Information Collection Request for

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) Permits for Point Source Discharges from 

the Application of Pesticides to Waters of the United States

OMB Control No. 2040-NEW, EPA ICR No. 2397.01

October 27, 2010

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Wastewater Management

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460
ii

Contents

1. Identification of the Information Collection............................................................................... 1

1(a) Title of the Information Collection...................................................................................... 1

1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract .......................................................................................... 1

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

2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection....................................................................................... 2

2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data ...................................................................................... 4

3. Non-duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria.................................................. 6

3(a) Non-duplication................................................................................................................... 6

3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submissions to OMB............................................... 6

3(c) Consultations....................................................................................................................... 7

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection.................................................................................... 7

3(e) General Guidelines.............................................................................................................. 7

3(f) Confidentiality ..................................................................................................................... 8

3(g) Sensitive Questions............................................................................................................. 8

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested ...................................................................... 9

4(a) Respondents/Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes............................................. 9

4(b) Information Requested ........................................................................................................ 9

4(b)(i) Obtaining Permit Coverage ....................................................................................... 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 Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables .................................................................... 27

6(e)(i) Respondent Tally....................................................................................................... 27

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

6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden .......................................................................................... 27

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

Appendices

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.................................................................................................................. 27
1. Identification of the Information Collection

1

1. Identification of the Information Collection

1(a) Title of the Information Collection

Title: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits for Point Source 

Discharges from the Application of Pesticides to Waters of the United States

OMB Control Number: 2040-NEW

EPA ICR Number: 2397.01

1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract

This Information Collection Request (ICR) calculates the burden and costs associated with

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

27, 2006, EPA issued a final rule (hereinafter called the “2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule”) 

clarifying circumstances where an NPDES permit was not required to apply pesticides to or 

around water when applied in compliance with 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 permits 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 permits for discharges from the application of pesticides. 

EPA estimates that the majority of operators required to seek coverage will do so under a general 

permit instead of an individual permit. For the small number of operators 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 (ICR Number 

0229.19, OMB Number 2040-0004). This ICR calculates the burden and costs associated with 

information collection and reporting activities from EPA and State NPDES pesticide general 

permits. 

This ICR estimates a burden of 987,904 hours annually for 365,000 respondents (permittees) at a 

cost of $50 million. The burden 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 For and Use of the Collection

2

2. Need For and Use of the Collection

2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection

The purpose of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

coverage prior to the expiration date. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

coverage and may significantly simplify the permitting process for the majority of pesticide 

dischargers. As with any permit, the CWA requires the general permit to contain technologybased effluent limitations, as well as any more stringent limits when necessary to meet applicable 

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

in section 502(8) of the CWA as extending three miles from the baseline. Pacific Legal 
2. Need For and Use of the Collection

3

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

Council, Inc. v. U.S. EPA, 863 F.2d 1420, 1435 (9th Cir. 1988).

The permit application process under section 402 is the primary mechanism to ensure that the 

permits are adequately protective to meet the statutory and regulatory requirements under the 

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

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

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

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

should be.

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

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

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

assured that they meet minimum federal requirements. 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 

States without an authorized NPDES program, EPA is the permitting authority and undertakes all 

permitting activities; although CWA section 401 requires states to certify that EPA-issued 

NPDES permits establish “effluent limitations, and monitoring requirements necessary to assure 

that any applicant...will comply with any applicable effluent limitations and other limitations 

(pursuant to the CWA) and with any other appropriate requirement of state law...” States, tribes, 

and U.S. territories may waive their right to certify permits if they wish. CWA section 510 

provides that states, tribes, and territories may adopt requirements equal to or more stringent than 

standards established pursuant to CWA provisions.

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

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

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

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

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

pesticides to waters of the United States. On January 9, 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court vacated 

EPA’s 2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule. As a result of the Court’s decision, NPDES permits will be 

required for discharges to waters of the U.S. from the application of biological pesticides and 

chemical pesticides that leave a residue. Table 2.1 lists the areas where EPA is the permitting 

authority for discharges from pesticide application activities. 

