**Supporting Statement for the Information Collection Request for the
NPDES Regulation and Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations**

June 2006

EPA ICR No. 1989.04

Rural Branch

Water Permits Division

Office of Wastewater Management

Office of Water

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Wastewater Management

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, DC 20460

Supported by:

Tetra Tech, Inc.

10306 Eaton Place

Fairfax, VA 22030

EPA Contract #EP-C-05-046

Tetra Tech Project \# 16759-07

This page intentionally left blank.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

[1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION
2](#identification-of-the-information-collection)

[1a. Title of the Information Collection
2](#a.-title-of-the-information-collection)

[1b. Short Characterization 2](#b.-short-characterization)

[2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION
2](#need-for-and-use-of-the-collection)

[2a. Need/Authority for the Collection?
2](#a.-needauthority-for-the-collection)

[2b. Practical Utility / Users of the Data
2](#b.-practical-utility-users-of-the-data)

[3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA
2](#nonduplication-consultations-and-other-collection-criteria)

[3a. Nonduplication 2](#a.-nonduplication)

[3b. Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB
2](#b.-public-notice-required-prior-to-icr-submission-to-omb)

[3c. Consultations 2](#c.-consultations)

[3d. Effects of Less Frequent Collection
2](#d.-effects-of-less-frequent-collection)

[3e. General Guidelines 2](#e.-general-guidelines)

[3f. Confidentiality 2](#f.-confidentiality)

[3g. Sensitive Questions 2](#g.-sensitive-questions)

[4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
2](#the-respondents-and-the-information-requested)

[4a. Respondents/NAICS Codes 2](#a.-respondentsnaics-codes)

[4b. Information Requested 2](#__RefHeading___Toc135715507)

[5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED---AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
2](#the-information-collectedagency-activities-collection-methodology-and-information-management)

[5a. Agency Activities 2](#a.-agency-activities)

[5b. Collection Methodology and Management
2](#b.-collection-methodology-and-management)

[5c. Small Entity Flexibility 2](#c.-small-entity-flexibility)

[5d. Collection Schedule 2](#d.-collection-schedule)

[6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND THE COST OF THE COLLECTION
2](#estimating-the-burden-and-the-cost-of-the-collection)

[6a. Estimating Respondent Burden 2](#a.-estimating-respondent-burden)

[6b. Estimating Respondent Costs 2](#b.-estimating-respondent-costs)

[6c. Estimating Agency Burden and Cost
2](#c.-estimating-agency-burden-and-cost)

[6d. Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs
2](#d.-estimating-the-respondent-universe-and-total-burden-and-costs)

[6e. Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs Tables
2](#e.-bottom-line-burden-hours-and-costs-tables)

[6f. Burden Statement 2](#f.-burden-statement)

[References 2](#references)

[Appendix 2](#appendix)

**LIST OF TABLES**

[Table 4--1. CAFO Standard Industrial Classification Codes and Size
Thresholds 2](#__RefHeading___Toc135715524)

[Table 4--2. Estimated Number of CAFOs by Size and Animal Type
2](#__RefHeading___Toc135715525)

[Table 5--1. SBA and EPA Small Business Thresholds for Animal Sectors
2](#__RefHeading___Toc135715526)

[Table 6--1. Burden Estimates per CAFO by Activity
2](#__RefHeading___Toc135715527)

[Table 6--2. Burden Estimates for an Authorized State by Activity
2](#__RefHeading___Toc135715528)

[Table 6--3. Wage rates used to value CAFO-related burdens
2](#__RefHeading___Toc135715529)

[Table 6--4. Capital and O&M Cost per CAFO (2005 dollars)
2](#__RefHeading___Toc135715530)

[Table 6--5. EPA Burden and Cost Estimates
2](#__RefHeading___Toc135715531)

[Table 6--6. Summary of Average Annual CAFO and State Respondents,
Burden Hours, and Costs for the ICR Approval Period (Costs in millions
\$2005) 2](#__RefHeading___Toc135715532)

**ACRONYM LIST**

**AFO** animal feeding operation

**BLS** Bureau of Labor Statistics

**BPJ** best professional judgment

**CFR** Code of Federal Regulations

**CAFO** concentrated animal feeding operation

**CWA** Clean Water Act

**ELG** Effluent Limitations Guidelines

**EPA** Environmental Protection Agency

**ICR** Information Collection Request

**ICIS** Integrated Compliance Information System

**MOA** Memorandum of Agreement

**NAHMS** National Animal Health Monitoring System

**NAICS** North American Industry Classification System

**NASS** National Agricultural Statistics Service

**NMP** Nutrient Management Plan

**NOI** Notice of Intent

**NPDES** National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

**O&M** operation and maintenance

**OMB** Office of Management and Budget

**OPM** Office of Personnel Management

**PCS** Permit Compliance System

**SBA** Small Business Administration

**SIC** Standard Industrial Classification

**SOC** Standard Occupational Classification

**U.S.C.** United States Code

**USDA** United States Department of Agriculture

**USGS** United States Geological Survey

This page intentionally left blank.

# 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 

## 1a. Title of the Information Collection 

ICR: NPDES Regulation and Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards
for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations EPA ICR No. 1989.04

OMB Control Number: 2040-0250

## 1b. Short Characterization 

This ICR provides an estimate of the information collection burden for
respondents covered by the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA or the
Agency) regulations for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs)
under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
program and the Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG). This ICR follows
the EPA guidance on preparation of information collection burden
assessments (EPA, 1999). The ICR revises the existing estimates of
burden and costs to NPDES permittees and governments (Federal, State)
presented in the prior ICR: Final NPDES and ELG Regulatory Revisions for
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (OMB Control No. 2040-0250, EPA
ICR No. 1989.02), which expires on July 31, 2006. To prepare this ICR,
EPA updated the 2002 burden and costs from the previous ICR to reflect
changes in the CAFOs industry sector and increases in labor costs since
2002.

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

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (1972), also known as the Clean
Water Act (CWA), prohibits the discharge of pollutants from a point
source to waters of the United States except for discharges authorized
and regulated by the NPDES permit program established by Section 402(a).
Section 308 of the CWA requires that EPA collect from dischargers any
information that may be reasonably required to carry out the objectives
and provisions of the CWA. Thus, point sources incur mandatory record
keeping and reporting burdens when they apply for NPDES permits and in
the course of complying with NPDES program requirements established by
EPA.[^1]

Section 402(b) provides that States (including U.S. Territories and
Indian Tribes may be authorized to administer NPDES programs once the
Agency is assured that a State program meets minimum federal
requirements. As of May 2006, 45 States and one Territory (U.S. Virgin
Islands) had received approval from EPA to administer the NPDES base
program, which includes the federal requirements that are applicable to
CAFOs. Of these, 44 are responsible for issuing NPDES permits to CAFOs
(called "authorized States" hereafter).[^2] EPA and authorized State
permitting authorities typically receive, review, manage, and report
information collected under the NPDES permitting program, including CAFO
permits.

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

EPA estimates that the burden for this information collection request
includes an annual average of 3.50 million hours for all respondents
including CAFO owners/operators and States. This estimate includes the
time required to review instructions, search existing data sources,
gather and maintain all necessary data, and review the information
collected. On average, there will be approximately 24,080 respondents
and 196,453 responses per year and average annual capital and O&M costs
will total \$9.12 million.

# 2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

## 2a. Need/Authority for the Collection

EPA has authority to undertake the information collection activities
characterized in this document under Sections 308 and 402 of the CWA,
and Title 33 Sections 1311, 1318, and 1342 \[402 counterparts\] of the
United States Code (U.S.C.). CAFOs are defined as point sources for
purposes of the NPDES program (33 U.S.C. Sec. 362.) Under 33 U.S.C. Sec.
1311 and Sec. 1342, a CAFO must obtain an NPDES permit and comply with
the terms of that permit, which may include appropriate conditions on
data and information collection. Furthermore, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1318
provides authority for information collection (i.e., record keeping,
reporting, monitoring, sampling, and other information as needed), which
applies to point sources.

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

## 2b. Practical Utility / Users of the Data 

EPA and authorized State permitting authorities use the information
routinely collected through NPDES applications and compliance
evaluations in the following ways:

-   to issue NPDES permits with appropriate limitations and conditions
    that will protect human health and the environment

-   to update information in EPA\'s databases that permitting
    authorities use to determine permit conditions

-   to calculate national permit issuance, backlog, and compliance
    statistics

-   to evaluate national water quality

-   to assist EPA in program management and other activities that ensure
    national consistency in permitting

-   to assist EPA in prioritizing permit issuance activities

-   to assist EPA in policy development and budgeting

-   to assist EPA in responding to Congressional and public inquiries

Other users of the data include regulated CAFOs and the general public.
CAFOs will use the data they collect to improve operational efficiency
and evaluate facility maintenance needs. The general public can use
information collected through the NPDES permit process to support
efforts to protect local environmental quality and quality of life.

