Information Collection Request for

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) Permits for Point Source Discharges from the Application
of Pesticides to Waters of the United States

OMB Control No. 2040-NEW, EPA ICR No. 2397.01

September 15, 2011

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Wastewater Management

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Contents

  TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u   HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242916" 1. Identification
of the Information Collection	  PAGEREF _Toc275242916 \h  1  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242917" 1(a) Title of the Information Collection	 
PAGEREF _Toc275242917 \h  1  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242918" 1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract	 
PAGEREF _Toc275242918 \h  1  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242919" 2. Need For and Use of the Collection	 
PAGEREF _Toc275242919 \h  2  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242920" 2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection	 
PAGEREF _Toc275242920 \h  2  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242921" 2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data	 
PAGEREF _Toc275242921 \h  4  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242922" 3. Non-duplication, Consultations, and
Other Collection Criteria	  PAGEREF _Toc275242922 \h  7  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242923" 3(a) Non-duplication	  PAGEREF
_Toc275242923 \h  7  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242924" 3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR
Submissions to OMB	  PAGEREF _Toc275242924 \h  7  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242925" 3(c) Consultations	  PAGEREF _Toc275242925
\h  8  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242926" 3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection	 
PAGEREF _Toc275242926 \h  8  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242927" 3(e) General Guidelines	  PAGEREF
_Toc275242927 \h  8  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242928" 3(f) Confidentiality	  PAGEREF
_Toc275242928 \h  9  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242929" 3(g) Sensitive Questions	  PAGEREF
_Toc275242929 \h  9  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242930" 4. The Respondents and the Information
Requested	  PAGEREF _Toc275242930 \h  10  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242931" 4(a) Respondents/Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) Codes	  PAGEREF _Toc275242931 \h  10  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242932" 4(b) Information Requested	  PAGEREF
_Toc275242932 \h  10  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242933" 4(b)(i) Obtaining Permit Coverage	 
PAGEREF _Toc275242933 \h  11  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242934" 4(b)(ii) Plan Development	  PAGEREF
_Toc275242934 \h  12  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242935" 4(b)(iii) Monitoring	  PAGEREF
_Toc275242935 \h  12  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242936" 4(b)(iv) Reporting	  PAGEREF _Toc275242936
\h  13  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242937" 4(b)(v) Recordkeeping	  PAGEREF
_Toc275242937 \h  17  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242938" 5. The Information Collected—Agency
Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management	  PAGEREF
_Toc275242938 \h  20  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242939" 5(a) Agency Activities	  PAGEREF
_Toc275242939 \h  20  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242940" 5(b) Collection Methodology and Management
  PAGEREF _Toc275242940 \h  21  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242941" 5(c) Small Entity Flexibility	  PAGEREF
_Toc275242941 \h  22  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242942" 5(d) Collection Schedule	  PAGEREF
_Toc275242942 \h  22  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242943" 6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the
Collection	  PAGEREF _Toc275242943 \h  23  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242944" 6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden	 
PAGEREF _Toc275242944 \h  23  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242945" 6(a)(i) Obtaining Permit Coverage	 
PAGEREF _Toc275242945 \h  23  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242946" 6(a)(ii) Plan Development	  PAGEREF
_Toc275242946 \h  24  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242947" 6(a)(iii) Monitoring	  PAGEREF
_Toc275242947 \h  24  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242948" 6(a)(iv) Reporting	  PAGEREF _Toc275242948
\h  25  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242949" 6(a)(v) Record Keeping	  PAGEREF
_Toc275242949 \h  26  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242950" 6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs	  PAGEREF
_Toc275242950 \h  27  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242951" 6(b)(i) Estimating Labor Costs	  PAGEREF
_Toc275242951 \h  27  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242952" 6(b)(ii) Operating and Maintenance (O&M)
Costs	  PAGEREF _Toc275242952 \h  28  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242953" 6(b)(iii) Capital/Start-up Costs	  PAGEREF
_Toc275242953 \h  28  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242954" 6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost	 
PAGEREF _Toc275242954 \h  28  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242955" 6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe
and Total Burden and Costs	  PAGEREF _Toc275242955 \h  29  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242956" 6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost
Tables	  PAGEREF _Toc275242956 \h  30  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242957" 6(e)(i) Respondent Tally	  PAGEREF
_Toc275242957 \h  30  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242958" 6(e)(ii) The Agency Tally	  PAGEREF
_Toc275242958 \h  30  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242959" 6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden	 
PAGEREF _Toc275242959 \h  30  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242960" 6(g) Burden Statement	  PAGEREF
_Toc275242960 \h  31  

 

Appendices

Respondents and Agency Activities Table

NPDES Applicator and Application Estimates

Response to Comment

Forms

Notice of Intent (NOI) Form

Notice of Termination (NOT) Form

Annual Report Form

Pesticide Discharge Evaluation Worksheet

Adverse Incident Report Form

Tables

  TOC \h \z \t "Table Title,1,Title,1"   HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242961"
Table 2.1 Areas for which EPA is the Permitting Authority for Discharges
from Pesticide Application Activities	  PAGEREF _Toc275242961 \h  4  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242962" Table 6.1 Respondent tally	  PAGEREF
_Toc275242962 \h  30  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc275242963" Table 6.2 Agency tally	  PAGEREF
_Toc275242963 \h  30  

 

1. Identification of the Information Collection

1(a) Title of the Information Collection

Title: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits
for Point Source Discharges from the Application of Pesticides to Waters
of the United States

OMB Control Number: 2040-NEW

EPA ICR Number: 2397.01

1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract

This Information Collection Request (ICR) calculates the burden and
costs associated with NPDES permits for point source discharges from the
application of pesticides.  On November 27, 2006, EPA issued a final
rule (hereinafter called the “2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule”)
clarifying circumstances where an NPDES permit was not required to apply
pesticides to or around water when applied in compliance with the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).  On January
7, 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court vacated EPA’s 2006 NPDES Pesticides
Rule.  As a result of the Court’s decision, as of October 31, 2011
NPDES permits will be required for discharges to waters of the United
States from the application of biological pesticides and chemical
pesticides that leave a residue.

The CWA authorizes EPA to issue permits for the discharge of pollutants
to waters of the United States.  EPA regulates discharges of pollutants
to waters of the United States under its NPDES program.  CWA Section
402(b) allows States (defined to include Indian Tribes and U.S.
territories) to acquire authority to administer the NPDES program.  This
authority enables them to issue and enforce NPDES permits.  

EPA estimates that the Sixth Circuit Court’s ruling will affect
approximately 365,000 pesticide applicators nationwide.  Given the vast
number of Operators requiring NPDES permit coverage, EPA and
NPDES-authorized States are developing general permits for discharges
from the application of pesticides.  EPA estimates that the overwhelming
majority of Operators required to seek coverage will do so under an
NPDES general permit instead of an NPDES individual permit.  For the
small number of Operators who will seek coverage under an NPDES
individual permit, EPA believes their information collection and
reporting activities are already covered under the existing ICR for the
NPDES Program (ICR Number 0229.19, OMB Number 2040-0004).  As part of
the routine ICR reissuance, EPA will update that ICR to clarify this
determination.  This ICR calculates the burden and costs associated with
information collection and reporting activities from EPA’s and
NPDES-authorized States’ general permits for discharges from the
application of pesticides.  

This ICR estimates an annual burden of 841,037 hours for 365,000
respondents (permittees) at an annual labor cost of $48 million.  The
burden for the state respondents is 6,615 hours annually at a labor cost
of $0.3 million.  The Agency burden is 776 hours annually at a labor
cost of $31,795.

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)].  Section 301(a) of the CWA provides that
“the discharge of any pollutant by any person shall be unlawful”
unless the discharge is in compliance with certain other sections of the
Act.  The CWA defines “discharge of a pollutant” as “(A) any
addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source, (B)
any addition of any pollutant to the waters of the contiguous zone or
the ocean from any point source other than a vessel or other floating
craft.” 33 U.S.C. 1362(12).  A “point source” is any
“discernible, confined and discrete conveyance” but does not include
“agricultural stormwater discharges and return flows from irrigated
agriculture.” 33 U.S.C. 1362(14). 

