## Information Collection Request for

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit s for Point Source Discharges from the Ap plication of Pesticides to Waters of the United States OMB Control No. 2040 - NEW , EPA ICR No. 2397.01

O ctober 27 , 2010

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



## Content s 1. I dentification of the Inform ation Collection
................................ ................................ ............... 1 1(a) Title of the Information Collection
................................ ................................ ...................... 1 1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract
................................ ................................ .......................... 1 2. Need For and Use of the Collection
................................ ................................ ............................ 2 2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection
................................ ................................ ....................... 2 2(b) Practical Utility

/Users of the Data
................................ ................................ ...................... 4 3. Non
- duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria
................................ .................. 6 3(a) Non
- duplication
................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 6 3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submissions to OMB
................................ ............... 6 3(c) Consultations
................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 7 3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection
................................ ................................ .................... 7 3(e) General Guidelines
................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 7 3(f) Confidentiality
................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 8 3(g) Sensitive Questions
................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 8 4. The Respondents and the Information Requested
................................ ................................ ...... 9 4(a) Res pondents/Standard Industrial Classification (SI C) Codes
................................ ............. 9 4(b) Information Requested
................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 9 4(b)(i) Obtaining Permit Coverage
................................ ................................ ....................... 10 4(b)(ii) Plan Development
................................ ................................ ................................ .... 10 4(b)(iii) Monitoring
................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 11 4(b)(iv) Reporting
................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 12 4(b)(v) Recordkeeping
................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 15 5. The Information Collected

— Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management
................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 17 5(a) Agency

Activities
................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 17 5(b) Collection Methodology and Management
................................ ................................ ....... 18 5(c) Small Entity

Flexibility
................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 18 5(d) Collection Schedule
................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 19 6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection
................................ ................................ .... 20 6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden
................................ ................................ ......................... 20 6(a)(i) Obtaining Permit Coverage
................................ ................................ ....................... 20 6(a)(ii) Plan Development
................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 21 6(a)(iii) Monitoring
................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 21 6(a)(iv) Reporting
................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 22 6(a)(v) Record Keeping
................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 23 6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs
................................ ................................ ............................ 24 6(b)(i) Estimating Labor Costs
................................ ................................ ............................. 24 6(b)(ii) Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs
................................ .............................. 25 6(b)(iii) Capital/Start
- up Costs
................................ ................................ ............................. 25 6(c) Estimating Agency

Burden and Cost
................................ ................................ ................ 25 6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs
................................ ... 26 6(e ) Bottom L ine Burden Hours and Cost Tables
................................ ................................ .... 27 6(e)(i) Respondent Tall y ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 27 6(e)(ii) The Agency

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

6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden
................................ ................................ .......................... 27 6(g) Burden Statement
................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 28 

## Ap pendices A. Respondents and Agency Activities Table B. NPDES Applicator and Application Estimates 

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

tally
................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 271. Identification of the Information Collection

1



## 1. Identification of the Information Collection 1(a) Title of the Information Collection Title : National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit s for Point Source Discharges from the Application of Pesticides to Waters of the United States OMB Control Number: 2040
-NEW EPA I CR Number: 2397.01 

## 1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract This Information Collection Request (ICR) calculates the b urden and costs associated with NPDES pe rmit s for point source discharges from the application of pesticides. On November 27, 2006, EPA issued a final rule (hereinafter c alled the “2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule”) clarifying circumstances where an NPDES permit was not required to apply pesticide s to or around water when applied in compliance with Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA ) . On January 9, 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court vacated EPA’s 2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule. As a result of the Court’s decision, on April 9, 2011 NPDES permit s will be required for discharges to waters of the U.S. from application of biological pesticides and chemical pesticides that leave a residue. The CWA authorizes EPA to issue permits for the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States. EPA regulates discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States under its NPDES program. CWA Section 402(b) allows States (defined to include Indian Tribes and U.S. territories) to acquire authority to administer the NPDES program. This authority enables them to issue and enforce NPDES permits. EPA estimates that the Sixth Circuit Court’s ruling will affect approximately 365,000 pesticide applicators nationwide. Given the vast number of operators requiring NPDES permit coverage, EPA and States are developing general permit s for discharges from the application of pesticide s . EPA estimates that the majority of operator s re quired to seek coverage will do so under a general permit instead of an individual permit
. For the smal l number of operator s who will seek coverage under an individual permit, EPA believes their information collection and reporting activities are already covered under the existing ICR for the NPDES Program (I CR Number 0229.19, OMB Number 2040
- 0004) . T his I CR calculates the burden and costs associated with information collection and reporting activities from EPA and State NPDES pesticide general permit s . This I CR estimates a burden of 987,904 hours annually for 365,000 respondents (permittees) at a cost of $ 50 million . The b urden for the state respondents is 45 , 809 hours annually at a cost of $ 1.7 million
. The Agency burden is 4,489 hours annually at a cost of $ 0.2 million
.2. Need F or and U se of the Collection

2



## 2. Need F or and U se of the Collection 2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection The purpose of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is “to restore and maintain the chemical, phys ical and biological integrity

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

discharge a pollutant without violating the section 301 prohib ition is by obtaining authorization to discharge (referred to herein as “coverage”) under a section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sy stem (NPDES) permit (33 U.S.C. 1342). Under section 402(a), EPA may “issue a permit for the discharge of any pollutant, or combination of pollutants, notwithstanding section 1311(a)” upon certain conditions required by the Act. An NPDES permit authorizes the discharge of a regulated amount of a pollutant or pollutants into a receiving water under certain conditions. The NPDES program relies on two ty pes of permits: individual and general. An individual permit is a permit specifically tailored for an individual discharger. Upon receiving the appropriate permit application(s), the permitting authority , i.e., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or a state, develops a draft permit for public comment for that particular discharger based on the information contained in the permit application (e.g., type of activity, nature of discharge, receiving water quality). Following consideration of public comments, a final permit is then issued to the discharger for a specific time period (not to exceed 5 years) with a provision for reapplying for further permit coverage prior to the expiration date. In contrast, a general permit covers multiple facilities/sites/activities within a specific category for a specific period of time (not to exceed 5 years). Under 40 CFR 122.28, general permits may be written to cover categories of point sources having common elem ents, such as facilities that involve the same or substantially similar ty

pes of operations, that discharge the same ty pes of wastes, or that are more appropriatel y regulated b y a general permit. Courts have approved of the use of general permits. See e. g., Natural Res. Def. Council v. Costle , 568 F.2d 1369 (D.C. Cir. 1977); EDC v. US EPA , 344 F.3d 832, 853 (9 th Cir. 2003). The general permit approach allows EPA to allocate resources in a more efficient manner and to provide more timely coverage and may significantly simplify the permitting process for the majority of pesticide dischargers. As with any permit, the CWA requires the general permit to contain technology
based effluent limitations, as well as any more stringent limits when necessary to meet applicable state water quality

standards. State water quality standards appl y in the territorial seas, defined in section 502(8) of the CWA as extending three miles from the baseline. Pacific Legal2. Need F or and U se of the Collection

