E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

EO 12866_CWA 308 2040
- AF22 NPRM ICR_2011 1011



## **** DRA **FT ****** **Supporting State**  **ment for the Information Collection Request for**

**Revisions to NPDES Rules for Concentrated A**  **nimal Feeding Operations**  **--**

**Proposed 308 Rule**
October 2011 EPA I CR N o . 1989.08

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Wastewater Management 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20460 Prepared with support from: Tetra Tech, Inc. 10306 Eaton Place Fairfax, VA 22030 EPA Contract # EP
- C
- 11
- 009 Tetra Tech Project # 27198
- 17E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

This Page Intentionally Left BlankE.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review **TA BLE OF CONTENTS**  1. ID ENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION
................................ ........... 2 1(a) Title of the Information Collection
................................ ................................ ...................... 2 1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract
................................ ................................ .......................... 2 1(c) Relationship to the NPDES Animals Sector ICRs
................................ .............................. 2 2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION
................................ ................................ ... 3 2(a) Need and Authority

for the Collection
................................ ................................ ................ 3 2(b) Practical Utility

/Users of the Data
................................ ................................ ...................... 4 3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSUL TATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRI TERIA
.... 4 3(a) Nonduplication
................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 4 3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB
................................ ................. 5 3(c) Consultations
................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 5 3(d) Effects o f Less Frequent Collection
................................ ................................ .................... 5 3(e) General Guidelines
................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 5 3(f) Confidentiality
................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 5 3(g) Sensitive Questions
................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 5 4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
................................ .... 6 4(a) Respondents/SIC Codes
................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 6 4(b) Information Requested
................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 10 5. THE IN FORMATION COLLECTED

— AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTI ON METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
................................ .................. 11 5(a) Agency

Activities
................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 11 5(b) Collection Methodology and Management
................................ ................................ ....... 11 5(c) Small Entity

Flexibility
................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 11 5( d) Collection Schedule
................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 12 6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION
............................... 12 6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden
................................ ................................ ......................... 12 6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs
................................ ................................ ............................ 13 6(c) Estimating Agency

Burden and Cost
................................ ................................ ................ 14 6(d) Cost Overview for Alternative Data Collection Approach
................................ ............... 14 6(e) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs
................................ ... 14 6(f) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs
............................ **Error! Bookmark not defined.** 16 6(g) Reasons for Change in Burden
................................ ....... **Error! Bookmark not defined.** 16 6(h) Burden Statement
....................................................................................... **Error! Bookmark not defined.**  16E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review **LIST OF TA BLES**  Table 4

– 1. CAFO Standard Industrial Classification codes and size thresholds
........................... 7 Table 4

–2. CAFO universe and CAFOs needing NPDES permits
................................ ................ 9 Table 5

– 1. SBA and EPA Small Business thresholds for animal sectors
................................ .... 11 Table 5

–2. ICR Respondents Schedule
................................ ................................ ........................ 12 Table 6

– 1. Burden for 308
- rule related activities for CAFOs and frequency of response
.......... 13 Table 6

–2. Labor Rates
................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 13 Table 6

– 3. Annual average respondent burden and cost

– CAFOs
................................ ............. 15 Table 6

–4. Annual average Federal government burden and cost
.................................... 152



