E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

EO 12866_CWA 308 2040-AF22 NPRM ICR_20111011

**** DRAFT ****

Supporting Statement for the Information Collection Request for 

Revisions to NPDES Rules for 

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations --

Proposed 308 Rule

October 2011

EPA ICR No. 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 # 27198-17
E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. IDENTIFICATION 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, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA.... 4

3(a) Nonduplication .................................................................................................................... 4

3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB................................................. 5

3(c) Consultations....................................................................................................................... 5

3(d) Effects of 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 INFORMATION COLLECTED—AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION 

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.16
E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

LIST OF TABLES

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....................................15
2

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1(a) Title of the Information Collection

ICR: NPDES and ELG Regulatory Revisions for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations 

(Proposed 308 Rule) 

EPA ICR: 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 effectively achieve 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. Specifically, EPA agreed to propose to collect basic facility information from CAFOs, 

regardless of whether the CAFO has an NPDES permit. EPA will use Clean Water Act (CWA)

§ 3081information collection authorities to require CAFO owners/operators to submit the data in 

question. 

1(c) Relationship to the NPDES Animals Sector ICRs

In May 2010, EPA consolidated and updated the CAFO and concentrated aquatic animal 

production (CAAP) facility ICRs into a single Animal Sector ICR (EPA ICR 1898.07). 

The information and analyses presented in this supporting Statement are limited to the changes in 

information collection burden projected to result from the proposed NPDES CAFO Reporting 

Rule (herein referred to as “308 rule”). These changes are modeled off of the baseline 

information collection burden for the NPDES CAFO regulations as presented in the May 2010 

Animal Sector ICR.

 

1 CWA § 308 States 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 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 this section; and

(4) carrying out Sections 305, 311, 402, 404, and 504 of the Act (33 U.S.C. § 1318(a)). 
3

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

2(a) Need and Authority for the Collection

The purpose of the CWA is “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical 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 sources2into waters of the United 

States. 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 adequately 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 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 ensuring compliance 

with 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.

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 

assisting 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), 405 and 504 of the 

CWA] . . . .CWA § 308(a). 

Information 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) Practical Utility/Users of the Data

EPA and authorized State permitting authorities use the information routinely collected through 

NPDES applications and compliance evaluations in the following ways:

 to issue NPDES permits with appropriate limitations and conditions that will protect human 

health and the environment;

 to 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 permit issuance, backlog, and compliance statistics;

 to evaluate national water quality;

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

permitting;

 to assist EPA in prioritizing permit issuance activities;

 to assist EPA in policy development and budgeting; 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 support 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. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER 

COLLECTION CRITERIA

3(a) Nonduplication

The information collection pursuant to the regulatory changes is site-specific and therefore not 

readily available from existing sources of information. 
5

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

EPA will publish a summary of the ICR analysis 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 collection for regulated 

CAFOs, and these facilities must reapply 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 only, 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 Guidelines

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 rule includes a provision allowing CAFOs to claim that 

their data is CBI at the time of submission. EPA 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, 1976. 

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 ICR do not include sensitive questions.
6

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

This analysis estimates the 3-year information collection burden based on the universe of 

respondents 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 type of animal produced by the operation. 

Table 4–1 lists the major categories along with their North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) codes and the corresponding four-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 

codes. Note that some industry classification codes may overlap more than one of the categories 

defined by EPA under the final regulations. For example, swine operations of any size have the 

same NAICS or SIC codes. 

Table 4–1 also provides the applicable animal thresholds. 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. AFOs in other size categories may be designated or must meet one 

of the following two criteria to be defined as a Medium CAFO: 

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

similar man-made device; or

 pollutants are discharged directly into U.S. waters that originate outside of the facility and 

pass over, across, or through the facility or otherwise come into direct contact with the 

confined animals.

An AFO in the smallest size category may become a CAFO through designation 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. CAFO Standard Industrial Classification codes and size thresholds

NAICS code

(SIC code) Animal type

Size thresholds

Large Medium 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—mature 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—laying hens, using 

liquid manure handling system

> 30,000 9,000–30,000 < 9,000

112310 (0252) Chickens—laying 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 

manure 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 ICR and for this new ICR. The information 

presented in Table 4–2 was generated by EPA staff using data from the 1997 and 2002 Census of 

Agriculture, NASS bulletins, National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) species 

reports, 2003 Demographics Report, and industry data sources and comments. This number is 

slightly different from the numbers of CAFOs reported by EPA Regions; 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 shown in the existing ICR since that ICR 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 also 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 ICR 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.

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 analysis 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 separately in this ICR in section 6(d), “Cost Overview for Alternative Data 

Collection Approach.”
9

Table 4–2. CAFO universe and CAFOs needing NPDES permits

CAFO

Category

2009 2010 2011

CAFO 

Universe

CAFOs 

needing 

NPDES 

permits

CAFOs that 

may not need 

permits

CAFO 

Universe

CAFOs 

needing 

NPDES 

permits

CAFOs that 

may not need 

permits

CAFO 

Universe

CAFOs 

needing 

NPDES 

permits

CAFOs 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 1997 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 ICR costs the requirement for all CAFOs, both permitted and unpermitted, to provide 

information regarding facility characteristics at the CAFO. 

Specifically, EPA is proposing to collect basic facility data from CAFOs including name, 

address and location. Details on the questions are not listed here in this ICR 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 system. Paper submissions will also be accepted and then later entered by EPA 

into the database. Consequently, the rulemaking will not directly affect small governments or 

States. 

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

years. 