3

Foundation v. Costle , 586 F.2d 650, 655
- 656 (9 th Cir. 197 8); Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. EPA , 863 F.2d 1420, 1435 (9 th Cir. 1988). The permit application process under section 402 is the primary mechanism to ensure that the permits are adequatel y protective to meet the statutory and regulato ry requirements under the CWA. Inparticular, CWA section 402(a)(2) requires EPA to prescribe permit conditions to assure compliance with requirements “including conditions on data and information collection, reporting and such other requirements as [the Administrator] deem ed appropriate.” EPA’s application forms require applicants to submit data that help determine what those conditions should be. The CWA also establishes an administrative framework for the NPDES permitting program. CWA s ection 402(b) a

uthorizes 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. Authorizations vary by program. Authorized States are considered permitting authorities and are responsible for issuing, administering, and enforcing permits for most point source discharges within their borders. In S tates without an authorized NPDES program , EPA is the permitting authori ty 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 applic able 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 t o certify permits if they

wish. CWA s ection 510 provides that st ates, tribes, and territories may adopt requirements equal to or more stringent than standards established pursuant to CWA provisions. Regulations governing permit requirements for NPDES discharg es are contained in 40 CFR Part 122. The specific monitorin g, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for NPDES programs are applicable to both EPA
- and S tate - administered NPDES permit programs. On November 27, 2006, EPA issued a final rule (hereinafter called the “2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule”) clarifying circum stances where an NPDES permit was not required in order to appl y pesticide s to waters of the United States . On January 9, 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court vacated EPA’s 2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule. As a result of the Court’s decision, NPDES permit s will be required for discharges to waters of the U.S. from the application of biological pesticides and chemical pesticides that leave a residue. Table 2.1 lists the areas where EPA is the permitting authority for discharges from pesticide application activities. Given the vast number of operators requiring NPDES permit coverage and the discharges common to these operators, EPA believes that it makes administrative sense to issue a general permit, rather than issuing individual permits to each applicator. Thus, the Agency and States are developing general permits for discharges from application of pesticides with the goal of having these permits effective on April 9, 2011 at which point the Court’s ruling will take effect. EPA believes the majority of the affect ed entities will seek coverage under a general permit instead of an individual permit.2. Need F or and U se of the Collection

4

Table 2.1 Areas for which EPA is the Permitting A uthority for Discharges from Pesticide Ap plication Activities States

Alaska 1 Idaho Massachusetts New Hampshire New Mex ico Ok lahom a 2 Territories and Others Am erican Samoa District of Columbia Guam Johnston Atoll Midway Island Wa ke Island Northern Mariana Islands Puerto Rico States with Federal Facilities for which EPA has Permitting A uthority Colorado Delaware Vermont Wa shington States with Tribal Lands for which EPA has Permitting A uthority Alabama Alaska Arizona California Colorado Connecticut

Florida Idaho Iowa Kansas Louisiana Massachusetts

Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Montana Nebraska

Nevada New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota

Ok lahom a Oregon Rhode Island South Dakota Texas

Utah Wa shington Wi sconsin Wyom ing On June 4, 2010, EPA published a proposed general permit (Pesticide General Permit or PGP) for the areas where it is the permitting authority . See F ederal Register notice (75 FR 31775). The PGP covers the discharge of pesticides (biological pesticides and chemical pesticides which leave a residue) to waters of the United States resulting from the following use patterns: 1) mosquito and other flying insect pest control; (2) aquatic weed and algae control; (3) aquatic nuisance animal control; and (4) forest canop y pest control. For this I CR, EPA’s proposed NPDES PGP is used to also estimate the burden from the State’s general permit s . 

## 2(b ) Practical Utility/Users of the Data This I CR includes information used primarily by permitting authorities and permittees
. Much of these data must be submitted to permitting authorities , while other information must be maintained on
- site by

the permitte e. Information collection and reporting activities required in EPA’s PGP are listed below:

 In formation routinel y submitted in a Notice of Intent (NOI ) when requesting coverage under a general permit ;  In formation used to develop a Pesticide D ischarge Management Plan (PDMP);  In formation submitted to permitting authority annually (i.e., annual report) ;  In formation collected after each pesticide application ;  In formation collected from self
- monitoring ;

1 On October 31, 2008, EPA approved the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation’s (ADEC) application to take o ver, in a phased approach, administration of the NPDES permitting program in the state. Since EPA will still be the NPDES permitting authority in April 2011, this ICR reflects the burden associated with permittees in Alaska as part of the federal burden. In the next renewal cycle, this burden will be shifted to the state. 2 P ursuant to Oklahoma state law, Oklahoma’s Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry (ODAFF) is the only state agency with jurisdiction to regulate pesticide application within the state. ODAFF is not currently authorized to administer the NPDES program, and therefore does not have the authority to issue permits for discharges from the application of pesticide s . Thus, the burden associated with permittees in Oklahoma is included as part of the federal burden.2. Need F or and U se of the Collection

5

 In formation submitted as a result of spill, leaks, an d other unpermitted discharges ;  In formation submitted as a result of an adverse incident ;  In formation used to assess the effects of discharges on federally listed endangered and threatened species, and designated critical habitat ;  In formation filed or othe rwise kept b y the permitting authority including the NOI, adverse incident reports, and annual reports; and  In formation routinel y submitted in an NOT (Notice of Termination) when terminating coverage under the PGP. In formation can be categorized into two sets: identification information and information related to the operator ’s discharges or practices. Permitting authorities use the information in the way s discussed below. Identification Information Permitting authorities use information such as the name , location, and description o f pest management area to identify entities that are requesting coverage under a general permit. EPA and most states store basic NOI information submitted for coverage under an NPDES general permit in databases that provide an inventory of permit holders. EPA Headquarters uses the in formation contained in the NOI databases to develop reports on permit issuance and compliance rates. The Agency also uses the information to respond to public and Con gressional inquiries, develo p and guide its policies, and formulate its budgets
. Information Related to Discharges, Uses , and Practices Permitting authorities use discharge information and management practice information from self
monitoring activities, annual report s , and PDMP s as part of compliance evaluation s to ensure that permittee s adhere to procedures or conditions as stated in these documents. Collection and reporting of data to permitting authorities also improves permittee accountability for remaining in compliance with th eir established permit conditions. If noncompliance with permit conditions is detected, the permitting authority will determine the appropriate enforcement action response on the basis of the nature and severity of the violation, the overall degree of non compliance frequency , and degree of seriousness of the violation. NPDES permits may

not be issued for a period to exceed five ye ars. Information obtained during the next five years related to discharges and practices could lead the permit writers to take the following actions in the next permit development :

 specify

additional permit limitations;  assess compliance with existing permit limitations and conditions ; and  place appropriate special conditions in permits.3. Non - duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

6 

## 3. Non - duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria 3(a) Non - duplication Almost all information requested from respondents under this I CR is required by statute or regulation and, in most cases, is not available from other sources. EPA has examined all other reporting and rec ordkeeping requirements contained in the CWA and 40 CFR Parts 122, 123, 124, 125, 403, 501, and 503. EPA also has consulted the following sources of information to determine if similar or duplicate information is available elsewhere:
 The EPA Inventory

of IC Rs;  The Government Information L ocator Service; and  The Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI). EPA has also examined potentially similar reporting requirements for notice of spills under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for duplication of the CWA requirement. EPA believes that any duplication between NPDES and RCRA reporting of pollutant releases is negligible because they

