## ** Draft  Information Collection Request for**  **National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sy** **stem (NPDES) Permits for Point Source Discharges from the**  **Ap plication of Pesticides**  **to Waters of the United States OMB Control No. 2040**  **- 0284**  **, EPA ICR No. 2397.0**  **2**

June 25 , 201 4

United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Wastewater Management 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460ii



## Contents 1. Identification of the Information Collection ................................ ................................ ............... 1 1(a) Title of the Information Collection ................................ ................................ ...................... 1 1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract ................................ ................................ .......................... 1 2. Need For and Use of the Collection ................................ ................................ ............................ 2 2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection ................................ ................................ ....................... 2 2(b) Practical Utility

/Users of the Data ................................ ................................ ...................... 4 3. Non - duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria ................................ .................. 6 3(a) Non - duplication ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 6 3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submissions to OMB ................................ ............... 6 3(c) Consultations ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 7 3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection ................................ ................................ .................... 7 3(e) General Guidelines ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 7 3(f) Confidentiality ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 8 3(g) Sen sitive Questions ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 8 4. The Respondents and the Information Requested ................................ ................................ ...... 9 4(a) Respondents/Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes ................................ ............. 9 4(b) Information Requested ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 9 4(b)(i) Obtaining Permit Coverage ................................ ................................ ......................... 9 4(b)(ii) Plan Development ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 11 4(b)(iii) Monitoring ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 11 4(b)(iv) Reporting ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 12 4(b)(v) Re cordkeeping ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 16 5. The Information Collected

— Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 18 5(a) Agency

Activities ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 18 5(b) Collection Methodology and Management ................................ ................................ ....... 19 5(c) Small Entity

Flexibility ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 20 5(d) Collection Schedule ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 20 6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection ................................ ................................ .... 21 6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden ................................ ................................ ......................... 21 6(a)(i) Obtaining Permit Coverage ................................ ................................ ....................... 21 6(a)(ii) Plan Development ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 22 6(a)(iii) Monitoring ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 22 6(a)(iv) Reporting ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 23 6(a)(v) Record Keeping ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 24 6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs ................................ ................................ ............................ 25 6(b)(i) Estimating Labor Costs ................................ ................................ ............................. 25 6(b)(ii) Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs ................................ .............................. 26 6(b)(iii) Capital/Start -up Costs ................................ ................................ ............................. 26 6(c) Estimating Agency

Burden and Cost ................................ ................................ ................ 26 6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs ................................ ... 27 6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables ................................ ................................ .... 27 6(e)(i) Respondent Tall y ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 27 6(e)(ii) The Agency

Tally ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 27iii

6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden ................................ ................................ .......................... 28 6(g) Burden Statement ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 28 

## Ap **pendices** A. Respondents and Agency Activities Table B. NPDES Applicator and Application Estimates C. [RESERVED] D. Forms a. Notice of Intent (NOI) Form b. Notice of Termination (NOT) Form c. Pesticide Discharge Evaluation Worksheet d. Annual Report Form e. Adverse Incident Report 

## Tables Table 2.1 Areas for which EPA is the Permitting Authority for Discharges from Pesticide Application Activities ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 4 Table 6.1 Respondent tally ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 27 Table 6.2 Agency

tally ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 281. Identification of the Information Collection

1



## 1. **Identification of the Information Collection 1(a) Title of the Information Collection**  Title: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits for Point Source Discharges from the Application of Pesticides to Waters of the United States OMB C ontrol Number: 2040 - 0284 ; EPA ICR Number: 2397.0 2 

### 1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract This draft Information Collection Request (ICR) renews Office of Management and Budget (OMB) IC R Numb er 2040 - 0284. This draft ICR calculates the burden and costs associ ated with NPDES permits for point source discharges from the application of pesticides. On November 27, 2006, EPA issued a final rule (hereinafter called the “2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule”) clarify

ing circumstances where an NPDES permit was not required to apply pesticides to or around water when applied in compliance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). On January 7 , 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court vacated EPA’s 2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule. As a result of the Court’s decision, as of October 31 , 2011 NPDES permits were required for discharges to waters of the U nited S tates from the application of biological pesticides and chemical pesticides that leave a residue. The CWA authorizes EPA to issue permits for the discharge of pollu tants to waters of the United States. EPA regulates discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States under its NPDES program. CWA Section 402(b) allows state s (defined to include Indian Tribes and U.S. territories) to acquire authority to administer the NPDES program. This authority enables them to issue and enforce NPDES permits. EPA estimates that the Sixth Circuit Court’s ruling would affect approximately 365,000 pesticide applicators nationwide. Given the vast number of operator s requiring NPDES permit coverage, EPA and NPDES - authorized state s developed general permits for discharges from the application of pesticides. EPA estimates that the overwhelming majority of operator s required to seek coverage will do so under an NPDES general permit instead of an NPDES individual permit. For the small number of operator s who will seek coverage under an NPDES individual permit, EPA believes their information collection and reporting activities are alread y covered under the existing ICR for the NPDES Program (ICR Number 0229. 20 , OMB Number 2040 - 0004). As part of the routine ICR reissuance, EPA will update that ICR to clarify this determination. This draft ICR calculates the burden and costs associated with information collection and reporting activities from EPA ’s and NPDES - authorized state s’ general permits for discharges from the application of pesticides . This draft ICR estimates an annual burden of 828,141 hours for 365,000 respondents (permittees) at an annual labor cost of $ 38.8 million . The burden for the state respondents is 6,615 hours annually at a labor cost of $0. 2 million . The agency burden is 776 hours annually at a labor cost of $ 3 2 , 268 .2. Need For and Use of the Collection

2



## 2. Need For and Use of the Collection **2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection** The purpose of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is “to restore and maintain the chemical, ph ys ical and biological integrity

of the nation’s waters” [section 101(a)]. Section 301(a) of the CWA provides that “the discharge of any pollutant b y any person shall be unlawful” unless the discharge is in compliance with certain other sections of the Act. The CWA defines “discharge of a pollutant” as “(A) any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source, (B) any addition of any p ollutant to the waters of the contiguous zone or the ocean from an y point source other than a vessel or other floating craft.” 33 U.S.C. 1362(12). A “point source ” is any “discernible, confined and discrete convey ance” but does not include “agricultural stormwater discharges and return flows from irrigated agriculture.” 33 U.S.C. 1362(14). One way a person may

discharge a pollutant without violating the section 3 01 prohibition is by obtaining authorization to discharge (referred to herein as “coverage”) under a section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (33 U.S.C. 1342). Under section 402(a), EPA may “issue a permit for the discharg e of any pollutant, or combination of pollutants, notwithstanding section 1311(a)” upon certain conditions required by the Act. An NPDES permit authorizes the discharge of a regulated amount of a pollutant or pollutants into a receiving water under certa in conditions. The NPDES program relies on two ty pes of permits: individual and general. An individual permit is a permit specifically tailored for an individual discharger. Upon receiving the appropriate permit application(s), the permitting authority, i. e., the U.S. Environmenta l Protection Agency (EPA) or a state , develops a draft permit for public comment for that particular discharger based on the information contained in the permit application (e.g., type of activity, nature of discharge, receiving wa ter quality). Following consideration of public comments, a final permit is then issued to the discharger for a specific time period (not to exceed 5 years) with a provision for reapplying for further permit coverage prior to the expiration date . In contrast, a general permit covers multiple facilities/sites/activities within a specific category for a specific period of time (not to exceed 5 years). Under 40 CFR 122.28, general permits may be written to cover categories of point sources having common elem ents, such as facilities that involve the same or substantially similar ty

pes of operations, that discharge the same ty pes of wastes, or that are more appropriately regulated b y a general permit. Courts have approved of the use of general permits. See e.g. , Natural Res. Def. Council v. Costle , 568 F.2d 1369 (D.C. Cir. 1977); EDC v. US EPA , 344 F.3d 832, 853 (9 th Cir. 2003). The general permit approach allows EPA to allocate resources in a more efficient manner and to provide more timely coverage and may significantly

simplify the permitting process for the majority of pesticide dischargers. As with any permit, the CWA requires the general permit to contain technology - based effluent limitations, as well as any more stringent limits when necessary to meet appl icable state water quality standards. State water quality standards apply in the territorial seas, defined in section 502(8) of the CWA as extending three miles from the baseline. Pacific Legal Foundation v. Costle , 586 F.2d 650, 655 - 656 (9 th Cir. 1978); N atural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. EPA , 863 F.2d 1420, 1435 (9 th Cir. 1988).2. Need For and Use of the Collection