### 1. **IDENTIFICA TION OF THE INFORM**  **AT ION COLLECTION**  **1(a) Title of the Information Collection** ICR: NPDES and ELG Regulatory Revisions for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (Proposed 308 Rule) EPA I CR: 1989.08 OMB Control Number: 2040
- 0250 **1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract** This proposed rule will revise the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) to include a new requirement for all CAFOs to submit basic facility information to EPA. The purpose of this proposed rulemaking is to address water quality issues associated with discharges of manure pollutants from CAFOs and to allow EPA to more efficiently and effectivel y achiev e the water quality protection goals and objectives of the CWA, with respect to the implementation and management of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program for CAFOs. The need for this action also derives from the May 2010 settlement agreement that the Agency reached with environmental petitioners in litigation concerning the 2008 NPDES CAFO rule revisions. Specificall y, EPA agreed to propose to collect basic facility information from CAFOs, regardless of whether the CAFO has an NPDES permit. EPA will use C lean W ater A ct (CWA) § 308 1 information collection authorities to require CAFO owner s/operators to submit the data in question. **1(c) Relationship to the NPDES Animals Sector ICRs** In May 2010, EPA consolidate d and updat ed the CAFO and concentrated aquatic animal production (CAAP) facility I CRs into a single Animal Sector I CR (EPA I CR 1898.07)
. The information and analy ses presented in this supporting Statement are limited to the changes in information collection burden p rojected to result from the proposed NPDES CAFO Reporting Rule (herein referred to as “ 308 r ule ”) . The se changes are modeled off of the baseline information collection burden for the NPDES CAFO regulations as presented in the May 2010 Animal Sector I CR
.
1 CWA § 308 State s EPA “shall require the owner and operator of any point source” to provide information “whenever required to carry out the objective of this chapter, including but not limited to”: (1) developing or assisting in the development of any effluent limitation, or other limitation, prohibition, or effluent standard, pretreatment standard, or standard of performance under the Act; (2) determining whe ther any person is in violation of any such effluent limitation, or other limitation, prohibition or effluent standard, pretreatment standard, or standard of performance; (3) any requirement established under this section; and (4) carrying out Sections 3 05, 311, 402, 404, and 504 of the Act (33 U.S.C. § 1318(a)).3



### 2. **NEED FOR A ND USE OF THE COLLECTION**  **2(a) Need and Authority for the Collection** The purpose of the CWA is “to restore and maintain the chemical, phy sical and biological integrity of the nation’s waters” [section 101(a)]. CWA section 402(a) establishes the NPDES program to regulate the discharge of any pollutant from point sources 2 into waters of the United State s. Section 402(a) of the CWA, as amended, authorizes the EPA Administrator to issue permits for the discharge of pollutants if those discharges meet the following requirements:

 All applicable requirements of CWA sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, and 403; or
 Any conditions the Administrator determines are necessary to carry out the provisions and objectives of the CWA. The primary

mechanism to ensure that the permits are adequatel y protective of those requirements is the permit application process. 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.” The CWA also establishes an administrative framework for the NPDES permitting program. CWA section 402(b) authorizes State s (which include U.S. territ ories and Indian tribes that have been authorized in the same manner as a State ) to administer the NPDES program once EPA is assured that they

meet minimum federal requirements. Authorized State s are considered permitting authorities and are responsible fo r issuing, administering, and ensuring compliance with permits for most point source discharges within their borders. In State s without an authorized NPDES program, EPA is the permitting authority and undertakes all permitting activities; although CWA section 401 requires State s 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...” State s, tribes, and U.S. territories may

waive their right to certify permits if they

wish. CWA section 510 provides that State s, tribes, and territories may adopt requirements equal to or more stringent than standards established pursuant to CWA provisions. Section 1318 of 33 U.S.C. provides authority for information collection (i.e., record keeping, reporting, monitoring, sampling, and other information as needed), which applies to point sources; and Section 308(a) of the CWA authorizes EPA to collect certain information from the “owner or operator of any point source” for the following purpose:

2 EPA defines a point source as , “ any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to, any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, CAFO , landfill leachate collection system, vessel or other floating craft from which pollutants are or may be discharged
. This term does not include return flows from irrigated agriculture or agricultural stormwater runoff ” (40 CFR 122.2)
.4

to carry out the objective of [the CWA], including but not limited to (1) developing or ass isting in the development of any effluent limitation, or other limitation, prohibition, or effluent standard, pretreatment standard, or standard of performance under [the CWA]; (2) determining whether any person is in violation of any such effluent limitation, or other limitation, prohibition or effluent standard, pretreatment standard, or standard of performance; (3) any requirement established under [§ 308 of the CWA]; or (4) carrying out [sections 305, 311, 402, 404 (relating to State permit programs), 4 05 and 504 of the CWA] . . . .CWA § 308(a). In formation related to CAFOs’ locations, size, and activities satisfies the purpose of CWA §308 because this data is necessary for EPA to implement, strengthen and enforce its NPDES program for CAFOs. **2(b) Pra ctical Utility/Users of the Data**  EPA and authorized State permitting authorities use the information routinely collected through NPDES applications and compliance evaluations in the following way s:

 to issue NPDES permits with appropriate limitations and conditions that will protect human health and the environment;  to allow for public participation in the permitting process;  to update information in EPA's databases that permitting authorities use to determine permit conditions;  to calculate national permi t issuance, backlog, and compliance statistics;  to evaluate national water quality ;  to assist EPA in program management and other activities that ensure national consistency in permitting;  to assist EPA in prioritizing permit issuance activities;  to assist EPA in policy development and budgeting; and  to assist EPA in responding to Congressional and public inquiries. Other users of the data include other governmental entities and the general public. Other governmental entities can use the CAFO data to suppo rt their respective missions, and the general public can use information collected through the NPDES program to support independent efforts to protect environmental quality and quality

of life. 

