## Information Collection Request for

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

S eptember 15, 2011

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



## Contents 1. I dentification of the Inform ation Collection

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

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

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

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

................................ ................................ ....................... 2 2(b) Practical Utility

/Us ers of the Data

................................ ................................ ...................... 4 3. Non

- duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

................................ .................. 7 3(a) Non

- duplication

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 7 3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submissions to OMB

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

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 8 3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

................................ ................................ .................... 8 3(e) General Guidelines

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

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 9 3(g) Sensitive Questions

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

................................ ................................ .... 10 4(a) Respondents/Standard Industrial Classification (SI C) Codes

................................ ........... 10 4(b) Information Requested

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 10 4(b)(i) Obtaining Permit Coverage

................................ ................................ ....................... 11 4(b)(ii) Plan Development

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 12 4(b)(iii) Monitoring

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 12 4(b)(iv) Reporting

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 13 4(b)(v) Recordkeeping

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 17 5. The Information Collected

— Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management
................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 20 5(a) Agency

Activities

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 20 5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

................................ ................................ ....... 21 5(c) Small Entity

Flexibility

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 22 5(d) Collection Schedule

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

................................ ................................ .... 23 6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden

................................ ................................ ......................... 23 6(a)(i) Obtaining Permit Coverage

................................ ................................ ....................... 23 6(a)(ii) Plan Development

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 24 6(a)(iii) Monitoring

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 24 6(a)(iv) Reporting

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 25 6(a)(v) Record Keeping

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 26 6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

................................ ................................ ............................ 27 6(b)(i) Estimating Labor Costs

................................ ................................ ............................. 27 6(b)(ii) Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

................................ .............................. 28 6(b)(iii) Capital/Start

- up Costs

................................ ................................ ............................. 28 6(c) Estimating Agency

Burden and Cost

................................ ................................ ................ 28 6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

................................ ... 29 6(e) Bottom L ine Burden Hours and Cost Tables

................................ ................................ .... 30 6(e)(i) Re spondent Tall y ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 30 6(e)(ii) The Agency

Tally

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 30iii

6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden

................................ ................................ .......................... 30 6(g) Burden Statement

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 31 

## Ap **pendices** A. Respondents and Agency Activities Table B. NPDES Applicator and Application Estimates C. Response to Comment D. Forms a. Notice of Intent (NOI) Form b. Notice of Termination (NOT) Form c. Annu al Report Form d. Pesticide Discharge Evaluation Worksheet e. Adverse Incident Report Form 

## Tables Table 2.1 Areas for which EPA is the Permitting Authority for Discharges from Pesticide Appl ication Activities

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 4 Table 6.1 Respondent tally

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 30 Table 6.2 Agency

tally

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 301. Identification of th e Information Collection

1



## 1. Identification of th **e Information Collection 1(a) Title of the Information Collection**  Title: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits for Point Source Discharges from the Application of Pesticides to Waters of the United States OMB Control Number: 2040

-NEW EPA I CR Number: 2397.01 

## 1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract This Information Collection Request (ICR) calculates the burden and costs associated with NPDES permits for point source discharges from the application of pesticides. On November 27, 2006, EPA issued a final rule (hereinafter called the “2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule”) clarifying circumstances where an NPDES permit was not required to apply pesticides to or around water when applied in compliance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rode nticide Act (FIFRA). On January 7 , 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court vacated EPA’s 2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule. As a result of the Court’s decision, as of October 31 , 2011 NPDES permits will be required for discharges to waters of the United S tates from the a pplication of biological pesticides and chemical pesticides that leave a residue. The CWA authorizes EPA to issue permits for the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States. EPA regulates discharges of pollutants to waters of the United State s under its NPDES program. CWA Section 402(b) allows States (defined to include Indian Tribes and U.S. territories) to acquire authority to administer the NPDES program. This authority enables them to issue and enforce NPDES permits. EPA estimates that the Sixth Circuit Court’s ruling will affect approximately 365,000 pesticide applicators nationwide. Given the vast number of O perators requiring NPDES permit coverage, EPA and NPDES

- authorized States are developing general permits for discharges from the application of pesticides. EPA estimates that the overwhelming majority of O perators required to seek coverage will do so under an NPDES general permit instead of an NPDES individual permit. For the small number of O perators who will seek coverage und er an NPDES individual permit, EPA believes their information collection and reporting activities are already covered under the existing ICR for the NPDES Program (ICR Number 0229.19, OMB Number 2040

