ix)]

$
expected
date
of
completion
of
the
NMP
required
in
40
C.
F.
R.
122.42(
e)(
3)
and
expected
date
for
full
implementation
of
the
plan
[
40
C.
F.
R.
122.21(
i)(
1)(
x)]

$
for
new
source
CAFOs
subject
to
40
C.
F.
R.
412,
certification
that
an
NMP
has
been
completed
and
can
be
implemented
upon
commencing
operations
[
40
C.
F.
R.
122.21(
i)(
1)(
xi)]

The
NOI
pertains
to
coverage
under
a
general
permit,
which
a
permitting
authority
uses
to
cover
multiple
permittees
requiring
similar
permit
conditions
within
a
designated
geographic
area.
Completing
the
NOI
requires
that
CAFO
applicants
provide
the
information
specified
in
40
C.
F.
R.
122.21(
i)(
1),
as
listed
above
(
i.
e.,
the
NOI
requests
the
same
information
as
the
application
form
for
an
individual
permit).

No
Potential
To
Discharge
Requests.
In
lieu
of
requesting
permit
coverage,
an
operation
can
request
a
determination
of
"
no
potential
to
discharge."
To
do
this,
the
CAFO
owner
or
operator
must
submit
any
information
that
would
support
such
a
determination,
within
the
time
frame
provided
by
the
permit
authority
and
in
accordance
with
paragraphs
40
C.
F.
R.
122.23(
g)
and
(
h).
The
request
must
include
all
of
the
information
specified
in
40
C.
F.
R.
122.21(
f)
and
(
i)(
1)(
i)
through
(
ix)
(
listed
above
under
CAFO
Application
for
NPDES
Permit).
The
permitting
authority
has
discretion
to
require
additional
information
to
supplement
the
request,
and
may
also
gather
additional
information
through
inspection
of
the
CAFO
[
40
C.
F.
R.
122.23(
f)(
2)].

EPA
believes
that
the
standard
to
qualify
for
this
exemption
is
high
and
relatively
few
if
any
CAFOs
would
make
the
request.
Therefore,
for
the
purpose
of
estimating
ICR
burdens,
EPA
assumes
that
all
CAFOs
apply
for
permits.
This
is
particularly
likely
to
be
the
case
in
light
of
the
fact
that
the
making
the
request
does
not
eliminate
or
postpone
a
CAFOs
duty
to
apply
for
a
permit
and
most
CAFOs
that
do
not
already
have
a
permit
will
need
to
apply
in
the
first
ICR
year.

Requirement
to
Develop
and
Implement
a
Nutrient
Management
Plan.
The
NMP
is
a
new
data
item
required
by
the
final
rule.
At
a
minimum,
an
NMP
must
include
BMPs
and
procedures
necessary
to
achieve
effluent
limitations
and
standards
[
40
C.
F.
R.
122.42(
e)(
1)].
The
revised
regulations
state
that
the
plan
must
address
the
following
objectives
(
if
applicable):

$
ensure
adequate
storage
of
manure
and
process
wastewater,
including
procedures
to
ensure
proper
operation
and
maintenance
of
the
storage
facilities
[
40
C.
F.
R.
122.42(
e)(
1)(
i)]
15
$
ensure
proper
management
of
mortalities
(
i.
e.,
dead
animals)
to
ensure
that
they
are
not
disposed
of
in
any
liquid
manure
or
storm
water
storage
or
treatment
system,
and
that
they
are
handled
in
such
a
way
as
to
prevent
discharges
of
pollutants
to
waters
of
the
United
States
[
40
C.
F.
R.
122.42(
e)(
1)(
ii)]

$
ensure
that
clean
water
is
diverted
from
the
production
area
[
40
C.
F.
R.
122.42(
e)(
1)(
iii)]

$
prevent
direct
contact
of
confined
animals
with
waters
of
the
United
States
[
40
C.
F.
R.
122.42(
e)(
1)(
iv)]

$
ensure
that
chemicals
and
other
contaminants
handled
on­
site,
are
not
disposed
of
in
any
liquid
manure
or
storm
water
storage
or
treatment
system
[
40
C.
F.
R.
122.42(
e)(
1)(
v)]

$
implement
appropriate
site
specific
conservation
practices,
including
as
appropriate
buffers
or
equivalent
practices,
to
control
runoff
of
pollutants
to
waters
of
the
United
States
[
40
C.
F.
R.
122.42(
e)(
1)(
vi)]

$
conduct
appropriate
testing
of
manure,
process
wastewater,
and
soil
[
40
C.
F.
R.
122.42(
e)(
1)(
vii)]

$
ensure
proper
land
application
of
manure
and
process
wastewater
to
land
consistent
with
proper
agricultural
practices,
including
rates
and
timing
of
land
application
[
40
C.
F.
R.
122.42(
e)(
1)(
viii)]

$
include
identification
of
specific
records
that
will
be
maintained
to
document
the
implementation
and
management
of
the
minimum
elements
described
above
[
40
C.
F.
R.
122.42(
e)(
1)(
ix)]

Record
Keeping
Requirements.
CAFOs
must
keep,
maintain
for
five
years,
and
make
available
to
the
permit
authority
the
following
records:

$
the
following
records
of
inspections
and
of
manure
or
process
wastewater
sampling
and
analysis
required
by
40
C.
F.
R.
412.37(
b),
if
applicable
[
40
C.
F.
R.
122.42(
e)(
2)(
i)]
$
a
record
of
the
information
provided
on
the
permit
application
form(
s)
[
40
C.
F.
R.
412.37
(
b)(
1)]
$
records
documenting
the
visual
inspections
required
under
paragraph
(
a)(
1)
of
this
section
[
40
C.
F.
R.
412.37(
b)(
2)]
$
weekly
inspections
of
all
storm
water
diversion
devices,
runoff
diversion
structures,
animal
waste
storage
structures,
and
devices
channeling
contaminated
storm
water
to
the
waste
water
and
manure
storage
containment
structure
[
40
C.
F.
R.
412.37
(
a)(
1)(
i)]
$
daily
inspections
of
water
lines
including
drinking
water
or
cooling
water
lines
[
40
C.
F.
R.
412.37
(
a)(
1)(
ii)]
$
depth
of
the
manure
and
process
wastewater
in
the
liquid
impoundment
as
indicated
by
the
depth
marker,
which
is
required
for
all
surface
and
liquid
impoundments
and
must
clearly
indicate
the
minimum
capacity
necessary
to
contain
the
25­
year,
24­
hour
rainfall
event
[
40
C.
F.
R.
412.37(
a)(
1)(
iii)]
$
records
documenting
any
actions
taken
to
correct
deficiencies
required
[
40
C.
F.
R.
412.37(
b)(
3)]
$
records
documenting
the
design
of
any
manure
storage
structures,
including
volume
for
solids
accumulation,
design
treatment
volume,
total
design
volume
[
40
C.
F.
R.
412.37(
b)(
4)]
16
$
records
of
the
estimated
volume
of
any
overflow
that
occurs
as
a
result
of
any
rainfall
event,
including
rainfall
duration
and
amount
of
rainfall
[
40
C.
F.
R.
412.37(
b)(
5)]
$
records
of
offsite
manure
transfers
as
required
by
40
C.
F.
R.
122.42(
e)(
3)
[
40
C.
F.
R.
412.37(
b)(
6)]

$
records
required
to
document
the
proper
development
and
implementation
of
the
NMP
and,
as
required,
by
40
C.
F.
R.
412.37(
c)
[
40
C.
F.
R.
122.42(
e)(
2)(
ii)]
$
expected
crop
yield
for
each
field
based
on
historical
data
for
the
CAFO
for
its
land
application
area,
or
county
average
yield
data
when
the
CAFO
does
not
have
a
prior
history
of
crop
yield
[
40
C.
F.
R.
412.37(
c)(
1)]
$
the
date(
s)
manure
is
applied
to
each
field
[
40
C.
F.
R.
412.37(
c)(
2)]
$
weather
conditions
at
time
of
application
and
for
24
hours
prior
to
and
following
application
[
40
C.
F.
R.
412.37(
c)(
3)]
$
results
from
manure
and
soil
sampling
[
40
C.
F.
R.
412.37(
c)(
4)]
$
test
methods
used
to
sample
and
analyze
manure
and
soil
[
40
C.
F.
R.
412.37(
c)(
5)]
$
phosphorus
index
rating,
soil
phosphorus
threshold
level,
soil
test
phosphorus
level,
or
field
condition
for
each
field
as
determined
by
other
approved
method
[
40
C.
F.
R.
412.37(
c)(
6)]
$
calculations
showing
the
total
nutrients
to
be
applied
to
each
field,
including
sources
other
than
manure
[
40
C.
F.
R.
412.37(
c)(
7)]
$
the
method
used
to
apply
the
manure
[
40
C.
F.
R.
412.37(
c)(
8)]
$
calibration
of
manure
application
equipment
[
40
C.
F.
R.
412.37(
c)(
9)]

$
a
copy
of
the
CAFO's
site­
specific
NMP
[
40
C.
F.
R.
122.42(
e)(
2)(
iii)].

Requirements
Related
to
Transfer
of
Manure
or
Process
Wastewater.
Prior
to
transferring
manure
or
process
wastewater
to
other
persons,
the
permittee
must
provide
the
recipient
of
the
manure
or
process
wastewater
with
the
most
current
nutrient
analysis
consistent
with
the
requirements
of
40
C.
F.
R.
412
that
is
representative
of
the
manure
or
process
wastewater
being
transferred.
In
addition,
large
CAFOs
must
retain
for
five
years
records
of
the
date,
recipient
name
and
address,
and
approximate
amount
of
manure
or
process
wastewater
transferred
to
a
third
party
[
40
C.
F.
R.
123.42(
e)(
3)].

CAFO
Annual
Reporting
Requirements.
Permits
issued
to
CAFOs
shall
include
a
requirement
to
submit
annual
reports
to
the
permitting
authority,
in
addition
to
any
other
applicable
reporting
requirements
of
40
C.
F.
R.
122
[
40
C.
F.
R.
122.42(
e)(
4)].
EPA
requires
the
following
information,
which
should
be
readily
available
provided
CAFO
operators
maintain
the
required
records:

$
specific
information
about
the
number
and
type
of
animals
in
open
confinement
and
housed
under
roof
(
beef
cattle,
broilers,
layers,
swine
below
25
kilograms,
swine
above
25
kilograms,
dairy
heifers,
veal,
sheep,
lambs,
mature
dairy
cows,
horses,
ducks,
turkeys,
other)
[
40
C.
F.
R.
122.42
(
e)(
4)(
i)]

$
estimated
total
manure
and
process
wastewater
generated
by
the
CAFO
in
the
previous
12
months
(
tons/
gallons)
[
40
C.
F.
R.
122.42
(
e)(
4)(
ii)]

$
estimated
annual
total
manure
and
process
wastewater
sent
off­
site
from
the
CAFO
in
the
previous
12
months
(
tons/
gallons)
[
40
C.
F.
R.
122.42
(
e)(
4)(
iii)]
17
$
total
number
of
acres
covered
by
the
NMP
[
40
C.
F.
R.
122.42
(
e)(
4)(
iv)]

$
total
number
of
acres
under
control
of
the
CAFO
available
for
land
application
of
manure
and
process
wastewater
based
on
applicable
State
nutrient
management
standards
[
40
C.
F.
R.
122.42
(
e)(
4)(
v)]

$
summary
of
all
discharges
from
production
areas
that
have
occurred
in
the
previous
12
months,
including
date,
time,
and
approximate
volume
[
40
C.
F.
R.
122.42
(
e)(
4)(
vi)].
3
State
Data
Items
State
NPDES
Program
Modification
Request.
Approved
State
NPDES
programs
must
comply
with
the
final
federal
rule,
and
many
States
will
probably
need
to
modify
their
existing
State
NPDES
regulations
in
order
to
achieve
full
compliance.
Federal
regulations
specifying
program
revision
are
found
in
40
C.
F.
R.
123.62.
These
regulations
require
the
State
to
keep
EPA
fully
informed
of
any
proposed
modifications
to
its
basic
statutory
or
regulatory
authority,
its
forms,
procedures
or
priorities
[
40
C.
F.
R.
123.62(
a)].
To
accomplish
State
program
revision,
State
agencies
must
provide
EPA
with
a
modified
program
description,
Attorney
General's
statement,
Memorandum
of
Agreement,
or
such
other
documents
as
EPA
determines
to
be
necessary
under
the
circumstances
[
40
C.
F.
R.
123.62(
b)(
1)].
These
may
include
relevant
statutes,
regulations,
and
guidance,
copies
of
permit
application
forms,
permit
forms,
and
reporting
forms,
and
relevant
tribal
agreements.

No
Potential
To
Discharge
Determination.
According
to
40
C.
F.
R.
122.23(
f)(
3)
the
permit
authority
must
prepare
a
preliminary
determination
and
a
statement
of
basis
or
fact
sheet
in
response
to
requests
for
the
no
potential
to
discharge
exemption.
The
permit
authority
would
also
need
to
prepare
a
public
notice,
respond
to
comments,
and
issue
a
final
determination.

State
Record
Keeping
and
Reporting.
States
requirements
to
maintain
NPDES
permit
records
for
each
permitted
CAFO
under
their
jurisdiction
will
be
specified
in
each
State's
Memorandum
of
Agreement
(
MOA)
with
EPA.
Federal
regulations
pertaining
to
the
Memorandum
of
Agreement
with
the
EPA
Regional
Administrator
are
contained
in
40
C.
F.
R.
123.24.

4b(
ii)
Description
of
Respondent
Activities
CAFO
Activities
CAFO
activities
pertain
mainly
to
preparing
and
submitting
NPDES
permit
applications
and
collecting
and
keeping
information
required
to
demonstrate
permit
compliance.
General
startup
and
permit
application
activities
include:

$
reading
and
understanding
the
rule
requirements
3
Discharges
that
could
result
in
significant
impacts
to
the
environment
or
human
health
must
still
be
reported
at
the
time
of
the
discharge
event
in
a
non­
compliance
report.
Since
timely
reporting
is
essential
in
these
instances,
separate
regulations
have
been
established
in
40
C.
F.
R.
122.41
for
the
reporting
of
bypasses
or
upsets.
Burden
and
costs
for
this
type
of
non­
compliance
reporting
have
been
analyzed
in
the
ICR
for
the
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)/
Compliance
Assessment/
Certification
Information
(
ICR
No.
1427.06).
18
$
completing
and
submitting
NOI
(
for
general
permit
coverage)

$
completing
and
submitting
Forms
1
and
2B
(
for
an
individual
permit).

Activities
required
to
demonstrate
and
document
permit
compliance
include:

$
develop
a
nutrient
management
plan
$
collect
information
for
off­
site
manure
transfers
(
required
of
large
CAFOs)

$
prepare
and
submit
annual
reports
$
maintain
records
to
document
visual
inspections
and
implementation
of
the
NMP
$
collect
representative
manure,
litter,
and
process
wastewater
samples
$
collect
representative
soil
samples
and
analyze
the
soil
samples
for
phosphorus
$
calibrate
manure
application
equipment
prior
to
land
application
of
manure,
litter,
and/
or
process
wastewater
at
a
minimum
of
once
per
year.

In
addition
to
the
activities
performed
on
a
regular
basis,
EPA
assumes
that
CAFO
owners
or
operators
will
need
to
participate
in
any
on­
site
inspection
conducted
by
the
permit
authority.
This
represents
an
information
collection
burden
because
the
purpose
of
the
inspection
is
to
collect
information
regarding
permit
compliance.

CAFO
owners
or
operators
will
also
incur
capital
and
operating
costs
to
collect
information
needed
to
document
compliance.
Capital
expenditures
include:

$
purchase
of
a
soil
auger
for
sampling
$
purchase
of
a
manure
sampler
$
installation
of
a
depth
marker
$
purchase
of
a
scale
used
to
calibrate
the
manure
spreader.

Recurring
or
O&
M
expenditures
include:

$
soil
sample
analysis
$
manure
sample
analysis
$
tractor
use
during
manure
collection
$
other
direct
costs
for
record
keeping.

For
the
purpose
of
this
ICR,
EPA
assumed
that
no
CAFOs
incur
burden
to
make
an
optional
request
for
an
exemption
from
permitting
on
the
basis
of
No
Potential
To
Discharge.
Thus,
all
CAFOs
incur
permit­
related
burdens,
which
would
most
likely
overstate
burdens
for
any
CAFO
that
makes
a
request.

State
Activities
State
NPDES
Program
Modification
Request.
Subsequent
to
making
program
revisions
to
implement
the
final
rule,
States
will
need
to
compile
the
information
listed
in
4b(
i)
of
this
Supporting
Statement
to
submit
a
request
for
program
modification
to
the
EPA.
19
General
Permit
Activities.
State
activities
associated
with
the
development
or
revision
of
a
general
permit
include:

$
modifying
the
general
permit
to
incorporate
final
rule
requirements
in
accordance
with
40
C.
F.
R.
123.25(
a)(
22)
and
40
C.
F.
R.
122.62
$
giving
public
notice
in
accordance
with
40
C.
F.
R.
123.25(
a)(
27)
and
40
C.
F.
R.
123.25(
a)(
33)
and
responding
to
comments
in
accordance
with
40
C.
F.
R.
123.25(
a)(
31)
and
40
C.
F.
R.
123.25(
a)(
34)

$
holding
public
hearings(
s)
in
accordance
with
40
C.
F.
R.
123.25(
a)(
30)

$
submitting
the
modified
permit
to
EPA
for
approval
in
accordance
with
40
C.
F.
R
123.62
$
reviewing
NOIs
for
completeness,
recording
NOI
information,
and
making
NOI
information
publicly
accessible
and
keeping
it
updated
on
a
quarterly
basis
[
40
C.
F.
R.
122.28(
b)(
2)(
iv).

Individual
Permit
Activities.
In
accordance
with
40
C.
F.
R.
123.25,
approved
States
will
incur
burdens
to
perform
the
following
activities
for
CAFOs
that
submit
individual
permits:

$
reviewing
the
permit
application
for
completeness
$
providing
public
notice
of
receipt
of
applications
and
responding
to
comments
$
holding
public
hearing(
s),
as
necessary
$
issuing
the
individual
permit.

Compliance
Evaluation
Activities.
Approved
States
will
incur
burdens
to
perform
the
following
activities
to
ensure
compliance
with
State
permit
programs:

$
inspecting
permitted
CAFOs
in
accordance
with
40
C.
F.
R.
123.26(
b)

$
reviewing
annual
reports
submitted
by
permitted
CAFOs
under
40
C.
F.
R.
122.42(
e)(
4).

No
Potential
To
Discharge
Determinations.
Large
CAFOs
that
can
demonstrate
that
they
have
no
potential
to
discharge
determination
(
NPTD)
manure
or
process
wastewater
to
waters
of
the
United
States
may
request
an
exemption
from
NPDES
permitting.
The
permit
authority,
upon
request,
may
make
a
case­
specific
determination
that
a
large
CAFO
has
no
potential
to
discharge.
In
making
this
determination,
the
permit
authority
must
consider
the
potential
for
discharges
from
both
the
production
area
and
any
land
application
areas
and
any
record
of
prior
discharges
by
the
CAFO.
In
no
case
may
the
CAFO
be
determined
to
have
"
no
potential
to
discharge"
if
it
has
had
a
discharge
within
the
5
years
prior
to
the
date
of
the
request
[
40
C.
F.
R.
122.23(
f)(
1)].

As
noted
above,
EPA
does
not
anticipate
that
States
will
incur
burden
to
make
such
determinations
and,
therefore,
assumes
for
this
ICR
that
all
CAFOs
request
coverage
under
an
NPDES
permit.
EPA
believes
that
the
State
burden
to
administer
a
permit
would
be
higher
in
the
long
run
compared
to
a
one­
time
burden
to
make
a
determination.
Thus,
the
burden
estimates
in
this
ICR
potentially
overstate
State
burden
in
the
event
an
operation
decides
to
request
an
exemption.
20
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
21
5
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTED
 
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY,
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
5a
Agency
Activities
EPA
has
permitting
responsibilities
in
the
seven
States
where
it
is
the
permitting
authority
for
CAFOs
In
those
States,
the
Agency's
activities
would
be
similar
to
the
activities
described
for
authorized
States
[
see
Section
4b(
ii)].

In
addition,
the
Agency
will
evaluate
the
requests
for
program
modifications
submitted
by
approved
States.
In
order
to
implement
the
final
rule,
States
will
submit
an
NPDES
program
modification.
In
accordance
with
existing
NPDES
modification
process,
EPA
will
review
the
modification.
The
review
process
will
vary
by
State.
For
a
review,
EPA
may
perform
any
or
all
of
the
following
activities:

$
review
State
NPDES
program
modification
and
determine
whether
or
not
the
proposed
revisions
are
substantial
enough
to
provide
opportunity
for
public
comment
[
40
C.
F.
R.
123.62(
b)(
2)

$
for
substantial
program
modifications,
give
public
notice
and
provide
an
opportunity
for
comment;
notice
shall
be
mailed
to
interested
persons
and
published
in
the
Federal
Register
and
in
newspapers
[
40
C.
F.
R.
123.62(
b)(
2)]

$
hold
public
hearings,
if
necessary
[
40
C.
F.
R.
123.62(
b)(
2)]

$
approve
or
disapprove
of
program
modifications
[
40
C.
F.
R.
123.62(
b)(
3)]

$
prepare
and
publish
public
notice
of
EPA's
final
determination
in
the
Federal
Register
for
approval
of
substantial
program
modifications,
or
deliver
notice
of
approval
of
nonsubstantial
program
modifications
by
letter
to
the
State
Governor
or
his
designee
[
40
C.
F.
R.
123.62(
b)(
4)].

5b
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
Permit
Compliance
System
(
PCS)
database.
The
PCS
database
is
a
national
database
that
contains
information
on
permit
issuance,
permit
limits
and
monitoring,
and
other
facility
information.
The
information
provided
on
permit
application
forms
or
NOI
forms
will
be
entered
into
PCS.

5c
Small
Entity
Flexibility
The
current
NPDES
program
distinguishes
small
CAFOs
based
on
the
number
or
concentration
of
animals.
Small,
medium,
and
large
operations
are
defined
in
Table
4­
1.
The
revised
rule
substitutes
head
count
thresholds
for
the
existing
rule's
animal
unit
thresholds
for
each
type
of
animal
being
regulated
under
the
rule.
22
Whereas
EPA
establishes
thresholds
based
on
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)
1
Corresponding
Animal
Threshold
(
Number
of
Animals)

112112
(
0211)
Beef
cattle
feedlots
$
1.5
1,400
112111,
112120
(
0241)
Dairy
farms
and
dairy
heifer
replacement
production
$
0.75
3002
112210
(
0213)
Hogs
$
0.75
2,1003
112310
(
0252)
Chicken
eggs
$
1.54
61,000
112320
(
0251)
Broiler,
fryer,
roaster
chickens
$
0.75
375,000
112330
(
0253)
Turkeys
and
turkey
eggs
$
0.75
37,500
1.
SBA
thresholds
effective
February
22,
2002.
2.
Mature
dairy
cattle.
3.
Each
weighing
over
25
kilograms.
4.
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.

In
developing
the
regulatory
changes,
EPA's
basic
premise
has
been
that
the
regulatory
changes
should
focus
on
those
operations
posing
the
greatest
risk
to
water
quality
and
public
health,
in
particular
operations
with
large
numbers
of
animals.
Fewer
than
5,000
of
the
approximately
230,000
small
and
medium
AFOs
nationwide
will
be
affected
by
the
final
rule.
This
approach
helps
to
reduce
the
burden
of
the
CAFO
regulations
on
small
entities
while
striving
to
achieve
the
goals
of
the
CWA.

Furthermore,
as
Section
6
shows,
the
burden
estimates
for
many
of
the
NPDES­
related
activities
are
relatively
small.
The
final
rule
provides
additional
flexibility
in
that
the
ELG
requirements
apply
to
large
CAFOs;
permitting
authorities,
which
are
mainly
State
agencies,
will
establish
technology­
based
requirements
for
small
and
medium
CAFOs
based
on
best
professional
judgement.
Finally,
the
final
rule
provides
regulatory
relief
for
small
and
medium
CAFOs
by
not
requiring
them
to
record
information
for
off­
site
manure
transfers.
Consequently,
additional
23
flexibility
for
small
entities
would
not
have
a
large
effect
on
their
overall
burden,
but
could
reduce
the
effectiveness
of
the
final
regulatory
changes
and
the
effectiveness
of
the
permitting
authorities'
oversight
activities.

5d
Collection
Schedule
This
ICR
would
cover
the
initial
three­
year
period
following
promulgation
of
the
rule,
which
is
expected
to
be
January
1,
2003
through
December
31,
2005.
During
this
period,
EPA
assumed
that
the
authorized
States
would
require
the
first
one
to
two
years
to
revise
their
regulations
and
develop
new
permit
application
forms
and,
therefore,
begin
issuing
new
CAFO
permits
in
the
year
2005.
Thus,
the
schedule
in
Exhibit
B
in
Appendix
3
shows
State
burden
for
start­
up
activities
split
between
years
2003
and
2004,
and
permitting
burden
beginning
in
2005.

Regarding
CAFO
activities,
the
approximately
15,600
facilities
have
been
divided
among
four
groups
to
develop
the
compliance
schedule
used
to
estimate
ICR
burdens:

(
1)
the
CAFOs
that
are
expected
to
have
permits
prior
to
the
effective
date
of
the
rule
(
2)
the
large
and
medium
AFOs
that
meet
the
criteria
for
being
defined
as
a
CAFO
prior
to
the
effective
date
of
the
final
rule
and
should
have
already
obtained
a
permit
(
3)
small
and
medium
AFOs
that
will
be
designated
CAFOs
under
the
final
rule,
which
has
not
revised
designation
requirements
(
4)
the
AFOs
that
are
newly
considered
CAFOs
under
the
revised
size
definitions,
the
addition
of
immature
animal
operations
and
poultry
operations
using
dry
waste
storage,
and
the
removal
of
the
25­
year,
24­
hour
rainfall
exemption.

Each
currently
permitted
facility
(
group
1)
will
reapply
for
a
permit
in
the
final
year
of
coverage
under
the
existing
permit.
Thus,
only
the
permittees
seeking
to
renew
their
permits
between
January
1,
2003
and
December
31,
2005
are
included
in
this
ICR
(
excluding
the
estimated
overlap
through
April
30,
2003
with
the
active
EPA
ICR
0226.15).
EPA
assumed
that
the
2,520
permits
issued
prior
to
2000
would
be
reissued
in
2003
(
50%)
and
2004
(
50%),
and
the
1,610
permits
issued
from
January,
2000
to
December,
2001
will
be
renewed
in
2005
(
50%)
and
2006
(
50%).

EPA
assumed
that
all
operations
in
group
2
(
approximately
8,600)
will
apply
for
coverage
in
the
first
year
and
comply
with
NPDES
requirements
beginning
in
that
year,
even
though
States
may
not
be
fully
prepared
to
issue
new
individual
permits
or
approve
coverage
under
a
new
general
permit
until
the
second
or
third
year.
Consequently,
this
ICR
incorporates
annual
record
keeping
and
reporting
burdens
beginning
in
the
first
year
for
all
group
2
(
and
group
1)
CAFOs.

Designated
CAFOs
must
apply
for
an
NPDES
permit
within
90
days
after
receiving
the
notice
of
designation
from
the
permit
authority.
EPA
assumed
that
20%
of
the
approximately
170
operations
it
assumed
might
be
designated
will
be
designated
in
each
of
the
first
five
years
following
the
effective
date
of
the
final
rule.
24
Operations
in
group
4
will
be
required
to
apply
for
coverage
no
later
than
3
years
after
the
effective
date
of
the
final
rule.
Thus,
the
approximately
2,700
newly
regulated
operations
will
need
to
apply
for
coverage
by
the
third
ICR
year.
25
6
ESTIMATING
THE
BURDEN
AND
THE
COST
OF
THE
COLLECTION
This
section
describes
how
EPA
estimated
CAFO
respondent,
State,
and
Agency
burden
and
costs
for
this
ICR.
Section
6(
a)
describes
EPA's
estimates
of
respondent
burden
for
individual
CAFOs
and
States.
Section
6(
b)
describes
the
cost
estimates
for
individual
CAFOs
and
States.
Section
6(
c)
describes
the
estimation
of
Agency
burden
and
costs.
Section
6(
d)
shows
the
total
annual
burden
and
costs
across
the
entire
universe
of
CAFOs
and
States
affected
during
the
ICR
approval
period.
Section
6(
e)
summarizes
the
overall
burden
and
cost
estimates
and
provides
annual
averages
over
the
three­
year
period.

Although
other
ICRs
may
include
incidental
burdens
and
costs
associated
with
NPDES
permitting
activities
for
CAFOs
(
see
Table
6­
1),
EPA
determined
that
a
clear
overlap
in
record
keeping
and
reporting
burden
occurs
only
with
the
"
Applications
for
NPDES
Discharge
Permits
and
the
Sewage
Management
Permits"
(
OMB
NO:
2040­
0086,
EPA
ICR:
0226.15;
the
"
Applications
ICR").
The
overlap
is
excluded
from
this
ICR
to
prevent
double
counting
that
burden.
The
overlap
is
minimal
because
the
active
ICR
is
scheduled
to
expire
in
2003.
The
burden
estimates
in
this
ICR
are
consistent
with
previous
estimates
except
where
comments
on
the
proposed
rule
and
NODA
and
subsequent
research
indicated
different
estimates
would
be
appropriate.

