Information Collection Request for

Animal Sectors

OMB Control No. 2040-0250, EPA ICR No. 1989.07

May 2010

Prepared for

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Wastewater Management

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

EPA Contract Number EP-C-05-046

EPA Work Assignment Number 2-24

Contents

  TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433223"  1.
Identification of the Information Collection	  PAGEREF _Toc235433223 \h 
1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433224"  1(a) Title of the Information Collection
  PAGEREF _Toc235433224 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433225"  1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract	 
PAGEREF _Toc235433225 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433226"  2. Need For and Use of the Collection	 
PAGEREF _Toc235433226 \h  3  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433227"  2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection	 
PAGEREF _Toc235433227 \h  3  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433228"  2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data
  PAGEREF _Toc235433228 \h  4  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433229"  3. Non-duplication, Consultations, and
Other Collection Criteria	  PAGEREF _Toc235433229 \h  6  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433230"  3(a) Non-duplication	  PAGEREF
_Toc235433230 \h  6  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433231"  3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR
Submissions to OMB	  PAGEREF _Toc235433231 \h  6  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433232"  3(c) Consultations	  PAGEREF
_Toc235433232 \h  6  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433233"  3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection
  PAGEREF _Toc235433233 \h  7  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433234"  3(e) General Guidelines	  PAGEREF
_Toc235433234 \h  7  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433235"  3(f) Confidentiality	  PAGEREF
_Toc235433235 \h  7  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433236"  3(g) Sensitive Questions	  PAGEREF
_Toc235433236 \h  8  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433237"  4. The Respondents and the Information
Requested	  PAGEREF _Toc235433237 \h  9  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433238"  4(a) Respondents/Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) Codes	  PAGEREF _Toc235433238 \h  9  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433239"  4(b) Information Requested	  PAGEREF
_Toc235433239 \h  13  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433240"  4(b)(i) Application/NOI	  PAGEREF
_Toc235433240 \h  13  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433241"  4(b)(ii) Plan Development/Special
Studies	  PAGEREF _Toc235433241 \h  16  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433242"  4(b)(iii) Monitoring	  PAGEREF
_Toc235433242 \h  17  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433243"  4(b)(iv) Reporting (including
certification)	  PAGEREF _Toc235433243 \h  18  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433244"  4(b)(v) Record Keeping	  PAGEREF
_Toc235433244 \h  21  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433245"  4(b)(vi) Compliance Assessment	  PAGEREF
_Toc235433245 \h  23  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433246"  5. The Information Collected—Agency
Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management	  PAGEREF
_Toc235433246 \h  25  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433247"  5(a) Agency Activities	  PAGEREF
_Toc235433247 \h  25  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433248"  5(b) Collection Methodology and
Management	  PAGEREF _Toc235433248 \h  25  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433249"  5(c) Small Entity Flexibility	  PAGEREF
_Toc235433249 \h  26  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433250"  5(d) Collection Schedule	  PAGEREF
_Toc235433250 \h  27  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433251"  6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the
Collection	  PAGEREF _Toc235433251 \h  29  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433252"  6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden	 
PAGEREF _Toc235433252 \h  29  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433253"  6(a)(i) Application/NOI	  PAGEREF
_Toc235433253 \h  29  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433254"  6(a)(ii) Plan Development/Special
Studies	  PAGEREF _Toc235433254 \h  31  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433255"  6(a)(iii) Monitoring	  PAGEREF
_Toc235433255 \h  32  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433256"  6(a)(iv) Reporting (including
certification)	  PAGEREF _Toc235433256 \h  33  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433257"  6(a)(v) Record Keeping	  PAGEREF
_Toc235433257 \h  35  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433258"  6(a)(vi) Compliance Assessment	  PAGEREF
_Toc235433258 \h  36  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433259"  6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs	 
PAGEREF _Toc235433259 \h  37  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433260"  6(b)(i) Estimating Labor Costs	  PAGEREF
_Toc235433260 \h  38  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433261"  6(b)(ii) Operating and Maintenance (O&M)
Costs	  PAGEREF _Toc235433261 \h  39  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433262"  6(b)(iii) Capital/Start-up Costs	 
PAGEREF _Toc235433262 \h  39  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433263"  6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost	 
PAGEREF _Toc235433263 \h  39  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433264"  6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe
and Total Burden and Costs	  PAGEREF _Toc235433264 \h  40  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433265"  6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost
Tables	  PAGEREF _Toc235433265 \h  41  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433266"  6(e)(i) Respondent Tally	  PAGEREF
_Toc235433266 \h  41  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433267"  6(e)(ii) The Agency Tally	  PAGEREF
_Toc235433267 \h  41  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433268"  6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden	 
PAGEREF _Toc235433268 \h  42  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235433269"  6(g) Burden Statement	  PAGEREF
_Toc235433269 \h  43  

 

Appendices

Appendix A. Respondents and Other Assumption

Appendix B. Respondents Activities Table

Appendix C. Agency Activities Table

Tables

  TOC \h \z \t "Table Title,1,Title,1"    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235497934" 
Table 1.1. List of ICRs	  PAGEREF _Toc235497934 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235497935"  Table 3.1. Number of Comments Received
for Each ICR Included in this Consolidation	  PAGEREF _Toc235497935 \h 
7  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235497936"  Table 4.1. CAFO Standard Industrial
Classification Codes and Size Thresholds	  PAGEREF _Toc235497936 \h  10 


  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235497937"  Table 5.1. SBA and EPA Small Business
Thresholds for Animal Sectors	  PAGEREF _Toc235497937 \h  26  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235497938"  Table 6.1. Labor Rates	  PAGEREF
_Toc235497938 \h  38  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235497939"  Table 6.2. Respondent tally	  PAGEREF
_Toc235497939 \h  41  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235497940"  Table 6.3. Agency tally	  PAGEREF
_Toc235497940 \h  41  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc235497941"  Table 6.4 Burden change	  PAGEREF
_Toc235497941 \h  42  

 

1. Identification of the Information Collection

1(a) Title of the Information Collection

Title: Animal Sectors ICR

OMB Control Number: 2040-0250

EPA ICR Number: 1989.07

1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract

This Information Collection Request (ICR) is the result of an extensive
analysis done to consolidate, streamline, and update the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) concentrated animal
feeding operations (CAFOs) and concentrated aquatic animal production
(CAAP) facility ICRs into the currently approved ICR for CAFOs.  The two
ICRs that are being consolidated in this ICR are:

NPDES and ELG Regulatory Revisions for Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations (Final Rule) (OMB Control No. 2040-0250)

Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production (CAAP) Effluent Guidelines (OMB
Control No. 2040-0258)

Additionally, two activities reported in the NPDES program ICR (OMB
Control No. 2040-0004) that are directly related with CAAP facilities or
CAFOs are now incorporated in this ICR. 

The 2003 CAFO rule ICR covered the information collection burden imposed
under the 2003 rule for the period from June 2003 to June 2006 (ICR No.
1989.02). EPA renewed that ICR in 2006 to address the paperwork
collection burden from implementation of the CAFO program through 2009
(ICR No. 1989.04). On November 20, 2008, EPA published a revision to the
2003 CAFO rule to address the February 2005 Waterkeeper decision
(Waterkeeper Alliance et al. v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486 [2nd Cir. 2005]) and
developed a revised burden estimate for CAFOs (ICR No. 1989.06). 

The Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Concentrated
Aquatic Animal Production (CAAP) Point Source Category establish
specific reporting requirements for a portion of CAAP facilities through
NPDES permits.  The rule covers facilities which are defined as CAAP
facilities (see 40 CFR 122.24 and 40 CFR Part 122) and produce at least
100,000 pounds of fish per year in flow through, recirculating and net
pen systems. The special reporting and record-keeping requirements under
the rule are the subject of this ICR.  CAAP facility owners or operators
are also required to file reports with the permitting authority when
drugs with special approvals are applied to the production units or a
failure in the structural integrity occurs in the aquatic animal
containment system.  

The two ICRs with their approved burden before consolidation, as
reported in the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) inventory,
are presented in Table 1.1. The table also includes the burden for the
two activities reported in the NPDES program ICR that are now
incorporated in this ICR.

Table 1.1. List of ICRs

OMB ICR No.	EPA ICR No.	Title	Annual burden (hours)

2040-0250	1989.06	NPDES and ELG Regulatory Revisions for Concentrated
Animal Feeding Operations (Final Rule)	2,998,603

2040-0258	2087.03	Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Point Source
Category Effluent Guidelines Reporting and Record-keeping Requirements
44,196

2040-0004	0229.19	NPDES program ICR	1,341



This consolidated ICR for the two sectors accounts for the time required
to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and
maintain all necessary data, and complete and review the information
collected for both CAFO and CAAP facilities.  2. Need For and Use of
the Collection

2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection

The purpose of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is “to restore and maintain
the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation’s
waters” [section 101(a)]. CWA section 402(a) establishes the NPDES
program to regulate the discharge of any pollutant from point sources
into waters of the United States. Section 402(a) of the CWA, as amended,
authorizes the EPA Administrator to issue permits for the discharge of
pollutants if those discharges meet the following requirements:

All applicable requirements of CWA sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, and
403; or

Any conditions the Administrator determines are necessary to carry out
the provisions and objectives of the CWA.

The primary mechanism to ensure that the permits are adequately
protective of those requirements is the permit application process. In
particular, CWA section 402(a)(2) requires EPA to prescribe permit
conditions to assure compliance with requirements “including
conditions on data and information collection, reporting and such other
requirements as [the Administrator] deemed appropriate.”

The CWA also establishes an administrative framework for the NPDES
permitting program. CWA section 402(b) authorizes states (which include
U.S. territories and Indian tribes that have been authorized in the same
manner as a state) to administer the NPDES program once EPA is assured
that they meet minimum federal requirements. Authorized states are
considered permitting authorities and are responsible for issuing,
administering, and ensuring compliance with permits for most point
source discharges within their borders. In states without an authorized
NPDES program, EPA is the permitting authority and undertakes all
permitting activities; although CWA section 401 requires states to
certify that EPA-issued NPDES permits establish “effluent limitations,
and monitoring requirements necessary to assure that any
applicant...will comply with any applicable effluent limitations and
other limitations (pursuant to the CWA) and with any other appropriate
requirement of state law...” States, tribes, and U.S. territories may
waive their right to certify permits if they wish. CWA section 510
provides that states, tribes, and territories may adopt requirements
equal to or more stringent than standards established pursuant to CWA
provisions.

Under the terms of the NPDES program, CAFOs are defined as point sources
(33 U.S.C. Sec. 1362). Under 33 U.S.C. Section 1311 and Section 1342, a
discharging CAFO must obtain an NPDES permit and comply with the terms
of that permit, which may include appropriate conditions on data and
information collection. EPA's NPDES regulations also define when a
hatchery, fish farm, or other facility is a CAAP facility and,
therefore, a point source subject to the NPDES permit program (40 CFR
122.24). Furthermore, 33 U.S.C. Section 1318 provides authority for
information collection (i.e., record keeping, reporting, monitoring,
sampling, and other information as needed), which applies to point
sources; and Section 308(a) of the CWA authorizes the Administrator to
require the owner or operator of any point source to file reports as
required to carry out the objectives of the Act.

EPA and authorized States need the information required under the
revised 2008 CAFO rule and the CAAP ELG regulations to implement the CWA
requirements.  The 2008 CAFO rule revises the final 2003 CAFO rule,
which updated EPA’s original Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELGs)
(40 CFR Part 412) and NPDES (40 CFR Part 122) regulations for CAFOs
promulgated in the mid-1970s. EPA promulgated effluent limitation
guidelines (ELGs) for a subset of CAAP facilities required to obtain
NPDES permits.  The requirements in the ELGs are incorporated into the
NPDES permits issued by EPA and states.  