- 0004). As part of the routine I CR reissuance, EPA will update that I CR to clarify this determination. This I CR calculates the burden and costs associated with information collection and reporting activities from EPA ’s and NPDES

- authorized State s’ general permits for discharges from the application of pesticid es . This I CR estimates an annual burden of 8 41,037 hours for 365,000 respondents (permittees) at an annual labor cost of $ 48 million . The burden for the state respondents is 6,615 hours annuall y at a labor cost of $0.3 million . The Agency burden is 77 6 hours annually at a labor cost of $ 31,795

.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, phys ical and biological integrity

of the nation’s waters” [section 101(a)]. Section 301(a) of the CWA provides that “the discharge of an y pollutant b y any person shall be unlawful” unless the discharge is in compliance with certain other sections of the Act. The CWA defines “discharge of a pollutant” as “(A) any addition of any

pollutant to navigable waters from any point source, (B) an y addition of an y pollutant to the waters of the contiguous zone or the ocean from any point source other than a vessel or other floating craft.” 33 U.S.C. 1362(12). A “p oint source” is any “discernible, confined and discrete conveyance” but does not include “agricultural stormwater discharges and return flows from irrigated agriculture.” 33 U.S.C. 1362(14). One way a person may

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

pes of operations, that discharge the same ty pes of wastes, or that are more appropriatel y regulated b y a general permit. Courts have approved of the use of gen eral permits. See e.g., Natural Res. Def. Council v. Costle , 568 F.2d 1369 (D.C. Cir. 1977); EDC v. US EPA , 344 F.3d 832, 853 (9 th Cir. 2003). The general permit approach allows EPA to allocate resources in a more efficient manner and to provide more tim ely coverage and may

significantly

simplify the permitting process for the majority of pesticide dischargers. As with an y permit, the CWA requires the general permit to contain technology

based effluent limitations, as well as any more stringent limits wh en necessary to meet applicable state water quality

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

3

Foundation v. Costle , 586 F.2d 650, 655

- 656 (9 th Cir. 1978); Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. EPA , 863 F.2d 1420, 1435 (9 th Cir. 1988). The permit application process under section 402 is the primary mechanism to ensure that the permits are adequatel y protective to meet the s tatutory and regulatory

requirements under the CWA. In particular, CWA section 402(a)(2) requires EPA to prescribe permit conditions to assure compliance with requirements “including conditions on data and information collection, reporting and such other requirements as [the Administrator] deemed appropriate.” EPA’s application forms require applicants to submit data that help determine what those conditions should be. The CWA also establishes an administrative framework for the NPDES permitting program. CWA section 402(b) authorizes States (which include U.S. territories and Indian tribes that have been authorized in the same manner as a state) to administer the NPDES program once EPA is assured that they

meet minimum federal requirements. Authorization s vary by program. Authorized States are considered permitting authorities and are responsible for issuing, administering, and enforcing permits for most point source discharges within their borders. In States without an authorized NPDES program, EPA is the permitting authority and undertakes all permitting activities; although CWA section 401 requires states to certify that EPA

- issued NPDES permits establish “effluent limitations, and monitoring requirements necessary to assure that any applicant...will c omply

with an y applicable effluent limitations and other limitations (pursuant to the CWA) and with any other appropriate requirement of state law...” States, tribes, and U.S. territories may

waive their right to certify permits if they

wish. CWA section 510 provides that states, tribes, and territories may adopt requirements equal to or more stringent than standards established pursuant to CWA provisions. Regulations governing permit requirements for NPDES discharges are contained in 40 CFR Part 122. T he specific monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for NPDES programs are applicable to both EPA

