Information Collection Request for

Animal Sectors

OMB Control No. 2040-0250, EPA ICR No. 1989.09

November 2013

Prepared for

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Wastewater Management

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

EPA Contract Number EP-C-11-009

EPA Work Assignment Number 2-22
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 ...................................................................................... 3

3. Non-duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria.................................................. 5

3(a) Non-duplication................................................................................................................... 5

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

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

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection.................................................................................... 5

3(e) General Guidelines.............................................................................................................. 6

3(f) Confidentiality ..................................................................................................................... 6

3(g) Sensitive Questions............................................................................................................. 6

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested ...................................................................... 7

4(a) Respondents/Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes............................................. 7

4(b) Information Requested ...................................................................................................... 11

4(b)(i) Application/NOI........................................................................................................ 11

4(b)(ii) Plan Development/Special Studies........................................................................... 14

4(b)(iii) Monitoring............................................................................................................... 15

4(b)(iv) Reporting (including certification).......................................................................... 16

4(b)(v) Record Keeping ........................................................................................................ 18

4(b)(vi) Compliance Assessment.......................................................................................... 20

5. The Information Collected—Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information 

Management ................................................................................................................. 22

5(a) Agency Activities.............................................................................................................. 22

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management....................................................................... 22

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility ..................................................................................................... 23

5(d) Collection Schedule........................................................................................................... 23

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection.................................................................... 26

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden ......................................................................................... 26

6(a)(i) Application/NOI ........................................................................................................ 26

6(a)(ii) Plan Development/Special Studies........................................................................... 28

6(a)(iii) Monitoring............................................................................................................... 29

6(a)(iv) Reporting (including certification) .......................................................................... 30

6(a)(v) Record Keeping ........................................................................................................ 32

6(a)(vi) Compliance Assessment .......................................................................................... 33

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs............................................................................................ 34

6(b)(i) Estimating Labor Costs............................................................................................. 34

6(b)(ii) Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs .............................................................. 35

6(b)(iii) Capital/Start-up Costs ............................................................................................. 36

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost ................................................................................ 36

6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs................................... 36

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables .................................................................... 37
iii

6(e)(i) Respondent Tally....................................................................................................... 37

6(e)(ii) The Agency Tally ..................................................................................................... 38

6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden .......................................................................................... 38

6(g) Burden Statement .............................................................................................................. 38

Appendices

Appendix A. Respondents and Other Assumption

Appendix B. Respondents Activities Table

Appendix C. Agency Activities Table

Tables

Table 4.1. CAFO Standard Industrial Classification Codes and Size Thresholds.......................... 8

Table 4.2. CAFO universe and discharging CAFOs..................................................................... 10

Table 4.3. Discharging CAFOs that land apply and CAFOs that will use the narrative rate 

approach ....................................................................................................................... 10

Table 6.1. Labor Rates.................................................................................................................. 34

Table 6.2. Respondent tally .......................................................................................................... 38

Table 6.3. Agency tally................................................................................................................. 38
1. Identification of the Information Collection

1

1. Identification of the Information Collection

1(a) Title of the Information Collection

Title: Animal Sectors ICR

OMB Control Number: 2040-0250

EPA ICR Number: 1989.09

1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract

This Information Collection Request (ICR) covers the information collection burden imposed 

under the NPDES and ELG regulations for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) 

and Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production (CAAP) facilities. 

On July 30, 2012, EPA published its most recent revisions to the NPDES CAFO regulations (77 

FR 44494). These revisions were necessary as a result of a court decision in 2011 by the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in litigation relating to the NPDES CAFO 

permitting program (National Pork Producers Council v. EPA, 635 F.3d 738, 756 (5th Cir. 

2011)). Although the decision narrowed the scope of CAFOs that need to seek NPDES permit 

coverage, the Effluent Limitations Guidelines for CAFOs and other aspects of the permitting 

program remain unchanged. As a consequence, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements 

faced by those CAFOs that do seek NPDES permit coverage were not affected.

The Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Concentrated Aquatic Animal 

Production (CAAP) Point Source Category establish specific reporting requirements for a 

portion of CAAP facilities through NPDES permits. The rule covers facilities which are defined 

as CAAP facilities (see 40 CFR 122.24 and 40 CFR Part 122) and produce at least 100,000 

pounds of fish per year in flow through, recirculating and net pen systems. The special reporting 

and record-keeping requirements under the rule are the subject of this ICR. CAAP facility

owners or operators are also required to file reports with the permitting authority when drugs 

with special approvals are applied to the production units or a failure in the structural integrity 

occurs in the aquatic animal containment system. 

This ICR accounts for the time required to review instructions, search existing data sources, 

gather and maintain all necessary data, and complete and review the information collected for 

both CAFO and CAAP facilities. The calculations for this ICR cover the burden and costs for 

EPA, authorized states, and operators of regulated facilities. This ICR estimates a burden of 

2,606,066 hours annually for 20,915 operator respondents at a cost of $59.4 million ($53.0

million burden cost and $6.4 million capital and O&M cost). Burden for the state respondents is 

530,734 hours annually at a cost of $11.6 million ($9.4 million burden cost and $2.2 million 

capital and O&M cost). Agency burden is 32,192 hours annually at a cost of $1.6 million. The 

annual reporting and record-keeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to 

average 1.0 hours per response.
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)]. CWA section 402(a) establishes 

the NPDES program to regulate the discharge of any pollutant from point sources1into waters of 

the United States. Section 402(a) of the CWA, as amended, authorizes the EPA Administrator to 

issue permits for the discharge of pollutants if those discharges meet the following requirements:

 All applicable requirements of CWA sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, and 403; or

 Any conditions the Administrator determines are necessary to carry out the provisions and 

objectives of the CWA.

The primary mechanism to ensure that the permits are adequately protective of those 

requirements is the permit application process. In particular, CWA section 402(a)(2) requires 

EPA to prescribe permit conditions to assure compliance with requirements “including 

conditions on data and information collection, reporting and such other requirements as [the 

Administrator] deemed appropriate.”

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

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

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

assured that they meet minimum federal requirements. Authorized states are considered 

permitting authorities and are responsible for issuing, administering, and ensuring compliance 

with permits for most point source discharges within their borders. In states without an 

authorized NPDES program, EPA is the permitting authority and undertakes all permitting 

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

establish “effluent limitations, and monitoring requirements necessary to assure that any

applicant...will comply with any applicable effluent limitations and other limitations (pursuant to 

the CWA) and with any other appropriate requirement of state law...” States, tribes, and U.S. 

territories may waive their right to certify permits if they wish. CWA section 510 provides that 

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

established pursuant to CWA provisions.

Under the terms of the NPDES program, CAFOs are defined as point sources (33 U.S.C. Sec. 

1362). Under 33 U.S.C. Section 1311 and Section 1342, a discharging CAFO must obtain an 

NPDES permit and comply with the terms of that permit, which may include appropriate 

conditions on data and information collection. EPA's NPDES regulations also define when a 

hatchery, fish farm, or other facility is a CAAP facility and, therefore, a point source subject to 

the NPDES permit program (40 CFR 122.24). Furthermore, 33 U.S.C. Section 1318 provides 

 

1

EPA defines a point source as, “any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to, 

any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, CAFO, landfill leachate 

collection system, vessel or other floating craft from which pollutants are or may be discharged. This term does not 

include return flows from irrigated agriculture or agricultural stormwater runoff” (40 CFR 122.2).
2. Need For and Use of the Collection

3

authority for information collection (i.e., record keeping, reporting, monitoring, sampling, and 

other information as needed), which applies to point sources; and Section 308(a) of the CWA 

authorizes the Administrator to require the owner or operator of any point source to file reports 

as required to carry out the objectives of the Act.

EPA and authorized states need the information required under the NPDES CAFO regulations

and the CAAP ELG regulations to implement the CWA requirements. The requirements in the 

ELGs are incorporated into the NPDES permits issued by EPA and states. 

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. Although different permittees submit widely differing 

information, this can be categorized into two sets: identification information and information 

related to the facility’s discharges or practices. Permitting authorities use the information in the 

ways discussed below.

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

facilities to uniquely identify each applicant seeking individual or general permit coverage and to 

establish a contact person. This information will vary in its detail and scope on the basis of the 

type of respondent.

EPA and authorized states store basic permit information in EPA’s Integrated Compliance 

Information System (ICIS-NPDES) database. ICIS-NPDES is used to track permit limits, permit 

expiration dates, monitoring data, enforcement and compliance data, and other data and to 

provide EPA with a nationwide inventory of permit holders. EPA uses this information to 

develop reports on permit issuance, backlog, and compliance rates. EPA also uses the 

information to respond to public and congressional inquiries, develop and guide its policies, 

support enforcement actions, formulate its budgets, and manage its programs to ensure national 

consistency in permitting. For the most part, states and territories are authorized to implement the 

NPDES permitting program, manage and use the data in a similar fashion to EPA and, as such, 

incur similar types of burdens.

Information collected by the NPDES Program Director (of either an authorized state or EPA) 

about CAFO facilities and operating procedures is used to develop permit conditions and to 

document that a permittee is in compliance with permit requirements. Information is collected 

using permit application forms and annual reports and through compliance evaluation 

inspections. 

Permitting authorities collect and use information from CAAP facilities on the use of INAD and 

extra-label drugs, which may lead to permit requirements to prevent or minimize further 

discharges of the drug. Advance notice of a CAAP facility’s participation in an INAD program 

can provide the permitting authority an opportunity to obtain information concerning the effects 

of the drug and determine if any controls on the discharge of the INAD is warranted. If a 

determination is made to limit the discharge when the INAD is being used in accordance with 40 

CFR §125.3, and 122.44, the facility can subsequently determine how the limits can be achieved. 
2. Need For and Use of the Collection

4

Furthermore, in the event that adverse environmental impacts are noted from the use of an 

investigational drug, the permitting authority could share the information with the Food and 

Drug Administration (FDA). Based on this information, FDA could determine whether to 

withdraw the investigational approval. 