2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data

This ICR includes information used primarily by permitting authorities
and permittees. Much of these data must be submitted to permitting
authorities, while other information must be maintained on-site by the
permittee. Although different permittees submit widely differing
information, this can be categorized into two sets: identification
information and information related to the facility’s discharges or
practices. Permitting authorities use the information in the ways
discussed below.

Permitting authorities collect and use information such as the name,
location, and description of facilities to uniquely identify each
applicant seeking individual or general permit coverage and to establish
a contact person. This information will vary in its detail and scope on
the basis of the type of respondent.

EPA and authorized states store basic permit information in EPA’s
Permit Compliance System (PCS) and the new Integrated Compliance
Information System (ICIS-NPDES) database. PCS and ICIS-NPDES are used to
track permit limits, permit expiration dates, monitoring data,
enforcement and compliance data, and other data and to provide EPA with
a nationwide inventory of permit holders. EPA uses this information to
develop reports on permit issuance, backlog, and compliance rates. EPA
also uses the information to respond to public and congressional
inquiries, develop and guide its policies, support enforcement actions,
formulate its budgets, and manage its programs to ensure national
consistency in permitting. For the most part, states and territories are
authorized to implement the NPDES permitting program, manage and use the
data in a similar fashion to EPA and, as such, incur similar types of
burdens.

Information collected by the NPDES Program Director (of either an
authorized State or EPA) about CAFO facilities and operating procedures
is used to develop permit conditions 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 collect and use information from CAAP facilities
on the use of INAD and extra-label drugs, which may lead to permit
requirements to prevent or minimize further discharges of the drug. 
Advance notice of a CAAP facility’s participation in an INAD program
can provide the permitting authority an opportunity to obtain
information concerning the effects of the drug and determine if any
controls on the discharge of the INAD is warranted.  If a determination
is made to limit the discharge when the INAD is being used in accordance
with 40 CFR §125.3, and 122.44, the facility can subsequently determine
how the limits can be achieved.  Furthermore, in the event that adverse
environmental impacts are noted from the use of an investigational drug,
the permitting authority could share the information with the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA).  Based on this information, FDA could
determine whether to withdraw the investigational approval. 

The information collected from CAAP facilities on the failure of
structural integrity can provide the permitting authority with some
indication of pollutant slugs discharged to the receiving streams. 
These slugs may include solids, carcasses, and fish.  The impact on the
receiving water can be severe although in most cases brief.  In addition
to the solids loading, the release of fish from the CAAP facility may
pose concerns if the fish being produced are non-native. The permitting
authority may need to alert state fish and game authorities when
non-native species have been released.  Early intervention can minimize
the establishment of a species and thus avoid the negative economic and
environmental impacts associated with establishment of a non-native
species.

Other users of the data include regulated CAFOs and CAAP facilities and
the general public. CAFOs and CAAP facilities 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.

3. Non-duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

3(a) Non-duplication

Almost all information requested from respondents under this ICR is
required by statute or regulation and, in most cases, is not available
from other sources. EPA has examined all other reporting and
record-keeping requirements contained in the CWA and 40 CFR Parts 122,
123, 124, 125, 403, 501, and 503. EPA also has consulted the following
sources of information to determine if similar or duplicate information
is available elsewhere:

EPA’s Inventory of ICRs;

EPA’s Information Systems Inventory;

EPA’s Permit Compliance System (PCS) and Integrated Compliance
Information System-NPDES (ICIS-NPDES);

The Government Information Locator Service;

USDA Census of Agriculture

Examination of these databases and discussions with other Federal
Agencies did not identify any reporting requirements that were
duplicative with existing requirements for CAFO or CAAP facilities. 

3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submissions to OMB

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

This ICR was published in the Federal Register on February 25, 2010 (75
FR 8694). The notice included a request for comments on the content and
impact of these information collection requirements on the regulated
community. EPA received no comments on this ICR. 

3(c) Consultations

EPA finalized all regulations containing the requirements addressed in
this ICR after receiving comments from the public and the regulated
community as part of the notice and comment phase of the rulemaking
process.  The early phases of the rulemakings included consultation with
the U.S. Department of Agriculture for purposes of refining and updating
the burden estimates.

This ICR consolidates the burden and costs associated with activities
previously reported in the CAFO and CAAP ICRs administered by EPA’s
Water Permits Division. EPA has solicited public comments for each ICR
included in this consolidation. Table 3.1 shows the most recent date the
ICRs were open for public comments and the number of comments EPA
received.

Table 3.1. Number of Comments Received for Each ICR Included in this
Consolidation

OMB ICR No.	EPA ICR No.	Title	Previous FR publication date (most recent
OMB action)	Number of comments

2040-0250	1989.06	NPDES Regulation and Effluent Limitation Guidelines
and Standards for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations	July 20, 2006*
1

2040-0258	2087.03	Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Point Source
Category Effluent Guidelines Reporting and Record-keeping Requirements
September 27, 2007	0

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

EPA has made every effort to establish NPDES permit and associated
information collection requirements that minimize the burden on
respondents while promoting the protection of water quality. NPDES
permit applications are the primary form of information collection for
regulated CAFOs, and these facilities must reapply for NPDES permits
before their existing permits expire. Section 402(p) of the CWA requires
that NPDES permits be issued for fixed terms with a maximum term of 5
years, thereby disallowing less frequent collection than anticipated by
this ICR. 

Reporting associated with the use of drugs or failure in the structural
integrity in CAAP facilities are only required in the event one of these
activities occurs.  The reporting itself for either of these situations
is minimal.  EPA requires an oral report to be made initially, followed
by a more detailed written report.  EPA has determined less frequent
reporting would impede the ability of the permitting authority to take
action to minimize harm to the environment when warranted.

3(e) 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.  

3(f) Confidentiality

Permit applications and other respondent reports, such as Nutrient
Management Plans (NMPs) for CAFOs or reporting requirements associated
with investigational drug use at CAAP facilities, can contain
confidential business information. If this is the case, the respondent
may request that such information be treated as confidential. All
confidential data will be handled in accordance with 40 CFR 122.7, 40
CFR Part 2, and EPA’s Security Manual Part III, Chapter 9, dated
August 9, 1976. Any claim of confidentiality must be asserted at the
time of submission. However, CWA section 308(b) specifically states that
effluent data may not be treated as confidential.

Whenever possible, EPA encourages public involvement in the NPDES
regulatory process. However, EPA also recognizes the legitimate concerns
of operators regarding protection of CBI and potential delays in
processing of applications for individual permits and Notice of Intents
(NOIs) for general permits.

3(g) Sensitive Questions

Sensitive questions are defined in EPA’s ICR Handbook, Guide to
Writing Information Collection Requests Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 as “questions concerning sexual behavior or attitudes,
religious beliefs, or other matters usually considered private.” The
requirements addressed in this ICR do not include sensitive questions.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(a) Respondents/Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes

The Clean Water Act (CWA), enacted in 1972, requires operators of point
source discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States to obtain
a permit to discharge. In response, EPA developed NPDES CAFO and CAAP
regulations that provide the mechanisms for permitting these discharges.


EPA issues NPDES permits except where a state can demonstrate that it
has adequate legal, technical, and financial capabilities in place to
administer the NPDES program. As of July 2009, 46 States and one
Territory (U.S. Virgin Islands) had received approval from EPA to
administer the NPDES base program.  Of these, 44 are responsible for
issuing NPDES permits to CAFOs. EPA continues to be the permitting
authority in the other states and territories.

The two categories of respondents covered in this ICR are the owners or
operators of CAFO or CAAP facilities and authorized States that issue
permits to these facilities. The authorized states and territories are
considered respondents for evaluating paperwork burden in this ICR.

EPA categorizes CAFOs on the basis of the primary type of animal
produced by the operation. Table 4.1 lists the major categories along
with their North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes
and the corresponding four-digit Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) codes. Note that some industry classification codes may overlap
more than one of the categories defined by EPA under the final
regulations. For example, swine of any size have the same NAICS or SIC
codes. 

Table 4.1 also provides the applicable animal thresholds. EPA uses these
thresholds to distinguish which AFOs are CAFOs. All Large AFOs are
defined as CAFOs. An AFO in the medium size category is defined as a
CAFO if it meets one of two discharge criteria:

pollutants are discharged to U.S. waters through a man-made ditch,
flushing system, or other similar man-made device; and

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.

Table 4.1. CAFO Standard Industrial Classification Codes and Size
Thresholds

NAICS code

(SIC code)	Animal type	Size thresholds



Large	Medium	Small

112111 (0212, 0241), 112112  (0211)	Beef cattle, heifers, calves or veal
calves 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

112210  (0213)	Swine—each weighing over 25 kilograms—or
approximately 55 pounds	> 2,500	750–2,500	< 750

	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

112390  (0259)	Ducks, wet manure handling	> 5,000	1,500–5,000	< 1,500

	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

*Modeling of burden impacts in this ICR does not include an industry
category for broilers, fryers or roaster operations with liquid manure
operations since operations in this animal sector are typically designed
for dry manure handling.



An AFO in the smallest size category may become a CAFO through
designation by the permit authority if the facility is a significant
contributor of pollutants to waters of the U.S. Any designation must be
preceded by an on-site inspection, and facilities designated as CAFOs
must meet the two discharge criteria noted above. A medium AFO that is
not defined as a CAFO may also be designated as a CAFO if it is a
significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the U.S. Under the
2003 CAFO rule, all CAFOs had a duty to apply for an NPDES permit either
by submitting an NOI to be covered by a general permit or by submitting
an application for an individual permit. The final 2008 CAFO rule
narrows this requirement such that only those CAFOs that discharge or
propose to discharge must apply for a permit  and establishes a
voluntary certification process for facilities that do not discharge or
propose to discharge. 

Table 4-2 shows the estimates of total numbers of CAFOs used in
developing the respondent universe for this ICR. In the interim period
between when the 2008 CAFO rule ICR was prepared and the development of
this ICR, the animal agricultural industry has continued to change.
These changes have included further growth and consolidation, which has
resulted in a greater number of AFOs that meet the size threshold for
being defined as a Large CAFO. The projections also reflect more robust
estimates from States and EPA regions on numbers of CAFOs in each State.
It is important to account for changes to the industry when comparing
burdens assessed in the various CAFO program ICRs.  

Table 4–2 shows EPA’s estimate of the number of CAFOs that have
operational or design characteristics historically associated with
discharges. The information presented in Table 4–2 was generated by
EPA staff using data from the 1997 and 2002 Census of Agriculture, NASS
bulletins, National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) species
reports, 2003 Demographics Report, and industry data sources and
comments. According to this information, EPA estimates that as of 2009
as many as 15,764 CAFOs could be discharging to waters of the U.S. These
figures include both facilities defined as CAFOs that have discharges or
proposed to discharge, as well as facilities designated as CAFOs because
they are significant contributors of pollutants to waters of the U.S. 

In order to project the universe of respondents experiencing cost
impacts under the different  approaches for developing rates of
application, EPA used as a starting point the number of CAFOs that land
apply manure, litter or process wastewater by animal type. The number of
discharging CAFOs in each animal sector that land apply as shown in
Table 4–3 is obtained by multiplying the number of discharging CAFOs
from Table 4–2 by the percentage of facilities that land apply in each
sector. For costing purposes, EPA assumed that one half of discharging
CAFOs that land apply would use the narrative rate approach which offers
the most flexibility to operators. The other half is assumed to use the
linear approach. (See table 4–3.)