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

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

permit, rather than issuing individual permits to each 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 affected entities will seek coverage under a general permit 

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

4

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

Application Activities

States

Alaska1

Idaho

Massachusetts

New Hampshire

New Mexico

Oklahoma

2

Territories and Others

American Samoa

District of Columbia

Guam

Johnston Atoll

Midway Island

Wake Island

Northern Mariana Islands

Puerto Rico

States with Federal Facilities for which EPA has Permitting Authority

Colorado

Delaware

Vermont Washington

States with Tribal Lands for which EPA has Permitting Authority

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

California

Colorado

Connecticut 

Florida

Idaho

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Montana

Nebraska 

Nevada

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Oregon

Rhode Island

South Dakota

Texas

Utah

Washington

Wisconsin

Wyoming

On June 4, 2010, EPA published a proposed general permit (Pesticide General Permit or PGP) 

for the areas where it is the permitting authority. See Federal 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 canopy pest control. For this ICR, EPA’s proposed

NPDES PGP is used to also estimate the burden from the State’s general permits.

2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data

This ICR includes information used primarily by permitting authorities and permittees. Much of 

these data must be submitted to permitting authorities, while other information must be 

maintained on-site by the permittee. Information collection and reporting activities required in 

EPA’s PGP are listed below:

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

under a general permit; 

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

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

 Information collected after each pesticide application;

 Information collected from self-monitoring;

 

1

On October 31, 2008, EPA approved the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation’s (ADEC) application to take 

over, 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

Pursuant 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 pesticides. Thus, the 

burden associated with permittees in Oklahoma is included as part of the federal burden.
2. Need For and Use of the Collection

5

 Information submitted as a result of spill, leaks, and other unpermitted discharges;

 Information submitted as a result of an adverse incident;

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

and threatened species, and designated critical habitat;

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

adverse incident reports, and annual reports; and

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

coverage under the PGP.

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

to the operator’s discharges or practices. Permitting authorities use the information in the ways 

discussed below.

Identification Information

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

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

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

permit in databases that provide an inventory of permit holders.

EPA Headquarters uses the information contained in the NOI databases to develop reports on 

permit issuance and compliance rates. The Agency also uses the information to respond to 

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

Information Related to Discharges, Uses, and Practices

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

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

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

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

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

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

frequency, and degree of seriousness of the violation.

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

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

the following actions in the next permit development:

 specify additional permit limitations;

 assess 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 ICR is required by statute or 

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

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

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

determine if similar or duplicate information is available elsewhere:

 The EPA Inventory of ICRs;

 The Government Information Locator Service; and

 The Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

requirements in the permit are currently 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 covered under 

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

(OMB No: 2070-0029, EPA No: 0155.09) which requires commercial applicators, who are 

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

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

under the NPDES general permits and 40 CFR 171 is negligible. The PGP allows applicators to

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

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

all requirements of the permit are satisfied. 

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

In compliance with the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), any agency developing a nonrule-related ICR must solicit public comments for a 60-day period before submitting the ICR to 

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

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

OMB.
3. Non-duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

7

3(c) Consultations

EPA headquarters staff responsible for program oversight in NPDES permit and for program 

oversight in FIFRA was contacted to provide information, data, and review for this ICR.

EPA solicited information and data on discharges from pesticide applications 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 

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

2010 (75 FR 31775) and received over 700 public comments. See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW2010-0257. Additionally, EPA hosted three public meetings, a webcast, and a public hearing

after proposal. EPA 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 collection efforts against 

respondent burden and costs. From the inception of the NPDES program, cost has been one of 

the major factors considered in establishing application requirements, monitoring conditions, and 

report contents and frequencies. In the past 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 

regularly seeks new opportunities to reduce burden on the regulated community.

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

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

permit, rather 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 cover a large number of 

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

and permit conditions. 

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

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

or on an as needed basis. EPA and authorized States need current information about permittees

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

in this ICR identifies the burden that EPA has determined as necessary. EPA strives to minimize 

burden. EPA has determined that the information currently required is the minimum that is 

necessary to adequately evaluate permittee compliance.

3(e) General Guidelines

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

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

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

8

3(f) Confidentiality

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

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

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

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

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

be treated as confidential.

3(g) Sensitive Questions

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

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

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

requirements addressed in this ICR do not include sensitive questions.
4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

9

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(a) Respondents/Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)

Codes

The Clean Water Act (CWA), enacted in 1972, requires operators of point source discharges of 

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

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

capabilities in place to administer the NPDES program. To date, 44 states and one U.S. territory

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

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

other 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 ICR.

All NPDES permittees, whether permitted by EPA’s or the States’ general permits for discharges

from the application of pesticides, are also respondents in this ICR. 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 NAICS (North American 

Industry Classification System) codes: 111 Crop Production; 113110 Timber Tract Operations; 

113210 Forest Nurseries Gathering of Forest Products; 221310 Water Supply for Irrigation; 

923120 Administration of Public Health Programs; 924110 Administration of Air and Water 

Resource and Solid Waste Management Programs; 924120 Administration of Conservation 

Programs; and 221 Utilities. 