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

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

a subset of the universe in this ICR . For example, adverse incident reporting requirements in the permit are currentl y required of pesticide registrants under FIFRA but not from applicators. EPA believes the expansion of this requirement to applicators provides a much more comprehensive dataset on which to assess potential impacts from activities covere d under these general permits. Another example is the I CR for Cert ification of Pesticide Applicators (OMB No: 2070
- 0029, EPA No: 0155.09) which requires commercial applicators, who are certified b y program administered by non
- federal agencies, to keep records on restricted
- use pesticides. See 40 CFR 171. EPA believes that any duplication between activities required under the NPDES general permits and 40 CFR 171 is negligible . The PGP allows applicator s to rely on records and documents developed for other obligations, such as requirements under FIFRA, and state or local pesticide programs to meet the rec ordkeeping requirements , provided all requirements of the permit are satisfied. 

## 3(b) Public Notice Required P rior to ICR S ubmissions to OMB In compliance with the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), any agency develo ping a non
rule
- related ICR must solicit public comments for a 60
- day period before submitting the I CR to OMB
. These comments, which are used partly to determine realistic burden estimates for respondents, must be considered when completing the Supporting Statement that is submitted to OMB
.3. Non - duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

7 

## 3(c) Consultations EPA h eadquarters staff responsible for program oversight in NPDES permit and for program oversight in FIFRA was contacted to provide information, data, and review for this I CR. EPA solicited inform ation and data on discharges from pesticide application s to assist in developing the proposed NPDES permit framework for its PGP . EPA met with states, industry groups, and environmental groups during permit development. EPA also hosted several webcast s . EPA published the proposed NPDES PGP in a Federal Register n otice on June 4 , 20 10 ( 75 FR 31775 ) and received over 7 00 public comments. See Docket ID No. EPA
- HQ
- OW
2010
- 0257. Additionally, EPA hosted three public meetings, a webcast, and a public hearing after proposal
. EPA is reviewing public comments and will address these comments in the final permit and incorporate any changes into the final ICR. 

## 3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection EPA recognizes the importance of balancing the need for data c ollection efforts against respondent burden and costs. From the inception of the NPDES program, cost has been one of the major factors considered in establishing application requirements, monitoring conditions, and report contents and frequencies. In the past 10 years, the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government have stressed the need for evaluating the costs and benefits of regulation and the financial impact on the regulated community , state, and local government. EPA regularl y seeks new opportunities to reduce burden on the regulated community
. Given the vast number of operators requiring NPDES permit coverage and the discharges common to these operator s, EPA believes that it makes administrative sense to issue a general permit, rath er than issuing individual permits to each applicator. General permits are issued to groups of entities that have similar operating procedures, discharge characteristics, and geographic location (e.g., states). In this way , permitting authorities can cov er a large number of facilities within one permit and establish a common set of limitations, monitoring requirements, and permit conditions. T he information needed to meet permitting, monitoring, reporting , and information collection requirements relate d to the NPDES Program may be submitted one time, at a regular frequenc y, or on an as needed basis
. EPA and authorized S tates need current information about permittees and discharge characteristics to fulfill oversight responsibilities. The NPDES burden described in this I CR identifies the burden that EPA has determined as necessary . EPA strives to minimize burden . EPA has determined that the information currentl y required is the minimum that is necessary to adequatel y evaluate permittee compliance. 

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

8 

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

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

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

9



## 4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4(a) Respondents/

Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC ) Codes Th e Clean Water Act (CWA) , enacted in 1972, requires operators of point source discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States to obtain a permit to discharge
. EPA issues NPDES permits except where a state can demonstrate that it has adequate legal, technical, and financial capabilities in place to administer the NPDES program
. To date, 4 4 states and one U.S. territory are authorized by

EPA to issue, administer, and enforce permits for discharges from pesticide application activities within their bo rders. EPA continues to be the permitting authority in the other 6 states and territories
. For the list of areas where EPA is the permitting authority for discharges from application of pesticide , see Table 2.1. The authorized states and territories are considered respondents for evaluating paperwork burden in this I CR. All NPDES permittees, whether permitted by EPA ’s or the S tate s ’ general permit s for discharge s from the application of pesticide s , are also respondents in this I CR
. EPA estimates there are approximately

365,000 operators nationwide. See Appendix B. Industries potentially covered by the general permits include but are not limited to the following NAI CS (North American Industry Classification Sy stem) codes : 111 Crop Production; 113110 Ti mber Tract Operations; 113210 Forest Nurseries Gathering of Forest Products; 221310 Water Supply for Irrigation; 923120 Administration of Public Health Programs; 9 24110 Administration of Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management Programs; 924120 Administration of Conservation Programs; and 221 Utilities. 

## 4(b) Information Requested This section presents the data items, including recordkeeping requirements, and required respondent activities involved in preparing and submitting those data items
. Italso presents respondent activities for the 45 authorized States. All activities reported in this supporting statement were anal yz ed and allocated to one of five ty pes of activities related to the NPDES program, these are as follows :  Activities directly

related to obtaining permit coverage under a general permit ;  Activities as sociated with PDMP development ;  Monitoring ;  Rep orting ; and
 Recordkeeping
.4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

10



### 4(b)(i) Obtaining Permit Coverage 4(b)(i)(1) Data Items Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.21 and 122.28 detail the application and notice of intent (NOI ) requirements, respectivel y, for NPDES permits. EPA expects the majority of discharges from pesticide activities will obtain coverage via an NOI under a general permit instead of an individual permi t. Thi s section addresses only operators obtaining coverage under a general permit. As stated previously , EPA expects few discharges to be covered under individual permits and those are already addressed in the existing NPDES Program ICR (I CR Number 0229.19, OM B Number 2040
- 0004)
. According to EPA’s proposed PGP , operators are required to submit an NOI if their annual treatment exceeds an annual treatment area threshold. Operators below that threshold are covered under the permit automatically without the need to submit an NOI. EPA drafted an NOI form for its PGP
. The NOI requests basic applicant data as well as pesticide application information such as pesticide use patterns and pest management area s . When all discharges associated with pesticide activi ty authorized by

an EPA or state
- issued general permit are eliminated, or when the operator changes, the operator of the facility must submit an NOT (Notice of Termination) to the permitting authority
. Following is the type of information generally

required on NOT forms:
 NPDES permit number;  Name, address, and phone number of the operator; and  Certification of eligibility for filing the NOT (i.e., the discharge has been eliminated or the person filing the NOT is no longer the operator). 4(b)(i)(2) Responde nt Activ ities This I CR explains respondent activities in detail in Section 4(b)(i)(1) above. Activities can include reading and reviewing instructions and regulatory requirements, gathering general information, consulting technical and legal officials , fi lling out forms, drafting letters, maintaining records, and mailing completed submissions. Activities for the 45 authorized States can include reviewing and processing NOI and NOT, determine which dischargers, if any, would be more appropriatel y governe d by individual permit, and notify

dischargers if they

need to apply

for individual permit. 