3

The permit application process under section 402 is the primary mechanism to ensure that the permits are adequately p rotective to meet the statutory and regulatory

re quirements under the CWA. Inparticular, CWA section 402(a)(2) requires EPA to prescribe permit conditions to assure compliance with requirements “including conditions on data and information collection, reporting and such other requirements as [the Admini strator] deemed appropriate.” EPA’s application forms require applicants to submit data that help determine what those conditions should be. The CWA also establishes an administrative framework for the NPDES permitting program. CWA section 402(b) authoriz es state s (which include U.S. territories and Indian tribes that have been authorized in the same manner as a state ) to administer the NPDES program once EPA is assured that they

meet minimum federal requirements. Authorized state s are considered permittin g authorities and are responsible for issuing, administering, and enforcing permits for most point source discharges within their borders. In state s without an authorized NPDES program, EPA is the permitting authority and undertakes all permitting activiti es; although CWA section 401 requires state s to certify that EPA - issued NPDES permits establish “effluent limitations, and monitoring requirements necessary to assure that an y applicant...will comply with any applicable effluent limitations and other limit ations (pursuant to the CWA) and with any other appropriate requirement of state law...” state s, tribes, and U.S. territories may waive their right to certify

permits if they

wish. CWA section 510 provides that state s, tribes, and territories may

adopt requirements equal to or more stringent than standards established pursuant to CWA provisions. Regulations governing permit requirements for NPDES discharges are contained in 40 CFR p art 122. The specific monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requireme nts for NPDES programs are applicable to both EPA - and state - administered NPDES permit programs. On November 27, 2006, EPA issued the 2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule clarify ing circumstances where an NPDES permit was not required in order to apply pesticides to waters of the United States. On January 7 , 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court vacated EPA’s 2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule. As a result of the Court’s decision, NPDES permits will be required for discharges to waters of the U.S. from the application of biologica l pesticides and chemical pesticides that leave a residue. Table 2.1 lists the areas where EPA is the permitting authorit y for discharges from pesticide application activities. Given the vast number of operator s requiring NPDES permit coverage and the di scharges common to these operator s , EPA believes that it makes administrative sense to issue a general permit, rather than issuing individual permits to each operator . Thus, the agency and state s issued general permits for discharges from application of pe sticides . EPA believes the majority of the affected entities will seek coverage under a n NPDES general permit instead of an NPDES individual permit.2. Need For and Use of the Collection

4

**Table 2.1 A reas for which EPA**  **is the Permitting A uthority for Discharges from Pesticide**  **Ap plication A** **ctivi ties**  **States**

Idaho Massachusetts New Hampshire New Mexico **Territories and Others** Am erican Samoa District of Columbia Guam Johnston Atoll Midway Island Wa ke Island Northern Mariana Islands Puerto Rico **States with Federal Facilities for which EPA has**  **Permitting A uthority**  Colorado Delaware Vermont Wa shington **States with Tribal Lands for which EPA has Permitting A** **uthority** Alabama Alaska Arizona California Colorado Connecticut

Florida Idaho Iowa Kansas Louisiana Massachusetts

Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Montana Nebraska

Nevada New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota

Ok lahom a Oregon Rhode Island South Dakota Texas

Utah Wa shington Wi sconsin Wyom ing On October 31, 2011, EPA issued a final general permit (Pesticide General Permit or PGP) for the areas where it is the permitting authorit y. See Federal Register notice (7 6 FR 68750 ). The PGP covers the discharge of pesticides (biological pesticides and chemical pesticides whi ch leave a residue) to waters of the United States resulting from the following use patterns: 1) mosquito and other fly

ing insect pest control; (2) weed and algae pest control; (3) animal pest control; and (4) forest canopy pest control . In the PGP, operator s are identified as either “ applicator s” or “ decision - maker s” or both . An applicator is an entity who performs the application of a pesticide or who has day - to - day control of the application (i.e., they are authorized to direct workers to carry out those activities) that results in a discharge to waters of the United States . A decision - maker is an entity with control over the decision to perform pesticide applications, including the ability to modify those decisions that result in discharges to waters of the United States . By 2011, NPDES - authorized states had also issued final general permits for pesticide discharges. For this draft IC R renewal , EPA is using the EPA’s NPDES PGP to estimate the burden associated with the NPDES - authorized state ’s general permits. 

### 2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data This draft ICR includes information used primarily by permitting authorities and permittees . Much of these data must be submitted to permitting authorities, while other information must be maintained on - site b y the permittee . Information collection and reporting activities required in EPA’s PGP are listed below:  In formation routinely submitted in a Notice of Intent (NOI) when requesting coverage under a general permit;  In formation used to develop a Pe sticide Discharge Management Plan (PDMP);  In formation submitted to the permitting authority annually (i.e., annual report);  In formation collected after pesticide application;  In formation collected from self - monitoring;  In formation submitted as a result of any spill, leak or other unpermitted discharge;  In formation submitted as a result of an y adverse incident;2. Need For and Use of the Collection

5

 In formation used to assess the effects of discharges on federally listed endangered and threatened species, and designated critical habitat;  In formation filed or otherwise retained by the permitting authority

including the NOI, adverse incident reports, and annual reports; and  In formation routinely submitted in an NOT (Notice of Termination) when terminating coverage under the PGP. In formation can be categorized into two sets: operator identification information and operator Discharge and Management Practice Information . Permitting authorities use the information in the ways discussed below. **Identification Information** Permitting authorities us e information such as the name, location, and description of pest management area to identify entities that are requesting coverage under a general permit . EPA and most state s store basic NOI information submitted for coverage under an NPDES general permit in databases that provide an inventory of permit holders. EPA Headquarters uses the information contained in the NOI databases to develop reports on permit issuance and compliance rates . The agency also uses the information to respond to public and Congre ssional inquiries, develop and guide its policies, and formulate its budgets. To meet the agency ’s obligations under the Endangered Species Acts (ESA), EPA must ensure that its permit does not jeopardize listed species . Operator s seeking coverage under EP A’s PGP are required to assess the effects of their pesticide discharges on federally listed endangered and threatened species and designated critical habitat . Similar to other EPA general permit s , the agency assumes for this draft ICR that information will be captured on the NOI and therefore contained in the NOI database . NPDES - authorized state s are not required to meet similar ESA obligations and as such no ESA burden is associated with state - issued NPDES general permits. **Discharge and Management Pra ctice Information**  Permitting authorities use discharge information and management practice information from selfmonitoring activities, annual reports, and PDMPs as part of compliance evaluations to ensure that permittees adhere to procedures or condition s as stated in these documents . Collection and reporting of data to permitting authorities also improves permittee accountability for remaining in compliance with their established permit conditions . If noncompliance with permit conditions is detected, the permitting authority will determine the appropriate enforcement action response on the basis of the nature and severity of the violation, the overall degree of noncompliance frequency, and degree of seriousness of the violation. NPDES permits may

not be issued for a period to exceed five y ears . In formation obtained during the next five years related to discharges and practices could lead the permit writers to take the following actions in the next permit development:  S pecify

additional permit limitations;  Assess adequacy

of the permit in protecting water quality;  A ssess compliance with existing permit limitations and conditions; and  P lace appropriate special conditions in permits.3. Non - duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

6 

## 3. Non **- duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection**  **Criteria 3(a) Non**  **- duplication**  Almost all information requested from respondents under this draft ICR is required b y statute or regulation and, in most cases, is not available from other sources . EPA has examined all other reporting and recordkeeping requirements contained in the CWA and 40 CFR part s 122, 123, 124, 125, 403, 501, and 503 . EPA also has con sulted the following sources of information to determine if similar or duplicate information is available elsewhere:  The EPA Inventory

of ICRs;  The Government Information Locator Service; and  The Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI). EPA has also examin ed potentially similar reporting requirements for notice of spills under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for duplication of the CWA requirement. EPA believes that any duplication between NPDES and RCRA reporting of pollutant releases is n egligible because they

focus on different areas of a facility (RCRA focuses on on - site activities, and NPDES focuses on discharge outfalls and discharge to waters of the United States). In addition, EPA has examined potentially similar reporting requireme nts under FIFRA for duplication of the CWA requirement . While some of the information required in these general permits may

be similar to that already required under FIFRA, the universe of respondents is different or is only

a subset of the universe in thi s draft ICR . For example, adverse incident reporting requirements in the permit are currently required of pesticide registrants under FIFRA but not from operator s . EPA believes the expansion of this requirement to operator s provides a more comprehensive dataset on which to assess potential impacts from activities covered under these general permits . Another example is the ICR for Certification of Pesticide applicator s (OMB No: 2070 - 0029, EPA No: 0155. 11 ) which requires commercial applicators, who are certif ied b y program administered by non - federal agencies, to keep records on restricted - use pesticides . See 40 CFR 171 . EPA believes that any duplication between activities required under the NPDES general permits and 40 CFR 171 is negligible . The PGP allows op erator s to rely on records and documents developed for other obligations, such as requirements under FIFRA, and state or local pesticide programs to meet the recordkeeping requirements, provided all requirements of the permit are satisfied . 