6a
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
The
summaries
below
provide
brief
descriptions
of
the
CAFO
and
State
activities
and
Tables
6 
2
and
6 
3
summarize
the
burden
assumptions.
Exhibits
A.
1
and
A.
2
provide
additional
information
regarding
the
burden
and
cost
assumptions,
which
were
based
on
assumptions
in
the
Economic
Analysis
(
U.
S.
EPA,
2002c)
and
supporting
documents
(
U.
S.
EPA,
2002a,
b)
for
the
final
rule.
Appendix
3
contains
these
exhibits.

CAFO
Burden
Start­
up
activities
are
steps
that
a
CAFO
owner
or
operator
must
perform
in
preparation
to
comply
with
the
information
collection
requirements
of
the
final
rule.
Owners
or
operators
that
are
potentially
affected
by
the
rule
will
need
to
familiarize
themselves
with
the
changes
to
the
NPDES
CAFO
program
to
determine
that
they
will
need
to
apply
for
a
permit
and
implement
the
effluent
guideline
requirements.
This
is
a
one­
time
burden.
Based
on
best
professional
judgement,
EPA
assumes
that
it
will
only
take
CAFO
operators
three
hours
to
read
and
understand
the
changes
to
relevant
subsections
of
40
C.
F.
R.
122
and
40
C.
F.
R.
412
and
related
guidance.

Permit
application
activities
involve
completing
and
submitting
either
an
NOI
or
an
application
for
an
individual
permit.
EPA's
permit
application
burden
estimates
of
nine
hours
are
based
on
the
burdens
in
an
active
NPDES
ICR
("
Applications
for
NPDES
Discharge
Permits
and
the
Sewage
Management
Permits,"
OMB
NO:
2040­
0086,
EPA
ICR:
0226.15).
In
that
ICR,
there
is
a
3­
hour
burden
to
complete
Form
1
of
an
individual
permit
application
burden,
and
a
6­
hour
burden
to
complete
and
submit
Form
2B.
Thus,
the
combined
burden
to
complete
the
application
for
an
individual
permit
is
nine
hours.
That
ICR
contains
a
1­
hour
burden
to
26
complete
an
NOI.
Because
EPA
has
revised
the
NOI
for
CAFOs
such
that
it
now
requires
the
same
amount
of
information
provided
on
Forms
1
and
2B,
EPA
is
using
the
same
9­
hour
assumption
for
NOIs,
too.
27
Table
6 
1.
Summary
of
Active
ICRs
Potentially
Containing
NPDES
Burdens
for
CAFOs
Active
NPDES
ICRs
Information
Collection
Activities
CAFO
Overlap
NPDES
and
Sewage
Sludge
Monitoring
Reports
OMB
NO:
2040­
0004
EPA
ICR:
0229.15
Expiration
Date:
02/
28/
2005
Permittees:
Prepare
DMRs,
sewage
sludge
monitoring
reports,
and
other
monitoring
reports
Permit
Authority:
Review
DMRs,
sewage
sludge
monitoring
reports,
and
other
monitoring
reports
ICR
explicitly
incorporates
CAFOs
covered
by
EPA's
non­
stormwater
general
permits,
but
there
is
no
CAFO
burden
because
CAFOs
don't
have
effluent
to
monitor
and
report.

Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
and
Sewage
Sludge
Management
State
Programs
OMB
NO:
2040­
0057
EPA
ICR:
0168.07
Expiration
Date:
04/
30/
2003
Approved
States:
Request
NPDES
Programs
and
modifications,
conduct
compliance
inspections,
and
submit
regular
summary
reports
EPA:
Review
NPDES
program
requests,
general
permits,
and
provide
oversight
There
are
too
few
program
requests
to
address
the
final
CAFO
Rule.
The
1,200
annual
inspections
for
minors
may
include
some
CAFO
inspections.
General
permit
submittal
to
EPA
for
comment
may
cover
some
final
CAFO
rule
burden.

National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
Modification
and
Variance
OMB
NO:
2040­
0068
EPA
ICR:
0029.07
Expiration
Date:
04/
30/
2003
Permittee:
Request
permit
modifications
and
variances
Permit
Authority:
Review
requests
EPA:
Provide
oversight
CAFOs
may
be
among
the
minor,
nonmunicipal
dischargers
or
general
permittees
included
in
this
ICR.

Applications
for
NPDES
Discharge
Permits
and
the
Sewage
Management
Permits
OMB
NO:
2040­
0086
EPA
ICR:
0226.15
Expiration
Date:
04/
30/
2003
Permittee:
Permit
application
record
keeping
Complete/
submit
individual
permits
(
Forms
1
and
2B)
Complete/
submit
NOI
Respond
to
Section
308
requests
Permit
Authority:
Review
individual
permits
(
Forms
1
and
2B)
Review
NOIs
Identified
Overlap:

ICR
includes
135
individual
CAFO
permit
applications
per
year
and
an
unspecified
number
of
NOI
applications
from
CAFOs
per
year.

Information
Collection
Request
for
the
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
Compliance
Assessment/
Certification
Information
OMB
NO:
2040­
0110
EPA
ICR:
1427.06
Expiration
Date:
02/
29/
2004
Permittee:
Annual
record
keeping
of
monitoring
and
inspection
data
Prepare/
submit
compliance
and
noncompliance
reports
Permit
Authority:
Review
reports
Record
keeping
burden
may
include
CAFOs
among
36,887
minor,
nonmunicipal
permittees.
Reporting
burden
for
compliance
schedule
and
noncompliance
may
include
CAFOs.
28
CAFO
owners
or
operators
will
perform
various
activities
to
meet
effluent
limitation
guideline
(
ELG)
requirements.
All
CAFO
operators
will
conduct
weekly
visual
inspections
of
the
waste
storage
and
storm
water
diversion
facilities
and
daily
inspections
of
water
lines
to
identify
maintenance
needs.
EPA
assumed
that
these
inspections
can
be
primarily
conducted
in
the
course
of
every
day
operations
and,
therefore,
they
do
not
impose
a
substantial
incremental
burden
on
CAFOs
beyond
the
need
to
document
inspection
findings.
Manure
application
equipment
must
be
tested
and
calibrated
annually
and
the
activity
documented.
Soil
samples
must
be
collected
at
least
once
every
three
years
from
all
fields
receiving
manure
and
analyzed
for
nutrient
content.
Manure
samples
must
be
collected
annually
and
analyzed
for
nutrient
content.
Manure
and
soil
sampling
results
must
be
retained
and
the
manure
content
results
must
be
made
available
to
off­
site
users.
Records
of
the
volume
of
manure
and
process
wastewater
produced
must
also
be
maintained,
and
large
CAFOs
must
create
and
maintain
off­
site
transfer
records.
Rule
support
documents
(
U.
S.
EPA,
2002a,
b)
provide
the
basis
for
estimating
burdens
for
these
requirements,
which
are
shown
in
Table
6­
2.

Table
6 
2.
Burden
Estimates
per
CAFO
by
Activity
Activities
Frequency
per
CAFO
Burden
Hours
per
Response1
Read/
Understand
the
Rule
one
time
3
Permit
Application
Activities
Complete/
submit
Notice
of
Intent
for
general
permit
Complete/
submit
individual
permit
application
every
5
years
every
5
years
9
9
ELG
Data
Collection
and
Record
Keeping
Activities
Conduct
visual
inspections
and
maintain
records
Manure
application
equipment
calibration
Manure
sampling
Soil
sampling
annual
annual
annual
every
3
years
93
4
2
9
NPDES
Record
Keeping
and
Reporting
Activities
Develop/
update
nutrient
management
plan
Off­
site
transfer
record
keeping
Complete/
submit
annual
report
to
permitting
authority
Attend
on­
site
inspection
every
5
years
annual
annual
per
inspection
53
14
1
4
1.
A
response
is
the
completion
of
an
activity
and
the
duration
and
frequency
of
responses
can
vary.
For
example,
each
of
the
following
is
considered
a
response:
the
one­
time
effort
to
read
and
understand
the
rule,
submitting
a
permit
application
once
every
five
years,
or
collecting
ELG
records
throughout
a
year.
The
hour
estimates
have
been
rounded
to
the
nearest
hour
for
presentation.
Burdens
that
are
calculated
as
weighted
averages
across
CAFO
categories
and
sizes
(
e.
g.,
soil
sampling)
have
trailing
decimal
points
in
the
model.

Under
the
final
rule,
the
ELG
requirements
are
applicable
to
large
CAFOs;
permit
authorities
must
use
best
professional
judgement
(
BPJ)
to
develop
the
effluent
limitation
conditions
for
all
other
CAFOs.
For
the
purpose
of
estimating
the
social
cost
of
the
final
rule,
EPA
assumed
that
the
ELG
record
keeping
and
reporting
requirements
for
small
and
medium
CAFOs
would
be
comparable
to
those
specified
for
large
CAFOs.
Thus,
EPA
applied
these
ELG
burdens
to
all
CAFOs
in
its
social
cost
analysis.
EPA
has
adopted
the
same
approach
to
estimating
the
ELG
burden
for
this
ICR.
29
To
comply
with
permit
requirements,
CAFO
operators
will
need
to
develop
a
nutrient
management
plan
that
contains
measures
specified
in
40
C.
F.
R.
122.42(
e)(
1)
and
maintain
the
plan
on­
site.
There
are
two
parts
to
the
NMP
burden
estimate 
one
for
land
application,
which
is
discussed
here,
and
one
for
the
production
area,
which
is
discussed
in
Section
6b(
ii).
For
the
land
application
portion
of
the
NMP,
EPA
based
its
burden
estimate
on
typical
cost
per
acre
estimates
for
plan
development
by
certified
planners.
Based
on
the
$
5/
acre
estimate
in
U.
S.
EPA
(
2002a,
b;
in
1997
dollars,
but
escalated
to
2001
dollars
for
the
ICR
analysis),
EPA
calculated
average
plan
development
costs
for
average
CAFO
acres
by
animal
type.
Then
EPA
calculated
a
weighted
average
plan
cost
of
$
1,900
based
on
the
number
of
CAFOs
of
each
type
(
See
Appendix
3).
Finally,
EPA
divided
this
average
plan
cost
by
an
agronomist
wage
rate
($
36.23)
to
obtain
an
average
burden
of
53
hours
to
develop
a
plan.
Although
some
owners
or
operators
will
be
able
to
develop
their
own
NMPs,
EPA
has
assumed
that
this
burden
mainly
accrues
to
third
parties
who
have
been
certified
to
prepare
such
plans.
This
burden,
which
does
not
apply
to
CAFOs
that
does
not
land
apply
manure
generated
on­
site,
will
be
incurred
in
the
first
year
an
operation
requests
coverage
under
the
revised
regulations
and
must
be
updated
at
least
once
every
five
years.

Large
CAFOs
that
transfer
manure
off­
site
will
also
need
to
collect
the
following
information
for
each
transfer:
the
date
of
transfer,
the
recipient's
name,
the
quantity
transferred,
and
its
nutrient
content.
Based
on
a
national
estimate
of
excess
manure
at
large
CAFOs
of
181
million
tons
and
an
average
transfer
amount
of
100
tons,
EPA
estimated
an
average
of
169
transfers
per
year
per
large
CAFO
(
181
million
)
100
)
10,700
CAFOs).
Using
best
professional
judgement,
EPA
estimated
that
recording
the
four
pieces
of
information
required
for
each
transfer
would
require
only
5
minutes.
In
particular,
the
nutrient
content
information
will
be
the
same
for
an
entire
year
because
sampling
under
the
ELG
occurs
only
once
per
year.
The
resulting
average
burden
per
CAFO
is
14
hours.

All
CAFOs
prepare
and
submit
an
annual
report
to
the
permitting
authority.
The
report
provides
an
annual
update
to
five
of
the
data
items
contained
in
the
permit
application
forms
as
well
as
a
summary
of
production
area
discharges,
if
any.
Many
CAFO
operators
or
owners
will
be
able
to
copy
information
directly
from
the
application
form
to
their
report
because
they
have
no
operational
changes
or
compliance
events
to
report.
Based
on
best
professional
judgement,
EPA
assumes
that
the
annual
report
will
require
only
one
hour
to
complete
and
submit,
on
average.
This
is
comparable
to
the
burden
to
reapply
for
general
permit
coverage
in
the
"
Applications
for
NPDES
Discharge
Permits
and
the
Sewage
Management
Permits"
ICR
(
No.
0226.15),
which
is
a
comparable
reporting
activity.

This
ICR
also
incorporates
the
potential
burden
to
CAFO
owners
or
operators
of
participating
in
on­
site
inspections
conducted
by
the
permit
authority.
As
noted
in
the
State
burden
section,
EPA
assumed
that
inspectors
spend
an
average
of
four
hours
in
on­
site
inspection
activities.
During
this
time,
the
inspector
may
want
to
review
records
and
inspect
waste
management
and
land
application
equipment.
It
is
likely
that
the
CAFO
operator
or
owner
will
incur
some
burden
during
the
inspection
to
make
records
available
and
show
the
facility
to
the
inspector.
Therefore,
EPA
assumed
an
average
burden
to
CAFOs
of
four
hours
per
inspection.
30
Table
6 
2
summarizes
the
estimated
burden
per
respondent
per
activity
for
completing
activities
associated
with
each
information
collection
item.
It
also
identifies
the
frequency
of
the
activity.

State
Burden
The
43
approved
States
will
incur
burden
to
develop
their
program
modification
request,
issue
permits,
and
track
and
report
permit
compliance.
Table
6­
3
provides
a
summary
of
the
burden
estimates
described
below.
For
its
analysis,
EPA
obtained
labor
burden
estimates
that
it
has
used
in
previous
NPDES­
related
cost
and
burden
analyses,
and
asked
State
agency
and
EPA
Regional
staff
to
evaluate
whether
those
estimates
were
adequate
for
the
CAFO
rule.
EPA
also
considered
comments
provided
on
the
proposed
rule
and
NODA
that
addressed
the
issue
of
State
burdens.

States
will
incur
burden
for
three
categories
of
activities:

C
State
NPDES
program
modification
request
C
implementation
for
general
permits
C
implementation
for
individual
permits.

Rule
modification
is
a
one­
time
activity
in
which
approved
States
modify
their
NPDES
programs
to
incorporate
the
new
requirements
contained
in
the
final
rule.
Following
rule
modification,
the
approved
States
will
need
to
request
EPA
approval
for
the
modifications
made
to
their
NPDES
programs
in
response
to
the
final
rule.
These
applications
consist
of
a
narrative
program
description
including
enforcement
and
compliance
plans,
a
legal
certification
that
the
State
has
authority
to
implement
the
program
(
Attorney
General's
statement),
a
compilation
of
relevant
statutes,
regulations,
guidance,
and
tribal
agreements,
and
copies
of
permit
application
forms,
permit
forms
and
reporting
forms.
In
general,
the
amount
of
labor
time
required
to
prepare
the
application
will
vary.
EPA's
labor
hour
estimate
is
based
on
program
modification
and
approval
burdens
in
an
active
NPDES
ICR
("
NPDES
and
Sewage
Sludge
Management
State
Program
Requirements,"
OMB
NO.
2040­
0057,
EPA
ICR
0168.07),
which
estimates
250
hours
per
State
to
prepare
and
submit
a
request
for
NPDES
Program
Modification
under
40
C.
F.
R.
123.62.
Allen
(
2002)
and
Sylvester
(
2002)
concurred
with
this
estimate,
but
Coats
(
2002)
noted
that
80
hours
might
be
sufficient.

Approved
States
will
incur
annual
costs
to
administer
their
permit
programs.
To
administer
State
general
permits,
permitting
authorities
will
need
to:

C
update
their
general
permits
to
incorporate
final
rule
requirements
C
review
NOI
forms
submitted
by
CAFO
operators
seeking
coverage
under
a
general
permit.

To
administer
individual
permits,
State
agencies
will
need
to:

C
review
application
forms
(
i.
e.,
Forms
1
and
2B)

C
request
public
comment
prior
to
issuing
a
permit
C
conduct
public
hearings,
as
needed.
31
To
assure
compliance
with
State
NPDES
permit
programs,
State
agencies
will
need
to:

C
inspect
permitted
CAFOs
C
review
annual
reports
submitted
by
permitted
CAFOs.
To
update
their
general
permits,
the
43
approved
States
will
need
to
revise
the
general
permit
conditions
affected
by
the
final
rule.
For
example,
general
permits
will
need
to
specify
the
method(
s)
that
the
permit
authority
is
requiring
the
CAFO
owner
or
operator
to
use
to
calculate
the
rate
of
appropriate
manure
application
as
a
special
condition.

EPA
estimated
that
States
may
need
300
hours
to
revise
their
general
permits
to
reflect
new
provisions
of
the
final
rule.
Information
provided
by
State
contacts
indicated
that
initial
general
permit
development
was
a
contentious
process
that
took
two
(
in
Maryland;
Allen,
1999)
to
four
years
(
in
Washington;
KauzLoric,
1999)
to
complete.
EPA
does
not
believe
that
the
changes
necessitated
by
the
final
rule
(
e.
g.,
adding
the
NMP
requirements,
adding
new
record
keeping
or
reporting
requirements,
switching
from
size
thresholds
based
on
animal
units
to
animal
counts,
and
altering
the
ELG,
BPJ,
or
special
conditions
where
necessary)
will
require
the
same
magnitude
of
effort
as
initial
permit
development.
Furthermore,
EPA
will
develop
a
model
permit
that
States
can
adopt
in
whole
or
part
to
minimize
the
costs
of
permit
revisions.
Sylvester
(
2002)
estimated
that
revising
Wisconsin's
general
permit
may
take
456
hours
and
Coats
(
2002)
estimated
that
States
in
Region
2
would
need
160
hours
to
revise
their
general
permits.
EPA's
estimate
of
300
hours
is
the
midpoint
between
these
estimates.
Allen
(
2002)
considered
EPA's
300­
hour
estimate
to
be
acceptable.

Revised
general
permits
will
be
subject
to
public
comment.
EPA
estimated
costs
for
the
proposed
rule
based
on
public
notice,
comment
review,
and
response
requiring
160
hours.
Comments
from
State
employees
in
South
Dakota
(
Pirner,
2001)
and
Illinois
(
Willhite,
2001)
indicated
that
costs
would
be
higher
because
the
process
for
selecting
the
type
of
facilities
that
may
be
eligible
under
a
general
permit
will
be
contentious.
Subsequent
information
obtained
by
EPA
indicates
a
wide
range
of
time
from
as
little
as
100
hours
(
Coats,
2002)
to
as
much
as
968
hours
(
Sylvester,
2002);
Allen
(
2002)
considered
EPA's
revised
estimate
of
180
hours
to
be
acceptable.
EPA
assumed
that
the
180­
hour
estimate
reflects
labor
requirements
for
the
22
States
that
already
provide
general
NPDES
permit
coverage
for
CAFOs
(
U.
S.
EPA,
2001)
because
these
States
have
already
resolved
the
applicability
issue,
which
should
not
be
substantially
affected
by
the
final
rule.
For
the
21
States
with
approved
programs
that
do
not
currently
provide
coverage
under
a
general
permit,
EPA
used
the
high
estimate
of
968
hours
provided
by
Sylvester
(
2002)
to
incorporate
additional
time
for
the
decision
making
process
regarding
which
CAFOs
would
qualify
for
general
permit
coverage.
The
weighted
average
across
all
43
States
is
approximately
570
hours
(
0.51
H
180
+
0.49
H
968).

Finally,
States
may
conduct
hearings
regarding
general
permit
revisions
(
or
development
for
the
States
that
do
not
currently
provide
general
permit
coverage
for
CAFOs).
For
the
proposed
rule,
EPA
derived
costs
for
240
hours
based
on
the
assumption
that
a
State
holds
four
hearings,
each
requiring
60
hours
of
labor
time.
Allen
(
2002)
and
Coats
(
2002)
considered
that
assumption
acceptable.
Sylvester
(
2002)
recommended
an
alternative
estimate
of
616
hours
based
on
12
hearings
requiring
48
staff
hours
each
plus
an
additional
40
hours
for
material
preparation.
For
the
final
rule,
EPA
assumed
that
its
original
240­
hour
estimate
is
sufficient
for
the
22
States
that
32
only
need
to
revise
existing
general
permits,
and
that
the
21
States
that
do
not
currently
provide
general
permit
coverage
for
CAFOs
will
conduct
additional
hearings.
For
those
States,
EPA
used
the
616­
hour
estimate.
The
weighted
average
across
all
States
is
approximately
420
hours
(
0.51
H
240
+
0.49
H
616).
Adding
together
the
three
labor
estimates
for
general
permit
development,
EPA
obtained
a
total
estimate
of
1,290
hours.
For
the
22
States
that
already
provide
general
permit
coverage,
aggregate
hours
would
be
720
hours.
For
the
21
States
that
would
need
to
provide
general
permit
coverage
and
determine
which
CAFOs
are
eligible,
aggregate
hours
would
be
approximately
1,880
hours.
It
is
possible
that
some
of
the
States
not
currently
providing
general
permit
coverage
will
continue
to
rely
solely
on
individual
permits
for
CAFOs.
Thus,
EPA's
cost
analysis
assumption
that
all
43
States
will
incur
general
permit
revision
costs
provides
an
upper
bound
cost
estimate.

CAFOs
seeking
coverage
under
a
State's
(
or
EPA's)
general
permit
will
submit
completed
NOI
forms
that
the
permitting
authority
will
need
to
review
and
make
a
determination
of
coverage.
For
the
proposed
rule,
EPA
estimated
that
NOI
review
would
require
one
hour.
Comments
indicated
that
the
labor
requirement
would
be
substantially
higher.
For
example,
a
Wisconsin
State
employee
(
Bazzell,
2001)
indicated
an
expected
expenditure
of
approximately
100
hours
to
review
the
NOI
and
accompanying
documents.
Ohio
employees
(
Jones,
Speck
and
Daily,
2001)
indicated
that
the
estimates
provided
in
the
proposed
rule
did
not
allow
time
to
ensure
that
the
facilities
were
meeting
all
permit
conditions.
Willhite
(
2001)
also
indicated
that
costs
for
review
of
the
NOI
would
be
substantially
higher.
EPA
believes
that
much
of
the
concern
regarding
its
proposed
rule
estimate
centered
on
review
of
the
proposed
permit
nutrient
plan.
For
example,
60
hours
of
the
96­
hour
Wisconsin
estimate
pertained
to
reviewing
the
content
of
the
nutrient
management
plan
(
Sylvester,
2002);
32
hours
were
allocated
for
review
and
approval
of
manure
storage
and
runoff
management
systems,
and
4
hours
for
general
review
for
completeness
of
information.
The
final
rule
does
not
require
a
CAFO
to
submit
this
plan
with
the
permit
application,
so
this
concern
does
not
pertain
to
the
final
rule.
Nevertheless,
EPA
has
revised
the
information
requirements
for
the
NOI
and
subsequently
increased
its
estimate
of
the
amount
of
time
required
for
review.
Reviews
of
NOI
forms
to
ensure
completeness
of
federally
required
information
should
not
take
longer
than
four
hours.
This
is
consistent
with
the
estimate
provided
by
Sylvester
(
2002),
and
Allen
(
2002),
Coats
(
2002),
and
Domingo
(
2002)
indicated
this
estimate
would
be
adequate
for
NOI
review.
The
annual
reports
that
CAFOs
are
now
required
to
submit
(
regardless
of
permit
type)
will
contain
the
much
of
the
same
information
as
the
NOI
form.
Consequently,
EPA
assumed
that
the
State
burden
to
review
an
annual
report,
update
PCS
as
needed,
and
maintain
CAFO
records
is
the
same
as
the
NOI
review
estimate­­
four
hours.

State
administration
costs
for
individual
permits
include
100
hours
per
permit
to
review
Forms
1
and
2B,
issue
public
notices,
and
respond
to
comments.
EPA
increased
this
estimate
from
the
70
hours
used
in
its
analysis
of
the
proposed
rule
in
response
to
comments
(
e.
g.,
Muldener,
2001).
Sylvester
(
2002)
and
Allen
(
2002)
concurred
with
this
estimate;
Harsch
(
2002)
thought
it
might
be
low,
but
Coats
(
2002)
considered
it
to
be
twice
the
time
needed.

EPA
estimated
that
the
hearing
time
for
an
individual
permit
would
require
200
hours
based
on
estimates
from
Washington
State
(
KauzLoric,
1999),
which
indicated
that
a
hearing
required
approximately
100­
150
hours
of
State
employee
time.
Using
best
professional
judgement,
EPA
33
assumed
an
average
of
2
hearings
per
permit
and
an
average
requirement
of
100
hours
per
hearing.
This
is
higher
than
the
estimate
per
hearing
provided
by
Sylvester
(
2002).
Nevertheless,
Sylvester
agreed
with
the
estimate,
as
did
Coats
(
2002)
and
Allen
(
2002).
Harsch
(
2002)
provided
an
alternative
estimate
of
22
to
33
hours.
EPA
decided
to
retain
the
200­
hour
estimate
to
reflect
the
possibility
that
some
individual
permits
attract
numerous
hearing
participants.

EPA
assumed
that
the
inspections
for
CAFOs
covered
by
either
a
general
or
an
individual
permit
would
be
similar
to
the
Reconnaissance
Inspections
and
the
Compliance
Evaluation
Inspections
described
in
the
active
NPDES
ICR
("
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
and
Sewage
Sludge
Management
State
Programs,"
OMB
NO.
2040­
0057,
EPA
ICR
0168.07),
which
have
burden
estimates
of
8
hours
and
24
hours,
respectively.
Coats
(
2002),
Allen
(
2002),
Harsch
(
2002),
and
Sylvester
(
2002)
agreed
with
this
range
of
estimates.
Wrenn
(
2002)
believes
that
the
average
inspection
time
will
be
closer
to
16
hours,
which
includes
6
hours
for
round­
trip
travel
time,
2
hours
to
review
State
records
and
prepare
for
the
inspection,
4
hours
to
conduct
the
onsite
inspection
of
records
and
operation,
and
4
hours
to
report
on
the
inspection
and
maintain
records.
Based
on
best
professional
judgement,
EPA
used
the
16­
hour
estimate
in
its
analysis.

Table
6 
3.
Burden
Estimates
for
an
Approved
State
by
Activity
(
first
two
activities
may
not
belong
in
ICR)

Activities
Frequency
per
State
Burden
Hours
per
Response1
NPDES
Program
Modification
Request
one
time
250
Implementation:
General
Permits
General
permit
development
Review
and
approval
of
NOIs
one
time
per
CAFO
1,290
4
Implementation:
Individual
Permits
Review
Forms
1
and
2B,
issue
public
notification,
respond
to
comments
Public
hearing
per
CAFO
per
CAFO
100
200
Compliance
Evaluation
Activities
Review
CAFO
annual
reports
Facility
inspections
per
CAFO
per
CAFO
4
16
1.
A
response
is
the
completion
of
an
activity
and
the
duration
and
frequency
of
responses
can
vary.
For
example,
each
of
the
following
is
considered
a
response:
the
one­
time
effort
to
request
NPDES
program
modification,
reviewing
permit
applications,
and
annual
NOI
publications.

6b
Estimating
Respondent
Costs
This
section
describes
how
EPA
derived
the
cost
per
respondent
for
each
of
the
activities
described
above.
Additional
detail
is
provided
in
Exhibits
A.
1
and
A.
2
in
Appendix
3.
34
6b(
i)
Estimating
Labor
Costs
CAFO
Labor
Costs
EPA
multiplied
the
burdens
reported
above
by
the
wage
rates
in
Table
6 
4
to
obtain
cost
estimates
at
the
CAFO­
level.
Table
6 
5
identifies
which
wage
rate
was
used
for
each
activity
and
reports
the
annual
cost
per
CAFO
by
activity.

Table
6 
4.
Wage
Rates
Used
to
Value
CAFO­
Related
Burdens
Labor
Category
Original
Rate
Source
Conversion
Hourly
Rate
($
1999)

Farm
Operator/
Owner
$
20/
hr
U.
S.
EPA
(
2000a)
(
1997
to
2001)
1
$
21.83
Farm
Laborer
$
10/
hr
U.
S.
EPA
(
2000a)
(
1997
to
2001)
1
$
11.00
Agronomist2
$
52,160/
yr
U.
S.
EPA
(
2000c)
2080
hrs/
yr
1.33
benefits
multiplier
$
36.23
1.
The
index
of
average
prices
paid
by
farmers
increased
from
361
in
1997
to
394
in
2001
(
USDA,
2001).
2.
BLS
(
2001)
reported
a
median
annual
salary
of
$
52,160
in
2000
dollars
for
agricultural
scientists.
EPA
divided
this
by
2,080
hours
to
obtain
an
hourly
rate
of
$
25.08.
EPA
escalated
the
wage
to
2001
dollars
using
an
inflation
factor
of
1.085
based
on
BLS
reported
average
earnings
for
professional
specialty
occupations
within
private
service­
producing
industries
(
BLS,
2002).
Employee
benefits
from
this
same
occupational
category
were
used
to
derive
a
1.33
loading
factor
to
account
for
employee
benefits.
The
resulting
hourly
labor
rate
for
an
agronomist
is
$
36.23.