The information collected from CAAP facilities on the failure of structural integrity can provide 

the permitting authority with some indication of pollutant slugs discharged to the receiving 

streams. These slugs may include solids, carcasses, and fish. The impact on the receiving water 

can be severe although in most cases brief. In addition to the solids loading, the release of fish 

from the CAAP facility may pose concerns if the fish being produced are non-native. The 

permitting authority may need to alert state fish and game authorities when non-native species 

have been released. Early intervention can minimize the establishment of a species and thus 

avoid the negative economic and environmental impacts associated with establishment of a nonnative species.

Other users of the data include regulated CAFOs and CAAP facilities and the general public. 

CAFOs and CAAP facilities will use the data they collect to improve operation efficiency and 

evaluate facility maintenance needs. The general public can use information collected through 

the NPDES permit process to support efforts to protect local environmental quality and quality of 

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

5

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 record-keeping 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:

 EPA’s Inventory of ICRs;

 EPA’s Integrated Compliance Information System-NPDES (ICIS-NPDES);

 The Government Information Locator Service;

 USDA Census of Agriculture

Examination of these databases and discussions with other Federal Agencies did not identify any 

reporting requirements that were duplicative with existing requirements for CAFO or CAAP 

facilities. 

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

This ICR was published in the Federal Register on September 17, 2013 (78 FR 57150). The 

notice included a request for comments on the content and impact of these information collection 

requirements on the regulated community. EPA received no comments on this ICR.

3(c) Consultations

EPA finalized all regulations containing the requirements addressed in this ICR after receiving 

comments from the public and the regulated community as part of the notice and comment phase 

of the rulemaking process. The early phases of the rulemakings included consultation with the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture for purposes of refining and updating the burden estimates.

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

EPA has made every effort to establish NPDES permit and associated information collection 

requirements that minimize the burden on respondents while promoting the protection of water 

quality. NPDES permit applications are the primary form of information collection for regulated 

facilities, and these facilities must reapply for NPDES permits before their existing permits 

expire. Section 402(p) of the CWA requires that NPDES permits be issued for fixed terms with a 

maximum term of 5 years, thereby disallowing less frequent collection than anticipated by this 

ICR. 

Reporting associated with the use of drugs or failure in the structural integrity in CAAP facilities 

are only required in the event one of these activities occurs. The reporting itself for either of 

these situations is minimal. EPA requires an oral report to be made initially, followed by a more 
3. Non-duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

6

detailed written report. EPA has determined less frequent reporting would impede the ability of 

the permitting authority to take action to minimize harm to the environment when warranted.

3(e) General Guidelines

This information collection complies with Paperwork Reduction Act guidelines (5 CFR

1320.5(d)(2)), except for the requirement for CAFOs to maintain the records on-site for five 

years to demonstrate permit compliance. 

3(f) Confidentiality

Permit applications and other respondent reports, such as Nutrient Management Plans (NMPs)

for CAFOs or reporting requirements associated with investigational drug use at CAAP facilities, 

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.

Whenever possible, EPA encourages public involvement in the NPDES regulatory process. 

However, EPA also recognizes the legitimate concerns of operators regarding protection of CBI 

and potential delays in processing of applications for individual permits and Notice of Intents 

(NOIs) for general permits.

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

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

7

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

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

Codes

The two categories of respondents covered in this ICR are the owners or operators of CAFO or 

CAAP facilities and authorized states or territories that issue permits to these facilities. 

As of July 2009, there are 47 authorized states and territories that have received EPA approval to 

administer the base NPDES program. Of these, 44 issue NPDES permits to CAFOs.2 EPA 

continues to be the permitting authority in the other states and territories.

EPA categorizes CAFOs on the basis of the primary type of animal produced by the operation. 

Table 4.1 lists the major categories along with their North American Industry Classification 

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

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

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

same NAICS or SIC codes. 

Table 4.1 also provides the applicable animal thresholds. EPA uses these thresholds to 

distinguish which AFOs are CAFOs. All Large AFOs are defined as CAFOs. An AFO in the 

medium size category is defined as a CAFO if it meets one of two discharge criteria:

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

similar man-made device; and

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

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

confined animals.

 

2

EPA retains authority for NPDES permits for CAFO facilities in Oklahoma; thus, only 44 states are authorized to 

issue permits to CAFOs. EPA is not aware of any CAFOs in Alaska or the U.S. Virgin Islands. (NPDES-ICIS and 

NPDES General Permit Inventory)
4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

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

8

Table 4.1. CAFO Standard Industrial Classification Codes and Size Thresholds

NAICS code

(SIC code) Animal type

Size thresholds

Large Medium Small

112111 (0212, 0241), 

112112 (0211)

Beef cattle, heifers, calves or 

veal calves for either slaughter 

or replacement

> 1,000 300–1,000 < 300

112111, 112120 (0241) Dairy cattle—mature dairy 

cattle (whether milked or dry 

cows) and heifer replacement

> 700 200–700 < 200

112210 (0213) Swine—each weighing over 25 

kilograms—or approximately 

55 pounds

> 2,500 750–2,500 < 750

Immature swine—each 

weighing less than 25 

kilograms, or approximately 55 

pounds

> 10,000 3,000–10,000 < 3,000

112310 (0252) Chickens—laying hens, using 

liquid manure handling system

> 30,000 9,000–30,000 < 9,000

112310 (0252) Chickens—laying hens, if other 

than liquid manure handling 

system

> 82,000 25,000–82,000 < 25,000

112320 (0251) Chickens other than laying 

hens—broilers, fryers and 

roasters, if other than liquid 

manure handling system*

> 125,000 37,500–125,000 < 37,500

112330 (0253) Turkeys > 55,000 16,500–55,000 < 16,500

112390 (0259) Ducks, wet manure handling > 5,000 1,500–5,000 < 1,500

Ducks, dry manure handling > 40,000 12,000–40,000 < 12,000

112410 (0214) Sheep or lambs > 10,000 3,000-10,000 < 3,000

112920 (0272) Horses > 500 150-500 < 150

*Modeling of burden impacts in this ICR does not include an industry category for broilers, fryers or roaster operations with liquid 

manure operations since operations in this animal sector are typically designed for dry manure handling.

An AFO in the smallest size category may become a CAFO through designation by the permit 

authority if the facility is a significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the U.S. Any

designation must be preceded by an on-site inspection, and facilities designated as CAFOs must 

meet the two discharge criteria noted above. A medium AFO that is not defined as a CAFO may

also be designated as a CAFO if it is a significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the U.S. 

Under current NPDES CAFO regulations, an owner or operator of a CAFO that discharges is 

required to apply for an NPDES permit. Prior iterations of this ICR reflected costs to operations 

based on NPDES CAFO requirements in existence at the time of the previous ICR. When this 

ICR was last renewed in 2010, all CAFOs faced reporting and recordkeeping requirements: 

CAFOs that either discharged or proposed to discharge were required to seek permit coverage, 

and those CAFOs that did not seek permit coverage were required to submit certification stating 

that their operation did not discharge.

Table 4.2 shows the estimates of total numbers of CAFOs used in developing the respondent 

universe for this ICR. Since the time of the prior approved ICR, the animal agriculture industry
4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b) Information Requested

9

has continued to change. These changes have included further growth and consolidation, which 

have resulted in a greater number of AFOs that meet the size threshold for being defined as a 

Large CAFO. At the same time, due to regulatory revisions that EPA finalized since the last 

ICR, only those CAFOs that discharge are required to seek NPDES permit coverage and as a 

result all CAFOs may not need to comply with recordkeeping and reporting requirements 

imposed on permitted CAFOs through the NPDES CAFO permit regulations. 

The updated projections presented in Table 4–2 were generated by EPA staff using data from the 

2002 and 2007 Census of Agriculture along with the estimates developed for earlier ICRs of 

CAFOs that could potentially experience a discharge. According to this information, EPA 

estimates that as of 2013, as many as 19,000 CAFOs could potentially experience a discharge to 

waters of the U.S. and could as a consequence need to seek NPDES permit coverage. This figure 

includes an estimated 8,511 medium-sized animal feeding operations that could potentially

experience a discharge. The estimate represents an upper-bound projection for purposes of 

generating an ICR that fully captures any potential reporting and recordkeeping burden that 

CAFOs might incur as a result of NPDES permitting. 

The current NPDES CAFO regulations have two different ways for computing land application 

rates in nutrient management plans, the narrative rate and the linear rate. These two approaches 

are explained in more detail in the regulations. Table 4.3 shows the projected future number of 

CAFOs with permits and shows how many of these facilities EPA assumed would use either of 

the two approaches. To calculate these estimates, EPA used as a starting point the estimated 

number of permitted CAFOs that land apply manure, litter or process wastewater by animal type. 

In the absence of information indicating the number of operators using each of the two different 

approaches for computing land application rates, EPA assumed for costing purposes that one half 

of discharging CAFOs that land apply would use the narrative rate approach and that the other 

half would use the linear approach. 

The NPDES regulations also require permits covering facilities engaged in aquatic animal 

production. The types of CAAP facilities required to obtain NPDES permit coverage include the 

following:

 Finfish Farming and Fish Hatcheries: NAICS code 112511; and

 Other Animal Aquaculture: NAICS code 112519.