### 3(b) Public No **tice Required Prior to ICR Submissions to OMB** In compliance with the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), an y agency developing a non - rule - related ICR must solicit public comments for a 60 - day period before submitting the ICR to OMB . These comments, which are used partly to determine realistic burden estimates for respondents, must be considered when completing the Supporting Statement that is submitted to OMB.3. Non - duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

7 

### 3(c) Consultations EPA headquarters staff responsible for program oversight in NPDES permit and for program oversight in FIFRA was contacted to provide information, data, and review for this draft ICR . EPA solicited information and data on discharges from pesticide applications to assist in developing the final NPDES permit framework for its PGP . EPA met with state s, industry groups, and environmental groups during permit development . EPA also hosted several webcasts . EPA published the proposed NPDES PGP in a Federal Register notice on June 4, 2010 (75 FR 31775) and received over 700 public comment s . See Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - OW 2010 - 0257 . Additionally, EPA hosted three public meetings, a webcast, and a public hearing after proposal . EPA public noticed the first ICR for pesticide discharges on November 3, 2010 (75 FR 67713) . The agency received 13 se ts of comments. See Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - OW 2010

–0852 . 

### 3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection EPA recognizes the importance of balancing the need for data collection efforts against respondent burden and costs . From the inception of the NPDES program, cost has been one of the major factors considered in establishing application requirements, monitoring conditions, and report contents and frequencies . In the past several ye ars, the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government have stressed t he need for evaluating the costs and benefits of regulation and the financial impact on the regulated community , state, and local government . EPA regularly seeks new opportunities to reduce burden on the regulated community. Given the vast number of operator s requiring NPDES permit coverage and the discharges common to these operator s , EPA believes that it makes administrative sense to issue a n NPDES general permit, rather than issuing NPDES individual permits to each operator . General permits are issued to groups of entities that have similar operating procedures, discharge characteristics, and geographic location (e.g., state s) . In this way, permitting authorities can cover a large number of facilities within one permit and est ablish a common set of limitations, monitoring requirements, and permit conditions . The information needed to meet permitting, monitoring, reporting, and information collection requirements related to the NPDES Program may be submitted one time, at a reg ular frequency, or on an as needed basis . EPA and NPDES - authorized state s need current information about permittees and discharge characteristics to fulfill oversight responsibilities . The NPDES burden described in this draft IC R identifies the burden that EPA has determined as necessary . EPA strives to minimize burden . EPA has determined that the information currently required is the minimum that is necessary to adequately evaluate permittee compliance. 

### 3(e) General Guidelines This information collection i s consistent with OMB guidelines contained in 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2). Requests for supplemental information for the purposes of emergency response or enforcement activities are exempt from the Paperwork Reduction Act requirements.3. Non - duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

8 

### 3(f) Confidentiality Responde nt reports can contain confidential business information . If this is the case, the respondent may

request that such information be treated as confidential . All confidential data will be handled in accordance with 40 CFR 122.7, 40 CFR part 2, and EPA’s Secu rity Manual Part III, Chapter 9, dated August 9, 1976 . Any claim of confidentiality must be asserted at the time of submission . However, CWA section 308(b) specifically states that effluent data may not be treated as confidential. 

### 3(g) Sensitive Questions Sensitive questions are defined in EPA’s ICR Handbook, Guide to W riting Information Collection Requests Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 as “questions concerning sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, or other matters usuall y considered private.” The requirements addressed in this draft ICR do not include sensitive questions.4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

9



## 4. The Respondents and the **Information Requested 4(a) Respondents/Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes**  The Clean Water Act (CWA), enacted in 1972, requires operator s of point source discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States to obtain a permit to discharge . EP A issues NPDES permits except where a state can demonstrate that it has adequate legal, technical, and financial capabilities in place to administer the NPDES program . To date, 46 state s and one U.S. territory are authorized by

EPA to issue, administer, an d enforce permits for discharges from pesticide application activities within their borders . EPA continues to be the permitting authorit y in the other 4 state s and territories . For the list of areas where EPA is the permitting authorit y for discharges from application of pesticide, see Table 2.1 . The authorized state s and territories are considered respondents for evaluating paperwork burden in this draft ICR . All operator s to be covered under an NPDES general permit , whether that permit is issued by EPA or a state , for discharges from the application of pesticides are considered respondents in this draft ICR . EPA estimates there are approximately 365,000 pesticide applicators nationwide . See Appendix B for EPA’s approach to estimate the universe o f pesticide applicators . Entities potentially

covered b y the general permits include but are not limited to the following NAI CS (North American Industry Classification S ys tem) codes: 111 Crop Production; 113110 Timber Tract Operations; 113210 Forest Nurser ies Gathering of Forest Products; 221310 Water Supply for Irrigation; 923120 Administration of Public Health Programs; 924110 Administration of Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management Programs; 924120 Administration of Conservation Programs; and 221 Utilities . 

### 4(b) Information Requested This section presents the data items, including recordkeeping requirements, and required respondent activities involved in preparing and submitting those data items . Italso presents respondent activities for the 47 authorized state s (i.e., 46 authorized state s plus the Virgin Islands) . All activities reported in this supporting statement were analyz ed and allocated to one of five ty pes of activities related to the NPDES program, these are as follows:  Activities directly

related to obtaining permit coverage under a general permit;  Activities associated with development of a plan (or worksheet) ;  Monitorin g;  Reporting; and  Recordkeeping. 

### 4(b)(i) Obtaining Permit Coverage 

### 4(b)(i)(1) Data Items Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.21 and 122.28 detail the application and Notice of Intent (NOI) requirements for NPDES permits , respectively . EPA expects the overwhelming majority4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

10 of discharges from pesticide activities will obtain coverage via an NOI under a n NPDES general permit instead of an NPDES individual permit . This section addresses only operator s obtaining coverage under general permit s . As stated previously, EPA expects few discharges to be covered under NPDES individual permits and those burdens are already addressed in the existing NPDES Program ICR (ICR Number 0229. 20 , OMB Number 2040 - 0004). According to EPA’s PGP, certain decision - maker s are required to submit NOI . Those include: 1) Federal and state agencies with a responsibility to control pests ; 2 ) Pest control districts, irrigation control districts, or similar; 3 ) any other decision - maker s that exceed the annual treatment area thresholds ; 4 ) decision - maker s that plan to discharge to outstanding natio nal resource waters (i.e., Tier 3 waters); and 5) decision - maker s that plan to discharge to waters with certain listed species or its critical habitat . Other operator s are covered unde r the permit automatically

without the need to submit an NOI . EPA drafted an NOI form for its PGP (see Appendix D for a cop y o f the NOI form) . The NOI requests basic applicant data as well as pesticide application information such as pesticide use patterns and pest management areas . Similar to other EPA general permit s , E PA assumes for this draft IC R that decision - maker s eligible for coverage under the EPA’s PGP are required to submit NOI s if their pesticide activities are in areas where federally listed endangered or threatened species, or designate critical habitat may

be presented . When all discharges associated with pesticide activity authorized by an EPA or state - issued general permit are eliminated and does not expect to discharge for the remainder of the permit term , or when the decision - maker changes, the decision - maker must submit an NOT (Notice of Termination) to the permitting authority (see Appendix D for a cop y of the NOT form) . Following is the type of information generally required on NOT f orms:  NPDES permit number;  Name, address, and phone number of the decision - maker ; and  Certification of eligibility for filing the NOT (i.e., the discharge has been eliminated or the person filing the NOT is no longer the decision - maker). 