4(b) Information Requested

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

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

respondent activities for the 45 authorized States.

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

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

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

 Activities associated with PDMP development;

 Monitoring;

 Reporting; 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, respectively, 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 permit. This 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 (ICR Number 

0229.19, OMB 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 areas. 

When all discharges associated with pesticide activity 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) Respondent Activities

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

include reading and reviewing instructions and regulatory requirements, gathering general 

information, consulting technical and legal officials, filling out forms, drafting letters, 

maintaining records, and mailing completed submissions.

Activities for the 45 authorized States can include reviewing and processing NOI and NOT, 

determine which dischargers, if any, would be more appropriately governed 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 Management 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-date 
4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

11

and modified 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 

measure description; (4) schedules and procedures pertaining to control measures used to comply 

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 considerations under other Federal laws.

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

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

include reading and reviewing regulatory requirements, gathering general information, 

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

reviewing the plan, and maintaining records.

4(b)(iii) Monitoring

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

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

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

monitoring requirements for 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 demonstrates compliance with permit conditions by using 

currently established 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 may possibly be 

related to the operator’s use of pesticides in a given area. According to EPA’s proposed PGP, 

respondents are engaged in the following types of activities:

 Monitor the amount of pesticide used to ensure that the lowest amount needed to effectively 

control the pest is balanced with the potential for development of pesticide resistance.

 Monitor the operation to ensure the integrity of application equipment by calibrating, 

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 are 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 ICR explains respondent activities in detail in Section 4(b)(iii)(1) above. Activities can 

include reading and reviewing regulatory requirements, gathering pesticide used information, 

observing impact on non-target organisms, and consulting 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 year. The annual report will be used by

EPA to assess permit compliance and to determine whether additional controls on pesticide 

discharges are necessary to protect water quality. Specifically, the report must include 

identification of any waters or other treatment area, including size, either by name or by location; 

pesticide use pattern(s) and target pest(s); company name(s) and contact information for 

pesticide applicator(s), if different from the NOI submitter; total amount of each pesticide 

product applied for the reporting year by the EPA registration number(s) and by application 

method; whether the pest control activity was addressed in 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 provided:

a. The caller’s name and telephone number;

b. Operator name and mailing address;

c. If covered under an NOI, the NOI NPDES tracking number;

d. The name and telephone number of a contact person, if different than the person 

providing the 24-hour notice;

e. How and when the operator became aware of the adverse incident;

f. Description of the location of the adverse incident;

g. Description of the adverse incident identified and the EPA pesticide registration number 

for each product the operator applied in the area of the adverse incident; 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 days of a reportable adverse incident, the operator must provide a written report of 

the adverse incident to the permitting authority. The report must include at least the following 

information:

a. Information provided during notification of the adverse incident;

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

and name of the staff from the permitting authority;

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

waters;

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

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

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

distance affected);

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

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

ingredients, and EPA registration number;

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

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

h. If laboratory tests were performed, indicate what 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 you 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. Signature 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 incidents to 

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

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

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

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

a. The caller’s name and telephone number;

b. Operator name and mailing address;

c. The name of the affected species;

d. How and when you became aware of the adverse incident;

e. Description of the location of the adverse incident;

f. Description of the adverse incident, including the EPA pesticide registration number for 

each product applied in the area of the adverse incident; and

g. Description of any steps taken or that will be taken to alleviate the adverse impact to the 

species.

Permittee Report of Spill, Leak, or Other Unpermitted Discharge

According to EPA’s proposed PGP, all operators are required to report leaks, spills or other 

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

reportable quantity established under either 40 CFR Part 110, 40 CFR Part 117, or 40 CFR Part 

302 occurs in any 24-hour period. Operators must notify the National Response Center 
4. 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 days of the operator becoming aware of a spill, leak, or other unpermitted discharge, 

the operator must document and retain the following information:

a. Information during notification of the spill, leak, or other unpermitted discharge

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

completed or expected to be completed;

c. Any measures to prevent recurrence of such a spill, leak, or other discharge, including 

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

Permittee Report of Corrective Action

According to EPA’s 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 triggering the need for corrective action. The operator must 

retain a copy of this documentation. The documentation must include the following information: 

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

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

meet water quality standards;

b. Brief description of the situation;

c. Date the problem was identified.

