** Draft **

Information Collection Request for

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) Permits for Point Source Discharges from 

the Application of Pesticides to Waters of the United States

OMB Control No. 2040-0284, EPA ICR No. 2397.02

June 25, 2014

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Wastewater Management

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460
ii

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) Sensitive 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) Recordkeeping.......................................................................................................... 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 Tally....................................................................................................... 27

6(e)(ii) The Agency Tally ..................................................................................................... 27
iii

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

6(g) Burden Statement .............................................................................................................. 28

Appendices

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.................................................................................................................. 28
1. 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 Control Number: 2040-0284; 

EPA ICR Number: 2397.02

1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract

This draft Information Collection Request (ICR) renews Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) ICR Number 2040-0284. This draft ICR calculates the burden and costs associated with 

NPDES permits for point source discharges from the application of pesticides.

On November 27, 2006, EPA issued a final rule (hereinafter called the “2006 NPDES Pesticides 

Rule”) clarifying circumstances where an NPDES permit was not required to apply pesticides to 

or around water when applied in compliance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). On January 7, 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court vacated EPA’s 2006 

NPDES Pesticides Rule. As a result of the Court’s decision, as of October 31, 2011 NPDES 

permits were required for discharges to waters of the United States from the application of 

biological pesticides and chemical pesticides that leave a residue.

The CWA authorizes EPA to issue permits for the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United 

States. EPA regulates discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States under its NPDES 

program. CWA Section 402(b) allows states (defined to include Indian Tribes and U.S. 

territories) to acquire authority to administer the NPDES program. This authority enables them to 

issue and enforce NPDES permits.

EPA estimates that the Sixth Circuit Court’s ruling would affect approximately 365,000 pesticide 

applicators nationwide. Given the vast number of operators requiring NPDES permit coverage, 

EPA and NPDES-authorized states developed general permits for discharges from the 

application of pesticides. EPA estimates that the overwhelming majority of operators required to 

seek coverage will do so under an NPDES general permit instead of an NPDES individual 

permit. For the small number of operators who will seek coverage under an NPDES individual 

permit, EPA believes their information collection and reporting activities are already covered 

under the existing ICR for the NPDES Program (ICR Number 0229.20, 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 states’ general permits for 

discharges from the application of pesticides.

This draft ICR estimates an annual burden of 828,141hours 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 $32,268.
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, physical 

and biological integrity of the nation’s waters” [section 101(a)]. Section 301(a) of the CWA 

provides that “the discharge of any pollutant by any person shall be unlawful” unless the 

discharge is in compliance with certain other sections of the Act. The CWA defines “discharge 

of a pollutant” as “(A) any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source, 

(B) any addition of any pollutant to the waters of the contiguous zone or the ocean from any 

point source other than a vessel or other floating craft.” 33 U.S.C. 1362(12). A “point source” is 

any “discernible, confined and discrete conveyance” but does not include “agricultural 

stormwater discharges and return flows from irrigated agriculture.” 33 U.S.C. 1362(14). 

One way a person may discharge a pollutant without violating the section 301 prohibition is by

obtaining authorization to discharge (referred to herein as “coverage”) under a section 402 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (33 U.S.C. 1342). Under 

section 402(a), EPA may “issue a permit for the discharge of any pollutant, or combination of 

pollutants, notwithstanding section 1311(a)” upon certain conditions required by the Act.

An NPDES permit authorizes the discharge of a regulated amount of a pollutant or pollutants 

into a receiving water under certain conditions. The NPDES program relies on two types of 

permits: individual and general. An individual permit is a permit specifically tailored for an 

individual discharger. Upon receiving the appropriate permit application(s), the permitting 

authority, i.e., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or a state, develops a draft 

permit for public comment for that particular discharger based on the information contained in 

the permit application (e.g., type of activity, nature of discharge, receiving water quality).

Following consideration of public comments, a final permit is then issued to the discharger for a 

specific time period (not to exceed 5 years) with a provision for reapplying for further permit 

coverage prior to the expiration date. 

In contrast, a general permit covers multiple facilities/sites/activities within a specific category 

for a specific period of time (not to exceed 5 years). Under 40 CFR 122.28, general permits may

be written to cover categories of point sources having common elements, such as facilities that 

involve the same or substantially similar types of operations, that discharge the same types of 

wastes, or that are more appropriately regulated by a general permit. Courts have approved of the 

use of general permits. See e.g., Natural Res. Def. Council v. Costle, 568 F.2d 1369 (D.C. Cir. 

1977); EDC v. US EPA, 344 F.3d 832, 853 (9th Cir. 2003). The general permit approach allows 

EPA to allocate resources in a more efficient manner and to provide more timely coverage and 

may significantly simplify the permitting process for the majority of pesticide dischargers. As 

with any permit, the CWA requires the general permit to contain technology-based effluent 

limitations, as well as any more stringent limits when necessary to meet applicable state water 

quality standards. State water quality standards apply in the territorial seas, defined in section 

502(8) of the CWA as extending three miles from the baseline. Pacific Legal Foundation v. 

Costle, 586 F.2d 650, 655-656 (9th Cir. 1978); Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. 

EPA, 863 F.2d 1420, 1435 (9th Cir. 1988).
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 protective to meet the statutory and regulatory requirements under the 

CWA. In particular, CWA section 402(a)(2) requires EPA to prescribe permit conditions to 

assure compliance with requirements “including conditions on data and information collection, 

reporting and such other requirements as [the Administrator] deemed appropriate.” EPA’s 

application forms require applicants to submit data that help determine what those conditions 

should be.

The CWA also establishes an administrative framework for the NPDES permitting program. 