### 3. **NONDUPLICA TION, CONSULTA** **TIONS, A ND OTHER**  **COLLECTION CRITERI A**  **3(a) Nonduplication** The information collection pursuant to the regulatory changes is site
- specific and therefore not readil y available from existing source s of information.5

**3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB** EPA will publish a summary of the ICR anal ys is with the proposed rule notice in the Federal Register. **3(c) Consultations** To facilitate the development of the 308 rule, EPA is providing a variety of opportunities for input into the rulemaking process. In addition to the notice
- and
- comment opportunity afforded via the rulemaking process itself, EPA has also invited input on the 308 rule during meetings with a variety of stakeholders, including State permitting authorities and industry and environmental groups. In addition, EPA will continue to conduct targeted outreach with environmental justice communities and with tribal governments as required under Executive Orders 12898 and 13175. **3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection** EPA has made every

effort to establish NPDES permit and associated information collection requirements that minimize the burden on respondents while promoting the protection of water quality . NPDES permit applications are the primary form of information co llection for regulated CAFOs, and these facilities must reappl y for NPDES permits before their existing permits expire. The framework for information collection under the proposed 308 rule is that permitted CAFOs would submit their information one time onl y, and unpermitted CAFOs would submit their information every

ten years. EPA believes that this frequency best balances the need to not overburden facilities with the need to ensure that updates on facility operations are available to EPA. **3(e) General Gu** **idelines** This information collection complies with Paperwork Reduction Act guidelines (5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2)). **3(f) Confidentiality** EPA recognizes the concerns of operators regarding protection of confidential business information (CBI). The proposed 308 rul e includes a provision allowing CAFOs to claim that their data is CBI at the time of submission . E PA will handle all confidential data claims in accordance with 40 CFR 122.7, 40 CFR Part 2, and EPA’s Security Manual Part III, Chapter 9, dated August 9, 197 6. **3(g) Sensitive Questions** Sensitive questions are defined in EPA’s ICR Handbook, Guide to W riting Information Collection Requests Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 as “questions concerning sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, or oth er matters usuall y considered private.” The requirements addressed in this I CR do not include sensitive questions.6



### 4. **THE RESPONDENTS A ND THE INFORM**  **AT ION REQUESTED**  This analy sis estimates the 3
- year information collection burden based on the universe of re spondents for the period spanning January 2009 through December 2011. Although the proposed rule is not expected to be finalized until 2012, EPA is using the 1/2009
- 12/2012 modeling period for purposes of estimating burden impacts to allow for meaningful comparisons with the baseline information burden collection estimates as modeled in ICR that is currently approved. **4(a) Respondents/SIC Codes** CAFO owner/operators are the respondents for this proposed rulemaking. EPA categorizes CAFOs on the basis of the primary ty pe of animal produced by the operation. Table 4

– 1 lists the major categories along with their North American Industry Classification Sy stem (NAI CS) codes and the corresponding four
- digit Standard Industrial Classification (SI C) codes. Note th at some industry classification codes may overlap more than one of the categories defined b y EPA under the final regulations. For example, swine operations of any size have the same NAICS or SI C codes. Table 4

– 1 also provides the applicable animal thresh olds. EPA uses these thresholds to distinguish which AFOs are CAFOs. All Large AFOs are defined as CAFOs based on numbers of animals at the operation
. AFO s in other size categories may be designated or must meet one of the following two criteria to be de fined as a Medium CAFO:

 pollutants are discharged to U.S. waters through a man
- made ditch, flushing s ys tem, or other similar man
- made device; or  pollutants are discharged directly into U.S. waters that originate outside of the facility and pass over, ac ross, or through the facility or otherwise come into direct contact with the confined animals. An AFO in the smallest size category may become a CAFO through designation if the facility is a significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the U.S. Any designation must be preceded by an on - site inspection, and facilities designated as CAFOs must meet one of the two discharge criteria noted above.7