  

One way a person may discharge a pollutant without violating the section
301 prohibition is by obtaining authorization to discharge (referred to
herein as “coverage”) under a section 402 National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (33 U.S.C. 1342).  Under
section 402(a), EPA may “issue a permit for the discharge of any
pollutant, or combination of pollutants, notwithstanding section
1311(a)” upon certain conditions required by the Act.  

A NPDES permit authorizes the discharge of a regulated amount of a
pollutant or pollutants into a receiving water under certain conditions.
 The NPDES program relies on two types of permits: individual and
general.  An individual permit is a permit specifically tailored for an
individual discharger.  Upon receiving the appropriate permit
application(s), the permitting authority, i.e., the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) or a state, develops a draft permit for public
comment for that particular discharger based on the information
contained in the permit application (e.g., type of activity, nature of
discharge, receiving water quality).  Following consideration of public
comments, a final permit is then issued to the discharger for a specific
time period (not to exceed 5 years) with a provision for reapplying for
further permit coverage prior to the expiration date.   

In contrast, a general permit covers multiple
facilities/sites/activities within a specific category for a specific
period of time (not to exceed 5 years).  Under 40 CFR 122.28, general
permits may be written to cover categories of point sources having
common elements, such as facilities that involve the same or
substantially similar types of operations, that discharge the same types
of wastes, or that are more appropriately regulated by a general permit.
 Courts have approved of the use of general permits.  See e.g., Natural
Res. Def. Council v. Costle, 568 F.2d 1369 (D.C. Cir. 1977); EDC v. US
EPA, 344 F.3d 832, 853 (9th Cir. 2003).  The general permit approach
allows EPA to allocate resources in a more efficient manner and to
provide more timely coverage and may significantly simplify the
permitting process for the majority of pesticide dischargers.  As with
any permit, the CWA requires the general permit to contain
technology-based effluent limitations, as well as any more stringent
limits when necessary to meet applicable state water quality standards. 
State water quality standards apply in the territorial seas, defined in
section 502(8) of the CWA as extending three miles from the baseline.
Pacific Legal Foundation v. Costle, 586 F.2d 650, 655-656 (9th Cir.
1978); Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. EPA, 863 F.2d
1420, 1435 (9th Cir. 1988).

The permit application process under section 402 is the primary
mechanism to ensure that the permits are adequately protective to meet
the statutory and regulatory requirements under the CWA.  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.”  EPA’s application forms require
applicants to submit data that help determine what those conditions
should be.

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.  Authorizations vary by
program. Authorized States are considered permitting authorities and are
responsible for issuing, administering, and enforcing 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.

Regulations governing permit requirements for NPDES discharges are
contained in 40 CFR Part 122.  The specific monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements for NPDES programs are applicable to both
EPA- and State-administered NPDES permit programs.

On November 27, 2006, EPA issued a final rule (hereinafter called the
“2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule”) clarifying circumstances where an
NPDES permit was not required in order to apply pesticides to waters of
the United States.  On January 7, 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court vacated
EPA’s 2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule.  As a result of the Court’s
decision, NPDES permits will be required for discharges to waters of the
U.S. from the application of biological pesticides and chemical
pesticides that leave a residue.  Table 2.1 lists the areas where EPA is
the permitting authority for discharges from pesticide application
activities. 

Given the vast number of Operators requiring NPDES permit coverage and
the discharges common to these Operators, EPA believes that it makes
administrative sense to issue a general permit, rather than issuing
individual permits to each Operator.  Thus, the Agency and States are
developing general permits for discharges from application of pesticides
with the goal of having these permits effective on October 31, 2011
consistent with when the Court’s ruling will take effect.  EPA
believes the majority of the affected entities will seek coverage under
an NPDES general permit instead of an NPDES individual permit.

Table 2.1 Areas for which EPA is the Permitting Authority for Discharges
from Pesticide Application Activities

States

Alaska

Idaho	Massachusetts

New Hampshire	New Mexico

Oklahoma

Territories and Others

American Samoa

District of Columbia

Guam	Johnston Atoll

Midway Island

Wake Island	Northern Mariana Islands

Puerto Rico



States with Federal Facilities for which EPA has Permitting Authority

Colorado

Delaware	Vermont

	Washington



States with Tribal Lands for which EPA has Permitting Authority

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

California

Colorado

	Connecticut Florida

Idaho

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana	Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Montana

	Nebraska Nevada

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

	North Dakota

Oklahoma

Oregon

Rhode Island

South Dakota

	Texas

Utah

Washington

Wisconsin

Wyoming





On June 4, 2010, EPA published a proposed general permit (Pesticide
General Permit or PGP) for the areas where it is the permitting
authority.  See Federal Register notice (75 FR 31775).  On April 1,
2011, EPA posted a draft final PGP on the Agency’s website.  The PGP
covers the discharge of pesticides (biological pesticides and chemical
pesticides which leave a residue) to waters of the United States
resulting from the following use patterns: 1) mosquito and other flying
insect pest control; (2) weed and algae pest control; (3) animal pest
control; and (4) forest canopy pest control.  In the PGP, Operators are
identified as either “Applicators” or “Decision-makers” or both.
 An Applicator is an entity who performs the application of a pesticide
or who has day-to-day control of the application (i.e., they are
authorized to direct workers to carry out those activities) that results
in a discharge to waters of the United States.  A Decision-maker is an
entity with control over the decision to perform pesticide applications,
including the ability to modify those decisions that result in
discharges to waters of the United States.  For this ICR, EPA’s NPDES
PGP is used to also estimate the burden from the NPDES-authorized
State’s general permits.

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.  Information collection and reporting activities required in
EPA’s PGP are listed below:

(	Information routinely submitted in a Notice of Intent (NOI) when
requesting coverage under a general permit;  

Information used to develop a Pesticide Discharge Management Plan
(PDMP);

Information submitted to the permitting authority annually (i.e., annual
report);

Information collected after pesticide application; 

Information collected from self-monitoring;

Information submitted as a result of any spill, leak or other
unpermitted discharge;

Information submitted as a result of any adverse incident;

Information used to assess the effects of discharges on federally listed
endangered and threatened species, and designated critical habitat;

Information filed or otherwise retained by the permitting authority
including the NOI, adverse incident reports, and annual reports; and

Information routinely submitted in an NOT (Notice of Termination) when
terminating coverage under the PGP.

Information can be categorized into two sets: Operator identification
information and Operator Discharge and Management Practice Information. 
Permitting authorities use the information in the ways discussed below.

Identification Information

Permitting authorities use information such as the name, location, and
description of pest management area to identify entities that are
requesting coverage under a general permit.  EPA and most states store
basic NOI information submitted for coverage under an NPDES general
permit in databases that provide an inventory of permit holders.

EPA Headquarters uses the information contained in the NOI databases to
develop reports on permit issuance and compliance rates.  The Agency
also uses the information to respond to public and Congressional
inquiries, develop and guide its policies, and formulate its budgets.

To meet the Agency’s obligations under the Endangered Species Acts
(ESA), EPA must ensure that its permit does not jeopardize listed
species.  Operators seeking coverage under EPA’s PGP are required to
assess the effects of their pesticide discharges on federally listed
endangered and threatened species and designated critical habitat. 
Similar to other EPA general permits, the Agency assumes for this ICR
that information will be captured on the NOI and therefore contained in
the NOI database.  NPDES-authorized states are not required to meet
similar ESA obligations and as such no ESA burden is associated with
state-issued NPDES general permits.