CWA section 402(b) authorizes states (which include U.S. territories and Indian tribes that have 

been authorized in the same manner as a state) to administer the NPDES program once EPA is 

assured that they meet minimum federal requirements. Authorized states are considered 

permitting authorities and are responsible for issuing, administering, and enforcing permits for 

most point source discharges within their borders. In states without an authorized NPDES 

program, EPA is the permitting authority and undertakes all permitting activities; although CWA 

section 401 requires states to certify that EPA-issued NPDES permits establish “effluent 

limitations, and monitoring requirements necessary to assure that any applicant...will comply 

with any applicable effluent limitations and other limitations (pursuant to the CWA) and with 

any other appropriate requirement of state law...” states, tribes, and U.S. territories may waive 

their right to certify permits if they wish. CWA section 510 provides that states, tribes, and 

territories may adopt requirements equal to or more stringent than standards established pursuant 

to CWA provisions.

Regulations governing permit requirements for NPDES discharges are contained in 40 CFR part 

122. The specific monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for NPDES programs 

are applicable to both EPA- and state-administered NPDES permit programs.

On November 27, 2006, EPA issued the 2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule clarifying circumstances 

where an NPDES permit was not required in order to apply pesticides to waters of the United 

States. On January 7, 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court vacated EPA’s 2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule.

As a result of the Court’s decision, NPDES permits will be required for discharges to waters of 

the U.S. from the application of biological pesticides and chemical pesticides that leave a 

residue. Table 2.1 lists the areas where EPA is the permitting authority for discharges from 

pesticide application activities. 

Given the vast number of operators requiring NPDES permit coverage and the discharges 

common to these operators, EPA believes that it makes administrative sense to issue a general 

permit, rather than issuing individual permits to each operator. Thus, the agency and states issued

general permits for discharges from application of pesticides. EPA believes the majority of the 

affected entities will seek coverage under an NPDES general permit instead of an NPDES 

individual permit.
2. Need For and Use of the Collection

4

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

Application Activities

States

Idaho Massachusetts New Hampshire New Mexico

Territories and Others

American Samoa

District of Columbia

Guam

Johnston Atoll

Midway Island

Wake Island

Northern Mariana Islands

Puerto Rico

States with Federal Facilities for which EPA has Permitting Authority

 Colorado Delaware Vermont Washington

States with Tribal Lands for which EPA has Permitting Authority

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

California

Colorado

Connecticut 

Florida

Idaho

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Montana

Nebraska 

Nevada

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Oregon

Rhode Island

South Dakota

Texas

Utah

Washington

Wisconsin

Wyoming

On October 31, 2011, EPA issued a final general permit (Pesticide General Permit or PGP) for 

the areas where it is the permitting authority. See Federal Register notice (76 FR 68750). The 

PGP covers the discharge of pesticides (biological pesticides and chemical pesticides which 

leave a residue) to waters of the United States resulting from the following use patterns: 1) 

mosquito and other flying insect pest control; (2) weed and algae pest control; (3) animal pest 

control; and (4) forest canopy pest control. In the PGP, operators are identified as either 

“applicators” or “decision-makers” or both. An applicator is an entity who performs the 

application of a pesticide or who has day-to-day control of the application (i.e., they are 

authorized to direct workers to carry out those activities) that results in a discharge to waters of 

the United States. A decision-maker is an entity with control over the decision to perform 

pesticide applications, including the ability to modify those decisions that result in discharges to 

waters of the United States. By 2011, NPDES-authorized states had also issued final general 

permits for pesticide discharges. For this draft ICR 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 by the permittee. Information collection and reporting activities required in 

EPA’s PGP are listed below:

 Information routinely submitted in a Notice of Intent (NOI) when requesting coverage 

under a general permit;

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

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

 Information collected after pesticide application; 

 Information collected from self-monitoring;

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

 Information submitted as a result of any adverse incident;
2. Need For and Use of the Collection

5

 Information used to assess the effects of discharges on federally listed endangered and 

threatened species, and designated critical habitat;

 Information filed or otherwise retained by the permitting authority including the NOI, 

adverse incident reports, and annual reports; and

 Information routinely submitted in an NOT (Notice of Termination) when terminating 

coverage under the PGP.

Information can be categorized into two sets: operator identification information and operator

Discharge and Management Practice Information. Permitting authorities use the information in 

the ways discussed below.

Identification Information

Permitting authorities use information such as the name, location, and description of pest 

management area to identify entities that are requesting coverage under a general permit. EPA 

and most states store basic NOI information submitted for coverage under an NPDES general 

permit in databases that provide an inventory of permit holders. EPA Headquarters uses the 

information contained in the NOI databases to develop reports on permit issuance and 

compliance rates. The agency also uses the information to respond to public and Congressional 

inquiries, develop and guide its policies, and formulate its budgets.

To meet the agency’s obligations under the Endangered Species Acts (ESA), EPA must ensure 

that its permit does not jeopardize listed species. Operators seeking coverage under EPA’s PGP 

are required to assess the effects of their pesticide discharges on federally listed endangered and 

threatened species and designated critical habitat. Similar to other EPA general permits, the 

agency assumes for this draft ICR that information will be captured on the NOI and therefore 

contained in the NOI database. NPDES-authorized states are not required to meet similar ESA 

obligations and as such no ESA burden is associated with state-issued NPDES general permits.

Discharge and Management Practice Information

Permitting authorities use discharge information and management practice information from selfmonitoring activities, annual reports, and PDMPs as part of compliance evaluations to ensure 

that permittees adhere to procedures or conditions as stated in these documents. Collection and 

reporting of data to permitting authorities also improves permittee accountability for remaining 

in compliance with their established permit conditions. If noncompliance with permit conditions 

is detected, the permitting authority will determine the appropriate enforcement action response 

on the basis of the nature and severity of the violation, the overall degree of noncompliance 

frequency, and degree of seriousness of the violation.

NPDES permits may not be issued for a period to exceed five years. Information obtained during 

the next five years related to discharges and practices could lead the permit writers to take the 

following actions in the next permit development:

 Specify additional permit limitations;

 Assess adequacy of the permit in protecting water quality;

 Assess compliance with existing permit limitations and conditions; and

 Place appropriate special conditions in permits.
3. Non-duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

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 by statute or 

regulation and, in most cases, is not available from other sources. EPA has examined all other 

reporting and recordkeeping requirements contained in the CWA and 40 CFR parts 122, 123, 

124, 125, 403, 501, and 503. EPA also has consulted the following sources of information to 

determine if similar or duplicate information is available elsewhere:

 The EPA Inventory of ICRs;

 The Government Information Locator Service; and

 The Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI).