**Table 4 –**  **1. CA FO Standard Industrial Classification codes and size thresholds**  **NA ICS code**  **(SIC code) An**  **imal ty**  **pe Size thresholds**  **Large Me**  **dium Small**  112111 (0212, 0241), 112112 (0211) Beef cattle, heifers, calves or

veal calves for either slaughter or replacement > 1,000 300
– 1,000 < 300 112111, 112120 (0241) Dairy cattle
— ma ture dairy cattle (whether milked or dry cows) and heifer replacement > 700 200
– 700 < 200 112210 (0213) Swine
— each weighing over 25 kilograms
— or approximately 55 pounds > 2,500 750
– 2,500 < 750 Immature swine
— each weighing less than 25 kilograms, or approximately 55

pounds > 10,000 3,000
– 10,000 < 3,000 112310 (0252) Chickens
— la ying hens, using

liquid manure handling system > 30,000 9,000
– 30,000 < 9,000 112310 (0252) Chickens
— la ying hens, if other than liquid manure handling

system > 82,000 25,000
– 82,000 < 25,000 112320 (0251) Chickens other than laying hens
— broilers, fryers and roasters, if other than liquid ma nure handling system* > 125,000 37,500
– 125,000 < 37,500 112330 (0253) Turkeys > 55,000 16,500
– 55,000 < 16,500 112390 (0259) Ducks, wet manure handling > 5,000 1,500
– 5,000 < 1,500 Ducks, dry

manure handling > 40,000 12,000
–40,000 < 12,000 112410 (0214) Sheep or lambs > 10,000 3,000 - 10,000 < 3,000 112920 (0272) Horses > 500 150 - 500 < 150 *Modeling of burden impacts in this ICR does not include an industry category for broilers, fryers or roaster operations with liquid manure operations since operations in this animal sector are typically designed for dry manure handling. Table 4
- 2 shows the estimates of total numbers of CAFOs used in developing the respondent universe for the existing 2010 Animal Sector I CR and for this new ICR. The information presented in Table 4

–2 was generated b y EPA staff using data from the 1997 and 2002 Census of Agriculture, NASS bulletins, National Animal Health Monitoring Sy stem (NAHMS) species reports, 2003 Demographics Report, and industry data sources and comments. This number is slightly different from the numbers of CAFOs reported by EPA Re gions ; however, the Agency elected not to recalibrate its estimates of CAFOs for purposes of this ICR since the estimates do not vary much and since updating the estimate would invalidate any comparisons with the overall NPDES CAFO burden collection as sho wn in the existing I CR since that I CR is based on the earlier set of universe numbers. EPA will update its estimates of CAFOs using 2007 Census of Agriculture data and reports from EPA Regions when it renews the Animal Sector ICR in 2013.8

Table 4

–2 als o shows EPA’s estimate of the number of CAFOs that have operational or design characteristics historically associated with discharges. These are the facilities that EPA believes could need NPDES permits. These estimates of facilities with discharges are based on estimates of discharging facilities that EPA completed for the 2008 rulemaking, and are documented more fully in the ICR for that effort. There are no direct costs to States under the proposed approach outlined in the rulemaking. The proposed approach does include a provision for States to have the option of furnishing EPA with datasets on their CAFOs. However, the effort to generate these datasets is not costed as part of the proposed approach in this I CR since EPA assumes that the States that choose to provide the datasets to EPA would be ones for whom this task would not be overl y burdensome. In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA is putting forth two proposed options. Under the first option, all CAFOs would be required to submit their facility information. Under the second option, only CAFOs in focus watersheds would be subject to the reporting requirement. The burden anal ys is for this ICR presents burden estimates for the first option, since this approach would apply

to all CAFOs rather than a subset. EPA has examined the two proposed approaches, and has determined that the only difference in burden would arise from the difference in number of respondents. Both options have the same required activities and burden level for individual activities. The proposed rulemaking also puts forth as an alternative an approach under which States would be required to submit available data on CAFOs to EPA. Costs associated with this alternative are presented separatel y in this I CR in section 6(d), “Cost Overview for Alternative Data Collection Approach.”9