### 4(b)(i)(2) Respond **ent A ctivities**  This draft ICR explains respondent activities in detail in Section 4(b)(i)(1) above . Activities can include reading and reviewing instructions and regulatory requirements, gathering general information, consulting technical and legal officia ls, filling out forms, drafting letters, maintaining records, and mailing completed submissions . For pesticide applications in areas where federal listed endangered and threatened species, and designate critical habitat may be presented , similar to other E PA general permit activities may include formal or informal evaluation with the Services. Activities for the 47 authorized state s and territories can include reviewing and processing NOI and NOT, determine which dischargers, if an y, would be more appropri ately governed b y an NPDES individual permit, and notify dischargers if they

need to appl y for an NPDES individual permit. NPDES - authorized state s are not required to meet the ESA obligations and as such there are no burden s associated with state - issued NPDES general permits.4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

11 

### 4(b)(ii) Plan Development 

### 4(b)(ii)(1) Data Items According to EPA’s PGP, all decision - makers that are required to submit an NOI and are large entities must develop a Pesticide Discharge Management Plan (PDMP) . The PDMP is kept on site and is not required to be submitted to the agency . The development of a PDMP is unique to each pest management area even though it is based on common required elements . A PDMP must be kept up - to - date and modified whenever necessary to document any

corrective actions . According to EPA’s PGP, the following information must be documented in the PDMP: (1) pesticide discharge man agement team information; (2) problem identification ; (3) pest management options evaluation ; (4) response procedures (e.g., spill response procedures, adverse incident response procedures); and (5) documentation to support eligibility considerations under other f ederal laws. 

### 4(b)(ii)(2) Respondent A**ctivities** This draft ICR explains respondent activities in detail in Section 4(b)(ii)(1) above . Activities include reading and reviewing regulatory requirements, gathering general information, consulting technic al and legal officials, reviewing guidance materials, drafting the plan, reviewing the plan, and maintaining records. 

### 4(b)(iii) Monitoring 

### 4(b)( **iii)(1) Data Items** Monitoring is required in any NPDES permit specifically for the purpose of demonstrating compliance with the permit conditions . Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(i) outline the monitoring requirements for permittees . There are a variety of monitoring methods that a “traditional” NPDES permit may require, including end - of -pipe monitoring to show compliance with relevant effluent limitations prior to discharging to a receiving waterbody . Monitoring may also pertain to actions taken to ensure that recordkeeping or other permit control activities are being properly implemented . Pursuant to CWA section 308 and 402(a)(2), 40 CFR 122.43(a), and other applicable implementing regulations, the monitoring requirement for the PGP, according to EPA’s PGP , is narrative and demonstrates compliance with permit conditions by requiring visual monitoring assessment and documentation requirements . V isual monitoring assessments are required as a means of identify ing, for example, instances of detrimenta l impact to non - target organisms, disruption or degradation of wildlife habitat, or the prevention of designated recreational or municipal uses of a waterbod y that may possibly be related to the operator’s use of pesticides in a given area . 

### 4(b)(iii)(2) R**espondent A ctivities**  This draft ICR explains respondent activities in detail in Section 4(b)(iii)(1) above . Activities include reading and reviewing regulatory requirements, observing impact on non - target organisms, and consulting technical and legal offic ials .4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

12 

### 4(b)(iv) Reporting 

### 4(b)(iv)(1) Data Items **Annual Report** According to EPA’s PGP, all decision - makers that are required to submit an NOI and which are large entities must submit an annual report (s ee Appendix D for a cop y of the Annual Report form) . The annual report will be used by EPA to assess permit compliance and to determine whether additional controls on pesticide discharges are necessary to protect water quality . Specificall y, the report must include identification of an y waters or other treatment area, including size, either b y name or b y location; pesticide use pattern(s) and target pest(s); compan y name(s) and contact information for pesti cide applicator(s), if different from the NOI submitter; total amount of each pesticide product applied for the reporting year by the EPA registration number(s) and b y application method; whether the pest control activity was addressed in the PDMP prior to pesticide application; if applicable, an annual report of an y adverse incidents as a result of these treatment(s); and a description of any corrective action(s), including spill responses, resulting from pesticide application activities and the rationale for such actions(s). Similar to other EPA general permit s , EPA assumes for this draft IC R that decision - maker s eligible for coverage under the EPA’s PGP are required to file annual reports if their pesticide activities are in areas where federally listed endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat may

be presented. **Permittee Report of Adverse Incident** According to EPA’s PGP, all operator s are required to report any adverse incident that may have resulted from a discharge from their p esticide application . Operator s are required to notify their permitting authority b y telephone within 24 hours of becoming aware of the adverse incident . The following information is to be provided: a. The caller’s name and telephone number; b. operator name and mailing address; c. If covered under an NOI, the NOI NPDES tracking number; d. The name and telephone number of a contact person, if different than the person providing the 24 - hour notice; e. How and when the operator became aware of the adverse incident; f. Description of the location of the adverse incident; g. Description of the adverse incident identified and the EPA pesticide registration number for each product the operator applied in the area of the adverse incident; h. Description of any steps the operator has taken or will take to correct, repair, remed y, cleanup, or otherwise address any adverse effects ; and i. If known, the identity of any other operator s authorized for coverage under this permit for discharges from the pesticide application activities that resulted in the adverse incident. Reporting of adverse incident is not required under the permit in the following situations: 1. An operator is aware of facts that indicate that the adverse incident are not related to toxic effects or exposure from the pesticide app lication;4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

13 2. An operator has been notified by EPA, and retains such notification, that the reporting requirement has been waived for this incident or category of incidents; 3. An operator receives information of an adverse incident, but that information is clearl y erroneous; or 4. An adverse incident occurs to pests that are similar in kind to potential target pests identified on the FIFRA label. Within 30 days of a reportable adverse incide nt, the operator must provide a written report of the adverse incident to the permitting authority and to all of the other authorized operator s where multiple operator s are authorized for that discharge . The report must include at least the following information: a. In formation provided during notification of the adverse incident; b. Date and time of the notification, any instructions received from the permitting authorit y, and name of the staff from the permitting authority; c. Location of incident, i ncluding the names of any waters affected and appearance of those waters; d. Description of the circumstances of the adverse incident including species affected, estimated number of individuals and approximate size of dead or distressed organisms; e. Magni tude and scope of the affected area (e.g., aquatic square area or total stream distance affected); f. Pesticide application rate, intended use site (e.g., banks, above, or direct to water), method of application, and name of pesticide product, description of pesticide ingredients, and EPA registration number; g. Description of the habitat and the circumstances under which the adverse incident occurred (including any available ambient water data for pesticides applied); h. If laboratory

tests were performed , indicate what test ( s) were performed, and when, and provide a summary

of the test results within 5 days after they become available if not available at the time of submission of the 30 - day report ; i. Description of a ctions to be taken to prevent recurren ce of adverse incidents; and j . Signature , date , and certification in accordance with Appendix B, Subsection B.11. **Permittee Report of Adverse Incident to Threatened or Endangered Species or Critical Habitat**  According to EPA’s PGP, all operator s are requi red to report adverse incidents to threatened or endangered species or critical habitat that may have resulted from a discharge from their pesticide application . Operator s are required to notify the National Marine Fisheries Service or the U.S. Fish and Wi ldlife Service b y telephone immediately upon becoming aware of the adverse incident . At least the following information must be provided: a. The caller’s name and telephone number; b. operator name and mailing address;4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