EPA has also examined potentially similar reporting requirements for notice of spills under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for duplication of the CWA requirement. 

EPA believes that any duplication between NPDES and RCRA reporting of pollutant releases is 

negligible because they focus on different areas of a facility (RCRA focuses on on-site activities, 

and NPDES focuses on discharge outfalls and discharge to waters of the United States).

In addition, EPA has examined potentially similar reporting requirements under FIFRA for 

duplication of the CWA requirement. While some of the information required in these general 

permits may be similar to that already required under FIFRA, the universe of respondents is 

different or is only a subset of the universe in this draft ICR. For example, adverse incident 

reporting requirements in the permit are currently required of pesticide registrants under FIFRA 

but not from operators. EPA believes the expansion of this requirement to operators provides a 

more comprehensive dataset on which to assess potential impacts from activities covered under 

these general permits. Another example is the ICR for Certification of Pesticide applicators 

(OMB No: 2070-0029, EPA No: 0155.11) which requires commercial applicators, who are 

certified by program administered by non-federal agencies, to keep records on restricted-use 

pesticides. See 40 CFR 171. EPA believes that any duplication between activities required under 

the NPDES general permits and 40 CFR 171 is negligible. The PGP allows operators to rely on 

records and documents developed for other obligations, such as requirements under FIFRA, and 

state or local pesticide programs to meet the recordkeeping requirements, provided all 

requirements of the permit are satisfied. 

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

In compliance with the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), any agency developing a non -

rule-related ICR must solicit public comments for a 60-day period before submitting the ICR to 

OMB. These comments, which are used partly to determine realistic burden estimates for 

respondents, must be considered when completing the Supporting Statement that is submitted to 

OMB.
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 states, industry

groups, and environmental groups during permit development. EPA also hosted several 

webcasts. EPA published the proposed NPDES PGP in a Federal Register notice on June 4, 

2010 (75 FR 31775) and received over 700 public comments. See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW2010-0257. 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 sets of comments. See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW2010–0852.

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 years, the executive and legislative branches 

of the U.S. government have stressed the need for evaluating the costs and benefits of regulation 

and the financial impact on the regulated community, state, and local government. EPA regularly 

seeks new opportunities to reduce burden on the regulated community.

Given the vast number of operators requiring NPDES permit coverage and the discharges 

common to these operators, EPA believes that it makes administrative sense to issue an NPDES

general permit, rather than issuing NPDES individual permits to each operator. General permits 

are issued to groups of entities that have similar operating procedures, discharge characteristics, 

and geographic location (e.g., states). In this way, permitting authorities can cover a large 

number of facilities within one permit and establish a common set of limitations, monitoring 

requirements, and permit conditions. 

The information needed to meet permitting, monitoring, reporting, and information collection 

requirements related to the NPDES Program may be submitted one time, at a regular frequency, 

or on an as needed basis. EPA and NPDES-authorized states need current information about 

permittees and discharge characteristics to fulfill oversight responsibilities. The NPDES burden 

described in this draft ICR identifies the burden that EPA has determined as necessary. EPA 

strives to minimize burden. EPA has determined that the information currently required is the 

minimum that is necessary to adequately evaluate permittee compliance.

3(e) General Guidelines

This information collection is consistent with OMB guidelines contained in 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2). 

Requests for supplemental information for the purposes of emergency response or enforcement 

activities are exempt from the Paperwork Reduction Act requirements.
3. Non-duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

8

3(f) Confidentiality

Respondent reports can contain confidential business information. If this is the case, the 

respondent may request that such information be treated as confidential. All confidential data 

will be handled in accordance with 40 CFR 122.7, 40 CFR part 2, and EPA’s Security Manual

Part III, Chapter 9, dated August 9, 1976. Any claim of confidentiality must be asserted at the 

time of submission. However, CWA section 308(b) specifically states that effluent data may not 

be treated as confidential.

3(g) Sensitive Questions

Sensitive questions are defined in EPA’s ICR Handbook, Guide to Writing Information 

Collection Requests Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 as “questions concerning 

sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, or other matters usually considered private.” The 

requirements addressed in this 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 operators of point source discharges of 

pollutants to waters of the United States to obtain a permit to discharge. EPA issues NPDES 

permits except where a state can demonstrate that it has adequate legal, technical, and financial 

capabilities in place to administer the NPDES program. To date, 46 states and one U.S. territory

are authorized by EPA to issue, administer, and enforce permits for discharges from pesticide 

application activities within their borders. EPA continues to be the permitting authority in the 

other 4 states and territories. For the list of areas where EPA is the permitting authority for 

discharges from application of pesticide, see Table 2.1. The authorized states and territories are 

considered respondents for evaluating paperwork burden in this draft ICR.

All operators to be covered under an NPDES general permit, whether that permit is issued by

EPA or a state, for discharges from the application of pesticides are 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 of pesticide applicators. Entities

potentially covered by the general permits include but are not limited to the following NAICS 

(North American Industry Classification System) codes: 111 Crop Production; 113110 Timber 

Tract Operations; 113210 Forest Nurseries Gathering of Forest Products; 221310 Water Supply

for Irrigation; 923120 Administration of Public Health Programs; 924110 Administration of Air 

and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management Programs; 924120 Administration of 

Conservation Programs; and 221 Utilities. 

4(b) Information Requested

This section presents the data items, including recordkeeping requirements, and required 

respondent activities involved in preparing and submitting those data items. It also presents 

respondent activities for the 47 authorized states (i.e., 46 authorized states plus the Virgin 

Islands).

All activities reported in this supporting statement were analyzed and allocated to one of five 

types of activities related to the NPDES program, these are as follows:

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

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

 Monitoring;

 Reporting; and

 Recordkeeping.

