# Appendix C

**Response to Comment Comments Summary and**  **Reponses to Comments** 

In formation 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 [Regulations.gov Docket ID: EPA
- HQ
- OW
- 2010
- 0852 ]. EPA received 13 sets of comments for the proposed PGP I CR. Below is a summary of the main topics covered b y these comments and a summary of EPA’s response s . In some cases multip le comments addressed the same issue . For these, a single “ issue ” response was developed (see end of this document) and referenced when appropriate. **Comment EPA -**  **HQ -**  **OW -**  **2010 -**  **0852 -**  **0003 [Anonymous public comment]**  Summary : general opposition to the regulation requiring NPDES permits for pesticide discharges
. Response : EPA issued a final rule (2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule) clarifying two specific circumstances in which an NPDES permit was not required to appl y pesticides to or around water. On January

7, 2009, the Sixth Circuit vacated EPA’s 2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule and held that the CWA unambiguousl y includes “biological pesticides” and “chemical pesticides” with residuals within its definition of “pollutant.” National Cotton Council of America v. EPA, 553 F .3d 927 (6th Cir., 2009). As a result of the Court’s decision to vacate the 2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule, on October 31, 2011 , NPDES permits will be required for discharges to Waters of the United States of biological pesticides, and of chemical pesticides that leave a residue. In response to the Court’s decision, EPA has decided to issue this NPDES Pesticide General Permit (PGP) to cover certain discharges resulting from pesticide applications. EPA recognizes that FIFRA provides a range of environmental protection for the use of pesticides, and FIFRA requirements remain applicable. However, the CWA imposes distinct requirements to protect water quality (e.g., technology

and water quality based effluent limitations, monitoring and reporting requirements, st andard and special conditions, etc.) and, as explained in the Fact Sheet, the PGP implements NPDES program requirements in a reasonable manner to address the specific pesticide applications covered. EPA notes that in the final permit the Agency has revise d the applicability of certain permit requirements to better correlate these requirements with decision
- making responsibility and the potential to impact to surface waters. These changes will reduce the burden on numerous entities while complying with the CWA. For example, thresholds levels for the submittal of an NOI have increased in the final permit, and, in general, For
- Hire Applicators who are not Decision
- makers as defined in Appendix A of the permit, are not required to submit NOI s. In addition, un der the final PGP only a Decision
- maker required to submit an NOI and who is a Large Entity is subject to annual reporting and PDMP requirem ents. Overall, EPA estimates that the annual costs of the final permit are approximately half of the costs o f the proposed permit . The PGP protects water quality and through its tiered structure it will continue to allow for the proper use of pesticides in and around aquatic settings, which will serve bothpesticide
- related businesses and consumers. General permits streamline numerous aspects of