### 4(b)(ii) Plan Development 4(b)(ii)(1) Data Items According to EPA’s proposed PGP , all operators required to submit an NOI must develop a Pesticide Discharge Manag ement Plan (PDMP)
. The PDMP is kept on
- site and is not required to be submitted to the Agency
. The development of a PDMP is unique to each pest management area even though it is based on common required elements
. A PDMP must be kept up
- to - date4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

11

and modif

ied whenever necessary

to document any corrective actions. According to EPA’s proposed PGP , the following information must be documented in the PDMP: (1) pesticide discharge management team information; (2) pest management area description; (3) control me asure description; (4) schedules and procedures pertaining to control measures used to compl y with the effluent limitations (e.g., application rate and frequency , spill prevention, pesticide application equipment, pest surveillance, and assessing environmental conditions) and pertaining to other actions necessary to minimize discharges (e.g., spill response procedures, adverse incident response procedures, and pesticide monitoring schedules and procedures); and (5) documentation to support eligibility consi derations under other Federal laws. 4(b)(ii)(2) Respondent Activ ities This I CR explains respondent activities in detail in Section 4(b)(ii)(1) above. Activities can include reading and reviewing regulatory requirements, gathering general information, con sulting technical and legal officials, reviewing guidance materials, drafting the plan , reviewing the plan , and maintaining records
. 

### 4(b)(iii) Monitoring 4(b)(iii)(1) Data Items Monitoring is required in any NPDES permit specifically for the purpose of demonstrating compliance with the permit conditions. Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122. 44(i) outline the monitoring requirements for NPDES permittees. There are a variety of monitoring methods that a “traditional” NPDES permit may require, including end
- of
- pipe monitoring to show compliance with relevant effluent limitations prior to discharging to a receiving waterbody. Monitoring may

also pertain to actions taken to ensure that recordkeeping or other permit control activities are being properly implemented. Pursuant to CWA section 308 and 402(a)(2), 40 CFR 122.43(a), and other applicable implementing regulations, the monitoring requirement in EPA’s proposed PGP is narrative and demonstrate s compliance with permit conditions by using currentl y establish ed pesticide use routines for monitoring pest control. In addition, visual monitoring assessments are required as a means of identifying, for example, instances of detrimental impact to non
- target organisms, disruption or degradation of wildlife habitat, or the prevention of designated recreational or municipal uses of a waterbody that m ay possibl y be related to the operator’s use of pesticide s in a given area. According to EPA’s proposed PGP , respondent s are engaged in the following types of activities:
 Monitor the amount of pesticide used to ensure that the lowest amount needed to effectivel y control the pest is balanced with the potential for development of pesticide resistance.  Monitor the operation to ensure the integrity of application equipment by c alibrating, cleaning, and repairing equipment on a regular basis to reduce the potential for leaks, spills, and unintended/accidential release of pesticides to waters of the United States.  Monitor pesticide application activities to ensure that the application equipment is in proper operating condition by

adhering to any

manufacturer’s conditions and industry practices, and by calibrating, cleaning, and repairing equipment on a regular basis.4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

12

 Perform spot checks in the area to and around which pesticides ar e applied for possible and observable adverse incidents, such as unanticipated death or distress of non
- target organisms and disruption of wildlife habitat, recreational or municipal water use. 4(b)(iii)(2) Respondent Activities This I CR explains responde nt activities in detail in Section 4(b)(iii)(1) above. Activities can include readin g and reviewing regulatory requirements, gathering pesticide used information, observing impact on non - target organisms, and consultin g technical and legal officials
. 

### 4(b)(iv) Reporting 4(b)(iv)(1) Data Items Annual Report According to EPA’s proposed PGP , all operators required to submit an NOI must submit an annual report to EPA by

February 15 of the following ye ar. The annual report will be used by EPA to assess per

mit compliance and to determine whether additional controls on pesticide discharges are necessary

to protect water quality
. Specificall y, the report must include identification of any waters or other treatment area, including size, either by name or b y lo cation; pesticide use pattern(s) and target pest(s); company name(s) and contact information for pesticide applicator(s), if different from the NOI submitter; total amount of each pesticide product applied for the reporting ye ar b y the EPA registration number(s) and by application method; whether the pest control activity was addressed in your PDMP prior to pesticide application; if applicable, an annual report of any adverse incidents as a result of these treatment (s); and a description of any corrective action(s), including spill responses, resulting from pesticide application activities and the rationale for such actions(s). Permittee Report of Adverse Incident According to EPA’s proposed PGP , all operators are required to report any adverse incident that may have resulted from a discharge from their pesticide application. Operators are required to notify their permitting authority by telephone within 24 hours of becoming aware of the adverse incident. At least the following information must be provid ed: a. The caller’s name and telephone number; b. Operator name and mailing address; c. If covered under an NOI, the NOI NPDES tracking number; d. The name and telephone number of a contact person, if different than the person providing the 24
- hour notice; e. How and wh en the operator became aware of the adverse incident; f. Description of the location of the adverse incident; g. Description of the adverse incident identified and the EPA pesticide registration number for each product the operator applied in the area of the adv erse incident; and h. Description of any steps the operator has taken or will take to correct, repair, remedy, cleanup, or otherwise address any adverse effects.4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

13

Within five day s of a reportable adverse incident, the operator must provide a written report o f the adverse incident to the permitting authority . The report must include at least the following information: a. In formation provided during notification of the adverse incident ; b. Date and time of the notification, any instructions received from the p ermitting authority, and name of the staff from the permitting authority ; c. Location of incident, including the names of any waters affected and appearance of those waters; d. Description of the circumstances of the adverse incident including species affe cted, estimated number of individual s and approximate size of dead or distressed organisms; e. Magnitude and scope of the a ffected area (e.g., aquatic square area or total stream distance affected); f. Pesticide application rate, intended use site (e.g., banks, above, or direct to water), method of application, and name of pesticide product, description of pesticide ingredients, and EPA registration number; g. Description of the habitat and the circumstances under which the adverse incident occurred (inclu ding any available ambient water data for pesticides applied); h. I f laboratory

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

of the test results within 5 days after they become available; i. If applicable, explain why yo u believe the adverse incident could not have been caused by exposure to the pesticide; j. Actions to be taken to prevent recurrence of adverse incidents; and k. Sign ature and signature date. Permittee Report of Adverse Incident to Threatened or Endangered Species or Critical Habitat According to EPA’s proposed PGP , all operators are required to report adverse incident s to threatened or endangered species or critical habitat that may have resulted from a discharge from their pesticide applicati on. Operators are required to notify the National Marine Fisheries Service or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by telephone immediatel y upon becoming aware of the adverse incident. At least the following information must be provided: a. The caller’s name and telephone number; b. Operator name and mailing address; c. The name of the affected species; d. How and when you became aware of the adverse incident; e. Description of the location of the adverse incident; f. Description of the adverse incident, including the EPA pe sticide registration number for each product applied in the area of the adverse incident; and g. Description of any steps taken or that will be taken to alleviate the adverse impact to the species. Permittee Report of Spill, Leak, or Other Unpermitted Discha rge According to EPA’s proposed PGP , all operators are required to report leak s , spill s or other release s containing a hazardous substance or oil in an amount equal to or in excess of a reportable quantity

established under either 40 CFR Part 110, 40 CFR P art 117, or 40 CFR Part 302 occurs in any 24
- hour period. Operators must notify the National Response Center4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