4(b)(i) Obtaining Permit Coverage

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

Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.21 and 122.28 detail the application and Notice of Intent 

(NOI) requirements for NPDES permits, respectively. EPA expects the overwhelming majority 
4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

10

of discharges from pesticide activities will obtain coverage via an NOI under an NPDES general 

permit instead of an NPDES individual permit. This section addresses only operators obtaining 

coverage under general permits. As stated previously, EPA expects few discharges to be covered 

under NPDES individual permits and those burdens are already addressed in the existing NPDES 

Program ICR (ICR Number 0229.20, OMB Number 2040-0004).

According to EPA’s PGP, certain decision-makers are required to submit NOI. Those include: 1) 

Federal and state agencies with a responsibility to control pests; 2) Pest control districts, 

irrigation control districts, or similar; 3) any other decision-makers that exceed the annual 

treatment area thresholds; 4) decision-makers that plan to discharge to outstanding national 

resource waters (i.e., Tier 3 waters); and 5) decision-makers that plan to discharge to waters with 

certain listed species or its critical habitat. Other operators are covered under the permit 

automatically without the need to submit an NOI. EPA drafted an NOI form for its PGP (see 

Appendix D for a copy of the NOI form). The NOI requests basic applicant data as well as 

pesticide application information such as pesticide use patterns and pest management areas. 

Similar to other EPA general permits, EPA assumes for this draft ICR that decision-makers 

eligible for coverage under the EPA’s PGP are required to submit NOIs if their pesticide 

activities are in areas where federally listed endangered 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 copy of the NOT form). 

Following is the type of information generally required on NOT forms:

 NPDES permit number;

 Name, address, and phone number of the decision-maker; and

 Certification of eligibility for filing the NOT (i.e., the discharge has been eliminated or 

the person filing the NOT is no longer the decision-maker).

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

This 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 officials, filling out forms, drafting letters, 

maintaining records, and mailing completed submissions. For pesticide applications in areas 

where federal listed endangered and threatened species, and designate critical habitat may be 

presented, similar to other EPA general permit activities may include formal or informal 

evaluation with the Services.

Activities for the 47 authorized states and territories can include reviewing and processing NOI 

and NOT, determine which dischargers, if any, would be more appropriately governed by an 

NPDES individual permit, and notify dischargers if they need to apply for an NPDES individual

permit. NPDES-authorized states are not required to meet the ESA obligations and as such there 

are no burdens associated with state-issued NPDES general permits.
4. 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 onsite and is not required to be submitted to the agency. The development of a PDMP is unique to 

each pest management area even though it is based on common required elements. A PDMP 

must be kept up-to-date and modified whenever necessary to document any corrective actions. 

According to EPA’s PGP, the following information must be documented in the PDMP: (1) 

pesticide discharge management team information; (2) problem identification; (3) pest 

management options evaluation; (4) response procedures (e.g., spill response procedures, adverse 

incident response procedures); and (5) documentation to support eligibility considerations under

other federal laws.

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

This 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 technical and legal officials, reviewing guidance materials, drafting the plan, 

reviewing the plan, and maintaining records. 

4(b)(iii) Monitoring

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

Monitoring is required in any NPDES permit specifically for the purpose of demonstrating 

compliance with the permit conditions. Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(i) outline the 

monitoring requirements for permittees. There are a variety of monitoring methods that a 

“traditional” NPDES permit may require, including end-of-pipe monitoring to show compliance 

with relevant effluent limitations prior to discharging to a receiving waterbody. Monitoring may

also pertain to actions taken to ensure that recordkeeping or other permit control activities are 

being properly implemented. Pursuant to CWA section 308 and 402(a)(2), 40 CFR 122.43(a), 

and other applicable implementing regulations, the monitoring requirement for the PGP,

according to EPA’s PGP, is narrative and demonstrates compliance with permit conditions by

requiring visual monitoring assessment and documentation requirements. Visual monitoring 

assessments are required as a means of identifying, for example, instances of detrimental impact 

to non-target organisms, disruption or degradation of wildlife habitat, or the prevention of 

designated recreational or municipal uses of a waterbody that may possibly be related to the 

operator’s use of pesticides in a given area. 

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

This 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 officials. 
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 (see Appendix D for a copy of the Annual Report 

form). The annual report will be used by EPA to assess permit compliance and to determine 

whether additional controls on pesticide discharges are necessary to protect water quality. 

Specifically, the report must include identification of any waters or other treatment area, 

including size, either by name or by location; pesticide use pattern(s) and target pest(s); company 

name(s) and contact information for pesticide applicator(s), if different from the NOI submitter; 

total amount of each pesticide product applied for the reporting year by the EPA registration 

number(s) and by application method; whether the pest control activity was addressed in the

PDMP prior to pesticide application; if applicable, an annual report of any adverse incidents as a 

result of these treatment(s); and a description of any corrective action(s), including spill 

responses, resulting from pesticide application activities and the rationale for such actions(s).

Similar to other EPA general permits, EPA assumes for this draft ICR that decision-makers 

eligible for coverage under the EPA’s PGP are required to file annual reports if their pesticide 

activities are in areas where federally listed endangered or threatened species or designated 

critical habitat may be presented.

Permittee Report of Adverse Incident 

According to EPA’s PGP, all operators are required to report any adverse incident that may have 

resulted from a discharge from their pesticide application. Operators are required to notify their 

permitting authority by telephone within 24 hours of becoming aware of the adverse incident. 

The following information is to be provided:

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, remedy, 

cleanup, or otherwise address any adverse effects; and

i. If known, the identity of any other operators authorized for coverage under this permit for 

discharges from the pesticide application activities that resulted in the adverse incident.