For purposes of costing burden impacts of certification, the ICR assumes
that all facilities that do not seek a permit (i.e., those facilities
assumed to have no discharge) will seek certification. This assumption
does not represent a precise breakout of facilities because there are no
information sources that can help EPA determine which facilities will
seek the “no discharge” certification.

The NPDES regulations also require permits covering facilities engaged
in aquatic animal production. The types of CAAP facilities required to
obtain NPDES permit coverage include the following:

Finfish Farming and Fish Hatcheries: NAICS code 112511; and

Other Animal Aquaculture: NAICS code 112519.

Not all facilities classified in these two NAICS codes will be subject
to the reporting requirements included in this request, and many of
these reporting requirements apply only when certain events or
conditions exist at the facility.  Other rules established a subset of
facilities engaged in aquatic animal production as concentrated aquatic
animal production facilities and by definition these facilities must
obtain an NPDES permit.  The definition of CAAP can be found at 40 CFR
122.24 and Appendix C of 40 CFR Part 122.  The regulations covered by
this ICR in turn only apply to a subset of CAAP facilities.  These
facilities are defined in the applicability section of the final rule at
40 CFR 451.  Table 4–2.  CAFO universe and discharging CAFOs

CAFO

 Category	2009	2010	2011

	CAFO Universe	Discharging CAFOs	Non-permitted facilities	CAFO Universe
Discharging CAFOs	Non-permitted facilities	CAFO Universe	Discharging
CAFOs	Non-permitted facilities

Beef	3,106	2,815	292	3,191	2,891	300	3,411	3,109	302

Veal	18	14	4	18	14	4	19	15	4

Heifer	415	362	53	433	377	56	480	422	58

Dairy	3,369	3,369	0	3,511	3,511	0	3,926	3,926	0

Swine	9,289	7,563	1,727	9,639	7,843	1,796	10,800	8,896	1,904

Broilers	2,776	441	2,334	2,913	462	2,451	3,123	525	2,598

Layers(dry)	828	131	696	837	133	703	854	144	710

Layers(wet)	589	589	0	571	571	0	592	592	0

Ducks	45	36	9	45	36	9	49	40	9

Horses	401	360	40	415	373	42	459	416	44

Turkeys 	526	84	442	556	88	468	591	100	492

Total	21,362	15,764	5,598	22,130	16,300	5,830	24,304	18,184	6,121

Note: Projections are based on NAHMS species reports, 2003 Demographics
Report, and 2002 Census of Agriculture changes from 1997 Census. The
figures by sector include both large and medium CAFOs as well as other
facilities designated as CAFOs due to discharges.



Table 4–3.  Discharging CAFOs that land apply and CAFOs that will use
the narrative rate approach

CAFO

 Category	% Facilities that use land application a	2009	2010	2011



Discharging CAFOs that land apply	½ of discharging CAFOs that land
apply	Discharging CAFOs that land apply	½ of discharging CAFOs that
land apply	Discharging CAFOs that land apply	½ of discharging CAFOs
that land apply

Beef	83%	2,336	1,168	2,400	1,200	2,580	1,290

Veal	100%	14	7	14	7	15	8

Heifer	100%	362	181	377	189	422	211

Dairy	78%	2,628	1,314	2,739	1,370	3,062	1,531

Swine	80%	6,050	3,025	6,275	3,138	7,117	3,559

Broilers	69%	305	153	319	160	362	181

Layers (dry)	47%	62	31	63	32	68	34

Layers (wet)	47%	277	139	268	134	278	139

Ducks	100%	36	18	36	18	40	20

Horses	100%	360	180	373	187	416	208

Turkeys	61%	51	26	54	27	61	31

Total

12,481	6,242	12,918	6,462	14,421	7,212

a.	Estimates from EPA ICR 1989.04



4(b) Information Requested

This section presents the data items, including record-keeping
requirements, and required respondent activities involved in preparing
and submitting those data items. Throughout this subsection, codes will
be presented in brackets (i.e., [1.3]). These codes correspond to the
reference code in the Respondents Activities Table in Appendix B in
which the first number represents the type of activity and the second
the specific activity listed in the table.

All activities reported in the two ICRs consolidated in this supporting
statement were analyzed and allocated to one of six types of activities
related to the NPDES program:

Activities directly related to individual permit applications or permit
coverage under a general permit (NOIs) [respondent activities codes
1.1–1.46];

Activities associated with plans development or special studies
[respondent activities codes 2.1–2.61];

Monitoring [respondent activities codes 3.1–3.30];

Reporting, including certification [respondent activities codes
4.1–4.29];

Record keeping [respondent activities codes 5.1–5.9]; and

Activities resulting from compliance assessments actions [respondent
activities codes 6.1–6.]

All activities were divided and allocated on the basis of the type of
respondent. Below is a list of the possible types of respondents. Please
note that all types of respondents do not have activities under all
types of activities.

(A) CAFO

(B) CAAP

(C) NPDES-authorized States.

4(b)(i) Application/NOI

4(b)(i)(1) Data Items

Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.21 and 122.28 detail the application
and NOI requirements, respectively, for NPDES permits. This section
includes specific application requirements related to NPDES discharge
permits [40 CFR 122.21], and NOI requirements [40 CFR 122.28]. 

4(b)(i)(1)(A) CAFO

Start-up Activities [1.1-1.6]

All facilities will need to perform start-up activities such as: reading
the CAFO rule and planning for the implementation of the rule. Owners or
operators of 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. Activities performed during the permit
application process will be performed only once during each ICR period.
However, these application activities will be repeated again during the
fifth year of the permit cycle as part of the permit renewal process.

In accordance with the final 2008 rule, all CAFO operations that
discharge or propose to discharge 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 CFR 122.21 or a NOI for
coverage under the general NPDES permit for CAFOs under 40 CFR 122.28.

Individual Permit Application for CAFOs [1.7-1.11]

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. 
Form 2B requires applicants to provide industry-specific information
specified in 40 CFR 122.21(i)(1). As part of an NPDES permit application
for CAFOs seeking coverage under an individual permit, an NMP must be
submitted to the permitting authority. 

NOI to be Covered Under a CAFO General Permit [1.12-1.16]

The NOI pertains to coverage under a general permit, which a permitting
authority uses to cover multiple permittees requiring similar permit
conditions. Completing the NOI requires that CAFO applicants provide the
information specified in 40 CFR 122.21(i)(1) (i.e., the NOI requests the
same information as the application form for an individual permit).
Furthermore, an NMP must be submitted as part of an NOI for CAFOs
seeking coverage under a general permit.  

4(b)(i)(1)(B) CAAP

Form 2B [1.17]

CAAP facilities must complete Form 2B as apart of their NPDES
application process.  These facilities are required to provide data on
the flow rates; the number of ponds, raceways, and similar structures;
the species held at the facility; and the total pounds of production.

NOI to be Covered Under a CAAP General Permit [1.18]

The NOI pertains to coverage under a general permit, which a permitting
authority uses to cover multiple permittees requiring similar permit
conditions.

4(b)(i)(1)(C) State-Only Activities

Individual Permit Activities [1.19-1.25]

Authorized States will incur burdens to perform the following activities
for CAFOs or CAAP facilities that submit applications for individual
permits:

reviewing the permit application for completeness;

providing public notice of receipt of applications and addressing all
significant public comments prior to issuing a permit;

holding public hearing(s), as necessary, when there is significant
public interest in the NMP provisions of a draft NPDES CAFO permit;

determining the terms of the NMP that are to be incorporated into the
permit 

issuing the individual permit (analytical burden for issuing permits is
not included as part of this ICR); and

perform record keeping that includes all notices and reports required of
permittees and other regulated persons.

Individual Permit Application Activities Due to Significant NMP
Modifications [1.26-1.38]

The requirements for activities due to significant NMP modifications for
individual permits are essentially the same as the requirements for
individual permit activities, as discussed above.

General Permit Activities [1.29-1.37]

Authorized States will incur burdens to perform the following activities
for CAFOs that submit NOIs for general permits:

reviewing the NOI for completeness;

providing public notice of the NOI and addressing all significant public
comments prior to issuing a permit; 

holding public hearing(s), as necessary, when there is significant
public interest in the NMP provisions of a draft NPDES CAFO permit; 

determining the terms of the NMP that are to be incorporated into the
permit; 

issuing the general permit (burden for issuing permits is not included
as part of this ICR); and

perform record keeping that includes all notices and reports required of
permittees and other regulated persons.

CAFO General Permit and NOI Activities Due to Significant NMP
Modifications [1.38-1.40]

The requirements for activities due to significant NMP modifications for
general permits are essentially the same as the requirements for general
permit activities, as discussed above.

Nutrient Management Plan Review [1.41-1.46]

The permitting authority must review the NMP, as part of the permit
application or NOI, for compliance with applicable NPDES CAFO
regulations. In addition, authorized States must determine the terms of
the NMP that are to be incorporated into the permit. 

When changes are made to an NMP, the Director must review the changes
and determine whether changes to the terms of the NMP are required and
whether such changes are substantial. EPA believes that the new
narrative rate approach introduced in the 2008 final rule will translate
into a 50 percent reduction in permit modifications that need to be
processed by permit authorities compared to the similar burden presented
in the 2006 CAFO ICR.  This burden reduction is a consequence of
allowing operators to make changes to the rates of application in the
NMP without needing to process these changes as substantial
modifications. This reduction in modification will also reduce the State
burden to respond to public comments.

4(b)(i)(2) Respondent Activities

Respondent activities can vary substantially depending on the type and
characteristics of the respondent and of the authorized state or
territory. This ICR explains these activities, in terms of the type of
information submission they require, in detail in Section 4(b)(i)(1)
above. However, any respondent can engage in preparing basic
information. This includes reading and reviewing instructions and
regulatory requirements, gathering general information, consulting
technical and legal officials, reviewing guidance materials, typing or
filling out forms, drafting letters, reviewing applications or other
materials, maintaining records, and mailing completed submissions. Each
of these requirements is described in more detail in Section 6 of this
ICR.

4(b)(ii) Plan Development/Special Studies

4(b)(ii)(1) Data Items

4(b)(ii)(1)(A) CAFO

Develop/Update a Nutrient Management Plan [2.1-2.44]

CAFOs are required to develop/update and implement an NMP that
addresses, at a minimum, the best management practices and procedures
necessary to implement applicable effluent limitations and standards [40
CFR 122.42(e)(1)].  All CAFOs that discharge or propose to discharge
must submit an NMP as part of their NPDES permit application. In
addition, NOIs submitted to obtain coverage under an NPDES general
permit must include an NMP. 

For a CAFO seeking the no discharge certification option, the CAFO must
develop and implement an up-to-date NMP that addresses, at a minimum,
the elements of section 122.42(e)(1)(i)-(ix) and 40 CFR 412.37(c), and
that includes all land application areas under the control of the CAFO
where the CAFO will land-apply manure, litter, or process wastewater,
and that includes all operation and maintenance practices necessary to
ensure that the CAFO will not discharge or propose to discharge.

Modifications to the Nutrient Management Plan [2.45-2.55]

When changes are made to an NMP, the CAFO must provide a copy of the
revised NMP to the Director. Certain changes need not be provided where
such changes are consistent with specified land application rates;
however, a current copy of the NMP must be maintained on site, or be
readily available. 

4(b)(ii)(1)(B) CAAP

Develop a Best Management Practices Plan [2.56-2.61]

The ELG for the CAAP category is based on requirements to reduce the
discharge of solids, avoid spills of materials, and ensure the facility
is being properly operated and maintained through implementing BMPs. 
Each of these requirements is based on the presumption that the CAAP
facilities will achieve compliance by implementing BMPs.  EPA required
all facilities subject to this regulation to develop a BMP plan which
identifies the BMPs and documents any associated activities such as
record keeping, and training associated with the BMPs.  The Plan will be
maintained at the CAAP facility, but must be made available to the
permitting authority upon request.  EPA also required that CAAP
facilities certify in writing to the permitting authority once upon
issuance of a permit that the BMP plan has been developed.  