Table
6 
5.
Annual
Cost
per
CAFO
by
Activity
Activities
Annual
Burden
(
labor
category)
Labor
Cost1
($)

Read/
Understand
the
Rule
3
(
operator/
owner)
$
66
Permit
Application
Activities
Complete/
submit
Notice
of
Intent
for
general
permit
Complete/
submit
individual
permit
application
9
(
operator/
owner)
9
(
operator/
owner)
$
196
$
196
ELG
Data
Collection
and
Record
Keeping
Activities
Conduct
visual
inspections
and
maintain
records
Manure
application
equipment
calibration
Manure
sampling
Soil
sampling
93
(
laborer)
4
(
laborer)
2
(
laborer)
9
(
laborer)
$
1,023
$
44
$
25
$
96
NPDES
Record
Keeping
and
Reporting
Activities
Develop/
revise
nutrient
management
plan
Off­
site
transfer
record
keeping
Submit
annual
report
to
permitting
authority
Attend
on­
site
Compliance
Evaluation
Inspection
53
(
third
party­
agronomist)
14
(
laborer)
1
(
operator/
owner)
4
(
operator/
owner)
$
1,908
$
154
$
22
$
87
1.
All
annual
labor
costs
are
rounded
to
the
nearest
dollar.
Unit
costs
may
not
match
hour
and
wage
rate
detail
due
to
independent
rounding
for
presentation.
Unit
costs
depend
on
which
wage
rate
is
used
to
value
the
labor
burden.
35
State
Labor
Costs
EPA
used
a
wage
rate
of
$
29.78
to
value
State
labor
burden,
which
was
based
on
the
mean
hourly
wage
rate
of
$
20.53
for
Conservation
Scientists
(
SOC
19­
1031)
employed
in
the
public
sector
(
BLS,
2001).
That
rate
was
escalated
from
2000
dollars
to
2001
dollars
using
the
Employment
Cost
Index,
which
indicates
a
3.6%
increase
in
wages
and
salaries
for
state
and
local
government
workers
from
December
2000
to
December
2001
(
BLS,
2002c).
Then,
the
escalated
wage
rate
of
$
21.27
($
20.53
H
1.036)
was
converted
to
a
loaded
wage
rate
using
a
total
compensation­
to­
wage
ratio
of
1.4,
which
was
the
ratio
in
2001
for
all
state
and
local
workers
(
BLS,
2002b).

Table
6 
6.
Annual
Cost
per
State
Agency
by
Activity
Activities
Burden
(
hours)
Annual
Labor
Cost1
($
29.78/
hour)

NPDES
Program
Modification
Request
250
$
7,445
Implementation:
General
Permits
General
permit
development
Review
and
approval
of
NOIs
1,290
4
$
38,417
$
119
Implementation:
Individual
Permits
Review
Forms
1
and
2B,
issue
public
notification,
respond
to
comments
Public
hearing
100
200
$
2,978
$
5,956
Compliance
Evaluation
Activities
Review
CAFO
annual
reports
Facility
inspections
4
16
$
119
$
476
1.
All
annual
labor
costs
are
rounded
to
the
nearest
dollar.

6b(
ii)
Estimating
Capital
and
Operation
and
Maintenance
Costs
CAFO
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
A
CAFO
facility
incurs
capital
costs
when
it
purchases
equipment
or
builds
structures
that
are
needed
for
compliance
with
the
rule's
reporting
and
record
keeping
requirements
that
the
facility
would
not
use
otherwise.
The
capital
costs
included
in
this
ICR
are
based
on
those
used
in
the
social
cost
analysis
for
the
final
rule,
which
are
documented
in
U.
S.
EPA
(
2002a,
b).

Capital
costs
relevant
to
this
ICR
include
purchasing
a
soil
auger
to
collect
soil
samples
and
a
manure
sampler.
CAFOs
applying
some
manure
on­
site
will
also
need
to
obtain
a
scale
to
calibrate
the
spreader
and
all
facilities
will
also
need
to
install
depth
markers
in
their
lagoons.
All
operations
will
need
to
develop
the
NMP
elements
that
pertain
to
the
production
area.
The
cost
of
$
1,050
represents
an
out­
of­
pocket
expenditure
to
obtain
an
engineering
analysis
of
the
waste
storage
volume
requirements
needed
to
comply
with
the
final
rule.
This
burden
will
occur
36
the
first
time
a
facility
requests
coverage
under
the
revised
regulations
and
should
not
need
to
be
updated
unless
the
operation
undergoes
a
significant
change
in
operation.

To
incorporate
capital
expenditures
in
EPA's
estimate
of
annual
burden,
all
capital
costs
have
been
amortized
over
a
10­
year
period
assuming
a
7
percent
interest
rate.
This
is
the
amortization
method
used
to
estimate
annualized
costs
for
the
economic
analysis
of
the
proposed
rule
(
U.
S.
EPA,
2002c).

A
facility
incurs
O&
M
costs
when
it
regularly
uses
services,
materials,
or
supplies
needed
to
comply
with
the
rule's
reporting
and
record
keeping
requirements
that
the
facility
will
not
use
otherwise.
Any
cost
for
the
operation
and
upkeep
of
capital
equipment
is
considered
O&
M
costs.
For
the
final
rule,
O&
M
costs
include
laboratory
analysis
of
soil
and
manure,
the
cost
of
using
a
tractor
to
calibrate
the
manure
spreader,
and
a
general
record
keeping
cost.
All
costs
were
based
on
the
cost
analysis
for
the
final
rule
and
are
documented
in
U.
S.
EPA
(
2002).

Table
6 
7
summarizes
the
capital
and
O&
M
costs
associated
with
the
record
keeping
and
reporting
activities.

Table
6 
7.
Annual
Capital
and
O&
M
Cost
per
CAFO
(
2001
dollars)

Activities
Frequency
per
CAFO
Annual
Cost
($)
1
Capital
Costs2
Soil
auger
for
sampling
Manure
sampler
Lagoon
depth
marker
installation
Scale
for
calibrating
manure
spreader
(
two
scales)
Engineering
analysis
for
production
area
NMP
elements
one
time
one
time
one
time
one
time
one
time
$
27
$
33
$
33
$
546
$
1,050
O&
M
Costs3
Lab
analysis
of
soil
sample
Lab
analysis
of
manure
sample
Use
of
tractor
during
manure
calibration
Other
direct
costs
for
record
keeping
every
3
years
annual
annual
annual
$
95
$
117
$
65
$
88
1.
Costs
are
taken
from
rule
support
documents
(
U.
S.
EPA,
2002a,
b).
These
estimates
have
been
escalated
from
1997
dollars
to
2001
dollars
using
a
Farm
Production
Cost
Index
(
USDA,
2001).
2.
All
capital
costs
are
reported
as
total
costs.
They
are
amortized
over
10
years
at
a
7%
discount
rate
for
use
in
the
analysis.
3.
All
O&
M
costs
are
from
rule
support
documents
(
U.
S.
EPA,
2002a,
b).
The
soil
lab
analysis
cost,
which
accrues
every
three
years,
is
included
in
the
ICR
burden
estimate
in
the
year
it
accrues.

State
O&
M
Costs
States
will
incur
publication
costs
to
issue
public
notices
during
general
permit
development
and
for
each
individual
permit.
EPA
assumed
that
States
would
publish
one
notice
to
request
comments
on
the
draft
general
permit
and
one
notice
per
individual
permit.
In
the
event
an
37
individual
permit
require
a
public
hearing,
a
public
notice
is
required.
The
publication
cost
per
public
notice
is
$
1,060,
which
is
based
on
the
assumption
that
notices
will
be
placed
in
four
publications
at
an
average
cost
of
$
265
(
U.
S.
EPA,
2002c).

6c
Estimating
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
EPA
will
incur
burden
to
review
modification
requests
for
State
NPDES
programs.
The
burden
estimate
for
reviewing
and
approving
a
program
modification
request
in
an
active
NPDES
ICR
("
NPDES
and
Sewage
Sludge
Management
State
Program
Requirements,"
OMB
NO.
2040­
0057,
EPA
ICR
0168.07)
50
hours.

EPA
is
also
responsible
for
writing
NPDES
permits
for
CAFOs
in
the
seven
States
(
Alaska,
Arizona,
Idaho,
Massachusetts,
New
Hampshire,
New
Mexico,
and
Oklahoma)
that
either
do
not
have
an
approved
program
or
do
not
issue
CAFO
permits.
Based
on
CAFO
data,
EPA
estimated
that
CAFOs
in
these
states
represent
3
percent
of
the
total
number
of
CAFOs
(
U.
S.
EPA,
2002c).
In
these
instances,
EPA
is
responsible
for
the
activities
and
associated
burdens
and
costs
that
would
otherwise
be
incurred
by
a
State,
excluding
the
general
permit
development,
rule
adoption,
and
application
burden.
The
permitting
burden
estimates
for
EPA,
shown
in
Table
6­
8,
are
the
same
as
State
burdens.

Table
6 
8.
EPA
Burden
and
Cost
Estimates
Activities
Frequency
Burden
Hours
per
Response1
Labor
Cost
($
39.94/
hr)

Review
State
Modification
Requests
per
State
50
$
1,997
General
Permit
Activities3
Review
and
approval
of
NOIs
per
CAFO
4
$
160
Individual
Permit
Activities4
Review
Forms
1
and
2B,
issue
public
notification,
respond
to
comments
Public
hearing
per
CAFO
per
CAFO
100
200
$
3,994
$
7,988
Compliance
Evaluation
Activities
Review
CAFO
annual
reports
Facility
inspections
per
CAFO
per
CAFO
4
16
$
160
$
639
1.
A
response
is
the
completion
of
an
activity
and
the
duration
and
frequency
of
responses
can
vary.
For
example,
each
of
the
following
is
considered
a
response:
one­
time
reviews
of
a
State
program
request
or
reviewing
a
CAFOs
permit
application.

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
2001
General
Schedule
reported
a
base
annual
salary
of
$
51,927.
EPA
divided
this
by
2,080
hours
to
obtain
an
hourly
rate
of
$
24.96.
Multiplying
this
rate
by
1.6
to
incorporate
typical
Federal
benefits
(
OPM,
1999),
EPA
obtained
a
final
hourly
rate
of
$
39.94.
Table
6 
8
includes
EPA's
cost
per
response.
38
6d
Estimating
the
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Burden
and
Costs
EPA's
estimate
of
total
burden
and
costs
is
the
product
of
the
burden
and
cost
estimates
per
activity
or
response,
provided
above,
and
the
number
of
CAFOs
or
States
expected
to
perform
specific
activities
each
year.
As
noted
in
Section
5d,
the
compliance
schedule
for
the
first
three
years
after
promulgation
of
the
final
rule
is
complex
because
EPA
expects
different
CAFO
groups
to
have
different
compliance
schedules
and
somewhat
different
compliance
needs
(
e.
g.,
not
all
CAFOs
incur
the
off­
site
transfer
burden
and
land
application­
related
burdens).
Exhibit
B
in
Appendix
3
summarizes
the
compliance
schedule
and
Exhibits
A.
4
and
A.
5
show
the
number
of
CAFO
and
State
respondents
and
responses,
respectively,
on
an
annual
basis
for
the
first
three
years.
Exhibits
A.
6
and
A.
7
in
Appendix
3
report
the
associated
annual
burden
estimates
and
annual
costs,
respectively.

In
addition
to
estimating
the
fraction
of
CAFOs
in
approved
States,
EPA
derived
assumptions
to
distribute
the
permits
among
general
and
individual
permits
as
well
as
the
number
of
individual
permits
requiring
hearings.
Although
the
active
EPA
ICR
0226.15
assumed
that
only
5
percent
of
all
CAFO
permits
obtained
individual
permits,
in
this
ICR,
EPA
has
assumed
that 
subsequent
to
the
final
rule 
30
percent
of
CAFOs
will
apply
for
an
individual
NPDES
permit
and
70
percent
will
submit
an
NOI
for
coverage
under
a
general
permit.
EPA
chose
this
more
conservative
estimate
because
only
22
of
the
43
approved
States
have
general
permits
for
CAFOs.
Although
EPA
predominantly
uses
general
permits
in
the
States
where
it
is
responsible
for
CAFO
permits
and
believes
that
many
of
the
newly
permitted
CAFOs
can
be
covered
by
a
general
permit,
it
is
possible
that
some
States
will
continue
to
rely
on
individual
permits.
There
is
no
readily
available
information
to
derive
an
estimate
of
the
distribution.
4
6e
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
Tables
This
section
provides
a
description
of
bottom
line
burden
and
cost
estimates
for
the
final
rule.
Table
6 
9
provides
a
summary
of
the
average
annual
number
of
respondents,
burden
hours,
and
costs
for
CAFO
and
State
respondents.
Detailed
information
can
be
found
in
Appendix
3.

6e(
i)
CAFO
Respondents
and
State
Respondents
The
bottom
line
burden
hours
and
costs
shown
in
Table
6 
9
reflect
the
average
annual
burden
hours
and
costs
for
all
ICR­
related
activities
performed
by
respondents
during
the
ICR
approval
period.
These
estimates
are
net
of
burden
for
45
individual
permit
applications
that
represent
the
overlap
between
this
ICR
and
the
Applications
ICR.
The
Applications
ICR
contains
135
individual
permit
applications
for
CAFOs
per
year.
EPA
assumed
the
4­
month
overlap
(
from
January
1,
2003
to
April
30,2003)
contained
one­
third
or
45
of
those
applications.
In
the
active
ICR,
the
CAFO
burden
per
application
was
9
hours
and
the
State
burden
for
review
was
1
hour
4
Because
CAFO
permit
information
is
not
consistently
available
through
PCS
and
because
States
use
a
variety
of
NPDES
and
non­
NPDES
permits
to
regulate
CAFO
activities,
EPA
has
not
been
able
determine
what
proportion
of
the
existing
permits
are
general
permits.
39
per
application.
Thus,
EPA
netted
out
405
hours
of
CAFO
burden
and
45
hours
of
State
burden
from
the
2003
burden
estimates
reported
for
this
ICR.

The
final
burden
and
cost
estimates
can
be
used
to
calculate
mean
burden
and
cost
per
respondent.
As
reported
in
Exhibit
A.
8
in
Appendix
3,
the
total
number
of
CAFO
respondents
in
the
first
three
years
is
35,737,
which
double
counts
any
CAFOs
that
perform
annual
activities
more
than
once
during
the
three­
year
ICR
approval
period.
The
annual
average
number
of
respondents
is
11,912
(
35,737
)
3).
The
total
burden
over
three
years
is
4.9
million
hours,
which
results
in
the
annual
average
burden
of
1.6
million
hours
reported
in
Table
6 
8
(
4.9
)
3).
Dividing
the
annual
average
burden
of
1.6
million
hours
by
11,912
respondents,
EPA
estimated
that
the
annual
average
burden
per
CAFO
respondent
is
approximately
138
hours.
The
annual
average
labor
cost
per
respondent
is
$
2,130
($
25.4
million
)
11,912).
These
estimates
include
burden
to
prepare
the
land
application
portion
of
the
NMP,
which
may
be
a
third­
party
burden.
Annual
average
total
cost
including
capital
and
O&
M
expenses
is
$
2,652
($
31.60
million
)

11,912).

The
State
burden
and
cost
estimates
in
Table
6 
9
can
be
used
to
calculate
mean
burden
and
cost
per
State;
actual
burdens
and
costs
will
vary
with
the
number
of
CAFOs
in
each
State.
There
are
43
States
that
will
incur
the
burden
and
costs
described
above.
On
average,
29
States
will
incur
burden
each
year,
which
assumes
a
gradual
phase­
in
across
States
of
program
changes
over
a
two­
year
period.
Dividing
the
annual
average
burden
of
almost
253,000
hours
for
all
States
by
29
gives
an
average
per
State
burden
of
8,700
hours.
Similarly,
the
average
annual
cost
per
State
is
$
0.26
million
for
labor
and
$
0.32
million
including
O&
M
costs
as
well.

Table
6 
9.
Summary
of
Average
Annual
CAFO
and
State
Respondents,
Burden
Hours,
and
Costs
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
(
Costs
in
millions
$
1999)

Respondent
Respondents
Responses
Burden
(
million
hours)
Labor
Costs
Capital
Costs
O
&
M
Costs
Total
Costs
CAFOs
11,912
83,932
1.64
$
25.4
$
2.9
$
3.3
$
31.6
States
29
16,946
0.25
$
7.5
$
0
$
1.7
$
9.2
Total
11,941
100,879
1.89
$
32.9
$
2.9
$
5.0
$
40.8
Detail
may
not
add
to
totals
because
of
independent
rounding.

6e(
ii)
Bottom
Line
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
EPA
estimated
the
Agency
burden
and
cost
using
the
compliance
schedule
described
in
Section
5d.
In
Appendix
3,
Exhibit
A.
5
shows
how
many
CAFO
permits
will
be
processed
per
year
during
the
three­
year
ICR
approval
period
and
Exhibits
A.
6
and
A.
7
in
Appendix
3
show
the
corresponding
burden
and
cost
estimates.
Under
the
final
rule,
the
average
annual
burden
for
EPA
is
estimated
to
be
approximately
8,150
hours
and
the
average
annual
cost
will
be
$
326,000.

6f
Burden
Statement
40
EPA
estimates
that
the
total
average
annual
public
burden
for
this
information
collection
request
would
be
1.89
million
hours,
including
0.25
million
hours
for
State
respondents
and
1.64
million
hours
for
all
CAFO
respondents
covered
by
this
ICR.
This
estimate
includes
the
time
required
to
review
instructions,
search
existing
data
sources,
gather
and
maintain
all
necessary
data,
and
complete
and
review
the
information
collection.
The
annual
average
estimate
of
11,941
respondents
includes
29
States
and
11,912
CAFO
respondents.
The
annual
average
number
of
responses
is
100,879,
which
includes
16,946
State
responses
and
83,932
CAFO
responses.
Average
annual
capital
costs
are
$
2.9
million
and
O&
M
costs
are
$
5.0
million.

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

Send
comments
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
through
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques
to
the
Director,
Collection
Strategies
Division,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
2822T),
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
N.
W.,
Washington,
DC
20460;
and
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17
th
Street,
NW,
Washington,
D.
C.
20503,
Attention:
Desk
Officer
for
EPA.
Include
the
EPA
ICR
number
(
1989.02)
and
OMB
control
number
in
any
correspondence.
41
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
42
References
Allen,
P.
1999
(
May
19).
Personal
Communication.
Environmental
Program
Manager,
Maryland
Department
of
Environment,
Water
Management
Administration.
(
310)
631­
3323.

Bazzell,
D.
2001.
Public
Comment
Submitted
in
Response
to
EPA's
CAFO
Rule.
Wisconsin
Department
of
Natural
Resources.
Doc#
CAFO201450.

Bureau
of
Labor.
2002a.
Consumer
Price
Index­
All
Urban
Consumers.
www.
bls.
gov.

­­­­­­­­­.
2002b.
Employer
Cost
for
Employee
Compensation.
www.
bls.
gov.
(
Series
Id.
CCU310000290000D,
Total
compensation,
Public
Administration,
State
and
local
government)

­­­­­­­­­.
2002c.
Employment
Cost
Index.
www.
bls.
gov.
(
Series
Id:
ECU20003A,
Wages
and
salaries,
State
and
local
government)

­­­­­­­­­.
2001.
2000
National
Industry­
Specific
Occupational
Employment
and
Wage
Estimates.
www.
bls.
gov.
(
SIC
902
­
State
Government)

Coats,
A.
2002.
EPA
Region
2.
Personal
communication.
July
24,
2002.

Domingo,
D.
2002.
EPA
Region
10.
Personal
communication.
July
24,
2002.

Government
Pay
Tables,
2001.
http://
www.
seemyad.
com/
gov/
USAPAY.
htm
Hammerberg,
E.
2002.
Maryland
Department
of
the
Environment.
Personal
Communication.
March
8,
2002.
(
410)
631­
3345.

Harsch,
J.
2002.
Kansas
Department
of
Health
and
Environment.
Personal
communication.
July
31,
2002.

Jones,
C.;
Speck,
S.;
Daily,
F.
2001.
Public
Comment
Submitted
in
Response
to
EPA's
CAFO
Rule.
Ohio
Department
of
Agriculture;
Ohio
Department
of
Natural
Resources;
Ohio
EPA.
Doc#
CAFO201851.

KauzLoric,
P.
1999.
Personal
Communication.
Dairy
Program
Coordinator,
Washington
Department
of
Ecology,
Water
Quality
Program,
Olympia,
WA.
May
11,
1999.
(
360)
407­
6413.

Kirkpatrick,
B.
2002.
Personal
Communication.
Arkansas
Dept
of
Environmental
Quality.
April
2,
2002.
(
501)
682­
0655.

Muldener,
K.
2001.
Public
Comment
Submitted
in
Response
to
EPA's
CAFO
Rule.
Kansas
Department
of
Health
and
Environment.
Doc#
CAFO202366.
43
Pirner,
S.
2001.
Public
Comment
Submitted
in
Response
to
EPA's
CAFO
Rule.
South
Dakota
Departments
of
Environment
and
Natural
Resources
and
Department
of
Agriculture.
Doc#
CAFO201739.
Sylvester,
S.
2002.
Wisconsin
Department
of
Natural
Resources.
Personal
communication.
August
1,
2002.

Tilley,
M.,
and
Kirkpatrick
B.
2002
(
March
12).
Personal
Communication.
Arkansas
Department
of
Environmental
Quality.
(
501)
682­
0655.

U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture
(
USDA).
2001.
Normalized
Market­
Clearing
Price
Estimates,
National­
Level
Indices
(
Table
2).

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
U.
S.
EPA).
2000/
2a.
Cost
Model
Development
Document
for
Beef
and
Dairy
CAFOs.

         .
2000/
2b.
Cost
Model
Development
Document
for
Swine
and
Poultry
CAFOs.

         .
2000/
2c.
Development
Document
for
the
Proposed
Regulatory
Revisions
to
the
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
Regulations
for
Concentrated
Animal
Feeding
Operations
and
Feedlot
Effluent
Limitations
Guidelines.

         .
2001
(
March).
State
Compendium:
Programs
and
Regulatory
Activities
Related
to
Animal
Feeding
Operations.

Office
of
Personnel
Management
(
OPM).
1999.
Work
Years
and
Personnel
Costs:
Fiscal
Year
1998.
OMSOE­
OWI­
98­
12
Washington,
D.
C.:
U.
S.
Office
of
Personnel
Management.

Van
Soestbergen,
J.
2002
(
March
11).
Personal
Communication.
Virginia
Department
of
Environmental
Quality.

Willhite,
M.
2001
(
July
30).
Public
Comment
Submitted
in
Response
to
EPA's
CAFO
Rule.
Illinois
EPA.
Doc#
CAFO202080.

Wrenn,
B.
2002
(
August
15).
Personal
Communication.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
44
Appendix
1.
Legal
Authority
United
States
Code,
Title
33
(
Navigation
and
Navigable
Waters),
Chapter
26
(
Water
Pollution
Prevention
and
Control),
Subchapter
III
(
Standards
and
Enforcement)

Sec.
1311.
Effluent
limitations
Sec.
1318.
Records
and
reports;
inspections
United
States
Code,
Title
33
(
Navigation
and
Navigable
Waters),
Chapter
26
(
Water
Pollution
Prevention
and
Control),
Subchapter
IV
(
Permits
and
Licences)

Sec.
1341.
Certification
Sec.
1342.
National
pollutant
discharge
elimination
system
United
States
Code,
Title
33
(
Navigation
and
Navigable
Waters),
Chapter
26
(
Water
Pollution
Prevention
and
Control),
Subchapter
V
(
General
Provisions)

Sec.
1362.
Definitions
Clean
Water
Act
Section
308.
Inspections,
monitoring,
and
entry
45
45
United
States
Code
Title
33
(
Navigation
and
Navigable
Waters)
Chapter
26
(
Water
Pollution
Prevention
and
Control)
Subchapter
III
(
Standards
and
Enforcement)

Sec.
1311.
Effluent
limitations
(
5)
(
a)
Illegality
of
pollutant
discharges
except
in
compliance
with
law
Except
as
in
compliance
with
this
section
and
sections
1312,
1316,
1317,
1328,
1342,
and
1344
of
this
title,
the
discharge
of
any
pollutant
by
any
person
shall
be
unlawful.

(
b)
Timetable
for
achievement
of
objectives
In
order
to
carry
out
the
objective
of
this
chapter
there
shall
be
achieved
­
(
1)
(
A)
not
later
than
July
1,
1977,
effluent
limitations
for
point
sources,
other
than
publicly
owned
treatment
works,
(
i)
which
shall
require
the
application
of
the
best
practicable
control
technology
currently
available
as
defined
by
the
Administrator
pursuant
to
section
1314(
b)
of
this
title,
or
(
ii)
in
the
case
of
a
discharge
into
a
publicly
owned
treatment
works
which
meets
the
requirements
of
subparagraph
(
B)
of
this
paragraph,
which
shall
require
compliance
with
any
applicable
pretreatment
requirements
and
any
requirements
under
section
1317
of
this
title;
and
(
B)
for
publicly
owned
treatment
works
in
existence
on
July
1,
1977,
or
approved
pursuant
to
section
1283
of
this
title
prior
to
June
30,
1974
(
for
which
construction
must
be
completed
within
four
years
of
approval),
effluent
limitations
based
upon
secondary
treatment
as
defined
by
the
Administrator
pursuant
to
section
1314(
d)(
1)
of
this
title;
or,
(
C)
not
later
than
July
1,
1977,
any
more
stringent
limitation,
including
those
necessary
to
meet
water
quality
standards,
treatment
standards,
or
schedules
of
compliance,
established
pursuant
to
any
State
law
or
regulations
(
under
authority
preserved
by
section
1370
of
this
title)
or
any
other
Federal
law
or
regulation,
or
required
to
implement
any
applicable
water
quality
standard
established
pursuant
to
this
chapter.
(
2)
(
A)
for
pollutants
identified
in
subparagraphs
(
C),
(
D),
and
(
F)
of
this
paragraph,
effluent
limitations
for
categories
and
classes
of
point
sources,
other
than
publicly
owned
treatment
works,
which
(
i)
shall
require
application
of
the
best
available
technology
economically
achievable
for
such
category
or
class,
which
will
result
in
reasonable
further
progress
toward
the
national
goal
of
eliminating
the
discharge
of
all
pollutants,
as
determined
in
accordance
with
regulations
issued
by
the
46
46
Administrator
pursuant
to
section
1314(
b)(
2)
of
this
title,
which
such
effluent
limitations
shall
require
the
elimination
of
discharges
of
all
pollutants
if
the
Administrator
finds,
on
the
basis
of
information
available
to
him
(
including
information
developed
pursuant
to
section
1325
of
this
title),
that
such
elimination
is
technologically
and
economically
achievable
for
a
category
or
class
of
point
sources
as
determined
in
accordance
with
regulations
issued
by
the
Administrator
pursuant
to
section
1314(
b)(
2)
of
this
title,
or
(
ii)
in
the
case
of
the
introduction
of
a
pollutant
into
a
publicly
owned
treatment
works
which
meets
the
requirements
of
subparagraph
(
B)
of
this
paragraph,
shall
require
compliance
with
any
applicable
pretreatment
requirements
and
any
other
requirement
under
section
1317
of
this
title;
(
B)
Repealed.
Pub.
L.
97­
117,
Sec.
21(
b),
Dec.
29,
1981,
95
Stat.
1632.
(
C)
with
respect
to
all
toxic
pollutants
referred
to
in
table
1
of
Committee
Print
Numbered
95­
30
of
the
Committee
on
Public
Works
and
Transportation
of
the
House
of
Representatives
compliance
with
effluent
limitations
in
accordance
with
subparagraph
(
A)
of
this
paragraph
as
expeditiously
as
practicable
but
in
no
case
later
than
three
years
after
the
date
such
limitations
are
promulgated
under
section
1314(
b)
of
this
title,
and
in
no
case
later
than
March
31,
1989;
(
D)
for
all
toxic
pollutants
listed
under
paragraph
(
1)
of
subsection
(
a)
of
section
1317
of
this
title
which
are
not
referred
to
in
subparagraph
(
C)
of
this
paragraph
compliance
with
effluent
limitations
in
accordance
with
subparagraph
(
A)
of
this
paragraph
as
expeditiously
as
practicable,
but
in
no
case
later
than
three
years
after
the
date
such
limitations
are
promulgated
under
section
1314(
b)
of
this
title,
and
in
no
case
later
than
March
31,
1989;
(
E)
as
expeditiously
as
practicable
but
in
no
case
later
than
three
years
after
the
date
such
limitations
are
promulgated
under
section
1314(
b)
of
this
title,
and
in
no
case
later
than
March
31,
1989,
compliance
with
effluent
limitations
for
categories
and
classes
of
point
sources,
other
than
publicly
owned
treatment
works,
which
in
the
case
of
pollutants
identified
pursuant
to
section
1314(
a)(
4)
of
this
title
shall
require
application
of
the
best
conventional
pollutant
control
technology
as
determined
in
accordance
with
regulations
issued
by
the
Administrator
pursuant
to
section
1314(
b)(
4)
of
this
title;
and
(
F)
for
all
pollutants
(
other
than
those
subject
to
subparagraphs
(
C),
(
D),
or
(
E)
of
this
paragraph)
compliance
with
effluent
limitations
in
accordance
with
subparagraph
(
A)
of
this
paragraph
as
expeditiously
as
practicable
but
in
no
case
later
than
3
years
after
the
date
such
limitations
are
established,
and
in
no
case
later
than
March
31,
1989.
(
3)
(
A)
for
effluent
limitations
under
paragraph
(
1)(
A)(
i)
of
this
subsection
promulgated
after
January
1,
1982,
and
requiring
a
level
of
control
substantially
greater
or
based
on
fundamentally
different
control
technology
than
under
permits
for
an
industrial
47
47
category
issued
before
such
date,
compliance
as
expeditiously
as
practicable
but
in
no
case
later
than
three
years
after
the
date
such
limitations
are
promulgated
under
section
1314(
b)
of
this
title,
and
in
no
case
later
than
March
31,
1989;
and
(
B)
for
any
effluent
limitation
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
1)(
A)(
i),
(
2)(
A)(
i),
or
(
2)(
E)
of
this
subsection
established
only
on
the
basis
of
section
1342(
a)(
1)
of
this
title
in
a
permit
issued
after
February
4,
1987,
compliance
as
expeditiously
as
practicable
but
in
no
case
later
than
three
years
after
the
date
such
limitations
are
established,
and
in
no
case
later
than
March
31,
1989.