Not all facilities classified in these two NAICS codes will be subject to the reporting 

requirements included in this request, and many of these reporting requirements apply only when 

certain events or conditions exist at the facility. Other rules established a subset of facilities 

engaged in aquatic animal production as concentrated aquatic animal production facilities and by 

definition these facilities must obtain an NPDES permit. The definition of CAAP can be found 

at 40 CFR 122.24 and Appendix C of 40 CFR Part 122. The regulations covered by this ICR in 

turn only apply to a subset of CAAP facilities. These facilities are defined in the applicability

section of the final rule at 40 CFR 451. 
4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b) Information Requested

10

Table 4.2. CAFO universe and CAFOs needing permits (upper-bound)

CAFO Category

2012 2013 2014 2015

CAFO 

Universe

CAFOs needing 

permits (upperbound)CAFO 

Universe

CAFOs needing 

permits (upperbound)CAFO 

Universe

CAFOs needing 

permits (upperbound)CAFO 

Universe

CAFOs needing 

permits (upperbound)

Feedlot cattle 1,820 1,547 1,878 1,596 1,938 1,647 2,000 1,700

Dairy cows 2,632 2,632 2,698 2,698 2,766 2,766 2,835 2,835

Hogs 7,774 5,597 8,087 5,823 8,413 6,057 8,752 6,301

Horses/Ponies 59 50 61 51 63 53 65 55

Turkeys 743 74 748 75 753 75 758 76

Layer Chickens 1,164 116 1,171 117 1,178 118 1,185 119

Broiler Chickens 5,400 540 5,625 563 5,859 586 6,103 610

Ducks 180 126 186 130 192 134 199 139

Medium 8,511 8,511 8,805 8,805 9,110 9,110 9,427 9,427

Total 28,283 19,194 29,259 19,858 30,272 20,547 31,324 21,262

Table 4.3. CAFOs needing permits (upper-bound) that land apply and CAFOs that will use the narrative rate approach

CAFO Category

% Facilities 

that use 

land 

application

2012 2013 2014 2014

CAFOs 

needing 

permits 

that land 

apply

1⁄2 of 

CAFOs 

needing 

permits 

that land 

apply

CAFOs 

needing 

permits 

that land 

apply

1⁄2 of 

CAFOs 

needing 

permits 

that land 

apply

CAFOs 

needing 

permits 

that land 

apply

1⁄2 of 

CAFOs 

needing 

permits 

that land 

apply

CAFOs 

needing 

permits 

that land 

apply

1⁄2 of 

CAFOs 

needing 

permits 

that land 

apply

Feedlot cattle 83% 1,284 642 1,325 663 1,367 684 1,411 706

Dairy cows 78% 2,053 1,027 2,104 1,052 2,157 1,079 2,211 1,106

Hogs 80% 4,478 2,239 4,658 2,329 4,846 2,423 5,041 2,521

Horses/Ponies 100% 50 25 51 26 53 27 55 28

Turkeys 61% 45 23 46 23 46 23 46 23

Layer Chickens 47% 55 28 55 28 55 28 56 28

Broiler Chickens 69% 373 187 388 194 404 202 421 211

Ducks 100% 126 63 130 65 134 67 139 70

Medium CAFOS 79% 6,743 3,372 6,976 3,488 7,217 3,609 7,468 3,734

Total 15,207 7,606 15,733 7,868 16,279 8,142 16,848 8,427
4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b) Information Requested

11

4(b) Information Requested

This section presents the data items, including record-keeping requirements, and required 

respondent activities involved in preparing and submitting those data items. Throughout this 

subsection, codes will be presented in brackets (i.e., [1.3]). These codes correspond to the 

reference code in the Respondents Activities Table in Appendix B in which the first number 

represents the type of activity and the second the specific activity listed in the table.

All activities are allocated to one of six types of activities related to the NPDES program:

 Activities directly related to individual permit applications or permit coverage under a 

general permit (NOIs) [respondent activities codes 1.1–1.46];

 Activities associated with plans development or special studies [respondent activities codes 

2.1–2.30];

 Monitoring [respondent activities codes 3.1–3.12];

 Reporting, including certification [respondent activities codes 4.1–4.23];

 Record keeping [respondent activities codes 5.1–5.6]; and

 Activities resulting from compliance assessments actions [respondent activities codes 6.1–

6.7]

All activities were divided and allocated on the basis of the type of respondent. Below is a list of 

the possible types of respondents. Please note that all types of respondents do not have activities 

under all types of activities.

 (A) CAFO

 (B) CAAP

 (C) NPDES-authorized states.

4(b)(i) Application/NOI

4(b)(i)(1) Data Items

Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.21 and 122.28 detail the application and NOI requirements, 

respectively, for NPDES permits. This section includes specific application requirements related 

to NPDES discharge permits [40 CFR 122.21], and NOI requirements [40 CFR 122.28]. 

4(b)(i)(1)(A) CAFO

Start-up Activities [1.1-1.6]

All CAFO respondents will need to perform start-up activities such as: reading the CAFO rule 

and planning for the implementation of the rule. Owners or operators of facilities that are 

affected by the rule will need to familiarize themselves with the NPDES CAFO program to 

determine procedures for applying for a permit and implementing the effluent guideline 

requirements. Activities performed during the permit application process will be performed only 
4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(i) Application/NOI

12

once during each ICR period. However, these application activities will be repeated again during 

the fifth year of the permit cycle as part of the permit renewal process.

In accordance with NPDES CAFO regulations, all CAFO operations that discharge have a duty 

to apply for an NPDES permit by preparing and submitting either an application for an 

individual NPDES permit for CAFOs under 40 CFR 122.21 or an NOI for coverage under the 

general NPDES permit for CAFOs under 40 CFR 122.28.

Individual Permit Application for CAFOs [1.7-1.11]

The individual permit application for CAFOs comprises two standard NPDES forms: Forms 1 

and 2B. On Form 1, applicants provide basic information necessary to all EPA permit programs, 

including name, address, type of facility, and number of outfalls. Applicants must also submit 

topographic maps and lists of all EPA and state permits presently held. Form 2B requires 

applicants to provide industry-specific information specified in 40 CFR 122.21(i)(1). CAFOs 

must include an NMP as part of an application for NPDES permit coverage under an individual 

permit.

NOI to be Covered Under a CAFO General Permit [1.12-1.16]

In some states, the permitting authority uses a general permit to cover multiple permittees 

requiring similar permit conditions. By submitting an NOI, a facility can indicate its intent to 

abide by the terms of the general permit. Completing the NOI requires that CAFO applicants 

provide the information specified in 40 CFR 122.21(i)(1) (i.e., the NOI requests the same 

information as the application form for an individual permit). As with applications for individual 

permits, CAFOs submitting an NOI for coverage under a general permit must include an NMP as 

part of submission. 

4(b)(i)(1)(B) CAAP

Form 2B [1.17]

CAAP facilities must complete Form 2B as apart of their NPDES application process. These

facilities are required to provide data on the flow rates; the number of ponds, raceways, and 

similar structures; the species held at the facility; and the total pounds of production.

NOI to be Covered Under a CAAP General Permit [1.18]

The NOI pertains to coverage under a general permit, which a permitting authority uses to cover 

multiple permittees requiring similar permit conditions.

4(b)(i)(1)(C) State-Only Activities

Individual Permit Activities [1.19-1.25]

Authorized states will incur burdens to perform the following activities for CAFOs or CAAP 

facilities that submit applications for individual permits:

 reviewing the permit application for completeness;

 providing public notice of receipt of applications and addressing all significant public 

comments prior to issuing a permit;
4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(i) Application/NOI

13

 holding public hearing(s), as necessary, when there is significant public interest in the NMP 

provisions of a draft NPDES CAFO permit;

 determining the terms of the NMP that are to be incorporated into the permit 

 issuing the individual permit (analytical burden for issuing permits is not included as part of 

this ICR); and

 perform record keeping that includes all notices and reports required of permittees and other 

regulated persons.

Individual Permit Application Activities Due to Significant NMP Modifications [1.26-1.38]

The requirements for activities due to significant NMP modifications for individual permits are

essentially the same as the requirements for individual permit activities, as discussed above.

General Permit Activities [1.29-1.37]

Authorized states will incur burdens to perform the following activities for CAFOs that submit 

NOIs for general permits:

 reviewing the NOI for completeness;

 providing public notice of the NOI and addressing all significant public comments prior to 

issuing a permit; 

 holding public hearing(s), as necessary, when there is significant public interest in the NMP 

provisions of a draft NPDES CAFO permit; 

 determining the terms of the NMP that are to be incorporated into the permit; 

 issuing the general permit (burden for issuing permits is not included as part of this ICR); and

 perform record keeping that includes all notices and reports required of permittees and other 

regulated persons.

CAFO General Permit and NOI Activities Due to Significant NMP Modifications [1.38-

1.40]

The requirements for activities due to significant NMP modifications for general permits are 

essentially the same as the requirements for general permit activities, as discussed above.

Nutrient Management Plan Review [1.41-1.46]

The permitting authority must review the NMP, as part of the permit application or NOI, for 

compliance with applicable NPDES CAFO regulations. In addition, authorized states must 

determine the terms of the NMP that are to be incorporated into the permit. When changes are 

made to an NMP, the Director must review the changes and determine whether changes to the 

terms of the NMP are required and whether such changes are substantial.

4(b)(i)(2) Respondent Activities

Respondent activities can vary substantially depending on the type and characteristics of the 

respondent and of the authorized state or territory. This ICR explains these activities in terms of 

the type of information submission they require in detail in Section 4(b)(i)(1) above. However, 

any respondent can engage in preparing basic information. This includes reading and reviewing 

instructions and regulatory requirements, gathering general information, consulting technical and 

legal officials, reviewing guidance materials, typing or filling out forms, drafting letters, 
4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(i) Application/NOI

14

reviewing applications or other materials, maintaining records, and mailing completed 

submissions. Each of these requirements is described in more detail in Section 6 of this ICR.

4(b)(ii) Plan Development/Special Studies

4(b)(ii)(1) Data Items

4(b)(ii)(1)(A) CAFO

Develop/Update a Nutrient Management Plan [2.1-2.16]

Permitted CAFOs are required to develop/update and implement an NMP that addresses, at a 

minimum, the best management practices and procedures necessary to implement applicable 

effluent limitations and standards [40 CFR 122.42(e)(1)]. All CAFOs that must submit an NMP 

as part of their NPDES permit application. In addition, NOIs submitted to obtain coverage under 

an NPDES general permit must include an NMP. 

Modifications to the Nutrient Management Plan [2.17-2.24]

When changes are made to an NMP, the CAFO must provide a copy of the revised NMP to the 

Director. Certain changes need not be provided where such changes are consistent with specified 

land application rates; however, a current copy of the NMP must be maintained on site, or be 

readily available.

4(b)(ii)(1)(B) CAAP

Develop a Best Management Practices Plan [2.25-2.30]

The ELG for the CAAP category is based on requirements to reduce the discharge of solids, 

avoid spills of materials, and ensure the facility is being properly operated and maintained 

through implementing BMPs. Each of these requirements is based on the presumption that the 

CAAP facilities will achieve compliance by implementing BMPs. EPA required all facilities

subject to this regulation to develop a BMP plan which identifies the BMPs and documents any 

associated activities such as record keeping, and training associated with the BMPs. The Plan 

will be maintained at the CAAP facility, but must be made available to the permitting authority 

upon request. EPA also required that CAAP facilities certify in writing to the permitting 

authority once upon issuance of a permit that the BMP plan has been developed. 