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

situation and date the operator learned of the situation;

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

completed or expected to be completed; and

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

PDMP modifications are required as a result of the incident.

Permittee Report of Planned Facility Changes 

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

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

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

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

water or discharging pesticides to a water impaired for that pesticide. When reporting planned 

changes, a permittee must provide a description of the planned alterations or additions and a 

statement outlining the anticipated effects of the changes on the discharge. The permitting 

authority may use the information submitted by the discharger to develop an individual NPDES 

permit before the planned changes are made.

Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance 

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

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

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

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

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

noncompliance on the receiving waters.
4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

15

Facility and Permit Transfer Report 

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

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

new permit holder. EPA does not anticipate any respondents for the PGP because operators are 

required to file a NOT (Notice of Termination), which is covered elsewhere in this ICR, when 

they transfer ownership; rather than submitting some other type of documentation. 

Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous Information 

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

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

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

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

Noncompliance Reports 

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

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

written follow-up submission within 5 days). 

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

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

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

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

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

gathering general information, typing or completing forms or generating reports, and mailing 

or electronic submission of completed forms or reports to the NPDES permitting authority.

 Gathering detailed information. Detailed information gathered can include any data required 

by the NPDES 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) Recordkeeping

4(b)(v)(1) Data Items

According to EPA’s proposed PGP, all operators must keep a copy of the permit, a copy 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. 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 year. 

Operators, who are required to submit an NOI, must also keep the following records:

a. A copy 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 you knew or reasonably should have known that you would exceed an 

annual treatment area threshold during any calendar year, as identified in Part 1.2.2;

c. Surveillance 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 by name or by location, to which 

you discharged any pesticide(s);

i. Name of each pesticide product used including 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 

application equipment operator);

o. A copy of your PDMP, including any modifications made to the PDMP during the term 

of this permit.

Operators must also keep a copy of the NOT and supporting documentation on file. 

4(b)(v)(2) Respondent Activities

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

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

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

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

17

5. The Information Collected—Agency Activities, 

Collection Methodology, and Information Management

5(a) Agency Activities

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

authority for discharges from application of pesticides. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Center.

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

for coverage under the permit. Notification may include newspaper announcements, direct 

mailings, or other methods of communication.

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

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

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

need to apply for individual permits.

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

compliance with the general permit. 

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

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

Processing Center.

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

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

permitting authority review as requested. Therefore, for the purposes of this ICR, the plans are 

integral to the day-to-day operational control of each pest management area but are not included 

as a component of Agency activities.

When reports or forms are submitted, permitting authority review is necessary, and in some 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Region). In authorized 

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

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

during file audits and when compiling statistical compliance summaries).

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

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

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

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

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

In collecting and analyzing the information associated with this ICR, information for permittees 

covered under EPA’s PGP will be entered into an NOI database. EPA uses these data to manage 

the NPDES program.

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

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

These systems provide EPA with a nationwide inventory of 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 analyzing national permit and water quality data.

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

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

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

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

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

missing or inaccurate information.

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

For many reasons, EPA believes the reporting requirements discussed in this ICR do not place an 

unreasonable burden on small businesses. The NOI requests minimal information, such as the 

name and location of the discharge. Furthermore, operators submit NOIs once every 5 years. 

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

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

is not dependent on an operator’s size.
5. The Information Collected—Agency 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 PDMPs.

All permittees, regardless of the size of the entity, are required to report instances of 

noncompliance. In most cases, these requirements do not impose a large burden on small 

businesses because the information required is simple and straightforward.

5(d) Collection Schedule

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

type of activity. See Section 6 of this ICR for detailed estimates of collection schedules.

Federal regulations require permittees to reapply for permits at least every 5 years because the 

CWA limits the terms of an NPDES permit to 5 years. The regulations also grant permit writers 

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

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

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

coverage under that new permit. When calculating burden, this ICR assumes that all permit 

applicants follow this schedule.

A notice of termination is submitted once when coverage under the permit is no longer 

necessary. 
6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

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. That table 

presents all assumptions, calculations, and results discussed in this ICR. Dischargers covered 

under the pesticide general permit and authorized NPDES States are identified as respondents. 

The breakdown of cost and burden by 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 general permittees that 

report directly to authorized-NPDES States.

This ICR calculates annual burden and costs to respondents (365,000 permittees and 45 

authorized States). These calculations address dischargers obtaining coverage under a new 

general permit. Because this is the first time discharges from application of pesticide need an 

NPDES permit and the pesticide general permit renews every five years, this ICR 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 Respondents and Agency Activities Table in Appendix A calculates the 

estimated burden to authorized NPDES States for handling and reviewing NOI information 

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

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

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

permitting authority burden and costs. 