4(b)(ii)(2) Respondent Activities

Respondent activities can vary substantially depending on the type and
characteristics of the respondent and of the authorized state or
territory. This ICR explains these activities, in terms of the type of
information submission they require, in detail in Section 4(b)(ii)(1)
above. However, any respondent may engage in generating detailed
information. Detailed information gathered can include topographic maps,
water flow process line drawings, data on production levels, data on
effluent characteristics, local development patterns, management
programs, financial estimates (i.e., available funds and staff
resources), engineering data, or other information required by
permitting authorities, such as developing an NMP or BMP plan. 

4(b)(iii) Monitoring

4(b)(iii)(1) Data Items

4(b)(iii)(1)(A) CAFO

Effluent Limitation Guideline (ELG) Data Collection [3.1-3.30]

Permitted CAFOs 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. 
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. Certified unpermitted large CAFOs are
also subject to these data collection requirements, and therefore the
burden is accounted for in this ICR.  

4(b)(iii)(1)(B) CAAP

Feed Monitoring

The CAAP ELG requires that all net pen facilities conduct some form of
feed monitoring.  This monitoring can be in the form of real-time
monitoring such as video monitoring to observe feed passing beneath the
net, sediment or benthic sampling, and physical devices designed to
capture uneaten feed that passes below the net or other good husbandry
practice that is approved by the permit authority.  The objective of
this requirement is to minimize the discharge of uneaten feed from the
net pen system.  Based on available information and existing permits,
all existing net pen facilities are currently using one of these
techniques to minimize the discharge of uneaten feed, therefore, there
is no burden associated with this type of monitoring. 

4(b)(iii)(2) Respondent Activities

Respondent activities can vary substantially depending on the type and
characteristics of the respondent and of the authorized state or
territory. This ICR explains these activities, in terms of the type of
information submission they require, in detail in Section 4(b)(iii)(1)
above. However, any respondent may engage in the following types of
activities:

Sampling and analyzing discharges and sludge. This can involve pollutant
scans, biological toxicity testing, impact analyses, field monitoring,
or other scientific analyses.

Performing routine inspections. This could involve routine site
inspections to assess the site for information required by the
permitting authorities, such as effectiveness of BMPs in protecting
water quality.

4(b)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

4(b)(iv)(1) Data Items

4(b)(iv)(1)(A) CAFO

No Discharge Certification Option [4.1-4.6]

If an owner or operator elects to pursue the voluntary option of
certifying that their CAFO does not discharge or propose to discharge,
they must document, based on an objective assessment of the conditions
at the CAFO, that the CAFO is designed, constructed, operated, and
maintained in a manner such that the CAFO does not discharge or propose
to discharge. Additional activities would include: 

The CAFO’s production area must be designed, constructed, operated,
and maintained so as not to discharge or propose to discharge. The CAFO
must maintain documentation on site or be made readily available: EPA
estimates that this activity will require a simple engineering analysis
consisting of a description of a non-discharging facility. 

The CAFO develops and implements an up-to-date NMP that addresses, at a
minimum, the elements of section 122.42(e)(1)(i)-(ix) and that includes
all land application areas where the CAFO will land-apply manure. 

The CAFO implements operation and maintenance practices necessary to
satisfy the requirements of paragraphs 122.23(h)(2)(i)-(ii) for the CAFO
production area and land application areas. There are no added costs to
CAFOs—this is presumed to be part of standard business operations.

Under 122.23(i)(3), the CAFO owner or operator who chooses to certify
must complete and submit to the Director a certification that includes,
at a minimum, the following information: 

The legal name, address and phone number of the CAFO owner or operator; 

The CAFO name and address, the county name and the latitude and
longitude where the CAFO is located;

A statement that describes the manner in which the CAFO satisfies the
eligibility requirements identified in 122.23(i)(2); 

The certification statement as specified in 122.23(i)(3)(iv); and 

Signatures in accordance with the signatory requirements of 40 CFR
122.22.

Annual Reports [4.7]

Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.42(e)(4)(i)-(viii) outline the annual
reporting requirements for CAFOs and specify that a CAFO permittee must
prepare and submit an annual report to the Director. This report
provides an annual update to data items contained in the permit
application forms as well as a summary of any production area
discharges.  

Noncompliance Report [4.8-4.9]

Requirements in 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6)-(7) specify that a permittee must
provide 24-hour oral reporting of any noncompliance that could endanger
human health or the environment (with a written follow-up submission
within 5 days). The following must be reported within 24 hours to the
permitting authority: (1) any unanticipated bypass that exceeds any
effluent limitation in the permit; (2) any upset that exceeds any
effluent limitation in the permit; and (3) violation of a maximum daily
discharge limitation for any of the pollutants listed by the
Administrator in the permit.

4(b)(iv)(1)(B) CAAP

BMP Plan Certification [4.10-4.12]

All CAAP facilities subject to the Effluent Guidelines Regulations are
required to develop and implement a BMP plan that addresses specific
aspects of the facility.  Facility owners or operators are required to
certify to the permitting authority that the BMP plan has been developed
and is being implemented.  This certification will take the form of a
letter addressed to the permitting authority.  

INAD Program Sign-up Report [4.13-4.15]

EPA established reporting requirements associated with the application
of INAD and extra-label drugs.  When a CAAP facility agrees to
participate in an INAD program EPA requires the owner or operator to
notify the permitting authority in writing within 7 days of the date
that the facility signed up to participate in this program.  The report
would include the name of the INAD, the method of application, the
dosage and the disease or condition it is intended to treat.  Reporting
is not required if the INAD or extralabel drug use does not exceed the
approved dosage for the same drug if used under similar conditions.  

INAD or Extra-Label Use Report [4.16-4.18]

When an INAD or extra-label drug that does not meet the exception is
used at a CAAP facility, the owner or operator must file two reports
with the permitting authority concerning this use.  The first report is
made orally and must be made no later than 7 days after initiating
treatment.  The facility owner or operator must notify the permitting
authority that either an INAD or extra-label drug application is
occurring at the facility.  The report must identify the drug and the
reason for its addition.

The second report is a written report which must be provided to the
permitting authority within 30 days of concluding treatment.  The
written report must include the identity of the drug, the reason for
treatment, the date(s), time(s) and duration of the treatment, the total
amount of active ingredient added, or the total amount of medicated feed
added when this is the method of application and the estimated number of
animals treated. 

Structural Failure Report [4.19-4.21]

EPA requires facilities to report to the permitting authority any time
the facility experiences a failure or damage to the aquatic animal
containment system resulting in a material discharge to waters of the
United States. A failure of the containment system that results in a
material discharge must be reported within 24 hours of discovery of the
failure.  This report should be made orally to the permitting authority
and should describe the cause of the failure in the containment system
and identify materials that may have likely been released to the
environment as a result of this failure.  The facility is also required
to provide a written report within seven days of discovery of the
failure documenting the cause, the estimated time elapsed until the
failure is repaired, an estimate of the material released as a result of
the failure, and steps being taken to prevent a reoccurrence.

EPA requires reporting of failures and damage that lead to a material
discharge to ensure that permitting authorities are alerted to the
release of significant pollutant loads over a relatively short time
frame.  EPA does not expect this type of failure to occur very
frequently at flow through and recirculating facilities.  EPA
anticipated that there are a greater number of these events occurring at
net pen facilities.  The location of these facilities in open water
makes them vulnerable to damage from predators and accidents.  Failures
at net pen facilities have the potential to release the contents of the
nets including fish and fish carcasses.

Spill Report [4.22-4.24]

Reporting of spilled drugs, pesticides or feed that result in a
discharge to waters of the United States, must be reported orally to the
permitting authority within 24 hours of occurrence, followed by a
written report within 7 days.  The report must identify the material
spilled and an estimated amount.  EPA does not expect spills will occur
very often, since facilities are required to implement proper storage
and implement procedures for proper cleaning, containing and disposing
of the spilled material.  

4(b)(iv)(1)(C) State Reporting & Certification

Permitting Authorities will keep the written reports received through
the CAAP ELG regulation in the permit file.  The information may be made
available to the public unless it is subject to a claim of CBI.  EPA
anticipates that there may be such claims attached to reports related to
the participation or use of INADs.

BMP Plan Certification Receipt [4.25]

The permitting authority will process certifications that BMP plans have
been developed and document receipt of the certification.

INAD Program Sign-up Report Receipt [4.26]

Permitting authorities will document receipt of the INAD program sign-up
report when permittees apply either INAD or a drug that has been
prescribed extra-label by a veterinarian to treat aquatic animals at the
CAAP facility. 

INAD or Extra-Label Drug Report Receipt [4.27]

Permitting authorities will document receipt of oral and written reports
filed by the permittee concerning INAD and extra-label drugs. 

Spill Report Receipt [4.28]

Permitting authorities will document receipt of oral and written reports
filed by the permittee concerning spilled drugs, pesticides or feed that
result in a discharge to waters of the United States. 

Structural Failure Report Receipt [4.29]

Permitting authorities will document receipt of oral and written reports
filed by the permittee concerning structural failures at the CAAP
facility.  

4(b)(iv)(2) Respondent Activities

Respondent activities can vary substantially depending on the type and
characteristics of the respondent and of the authorized state or
territory. This ICR explains these activities, in terms of the type of
information submission they require, in detail in Section 4(b)(iv)(1)
above. However, any respondent preparing and submitting reports may
engage in the following types of activities:

Preparing basic information. This can include reading instructions and
regulations for report requirements, consulting technical, legal, and
political staff, reviewing guidance materials, gathering general
information, typing or completing forms or generating reports, and
mailing or electronic submission of completed forms or reports to the
NPDES permitting authority.

Gathering detailed information. Detailed information gathered can
include progress reports from those persons/governmental departments
responsible for implementing the chosen BMPs, financial estimates,
monitoring data, visual inspection data, compliance data, public opinion
and awareness surveys, or any information required by the NPDES
permitting authorities to be submitted with the annual reports.

4(b)(v) Record Keeping

4(b)(v)(1) Data Items

4(b)(v)(1)(A) CAFO

ELG Data Collection Record Keeping [5.1-5.2]

Federal regulation in 40 CFR 122.42(e)(2)(i)(B) mandates that, in
association with ELG requirements, CAFOs must keep records of all
monitoring data and reports, including copies of all original monitoring
information, for 5 years. Data that must be retained includes records
related to sampling and monitoring, inspections, and results of such
analyses. These data must be readily available to the permitting
authority during site inspections or at any other time they are needed. 

Requirements Related to Transfer of Manure or Process Wastewater to
Other Persons [5.3]

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)].

4(b)(v)(1)(B) CAAP

Record Keeping of Inspection, Cleaning, Maintenance & Repair [5.4-5.5]

The CAAP ELG includes a requirement that facilities inspect and provide
regular maintenance of the production system and the wastewater
treatment system to ensure that they are properly functioning. EPA
assumes the inspections will be performed by each facility while
production is occurring.  For the flow through and recirculating
facilities, EPA believes that inspections would occur on each rearing
unit and wastewater treatment structure.  Net pen inspections require
divers to inspect the facility underwater.  