14

immediately

in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 110, 40 CFR Part 117, and 40 CFR Part 302. Within five day s of the operator beco ming aware of a spill, leak, or other unpermitted discharge, the operator must document and retain the following information: a. In formation during notification of the spill, leak, or other unpermitted discharge b. Summary

of corrective action taken or to be tak en including date initiated and date completed or expected to be completed; c. Any measures to prevent recurrence of such a spill, leak, or other discharge, including notice of whether PDMP modifications are required as a result of the spill or leak. Permitt ee Report of Corrective Action According to EPA’s proposed PGP , all operators are required to document any situation triggering corrective action and their planned corrective action within five days of the operator becoming aware of the situation triggerin g the need for corrective action. The operator must retain a cop y of this documentation. The documentation must include the following information: a. Id entification of the condition triggering the need for corrective action review, including any ambient water quality

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

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

of corrective action taken or to be taken including date initiated and date completed or expected to be completed; and f. Any measures to prevent reoccurrence of such an incident, including notice of whether PDMP modifications are required as a result of the incident. Permittee Report of Planned Facility Changes According to 40 CFR 122.41(l)(1), any planned alteration or addition to a permitted facility must be report ed to the permitting authority . This requirement applies to a change in the discharge of pollutants that are not already subject to the facility’s permit requirements. For pesticide application activities, planned changes may include but not limited to discharging to a Tier 3 water or discharging pesticide s to a water impaired for that pesticide. When reporting planned changes, a permittee must provide a description of the planned alterations or additions and a statement outlining the anticipated effects o f the changes on the discharge. The permitting authority may use the information submitted by the discharger to develop an individual NPDES per mit before the planned changes are made
. Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance According to 40 CFR 122.41(l)(2) a change in the discharge of pollutants that might result in noncompliance with existing permit limits must be reported to the permitting authority . Permittees ty

pically make this sort of report b y submitting a letter that explains the reasons for the anticipated noncompliance. The advance notice provided by this reporting requirement enables the permitting authority to help a permittee mitigate the effects of anticipated noncompliance on the receiving waters
.4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

15

Facility and Permit Transfer Rep ort Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.41(l)(3) specify that when a facility ’s ownership changes, it must notify

the permitting authority in a letter stating the date of the transfer and the name of the new permit holder. EPA does not anticipate any respo ndents for the PGP because operators are required to file a NOT (Notice of Termination) , which is covered elsewhere in this I CR, when they transfer ownership ; rather than submitting some other ty pe of documentation
. Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previo us Information According to 40 CFR 122.41(l)(8), permittees must correct inaccurate information that has been submitted in a permit application or permit report as soon as the permittee learns of the error(s). Usually , permittees notify the permitting authority

by letter. The permitting authority uses this information to update permit records or to execute appropriate enforcement actions. Noncompliance Reports Requirements in 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6)
- (7) specify that a permittee must provide 24
- hour oral reporting of any noncompliance that could endanger human health or the environment (with a written follow
- up submission within 5 day s). 4(b)(iv)(2) Respondent Activities This I CR explains these activities in detail in Section 4(b)(iv)(1) above. However, any respondent preparing and submitting reports may engage in the following types of activities:
 Preparing basic information. This can include reading instructions and regulations for report requirements, consulting technical, legal, and political staff, r eviewing guidance materials, gathering general information, ty ping or completing forms or generating reports, and mailing or electronic submission of completed forms or reports to the NPDES permitting authority
.  Gathering detailed information. Detailed in formation gathered can include any data required by the NPDE S permitting authorities as outlined in Section 4(b)(iv)(1)
. Activities for the 45 authorized States can include reviewing and handling reports. 

### 4(b)(v) Record k eeping 4(b)(v)(1) Data Items According to EPA’s proposed PGP , all operators must keep a cop y of the permit, a cop y of any adverse incident report, rationale for any determination that reporting of an identified adverse incident is not required, a copy of any reportable spill or leak documentation, and a copy of any corrective action documentation. Inaddition, the permit recommends that all operators keep records of acres or linear miles treated for all applicable use patterns. The record should be kept up - to - date to determine total area treated per calendar year. Operators, who are required to submit an NOI, must also keep the following records: a. A cop y of the NOI submitted to EPA, any correspondence exchanged between you and EPA specific to coverage under this permit, and a copy of the EPA acknowledgment letter assigning your permit tracking number;4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

16

b. The date on which yo u knew or reasonabl y should have known that you would exceed an annual treatment area threshold during any calendar year, as identified in Part 1.2.2; c. Surveil lance method(s) used, date(s) of surveillance activities, and findings of surveillance; d. Target pest(s); e. Pest density

prior to pesticide application; f. Company

name and contact information for pesticide applicator; g. Pesticide application date(s); h. Description of treatment area, including location and size (acres or linear feet) of treatment area and identification of any waters, either b y name or b y location, to which yo u discharged any

pesticide(s); i. Name of each pesticide product used includi ng the EPA registration number; j. Quantity

of pesticide applied (and specify if quantities are for the pesticide product as packaged or as formulated and applied); k. Concentration (%) of active ingredient in formulation; l. For pesticide applications directly to waters, the effective concentration of active ingredient required for control; m. Any unusual or unexpected effects identified to non
- target organisms; n. Documentation of any equipment cleaning, calibration, and repair (to be kept by pesticide ap plication equipment operator); o. A cop y of your PDMP, including any modifications made to the PDMP during the term of this permit. Operators must also keep a cop y of the NOT and supporting documentation on file
. 4(b)(v)(2) Respondent Activ ities This I C R explains respondent activities in detail in Section 4(b)(v)(1) above. Activities can include developing recordkeeping s ys tems, collecting and entering data, training personnel, and filing information . All permit applicants must retain records for at le ast 3 years from the date that their coverage under the permit expires or terminated.5 . The Information Collected

—Agenc y Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

17 

## 5 . The Information Collected —Ag ency Ac tiv ities, Collection Methodology , and Information Management 5(a) Agency Activities This I CR includes all the reporting requirement s related to EPA as the NPDES permitting authority for discharge s from application of pesticide s . EPA ’ s activities as the NPDES permitting authority for non
-NPDES
- authorized states and territories are the same as the activities performed by the NPDES
- authorized states and territories
. Some of the key activities permitting authorities will perform are :  Receive NOI s and review them for completeness
. If an NOI is incomplete, the permitting authority will notify

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

also require follow
- up actions
. Data review will vary ; however, g enerall y, the permitting authority will screen data to identify permit violations and will conduct a more thorough techni cal review and follow
- up when violations are detected
. Follow
- up activities can include informal contact with the permittee (b y telephone or letter) requesting prompt corrective action, providing technical assistance, performing field inspections to furth er substantiate violations, or initiating formal enforcement action such as an administrative order or referral to the U.S. attorney g eneral (or s tate attorney g eneral in the case of authorized s tates).5 . The Information Collected