the permitting process. **Comment EPA -**  **HQ -**  **OW -**  **2010 -**  **0852 -**  **0004 [Clarke]**  Summary : Draft ICR ignore s annual reporting requirements in its estimates. Also, EPA underestimates the number of respondents (affected entities) in the I CR and the Agency ’s burden estimates for certain activities are too low. Response : The annual reporting requirements are discussed in sections 4(b)(iv)(1) and 6(a)(iv) of the final ICR. See response s to I ssues 2 and 3 below. **Comment EPA -**  **HQ -**  **OW -**  **2010 -**  **0852 -**  **0005 [Aquascape Environmental]**  Summary: EPA should change the threshold and modify the requirements. The estimates in the proposed PGP I CR are too burdensome to small business and small entities. The requirements are too burdensome and would require the hiring of additional qualified staff. Response : See response to I ssue 1
. **Comment EP** **A -**  **HQ -**  **OW -**  **2010 -**  **0852 -**  **0006 [NC Mosquito & Vector Control Association]**  Summary: The proposed regulation would require facilities in North Carolina to hire mosquito biologist. Adultici ding and L arviciding affected entities (both from Appendix B of the I CR) are underestimated
. Response : EPA is no longer requiring Decision
- makers to identify the pest species; the new requirement is to identify the target pest (s)
. EPA notes that the pesticide general permit (PGP) is not a regulation, and applies only to dischargers in states and territories where EPA has NPDES permitting authority for pesticide discharges. States with NPDES permitting authority , including North Caro lina, are or will be developing separate permits. However, to estimate the burdens under the Paperwork Reduction Act, EPA must calculate the burden to the total universe (365,000 entities). In the ICR, EPA assumed all permitting authorities will develop a general permit similar to PGP. See response s to I ssues 1 and 2 below. **Comment EP** **A -**  **HQ -**  **OW -**  **2010 -**  **0852 -**  **0007 [Brunswick County Mosquito Control]**  Summary: Comment is a subset of the comments in EPA
- HQ
- OW
- 2010
- 0852
- 0006
. Response : See response to comment EPA
- HQ
- OW
- 2010
- 0852
- 0006
. **Comment EP** **A -**  **HQ -**  **OW -**  **2010 -**  **0852 -**  **0008 [Northeast Tree, Pond & Turf Services, Inc.]**  Summary: EPA’s regulation is in some cases duplicative of what Connecticut has in place. EPA’s estimate of 0.8 hours per response does not match the ti me the commenter spends for permit applications in CT. Response : EPA notes that the pesticide general permit (PGP) is not a regulation, and applies only to dischargers in area s where EPA has NPDES permitting authority for pesticide discharges. This ICR rep resents EPA’s burden estimate for the entire country , including bothEPA’s PGP and NPDES
- authorized state issued permit s, with EPA’s PGP used as a model for

the Agency

to estimate the overall national burden. The use of EPA’s permit to model state burden is consistent with how EPA has estimated other NPDES burdens and also generally consistent with the requirements that states are planning to implement in their state
- issued NPDES permit for discharges from pesticide applications. This I CR is intended to id entify information collection activities for general permits for pesticide discharges nationwide; the ability to collect information for individual permits is addressed under the ICR for the base NPDES program (EPA ICR No. 2040
- 0004). Also, the commenter is mistaken in his interpretation of the 0.8 hours reported in the draft PGP I CR. This is an average burden across all respondents and all responses. EPA's estimate for NOI preparation and submittal is 2 hour s per notice , which is the same estimate suggest ed by the commenter. **Comment EP** **A -**  **HQ -**  **OW -**  **2010 -**  **0852 -**  **0009 [AMCA]**  Summary: AMCA considers the Agency ’s Economic Analy sis to have grossly underestimated costs associated with filing a Notice of Intent (NOI); documenting monitoring, maintenance and control strat egy

rationale; reporting; and costs from the potential impacts on mosquito control services. AMCA offers burden estimates of its own. AMCA thinks hidden costs have not been accounted. AMCA offers estimates on the numbers of affected entities. Response : Se e response to I ssues 1, 2 and 3 below. Based on the mandate of the Paperwork Reduction Act the ICR should account for the recordkeeping and reporting burden. Other costs not related to these activities , may be included in the Economic Anal ysis, but are not part of the ICR. **Comment EP** **A -**  **HQ -**  **OW -**  **2010 -**  **0852 -**  **0010 [USA Rice]**  Summary: The ICR should not have been developed for the draft PGP but for the final. Most other issues are the same as in Response to Comment ID 424. EPA underestimates the burden for certain activities. In the Economic Anal ys is, EPA justifies its low estimate of costs on the regulated community b y asserting that many of the requirements of the PGP are already required under FIFRA. In contrast, in support of this I CR EPA asserts that the overla p between the information collected under of FIFRA and the information to be collected under the proposed ICR “is negligible.” See PGP ICR Burden Statement at 6. EPA cannot have it both way s . Response : EPA is required to provide an ICR for EPA’s PGP and NP DES
- authorized states’ general permits . An updated I CR is provided as part of the draft final PGP. EPA notes that the Economic Anal ys is includes cost associated with the technology
- based effluent limitation, which EPA believes many applicators are implementing. In the IC R, the costs are associated with paperwork burdens which some applicators may be required to collect by

existing pesticide program. Where there is overlap, the PGP allows Operators to reference existing documents to meet the permit requirements. See response to Issue 3 below.**Comment EPA -**  **HQ -**  **OW -**  **2010 -**  **0852 -**  **0011 [J. Godron]** 