(
c)
Modification
of
timetable
The
Administrator
may
modify
the
requirements
of
subsection
(
b)(
2)(
A)
of
this
section
with
respect
to
any
point
source
for
which
a
permit
application
is
filed
after
July
1,
1977,
upon
a
showing
by
the
owner
or
operator
of
such
point
source
satisfactory
to
the
Administrator
that
such
modified
requirements
(
1)
will
represent
the
maximum
use
of
technology
within
the
economic
capability
of
the
owner
or
operator;
and
(
2)
will
result
in
reasonable
further
progress
toward
the
elimination
of
the
discharge
of
pollutants.
(
d)
Review
and
revision
of
effluent
limitations
Any
effluent
limitation
required
by
paragraph
(
2)
of
subsection
(
b)
of
this
section
shall
be
reviewed
at
least
every
five
years
and,
if
appropriate,
revised
pursuant
to
the
procedure
established
under
such
paragraph.

(
e)
All
point
discharge
source
application
of
effluent
limitations
Effluent
limitations
established
pursuant
to
this
section
or
section
1312
of
this
title
shall
be
applied
to
all
point
sources
of
discharge
of
pollutants
in
accordance
with
the
provisions
of
this
chapter.

(
f)
Illegality
of
discharge
of
radiological,
chemical,
or
biological
warfare
agents,
high­
level
radioactive
waste,
or
medical
waste
Notwithstanding
any
other
provisions
of
this
chapter
it
shall
be
unlawful
to
discharge
any
radiological,
chemical,
or
biological
warfare
agent,
any
high­
level
radioactive
waste,
or
any
medical
waste,
into
the
navigable
waters.

(
g)
Modifications
for
certain
nonconventional
pollutants
(
1)
General
authority
The
Administrator,
with
the
concurrence
of
the
State,
may
modify
the
requirements
of
subsection
(
b)(
2)(
A)
of
this
section
with
respect
to
the
discharge
from
any
point
source
of
ammonia,
chlorine,
color,
iron,
and
total
phenols
(
4AAP)
(
when
determined
by
the
Administrator
to
be
a
pollutant
covered
by
subsection
(
b)(
2)(
F)
of
this
section)
and
any
other
pollutant
which
the
Administrator
lists
under
paragraph
(
4)
of
this
subsection.
48
48
(
2)
Requirements
for
granting
modifications
A
modification
under
this
subsection
shall
be
granted
only
upon
a
showing
by
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
point
source
satisfactory
to
the
Administrator
that
­
(
A)
such
modified
requirements
will
result
at
a
minimum
in
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
subsection
(
b)(
1)(
A)
or
(
C)
of
this
section,
whichever
is
applicable;
(
B)
such
modified
requirements
will
not
result
in
any
additional
requirements
on
any
other
point
or
nonpoint
source;
and
(
C)
such
modification
will
not
interfere
with
the
attainment
or
maintenance
of
that
water
quality
which
shall
assure
protection
of
public
water
supplies,
and
the
protection
and
propagation
of
a
balanced
population
of
shellfish,
fish,
and
wildlife,
and
allow
recreational
activities,
in
and
on
the
water
and
such
modification
will
not
result
in
the
discharge
of
pollutants
in
quantities
which
may
reasonably
be
anticipated
to
pose
an
unacceptable
risk
to
human
health
or
the
environment
because
of
bioaccumulation,
persistency
in
the
environment,
acute
toxicity,
chronic
toxicity
(
including
carcinogenicity,
mutagenicity
or
teratogenicity),
or
synergistic
propensities.
(
3)
Limitation
on
authority
to
apply
for
subsection
(
c)
modification
If
an
owner
or
operator
of
a
point
source
applies
for
a
modification
under
this
subsection
with
respect
to
the
discharge
of
any
pollutant,
such
owner
or
operator
shall
be
eligible
to
apply
for
modification
under
subsection
(
c)
of
this
section
with
respect
to
such
pollutant
only
during
the
same
time
period
as
he
is
eligible
to
apply
for
a
modification
under
this
subsection.
(
4)
Procedures
for
listing
additional
pollutants
(
A)
General
authority
Upon
petition
of
any
person,
the
Administrator
may
add
any
pollutant
to
the
list
of
pollutants
for
which
modification
under
this
section
is
authorized
(
except
for
pollutants
identified
pursuant
to
section
1314(
a)(
4)
of
this
title,
toxic
pollutants
subject
to
section
1317(
a)
of
this
title,
and
the
thermal
component
of
discharges)
in
accordance
with
the
provisions
of
this
paragraph.
(
B)
Requirements
for
listing
­
(
i)
Sufficient
information
The
person
petitioning
for
listing
of
an
additional
pollutant
under
this
subsection
shall
submit
to
the
Administrator
sufficient
information
to
make
the
determinations
required
by
this
subparagraph.
­
(
ii)
Toxic
criteria
determination
The
Administrator
shall
determine
whether
or
not
the
pollutant
meets
the
criteria
for
listing
as
a
toxic
pollutant
under
section
1317(
a)
of
this
title.
­
(
iii)
Listing
as
toxic
pollutant
49
49
If
the
Administrator
determines
that
the
pollutant
meets
the
criteria
for
listing
as
a
toxic
pollutant
under
section
1317(
a)
of
this
title,
the
Administrator
shall
list
the
pollutant
as
a
toxic
pollutant
under
section
1317(
a)
of
this
title.
­
(
iv)
Nonconventional
criteria
determination
If
the
Administrator
determines
that
the
pollutant
does
not
meet
the
criteria
for
listing
as
a
toxic
pollutant
under
such
section
and
determines
that
adequate
test
methods
and
sufficient
data
are
available
to
make
the
determinations
required
by
paragraph
(
2)
of
this
subsection
with
respect
to
the
pollutant,
the
Administrator
shall
add
the
pollutant
to
the
list
of
pollutants
specified
in
paragraph
(
1)
of
this
subsection
for
which
modifications
are
authorized
under
this
subsection.
(
C)
Requirements
for
filing
of
petitions
A
petition
for
listing
of
a
pollutant
under
this
paragraph
­
­
(
i)
must
be
filed
not
later
than
270
days
after
the
date
of
promulgation
of
an
­
(
ii)
may
be
filed
before
promulgation
of
such
guideline;
and
­
(
iii)
may
be
filed
with
an
application
for
a
modification
under
paragraph
(
1)
with
(
D)
Deadline
for
approval
of
petition
A
decision
to
add
a
pollutant
to
the
list
of
pollutants
for
which
modifications
under
this
subsection
are
authorized
must
be
made
within
270
days
after
the
date
of
promulgation
of
an
applicable
effluent
guideline
under
section
1314
of
this
title.
(
E)
Burden
of
proof
The
burden
of
proof
for
making
the
determinations
under
subparagraph
(
B)
shall
be
on
the
petitioner.
(
5)
Removal
of
pollutants
The
Administrator
may
remove
any
pollutant
from
the
list
of
pollutants
for
which
modifications
are
authorized
under
this
subsection
if
the
Administrator
determines
that
adequate
test
methods
and
sufficient
data
are
no
longer
available
for
determining
whether
or
not
modifications
may
be
granted
with
respect
to
such
pollutant
under
paragraph
(
2)
of
this
subsection.

(
h)
Modification
of
secondary
treatment
requirements
The
Administrator,
with
the
concurrence
of
the
State,
may
issue
a
permit
under
section
1342
of
this
title
which
modifies
the
requirements
of
subsection
(
b)(
1)(
B)
of
this
section
with
respect
to
the
discharge
of
any
pollutant
from
a
publicly
owned
treatment
works
into
marine
waters,
if
the
applicant
demonstrates
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
Administrator
that
­
(
1)
there
is
an
applicable
water
quality
standard
specific
to
the
pollutant
for
which
the
modification
is
requested,
which
has
been
identified
under
section
1314(
a)(
6)
of
this
title;
(
2)
the
discharge
of
pollutants
in
accordance
with
such
modified
requirements
will
not
interfere,
alone
or
in
combination
with
pollutants
from
other
sources,
with
the
attainment
or
maintenance
of
that
water
quality
which
assures
protection
of
public
water
supplies
50
50
and
the
protection
and
propagation
of
a
balanced,
indigenous
population
of
shellfish,
fish,
and
wildlife,
and
allows
recreational
activities,
in
and
on
the
water;
(
3)
the
applicant
has
established
a
system
for
monitoring
the
impact
of
such
discharge
on
a
representative
sample
of
aquatic
biota,
to
the
extent
practicable,
and
the
scope
of
such
monitoring
is
limited
to
include
only
those
scientific
investigations
which
are
necessary
to
study
the
effects
of
the
proposed
discharge;
(
4)
such
modified
requirements
will
not
result
in
any
additional
requirements
on
any
other
point
or
nonpoint
source;
(
5)
all
applicable
pretreatment
requirements
for
sources
introducing
waste
into
such
treatment
works
will
be
enforced;
(
6)
in
the
case
of
any
treatment
works
serving
a
population
of
50,000
or
more,
with
respect
to
any
toxic
pollutant
introduced
into
such
works
by
an
industrial
discharger
for
which
pollutant
there
is
no
applicable
pretreatment
requirement
in
effect,
sources
introducing
waste
into
such
works
are
in
compliance
with
all
applicable
pretreatment
requirements,
the
applicant
will
enforce
such
requirements,
and
the
applicant
has
in
effect
a
pretreatment
program
which,
in
combination
with
the
treatment
of
discharges
from
such
works,
removes
the
same
amount
of
such
pollutant
as
would
be
removed
if
such
works
were
to
apply
secondary
treatment
to
discharges
and
if
such
works
had
no
pretreatment
program
with
respect
to
such
pollutant;
(
7)
to
the
extent
practicable,
the
applicant
has
established
a
schedule
of
activities
designed
to
eliminate
the
entrance
of
toxic
pollutants
from
nonindustrial
sources
into
such
treatment
works;
(
8)
there
will
be
no
new
or
substantially
increased
discharges
from
the
point
source
of
the
pollutant
to
which
the
modification
applies
above
that
volume
of
discharge
specified
in
the
permit;
(
9)
the
applicant
at
the
time
such
modification
becomes
effective
will
be
discharging
effluent
which
has
received
at
least
primary
or
equivalent
treatment
and
which
meets
the
criteria
established
under
section
1314(
a)(
1)
of
this
title
after
initial
mixing
in
the
waters
surrounding
or
adjacent
to
the
point
at
which
such
effluent
is
discharged.
For
the
purposes
of
this
subsection
the
phrase
''
the
discharge
of
any
pollutant
into
marine
waters''
refers
to
a
discharge
into
deep
waters
of
the
territorial
sea
or
the
waters
of
the
contiguous
zone,
or
into
saline
estuarine
waters
where
there
is
strong
tidal
movement
and
other
hydrological
and
geological
characteristics
which
the
Administrator
determines
necessary
to
allow
compliance
with
paragraph
(
2)
of
this
subsection,
and
section
1251(
a)(
2)
of
this
title.
For
the
purposes
of
paragraph
(
9),
''
primary
or
equivalent
treatment''
means
treatment
by
screening,
sedimentation,
and
skimming
adequate
to
remove
at
least
30
percent
of
the
biological
oxygen
demanding
material
and
of
the
suspended
solids
in
the
treatment
works
influent,
and
disinfection,
where
appropriate.
A
municipality
which
applies
secondary
treatment
shall
be
eligible
to
receive
a
permit
pursuant
to
this
51
51
subsection
which
modifies
the
requirements
of
subsection
(
b)(
1)(
B)
of
this
section
with
respect
to
the
discharge
of
any
pollutant
from
any
treatment
works
owned
by
such
municipality
into
marine
waters.
No
permit
issued
under
this
subsection
shall
authorize
the
discharge
of
sewage
sludge
into
marine
waters.
In
order
for
a
permit
to
be
issued
under
this
subsection
for
the
discharge
of
a
pollutant
into
marine
waters,
such
marine
waters
must
exhibit
characteristics
assuring
that
water
providing
dilution
does
not
contain
significant
amounts
of
previously
discharged
effluent
from
such
treatment
works.
No
permit
issued
under
this
subsection
shall
authorize
the
discharge
of
any
pollutant
into
saline
estuarine
waters
which
at
the
time
of
application
do
not
support
a
balanced
indigenous
population
of
shellfish,
fish
and
wildlife,
or
allow
recreation
in
and
on
the
waters
or
which
exhibit
ambient
water
quality
below
applicable
water
quality
standards
adopted
for
the
protection
of
public
water
supplies,
shellfish,
fish
and
wildlife
or
recreational
activities
or
such
other
standards
necessary
to
assure
support
and
protection
of
such
uses.
The
prohibition
contained
in
the
preceding
sentence
shall
apply
without
regard
to
the
presence
or
absence
of
a
causal
relationship
between
such
characteristics
and
the
applicant's
current
or
proposed
discharge.
Notwithstanding
any
other
provisions
of
this
subsection,
no
permit
may
be
issued
under
this
subsection
for
discharge
of
a
pollutant
into
the
New
York
Bight
Apex
consisting
of
the
ocean
waters
of
the
Atlantic
Ocean
westward
of
73
degrees
30
minutes
west
longitude
and
northward
of
40
degrees
10
minutes
north
latitude.

(
i)
Municipal
time
extensions
52
52
(
1)
Where
construction
is
required
in
order
for
a
planned
or
existing
publicly
owned
treatment
works
to
achieve
limitations
under
subsection
(
b)(
1)(
B)
or
(
b)(
1)(
C)
of
this
section,
but
(
A)
construction
cannot
be
completed
within
the
time
required
in
such
subsection,
or
(
B)
the
United
States
has
failed
to
make
financial
assistance
under
this
chapter
available
in
time
to
achieve
such
limitations
by
the
time
specified
in
such
subsection,
the
owner
or
operator
of
such
treatment
works
may
request
the
Administrator
(
or
if
appropriate
the
State)
to
issue
a
permit
pursuant
to
section
1342
of
this
title
or
to
modify
a
permit
issued
pursuant
to
that
section
to
extend
such
time
for
compliance.
Any
such
request
shall
be
filed
with
the
Administrator
(
or
if
appropriate
the
State)
within
180
days
after
February
4,
1987.
The
Administrator
(
or
if
appropriate
the
State)
may
grant
such
request
and
issue
or
modify
such
a
permit,
which
shall
contain
a
schedule
of
compliance
for
the
publicly
owned
treatment
works
based
on
the
earliest
date
by
which
such
financial
assistance
will
be
available
from
the
United
States
and
construction
can
be
completed,
but
in
no
event
later
than
July
1,
1988,
and
shall
contain
such
other
terms
and
conditions,
including
those
necessary
to
carry
out
subsections
(
b)
through
(
g)
of
section
1281
of
this
title,
section
1317
of
this
title,
and
such
interim
effluent
limitations
applicable
to
that
treatment
works
as
the
Administrator
determines
are
necessary
to
carry
out
the
provisions
of
this
chapter.
(
2)
(
A)
Where
a
point
source
(
other
than
a
publicly
owned
treatment
works)
will
not
achieve
the
requirements
of
subsections
(
b)(
1)(
A)
and
(
b)(
1)(
C)
of
this
section
and
­
­
(
i)
if
a
permit
issued
prior
to
July
1,
1977,
to
such
point
source
is
based
upon
a
discharge
into
a
publicly
owned
treatment
works;
or
­
(
ii)
if
such
point
source
(
other
than
a
publicly
owned
treatment
works)
had
before
July
1,
1977,
a
contract
(
enforceable
against
such
point
source)
to
discharge
into
a
publicly
owned
treatment
works;
or
­
(
iii)
if
either
an
application
made
before
July
1,
1977,
for
a
construction
grant
under
this
chapter
for
a
publicly
owned
treatment
works,
or
engineering
or
architectural
plans
or
working
drawings
made
before
July
1,
1977,
for
a
publicly
owned
treatment
works,
show
that
such
point
source
was
to
discharge
into
such
publicly
owned
treatment
works,
and
such
publicly
owned
treatment
works
is
presently
unable
to
accept
such
discharge
without
construction,
and
in
the
case
of
a
discharge
to
an
existing
publicly
owned
treatment
works,
such
treatment
works
has
an
extension
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
1)
of
this
subsection,
the
owner
or
operator
of
such
point
source
may
request
the
Administrator
(
or
if
appropriate
the
State)
to
issue
or
modify
such
a
permit
pursuant
to
such
section
1342
of
this
title
to
extend
such
time
for
compliance.
Any
such
request
shall
be
filed
with
the
Administrator
(
or
if
appropriate
the
State)
within
180
days
after
December
27,
1977,
or
the
filing
of
a
request
by
the
53
53
appropriate
publicly
owned
treatment
works
under
paragraph
(
1)
of
this
subsection,
whichever
is
later.
If
the
Administrator
(
or
if
appropriate
the
State)
finds
that
the
owner
or
operator
of
such
point
source
has
acted
in
good
faith,
he
may
grant
such
request
and
issue
or
modify
such
a
permit,
which
shall
contain
a
schedule
of
compliance
for
the
point
source
to
achieve
the
requirements
of
subsections
(
b)(
1)(
A)
and
(
C)
of
this
section
and
shall
contain
such
other
terms
and
conditions,
including
pretreatment
and
interim
effluent
limitations
and
water
conservation
requirements
applicable
to
that
point
source,
as
the
Administrator
determines
are
necessary
to
carry
out
the
provisions
of
this
chapter.
(
B)
No
time
modification
granted
by
the
Administrator
(
or
if
appropriate
the
State)
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
2)(
A)
of
this
subsection
shall
extend
beyond
the
earliest
date
practicable
for
compliance
or
beyond
the
date
of
any
extension
granted
to
the
appropriate
publicly
owned
treatment
works
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
1)
of
this
subsection,
but
in
no
event
shall
it
extend
beyond
July
1,
1988;
and
no
such
time
modification
shall
be
granted
unless
(
i)
the
publicly
owned
treatment
works
will
be
in
operation
and
available
to
the
point
source
before
July
1,
1988,
and
will
meet
the
requirements
of
subsections
(
b)(
1)(
B)
and
(
C)
of
this
section
after
receiving
the
discharge
from
that
point
source;
and
(
ii)
the
point
source
and
the
publicly
owned
treatment
works
have
entered
into
an
enforceable
contract
requiring
the
point
source
to
discharge
into
the
publicly
owned
treatment
works,
the
owner
or
operator
of
such
point
source
to
pay
the
costs
required
under
section
1284
of
this
title,
and
the
publicly
owned
treatment
works
to
accept
the
discharge
from
the
point
source;
and
(
iii)
the
permit
for
such
point
source
requires
that
point
source
to
meet
all
requirements
under
section
1317(
a)
and
(
b)
of
this
title
during
the
period
of
such
time
modification.

(
j)
Modification
procedures
(
1)
Any
application
filed
under
this
section
for
a
modification
of
the
provisions
of
(
A)
subsection
(
b)(
1)(
B)
of
this
section
under
subsection
(
h)
of
this
section
shall
be
filed
not
later
that
[
1]
the
365th
day
which
begins
after
December
29,
1981,
except
that
a
publicly
owned
treatment
works
which
prior
to
December
31,
1982,
had
a
contractual
arrangement
to
use
a
portion
of
the
capacity
of
an
ocean
outfall
operated
by
another
publicly
owned
treatment
works
which
has
applied
for
or
received
modification
under
subsection
(
h)
of
this
section,
may
apply
for
a
modification
of
subsection
(
h)
of
this
section
in
its
own
right
not
later
than
30
days
after
February
4,
1987,
and
except
as
provided
in
paragraph
(
5);
(
B)
subsection
(
b)(
2)(
A)
of
this
section
as
it
applies
to
pollutants
identified
in
subsection
(
b)(
2)(
F)
of
this
section
shall
be
filed
not
later
than
270
days
after
the
date
of
promulgation
of
an
applicable
effluent
guideline
under
section
1314
of
this
title
or
not
later
than
270
days
after
December
27,
1977,
whichever
is
later.
54
54
(
2)
Subject
to
paragraph
(
3)
of
this
section,
any
application
for
a
modification
filed
under
subsection
(
g)
of
this
section
shall
not
operate
to
stay
any
requirement
under
this
chapter,
unless
in
the
judgment
of
the
Administrator
such
a
stay
or
the
modification
sought
will
not
result
in
the
discharge
of
pollutants
in
quantities
which
may
reasonably
be
anticipated
to
pose
an
unacceptable
risk
to
human
health
or
the
environment
because
of
bioaccumulation,
persistency
in
the
environment,
acute
toxicity,
chronic
toxicity
(
including
carcinogenicity,
mutagenicity,
or
teratogenicity),
or
synergistic
propensities,
and
that
there
is
a
substantial
likelihood
that
the
applicant
will
succeed
on
the
merits
of
such
application.
In
the
case
of
an
application
filed
under
subsection
(
g)
of
this
section,
the
Administrator
may
condition
any
stay
granted
under
this
paragraph
on
requiring
the
filing
of
a
bond
or
other
appropriate
security
to
assure
timely
compliance
with
the
requirements
from
which
a
modification
is
sought.
(
3)
Compliance
requirements
under
subsection
(
g).
­
(
A)
Effect
of
filing.
­
An
application
for
a
modification
under
subsection
(
g)
of
this
section
and
a
petition
for
listing
of
a
pollutant
as
a
pollutant
for
which
modifications
are
authorized
under
such
subsection
shall
not
stay
the
requirement
that
the
person
seeking
such
modification
or
listing
comply
with
effluent
limitations
under
this
chapter
for
all
pollutants
not
the
subject
of
such
application
or
petition.
(
B)
Effect
of
disapproval.
­
Disapproval
of
an
application
for
a
modification
under
subsection
(
g)
of
this
section
shall
not
stay
the
requirement
that
the
person
seeking
such
modification
comply
with
all
applicable
effluent
limitations
under
this
chapter.
(
4)
Deadline
for
subsection
(
g)
decision.
­
An
application
for
a
modification
with
respect
to
a
pollutant
filed
under
subsection
(
g)
of
this
section
must
be
approved
or
disapproved
not
later
than
365
days
after
the
date
of
such
filing;
except
that
in
any
case
in
which
a
petition
for
listing
such
pollutant
as
a
pollutant
for
which
modifications
are
authorized
under
such
subsection
is
approved,
such
application
must
be
approved
or
disapproved
not
later
than
365
days
after
the
date
of
approval
of
such
petition.
(
5)
Extension
of
application
deadline.
­
(
A)
In
general.
­
In
the
180­
day
period
beginning
on
October
31,
1994,
the
city
of
San
Diego,
California,
may
apply
for
a
modification
pursuant
to
subsection
(
h)
of
this
section
of
the
requirements
of
subsection
(
b)(
1)(
B)
of
this
section
with
respect
to
biological
oxygen
demand
and
total
suspended
solids
in
the
effluent
discharged
into
marine
waters.
(
B)
Application.
­
An
application
under
this
paragraph
shall
include
a
commitment
by
the
applicant
to
implement
a
waste
water
reclamation
program
that,
at
a
minimum,
will
­
(
i)
achieve
a
system
capacity
of
45,000,000
gallons
of
reclaimed
waste
water
per
day
by
January
1,
2010;
and
55
55
­
(
ii)
result
in
a
reduction
in
the
quantity
of
suspended
solids
discharged
by
the
applicant
into
the
marine
environment
during
the
period
of
the
modification.
(
C)
Additional
conditions.
­
The
Administrator
may
not
grant
a
modification
pursuant
to
an
application
submitted
under
this
paragraph
unless
the
Administrator
determines
that
such
modification
will
result
in
removal
of
not
less
than
58
percent
of
the
biological
oxygen
demand
(
on
an
annual
average)
and
not
less
than
80
percent
of
total
suspended
solids
(
on
a
monthly
average)
in
the
discharge
to
which
the
application
applies.
(
D)
Preliminary
decision
deadline.
­
The
Administrator
shall
announce
a
preliminary
decision
on
an
application
submitted
under
this
paragraph
not
later
than
1
year
after
the
date
the
application
is
submitted.

(
k)
Innovative
technology
In
the
case
of
any
facility
subject
to
a
permit
under
section
1342
of
this
title
which
proposes
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
subsection
(
b)(
2)(
A)
or
(
b)(
2)(
E)
of
this
section
by
replacing
existing
production
capacity
with
an
innovative
production
process
which
will
result
in
an
effluent
reduction
significantly
greater
than
that
required
by
the
limitation
otherwise
applicable
to
such
facility
and
moves
toward
the
national
goal
of
eliminating
the
discharge
of
all
pollutants,
or
with
the
installation
of
an
innovative
control
technique
that
has
a
substantial
likelihood
for
enabling
the
facility
to
comply
with
the
applicable
effluent
limitation
by
achieving
a
significantly
greater
effluent
reduction
than
that
required
by
the
applicable
effluent
limitation
and
moves
toward
the
national
goal
of
eliminating
the
discharge
of
all
pollutants,
or
by
achieving
the
required
reduction
with
an
innovative
system
that
has
the
potential
for
significantly
lower
costs
than
the
systems
which
have
been
determined
by
the
Administrator
to
be
economically
achievable,
the
Administrator
(
or
the
State
with
an
approved
program
under
section
1342
of
this
title,
in
consultation
with
the
Administrator)
may
establish
a
date
for
compliance
under
subsection
(
b)(
2)(
A)
or
(
b)(
2)(
E)
of
this
section
no
later
than
two
years
after
the
date
for
compliance
with
such
effluent
limitation
which
would
otherwise
be
applicable
under
such
subsection,
if
it
is
also
determined
that
such
innovative
system
has
the
potential
for
industrywide
application.

(
l)
Toxic
pollutants
Other
than
as
provided
in
subsection
(
n)
of
this
section,
the
Administrator
may
not
modify
any
requirement
of
this
section
as
it
applies
to
any
specific
pollutant
which
is
on
the
toxic
pollutant
list
under
section
1317(
a)(
1)
of
this
title.

(
m)
Modification
of
effluent
limitation
requirements
for
point
sources
(
1)
The
Administrator,
with
the
concurrence
of
the
State,
may
issue
a
permit
under
section
1342
of
this
title
which
modifies
the
requirements
of
subsections
(
b)(
1)(
A)
and
56
56
(
b)(
2)(
E)
of
this
section,
and
of
section
1343
of
this
title,
with
respect
to
effluent
limitations
to
the
extent
such
limitations
relate
to
biochemical
oxygen
demand
and
pH
from
discharges
by
an
industrial
discharger
in
such
State
into
deep
waters
of
the
territorial
seas,
if
the
applicant
demonstrates
and
the
Administrator
finds
that
(
A)
the
facility
for
which
modification
is
sought
is
covered
at
the
time
of
the
enactment
of
this
subsection
by
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
permit
number
CA0005894
or
CA0005282;
(
B)
the
energy
and
environmental
costs
of
meeting
such
requirements
of
subsections
(
b)(
1)(
A)
and
(
b)(
2)(
E)
of
this
section
and
section
1343
of
this
title
exceed
by
an
unreasonable
amount
the
benefits
to
be
obtained,
including
the
objectives
of
this
chapter;
(
C)
the
applicant
has
established
a
system
for
monitoring
the
impact
of
such
discharges
on
a
representative
sample
of
aquatic
biota;
(
D)
such
modified
requirements
will
not
result
in
any
additional
requirements
on
any
other
point
or
nonpoint
source;
(
E)
there
will
be
no
new
or
substantially
increased
discharges
from
the
point
source
of
the
pollutant
to
which
the
modification
applies
above
that
volume
of
discharge
specified
in
the
permit;
(
F)
the
discharge
is
into
waters
where
there
is
strong
tidal
movement
and
other
hydrological
and
geological
characteristics
which
are
necessary
to
allow
compliance
with
this
subsection
and
section
1251(
a)(
2)
of
this
title;
(
G)
the
applicant
accepts
as
a
condition
to
the
permit
a
contractural
[
2]
obligation
to
use
funds
in
the
amount
required
(
but
not
less
than
$
250,000
per
year
for
ten
years)
for
research
and
development
of
water
pollution
control
technology,
including
but
not
limited
to
closed
cycle
technology;
(
H)
the
facts
and
circumstances
present
a
unique
situation
which,
if
relief
is
granted,
will
not
establish
a
precedent
or
the
relaxation
of
the
requirements
of
this
chapter
applicable
to
similarly
situated
discharges;
and
(
I)
no
owner
or
operator
of
a
facility
comparable
to
that
of
the
applicant
situated
in
the
United
States
has
demonstrated
that
it
would
be
put
at
a
competitive
disadvantage
to
the
applicant
(
or
the
parent
company
or
any
subsidiary
thereof)
as
a
result
of
the
issuance
of
a
permit
under
this
subsection.
(
2)
The
effluent
limitations
established
under
a
permit
issued
under
paragraph
(
1)
shall
be
sufficient
to
implement
the
applicable
State
water
quality
standards,
to
assure
the
protection
of
public
water
supplies
and
protection
and
propagation
of
a
balanced,
indigenous
population
of
shellfish,
fish,
fauna,
wildlife,
and
other
aquatic
organisms,
and
to
allow
recreational
activities
in
and
on
the
water.
In
setting
such
limitations,
the
Administrator
shall
take
into
account
any
seasonal
variations
and
the
need
for
an
adequate
margin
of
safety,
considering
the
lack
of
essential
knowledge
concerning
the
57
57
relationship
between
effluent
limitations
and
water
quality
and
the
lack
of
essential
knowledge
of
the
effects
of
discharges
on
beneficial
uses
of
the
receiving
waters.
(
3)
A
permit
under
this
subsection
may
be
issued
for
a
period
not
to
exceed
five
years,
and
such
a
permit
may
be
renewed
for
one
additional
period
not
to
exceed
five
years
upon
a
demonstration
by
the
applicant
and
a
finding
by
the
Administrator
at
the
time
of
application
for
any
such
renewal
that
the
provisions
of
this
subsection
are
met.
(
4)
The
Administrator
may
terminate
a
permit
issued
under
this
subsection
if
the
Administrator
determines
that
there
has
been
a
decline
in
ambient
water
quality
of
the
receiving
waters
during
the
period
of
the
permit
even
if
a
direct
cause
and
effect
relationship
cannot
be
shown:
Provided,
That
if
the
effluent
from
a
source
with
a
permit
issued
under
this
subsection
is
contributing
to
a
decline
in
ambient
water
quality
of
the
receiving
waters,
the
Administrator
shall
terminate
such
permit.