**Table 4 –** **2. CA FO universe and CA**  **FOs needing NPDES permits** 
**CA FO**  **Category 2009**  **2010 2011** 

**CA FO**  **Universe CA**  **FOs**

**needing NPDES**  **permits CA**  **FOs that**

**may not need permits**  **CA FO** 

**Universe CA**  **FOs**

**needing NPDES**  **permits CA**  **FOs that**

**may not need permits**  **CA FO** 

**Universe CA**  **FOs**

**needing NPDES**  **permits CA**  **FOs that**

**may not need permits**  Beef 3,106 2,815 292 3,191 2,891 300 3,411 3,109 302 Veal 18 14 4 18 14 4 19 15 4 Heifer 415 362 53 433 377 56 480 422 58 Dairy 3,369 3,369 0 3,511 3,511 0 3,926 3,926 0 Swine 9,289 7,563 1,727 9,639 7,843 1,796 10,800 8,896 1,904 Broilers 2,776 441 2,334 2,913 462 2,451 3,123 525 2,598 Layers(dry) 828 131 696 837 133 703 854 144 710 Layers(wet) 589 589 0 571 571 0 592 592 0 Ducks 45 36 9 45 36 9 49 40 9 Horses 401 360 40 415 373 42 459 416 44 Turkeys 526 84 442 556 88 468 591 100 492 Total 21,362 15,764 5,598 22,130 16,300 5,830 24,304 18,184 6,121 Note: Projections are based on NAHMS species reports, 2003 Demographics Report, and 2002 Census of Agriculture changes from 1 997 Census. The figures by sector include both large and medium CAFOs as well as other facilities designated as CAFOs due to discharges. EPA will update the universe estimates to reflect 2007 Census of Agriculture data and reports from EPA Regions once the entire Animal Sector ICR is renewed in 2013.10

**4 (b) Information Requested 4(b)(i) Data Items, Including Record**  **- keeping Requirements**  **CAFO Data Items** This IC R costs the requirement for all CAFOs, both permitted and unpermitted , to provide information regarding facility charact eristics at the CAFO. Specificall y, EPA is propos ing to collect basic facility data from CAFOs including name, address and location. Details on the questions are not listed here in this I CR due to the potential for changes to the specifics to be made late in the proposal development process.

**State Data Items**  EPA anticipates that CAFOs will submit the information directly to EPA largely using an electronic online s ys tem. Paper submissions will also be accepted and then later entered by EPA into the database. Consequently , the rulemaking will not directly affect smal l governments or State s. **4(b)(ii) Respondent Activities**

**CAFO Activities** EPA estimates that the additional burden imposed by this proposed rule for all CAFOs to submit their facility

information is 1 hour for both permitted and unpermitted CAFOs. This will be a one - time activity

for permitted CAFOs. For unpermitted CAFOs, the burden will recur every ten ye ars. This estimate is for the reporting costs associated with understanding the requirements, navigating the website, collecting the various info r mation pieces, and entering the data. Although unpermitted CAFOs do not have existing NPDES permit applications to which they can refer, they are assumed to have their facilities’ operational and nutrient management planning information readil y accessible as part of meeting the requirement in the existing NPDES CAFO regulations to complete an assessment to show that they do not need to apply

for NPDES permit coverage. For purposes of comparison, the I CR currentl y approved for information collection activities under the existing NPDES CAFO regulations assumes that CAFOs incur a labor burden of 9 hours to file an NPDES permit application. There are some minimal recordkeeping costs associated with the proposed rulemaking for documenting the submission of data. However, these costs are minor and are subsumed in the costs presented for reporting.

**State Activities** 11

The rulemaking will not impose additional burden on State s even where they are the permitting authority
. 