Discharge and Management Practice Information 

Permitting authorities use discharge information and management practice
information from self-monitoring activities, annual reports, and PDMPs
as part of compliance evaluations to ensure that permittees adhere to
procedures or conditions as stated in these documents.  Collection and
reporting of data to permitting authorities also improves permittee
accountability for remaining in compliance with their established permit
conditions.  If noncompliance with permit conditions is detected, the
permitting authority will determine the appropriate enforcement action
response on the basis of the nature and severity of the violation, the
overall degree of noncompliance frequency, and degree of seriousness of
the violation.

NPDES permits may not be issued for a period to exceed five years. 
Information obtained during the next five years related to discharges
and practices could lead the permit writers to take the following
actions in the next permit development:

(	Specify additional permit limitations;

Assess adequacy of the permit in protecting water quality;

(	Assess compliance with existing permit limitations and conditions; and

(	Place appropriate special conditions in permits.

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
recordkeeping 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:

The EPA Inventory of ICRs;

The Government Information Locator Service; and

The Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI).

EPA has also examined potentially similar reporting requirements for
notice of spills under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
for duplication of the CWA requirement. EPA believes that any
duplication between NPDES and RCRA reporting of pollutant releases is
negligible because they focus on different areas of a facility (RCRA
focuses on on-site activities, and NPDES focuses on discharge outfalls
and discharge to waters of the United States).

In addition, EPA has examined potentially similar reporting requirements
under FIFRA for duplication of the CWA requirement.  While some of the
information required in these general permits may be similar to that
already required under FIFRA, the universe of respondents is different
or is only a subset of the universe in this ICR.  For example, adverse
incident reporting requirements in the permit are currently required of
pesticide registrants under FIFRA but not from Operators.  EPA believes
the expansion of this requirement to Operators provides a more
comprehensive dataset on which to assess potential impacts from
activities covered under these general permits.  Another example is the
ICR for Certification of Pesticide Applicators (OMB No: 2070-0029, EPA
No: 0155.09) which requires commercial applicators, who are certified by
program administered by non-federal agencies, to keep records on
restricted-use pesticides.  See 40 CFR 171.  EPA believes that any
duplication between activities required under the NPDES general permits
and 40 CFR 171 is negligible.  The PGP allows Operators to rely on
records and documents developed for other obligations, such as
requirements under FIFRA, and state or local pesticide programs to meet
the recordkeeping requirements, provided all requirements of the permit
are satisfied.     

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. EPA public noticed the draft ICR on November 3, 2010
(75 FR 67713).  The Agency received 13 sets of comments on that draft
and has modified the ICR in consideration of those comments.  A copy of
all comments is available on the   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov  website at Docket ID:
EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0852. See Appendix C for EPA’s responses to those
comments.

3(c) Consultations

EPA headquarters staff responsible for program oversight in NPDES permit
and for program oversight in FIFRA was contacted to provide information,
data, and review for this ICR.  

EPA solicited information and data on discharges from pesticide
applications to assist in developing the proposed NPDES permit framework
for its PGP.  EPA met with states, industry groups, and environmental
groups during permit development.  EPA also hosted several webcasts. 
EPA published the proposed NPDES PGP in a Federal Register notice on
June 4, 2010 (75 FR 31775) and received over 700 public comments.  See
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0257.  Additionally, EPA hosted three
public meetings, a webcast, and a public hearing after proposal.  EPA is
reviewing public comments and will address these comments in the final
permit and incorporate any conforming changes into the next ICR.  

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

EPA recognizes the importance of balancing the need for data collection
efforts against respondent burden and costs.  From the inception of the
NPDES program, cost has been one of the major factors considered in
establishing application requirements, monitoring conditions, and report
contents and frequencies.  In the past 10 years, the executive and
legislative branches of the U.S. government have stressed the need for
evaluating the costs and benefits of regulation and the financial impact
on the regulated community, state, and local government.  EPA regularly
seeks new opportunities to reduce burden on the regulated community.

Given the vast number of Operators requiring NPDES permit coverage and
the discharges common to these Operators, EPA believes that it makes
administrative sense to issue an NPDES general permit, rather than
issuing NPDES individual permits to each Operator.  General permits are
issued to groups of entities that have similar operating procedures,
discharge characteristics, and geographic location (e.g., states).  In
this way, permitting authorities can cover a large number of facilities
within one permit and establish a common set of limitations, monitoring
requirements, and permit conditions.  

The information needed to meet permitting, monitoring, reporting, and
information collection requirements related to the NPDES Program may be
submitted one time, at a regular frequency, or on an as needed basis. 
EPA and NPDES-authorized States need current information about
permittees and discharge characteristics to fulfill oversight
responsibilities.  The NPDES burden described in this ICR identifies the
burden that EPA has determined as necessary.  EPA strives to minimize
burden.  EPA has determined that the information currently required is
the minimum that is necessary to adequately evaluate permittee
compliance.

3(e) General Guidelines

This information collection is consistent with OMB guidelines contained
in 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2). Requests for supplemental information for the
purposes of emergency response or enforcement activities are exempt from
the Paperwork Reduction Act requirements.

3(f) Confidentiality

Respondent reports 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.

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.  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.  To date, 44
states and one U.S. territory are authorized by EPA to issue,
administer, and enforce permits for discharges from pesticide
application activities within their borders.  EPA continues to be the
permitting authority in the other 6 states and territories.  For the
list of areas where EPA is the permitting authority for discharges from
application of pesticide, see Table 2.1.  The authorized states and
territories are considered respondents for evaluating paperwork burden
in this ICR.

All Operators to be covered under an NPDES general permit, whether that
permit is issued by EPA or a state, for discharges from the application
of pesticides are respondents in this ICR.  EPA estimates there are
approximately 365,000 pesticide applicators nationwide.  See Appendix B
for EPA’s approach to estimate the universe of pesticide applicators. 
Industries potentially covered by the general permits include but are
not limited to the following NAICS (North American Industry
Classification System) codes: 111 Crop Production; 113110 Timber Tract
Operations; 113210 Forest Nurseries Gathering of Forest Products; 221310
Water Supply for Irrigation; 923120 Administration of Public Health
Programs; 924110 Administration of Air and Water Resource and Solid
Waste Management Programs; 924120 Administration of Conservation
Programs; and 221 Utilities.    

4(b) Information Requested

This section presents the data items, including recordkeeping
requirements, and required respondent activities involved in preparing
and submitting those data items.  It also presents respondent activities
for the 45 authorized States (i.e., 44 authorized states plus the Virgin
Islands).

All activities reported in this supporting statement were analyzed and
allocated to one of five types of activities related to the NPDES
program, these are as follows:

Activities directly related to obtaining permit coverage under a general
permit;

Activities associated with development of a plan (or worksheet);

Monitoring;

Reporting; and

Recordkeeping.

4(b)(i) Obtaining Permit Coverage

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

Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.21 and 122.28 detail the application
and Notice of Intent (NOI) requirements for NPDES permits, respectively.
 EPA expects the overwhelming majority of discharges from pesticide
activities will obtain coverage via an NOI under an NPDES general permit
instead of an NPDES individual permit.  This section addresses only
Operators obtaining coverage under general permits.  As stated
previously, EPA expects few discharges to be covered under NPDES
individual permits and those burdens are already addressed in the
existing NPDES Program ICR (ICR Number 0229.19, OMB Number 2040-0004).

According to EPA’s PGP, certain Decision-makers are required to submit
NOI.  Those include: 1) Federal and State agencies with a responsibility
to control pests; 2) Pest control districts, irrigation control
districts, or similar; 3) any other Decision-makers that exceed the
annual treatment area thresholds; 4) Decision-makers that plan to
discharge to outstanding national resource waters (i.e., Tier 3 waters);
and 5) Decision-makers that plan to discharge to waters with certain
listed species or its critical habitat.  Other Operators are covered
under the permit automatically without the need to submit an NOI.  EPA
drafted an NOI form for its PGP (see Appendix D for a copy of the NOI
form).  The NOI requests basic applicant data as well as pesticide
application information such as pesticide use patterns and pest
management areas.    

