Supporting
Statement
for
the
Information
Collection
Request
for
the
NPDES
Regulation
and
Effluent
Limitation
Guidelines
and
Standards
for
Concentrated
Animal
Feeding
Operations
June
2006
EPA
ICR
No.
1989.04
Rural
Branch
Water
Permits
Division
Office
of
Wastewater
Management
Office
of
Water
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Office
of
Wastewater
Management
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
N.
W.
Washington,
DC
20460
Supported
by:
Tetra
Tech,
Inc.
10306
Eaton
Place
Fairfax,
VA
22030
EPA
Contract
#
EP­
C­
05­
046
Tetra
Tech
Project
#
16759­
07
This
page
intentionally
left
blank.
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
1.
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION.....................................
1
1a.
Title
of
the
Information
Collection......................................................................
1
1b.
Short
Characterization.......................................................................................
1
2.
NEED
FOR
AND
USE
OF
THE
COLLECTION
........................................................
2
2a.
Need/
Authority
for
the
Collection?.....................................................................
2
2b.
Practical
Utility
/
Users
of
the
Data....................................................................
2
3.
NONDUPLICATION,
CONSULTATIONS,
AND
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA.
3
3a.
Nonduplication...................................................................................................
3
3b.
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
to
OMB..................................
4
3c.
Consultations.....................................................................................................
4
3d.
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection...................................................................
5
3e.
General
Guidelines............................................................................................
5
3f.
Confidentiality
.......................................................................................................
5
3g.
Sensitive
Questions...........................................................................................
5
4.
THE
RESPONDENTS
AND
THE
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
............................
6
4a.
Respondents/
NAICS
Codes..............................................................................
6
4b.
Information
Requested......................................................................................
8
5.
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTED 
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY,
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT......................................
15
5a.
Agency
Activities
.............................................................................................
15
5b.
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
......................................................
15
5c.
Small
Entity
Flexibility......................................................................................
16
5d.
Collection
Schedule.........................................................................................
17
6.
ESTIMATING
THE
BURDEN
AND
THE
COST
OF
THE
COLLECTION................
17
6a.
Estimating
Respondent
Burden.......................................................................
17
6b.
Estimating
Respondent
Costs
.........................................................................
21
6c.
Estimating
Agency
Burden
and
Cost...............................................................
23
6d.
Estimating
the
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Burden
and
Costs.................
24
6e.
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
Tables
.................................................
25
6f.
Burden
Statement
...............................................................................................
25
References
....................................................................................................................
27
Appendix........................................................................................................................
29
LIST
OF
TABLES
Table
4 
1.
CAFO
Standard
Industrial
Classification
Codes
and
Size
Thresholds..........
6
Table
4 
2.
Estimated
Number
of
CAFOs
by
Size
and
Animal
Type...............................
8
Table
5 
1.
SBA
and
EPA
Small
Business
Thresholds
for
Animal
Sectors
...................
16
Table
6 
1.
Burden
Estimates
per
CAFO
by
Activity
.....................................................
18
Table
6 
2.
Burden
Estimates
for
an
Authorized
State
by
Activity.................................
21
Table
6 
3.
Wage
rates
used
to
value
CAFO­
related
burdens
......................................
22
Table
6 
4.
Capital
and
O&
M
Cost
per
CAFO
(
2005
dollars)
........................................
23
Table
6 
5.
EPA
Burden
and
Cost
Estimates
................................................................
24
Table
6 
6.
Summary
of
Average
Annual
CAFO
and
State
Respondents,
Burden
Hours,
and
Costs
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
(
Costs
in
millions
$
2005)........
25
ACRONYM
LIST
AFO
animal
feeding
operation
BLS
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
BPJ
best
professional
judgment
CFR
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
CAFO
concentrated
animal
feeding
operation
CWA
Clean
Water
Act
ELG
Effluent
Limitations
Guidelines
EPA
Environmental
Protection
Agency
ICR
Information
Collection
Request
ICIS
Integrated
Compliance
Information
System
MOA
Memorandum
of
Agreement
NAHMS
National
Animal
Health
Monitoring
System
NAICS
North
American
Industry
Classification
System
NASS
National
Agricultural
Statistics
Service
NMP
Nutrient
Management
Plan
NOI
Notice
of
Intent
NPDES
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
O&
M
operation
and
maintenance
OMB
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
OPM
Office
of
Personnel
Management
PCS
Permit
Compliance
System
SBA
Small
Business
Administration
SIC
Standard
Industrial
Classification
SOC
Standard
Occupational
Classification
U.
S.
C.
United
States
Code
USDA
United
States
Department
of
Agriculture
USGS
United
States
Geological
Survey
This
page
intentionally
left
blank.
1
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
doc
1.
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
1a.
Title
of
the
Information
Collection
ICR:
NPDES
Regulation
and
Effluent
Limitation
Guidelines
and
Standards
for
Concentrated
Animal
Feeding
Operations
EPA
ICR
No.
1989.04
OMB
Control
Number:
2040­
0250
1b.
Short
Characterization
This
ICR
provides
an
estimate
of
the
information
collection
burden
for
respondents
covered
by
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
(
EPA
or
the
Agency)
regulations
for
concentrated
animal
feeding
operations
(
CAFOs)
under
the
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
permit
program
and
the
Effluent
Limitations
Guidelines
(
ELG).
This
ICR
follows
the
EPA
guidance
on
preparation
of
information
collection
burden
assessments
(
EPA,
1999).
The
ICR
revises
the
existing
estimates
of
burden
and
costs
to
NPDES
permittees
and
governments
(
Federal,
State)
presented
in
the
prior
ICR:
Final
NPDES
and
ELG
Regulatory
Revisions
for
Concentrated
Animal
Feeding
Operations
(
OMB
Control
No.
2040­
0250,
EPA
ICR
No.
1989.02),
which
expires
on
July
31,
2006.
To
prepare
this
ICR,
EPA
updated
the
2002
burden
and
costs
from
the
previous
ICR
to
reflect
changes
in
the
CAFOs
industry
sector
and
increases
in
labor
costs
since
2002.

On
February
28,
2005,
the
United
States
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Second
Circuit
vacated
certain
provisions
in
the
2003
final
CAFO
regulations
and
remanded
others
to
EPA
(
Waterkeeper
Alliance
et
al.
v.
EPA,
399
F.
3d
486
(
2nd
Cir.
2005)).
This
ICR
does
not
address
changes
to
EPA
regulations
as
a
result
of
the
Waterkeeper
court
decision,
since
those
revisions
are
not
yet
finalized.

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)
provides
that
States
(
including
U.
S.
Territories
and
Indian
Tribes
may
be
authorized
to
administer
NPDES
programs
once
the
Agency
is
assured
that
a
State
program
meets
minimum
federal
requirements.
As
of
May
2006,
45
States
and
one
Territory
(
U.
S.
Virgin
Islands)
had
received
approval
from
EPA
to
administer
the
NPDES
base
program,
which
includes
the
federal
requirements
that
are
applicable
to
CAFOs.
Of
these,
44
are
responsible
for
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
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
doc
issuing
NPDES
permits
to
CAFOs
(
called
"
authorized
States"
hereafter).
2
EPA
and
authorized
State
permitting
authorities
typically
receive,
review,
manage,
and
report
information
collected
under
the
NPDES
permitting
program,
including
CAFO
permits.

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

EPA
estimates
that
the
burden
for
this
information
collection
request
includes
an
annual
average
of
3.50
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
review
the
information
collected.
On
average,
there
will
be
approximately
24,080
respondents
and
196,453
responses
per
year
and
average
annual
capital
and
O&
M
costs
will
total
$
9.12
million.

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.).
CAFOs
are
defined
as
point
sources
for
purposes
of
the
NPDES
program
(
33
U.
S.
C.
Sec.
362.)
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.

EPA
and
authorized
States
need
the
information
required
by
the
2003
CAFO
rule
to
ensure
implementation
of
the
CWA
requirements.