### 5. **THE INFORM AT**  **ION COLLECTED —** **AG ENCY**  **ACTI VITIES,**  **COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, A ND INFORM**  **AT ION**  **MA NA** **GEMENT 5(a) Agency Activities**  Under the proposed rulemaking, EPA would be the entity responsible for receiving, storing and managing the data. In addition, the Agency would be responsible for developing and managing the sy stem in which the data is housed. **5(b) Collection Methodology and Management** EPA anticipates that CAFOs will submit the information directly to EPA largely using an electronic online s ys tem. Paper submissions will also be accepted and then later entered into the database. **5(c) Small Entity Flexibility** Whereas EPA establishes thresholds largel y on the basis of the number of animals, the Small Business Administration (SBA) uses revenue
- based thresholds to distinguish small agricultural o perations from larger operations. Consequentl y, EPA developed a model to convert the SBA’s revenue thresholds to the number of animals b y sector. EPA used the SBA’s revenue
- based definitions (except for layinghens) and data from USDA and the industry for this effort. The SBA and EPA thresholds are shown for each sector in Table 5

– 1. A comparison of the SBA
based animal thresholds with EPA’s animal thresholds indicates that most medium and small CAFOs are small entities and some Large CAFOs will be small entities as well. As in the 2003 and 2008 CAFO rule s , EPA’s premise continues to be that any regulatory

burden should focus on those operations posing the greatest risk to water quality and public health

— especiall y operations with large numbers of animals. Inaddition, estimates of burden for the 308 rule are such that the burden on any one CAFO is relativel y small. **Table 5 –**  **1. SBA**

**and EPA**

**Small Business thresholds for animal sectors NA**  **ICS code (SIC code)**  **An imal sector**  **SB A threshold**  **(revenue in millions)**  **a Corresponding SBA** 

**animal threshold (number of animals)**  **CA FO Size**  **Threshold (number of animals)**  112112 (0211) Beef cattle feedlots $1.5 1,400 Large > 1,000 112111, 112120 (0241) Dairy farms and dairy heifer

replacement production $0.75 300 b Large > 700 Medium > 200 112210 (0213) Hogs $0.75 2,100 c Large > 2,500 Medium > 750 112310 (0252) Chicken eggs $1.5 d 61,000 Large > 30,000 112320 (0251) Broiler, fryer, roaster chickens $0.75 375,000 Large > 125,00012

**NA ICS code**  **(SIC code) An**  **imal sector SB**  **A threshold (revenue in**  **millions) a**  **Corresponding SBA**

**animal threshold (number of animals)**  **CA FO Size**  **Threshold (number of animals)**  112330 (0253) Turkeys and turkey eggs $0.75 37,500 Large > 55,000 a. SBA thresholds effective February 22, 2002. Classification is met if the operation has revenue equal to or less than the threshold cited. b. Mature dairy cattle. c. Each weighing over 25 kilograms. d. EPA consulted with SBA on the use of this alternative definition; the original threshold is $9.0 million. Note: Certain animal sectors (e.g., sheep and lambs, horses, and ducks) are not subject to ELG requirements, and EPA has not developed corresponding small business animal thresholds for those sectors. **5(d) Collection Schedule** This I CR, when final, will cover the initial 3
- year period following promulgation of the final rule. For this ICR, annual burden estimates are based on the universe of respondents estimated to incur i nformation collection burden in the course of the 3
- ye ar modeling period
. Table 5
- 2 shows the number of CAFO respondents that EPA projects for each ye ar of the I CR based on the reporting schedule in the proposed rule for CAFOs with and without NPDES permi ts. **Table 5 –** **2 .**  **ICR Respondents Schedule CA**  **FO Respondent Type Year 1**  **Year 2 Year 3**  **3 -** **Year A nnual A**  **verage** Non - Permitted, existing 5,404 0 0 1,801 Non - Permitted, new 193 0 0 64 Permitted, existing 15,283 0 0 5,094 

### 6. **ESTIM AT**  **ING THE BURDEN AND COST OF**  **THE COLLECTION** The summaries below provide brief descriptions of CAFO respondent activities. The impacts presented in this I CR reflect only the impacts a ssociated with the incremental burden resulting specificall y from the proposed approach for data collec tion from all CAFOs put forth in the proposed rule. The second proposed option of collecting data from CAFOs in focus watershed s is a subset of the costs outlined in this I CR. However, since the universe of CAFOs that would be subject to the second opti on is indeterminate at this time, these costs are not presented as part of this analy sis. **6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden CAFO Burden**  Table 6

– 1 specifies the burden hours per response for each new activity required of CAFOs under this proposed rule.13