Similar to other EPA general permit, EPA assumes for this ICR that
Decision-makers eligible for coverage under the EPA’s PGP are required
to submit NOIs if their pesticide activities are in areas where
federally listed endangered and threatened species, and designate
critical habitat may be presented.  

When all discharges associated with pesticide activity authorized by an
EPA or state-issued general permit are eliminated, or when the
Decision-maker changes, the Decision-maker must submit an NOT (Notice of
Termination) to the permitting authority (see Appendix D for a copy of
the NOT form).  Following is the type of information generally required
on NOT forms:

NPDES permit number;

Name, address, and phone number of the Decision-maker; and

Certification of eligibility for filing the NOT (i.e., the discharge has
been eliminated or the person filing the NOT is no longer the
Decision-maker).

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

This ICR explains respondent activities in detail in Section 4(b)(i)(1)
above.  Activities can include reading and reviewing instructions and
regulatory requirements, gathering general information, consulting
technical and legal officials, filling out forms, drafting letters,
maintaining records, and mailing completed submissions.  For pesticide
applications in areas where federal listed endangered and threatened
species, and designate critical habitat may be presented, similar to
other EPA general permit activities may include formal or informal
evaluation with the Services.

Activities for the 45 authorized States can include reviewing and
processing NOI and NOT, determine which dischargers, if any, would be
more appropriately governed by NPDES individual permit, and notify
dischargers if they need to apply for NPDES individual permit.
NPDES-authorized states are not required to meet the ESA obligations and
as such there are no burdens associated with state-issued NPDES general
permits.

4(b)(ii) Plan Development

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

According to EPA’s PGP, all Decision-makers required to submit an NOI
and are large entities must develop a Pesticide Discharge Management
Plan (PDMP).  The PDMP is kept on-site and is not required to be
submitted to the Agency.  The development of a PDMP is unique to each
pest management area even though it is based on common required
elements.  A PDMP must be kept up-to-date and modified whenever
necessary to document any corrective actions.  According to EPA’s PGP,
the following information must be documented in the PDMP: (1) pesticide
discharge management team information; (2) problem identification; (3)
pest management options evaluation; (4) response procedures (e.g., spill
response procedures, adverse incident response procedures); and (5)
documentation to support eligibility considerations under other Federal
laws.

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

This ICR explains respondent activities in detail in Section 4(b)(ii)(1)
above.   Activities can include reading and reviewing regulatory
requirements, gathering general information, consulting technical and
legal officials, reviewing guidance materials, drafting the plan,
reviewing the plan, and maintaining records. 

4(b)(iii) Monitoring

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

Monitoring is required in any NPDES permit specifically for the purpose
of demonstrating compliance with the permit conditions.  Federal
regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(i) outline the monitoring requirements for
permittees.  There are a variety of monitoring methods that a
“traditional” NPDES permit may require, including end-of-pipe
monitoring to show compliance with relevant effluent limitations prior
to discharging to a receiving waterbody.  Monitoring may also pertain to
actions taken to ensure that recordkeeping or other permit control
activities are being properly implemented.  Pursuant to CWA section 308
and 402(a)(2), 40 CFR 122.43(a), and other applicable implementing
regulations, the monitoring requirement for the PGP, according to
EPA’s PGP, is narrative and demonstrates compliance with permit
conditions by requiring visual monitoring assessment and documentation
requirements.  Visual monitoring assessments are required as a means of
identifying, for example, instances of detrimental impact to non-target
organisms, disruption or degradation of wildlife habitat, or the
prevention of designated recreational or municipal uses of a waterbody
that may possibly be related to the operator’s use of pesticides in a
given area.  

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

This ICR explains respondent activities in detail in Section
4(b)(iii)(1) above.  Activities can include reading and reviewing
regulatory requirements, observing impact on non-target organisms, and
consulting technical and legal officials.  

4(b)(iv) Reporting 

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

Annual Report

According to EPA’s PGP, all Decision-makers required to submit an NOI
and that are large entities must submit an annual report (see Appendix D
for a copy of the Annual Report form).  The annual report will be used
by EPA to assess permit compliance and to determine whether additional
controls on pesticide discharges are necessary to protect water quality.
 Specifically, the report must include identification of any waters or
other treatment area, including size, either by name or by location;
pesticide use pattern(s) and target pest(s); company name(s) and contact
information  for pesticide applicator(s), if different from the NOI
submitter; total amount of each pesticide product applied for the
reporting year by the EPA registration number(s) and by application
method; whether the pest control activity was addressed in your PDMP
prior to pesticide application; if applicable, an annual report of any
adverse incidents as a result of these treatment(s); and a description
of any corrective action(s), including spill responses, resulting from
pesticide application activities and the rationale for such actions(s).

Similar to other EPA general permit, EPA assumes for this ICR that
Decision-makers eligible for coverage under the EPA’s PGP are required
to file annual reports if their pesticide activities are in areas where
federally listed endangered and threatened species and designated
critical habitat may be presented.  

Permittee Report of Adverse Incident 

According to EPA’s PGP, all Operators are required to report any
adverse incident that may have resulted from a discharge from their
pesticide application.  Operators are required to notify their
permitting authority by telephone within 24 hours of becoming aware of
the adverse incident.  The following information is to be provided:

The caller’s name and telephone number;

Operator name and mailing address;

If covered under an NOI, the NOI NPDES tracking number;

The name and telephone number of a contact person, if different than the
person providing the 24-hour notice;

How and when the Operator became aware of the adverse incident;

Description of the location of the adverse incident;

Description of the adverse incident identified and the EPA pesticide
registration number for each product the Operator applied in the area of
the adverse incident; 

Description of any steps the Operator has taken or will take to correct,
repair, remedy, cleanup, or otherwise address any adverse effects; and

If known, the identity of any other Operators authorized for coverage
under this permit for discharges from the pesticide application
activities that resulted in the adverse incident.

Reporting of adverse incident is not required under the permit in the
following situations:

An Operator is aware of facts that indicate that the adverse incident
are not related to toxic effects or exposure from the pesticide
application;

An Operator has been notified by EPA, and retains such notification,
that the reporting requirement has been waived for this incident or
category of incidents;

An Operator receives information of an adverse incident, but that
information is clearly erroneous; or

An adverse incident occurs to pests that are similar in kind to
potential target pests identified on the FIFRA label.

Within 30 days of a reportable adverse incident, the Operator must
provide a written report of the adverse incident to the permitting
authority and to all of the other authorized Operators where multiple
Operators are authorized for that discharge.  See Appendix D for a copy
of the Adverse Incident Report Form.  The report must include at least
the following information:

a.	Information provided during notification of the adverse incident;

b.	Date and time of the notification, any instructions received from the
permitting authority, and name of the staff from the permitting
authority;

c.	Location of incident, including the names of any waters affected and
appearance of those waters;

d.	Description of the circumstances of the adverse incident including
species affected, estimated number of individuals and approximate size
of dead or distressed organisms;

e.	Magnitude and scope of the affected area (e.g., aquatic square area
or total stream distance affected);

f. 	Pesticide application rate, intended use site (e.g., banks, above,
or direct to water), method of application, and name of pesticide
product, description of pesticide ingredients, and EPA registration
number;

g.	Description of the habitat and the circumstances under which the
adverse incident occurred (including any available ambient water data
for pesticides applied);

h.	If laboratory tests were performed, indicate what test(s) were
performed, and when, and provide a summary of the test results within 5
days after they become available if not available at the time of
submission of the 30-day report;

i.	Description of actions to be taken to prevent recurrence of adverse
incidents; and

j.	Signature, date, and certification in accordance with Appendix B,
Subsection B.11.

Permittee Report of Adverse Incident to Threatened or Endangered Species
or Critical Habitat

According to EPA’s PGP, all Operators are required to report adverse
incidents to threatened or endangered species or critical habitat that
may have resulted from a discharge from their pesticide application. 
Operators are required to notify the National Marine Fisheries Service
or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by telephone immediately upon
becoming aware of the adverse incident.  At least the following
information must be provided:

The caller’s name and telephone number;

Operator name and mailing address;

The name of the affected species;

How and when you became aware of the adverse incident;

Description of the location of the adverse incident;

Description of the adverse incident, including the EPA pesticide
registration number for each product applied in the area of the adverse
incident; and

Description of any steps the Operators has taken or will  take to
alleviate the adverse impact to the species.