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

1. An operator is aware of facts that indicate that the adverse incident are not related to 

toxic effects or exposure from the pesticide application;
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 

clearly 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 incident, the operator must provide a written report of the 

adverse incident to the permitting authority and to all of the other authorized operators where 

multiple operators are authorized for that discharge. The report must include at least the 

following information:

a. Information provided during notification of the adverse incident;

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

and name of the staff from the permitting authority;

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

waters;

d. Description of the circumstances of the adverse incident including species affected, 

estimated number of individuals and approximate size of dead or distressed organisms;

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

distance affected);

f. Pesticide application rate, intended use site (e.g., banks, above, or direct to water), 

method of application, and name of pesticide product, description of pesticide 

ingredients, and EPA registration number;

g. Description of the habitat and the circumstances under which the adverse incident 

occurred (including any available ambient water data for pesticides applied);

h. If laboratory tests were performed, indicate what test(s) were performed, and when, and 

provide a summary of the test results within 5 days after they become available if not 

available at the time of submission of the 30-day report;

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

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

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

Habitat

According to EPA’s PGP, all operators are required to report adverse incidents to threatened or 

endangered species or critical habitat that may have resulted from a discharge from their 

pesticide application. Operators are required to notify the National Marine Fisheries Service or 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by telephone immediately upon becoming aware of the 

adverse incident. At least the following information must be provided:

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 operators has taken or will take to alleviate the adverse 

impact to the species.

Permittee Report of Spill, Leak, or Other Unpermitted Discharge

According to EPA’s PGP, all operators are required to report leak, spill or other releases 

containing a hazardous substance or oil in an amount equal to or in excess of a reportable 

quantity established under either 40 CFR part 110, 40 CFR part 117, or 40 CFR part 302 occurs 

in any 24-hour period. Operators must notify the National Response Center immediately in 

accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 110, 40 CFR part 117, and 40 CFR part 302. 

Within 30 days of the operator becoming aware of a spill, leak, or other unpermitted discharge, 

the operator must document and retain the following information:

a. Information 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 recurrence of such a spill, leak, or other discharge, including 

notice of whether PDMP modifications are required as a result of the spill or leak.

Permittee Report of Corrective Action

According to EPA’s PGP, all operators are required to document any situation triggering 

corrective action and their planned corrective action within 30 days of the operator becoming 

aware of the situation triggering the need for corrective action. The operator must retain a copy 

of this documentation. The documentation must include the following information:

a. Identification of the condition triggering the need for corrective action review, including 

any ambient water quality monitoring that assisted in determining that discharges did not 

meet water quality standards;

b. Brief description of the situation;

c. Date the problem was identified.

d. Brief description of how the problem was identified and how the operator learned of the 

situation and date the operator learned of the situation;

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

completed or expected to be completed; and

f. Any measures to prevent reoccurrence of such an incident, including notice of whether 

PDMP modifications are required as a result of the incident.

Permittee Report of Planned Facility Changes 

According to 40 CFR 122.41(l)(1), any planned alteration or addition to a permitted facility must 

be reported to the permitting authority. This requirement applies to a change in the discharge of 

pollutants that are not already subject to the facility’s permit requirements. For pesticide 

application activities, planned changes may include but not limited to discharging to a Tier 3 

water or discharging pesticides to a water impaired for that pesticide. When reporting planned 
4. 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 develop an individual NPDES 

permit before the planned changes are made. 

Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance 

According to 40 CFR 122.41(l)(2) a change in the discharge of pollutants that might result in 

noncompliance with existing permit limits must be reported to the permitting authority. 

Permittees typically make this sort of report by submitting a letter that explains the reasons for 

the anticipated noncompliance. The advance notice provided by this reporting requirement 

enables the permitting authority to help a permittee mitigate the effects of anticipated 

noncompliance on the receiving waters. 

Facility and Permit Transfer Report 

Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.41(l)(3) specify that when a facility’s ownership changes, it 

must notify the permitting authority in a letter stating the date of the transfer and the name of the 

new permit holder. EPA does not anticipate any respondents for the PGP because decisionmakers are required to file a NOT (Notice of Termination), which is covered elsewhere in this 

draft ICR, when they transfer ownership; rather than submitting some other type of 

documentation. 

Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous Information 

According to 40 CFR 122.41(l)(8), permittees must correct inaccurate information that has been 

submitted in a permit application or permit report as soon as the permittee learns of the error(s). 

Usually, permittees notify the permitting authority by letter. The permitting authority uses this 

information to update permit records or to execute appropriate enforcement actions. 

Noncompliance Reports 

Requirements in 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6)-(7) specify that a permittee must provide 24-hour oral 

reporting of any noncompliance that could endanger human health or the environment (with a 

written follow-up submission within 5 days). 

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

This draft ICR explains these activities in detail in Section 4(b)(iv)(1) above. However, any 

respondent preparing and submitting reports may engage in the following types of activities:

 Preparing basic information. This includes reading instructions and regulations for report 

requirements, consulting technical, legal, and political staff, reviewing guidance 

materials, gathering general information, typing or completing forms or generating 

reports, and mailing or electronic submission of completed forms or reports to the 

NPDES permitting authority.

 Gathering detailed information. Detailed information gathered includes any data required 

by the NPDES permitting authorities as outlined in Section 4(b)(iv)(1).

Activities for the 47 authorized states 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 operators are required to keep the following records:

 A copy of any adverse incident reports

 Rationale for any determination that reporting of an identified adverse incident is not 

required consistent with allowances identified in the PGP

 A copy of any corrective action documentation

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

EPA expects operators to incur a relatively minor additional burden for paperwork associated 

with adverse incidents, corrective action, and spills. EPA expects these operators likely already

have filing capacity for paper files including any correspondence with EPA, as well as to prepare 

and save any adverse incident reports electronically. In addition, entities would only incur these 

costs in the event of an adverse incident, corrective action, or spill/leak.

b. According to the EPA’s PGP, all operators who are for-hire applicators must retain the 

following records:

 Documentation of equipment calibration; and 

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

1. Description of each treatment area, including location and size (acres or linear feet) of 

treatment area and identification of any waters, either by name or by locations, to 

which pesticide(s) are discharged;

2. Pesticide use pattern(s);

3. Target pest(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 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. 

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 tracking number;

 Documentation of equipment calibration (only if decision-maker is also the applicator);

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

o Description of treatment area, including location and size (acres or linear feet) of 

treatment area and identification of any waters of the United States, either by 

name or by location, to which pesticide(s) are discharged;

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 pesticide 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 monitoring identified any 

possible or observable adverse incidents caused by application of pesticides.