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

Respondent activities can vary substantially depending on the type and characteristics of the 

respondent and of the authorized state or territory. This ICR explains these activities, in terms of 

the type of information submission they require, in detail in Section 4(b)(ii)(1) above. However, 

any respondent may engage in generating detailed information. Detailed information gathered 

can include topographic maps, water flow process line drawings, data on production levels, data 

on effluent characteristics, local development patterns, management programs, financial 

estimates (i.e., available funds and staff resources), engineering data, or other information 

required by permitting authorities, such as developing an NMP or BMP plan. 
4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(iii) Monitoring

15

4(b)(iii) Monitoring

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

4(b)(iii)(1)(A) CAFO

Effluent Limitation Guideline (ELG) Data Collection [3.1-3.12]

Permitted CAFOs will perform various activities to meet data collection and record-keeping 

requirements. Large CAFO operators will conduct weekly visual inspections of the waste 

storage and storm water diversion facilities and daily inspections of water lines to identify

maintenance needs. EPA assumed that these inspections can be primarily conducted in the 

course of every day operations and, therefore, they do not impose a substantial incremental 

burden on CAFOs beyond the need to document inspection findings. Manure application 

equipment must be inspected annually and the activity documented. Soil samples must be 

collected at least once every five years from all fields receiving manure and analyzed for nutrient 

content. Manure samples must be collected annually and analyzed for nutrient content. Large 

CAFOs must retain manure and soil sampling results on-site. Large CAFOs must also document 

other production area and land application area activities. Although Small and Medium CAFOs 

are not subject to the ELG requirements in 40 CFR 412, EPA assumes that the ELG burdens 

provide upper bound estimates for the burdens for Small and Medium CAFOs because many of 

the ELG information elements also provide documentation for the NMP and information for the 

annual report.

4(b)(iii)(1)(B) CAAP

Feed Monitoring

The CAAP ELG requires that all net pen facilities conduct some form of feed monitoring. This 

monitoring can be in the form of real-time monitoring such as video monitoring to observe feed 

passing beneath the net, sediment or benthic sampling, and physical devices designed to capture 

uneaten feed that passes below the net or other good husbandry practice that is approved by the 

permit authority. The objective of this requirement is to minimize the discharge of uneaten feed 

from the net pen system. Based on available information and existing permits, all existing net 

pen facilities are currently using one of these techniques to minimize the discharge of uneaten 

feed, therefore, there is no burden associated with this type of monitoring. 

4(b)(iii)(2) Respondent Activities

Respondent activities can vary substantially depending on the type and characteristics of the 

respondent and of the authorized state or territory. This ICR explains these activities, in terms of 

the type of information submission they require, in detail in Section 4(b)(iii)(1) above. However, 

any respondent may engage in the following types of activities:
4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(iii) Monitoring

16

 Sampling and analyzing discharges and sludge. This can involve pollutant scans, biological 

toxicity testing, impact analyses, field monitoring, or other scientific analyses.

 Performing routine inspections. This could involve routine site inspections to assess the site 

for information required by the permitting authorities, such as effectiveness of BMPs in 

protecting water quality.

4(b)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

4(b)(iv)(1) Data Items

4(b)(iv)(1)(A) CAFO

Annual Reports [4.1]

Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.42(e)(4)(i)-(viii) outline the annual reporting requirements for 

CAFOs and specify that a CAFO permittee must prepare and submit an annual report to the 

Director. This report provides an annual update to data items contained in the permit application 

forms as well as a summary of any production area discharges. 

Noncompliance Report [4.2-4.3]

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). The following must be reported within 24 hours to 

the permitting authority: (1) any unanticipated bypass that exceeds any effluent limitation in the 

permit; (2) any upset that exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit; and (3) violation of a 

maximum daily discharge limitation for any of the pollutants listed by the Administrator in the 

permit.

4(b)(iv)(1)(B) CAAP

BMP Plan Certification [4.4-4.6]

All CAAP facilities subject to the Effluent Guidelines Regulations are required to develop and 

implement a BMP plan that addresses specific aspects of the facility. Facility owners or 

operators are required to certify to the permitting authority that the BMP plan has been 

developed and is being implemented. This certification will take the form of a letter addressed to 

the permitting authority. 

INAD Program Sign-up Report [4.7-4.9]

EPA established reporting requirements associated with the application of INAD and extra-label 

drugs. When a CAAP facility agrees to participate in an INAD program EPA requires the owner 

or operator to notify the permitting authority in writing within 7 days of the date that the facility

signed up to participate in this program. The report would include the name of the INAD, the 

method of application, the dosage and the disease or condition it is intended to treat. Reporting 

is not required if the INAD or extralabel drug use does not exceed the approved dosage for the 

same drug if used under similar conditions. 
4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

17

INAD or Extra-Label Use Report [4.10-4.12]

When an INAD or extra-label drug that does not meet the exception is used at a CAAP facility, 

the owner or operator must file two reports with the permitting authority concerning this use. 

The first report is made orally and must be made no later than 7 days after initiating treatment. 

The facility owner or operator must notify the permitting authority that either an INAD or extralabel drug application is occurring at the facility. The report must identify the drug and the 

reason for its addition.

The second report is a written report which must be provided to the permitting authority within 

30 days of concluding treatment. The written report must include the identity of the drug, the 

reason for treatment, the date(s), time(s) and duration of the treatment, the total amount of active 

ingredient added, or the total amount of medicated feed added when this is the method of 

application and the estimated number of animals treated. 

Structural Failure Report [4.13-4.15]

EPA requires facilities to report to the permitting authority any time the facility experiences a 

failure or damage to the aquatic animal containment system resulting in a material discharge to 

waters of the United States. A failure of the containment system that results in a material 

discharge must be reported within 24 hours of discovery of the failure. This report should be 

made orally to the permitting authority and should describe the cause of the failure in the 

containment system and identify materials that may have likely been released to the environment 

as a result of this failure. The facility is also required to provide a written report within seven 

days of discovery of the failure documenting the cause, the estimated time elapsed until the 

failure is repaired, an estimate of the material released as a result of the failure, and steps being 

taken to prevent a reoccurrence.

EPA requires reporting of failures and damage that lead to a material discharge to ensure that 

permitting authorities are alerted to the release of significant pollutant loads over a relatively 

short time frame. EPA does not expect this type of failure to occur very frequently at flow 

through and recirculating facilities. EPA anticipated that there are a greater number of these 

events occurring at net pen facilities. The location of these facilities in open water makes them 

vulnerable to damage from predators and accidents. Failures at net pen facilities have the 

potential to release the contents of the nets including fish and fish carcasses.

Spill Report [4.16-4.18]

Reporting of spilled drugs, pesticides or feed that result in a discharge to waters of the United 

States, must be reported orally to the permitting authority within 24 hours of occurrence, 

followed by a written report within 7 days. The report must identify the material spilled and an 

estimated amount. EPA does not expect spills will occur very often, since facilities are required 

to implement proper storage and implement procedures for proper cleaning, containing and 

disposing of the spilled material. 

4(b)(iv)(1)(C) State Reporting & Certification

Permitting Authorities will keep the written reports received through the CAAP ELG regulation 

in the permit file. The information may be made available to the public unless it is subject to a 
4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

18

claim of CBI. EPA anticipates that there may be such claims attached to reports related to the 

participation or use of INADs.

BMP Plan Certification Receipt [4.19]

The permitting authority will process certifications that BMP plans have been developed and 

document receipt of the certification.

INAD Program Sign-up Report Receipt [4.20]

Permitting authorities will document receipt of the INAD program sign-up report when 

permittees apply either INAD or a drug that has been prescribed extra-label by a veterinarian to 

treat aquatic animals at the CAAP facility. 

INAD or Extra-Label Drug Report Receipt [4.21]

Permitting authorities will document receipt of oral and written reports filed by the permittee 

concerning INAD and extra-label drugs. 

Spill Report Receipt [4.22]

Permitting authorities will document receipt of oral and written reports filed by the permittee 

concerning spilled drugs, pesticides or feed that result in a discharge to waters of the United 

States. 

Structural Failure Report Receipt [4.23]

Permitting authorities will document receipt of oral and written reports filed by the permittee 

concerning structural failures at the CAAP facility. 

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

Respondent activities can vary substantially depending on the type and characteristics of the 

respondent and of the authorized state or territory. This ICR explains these activities in terms of 

the type of information submission they require 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 progress reports 

from those persons/governmental departments responsible for implementing the chosen 

BMPs, financial estimates, monitoring data, visual inspection data, compliance data, public 

opinion and awareness surveys, or any information required by the NPDES permitting 

authorities to be submitted with the annual reports.

4(b)(v) Record Keeping

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

4(b)(v)(1)(A) CAFO
4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(v) Record Keeping

19

ELG Data Collection Record Keeping [5.1]

Federal regulation in 40 CFR 122.42(e)(2)(i)(B) mandates that, in association with ELG 

requirements, CAFOs must keep records of all monitoring data and reports, including copies of 

all original monitoring information, for 5 years. Data that must be retained includes records 

related to sampling and monitoring, inspections, and results of such analyses. These data must be 

readily available to the permitting authority during site inspections or at any other time they are 

needed. 

Requirements Related to Transfer of Manure or Process Wastewater to Other Persons 

[5.2]

Prior to transferring manure, litter, or process wastewater to other persons, Large CAFOs must 

provide the recipient of the manure, litter, or process wastewater with the most current nutrient 

analysis consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 412. Large CAFOs must retain for five 

years records of the date, recipient name and address, and approximate amount of manure or 

process wastewater transferred to a third party [40 CFR 122.42(e)(3)].

4(b)(v)(1)(B) CAAP

Record Keeping of Inspection, Cleaning, Maintenance & Repair [5.3-5.4]

The CAAP ELG includes a requirement that facilities inspect and provide regular maintenance 

of the production system and the wastewater treatment system to ensure that they are properly 

functioning. EPA assumes the inspections will be performed by each facility while production is 

occurring. For the flow through and recirculating facilities, EPA believes that inspections would 

occur on each rearing unit and wastewater treatment structure. Net pen inspections require 

divers to inspect the facility underwater. 