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

 
to
issue
NPDES
permits
with
appropriate
limitations
and
conditions
that
will
protect
human
health
and
the
environment
2
EPA
retains
authority
for
NPDES
permits
for
CAFO
facilities
in
Oklahoma;
thus,
only
44
States
are
authorized
to
issue
permits
to
CAFOs.
EPA
is
not
aware
of
any
CAFOs
in
the
U.
S.
Virgin
Islands.
3
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
doc
 
to
update
information
in
EPA's
databases
that
permitting
authorities
use
to
determine
permit
conditions
 
to
calculate
national
permit
issuance,
backlog,
and
compliance
statistics
 
to
evaluate
national
water
quality
 
to
assist
EPA
in
program
management
and
other
activities
that
ensure
national
consistency
in
permitting
 
to
assist
EPA
in
prioritizing
permit
issuance
activities
 
to
assist
EPA
in
policy
development
and
budgeting
 
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
operational
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.

3.
NONDUPLICATION,
CONSULTATIONS,
AND
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA
3a.
Nonduplication
The
information
collection
pursuant
to
the
regulatory
program
is
site­
specific
and
therefore
not
available
from
existing
sources.

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

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:

 
EPA's
PCS
database
 
USDA
Census
of
Agriculture
EPA's
PCS
and
ICIS
databases
are
used
to
store
information
about
facilities
that
hold
NPDES
permits.
They
help
EPA
monitor
the
compliance
status
of
permitted
facilities.
These
systems
4
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
doc
hold
only
data
items
associated
with
existing
NPDES
permits
and
focus
on
discharge
requirements.
This
information
collection
is
not
duplicative
of
data
already
available
through
PCS
or
ICIS.
In
fact,
this
information
collection
is
the
source
of
data
in
PCS
or
ICIS.

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

3b.
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
to
OMB
In
compliance
with
the
1995
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
EPA
solicited
comments
for
a
60­
day
period
prior
to
submission
of
the
ICR
to
OMB.
Comments
were
requested
on
March
7,
2006,
via
a
Federal
Register
Notice
(
71
FR
11407).
The
Agency
did
not
receive
any
comments
on
the
notice.

3c.
Consultations
To
facilitate
the
2003
CAFO
regulation
development,
EPA
provided
many
opportunities
for
input
in
the
2003
rule­
making
process,
including
holding
11
public
outreach
meetings
on
the
Draft
Unified
National
AFO
Strategy
and
a
stakeholder
conference
call
including
small
entities.
EPA
also
held
nine
public
outreach
meetings
associated
with
the
proposed
CAFO
regulations
at
locations
across
the
country.
Since
then,
EPA
has
continued
to
meet
with
various
members
of
the
stakeholder
community
as
part
of
ongoing
implementation
of
the
2003
rule.
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
CAFO
NPDES
program.
While
most
of
those
outreach
activities
have
not
targeted
small
entities
explicitly,
many
included
small
business
participation.
5
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
doc
3d.
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
EPA
has
made
every
effort
to
establish
NPDES
permit
and
associated
information
collection
requirements
that
minimize
the
burden
on
respondents
while
promoting
the
protection
of
water
quality.
NPDES
permit
applications
are
the
primary
form
of
information
collection
for
regulated
CAFOs
and
these
facilities
must
reapply
for
NPDES
permits
before
their
existing
permits
expire.
Section
402(
p)
of
the
CWA
requires
that
NPDES
permits
be
issued
for
fixed
terms
with
a
maximum
term
of
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
are
conducted
by
authorized
States,
which
means
that
collection
frequency
is
largely
a
matter
of
State
discretion.
3
3e.
General
Guidelines
This
information
collection
complies
with
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
guidelines
(
5
CFR
1320.5(
d)(
2)),
except
for
the
requirement
for
CAFOs
to
maintain
the
records
on­
site
for
five
years
to
demonstrate
permit
compliance
(
40
CFR
122.42(
e)(
2)).
The
records
that
this
requirement
pertains
to
are
listed
below
in
Section
4b(
i).

3f.
Confidentiality
In
the
current
NPDES
program
for
CAFOs,
facilities
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
is
be
handled
in
accordance
with
40
CFR
122.7,
40
CFR
Part
2
(
40
CFR
2.201
et
seq.),
and
EPA's
Security
Manual
Part
III,
Chapter
9,
dated
August
9,
1976.

Whenever
possible,
EPA
encourages
public
involvement
in
the
NPDES
regulatory
process.
However,
EPA
also
recognizes
the
legitimate
concerns
of
owners/
operators
regarding
protection
of
confidential
business
information
and
potential
delays
in
processing
of
permit
applications.
4
3g.
Sensitive
Questions
This
ICR
does
not
ask
owners/
operators
sensitive
questions
concerning
private
matters
(
e.
g.,
religious
beliefs).

3
As
noted
above
in
section
1b.,
EPA
is
preparing
a
separate
ICR
that
will
assess
how
the
Waterkeeper
court
decision
will
affect
the
number
of
facilities
that
need
permits,
how
NMPs
are
processed,
and
how
the
related
information
collection
burden
will
change.
4
Fn.
3,
ibid.
6
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
doc
4.
THE
RESPONDENTS
AND
THE
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
This
ICR
covers
the
information
collection
activities
expected
to
occur
over
the
three­
year
ICR
renewal
period
from
August
1,
2006,
through
July
31,
2009.
During
this
period,
CAFO
and
authorized
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
covered
in
this
ICR
are
the
owners
or
operators
of
CAFOs
and
the
44
authorized
States
that
issue
permits
to
CAFOs.

EPA
categorizes
CAFOs
based
on
the
primary
type
of
animal
confined
at
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
2003
CAFO
regulations.
For
example,
swine
of
any
size
have
the
same
NAICS
or
SIC
codes.

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
Table
4­
1
also
provides
the
animal
thresholds
adopted
in
the
2003
CAFO
rule.
EPA
uses
these
thresholds
to
determine
which
AFOs
are
CAFOs.
Under
the
2003
CAFO
rule,
all
AFOs
that
confine
a
sufficient
number
of
animals
to
meet
the
large
threshold
are
defined
as
CAFOs.
An
7
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
doc
AFO
in
the
medium
size
category
is
defined
as
a
CAFO
if
it
confines
a
sufficient
number
of
animals
and
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
after
the
permit
authority
has
conducted
an
on­
site
inspection.
Medium
AFOs
that
are
not
defined
CAFOs
may
also
be
designated
as
CAFOs
by
the
permitting
authority.

The
2003
NPDES
CAFO
rule
requires
all
CAFOs
to
apply
for
an
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.
5
Table
4­
2
provides
the
number
of
CAFOs
that
need
permits
under
the
2003
NPDES
CAFO
and
ELG
regulations.
The
information
presented
in
Table
4­
2
was
generated
using
data
from
the
1997
and
2002
Census
of
Agriculture,
NASS
bulletins,
National
Animal
Health
Monitoring
System
(
NAHMS)
species
reports,
2003
Demographics
Report
and
industry
data
sources
and
comments.
According
to
this
information,
EPA
estimates
that
approximately
18,801
facilities
in
2005
would
meet
the
definition
of
a
Large
or
Medium
CAFO
or
be
designated
as
a
CAFO
by
the
permitting
authority.
(
EPA,
October
14,
2005,
Memo
to
Record:
Estimated
Number
of
Permit
Applications
from
CAFOs.)
Table
4­
2
provides
an
accounting
of
the
number
of
CAFOs
by
animal
type
as
well
as
operation
size.

Exhibit
B
in
the
Appendix
presents
more
detailed
calculations
of
the
permitting
universe
changes
over
the
3­
year
period
covered
by
the
ICR.