A worksheet (Pesticide Discharge Evaluation Worksheet) for documenting this information on 

each treatment area is provided in the permit (see Appendix D for a copy of the Pesticide 

Discharge Evaluation Worksheet). 

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 copy of the PDMP, including any modifications made to the PDMP during the term of 

this permit;

 Copy of annual reports submitted to EPA; 

 Documentation of equipment calibration (only if decision-maker is also the applicator);

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

o Description of each treatment area, including location and size (acres or linear 

feet) of treatment area and identification of any Waters of the United States, either 

by name or by location, to which pesticide(s) are discharged;

o Pesticide 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 Activities

This draft ICR explains respondent activities in detail in Section 4(b)(v)(1) above. Activities can 

include developing recordkeeping systems, collecting and entering data, training personnel, and 

filing information. All permit applicants must retain records for at least 3 years from the date that 

their coverage under the permit expires or terminated. 
5. The Information Collected—Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

18

5. The Information Collected—Agency Activities, Collection 

Methodology, and Information Management

5(a) Agency Activities

This draft ICR includes all the reporting requirements related to EPA as the NPDES permitting 

authority for discharges from application of pesticides. 

EPA’s activities as the NPDES permitting authority for non-NPDES-authorized states and 

territories are the same as the activities performed by the NPDES-authorized states and 

territories. Some of the key activities permitting authorities will perform are:

 Receive NOIs and review them for completeness. If an NOI is incomplete, the permitting 

authority will notify the applicant and request the missing information. If the NOI is 

complete, an acceptance letter will be sent to the permittee, along with a unique permit 

number. For EPA, the NOI data will be maintained in a database at EPA’s Notice 

Processing Center.

 When a permitting authority issues a general permit, it may notify those dischargers 

eligible for coverage under the permit. Notification may include newspaper 

announcements, direct mailings, or other methods of communication.

 When permitting authorities receive notices of intent for general permits, they must 

determine which dischargers, if any, would be more appropriately governed by individual 

permits. As part of these activities, permitting authorities may notify dischargers that they 

need to apply for individual permits.

 When permitting authorities receive annual reports, they must review the annual reports 

for compliance with the general permit. 

 When permitting authorities receive a notice of termination (NOT), they must review and 

process the notice. EPA will maintain these data in the database at the agency’s Notice 

Processing Center.

Permittees are not required to submit PDMPs to permitting authority for review. These plans are 

to be maintained on-site where the pesticide activities are taking place and must be available for 

permitting authority review as requested. Therefore, for the purposes of this 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 review is necessary, and in some 

instances, may also require follow-up actions. Data review will vary; however, generally, the 

permitting authority will screen data to identify permit violations and will conduct a more 

thorough technical review and follow-up when violations are detected. Follow-up activities can 

include informal contact with the permittee (by telephone or letter) requesting prompt corrective 

action, providing technical assistance, performing field inspections to further substantiate 

violations, or initiating formal enforcement action such as an administrative order or referral to 

the U.S. attorney general (or state attorney general in the case of authorized states).
5. The Information Collected—Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

19

The extent to which permitting authorities review data in assessing permit compliance will vary. 

For example, permitting authorities often will conduct a more extensive review of permittees that 

are, or have been, in violation of their permit requirements, than of permittees who have been in 

full compliance. 

The extent to which permitting authority reviews data also depends on available resources and 

the specific review procedures of the permitting authority (state or EPA Region). In authorized 

states, state environmental agencies generally review permittee data. EPA also may review data 

from permittees in NPDES-authorized states while performing program oversight functions (i.e., 

during file audits and when compiling statistical compliance summaries).

EPA reviews data in non-NPDES-authorized states. EPA generally places emphasis on data from 

major permittees and from minor permittees that can cause water quality problems (i.e., 

significant minors). EPA reviews data from general permittees less frequently. EPA does not 

require non-NPDES-authorized states to review data, but several states voluntarily review these 

data and use the results in their own water quality protection programs.

In collecting and analyzing the information associated with this 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 ICR that the Services must 

help some operators obtain information relating to federally listed endangered and threatened 

species, and designated critical habitat and may participate in informal or formal evaluation. 

NPDES-authorized states are not required to include this requirement in their NPDES general 

permits and therefore neither the authorized states nor discharges from application of pesticides 

within those states incur any burden related to ESA.

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

EPA maintains some application data in databases such as ICIS-NPDES, and the NOI database. 

These systems provide EPA with a nationwide inventory of permit holders. EPA uses this 

information to assess permit compliance. This technology also reduces the burden to EPA and 

the states for gathering and analyzing national permit and water quality data.

In collecting and analyzing the information associated with EPA’s PGP, EPA will use its 

electronic NOI (eNOI) system to store the information. EPA will ensure accuracy and 

completeness of the information by reviewing each submittal upon receipt and is responsible for 

ensuring that applicable data are entered into eNOI. Any form that is considered inaccurate or 

incomplete will not be accepted and will be returned to the sender with a letter requesting the 

missing or inaccurate information.
5. The Information Collected—Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

20

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

For many reasons, EPA 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 

years. The burden represented by the NOI cannot be further reduced for small businesses. 

Permitting authorities need certain basic information to make permitting decisions. This basic 

information is not dependent on an operator’s size.

Minimizing the burden on small entities also comes in the form of guidance materials. For 

example, to assist operators of all sizes, but potentially most useful for small entities, EPA has 

developed guidance, a PDMP template. The template is designed to guide entities through 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 requirements do not impose a large burden on small 

businesses because the information required is simple and straightforward.

5(d) Collection Schedule

The collection schedule for the activities presented in this draft ICR varies greatly depending on 

the type of activity. 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 years. The regulations also grant permit writers 

the authority to issue permits more frequently. For those dischargers required to submit notices 

of intent, those must be submitted every 5 years. Dischargers submitting a notice of intent that 

wish to be covered under a reissued general permit must submit a new notice of intent for 

coverage under that new permit. When calculating burden, this 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 states are identified as 

respondents. The breakdown of cost and burden by labor category is provided in Section 6(b).