**Table 6 –**  **1. Burden for 308 -**  **rule related activities for CA FOs and frequency of response**  **Activities Hours per**  **response Frequency of** 

**response 308 Information Collection**  Permitted CAFOs 1 First year only Unpermitted CAFOs 1 E very 10 years **State Burden**  The rulemaking will not impose additional burden on State s even where they are the permitting authority
. States will have the option of providing EPA with datasets on their CAFOs where the S tate has all the information . As mentioned above, the effort to g enerate these datasets is not costed in this I CR since EPA assumes that the States that choose to provide the datasets to EPA would be ones for whom this task would not be overly burdensome. **6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs** This section describes how EPA d erived the cost to respondents for each of the activities described above. Costs for this I CR are presented in 2009 dollars to allow eas y comparison to other cost estimates developed for the 2009 Animal Sector ICR
. **6(b)(i) Estimating Respondent**  **Labor Costs**  **CAFO Labor Costs** The cost imposed on respondents for the requirements discussed in this I CR is a function of the burden placed on them for compiling and submitting the information described above and the wages of a ty

pical worker performing these activities. Table 6
- 2 show the labor rates used in this ICR. **Table 6 –** **2. Labor Rates Labor Rates,**  **including overhead Labor rate**  **($/hour) Source/Notes**  **CA FO**  General labor $16.94 2008 National Industry- Specific Occupational Employment and Wa ge Estimates: 45 - 2093 Farmworkers, Farm and Ranch Anim als. Adjusted to March 2009 dollars using the Employ me nt Costs Index for Private Industry workers and a fringe rate o f 50 percent. Farm Manager $29.30 2008 National Industry- Specific Occupational Employment and Wa ge Estimates: 45 - 1011 First - Line Supervisors/Managers of Farm ing, Fishing, and Forestry W orkers. Adjusted to March 2009 dollars using the Employ me nt Costs Index for Private Industry workers and a fringe rate of 50 percent. Agronomist $42.44 2008 National Industry- Specific Occupational Employment and Wa ge Estimates: 19 - 1013 Soil and Plant Scientists. Adjusted to March 2009 dollars using the Employ me nt Cost s Index for Private Industry workers and a fringe rate of 50 percent.14 **State Labor Costs**  The rulemaking will not impose additional burden on State s even where they are the permitting authority
. **6(b)(ii) Estimating Capital and Operation and Maintenance (O& M)Costs**  **CAFO Capital and O&M Costs** The proposed rule would not impose additional capital and O&M costs on CAFOs.

**State Capital and**  **O&M Costs** The rulemaking will not impose additional capital and O&M costs on State s even where they are the permitting authority. **6(b)(iii) Capital Start -**  **up vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs** See 6(b)(ii), above. **6(b)(iv) An**  **nualizing Capital Costs** See 6(b)(ii), above. **6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost**

**Agency Burden** EPA anticipates that CAFOs will submit the information directly to EPA largely using an electronic online s ys tem. EPA estimates that it will spend 0.5 hours per response. This time includes record keeping and conducting follow
- up activities for incomplete or erroneous submittals. EPA would also need to develop the Electronic Reporting Sy stem to receive, compile, and store the information. EPA has estimated that it would cost approximately $218,000 to build this sy stem, equivalent to an annual average capit al costs of approximately $31,050. ($218,000 discounted at 7.0% rate over 10 years). EPA estimates that it would cost approximately

$21,000 per year to operate and maintain the sy stem. **Agency Labor Costs** EPA used an hourl y wage rate for a GS
- 12, Step One Federal employee to estimate the cost of the Agency

staff. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management 2009 General Schedule reported an hourly rate of $28.45. Multiplying this rate b y 1.6 to incorporate typical Federal benefits (OPM, 1999), EPA obtained a fin al hourly rate of $45.52 for this labor category
. **6(d) Cost Overview for Alternative Data Collection Approach** Under the scenario that would require States to submit the information to EPA , the PRA burden would shift from CAFOs to States since States would be responsible for reporting the CAFO data to EPA. EPA projects that the reporting burden under this alternative would be biggest for those States that would need to provide paper files to the Agency . To complete a conservative15