5
Fn.
3,
ibid.
8
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
doc
Table
4 
2.
Estimated
Number
of
CAFOs
by
Size
and
Animal
Type
Animal
type
2003
CAFO
universe
Projected
%
change,
2003­
2005
2005
CAFO
universe1
Total
CAFOs
designated
for
ICR
period2
Industry
Growth
for
ICR
period2,3
Large
CAFOs
Beef
1,766
2%
1,801
9
61
Veal
12
0%
12
0
0
Heifer
242
2%
247
3
16
Dairy
1,450
13%
1,639
18
857
Swine
3,924
41%
5,533
30
5,566
Broilers
1,632
32%
2,154
30
1,580
Layers:
Dry
729
2%
744
0
23
Layers:
Wet
383
0%
375
0
0
Ducks
21
21%
25
0
11
Horses
195
10%
215
0
34
Turkeys
388
7%
415
6
50
TOTAL
Large
CAFOs
10,742
13,160
96
Medium
CAFOs
4
4,625
22%
5,641
TOTAL
15,367
18,801
96
8,198
1.
Projection
based
on
NAHMS
species
reports,
2003
Demographics
Report,
and
2002
Census
of
Agriculture
changes
from
1997
Census.
(
This
reflects
the
percent
increase
in
column
2
times
the
number
of
CAFOs
in
column
1)
2.
The
number
of
designated
and
new
CAFOs
are
the
total
facilities
for
the
3­
year
ICR
period.
3.
Industry
growth
is
for
large
and
medium
CAFOs.
4.
Medium­
sized
CAFOs,
because
of
how
they
are
defined,
will
still
need
permits.
Source:
EPA
(
2002).
Estimates
of
CAFO
Universe
EPA
ICR
No.
1989.02.
New
CAFOs
per
year
estimates
are
based
on
Paul
Shriner's
(
EPA,
OST)
July
24,
2000
Memo
to
administrative
record
for
the
CAFO
rule
4b.
Information
Requested
4b(
i).
Data
Items,
Including
Record
Keeping
Requirements
CAFO
Data
Items
CAFO
Application
for
NPDES
Permit.
In
accordance
with
the
2003
rule,
each
CAFO
operator
has
a
duty
to
apply
for
an
NPDES
permit
by
preparing
and
submitting
either
an
application
for
an
individual
NPDES
permit
for
CAFOs
under
40
CFR
122.21
or
an
NOI
for
coverage
under
a
general
NPDES
permit
for
CAFOs
under
40
CFR
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
for
all
EPA
permit
programs,
including
name,
address,
type
of
facility,
and
number
of
outfalls.
Applicants
must
9
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
doc
also
submit
topographic
maps
and
lists
of
all
EPA
and
State
permits
presently
held.
Form
2B
requires
applicants
to
provide
the
following
types
of
information:

 
the
name
of
the
owner
or
operator
[
40
CFR
122.21(
i)(
1)(
i)]
 
the
facility
location
and
mailing
addresses
[
40
CFR
122.21(
i)(
1)(
ii)]
 
latitude
and
longitude
of
the
production
area
(
entrance
to
production
area)
[
40
CFR
122.21(
i)(
1)(
iii)]
 
a
topographic
map
of
the
geographic
area
in
which
the
CAFO
is
located
showing
the
specific
location
of
the
production
area
in
lieu
of
the
requirements
of
40
CFR
122.21(
f)(
7)
[
40
C.
F.
R
122.21(
i)(
1)(
iv)]
 
specific
information
about
the
number
and
type
of
animals,
whether
in
open
confinement
or
housed
under
roof
(
beef
cattle,
broilers,
layers,
swine
weighing
55
pounds
or
more,
swine
weighing
less
than
55
pounds,
mature
dairy
cows,
dairy
heifers,
veal
calves,
sheep
and
lambs,
horses,
ducks,
turkeys,
other)
[
40
CFR
122.21(
i)(
1)(
v)]
 
the
type
of
containment
(
anaerobic
lagoon,
roofed
storage
shed,
storage
ponds,
underfloor
pits,
above
ground
storage
tanks,
below
ground
storage
tanks,
concrete
pad,
impervious
soil
pad,
other)
and
total
capacity
for
manure,
litter,
and
process
wastewater
storage
(
tons/
gallons)
[
40
CFR
122.21(
i)(
1)(
vi)]
 
the
total
number
of
acres
under
control
of
the
applicant
available
for
land
application
of
manure,
litter,
and
process
wastewater
[
40
CFR
122.21(
i)(
1)(
vii)]
 
estimated
amount
of
manure,
litter,
and
process
wastewater
generated
per
year
(
tons/
gallons)
[
40
CFR
122.21(
i)(
1)(
viii)]
 
estimated
amount
of
manure,
litter,
and
process
wastewater
transferred
to
other
persons
per
year
(
tons/
gallons)
[
40
CFR
122.21(
i)(
1)(
ix)]
 
for
CAFOs
that
must
seek
coverage
under
a
permit
after
December
31,
2006,
certification
that
a
nutrient
management
plan
has
been
completed
and
will
be
implemented
upon
the
date
of
permit
coverage
[
40
CFR
122.21(
i)(
1)(
x)].

The
NOI
pertains
to
coverage
under
a
general
permit,
which
a
permitting
authority
uses
to
cover
multiple
permittees
requiring
similar
permit
conditions.
CAFO
operators
are
required
to
submit
the
same
information
as
listed
above
(
40
CFR
122.21(
i)(
1))
when
completing
an
NOI
to
be
covered
under
a
general
permit.

No
Potential
to
Discharge
Requests.
6
The
2003
NPDES
CAFO
regulation
provides
that
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
CFR
122.23(
g).
The
request
must
include
all
of
the
information
specified
in
40
CFR
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
CFR
122.23(
f)(
2)].

6
Fn.
3,
ibid.
10
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
doc
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.

Requirement
to
Develop
and
Implement
a
Nutrient
Management
Plan.
The
NMP
was
first
required
by
the
2003
CAFO
rule.
At
a
minimum,
an
NMP
must
include
best
management
practices
and
procedures
necessary
to
implement
applicable
effluent
limitations
and
standards
[
40
CFR
122.42(
e)(
1)].
As
specified
in
the
2003
rule,
permitted
CAFOs
must
have
their
nutrient
management
plans
developed
and
implemented
by
December
31,
2006;
CAFOs
that
seek
to
obtain
coverage
under
a
permit
after
December
31,
2006,
must
have
a
nutrient
management
plan
developed
and
implemented
upon
the
date
of
permit
coverage7
[
40
CFR
122.42(
e)(
1)].
The
nutrient
management
plan
must,
to
the
extent
applicable:

 
ensure
adequate
storage
of
manure
and
process
wastewater,
including
procedures
to
ensure
proper
operation
and
maintenance
of
the
storage
facilities
[
40
CFR
122.42(
e)(
1)(
i)]
 
ensure
proper
management
of
mortalities
(
i.
e.,
dead
animals)
to
ensure
that
they
are
not
disposed
of
in
any
liquid
manure,
storm
water,
or
process
wastewater
storage
or
treatment
system
that
is
not
specifically
designed
to
treat
animal
mortalities
[
40
CFR
122.42(
e)(
1)(
ii)]
 
ensure
that
clean
water
is
diverted,
as
appropriate,
from
the
production
area
[
40
CFR
122.42(
e)(
1)(
iii)]
 
prevent
direct
contact
of
confined
animals
with
waters
of
the
United
States
[
40
CFR
122.42(
e)(
1)(
iv)]
 
ensure
that
chemicals
and
other
contaminants
handled
on­
site
are
not
disposed
of
in
any
manure,
litter,
process
wastewater,
or
storm
water
storage
or
treatment
system
unless
specifically
designed
to
treat
such
chemicals
and
other
contaminants
[
40
CFR
122.42(
e)(
1)(
v)]
 
identify
appropriate
site
specific
conservation
practices
to
be
implemented,
including
as
appropriate
buffers
or
equivalent
practices,
to
control
runoff
of
pollutants
to
waters
of
the
United
States
[
40
CFR
122.42(
e)(
1)(
vi)]
 
identify
protocols
for
appropriate
testing
of
manure,
litter,
process
wastewater,
and
soil
[
40
CFR
122.42(
e)(
1)(
vii)]
 
establish
protocols
to
land
apply
manure,
litter,
or
process
wastewater
in
accordance
with
site
specific
nutrient
management
practices
that
ensure
appropriate
agricultural
utilization
of
the
nutrients
in
the
manure,
litter,
or
process
wastewater
[
40
CFR
122.42(
e)(
1)(
viii)]
 
identify
specific
records
that
will
be
maintained
to
document
the
implementation
and
management
of
the
minimum
elements
described
above
[
40
CFR
122.42(
e)(
1)(
ix)].