Summary : EPA's original estimate of 10% respondents is too low (based on threshold). EPA's burden estimates are too low Response: See response to I ssues 1, 2 and 3 below. **Comment EPA -**  **HQ -**  **OW -**  **2010 -**  **0852 -**  **0012 [RISE]**  Summary: Impacts on small business is underestimated based on threshold. EPA underestimates the burden assumptions for some of the activities. Response : See response to I ssues 1 and 3 below
. **Comment EPA -**  **HQ -**  **OW -**  **2010 -**  **0852 -**  **0013 [CropLife America]**  Summary: The ICR should not have been developed for the draft PGP but for the final, after the considerations for small business were considered. EPA underestimates the burden for certain activities. Response : EPA is required to provide an ICR for the EPA’s PGP and NPDES
- authorized states’ general permit . An updated ICR is provided as part of the draft final PGP. See response to Issues 1 and 3 below. **Comment EPA -**  **HQ -**  **OW -**  **2010 -**  **0852 -**  **0014 [Aquatic Control, Inc.]**  Su mmary: NPDES regulation s will have significant impacts on the commenter’s operation and small business in general , particularl y i mpacts on for
- hire applicators. The requirements to disclose the names of the waterbodies will essentially force applicators to disclos e the names of their clients. Response : See response to I ssue 1. EPA notes that the pesticide general permit (PGP) is not a regulation, and applies only to dischargers in states and territories where EPA has NPDES permitting authority for pesticide discharges. As part of the ICR, EPA included cost estimates for States w ith NPDES permit authority to show a more comprehensive impact if these States draft similar permits to the PGP. However, States with complete NPDES permitting authority, including Indiana, Kentucky Illinois and Missouri, are developing their own NPDES per mits that are not necessarily

identical to EPA’s PGP. InEPA’s final permit, pesticide a pplicators are not required to submit names of the waterbodies to which they intend to discharge . They must keep records of where they discharge although this may be a general location rather than a specifically

named waterbody
. Also, o nly certain Operators are required to submit annual report s and provide names of the waterbodies into which they discharged
. **Comment EPA -**  **HQ -**  **OW -**  **2010 -**  **0852 -**  **0015 [National Agricultural A** **viation Association]** Summary: Comment is essentially the same as EPA
- HQ
- OW
- 2010
- 0852
- 0013 Response : See response to comment EPA
- HQ
- OW
- 2010
- 0852
- 0013.**Issu e**  **1**

EPA should change the thresh old and modify the requirements. The estimates in the proposed PGP IC R are too burdensome to small business and small entities. The requirements are too burdensome and would require the hiring of additional qualified staff. Response : EPA acknowledges the commenter’s concern about administrative burdens and impacts to smal l businesses and communities. In the final permit, EPA has clarified the requirements and reduced the paperwork burden to applicators and small entities based on comments received. Based on the final burden estimates, including burden to small entities, EP A believes the permit will not be too burdensome to small businesses and small entities. **Issue 2** EPA underestimates the number of respondents (affected entities) in the ICR. Response : There is no one central source of data to identify potentiall y affected entities. EPA therefore relied on information available from the unauthorized areas. Where specific information was not available, EPA made assumptions based on other available data to estimate the number or types of likely affected entities. However, in the absence of better data, EPA’s analy sis represents a rough estimate of the number and typ es of potentially affected entities. See Appendix B for EPA’s approach for estimating the universe of potentially

affected entities. Based on comments received f rom the proposed PGP , EPA has revised the Annual Treatment Area Thresholds and clarified who must submit NOI . EPA ’s revised permit now e stimates that only about 2.5 p ercent of the permitted entities would be required to submit NOIs (based on EPA’s PGP permitting approach)
. **Issue 3** EPA's burden estimates for certain activities are too low. Response : EPA’s estimates are based on information and data estimates used for similar activities in other NPDES
- related ICRs and on the Economic Anal ys is developed for the PGP.