14 c. The name of the affected species; d. How and when you became aware of the adverse incident; e. Description of the location of the adverse incident; f. Description of the adverse incident, including the EPA pesticide registration number for each product applied in the area of the adverse incident; and g. Description of any steps the operator s has taken or will take to alleviate the adverse impact to the species. **Permittee Report of Spill, Leak, or Other Unpermitted Discharge** According to EPA’s PGP, all operator s are required to report leak, spill or other rele ases containing a hazardous substance or oil in an amount equal to or in excess of a reportable quantity established under either 40 CFR part 110, 40 CFR part 117, or 40 CFR part 302 occurs in any 24 - hour period . Operator s must notify the National Response Center immediately in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 110, 40 CFR part 117, and 40 CFR part 302 . Within 30 days of the operator becoming aware of a spill, leak, or other unpermitted discharge, the operator must document and retain the following information: a. In formation during notification of the spill, leak, or other unpermitted discharge b. Summary

of corrective action taken or to be taken including date initiated and date completed or expected to be completed; c. Any measures to prevent rec urrence of such a spill, leak, or other discharge, including notice of whether PDMP modifications are required as a result of the spill or leak. **Permittee Report of Corrective Action** According to EPA’s PGP, all operator s are required to document any situa tion triggering corrective action and their planned corrective action within 30 days of the operator becoming aware of the situation triggering the need for corrective action . The operator must retain a cop y of this documentation . The documentation must in clude the following information: a. Id entification of the condition triggering the need for corrective action review, including any ambient water quality

monitoring that assisted in determining that discharges did not meet water quality

standards; b. Brief description of the situation; c. Date the problem was identified. d. Brief description of how the problem was identified and how the operator learned of the situation and date the operator learned of the situation; e. Summary

of corrective action tak en or to be taken including date initiated and date completed or expected to be completed; and f. Any measures to prevent reoccurrence of such an incident, including notice of whether PDMP modifications are required as a result of the incident. **Permittee Report of Planned Facility Changes**  According to 40 CFR 122.41(l)(1), any planned alteration or addition to a permitted facility must be reported to the permitting authorit y . This requirement applies to a change in the discharge of pollutants that are not already subject to the facility’s permit requirements . For pesticide application activities, planned changes may include but not limited to discharging to a Tier 3 water or discharging pesticides to a water impaired for that pesticide . When reporting plann ed4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

15 changes, a permittee must provide a description of the planned alterations or additions and a statement outlining the anticipated effects of the changes on the discharge . The permitting authority may use the information submitted by the discharger to de velop an individual NPDES permit before the planned changes are made. **Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance** According to 40 CFR 122.41(l)(2) a change in the discharge of pollutants that might result in noncompliance with existing permit limits m ust be reported to the permitting authorit y. Permittees ty

pically make this sort of report b y submitting a letter that explains the reasons for the anticipated noncompliance . The advance notice provided by this reporting requirement enables the permitting authority to help a permittee mitigate the effects of anticipated noncompliance on the receiving waters. **Facility and Permit Transfer Report** Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.41(l)(3) specify that when a facility’s ownership changes, it must notify

the permitting authority in a letter stating the date of the transfer and the name of the new permit holder . EPA does not anticipate any respondents for the PGP because decision maker s are required to file a NOT (Notice of Termination), which is covered elsewh ere in this draft ICR , when they

transfer ownership; rather than submitting some other ty pe of documentation . **Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous Information** According to 40 CFR 122.41(l)(8), permittees must correct inaccurate information that has b een submitted in a permit application or permit report as soon as the permittee learns of the error(s). Usually, permittees notify the permitting authority

by letter . The permitting authority uses this information to update permit records or to execute app ropriate enforcement actions. **Noncompliance Reports** Requirements in 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) - (7) specify that a permittee must provide 24 - hour oral reporting of any noncompliance that could endanger human health or the environment (with a written follow -up submission within 5 days) . 

### 4(b)(iv)(2) Respondent A**ctivities** This draft ICR explains these activities in deta il in Section 4(b)(iv)(1) above . However, any respondent preparing and submitting reports may engage in the following types of activities:  Preparing basic information . This include s reading instructions and regulations for report requirements, consulting t echnical, legal, and political staff, reviewing guidance materials, gathering general information, typing or completing forms or generating reports, and mailing or electronic submission of completed forms or reports to the NPDES permitting authority.  Gathering detailed information . Detailed information gathered include s any data required by the NPDES permitting authorities as outlined in Section 4 (b)(iv)(1). Activities for the 47 authorized state s can include reviewing and handling reports.4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

16 

### 4(b)(v) Recordkeeping 

### 4(b)(v)(1) Data Items a. According to EPA’s PGP , all operator s are required to keep the following records:  A cop y of any adverse incident reports  Rationale for any d etermination that reporting of an identified adverse incident is not required consistent with allowances identified in the PGP  A cop y of any corrective action documentation  A cop y of any spill and leak or other unpermitted dischar ge documentation. EPA expects operator s to incur a relatively minor additional burden for paperwork associated with adverse incidents, corrective action, and spills . EPA expects these operator s likely already have filing capacity for paper files including any correspondence with EPA, as well as to prepare and save any adverse incident reports electronically . In addition, entities would only incur these costs in the event of an adverse incident, c orrective action, or spill/leak. b. According to the EPA’s PGP, all operator s who are for - hire applicators must retain the following records:  Documentation of equipment calibration; and  In formation on each treatment area to which pesticides are discharged, including: 1. Description of each treatment area, including location and size (acres or linear feet) of treatment area and identification of any waters, either b y name or b y locations, to which pesticide(s) are discharged; 2. Pesticide use pattern(s); 3. Target pe st(s) 4. Name of each pesticide product used including the EPA registration number; 5. Quantity

of each pesticide product applied to each treatment area; 6. Pesticide application date( s); and 7. Whether or not visual monitoring was conducted during pesticide applicat ion and/or post - application and if not, why not and whether monitoring identified an y possible or observable adverse incidents caused by application of pesticides . c. According to the EPA’s PGP, any decision - maker that is required to submit an NOI and is a small entity

must retain the following records:  Copy of the NOI submitted to EPA, any correspondence exchanged between the decision - maker and EPA specific to coverage under this permit, and a copy of the EPA acknowledgment letter with the assigned permit t racking number;  Documentation of equipment calibration (only if decision - maker is also the applicator);  In formation on each treatment area to which pesticides are discharged, including: o Description of treatment area, including location and size (acres or l inear feet) of treatment area and identification of any waters of the United States, either by name or b y location, to which pesticide ( s) are discharged; o Pesticide use pattern(s); o Target pest(s) and explanation of need for pest control; o Description of pest management measure(s) implemented prior to the first pesticide application;4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

17 o Company

name and contact information for pesticide applicator; o Name of each pesticide product used including the EPA registration number; o Quantity

of each pest icide product applied to each treatment area; o Pesticide Application Start Date; o Pesticide Application End Date; and o Whether or not visual monitoring was conducted during pesticide application and/or post - application and if not, why not and whether monitori ng identified any possible or observable adverse incidents caused by application of pesticides. A worksheet (Pesticide Discharge Evaluation Worksheet) for documenting this information on each treatment area is provided in the permit (see Appendix D for a cop y o f the Pesticide Discharge Evaluation Worksheet) . d. According to the EPA’s final permit any decision - maker that is required to submit an NOI and is a large entity

must retain the following records :  Copy of the NOI submitted to EPA, any correspondence exchanged between the decision - maker and EPA specific to coverage under this permit, and a copy of the EPA acknowledgment letter with the assigned permit tracking number;  A cop y of the PDMP, including any modifications made to the PDMP during the term of this permit;  Copy of annual reports submitted to EPA;  Documentation of equipment calibration (only if decision - maker is also the applicator);  In formation on each treatment area to which pesticides are d ischarged, including: o Description of each treatment area, including location and size (acres or linear feet) of treatment area and identification of an y Waters of the United States, either by name or by

location, to which pesticide(s) are discharged; o Pesti cide use pattern(s) (i.e., mosquito and other flying insects, weed and algae, animal pest, or forest canopy ); o Target pest(s) and explanation of need for pest control; o Action Thresholds; o Method and/or data used to determine that action threshold(s) has been met; o Description of pest management measure(s) implemented prior to the first pesticide application; o Company

name and contact information for pesticide applicator; o Name of each pesticide product used including the EPA registration number; o Quantity

of each pesticide product applied to each treatment area; o Pesticide application date(s); and o Whether or not visual monitoring was conducted during pesticide application and/or post - application and if not, why not and whether monitoring identified any possible or observable adverse incidents caused by application of pesticides. 