Record
Keeping
Requirements.
The
2003
rule
specifies
that
CAFOs
must
keep,
maintain
for
five
years,
and
make
available
to
the
Director
upon
request
the
following
records:

 
all
applicable
records
identified
pursuant
to
40
CFR
122.42(
e)(
1)(
ix)
[
40
CFR
122.42(
e)(
2)(
i)(
A)]

7
The
Waterkeeper
court
decision
is
necessitating
changes
to
the
dates
for
permitting
and
permit­
related
activities.
These
changes
are
not
assessed
in
this
ICR.
Although
EPA
has
modified
some
of
these
dates
already,
those
changes
are
driven
by
the
Waterkeeper
decision,
and
the
related
ICR
impacts
are
being
assessed,
as
noted
above,
in
a
separate
ICR.
11
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
doc
 
all
CAFOs
subject
to
40
CFR
Part
412
must
comply
with
record
keeping
requirements
as
specified
in
40
CFR
412.37(
b)
and
(
c),
and
40
CFR
412.47(
b)
and
(
c)
[
40
CFR
122.42(
e)(
2)(
i)(
B)],
which
are
listed
below:
(
Note:
Although
all
citations
below
are
to
40
CFR
412.37,
40
CFR
412.47(
b)
applies
all
40
CFR
412.37(
b)
conditions
for
CAFOs
subject
to
Subpart
C
to
CAFOs
subject
to
Subpart
D
and
40
CFR
412.47(
c)
applies
all
40
CFR
412.37(
c)
conditions
for
CAFOs
subject
to
Subpart
C
to
CAFOs
subject
to
Subpart
D.)
 
each
CAFO
must
maintain
on­
site
for
a
period
of
five
years
from
the
date
they
are
created
a
complete
copy
of
the
information
required
by
40
CFR
122.21(
i)(
1)
and
40
CFR
122.42(
e)(
1)(
ix)
and
the
records
specified
in
40
CFR
412.37(
b)(
1)
through
(
b)(
6)
[
40
CFR
412.37(
b)],
which
are
listed
below:
o
records
documenting
the
inspections
required
under
40
CFR
412.37(
a)(
1)
[
40
CFR
412.37(
b)(
1)]
o
weekly
records
of
the
depth
of
the
manure
and
process
wastewater
in
the
liquid
impoundment
as
indicated
by
the
depth
marker
under
40
CFR
412.37(
a)(
2)
[
40
CFR
412.37(
b)(
2)]
o
records
documenting
any
actions
taken
to
correct
deficiencies
required
under
40
CFR
412.37(
a)(
3);
deficiencies
not
corrected
within
30
days
must
be
accompanied
by
an
explanation
of
the
factors
preventing
immediate
correction
[
40
CFR
412.37(
b)(
3)]
o
records
of
mortalities
management
and
practices
used
by
the
CAFO
to
meet
the
requirements
of
40
CFR
412.37(
a)(
4)
[
40
CFR
412.37(
b)(
4)]
o
records
documenting
the
current
design
of
any
manure
or
litter
storage
structures,
including
volume
for
solids
accumulation,
design
treatment
volume,
total
design
volume,
and
approximate
number
of
days
of
storage
capacity
[
40
CFR
412.37(
b)(
5)]
o
records
of
the
date,
time,
and
estimated
volume
of
any
overflow
[
40
CFR
412.37(
b)(
6)]
 
each
CAFO
must
maintain
on­
site
a
copy
of
its
site­
specific
nutrient
management
plan;
each
CAFO
must
maintain
on­
site
for
a
period
of
five
years
from
the
date
it
is
created
a
complete
copy
of
the
information
required
by
40
CFR
412.4
and
40
CFR
122.42(
e)(
1)(
ix)
and
the
records
specified
in
40
CFR
412.37(
c)(
1)
through
(
c)(
10)
[
40
CFR
412.37(
c)],
which
are
listed
below:
o
expected
crop
yields
[
40
CFR
412.37(
c)(
1)]
o
the
date(
s)
manure,
litter,
or
process
waste
water
is
applied
to
each
field
[
40
CFR
412.37(
c)(
2)]
o
weather
conditions
at
time
of
application
and
for
24
hours
prior
to
and
following
application
[
40
CFR
412.37(
c)(
3)]
o
test
methods
used
to
sample
and
analyze
manure,
litter,
process
waste
water,
and
soil
[
40
CFR
412.37(
c)(
4)]
o
results
from
manure,
litter,
process
waste
water,
and
soil
sampling
[
40
CFR
412.37(
c)(
5)]
o
explanation
of
the
basis
for
determining
manure
application
rates,
as
provided
in
the
technical
standards
established
by
the
Director
[
40
CFR
412.37(
c)(
6)]
12
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
doc
o
calculations
showing
the
total
nitrogen
and
phosphorus
to
be
applied
to
each
field,
including
sources
other
than
manure,
litter,
or
process
wastewater
[
40
CFR
412.37(
c)(
7)]
o
total
amount
of
nitrogen
and
phosphorus
actually
applied
to
each
field,
including
documentation
of
calculations
for
the
total
amount
applied
[
40
CFR
412.37(
c)(
8)]
o
the
method
used
to
apply
the
manure,
litter,
or
process
wastewater
[
40
CFR
412.37(
c)(
9)]
o
date(
s)
of
manure
application
equipment
inspection
[
40
CFR
412.37(
c)(
10)]
 
a
copy
of
the
CAFO's
site­
specific
NMP
must
be
maintained
on
site
and
made
available
to
the
Director
upon
request
[
40
CFR
122.42(
e)(
2)(
ii)].

Requirements
Related
to
Transfer
of
Manure
or
Process
Wastewater
to
Other
Persons.
Prior
to
transferring
manure,
litter,
or
process
wastewater
to
other
persons,
Large
CAFOs
must
provide
the
recipient
of
the
manure,
litter,
or
process
wastewater
with
the
most
current
nutrient
analysis
consistent
with
the
requirements
of
40
CFR
412.
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
CFR
122.42(
e)(
3)].

CAFO
Annual
Reporting
Requirements.
CAFO
permittees
must
submit
an
annual
report
to
the
Director
that
includes
the
following
[
40
CFR
122.42(
e)(
4)]:

 
the
number
and
type
of
animals,
whether
in
open
confinement
and
housed
under
roof
(
beef
cattle,
broilers,
layers,
swine
weighing
55
pounds
or
more,
swine
weighing
less
than
55
pounds,
mature
dairy
cows,
dairy
heifers,
veal
calves,
sheep
and
lambs,
horses,
ducks,
turkeys,
other)
[
40
CFR
122.42
(
e)(
4)(
i)]
 
estimated
amount
of
total
manure,
litter,
and
process
wastewater
generated
by
the
CAFO
in
the
previous
12
months
(
tons/
gallons)
[
40
CFR
122.42
(
e)(
4)(
ii)]
 
estimated
amount
of
total
manure,
litter,
and
process
wastewater
transferred
to
another
person
by
the
CAFO
in
the
previous
12
months
(
tons/
gallons)
[
40
CFR
122.42
(
e)(
4)(
iii)]
 
total
number
of
acres
for
land
application
covered
by
the
NMP
developed
in
accordance
with
40
CFR
122.43(
e)(
1)
[
40
CFR
122.42
(
e)(
4)(
iv)]
 
total
number
of
acres
under
control
of
the
CAFO
that
were
used
for
land
application
of
manure,
litter,
and
process
wastewater
in
the
previous
12
months
[
40
CFR
122.42
(
e)(
4)(
v)]
 
summary
of
all
manure,
litter,
and
process
wastewater
discharges
from
production
areas
that
have
occurred
in
the
previous
12
months,
including
date,
time,
and
approximate
volume
[
40
CFR
122.42
(
e)(
4)(
vi)]
8
 
a
statement
indicating
whether
the
current
version
of
the
CAFO's
NMP
was
developed
or
approved
by
a
certified
nutrient
management
planner
[
40
CFR
122.42(
e)(
4)(
vii)].

8
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
noncompliance
report.
Since
timely
reporting
is
essential
in
these
instances,
separate
regulations
have
been
established
in
40
CFR
122.41
for
the
reporting
of
bypasses
or
upsets.
Burden
and
costs
for
this
type
of
noncompliance
reporting
have
been
analyzed
in
the
ICR
for
the
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)/
Compliance
Assessment/
Certification
Information
(
ICR
No.
1427.06).
13
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
doc
State
Data
Items
No
Potential
to
Discharge
Determination.
According
to
40
CFR
122.23(
f)(
3)
of
the
2003
rule,
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
MOA
with
the
EPA
Regional
Administrator
are
contained
in
40
CFR
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
 
completing
and
submitting
NOI
(
for
general
permit
coverage)
 
completing
and
submitting
Forms
1
and
2B
(
for
an
individual
permit).