- and State

- administered NPDES permit programs. On November 27, 2006, EPA issued a final rule (hereinafter called the “2006 NPDES Pesticides Rul e”) clarifying circumstances where an NPDES permit was not required in order to appl y pesticides to waters of the United States. On January 7 , 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court vacated EPA’s 2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule. As a result of the Court’s decision, NP DES permits will be required for discharges to waters of the U.S. from the application of biological pesticides and chemical pesticides that leave a residue. Table 2.1 lists the areas where EPA is the permitting authority for discharges from pesticide app lication activities. Given the vast number of O perators requiring NPDES permit coverage and the discharges common to these O perators , EPA believes that it makes administrative sense to issue a general permit, rather than issuing individual permits to eac h Operator . Thus, the Agency and States are developing general permits for discharges from application of pesticides with the goal of having these permits effective on October 31 , 2011 consistent with when the Court’s ruling will take effect. EPA believe s the majority of the affected entities will seek coverage under an NPDES general permit instead of an NPDES individual permit.2. Need For and Use of the Collection

4

**Table 2.1 A reas for which EPA**  **is the Permitting A uthority for Discharges from Pesticide**  **Ap plication A** **ctivities States** 

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

Florida Idaho Iowa Kansas Louisiana Massachusetts

Michigan Minnesota Mississipp i Montana Nebraska

Nevada New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota

Ok lahom a Oregon Rhode Island South Dakota Texas

Utah Wa shington Wi sconsin Wyom ing On June 4, 2010, EPA published a proposed general permit (Pesticide General Permit or PGP) for the areas where it is the permitting authority . See Federal Register notice (75 FR 31775). On April 1, 2011, EPA posted a draft final PGP on the Agency ’s website

. The PGP covers the discharge of pesticides (biological pesticides and chemical pesticides which leave a residue) to waters of the United States resulting from the following use patterns: 1) mosquito and other flying insect pest control; (2) weed and algae pest control; (3) animal pest control; and (4) forest canop y pest control. In the PGP, O perators are identified as either “Applicators” or “Decision

makers” or both. An Applicator is an entity who performs the application of a pesticide or who has day

- to
- day

control of the application (i.e., they are authorized to direct workers to carry out those activities) that results in a discharge to waters of the United States. A Decision

- maker is an entity with control over the decision to perform pesticide applications, including the ability to modify those decisions that result in discharges to wat ers of the United States. For this ICR, EPA’s NPDES PGP is used to also estimate the burden from the NPDES

- authorized State’s general permits. 

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

- site by

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

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

5

 In formation ro utinel y submitted in a Notice of Intent (NOI) when requesting coverage under a general permit;  In formation used to develop a Pesticide Discharge Management Plan (PDMP);  In formation submitted to the permitting authority annually (i.e., annual report);  In f ormation collected after pesticide application;  In formation collected from self

- monitoring;  In formation submitted as a result of an y spill, leak or other unpermitted discharge;  In formation submitted as a result of an y adverse incident;  In formation used to assess the effects of discharges on federally listed endangered and threatened species, and designated critical habitat;  In formation filed or otherwise retained by the permitting authority

including the NOI, adverse incident reports, and annual reports; a nd  In formation routinel y submitted in an NOT (Notice of Termination) when terminating coverage under the PGP. In formation can be categorized into two sets: Operator identification information and O perator Discharge and Management Practice Information . Pe rmitting authorities use the information in the way s discussed below. **Identification Information** Permitting authorities use information such as the name, location, and description of pest management area to identify entities that are requesting coverage under a general permit. EPA and most states store basic NOI information submitted for coverage under an NPDES general permit in databases that provide an inventory of permit holders. EPA Headquarters uses the information contained in the NOI databases to develop reports on permit issuance and compliance rates. The Agency also uses the information to respond to public and Con gressional inquiries, develop and guide its policies, and formulate its budgets. To meet the Agency ’s obligations under the Endang ered Species Acts (ESA), EPA must ensure that its permit does not jeopardize listed species . Operators seeking coverage under EPA’s PGP are required to assess the effects of their pesticide discharges on federally listed endangered and threatened species and designated critical habitat. Similar to other EPA general permit s , the Agency assumes for this ICR that i nformation will be captured on the NOI and therefore contained in the NOI database. NPDES

- authorized states are not required to meet similar ESA obligations and as such no ESA burden is associated with state

- issued NPDES general permits. **Discharge and Management Practice Information** Permitting authorities use discharge information and management practice information from self

monitoring activitie s, annual reports, and PDMPs as part of compliance evaluations to ensure that permittees adhere to procedures or conditions as stated in these documents. Collection and reporting of data to permitting authorities also improves permittee accountability for remaining in compliance with their established permit conditions. I f noncompliance with permit conditions is detected, the permitting authority will determine the appropriate enforcement action response on the basis of the nature and severity of the viol ation, the overall degree of noncompliance frequency , and degree of seriousness of the violation.2. Need For and Use of the Collection