(
n)
Fundamentally
different
factors
(
1)
General
rule
The
Administrator,
with
the
concurrence
of
the
State,
may
establish
an
alternative
requirement
under
subsection
(
b)(
2)
of
this
section
or
section
1317(
b)
of
this
title
for
a
facility
that
modifies
the
requirements
of
national
effluent
limitation
guidelines
or
categorical
pretreatment
standards
that
would
otherwise
be
applicable
to
such
facility,
if
the
owner
or
operator
of
such
facility
demonstrates
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
Administrator
that
­
(
A)
the
facility
is
fundamentally
different
with
respect
to
the
factors
(
other
than
cost)
specified
in
section
1314(
b)
or
1314(
g)
of
this
title
and
considered
by
the
Administrator
in
establishing
such
national
effluent
limitation
guidelines
or
categorical
pretreatment
standards;
(
B)
the
application
­
(
i)
is
based
solely
on
information
and
supporting
data
submitted
to
the
Administrator
during
the
rulemaking
for
establishment
of
the
applicable
national
effluent
limitation
guidelines
or
categorical
pretreatment
standard
specifically
raising
the
factors
that
are
fundamentally
different
for
such
facility;
or
­
(
ii)
is
based
on
information
and
supporting
data
referred
to
in
clause
(
i)
and
information
and
supporting
data
the
applicant
did
not
have
a
reasonable
opportunity
to
submit
during
such
rulemaking;
(
C)
the
alternative
requirement
is
no
less
stringent
than
justified
by
the
fundamental
difference;
and
(
D)
the
alternative
requirement
will
not
result
in
a
non­
water
quality
environmental
impact
which
is
markedly
more
adverse
than
the
impact
considered
by
the
Administrator
in
establishing
such
national
effluent
limitation
guideline
or
categorical
pretreatment
standard.
58
58
(
2)
Time
limit
for
applications
An
application
for
an
alternative
requirement
which
modifies
the
requirements
of
an
effluent
limitation
or
pretreatment
standard
under
this
subsection
must
be
submitted
to
the
Administrator
within
180
days
after
the
date
on
which
such
limitation
or
standard
is
established
or
revised,
as
the
case
may
be.
(
3)
Time
limit
for
decision
The
Administrator
shall
approve
or
deny
by
final
agency
action
an
application
submitted
under
this
subsection
within
180
days
after
the
date
such
application
is
filed
with
the
Administrator.
(
4)
Submission
of
information
The
Administrator
may
allow
an
applicant
under
this
subsection
to
submit
information
and
supporting
data
until
the
earlier
of
the
date
the
application
is
approved
or
denied
or
the
last
day
that
the
Administrator
has
to
approve
or
deny
such
application.
(
5)
Treatment
of
pending
applications
For
the
purposes
of
this
subsection,
an
application
for
an
alternative
requirement
based
on
fundamentally
different
factors
which
is
pending
on
February
4,
1987,
shall
be
treated
as
having
been
submitted
to
the
Administrator
on
the
180th
day
following
February
4,
1987.
The
applicant
may
amend
the
application
to
take
into
account
the
provisions
of
this
subsection.
(
6)
Effect
of
submission
of
application
An
application
for
an
alternative
requirement
under
this
subsection
shall
not
stay
the
applicant's
obligation
to
comply
with
the
effluent
limitation
guideline
or
categorical
pretreatment
standard
which
is
the
subject
of
the
application.
(
7)
Effect
of
denial
If
an
application
for
an
alternative
requirement
which
modifies
the
requirements
of
an
effluent
limitation
or
pretreatment
standard
under
this
subsection
is
denied
by
the
Administrator,
the
applicant
must
comply
with
such
limitation
or
standard
as
established
or
revised,
as
the
case
may
be.
(
8)
Reports
By
January
1,
1997,
and
January
1
of
every
odd­
numbered
year
thereafter,
the
Administrator
shall
submit
to
the
Committee
on
Environment
and
Public
Works
of
the
Senate
and
the
Committee
on
Transportation
and
Infrastructure
of
the
House
of
Representatives
a
report
on
the
status
of
applications
for
alternative
requirements
which
modify
the
requirements
of
effluent
limitations
under
section
1311
or
1314
of
this
title
or
any
national
categorical
pretreatment
standard
under
section
1317(
b)
of
this
title
filed
before,
on,
or
after
February
4,
1987.

(
o)
Application
fees
59
59
The
Administrator
shall
prescribe
and
collect
from
each
applicant
fees
reflecting
the
reasonable
administrative
costs
incurred
in
reviewing
and
processing
applications
for
modifications
submitted
to
the
Administrator
pursuant
to
subsections
(
c),
(
g),
(
i),
(
k),
(
1)
Application
fees
section
1326(
a)
of
this
title.
All
amounts
collected
by
the
Administrator
under
this
subsection
shall
be
deposited
into
a
special
fund
of
the
Treasury
entitled
''
Water
Permits
and
Related
Services''
which
shall
thereafter
be
available
for
appropriation
to
carry
out
activities
of
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
for
which
such
fees
were
collected.
(
p)
Modified
permit
for
coal
remaining
operations
(
1)
In
general
Subject
to
paragraphs
(
2)
through
(
4)
of
this
subsection,
the
Administrator,
or
the
State
in
any
case
which
the
State
has
an
approved
permit
program
under
section
1342(
b)
of
this
title,
may
issue
a
permit
under
section
1342
of
this
title
which
modifies
the
requirements
of
subsection
(
b)(
2)(
A)
of
this
section
with
respect
to
the
pH
level
of
any
pre­
existing
discharge,
and
with
respect
to
pre­
existing
discharges
of
iron
and
manganese
from
the
remined
area
of
any
coal
remining
operation
or
with
respect
to
the
pH
level
or
level
of
iron
or
manganese
in
any
pre­
existing
discharge
affected
by
the
remining
operation.
Such
modified
requirements
shall
apply
the
best
available
technology
economically
achievable
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
using
best
professional
judgment,
to
set
specific
numerical
effluent
limitations
in
each
permit.
(
2)
Limitations
The
Administrator
or
the
State
may
only
issue
a
permit
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
1)
if
the
applicant
demonstrates
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
Administrator
or
the
State,
as
the
case
may
be,
that
the
coal
remining
operation
will
result
in
the
potential
for
improved
water
quality
from
the
remining
operation
but
in
no
event
shall
such
a
permit
allow
the
pH
level
of
any
discharge,
and
in
no
event
shall
such
a
permit
allow
the
discharges
of
iron
and
manganese,
to
exceed
the
levels
being
discharged
from
the
remined
area
before
the
coal
remining
operation
begins.
No
discharge
from,
or
affected
by,
the
remining
operation
shall
exceed
State
water
quality
standards
established
under
section
1313
of
this
title.
(
3)
Definitions
For
purposes
of
this
subsection
­
(
A)
Coal
remining
operation
The
term
''
coal
remining
operation''
means
a
coal
mining
operation
which
begins
after
February
4,
1987
at
a
site
on
which
coal
mining
was
conducted
before
August
3,
1977.
(
B)
Remined
area
The
term
''
remined
area''
means
only
that
area
of
any
coal
remining
operation
on
which
coal
mining
was
conducted
before
August
3,
1977.
(
C)
Pre­
existing
discharge
60
60
The
term
''
pre­
existing
discharge''
means
any
discharge
at
the
time
of
permit
application
under
this
subsection.
(
4)
Applicability
of
strip
mining
laws
Nothing
in
this
subsection
shall
affect
the
application
of
the
Surface
Mining
Control
and
Reclamation
Act
of
1977
(
30
U.
S.
C.
1201
et
seq.)
to
any
coal
remining
operation,
including
the
application
of
such
Act
to
suspended
solids.

Footnotes
[
1]
So
in
original.
Probably
should
be
''
than''.
[
2]
So
in
original.
Probably
should
be
''
contractual''.
61
United
States
Code
Title
33
(
Navigation
and
Navigable
Waters)
Chapter
26
(
Water
Pollution
Prevention
and
Control)
Subchapter
III
(
Standards
and
Enforcement)

Sec.
1318.
Records
and
reports;
inspections
(
a)
Maintenance;
monitoring
equipment;
entry;
access
to
information
Whenever
required
to
carry
out
the
objective
of
this
chapter,
including
but
not
limited
to
(
1)
developing
or
assisting
in
the
development
of
any
effluent
limitation,
or
other
limitation,
prohibition,
or
effluent
standard,
pretreatment
standard,
or
standard
of
performance
under
this
chapter;
(
2)
determining
whether
any
person
is
in
violation
of
any
such
effluent
limitation,
or
other
limitation,
prohibition
or
effluent
standard,
pretreatment
standard,
or
standard
of
performance;
(
3)
any
requirement
established
under
this
section;
or
(
4)
carrying
out
sections
1315,
1321,
1342,
1344
(
relating
to
State
permit
programs),
1345,
and
1364
of
this
title
­
(
A)
the
Administrator
shall
require
the
owner
or
operator
of
any
point
source
to
(
i)
establish
and
maintain
such
records,
(
ii)
make
such
reports,
(
iii)
install,
use,
and
maintain
such
monitoring
equipment
or
methods
(
including
where
appropriate,
biological
monitoring
methods),
(
iv)
sample
such
effluents
(
in
accordance
with
such
methods,
at
such
locations,
at
such
intervals,
and
in
such
manner
as
the
Administrator
shall
prescribe),
and
(
v)
provide
such
other
information
as
he
may
reasonably
require;
and
(
B)
the
Administrator
or
his
authorized
representative
(
including
an
authorized
contractor
acting
as
a
representative
of
the
Administrator),
upon
presentation
of
his
credentials
­
­(
i)
shall
have
a
right
of
entry
to,
upon,
or
through
any
premises
in
which
an
effluent
source
is
located
or
in
which
any
records
required
to
be
maintained
under
clause
(
A)
of
this
subsection
are
located,
and
­(
ii)
may
at
reasonable
times
have
access
to
and
copy
any
records,
inspect
any
monitoring
equipment
or
method
required
under
clause
(
A),
and
sample
any
effluents
which
the
owner
or
operator
of
such
source
is
required
to
sample
under
such
clause.

(
b)
Availability
to
public;
trade
secrets
exception;
penalty
for
disclosure
of
confidential
information
Any
records,
reports,
or
information
obtained
under
this
section
(
1)
shall,
in
the
case
of
effluent
data,
be
related
to
any
applicable
effluent
limitations,
toxic,
pretreatment,
or
new
source
performance
standards,
and
(
2)
shall
be
available
to
the
public,
except
that
upon
a
showing
satisfactory
to
the
Administrator
by
any
person
that
records,
reports,
or
information,
or
particular
part
thereof
(
other
than
effluent
data),
to
which
the
Administrator
has
access
under
this
section,
if
made
public
would
divulge
methods
or
processes
entitled
to
protection
as
trade
secrets
of
such
person,
the
Administrator
shall
consider
such
record,
report,
or
information,
or
particular
portion
thereof
confidential
in
accordance
with
the
purposes
of
section
1905
of
title
18.
Any
authorized
representative
of
the
Administrator
(
including
an
62
authorized
contractor
acting
as
a
representative
of
the
Administrator)
who
knowingly
or
willfully
publishes,
divulges,
discloses,
or
makes
known
in
any
manner
or
to
any
extent
not
authorized
by
law
any
information
which
is
required
to
be
considered
confidential
under
this
subsection
shall
be
fined
not
more
than
$
1,000
or
imprisoned
not
more
than
1
year,
or
both.
Nothing
in
this
subsection
shall
prohibit
the
Administrator
or
an
authorized
representative
of
the
Administrator
(
including
any
authorized
contractor
acting
as
a
representative
of
the
Administrator)
from
disclosing
records,
reports,
or
information
to
other
officers,
employees,
or
authorized
representatives
of
the
United
States
concerned
with
carrying
out
this
chapter
or
when
relevant
in
any
proceeding
under
this
chapter.

(
c)
Application
of
State
law
Each
State
may
develop
and
submit
to
the
Administrator
procedures
under
State
law
for
inspection,
monitoring,
and
entry
with
respect
to
point
sources
located
in
such
State.
If
the
Administrator
finds
that
the
procedures
and
the
law
of
any
State
relating
to
inspection,
monitoring,
and
entry
are
applicable
to
at
least
the
same
extent
as
those
required
by
this
section,
such
State
is
authorized
to
apply
and
enforce
its
procedures
for
inspection,
monitoring,
and
entry
with
respect
to
point
sources
located
in
such
State
(
except
with
respect
to
point
sources
owned
or
operated
by
the
United
States).

(
d)
Access
by
Congress
Notwithstanding
any
limitation
contained
in
this
section
or
any
other
provision
of
law,
all
information
reported
to
or
otherwise
obtained
by
the
Administrator
(
or
any
representative
of
the
Administrator)
under
this
chapter
shall
be
made
available,
upon
written
request
of
any
duly
authorized
committee
of
Congress,
to
such
committee.
63
United
States
Code
Title
33
(
Navigation
and
Navigable
Waters)
Chapter
26
(
Water
Pollution
Prevention
and
Control)
Subchapter
IV
(
Permits
and
Licenses)

Sec.
1341.
­
Certification
(
a)
Compliance
with
applicable
requirements;
application;
procedures;
license
suspension
(
1)
Any
applicant
for
a
Federal
license
or
permit
to
conduct
any
activity
including,
but
not
limited
to,
the
construction
or
operation
of
facilities,
which
may
result
in
any
discharge
into
the
navigable
waters,
shall
provide
the
licensing
or
permitting
agency
a
certification
from
the
State
in
which
the
discharge
originates
or
will
originate,
or,
if
appropriate,
from
the
interstate
water
pollution
control
agency
having
jurisdiction
over
the
navigable
waters
at
the
point
where
the
discharge
originates
or
will
originate,
that
any
such
discharge
will
comply
with
the
applicable
provisions
of
sections
1311,
1312,
1313,
1316,
and
1317
of
this
title.
In
the
case
of
any
such
activity
for
which
there
is
not
an
applicable
effluent
limitation
or
other
limitation
under
sections
1311(
b)
and
1312
of
this
title,
and
there
is
not
an
applicable
standard
under
sections
1316
and
1317
of
this
title,
the
State
shall
so
certify,
except
that
any
such
certification
shall
not
be
deemed
to
satisfy
section
1371(
c)
of
this
title.
Such
State
or
interstate
agency
shall
establish
procedures
for
public
notice
in
the
case
of
all
applications
for
certification
by
it
and,
to
the
extent
it
deems
appropriate,
procedures
for
public
hearings
in
connection
with
specific
applications.
In
any
case
where
a
State
or
interstate
agency
has
no
authority
to
give
such
a
certification,
such
certification
shall
be
from
the
Administrator.
If
the
State,
interstate
agency,
or
Administrator,
as
the
case
may
be,
fails
or
refuses
to
act
on
a
request
for
certification,
within
a
reasonable
period
of
time
(
which
shall
not
exceed
one
year)
after
receipt
of
such
request,
the
certification
requirements
of
this
subsection
shall
be
waived
with
respect
to
such
Federal
application.
No
license
or
permit
shall
be
granted
until
the
certification
required
by
this
section
has
been
obtained
or
has
been
waived
as
provided
in
the
preceding
sentence.
No
license
or
permit
shall
be
granted
if
certification
has
been
denied
by
the
State,
interstate
agency,
or
the
Administrator,
as
the
case
may
be.
(
2)
Upon
receipt
of
such
application
and
certification
the
licensing
or
permitting
agency
shall
immediately
notify
the
Administrator
of
such
application
and
certification.
Whenever
such
a
discharge
may
affect,
as
determined
by
the
Administrator,
the
quality
of
the
waters
of
any
other
State,
the
Administrator
within
thirty
days
of
the
date
of
notice
of
application
for
such
Federal
license
or
permit
shall
so
notify
such
other
State,
the
licensing
or
permitting
agency,
and
the
applicant.
If,
within
sixty
days
after
receipt
of
such
notification,
such
other
State
determines
that
such
discharge
will
affect
the
quality
of
its
waters
so
as
to
violate
any
water
quality
requirements
in
such
State,
and
within
such
sixty­
day
period
notifies
the
Administrator
and
the
licensing
or
permitting
agency
in
writing
of
its
objection
to
the
issuance
of
such
license
or
permit
and
requests
a
public
hearing
on
such
objection,
the
licensing
or
permitting
agency
shall
hold
such
a
hearing.
The
Administrator
shall
at
such
hearing
submit
his
evaluation
and
recommendations
with
respect
to
any
such
objection
to
the
licensing
or
permitting
agency.
Such
agency,
based
upon
the
recommendations
of
such
State,
the
Administrator,
and
upon
any
additional
evidence,
if
any,
presented
to
the
agency
at
the
hearing,
shall
condition
such
license
or
permit
in
such
manner
as
may
be
necessary
to
insure
compliance
with
applicable
water
64
quality
requirements.
If
the
imposition
of
conditions
cannot
insure
such
compliance
such
agency
shall
not
issue
such
license
or
permit.
(
3)
The
certification
obtained
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
1)
of
this
subsection
with
respect
to
the
construction
of
any
facility
shall
fulfill
the
requirements
of
this
subsection
with
respect
to
certification
in
connection
with
any
other
Federal
license
or
permit
required
for
the
operation
of
such
facility
unless,
after
notice
to
the
certifying
State,
agency,
or
Administrator,
as
the
case
may
be,
which
shall
be
given
by
the
Federal
agency
to
whom
application
is
made
for
such
operating
license
or
permit,
the
State,
or
if
appropriate,
the
interstate
agency
or
the
Administrator,
notifies
such
agency
within
sixty
days
after
receipt
of
such
notice
that
there
is
no
longer
reasonable
assurance
that
there
will
be
compliance
with
the
applicable
provisions
of
sections
1311,
1312,
1313,
1316,
and
1317
of
this
title
because
of
changes
since
the
construction
license
or
permit
certification
was
issued
in
(
A)
the
construction
or
operation
of
the
facility,
(
B)
the
characteristics
of
the
waters
into
which
such
discharge
is
made,
(
C)
the
water
quality
criteria
applicable
to
such
waters
or
(
D)
applicable
effluent
limitations
or
other
requirements.
This
paragraph
shall
be
inapplicable
in
any
case
where
the
applicant
for
such
operating
license
or
permit
has
failed
to
provide
the
certifying
State,
or,
if
appropriate,
the
interstate
agency
or
the
Administrator,
with
notice
of
any
proposed
changes
in
the
construction
or
operation
of
the
facility
with
respect
to
which
a
construction
license
or
permit
has
been
granted,
which
changes
may
result
in
violation
of
section
1311,
1312,
1313,
1316,
or
1317
of
this
title.
(
4)
Prior
to
the
initial
operation
of
any
federally
licensed
or
permitted
facility
or
activity
which
may
result
in
any
discharge
into
the
navigable
waters
and
with
respect
to
which
a
certification
has
been
obtained
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
1)
of
this
subsection,
which
facility
or
activity
is
not
subject
to
a
Federal
operating
license
or
permit,
the
licensee
or
permittee
shall
provide
an
opportunity
for
such
certifying
State,
or,
if
appropriate,
the
interstate
agency
or
the
Administrator
to
review
the
manner
in
which
the
facility
or
activity
shall
be
operated
or
conducted
for
the
purposes
of
assuring
that
applicable
effluent
limitations
or
other
limitations
or
other
applicable
water
quality
requirements
will
not
be
violated.
Upon
notification
by
the
certifying
State,
or
if
appropriate,
the
interstate
agency
or
the
Administrator
that
the
operation
of
any
such
federally
licensed
or
permitted
facility
or
activity
will
violate
applicable
effluent
limitations
or
other
limitations
or
other
water
quality
requirements
such
Federal
agency
may,
after
public
hearing,
suspend
such
license
or
permit.
If
such
license
or
permit
is
suspended,
it
shall
remain
suspended
until
notification
is
received
from
the
certifying
State,
agency,
or
Administrator,
as
the
case
may
be,
that
there
is
reasonable
assurance
that
such
facility
or
activity
will
not
violate
the
applicable
provisions
of
section
1311,
1312,
1313,
1316,
or
1317
of
this
title.
(
5)
Any
Federal
license
or
permit
with
respect
to
which
a
certification
has
been
obtained
under
paragraph
(
1)
of
this
subsection
may
be
suspended
or
revoked
by
the
Federal
agency
issuing
such
license
or
permit
upon
the
entering
of
a
judgment
under
this
chapter
that
such
facility
or
activity
has
been
operated
in
violation
of
the
applicable
provisions
of
section
1311,
1312,
1313,
1316,
or
1317
of
this
title.
(
6)
Except
with
respect
to
a
permit
issued
under
section
1342
of
this
title,
in
any
case
where
actual
construction
of
a
facility
has
been
lawfully
commenced
prior
to
April
3,
1970,
no
certification
shall
be
required
under
this
subsection
for
a
license
or
permit
issued
after
April
3,
1970,
to
operate
such
facility,
except
that
any
such
license
or
permit
issued
without
certification
shall
terminate
April
3,
1973,
unless
prior
to
such
termination
65
date
the
person
having
such
license
or
permit
submits
to
the
Federal
agency
which
issued
such
license
or
permit
a
certification
and
otherwise
meets
the
requirements
of
this
section.
(
b)
Compliance
with
other
provisions
of
law
setting
applicable
water
quality
requirements
Nothing
in
this
section
shall
be
construed
to
limit
the
authority
of
any
department
or
agency
pursuant
to
any
other
provision
of
law
to
require
compliance
with
any
applicable
water
quality
requirements.
The
Administrator
shall,
upon
the
request
of
any
Federal
department
or
agency,
or
State
or
interstate
agency,
or
applicant,
provide,
for
the
purpose
of
this
section,
any
relevant
information
on
applicable
effluent
limitations,
or
other
limitations,
standards,
regulations,
or
requirements,
or
water
quality
criteria,
and
shall,
when
requested
by
any
such
department
or
agency
or
State
or
interstate
agency,
or
applicant,
comment
on
any
methods
to
comply
with
such
limitations,
standards,
regulations,
requirements,
or
criteria.
(
c)
Authority
of
Secretary
of
the
Army
to
permit
use
of
spoil
disposal
areas
by
Federal
licensees
or
permittees
In
order
to
implement
the
provisions
of
this
section,
the
Secretary
of
the
Army,
acting
through
the
Chief
of
Engineers,
is
authorized,
if
he
deems
it
to
be
in
the
public
interest,
to
permit
the
use
of
spoil
disposal
areas
under
his
jurisdiction
by
Federal
licensees
or
permittees,
and
to
make
an
appropriate
charge
for
such
use.
Moneys
received
from
such
licensees
or
permittees
shall
be
deposited
in
the
Treasury
as
miscellaneous
receipts.
(
d)
Limitations
and
monitoring
requirements
of
certification
Any
certification
provided
under
this
section
shall
set
forth
any
effluent
limitations
and
other
limitations,
and
monitoring
requirements
necessary
to
assure
that
any
applicant
for
a
Federal
license
or
permit
will
comply
with
any
applicable
effluent
limitations
and
other
limitations,
under
section
1311
or
1312
of
this
title,
standard
of
performance
under
section
1316
of
this
title,
or
prohibition,
effluent
standard,
or
pretreatment
standard
under
section
1317
of
this
title,
and
with
any
other
appropriate
requirement
of
State
law
set
forth
in
such
certification,
and
shall
become
a
condition
on
any
Federal
license
or
permit
subject
to
the
provisions
of
this
section.
66
United
States
Code
Title
33
(
Navigation
and
Navigable
Waters)
Chapter
26
(
Water
Pollution
Prevention
and
Control)
Subchapter
IV
(
Permits
and
Licenses)

Sec.
1342.
National
pollutant
discharge
elimination
system
(
a)
Permits
for
discharge
of
pollutants
(
1)
Except
as
provided
in
sections
1328
and
1344
of
this
title,
the
Administrator
may,
after
opportunity
for
public
hearing
issue
a
permit
for
the
discharge
of
any
pollutant,
or
combination
of
pollutants,
notwithstanding
section
1311(
a)
of
this
title,
upon
condition
that
such
discharge
will
meet
either
(
A)
all
applicable
requirements
under
sections
1311,
1312,
1316,
1317,
1318,
and
1343
of
this
title,
or
(
B)
prior
to
the
taking
of
necessary
implementing
actions
relating
to
all
such
requirements,
such
conditions
as
the
Administrator
determines
are
necessary
to
carry
out
the
provisions
of
this
chapter.
(
2)
The
Administrator
shall
prescribe
conditions
for
such
permits
to
assure
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
paragraph
(
1)
of
this
subsection,
including
conditions
on
data
and
information
collection,
reporting,
and
such
other
requirements
as
he
deems
appropriate.
(
3)
The
permit
program
of
the
Administrator
under
paragraph
(
1)
of
this
subsection,
and
permits
issued
thereunder,
shall
be
subject
to
the
same
terms,
conditions,
and
requirements
as
apply
to
a
State
permit
program
and
permits
issued
thereunder
under
subsection
(
b)
of
this
section.
(
4)
All
permits
for
discharges
into
the
navigable
waters
issued
pursuant
to
section
407
of
this
title
shall
be
deemed
to
be
permits
issued
under
this
subchapter,
and
permits
issued
under
this
subchapter
shall
be
deemed
to
be
permits
issued
under
section
407
of
this
title,
and
shall
continue
in
force
and
effect
for
their
term
unless
revoked,
modified,
or
suspended
in
accordance
with
the
provisions
of
this
chapter.
(
5)
No
permit
for
a
discharge
into
the
navigable
waters
shall
be
issued
under
section
407
of
this
title
after
October
18,
1972.
Each
application
for
a
permit
under
section
407
of
this
title,
pending
on
October
18,
1972,
shall
be
deemed
to
be
an
application
for
a
permit
under
this
section.
The
Administrator
shall
authorize
a
State,
which
he
determines
has
the
capability
of
administering
a
permit
program
which
will
carry
out
the
objectives
of
this
chapter
to
issue
permits
for
discharges
into
the
navigable
waters
within
the
jurisdiction
of
such
State.
The
Administrator
may
exercise
the
authority
granted
him
by
the
preceding
sentence
only
during
the
period
which
begins
on
October
18,
1972,
and
ends
either
on
the
ninetieth
day
after
the
date
of
the
first
promulgation
of
guidelines
required
by
section
1314(
i)(
2)
of
this
title,
or
the
date
of
approval
by
the
Administrator
of
a
permit
program
for
such
State
under
subsection
(
b)
of
this
section,
whichever
date
first
occurs,
and
no
such
authorization
to
a
State
shall
extend
beyond
the
last
day
of
such
period.
Each
such
permit
shall
be
subject
to
such
conditions
as
the
Administrator
determines
are
necessary
to
carry
out
the
provisions
of
this
chapter.
No
such
permit
shall
issue
if
the
Administrator
objects
to
such
issuance.