—Agenc y Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

18 The extent to which permitting authorities review data in assessing permit compliance will vary
. For example, permitting authorities often will conduct a more extensive review of permittees that are, or have been, in violation of their permit requirements, than of permittees who have been in full compliance
. The extent to which permitting authority reviews data also depends on available resources and the specific review procedures of the permitting authority ( state or EPA R egion)
. In authorized s tates, state environmental agencies generally review permittee data
. EPA also may review data from permittees in NPDES
- authorized states while performing program oversight functions ( i.e., during file audits and when compiling statistical compliance summaries). EPA review s data in non
-NPDES
- authorized s tates
. E PA generall y places emphasis on data from major permittees and from minor permittees that can cause water quality problems (i.e., significant minors)
. EPA reviews data from general permittees less frequently
. EPA does not require non
- NPDES
- authorized s tates to review data, but several state s voluntarily review these data and use the results in their own water quality protection programs. In collecting and anal yz ing the information associated with this I CR, i nformation for permittees covered under EPA’s P GP will be entered into an NOI database
. EPA uses these data to manage the NPDES program
. 

## 5(b) Collection Methodology and Management EPA maintains some application data in databases such as IC IS
-NPDES, and the NOI database
. These s ys tems provide EPA with a nationwide inventory of all permit holders
. EPA uses this information to assess permit compliance
. This technology also reduces the burden to EPA and the states for gathering and anal yz ing national permit and water quality data. In collecting and anal yz ing the information associated with EPA’s proposed PGP , EPA will use its electronic NOI (eNOI) sy stem to store the information
. EPA will ensure accuracy and completeness of the information by reviewing each submittal upon receipt and is responsible for ensuring that applicable data are entered into eNOI
. An y form that is considered inaccurate or incomplete will not be accepted and will be returned to the sender with a letter requesting the missing or inaccurate information. 

## 5(c) Small Entity Flexibilit y For many reasons, EPA believes the reporting requirements discussed in this I CR do not place an unreasonable burden on small business es . The NOI request s minimal information, such as the name and location of the discharge
. Furthermore, operators submit NOI s once every 5 year s . The burden represented by the NOI cannot be further reduced for small businesses
. Permitting authorities need certain basic information to make permitting decisions
. This basic information is not dependent on an operator ’ s size
.5 . The Information Collected

—Agenc y Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

19 Minimizing the burden on small entities also comes in the form of guidance materials
. For example, to assist operators of all sizes, but potentially most useful for small entities , EPA will develop guidance on developing PDMP s . All permittees, regardle ss of the size of the entity , are required to report instances of noncompliance
. In most cases, these requirements do not impose a large burden on small business es because the information required is simple and straightforward
. 

## 5(d) Collection Schedule Th e collection schedule for the activities presented in this I CR varies greatly depending on the ty pe of activity
. See Section 6 of this I CR for detailed estimates of collection schedules. Federal regulations require permittees to reappl y for permits at le ast every 5 year s because the C WA limits the terms of an NPDES permit to 5 years. T he regulations also grant permit writers the authority

to issue permits more frequent ly
. For those dischargers required to submit notices of intent, those must be submitte d every 5 year s . Dischargers submitting a notice of intent that wish to be covered under a reissued general permit must submit a new notice of intent for coverage under that new permit
. When calculating burden, this I CR assumes that all permit applicants follow this schedule. A notice of termination is submitted once when coverage under the permit is no longer necessary .6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

20



## 6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection 6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden This section presents the estimated respondent burden for each information request. Data are tabulated in the “Respondents and Agency Activities Table” provided as Appendix A. Th at table presents all assumptions, calculations, and results discussed in this IC R
. Dischargers covered under the pestic ide general permit and authorized NPDES S tates are identified as respondents. The breakdown of cost and burden b y labor category is provided in Section 6(b). On the basis of information presented in the Economic and Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Pesticide General Permit (PGP), May 26, 2010 , EPA assumes 90 percent of the total universe of permittees will be covered by NPDES
- authorized State
- issued general permits . This percentage has been applied to the respondent values to estimate those pesticide ge neral permittees that report directly

to authorized
-NPDES S tates
. T his I CR calculates annual burden and costs to respondents (365,000 permittees and 45 authorized States) . These calculations address dischargers obtaining coverage under a new general permi t. Because this is the first time discharges from application of pesticide need an NPDES permit and the pesticide general permit renews every five ye ars, this I CR does not calculate dischargers renewing permit coverage . 

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

is associated with preparing and issuing the permit. Because most state governments have authority for the NPDES programs, state governments will incur the majority of the permitting authority burden and costs. Notice of Intent (NOI ) The NOI filing requirement is applicable onl y to permittee s that expect to exceed the annual treatment area threshold (ATAT) . EPA estimates that 2 hour s is required to file an NOI for a general permit. This burden estimate includes 1 hour to read and understand the regulation, and 1 hour to fill out and submit the form. EPA estimates that 12,167 NOIs (10% of the permitted universe) will be filed annually
. EPA estimates that authorized NPDES S tates will spend 1 hour processing these NOI s and the Agency will spend 0.5 hour s . The difference in burden between EPA and the States is based on the fact that EPA will be using its electronic system for NOI s while not all states will have a comparable s ys tem as such will require slightly more time to review these documents.6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

21

Notice of Termination (NOT) EPA estimates that on average, permittees will spend 0.5 hour filling out an NOT. EPA estimates the total number of respondents will be 1,825 (5 percent of the universe that will be over the ATAT ) . EPA estimates that 608 NOTs will be filed annually
. This assumes that , in general , the universe of dischargers covered under this permit will not change significantly from ye ar to year. EPA estimates that permitting authorit ies will spend 0.25 h our processing each NOT. 

### 6(a)(ii) Plan Development Many p ermittee s will be required to develop a P esticide Discharge Management Plan (P DMP ) and keep it up
- to - date. For EPA’s proposed PGP, this includes operators that exceed the ATAT. PDMPs document the evaluation and selection of control measures to meet the technology
- based effluent limit ations . These plans may cover one or more treatment areas within one plan, and can reference other documents (such as pre
- existing integrated pest management plan s ). Thus, the cost to develop the PDMP will vary based on the extent of pest problems and pesticide use, as well as existing documentation that may be referenced to fulfill plan requirements. Permittees that have been evaluating pest problems and alternative management methods may have significant relevant material already compiled and available. In this ICR, EPA assumes that the 12,167 applicants a ye ar will be required to develop a PDMP ( 10 percent of the permitted universe )
. Although components of a PDMP are similar, pest management area design, size and function, and the level of effort involved will vary for each pest management area
. EPA estimate s the average level of effort that might be required to prepare a PDMP. This burden estimate for preparing a PDMP includes 1 hour to select the team, 16 hours to describe sources, 14 hours to de velop measures and controls , 8 hours to develop schedules and procedures, and 1 hour to document considerations under other federal laws. Thus, EPA estimates that the average time for a respondent to develop a PDMP is 40 hours. This is a one
- time development activity
. Permittee s are required to update the plan as needed. EPA assumes that 9,125 plan s (25 percent of the universe required to develop a plan) will be up d ated annuall y with the average time of 2 hours. 