Notice of Intent (NOI)

The NOI filing requirement is applicable only to permittees that expect to exceed the annual 

treatment area threshold (ATAT). EPA estimates that 2 hours is required to file an NOI for a 

general permit. This burden estimate includes 1 hour to read and understand the regulation, and 

1 hour to fill out and submit the form. EPA estimates that 12,167 NOIs (10% of the permitted 

universe) will be filed annually. EPA estimates that authorized NPDES States will spend 1 hour 

processing these NOIs and the Agency will spend 0.5 hours. The difference in burden between 

EPA and the States is based on the fact that EPA will be using its electronic system for NOIs 

while not all states will have a comparable system 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 

year to year. EPA estimates that permitting authorities will spend 0.25 hour processing each 

NOT.

6(a)(ii) Plan Development

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

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 limitations. These plans may cover one or more treatment areas within one plan, and 

can reference other documents (such as pre-existing integrated pest management plans). Thus, 

the cost to develop the PDMP will vary based on the extent of pest problems and pesticide use, 

as well as existing documentation that may be referenced to fulfill plan requirements. 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 year 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 

estimates the average level of effort that might be required to prepare a PDMP. This burden 

estimate for preparing a PDMP includes 1 hour to select the team, 16 hours to describe sources, 

14 hours to develop measures and controls, 8 hours to develop schedules and procedures, and 1

hour to document considerations under other federal laws. Thus, EPA estimates that the average 

time for a respondent to develop a PDMP is 40 hours. This is a one-time development activity. 

Permittees are required to update the plan as needed. EPA assumes that 9,125 plans (25 percent 

of the universe required to develop a plan) will be updated annually with the average time of 2

hours. 

6(a)(iii) Monitoring

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

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

monitoring 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 applications is expected to be 

neglible.
6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

22

6(a)(iv) Reporting 

Annual Report

Certain permittees are required to submit an annual report to the permitting authority. For EPA’s 

proposed PGP, this includes operators that exceed the ATAT. The respondent 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 by 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 adverse incidents (0.01% of the universe) will be reported 

annually by permittees. EPA estimates that respondents will spend 2 hours gathering 

information and notifying their permitting authority. EPA estimates that respondents will spend

an additional 2 hours preparing and submitting a report. The activities required for permitting 

authorities include processing and reviewing the information from permittees. EPA estimates 

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

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

Habitat

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

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

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

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

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

annually.

Permittee Report of Spill, Leak, or Other Unpermitted Discharge

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

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

regulations and as such, no additional burden is included in this ICR for reporting. 

Permittees are also required to document the spill, leak, or other unpermitted discharge and retain 

the documentation for their record. EPA estimates that respondents will spend 1 hour to 

document the activity. EPA estimates 365 events (0.1% of the universe) will be reported 

annually.

Permittee Report of Corrective Action

Permittees are required to document any situation triggering corrective action and their planned 

corrective action. EPA estimates that respondents will spend 5 hours on this activity. This 

burden is divided as follows: 1 hour to read and understand the regulation, 1 hour of planning, 1 
6. 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 annually.

Permittee Report of Planned Facility Changes

Respondents will use an estimated average of 4 hours to complete their notification of planned 

alterations and additions. This burden estimate includes 1 hour to read and understand the 

regulation, 1 hour to plan the report, and 2 hours to write the report. EPA estimates that 

permitting authority will spend 0.5 hours handling and reviewing each report. EPA estimates 

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

Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance 

Respondents will use an estimated average of 5 hours of labor for each report of anticipated 

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

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

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

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

Facility and Permit Transfer Report 

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

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

elsewhere in this ICR.

Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous Information 

The respondent burden associated with this reporting requirement includes the time needed to 

verify the reporting error or omission, to prepare the revised form that details the reporting 

corrections, and to mail the information to the permitting authority. The time required under this 

regulation will vary depending on the size of the pest management area and the extent of the 

error or omission. EPA estimates that a typical report requires 2 hours to prepare. EPA 

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

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

Noncompliance Reports 

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

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

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

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

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

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

6(a)(v) Record Keeping

According to EPA’s proposed PGP, all operators must keep a copy of the permit, a copy 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. The burden associated with recordkeeping depends on the pest 

management area and whether the permittee already has a recordkeeping system. EPA estimates 
6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

24

365,000 respondents will spend 0.5 hour gathering and filing a copy 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 year. EPA estimates 12,167 respondents will spend 0.25 hour tracking total 

acreage or miles of area treated, assuming 4 responses per year. 