Activities
required
of
all
CAFOs
to
demonstrate
and
document
permit
compliance
include:

 
develop
and
maintain
on­
site
a
nutrient
management
plan
 
prepare
and
submit
annual
reports
 
maintain
records
to
document
implementation
of
the
NMP
Additional
activities
required
of
Large
CAFOs
to
demonstrate
and
document
permit
compliance
include:

 
collect
representative
manure,
litter,
and
process
wastewater
samples
 
collect
representative
soil
samples
 
inspect
manure,
litter,
and/
or
process
wastewater
application
equipment
at
a
minimum
of
once
per
year
 
collect
information
for
transfers
of
manure,
litter,
or
process
wastewater
to
other
people
 
maintain
production
area
and
land
application
area
records.

Although
Small
and
Medium
CAFOs
are
not
subject
to
the
information
collection
and
record
keeping
requirements
in
40
CFR
412
Subparts
C
and
D,
it
is
possible
that
many
of
the
activities
listed
therein
may
be
performed
as
part
of
the
data
collection
and
record
keeping
to
document
implementation
of
the
NMP.
Furthermore,
permitting
authorities
may
choose
to
apply
the
ELG
requirements
for
Large
CAFOs
to
Small
and
Medium
CAFOs.
Therefore,
for
the
purpose
of
14
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
doc
estimating
burden
for
this
ICR,
EPA
uses
the
burden
estimates
for
activities
that
expressly
apply
to
Large
CAFOs
to
also
estimate
the
burdens
for
Small
and
Medium
CAFOs.

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.

Recurring
or
O&
M
expenditures
include:

 
soil
sample
analysis
 
manure
sample
analysis
 
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.
The
information
requirements
for
this
request
are
the
same
as
the
required
application.
Thus,
all
CAFOs
incur
permit­
related
burdens,
which
would
most
likely
overstate
burdens
for
any
CAFO
that
makes
a
request.
The
analysis
in
this
ICR
also
reflects
the
assumption
that
no
CAFO
subject
to
the
discharge
limitations
in
40
CFR
412
Subparts
C
or
D
request
a
permit
effluent
limitation
based
on
either
Voluntary
Alternative
Performance
Standards
in
40
CFR
412.31(
a)(
2)
or
Voluntary
Superior
Environmental
Performance
Standards
in
40
CFR
412.46(
d).

State
Activities
Permitting
Activities.
In
accordance
with
40
CFR
123.25
and
124.10,
authorized
States
will
incur
burdens
to
perform
the
following
information
collection
activities
for
CAFOs
that
submit
individual
permits
or
NOIs:

 
reviewing
the
submission
for
completeness
 
providing
public
notice
of
draft
permits
and
responding
to
comments
 
holding
public
hearing(
s),
as
necessary.

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

 
inspecting
permitted
CAFOs
in
accordance
with
40
CFR
123.26(
b)
 
reviewing
annual
reports
submitted
by
permitted
CAFOs
under
40
CFR
122.42(
e)(
4).
15
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
doc
No
Potential
to
Discharge
Determinations.
Under
the
2003
CAFO
rule,
Large
CAFOs
that
can
demonstrate
that
they
have
no
potential
to
discharge
determination
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
CFR
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.

Voluntary
Alternative
Performance
Standards.
In
accordance
with
the
2003
CAFO
rule,
Large
CAFOs
can
request
alternative
performance
standards
in
lieu
of
the
discharge
limitations
in
40
CFR
412
Subparts
C
and
D
[
40
CFR
412.31(
a)(
2)
and
40
CFR
412.46(
d),
respectively].
EPA
does
not
have
information
to
estimate
how
many
operations,
if
any,
will
submit
such
a
request.
The
burden
to
review
the
request
would
be
site­
specific,
depending
on
the
basis
for
the
request
and
the
information
provided
by
the
CAFO
operator.
Because
this
is
an
uncertain
and
infrequent
burden,
EPA
does
not
include
this
burden
in
its
analysis.

5.
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTED 
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY,
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
5a.
Agency
Activities
EPA
has
permitting
responsibilities
in
the
six
States
not
authorized
to
issue
NPDES
permits
to
CAFOs.
In
those
States,
the
Agency's
activities
would
be
similar
to
the
activities
described
for
authorized
States
[
see
Section
4b(
ii)].

5b.
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
CAFO
respondents
submit
the
requested
information
to
their
NPDES
permitting
authority.
EPA
manages
a
portion
of
the
information
collected
electronically.
As
under
the
existing
NPDES
program
for
other
sectors,
respondent
data
pertaining
to
facilities
permitted
under
the
regulations
is
catalogued
in
the
automated
PCS
database
or
the
new
ICIS
database.
The
information
provided
on
permit
application
forms
or
NOI
forms
is
entered
into
the
relevant
NPDES
database.
16
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
doc
5c.
Small
Entity
Flexibility
Small,
Medium,
and
Large
operations
are
defined
in
Table
4­
1.
The
2003
CAFO
rule
substituted
head
count
thresholds
for
animal
unit
thresholds
for
each
type
of
animal
being
regulated
under
the
rule.

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

Table
5 
1.
SBA
and
EPA
Small
Business
Thresholds
for
Animal
Sectors
NAICS
code
(
SIC
code)
Animal
sector
SBA
threshold
(
revenue
in
millions)
a
Corresponding
SBA
animal
threshold
(
number
of
animals)
CAFO
Size
Threshold
(
number
of
animals)

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

In
the
2003
CAFO
rule,
EPA's
premise
is
that
the
regulations
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
6,200
of
the
approximately
230,000
Small
and
Medium
AFOs
nationwide
are
currently
affected
by
the
2003
CAFO
rule.
This
approach
helps
to
reduce
the
burden
of
the
CAFO
regulations
on
small
entities
while
striving
to
achieve
the
goals
of
the
CWA.
17
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
doc
Furthermore,
as
Section
6
shows,
the
burden
estimates
for
many
of
the
NPDES­
related
activities
are
relatively
small.
The
2003
CAFO
rule
provides
additional
flexibility
in
that
the
ELG
requirements
apply
only
to
Large
CAFOs.
Permitting
authorities,
which
are
mainly
State
agencies,
will
establish
technology­
based
requirements
for
Small
and
Medium
CAFOs
based
on
best
professional
judgment
(
BPJ).
Finally,
the
2003
CAFO
rule
provided
regulatory
relief
for
Small
and
Medium
CAFOs
by
not
requiring
them
to
record
information
for
off­
site
manure
transfers.

5d.
Collection
Schedule
This
ICR
covers
the
information
collection
activities
expected
to
occur
over
the
three­
year
ICR
renewal
period
from
August
1,
2006
through
July
31,
2009.
To
simplify
the
burden
analysis,
EPA
estimated
that
20
percent
(
one
fifth)
of
the
existing
facilities
would
renew
their
permit
every
year.
New
facilities
would
apply
for
a
permit
the
year
they
begin
operations.
Designated
CAFOs
must
apply
for
an
NPDES
permit
within
90
days
after
receiving
the
notice
of
designation
from
the
permit
authority.
EPA
assumed
that
32
operations
might
be
designated
every
year.

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.

6a.
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
The
discussion
below
provides
brief
descriptions
of
the
CAFO
and
State
activities
and
Tables
6 
1
and
6 
2
summarize
the
burden
assumptions.
Exhibits
A.
1
and
A.
2
in
the
Appendix
provide
additional
information
regarding
the
burden
and
cost
assumptions,
which
were
based
on
the
active
CAFOs
NPDES
ICR
(
OMB
No.
2040 
0250,
EPA
ICR
No.
1989.02).
Since
this
ICR
discussed
in
this
supporting
statement
is
a
renewal
of
the
active
ICR
rather
than
an
assessment
of
burden
change
due
to
regulatory
revisions,
EPA
did
not
update
the
per­
activity
burden
assumptions.