Permittee Report of Spill, Leak, or Other Unpermitted Discharge

According to EPA’s PGP, all Operators are required to report leak,
spill or other releases containing a hazardous substance or oil in an
amount equal to or in excess of a reportable quantity established under
either 40 CFR Part 110, 40 CFR Part 117, or 40 CFR Part 302 occurs in
any 24-hour period.  Operators must notify the National Response Center
immediately in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 110, 40
CFR Part 117, and 40 CFR Part 302.  

Within 30 days of the Operator becoming aware of a spill, leak, or other
unpermitted discharge, the Operator must document and retain the
following information:

Information during notification of the spill, leak, or other unpermitted
discharge

Summary of corrective action taken or to be taken including date
initiated and date completed or expected to be completed;

Any measures to prevent recurrence of such a spill, leak, or other
discharge, including notice of whether PDMP modifications are required
as a result of the spill or leak.

Permittee Report of Corrective Action

According to EPA’s PGP, all Operators are required to document any
situation triggering corrective action and their planned corrective
action within 30 days of the operator becoming aware of the situation
triggering the need for corrective action.  The Operator must retain a
copy of this documentation.  The documentation must include the
following information:  

a.	Identification of the condition triggering the need for corrective
action review, including any ambient water quality monitoring that
assisted in determining that discharges did not meet water quality
standards;

b.	Brief description of the situation;

c.	Date the problem was identified.

d.	Brief description of how the problem was identified and how the
Operator learned of the situation and date the Operator learned of the
situation;

e.	Summary of corrective action taken or to be taken including date
initiated and date completed or expected to be completed; and

f.	Any measures to prevent reoccurrence of such an incident, including
notice of whether PDMP modifications are required as a result of the
incident.

Permittee Report of Planned Facility Changes 

According to 40 CFR 122.41(l)(1), any planned alteration or addition to
a permitted facility must be reported to the permitting authority.  This
requirement applies to a change in the discharge of pollutants that are
not already subject to the facility’s permit requirements.  For
pesticide application activities, planned changes may include but not
limited to discharging to a Tier 3 water or discharging pesticides to a
water impaired for that pesticide.  When reporting planned changes, a
permittee must provide a description of the planned alterations or
additions and a statement outlining the anticipated effects of the
changes on the discharge.  The permitting authority may use the
information submitted by the discharger to develop an individual NPDES
permit before the planned changes are made. 

Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance 

According to 40 CFR 122.41(l)(2) a change in the discharge of pollutants
that might result in noncompliance with existing permit limits must be
reported to the permitting authority. Permittees typically make this
sort of report by submitting a letter that explains the reasons for the
anticipated noncompliance.  The advance notice provided by this
reporting requirement enables the permitting authority to help a
permittee mitigate the effects of anticipated noncompliance on the
receiving waters. 

Facility and Permit Transfer Report 

Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.41(l)(3) specify that when a
facility’s ownership changes, it must notify the permitting authority
in a letter stating the date of the transfer and the name of the new
permit holder.  EPA does not anticipate any respondents for the PGP
because Decision-makers are required to file a NOT (Notice of
Termination), which is covered elsewhere in this ICR, when they transfer
ownership; rather than submitting some other type of documentation.  

Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous Information 

According to 40 CFR 122.41(l)(8), permittees must correct inaccurate
information that has been submitted in a permit application or permit
report as soon as the permittee learns of the error(s). Usually,
permittees notify the permitting authority by letter.  The permitting
authority uses this information to update permit records or to execute
appropriate enforcement actions. 

Noncompliance Reports 

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).  

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

This ICR explains these activities 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 any data required by the NPDES permitting authorities as
outlined in Section 4(b)(iv)(1).

Activities for the 45 authorized States can include reviewing and
handling reports.

4(b)(v) Recordkeeping

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

According to EPA’s PGP , all Operators are required to keep the
following records:

A copy of any adverse incident reports

Rationale for any determination that reporting of an identified adverse
incident is not required consistent with allowances identified in the
PGP

A copy of any corrective action documentation

A copy of any spill and leak or other unpermitted discharge
documentation.

EPA expects Operators to incur a relatively minor additional burden for
paperwork associated with adverse incidents, corrective action, and
spills.  EPA expects these Operators likely already have filing capacity
for paper files including any correspondence with EPA, as well as to
prepare and save any adverse incident reports electronically.  In
addition, entities would only incur these costs in the event of an
adverse incident, corrective action, or spill/leak.

 According to the EPA’s PGP, all Operators who are for-hire
applicators must retain the following records:

Documentation of equipment calibration; and 

Information on each treatment area to which pesticides are discharged,
including:

Description of each treatment area, including location and size (acres
or linear feet) of treatment area and identification of any waters,
either by name or by locations, to which pesticide(s) are discharged;

Pesticide use pattern(s);

Target pest(s)

Name of each pesticide product used including the EPA registration
number;

Quantity of each pesticide product applied to each treatment area;

Pesticide application date(s); and 

Whether or not visual monitoring was conducted during pesticide
application and/or post-application and if not, why not and whether
monitoring identified any possible or observable adverse incidents
caused by application of pesticides.  

According to the EPA’s PGP, any Decision-maker required to submit an
NOI and who is a small entity must retain the following records:

Copy of the NOI submitted to EPA, any correspondence exchanged between
the Decision-maker and EPA specific to coverage under this permit, and a
copy of the EPA acknowledgment letter with the assigned permit tracking
number;

Documentation of equipment calibration (only if Decision-maker is also
the Applicator);

Information on each treatment area to which pesticides are discharged,
including:

Description of treatment area, including location and size (acres or
linear feet) of treatment area and identification of any waters of the
United States, either by name or by location, to which pesticide(s) are
discharged;

Pesticide use pattern(s);

Target pest(s) and explanation of need for pest control;

Description of pest management measure(s) implemented prior to the first
pesticide application; 

Company name and contact information for pesticide applicator;

Name of each pesticide product used including the EPA registration
number;

Quantity of each pesticide product applied to each treatment area;

Pesticide Application Start Date;

Pesticide Application End Date; and

Whether or not visual monitoring was conducted during pesticide
application and/or post-application and if not, why not and whether
monitoring identified any possible or observable adverse incidents
caused by application of pesticides.

A worksheet (Pesticide Discharge Evaluation Worksheet) for documenting
this information on each treatment area is provided in the permit (see
Appendix D for a copy of the Pesticide Discharge Evaluation Worksheet). 


According to the EPA’s final permit any Decision-maker required to
submit an NOI and who is a large entity must retain the following
records:

Copy of the NOI submitted to EPA, any correspondence exchanged between
the Decision-maker and EPA specific to coverage under this permit, and a
copy of the EPA acknowledgment letter with the assigned permit tracking
number; 

A copy of the PDMP, including any modifications made to the PDMP during
the term of this permit;

Copy of annual reports submitted to EPA; 

Documentation of equipment calibration (only if Decision-maker is also
the Applicator);

Information on each treatment area to which pesticides are discharged,
including:

Description of each treatment area, including location and size (acres
or linear feet) of treatment area and identification of any Waters of
the United States, either by name or by location, to which pesticide(s)
are discharged;

Pesticide use pattern(s) (i.e., mosquito and other flying insects, weed
and algae, animal pest, or forest canopy);

Target pest(s) and explanation of need for pest control;

Action Thresholds;

Method and/or data used to determine that action threshold(s) has been
met;

Description of pest management measure(s) implemented prior to the first
pesticide application; 

Company name and contact information for pesticide applicator; 

Name of each pesticide product used including the EPA registration
number;

Quantity of each pesticide product applied to each treatment area;

Pesticide application date(s); and

Whether or not visual monitoring was conducted during pesticide
application and/or post-application and if not, why not and whether
monitoring identified any possible or observable adverse incidents
caused by application of pesticides.