# 3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

## 3a. Nonduplication 

The information collection pursuant to the regulatory program is
site-specific and therefore not available from existing sources.

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

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

-   EPA's PCS database

-   USDA Census of Agriculture

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

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

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

## 3b. Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

In compliance with the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act, EPA solicited
comments for a 60-day period prior to submission of the ICR to OMB.
Comments were requested on March 7, 2006, via a Federal Register Notice
(71 [FR]{.underline} 11407). The Agency did not receive any comments on
the notice.

## 3c. Consultations

To facilitate the 2003 CAFO regulation development, EPA provided many
opportunities for input in the 2003 rule-making process, including
holding 11 public outreach meetings on the Draft Unified National AFO
Strategy and a stakeholder conference call including small entities. EPA
also held nine public outreach meetings associated with the proposed
CAFO regulations at locations across the country. Since then, EPA has
continued to meet with various members of the stakeholder community as
part of ongoing implementation of the 2003 rule. These meetings with
environmental organizations, producer groups, and producers representing
various agricultural sectors give EPA the opportunity to interact with
and receive input from stakeholders about the CAFO NPDES program. While
most of those outreach activities have not targeted small entities
explicitly, many included small business participation.

## 3d. Effects of Less Frequent Collection 

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

## 3e. General Guidelines 

This information collection complies with Paperwork Reduction Act
guidelines (5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2)), except for the requirement for CAFOs to
maintain the records on-site for five years to demonstrate permit
compliance (40 CFR 122.42(e)(2)). The records that this requirement
pertains to are listed below in Section 4b(i).

## 3f. Confidentiality

In the current NPDES program for CAFOs, facilities must keep nutrient
management plans on site and make them available to the permitting
authority on request. These plans may contain confidential business
information. When this is the case, the respondent can request that such
information be treated as confidential. All confidential data is be
handled in accordance with 40 CFR 122.7, 40 CFR Part 2 (40 CFR 2.201 et
seq.), and EPA\'s Security Manual Part III, Chapter 9, dated August 9,
1976.

Whenever possible, EPA encourages public involvement in the NPDES
regulatory process. However, EPA also recognizes the legitimate concerns
of owners/operators regarding protection of confidential business
information and potential delays in processing of permit
applications.[^4]

## 3g. Sensitive Questions

This ICR does not ask owners/operators sensitive questions concerning
private matters (e.g., religious beliefs).

# 4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

This ICR covers the information collection activities expected to occur
over the three-year ICR renewal period from August 1, 2006, through July
31, 2009. During this period, CAFO and authorized State respondents will
collect and report information to obtain NPDES permit coverage and meet
permit conditions.

## 4a. Respondents/NAICS Codes 

The two categories of respondents covered in this ICR are the owners or
operators of CAFOs and the 44 authorized States that issue permits to
CAFOs.

EPA categorizes CAFOs based on the primary type of animal confined at
the operation. Table 4‑1 lists the major categories along with their
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes, and the
corresponding four-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes.
Note that some industry classification codes may overlap more than one
of the categories defined by EPA under the 2003 CAFO regulations. For
example, swine of any size have the same NAICS or SIC codes.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc135715524 .anchor}Table 4--1. CAFO Standard
Industrial Classification Codes and Size Thresholds

+---------------+-------------------------+-------+------------+------+
| **NAICS       | **Animal Type**         | *     |            |      |
| Code**        |                         | *Size |            |      |
|               |                         | Th    |            |      |
| **(SIC        |                         | resho |            |      |
| Code)**       |                         | lds** |            |      |
+===============+=========================+=======+============+======+
|               |                         | **La  | **Medium** | *    |
|               |                         | rge** |            | *Sma |
|               |                         |       |            | ll** |
+---------------+-------------------------+-------+------------+------+
| 112111 (0212, | Beef cattle, heifers,   | \>    | 300-1,000  | \    |
| 0241), 112112 | calves or veal for      | 1,000 |            | <300 |
| (0211)        | either slaughter or     |       |            |      |
|               | replacement             |       |            |      |
+---------------+-------------------------+-------+------------+------+
| 112111,\      | Dairy cattle---mature   | \>700 | 200-700    | \    |
| 112120 (0241) | dairy cattle (whether   |       |            | <200 |
|               | milked or dry cows) and |       |            |      |
|               | heifer replacement      |       |            |      |
+---------------+-------------------------+-------+------------+------+
| 112210 (0213) | Swine---each weighing   | \>    | 750-2,500  | \    |
|               | over 25 kilograms---or  | 2,500 |            | <750 |
|               | approximately 55 pounds |       |            |      |
+---------------+-------------------------+-------+------------+------+
|               | Immature swine---each   | \>1   | 3,         | \<3  |
|               | weighing less than 25   | 0,000 | 000-10,000 | ,000 |
|               | kilograms, or           |       |            |      |
|               | approximately 55 pounds |       |            |      |
+---------------+-------------------------+-------+------------+------+
| 112310 (0252) | Chickens---laying hens, | \>3   | 9,         | \<9  |
|               | using liquid manure     | 0,000 | 000-30,000 | ,000 |
|               | handling system         |       |            |      |
+---------------+-------------------------+-------+------------+------+
| 112310 (0252) | Chickens---laying hens, | \>8   | 25,        | \<25 |
|               | if other than liquid    | 2,000 | 000-82,000 | ,000 |
|               | manure handling system  |       |            |      |
+---------------+-------------------------+-------+------------+------+
| 112320 (0251) | Chickens other than     | \>12  | 37,5       | \<37 |
|               | laying hens---broilers, | 5,000 | 00-125,000 | ,500 |
|               | fryers and roasters, if |       |            |      |
|               | other than liquid       |       |            |      |
|               | manure handling system  |       |            |      |
+---------------+-------------------------+-------+------------+------+
| 112330 (0253) | Turkeys                 | \>5   | 16,        | \<16 |
|               |                         | 5,000 | 500-55,000 | ,500 |
+---------------+-------------------------+-------+------------+------+
| 112390 (0259) | Ducks, wet manure       | \>    | 1,500-     | \<1  |
|               | handling                | 5,000 | 5,000      | ,500 |
+---------------+-------------------------+-------+------------+------+
|               | Ducks, dry manure       | \>4   | 12,        | \<12 |
|               | handling                | 0,000 | 000-40,000 | ,000 |
+---------------+-------------------------+-------+------------+------+
| 112410 (0214) | Sheep or lambs          | \>1   | 3,         | \<3  |
|               |                         | 0,000 | 000-10,000 | ,000 |
+---------------+-------------------------+-------+------------+------+
| 112920 (0272) | Horses                  | \>500 | 150-500    | \    |
|               |                         |       |            | <150 |
+---------------+-------------------------+-------+------------+------+

Table 4-1 also provides the animal thresholds adopted in the 2003 CAFO
rule. EPA uses these thresholds to determine which AFOs are CAFOs. Under
the 2003 CAFO rule, all AFOs that confine a sufficient number of animals
to meet the large threshold are defined as CAFOs. An AFO in the medium
size category is defined as a CAFO if it confines a sufficient number of
animals and meets one of two discharge criteria:

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

-   pollutants are discharged directly into U.S. waters that originate
    outside of the facility and pass over, across, or through the
    facility or otherwise come into direct contact with the confined
    animals.

    An AFO in the smallest size category may become a CAFO through
    designation only after the permit authority has conducted an on-site
    inspection. Medium AFOs that are not defined CAFOs may also be
    designated as CAFOs by the permitting authority.