In addition, EPA has requirements for flow through and recirculating
commercial and non-commercial facilities that address the structural
maintenance of the aquatic animal containment system and a requirement
that facilities keep records on the frequency of inspections,
maintenance and repairs to the facility to avoid structural failures. 
The type of records this requirement includes is a log of dates when
inspections occur and brief notations when something is found.  Also
records are to be kept on maintenance and repair activities, including
the date and the actions taken.  EPA also requires these facilities to
keep records on the frequency of cleaning the rearing units and changing
the nets at net pen facilities.

Record Keeping of Feed Management [5.6-5.7]

In addition to the record keeping described above related to the
inspections, maintenance and repair of the facility, EPA also requires
flow through and recirculating commercial and non-commercial facilities
to keep records on the amount of feed added to each rearing unit along
with an estimate of the number of animals contained in the unit and the
weight of the animals.  From these records the facility should calculate
a representative feed conversion ratio for the animals produced at the
facility.  

4(b)(v)(1)(C) State Record Keeping

Record Keeping of No Discharge Certifications [5.8-5.9]

If a CAFO chooses to certify that it does not discharge or propose to
discharge, the CAFO owner or operator must complete and submit to the
Director the required certification. Directors must then log and file
each certification/recertification.

4(b)(v)(2) Respondent Activities

Respondent activities can vary substantially depending on the type and
characteristics of the respondent and of the authorized state or
territory. This ICR explains these activities, in terms of the type of
information submission they require, in detail in Section 4(b)(v)(1)
above. However, all respondents have certain record-keeping requirements
This includes keeping records of the data for at least 3 years,
developing record-keeping systems, collecting and entering data,
training personnel, filing information, or other record-keeping
requirements, such as maintaining a BMP plan on-site for the duration of
the permit. 

4(b)(vi) Compliance Assessment 

4(b)(vi)(1) Data Items

4(b)(vi)(1)(A) CAFO

Inspections Conducted by Permitting Authority [6.1]

This ICR also incorporates the potential burden to CAFO owners or
operators participating in on-site inspections by the permit authority. 
During this time, the inspector may want to review records and inspect
waste management and land application equipment.  It is likely that the
CAFO owner or operator will incur some burden during the inspection to
make records available and show the facility to the inspector.  

4(b)(vi)(1)(B) CAAP

EPA has not identified any unique activities associated with compliance
assessment for these permittees.

4(b)(vi)(1)(C) State-Only Activities

Inspections [6.2]

To assure compliance with State NPDES permit programs, the permitting
authority will conduct on-site inspections of the permitted CAFO
facility.  

Annual Report Review [6.3]

In addition to conducting inspections at permitted CAFOs, the permitting
authority will also perform reviews of the annual reports submitted by
the permitted CAFO.  

Research on Environmental Affects of INAD [6.4]

Upon receipt of a notification report of participation in an INAD
program, the permitting authority may choose to gather information on
the potential environmental effects of the INAD.  EPA anticipates that
this could involve some combination of web searching, contacts with the
FDA and academics and contacts with the EPA regional office or
Headquarters.  

Determination of Site-Specific Limits for INAD [6.5]

Based on findings from the above research, the permitting authority may
choose to establish site-specific controls for the discharge when the
INAD is being used that limits or restricts the discharge of the
reported drug in the receiving stream.

Notify State Fish & Wildlife Department [6.6]

Reporting requirements associated with a failure in the aquatic animal
containment system will provide the permitting authority with
information concerning the release of large quantities of pollutants
over a short span of time.  It can provide the permitting authority with
the ability to anticipate possible stream impacts that could result from
this release and if possible take steps to mitigate them.  A release of
live fish that are not native to the region may pose a threat to native
species.  EPA anticipates that the permitting authority will notify the
State Department of Fish and Wildlife so that appropriate action may be
taken to mitigate this release in a timely manner.

Review Cause of Failure and Past Reports to Evaluate Effectiveness of
Practices [6.7]

When subsequent structural failures of the aquatic animal containment
system occur at the same facility, the permitting authority may refer to
reports on file in the event that subsequent reports are filed.  For
example, previous reports of failures may be reviewed upon oral
notification of a failure.  If the permitting authority determines that
sufficient steps may not have been taken to avoid further failures from
occurring, the authority may require the facility to take specific
actions. 

4(b)(vi)(2) Respondent Activities

Respondent activities for compliance assessment/certification
information can vary substantially depending on the type of permittee
and its ability to comply with its NPDES permit. However, to submit the
required information, a respondent can engage in preparing basic
information, generating detailed information, sample collection, and
reporting and maintaining records. Facilities with regulatory
alternatives such as certification and BMPs should expect to be involved
in developing, reviewing, and certifying plans; periodically reviewing
and revising plans; submitting additional monitoring reports; and
conducting refresher training. The specific requirements and activities
for Compliance Assessment/Certification are outlined in section
4(b)(vi)(1) above.

5. The Information Collected—Agency Activities, Collection
Methodology, and Information Management

5(a) Agency Activities

EPA’s activities as the NPDES permitting authority for non-authorized
states and territories are the same as the activities performed by the
authorized states and the territories. Authorizations vary by program.
For example, the assumption for this ICR is that the Agency has
permitting responsibilities in the six States where it is the permitting
authority for CAFOs and five States where it is the permitting authority
for CAAP facilities. 

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

EPA maintains some application data in databases such as PCS,
ICIS-NPDES, and the NOI database. These systems provide EPA with a
nationwide inventory of all permit holders. EPA headquarters uses this
information to assess permit compliance. This technology also reduces
the burden to EPA and the states for gathering and analyzing national
permit and water quality data.

CAFO respondents will submit the requested information to their NPDES
permitting authority. EPA will manage a portion of the information
collected electronically. In collecting and analyzing the information
associated with NPDES permit coverage applications, EPA will use PCS,
ICIS-NPDES, and electronic NOI (eNOI) systems; paper-based forms;
personal computers; and databases to ultimately store the information.
EPA will ensure accuracy and completeness of the information by
reviewing each submittal upon receipt and is responsible for ensuring
that applicable data are entered into PCS or ICIS-NPDES. Any form that
is considered inaccurate or incomplete will not be accepted and will be
returned to the sender with a letter requesting the missing or
inaccurate information.

Upon request to EPA, the public may access certain information via PCS,
ICIS-NPDES, Online Tracking Information System (OTIS), or Enforcement
and Compliance History Online (ECHO). Some of the information is
available to the public through Web-based interfaces of these databases
or other EPA Web-based tools such as Envirofacts.

For CAAP facilities, the permitting authorities will maintain records of
reports made under the Special Reporting Requirements for INADs
described above in Section 4.  This data may be made available to the
public consistent with EPA’s regulations concerning the protection of
Confidential Business Information (CBI) (40 CFR Part 2).

INADs can be considered CBI during the investigative studies.  Reports
required to be filed with the permitting authority under this regulation
that contain CBI should be clearly marked and should be handled by the
permitting authority in accordance with 40 CFR 122.7, 40 CFR Part 2 and
EPA’s Security Manual, Part III, Chapter 9.

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

The current NPDES program distinguishes small CAFOs on the basis of the
number or concentration of animals and their environmental impact.
Small, Medium, and Large operations are defined in Table 4.1. 

Whereas EPA establishes thresholds on the basis of the number of
animals, the Small Business Administration (SBA) uses revenue-based
thresholds to distinguish small agricultural operations from larger
operations. Consequently, EPA developed a model to convert the SBA’s
revenue thresholds to the number of animals by sector. EPA used the
SBA’s revenue-based definitions (except for laying hens) and data from
USDA and the industry for this effort. The SBA and EPA thresholds are
shown for each sector in Table 5.1. A comparison of the SBA-based animal
thresholds with EPA’s animal thresholds indicates that most medium and
small CAFOs are small entities and some Large CAFOs will be small
entities as well.

Table 5.1. SBA and EPA Small Business Thresholds for Animal Sectors 

NAICS code

(SIC code)	Animal sector	SBA threshold

(revenue in millions)a	Corresponding SBA animal threshold

(number of animals)	CAFO Size Threshold

(number of animals)

112112 (0211)	Beef cattle feedlots	$1.5	1,400	Large  > 1,000

112111, 112120 (0241)	Dairy farms and dairy heifer replacement
production	$0.75	300b	Large > 700

Medium > 200

112210 (0213)	Hogs	$0.75	2,100c	Large > 2,500

Medium > 750

112310 (0252)	Chicken eggs	$1.5d	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.



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

For the CAAP ELG rule, EPA conducted analyses required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).  See section IX.B
of the preamble in the final rule for a summary of these analyses.

EPA believes the burden on small facilities is minimal since reporting
is only linked with specific conditions or occurrences at the facility. 


5(d) Collection Schedule

The collection schedule for the activities presented in this ICR varies
greatly depending on the type of activity and respondent. For this ICR,
annual burden estimates are based on universe of CAFO respondents
estimated to exist in the 3-year period spanning January 2009 through
December 2011. 

This ICR assumes that one-fifth of existing permitted CAFOs and CAAP
facilities would renew their permits in each year covered by the ICR
(based on the 5-year NPDES permit term). In addition, a specific number
of new and designated CAFOs were assumed to seek permits in each of
these years. 

Before EPA added the narrative rate approach for NMPs presented in the
final 2008 CAFO rule, it estimated in the 2006 renewal ICR that 11
percent of permitted CAFOs would need permit modifications each year due
to substantial changes to their NMPs. For that ICR, EPA assumed that
each year one percent of NMPs would change enough to trigger a
substantial modification of the permit. Based on subsequent
consultations with USDA, EPA revised this projection upwards to 11
percent. (This estimate was based on USDA estimates that such
modifications would take place once per permit cycle for 45 percent of
facilities, and twice for between 0 and 10 percent of facilities.) EPA
estimates for purposes of this current ICR that CAFOs choosing the
narrative approach (one half of discharging CAFOs that land apply) to
express rates of application will experience a 50 percent reduction in
permit modifications.  This is because the narrative approach results in
fewer changes to the NMPs that would later necessitate substantial
permit modifications.

The CAAP ELG rule requires the development of a BMP plan to assist in
compliance with the requirements along with a certification that a BMP
plan has been developed.  These activities will occur upon coverage
under an NPDES permit that incorporates the ELG requirements.  This BMP
plan must be completed and certification filed once during the term of
the NPDES permit.  Reporting requirements associated with INAD and
extra-label drugs are related to specific events.  Likewise the
reporting associated with an aquatic animal containment system failure
is linked to a specific event.  The reporting requirements do have a
related time frame on which the report must be filed.  INAD study
participation must be reported within 7 days after agreeing to
participate in an INAD study or initiating the use of an INAD or
extra-label drug chemical.  In conjunction with the use of the INAD or
extra-label drug, a written report must follow the initial oral report
within 30 days of initiation the use.  Likewise reporting associated
with a failure damage resulting in a material discharge must be made
orally within 24 hours of discovery followed by a written report within
7 days of the event.  EPA considers this collection schedule to be
reasonable.  The certification of the BMP plan should be a
straightforward document, most likely taking the form of a letter from
the owner or operator at the CAAP facility addressed to the permitting
authority.  This letter need only be submitted once for each permit
cycle which is typically 5 years.  Likewise the effort associated with
developing the BMP plan is expected to be expended once during the
permit cycle.

The reporting of participation in an INAD program is required to occur
within 7 days of agreeing to participate in the program.  This time
lapse provides the CAAP owner or operator ample time to assemble the
required information and prepare a letter that will serve to notify the
permitting authority.  Facilities are generally not expected to require
the application of the INAD immediately, however, if agreeing to
participate in the INAD program coincides with use of the INAD, the
facility would report consistent with the use reporting requirements. 
INAD and extra-label drug use reporting requires that an oral report be
filed as soon as possible, but no later than 7 days after beginning
treatment.  EPA recognizes that facility owners and operators will be
focusing on the health and welfare of the aquatic animals being treated
and thus may not be able to file a report immediately, however, within
the first 7 days of treatment, the owner or operator can provide an oral
report.