### 4(b)(v)(2) Respondent A**ctivities** This draft ICR explains respondent activiti es in detail in Section 4(b)(v)(1) above . Activities can include developing recordkeeping sys tems, collecting and entering data, training personnel, and filing information . All permit applicants must retain records for at least 3 years from the date that their coverage under the permit expires or terminated.5. The Information Collected —Agenc y Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

18 

## 5. The Information Collected **— Ag**  **ency Ac**  **tiv ities, Collection**  **Methodology**

**, and Information Management 5(a) Agency Activities**  This draft ICR includes all the reporting requirements related to EPA as the NP DES permitting authority for discharges from application of pesticides . EPA’s activities as the NPDES permitting authority for non -NPDES - authorized state s and territories are the same as the activities performed by the NPDES - authorized state s and territories. Some of the key activities permitting authorities will perform are:  Receive NOIs and review them for completeness . If an NO I is incomplete, the permitting authority will notify

the applicant and request the missing information . If the NOI is complete, an acceptance letter will be sent to the permittee, along with a unique permit number . For EPA, the NOI data will be maintained in a database at EPA’s Notice Processing Center.  When a permitting authority issues a general permit, it may notify th ose dischargers eligible for coverage under the permit . Notification may include newspaper announcements, direct mailings, or other methods of communication.  When permitting authorities receive notices of intent for general permits, they must determine whi ch dischargers, if any, would be more appropriately governed by individual permits . As part of these activities, permitting authorities may notify dischargers that they need to apply for individual permits.  When permitting authorities receive annual report s, they must review the annual reports for compliance with the general permit .  When permitting authorities receive a notice of termination (NOT), they must review and process the notice . EPA will maintain these data in the database at the agency ’s Notice Processing Center. Permittees are not required to submit PDMPs to permitting authorit y for review . These plans are to be maintained on - site where the pesticide activities are taking place and must be available for permitting authority review as requested . Therefore, for the purposes of this draft ICR , the plans are integral to the day - to - day operational control of each pest management area but are not included as a component of agency activities. When reports or forms are submitted, permitting authority r eview is necessary, and in some instances, may

also require follow -up actions . Data review will vary ; however, generally, the permitting authority will screen data to identify permit violations and will conduct a more thorough technical review and follow -up when violations are detected . Follow - up activities can include informal contact with the permittee (by telephone or letter) requesting prompt corrective action, providing technical assistance, performing field inspections to further substantiate violatio ns, or initiating formal enforcement action such as an administrative order or referral to the U.S. attorney

general (or state attorney general in the case of authorized state s).5. The Information Collected —Agenc y Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

19 The extent to which permitting authorities review data in assessing permit c ompliance will vary . For example, permitting authorities often will conduct a more extensive review of permittees that are, or have been, in violation of their permit requirements, than of permittees who have been in full compliance . The extent to which permitting authority reviews data also depends on available resources and the specific review procedures of the permitting authority ( state or EPA Region) . In authorized state s, state environmental agencies generally review permittee data . EPA also may rev iew data from permittees in NPDES - authorized state s while performing program oversight functions (i.e., during file audits and when compiling statistical compliance summaries). EPA reviews data in non -NPDES - authorized state s . EPA generally places emphasis on data from major permittees and from minor permittees that can cause water qualit y p roblems (i.e., significant minors) . EPA reviews data from general permittees less frequently . EPA does not require non -NPDES - authorized state s to review data, but severa l states voluntarily review these data and use the results in their own water quality protection programs. In collecting and analyz ing the information associated with this draft ICR , information for permittees covered under EPA’s PGP will be entered into an NOI database . EPA uses these data to manage the NPDES program. Similar to other EPA general permits , EPA assumes for this draft IC R that the Services must help some operator s obtain information relating to federally listed endangered and threatened spe cies, and designated critical habitat and may participate in informal or formal evaluation . NPDES - authorized states are not required to include this requirement in their NPDES general permits and therefore neither the authorized states n or discharges from application of pesticides within those states incur any burden related to ESA . 

### 5(b) Collection Methodology and Management EPA maintains some application data in databases such as ICIS -NPDES, and the NOI database. These s ys tems provide EPA with a nationwide inventory of permit holders . EPA uses this information to assess permit compliance . This technology also reduces the burden to EPA and the states for gathering and analyz ing national permit and water qualit y data. In collecting and analyz ing the information associated with EPA’s PGP, EPA will use its electronic NOI (eNOI) system to store the information . EPA will ensure accuracy and completeness of the information by reviewing each submittal upon receipt and is responsible for ensuring that applic able data are entered into eNOI . Any form that is considered inaccurate or incomplete will not be accepted and will be returned to the sender with a letter requesting the missing or inaccurate information.5. The Information Collected —Agenc y Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

20 

### 5(c) Small Entity Flexibility For many reasons, E PA believes the reporting requirements discussed in this draft ICR do not place an unreasonable burden on small businesses . The NOI requests minimal information, such as the name and location of the discharge . Furthermore, operators submit NOIs once every 5 ye ars. The burden represented by the NOI cannot be further reduced for small businesses . Permitting authorities need certain basic information to make permitting decisions . This basic information is not dependent on an operator ’s size. Minimizing the burden on small entities also comes in the form of guidance materials. For example, to assist operators of all sizes, but potentially most useful for small entities, EPA has developed guidance, a PDMP template. The template is designed to guide entities thr ough the PDMP development process and help ensure that the PDMP addresses all the necessary elements stated in the PGP. All permittees, regardless of the size of the entity, are required to report instances of noncompliance . In most cases, these requireme nts do not impose a large burden on small businesses because the information required is simple and straightforward. 

### 5(d) Collection Schedule The collection schedule for the activities presented in this draft ICR varies greatl y depending on the ty pe of act ivity . See Section 6 of this draft ICR for detailed estimates of collection schedules. Federal regulations require permittees to reapply for permits at least every 5 years because the CWA limits the terms of an NPDES permit to 5 y ears . The regulations als o grant permit writers the authority

to issue permits more frequently . For those dischargers required to submit notices of intent, those must be submitted every 5 years . Dischargers submitting a notice of intent that wish to be covered under a reissued gen eral permit must submit a new notice of intent for coverage under that new permit . When calculating burden, this draft ICR assumes that all permit applicants follow this schedule. A notice of termination is submitted once when coverage under the permit is no longer necessary .6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

21



## 6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection **6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden**  This section presents the estimated respondent burden for each information request . Data are tabulated in the “Respondents and Agency Activities Table” provided as Appendix A . That table presents all assumptions, calculations, and results discussed in this draft ICR . Dischargers covered under the pesticide general permit and NPDES - authorized state s are identified as respondents . The breakdown of cost and burden by labor category

is provided in Section 6(b). In the original ICR, o n the bas is of information presented in the Economic Analysis of the Pesticide General Permit (PGP) for Point Source Discharges from the Application of Pesticides , May 26 , 2010 , EPA assume d 90 percent of the total universe of permittees will be covered by NPDES - authorized state - issued general permits . For this draft ICR , EPA compared the number of NOIs EPA received against the estimates in the original ICR and found them to be very close . EPA decided to use the same percentage in this draft ICR and to continue to use other assumption s from the original ICR. This draft ICR calculates annual burden and costs to respondents (365,000 permittees and 47 authorized state s). These calculations address dischargers obtaining coverage under ye ars 4 and 5 of the current general permit , and dischargers seeking permit coverage or renewing their coverage during the first year of a new general permit. Because of the limited activities required to apply for permit coverage, EPA assumes that the burden to renew a permit is very similar to the burden to appl y for the first time. 