    The 2003 NPDES CAFO rule requires all CAFOs to apply for an NPDES
    permit either by submitting a notice of intent (NOI) to be covered
    by a general permit or by submitting an application for an
    individual permit.[^5]

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

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

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc135715525 .anchor}Table 4--2. Estimated Number of
CAFOs by Size and Animal Type

+--------------+--------+--------------+--------+----------+--------+
| **Animal     | **2003 | **Projected  | **2005 | **Total  | **In   |
| type**       | CAFO   | % change,    | CAFO   | CAFOs    | dustry |
|              | univ   | 2003-2005**  | u      | de       | Growth |
|              | erse** |              | nivers | signated | for    |
|              |        |              | e^1^** | for ICR  | ICR    |
|              |        |              |        | per      | p      |
|              |        |              |        | iod^2^** | eriod^ |
|              |        |              |        |          | 2,3^** |
+--------------+--------+--------------+--------+----------+--------+
| Large CAFOs  |        |              |        |          |        |
+--------------+--------+--------------+--------+----------+--------+
| Beef         | 1,766  | 2%           | 1,801  | 9        | 61     |
+--------------+--------+--------------+--------+----------+--------+
| Veal         | 12     | 0%           | 12     | 0        | 0      |
+--------------+--------+--------------+--------+----------+--------+
| Heifer       | 242    | 2%           | 247    | 3        | 16     |
+--------------+--------+--------------+--------+----------+--------+
| Dairy        | 1,450  | 13%          | 1,639  | 18       | 857    |
+--------------+--------+--------------+--------+----------+--------+
| Swine        | 3,924  | 41%          | 5,533  | 30       | 5,566  |
+--------------+--------+--------------+--------+----------+--------+
| Broilers     | 1,632  | 32%          | 2,154  | 30       | 1,580  |
+--------------+--------+--------------+--------+----------+--------+
| Layers: Dry  | 729    | 2%           | 744    | 0        | 23     |
+--------------+--------+--------------+--------+----------+--------+
| Layers: Wet  | 383    | 0%           | 375    | 0        | 0      |
+--------------+--------+--------------+--------+----------+--------+
| Ducks        | 21     | 21%          | 25     | 0        | 11     |
+--------------+--------+--------------+--------+----------+--------+
| Horses       | 195    | 10%          | 215    | 0        | 34     |
+--------------+--------+--------------+--------+----------+--------+
| Turkeys      | 388    | 7%           | 415    | 6        | 50     |
+--------------+--------+--------------+--------+----------+--------+
| TOTAL Large  | 10,742 |              | 13,160 | 96       |        |
| CAFOs        |        |              |        |          |        |
+--------------+--------+--------------+--------+----------+--------+
| Medium       | 4,625  | 22%          | 5,641  |          |        |
| CAFOs**^4^** |        |              |        |          |        |
+--------------+--------+--------------+--------+----------+--------+
| TOTAL        | 15,367 |              | 18,801 | 96       | 8,198  |
+--------------+--------+--------------+--------+----------+--------+
| 1\.          |        |              |        |          |        |
| Projection   |        |              |        |          |        |
| based on     |        |              |        |          |        |
| NAHMS        |        |              |        |          |        |
| species      |        |              |        |          |        |
| reports,     |        |              |        |          |        |
| 2003         |        |              |        |          |        |
| Demographics |        |              |        |          |        |
| Report, and  |        |              |        |          |        |
| 2002 Census  |        |              |        |          |        |
| of           |        |              |        |          |        |
| Agriculture  |        |              |        |          |        |
| changes from |        |              |        |          |        |
| 1997 Census. |        |              |        |          |        |
| (This        |        |              |        |          |        |
| reflects the |        |              |        |          |        |
| percent      |        |              |        |          |        |
| increase in  |        |              |        |          |        |
| column 2     |        |              |        |          |        |
| times the    |        |              |        |          |        |
| number of    |        |              |        |          |        |
| CAFOs in     |        |              |        |          |        |
| column 1)    |        |              |        |          |        |
|              |        |              |        |          |        |
| 2\. The      |        |              |        |          |        |
| number of    |        |              |        |          |        |
| designated   |        |              |        |          |        |
| and new      |        |              |        |          |        |
| CAFOs are    |        |              |        |          |        |
| the total    |        |              |        |          |        |
| facilities   |        |              |        |          |        |
| for the      |        |              |        |          |        |
| 3-year ICR   |        |              |        |          |        |
| period.      |        |              |        |          |        |
|              |        |              |        |          |        |
| 3\. Industry |        |              |        |          |        |
| growth is    |        |              |        |          |        |
| for large    |        |              |        |          |        |
| and medium   |        |              |        |          |        |
| CAFOs.       |        |              |        |          |        |
|              |        |              |        |          |        |
| 4\.          |        |              |        |          |        |
| Medium-sized |        |              |        |          |        |
| CAFOs,       |        |              |        |          |        |
| because of   |        |              |        |          |        |
| how they are |        |              |        |          |        |
| defined,     |        |              |        |          |        |
| will still   |        |              |        |          |        |
| need         |        |              |        |          |        |
| permits.     |        |              |        |          |        |
|              |        |              |        |          |        |
| Source:      |        |              |        |          |        |
|              |        |              |        |          |        |
| EPA (2002).  |        |              |        |          |        |
| Estimates of |        |              |        |          |        |
| CAFO         |        |              |        |          |        |
| Universe EPA |        |              |        |          |        |
| ICR No.      |        |              |        |          |        |
| 1989.02.     |        |              |        |          |        |
|              |        |              |        |          |        |
| New CAFOs    |        |              |        |          |        |
| per year     |        |              |        |          |        |
| estimates    |        |              |        |          |        |
| are based on |        |              |        |          |        |
| Paul         |        |              |        |          |        |
| Shriner\'s   |        |              |        |          |        |
| (EPA, OST)   |        |              |        |          |        |
| July 24,     |        |              |        |          |        |
| 2000 Memo to |        |              |        |          |        |
| ad           |        |              |        |          |        |
| ministrative |        |              |        |          |        |
| record for   |        |              |        |          |        |
| the CAFO     |        |              |        |          |        |
| rule         |        |              |        |          |        |
+--------------+--------+--------------+--------+----------+--------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc135715507 .anchor}

## 4b. Information Requested 

### 4b(i). Data Items, Including Record Keeping Requirements

***CAFO Data Items***

**CAFO Application for NPDES Permit**. In accordance with the 2003 rule,
each CAFO operator has a duty to apply for an NPDES permit by preparing
and submitting either an application for an individual NPDES permit for
CAFOs under 40 CFR 122.21 or an NOI for coverage under a general NPDES
permit for CAFOs under 40 CFR 122.28.

The individual permit application for CAFOs comprises two standard NPDES
forms: Forms 1 and 2B. On Form 1, applicants provide basic information
necessary for all EPA permit programs, including name, address, type of
facility, and number of outfalls. Applicants must also submit
topographic maps and lists of all EPA and State permits presently held.
Form 2B requires applicants to provide the following types of
information:

-   the name of the owner or operator \[40 CFR 122.21(i)(1)(i)\]

-   the facility location and mailing addresses \[40 CFR
    122.21(i)(1)(ii)\]

-   latitude and longitude of the production area (entrance to
    production area) \[40 CFR 122.21(i)(1)(iii)\]

-   a topographic map of the geographic area in which the CAFO is
    located showing the specific location of the production area in lieu
    of the requirements of 40 CFR 122.21(f)(7) \[40 C.F.R
    122.21(i)(1)(iv)\]

-   specific information about the number and type of animals, whether
    in open confinement or housed under roof (beef cattle, broilers,
    layers, swine weighing 55 pounds or more, swine weighing less than
    55 pounds, mature dairy cows, dairy heifers, veal calves, sheep and
    lambs, horses, ducks, turkeys, other) \[40 CFR 122.21(i)(1)(v)\]

-   the type of containment (anaerobic lagoon, roofed storage shed,
    storage ponds, underfloor pits, above ground storage tanks, below
    ground storage tanks, concrete pad, impervious soil pad, other) and
    total capacity for manure, litter, and process wastewater storage
    (tons/gallons) \[40 CFR 122.21(i)(1)(vi)\]

-   the total number of acres under control of the applicant available
    for land application of manure, litter, and process wastewater \[40
    CFR 122.21(i)(1)(vii)\]

-   estimated amount of manure, litter, and process wastewater generated
    per year (tons/gallons) \[40 CFR 122.21(i)(1)(viii)\]

-   estimated amount of manure, litter, and process wastewater
    transferred to other persons per year (tons/gallons) \[40 CFR
    122.21(i)(1)(ix)\]

-   for CAFOs that must seek coverage under a permit after December 31,
    2006, certification that a nutrient management plan has been
    completed and will be implemented upon the date of permit coverage
    \[40 CFR 122.21(i)(1)(x)\].

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

    **No Potential to Discharge Requests.**[^6] The 2003 NPDES CAFO
    regulation provides that in lieu of requesting permit coverage, an
    operation can request a determination of "no potential to
    discharge." To do this, the CAFO owner or operator must submit any
    information that would support such a determination, within the time
    frame provided by the permit authority and in accordance with
    paragraphs 40 CFR 122.23(g). The request must include all of the
    information specified in 40 CFR 122.21(f) and (i)(1)(i) through (ix)
    (listed above under CAFO Application for NPDES Permit). The
    permitting authority has discretion to require additional
    information to supplement the request, and may also gather
    additional information through inspection of the CAFO \[40 CFR
    122.23(f)(2)\].

    EPA believes that the standard to qualify for this exemption is high
    and relatively few, if any, CAFOs would make the request. Therefore,
    for the purpose of estimating ICR burdens, EPA assumes that all
    CAFOs apply for permits.