6

NPDES permits may

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

 S pecify

additional permit limitations;  Assess adequacy

of the permit in protecting water quality ;  A ssess compliance with existing permit limitations and conditions; and  P lace appropriate special conditions in permits.3. Non
- duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

7 

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

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

focus on different areas of a facility (RCRA focuses on on

- site activities, and NPDES focuses on discharge outfalls and discharge to waters of the United States). In addition, EPA has examined potentially similar reporting requirements under FIFRA for duplication of the CWA requ irement. While some of the information required in these general permits may

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

a subset of the universe in this ICR. For example, adverse incident reportin g requirements in the permit are currentl y required of pesticide registrants under FIFRA but not from Operators . EPA believes the expansion of this requirement to Operators provides a more comprehensive dataset on which to assess potential impacts from ac tivities covered under these general permits. Another example is the I CR for Certification of Pesticide Applicators (OMB No: 2070

- 0029, EPA No: 0155.09) which requires commercial applicators, who are certified b y program administered b y non - federal agenci es, to keep records on restricted

- use pesticides. See 40 CFR 171. EPA believes that an y duplication between activities required under the NPDES general permits and 40 CFR 171 is negligible. The PGP allows Operators to rely on records and documents devel oped for other obligations, such as requirements under FIFRA, and state or local pesticide programs to meet the recordkeeping requirements, provided all requirements of the permit are satisfied. 

## 3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submissions to **OMB** In compliance with the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), any agency developing a non

rule

- related ICR must solicit public comments for a 60

- day period before submitting the I CR to OMB. These comments, which are used partly to determine realistic burden estimates for respondents, must be considered when completing the Supporting Statement that is submitted to OMB. EPA public noticed the draft ICR on November 3, 2010 (75 FR 67713). The Agency received 13 sets of comments on that draft and has modified the I CR in consideration of those3. Non
- duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

8 comments. A cop y of all comments is available on the www.regulations.gov website at Docket ID: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2010

- 0852. See Appendix C for EPA’s responses to th ose comments. 

## 3(c) Co **nsultations** EPA headquarters staff responsible for program oversight in NPDES permit and for program oversight in FIFRA was contacted to provide information, data, and review for this I CR. EPA solicited information and data on discharges from pesticide applications to assist in developing the proposed NPDES permit framework for its PGP. EPA met with states, industry groups, and environmental groups during permit development. EPA also hosted several webcasts. EPA published the proposed NPDES PGP in a F ederal Register notice on June 4, 2010 (75 FR 31775) and received over 700 public comments. See Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OW

2010

- 0257. Additionally, EPA hosted three public meetings, a webcast, and a public hearing after proposal. EPA is reviewing public co mments and will address these comments in the final permit and incorporate any conforming changes into the next IC R. 

## 3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection EPA recognizes the importance of balancing the need for data collection efforts against responde nt burden and costs. From the inception of the NPDES program, cost has been one of the major factors considered in establishing application requirements, monitoring conditions, and report contents and frequencies. In the past 10 years, the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government have stressed the need for evaluating the costs and benefits of regulation and the financial impact on the regulated community , state, and local government. EPA regularl y seeks new opportunities to reduce burden on the regulated community

. Given the vast number of O perators requiring NPDES permit coverage and the discharges common to these O perators , EPA believes that it makes administrative sense to issue an NPDES general permit, rather than issuing NPDES indiv idual permits to each Operator . General permits are issued to groups of entities that have similar operating procedures, discharge characteristics, and geographic location (e.g., states). In this way , permitting authorities can cover a large number of fa cilities within one permit and establish a common set of limitations, monitoring requirements, and permit conditions. The information needed to meet permitting, monitoring, reporting, and information collection requirements related to the NPDES Program may be submitted one time, at a regular frequency , or on an as needed basis. EPA and NPDES

- authorized States need current information about permittees and discharge characteristics to fulfill oversight responsibilities. The NPDES burden described in this IC R identifies the burden that EPA has determined as necessary . EPA strives to minimize burden. EPA has determined that the information currentl y required is the minimum that is necessary

to adequately

evaluate permittee compliance. 