CAFO
Burden
Start­
up
activities
are
steps
that
a
CAFO
owner
or
operator
takes
in
preparation
to
comply
with
the
information
collection
requirements
of
the
2003
CAFO
rule.
Owners
or
operators
of
new
facilities
that
are
potentially
affected
by
the
rule
will
need
to
familiarize
themselves
with
the
NPDES
CAFO
program
to
determine
whether
they
need
to
apply
for
a
permit
and
implement
the
effluent
guideline
requirements.
This
is
a
one­
time
burden.
EPA
assumes
that
it
will
take
CAFO
18
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
doc
operators
three
hours
to
read
and
understand
the
relevant
portions
of
40
CFR
122
and
40
CFR
412
and
related
guidance.

Permit
application
activities
involve
completing
and
submitting
either
an
NOI
or
an
application
for
an
individual
permit.
For
the
active
CAFOs
NPDES
ICR
(
OMB
No.
2040 
0250,
EPA
ICR
No.
1989.02),
EPA
estimated
a
permit
application
burden
of
nine
hours
for
either
permit
type.

Table
6 
1.
Burden
Estimates
per
CAFO
by
Activity
Activities
Frequency
per
CAFO
Burden
Hours
per
Response1
Read/
Understand
the
Rule
one
time
3
NPDES
Permit
Application
Activities
Complete/
submit
Notice
of
Intent
for
general
permit
Complete/
submit
individual
permit
application
Inspection
every
5
years
every
5
years
every
5
years
9
9
4
Data
Collection,
Record
Keeping,
and
Reporting
Activities
Prepare
and
Submit
Annual
Report
Record
Off­
site
Transfers
of
Manure
(
Large
CAFOs
only)
annual
annual
1
14
Nutrient
Management
Plan
Develop/
update
nutrient
management
plan
every
5
years
46
ELG
Requirements2
Visual
Inspections
Inspect
Manure
Application
Equipment
Collect
and
Send
Manure
Sample
Collect
and
Send
Soil
Sample
Record
Keeping
annual
annual
annual
every
5
years
annual
13
4
2
8
80
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.
2.
Although
Small
and
Medium
CAFOs
are
not
subject
to
the
ELG
requirements
in
40
CFR
412,
EPA
assumes
that
the
ELG
burdens
provide
upper
bound
estimates
for
the
burdens
for
Small
and
Medium
CAFOs
because
many
of
the
ELG
information
elements
also
provide
documentation
for
the
NMP
and
information
for
the
annual
report.

CAFO
owners
or
operators
will
perform
various
activities
to
meet
data
collection
and
record
keeping
requirements.
Large
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
inspected
annually
and
the
activity
documented.
Soil
samples
must
be
collected
at
least
once
every
five
years
from
all
fields
receiving
manure
and
analyzed
for
nutrient
content.
Manure
samples
must
be
collected
annually
and
analyzed
for
nutrient
content.
Large
CAFOs
must
retain
manure
and
soil
sampling
results
on­
site.
Large
CAFOs
must
also
document
other
production
area
and
land
application
area
activities,
as
noted
in
above
Section
4(
b)(
i).
Support
documents
for
the
2003
CAFO
rule
(
EPA
2001a,
b)
provide
the
basis
for
estimating
burdens
for
these
requirements,
which
are
shown
in
Table
6­
1.
19
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
doc
Under
the
2003
CAFO
rule,
the
ELG
requirements
are
applicable
to
Large
CAFOs;
permit
authorities
must
use
BPJ
to
develop
the
effluent
limitation
conditions
and
associated
record
keeping
requirements
for
all
other
CAFOs.
For
the
purpose
of
estimating
the
cost
of
the
2003
CAFO
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
retained
this
approach
for
estimating
the
ELG
burden
in
this
ICR.
As
with
Large
CAFOs
under
the
ELG,
Small
and
Medium
CAFOs
are
required
to
identify
and
maintain
records
to
document
their
NMP
implementation,
and
the
types
of
records
required
by
40
CFR
412
Subparts
C
and
D
can
provide
such
documentation.
Furthermore,
many
of
these
records
will
also
assist
preparation
of
annual
reports,
resulting
in
a
minimal
burden
for
that
activity.

To
comply
with
permit
requirements
in
the
2003
CAFO
rule,
CAFO
operators
need
to
develop
a
nutrient
management
plan
that
contains
the
minimum
measures
specified
in
40
CFR
122.42(
e)(
1)
and
maintain
the
plan
on­
site.
There
are
two
parts
to
the
NMP
burden
estimate 
one
for
the
engineering
design
of
storage
structures
for
manure,
litter,
and
process
wastewater,
which
is
discussed
in
Section
6(
ii),
and
a
second
for
all
other
measures
for
the
production
area
and
land
application
area,
which
is
discussed
here.
For
the
nonengineering
portion
of
the
NMP,
EPA
estimated
a
weighted
average
burden
of
46.2
hours
to
develop
a
plan.
This
estimate
uses
the
same
methodology
as
in
the
active
CAFOs
NPDES
ICR
(
OMB
No.
2040 
0250,
EPA
ICR
No.
1989.02).
Although
some
owners
or
operators
will
be
able
to
develop
their
own
NMPs,
EPA
has
assumed
that
the
plans
will
be
developed
mainly
by
certified
planners
not
employed
at
the
farm.
This
burden,
which
does
not
apply
to
CAFOs
that
do
not
land
apply
manure
generated
on­
site,
is
incurred
in
the
first
year
an
operation
requests
coverage
under
the
CAFO
regulations
and
repeated
at
least
once
every
five
years
for
the
NMP
updates.

Large
CAFOs
that
transfer
manure,
litter,
and
process
wastewater
to
another
party
also
need
to
collect
the
following
information
for
each
transfer:
the
date
of
transfer,
the
recipient's
name
and
address,
and
the
quantity
transferred.
They
will
also
need
to
provide
the
recipient
with
nutrient
content
information.
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).
EPA
also
estimated
that
recording
the
information
required
for
each
transfer
requires
5
minutes.
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
several
data
items
contained
in
the
permit
application
forms
as
well
as
a
summary
of
any
production
area
discharges.
Many
CAFO
operators
or
owners
will
be
able
to
copy
information
directly
from
the
application
form
or
their
records
to
their
report.
EPA
assumes
that
the
annual
report
will
require
only
one
hour
to
complete
and
submit,
on
average.

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
below,
EPA
assumes
that
inspectors
spend
an
average
of
four
hours
per
on­
site
inspection
activities.
During
this
time,
the
inspector
may
want
to
review
records
and
inspect
waste
20
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
doc
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.
EPA
assumes
a
matching
average
burden
to
CAFOs
of
four
hours
per
inspection.

State
Burden
The
44
authorized
States
will
incur
burden
to
issue
permits
and
track
and
report
permit
compliance.
Table
6­
2
provides
a
summary
of
the
burden
estimates
described
below.
For
its
analysis
for
the
active
CAFOs
NPDES
ICR,
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
representative
of
the
CAFO
rule
information
collection
burden.
EPA
also
considered
comments
provided
on
the
proposed
rule
and
notice
of
data
availability
(
NODA)
that
addressed
the
issue
of
State
burdens.

States
will
incur
burden
for
two
categories
of
activities:
Implementation
for
general
permits
and
implementation
for
individual
permits.

Authorized
States
will
incur
annual
costs
to
administer
their
permit
programs.
To
administer
State
general
permits,
permitting
authorities
will
need
to
review
NOI
forms
submitted
by
CAFO
operators
seeking
coverage
under
a
general
permit.
To
administer
individual
permits,
State
agencies
will
need
to:

 
review
application
forms
(
i.
e.,
Forms
1
and
2B)
 
request
public
comment
prior
to
issuing
a
permit
 
conduct
public
hearings,
as
needed.

To
assure
compliance
with
State
NPDES
permit
programs,
State
agencies
will
need
to
inspect
permitted
CAFOs
and
review
annual
reports
submitted
by
permitted
CAFOs.

CAFOs
seeking
coverage
under
a
general
permit
submit
completed
NOI
forms
that
the
permitting
authority
needs
to
review
and
make
a
determination
of
coverage.
For
the
active
CAFOs
NPDES
ICR,
EPA
estimated
that
NOI
review
and
recordkeeping
activities
would
require
four
hours.
EPA
also
estimated
that
the
hearing
time
for
a
general
permit,
should
one
be
requested,
would
require
420
hours.