In addition, EPA has requirements for flow through and recirculating commercial and noncommercial facilities that address the structural maintenance of the aquatic animal containment 

system and a requirement that facilities keep records on the frequency of inspections, 

maintenance and repairs to the facility to avoid structural failures. The type of records this 

requirement includes is a log of dates when inspections occur and brief notations when 

something is found. Also records are to be kept on maintenance and repair activities, including 

the date and the actions taken. EPA also requires these facilities to keep records on the 

frequency of cleaning the rearing units and changing the nets at net pen facilities.

Record Keeping of Feed Management [5.5-5.6]

In addition to the record keeping described above related to the inspections, maintenance and 

repair of the facility, EPA also requires flow through and recirculating commercial and noncommercial facilities to keep records on the amount of feed added to each rearing unit along with 

an estimate of the number of animals contained in the unit and the weight of the animals. From 

these records the facility should calculate a representative feed conversion ratio for the animals 

produced at the facility. 
4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(v) Record Keeping

20

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

Respondent activities can vary substantially depending on the type and characteristics of the 

respondent and of the authorized state or territory. This ICR explains these activities, in terms of 

the type of information submission they require, in detail in Section 4(b)(v)(1) above. However, 

all respondents have certain record-keeping requirements This includes keeping records of the 

data for at least 3 years, developing record-keeping systems, collecting and entering data, 

training personnel, filing information, or other record-keeping requirements, such as maintaining 

a BMP plan on-site for the duration of the permit. 

4(b)(vi) Compliance Assessment 

4(b)(vi)(1) Data Items

4(b)(vi)(1)(A) CAFO

Inspections Conducted by Permitting Authority [6.1]

This ICR also incorporates the potential burden to CAFO owners or operators participating in 

on-site inspections by the permit authority. During this time, the inspector may want to review 

records and inspect waste management and land application equipment. It is likely that the 

CAFO owner or operator will incur some burden during the inspection to make records available 

and show the facility to the inspector. 

4(b)(vi)(1)(B) CAAP

EPA has not identified any unique activities associated with compliance assessment for these 

permittees.

4(b)(vi)(1)(C) State-Only Activities

Inspections [6.2]

To assure compliance with state NPDES permit programs, the permitting authority will conduct 

on-site inspections of the permitted CAFO facility. 

Annual Report Review [6.3]

In addition to conducting inspections at permitted CAFOs, the permitting authority will also 

perform reviews of the annual reports submitted by the permitted CAFO. 

Research on Environmental Affects of INAD [6.4]

Upon receipt of a notification report of participation in an INAD program, the permitting 

authority may choose to gather information on the potential environmental effects of the INAD. 

EPA anticipates that this could involve some combination of web searching, contacts with the 

FDA and academics and contacts with the EPA regional office or Headquarters. 

Determination of Site-Specific Limits for INAD [6.5]

Based on findings from the above research, the permitting authority may choose to establish sitespecific controls for the discharge when the INAD is being used that limits or restricts the 

discharge of the reported drug in the receiving stream.
4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(b)(vi) Compliance Assessment 

21

Notify State Fish & Wildlife Department [6.6]

Reporting requirements associated with a failure in the aquatic animal containment system will 

provide the permitting authority with information concerning the release of large quantities of 

pollutants over a short span of time. It can provide the permitting authority with the ability to 

anticipate possible stream impacts that could result from this release and if possible take steps to 

mitigate them. A release of live fish that are not native to the region may pose a threat to native 

species. EPA anticipates that the permitting authority will notify the State Department of Fish 

and Wildlife so that appropriate action may be taken to mitigate this release in a timely manner.

Review Cause of Failure and Past Reports to Evaluate Effectiveness of Practices [6.7]

When subsequent structural failures of the aquatic animal containment system occur at the same 

facility, the permitting authority may refer to reports on file in the event that subsequent reports 

are filed. For example, previous reports of failures may be reviewed upon oral notification of a 

failure. If the permitting authority determines that sufficient steps may not have been taken to 

avoid further failures from occurring, the authority may require the facility to take specific 

actions. 

4(b)(vi)(2) Respondent Activities

Respondent activities for compliance assessment/certification information can vary substantially

depending on the type of permittee and its ability to comply with its NPDES permit. However, to 

submit the required information, a respondent can engage in preparing basic information, 

generating detailed information, sample collection, and reporting and maintaining records. 

Facilities with regulatory alternatives such as certification and BMPs should expect to be 

involved in developing, reviewing, and certifying plans; periodically reviewing and revising 

plans; submitting additional monitoring reports; and conducting refresher training. The specific 

requirements and activities for Compliance Assessment/Certification are outlined in section 

4(b)(vi)(1) above.
5. The Information Collected—Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

22

5. The Information Collected—Agency Activities, 

Collection Methodology, and Information Management

5(a) Agency Activities

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 the territories. Authorizations 

vary by program. For example, the assumption for this ICR is that the Agency has permitting 

responsibilities in the five states where it is the permitting authority for CAFOs and four states 

where it is the permitting authority for CAAP facilities. 

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

EPA maintains some permit 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 

headquarters 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.

CAFO respondents will submit the requested information to their NPDES permitting authority. 

EPA will manage a portion of the information collected electronically. In collecting and 

analyzing the information associated with NPDES permit coverage applications, EPA will use 

ICIS-NPDES, paper-based forms; personal computers; and databases to ultimately 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 ICISNPDES. 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.

Upon request to EPA, the public may access certain information via ICIS-NPDES, Online 

Tracking Information System (OTIS), or Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO). 

Some of the information is available to the public through Web-based interfaces of these 

databases or other EPA Web-based tools such as Envirofacts.

For CAAP facilities, the permitting authorities will maintain records of reports made under the 

Special Reporting Requirements for INADs described above in Section 4. This data may be 

made available to the public consistent with EPA’s regulations concerning the protection of 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) (40 CFR Part 2).

INADs can be considered CBI during the investigative studies. Reports required to be filed with 

the permitting authority under this regulation that contain CBI should be clearly marked and 

should be handled by the permitting authority in accordance with 40 CFR 122.7, 40 CFR Part 2 

and EPA’s Security Manual, Part III, Chapter 9.
5. The Information Collected—Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

23

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

The current NPDES program distinguishes small CAFOs on the basis of the number or 

concentration of animals and their environmental impact. Small, Medium, and Large operations 

are defined in Table 4.1. 

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

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

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

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

(except for laying hens) and data from USDA and the industry for this effort. A comparison of 

the SBA-based animal thresholds with EPA’s animal thresholds indicates that most medium and 

small CAFOs are small entities and some Large CAFOs will be small entities as well. EPA’s 

premise continues to be that any regulatory burden should focus on those operations posing the 

greatest risk to water quality and public health—especially operations with large numbers of 

animals. Broadly, CAFO ELG requirements apply to Large CAFOs, and permitting authorities, 

which are mainly state agencies, will establish technology-based requirements for small and 

medium CAFOs on the basis of best professional judgment (BPJ). 

For the CAAP ELG rule, EPA conducted analyses required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980 (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA). See section IX.B of the preamble in the final rule for a summary of these analyses.

EPA believes the burden on small facilities is minimal since reporting is only linked with 

specific conditions or occurrences at the facility. 

5(d) Collection Schedule

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

type of activity and respondent. For this ICR, annual burden estimates are based on universe of 

CAFO respondents estimated to exist in the 3-year period spanning January 2014 through 

December 2016. 

This ICR assumes that one-fifth of existing permitted CAFOs and CAAP facilities would renew 

their permits in each year covered by the ICR (based on the 5-year NPDES permit term). In 

addition, a specific number of new and designated CAFOs were assumed to seek permits in each 

of these years. 

Before EPA added the narrative rate approach for NMPs presented in the final 2008 CAFO rule, 

it estimated in the 2006 renewal ICR that 11 percent of permitted CAFOs would need permit 

modifications each year due to substantial changes to their NMPs. For that ICR, EPA assumed 

that each year one percent of NMPs would change enough to trigger a substantial modification of 

the permit. Based on subsequent consultations with USDA, EPA revised this projection upwards 

to 11 percent. (This estimate was based on USDA estimates that such modifications would take 

place once per permit cycle for 45 percent of facilities, and twice for between 0 and 10 percent of 

facilities.) EPA estimates for purposes of this current ICR that CAFOs choosing the narrative 

approach (one half of discharging CAFOs that land apply) to express rates of application will 
5. The Information Collected—Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

24

experience a 50 percent reduction in permit modifications. This is because the narrative 

approach results in fewer changes to the NMPs that would later necessitate substantial permit 

modifications.3

The CAAP ELG rule requires the development of a BMP plan to assist in compliance with the 

requirements along with a certification that a BMP plan has been developed. These activities 

will occur upon coverage under an NPDES permit that incorporates the ELG requirements. This 

BMP plan must be completed and certification filed once during the term of the NPDES permit. 

Reporting requirements associated with INAD and extra-label drugs are related to specific 

events. Likewise the reporting associated with an aquatic animal containment system failure is 

linked to a specific event. The reporting requirements do have a related time frame on which the 

report must be filed. INAD study participation must be reported within 7 days after agreeing to 

participate in an INAD study or initiating the use of an INAD or extra-label drug chemical. In 

conjunction with the use of the INAD or extra-label drug, a written report must follow the initial 

oral report within 30 days of initiation the use. Likewise reporting associated with a failure 

damage resulting in a material discharge must be made orally within 24 hours of discovery 

followed by a written report within 7 days of the event. EPA considers this collection schedule 

to be reasonable. The certification of the BMP plan should be a straightforward document, most 

likely taking the form of a letter from the owner or operator at the CAAP facility addressed to the 

permitting authority. This letter need only be submitted once for each permit cycle which is 

typically 5 years. Likewise the effort associated with developing the BMP plan is expected to be 

expended once during the permit cycle.

The reporting of participation in an INAD program is required to occur within 7 days of agreeing 

to participate in the program. This time lapse provides the CAAP owner or operator ample time 

to assemble the required information and prepare a letter that will serve to notify the permitting 

authority. Facilities are generally not expected to require the application of the INAD 

immediately, however, if agreeing to participate in the INAD program coincides with use of the 

INAD, the facility would report consistent with the use reporting requirements. INAD and extralabel drug use reporting requires that an oral report be filed as soon as possible, but no later than 

7 days after beginning treatment. EPA recognizes that facility owners and operators will be 

focusing on the health and welfare of the aquatic animals being treated and thus may not be able 

to file a report immediately, however, within the first 7 days of treatment, the owner or operator 

can provide an oral report.