In the original ICR, on the basis of information presented in the Economic Analysis of the 

Pesticide General Permit (PGP) for Point Source Discharges from the Application of Pesticides, 

May 26, 2010, EPA assumed 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 

assumptions from the original ICR. 

This draft ICR calculates annual burden and costs to respondents (365,000 permittees and 47

authorized states). These calculations address dischargers obtaining coverage under years 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 apply 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 states for handling and reviewing NOI information 

discussed in this subsection. Estimates of the burden do not include analysis of the data because 

this activity is associated with preparing and issuing the permit. Because most state governments 

have authority for the NPDES programs, state governments will incur the majority of the 

permitting authority burden and costs. 

Notice of Intent (NOI) 

The NOI filing requirement is applicable only to certain permittees. EPA estimates that 2 hours 

is required to file an NOI for a general permit. This burden estimate includes 1 hour to read and 

understand the regulation, and 1 hour to fill out and submit the form. EPA estimates that 2.5% of 

the regulated universe would need to file an NOI (9,125 entities), for an annual average of 1,825

NOIs (9,125 divided by the 5-year coverage). EPA estimates that the agency and NPDESauthorized states will spend 0.5 hours processing these NOIs.
6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

22

Similar to ICRs for other EPA general permits, EPA assumes that the burden for permittees 

covered under the EPA’s PGP as a result of ESA obligations be the following:

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

average of 7 NOIs)

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

average of 4 NOIs)

Notice of Termination (NOT) 

EPA estimates that on average, permittees will spend 0.5 hours filling out an NOT. EPA 

estimates the total number of respondents will be 456 (5 percent of the respondents required to 

submit NOIs). EPA estimates that 91 NOTs will be filed annually. This assumes that, in general, 

the universe of dischargers covered under this permit will not change significantly from year to 

year. EPA estimates that permitting authorities will spend 0.25 hours processing each NOT.

6(a)(ii) Plan Development

Certain permittees will be required to develop a Pesticide Discharge Management Plan (PDMP) 

and keep it up-to-date. PDMPs document the evaluation and selection of pest management 

measures to meet the technology-based effluent limitations. These plans may cover one or more 

treatment areas within one plan, and can reference other documents (such as pre-existing 

integrated pest management plans). Thus, the cost to develop the PDMP will vary based on the 

extent of pest problems and pesticide use, as well as existing documentation that may be 

referenced to fulfill plan requirements. Decision-makers that have been evaluating pest problems 

and alternative management methods may have significant relevant material already compiled 

and available. In this draft ICR, EPA assumes that for the first two years of ICR coverage 

(corresponding to years 4 and 5 of the permit), 967 respondents a year will be required to 

develop a PDMP (53 percent of the universe required to file NOIs). Although components of a 

PDMP are similar, pest management area design, size and function, and the level of effort 

involved will vary for each pest management area. EPA estimates the average level of effort that 

might be required to prepare a PDMP. This burden estimate for preparing a PDMP includes 1 

hour to select the team, 16 hours to describe sources, 14 hours to develop measures and controls, 

8 hours to develop schedules and procedures, and 1 hour to document considerations under other 

federal laws. Thus, EPA estimates that the average time for a respondent to develop a PDMP is 

40 hours. This is a one-time development activity. Decision-makers are required to update the 

plan as needed. EPA assumes that 1,209 plans (25 percent of the universe required to develop a 

plan) will be updated annually with the average time of 2 hours. 

6(a)(iii) Monitoring

All 365,000 permittees are required to conduct monitoring. According to the EPA’s PGP, this 

includes visual monitoring. EPA expects minimal additional burden associated with monitoring 

under the general permit. Where required, EPA expects an additional 0.25 hours per site 

monitored. EPA assumes large entities that are required to submit NOIs conduct an average of 

sixteen applications annually (4,836 respondents). For small entities who are required to submit 

NOIS, pesticide applications are likely to be fewer; EPA assumes an average of four applications 

per year (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 authority. The 

respondent activities include preparing and submitting annual reports. EPA estimates that 

respondents will spend 8 hours preparing and submitting annual reports. EPA estimates 4,892

reports) will be submitted annually. Permitting authorities will spend approximately 1 hour 

processing and reviewing these annual reports.

Permittee Report of Adverse Incident

Permittees are required to notify their permitting authority and provide a written report of 

adverse incident that may have resulted from a discharge from pesticide application. EPA 

reviewed ecological incidents reported by registrants from 1976 to 2008. They range from 3 to 

21 incidents annually. In the EPA PGP, all permittees are required to report incidents. EPA 

assumes that 37 adverse incidents (0.01% of the universe) will be reported annually by 

permittees. EPA estimates that respondents will spend 2 hours gathering information and 

notifying their permitting authority. EPA estimates that respondents will spend an additional 2 

hours preparing and submitting a report. The activities required for permitting authorities include 

processing and reviewing the information from permittees. EPA estimates that permitting 

authority will spend 2 hours on this activity for each adverse incident. 

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

Habitat

Permittees are required to notify the National Marine Fisheries Service or the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service of any adverse incident to threatened or endangered species or critical habitat. 

EPA estimates that respondents will spend 2 hours gathering information and reporting any 

adverse incident and that the Services will spend 2 hours reviewing and documenting each 

adverse incident. EPA assumes 4 adverse incidents (0.001% of the universe) will be reported 

annually.

Permittee Report of Spill, Leak, or Other Unpermitted Discharge

Permittees are required to notify the National Response Center of any spill, leak, or other release 

containing a hazardous substance or oil. These activities are already required under existing 

regulations and as such, no additional burden is included in this 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 hours of labor for each report of anticipated 

noncompliance. This burden is divided as follows: 1 hour to read and understand the regulation, 

1 hour of planning, 1 hour of collecting information, and 2 hours for writing and submitting the 

report. EPA estimates that permitting authority will spend 2 hours handling and reviewing each 

report. EPA estimates 365 events (0.1% of the universe) will be reported annually.