    **Requirement to Develop and Implement a Nutrient Management Plan**.
    The NMP was first required by the 2003 CAFO rule. At a minimum, an
    NMP must include best management practices and procedures necessary
    to implement applicable effluent limitations and standards \[40 CFR
    122.42(e)(1)\]. As specified in the 2003 rule, permitted CAFOs must
    have their nutrient management plans developed and implemented by
    December 31, 2006; CAFOs that seek to obtain coverage under a permit
    after December 31, 2006, must have a nutrient management plan
    developed and implemented upon the date of permit coverage[^7] \[40
    CFR 122.42(e)(1)\]. The nutrient management plan must, to the extent
    applicable:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ensure adequate storage of manure and process wastewater, including
    procedures to ensure proper operation and maintenance of the storage
    facilities \[40 CFR 122.42(e)(1)(i)\]

-   ensure proper management of mortalities (i.e., dead animals) to
    ensure that they are not disposed of in any liquid manure, storm
    water, or process wastewater storage or treatment system that is not
    specifically designed to treat animal mortalities \[40 CFR
    122.42(e)(1)(ii)\]

-   ensure that clean water is diverted, as appropriate, from the
    production area \[40 CFR 122.42(e)(1)(iii)\]

-   prevent direct contact of confined animals with waters of the United
    States \[40 CFR 122.42(e)(1)(iv)\]

-   ensure that chemicals and other contaminants handled on-site are not
    disposed of in any manure, litter, process wastewater, or storm
    water storage or treatment system unless specifically designed to
    treat such chemicals and other contaminants \[40 CFR
    122.42(e)(1)(v)\]

-   identify appropriate site specific conservation practices to be
    implemented, including as appropriate buffers or equivalent
    practices, to control runoff of pollutants to waters of the United
    States \[40 CFR 122.42(e)(1)(vi)\]

-   identify protocols for appropriate testing of manure, litter,
    process wastewater, and soil \[40 CFR 122.42(e)(1)(vii)\]

-   establish protocols to land apply manure, litter, or process
    wastewater in accordance with site specific nutrient management
    practices that ensure appropriate agricultural utilization of the
    nutrients in the manure, litter, or process wastewater \[40 CFR
    122.42(e)(1)(viii)\]

-   identify specific records that will be maintained to document the
    implementation and management of the minimum elements described
    above \[40 CFR 122.42(e)(1)(ix)\].

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

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   all applicable records identified pursuant to 40 CFR
    122.42(e)(1)(ix) \[40 CFR 122.42(e)(2)(i)(A)\]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   all CAFOs subject to 40 CFR Part 412 must comply with record keeping
    requirements as specified in 40 CFR 412.37(b) and (c), and 40 CFR
    412.47(b) and (c) \[40 CFR 122.42(e)(2)(i)(B)\], which are listed
    below:

    (Note: Although all citations below are to 40 CFR 412.37, 40 CFR
    412.47(b) applies all 40 CFR 412.37(b) conditions for CAFOs subject
    to Subpart C to CAFOs subject to Subpart D and 40 CFR 412.47(c)
    applies all 40 CFR 412.37(c) conditions for CAFOs subject to Subpart
    C to CAFOs subject to Subpart D.)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   each CAFO must maintain on-site for a period of five years from the
    date they are created a complete copy of the information required by
    40 CFR 122.21(i)(1) and 40 CFR 122.42(e)(1)(ix) and the records
    specified in 40 CFR 412.37(b)(1) through (b)(6) \[40 CFR
    412.37(b)\], which are listed below:

    -   records documenting the inspections required under 40 CFR
        412.37(a)(1) \[40 CFR 412.37(b)(1)\]

    -   weekly records of the depth of the manure and process wastewater
        in the liquid impoundment as indicated by the depth marker under
        40 CFR 412.37(a)(2) \[40 CFR 412.37(b)(2)\]

    -   records documenting any actions taken to correct deficiencies
        required under 40 CFR 412.37(a)(3); deficiencies not corrected
        within 30 days must be accompanied by an explanation of the
        factors preventing immediate correction \[40 CFR 412.37(b)(3)\]

    -   records of mortalities management and practices used by the CAFO
        to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 412.37(a)(4) \[40 CFR
        412.37(b)(4)\]

    -   records documenting the current design of any manure or litter
        storage structures, including volume for solids accumulation,
        design treatment volume, total design volume, and approximate
        number of days of storage capacity \[40 CFR 412.37(b)(5)\]

    -   records of the date, time, and estimated volume of any overflow
        \[40 CFR 412.37(b)(6)\]

-   each CAFO must maintain on-site a copy of its site-specific nutrient
    management plan; each CAFO must maintain on-site for a period of
    five years from the date it is created a complete copy of the
    information required by 40 CFR 412.4 and 40 CFR 122.42(e)(1)(ix) and
    the records specified in 40 CFR 412.37(c)(1) through (c)(10) \[40
    CFR 412.37(c)\], which are listed below:

    -   expected crop yields \[40 CFR 412.37(c)(1)\]

    -   the date(s) manure, litter, or process waste water is applied to
        each field \[40 CFR 412.37(c)(2)\]

    -   weather conditions at time of application and for 24 hours prior
        to and following application \[40 CFR 412.37(c)(3)\]

    -   test methods used to sample and analyze manure, litter, process
        waste water, and soil \[40 CFR 412.37(c)(4)\]

    -   results from manure, litter, process waste water, and soil
        sampling \[40 CFR 412.37(c)(5)\]

    -   explanation of the basis for determining manure application
        rates, as provided in the technical standards established by the
        Director \[40 CFR 412.37(c)(6)\]

    -   calculations showing the total nitrogen and phosphorus to be
        applied to each field, including sources other than manure,
        litter, or process wastewater \[40 CFR 412.37(c)(7)\]

    -   total amount of nitrogen and phosphorus actually applied to each
        field, including documentation of calculations for the total
        amount applied \[40 CFR 412.37(c)(8)\]

    -   the method used to apply the manure, litter, or process
        wastewater \[40 CFR 412.37(c)(9)\]

    -   date(s) of manure application equipment inspection \[40 CFR
        412.37(c)(10)\]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   a copy of the CAFO's site-specific NMP must be maintained on site
    and made available to the Director upon request \[40 CFR
    122.42(e)(2)(ii)\].

    **Requirements Related to Transfer of Manure or Process Wastewater
    to Other Persons**. Prior to transferring manure, litter, or process
    wastewater to other persons, Large CAFOs must provide the recipient
    of the manure, litter, or process wastewater with the most current
    nutrient analysis consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 412.
    Large CAFOs must retain for five years records of the date,
    recipient name and address, and approximate amount of manure or
    process wastewater transferred to a third party \[40 CFR
    122.42(e)(3)\].

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

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   the number and type of animals, whether in open confinement and
    housed under roof (beef cattle, broilers, layers, swine weighing 55
    pounds or more, swine weighing less than 55 pounds, mature dairy
    cows, dairy heifers, veal calves, sheep and lambs, horses, ducks,
    turkeys, other) \[40 CFR 122.42 (e)(4)(i)\]

-   estimated amount of total manure, litter, and process wastewater
    generated by the CAFO in the previous 12 months (tons/gallons) \[40
    CFR 122.42 (e)(4)(ii)\]

-   estimated amount of total manure, litter, and process wastewater
    transferred to another person by the CAFO in the previous 12 months
    (tons/gallons) \[40 CFR 122.42 (e)(4)(iii)\]

-   total number of acres for land application covered by the NMP
    developed in accordance with 40 CFR 122.43(e)(1) \[40 CFR 122.42
    (e)(4)(iv)\]

-   total number of acres under control of the CAFO that were used for
    land application of manure, litter, and process wastewater in the
    previous 12 months \[40 CFR 122.42 (e)(4)(v)\]

-   summary of all manure, litter, and process wastewater discharges
    from production areas that have occurred in the previous 12 months,
    including date, time, and approximate volume \[40 CFR 122.42
    (e)(4)(vi)\][^8]

-   a statement indicating whether the current version of the CAFO's NMP
    was developed or approved by a certified nutrient management planner
    \[40 CFR 122.42(e)(4)(vii)\].

    ***State Data Items***

    **No Potential to Discharge Determination.** According to 40 CFR
    122.23(f)(3) of the 2003 rule, the permit authority must prepare a
    preliminary determination and a statement of basis or fact sheet in
    response to requests for the no potential to discharge exemption.
    The permit authority would also need to prepare a public notice,
    respond to comments, and issue a final determination.

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

### 4b(ii). Description of Respondent Activities 

***CAFO Activities***

CAFO activities pertain mainly to preparing and submitting NPDES permit
applications and collecting and keeping information required to
demonstrate permit compliance. General startup and permit application
activities include:

-   reading and understanding the rule requirements

-   completing and submitting NOI (for general permit coverage)

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

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

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   develop and maintain on-site a nutrient management plan

-   prepare and submit annual reports

-   maintain records to document implementation of the NMP

    Additional activities required of Large CAFOs to demonstrate and
    document permit compliance include:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   collect representative manure, litter, and process wastewater
    samples

-   collect representative soil samples

-   inspect manure, litter, and/or process wastewater application
    equipment at a minimum of once per year

-   collect information for transfers of manure, litter, or process
    wastewater to other people

-   maintain production area and land application area records.