### 6(a)(i) Obtaining Permit Coverage To calculate the total annual applicant respondent burden, EPA first calculated the annual burden for each information request associated with obtaining permit coverage . This subsection explains applicant respondent burden estimates for each information request. In addition, the Respondents and Agency Activities Table in Appendix A calculates the estimated burden to NPDES - authorized state s for handling an d reviewing NOI information discussed in this subsection . Estimates of the burden do not include analys is of the data because this activity

is associated with preparing and issuing the permit . Because most state governments have authority for the NPDES pro grams, state governments will incur the majority of the permitting authority burden and costs. **Notice of Intent (NOI)** The NOI filing requirement is applicable only to certain permittees . EPA estimates that 2 hours is required to file an NOI for a genera l permit . This burden estimate includes 1 hour to read and understand the regulation, and 1 hour to fill out and submit the form . EPA estimates that 2.5% of the regulated universe would need to file an NOI ( 9,125 entities), for an annual average of 1, 825 N OI s ( 9,125 divided b y the 5 - year coverage) . EPA estimates that the agency and NPDES authorized state s will spend 0.5 hour s processing these NOIs.6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

22

Similar to ICRs for other EPA general permit s , EPA assumes that the burden for permittees covered under the EPA’s PGP as a result of ESA obligations be the following:  In formal assessment needed in 0. 1% of the cases : 6 hours (3 7 NOIs with an annual average of 7 NOI s)  Formal assessment needed in 0.05% of the cases: 20 hours (18 NOIs with an annual average of 4 NOIs) **Notice of Termination (NOT)** EPA estimates that on average, permittees will spend 0.5 hour s filling out an NOT . EPA estimates the total number of respondents will be 4 56 (5 percent of the respondents required to submit NOI s ) . EPA estimates that 91 NOTs will be filed annually . This assumes that, in general, the universe of dis chargers covered under this permit will not change significantly from y ear to ye ar . EPA estimates that permitting authorities will spend 0.25 hour s processing each NOT. 

### 6(a)(ii) Plan **Dev elopment**  Certain permittees will be required to develop a Pesticide Discharge Management Plan (PDMP) and keep it up - to - date . PDMPs document the evaluation and selection of pest management measures to meet the technology -based effluent limitations . These plans may cover one or more treatment areas within one plan, and can reference other documents (such as pre - existing integrated pest management plans) . Thus, the cost to develop the PDMP will vary based on the extent of pest problems and pesticide use, as well as existing documentation that may be referenced to fulfill plan requirements . Decision - makers that have been evaluating pest problems and alternative management methods may have significant relevant material alread y compiled and available. In this draft ICR , EPA assumes that for the first two ye ars of ICR coverage (corresponding to ye ars 4 and 5 of the permit), 9 67 respondents a ye ar will be required to develop a PDMP (5 3 percent of the universe required to file NOIs ) . Although components of a PDMP are similar, pest management area design, size and function, and the level of effort involved will vary

for each pest management area . EPA estimates the average level of effort that might be required to prepare a PDMP . This burden estimate for preparing a PDMP includes 1 hour to select the team, 16 hours to describe sources, 14 hours to develop measures and controls, 8 hours to develop schedules and procedures, and 1 hour to document considerations under other federal laws . Thus, EPA estimates that the aver age time for a respondent to develop a PDMP is 40 hours . This is a one - time development activity . Decision - makers are required to update the plan as needed . EPA assumes that 1,2 09 plans (25 percent of the universe required to develop a plan) will be update d annually with the average time of 2 hours . 

### 6(a)(iii) Monitoring All 365,000 permitte es are required to conduct monitoring . According to the EPA’s PGP, this includes visual monitoring . EPA expects minimal additional burden associated with monitoring under the general permit . Where required , EPA expects an additional 0.25 hour s per site monitored . EPA assumes larg e entities that are required to submit NOIs conduct an average of sixteen applications annually (4,836 respondents) . For small entities who are required to submit NOI S , pesticide applications are likely to be fewer; EPA assumes an average of four applications per year (4 , 289 respondents) . EPA assumes one monitoring event per year for entities that are not required to submit NOIs .6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

23



### 6(a)(iv) Reporting **Annual Report** Certain permittees are required to submit an annual report to the permitting authorit y . The respondent activities include preparing and submitting annual reports . EPA estimates that respondents will spend 8 hours preparing and submitting annual reports . EPA estimates 4,892 reports) will be submitted annually . Permitting authorities will spend approximately 1 hour processing and reviewing these annual reports. **Permittee Report of Adverse Incident** Permittees are required to notify their permitting authority and provide a wri tten report of adverse incident that may have resulted from a discharge from pesticide application . EPA reviewed ecological incidents reported by registrants from 1976 to 2008 . They range from 3 to 21 incidents annually . In the EPA PGP, all permittees are required to report incidents . EPA assumes that 37 adverse incidents (0.01% of the universe) will be reported annually b y permittees . EPA estimates that respondents will spend 2 hours gathering information and notifying their permitting authority . EPA estim ates that respondents will spend an additional 2 hours preparing and submitting a report . The activities required for permitting authorities include processing and reviewing the information from permittees . EPA estimates that permitting authority will spen d 2 hours on this activity for each adverse incident . **Permittee Report of Adverse Incident to Threatened or Endangered Species or Critical Habitat**  Permittees are required to notify the National Marine Fisheries Service or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servi ce of any adverse incident to threatened or endangered species or critical habitat . EPA estimates that respondents will spend 2 hours gathering information and reporting an y adverse incident and that the Services will spend 2 hours reviewing and documentin g each adverse incident . EPA assumes 4 adverse incidents (0.001% of the universe) will be reported annually . **Permittee Report of Spill, Leak, or Other Unpermitted Discharge** Permittees are required to notify the National Response Center of any spill, leak, or other release containing a hazardous substance or oil . These activities are already required under existing regulations and as such, no additional burden is included in this draft ICR for reporting . Permittees are also required to document the spill, leak, or other unpermitted discharge and retain the documentation for their record . EPA estimates that respondents will spend 1 hour to document the activity . EPA estimates 365 events (0.1% of the universe) will be reported annually . **Permittee Report of Corrective Action**  Permittees are required to document any situation triggering corrective action and their planned corrective action . EPA estimates that respondents will spend 5 hours on this activity . This burden is divided as follows: 1 hour to read and understand the regulation, 1 hour of planning, 1 hour of collecting information, and 2 hours to document the activity . EPA estimates 365 events (0.1% of the universe) will be reported annually.6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

24

**Permittee Report of Planned Facility Changes** Respondents will use an estimated average of 4 hours to complete their notification of planned alterations and additions . This burden estimate includes 1 hour to read and understand the regulation, 1 hour to plan the report, and 2 hours to write the report . EPA estimates that permitting authority will spend 0.5 hours handling and reviewing each report . EPA estimates 365 events (0.1% of the universe) will be reported annually. **Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance** Respondents will use an estimated average of 5 hou rs of labor for each report of anticipated noncompliance . This burden is divided as follows: 1 hour to read and understand the regulation, 1 hour of planning, 1 hour of collecting information, and 2 hours for writing and submitting the report . EPA estimate s that permitting authority will spend 2 hours handling and reviewing each report . EPA estimates 365 events (0.1% of the universe) will be reported annually. **Facility and Permit Transfer Report** EPA does not anticipate any respondents for the PGP because operators are required to file a NOT (Notice of Termination) when they transfer ownership . Burden for NOTs are discussed elsewhere in this draft ICR . **Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous Information** The respondent burden associated with this reporting requirement includes the time needed to verify the reporting error or omission, to prepare the revised form that details the reporting corrections, and to mail the information to the permitting authority . The time required under this regulation will vary depending on the size of the pest management area and the extent of the error or omission . EPA estimates that a ty pical report requires 2 hours to prepare . EPA estimates that permitting authority will spend 1 hour handling and reviewing each report . EPA estimates 183 events (0. 05 % of the universe) will be reported annually. **Noncompliance Reports** When a permittee violates a permit condition, it must submit a noncompliance report to the permitting authority . EPA estimates the average burden to be 5 ho urs per response . This burden represents the time required to gather information, prepare and present/conduct the verbal notice, and prepare and submit a written report for noncompliance . EPA estimates that an average of 2 hours is required for the permitt ing authority to receive and process each noncompliance report. EPA estimates 183 events (0. 05 % of the universe) will be reported annually. 

### 6(a)(v) Record Keeping The burden associated with recordkeeping depends on the pest management area and whether the permittee already has a recordkeeping s ys tem . EPA expects all operators to retain certain basic records related to pesticide applications that result in discharges to waters of the United States . EPA estimates that all 365,000 operators will have a basic recordkeeping burden of 1 hour per ye ar . EPA assumes a small additional rec ordkeeping burden for operator s that are not required to submit NOI s , including information such as equipment calibration records or information on For- Hire applicator s . EPA estimates 0.5 hour s per year for 355,875 respondents .6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

25

Small entity

p ermittees who are required to submit NOIs keep basic records on pest control activities, including pesticide applications . EPA estimates that it would take approximately 1 hour per application (4 applications per y ear) for these abbreviated records , or 4 hours . In this draft ICR , EPA assumes that 4,289 small entities a year will be required to perform these recordkeeping activities (4 7 percent of the permitted universe apply ing for permit coverage) . Permittees who are required to submit NOIs and who are large entities must keep more detailed records on pest control option assessments and pesticide application activities, consistent with PDMPs . EPA estimates that full recordkeeping will take 1 hour per application (16 applications per year) for these l arge entities, or 16 hours per year for 4,836 respondents

–which is in addition to the 40 hours to develop the PDMP . 