The written report related to the use of INAD or extra-label drugs must
be filed within 30 days following completion of the treatment.  EPA does
not expect this time period will impose any hardship on facilities to
compile the required information into a letter that can be sent to the
permitting authority.

The occurrence of a failure in the aquatic animal containment system
must be reported orally through a phone call to the permitting authority
within 24 hours of discovery.  The urgency associated with this
reporting is to allow the permitting authority to take rapid action to
mitigate any harmful effects that could occur as a result of the
failure’s releasing pollutant slugs into the receiving stream.  The
subsequent written report describing the failure and steps taken to
prevent its reoccurrence among other things, is due within 7 days of
discovering the failure.  EPA expects that operators will be busy taking
steps to address the failure, but also believes filing a prompt report
will ensure that the facility is actively addressing the causes and
looking for ways to prevent reoccurrences to the extent possible.

Spills of drugs, pesticides and feed that result in a discharge to
waters of the United States, must be reported orally to the permitting
authority within 24 hours of occurrence.  A written report must be
submitted within 7 days.  The report must identify the material that
spilled and an estimated amount.

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden

This section presents the estimated respondent burden for each
information request. Throughout this subsection, codes will be presented
in brackets (i.e., [1.1]). These codes correspond to the reference code
in the Respondents Activities Table in Appendix B. This table presents
all assumptions, calculations, and results discussed in this subsection.
Facilities subject to CAFO and CAAP requirements and authorized states
are included as respondents in this section. The breakdown of cost and
burden by labor category is provided in Section 6(b).

This ICR calculates annual burden and costs to respondents. In this
section EPA presents estimated burden on the CAFO and CAAP facilities
and NPDES authorized States based on the requirements included in the
final regulations.  In most cases the total burden per activity is
estimated on an annual basis and then multiplied by three to derive the
total burden associated with this ICR.  There are some requirements in
the regulations that are expected to occur only once during the permit
cycle which is typically five years long.  

6(a)(i) Application/NOI

6(a)(i)(A) CAFO 

Start-up Activities [1.1-1.6]

Start-up activities are steps that a CAFO owner or operator takes in
preparation to comply with the information collection requirements of
the 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 operators three
hours to read and understand the relevant portions of 40 CFR 122 and 40
CFR 412 and related guidance.

Individual Permit Application for CAFOs [1.7-1.11]

Permit application activities involve gathering information and
completing and submitting an application for an individual permit. EPA
estimates that respondents will spend nine hours to complete and submit
the individual permit application.  All permitted CAFOs must submit an
NMP as part their individual permit application (40 CFR
122.21(i)(1)(x)). EPA estimates that new requirement for submittal of an
NMP will require 0.5 hours every 5 years.

NOI to be Covered Under a CAFO General Permit [1.12-1.16]

EPA estimates that respondents will spend 9 hours to file an NOI for a
CAFO general permit. In addition, NOIs to obtain coverage under an NPDES
general permit must include an NMP. EPA estimates that new requirement
for submittal of an NMP will require 0.5 hour every 5 years.

6(a)(i)(B) CAAP 

Form 2B [1.17]

EPA estimates that respondents will spend 6 hours reading the
instructions, gathering the necessary information, and completing and
mailing Form 2B. EPA estimates that there are 245 CAAP facilities. From
PCS and ICIS-NPDES, EPA estimates that 23 percent of CAAP facilities
file for general permits. Of the remaining 189 CAAP facilities, on
average one-fifth of these facilities will file an application annually
(i.e., 38). 

NOI to be Covered Under a CAAP General Permit [1.18]

EPA estimates that respondents will spend 2 hours to file an NOI for a
CAAP general permit.  

6(a)(i)(C) State-Only Activities

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

Individual Permit Activities [1.19-1.25]

EPA assumed State administration costs for individual CAFO permits
include 100 hours per permit to review Forms 1 and 2B, issue public
notices, and respond to comments.  EPA also estimated that the hearing
time for an individual permit would be 200 hours.  This is the same
figure as was used in the 2006 ICR.  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
includes a presiding officer, technical 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.  Permitting authorities should provide public notice
when they receive individual permit applications.  EPA estimates a
burden of 5 hours per application for public notice.

For individual permit applications associated with CAAP facilities, EPA
estimates that authorized states will spend 0.5 hour reviewing Form 2B.

Individual Permit Application Activities Due to Significant NMP
Modifications [1.26-1.38]

The annual burden for activities due to significant NMP modifications
for individual permits includes the following:

review and approve permits/record keeping (20 hours)

public hearings (40 hours)

public notice and response to comments (1 hour)

General Permit Activities [1.29-1.37]

CAFOs seeking coverage under a general permit submit completed NOI forms
that the permitting authority needs to review and make a determination
of coverage. EPA estimated that NOI review and record-keeping activities
would require four hours.  EPA has assumed that 12 percent of the NOIs
submitted would result in a public hearing related to the general
permit; and that the labor burden associated with the hearing, should
one be called for, would be 200 hours. The magnitude of the public
hearing burden for the general permit is assumed to be the same as the
burden in the active ICR for public hearings for individual CAFO NPDES
permits. Permitting authorities should provide public notice when they
receive NOIs.  EPA estimates a burden of 5 hours per NOI for public
notice.

For CAAP facilities covered under a general permit, the agency estimated
0.5 hours to process the NOIs.

CAFO General Permit and NOI Activities Due to Significant NMP
Modifications [1.38-1.40]

The annual burden for activities due to significant NMP modifications
for general permits includes the following:

review and approve NOIs/record keeping (4 hours)

public hearings (40 hours)

public notice and response to comments (1 hour)

Nutrient Management Plan Review [1.41-1.46]

Authorized States must review CAFOs’ NMP as part of the permit
application or NOI to determine compliance with applicable NPDES CAFO
regulations. In addition, authorized States must determine the terms of
the NMP that are to be incorporated into the permit. EPA estimates that
the authorized state will spend 20 hours reviewing the NMP and
determining NMP terms, every five years.

In addition, authorized States must review any subsequent changes to
NMPs and determine whether changes warrant a substantial modification to
the permit. The burden to review subsequent changes is assumed to be 4
hours per review. They also must provide an opportunity for public
comment when changes are substantial.

6(a)(ii) Plan Development/Special Studies

6(a)(ii)(A) CAFO 

Develop/Update a Nutrient Management Plan [2.1-2.44]

CAFO operators need to develop an NMP that contains the minimum measures
specified in 40 CFR 122.42(e)(1).  They will also need to maintain the
plan on-site.  The burden to develop the nonengineering portion of the
NMP depends on the type of CAFO.  These estimates come from the earlier
CAFO NPDES ICR (OMB No. 2040–0250, EPA ICR No. 1989.02).  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.

Modifications to the Nutrient Management Plan [2.45-2.55]

EPA also estimates that any permit modifications required by permitting
authorities following NMP review may necessitate changes to NMPs that
will result in an added burden to CAFOs. To determine the added burden
to CAFOs for NMP modifications as directed by permit authorities, EPA
estimates that the burden to CAFOs to modify and update an NMP would be
20 percent of the original NMP development burden. EPA calculated
average plan development burden for an average discharging CAFO using
the same burden estimate for NMP development as in the CAFO NPDES ICR
(OMB No: 2040–0250, EPA ICR: 1989.04). 

In addition, when a permitted CAFO changes its NMP, the CAFO must
provide a copy of the current (i.e., changed) NMP to the Director
(certain changes need not be provided where such changes are consistent
with specified land application rates). For purposes of this ICR,
EPA’s burden estimate for submitting any revised plans is 30 minutes.

6(a)(ii)(B) CAAP 

Develop a Best Management Practices Plan [2.56-2.61]

All facilities subject to CAAP regulation will be required to develop,
and implement BMPs which address a variety of aspects of their facility.
 These BMPs must also be documented in a BMP plan, and a letter
certifying that the Plan has been developed must be sent to the
permitting authority.  EPA estimates that these activities will require
40 hours to accomplish.  This activity is expected to be done once over
the term of the permit which is typically five years. In addition, EPA
estimates that CAAP facilities will spend 6 hours per year conducting
training. 

6(a)(iii) Monitoring

6(a)(iii)(A) CAFO 

Effluent Limitation Guideline (ELG) Data Collection [3.1-3.30]

CAFO owners or operators will perform various activities to meet data
collection and record-keeping requirements.  Large CAFO operators will
spend 13 hours conducting 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.  Operators will spend 4
hours, annually, inspecting manure application equipment and documenting
the activity.  Soil samples must be collected at least once every five
years from all fields receiving manure and analyzed for nutrient
content.  Each soil sampling will take 8 hours. Manure samples must be
collected annually and analyzed for nutrient content.  Each manure
sampling will take 2.2 hours.   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).  

6(a)(iii)(B) CAAP

Feed Monitoring

All net pen facilities are required to conduct some form of feed
monitoring.  This monitoring can be in the form of real-time monitoring
such as video monitoring to observe feed passing beneath the net,
sediment or benthic sampling, and physical devices designed to capture
uneaten feed that passes below the net or other good husbandry practice
that is approved by the permit authority.  The objective of this
requirement is to minimize the discharge of uneaten feed from the net
pen system.  Based on available information and existing permits, all
existing net pen facilities are currently using one of these techniques
to minimize the discharge of uneaten feed. There is no burden associated
with this type of monitoring since facilities were already required to
perform the feed management practices and associated record keeping.  

6(a)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

6(a)(iv)(A) CAFO 

No Discharge Certification Option [4.1-4.6]

For purposes of calculating the burden and cost of voluntary
certification, EPA assumed that every year one fifth of facilities
choosing to certify will do so. EPA estimates that respondents will
spend two hours preparing the paperwork for certification; four hours
performing the engineering analysis; and 0.5 hours submitting the
information to the permitting authority every five years.  

Annual Reports [4.7]

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 two
hours to complete and submit, on average.  

Noncompliance Report [4.8-4.9]

EPA expects very few CAFO respondents to be affected annually. EPA
expects approximately 1 percent of permitted CAFO facilities to submit
one report per year at 5 hours per response. EPA estimates that an
average of 2 hours is required for the permitting authority to receive
and process each CAFO report.

6(a)(iv)(B) CAAP 

BMP Plan Certification [4.10-4.12]

The certification of the BMP plan should be a straightforward document,
most likely taking the form of a letter from the owner or operator at
the CAAP facility addressed to the permitting authority.  This letter
need only be submitted once for each permit cycle which is typically 5
years. EPA estimates that respondents will spend 1.25 hours for BMP Plan
certification.  

INAD Program Sign-up Report [4.13-4.15]

The number of facilities that reported participating in INAD programs in
response to EPA’s detailed survey indicates that there would likely be
less than 20 facilities annually affected by EPA’s INAD or extra-label
reporting requirement.  The rule specifies that facilities report when
an INAD and extralabel drug is used and they would file less than 40
reports on the use of an INAD or extra-label drug in any given year. 
All of the facilities that reported participation in an INAD study were
non-commercial facilities that were either State or Federal hatcheries. 
EPA’s data do not provide the details on the use of extra-label drugs
at CAAP facilities.  Thus, EPA is making an assumption that facilities
will use either extra-label or INAD drugs in any given year, and the
number of applications requiring reporting will be less than 40.  EPA is
assuming that the facilities that will apply extra-label drugs will not
be just non-commercial facilities.  The number of commercial facilities
is likely to be substantially smaller than non-commercial facilities in
part due to withdrawal concerns. EPA estimates that each program sign-up
report will require one hour to prepare and submit to the permitting
authority.