(
b)
State
permit
programs
At
any
time
after
the
promulgation
of
the
guidelines
required
by
subsection
(
i)(
2)
of
section
1314
of
this
title,
the
Governor
of
each
State
desiring
to
administer
its
own
permit
program
67
for
discharges
into
navigable
waters
within
its
jurisdiction
may
submit
to
the
Administrator
a
full
and
complete
description
of
the
program
it
proposes
to
establish
and
administer
under
State
law
or
under
an
interstate
compact.
In
addition,
such
State
shall
submit
a
statement
from
the
attorney
general
(
or
the
attorney
for
those
State
water
pollution
control
agencies
which
have
independent
legal
counsel),
or
from
the
chief
legal
officer
in
the
case
of
an
interstate
agency,
that
the
laws
of
such
State,
or
the
interstate
compact,
as
the
case
may
be,
provide
adequate
authority
to
carry
out
the
described
program.
The
Administrator
shall
approve
each
submitted
program
unless
he
determines
that
adequate
authority
does
not
exist:
(
1)
To
issue
permits
which
­
(
A)
apply,
and
insure
compliance
with,
any
applicable
requirements
of
sections
1311,
1312,
1316,
1317,
and
1343
of
this
title;
(
B)
are
for
fixed
terms
not
exceeding
five
years;
and
(
C)
can
be
terminated
or
modified
for
cause
including,
but
not
limited
to,
the
following:
­
(
i)
violation
of
any
condition
of
the
permit;
­
(
ii)
obtaining
a
permit
by
misrepresentation,
or
failure
to
disclose
fully
all
relevant
facts;
­
(
iii)
change
in
any
condition
that
requires
either
a
temporary
or
permanent
reduction
or
elimination
of
the
permitted
discharge;
(
D)
control
the
disposal
of
pollutants
into
wells;
(
2)
(
A)
To
issue
permits
which
apply,
and
insure
compliance
with,
all
applicable
requirements
of
section
1318
of
this
title;
or
(
B)
To
inspect,
monitor,
enter,
and
require
reports
to
at
least
the
same
extent
as
required
in
section
1318
of
this
title;
(
3)
To
insure
that
the
public,
and
any
other
State
the
waters
of
which
may
be
affected,
receive
notice
of
each
application
for
a
permit
and
to
provide
an
opportunity
for
public
hearing
before
a
ruling
on
each
such
application;
(
4)
To
insure
that
the
Administrator
receives
notice
of
each
application
(
including
a
copy
thereof)
for
a
permit;
(
5)
To
insure
that
any
State
(
other
than
the
permitting
State),
whose
waters
may
be
affected
by
the
issuance
of
a
permit
may
submit
written
recommendations
to
the
permitting
State
(
and
the
Administrator)
with
respect
to
any
permit
application
and,
if
any
part
of
such
written
recommendations
are
not
accepted
by
the
permitting
State,
that
the
permitting
State
will
notify
such
affected
State
(
and
the
Administrator)
in
writing
of
its
failure
to
so
accept
such
recommendations
together
with
its
reasons
for
so
doing;
(
6)
To
insure
that
no
permit
will
be
issued
if,
in
the
judgment
of
the
Secretary
of
the
Army
acting
through
the
Chief
of
Engineers,
after
consultation
with
the
Secretary
of
the
department
in
which
the
Coast
Guard
is
operating,
anchorage
and
navigation
of
any
of
the
navigable
waters
would
be
substantially
impaired
thereby;
(
7)
To
abate
violations
of
the
permit
or
the
permit
program,
including
civil
and
criminal
penalties
and
other
ways
and
means
of
enforcement;
(
8)
To
insure
that
any
permit
for
a
discharge
from
a
publicly
owned
treatment
works
includes
conditions
to
require
the
identification
in
terms
of
character
and
volume
of
pollutants
of
any
significant
source
introducing
pollutants
subject
to
pretreatment
standards
under
section
1317(
b)
of
this
title
into
such
works
and
a
program
to
assure
compliance
with
such
pretreatment
standards
by
each
such
source,
in
addition
to
adequate
notice
to
the
permitting
agency
of
(
A)
new
introductions
into
such
works
of
pollutants
68
from
any
source
which
would
be
a
new
source
as
defined
in
section
1316
of
this
title
if
such
source
were
discharging
pollutants,
(
B)
new
introductions
of
pollutants
into
such
works
from
a
source
which
would
be
subject
to
section
1311
of
this
title
if
it
were
discharging
such
pollutants,
or
(
C)
a
substantial
change
in
volume
or
character
of
pollutants
being
introduced
into
such
works
by
a
source
introducing
pollutants
into
such
works
at
the
time
of
issuance
of
the
permit.
Such
notice
shall
include
information
on
the
quality
and
quantity
of
effluent
to
be
introduced
into
such
treatment
works
and
any
anticipated
impact
of
such
change
in
the
quantity
or
quality
of
effluent
to
be
discharged
from
such
publicly
owned
treatment
works;
and
(
9)
To
insure
that
any
industrial
user
of
any
publicly
owned
treatment
works
will
comply
with
sections
1284(
b),
1317,
and
1318
of
this
title.

(
c)
Suspension
of
Federal
program
upon
submission
of
State
program;
withdrawal
of
approval
of
State
program;
return
of
State
program
to
Administrator
(
1)
Not
later
than
ninety
days
after
the
date
on
which
a
State
has
submitted
a
program
(
or
revision
thereof)
pursuant
to
subsection
(
b)
of
this
section,
the
Administrator
shall
suspend
the
issuance
of
permits
under
subsection
(
a)
of
this
section
as
to
those
discharges
subject
to
such
program
unless
he
determines
that
the
State
permit
program
does
not
meet
the
requirements
of
subsection
(
b)
of
this
section
or
does
not
conform
to
the
guidelines
issued
under
section
1314(
i)(
2)
of
this
title.
If
the
Administrator
so
determines,
he
shall
notify
the
State
of
any
revisions
or
modifications
necessary
to
conform
to
such
requirements
or
guidelines.
(
2)
Any
State
permit
program
under
this
section
shall
at
all
times
be
in
accordance
with
this
section
and
guidelines
promulgated
pursuant
to
section
1314(
i)(
2)
of
this
title.
(
3)
Whenever
the
Administrator
determines
after
public
hearing
that
a
State
is
not
administering
a
program
approved
under
this
section
in
accordance
with
requirements
of
this
section,
he
shall
so
notify
the
State
and,
if
appropriate
corrective
action
is
not
taken
within
a
reasonable
time,
not
to
exceed
ninety
days,
the
Administrator
shall
withdraw
approval
of
such
program.
The
Administrator
shall
not
withdraw
approval
of
any
such
program
unless
he
shall
first
have
notified
the
State,
and
made
public,
in
writing,
the
reasons
for
such
withdrawal.
(
4)
Limitations
on
partial
permit
program
returns
and
withdrawals.
­
A
State
may
return
to
the
Administrator
administration,
and
the
Administrator
may
withdraw
under
paragraph
(
3)
of
this
subsection
approval,
of
­
(
A)
a
State
partial
permit
program
approved
under
subsection
(
n)(
3)
of
this
section
only
if
the
entire
permit
program
being
administered
by
the
State
department
or
agency
at
the
time
is
returned
or
withdrawn;
and
(
B)
a
State
partial
permit
program
approved
under
subsection
(
n)(
4)
of
this
section
only
if
an
entire
phased
component
of
the
permit
program
being
administered
by
the
State
at
the
time
is
returned
or
withdrawn.

(
d)
Notification
of
Administrator
(
1)
Each
State
shall
transmit
to
the
Administrator
a
copy
of
each
permit
application
received
by
such
State
and
provide
notice
to
the
Administrator
of
every
action
related
to
the
consideration
of
such
permit
application,
including
each
permit
proposed
to
be
issued
by
such
State.
(
2)
No
permit
shall
issue
69
(
A)
if
the
Administrator
within
ninety
days
of
the
date
of
his
notification
under
subsection
(
b)(
5)
of
this
section
objects
in
writing
to
the
issuance
of
such
permit,
or
(
B)
if
the
Administrator
within
ninety
days
of
the
date
of
transmittal
of
the
proposed
permit
by
the
State
objects
in
writing
to
the
issuance
of
such
permit
as
being
outside
the
guidelines
and
requirements
of
this
chapter.
Whenever
the
Administrator
objects
to
the
issuance
of
a
permit
under
this
paragraph
such
written
objection
shall
contain
a
statement
of
the
reasons
for
such
objection
and
the
effluent
limitations
and
conditions
which
such
permit
would
include
if
it
were
issued
by
the
Administrator.
(
3)
The
Administrator
may,
as
to
any
permit
application,
waive
paragraph
(
2)
of
this
subsection.
(
4)
In
any
case
where,
after
December
27,
1977,
the
Administrator,
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
2)
of
this
subsection,
objects
to
the
issuance
of
a
permit,
on
request
of
the
State,
a
public
hearing
shall
be
held
by
the
Administrator
on
such
objection.
If
the
State
does
not
resubmit
such
permit
revised
to
meet
such
objection
within
30
days
after
completion
of
the
hearing,
or,
if
no
hearing
is
requested
within
90
days
after
the
date
of
such
objection,
the
Administrator
may
issue
the
permit
pursuant
to
subsection
(
a)
of
this
section
for
such
source
in
accordance
with
the
guidelines
and
requirements
of
this
chapter.

(
e)
Waiver
of
notification
requirement
In
accordance
with
guidelines
promulgated
pursuant
to
subsection
(
i)(
2)
of
section
1314
of
this
title,
the
Administrator
is
authorized
to
waive
the
requirements
of
subsection
(
d)
of
this
section
at
the
time
he
approves
a
program
pursuant
to
subsection
(
b)
of
this
section
for
any
category
(
including
any
class,
type,
or
size
within
such
category)
of
point
sources
within
the
State
submitting
such
program.

(
f)
Point
source
categories
The
Administrator
shall
promulgate
regulations
establishing
categories
of
point
sources
which
he
determines
shall
not
be
subject
to
the
requirements
of
subsection
(
d)
of
this
section
in
any
State
with
a
program
approved
pursuant
to
subsection
(
b)
of
this
section.
The
Administrator
may
distinguish
among
classes,
types,
and
sizes
within
any
category
of
point
sources.

(
g)
Other
regulations
for
safe
transportation,
handling,
carriage,
storage,
and
stowage
of
pollutants
Any
permit
issued
under
this
section
for
the
discharge
of
pollutants
into
the
navigable
waters
from
a
vessel
or
other
floating
craft
shall
be
subject
to
any
applicable
regulations
promulgated
by
the
Secretary
of
the
department
in
which
the
Coast
Guard
is
operating,
establishing
specifications
for
safe
transportation,
handling,
carriage,
storage,
and
stowage
of
pollutants.

(
h)
Violation
of
permit
conditions;
restriction
or
prohibition
upon
introduction
of
pollutant
by
source
not
previously
utilizing
treatment
works
In
the
event
any
condition
of
a
permit
for
discharges
from
a
treatment
works
(
as
defined
in
section
1292
of
this
title)
which
is
publicly
owned
is
violated,
a
State
with
a
program
approved
under
subsection
(
b)
of
this
section
or
the
Administrator,
where
no
State
program
is
approved
or
where
the
Administrator
determines
pursuant
to
section
1319(
a)
of
this
title
that
a
State
with
an
approved
program
has
not
commenced
appropriate
enforcement
action
with
respect
to
such
permit,
may
proceed
in
a
court
of
competent
jurisdiction
to
restrict
or
prohibit
70
the
introduction
of
any
pollutant
into
such
treatment
works
by
a
source
not
utilizing
such
treatment
works
prior
to
the
finding
that
such
condition
was
violated.

(
i)
Federal
enforcement
not
limited
Nothing
in
this
section
shall
be
construed
to
limit
the
authority
of
the
Administrator
to
take
action
pursuant
to
section
1319
of
this
title.

(
j)
Public
information
A
copy
of
each
permit
application
and
each
permit
issued
under
this
section
shall
be
available
to
the
public.
Such
permit
application
or
permit,
or
portion
thereof,
shall
further
be
available
on
request
for
the
purpose
of
reproduction.

(
k)
Compliance
with
permits
Compliance
with
a
permit
issued
pursuant
to
this
section
shall
be
deemed
compliance,
for
purposes
of
sections
1319
and
1365
of
this
title,
with
sections
1311,
1312,
1316,
1317,
and
1343
of
this
title,
except
any
standard
imposed
under
section
1317
of
this
title
for
a
toxic
pollutant
injurious
to
human
health.
Until
December
31,
1974,
in
any
case
where
a
permit
for
discharge
has
been
applied
for
pursuant
to
this
section,
but
final
administrative
disposition
of
such
application
has
not
been
made,
such
discharge
shall
not
be
a
violation
of
(
1)
section
1311,
1316,
or
1342
of
this
title,
or
(
2)
section
407
of
this
title,
unless
the
Administrator
or
other
plaintiff
proves
that
final
administrative
disposition
of
such
application
has
not
been
made
because
of
the
failure
of
the
applicant
to
furnish
information
reasonably
required
or
requested
in
order
to
process
the
application.
For
the
180­
day
period
beginning
on
October
18,
1972,
in
the
case
of
any
point
source
discharging
any
pollutant
or
combination
of
pollutants
immediately
prior
to
such
date
which
source
is
not
subject
to
section
407
of
this
title,
the
discharge
by
such
source
shall
not
be
a
violation
of
this
chapter
if
such
a
source
applies
for
a
permit
for
discharge
pursuant
to
this
section
within
such
180­
day
period.

(
l)
Limitation
on
permit
requirement
(
1)
Agricultural
return
flows
The
Administrator
shall
not
require
a
permit
under
this
section
for
discharges
composed
entirely
of
return
flows
from
irrigated
agriculture,
nor
shall
the
Administrator
directly
or
indirectly,
require
any
State
to
require
such
a
permit.
(
2)
Stormwater
runoff
from
oil,
gas,
and
mining
operations
The
Administrator
shall
not
require
a
permit
under
this
section,
nor
shall
the
Administrator
directly
or
indirectly
require
any
State
to
require
a
permit,
for
discharges
of
stormwater
runoff
from
mining
operations
or
oil
and
gas
exploration,
production,
processing,
or
treatment
operations
or
transmission
facilities,
composed
entirely
of
flows
which
are
from
conveyances
or
systems
of
conveyances
(
including
but
not
limited
to
pipes,
conduits,
ditches,
and
channels)
used
for
collecting
and
conveying
precipitation
runoff
and
which
are
not
contaminated
by
contact
with,
or
do
not
come
into
contact
with,
any
overburden,
raw
material,
intermediate
products,
finished
product,
byproduct,
or
waste
products
located
on
the
site
of
such
operations.

(
m)
Additional
pretreatment
of
conventional
pollutants
not
required
To
the
extent
a
treatment
works
(
as
defined
in
section
1292
of
this
title)
which
is
publicly
owned
is
not
meeting
the
requirements
of
a
permit
issued
under
this
section
for
such
71
treatment
works
as
a
result
of
inadequate
design
or
operation
of
such
treatment
works,
the
Administrator,
in
issuing
a
permit
under
this
section,
shall
not
require
pretreatment
by
a
person
introducing
conventional
pollutants
identified
pursuant
to
section
1314(
a)(
4)
of
this
title
into
such
treatment
works
other
than
pretreatment
required
to
assure
compliance
with
pretreatment
standards
under
subsection
(
b)(
8)
of
this
section
and
section
1317(
b)(
1)
of
this
title.
Nothing
in
this
subsection
shall
affect
the
Administrator's
authority
under
sections
1317
and
1319
of
this
title,
affect
State
and
local
authority
under
sections
1317(
b)(
4)
and
1370
of
this
title,
relieve
such
treatment
works
of
its
obligations
to
meet
requirements
established
under
this
chapter,
or
otherwise
preclude
such
works
from
pursuing
whatever
feasible
options
are
available
to
meet
its
responsibility
to
comply
with
its
permit
under
this
section.

(
n)
Partial
permit
program
(
1)
State
submission
The
Governor
of
a
State
may
submit
under
subsection
(
b)
of
this
section
a
permit
program
for
a
portion
of
the
discharges
into
the
navigable
waters
in
such
State.
(
2)
Minimum
coverage
A
partial
permit
program
under
this
subsection
shall
cover,
at
a
minimum,
administration
of
a
major
category
of
the
discharges
into
the
navigable
waters
of
the
State
or
a
major
component
of
the
permit
program
required
by
subsection
(
b)
of
this
section.
(
3)
Approval
of
major
category
partial
permit
programs
The
Administrator
may
approve
a
partial
permit
program
covering
administration
of
a
major
category
of
discharges
under
this
subsection
if
­
(
A)
such
program
represents
a
complete
permit
program
and
covers
all
of
the
discharges
under
the
jurisdiction
of
a
department
or
agency
of
the
State;
and
(
B)
the
Administrator
determines
that
the
partial
program
represents
a
significant
and
identifiable
part
of
the
State
program
required
by
subsection
(
b)
of
this
section.
(
4)
Approval
of
major
component
partial
permit
programs
The
Administrator
may
approve
under
this
subsection
a
partial
and
phased
permit
program
covering
administration
of
a
major
component
(
including
discharge
categories)
of
a
State
permit
program
required
by
subsection
(
b)
of
this
section
if
­
(
A)
the
Administrator
determines
that
the
partial
program
represents
a
significant
and
identifiable
part
of
the
State
program
required
by
subsection
(
b)
of
this
section;
and
(
B)
the
State
submits,
and
the
Administrator
approves,
a
plan
for
the
State
to
assume
administration
by
phases
of
the
remainder
of
the
State
program
required
by
subsection
(
b)
of
this
section
by
a
specified
date
not
more
than
5
years
after
submission
of
the
partial
program
under
this
subsection
and
agrees
to
make
all
reasonable
efforts
to
assume
such
administration
by
such
date.

(
o)
Anti­
backsliding
(
1)
General
prohibition
In
the
case
of
effluent
limitations
established
on
the
basis
of
subsection
(
a)(
1)(
B)
of
this
section,
a
permit
may
not
be
renewed,
reissued,
or
modified
on
the
basis
of
effluent
guidelines
promulgated
under
section
1314(
b)
of
this
title
subsequent
to
the
original
issuance
of
such
permit,
to
contain
effluent
limitations
which
are
less
stringent
than
the
comparable
effluent
limitations
in
the
previous
permit.
In
the
case
of
effluent
limitations
established
on
the
basis
of
section
1311(
b)(
1)(
C)
or
section
1313(
d)
or
(
e)
of
this
title,
a
permit
may
not
be
renewed,
reissued,
or
modified
to
contain
effluent
limitations
which
72
are
less
stringent
than
the
comparable
effluent
limitations
in
the
previous
permit
except
in
compliance
with
section
1313(
d)(
4)
of
this
title.
(
2)
Exceptions
A
permit
with
respect
to
which
paragraph
(
1)
applies
may
be
renewed,
reissued,
or
modified
to
contain
a
less
stringent
effluent
limitation
applicable
to
a
pollutant
if
­
(
A)
material
and
substantial
alterations
or
additions
to
the
permitted
facility
occurred
after
permit
issuance
which
justify
the
application
of
a
less
stringent
effluent
limitation;
(
B)
­
(
i)
information
is
available
which
was
not
available
at
the
time
of
permit
issuance
(
other
than
revised
regulations,
guidance,
or
test
methods)
and
which
would
have
justified
the
application
of
a
less
stringent
effluent
limitation
at
the
time
of
permit
issuance;
or
­
(
ii)
the
Administrator
determines
that
technical
mistakes
or
mistaken
interpretations
of
law
were
made
in
issuing
the
permit
under
subsection
(
a)(
1)(
B)
of
this
section;
(
C)
a
less
stringent
effluent
limitation
is
necessary
because
of
events
over
which
the
permittee
has
no
control
and
for
which
there
is
no
reasonably
available
remedy;
(
D)
the
permittee
has
received
a
permit
modification
under
section
1311(
c),
1311(
g),
1311(
h),
1311(
i),
1311(
k),
1311(
n),
or
1326(
a)
of
this
title;
or
(
E)
the
permittee
has
installed
the
treatment
facilities
required
to
meet
the
effluent
limitations
in
the
previous
permit
and
has
properly
operated
and
maintained
the
facilities
but
has
nevertheless
been
unable
to
achieve
the
previous
effluent
limitations,
in
which
case
the
limitations
in
the
reviewed,
reissued,
or
modified
permit
may
reflect
the
level
of
pollutant
control
actually
achieved
(
but
shall
not
be
less
stringent
than
required
by
effluent
guidelines
in
effect
at
the
time
of
permit
renewal,
reissuance,
or
modification).
Subparagraph
(
B)
shall
not
apply
to
any
revised
waste
load
allocations
or
any
alternative
grounds
for
translating
water
quality
standards
into
effluent
limitations,
except
where
the
cumulative
effect
of
such
revised
allocations
results
in
a
decrease
in
the
amount
of
pollutants
discharged
into
the
concerned
waters,
and
such
revised
allocations
are
not
the
result
of
a
discharger
eliminating
or
substantially
reducing
its
discharge
of
pollutants
due
to
complying
with
the
requirements
of
this
chapter
or
for
reasons
otherwise
unrelated
to
water
quality.
(
3)
Limitations
In
no
event
may
a
permit
with
respect
to
which
paragraph
(
1)
applies
be
renewed,
reissued,
or
modified
to
contain
an
effluent
limitation
which
is
less
stringent
than
required
by
effluent
guidelines
in
effect
at
the
time
the
permit
is
renewed,
reissued,
or
modified.
In
no
event
may
such
a
permit
to
discharge
into
waters
be
renewed,
reissued,
or
modified
to
contain
a
less
stringent
effluent
limitation
if
the
implementation
of
such
limitation
would
result
in
a
violation
of
a
water
quality
standard
under
section
1313
of
this
title
applicable
to
such
waters.

(
p)
Municipal
and
industrial
stormwater
discharges
(
1)
General
rule
Prior
to
October
1,
1994,
the
Administrator
or
the
State
(
in
the
case
of
a
permit
program
approved
under
this
section)
shall
not
require
a
permit
under
this
section
for
discharges
composed
entirely
of
stormwater.
(
2)
Exceptions
Paragraph
(
1)
shall
not
apply
with
respect
to
the
following
stormwater
discharges:
73
(
A)
A
discharge
with
respect
to
which
a
permit
has
been
issued
under
this
section
before
February
4,
1987.
(
B)
A
discharge
associated
with
industrial
activity.
(
C)
A
discharge
from
a
municipal
separate
storm
sewer
system
serving
a
population
of
250,000
or
more.
(
D)
A
discharge
from
a
municipal
separate
storm
sewer
system
serving
a
population
of
100,000
or
more
but
less
than
250,000.
(
E)
A
discharge
for
which
the
Administrator
or
the
State,
as
the
case
may
be,
determines
that
the
stormwater
discharge
contributes
to
a
violation
of
a
water
quality
standard
or
is
a
significant
contributor
of
pollutants
to
waters
of
the
United
States.
(
3)
Permit
requirements
(
A)
Industrial
discharges
Permits
for
discharges
associated
with
industrial
activity
shall
meet
all
applicable
provisions
of
this
section
and
section
1311
of
this
title.
(
B)
Municipal
discharge
Permits
for
discharges
from
municipal
storm
sewers
­
­
(
i)
may
be
issued
on
a
system­
or
jurisdiction­
wide
basis;
­
(
ii)
shall
include
a
requirement
to
effectively
prohibit
non­
stormwater
discharges
into
the
storm
sewers;
and
­
(
iii)
shall
require
controls
to
reduce
the
discharge
of
pollutants
to
the
maximum
extent
practicable,
including
management
practices,
control
techniques
and
system,
design
and
engineering
methods,
and
such
other
provisions
as
the
Administrator
or
the
State
determines
appropriate
for
the
control
of
such
pollutants.
(
4)
Permit
application
requirements
(
A)
Industrial
and
large
municipal
discharges
Not
later
than
2
years
after
February
4,
1987,
the
Administrator
shall
establish
regulations
setting
forth
the
permit
application
requirements
for
stormwater
discharges
described
in
paragraphs
(
2)(
B)
and
(
2)(
C).
Applications
for
permits
for
such
discharges
shall
be
filed
no
later
than
3
years
after
February
4,
1987.
Not
later
than
4
years
after
February
4,
1987,
the
Administrator
or
the
State,
as
the
case
may
be,
shall
issue
or
deny
each
such
permit.
Any
such
permit
shall
provide
for
compliance
as
expeditiously
as
practicable,
but
in
no
event
later
than
3
years
after
the
date
of
issuance
of
such
permit.
(
B)
Other
municipal
discharges
Not
later
than
4
years
after
February
4,
1987,
the
Administrator
shall
establish
regulations
setting
forth
the
permit
application
requirements
for
stormwater
discharges
described
in
paragraph
(
2)(
D).
Applications
for
permits
for
such
discharges
shall
be
filed
no
later
than
5
years
after
February
4,
1987.
Not
later
than
6
years
after
February
4,
1987,
the
Administrator
or
the
State,
as
the
case
may
be,
shall
issue
or
deny
each
such
permit.
Any
such
permit
shall
provide
for
compliance
as
expeditiously
as
practicable,
but
in
no
event
later
than
3
years
after
the
date
of
issuance
of
such
permit.
(
5)
Studies
The
Administrator,
in
consultation
with
the
States,
shall
conduct
a
study
for
the
purposes
of
­
(
A)
identifying
those
stormwater
discharges
or
classes
of
stormwater
discharges
for
which
permits
are
not
required
pursuant
to
paragraphs
(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
subsection;
74
(
B)
determining,
to
the
maximum
extent
practicable,
the
nature
and
extent
of
pollutants
in
such
discharges;
and
(
C)
establishing
procedures
and
methods
to
control
stormwater
discharges
to
the
extent
necessary
to
mitigate
impacts
on
water
quality.
Not
later
than
October
1,
1988,
the
Administrator
shall
submit
to
Congress
a
report
on
the
results
of
the
study
described
in
subparagraphs
(
A)
and
(
B).
Not
later
than
October
1,
1989,
the
Administrator
shall
submit
to
Congress
a
report
on
the
results
of
the
study
described
in
subparagraph
(
C).
(
6)
Regulations
Not
later
than
October
1,
1993,
the
Administrator,
in
consultation
with
State
and
local
officials,
shall
issue
regulations
(
based
on
the
results
of
the
studies
conducted
under
paragraph
(
5))
which
designate
stormwater
discharges,
other
than
those
discharges
described
in
paragraph
(
2),
to
be
regulated
to
protect
water
quality
and
shall
establish
a
comprehensive
program
to
regulate
such
designated
sources.
The
program
shall,
at
a
minimum,
(
A)
establish
priorities,
(
B)
establish
requirements
for
State
stormwater
management
programs,
and
(
C)
establish
expeditious
deadlines.
The
program
may
include
performance
standards,
guidelines,
guidance,
and
management
practices
and
treatment
requirements,
as
appropriate.
75
United
States
Code
Title
33
(
Navigation
and
Navigable
Waters)
Chapter
26
(
Water
Pollution
Prevention
and
Control)
Subchapter
V
(
General
Provisions)

Sec.
1362.
­
Definitions
Except
as
otherwise
specifically
provided,
when
used
in
this
chapter:

(
1)
The
term
''
State
water
pollution
control
agency''
means
the
State
agency
designated
by
the
Governor
having
responsibility
for
enforcing
State
laws
relating
to
the
abatement
of
pollution.
(
2)
The
term
''
interstate
agency''
means
an
agency
of
two
or
more
States
established
by
or
pursuant
to
an
agreement
or
compact
approved
by
the
Congress,
or
any
other
agency
of
two
or
more
States,
having
substantial
powers
or
duties
pertaining
to
the
control
of
pollution
as
determined
and
approved
by
the
Administrator.
(
3)
The
term
''
State''
means
a
State,
the
District
of
Columbia,
the
Commonwealth
of
Puerto
Rico,
the
Virgin
Islands,
Guam,
American
Samoa,
the
Commonwealth
of
the
Northern
Mariana
Islands,
and
the
Trust
Territory
of
the
Pacific
Islands.
(
4)
The
term
''
municipality''
means
a
city,
town,
borough,
county,
parish,
district,
association,
or
other
public
body
created
by
or
pursuant
to
State
law
and
having
jurisdiction
over
disposal
of
sewage,
industrial
wastes,
or
other
wastes,
or
an
Indian
tribe
or
an
authorized
Indian
tribal
organization,
or
a
designated
and
approved
management
agency
under
section
1288
of
this
title.
(
5)
The
term
''
person''
means
an
individual,
corporation,
partnership,
association,
State,
municipality,
commission,
or
political
subdivision
of
a
State,
or
any
interstate
body.
(
6)
The
term
''
pollutant''
means
dredged
spoil,
solid
waste,
incinerator
residue,
sewage,
garbage,
sewage
sludge,
munitions,
chemical
wastes,
biological
materials,
radioactive
materials,
heat,
wrecked
or
discarded
equipment,
rock,
sand,
cellar
dirt
and
industrial,
municipal,
and
agricultural
waste
discharged
into
water.
This
term
does
not
mean
(
A)
''
sewage
from
vessels
or
a
discharge
incidental
to
the
normal
operation
of
a
vessel
of
the
Armed
Forces''
within
the
meaning
of
section
1322
of
this
title;
or
(
B)
water,
gas,
or
other
material
which
is
injected
into
a
well
to
facilitate
production
of
oil
or
gas,
or
water
derived
in
association
with
oil
or
gas
production
and
disposed
of
in
a
well,
if
the
well
used
either
to
facilitate
production
or
for
disposal
purposes
is
approved
by
authority
of
the
State
in
which
the
well
is
located,
and
if
such
State
determines
that
such
injection
or
disposal
will
not
result
in
the
degradation
of
ground
or
surface
water
resources.
(
7)
The
term
''
navigable
waters''
means
the
waters
of
the
United
States,
including
the
territorial
seas.
(
8)
The
term
''
territorial
seas''
means
the
belt
of
the
seas
measured
from
the
line
of
ordinary
low
water
along
that
portion
of
the
coast
which
is
in
direct
contact
with
the
open
sea
and
the
line
marking
the
seaward
limit
of
inland
waters,
and
extending
seaward
a
distance
of
three
miles.
(
9)
The
term
''
contiguous
zone''
means
the
entire
zone
established
or
to
be
established
by
the
United
States
under
article
24
of
the
Convention
of
the
Territorial
Sea
and
the
Contiguous
Zone.
76
(
10)
The
term
''
ocean''
means
any
portion
of
the
high
seas
beyond
the
contiguous
zone.
(
11)
The
term
''
effluent
limitation''
means
any
restriction
established
by
a
State
or
the
Administrator
on
quantities,
rates,
and
concentrations
of
chemical,
physical,
biological,
and
other
constituents
which
are
discharged
from
point
sources
into
navigable
waters,
the
waters
of
the
contiguous
zone,
or
the
ocean,
including
schedules
of
compliance.
(
12)
The
term
''
discharge
of
a
pollutant''
and
the
term
''
discharge
of
pollutants''
each
means
(
A)
any
addition
of
any
pollutant
to
navigable
waters
from
any
point
source,
(
B)
any
addition
of
any
pollutant
to
the
waters
of
the
contiguous
zone
or
the
ocean
from
any
point
source
other
than
a
vessel
or
other
floating
craft.
(
13)
The
term
''
toxic
pollutant''
means
those
pollutants,
or
combinations
of
pollutants,
including
disease­
causing
agents,
which
after
discharge
and
upon
exposure,
ingestion,
inhalation
or
assimilation
into
any
organism,
either
directly
from
the
environment
or
indirectly
by
ingestion
through
food
chains,
will,
on
the
basis
of
information
available
to
the
Administrator,
cause
death,
disease,
behavioral
abnormalities,
cancer,
genetic
mutations,
physiological
malfunctions
(
including
malfunctions
in
reproduction)
or
physical
deformations,
in
such
organisms
or
their
offspring.
(
14)
The
term
''
point
source''
means
any
discernible,
confined
and
discrete
conveyance,
including
but
not
limited
to
any
pipe,
ditch,
channel,
tunnel,
conduit,
well,
discrete
fissure,
container,
rolling
stock,
concentrated
animal
feeding
operation,
or
vessel
or
other
floating
craft,
from
which
pollutants
are
or
may
be
discharged.
This
term
does
not
include
agricultural
stormwater
discharges
and
return
flows
from
irrigated
agriculture.
(
15)
The
term
''
biological
monitoring''
shall
mean
the
determination
of
the
effects
on
aquatic
life,
including
accumulation
of
pollutants
in
tissue,
in
receiving
waters
due
to
the
discharge
of
pollutants
(
A)
by
techniques
and
procedures,
including
sampling
of
organisms
representative
of
appropriate
levels
of
the
food
chain
appropriate
to
the
volume
and
the
physical,
chemical,
and
biological
characteristics
of
the
effluent,
and
(
B)
at
appropriate
frequencies
and
locations.
(
16)
The
term
''
discharge''
when
used
without
qualification
includes
a
discharge
of
a
pollutant,
and
a
discharge
of
pollutants.
(
17)
The
term
''
schedule
of
compliance''
means
a
schedule
of
remedial
measures
including
an
enforceable
sequence
of
actions
or
operations
leading
to
compliance
with
an
effluent
limitation,
other
limitation,
prohibition,
or
standard.
(
18)
The
term
''
industrial
user''
means
those
industries
identified
in
the
Standard
Industrial
Classification
Manual,
Bureau
of
the
Budget,
1967,
as
amended
and
supplemented,
under
the
category
of
''
Division
D
­
Manufacturing''
and
such
other
classes
of
significant
waste
producers
as,
by
regulation,
the
Administrator
deems
appropriate.
(
19)
The
term
''
pollution''
means
the
man­
made
or
man­
induced
alteration
of
the
chemical,
physical,
biological,
and
radiological
integrity
of
water.
(
20)
The
term
''
medical
waste''
means
isolation
wastes;
infectious
agents;
human
blood
and
blood
products;
pathological
wastes;
sharps;
body
parts;
contaminated
bedding;
surgical
wastes
and
potentially
contaminated
laboratory
wastes;
dialysis
wastes;
and
such
additional
medical
items
as
the
Administrator
shall
prescribe
by
regulation.
(
21)
Coastal
recreation
waters.
­
(
A)
In
general.
­
The
term
''
coastal
recreation
waters''
means
­
­
(
i)
the
Great
Lakes;
and
77
­
(
ii)
marine
coastal
waters
(
including
coastal
estuaries)
that
are
designated
under
section
1313(
c)
of
this
title
by
a
State
for
use
for
swimming,
bathing,
surfing,
or
similar
water
contact
activities.
(
B)
Exclusions.
­
The
term
''
coastal
recreation
waters''
does
not
include
­
­
(
i)
inland
waters;
or
­
(
ii)
waters
upstream
of
the
mouth
of
a
river
or
stream
having
an
unimpaired
natural
connection
with
the
open
sea.
(
22)
Floatable
material.
­
(
A)
In
general.
­
The
term
''
floatable
material''
means
any
foreign
matter
that
may
float
or
remain
suspended
in
the
water
column.
(
B)
Inclusions.
­
The
term
''
floatable
material''
includes
­
­
(
i)
plastic;
­
(
ii)
aluminum
cans;
­
(
iii)
wood
products;
­
(
iv)
bottles;
and
­
(
v)
paper
products.
(
23)
Pathogen
indicator.
­
The
term
''
pathogen
indicator''
means
a
substance
that
indicates
the
potential
for
human
infectious
disease.
78
Clean
Water
Act
Section
308.
Inspections,
monitoring,
and
entry
(
a)
Whenever
required
to
carry
out
the
objective
of
this
Act,
including
but
not
limited
to
(
1)
developing
or
assisting
in
the
development
of
any
effluent
limitation,
or
other
limitation,
prohibition,
or
effluent
standard,
pretreatment
standard,
or
standard
of
performance
under
this
Act;
(
2)
determining
whether
any
person
is
in
violation
of
any
such
effluent
limitation,
or
other
limitation,
prohibition
or
effluent
standard,
pretreatment
standard,
or
standard
of
performance;
(
3)
any
requirement
established
under
this
section;
or
(
4)
carrying
out
section
305,
311,
402,
404
(
relating
to
State
permit
programs),
405,
and
504
of
this
Act
­
(
A)
the
Administrator
shall
require
the
owner
or
operator
of
any
point
source
to
(
i)
establish
and
maintains
such
records,
(
ii)
make
such
reports,
(
iii)
install,
use,
and
maintain
such
monitoring
equipment
or
methods
(
including
where
appropriate,
biological
monitoring
methods),
(
iv)
sample
such
effluents
(
in
accordance
with
such
methods,
at
such
locations,
at
such
intervals,
and
in
such
manner
as
the
Administrator
shall
prescribe),
and
(
v)
provide
such
other
information
as
he
may
reasonably
require;
and
(
B)
the
Administrator
or
his
authorized
representative
(
including
an
authorized
contractor
acting
as
a
representative
of
the
Administrator),
upon
presentation
of
his
credentials
­
(
i)
shall
have
a
right
of
entry
to,
upon,
or
through
any
premises
in
which
an
effluent
source
is
located
in
or
which
any
records
required
to
be
maintained
under
clause
(
A)
of
this
subsection
are
located,
and
(
ii)
may
at
reasonable
times
have
access
to
any
copy
any
records,
inspect
any
monitoring
equipment
or
method
required
under
clause
(
A),
and
sample
any
effluents
which
the
owner
or
operator
of
such
sources
is
required
to
sample
under
such
clause.

(
b)
Any
records,
reports,
or
information
obtained
under
this
section
(
1)
shall,
in
the
case
of
effluent
dat,
be
related
to
any
applicable
effluent
limitations,
toxic
pretreatment,
or
new
source
performance,
standards,
and
(
2)
shall
be
available
to
the
public,
except
that
upon
a
showing
satisfactory
to
the
Administrator
by
any
person
that
records,
reports,
or
information,
or
particular
part
thereof
(
other
than
the
effluent
data),
to
which
the
Administrator
has
access
under
this
section,
if
made
public
would
divulge
methods
or
processes
entitled
to
protection
as
trade
secrets
of
such
person,
the
Administrator
shall
consider
such
record,
report,
or
information
or
particular
portion
thereof
confidential
in
accordance
with
the
purposes
of
section
1905
of
title
18
of
the
United
States
Code.
Any
authorized
representative
of
the
Administrator
(
including
an
authorized
contractor
acting
as
a
representative
of
the
Administrator)
who
knowingly
or
willfully
publishes,
divulged,
discloses,
or
makes
known
in
any
manner
or
to
any
extent
not
authorized
by
law
any
information
which
is
required
to
be
considered
confidential
under
this
subsection
shall
be
fined
not
more
than
$
1,000
or
imprisoned
not
more
than
1
year,
or
both.
Nothing
in
this
subsection
shall
prohibit
the
Administrator
or
an
authorized
representative
of
the
Administrator
(
including
any
authorized
contractor
acting
as
a
representative
of
the
Administrator)
from
disclosing
records,
reports,
or
information
to
other
officers,
employees,
79
or
authorized
representatives
of
the
United
States
concerned
with
carrying
out
this
Act
or
when
relevant
in
any
proceeding
under
this
Act.

(
c)
Each
State
may
develop
and
submit
to
the
Administrator
procedures
under
State
law
for
inspection,
monitoring,
and
entry
with
respect
to
point
sources
located
in
such
State.
If
the
Administrator
finds
that
the
procedures
and
the
law
of
any
State
relating
to
inspection,
monitoring,
and
entry
are
applicable
to
at
least
the
same
extent
as
those
required
by
this
section,
such
State
is
authorized
to
apply
and
enforce
its
procedures
for
inspection,
monitoring,
and
entry
with
respect
to
point
sources
located
in
such
State
(
except
with
respect
to
point
sources
owned
or
operated
by
the
United
States).

(
d)
Access
by
Congress.­
Notwithstanding
any
limitation
contained
in
this
section
or
any
other
provision
of
law,
all
information
reported
to
or
otherwise
obtained
by
Administrator
(
or
any
representative
of
the
Administrator)
under
this
Act
shall
be
made
available,
upon
written
request
of
any
duly
authorized
committee
of
Congress,
to
such
committee.
80
Appendix
2.
Permit
Application
Form
2B
81
81
EPA
I.
D.
NUMBER
(
copy
from
Item
1
of
Form
1)
DRAFT
8/
02
FORM
2B
NPDES
EPA
U.
S.
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
APPLICATIONS
FOR
PERMIT
TO
DISCHARGE
WASTEWATER
CONCENTRATED
ANIMAL
FEEDING
OPERATIONS
AND
AQUATIC
ANIMAL
PRODUCTION
FACILITIES
1.
GENERAL
INFORMATION
A.
TYPE
OF
BUSINESS
B.
CONTACT
INFORMATION
C.
FACILITY
OPERATION
STATUS
G
1.
Concentrated
Animal
Feeding
Operation
(
complete
items
B,
C,
D,
and
Section
II)

G
2.
Concentrated
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Facility
(
complete
items
B,
C,
and
section
III)
Owner/
or
Operator
Name:____________________________
Telephone:
(
)
Address:__________________________________
Facsimile:(
)
City:_____________
State:____
Zip
Code:_______
G
1.
Existing
Facility
G
2.
Expanding
Facility
G
3.
Proposed
Facility
D.
FACILITY
INFORMATION
Name:____________________________________________________
Telephone:
(
)______________________________
Address:
__________________________________________________
Facsimile:
(
)
______________________________
City:
_____________________________________
State:
____________________
Zip
Code:
___________________________
County:
__________________________
Latitude:
____________________
Longitude:
_______________________

If
contract
operation:
Name
of
Integrator
:
_________________________________________
Address
of
Integrator:
________________________________________

II.
CONCENTRATED
ANIMAL
FEEDING
OPERATION
CHARACTERISTICS
A.
TYPE
AND
NUMBER
OF
ANIMALS
B.
Manure,
Litter
and/
or
Wastewater
Production
and
Use
2.
ANIMALS
NO.
IN
OPEN
CONFINEMENT
NO.
HOUSED
UNDER
ROOF
1.
TYPE
1.
How
much
manure,
litter
and
wastewater
is
generated
annually
by
the
facility?________
tons
________
gallons
2.
If
land
applied
how
many
acres
of
land
under
the
control
of
the
applicant
are
available
for
applying
the
CAFOs
manure/
litter/
wastewater?_______________
acres
3.
How
many
tons
of
manure
or
litter,
or
gallons
of
wastewater
produced
by
the
CAFO
will
be
transferred
to
other
persons?_____________
tons/
gallons
(
circle
one)

C.
TOTAL
NUMBER
OF
ANIMALS
CONFINED
AT
THE
FACILITY______________________________

D.
A
TOPOGRAPHIC
MAP
OF
THE
ENTIRE
OPERATION
82
82
E.
TYPE
OF
CONTAINMENT,
STORAGE
AND
CAPACITY
1.
Type
of
containment:________________________
Total
capacity:
______________________________
gallons
2.
Report
the
number
of
acres
contributing
drainage:
_____________________
acres
3.
Type
of
storage:___________________________
Total
capacity:
______________________________
days
F.
NUTRIENT
MANAGEMENT
PLAN
1.
Has
a
nutrient
management
plan
been
developed
and
is
being
implemented
for
the
facility?
G
Yes
G
No
2.
If
no,
when
will
the
nutrient
management
plan
be
developed?
Date:
_____________

3.
The
date
of
the
last
review
or
revision
of
the
nutrient
management
plan.
Date:
_______________

4.
If
not
land
applying,
describe
alternative
use(
s)
of
manure,
litter
and
or
wastewater:

G.
CONSERVATION
PRACTICES
Please
check
any
of
the
following
conservation
practices
that
are
being
implemented
at
the
facility
to
control
runoff
and
protect
water
quality:

G
Buffers
G
Setbacks
G
Conservation
tillage
G
Constructed
wetlands
G
Infiltration
field
G
Grass
filter
G
Terrace
III.
CONCENTRATED
AQUATIC
ANIMAL
PRODUCTION
FACILITY
CHARACTERISTICS
A.
For
each
outfall
give
the
maximum
daily
flow,
maximum
30­
day
flow,
and
the
long­
term
average
flow.
B.
Indicate
the
total
number
of
ponds,
raceways,
and
similar
structures
in
your
facility.

2.
Flow
(
gallons
per
day)
1.
Ponds
2.
Raceways
3.
Other
a.
Maximum.
Daily
b.
Maximum
30
Day
c.
Long
Term
Average
C.
Provide
the
name
of
the
receiving
water
and
the
source
of
water
used
by
your
facility.

1.
Receiving
Water
2.
Water
Source
1.
Outfall
No.

D.
List
the
species
of
fish
or
aquatic
animals
held
and
fed
at
your
facility.
For
each
species,
give
the
total
weight
produced
by
your
facility
per
year
in
pounds
of
harvestable
weight,
and
also
give
the
maximum
weight
present
at
any
one
time.

1.
Cold
Water
Species
2.
Warm
Water
Species
b.
Harvestable
Weight
(
pounds)
b.
Harvestable
Weight
(
pounds)
a.
Species
(
1)
Total
Yearly
(
2)
Maximum
a.
Species
(
1)
Total
Yearly
(
2)
Maximum
83
83
E.
Report
the
total
pounds
of
food
during
the
calendar
month
of
maximum
feeding.
1.
Month
2.
Pounds
of
Food
IV.
CERTIFICATION
I
certify
under
penalty
of
law
that
I
have
personally
examined
and
am
familiar
with
the
information
submitted
in
this
application
and
all
attachments
and
that,
based
on
my
inquiry
of
those
individuals
immediately
responsible
for
obtaining
the
information,
I
believe
that
the
information
is
true
accurate
and
complete.
I
am
aware
that
there
are
significant
penalties
for
submitting
false
information,
including
the
possibility
of
fine
and
imprisonment.

A.
Name
and
Official
Title
(
print
or
type)
B.
Phone
No.
(
)

C.
Signature
D.
Date
Signed
84
84
GENERAL
This
form
must
be
completed
by
all
applicants
who
check
"
yes"
to
Item
IIB
in
Form
1.
Not
all
animal
feeding
operations
or
fish
farms
are
required
to
obtain
NPDES
permits.
Exclusions
are
based
on
size.
See
the
description
of
these
statutory
and
regulatory
exclusions
in
the
General
Instructions
that
accompany
Form
1.

For
aquatic
animal
production
facilities,
the
size
cutoffs
are
based
on
whether
the
species
are
warm
water
or
cold
water,
on
the
production
weight
per
year
in
harvestable
pounds,
and
on
the
amount
of
feeding
in
pounds
of
food
(
for
cold
water
species).
Also,
facilities
which
discharge
less
than
30
days
per
year,
or
only
during
periods
of
excess
runoff
(
for
warm
water
fish)
are
not
required
to
have
a
permit.

Refer
to
the
Form
1
instructions
to
determine
where
to
file
this
form.

Item
I­
A
See
the
note
above
and
the
General
Instructions
which
accompany
Form
1
to
be
sure
that
your
facility
is
a
"
concentrated
animal
feeding
operation"
(
CAFO).

Item
I­
B
Use
this
space
to
give
owner/
operator
contact
information.

Item
I­
C
Check
"
proposed"
if
your
facility
is
not
now
in
operation
or
"
expanding"
if
your
facility
does
not
currently
meet
the
definition
of
a
CAFO
in
accordance
with
the
information
found
in
the
General
Instructions
that
accompany
Form
1.

Item
I­
D
Use
this
space
to
give
a
complete
legal
description
of
your
facilities
location
including
name,
address,
and
latitude/
longitude.
Also,
the
if
a
contract
grower,
the
name
and
address
of
the
integrator.

Item
II
Supply
all
information
in
item
II
if
you
checked
(
1)
in
item
I­
A.

Item
II­
A
Give
the
maximum
number
of
each
type
of
animal
in
open
confinement
or
housed
under
roof
(
either
partially
or
totally)
which
are
held
at
your
facility
for
a
total
of
45
days
or
more
in
any
12
month
period.

Use
the
following
categories
for
types
of
animal:

Mature
Dairy
Cattle;
Veal;
Cattle
(
other
than
mature
dairy
or
veal);
Swine
(
over
25
kilograms);
Swine
(
less
than
25
kilogram);
Horses;
Sheep
or
Lambs;
Turkeys;
Chickens
(
Laying
hens/
Broilers);
Ducks,
etc.

Item
II­
B
Provide
the
total
amount
of
manure,
litter
and
wastewater
generated
annually
by
the
facility.
Identify
if
manure,
litter
and
wastewater
generated
by
the
facility
is
to
be
land
applied
and
the
number
of
acres,
under
the
control
of
the
CAFO
operator,
suitable
for
land
application.
If
the
answer
to
question
3
is
yes,
provide
the
estimated
annual
quantity
of
manure,
litter
and
wastewater
that
the
applicant
plans
to
transfer
off­
site.

Item
II­
C
Provide
the
total
number
of
animals
confined
at
the
facility.

Item
II­
D
Provide
a
topographic
map
of
the
of
the
entire
operation
including
the
production
area
and
land
under
the
operational
control
of
the
CAFO
operator
where
manure,
litter
and/
or
wastewater
are
applied.
Item
II­
E
1.
Provide
information
on
the
type
of
containment
(
e.
g.,
lagoon,
holding
pond,
evaporation
pond,
etc)
and
the
capacity
of
the
containment
structure.
2.
The
number
of
acres
that
are
drained
and
collected
in
the
containment
structure.
3.
Identify
the
type
of
storage
(
e.
g.,
anaerobic
lagoon,
storage
pond,
evaporation
pond,
aboveground
storage
tanks,
belowground
storage
tanks,
roofed
storage
shed,
concrete
pad,
impervious
soil
pad,
etc.)
for
the
manure,
litter
and/
or
wastewater.
Give
the
capacity
of
this
storage
in
days.

Item
II­
F
Provide
information
concerning
the
status
of
the
development
and
implementation
of
a
nutrient
management
plan
for
the
facility.
In
those
cases
where
the
nutrient
management
plan
has
not
been
completed,
provide
an
estimated
date
of
development
and
implementation.
If
not
land
applying
describe
the
alternative
uses
of
the
manure,
litter
and
wastewater
(
e.
g.,
composting,
pelletizing,
energy
generation,
etc.).

Item
II­
G
Check
any
of
the
identified
conservation
practices
that
are
being
implemented
at
the
facility
to
control
runoff
and
protect
water
quality.

Item
III
Supply
all
information
in
Item
III
if
you
checked
(
2)
in
Item
I­
A.

Item
III­
A
Outfalls
should
be
numbered
to
correspond
with
the
map
submitted
in
Item
XI
of
Form
1.
Values
given
for
flow
should
be
representative
of
your
normal
operation.
The
maximum
daily
flow
is
the
maximum
measured
flow
occurring
over
a
calendar
day.
The
maximum
30­
day
flow
is
the
average
of
measured
daily
flow
over
the
calendar
month
of
highest
flow.
The
long­
term
average
flow
is
the
average
of
measure
daily
flows
over
a
calendar
year.

Item
III­
B
Give
the
total
number
of
discrete
ponds
or
raceways
in
your
facility.
Under
"
other,"
give
a
descriptive
name
of
any
structure
which
is
not
a
pond
or
a
raceway
but
which
results
in
discharge
to
waters
of
the
United
States.

Item
III­
C
Use
names
for
receiving
water
and
source
of
water
which
correspond
to
the
map
submitted
in
Item
XI
of
Form
1.

Item
III­
D
The
names
of
fish
species
should
be
proper,
common,
or
scientific
names
as
given
in
special
Publication
No.
6
of
the
American
Fisheries
Society.
"
A
List
of
Common
and
Scientific
Names
of
Fishes
from
the
United
States
and
Canada."
The
values
given
for
total
weight
produced
by
your
facility
per
year
and
the
maximum
weight
present
at
any
one
time
should
be
representative
of
your
normal
operation.

Item
III­
E
The
value
given
for
maximum
monthly
pounds
of
food
should
be
representative
of
your
normal
operation.

Item
IV
The
Clean
Water
Act
provides
for
severe
penalties
for
submitting
false
information
on
this
application
form.

Section
309(
C)(
2)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
provides
that
"
Any
person
who
knowingly
makes
any
false
statement,
representation,
or
certification
in
any
application...
shall
upon
conviction,
be
punished
by
a
fine
of
no
more
than
$
10,000
or
by
imprisonment
for
not
more
than
six
months,
or
both."
85
85
Federal
regulations
require
the
certification
to
be
signed
as
follows:

A.
For
corporation,
by
a
principal
executive
officer
of
at
least
the
level
of
vice
president.

B.
For
a
partnership
or
sole
proprietorship,
by
a
general
partner
or
the
proprietor,
respectively;
or
C.
For
a
municipality,
State,
Federal,
or
other
public
facility,
by
either
a
principal
executive
officer
or
ranking
elected
official.

Paper
Reduction
Act
Notice
The
Public
reporting
burden
for
this
collection
of
information
estimated
to
average
4
hours
per
response.
The
estimate
includes
time
for
reviewing
instructions,
searching
existing
data
sources,
gathering
and
maintaining
the
needed
data,
and
completing
and
reviewing
the
collection
of
information.
Send
comments
regarding
the
burden
estimate
or
any
other
aspect
of
this
collection
of
information
to
the
chief,
Information
Policy
Branch
(
PM­
223),
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
N.
W.,
Washington,
D.
C.
20460,
and
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Afairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
washington,
D.
C.
20503,
marked
Attention:
Desk
Officer
for
EPA.

****
DRAFT
8/
02****
86
Appendix
3.
Burden
and
Cost
Exhibits
87
87
Exhibit
A.
1
Exhibit
A.
1a
Start­
up
Activities
Respondents
Burden
per
Response
Annual
Burden
Annual
Labor
Cost1
Activity
B
C
C*
wage
Read
and
Understand
Rule
14,696
one
1
time
2
2
$
44
Determine
Requirements
and
Plan
14,696
one
1
time
1
1
$
22
Exhibit
A.
1b
NPDES
Permit
Application
Activities
Respondents
Burden
per
Response
Annual
Burden
Annual
Labor
Cost1
Activity
B
C
C*
wage
Complete
Notice
of
Intent
for
General
Permit
2
10,287
every
5
years
9
9
$
196
Complete
Individual
Permit
Application
3
4,409
every
5
years
9
9
$
196
Inspection
4
2,939
every
5
years
4
4
$
87
Exhibit
A.
1c
Annual
NPDES
Permit
Activities
Respondents
Burden
per
Response
Annual
Burden
Annual
Labor
Cost1
Activity
B
C
C*
wage
Prepare
and
Submit
Annual
Report
14,696
every
1
year
1
1
$
22
Record
Off­
site
Transfers
of
Manure
2
9,935
every
1
year
14
14
$
154
Exhibit
A.
1d
Nutrient
Management
Plan
Respondents
Burden
per
Response
Annual
Burden
Annual
Labor
Cost1
Activity
B
C
C*
wage
Develop
Nutrient
Management
Plan­
Land
Appl.
2
14,696
every
5
years
53
53
$
1,908
Response
Frequency
Response
Frequency
A
2.
EPA
assumes
that
large
CAFOs
will
have
169
transfers
per
year
requiring
4
minutes
of
record
kjeeping
per
transfer.
EPA
also
assumes
that
no
weight
tickets
or
truck
scales
are
needed
for
recording
transfers.
A
2.
The
burden
estimate
is
a
weighted
average
of
the
burden
estimates
derived
by
animal
subcategory.
See
Exhibit
A.
1h
for
detail.
1.
Labor
cost
assumes
a
farm
manager
labor
cost
of
$
21.83
per
hour.

A
1.
Labor
cost
assumes
an
agronomist
labor
cost
of
$
36.23
for
the
plan
development.
Response
Frequency
2.
EPA
assumes
that
70%
of
CAFOs
will
receive
General
Permits.

1.
Labor
cost
assumes
a
farm
manager
labor
cost
of
$
21.83
per
hour
to
prepare
the
annual
report
and
a
laborer
cost
of
$
11
per
hour
to
keep
off­
site
transfer
records.
Facility
Cost
and
Burden
Estimates
for
NPDES
Permit
Application
and
BAT
Activities
3.
EPA
assumes
that
30%
of
CAFOs
will
receive
Individual
Permits.
4.
EPA
assumes
that
approximately
20%
of
CAFOs
possessing
Permits
will
require
inspections
annually.
Response
Frequency
A
1.
Labor
cost
assumes
a
farm
manager
labor
cost
of
$
21.83
per
hour.
88
89
Exhibit
A.
1
continued
Exhibit
A.
1e
ELG
Requirements
Respondents
Burden
per
Response
Annual
Burden
Annual
Labor
Cost1
Activity
B
C
C*
wage
Visual
Inspections
2
14,696
every
1
year
13
13
$
143
Test/
Calibrate
Manure
Application
Equipment
3
10,983
every
1
year
4
4
$
44
Collect
and
Send
Manure
Sample
4
14,696
every
1
year
2
2
$
25
Collect
and
Send
Soil
Sample
5
10,983
every
3
years
9
9
$
96
Record
Keeping
6
14,696
every
1
year
80
80
$
880
Exhibit
A.
1f
Capital
Costs
for
Facilities
Respondents
Capital
Cost
Annual
Cost1
Activity
B
C
Purchase
of
a
Soil
Auger
for
Sampling
14,696
one
time
$
27
$
3.88
Cost
for
Production
Area
portion
NMP
2
10,983
one
time
$
1,050
$
149.50
Purchase
of
a
Manure
Sampler
14,696
one
time
$
33
$
4.66
Installation
of
Depth
Markers
3
11,434
one
time
$
33
$
4.66
Scales
for
Calibrating
Manure
Spreader
10,983
one
time
$
546
$
77.70
Response
Frequency
Response
Frequency
1.
EPA
estimates
the
annual
cost
on
Capital
Expenditures,
over
10
years,
using
a
amortization
rate
of
7%.
2.
EPA
assumes
that
the
owner
will
consult
an
engineer
and
document
waste
management
practices
for
the
production
area
portion
of
the
NMP.
2.
The
visual
inspection
burden
per
response
assumes
that
weekly
inspections
require
15
minutes
(
i.
e.,
52*
0.25
hours
=
13
hours).

4.
The
manure
sample
burden
and
cost
is
based
on
a
weighted
average
of
estimates
for
wet
and
dry
storage
facilities.
See
Exhibit
A.
1i
for
details.
5.
The
soil
sample
burden
is
based
on
a
weighted
average
of
estimates
derived
by
animal
subcategory.
See
Exhibit
A.
1j
for
details.
1.
The
labor
cost
for
all
activities
assumes
a
farm
laborer
cost
of
$
11
per
hour.
A
A
6.
This
incorporates
time
for
various
record
keeping
activities
required
by
the
proposed
rule,
including
keeping
inspection
and
maintenance
records,
on­
site
application,
and
maintaining
the
NMP
on­
site
for
inspection.
3.
The
analysis
assumes
that
76%
of
all
CAFOs
land
apply
manure
to
some
extent.

3.
Only
those
facilities
with
liquid
waste
storage
facilities
will
install
depth
markers.
90
Exhibit
A.
1
continued
Exhibit
A.
1g
O&
M
Costs
for
Facilities
Respondents
Cost
per
Response
Annual
Cost
Activity
B
C
Laboratory
Analysis
of
Soil
Sample
1
10,983
every
3
years
$
95
$
95
Laboratory
Analysis
of
Manure
Sample
2
14,696
every
1
year
$
117
$
117
Use
of
Tractor
during
Manure
Calibration
3
10,983
every
1
year
$
65
$
65
Other
Direct
Costs
for
Record
Keeping
4
14,696
every
1
year
$
88
$
88
Exhibit
A.
1h
Weighted
Average
NMP
Development
Burden
and
Cost
Respondents
Burden
Per
Response1
Annual
Burden
Cost
per
Response
CAFO
Category
(
average
acreage)
B
C
D
Beef
(
1045
acres)
1,639
every
5
years
157
157
$
5,703
Dairy
(
126
acres)
2,527
every
5
years
19
19
$
688
Heifers
(
138
acres)
449
every
5
years
21
21
$
753
Veal
(
100
acres)
18
every
5
years
15
15
$
546
Swine
(
373
acres)
4,126
every
5
years
56
56
$
2,035
Horses
(
356
acres)
185
every
5
years
54
54
$
1,943
Layers
(
96
acres)
551
every
5
years
14
14
$
524
Broilers:
1428
facilities
(
64
acres)
1,428
every
5
years
10
10
$
349
Turkeys
(
270
acres)
249
every
5
years
41
41
$
1,473
Ducks
(
143
acres)
21
every
5
years
22
22
$
780
Weighted
Averages
11,194
53
53
Exhibit
A.
1i
Weighted
Average
Manure
Sample
Burden
and
Cost
Respondents
Burden
Per
Response1
Annual
Burden
Annual
Cost
Storage
Category
B
C
C*
wage
Wet
Storage
(
collect
and
send
2
samples
per
year)
11,341
every
1
year
2
2
$
22
Dry
Storage
(
collect
and
send
6
samples
per
year)
3,355
every
1
year
3
3
$
33
Weighted
Averages
(
2.9
samples)
14,696
2.5
2.23
2.23
$
25
Response
Frequency
4.
Annual
record
keeping
ODC
costs
are
assumed
to
be
10%
of
the
labor
costs
for
record
keeping.