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

This ICR explains respondent activities in detail in Section 4(b)(v)(1)
above.  Activities can include developing recordkeeping systems,
collecting and entering data, training personnel, and filing
information.  All permit applicants must retain records for at least 3
years from the date that their coverage under the permit expires or
terminated. 5. The Information Collected—Agency Activities,
Collection Methodology, and Information Management

5(a) Agency Activities

This ICR includes all the reporting requirements related to EPA as the
NPDES permitting authority for discharges from application of
pesticides.  

EPA’s activities as the NPDES permitting authority for
non-NPDES-authorized states and territories are the same as the
activities performed by the NPDES-authorized states and territories.
Some of the key activities permitting authorities will perform are:

Receive NOIs and review them for completeness.  If an NOI is incomplete,
the permitting authority will notify the applicant and request the
missing information.  If the NOI is complete, an acceptance letter will
be sent to the permittee, along with a unique permit number.  For EPA,
the NOI data will be maintained in a database at EPA’s Notice
Processing Center.

When a permitting authority issues a general permit, it may notify those
dischargers eligible for coverage under the permit.  Notification may
include newspaper announcements, direct mailings, or other methods of
communication.

When permitting authorities receive notices of intent for general
permits, they must determine which dischargers, if any, would be more
appropriately governed by individual permits.  As part of these
activities, permitting authorities may notify dischargers that they need
to apply for individual permits.

When permitting authorities receive annual reports, they must review the
annual reports for compliance with the general permit.  

When permitting authorities receive a notice of termination (NOT), they
must review and process the notice.  EPA will maintain these data in the
database at the Agency’s Notice Processing Center.

Permittees are not required to submit PDMPs to permitting authority for
review.  These plans are to be maintained on-site where the pesticide
activities are taking place and must be available for permitting
authority review as requested.  Therefore, for the purposes of this ICR,
the plans are integral to the day-to-day operational control of each
pest management area but are not included as a component of Agency
activities.

When reports or forms are submitted, permitting authority review is
necessary, and in some instances, may also require follow-up actions. 
Data review will vary; however, generally, the permitting authority will
screen data to identify permit violations and will conduct a more
thorough technical review and follow-up when violations are detected. 
Follow-up activities can include informal contact with the permittee (by
telephone or letter) requesting prompt corrective action, providing
technical assistance, performing field inspections to further
substantiate violations, or initiating formal enforcement action such as
an administrative order or referral to the U.S. attorney general (or
state attorney general in the case of authorized states).

The extent to which permitting authorities review data in assessing
permit compliance will vary. For example, permitting authorities often
will conduct a more extensive review of permittees that are, or have
been, in violation of their permit requirements, than of permittees who
have been in full compliance.  

The extent to which permitting authority reviews data also depends on
available resources and the specific review procedures of the permitting
authority (state or EPA Region).  In authorized states, state
environmental agencies generally review permittee data.  EPA also may
review data from permittees in NPDES-authorized states while performing
program oversight functions (i.e., during file audits and when compiling
statistical compliance summaries).

EPA reviews data in non-NPDES-authorized states.  EPA generally places
emphasis on data from major permittees and from minor permittees that
can cause water quality problems (i.e., significant minors).  EPA
reviews data from general permittees less frequently.  EPA does not
require non-NPDES-authorized states to review data, but several states
voluntarily review these data and use the results in their own water
quality protection programs.

In collecting and analyzing the information associated with this ICR,
information for permittees covered under EPA’s PGP will be entered
into an NOI database.  EPA uses these data to manage the NPDES program.

Similar to other EPA general permit, EPA assumes for this ICR that the
Services must help some Operators obtain information relating to
federally listed endangered and threatened species, and designated
critical habitat and may participate in informal or formal evaluation. 
NPDES-authorized states are not required to include this requirement in
their NPDES general permits and therefore neither the authorized states
nor discharges from application of pesticides within those states incur
any burden related to ESA.

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

EPA maintains some application data in databases such as ICIS-NPDES, and
the NOI database. These systems provide EPA with a nationwide inventory
of permit holders.  EPA 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.

In collecting and analyzing the information associated with EPA’s PGP,
EPA will use its electronic NOI (eNOI) system to 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 eNOI.  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.

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

For many reasons, EPA believes the reporting requirements discussed in
this ICR do not place an unreasonable burden on small businesses.  The
NOI requests minimal information, such as the name and location of the
discharge.  Furthermore, operators submit NOIs once every 5 years. The
burden represented by the NOI cannot be further reduced for small
businesses.  Permitting authorities need certain basic information to
make permitting decisions.  This basic information is not dependent on
an Operator’s size.

Minimizing the burden on small entities also comes in the form of
guidance materials.  For example, to assist operators of all sizes, but
potentially most useful for small entities, EPA will develop guidance on
developing PDMPs.

All permittees, regardless of the size of the entity, are required to
report instances of noncompliance.  In most cases, these requirements do
not impose a large burden on small businesses because the information
required is simple and straightforward.

5(d) Collection Schedule

The collection schedule for the activities presented in this ICR varies
greatly depending on the type of activity.  See Section 6 of this ICR
for detailed estimates of collection schedules.

Federal regulations require permittees to reapply for permits at least
every 5 years because the CWA limits the terms of an NPDES permit to 5
years.  The regulations also grant permit writers the authority to issue
permits more frequently.  For those dischargers required to submit
notices of intent, those must be submitted every 5 years.  Dischargers
submitting a notice of intent that wish to be covered under a reissued
general permit must submit a new notice of intent for coverage under
that new permit.  When calculating burden, this ICR assumes that all
permit applicants follow this schedule.

A notice of termination is submitted once when coverage under the permit
is no longer necessary.  

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.  Data are tabulated in the “Respondents and
Agency Activities Table” provided as Appendix A.  That table presents
all assumptions, calculations, and results discussed in this ICR. 
Dischargers covered under the pesticide general permit and authorized
NPDES States are identified as respondents.  The breakdown of cost and
burden by labor category is provided in Section 6(b).

On the basis of information presented in the Economic Analysis of the
Pesticide General Permit (PGP)for Point Source Discharges from the
Application of Pesticides, May 26, 2010, EPA assumes 90 percent of the
total universe of permittees will be covered by NPDES-authorized
State-issued general permits.  This percentage has been applied to the
respondent values to estimate those pesticide general permittees that
report directly to authorized-NPDES States.

This ICR calculates annual burden and costs to respondents (365,000
permittees and 45 authorized States). These calculations address
dischargers obtaining coverage under a new general permit.  Because this
is the first time discharges from application of pesticide need an NPDES
permit and the pesticide general permit renews every five years, this
ICR does not calculate dischargers renewing permit coverage. 

6(a)(i) Obtaining Permit Coverage

To calculate the total annual applicant respondent burden, EPA first
calculated the annual burden for each information request associated
with obtaining permit coverage.  This subsection explains applicant
respondent burden estimates for each information request.

In addition, the Respondents and Agency Activities Table in Appendix A
calculates the estimated burden to authorized NPDES States for handling
and reviewing NOI information discussed in this subsection.  Estimates
of the burden do not include analysis of the data because this activity
is associated with preparing and issuing the permit.  Because most state
governments have authority for the NPDES programs, state governments
will incur the majority of the permitting authority burden and costs. 

Notice of Intent (NOI) 

The NOI filing requirement is applicable only to certain permittees. 
EPA estimates that 2 hours is required to file an NOI for a general
permit.  This burden estimate includes 1 hour to read and understand the
regulation, and 1 hour to fill out and submit the form.  EPA estimates
that 2.5% of the regulated universe would need to file an NOI (9,125
entities), for an annual average of 1,825 NOIs (9,125 divided by the
5-year coverage).  EPA estimates that the Agency and authorized NPDES
States will spend 0.5 hours processing these NOIs.