This estimate is for the reporting costs associated with understanding the requirements, 

navigating the website, collecting the various information 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 readily 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 ICR currently 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 States even where they are the permitting 

authority. 

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED—AGENCY ACTIVITIES, 

COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION 

MANAGEMENT

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 system 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 system. Paper submissions will also be accepted and then later entered into the 

database. 

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

Whereas EPA establishes thresholds largely on the basis of the number of animals, the Small 

Business Administration (SBA) uses revenue-based thresholds to distinguish small agricultural 

operations from larger operations. Consequently, EPA developed a model to convert the SBA’s 

revenue thresholds to the number of animals by sector. EPA used the SBA’s revenue-based 

definitions (except for laying hens) and data from USDA and the industry for this effort. The 

SBA and EPA thresholds are shown for each sector in Table 5–1. A comparison of the SBAbased 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 rules, 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—

especially operations with large numbers of animals. In addition, estimates of burden for the 308 

rule are such that the burden on any one CAFO is relatively small. 

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

NAICS code

(SIC code)

Animal sector SBA threshold

(revenue in 

millions)a

Corresponding SBA

animal threshold

(number of animals)

CAFO 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 300bLarge > 700

Medium > 200

112210 (0213) Hogs $0.75 2,100cLarge > 2,500

Medium > 750

112310 (0252) Chicken eggs $1.5d61,000 Large > 30,000

112320 (0251) Broiler, fryer, roaster 

chickens

$0.75 375,000 Large > 125,000
12

NAICS code

(SIC code)

Animal sector SBA threshold

(revenue in 

millions)a

Corresponding SBA

animal threshold

(number of animals)

CAFO 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 ICR, 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 information collection burden in the course of the 3-year modeling period. Table 5-2 

shows the number of CAFO respondents that EPA projects for each year of the ICR based on the 

reporting schedule in the proposed rule for CAFOs with and without NPDES permits.

Table 5–2. ICR Respondents Schedule

CAFO Respondent Type Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 3-Year Annual Average

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. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

The summaries below provide brief descriptions of CAFO respondent activities. The impacts 

presented in this ICR reflect only the impacts associated with the incremental burden resulting 

specifically from the proposed approach for data collection from all CAFOs put forth in the 

proposed rule. The second proposed option of collecting data from CAFOs in focus watersheds 

is a subset of the costs outlined in this ICR. However, since the universe of CAFOs that would 

be subject to the second option is indeterminate at this time, these costs are not presented as part 

of this analysis.

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 CAFOs and frequency of response

Activities Hours per 

response

Frequency of 

response

308 Information Collection

Permitted CAFOs 1 First year only

Unpermitted CAFOs 1 Every 10 years

State Burden

The rulemaking will not impose additional burden on States even where they are the permitting 

authority. States will have the option of providing EPA with datasets on their CAFOs where the 

State has all the information. As mentioned above, the effort to generate these datasets is not 

costed in this ICR 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 derived the cost to respondents for each of the activities 

described above. Costs for this ICR are presented in 2009 dollars to allow easy 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 ICR is a function of the 

burden placed on them for compiling and submitting the information described above and the 

wages of a typical 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

CAFO

General labor $16.94 2008 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and 

Wage Estimates: 45-2093 Farmworkers, Farm and Ranch 

Animals. Adjusted to March 2009 dollars using the Employment 

Costs Index for Private Industry workers and a fringe rate of 50 

percent.

Farm Manager $29.30 2008 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and 

Wage Estimates: 45-1011 First-Line Supervisors/Managers of 

Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Workers. Adjusted to March 2009 

dollars using the Employment Costs Index for Private Industry 

workers and a fringe rate of 50 percent.

Agronomist $42.44 2008 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and 

Wage Estimates: 19-1013 Soil and Plant Scientists. Adjusted to 

March 2009 dollars using the Employment Costs Index for Private 

Industry workers and a fringe rate of 50 percent.
14

State Labor Costs

The rulemaking will not impose additional burden on States 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 States 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) Annualizing 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 system. 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 System to receive, 

compile, and store the information. EPA has estimated that it would cost approximately

$218,000 to build this system, equivalent to an annual average capital 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 system. 

Agency Labor Costs

EPA used an hourly wage rate for a GS-12, Step One Federal employee to estimate the cost of 

the Agency staff. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management 2009 General Schedule reported an 

hourly rate of $28.45. Multiplying this rate by 1.6 to incorporate typical Federal benefits (OPM, 

1999), EPA obtained a final 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 conservative 
15

cost estimate, EPA determined 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, copy/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 

CAFOs 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 this alternative data collection approach is 

348 hours for State respondents. The total additional State respondent average annual costs over 

the 3-year 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. Annual average respondent burden and cost – CAFOs

Baseline 

(2010 

Animal 

Sector ICR)

Net Changes 

from 308 Rule

Annual 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. Annual average Federal government burden and cost

Baseline 

(2010 

Animal 

Sector ICR)

Net Changes 

from 308 Rule

Annual 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 $964,273 
16

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 ICR.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; $54,669

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-year ICR period. Average agency burden increase is 

3,480 hours for the 3-year period. Agency costs will increase an average of $210,461 for the 3-

year ICR period.

6(g) Reasons for Change in Burden

This ICR presents the burden impacts of EPA’s proposed 308 rule. The analysis of net burden 

impacts from the proposed rule revisions presented in this ICR controls for an adjusted 

calculation of baseline impacts compared to baseline impacts originally presented in the 2010 

Animals Sector ICR (EPA ICR No. 1989.07).

6(h) Burden Statement

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 by 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 systems for 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

listed 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 analysis 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.