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

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

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

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   purchase of a soil auger for sampling

-   purchase of a manure sampler

-   installation of a depth marker.

    Recurring or O&M expenditures include:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   soil sample analysis

-   manure sample analysis

-   other direct costs for record keeping.

    For the purpose of this ICR, EPA assumed that no CAFOs incur burden
    to make an optional request for an exemption from permitting on the
    basis of No Potential to Discharge. The information requirements for
    this request are the same as the required application. Thus, all
    CAFOs incur permit-related burdens, which would most likely
    overstate burdens for any CAFO that makes a request. The analysis in
    this ICR also reflects the assumption that no CAFO subject to the
    discharge limitations in 40 CFR 412 Subparts C or D request a permit
    effluent limitation based on either Voluntary Alternative
    Performance Standards in 40 CFR 412.31(a)(2) or Voluntary Superior
    Environmental Performance Standards in 40 CFR 412.46(d).

    ***State Activities***

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

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   reviewing the submission for completeness

-   providing public notice of draft permits and responding to comments

-   holding public hearing(s), as necessary.

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

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   inspecting permitted CAFOs in accordance with 40 CFR 123.26(b)

-   reviewing annual reports submitted by permitted CAFOs under 40 CFR
    122.42(e)(4).

    **No Potential to Discharge Determinations.** Under the 2003 CAFO
    rule, Large CAFOs that can demonstrate that they have no potential
    to discharge determination manure or process wastewater to waters of
    the United States may request an exemption from NPDES permitting.
    The permit authority, upon request, may make a case specific
    determination that a Large CAFO has no potential to discharge. In
    making this determination, the permit authority must consider the
    potential for discharges from both the production area and any land
    application areas and any record of prior discharges by the CAFO. In
    no case may the CAFO be determined to have "no potential to
    discharge" if it has had a discharge within the 5 years prior to the
    date of the request \[40 CFR 122.23(f)(1)\].

    As noted above, EPA does not anticipate that States will incur
    burden to make such determinations and therefore assumes for this
    ICR that all CAFOs request coverage under an NPDES permit. EPA
    believes that the State burden to administer a permit would be
    higher in the long run compared to a one-time burden to make a
    determination. Thus, the burden estimates in this ICR potentially
    overstate State burden in the event an operation decides to request
    an exemption.

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

# 5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED---AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

## 5a. Agency Activities 

EPA has permitting responsibilities in the six States not authorized to
issue NPDES permits to CAFOs. In those States, the Agency's activities
would be similar to the activities described for authorized States \[see
Section 4b(ii)\].

## 5b. Collection Methodology and Management 

CAFO respondents submit the requested information to their NPDES
permitting authority. EPA manages a portion of the information collected
electronically. As under the existing NPDES program for other sectors,
respondent data pertaining to facilities permitted under the regulations
is catalogued in the automated PCS database or the new ICIS database.
The information provided on permit application forms or NOI forms is
entered into the relevant NPDES database.

## 5c. Small Entity Flexibility

Small, Medium, and Large operations are defined in Table 4-1. The 2003
CAFO rule substituted head count thresholds for animal unit thresholds
for each type of animal being regulated under the rule.

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

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc135715526 .anchor}Table 5--1. SBA and EPA Small
Business Thresholds for Animal Sectors

+---------+---------------+------------+---------------+--------------+
| **NAICS | **Animal      | **SBA      | **            | **CAFO Size  |
| code**  | sector**      | t          | Corresponding | Threshold**  |
|         |               | hreshold** | SBA animal    |              |
| **(SIC  |               |            | threshold**   | **(number of |
| code)** |               | **(revenue |               | animals)**   |
|         |               | in         | **(number of  |              |
|         |               | mill       | animals)**    |              |
|         |               | ions)^a^** |               |              |
+=========+===============+============+===============+==============+
| 112112  | Beef cattle   | \$1.5      | 1,400         | Large: \>    |
| (0211)  | feedlots      |            |               | 1,000        |
+---------+---------------+------------+---------------+--------------+
| 112111, | Dairy farms   | \$0.75     | 300^b^        | Large \> 700 |
| 112120  | and dairy     |            |               |              |
| (0241)  | heifer        |            |               | Medium \>    |
|         | replacement   |            |               | 200          |
|         | production    |            |               |              |
+---------+---------------+------------+---------------+--------------+
| 112210  | Hogs          | \$0.75     | 2,100^c^      | Large \>     |
| (0213)  |               |            |               | 2,500        |
|         |               |            |               |              |
|         |               |            |               | Medium \>    |
|         |               |            |               | 750          |
+---------+---------------+------------+---------------+--------------+
| 112310  | Chicken eggs  | \$1.5^d^   | 61,000        | Large \>     |
| (0252)  |               |            |               | 30,000       |
+---------+---------------+------------+---------------+--------------+
| 112320  | Broiler,      | \$0.75     | 375,000       | Large \>     |
| (0251)  | fryer,        |            |               | 125,000      |
|         | roaster       |            |               |              |
|         | chickens      |            |               |              |
+---------+---------------+------------+---------------+--------------+
| 112330  | Turkeys and   | \$0.75     | 37,500        | Large \>     |
| (0253)  | turkey eggs   |            |               | 55,000       |
+---------+---------------+------------+---------------+--------------+
| a\. SBA |               |            |               |              |
| thr     |               |            |               |              |
| esholds |               |            |               |              |
| ef      |               |            |               |              |
| fective |               |            |               |              |
| F       |               |            |               |              |
| ebruary |               |            |               |              |
| 22,     |               |            |               |              |
| 2002.   |               |            |               |              |
| Classif |               |            |               |              |
| ication |               |            |               |              |
| is met  |               |            |               |              |
| if the  |               |            |               |              |
| op      |               |            |               |              |
| eration |               |            |               |              |
| has     |               |            |               |              |
| revenue |               |            |               |              |
| equal   |               |            |               |              |
| to or   |               |            |               |              |
| less    |               |            |               |              |
| than    |               |            |               |              |
| the     |               |            |               |              |
| th      |               |            |               |              |
| reshold |               |            |               |              |
| cited.  |               |            |               |              |
|         |               |            |               |              |
| b\.     |               |            |               |              |
| Mature  |               |            |               |              |
| dairy   |               |            |               |              |
| cattle. |               |            |               |              |
|         |               |            |               |              |
| c\.     |               |            |               |              |
| Each    |               |            |               |              |
| w       |               |            |               |              |
| eighing |               |            |               |              |
| over 25 |               |            |               |              |
| kil     |               |            |               |              |
| ograms. |               |            |               |              |
|         |               |            |               |              |
| d\. EPA |               |            |               |              |
| co      |               |            |               |              |
| nsulted |               |            |               |              |
| with    |               |            |               |              |
| SBA on  |               |            |               |              |
| the use |               |            |               |              |
| of this |               |            |               |              |
| alte    |               |            |               |              |
| rnative |               |            |               |              |
| defi    |               |            |               |              |
| nition; |               |            |               |              |
| the     |               |            |               |              |
| o       |               |            |               |              |
| riginal |               |            |               |              |
| th      |               |            |               |              |
| reshold |               |            |               |              |
| is      |               |            |               |              |
| \$9.0   |               |            |               |              |
| m       |               |            |               |              |
| illion. |               |            |               |              |
|         |               |            |               |              |
| Note:   |               |            |               |              |
| Certain |               |            |               |              |
| animal  |               |            |               |              |
| sectors |               |            |               |              |
| (e.g.,  |               |            |               |              |
| sheep   |               |            |               |              |
| and     |               |            |               |              |
| lambs,  |               |            |               |              |
| horses, |               |            |               |              |
| and     |               |            |               |              |
| ducks)  |               |            |               |              |
| are not |               |            |               |              |
| subject |               |            |               |              |
| to ELG  |               |            |               |              |
| requir  |               |            |               |              |
| ements, |               |            |               |              |
| and EPA |               |            |               |              |
| has not |               |            |               |              |
| de      |               |            |               |              |
| veloped |               |            |               |              |
| corres  |               |            |               |              |
| ponding |               |            |               |              |
| small   |               |            |               |              |
| b       |               |            |               |              |
| usiness |               |            |               |              |
| animal  |               |            |               |              |
| thr     |               |            |               |              |
| esholds |               |            |               |              |
| for     |               |            |               |              |
| those   |               |            |               |              |
| s       |               |            |               |              |
| ectors. |               |            |               |              |
+---------+---------------+------------+---------------+--------------+

In the 2003 CAFO rule, EPA's premise is that the regulations should
focus on those operations posing the greatest risk to water quality and
public health, in particular operations with large numbers of animals.
Fewer than 6,200 of the approximately 230,000 Small and Medium AFOs
nationwide are currently affected by the 2003 CAFO rule. This approach
helps to reduce the burden of the CAFO regulations on small entities
while striving to achieve the goals of the CWA.