Response
Frequency
1.
There
are
two
sampling
events
per
year.
The
burden
estimates
per
sample
taken
assume
that
sample
collection
from
dry
poultry
to
obtain
and
prepare
a
sample
from
the
main
manure
storage
area
and
an
additional
0.25
hours
to
collect
samples
from
each
poultry
house.
Assuming
that
facilities
have
an
average
of
two
houses,
the
total
burden
per
sampling
event
is
1.5
hours.
Other
facilities
will
only
collect
a
sample
from
the
manure
storage
area
and,
thus,
incur
a
burden
of
one
hour
per
event.
A
A
A
1.
The
burden
estimates
were
derived
from
the
per­
facility
plan
development
cost
estimates
by
dividing
cost
by
an
agronimic
labor
cost
of
$
36.23
per
hour.
The
total
costs
were
based
on
an
average
cost
of
$
5.46
per
acre
and
the
average
CAFO
acreages
shown.
1.
The
soil
sample
O&
M
cost
is
based
on
a
weighted
average
of
estimates
derived
by
animal
subcategory.
See
Exhibit
A.
1k
for
details.
2.
The
laboratory
analysis
cost
per
sample
is
$
40.31.
The
cost
reported
here
is
based
on
the
weighted
average
number
of
samples
(
2.2)
shown
in
Exhibit
A.
1i.

3.
EPA
assumes
that
calibratio
of
spreading
equipment
will
require
two
hours
of
tractor
usage
at
$
32.50
an
hour.

Response
Frequency
91
Exhibit
A.
1
continued
Exhibit
A.
1j
Weighted
Average
Soil
Sample
Burden
and
Cost
Respondents
Burden
Per
Facility1
Annual
Burden
Annual
Cost
CAFO
Category
(
average
acreage)
B
C
C*
wage
Beef
(
1045
acres)
1,639
every
3
years
26.1
26.1
$
287
Dairy
(
126
acres)
2,527
every
3
years
3.2
3.2
$
35
Heifers
(
138
acres)
449
every
3
years
3.5
3.5
$
38
Veal
(
100
acres)
18
every
3
years
2.5
2.5
$
28
Swine
(
373
acres)
4,126
every
3
years
9.3
9.3
$
103
Horses
(
356
acres)
185
every
3
years
8.9
8.9
$
98
Layers
(
96
acres)
551
every
3
years
2.4
2.4
$
26
Broilers:
1428
facilities
(
64
acres)
1,428
every
3
years
1.6
1.6
$
18
Turkeys
(
270
acres)
249
every
3
years
6.8
6.8
$
74
Ducks
(
143
acres)
21
every
3
years
3.6
3.6
$
39
Weighted
Averages
11,194
8.7
$
96
Exhibit
A.
1k
Weighted
Average
Soil
Sample
O&
M
Cost
Respondents
Cost
per
Response1
Annual
Cost
CAFO
Category
(
average
acreage)
B
C
Beef
(
1045
acres)
1,639
every
3
years
$
285
$
285
Dairy
(
126
acres)
2,527
every
3
years
$
34
$
34
Heifers
(
138
acres)
449
every
3
years
$
38
$
38
Veal
(
100
acres)
18
every
3
years
$
27
$
27
Swine
(
373
acres)
4,126
every
3
years
$
102
$
102
Horses
(
356
acres)
185
every
3
years
$
97
$
97
Layers
(
96
acres)
551
every
3
years
$
26
$
26
Broilers:
1428
facilities
(
64
acres)
1,428
every
3
years
$
17
$
17
Turkeys
(
270
acres)
249
every
3
years
$
74
$
74
Ducks
(
143
acres)
21
every
3
years
$
39
$
39
Weighted
Averages
11,194
$
95
$
95
1.
The
burden
estimates
were
derived
by
dividing
the
average
farm
size
by
the
laborer
burden
of
40
acres
per
hour.

1.
The
soil
sample
O&
M
costs
assume
an
average
cost
to
analyze
samples
of
$
1.09
per
4
acres.
Response
Frequency
Response
Frequency
A
A
92
Exhibit
A.
2
State
Burden
and
Cost
Estimates
for
Activities
Exhibit
A.
2a
Program
Modification
Request
Burden
per
Response
Annual
Labor
Cost1
Activity2
B
Gather
and
Analyze
Data
one
time
0.0
$
0
Plan
Activities
one
time
0.0
$
0
Prepare
MOA
one
time
0.0
$
0
Prepare
&
Submit
Application
for
Program
one
time
0.0
$
0
Develop
non­
NPDES
Rules
(
As
Needed)
one
time
0.0
$
0
one
time
250
$
7,445
Exhibit
A.
2b
Initial
State
General
NPDES
Permit
Application
Activities
Burden
per
Response
Annual
Labor
Cost1
Activity
B
Permit
Development
one
time
300
$
8,934
Public
Notice/
response
to
comments
one
time
570
$
16,975
Public
Hearings
one
time
420
$
12,508
Review
and
Approve
NOIs/
Record
Keeping
10,026
OsCAFOs
4
$
119
Exhibit
A.
2c
State
Individual
Permit
Application
Activities
Burden
per
Response
Annual
Labor
Cost1
Activity
B
Review
Form
1
&
2B,
Notify
Public,
Respond
to
Comments
4,297
100
$
2,978
Public
Hearing
2
516
200
$
5,956
A
Response
Frequency
1.
Labor
cost
assumes
a
state
inspector
labor
cost
of
$
29.78
per
hour.

1.
Labor
cost
assumes
a
state
inspector
labor
cost
of
$
29.78
per
hour.
2.
EPA
assumed
that
12%
of
individual
permits
would
require
a
public
hearing.
CAFOs
1.
Labor
cost
assumes
a
state
inspector
labor
cost
of
$
29.78
per
hour.
Response
Frequency
A
Response
Frequency
A
CAFOs
2.
EPA's
labor
hour
estimate
is
based
on
program
modification
and
approval
burdens
in
an
active
ICR
("
NPDES
and
Sewage
Sludge
Management
State
Program
Requirements,"
OMB
NO.
2040­
0057,
EPA
ICR
0168.07),
which
estimates
250
hours
per
State
to
prepare
and
submit
a
r
NPDES
Program
Modification
request.
93
Exhibit
A.
2
Continued
Exhibit
A.
2d
State
Annual
Permit
Reporting
Activities
Burden
per
Response
Annual
Labor
Cost1
Activity
B
Facility
Inspection
2
5,986
16
$
476
Annual
Report
Review
14,323
4
$
119
Exhibit
A.
2e
State
O&
M
Costs
Burden
per
Response
Annual
Cost1
Activity
B
Public
Notice
for
General
Permit
one
time
­­
$
1,060
Public
Notice
for
Individual
Permit
4,297
CAFOs
$
1,060
Public
Hearing
Notice
516
CAFOs
$
1,060
2.
EPA
assumed
that
20%
of
CAFOs
were
inspected
at
an
average
burden
per
inspection
of
16
hrs.

Response
Frequency
A
Response
Frequency
A
CAFOs
CAFOs
1.
Labor
cost
assumes
a
state
inspector
labor
cost
of
$
29.78
per
hour.
94
Exhibit
A.
3
Federal
Burden
and
Cost
Estimates
for
Activities
Exhibit
A.
3a
Review
of
State
Modification
Request
Burden
per
State
Labor
Cost
per
State
Activity
A
B
Review
of
State
Modification
Request
43
1
States
50
$
1,997
Exhibit
A.
3b
Initial
Federal
General
NPDES
Permit
Application
Activities
Burden
per
Response
Annual
Labor
Cost1
Activity
B
Review
and
approve
NOIs
/
Record
Keeping
261
CAFOs
4
$
160
Exhibit
A.
3c
Federal
Individual
Permit
Application
Activities
Burden
per
Response
Annual
Labor
Cost1
Activity
B
Review
Form
1
&
2B,
Notify
Public,
Respond
to
Comments
112
100
$
3,994
Public
Hearing
2
13
200
$
7,988
Exhibit
A.
3d
Federal
Annual
Permit
Activities
Burden
per
Response
Annual
Labor
Cost1
Activity
B
Facility
Inspections
2
205
16
$
639
Review
Annual
Reports
373
4
$
160
2.
EPA
assumed
20%
of
facilities
were
inspected
annually
an
average
burden
per
inspection
of
16
hrs.

Exhibit
A.
3e
Federal
O&
M
Costs
Burden
per
Response
Annual
Cost1
Activity
B
Public
Notice
for
Individual
Permit
112
1
CAFOs
$
1,060
Public
Hearing
Notice
13
1
CAFOs
$
1,060
1.
The
cost
estimate
assumes
that
each
quarterly
publication
will
cost
$
1060.
Frequency
of
Response1
1.
Labor
cost
assumes
a
cost
of
$
39.94
per
hour
for
a
GS
12
Step
1
federal
employee.

CAFOs
Response
Frequency
A
CAFOs
1.
Labor
cost
assumes
a
cost
of
$
39.94
per
hour
for
a
GS
12
Step
1
federal
employee.
Response
Frequency
A
CAFOs
CAFOs
1.
This
is
a
one
time
burden
that
EPA
assumes
it
will
incur
for
each
NPDES
authorized
State.

A
1.
Labor
cost
assumes
a
cost
of
$
39.94
per
hour
for
a
GS
12
Step
1
federal
employee.

Response
Frequency
2.
EPA
assumed
that
12%
of
individual
permits
would
require
a
public
hearing.

Response
Frequency
A
95
Exhibit
A.
4
Respondents
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
Year
by
Year
by
Activity
Facilities
1
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Activities
Jan.
2003­
Dec.
2003
Jan.
2004­
Dec.
2004
Jan.
2005­
Dec.
2005
3
Year
Total
Annual
Average
Start­
up
Activities
9,874
1,294
3,527
14,695
4,898
Permit
Application
Activities
General
Permit
Application
Requirements
6,912
906
2,469
10,287
3,429
Individual
Permit
Application
Requirements
2,962
388
1,058
4,409
1,470
Annual
Report
9,874
11,168
14,695
35,737
11,912
Nutrient
Management
Plan
Plan
Development
9,874
1,294
3,527
14,695
4,898
NPDES
Record
Keeping
Record
Keeping
of
Off­
site
Manure
Transfers
5,419
6,679
9,935
22,032
7,344
Best
Available
Technology
Requirements
Visual
Inspections
9,874
11,168
14,695
35,737
11,912
Manure
Application
Equipment
Calibration
6,162
7,456
10,983
24,602
8,201
Manure
Sampling
9,874
11,168
14,695
35,737
11,912
Soil
Sampling
6,162
1,294
3,527
10,983
3,661
ELG
Record
Keeping
9,874
11,168
14,695
35,737
11,912
On­
Site
Inspections
Compliance
Inspection
1,975
2,234
2,939
7,147
2,382
Total
Respondents
9,874
11,168
14,695
35,737
11,912
States1
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Activities
Jan.
2003­
Dec.
2003
Jan.
2004­
Dec.
2004
Jan.
2005­
Dec.
2005
3
Year
Total
Annual
Average
Program
Modification
Request
21
22
0
43
43
Review
Annual
Reports
4,784
10,822
14,323
29,929
9,976
General
Permit
Activities
General
Permit
Development/
Public
notice/
Response
to
comments/
Public
Hearings
21
22
0
43
43
Review
and
Approve
NOIs
3,349
4,227
2,451
10,027
3,342
Facility
Inspections
(
General
Permit)
670
1,515
2,005
4,190
1,397
Individual
Permit
Activities
Review
Permit
Applications/
Public
Notification/
Response
to
Comments/
Issue
Permit
and
Recordkeeping
1,435
1,811
1,050
4,296
1,432
Public
Hearing
172
217
126
516
172
Facility
Inspections
(
Individual
Permit)
287
649
859
1,795
598
Respondents
21
22
43
86
29
Total
for
Facilities
and
States
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Respondent
Sep.
2001­
Aug.
2002
Sep.
2002­
Aug.
2003
Sep.
2003­
Aug.
2004
3
Year
Total
Annual
Average
Facilities
9,874
11,168
14,695
35,737
11,912
States
and
Territories
21
22
43
86
43
Yearly
Total
9,895
11,190
14,738
35,823
11,955
1.
It
is
assumed
that
facilities
will
begin
annual
activities
in
the
same
year
that
they
recieve
their
permit.
Thus,
facilities
applying
for
permits
in
2003
will
perform
annual
activities
three
times
during
the
period
and
will
be
counted
as
three
respondents.

1.
To
calculate
the
total
respondents
over
three
years,
States
are
counted
for
each
year
they
perform
any
type
of
response.
Thus,
the
threeyear
total
estimate
includes
States
counted
more
than
once.
96
97
Exhibit
A.
5
Responses
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
Year
by
Year
by
Activity
Facilities1
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Activities
Jan.
2003­
Dec.
2003
Jan.
2004­
Dec.
2004
Jan.
2005­
Dec.
2005
3
Year
Total
Annual
Average
Start­
up
Activities
9,874
1,294
3,527
14,695
4,898
Permit
Application
Activities
General
Permit
Application
Requirements
6,912
906
2,469
10,287
3,429
Individual
Permit
Application
Requirements
2,962
388
1,058
4,409
1,470
Annual
Report
9,874
11,168
14,695
35,737
11,912
Nutrient
Management
Plan
Plan
Development
9,874
1,294
3,527
14,695
4,898
NPDES
Record
Keeping
Record
Keeping
of
Off­
site
Manure
Transfers
5,419
6,679
9,935
22,032
7,344
Best
Available
Technology
Requirements
Visual
Inspections
9,874
11,168
14,695
35,737
11,912
Manure
Application
Equipment
Calibration
6,162
7,456
10,983
24,602
8,201
Manure
Sampling
9,874
11,168
14,695
35,737
11,912
Soil
Sampling
6,162
1,294
3,527
10,983
3,661
ELG
Record
Keeping
9,874
11,168
14,695
35,737
11,912
On­
Site
Inspections
Compliance
Inspection
1,975
2,234
2,939
7,147
2,382
Total
Responses
88,833
66,219
96,745
251,797
83,932
States
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Activities
Jan.
2003­
Dec.
2003
Jan.
2004­
Dec.
2004
Jan.
2005­
Dec.
2005
3
Year
Total
Annual
Average
Program
Modification
Request
21
22
0
43
14
Review
Annual
Reports
4784
10822
14323
29,929
9,976
General
Permit
Activities
General
Permit
Development/
Public
notice/
Response
to
comments/
Public
Hearings
21
22
0
43
14
Review
and
Approve
NOIs
3349
4227
2451
10,027
3,342
Facility
Inspections
(
General
Permit)
0
0
0
0
0
Individual
Permit
Activities
Review
Permit
Applications/
Public
Notification/
Response
to
Comments/
Issue
Permit
and
Recordkeeping
1435
1811
1050
4,296
1,432
Public
Hearing
172
217
126
516
172
Facility
Inspections
957
2164
2865
5,986
1,995
Total
Responses
10,739
19,286
20,815
50,839
16,946
Total
for
Responses
(
Facilities
and
States)
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Sep.
2001­
Aug.
2002
Sep.
2002­
Aug.
2003
Sep.
2003­
Aug.
2004
3
Year
Total
Annual
Average
Facilities
88,833
66,219
96,745
251,797
83,932
States
and
Territories
10,739
19,286
20,815
50,839
16,946
Yearly
Total
99,572
85,504
117,560
302,637
100,879
1.
It
is
assumed
that
facilities
will
begin
annual
activities
in
the
same
year
that
they
receive
their
permit.
98
99
Exhibit
A.
5
(
continued)

Federal
Government
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Activities
Jan.
2003­
Dec.
2003
Jan.
2004­
Dec.
2004
Jan.
2005­
Dec.
2005
3
Year
Total
Annual
Average
Review
of
State
Modification
Request
21
22
0
43
14
Review
Annual
Reports
306
346
372
1,024
341
General
Permit
Activities
Review
and
approve
NOIs
214
28
18
260
87
Individual
Permit
Activities
Review
Permit
Applications/
Public
Notification/
Response
to
Comments/
Issue
Permit
and
Recordkeeping
92
12
8
112
37
Public
Hearing
11
1
1
13
4
Facility
Inspections
61
69
74
205
68
Total
Responses
705
479
473
1,657
552
100
Exhibit
A.
6
Hourly
Burden
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
Year
by
Year
for
Respondents
Facilities1
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Activities
Jan.
2003­
Dec.
2003
Jan.
2004­
Dec.
2004
Jan.
2005­
Dec.
2005
3
Year
Total
Annual
Average
Start­
up
Activities
29,621
3,883
10,581
44,085
14,695
Permit
Application
Activities
General
Permit
Application
Requirements
62,204
8,155
22,220
92,579
30,860
Individual
Permit
Application
Requirements
26,659
3,495
9,523
39,677
13,226
Annual
Report
9,874
11,168
14,695
35,737
11,912
Nutrient
Management
Plan
Plan
Development
520,106
68,184
185,788
774,077
258,026
NPDES
Record
Keeping
Record
Keeping
of
Off­
site
Manure
Transfers
75,861
93,501
139,085
308,448
102,816
Best
Available
Technology
Requirements
Visual
Inspections
128,358
145,185
191,036
464,579
154,860
Manure
Application
Equipment
Calibration
24,648
29,826
43,934
98,408
32,803
Manure
Sampling
22,001
24,885
32,745
79,631
26,544
Soil
Sampling
53,875
11,317
30,837
96,029
32,010
ELG
Record
Keeping
789,894
893,446
1,175,606
2,858,947
952,982
On­
Site
Inspections
Compliance
Inspection
7,899
8,934
11,756
28,589
9,530
Total
Burden
1,751,001
1,301,980
1,867,806
4,920,787
1,640,262
States
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Activities
Jan.
2003­
Dec.
2003
Jan.
2004­
Dec.
2004
Jan.
2005­
Dec.
2005
3
Year
Total
Annual
Average
Program
Modification
Request
5,250
5,500
0
10,750
3,583
Review
Annual
Reports
19,136
43,288
57,292
119,716
39,905
General
Permit
Activities
General
Permit
Development/
Public
notice/
Response
to
comments/
Public
Hearings
27,090
28,380
0
55,470
18,490
Review
and
Approve
NOIs
13,396
16,908
9,804
40,108
13,369
Individual
Permit
Activities
Review
Permit
Applications/
Public
Notification/
Response
to
Comments/
Issue
Permit
and
Recordkeeping
143,500
181,100
105,000
429,600
143,200
Public
Hearing
34,440
43,464
25,200
103,104
34,368
Facility
Inspections
15,309
34,630
45,834
95,773
31,924
Total
Burden
258,121
353,270
243,130
854,521
252,916
Total
for
Responses
(
Facilities
and
States)
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Sep.
2001­
Aug.
2002
Sep.
2002­
Aug.
2003
Sep.
2003­
Aug.
2004
3
Year
Total
Annual
Average
Facilities
1,751,001
1,301,980
1,867,806
4,920,787
1,640,262
States
and
Territories
258,121
353,270
243,130
854,521
284,840
Yearly
Total
2,009,121
1,655,251
2,110,936
5,775,308
1,925,103
1.
It
is
assumed
that
facilities
will
begin
annual
activities
in
the
same
year
that
they
receive
their
permit.
101
102
Exhibit
A.
6
(
continued)
Federal
Government
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Activities
Jan.
2003­
Dec.
2003
Jan.
2004­
Dec.
2004
Jan.
2005­
Dec.
2005
3
Year
Total
Annual
Average
Review
of
State
Modification
Request
1,050
1,100
0
2,150
717
Review
Annual
Reports
1,224
1,384
1,488
4,096
1,365
General
Permit
Activities
Review
and
approve
NOIs
856
112
72
1,040
347
Individual
Permit
Activities
Review
Permit
Applications/
Public
Notification/
Response
to
Comments/
Issue
Permit
and
Recordkeeping
9,200
1,200
800
11,200
3,733
Public
Hearing
2,208
288
192
2,688
896
Facility
Inspections
979
1,107
1,190
3,277
1,092
Total
Burden
15,517
5,191
3,742
24,451
8,150
103
Exhibit
A.
7
Costs
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
Year
by
Year
for
Respondents
Labor
Costs
for
Facilities
1
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Activities
Jan.
2003­
Dec.
2003
Jan.
2004­
Dec.
2004
Jan.
2005­
Dec.
2005
3
Year
Total
Annual
Average
Start­
up
Activities
$
646,627
$
84,770
$
230,983
$
962,381
$
320,794
Permit
Application
Activities
General
Permit
Application
Requirements
$
1,357,917
$
178,018
$
485,065
$
2,020,999
$
673,666
Individual
Permit
Application
Requirements
$
581,964
$
76,293
$
207,885
$
866,143
$
288,714
Annual
Report
$
215,542
$
243,799
$
320,794
$
780,135
$
260,045
Nutrient
Management
Plan
Plan
Development
$
18,843,422
$
2,470,298
$
6,731,104
$
28,044,824
$
9,348,275
NPDES
Record
Keeping
Record
Keeping
of
Off­
site
Manure
Transfers
$
834,476
$
1,028,516
$
1,529,940
$
3,392,933
$
1,130,978
Best
Available
Technology
Requirements
Visual
Inspections
$
1,411,936
$
1,597,035
$
2,101,396
$
5,110,367
$
1,703,456
Manure
Application
Equipment
Calibration
$
271,132
$
328,085
$
483,273
$
1,082,490
$
360,830
Manure
Sampling
$
242,013
$
273,740
$
360,190
$
875,943
$
291,981
Soil
Sampling
$
592,628
$
124,487
$
339,203
$
1,056,318
$
352,106
ELG
Record
Keeping
$
8,688,836
$
9,827,908
$
12,931,668
$
31,448,413
$
10,482,804
On­
Site
Inspections
Compliance
Inspection
$
172,434
$
195,039
$
256,635
$
624,108
$
208,036
Total
Labor
Cost
$
33,858,928
$
16,427,989
$
25,978,136
$
76,265,054
$
25,421,685
1.
It
is
assumed
that
facilities
will
begin
annual
activities
in
the
same
year
that
they
receive
their
permit.

Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
For
Facilities
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Item
Jan.
2003­
Dec.
2003
Jan.
2004­
Dec.
2004
Jan.
2005­
Dec.
2005
3
Year
Total
Annual
Average
Capital
Costs
Purchase
of
the
Soil
Auger
$
38,357
$
43,386
$
57,088
$
138,831
$
46,277
Engineering
Cost
for
NMP
$
1,476,079
$
1,669,587
$
2,196,861
$
5,342,527
$
1,780,842
Purchase
of
a
Manure
Sampler
$
46,029
$
52,063
$
68,505
$
166,597
$
55,532
Installation
of
Depth
Markers
$
35,813
$
40,508
$
53,301
$
129,622
$
43,207
Scale
for
Calibrating
Manure
Spreader
$
767,148
$
867,718
$
1,141,753
$
2,776,620
$
925,540
O&
M
Costs
Laboratory
Analysis
of
Soil
Sample
$
585,398
$
122,968
$
335,065
$
1,043,431
$
347,810
Laboratory
Analysis
of
Manure
Sample
$
1,154,134
$
1,305,437
$
1,717,708
$
4,177,279
$
1,392,426
Use
of
Tractor
during
Manure
Calibration
$
403,522
$
488,286
$
719,251
$
1,611,059
$
537,020
Other
Direct
Costs
for
Record
Keeping
$
868,884
$
982,791
$
1,293,167
$
3,144,841
$
1,048,280
Subtotal
Capital
Costs
$
2,363,427
$
2,673,263
$
3,517,508
$
8,554,197
$
2,851,399
Subtotal
O&
M
Costs
$
3,011,938
$
2,899,482
$
4,065,191
$
9,976,610
$
3,325,537
Total
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
$
5,375,365
$
5,572,744
$
7,582,699
$
18,530,808
$
6,176,936
104
Exhibit
A.
7
(
continued)

States
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Activities
Jan.
2003­
Dec.
2003
Jan.
2004­
Dec.
2004
Jan.
2005­
Dec.
2005
3
Year
Total
Annual
Average
Program
Modification
Request
$
156,345
$
163,790
$
0
$
320,135
$
106,712
Review
Annual
Reports
$
569,296
$
1,287,818
$
1,704,437
$
3,561,551
$
1,187,184
General
Permit
Activities
General
Permit
Development/
Public
notice/
Response
to
comments/
Public
Hearings
$
806,740
$
845,156
$
0
$
1,651,897
$
550,632
Review
and
Approve
NOIs
$
398,933
$
503,520
$
291,963
$
1,194,416
$
398,139
Individual
Permit
Activities
Review
Permit
Applications/
Public
Notification/
Response
to
Comments/
Issue
Permit
and
Recordkeeping
$
4,273,430
$
5,393,158
$
3,126,900
$
12,793,488
$
4,264,496
Public
Hearing
$
1,025,623
$
1,294,358
$
750,456
$
3,070,437
$
1,023,479
Facility
Inspections
$
455,896
$
1,031,293
$
1,364,925
$
2,852,114
$
950,705
Total
Labor
Costs
$
7,686,263
$
10,519,094
$
7,238,681
$
25,444,038
$
7,530,641
O&
M
Costs
Public
notice
for
general
permit
$
22,260
$
23,320
$
0
$
45,580
$
15,193
Public
notice
for
individual
permit
$
1,521,100
$
1,919,660
$
1,113,000
$
4,553,760
$
1,517,920
Public
notice
for
public
hearing
$
182,532
$
230,359
$
133,560
$
546,451
$
182,150
Total
O&
M
Costs
$
1,725,892
$
2,173,339
$
1,246,560
$
5,145,791
$
1,715,264
Total
for
Responses
(
Facilities
and
States)
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Item
Sep.
2001­
Aug.
2002
Sep.
2002­
Aug.
2003
Sep.
2003­
Aug.
2004
3
Year
Total
Annual
Average
Facilities
Labor
Costs
$
33,858,928
$
16,427,989
$
25,978,136
$
76,265,054
$
25,421,685
States
and
Territories
Labor
Costs
$
7,686,263
$
10,519,094
$
7,238,681
$
25,444,038
$
8,481,346
Subtotal
Respondent
Labor
Costs
$
41,545,191
$
26,947,083
$
33,216,817
$
101,709,092
$
33,903,031
Respondent
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
$
7,101,257
$
7,746,083
$
8,829,259
$
23,676,599
$
7,892,200
Yearly
Total
$
48,646,448
$
34,693,166
$
42,046,076
$
125,385,691
$
41,795,231
Federal
Government
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Activities
Jan.
2003­
Dec.
2003
Jan.
2004­
Dec.
2004
Jan.
2005­
Dec.
2005
3
Year
Total
Annual
Average
Review
of
State
Modification
Request
$
41,937
$
43,934
$
0
$
85,871
$
28,624
Review
Annual
Reports
$
48,887
$
55,277
$
59,431
$
163,594
$
54,531
General
Permit
Activities
Review
and
approve
NOIs
$
34,189
$
4,473
$
2,876
$
41,538
$
13,846
Individual
Permit
Activities
Review
Permit
Applications/
Public
Notification/
Response
to
Comments/
Issue
Permit
and
Recordkeeping
$
367,448
$
47,928
$
31,952
$
447,328
$
149,109
Public
Hearing
$
88,188
$
11,503
$
7,668
$
107,359
$
35,786
Facility
Inspections
$
39,109
$
44,222
$
47,545
$
130,875
$
43,625
Total
Cost
$
619,757
$
207,337
$
149,471
$
976,565
$
325,522
105
Exhibit
A.
8
Summary
of
the
Burden,
Respondents,
Responses,
and
Costs
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
by
Year
and
Annual
Averages
Facilities
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Item
Source
(
Exhibit)*
Jan.
2003­
Dec.
2003
Jan.
2004­
Dec.
2004
Jan.
2005­
Dec.
2005
Net
Burden
(
hours)
1
A6
1,750,596
1,301,980
1,867,806
4,920,382
1,640,127
Respondents
(
number)
A4
9,874
11,168
14,695
35,737
11,912
Responses
(
number)
A5
88,833
66,219
96,745
251,797
83,932
Net
Costs
(
labor)
1
A7
$
33,850,087
$
16,427,989
$
25,978,136
76,256,212
25,418,737
Costs
(
Capital)
A7
$
2,363,427
$
2,673,263
$
3,517,508
$
8,554,197
$
2,851,399
Costs
(
O&
M)
A7
$
3,011,938
$
2,899,482
$
4,065,191
$
9,976,610
$
3,325,537
Total
Costs
$
39,225,452
$
22,000,733
$
33,560,835
$
94,787,020
$
31,595,673
States
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Item
Source
(
Exhibit)*
Jan.
2003­
Dec.
2003
Jan.
2004­
Dec.
2004
Jan.
2005­
Dec.
2005
Net
Burden
(
hours)
1
A6
258,076
353,270
243,130
854,521
252,916
Respondents
(
number)
A4
21
22
43
86
29
Responses
(
number)
A5
10,739
19,286
20,815
50,839
16,946
Net
Costs
(
Labor)
1
A7
$
7,684,923
$
10,519,094
$
7,238,681
$
25,444,038
$
7,530,641
Costs
(
O&
M)
A7
$
1,725,892
$
2,173,339
$
1,246,560
$
5,145,791
$
1,715,264
Total
Costs
$
9,410,815
$
12,692,433
$
8,485,241
$
30,589,829
$
9,245,905
Totals
for
Respondents
(
Facilities
and
States)
Three
Year
Total
Annual
Average
Total
Respondent
Burden
(
hours)
5,774,903
1,893,043
Total
Respondents
(
number)
35,823
11,941
Total
Responses
(
number)
302,637
100,879
Total
Respondent
Labor
Costs
$
101,700,250
$
32,949,379
Total
Respondent
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
$
23,676,599
$
7,892,200
Total
Respondent
Cost
for
All
Activities
$
125,376,849
$
40,841,579
1.
The
application
burden
for
45
individual
permits
has
been
included
in
the
earlier
Applications
ICR,
which
expires
after
April
30,
2003.
The
amount
of
overlap
has
been
removed
from
these
burden
estimates
(
9
hours
per
application
for
CAFOs
and
1
hour
per
application
for
States).
Annual
Average
Three
Year
Total
Three
Year
Total
Annual
Average