### 6(a)(iii) Monitoring All 365,000 permittees are required to conduct monitoring. For EPA’s proposed PGP, this includes site and visual monitoring. EPA expects minimal additional burden associated with m onitoring under these general permits. Where required EPA expects an additional 0.25 hour per site monitored. EPA assumes respondents that exceed the ATAT (i.e., larger applications) will monitor four times per year. Additional burden for smaller applic ations is expected to be neglible.6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

22



### 6(a)(iv) Reporting Annual Report Certain p ermittees are required to submit an annual report to the permitting authority. For EPA’s proposed PGP, this includes operators that exceed the ATAT. The respond ent activities include preparing and submitting annual reports. EPA estimates that respondents will spend 2 hours preparing and submitting annual reports. EPA estimates 36,500 reports (10% of the universe) will be submitted annually
. Permitting authorities will spend approximately 1 hour processing and reviewing these annual reports. Permittee Report of Adverse Incident Permittees are required to notify their permitting authority and provide a written report of adverse incident that may have resulted from a discharge from pesticide application. EPA reviewed ecological incidents reported b y registrants from 1976 to 2008. They range from 3 to 21 incidents annually . In the EPA’s proposed PGP, all permittees are required to report incidents. EPA assumes that 37 advers e incidents (0.01% of the universe) will be reported annually by permittees. EPA estimates that respondents will spend 2 hour s gathering information and notifying their permitting authority . EPA estimates that respondents will spend an additional 2 hours preparing and submitting a report. The activities required for permitting authorities include processing and reviewing the information from permittees . EPA estimates that permitting authority will spend 2 hours on this activity for each adverse incident
. Permittee Report of Adverse Incident to Threatened or Endangered Species or Critical Habitat Permittees are required to notify the National Marine Fisheries Service or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of an y adverse incident to threatened or endange red species or critical habitat. EPA estimates that respondents will spend 2 hour s gathering information and reporting any adverse incident and that the Services will spend 2 hours reviewing and documenting each adverse incident
. EPA assumes 4 adverse in cidents (0.001% of the universe) will be reported annually
. Permittee Report of Spill, Leak, or Other Unpermitted Discharge Permittees are required to notify the National Response Center of any spill, leak, or other release containing a hazardous substanc e or oil. These activities are already required under existing regulations and as such, no additional burden is included in this I CR for reporting
. Permittees are also required to document the spill, leak, or other unpermitted discharge and retain the documentation for their record. EPA estimates that respondents will spend 1 hour to document the activity
. EPA estimates 365 events (0.1% of the universe) will be reported annually
. Permittee Report of Corrective Action Permittees are required to document any situation triggering corrective action and their planned corrective action. EPA estimates that respondents will spend 5 hours on this activity
. This burden is divided as follows: 1 hour to read and understand the regulation, 1 hour of planning, 16. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

23

hour of collecting information, and 2 hours to document the activity
. EPA estimates 365 events (0.1% of the universe) will be reported annuall y. Permittee Report of Planned Facility Changes Respondents will use an estimated average of 4 hours to complete their notification of planned alterations and additions
. This burden estimate includes 1 hour to read and understand the regulation, 1 hour to plan the report, and 2 hours to write the report
. EPA estimates that permitting authority will spend 0.5 hours handling and reviewing each report
. EPA estimates 365 events (0.1% of the universe) will be reported annually
. Permittee Report o f Anticipated Noncompliance Respondents will use an estimated average of 5 hours of labor for each report of anticipated non compliance. This burden is divided as follows: 1 hour to read and understand the regulation, 1 hour of planning, 1 hour of collecting information, and 2 hours for writing and submitting the report. EPA estimates that permitting authority will spend 2 hours handling and reviewing each report. EPA estimates 365 events (0.1% of the universe) will be reported annually
. Facility and Permit Transfer Report EPA does not anticipate any respondents for the PGP because operators are required to file a NOT (Notic e of Termination) when they transfer ownership. Burden for NOTs are discussed elsewhere in this I CR. Permittee Report of Inacc urate Previous Information The respondent burden associated with this reporting requirement includes the time needed to verify the reporting error or omission, to prepare the revised form that details the reporting corrections, and to mail the information to the permitting authority
. The time required under this regulation will vary

depen ding on the size of the pest management area and the extent of the error or omission. EPA estimates that a ty pical report requires 2 hours to prepare. EPA estimates that permitting authority will spend 1 hour handling and reviewing each report
. EPA estimates 365 events (0.1% of the universe) wi ll be reported annuall y. Noncompliance Reports When a permittee violates a permit condition, it must submit a noncompliance report to the permitting authority. EPA estimates the average burden to be 5 hours per response. This burden represents the time required to gather information, prepare and present/conduct the verbal notice, and prepare and submit a written report for noncompliance. EPA esti mates that an average of 2 hours is required for the permitting authority to receive and process each noncompliance report. EPA estimates 365 events (0.1% of the universe) will be reported annuall y. 

### 6(a)(v) Record Keeping According to EPA’s proposed PGP , all operators must keep a cop y of the permit, a cop y of any adverse incident report, rationale for any det ermination that reporting of an identified adverse incident is not required, a copy of any reportable spill or leak documentation, and a copy of any corrective action documentation. The burden associated with recordkeeping depends on the pest management area and whether the permittee already has a recordkeeping s ystem. EPA estimates6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

24

365,000 respondents will spend 0.5 hour gathering and filing a cop y of documents required in the permit. In addition, the permit recommends that all operators keep records of acres or linear miles treated for all applicable use patterns. The record should be kept up
- to - date to determine total area treated per calendar ye ar. EPA estimates 12,167 respondents will spend 0.25 hour tracking total acreage or miles of area treated, assuming 4 responses per year . Operators wh o are required to submit an NOI must also k eep records. EPA estimates 36,500 respondents will spend 0.5 hour, assuming 8 responses per year. Burden includes gathering a copy of the NOI and PDMP, and collecti ng data as outlined in the permit. All permit applicants must retain records for at least 3 years from the date that their coverage under the permit expires or is terminated. 

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

is comp o sed of the following :  Labor Cost;  Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Cost; an d  Capital/Start
- up Cost. The results of the respondents ’ costs anal ys is are presented in the Respondents and Agency Activities Table in Appendix A
. 