Furthermore, as Section 6 shows, the burden estimates for many of the
NPDES-related activities are relatively small. The 2003 CAFO rule
provides additional flexibility in that the ELG requirements apply only
to Large CAFOs. Permitting authorities, which are mainly State agencies,
will establish technology-based requirements for Small and Medium CAFOs
based on best professional judgment (BPJ). Finally, the 2003 CAFO rule
provided regulatory relief for Small and Medium CAFOs by not requiring
them to record information for off-site manure transfers.

## 5d. Collection Schedule

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

# 6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND THE COST OF THE COLLECTION

This section describes how EPA estimated CAFO respondent, State, and
Agency burden and costs for this ICR. Section 6(a) describes EPA's
estimates of respondent burden for individual CAFOs and States. Section
6(b) describes the cost estimates for individual CAFOs and States.
Section 6(c) describes the estimation of Agency burden and costs.
Section 6(d) shows the total annual burden and costs across the entire
universe of CAFOs and States affected during the ICR approval period.
Section 6(e) summarizes the overall burden and cost estimates and
provides annual averages over the three-year period.

## 6a. Estimating Respondent Burden 

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

***CAFO Burden***

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

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

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc135715527 .anchor}Table 6--1. Burden Estimates per
CAFO by Activity

+-------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
| **Activities**                            | *          | **Burden   |
|                                           | *Frequency | Hours per  |
|                                           | per CAFO** | Res        |
|                                           |            | ponse^1^** |
+===========================================+============+============+
| **Read/Understand the Rule**              | one time   | 3          |
+-------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
| **NPDES Permit Application Activities**   | every 5    | 9          |
|                                           | years      |            |
| Complete/submit Notice of Intent for      |            | 9          |
| general permit                            | every 5    |            |
|                                           | years      | 4          |
| Complete/submit individual permit         |            |            |
| application                               | every 5    |            |
|                                           | years      |            |
| Inspection                                |            |            |
+-------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
| **Data Collection, Record Keeping, and    | annual     | 1          |
| Reporting Activities**                    |            |            |
|                                           | annual     | 14         |
| Prepare and Submit Annual Report          |            |            |
|                                           |            |            |
| Record Off-site Transfers of Manure       |            |            |
| (Large CAFOs only)                        |            |            |
+-------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
| **Nutrient Management Plan**              | every 5    | 46         |
|                                           | years      |            |
| Develop/update nutrient management plan   |            |            |
+-------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
| **ELG Requirements^2^**                   | annual     | 13         |
|                                           |            |            |
| Visual Inspections                        | annual     | 4          |
|                                           |            |            |
| Inspect Manure Application Equipment      | annual     | 2          |
|                                           |            |            |
| Collect and Send Manure Sample            | every 5    | 8          |
|                                           | years      |            |
| Collect and Send Soil Sample              |            | 80         |
|                                           | annual     |            |
| Record Keeping                            |            |            |
+-------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
| 1\. A response is the completion of an    |            |            |
| activity and the duration and frequency   |            |            |
| of responses can vary. For example, each  |            |            |
| of the following is considered a          |            |            |
| response: the one-time effort to read and |            |            |
| understand the rule, submitting a permit  |            |            |
| application once every five years, or     |            |            |
| collecting ELG records throughout a year. |            |            |
| The hour estimates have been rounded to   |            |            |
| the nearest hour for presentation.        |            |            |
|                                           |            |            |
| 2\. Although Small and Medium CAFOs are   |            |            |
| not subject to the ELG requirements in 40 |            |            |
| CFR 412, EPA assumes that the ELG burdens |            |            |
| provide upper bound estimates for the     |            |            |
| burdens for Small and Medium CAFOs        |            |            |
| because many of the ELG information       |            |            |
| elements also provide documentation for   |            |            |
| the NMP and information for the annual    |            |            |
| report.                                   |            |            |
+-------------------------------------------+------------+------------+

CAFO owners or operators will perform various activities to meet data
collection and record keeping requirements. Large CAFO operators will
conduct weekly visual inspections of the waste storage and storm water
diversion facilities and daily inspections of water lines to identify
maintenance needs. EPA assumed that these inspections can be primarily
conducted in the course of every day operations and, therefore, they do
not impose a substantial incremental burden on CAFOs beyond the need to
document inspection findings. Manure application equipment must be
inspected annually and the activity documented. Soil samples must be
collected at least once every five years from all fields receiving
manure and analyzed for nutrient content. Manure samples must be
collected annually and analyzed for nutrient content. Large CAFOs must
retain manure and soil sampling results on-site. Large CAFOs must also
document other production area and land application area activities, as
noted in above Section 4(b)(i). Support documents for the 2003 CAFO rule
(EPA 2001a, b) provide the basis for estimating burdens for these
requirements, which are shown in Table 6-1.

Under the 2003 CAFO rule, the ELG requirements are applicable to Large
CAFOs; permit authorities must use BPJ to develop the effluent
limitation conditions and associated record keeping requirements for all
other CAFOs. For the purpose of estimating the cost of the 2003 CAFO
rule, EPA assumed that the ELG record keeping and reporting requirements
for Small and Medium CAFOs would be comparable to those specified for
Large CAFOs. Thus, EPA applied these ELG burdens to all CAFOs in its
social cost analysis. EPA has retained this approach for estimating the
ELG burden in this ICR. As with Large CAFOs under the ELG, Small and
Medium CAFOs are required to identify and maintain records to document
their NMP implementation, and the types of records required by 40 CFR
412 Subparts C and D can provide such documentation. Furthermore, many
of these records will also assist preparation of annual reports,
resulting in a minimal burden for that activity.

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

Large CAFOs that transfer manure, litter, and process wastewater to
another party also need to collect the following information for each
transfer: the date of transfer, the recipient's name and address, and
the quantity transferred. They will also need to provide the recipient
with nutrient content information. Based on a national estimate of
excess manure at Large CAFOs of 181 million tons and an average transfer
amount of 100 tons, EPA estimated an average of 169 transfers per year
per Large CAFO (181 million ÷ 100 ÷ 10,700 CAFOs). EPA also estimated
that recording the information required for each transfer requires 5
minutes. The resulting average burden per CAFO is 14 hours.

All CAFOs prepare and submit an annual report to the permitting
authority. The report provides an annual update to several data items
contained in the permit application forms as well as a summary of any
production area discharges. Many CAFO operators or owners will be able
to copy information directly from the application form or their records
to their report. EPA assumes that the annual report will require only
one hour to complete and submit, on average.

This ICR also incorporates the potential burden to CAFO owners or
operators of participating in on-site inspections conducted by the
permit authority. As noted in the State burden section below, EPA
assumes that inspectors spend an average of four hours per on-site
inspection activities. During this time, the inspector may want to
review records and inspect waste management and land application
equipment. It is likely that the CAFO operator or owner will incur some
burden during the inspection to make records available and show the
facility to the inspector. EPA assumes a matching average burden to
CAFOs of four hours per inspection.

***State Burden***

The 44 authorized States will incur burden to issue permits and track
and report permit compliance. Table 6-2 provides a summary of the burden
estimates described below. For its analysis for the active CAFOs NPDES
ICR, EPA obtained labor burden estimates that it has used in previous
NPDES-related cost and burden analyses, and asked State agency and EPA
Regional staff to evaluate whether those estimates were representative
of the CAFO rule information collection burden. EPA also considered
comments provided on the proposed rule and notice of data availability
(NODA) that addressed the issue of State burdens.

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

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

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

-   request public comment prior to issuing a permit

-   conduct public hearings, as needed.