cost estimate, EPA determ ined what the cost would be if all States were to submit their CAFO records in this manner. If this were the case, EPA estimates that the cumulative cost to States would be reflective of a per
- entity cost of photo
- copying individual records on all facilities. To develop a burden estimate for this alternative, EPA expects that NPDES
- authorized states would need to find, cop y/scan, and mail/e
- mail a 3
- page paper facility record ( e.g., an NOI, registration, or license). EPA assumes that States will perform these activities for multiple CAFO s simultaneously ; therefore, the estimated time required to complete this task is one hour for every 20 facilities. Additionally, EPA assumes a cost of $0.025 per page copied. The additional annual burden hours associated with th is alternative data collection approach is 348 hours for State respondents. The total additional State respondent average annual costs over the 3
- ye ar period will be $16, 391 ($14, 303 for labor cost and $2, 088 for O&M). There is no additional burden or cost on CAFO respondents resulting from the alternative data collection approach. **6( e**  **) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs**  Table 6

– 3 presents the annual burden and costs for all CAFOs to address the requirements in the proposed rule. Table 6

–4 presents the annual Federal government cost and burden. **Table 6 –**  **3. An**  **nual average respondent burden and cost –**  **CA FOs**  Baseline (2010 Anim al Sector ICR) Net C hanges

from 308 Rule **An nual Totals Under** 

**Proposed Rule** Unique Respondents (number) 22,844 0 22,844 Responses (number) 2,934,438 6,960 2,941,398 Burden (hours) 2,810,266 6,960 2,817,226 Costs (labor) $56,708,595 $203,929 $56,912,524 Costs (capital) - annualized $228,971 $0 $228,971 Costs (O&M) $6,705,593 $0 $6,705,593 **Total Costs** $63,643,158 $203,929 $63,847,087 **Table 6 –** **4. An**  **nual average Federal government burden and cost** Baseline (2010 Anim al Sector ICR) Net Changes

from 308 Rule **An nual Totals Under** 

**Proposed Rule** Responses (number) 1,303 6,960 8,263 Burden (hours) 15,188 3,480 18,668 Costs (labor) $691,350 $158,411 $849,760 Costs (capital) - annualized $0 $31,050 $31,050 Costs (O&M) $62,463 $21,000 $83,463 **Total Costs**  $753,813 $210,461 $964,27316

**6( f**  **) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs** There will be an annual average of 6,960 additional CAFO responses over the 3
- year period under this I CR. 3 The additional annual burden hours associated with the proposed rulemaking are estimated to total to 6,960 hours for all CAFO respondents ( 5,094 hours for permitted CAFOs; 1,866 hours for non
- permitted CAFOs) . The total additional CAFO respondent average annual costs over the 3
- year period will be $ 203 , 929 ( $ 149,260 for permitted CAFOs; $ 5 4 , 669 for non
- permitted CAFOs)
. There is no additional burden or cost on States resulting from the proposed rule. EPA is responsible for collection of data and record keeping. There will be an annual average of 6,960 additional responses during the 3
- ye ar ICR period. Average agency burden increase is 3, 480 hours for the 3
- ye ar period. Agency costs will increase an average of $ 210,461 for the 3
- ye ar ICR period. **6( g**  **) Reasons for Change in Burden** This I CR presents the burden impacts of EPA’s proposed 308 rule. The analy sis of net burden impacts from the proposed rule revisions presented in this I CR controls for an adjuste d calculation of baseline impacts compared to baseline impacts originall y presented in the 2010 Animals Sector I CR (EPA I CR No. 1989.07 ). **6( h**  **) Burden State**  **ment** The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden increase associated with the new proposed reporting provisions to require all CAFOs to submit facility information is estimated to total to 6,960 hours for all CAFO respondents. The annual average number of CAFO responses is 6,960
. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended b y persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and use technology and s ys tems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing way s to comply with any previousl y applicable instructio ns and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently

valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed at 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

3 CAFO responses do not mean number of CAFOs. The proposed rule does not add CAFOs to the total universe of CAFOs or the number of CAFOs that need to seek permits. However, CAFOs as a group are required to perform new information collection activities under the proposed rule.17

In summary , EPA’s analy sis for the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) projects (as shown in Table 6

– 3) that CAFO operators will experience an increase in total annual administrative burden of approximately

$0. 2 million as a result of the EPA proposed rule to collect facility information from all CAFOs . There are no impacts to State permitting authorities.