Permitting
authorities
must
issue
public
notices
when
they
develop
draft
permits.
For
both
individual
and
general
permits,
EPA
estimates
a
burden
of
5
hours
to
issue
the
required
public
notices
and
respond
to
comments.

For
the
active
CAFOs
NPDES
ICR,
EPA
assumed
State
administration
costs
for
individual
permits
include
100
hours
per
permit
to
review
Forms
1
and
2B
and
perform
related
recordkeeping
activities.
EPA
also
estimated
that
the
hearing
time
for
an
individual
permit,
should
one
be
requested,
would
be
200
hours.
Updated
information
from
EPA
Regions
confirms
this
figure
as
being
an
accurate
estimate
of
the
labor
burden
for
conducting
hearings.
The
burden
estimate
in
this
case
must
account
for
personnel
both
to
manage
the
logistics
of
the
hearing
and
to
attend
the
hearing.
Typically,
the
staff
attending
a
public
hearing
include
a
presiding
officer,
technical
21
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
doc
staff,
legal
counsel,
and
a
court
reporter.
All
these
personnel
must
travel
to
the
hearing
site,
which
often
requires
overnight
travel
depending
on
the
venue
for
the
hearing.
Logistics
tasks
for
the
public
hearing
include
selecting
the
venue,
publicizing
the
meeting,
coordinating
attendance,
and
managing
the
public
record.

For
the
active
CAFOs
NPDES
ICR,
EPA
assumed
that
the
average
inspections
for
CAFOs
covered
by
either
a
general
or
an
individual
permit
would
be
close
to
16
hours.
This
estimate
includes
6
hours
for
round­
trip
travel
time,
2
hours
to
review
State
records
and
prepare
for
the
inspection,
4
hours
to
conduct
the
on­
site
inspection
of
records
and
operation,
and
4
hours
to
report
on
the
inspection
and
maintain
records.
EPA
assumed
annual
reports
would
require
4
hours
for
the
permitting
authority
to
review.

Table
6 
2.
Burden
Estimates
for
an
Authorized
State
by
Activity
Activities
Frequency
per
State
Burden
Hours
per
Response1
State
General
NPDES
Permit
Application
Activities
Review
and
Approve
NOIs/
Record
Keeping
Public
Hearings
2
Notify
Public,
Respond
to
Comments
per
CAFO
per
Permit
per
CAFO
4
420
5
State
Individual
Permit
Application
Activities
Review
and
Approve
Permits/
Record
Keeping
Public
Hearings
3
Notify
Public,
Respond
to
Comments
per
CAFO
per
CAFO
per
CAFO
100
200
5
State
Annual
Permit
Reporting
Activities
Facility
Inspection
Annual
Report
Review
per
CAFO
per
CAFO
16
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
request
NPDES
program
modification,
reviewing
permit
applications,
and
annual
NOI
publications.
2.
EPA
Assumed
that
all
general
permits
would
require
a
public
hearing
3.
EPA
Assumed
that
12%
of
individual
permits
would
require
a
public
hearing.
EPA
also
assumed
that
if
a
public
hearing
was
required,
the
labor
burden
for
the
permitting
authority
would
total
to
200
hours.
This
is
the
same
figure
as
was
used
in
the
2003
ICR;
recent
information
from
EPA
Regions
confirms
this
figure
as
being
an
accurate
estimate.

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

6b(
i).
Estimating
Labor
Costs
CAFO
Labor
Costs
To
obtain
cost
estimates
at
the
CAFO
level,
EPA
multiplied
the
burdens
reported
in
Table
6­
1
by
the
appropriate
wage
rates
in
Table
6 
3.
22
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
doc
Table
6 
3.
Wage
rates
used
to
value
CAFO­
related
burdens
Labor
category
Original
rate
Source
Conversion
Hourly
rate
($
2005)

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

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

6b(
ii).
Estimating
Capital
and
Operation
and
Maintenance
Costs
CAFO
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
CAFO
operators
incur
capital
costs
when
they
purchase
equipment
or
one­
time
services
or
builds
structures
that
are
needed
specifically
for
compliance
with
the
rule's
reporting
and
record
keeping
requirements.
The
capital
costs
included
in
this
ICR
are
based
on
those
used
in
the
burden
analysis
for
the
2003
CAFO
rule
(
EPA,
2001
a,
b).

Capital
costs
relevant
to
this
ICR
include
purchasing
a
soil
auger
to
collect
soil
samples
and
a
manure
sampler.
CAFOs
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,
including
performing
an
engineering
analysis
of
the
waste
storage
volume
requirements
needed
to
comply
with
the
2003
CAFO
rule.
This
burden
will
occur
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
same
amortization
schedule
used
to
estimate
annualized
costs
for
the
economic
analysis
of
the
2003
rule
(
EPA
2002a).
23
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
doc
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
2003
CAFO
rule,
O&
M
costs
include
laboratory
analysis
of
soil
and
manure
and
a
general
record
keeping
cost.
All
costs
were
based
on
the
cost
analysis
for
the
final
rule
and
are
documented
in
EPA
(
2001a,
b).

Table
6 
4
summarizes
the
capital
and
O&
M
costs
associated
with
the
record
keeping
and
reporting
activities.

Table
6 
4.
Capital
and
O&
M
Cost
per
CAFO
(
2005
dollars)
Activities
Frequency
per
CAFO
Cost
($)
Capital
Costs1,2
Purchase
of
a
Soil
Auger
for
Sampling
Cost
for
Production
Area
portion
NMP
Purchase
of
a
Manure
Sampler
Installation
of
Depth
Markers
one
time
one
time
one
time
one
time
$
4.13
$
146.47
$
4.98
$
4.98
O&
M
Costs1
Lab
analysis
of
soil
sample
Lab
analysis
of
manure
sample
Other
direct
costs
for
record
keeping
every
5
years
annual
annual
$
90
$
127
$
112
1.
Costs
are
taken
from
the
active
CAFOS
NPDES
ICR
(
OMB
No.
2040 
0250,
EPA
ICR
No.
1989.02).
These
estimates
have
been
escalated
to
2005
dollars
using
a
CPI.
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.

State
O&
M
Costs
States
will
incur
publication
costs
to
issue
public
notices
for
general
permits
and
for
each
individual
permit.
For
purposes
of
presenting
a
complete
accounting
of
burden
impacts,
these
non­
labor
recurring
costs
are
tabulated
as
O&
M
costs.
EPA
assumed
that
States
would
publish
four
notices
per
year
for
NOIs
under
general
permits
and
one
notice
per
individual
permit.
In
the
event
an
individual
permit
requires
a
public
hearing,
a
public
notice
is
also
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
(
EPA
2002a).

6c.
Estimating
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
EPA
is
responsible
for
writing
NPDES
permits
for
CAFOs
in
six
States
(
Alaska,
Idaho,
Massachusetts,
New
Hampshire,
New
Mexico,
and
Oklahoma).
Based
on
CAFO
data,
EPA
estimated
that
CAFOs
in
these
States
represent
3.4
percent
of
the
total
number
of
CAFOs
(
Kellogg
et
al.,
2000).
In
these
instances,
EPA
is
responsible
for
the
activities
and
associated
burdens
and
costs
that
would
otherwise
be
incurred
by
a
State.
The
permitting
burden
estimates
for
EPA,
shown
in
Table
6­
5,
are
the
same
as
State
burdens.
24
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
doc
EPA
used
an
hourly
wage
rate
for
a
GS­
12,
Step
One
Federal
employee
to
estimate
the
cost
of
the
Agency
staff.
The
U.
S.
Office
of
Personnel
Management
2005
General
Schedule
reported
an
hourly
rate
of
$
25.98
for
this
pay
grade.
Multiplying
this
rate
by
1.6
to
incorporate
typical
Federal
benefits
(
OPM,
1999),
EPA
obtained
a
final
hourly
rate
of
$
41.57.