The written report related to the use of INAD or extra-label drugs must be filed within 30 days 

following completion of the treatment. EPA does not expect this time period will impose any

hardship on facilities to compile the required information into a letter that can be sent to the 

permitting authority.

The occurrence of a failure in the aquatic animal containment system must be reported orally 

through a phone call to the permitting authority within 24 hours of discovery. The urgency

associated with this reporting is to allow the permitting authority to take rapid action to mitigate 

 

3

This is a significant increase in the frequency the Agency uses for significant modifications in other industries, 

which is typically 1 percent of permits. This is because of the dynamic nature of NMPs and the resulting need for 

more frequent changes to the portions of permits relating to NMPs.
5. The Information Collected—Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

25

any harmful effects that could occur as a result of the failure’s releasing pollutant slugs into the 

receiving stream. The subsequent written report describing the failure and steps taken to prevent 

its reoccurrence among other things is due within 7 days of discovering the failure. EPA expects 

that operators will be busy taking steps to address the failure, but also believes filing a prompt 

report will ensure that the facility is actively addressing the causes and looking for ways to 

prevent reoccurrences to the extent possible.

Spills of drugs, pesticides and feed that result in a discharge to waters of the United States must 

be reported orally to the permitting authority within 24 hours of occurrence. A written report 

must be submitted within 7 days. The report must identify the material that spilled and an 

estimated amount.
6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(i) Application/NOI

26

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. Throughout 

this subsection, codes will be presented in brackets (i.e., [1.1]). These codes correspond to the 

reference code in the Respondents Activities Table in Appendix B. This table presents all 

assumptions, calculations, and results discussed in this subsection. Facilities subject to CAFO 

and CAAP requirements and authorized states are included as respondents in this section. The 

breakdown of cost and burden by labor category is provided in Section 6(b).

This ICR calculates annual burden and costs to respondents. In this section EPA presents 

estimated burden on the CAFO and CAAP facilities and NPDES authorized states based on the 

requirements included in the current regulations. In most cases the total burden per activity is 

estimated on an annual basis and then multiplied by three to derive the total burden associated 

with this ICR. There are some requirements in the regulations that are expected to occur only 

once during the permit cycle which is typically five years long. 

6(a)(i) Application/NOI

6(a)(i)(A) CAFO

Start-up Activities [1.1-1.6]

Start-up activities are steps that a CAFO owner or operator takes in preparation to comply with 

the information collection requirements of the CAFO rule. Owners or operators of facilities that 

receive permits rule will need to familiarize themselves with the NPDES CAFO program to 

determine procedures for applying for a permit and implementing the effluent guideline 

requirements. This is a one-time burden. EPA assumes that it will take CAFO operators three 

hours to read and understand the relevant portions of 40 CFR 122 and 40 CFR 412 and related 

guidance.

Individual Permit Application for CAFOs [1.7-1.11]

Permit application activities involve gathering information and completing and submitting an 

application for an individual permit. EPA estimates that respondents will spend nine hours to 

complete and submit the individual permit application. All permitted CAFOs must submit an 

NMP as part their individual permit application (40 CFR 122.21(i)(1)(x)). EPA estimates that 

new requirement for submittal of an NMP will require 0.5 hours every 5 years.

NOI to be Covered Under a CAFO General Permit [1.12-1.16]

EPA estimates that respondents will spend 9 hours to file an NOI for a CAFO general permit. In 

addition, NOIs to obtain coverage under an NPDES general permit must include an NMP. EPA 

estimates that new requirement for submittal of an NMP will require 0.5 hour every 5 years.
6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(i) Application/NOI

27

6(a)(i)(B) CAAP

Form 2B [1.17]

EPA estimates that respondents will spend 6 hours reading the instructions, gathering the 

necessary information, and completing and mailing Form 2B. EPA estimates that there are 359

CAAP facilities. From ICIS-NPDES, EPA estimates that 52 percent of CAAP facilities file for 

general permits. Of the remaining 173 CAAP facilities, on average one-fifth of these facilities 

will file an application annually (i.e., 35). 

NOI to be Covered Under a CAAP General Permit [1.18]

EPA estimates that respondents will spend 2 hours to file an NOI for a CAAP general permit. 

6(a)(i)(C) State-Only Activities

States will incur burden related to two categories of activities: Implementation of individual 

permits and implementation of general permits.

Individual Permit Activities [1.19-1.25]

EPA assumed state administration costs for individual CAFO permits include 100 hours per 

permit to review Forms 1 and 2B, issue public notices, and respond to comments. EPA also 

estimated that the hearing time for an individual permit would be 200 hours. This is the same 

figure as was used in the currently approved ICR. The burden estimate in this case must account 

for personnel both to manage the logistics of the hearing and to attend the hearing. Typically, 

the staff attending a public hearing includes a presiding officer, technical staff, legal counsel, and 

a court reporter. All these personnel must travel to the hearing site, which often requires 

overnight travel depending on the venue for the hearing. Logistics tasks for the public hearing 

include selecting the venue, publicizing the meeting, coordinating attendance, and managing the 

public record. Permitting authorities should provide public notice when they receive individual 

permit applications. EPA estimates a burden of 5 hours per application for public notice.

For individual permit applications associated with CAAP facilities, EPA estimates that 

authorized states will spend 0.5 hour reviewing Form 2B.

Individual Permit Application Activities Due to Significant NMP Modifications [1.26-1.38]

The annual burden for activities due to significant NMP modifications for individual permits 

includes the following:

 review and approve permits/record keeping (20 hours)

 public hearings (40 hours)

 public notice and response to comments (1 hour)

General Permit Activities [1.29-1.37]

CAFOs seeking coverage under a general permit submit completed NOI forms that the 

permitting authority needs to review and make a determination of coverage. EPA estimated that 

NOI review and record-keeping activities would require four hours. EPA has assumed that 12 

percent of the NOIs submitted would result in a public hearing related to the general permit; and 

that the labor burden associated with the hearing, should one be called for, would be 200 hours. 
6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(i) Application/NOI

28

The magnitude of the public hearing burden for the general permit is assumed to be the same as 

the burden in the active ICR for public hearings for individual CAFO NPDES permits.

Permitting authorities should provide public notice when they receive NOIs. EPA estimates a 

burden of 5 hours per NOI for public notice.

For CAAP facilities covered under a general permit, the agency estimated 0.5 hours to process 

the NOIs.

CAFO General Permit and NOI Activities Due to Significant NMP Modifications [1.38-

1.40]

The annual burden for activities due to significant NMP modifications for general permits 

includes the following:

 review and approve NOIs/record keeping (4 hours)

 public hearings (40 hours)

 public notice and response to comments (1 hour)

Nutrient Management Plan Review [1.41-1.46]

Authorized states must review CAFOs’ NMP as part of the permit application or NOI to 

determine compliance with applicable NPDES CAFO regulations. In addition, authorized states 

must determine the terms of the NMP that are to be incorporated into the permit. EPA estimates 

that the authorized state will spend 20 hours reviewing the NMP and determining NMP terms, 

every five years.

In addition, authorized states must review any subsequent changes to NMPs and determine 

whether changes warrant a substantial modification to the permit. The burden to review 

subsequent changes is assumed to be 4 hours per review. They also must provide an opportunity

for public comment when changes are substantial.

6(a)(ii) Plan Development/Special Studies

6(a)(ii)(A) CAFO

Develop/Update a Nutrient Management Plan [2.1-2.16]

CAFO operators need to develop an NMP that contains the minimum measures specified in 40 

CFR 122.42(e)(1). They will also need to maintain the plan on-site. The burden to develop the 

nonengineering portion of the NMP depends on the type of CAFO. These estimates come from 

the earlier CAFO NPDES ICR (OMB No. 2040–0250, EPA ICR No. 1989.02). This burden, 

which does not apply to CAFOs that do not land apply manure generated on-site, is incurred in 

the first year an operation requests coverage under the CAFO regulations and repeated at least 

once every five years for the NMP updates.

Modifications to the Nutrient Management Plan [2.17-2.24]

EPA also estimates that any permit modifications required by permitting authorities following 

NMP review may necessitate changes to NMPs that will result in an added burden to CAFOs. To 

determine the added burden to CAFOs for NMP modifications as directed by permit authorities, 

EPA estimates that the burden to CAFOs to modify and update an NMP would be 20 percent of 
6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(ii) Plan Development/Special Studies

29

the original NMP development burden. EPA calculated average plan development burden for an 

average discharging CAFO using the same burden estimate for NMP development as in the 

CAFO NPDES ICR (OMB No: 2040–0250, EPA ICR: 1989.04). 

In addition, when a permitted CAFO changes its NMP, the CAFO must provide a copy of the 

current (i.e., changed) NMP to the Director (certain changes need not be provided where such 

changes are consistent with specified land application rates). For purposes of this ICR, EPA’s 

burden estimate for submitting any revised plans is 30 minutes.

6(a)(ii)(B) CAAP

Develop a Best Management Practices Plan [2.25-2.30]

All facilities subject to CAAP regulation will be required to develop, and implement BMPs 

which address a variety of aspects of their facility. These BMPs must also be documented in a 

BMP plan, and a letter certifying that the Plan has been developed must be sent to the permitting 

authority. EPA estimates that these activities will require 40 hours to accomplish. This activity

is expected to be done once over the term of the permit which is typically five years. In addition, 

EPA estimates that CAAP facilities will spend 6 hours per year conducting training.

6(a)(iii) Monitoring

6(a)(iii)(A) CAFO

Effluent Limitation Guideline (ELG) Data Collection [3.1-3.12]

CAFO owners or operators with NPDES permits will perform various activities to meet data 

collection and record-keeping requirements. Large CAFO operators will spend 13 hours

conducting weekly visual inspections of the waste storage and storm water diversion facilities 

and daily inspections of water lines to identify maintenance needs. EPA assumed that these 

inspections can be primarily conducted in the course of every day operations and, therefore, they

do not impose a substantial incremental burden on CAFOs beyond the need to document 

inspection findings. Operators will spend 4 hours annually inspecting manure application 

equipment and documenting the activity. Soil samples must be collected at least once every five 

years from all fields receiving manure and analyzed for nutrient content. Each soil sampling will 

take 8 hours. Manure samples must be collected annually and analyzed for nutrient content. 