Similar to ICRs for other EPA general permits, EPA assumes that the
burden for permittees covered under the EPA’s PGP as a result of ESA
obligations be the following:

Informal assessment needed in 0.1% of the cases: 6 hours (37 NOIs with
an annual average of 7 NOIs)

Formal assessment needed in 0.05% of the cases: 20 hours (18 NOIs with
an annual average of 4 NOIs)

Notice of Termination (NOT) 

EPA estimates that on average, permittees will spend 0.5 hours filling
out an NOT.  EPA estimates the total number of respondents will be 456
(5 percent of the respondents required to submit NOIs).  EPA estimates
that 91 NOTs will be filed annually.  This assumes that, in general, the
universe of dischargers covered under this permit will not change
significantly from year to year.  EPA estimates that permitting
authorities will spend 0.25 hours processing each NOT.

6(a)(ii) Plan Development

Certain permittees will be required to develop a Pesticide Discharge
Management Plan (PDMP) and keep it up-to-date.  PDMPs document the
evaluation and selection of pest management measures to meet the
technology-based effluent limitations.  These plans may cover one or
more treatment areas within one plan, and can reference other documents
(such as pre-existing integrated pest management plans).  Thus, the cost
to develop the PDMP will vary based on the extent of pest problems and
pesticide use, as well as existing documentation that may be referenced
to fulfill plan requirements.  Decision-makers that have been evaluating
pest problems and alternative management methods may have significant
relevant material already compiled and available. In this ICR, EPA
assumes that the 967 respondents a year will be required to develop a
PDMP (53 percent of the universe required to file NOIs).  Although
components of a PDMP are similar, pest management area design, size and
function, and the level of effort involved will vary for each pest
management area.  EPA estimates the average level of effort that might
be required to prepare a PDMP.  This burden estimate for preparing a
PDMP includes 1 hour to select the team, 16 hours to describe sources,
14 hours to develop measures and controls, 8 hours to develop schedules
and procedures, and 1 hour to document considerations under other
federal laws.  Thus, EPA estimates that the average time for a
respondent to develop a PDMP is 40 hours.  This is a one-time
development activity.  Decision-makers are required to update the plan
as needed.  EPA assumes that 1,209 plans (25 percent of the universe
required to develop a plan) will be updated annually with the average
time of 2 hours.  

6(a)(iii) Monitoring

All 365,000 permittees are required to conduct monitoring.  According to
the EPA’s PGP, this includes visual monitoring.  EPA expects minimal
additional burden associated with monitoring under the general permit. 
Where required, EPA expects an additional 0.25 hours per site monitored.
 EPA assumes large entities who are required to submit NOIs conduct an
average of sixteen applications annually (4,836 respondents).  For small
entities who are required to submit NOIS, pesticide applications are
likely to be fewer; EPA assumes an average of four applications per year
(4289 respondents).  EPA assumes one monitoring event per year for
entities who are not required to submit NOIs.  

6(a)(iv) Reporting 

Annual Report

Certain permittees are required to submit an annual report to the
permitting authority.  The respondent activities include preparing and
submitting annual reports.  EPA estimates that respondents will spend 8
hours preparing and submitting annual reports.  EPA estimates 4,892
reports) will be submitted annually.  Permitting authorities will spend
approximately 1 hour processing and reviewing these annual reports.

Permittee Report of Adverse Incident

Permittees are required to notify their permitting authority and provide
a written report of adverse incident that may have resulted from a
discharge from pesticide application.  EPA reviewed ecological incidents
reported by registrants from 1976 to 2008.  They range from 3 to 21
incidents annually.  In the EPA PGP, all permittees are required to
report incidents.  EPA assumes that 37 adverse incidents (0.01% of the
universe) will be reported annually by permittees.  EPA estimates that
respondents will spend 2 hours gathering information and notifying their
permitting authority.  EPA estimates that respondents will spend an
additional 2 hours preparing and submitting a report.  The activities
required for permitting authorities include processing and reviewing the
information from permittees.  EPA estimates that permitting authority
will spend 2 hours on this activity for each adverse incident.  

Permittee Report of Adverse Incident to Threatened or Endangered Species
or Critical Habitat

Permittees are required to notify the National Marine Fisheries Service
or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of any adverse incident to
threatened or endangered species or critical habitat.  EPA estimates
that respondents will spend 2 hours gathering information and reporting
any adverse incident and that the Services will spend 2 hours reviewing
and documenting each adverse incident.  EPA assumes 4 adverse incidents
(0.001% of the universe) will be reported annually.

Permittee Report of Spill, Leak, or Other Unpermitted Discharge

Permittees are required to notify the National Response Center of any
spill, leak, or other release containing a hazardous substance or oil. 
These activities are already required under existing regulations and as
such, no additional burden is included in this ICR for reporting.  

Permittees are also required to document the spill, leak, or other
unpermitted discharge and retain the documentation for their record. 
EPA estimates that respondents will spend 1 hour to document the
activity.  EPA estimates 365 events (0.1% of the universe) will be
reported annually.

Permittee Report of Corrective Action

Permittees are required to document any situation triggering corrective
action and their planned corrective action.  EPA estimates that
respondents will spend 5 hours on this activity.  This burden is divided
as follows: 1 hour to read and understand the regulation, 1 hour of
planning, 1 hour of collecting information, and 2 hours to document the
activity.  EPA estimates 365 events (0.1% of the universe) will be
reported annually.

Permittee Report of Planned Facility Changes

Respondents will use an estimated average of 4 hours to complete their
notification of planned alterations and additions.  This burden estimate
includes 1 hour to read and understand the regulation, 1 hour to plan
the report, and 2 hours to write the report.  EPA estimates that
permitting authority will spend 0.5 hours handling and reviewing each
report.  EPA estimates 365 events (0.1% of the universe) will be
reported annually.

Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance 

Respondents will use an estimated average of 5 hours of labor for each
report of anticipated noncompliance.  This burden is divided as follows:
1 hour to read and understand the regulation, 1 hour of planning, 1 hour
of collecting information, and 2 hours for writing and submitting the
report.  EPA estimates that permitting authority will spend 2 hours
handling and reviewing each report.  EPA estimates 365 events (0.1% of
the universe) will be reported annually.

Facility and Permit Transfer Report 

EPA does not anticipate any respondents for the PGP because operators
are required to file a NOT (Notice of Termination) when they transfer
ownership.  Burden for NOTs are discussed elsewhere in this ICR.

Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous Information 

The respondent burden associated with this reporting requirement
includes the time needed to verify the reporting error or omission, to
prepare the revised form that details the reporting corrections, and to
mail the information to the permitting authority.  The time required
under this regulation will vary depending on the size of the pest
management area and the extent of the error or omission.  EPA estimates
that a typical report requires 2 hours to prepare.  EPA estimates that
permitting authority will spend 1 hour handling and reviewing each
report.  EPA estimates 183 events (0.05% of the universe) will be
reported annually.

Noncompliance Reports 

When a permittee violates a permit condition, it must submit a
noncompliance report to the permitting authority.  EPA estimates the
average burden to be 5 hours per response.  This burden represents the
time required to gather information, prepare and present/conduct the
verbal notice, and prepare and submit a written report for
noncompliance.  EPA estimates that an average of 2 hours is required for
the permitting authority to receive and process each noncompliance
report. EPA estimates 183 events (0.05% of the universe) will be
reported annually.

6(a)(v) Record Keeping

The burden associated with recordkeeping depends on the pest management
area and whether the permittee already has a recordkeeping system.  EPA
expects all operators to retain certain basic records related to
pesticide applications that result in discharges to waters of the United
States.  EPA estimates that basic recordkeeping will take 1 hour per
year.   EPA assumes a small additional recordkeeping burden for
Operators that are not required to submit NOIs, including information
such as equipment calibration records or information on For-Hire
Applicators.  EPA estimates 0.5 hours per year for 355,875 respondents.