INAD or Extra-Label Use Report [4.16-4.18]

The burden associated with reporting for INADs and extra-label drugs
will include an hour of a manager’s time to prepare and mail a letter
notifying the permitting authority that the facility is participating in
an INAD study.  EPA estimates that a manager will spend half an hour
filing the oral report on either INAD or extra-label drug use and
subsequently an additional hour writing the letter that notifies the
permitting authority when the treatment is concluded.  EPA also
anticipates that unskilled labor will spend some time keeping records
throughout the application of the drug.  This data will be used by the
manager in the written report.  However, EPA expects that this staff
will also be doing these activities to respond to requirements of the
INAD agreement or simply for the purposes of good husbandry in the case
of extra-label drug applications.

Structural Failure Report [4.19-4.21]

EPA assumes that few flow through and recirculating facilities will
experience structural failures in their aquatic animal containment
systems.  This is in part based on the very small number of facilities
that EPA is aware of that have experienced such failures in the past. 
EPA is estimating that 22 facilities will experience a reportable
failure each year.  Failures are unlikely to affect only non-commercial
or commercial facilities; thus, EPA is assuming that the failures will
be distributed between non-commercial and commercial facilities.  Net
pen facilities are expected to experience reportable failures at a much
higher rate due to the inherent vulnerabilities of the system.  EPA is
assuming that each net pen facility will have one reportable failure
each year.  EPA estimates that respondents will spend 5 hours per year
preparing and submitting structural failure reports.  

Spill Report [4.22-4.24]

Reporting of spilled drugs, pesticides or feed that result in a
discharge to waters of the United States, must be reported orally to the
permitting authority within 24 hours of occurrence, followed by a
written report within 7 days.  The report must identify the material
spilled and an estimated amount.  EPA does not expect spills will occur
very often, since facilities are required to implement proper storage
and implement procedures for proper cleaning, containing and disposing
of the spilled material.  Again for the purpose of estimating the
burden, EPA is assuming that more net pen facilities will experience a
spill in any given year, and non-commercial flow through and
recirculating facilities may experience a slightly higher rate of
spills, since they tend to report a higher rate of drug and pesticide
use.  EPA estimates that respondents will spend 2 hours per year
preparing and submitting spill reports.  

6(a)(iv)(B) State Reporting & Certification

BMP Plan Certification Receipt [4.25]

EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 0.25 hour processing
certifications that BMP plans have been developed and documenting
receipt of the certification

INAD Program Sign-up Report Receipt [4.26]

EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 0.5 hours documenting
receipt of the INAD program sign-up report when permittees apply either
INAD or a drug that has been prescribed extra-label by a veterinarian to
treat aquatic animals at the CAAP facility. 

INAD or Extra-Label Drug Report Receipt [4.27]

EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 0.5 hours documenting
receipt of oral and written reports filed by the permittee concerning
INAD and extra-label drugs. 

Spill Report Receipt [4.28]

EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 0.5 hours documenting
receipt of oral and written reports filed by the permittee concerning
spilled drugs, pesticides or feed that result in a discharge to waters
of the United States. 

Structural Failure Report Receipt [4.29]

EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 0.5 hours documenting
receipt of oral and written reports filed by the permittee concerning
structural failures at the CAAP facility.  

6(a)(v) Record Keeping

6(a)(iv)(A) CAFO 

ELG Data Collection Record Keeping [5.1-5.2]

All permitted and unpermitted CAFOs subject to the ELG requirements are
required to conduct and maintain records of their ELG data collection.
EPA expects that these activities will result in an annual burden of 80
hours per respondent.

Requirements Related to Transfer of Manure or Process Wastewater to
Other Persons [5.3]

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 (EPA ICR No. 1989.04). EPA also estimated that recording
the information required for each transfer requires 5 minutes.  The
resulting average burden per CAFO is 14 hours.

6(a)(iv)(B) CAAP 

Record Keeping of Inspection, Cleaning, Maintenance & Repair [5.4-5.5]

Failures can be minimized through frequent inspection of the rearing
units and wastewater treatment system and prompt repair of any damage
identified.  EPA is requiring that facilities keep records on the
frequency of the inspections and any repairs and maintenance activities
performed.  EPA estimates that commercial facilities will spend 103
hours and non-commercial facilities 118 per year for record keeping.
There is no burden associated with this activity for net pen facilities.
 

Record Keeping of Feed Management [5.6-5.7]

Other record keeping required by the CAAP regulation involves recording
the amount of feed added to each rearing unit and tracking the number of
animals and the weight of the animals contained in the rearing unit. 
The feed inputs are assumed to be tracked on a weekly basis during
periods when feeding occurs.  The number of animals and weight of the
animals will be tracked less frequently.  Animal numbers can be
estimated using the approximate number added to the unit when stocking
occurred less the mortalities removed from the unit over time.  The
weight can be measured at the time of harvest.  These values in
aggregate by facility or by species shall be used to calculate a
representative feed conversion ratio.  The feed conversion ratio
represents the proportion of feed provided in relation to the amount of
weight gained.  These records shall be maintained at the facility and
provided to the permitting authority when requested or made available to
inspectors.  The facility owner or operator should also use this data to
evaluate whether the feeding regime is achieving the intended results.
EPA estimates that commercial facilities will spend 103 hours and
non-commercial facilities 118 per year for record keeping. There is no
burden associated with net pen facilities for feed management records.

6(a)(iv)(B) State Record Keeping 

Record Keeping of No Discharge Certifications [5.8-5.9]

If a CAFO owner or operator wishes to certify that a CAFO does not
discharge or propose to discharge, they must complete and submit to the
Director a no discharge certification. EPA estimates 0.5 hours for
States to log and file each certification.

6(a)(vi) Compliance Assessment 

6(a)(vi)(A) CAFO

Inspections Conducted by Permitting Authority [6.1]

This ICR also incorporates the potential burden to CAFO owners or
operators of participating in on-site inspections conducted by the
permit authority.  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 burden to CAFOs of
four hours per inspection.

6(a)(vi)(B) CAAP

EPA has not identified any unique activities associated with compliance
assessment for these permittees.

6(a)(vi)(C) State-Only Activities

Inspections [6.2]

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.  

Annual Report Review [6.3]

The burden and cost for authorized states is based on the time to review
the reports. EPA estimates that the review time is 4 hours per report.

Research on Environmental Affects of INAD [6.4]

EPA anticipates that permitting authorities will spend a minimum of two
hours researching the potential environmental effects of the drugs being
reported.  If there is some concern that warrants further research and
the establishment of some effluent controls, the permitting authority
may spend as much as an additional 8 hours.  For the purpose of this
ICR, EPA is assuming an average of 3 hours to conduct research.

Determination of Site-Specific Limits for INAD [6.5]

In addition to conducting research on INAD, EPA estimates that
permitting authorities will spend an additional 3 hours to determine
limits or restrictions on the discharge of the drug.  

Notify State Fish & Wildlife Department [6.6]

A release of live fish that are not native to the region may pose a
threat to native species.  EPA anticipates that the permitting authority
will notify the State Department of Fish and Wildlife so that
appropriate action may be taken to mitigate this release in a timely
manner.  The burden associated with this activity is 0.5 hours.

Review Cause of Failure and Past Reports to Evaluate Effectiveness of
Practices [6.7]

When subsequent structural failures of the aquatic animal containment
system occur at the same facility, the permitting authority may refer to
reports on file in the event that subsequent reports are filed and to
determine whether the facility’s BMP plan needs to be updated.  The
burden and cost for authorized states is based on the time to review the
reports. EPA estimates that the review time is one hour.

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

With burden hour estimates in place from Section 6(a), the next step is
to estimate the labor cost per respondent and the capital costs required
to complete each activity. The total cost for each respondent activity
is composed of the following:

Labor Cost;

Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Cost; and

Capital/Start-up Cost.

The results of the respondents’ costs analysis are presented in the
Respondents Activities Table in Appendix B.

6(b)(i) Estimating Labor Costs

The cost imposed on respondents for the requirements discussed in this
ICR is a function of the burden placed on them for completing and
reviewing the information described above and the wages of a typical
worker performing these activities.  Table 6.1 show the labor rates used
in this ICR.

Table 6.1. Labor Rates

Labor Rates, including overhead	Labor rate ($/hour)	Source/Notes

CAFO

General labor 	$16.94	2008 National Industry-Specific Occupational
Employment and Wage Estimates: 45-2093 Farmworkers, Farm and Ranch
Animals.  Adjusted to March 2009 dollars using the Employment Costs
Index for Private Industry workers and a fringe rate of 50 percent.

Farm Manager 	$29.30	2008 National Industry-Specific Occupational
Employment and Wage Estimates: 45-1011 First-Line Supervisors/Managers
of Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Workers. Adjusted to March 2009
dollars using the Employment Costs Index for Private Industry workers
and a fringe rate of 50 percent.

Agronomist 	$42.44	2008 National Industry-Specific Occupational
Employment and Wage Estimates: 19-1013 Soil and Plant Scientists. 
Adjusted to March 2009 dollars using the Employment Costs Index for
Private Industry workers and a fringe rate of 50 percent.

CAAP

Flow-through and Recirculating (Commercial)

Management	$25.12	2004 ICR (EPA ICR No. 2087.02) updated to March 2009
dollars using the BLS Employer Costs Index for private sector.

General Labor	$14.51

	Flow-through and Recirculating (Non-commercial)

Management	$34.16	2004 ICR (EPA ICR No. 2087.02) updated to March 2009
dollars using the BLS Employer Costs Index for state and local workers.

General Labor	$24.27

	Net Pens

Management	$32.91	2004 ICR (EPA ICR No. 2087.02) updated to March 2009
dollars using the BLS Employer Costs Index for private sector.

General Labor	$15.72

	State

State	$41.10	May 2007 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment
and Wage Estimates: 19-2041 Environmental Scientists and Specialists.
Adjusted to March 2009 dollars using the Employment Costs Index for
Private Industry workers and a fringe rate of 60 percent.



6(b)(ii) Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs 

Most calculations in this ICR account for labor costs only. The ICR
does, however, account for purchasing equipment and certain
testing/analysis costs incurred by respondents that perform activities
outside the normal operation practices. All costs presented in this
section have been adjusted with the Consumer Price Index to March 2009
dollars. 

6(b)(ii)(1) CAFO O&M Costs

A CAFO facility incurs O&M costs when it regularly uses services,
materials, or supplies needed to comply with the rules’ 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.  O&M costs include laboratory analysis of soil and manure and
a general record-keeping cost. CAFO O&M costs are presented in the
Respondents Activities Table in Appendix B. EPA has not estimated any
O&M costs associated with CAAP facilities. 

6(b)(iii) Capital/Start-up Costs

Most calculations in the ICR account for labor costs only. The ICR does,
however, account for certain capital and start-up costs incurred by
respondents that perform activities outside the normal operating
practices. All costs presented in this section have been adjusted with
the Consumer Price Index to March 2009 dollars. These costs are linked
to two distinctive activities. EPA has not estimated any capital and
start-up costs associated with CAAP facilities.  

6(b)(iii)(1) CAFO Capital Costs

CAFO operators incurs 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.  

Capital costs relevant to this ICR are the purchase of 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 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. CAFO capital costs are presented in
the Respondents Activities Table in Appendix B.  6(c) Estimating Agency
Burden and Cost

EPA’s estimate of its burden and costs are from the activities
described in Section 5(a). When calculating the Agency cost, EPA makes
the following assumption:

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 2009 General Schedule reported an hourly rate of $28.45.
Multiplying this rate by 1.6 to incorporate typical Federal benefits
(OPM, 1999), EPA obtained a final hourly rate of $45.52. Burden and
costs incurred by EPA are presented in the Agency Activities Table in
Appendix C.