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

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

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

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

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

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc135715528 .anchor}Table 6--2. Burden Estimates for
an Authorized State by Activity

+--------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| **Activities**                       | **Frequency   | **Burden      |
|                                      | per State**   | Hours per     |
|                                      |               | Response^1^** |
+--------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| **State General NPDES Permit         | per CAFO      | 4             |
| Application Activities**             |               |               |
|                                      | per Permit    | 420           |
| Review and Approve NOIs/ Record      |               |               |
| Keeping                              | per CAFO      | 5             |
|                                      |               |               |
| Public Hearings^2^                   |               |               |
|                                      |               |               |
| Notify Public, Respond to Comments   |               |               |
+--------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| **State Individual Permit            | per CAFO      | 100           |
| Application Activities**             |               |               |
|                                      | per CAFO      | 200           |
| Review and Approve Permits/ Record   |               |               |
| Keeping                              | per CAFO      | 5             |
|                                      |               |               |
| Public Hearings^3^                   |               |               |
|                                      |               |               |
| Notify Public, Respond to Comments   |               |               |
+--------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| **State Annual Permit Reporting      | per CAFO      | 16            |
| Activities**                         |               |               |
|                                      | per CAFO      | 4             |
| Facility Inspection                  |               |               |
|                                      |               |               |
| Annual Report Review                 |               |               |
+--------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| 1\. A response is the completion of  |               |               |
| an activity and the duration and     |               |               |
| frequency of responses can vary. For |               |               |
| example, each of the following is    |               |               |
| considered a response: the one-time  |               |               |
| effort to request NPDES program      |               |               |
| modification, reviewing permit       |               |               |
| applications, and annual NOI         |               |               |
| publications.                        |               |               |
|                                      |               |               |
| 2\. EPA Assumed that all general     |               |               |
| permits would require a public       |               |               |
| hearing                              |               |               |
|                                      |               |               |
| 3\. EPA Assumed that 12% of          |               |               |
| individual permits would require a   |               |               |
| public hearing. EPA also assumed     |               |               |
| that if a public hearing was         |               |               |
| required, the labor burden for the   |               |               |
| permitting authority would total to  |               |               |
| 200 hours. This is the same figure   |               |               |
| as was used in the 2003 ICR; recent  |               |               |
| information from EPA Regions         |               |               |
| confirms this figure as being an     |               |               |
| accurate estimate.                   |               |               |
+--------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+

## 6b. Estimating Respondent Costs

This section describes how EPA derived the cost per respondent for each
of the activities described above.

### 6b(i). Estimating Labor Costs

***CAFO Labor Costs***

To obtain cost estimates at the CAFO level, EPA multiplied the burdens
reported in Table 6-1 by the appropriate wage rates in Table 6--3.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc135715529 .anchor}Table 6--3. Wage rates used to
value CAFO-related burdens

+--------------+--------+---------------------+-------------+---------+
| **Labor      | **Or   | **Source**          | **C         | *       |
| category**   | iginal |                     | onversion** | *Hourly |
|              | rate** |                     |             | rate**  |
|              |        |                     |             |         |
|              |        |                     |             | **(\$   |
|              |        |                     |             | 2005)** |
+--------------+--------+---------------------+-------------+---------+
| Farm         | \$18   | BLS: 45-1011        | 2004 to     | \$28.48 |
| Op           | .50/hr | First-Line          | 2005        |         |
| erator/Owner |        | S                   |             |         |
|              |        | upervisors/Managers | 1.5         |         |
|              |        | of Farming,         | benefits    |         |
|              |        | Fishing, and        | multiplier  |         |
|              |        | Forestry Workers    |             |         |
+--------------+--------+---------------------+-------------+---------+
| Farm Laborer | \$9    | BLS: 45-2093        | 2004 to     | \$13.96 |
|              | .07/hr | Farmworkers, Farm   | 2005        |         |
|              |        | and Ranch Animals   |             |         |
|              |        |                     | 1.5         |         |
|              |        |                     | benefits    |         |
|              |        |                     | multiplier  |         |
+--------------+--------+---------------------+-------------+---------+
| A            | \      | BLS: 19-1013 Soil   | 2004 to     | \$41.06 |
| gronomist^2^ | $26.67 | and Plant           | 2005        |         |
|              |        | Scientists          |             |         |
|              |        |                     | 1.5         |         |
|              |        |                     | benefits    |         |
|              |        |                     | multiplier  |         |
+--------------+--------+---------------------+-------------+---------+
| Note:        |        |                     |             |         |
| Original     |        |                     |             |         |
| rates are    |        |                     |             |         |
| from the May |        |                     |             |         |
| 2004         |        |                     |             |         |
| National     |        |                     |             |         |
| Indus        |        |                     |             |         |
| try-Specific |        |                     |             |         |
| Occupational |        |                     |             |         |
| Employment   |        |                     |             |         |
| and Wage     |        |                     |             |         |
| Estimates    |        |                     |             |         |
| from the     |        |                     |             |         |
| Bureau of    |        |                     |             |         |
| Labor        |        |                     |             |         |
| Statistics.  |        |                     |             |         |
| EPA adjusted |        |                     |             |         |
| the wage to  |        |                     |             |         |
| 2005 dollars |        |                     |             |         |
| using the    |        |                     |             |         |
| Employer     |        |                     |             |         |
| Costs for    |        |                     |             |         |
| Employee     |        |                     |             |         |
| Compensation |        |                     |             |         |
| Index values |        |                     |             |         |
| for the      |        |                     |             |         |
| first        |        |                     |             |         |
| quarter of   |        |                     |             |         |
| 2004 (16.71) |        |                     |             |         |
| and the      |        |                     |             |         |
| first        |        |                     |             |         |
| quarter of   |        |                     |             |         |
| 2005 (17.15) |        |                     |             |         |
| and a fringe |        |                     |             |         |
| rate of 50   |        |                     |             |         |
| percent.     |        |                     |             |         |
+--------------+--------+---------------------+-------------+---------+

> ***State Labor Costs***

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

### 6b(ii). Estimating Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs

***CAFO Capital and O&M Costs***

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

Capital costs relevant to this ICR include purchasing a soil auger to
collect soil samples and a manure sampler. CAFOs will also need to
install depth markers in their lagoons. All operations will need to
develop the NMP elements that pertain to the production area, including
performing an engineering analysis of the waste storage volume
requirements needed to comply with the 2003 CAFO rule. This burden will
occur the first time a facility requests coverage under the revised
regulations and should not need to be updated unless the operation
undergoes a significant change in operation.

To incorporate capital expenditures in EPA's estimate of annual burden,
all capital costs have been amortized over a 10-year period assuming a 7
percent interest rate. This is the same amortization schedule used to
estimate annualized costs for the economic analysis of the 2003 rule
(EPA 2002a).

A facility incurs O&M costs when it regularly uses services, materials,
or supplies needed to comply with the rule\'s reporting and record
keeping requirements that the facility will not use otherwise. Any cost
for the operation and upkeep of capital equipment is considered O&M
costs. For the 2003 CAFO rule, O&M costs include laboratory analysis of
soil and manure and a general record keeping cost. All costs were based
on the cost analysis for the final rule and are documented in EPA
(2001a, b).

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

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc135715530 .anchor}Table 6--4. Capital and O&M Cost
per CAFO (2005 dollars)

+-------------------------------------+-----------------+--------------+
| **Activities**                      | **Frequency per | **Cost       |
|                                     | CAFO**          | (\$)**       |
+-------------------------------------+-----------------+--------------+
| **Capital Costs^1,2^**              | one time        | \$4.13       |
|                                     |                 |              |
| Purchase of a Soil Auger for        | one time        | \$146.47     |
| Sampling                            |                 |              |
|                                     | one time        | \$4.98       |
| Cost for Production Area portion    |                 |              |
| NMP                                 | one time        | \$4.98       |
|                                     |                 |              |
| Purchase of a Manure Sampler        |                 |              |
|                                     |                 |              |
| Installation of Depth Markers       |                 |              |
+-------------------------------------+-----------------+--------------+
| **O&M Costs**^1^                    | every 5 years   | \$90         |
|                                     |                 |              |
| Lab analysis of soil sample         | annual          | \$127        |
|                                     |                 |              |
| Lab analysis of manure sample       | annual          | \$112        |
|                                     |                 |              |
| Other direct costs for record       |                 |              |
| keeping                             |                 |              |
+-------------------------------------+-----------------+--------------+
| 1\. Costs are taken from the active |                 |              |
| CAFOS NPDES ICR (OMB No.            |                 |              |
| 2040--0250, EPA ICR No. 1989.02).   |                 |              |
| These estimates have been escalated |                 |              |
| to 2005 dollars using a CPI.        |                 |              |
|                                     |                 |              |
| 2\. All capital costs are reported  |                 |              |
| as total costs. They are amortized  |                 |              |
| over 10 years at a 7% discount rate |                 |              |
| for use in the analysis.            |                 |              |
+-------------------------------------+-----------------+--------------+

***State O&M Costs***

States will incur publication costs to issue public notices for general
permits and for each individual permit. For purposes of presenting a
complete accounting of burden impacts, these non-labor recurring costs
are tabulated as O&M costs. EPA assumed that States would publish four
notices per year for NOIs under general permits and one notice per
individual permit. In the event an individual permit requires a public
hearing, a public notice is also required. The publication cost per
public notice is \$1,060, which is based on the assumption that notices
will be placed in four publications at an average cost of \$265 (EPA
2002a).

## 6c. Estimating Agency Burden and Cost 

EPA is responsible for writing NPDES permits for CAFOs in six States
(Alaska, Idaho, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Oklahoma).
Based on CAFO data, EPA estimated that CAFOs in these States represent
3.4 percent of the total number of CAFOs (Kellogg et al., 2000). In
these instances, EPA is responsible for the activities and associated
burdens and costs that would otherwise be incurred by a State. The
permitting burden estimates for EPA, shown in Table 6-5, are the same as
State burdens.