### 6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs With burden hour estimates in place from Section 6(a), the next step is to estimate the labor cost per respondent and the capital costs required to complete each activity . The total cost for each respondent activity

is composed of the following:  Labor Cost;  Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Cost; and  Capital/Start -up Cost. The results of the respondents’ costs analys is are presented in the Respondents and Agency Activities Table in App endix A. 

### 6(b)(i) Estimating Labor Costs To estimate the potential costs, EPA identified labor categories associated with performing each activity . Labor categories include managerial, technical, and clerical . The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BL S) publishes base mean annual wage rates in its Occupational Employ ment Survey (OES, 2012 ) and an Employ ment Cost I

ndex (ECI, 2013 ) to update the wage rates to 2013 values to account for inflation . EPA used average government and private wage rates to estimate respondent labor costs assuming each respondent is equally likel y to use either government or commercial labor . When calculating respondent labor costs, EPA makes the following assumptions for the permittees:  For state and local governments, EPA included employ ee benefits in the wage rate, and for commercial applicators, included benefits, overhead, and profit in estimating total labor rates . The BL S Employer Cost for Employee Compensation (ECEC, September 2013 ) provides estimates for benefit markups for governmen ts (benefits account for 35.6 % of the total labor rate), and PSMJ ( 2011 ) indicates that the median wage rate multiplier is 2.95 for commercial/engineering firms .  Rates for managers reflect OES category 11 - 9121, Natural Sciences Managers . EPA used an avera ge labor rate of $ 107.56 per hour for managers (state government at $ 48.56 ; local government at $ 62.74 , and private at $ 204.29 ) . This rate is mean annual 2012 wages, updated to 2013 dollars.  Rates for technical staff reflect OES category 1 9 - 4091, Environme ntal Science and Protection Technicians, including health . EPA used an average labor rate of $ 41.61 per hour for technical staff (state government at $ 29.57 ; local government at $ 30.60 , and private at $ 61.95 ) . This rate is mean annual 2012 wages, updated to 2013 dollars.6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

26

 Rates for clerical staff reflect OES category 43 - 0000, Office and Administrative Support Occupations State . EPA used an average labor rate of $ 33.05 per hour for clerical staff (state government at $ 25.45 ; local government at $ 23.96 ; and private at $ 47.58 ) . This rate is mean annual 2012 wages, updated to 2013 dollars. For calculating the authorized state s’ cost, EPA uses the rate for technical staff (OES category 1 9 - 4091, Environmental Science and Protection Technicians, in cluding health , May 2012 ) . EPA uses $ 30.20 per hour, the mean annual 2012 wages, updated to 2013 dollar. 

### 6(b)(ii) Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs This draft ICR account s for labor costs only . The pesticide general permits do not require respondents to perform activities outside the normal operation practices . 

### 6(b)(iii) Capital/Start **- up Costs**  This draft ICR account s for labor costs only . The pesticide general permits do not require respondents to perform activities outside the normal operation practi ces. 

### 6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost EPA’s estimate of its burden and costs are from the activities described in Section 5(a) . When calculating the agency cost, EPA makes the following assumption: EPA determined the hourly employ ment cost of federal employees using methodology established in previous ICRs . According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2 013 General Schedule ( 201 3 - GS), the average annual salary of a government employee at the GS - 9, Step 10 level is $ 54,028 . At 2,080 hours per ye ar, the hourly wage is $ 25.98 . Assuming overhead costs of 60 percent, the fully loaded cost of employ

ment for a federal employee is $ 41. 56 . Burden and costs incurred by EPA are presented in the Respondents and Agency Activities Table in Appendix A. EPA’s activities as the NPDES permitting authority for non - authorized states and territories are the same as the activities performed by the authorized states and territories . These burdens and costs are identical to those for NPDES - authorized state s and territories. **Pesticide General Permit NOI filing** EPA estimates permitting authorities will spend 0.5 hours processing each NOI . EPA estimates formal ESA - related evaluation by the Services will take 5 hours and informal evaluation by the Services wi ll take 0.5 hour s . **Pesticide General Permit NOT filing** Permitting authorities will spend 0.25 hour s processing each NOTs . **Pesticide General Permit Standard Permit Conditions** Permitting authorities will handle and review Permittee Report of Planned Fac ility Changes, Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance, and Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

27

In formation . EPA estimates permitting authorities will spend 0.5 hour s , 2 hours, and 1 hour, respectivel y for this activity . **Pesticide General Permit Noncompliance Report Review**  Permitting authorities will spend 2 hours handling and reviewing each noncompliance report . **Pesticide General Permit Adverse Incident Report Review** Permitting authorities will spend 2 hours handling and reviewing each advers e incident report. **Pesticide General Permit Annual Report Review** Permitting authorities will spend 1 hour handling and reviewing each annual report. 

### 6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs Detailed information describing the universe and basis for burden and costs is provided in Section 6(a) . Results are presented in the Respondents and Agency Activities Table in Appendix A . That table provides the respondent universe and the source of information for all respondent categories used throughout this draft ICR . 

### 6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables **6(e)(i) Respondent Tally** The bottom line burden hours and cost s for facilities and authorized states are the average annual hours and costs collectively incurred for all activities during the 3 - year period covered b y this draft ICR . Table 6.1 provides a summary of the average annual number of respondents, burden hour s, and costs . A more detailed summary is in the Respondents and Agency Activities Table in Appendix A. **Table 6.1 Respondent tally Permittees**  **States/tribes/ territories** * **Totals** Respondents (number) 365,000 47 365,047 Responses (number) 1,276,395 7,136 1,283,531 Burden (hours) 828,141 6,615 834,756 Costs (labor) $38,462,682 $199,780 $38,662,46 2 Costs (capital) $0 $0 $0 Costs (O&M) $0 $0 $0 Total costs $38,462,682 $199,780 $38,662,46 2 Average annual burden per respondent (hours) 2.3 140.7 2.3 *The average annual burden per permitting authority is for responses associated with 90% of the universe of permittees. 

### 6(e)(ii) The A**gency**

**Tally** The bottom line burden hours and costs for the agency are the total annual hours and costs collectively

incurred for all activities during the period covered by this draft ICR . Table 6.2 provides a summary

of the average annual agency burden hours and costs . A more detailed summary is in the Respondents and Agency Activities Table in Appendix A.6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

28

**Table 6.2 A gency tally**  Responses (number) 820 Burden (hours) 776 Costs (labor) $32,268 Costs (capital) $0 Costs (O&M) $0 Total costs $32,268 

### 6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden The current burden approved by OMB for the existing ICR is 847,652. That is 12,896 (2%) more hours than are being requested in this draft ICR . All of the decrease in burden is attributable to the shift from the 2011 PGP to the 2016 PGP in y ear 3 of this draft ICR when permittees renewing their coverage would not need to develop a new PDMP , assuming the 2016 PGP will be similar to the 2011 PGP. 

### 6 **(g) Burden Statement** The calculations made for this draft ICR cover the burden and costs for EPA and other f ederal agencies, NPDES - authorized state s, and operators of pesticide activities . This draft ICR estimates an annual burden of 828,141 hours for 365, 000 respondents (permittees) at a labor cost of $ 38.5 million . Burden for the state respondents is 6,615 hours annually at a labor cost of $ 0. 2 million . Agency burden is 776 hours annuall y at a labor cost of $ 32,268 . The annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.7 hour s per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by p ersons to generate, maintain, or disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and s ys tems 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 previousl y applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it display s a currently

valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulation s are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. To comment on EPA’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techni ques, the agency has established a public docket for this draft ICR under Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2008 - 0719, which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center - Public Reading Room, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004. 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 through6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

29

the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov/. Use FDMS to submit or view public comments, to access the index listing of the cont ents of the public docket, and to access documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key

in the docket ID number identified above. You can also send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Off ice of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2008 - 0719 and OMB Control No. 2040 - 0284 in any correspondence.