EPA’s activities as the NPDES permitting authority for non-authorized
states and territories are the same as the activities performed by the
authorized states and territories. These burdens and costs are identical
to those for authorized states and territories, with the exception of
certain activities performed only by EPA as described below.

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

Detailed information describing the universe and basis for burden and
costs is provided in Section 6(a). Results are presented in the
Respondents Activities Table in Appendix B. The Respondents Table in
Appendix A provides the respondents universe and the source of
information for all respondent categories used throughout this ICR.

CAAP facilities in the flow through and recirculating subcategory are
subdivided by commercial facilities and noncommercial facilities.  The
majority of noncommercial facilities are publicly owned State or Federal
hatcheries that are producing fish for stocking or restoration purposes.
 The burden and costs estimates for these two types of facilities are
presented separately because of the different wages paid to employees of
these two types of facilities which has a significant effect on the
overall estimated costs of the reporting requirements.  

As discussed above in Section 4.b., there are some different assumptions
made in the frequency of reporting at noncommercial flow through and
recirculating facilities as well.  Based on data provided by CAAP
facilities in response to EPA’s detailed survey, noncommercial
facilities have a higher use of INAD drugs.  Survey responses from
commercial facilities give no indication that INAD or extra-label drugs
are used at these facilities; however, EPA is assuming that one facility
each year will use an INAD and will incur the burden of reporting for
that drug.  

EPA’s final CAAP regulation requires all facilities to develop a BMP
plan and to certify to the permitting authority that this plan has been
developed.  EPA is including the burden for the plan development for all
CAAP facilities subject to this regulation except for flow through and
recirculating facilities located in the States of Washington and Idaho. 
Facilities in these two States are already required to develop BMP plans
under existing NPDES permits.  Likewise facilities in these two States
are already required to perform the feed management practices and
associated record keeping.  

All of the existing net pen facilities indicated that they currently
keep records on the feed inputs and inspections, net changes and
maintenance and repairs.

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

6(e)(i) Respondent Tally

The bottom line burden hours and costs for facilities and authorized
states are the average annual hours and costs collectively incurred for
all activities during the 3-year period covered by this ICR. Table 6.2
provides a summary of the average annual number of respondents, burden
hours, and costs. A more detailed summary is in the Respondents
Activities Table in Appendix B.

Table 6.2. Respondent tally

	Permittees	States/tribes/territories	Totals

Unique Respondents (number) a	22,844	45	22,889

Responses (number)	2,934,438	36,641	2,971,079

Burden (hours)	2,810,266	463,412	3,273,677

Costs (labor)	$56,708,595	$8,135,833	$64,844,427

Costs (capital)	$228,971	$0	$228,971

Costs (O&M)	$6,705,593	$1,845,831	$8,551,424

Total costs	$63,643,158	$9,981,664	$73,624,822

6(e)(ii) The Agency Tally

The bottom line burden hours and costs for the Agency are the total
annual hours and costs collectively incurred for all activities during
the period covered by this ICR. Table 6.3 provides a summary of the
average annual Agency burden hours and costs. A more detailed summary is
in the Agency Activities Table in Appendix C.

Table 6.3. Agency tally

Responses (number)	1,303

Burden (hours)	15,188

Costs (labor)	$691,350

Costs (capital)	$0

Costs (O&M)	$62,463

Total costs	$753,813

6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden

This consolidated ICR does not include any programmatic changes to the
NPDES permit program.

The current burden approved by OMB for the ICRs being consolidated is
3,044,140 hours. This consolidated ICR estimates a total burden that is
229,537 hours more than the currently approved burden for the same two
ICRs. This increase in burden corresponds to 7.5 percent of the overall
burden. Table 6.4 presents the change in burden for each of the nine
ICRs included in this analysis.

Table 6.4 Burden change

OMB No.	Name	Annual Burden in OMB’s Inventory (hours)	Updated annual
burden (hours)	% change

2040-0250	NPDES and ELG Regulatory Revisions for Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operations	2,998,603	3,228,048	7.7%

2040-0258	Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production (CAAP) Effluent
Guidelines	44,196	44,224	0.1%

2040-0004	NPDES Program*	1,341	1,406	4.8%

TOTAL	3,044,140	3,273,677	7.5%

* The burden from the NPDES program ICR presented is only for those
activities directly related to CAAP facilities or CAFOs that will be
migrated to this Animal Sectors ICR.



Some specific ICRs’ burdens were affected in the following ways: 

NPDES and ELG Regulatory Revisions for Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations (OMB Control No. 2040-0250):

The animal agricultural industry has continued to change. These changes
have included further growth and consolidation, which has resulted in a
greater number of AFOs that meet the size threshold for being defined as
a Large CAFO. The projections also reflect more robust estimates from
States and EPA regions on numbers of CAFOs in each EPA estimates that
the industry will grow at an average annual rate of 5.6% over the life
of this ICR; with permitted CAFOs growing at an average annual rate of
6.0%. The industry growth accounts for all the change in burden coming
from the activities originally presented in this ICR (229,445 hours)

Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production (CAAP) Effluent Guidelines (OMB
Control No. 2040-0258): 

The previous version of the CAAP ICR did not account for the time to
submit an NOI to obtain coverage under a general permit or the time for
the permitting authority to process the NOIs. This ICR now account for
this burden, adding 28 hours. [1.18-1.37]

NPDES Program (OMB Control No. 2040-0004):

The increase in the number of CAFOs and CAFO permits will proportionally
increase the number of noncompliance reports. The impact is 65
additional hours per year. [4.8-4.9]

6(g) Burden Statement

The calculations made for this ICR cover the burden and costs for EPA,
authorized states, and operators of regulated facilities. This ICR
estimates a burden of 2,810,266 hours annually for 22,844 operator
respondents at a cost of $63.6 million ($56.7 million burden cost and
$6.9 million capital and O&M cost). Burden for the state respondents is
463,412 hours annually at a cost of $10.0 million ($8.1 million burden
cost and $1.8 million capital and O&M cost). Agency burden is 15,188
hours annually at a cost of $0.8 million. The annual reporting and
record-keeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to
average 1.1 hours per response.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, 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 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 EPA’s need for this information, the accuracy of the
provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
the Agency has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0719, which is available for public viewing at the
Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is
202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is
202-566-2426. An electronic version of the public docket is available
through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
http://www.regulations.gov/. Use FDMS to submit or view public comments,
to access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to
access documents in the public docket that are available electronically.
Once in the system, key in the docket ID number identified above. You
can also send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the
EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0719 and OMB Control No. 2040-0004 in
any correspondence.

 The two activities are the Permit Application for CAAP facilities using
form 2B and Other Noncompliance Reports for CAFOs.

 EPA defines a point source as, “any discernible, confined, and
discrete conveyance, including but not limited to, any pipe, ditch,
channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling
stock, CAFO, landfill leachate collection system, vessel or other
floating craft from which pollutants are or may be discharged. This term
does not include return flows from irrigated agriculture or agricultural
stormwater runoff” (40 CFR 122.2). 

 On October 31, 2008, EPA approved Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation’s (ADEC) application to run the NPDES permitting program
in the state. Alaska intends to implement the program using a phased
approach, meaning that different components will take effect in
different years. In this ICR, the burden associated with permittees in
Alaska is included as part of the federal burden because of the recent
nature of the authorization and the phased approach. In the next renewal
cycle, this burden will be shifted to the state as appropriate.

 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.

  This change took effect following the Second Circuit decision, but was
first codified under the 2008 final rule.

 This is a significant increase in the frequency the Agency uses for
significant modifications in other industries, which is typically 1
percent of permits. This is because of the dynamic nature of NMPs and
the resulting need for more frequent changes to the portions of permits
relating to NMPs.

 The number of unique respondents is slightly different than the number
presented in the FR notice. The difference is the result of a correction
in the summary tables and does not affect the burden and costs
presented.

 PAGE   129 

	

	  PAGE  iii 

  REF _Ref199566095  \* MERGEFORMAT  1. Identification of the
Information Collection 

	  PAGE  43 

  REF _Ref199566114  \* MERGEFORMAT  2. Need For and Use of the
Collection 

  REF _Ref199566123  \* MERGEFORMAT  3. Non-duplication, Consultations,
and Other Collection Criteria 

  REF _Ref199566140  \* MERGEFORMAT  4. The Respondents and the
Information Requested 

  REF _Ref199644552 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4(a) Respondents/Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes 

  REF _Ref199566140  \* MERGEFORMAT  4. The Respondents and the
Information Requested 

  REF _Ref235495696 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4(b) Information Requested 

  REF _Ref199566140  \* MERGEFORMAT  4. The Respondents and the
Information Requested 

  REF _Ref199644343 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4(b)(i) Application/NOI 

  REF _Ref199566140  \* MERGEFORMAT  4. The Respondents and the
Information Requested 

  REF _Ref199644398 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4(b)(ii) Plan
Development/Special Studies 

  REF _Ref199566140  \* MERGEFORMAT  4. The Respondents and the
Information Requested 

  REF _Ref199644412 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4(b)(iii) Monitoring 

  REF _Ref199566140  \* MERGEFORMAT  4. The Respondents and the
Information Requested 

  REF _Ref199644425 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4(b)(iv) Reporting (including
certification) 

  REF _Ref199566140  \* MERGEFORMAT  4. The Respondents and the
Information Requested 

  REF _Ref199644439 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4(b)(v) Record Keeping 

  REF _Ref199566140  \* MERGEFORMAT  4. The Respondents and the
Information Requested 

  REF _Ref199644454 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4(b)(vi) Compliance Assessment  

  REF _Ref199566151  \* MERGEFORMAT  5. The Information
Collected—Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information
Management 

  REF _Ref200180733 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  6. Estimating the Burden and
Cost of the Collection 

  REF _Ref235495816 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  6(a)(i) Application/NOI 

  REF _Ref200180733 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  6. Estimating the Burden and
Cost of the Collection 

  REF _Ref200180838 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  6(a)(ii) Plan
Development/Special Studies 

  REF _Ref200180733 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  6. Estimating the Burden and
Cost of the Collection 

  REF _Ref200180873 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  6(a)(iii) Monitoring 

  REF _Ref200180733 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  6. Estimating the Burden and
Cost of the Collection 

  REF _Ref200180888 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  6(a)(iv) Reporting (including
certification) 

  REF _Ref199566162  \* MERGEFORMAT  6. Estimating the Burden and Cost
of the Collection 

  REF _Ref200180918 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  6(a)(v) Record Keeping 

  REF _Ref199566162  \* MERGEFORMAT  6. Estimating the Burden and Cost
of the Collection 

  REF _Ref235495993 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  6(a)(vi) Compliance Assessment 

  REF _Ref199566162  \* MERGEFORMAT  6. Estimating the Burden and Cost
of the Collection 

  REF _Ref199651052 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs


  REF _Ref199566162  \* MERGEFORMAT  6. Estimating the Burden and Cost
of the Collection 

  REF _Ref235497767 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  6(d) Estimating the Respondent
Universe and Total Burden and Costs 

  REF _Ref199566162  \* MERGEFORMAT  6. Estimating the Burden and Cost
of the Collection 

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables 

  REF _Ref199566162  \* MERGEFORMAT  6. Estimating the Burden and Cost
of the Collection 

6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden

  REF _Ref199566162  \* MERGEFORMAT  6. Estimating the Burden and Cost
of the Collection 

6(g) Burden Statement 