### 6(b)(i) Estimating Labor Costs To estimate the potential costs, EPA identified labor categories associated with performing each activity
. Labor categories include managerial, technical, and clerical. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BL S) publishes base mean annual wage rates in its Occupational Employ ment Survey (OES, 2008 ) and an Employ ment Cost Index ( ECI, 2009) to u p date the wage rates to 2009 values to account for inflation. EPA used average government and commercial wage rates to estimate respondent labor costs assuming each respondent is equally likel y to use either government or commercial labor. When calculating respondent labor costs, EPA makes the following assumptions for the permittees :

 For state and local governments, EPA included employee benefits in the wage rate, and for commercial applicators, included benefits, overhead, and profit in estimating total labor rates. The BLS Emplo yer Cost for Employee Compensation (ECEC, 2009) provides estimates for benefit markups for governments (benefits account approximately 25% of the total labor rate), and PSMJ (2009) indicates that the wage rate multip lier is 3.05 for commercial/engineering firms.6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

25

 Rates for man a gers reflect OES category 11
- 9121, Natural Sciences Man a gers. EPA used an average labor rate of $113 per hour for managers (state government at $51; local government at $64, and commercial at $167). This rate is mean annual 2008 wages, updated to 2009 dollar s .  Rates for technical staff reflect OES category 9
- 4091, Environmental Science and Protection Technicians, including health. EPA used an average labor rate of $51 per hour for technical s taff (state government at $38; local government at $38, and commercial at $63). This rate is mean annual 2008 wages, updated to 2009 dollar s .  Rates for clerical staff reflect OES category 43
- 0000, Office and Administrative Support Occupations State. EPA used an average labor rate of $41 per hour for clerical staff (state government at $29; local government at $28; and commercial at $53 ) . This rate is mean annual 2008 wages, updated to 2009 dollar s . For the authorized States, EPA assumes $38 per hour whi ch is the rate for technical staff at state government. 

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

### 6(b)(i i i) Capital/Start - up Costs This IC R account for labor costs only
. The pesticide general permit s do not require respondents to perform activities outside the normal operation practices. 

## 6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost EPA’s estimate of its burden and costs are from the activities described in Section 5(a)
. When calculating the Agency

cost, EPA makes the following assumption : EPA determined the hourly employ ment cost of f

ederal emplo ye es using methodology established in previous ICR s . According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 200 9 General Schedule (200 9
- GS), the average annual salary of a government employee at the GS
- 9, Step 10 level is $5 3,234
. At 2,080 hours per ye ar, the hourly wage is $ 25.59
. Assuming overhead cos ts of 60 percent, or $ 15.36 per hour, the fully loaded cost of employ

ment for a federal emplo yee is $ 40.95
. Burden and costs incurred by EPA are presented in the Respondents and Agency Activities Table in Appendix A
. EPA ’ s activities as the NPDES permitting authority for non
- authorized states and territories are the same as the activities performed b y the authorized states and territories
. These burdens and costs are identical to those for authorized NPDES states and territories
.6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

26

For calculating the States ’ cost , EPA uses the rate for technical staff (OES category 9
- 4091, Environmental Science and Protection Technicians, including health). EPA uses $38 per hour, the mean annual 2008 wages, updated to 2009 dollar. Pesticide General Permit NOI filing EP A estimates non - authorized states and the Virgin I sland s will spend 1 hour to process each NOI. EPA will be using an electronic s ys tem eNOI and will spend 0.5 hour processing each NOIs. Pesticide General Permit NOT filing Permitting authorities will spe nd 0.25 hour processing each NOTs. Pesticide General Permit Standard Permit Conditions Permitting authorities will handle and review Permittee Report of Planned Facility Changes, Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance, and Permittee Report of In accurate Previous In formation. EPA estimates permitting authorit ies will spend 0.5 hour , 2 hours, and 1 hour , respectivel y for this activity
. Pesticide General Permit Noncompliance Report Review Permitting authorities will spend 2 hours handling and rev iewing each noncompliance report. Pesticide General Permit Adverse Incident Report Review Permitting authorities will spend 2 hours handling and reviewing each adverse incident report. Pesticide General Permit Annual Report Review Permitting authoriti es will spend 1 hour handling and reviewing each annual report. 

## 6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs Detailed information describing the universe and basis for burden and costs is provided in S ection 6(a)
. R esults are presented in the Respondents and Agency Activities Table in Appendix A
. Th at table provides the respondent universe and the source of information for all respondent categories used throughout this I C R.6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

27



## 6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables 6(e)(i) Respo ndent Tally The bottom line burden hours and costs for facilities and authorized states are the average annual hours and costs collectively incurred for all activities during the 3
- year period covered b y this ICR
. Table 6
. 1 provides a summary of the avera ge annual number of respondents, burden hours, and costs
. A more detailed summary is in the Respondent s and Agency Activities Table in Appendix A
. Table 6. 1 Respondent tally Permittees S tates /t ribes/t erritories * Totals Respondents (number) 365,000 45 Responses (number) 1, 2 5 3, 365 4 5 , 694 1,299,059 Burden (hours) 987,904 45 , 809 1,033,713 Costs (labor) $ 50,109,969 $ 1,740,754 $51,850,723 Costs (capital) $ 0 $0 $ 0 Costs (O&M) $ 0 $0 $ 0 Total costs $50,109,9 69 $1,740,754 $51,850,723 Average annual burden per respondent * The average annual burden per permitting authority is for response s associated with 90% of the universe of permittees. 2.7 hrs 1018 hrs 

### 6(e)(ii) The Agency

Tall y The bottom line burden hours and costs for the Agency are the total annual hours and costs collectively

incurred for all activities during the period covered by this I CR
. Table 6
. 2 provides a summary

of the average annual A gency burden hours and costs
. A more detailed summary is in the Respondents and Agenc y Activities Table in Appendix A
. Table 6.2 Ag ency t ally Responses (number) 5, 081 Burden (hours) 4,489 Costs (labor) $ 183,820 Costs (capital) $0 Costs (O&M) $0 Total costs $183,820 

## 6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden As a result of the Sixth Circuit Court’s decision, discharges from the application of pesticide s will need an NPDES permit. Th e additional burden from this I CR will be consolidated in the existing I CR for the NPDES Program (I CR Number 0229.19, OMB Number 2040
- 0004). The current annual burden in OMB’s inventory for the existing I CR for the NPDES Program is 30,943,308. This I CR will add 1,033,713 hours. This IC R will increase the burden b y 3
. 3 %.6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

28



## 6(g) Burden Statement The calculations made for this I CR cover the burden and costs for EPA and other Federal Agencies , NPDES
- authorized S tate s , and operators of pesticide activities
. This I CR estimates an annual burden of 987,904 hours for 365,000 respondents (permittees) at a labor cost of $ 50 milli on . Burden for the S tate respondents is 45,809 hours annuall y at a labor cost of $ 1.7 million
. Agenc y burden is 4,489 hours annually at a labor cost of $ 0.2 million
. The annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is est imated to average 0.8 hour per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended b y persons to generate, maintain, or disclose or provide information to or for a f ederal agency
. This includes the time needed to review instruct ions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and s ys tems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing way s to comply with any previousl y applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose information
. An a genc y m ay 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 number s for EPA ’ s regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR C hapter 15. To comment on EPA ’ s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, the Agency has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA
- HQ
- OW
- 2010
- 0852 , which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC
. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room i s open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday

through Friday , excluding legal holiday s . The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202
- 566
- 1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is 202
- 566
- 2426
. An electronic version of the public docket is available through the Federal Docket Management Sy stem (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov/
. Use FDMS to submit or view public comments, to access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access documents in the public docket that ar e available electronicall y . Once in the s ys tem, key in the docket ID number identified above
. You can also send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Atte ntion: Desk Office for EPA
. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. EPA
- HQ
- OW
- 2010
- 0852 and OMB Control No. 2040
-NEW in any correspondence
.