Table
6 
5.
EPA
Burden
Estimates
by
Activity
Activities
Frequency
per
State
Burden
Hours
per
Response1
Federal
General
NPDES
Permit
Application
Activities
Review
and
Approve
NOIs/
Record
Keeping
Public
Hearings
2
Notify
Public,
Respond
to
Comments
per
CAFO
per
CAFO
per
CAFO
4
420
5
Federal
Individual
Permit
Application
Activities
Review
and
Approve
Permits/
Record
Keeping
Public
Hearings
3
Notify
Public,
Respond
to
Comments
per
CAFO
per
CAFO
per
CAFO
100
200
5
Federal
Annual
Permit
Reporting
Activities
Facility
Inspection
Annual
Report
Review
per
CAFO
per
CAFO
16
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
request
NPDES
program
modification,
reviewing
permit
applications,
and
annual
NOI
publications.
2.
EPA
assumed
that
all
general
permits
would
require
a
public
hearing
3.
EPA
assumed
that
12%
of
individual
permits
would
require
a
public
hearing
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.
Exhibits
A.
4
and
A.
5
in
the
Appendix
show
the
number
of
CAFO
and
State
respondents
and
responses,
respectively,
on
an
annual
basis
for
the
three
years
of
this
ICR.
Exhibits
A.
6
and
A.
7
in
the
Appendix
report
the
associated
annual
burden
estimates
and
annual
costs,
respectively.

In
addition
to
estimating
the
fraction
of
CAFOs
in
authorized
States,
EPA
developed
assumptions
to
estimate
the
ratio
of
general
to
individual
permits
as
well
as
the
number
of
individual
permits
requiring
hearings.
For
the
active
CAFOS
NPDES
ICR
(
OMB
No.
2040 
0250,
EPA
ICR
No.
1989.02)
EPA
assumed
that
30
percent
of
CAFOs
apply
for
an
individual
NPDES
permit
and
70
percent
submit
an
NOI
for
coverage
under
a
general
permit.
EPA
chose
this
more
conservative
estimate
because
only
22
of
the
43
authorized
States
at
the
time
had
general
permits
for
CAFOs.
This
ICR
retains
this
ratio
in
view
of
the
fact
that
several
States
issue
only
individual
permits
as
of
the
start
of
the
ICR
reporting
period.
In
addition,
several
States
continue
to
require
individual
permits
for
certain
categories
of
CAFOs
based,
for
example,
on
size
or
location.
25
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
doc
6e.
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
Tables
This
section
provides
a
description
of
bottom
line
burden
and
cost
estimates
for
this
ICR.
Table
6 
6
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
the
Appendix.

6e(
i).
CAFO
Respondents
and
State
Respondents
The
bottom
line
burden
hours
and
costs
shown
in
Table
6 
6
reflect
the
average
annual
burden
hours
and
costs
for
all
ICR­
related
activities
performed
by
respondents
during
the
ICR
renewal
period
2006­
2009.

The
final
burden
and
cost
estimates
can
be
used
to
calculate
mean
burden
and
cost
per
respondent.
As
reported
in
Exhibit
A.
8
in
the
Appendix,
the
total
number
of
CAFO
respondents
in
the
first
three
years
is
72,108.
This
figure
reflects
for
each
year
that
the
total
number
of
industry
respondents
includes
both
any
CAFOs
that
apply
for
permits
as
well
as
any
CAFOs
that
complete
annual
activities
such
as
annual
reporting.
(
For
more
detail
on
how
the
number
of
respondents
is
calculated,
please
see
Exhibit
B
in
the
Appendix.)
The
annual
average
number
of
respondents
is
24,036.
The
total
burden
over
three
years
is
9.12
million
hours,
which
results
in
the
annual
average
burden
of
3.04
million
hours.
Dividing
the
annual
average
burden
of
3.04
million
hours
by
24,036
respondents,
EPA
estimated
that
the
annual
average
burden
per
CAFO
respondent
is
approximately
127
hours.
The
annual
average
labor
cost
per
respondent
is
$
2,175
($
52.28
million/
24,036).
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
$
2,446
($
56.79
million/
24,036).

The
State
burden
and
cost
estimates
in
Table
6 
7
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
44
States
that
will
incur
the
burden
and
costs
described
above.
Dividing
the
annual
average
burden
of
0.45
million
hours
for
all
States
by
44
gives
an
average
per
State
burden
of
approximately
10,300
hours.
The
average
annual
cost
per
State
is
$
0.39
million
for
labor,
and
$
0.45
million
when
O&
M
costs
are
included.

Table
6 
6.
Summary
of
Average
Annual
CAFO
and
State
Respondents,
Burden
Hours,
and
Costs
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
(
Costs
in
millions
$
2005)
Respondent
Respondents
Responses
Burden
(
million
hours)
Labor
Costs
Capital
Costs
O
&
M
Costs
Total
Costs
CAFOs
24,036
155,754
3.04
$
52.28
$
0.44
$
6.07
$
58.79
States
44
40,699
0.45
$
17.26
$
0.00
$
2.61
$
19.88
Total
24,080
196,453
3.50
$
69.54
$
0.44
$
8.68
$
78.66
Note:
Detail
may
not
add
to
totals
because
of
independent
rounding.

6e(
ii).
Bottom
Line
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
Under
the
2003
CAFO
rule,
the
average
annual
burden
for
EPA
is
estimated
to
be
approximately
16,345
hours
and
the
average
annual
cost
will
be
$
0.89
million.
26
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
doc
6f.
Burden
Statement
EPA
estimates
that
the
total
average
annual
public
burden
for
this
information
collection
request
would
be
3.50
million
hours,
including
0.45
million
hours
for
State
respondents
and
3.04
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
24,080
respondents
includes
44
States
and
24,036
CAFO
respondents.
The
annual
average
number
of
responses
is
196,453,
which
includes
40,699
State
responses
and
155,754
CAFO
responses.
Average
annual
capital
costs
are
$
0.44
million
and
O&
M
costs
are
$
8.68
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
CFR
Part
9
and
48
CFR
Chapter
15.

To
comment
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques,
EPA
has
established
a
public
docket
for
this
ICR
under
Docket
ID
Number
EPA­
HQ­
OW­
2006­
0136,
which
is
available
for
online
viewing
at
www.
regulations.
gov,
or
in
person
viewing
at
the
Water
Docket
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
D.
C.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566­
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Water
Docket
is
(
202)
566­
2426.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
at
www.
regulations.
gov.
This
site
can
be
used
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
When
in
the
system,
select
"
search,"
then
key
in
the
Docket
ID
Number
identified
above.
Also,
you
can
send
comments
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
Street,
NW,
Washington,
D.
C.
20503,
Attention:
Desk
Officer
for
EPA.
Please
include
the
EPA
Docket
ID
Number
EPA­
HQ­
OW­
2006­
0136
and
OMB
Control
Number
2040­
0250
in
any
correspondence.
27
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
doc
References
Kellogg,
R.
L.,
C.
H.
Lander,
D.
C.
Moffitt,
and
N.
Gollehon.
2000.
Manure
Nutrients
Relative
to
the
Capacity
of
Cropland
and
Pastureland
to
Assimilate
Nutrients:
Spatial
and
Temporal
Trends
for
the
United
States.
United
States
Department
of
Agriculture,
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service,
Economic
Research
Service,
Washington,
D.
C.
[
http://
www.
nrcs.
usda.
gov/
technical/
land/
pubs/
manntr.
pdf])

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

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

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

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

USEPA
(
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency).
December
2002a.
Development
Document
for
the
Final
Revisions
to
the
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
Regulation
and
the
Effluent
Guidelines
for
Concentrated
Animal
Feeding
Operations
(
EPA­
821­
R­
03­
001).
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Wastewater
Management,
Washington,
D.
C.

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

USEPA
(
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency).
January
2001a.
Cost
Methodology
Report
for
Beef
and
Dairy
Animal
Feeding
Operations
(
EPA­
821­
R­
01­
019).
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Wastewater
Management,
Washington,
D.
C.

USEPA
(
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency).
January
2001b.
Cost
Methodology
Report
for
Swine
and
Poultry
Sectors
(
EPA­
821­
R­
01­
018).
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Wastewater
Management,
Washington,
D.
C.

USEPA
(
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency).
October
14,
2005.
Memo
to
Record:
Estimated
Number
of
Permit
Applications
from
CAFOs.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Standards
and
Technology,
Washington,
D.
C.
28
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
doc
This
page
intentionally
left
blank.
29
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
doc
Appendix
30
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
doc
This
page
intentionally
left
blank.