Small entity permittees who are required to submit NOIs keep basic
records on pest control activities, including pesticide applications. 
EPA estimates that it would take approximately 1 hour per application (4
applications per year) for these abbreviated records, or 4 hours.  In
this ICR, EPA assumes that 4,289 small entities a year will be required
to perform these recordkeeping activities (47 percent of the permitted
universe applying for permit coverage).  Permittees who are required to
submit NOIs and are large entities must keep more detailed records on
pest control option assessments and pesticide application activities,
consistent with PDMPs.  EPA estimates that full recordkeeping will take
1 hour per application (16 applications per year) for these large
entities, or 16 hours per year for 4,836 respondents – which is in
addition to the 40 hours to develop the PDMP. 

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 and Agency Activities Table in Appendix A.

6(b)(i) Estimating Labor Costs

To estimate the potential costs, EPA identified labor categories
associated with performing each activity.  Labor categories include
managerial, technical, and clerical.  The Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS) publishes base mean annual wage rates in its Occupational
Employment Survey (OES, 2008) and an Employment Cost Index (ECI, 2009)
to update the wage rates to 2009 values to account for inflation.  EPA
used average government and commercial wage rates to estimate respondent
labor costs assuming each respondent is equally likely to use either
government or commercial labor.  When calculating respondent labor
costs, EPA makes the following assumptions for the permittees: 

For state and local governments, EPA included employee benefits in the
wage rate, and for commercial applicators, included benefits, overhead,
and profit in estimating total labor rates.  The BLS Employer Cost for
Employee Compensation (ECEC, 2009) provides estimates for benefit
markups for governments (benefits account approximately 25% of the total
labor rate), and PSMJ (2009) indicates that the wage rate multiplier is
3.05 for commercial/engineering firms.  

Rates for managers reflect OES category 11-9121, Natural Sciences
Managers.  EPA used an average labor rate of $113 per hour for managers
(state government at $51; local government at $64, and commercial at
$167).  This rate is mean annual 2008 wages, updated to 2009 dollars.

Rates for technical staff reflect OES category 9-4091, Environmental
Science and Protection Technicians, including health.  EPA used an
average labor rate of $51 per hour for technical staff (state government
at $38; local government at $38, and commercial at $63).  This rate is
mean annual 2008 wages, updated to 2009 dollars.

Rates for clerical staff reflect OES category 43-0000, Office and
Administrative Support Occupations State.  EPA used an average labor
rate of $41 per hour for clerical staff (state government at $29; local
government at $28; and commercial at $53).  This rate is mean annual
2008 wages, updated to 2009 dollars.

For the authorized States, EPA assumes $38 per hour which is the rate
for technical staff at state government.

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

This ICR account for labor costs only.  The pesticide general permits do
not require respondents to perform activities outside the normal
operation practices.  

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

This ICR account for labor costs only.  The pesticide general permits do
not require respondents to perform activities outside the normal
operation practices. 

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 determined the hourly employment cost of federal employees using
methodology established in previous ICRs.  According to the U.S. Office
of Personnel Management, 2009 General Schedule (2009-GS), the average
annual salary of a government employee at the GS-9, Step 10 level is
$53,234.  At 2,080 hours per year, the hourly wage is $25.59.  Assuming
overhead costs of 60 percent, or $15.36 per hour, the fully loaded cost
of employment for a federal employee is $40.95.

Burden and costs incurred by EPA are presented in the Respondents and
Agency Activities Table in Appendix A.

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 NPDES states and territories.

For calculating the States’ cost, EPA uses the rate for technical
staff (OES category 9-4091, Environmental Science and Protection
Technicians, including health).  EPA uses $38 per hour, the mean annual
2008 wages, updated to 2009 dollar.

Pesticide General Permit NOI filing 

EPA estimates permitting authorities will spend 0.5 hours processing
each NOI. EPA estimates formal ESA-related evaluation by the Services
will take 5 hours and informal evaluation by the Services will take 0.5
hours.

Pesticide General Permit NOT filing 

Permitting authorities will spend 0.25 hours processing each NOTs.  

Pesticide General Permit Standard Permit Conditions 

Permitting authorities will handle and review Permittee Report of
Planned Facility Changes, Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance,
and Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous Information.  EPA estimates
permitting authorities will spend 0.5 hours, 2 hours, and 1 hour,
respectively for this activity.

Pesticide General Permit Noncompliance Report Review 

Permitting authorities will spend 2 hours handling and reviewing each
noncompliance report.  

Pesticide General Permit Adverse Incident Report Review

Permitting authorities will spend 2 hours handling and reviewing each
adverse incident report.

Pesticide General Permit Annual Report Review 

Permitting authorities will spend 1 hour handling and reviewing each
annual report.

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 and Agency Activities Table in Appendix A.  That table
provides the respondent universe and the source of information for all
respondent categories used throughout this ICR.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 6.1
provides a summary of the average annual number of respondents, burden
hours, and costs.  A more detailed summary is in the Respondents and
Agency Activities Table in Appendix A.

Table 6.1 Respondent tally

	Permittees	States/tribes/territories*	Totals

Respondents (number) 	365,000	45	  =SUM(LEFT)  365,045 

Responses (number)	1,277,083	7,136	  =SUM(left)  1,284,219 

Burden (hours)	841,037	6,615	  =SUM(left)  847,652 

Costs (labor)	$47,783,297	$251,379	$48,034,676

Costs (capital)	$0 	$0 	$0 

Costs (O&M)	$0 	$0 	$0 

Total costs	$47,783,297	$251,379	$48,034,676

Average annual burden per respondent (hours)	2.3	147.0	2.3

*The average annual burden per permitting authority is for responses
associated with 90% of the universe of permittees.

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 6.2 provides a summary of the
average annual Agency burden hours and costs.  A more detailed summary
is in the Respondents and Agency Activities Table in Appendix A.

Table 6.2 Agency tally

Responses (number)	820

Burden (hours)	776

Costs (labor)	$31,795 

Costs (capital)	$0 

Costs (O&M)	$0 

Total costs	$31,795

6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden

As a result of the Sixth Circuit Court’s decision, discharges from the
application of pesticides will need an NPDES permit.  The additional
burden from this ICR will be consolidated in the existing ICR for the
NPDES Program (ICR Number 0229.19, OMB Number 2040-0004).  The current
annual burden in OMB’s inventory for the existing ICR for the NPDES
Program is 30,943,308.  This ICR will add 847,652 hours.  This ICR will
increase the burden by 2.7%.  

6(g) Burden Statement

The calculations made for this ICR cover the burden and costs for EPA
and other Federal Agencies, NPDES-authorized States, and operators of
pesticide activities.  This ICR estimates an annual burden of 841,037
hours for 365,000 respondents (permittees) at a labor cost of $48
million.  Burden for the State respondents is 6,615 hours annually at a
labor cost of $0.3 million.  Agency burden is 776 hours annually at a
labor cost of $31,795.  The annual reporting and recordkeeping burden
for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.7 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-2010-0852, 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
at http://www.regulations.gov/.  Use www.regulations.gov 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-2010-0852 and OMB Control
No. 2040-NEW in any correspondence.

 On October 31, 2008, EPA approved the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation’s (ADEC) application to take over, in a
phased approach, administration of the NPDES permitting program in the
state.  Since EPA will still be the NPDES permitting authority in
October 2011, this ICR reflects the burden associated with permittees in
Alaska as part of the federal burden. In the next renewal cycle, this
burden will be shifted to the state.

 Pursuant to Oklahoma state law, Oklahoma’s Department of Agriculture,
Food, and Forestry (ODAFF) is the only state agency with jurisdiction to
regulate pesticide application within the state.  ODAFF is not currently
authorized to administer the NPDES program, and therefore does not have
the authority to issue permits for discharges from the application of
pesticides.  Thus, the burden associated with permittees in Oklahoma is
included as part of the federal burden.

 PAGE   129 

	

	  PAGE  iii 

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

	  PAGE  14 

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

  REF _Ref199644238 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4(b) Information Requested 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