Facility and Permit Transfer Report 

EPA does not anticipate any respondents for the PGP because operators are required to file a 

NOT (Notice of Termination) when they transfer ownership. Burden for NOTs are discussed 

elsewhere in this 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 typical report requires 2 hours to prepare. EPA estimates 

that permitting authority will spend 1 hour handling and reviewing each report. EPA estimates 

183 events (0.05% of the universe) will be reported annually.

Noncompliance Reports 

When a permittee violates a permit condition, it must submit a noncompliance report to the 

permitting authority. EPA estimates the average burden to be 5 hours per response. This burden 

represents the time required to gather information, prepare and present/conduct the verbal notice, 

and prepare and submit a written report for noncompliance. EPA estimates that an average of 2 

hours is required for the permitting authority to receive and process each noncompliance report. 

EPA estimates 183 events (0.05% of the universe) will be reported annually.

6(a)(v) Record Keeping

The burden associated with recordkeeping depends on the pest management area and whether the 

permittee already has a recordkeeping system. EPA expects all operators to retain certain basic 

records related to pesticide applications that result in discharges to waters of the United States. 

EPA estimates that all 365,000 operators will have a basic recordkeeping burden of 1 hour per 

year. EPA assumes a small additional recordkeeping burden for operators that are not required to 

submit NOIs, including information such as equipment calibration records or information on 

For-Hire applicators. EPA estimates 0.5 hours per year for 355,875 respondents.
6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

25

Small entity permittees who are required to submit NOIs keep basic records on pest control 

activities, including pesticide applications. EPA estimates that it would take approximately 1 

hour per application (4 applications per year) for these abbreviated records, or 4 hours. In this

draft ICR, EPA assumes that 4,289 small entities a year will be required to perform these 

recordkeeping activities (47 percent of the permitted universe applying for permit coverage). 

Permittees who are required to submit NOIs and 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 large entities, or 16 hours per year for 4,836 respondents–which is in addition 

to the 40 hours to develop the PDMP. 

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

With burden hour estimates in place from Section 6(a), the next step is to estimate the labor cost 

per respondent and the capital costs required to complete each activity. The total cost for each 

respondent activity is composed of the following:

 Labor Cost;

 Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Cost; and

 Capital/Start-up Cost.

The results of the respondents’ costs analysis are presented in the Respondents and Agency

Activities Table in Appendix A.

6(b)(i) Estimating Labor Costs

To estimate the potential costs, EPA identified labor categories associated with performing each 

activity. Labor categories include managerial, technical, and clerical. The Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS) publishes base mean annual wage rates in its Occupational Employment Survey

(OES, 2012) and an Employment Cost Index (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 likely to use either government or 

commercial labor. When calculating respondent labor costs, EPA makes the following 

assumptions for the permittees: 

 For state and local governments, EPA included employee benefits in the wage rate, and 

for commercial applicators, included benefits, overhead, and profit in estimating total 

labor rates. The BLS Employer Cost for Employee Compensation (ECEC, September

2013) provides estimates for benefit markups for governments (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 average 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 19-4091, Environmental 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 states’ cost, EPA uses the rate for technical staff (OES category 

19-4091, Environmental Science and Protection Technicians, including 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 accounts 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 accounts for labor costs only. The pesticide general permits do not require 

respondents to perform activities outside the normal operation practices. 

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

EPA’s estimate of its burden and costs are from the activities described in Section 5(a). When 

calculating the agency cost, EPA makes the following assumption:

EPA determined the hourly employment cost of federal employees using methodology

established in previous ICRs. According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2013

General Schedule (2013-GS), the average annual salary of a government employee at the GS-9, 

Step 10 level is $54,028. At 2,080 hours per year, the hourly wage is $25.98. Assuming overhead 

costs of 60 percent, the fully loaded cost of employment 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 states 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 will take 0.5 hours.

Pesticide General Permit NOT filing 

Permitting authorities will spend 0.25 hours processing each NOTs. 

Pesticide General Permit Standard Permit Conditions 

Permitting authorities will handle and review Permittee Report of Planned Facility Changes, 

Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance, and Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous 
6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

27

Information. EPA estimates permitting authorities will spend 0.5 hours, 2 hours, and 1 hour, 

respectively for this activity.

Pesticide General Permit Noncompliance Report Review 

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

Pesticide General Permit Adverse Incident Report Review

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

Pesticide General Permit Annual Report Review 

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

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

Detailed information describing the universe and basis for burden and costs is provided in 

Section 6(a). Results are presented in the Respondents and Agency Activities Table in Appendix 

A. That table provides the respondent universe and the source of information for all respondent 

categories used throughout this draft ICR.

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

6(e)(i) Respondent Tally

The bottom line burden hours and costs for facilities and authorized states are the average annual 

hours and costs collectively incurred for all activities during the 3-year period covered by this 

draft ICR. Table 6.1 provides a summary of the average annual number of respondents, burden 

hours, and costs. A more detailed summary is in the Respondents and Agency Activities Table in 

Appendix A.

Table 6.1 Respondent tally

Permittees States/tribes/

territories*

Totals

Respondents (number) 365,000 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 $38,662,462

Costs (capital) $0 $0 $0 

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

Total costs $38,462,682 $199,780 $38,662,462

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 Agency Tally

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

collectively incurred for all activities during the period covered by this 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 Agency 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 year 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 federal 

agencies, NPDES-authorized states, 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 annually at a labor cost of $32,268. The annual reporting 

and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.7 hours per 

response.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, 

maintain, or disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for 

the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining 

information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with 

any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to 

a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise disclose information. An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays 

a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations are 

listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

To comment on EPA’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, 

and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated 

collection techniques, the agency has established a public docket for this 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 through 
6. 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 contents of the public docket, 

and to access documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the 

system, key in the docket ID number identified above. You can also send comments to the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, 

Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. 

EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0719 and OMB Control No. 2040-0284 in any correspondence.