EPA used an hourly wage rate for a GS-12, Step One Federal employee to
estimate the cost of the Agency staff. The U.S. Office of Personnel
Management 2005 General Schedule reported an hourly rate of \$25.98 for
this pay grade. Multiplying this rate by 1.6 to incorporate typical
Federal benefits (OPM, 1999), EPA obtained a final hourly rate of
\$41.57.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc135715531 .anchor}Table 6--5. EPA Burden Estimates
by Activity

+---------------------------------------+--------------+---------------+
| **Activities**                        | **Frequency  | **Burden      |
|                                       | per State**  | Hours per     |
|                                       |              | Response^1^** |
+---------------------------------------+--------------+---------------+
| **Federal General NPDES Permit        | per CAFO     | 4             |
| Application Activities**              |              |               |
|                                       | per CAFO     | 420           |
| Review and Approve NOIs/ Record       |              |               |
| Keeping                               | per CAFO     | 5             |
|                                       |              |               |
| Public Hearings^2^                    |              |               |
|                                       |              |               |
| Notify Public, Respond to Comments    |              |               |
+---------------------------------------+--------------+---------------+
| **Federal Individual Permit           | per CAFO     | 100           |
| Application Activities**              |              |               |
|                                       | per CAFO     | 200           |
| Review and Approve Permits/ Record    |              |               |
| Keeping                               | per CAFO     | 5             |
|                                       |              |               |
| Public Hearings^3^                    |              |               |
|                                       |              |               |
| Notify Public, Respond to Comments    |              |               |
+---------------------------------------+--------------+---------------+
| **Federal Annual Permit Reporting     | per CAFO     | 16            |
| Activities**                          |              |               |
|                                       | per CAFO     | 4             |
| Facility Inspection                   |              |               |
|                                       |              |               |
| Annual Report Review                  |              |               |
+---------------------------------------+--------------+---------------+
| 1\. A response is the completion of   |              |               |
| an activity and the duration and      |              |               |
| frequency of responses can vary. For  |              |               |
| example, each of the following is     |              |               |
| considered a response: the one-time   |              |               |
| effort to request NPDES program       |              |               |
| modification, reviewing permit        |              |               |
| applications, and annual NOI          |              |               |
| publications.                         |              |               |
|                                       |              |               |
| 2\. EPA assumed that all general      |              |               |
| permits would require a public        |              |               |
| hearing                               |              |               |
|                                       |              |               |
| 3\. EPA assumed that 12% of           |              |               |
| individual permits would require a    |              |               |
| public hearing                        |              |               |
+---------------------------------------+--------------+---------------+

## 6d. Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs 

EPA's estimate of total burden and costs is the product of the burden
and cost estimates per activity or response, provided above, and the
number of CAFOs or States expected to perform specific activities each
year. Exhibits A.4 and A.5 in the Appendix show the number of CAFO and
State respondents and responses, respectively, on an annual basis for
the three years of this ICR. Exhibits A.6 and A.7 in the Appendix report
the associated annual burden estimates and annual costs, respectively.

In addition to estimating the fraction of CAFOs in authorized States,
EPA developed assumptions to estimate the ratio of general to individual
permits as well as the number of individual permits requiring hearings.
For the active CAFOS NPDES ICR (OMB No. 2040--0250, EPA ICR No. 1989.02)
EPA assumed that 30 percent of CAFOs apply for an individual NPDES
permit and 70 percent submit an NOI for coverage under a general permit.
EPA chose this more conservative estimate because only 22 of the 43
authorized States at the time had general permits for CAFOs. This ICR
retains this ratio in view of the fact that several States issue only
individual permits as of the start of the ICR reporting period. In
addition, several States continue to require individual permits for
certain categories of CAFOs based, for example, on size or location.

## 6e. Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs Tables

This section provides a description of bottom line burden and cost
estimates for this ICR. Table 6--6 provides a summary of the average
annual number of respondents, burden hours, and costs for CAFO and State
respondents. Detailed information can be found in the Appendix.

### 6e(i). CAFO Respondents and State Respondents

The bottom line burden hours and costs shown in Table 6--6 reflect the
average annual burden hours and costs for all ICR-related activities
performed by respondents during the ICR renewal period 2006-2009.

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

The State burden and cost estimates in Table 6--7 can be used to
calculate mean burden and cost per State; actual burdens and costs will
vary with the number of CAFOs in each State. There are 44 States that
will incur the burden and costs described above. Dividing the annual
average burden of 0.45 million hours for all States by 44 gives an
average per State burden of approximately 10,300 hours. The average
annual cost per State is \$0.39 million for labor, and \$0.45 million
when O&M costs are included.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc135715532 .anchor}Table 6--6. Summary of Average
Annual CAFO and State Respondents, Burden Hours, and Costs for the ICR
Approval Period (Costs in millions \$2005)

  ---------------- ----------------- --------------- ------------ --------- ----------- --------- ---------
  **Respondent**   **Respondents**   **Responses**   **Burden     **Labor   **Capital   **O & M   **Total
                                                     (million     Costs**   Costs**     Costs**   Costs**
                                                     hours)**                                     

  CAFOs            24,036            155,754         3.04         \$52.28   \$0.44      \$6.07    \$58.79

  States           44                40,699          0.45         \$17.26   \$0.00      \$2.61    \$19.88

  Total            24,080            196,453         3.50         \$69.54   \$0.44      \$8.68    \$78.66

  Note: Detail may                                                                                
  not add to                                                                                      
  totals because                                                                                  
  of independent                                                                                  
  rounding.                                                                                       
  ---------------- ----------------- --------------- ------------ --------- ----------- --------- ---------

### 6e(ii). Bottom Line Agency Burden and Cost

Under the 2003 CAFO rule, the average annual burden for EPA is estimated
to be approximately 16,345 hours and the average annual cost will be
\$0.89 million.

## 6f. Burden Statement

EPA estimates that the total average annual public burden for this
information collection request would be 3.50 million hours, including
0.45 million hours for State respondents and 3.04 million hours for all
CAFO respondents covered by this ICR. This estimate includes the time
required to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather
and maintain all necessary data, and complete and review the information
collection. The annual average estimate of 24,080 respondents includes
44 States and 24,036 CAFO respondents. The annual average number of
responses is 196,453, which includes 40,699 State responses and 155,754
CAFO responses. Average annual capital costs are \$0.44 million and O&M
costs are \$8.68 million.

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

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0136, which is available for online viewing at
www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue,
NW, Washington, D.C. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744,
and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426. An
electronic version of the public docket is available at
www.regulations.gov. This site can be used to submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket,
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically. When in the system, select \"search,\" then key in the
Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk
Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0136 and OMB Control Number 2040-0250 in any
correspondence.

# References

Kellogg, R.L., C.H. Lander, D.C. Moffitt, and N. Gollehon. 2000. *Manure
Nutrients Relative to the Capacity of Cropland and Pastureland to
Assimilate Nutrients: Spatial and Temporal Trends for the United
States*. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, Economic Research Service, Washington, D.C.
\[http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/pubs/manntr.pdf\])

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). October 14, 2005. *Memo to
Record: Estimated Number of Permit Applications from CAFOs.* U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Standards and Technology,
Washington, D.C.

This page intentionally left blank.

# Appendix

This page intentionally left blank.

[^1]: Nonfederal regulatory agencies may impose additional information
    collection requirements on regulated point sources. Because those
    collections exceed the federal requirement, the burdens incurred are
    not included in the estimate of burdens to meet federal information
    collection needs.

[^2]: EPA retains authority for NPDES permits for CAFO facilities in
    Oklahoma; thus, only 44 States are authorized to issue permits to
    CAFOs. EPA is not aware of any CAFOs in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

[^3]: As noted above in section 1b., EPA is preparing a separate ICR
    that will assess how the Waterkeeper court decision will affect the
    number of facilities that need permits, how NMPs are processed, and
    how the related information collection burden will change.

[^4]: Fn. 3, ibid.

[^5]: Fn. 3, ibid.

[^6]: Fn. 3, ibid.

[^7]: The Waterkeeper court decision is necessitating changes to the
    dates for permitting and permit-related activities. These changes
    are not assessed in this ICR. Although EPA has modified some of
    these dates already, those changes are driven by the Waterkeeper
    decision, and the related ICR impacts are being assessed, as noted
    above, in a separate ICR.

[^8]: Discharges that could result in significant impacts to the
    environment or human health must still be reported at the time of
    the discharge event in a noncompliance report. Since timely
    reporting is essential in these instances, separate regulations have
    been established in 40 CFR 122.41 for the reporting of bypasses or
    upsets. Burden and costs for this type of noncompliance reporting
    have been analyzed in the ICR for the National Pollutant Discharge
    Elimination System (NPDES)/Compliance Assessment/Certification
    Information (ICR No. 1427.06).