Operators who are required to submit an NOI must also keep 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 collecting 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 Section 6(a), the next step is to estimate the labor cost 

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

respondent activity is composed of the following:

 Labor Cost;

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

 Capital/Start-up Cost.

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

Activities Table in Appendix A.

6(b)(i) Estimating Labor Costs

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

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

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

(OES, 2008) and an Employment Cost Index (ECI, 2009) to update 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 likely to use either government or 

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

assumptions for the permittees:

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

commercial applicators, included benefits, overhead, and profit in estimating total labor rates. 

The BLS Employer Cost for Employee Compensation (ECEC, 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 multiplier is 3.05 for 

commercial/engineering firms. 
6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

25

 Rates for managers reflect OES category 11-9121, Natural Sciences Managers. 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 

dollars.

 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 

staff (state government at $38; local government at $38, and commercial at $63). This rate is 

mean annual 2008 wages, updated to 2009 dollars.

 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 dollars.

For the authorized States, EPA assumes $38 per hour which is the rate for technical staff at state 

government.

6(b)(ii) Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs 

This ICR account for labor costs only. The pesticide general permits do not require respondents 

to perform activities outside the normal operation practices. 

6(b)(iii) Capital/Start-up Costs

This ICR account for labor costs only. The pesticide general permits do not require respondents 

to perform activities outside the normal operation practices. 

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

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

calculating the Agency cost, EPA makes the following assumption:

EPA determined the hourly employment cost of federal employees using methodology

established in previous ICRs. According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2009

General Schedule (2009-GS), the average annual salary of a government employee at the GS-9, 

Step 10 level is $53,234. At 2,080 hours per year, the hourly wage is $25.59. Assuming 

overhead costs of 60 percent, or $15.36 per hour, the fully loaded cost of employment for a 

federal employee 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 by 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 

EPA estimates non-authorized states and the Virgin Islands will spend 1 hour to process each 

NOI. EPA will be using an electronic system eNOI and will spend 0.5 hour processing each 

NOIs.

Pesticide General Permit NOT filing 

Permitting authorities will spend 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 Inaccurate Previous 

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

respectively for this activity.

Pesticide General Permit Noncompliance Report Review 

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

Pesticide General Permit Adverse Incident Report Review

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

Pesticide General Permit Annual Report Review 

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

6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden 

and Costs

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

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

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

categories used throughout this ICR.
6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

27

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

6(e)(i) Respondent Tally

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

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

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

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

Appendix A.

Table 6.1 Respondent tally

Permittees States/tribes/territories* Totals

Respondents (number) 365,000 45

Responses (number) 1,253,365 45,694 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 $50,109,969 $1,740,754 $51,850,723

Average annual burden per respondent

*The average annual burden per permitting authority 

is for responses associated with 90% of the universe 

of permittees. 2.7 hrs 1018 hrs

6(e)(ii) The Agency Tally

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

collectively incurred for all activities during the period covered by this ICR. Table 6.2 provides 

a summary of the average annual Agency burden hours and costs. A more detailed summary is

in the Respondents and Agency Activities Table in Appendix A.

Table 6.2 Agency tally

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 pesticides

will need an NPDES permit. The additional burden from this ICR will be consolidated in the 

existing ICR for the NPDES Program (ICR Number 0229.19, OMB Number 2040-0004). The 

current annual burden in OMB’s inventory for the existing ICR for the NPDES Program is 

30,943,308. This ICR will add 1,033,713 hours. This ICR will increase the burden by 3.3%. 
6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

28

6(g) Burden Statement

The calculations made for this ICR cover the burden and costs for EPA and other Federal 

Agencies, NPDES-authorized States, and operators of pesticide activities. This ICR estimates an 

annual burden of 987,904 hours for 365,000 respondents (permittees) at a labor cost of $50

million. Burden for the State respondents is 45,809 hours annually at a labor cost of $1.7

million. Agency 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 estimated to average 0.8 

hour per response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

collection techniques, the Agency has established a public docket for this 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 is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading 

Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is 202-566-2426. An 

electronic version of the public docket is available through the Federal Docket Management 

System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov/. Use FDMS to submit or view public comments, 

to access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access documents in the 

public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in the docket ID number 

identified above. You can also send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, 

Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-

0852 and OMB Control No. 2040-NEW in any correspondence.