Each manure sampling will take 2.2 hours. Large CAFOs must retain manure and soil sampling 

results on-site. Large CAFOs must also document other production area and land application 

area activities, as noted in above Section 4(b)(i). 

6(a)(iii)(B) CAAP

Feed Monitoring

All net pen facilities are required to conduct some form of feed monitoring. This monitoring can 

be in the form of real-time monitoring such as video monitoring to observe feed passing beneath 

the net, sediment or benthic sampling, and physical devices designed to capture uneaten feed that 

passes below the net or other good husbandry practice that is approved by the permit authority. 

The objective of this requirement is to minimize the discharge of uneaten feed from the net pen 
6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(iii) Monitoring

30

system. Based on available information and existing permits, all existing net pen facilities are 

currently using one of these techniques to minimize the discharge of uneaten feed. There is no 

burden associated with this type of monitoring since facilities were already required to perform 

the feed management practices and associated record keeping. 

6(a)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

6(a)(iv)(A) CAFO

Annual Reports [4.1]

All permitted CAFOs prepare and submit an annual report to the permitting authority. The 

report provides an annual update to several data items contained in the permit application forms 

as well as a summary of any production area discharges. Many CAFO operators or owners will 

be able to copy information directly from the application form or their records to their report. 

EPA assumes that the annual report will require two hours to complete and submit, on average. 

Noncompliance Report [4.2-4.3]

EPA expects very few CAFO respondents to be affected annually. EPA expects approximately 1 

percent of permitted CAFO facilities to submit one report per year at 5 hours per response. EPA 

estimates that an average of 2 hours is required for the permitting authority to receive and 

process each CAFO report.

6(a)(iv)(B) CAAP

BMP Plan Certification [4.4-4.6]

The certification of the BMP plan should be a straightforward document, most likely taking the 

form of a letter from the owner or operator at the CAAP facility addressed to the permitting 

authority. This letter need only be submitted once for each permit cycle which is typically 5 

years. EPA estimates that respondents will spend 1.25 hours for BMP Plan certification. 

INAD Program Sign-up Report [4.7-4.9]

The number of facilities that reported participating in INAD programs in response to EPA’s 

detailed survey indicates that there would likely be less than 20 facilities annually affected by 

EPA’s INAD or extra-label reporting requirement. The rule specifies that facilities report when 

an INAD and extralabel drug is used and they would file less than 40 reports on the use of an 

INAD or extra-label drug in any given year. All of the facilities that reported participation in an 

INAD study were non-commercial facilities that were either state or Federal hatcheries. EPA’s 

data do not provide the details on the use of extra-label drugs at CAAP facilities. Thus, EPA is 

making an assumption that facilities will use either extra-label or INAD drugs in any given year, 

and the number of applications requiring reporting will be less than 40. EPA is assuming that the 

facilities that will apply extra-label drugs will not be just non-commercial facilities. The number 

of commercial facilities is likely to be substantially smaller than non-commercial facilities in part 

due to withdrawal concerns. EPA estimates that each program sign-up report will require one

hour to prepare and submit to the permitting authority.
6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

31

INAD or Extra-Label Use Report [4.10-4.12]

The burden associated with reporting for INADs and extra-label drugs will include an hour of a 

manager’s time to prepare and mail a letter notifying the permitting authority that the facility is 

participating in an INAD study. EPA estimates that a manager will spend half an hour filing the 

oral report on either INAD or extra-label drug use and subsequently an additional hour writing 

the letter that notifies the permitting authority when the treatment is concluded. EPA also 

anticipates that unskilled labor will spend some time keeping records throughout the application 

of the drug. This data will be used by the manager in the written report. However, EPA expects 

that this staff will also be doing these activities to respond to requirements of the INAD 

agreement or simply for the purposes of good husbandry in the case of extra-label drug 

applications.

Structural Failure Report [4.13-4.15]

EPA assumes that few flow through and recirculating facilities will experience structural failures 

in their aquatic animal containment systems. This is in part based on the very small number of 

facilities that EPA is aware of that have experienced such failures in the past. EPA is estimating 

that 22 facilities will experience a reportable failure each year. Failures are unlikely to affect 

only non-commercial or commercial facilities; thus, EPA is assuming that the failures will be 

distributed between non-commercial and commercial facilities. Net pen facilities are expected to 

experience reportable failures at a much higher rate due to the inherent vulnerabilities of the 

system. EPA is assuming that each net pen facility will have one reportable failure each year. 

EPA estimates that respondents will spend 5 hours per year preparing and submitting structural 

failure reports. 

Spill Report [4.16-4.18]

Reporting of spilled drugs, pesticides or feed that result in a discharge to waters of the United 

States, must be reported orally to the permitting authority within 24 hours of occurrence, 

followed by a written report within 7 days. The report must identify the material spilled and an 

estimated amount. EPA does not expect spills will occur very often, since facilities are required 

to implement proper storage and implement procedures for proper cleaning, containing and 

disposing of the spilled material. Again for the purpose of estimating the burden, EPA is 

assuming that more net pen facilities will experience a spill in any given year, and noncommercial flow through and recirculating facilities may experience a slightly higher rate of 

spills, since they tend to report a higher rate of drug and pesticide use. EPA estimates that 

respondents will spend 2 hours per year preparing and submitting spill reports. 

6(a)(iv)(B) State Reporting & Certification

BMP Plan Certification Receipt [4.19]

EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 0.25 hour processing certifications that BMP 

plans have been developed and documenting receipt of the certification

INAD Program Sign-up Report Receipt [4.20]

EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 0.5 hours documenting receipt of the INAD 

program sign-up report when permittees apply either INAD or a drug that has been prescribed 

extra-label by a veterinarian to treat aquatic animals at the CAAP facility. 
6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(iv) Reporting (including certification)

32

INAD or Extra-Label Drug Report Receipt [4.21]

EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 0.5 hours documenting receipt of oral and 

written reports filed by the permittee concerning INAD and extra-label drugs. 

Spill Report Receipt [4.22]

EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 0.5 hours documenting receipt of oral and 

written reports filed by the permittee concerning spilled drugs, pesticides or feed that result in a 

discharge to waters of the United States. 

Structural Failure Report Receipt [4.23]

EPA estimates that authorized states will spend 0.5 hours documenting receipt of oral and 

written reports filed by the permittee concerning structural failures at the CAAP facility. 

6(a)(v) Record Keeping

6(a)(iv)(A) CAFO

ELG Data Collection Record Keeping [5.1]

All permitted CAFOs subject to the ELG requirements are required to conduct and maintain 

records of their ELG data collection. EPA expects that these activities will result in an annual 

burden of 80 hours per respondent.

Requirements Related to Transfer of Manure or Process Wastewater to Other Persons

[5.2]

Large CAFOs with permits that transfer manure, litter, and process wastewater to another party 

also need to collect the following information for each transfer: the date of transfer, the 

recipient’s name and address, and the quantity transferred. They will also need to provide the 

recipient with nutrient content information. Based on a national estimate of excess manure at 

Large CAFOs of 181 million tons and an average transfer amount of 100 tons, EPA estimated an 

average of 169 transfers per year per Large CAFO (EPA ICR No. 1989.04). EPA also estimated 

that recording the information required for each transfer requires 5 minutes. The resulting 

average burden per CAFO is 14 hours.

6(a)(iv)(B) CAAP

Record Keeping of Inspection, Cleaning, Maintenance & Repair [5.3-5.4]

Failures can be minimized through frequent inspection of the rearing units and wastewater 

treatment system and prompt repair of any damage identified. EPA is requiring that facilities 

keep records on the frequency of the inspections and any repairs and maintenance activities 

performed. EPA estimates that commercial facilities will spend 103 hours and non-commercial 

facilities 118 per year for record keeping. There is no burden associated with this activity for net 

pen facilities. 
6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(v) Record Keeping

33

Record Keeping of Feed Management [5.5-5.6]

Other record keeping required by the CAAP regulation involves recording the amount of feed 

added to each rearing unit and tracking the number of animals and the weight of the animals 

contained in the rearing unit. The feed inputs are assumed to be tracked on a weekly basis 

during periods when feeding occurs. The number of animals and weight of the animals will be 

tracked less frequently. Animal numbers can be estimated using the approximate number added 

to the unit when stocking occurred less the mortalities removed from the unit over time. The 

weight can be measured at the time of harvest. These values in aggregate by facility or by

species shall be used to calculate a representative feed conversion ratio. The feed conversion 

ratio represents the proportion of feed provided in relation to the amount of weight gained. 

These records shall be maintained at the facility and provided to the permitting authority when 

requested or made available to inspectors. The facility owner or operator should also use this 

data to evaluate whether the feeding regime is achieving the intended results. EPA estimates that 

commercial facilities will spend 103 hours and non-commercial facilities 118 per year for record 

keeping. There is no burden associated with net pen facilities for feed management records.

6(a)(vi) Compliance Assessment 

6(a)(vi)(A) CAFO

Inspections Conducted by Permitting Authority [6.1]

This ICR also incorporates the potential burden to CAFO owners or operators of participating in 

on-site inspections conducted by the permit authority. It is likely that the CAFO operator or 

owner will incur some burden during the inspection to make records available and show the 

facility to the inspector. EPA assumes a burden to CAFOs of four hours per inspection.

6(a)(vi)(B) CAAP

EPA has not identified any unique activities associated with compliance assessment for these 

permittees.

6(a)(vi)(C) State-Only Activities

Inspections [6.2]

EPA assumed that the average inspections for CAFOs covered by either a general or an 

individual permit would be close to 16 hours. This estimate includes 6 hours for round-trip 

travel time, 2 hours to review state records and prepare for the inspection, 4 hours to conduct the 

on-site inspection of records and operation, and 4 hours to report on the inspection and maintain 

records. 

Annual Report Review [6.3]

The burden and cost for authorized states is based on the time to review the reports. EPA 

estimates that the review time is 4 hours per report.
6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a)(vi) Compliance Assessment

34

Research on Environmental Affects of INAD [6.4]

EPA anticipates that permitting authorities will spend a minimum of two hours researching the 

potential environmental effects of the drugs being reported. If there is some concern that 

warrants further research and the establishment of some effluent controls, the permitting 

authority may spend as much as an additional 8 hours. For the purpose of this ICR, EPA is 

assuming an average of 3 hours to conduct research.

Determination of Site-Specific Limits for INAD [6.5]

In addition to conducting research on INAD, EPA estimates that permitting authorities will 

spend an additional 3 hours to determine limits or restrictions on the discharge of the drug. 

Notify State Fish & Wildlife Department [6.6]

A release of live fish that are not native to the region may pose a threat to native species. EPA 

anticipates that the permitting authority will notify the State Department of Fish and Wildlife so 

that appropriate action may be taken to mitigate this release in a timely manner. The burden 

associated with this activity is 0.5 hours.

Review Cause of Failure and Past Reports to Evaluate Effectiveness of Practices [6.7]

When subsequent structural failures of the aquatic animal containment system occur at the same 

facility, the permitting authority may refer to reports on file in the event that subsequent reports 

are filed and to determine whether the facility’s BMP plan needs to be updated. The burden and 

cost for authorized states is based on the time to review the reports. EPA estimates that the 

review time is one hour.

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 Activities Table 

in Appendix B.

6(b)(i) Estimating Labor Costs

The cost imposed on respondents for the requirements discussed in this ICR is a function of the 

burden placed on them for completing and reviewing the information described above and the 

wages of a typical worker performing these activities. Table 6.1 show the labor rates used in this 

ICR.

Table 6.1. Labor Rates

Labor Rates, 

including overhead

Labor rate 

($/hour)

Source/Notes

CAFO and CAAP (Flow-through and Recirculating (Commercial) and Net Pens)
6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

35

Labor Rates, 

including overhead

Labor rate 

($/hour)

Source/Notes

General labor $16.55 2012 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and 

Wage Estimates: 45-2093 Farmworkers, Farm and Ranch 

Animals. Adjusted to March 2013 dollars using the Employment 

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

percent.

Farm Manager $29.85 2012 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and 

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

Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Workers. Adjusted to March 2013

dollars using the Employment Costs Index for Private Industry 

workers and a fringe rate of 50 percent.

Agronomist $49.23 2012 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and 

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

March 2013 dollars using the Employment Costs Index for Private 

Industry workers and a fringe rate of 50 percent.

CAAP (Flow-through and Recirculating (Non-commercial)

Flow-through and Recirculating (Non-commercial)

Management $34.16 Based on the median hourly wage rate of $42.44 and $26.28 for 

First-Line Supervisors of Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Workers 

(SOC 45-1011) and Farmworkers, Farm, Ranch, and Aquacultural 

Animals (SOC 45-2093) from the May 2012 National IndustrySpecific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for 

NAICS 999200—State Government (OES designation). EPA 

adjusted the wage to March 2013 dollars using the Employment 

Costs Index for State and Local workers and a fringe rate of 60 

percent.

General Labor $24.27

State

State $41.10 May 2012 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment 

and Wage Estimates: 19-2041 Environmental Scientists and 

Specialists. Adjusted to March 2013 dollars using the Employment 

Costs Index for Private Industry workers and a fringe rate of 60 

percent.

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

Most calculations in this ICR account for labor costs only. The ICR does, however, account for 

purchasing equipment and certain testing/analysis costs incurred by respondents that perform 

activities outside the normal operation practices. All costs presented in this section have been 

adjusted with the Consumer Price Index to March 2013 dollars. 

6(b)(ii)(1) CAFO O&M Costs

A CAFO facility incurs O&M costs when it regularly uses services, materials, or supplies needed 

to comply with the rules’ reporting and record-keeping requirements that the facility will not use 

otherwise. Any cost for the operation and upkeep of capital equipment is considered O&M 

costs. O&M costs include laboratory analysis of soil and manure and a general record-keeping 

cost. CAFO O&M costs are presented in the Respondents Activities Table in Appendix B. EPA 

has not estimated any O&M costs associated with CAAP facilities. 
6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

36

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

Most calculations in the ICR account for labor costs only. The ICR does, however, account for 

certain capital and start-up costs incurred by respondents that perform activities outside the 

normal operating practices. All costs presented in this section have been adjusted with the 

Consumer Price Index to March 2013 dollars. These costs are linked to two distinctive activities.

EPA has not estimated any capital and start-up costs associated with CAAP facilities. 

6(b)(iii)(1) CAFO Capital Costs

CAFO operators incurs capital costs when they purchase equipment or one-time services or 

builds structures that are needed specifically for compliance with the rule's reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 

Capital costs relevant to this ICR are the purchase of a soil auger to collect soil samples and a 

manure sampler. CAFOs will also need to install depth markers in their lagoons. All operations 

will need to develop the NMP elements that pertain to the production area, including performing 

an engineering analysis of the waste storage volume requirements needed to comply with the 

CAFO rule. This burden will occur the first time a facility requests coverage under the revised 

regulations and should not need to be updated unless the operation undergoes a significant 

change in operation.

To incorporate capital expenditures in EPA’s estimate of annual burden, all capital costs have 

been amortized over a 10-year period assuming a 7 percent interest rate. CAFO capital costs are 

presented in the Respondents Activities Table in Appendix B. 

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

the Agency staff. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management 2013 General Schedule reported an 

hourly rate of $28.88. Multiplying this rate by 1.6 to incorporate typical Federal benefits (OPM, 

1999), EPA obtained a final hourly rate of $46.21. Burden and costs incurred by EPA are 

presented in the Agency Activities Table in Appendix C.

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 states and territories, with the exception of certain 

activities performed only by EPA as described below.

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 Activities Table in Appendix B. The 
6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

37

Respondents Table in Appendix A provides the respondents universe and the source of 

information for all respondent categories used throughout this ICR.

CAAP facilities in the flow through and recirculating subcategory are subdivided by commercial 

facilities and noncommercial facilities. The majority of noncommercial facilities are publicly

owned state or Federal hatcheries that are producing fish for stocking or restoration purposes. 

The burden and costs estimates for these two types of facilities are presented separately because 

of the different wages paid to employees of these two types of facilities which has a significant 

effect on the overall estimated costs of the reporting requirements. 

As discussed above in Section 4.b., there are some different assumptions made in the frequency

of reporting at noncommercial flow through and recirculating facilities as well. Based on data 

provided by CAAP facilities in response to EPA’s detailed survey, noncommercial facilities have 

a higher use of INAD drugs. Survey responses from commercial facilities give no indication that 

INAD or extra-label drugs are used at these facilities; however, EPA is assuming that one facility

each year will use an INAD and will incur the burden of reporting for that drug. 

EPA’s final CAAP regulation requires all facilities to develop a BMP plan and to certify to the 

permitting authority that this plan has been developed. EPA is including the burden for the plan 

development for all CAAP facilities subject to this regulation except for flow through and 

recirculating facilities located in the States of Washington and Idaho. Facilities in these two 

states are already required to develop BMP plans under existing NPDES permits. Likewise 

facilities in these two states are already required to perform the feed management practices and 

associated record keeping. 

All of the existing net pen facilities indicated that they currently keep records on the feed inputs 

and inspections, net changes and maintenance and repairs.

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 6.2 provides a summary of the average annual number of respondents, burden hours, 

and costs. A more detailed summary is in the Respondents Activities Table in Appendix B.
6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

38

Table 6.2. Respondent tally

Permittees States/tribes/territories Totals

Unique Respondents (number) 20,915 46 20,961 

Responses (number) 3,126,771 41,159 3,167,929 

Burden (hours) 2,606,066 530,734 3,136,799 

Costs (labor) $52,939,847 $9,377,434 $62,317,281 

Costs (capital) $143,157 $0 $143,157 

Costs (O&M) $6,279,498 $2,184,345 $8,463,843 

Total costs $59,362,502 $11,561,779 $70,924,281 

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 6.3 provides a 

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

the Agency Activities Table in Appendix C.

Table 6.3. Agency tally

Responses (number) 2,731 

Burden (hours) 32,192 

Costs (labor) $1,487,531 

Costs (capital) $0 

Costs (O&M) $135,096 

Total costs $1,622,627 

6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden

The current burden approved by OMB for this ICR is 3,273,678 hours. This updated ICR 

estimates a total burden that is 136,879 hours less than the currently approved amount. This 

decrease in burden corresponds to 4.2 percent of the overall burden. 

On July 30, 2012, EPA published its most recent revisions to the NPDES CAFO regulations (77 

FR 44494). These revisions were necessary as a result of a decision handed down in 2011 by the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in litigation relating to the NPDES CAFO 

permitting program (National Pork Producers Council v. EPA, 635 F.3d 738, 756 (5th Cir. 

2011)). Although the court decision did not alter the Effluent Limitations Guidelines for 

NPDES-permitted CAFOs or recordkeeping and reporting requirements faced by those CAFOs 

that do seek NPDES permit coverage, it significantly narrowed the scope of CAFOs that need to 

seek NPDES permit coverage. More specifically, the court vacated the requirement that CAFOs 

that “discharge or proposed to discharge” seek NPDES permit coverage, and ruled instead that 

only those CAFOs that experience actual discharges need permits. The resulting projected 

decline in NPDES CAFO permittees is estimated to cause a reduction of 636,192 hours for 

private respondents and 638 for state respondents. [Activities from the 2010 ICR that have been 

removed due to these changes were under the codes: 2.23-2.44, 3.16-3.30, 5.2, 4.1-4.6; 

additionally, activities under codes 1.1-1.6 now only account for burden for permitted facilities]
6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(g) Burden Statement

39

6(g) Burden Statement

The calculations made for this ICR cover the burden and costs for EPA, authorized states, and 

operators of regulated facilities. This ICR estimates a burden of 2,606,066 hours annually for 

20,915 operator respondents at a cost of $59.4 million ($53.0 million burden cost and $6.4 

million capital and O&M cost). Burden for the state respondents is 530,734 hours annually at a 

cost of $11.6 million ($9.4 million burden cost and $2.2 million capital and O&M cost). Agency

burden is 32,192 hours annually at a cost of $1.6 million. The annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.0 hours 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-2008-0719, which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the 

EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), WJC 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 at http://www.regulations.gov/. Use 

www.regulations.gov 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 at 

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-

0719 and OMB Control No. 2040-0250 in any correspondence.