## 3(e) General Guideli

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

9 

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

request that such information be treated as confidential. All confidential data will be handled in accordance with 40 CFR 1 22.7, 40 CFR Part 2, and EPA’s Security Manual Part III, Chapter 9, dated August 9, 1976. An y claim of confidentiality must be asserted at the time of submission. However, CWA section 308(b) specificall y states that effluent data may not be treated as co nfidential. 

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

10



## 4. The Respondent**s and the Information Requested 4(a) Respondents/Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)**  **Codes** The Clean Water Act (CWA), enacted in 1972, requires O perators of point source discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States to obtain a permit to discharge. EPA issues NPDES permits except where a state can demonstrate that it has adequate legal, technical, and f inancial capabilities in place to administer the NPDES program. To date, 44 states and one U.S. territory are authorized by

EPA to issue, administer, and enforce permits for discharges from pesticide application activities within their borders. EPA conti nues to be the permitting authority in the other 6 states and territories. For the list of areas where EPA is the permitting authority for discharges from application of pesticide, see Table 2.1. The authorized states and territories are considered respo ndents for evaluating paperwork burden in this I CR. All Operators to be covered under an NPDES general permit , whether that permit is issued by EPA or a s tate , for discharges from the application of pesticides are respondents in this I CR. EPA estimates there are approximately 365,000 pesticide applicator s nationwide. See Appendix B for EPA’s approach to estimate the universe of pesticide applicators . Industries potentially covered b y the general permits include but are not limited to the following NAI CS (North American Industry

Classification Sy stem) codes: 111 Crop Production; 113110 Timber Tract Operations; 113210 Forest Nurseries Gathering of Forest Products; 221310 Water Supply for Irrigation; 923120 Administration of Public Health Programs; 924110 A dministration of Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management Programs; 924120 Administration of Conservation Programs; and 221 Utilities. 

## 4(b) Information Requested This section presents the data items, including recordkeeping requirements, and required respondent activities involved in preparing and submitting those data items. It also presents respondent activities for the 45 authorized States (i.e., 44 authorized states plus the Virgin Islands)

. All activities reported in this supporting statement were anal yz ed and allocated to one of five ty pes of activities related to the NPDES program, these are as follows:
 Activities directly

related to obtaining permit coverage under a general permit;
 Activities associated with development of a plan (or worksheet) ;  Monitoring;
 Reporting; and
 Recordkeeping.4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

11



### 4(b)(i) Obtaining Permit Coverage **4(b)(i)(1) Data Items** Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.21 and 122.28 detail the application and N otice of Intent (NOI) requirements for NPDES permits , respectively

. EPA expects the overwhelming majority of discharges from pesticide activities will obtain coverage via an NOI under a n NPDES general permit instead of an NPDES individual permit. This section addresses onl y O perators obtaining coverage under general perm it s . As stated previously , EPA expects few discharges to be covered under NPDES individual permits and those burdens are already addressed in the existing NPDES Program I CR (I CR Number 0229.19, OMB Number 2040

- 0004). According to EPA’s PGP, certain Decis ion

- makers are required to submit NOI . Those include: 1) Federal and State agencies with a responsibility to control pests ; 2 ) Pest control districts, irrigation control districts, or similar; 3 ) an y other Decision

- makers that exceed the annual treatment area thresholds ; 4 ) Decision

- makers that plan to discharge to outstanding natio nal resource waters (i.e., Tier 3 waters); and 5) Decision

- makers that plan to discharge to waters with certain listed species or its critical habitat

. Other Operators are cove red under the permit automatically

without the need to submit an NOI. EPA drafted an NOI form for its PGP (see Appendix D for a cop y of the NOI form) . The NOI requests basic applicant data as well as pesticide application information such as pesticide us e patterns and pest management areas. Similar to other EPA general permit, E PA assumes for this I CR that Decision

- makers eligible for coverage under the EPA’s PGP are required to submit NOI s if their pesticide activities are in areas where federall y li sted endangered and threatened species, and designate critical habitat may be presented. When all discharges associated with pesticide activity authorized by

an EPA or state

- issued general permit are eliminated, or when the Decision

- maker changes, the D ecision

- maker must submit an NOT (Notice of Termination) to the permitting authority (see Appendix D for a copy of the NOT form) . Following is the type of information generall y required on NOT forms:
 NPDES permit number;
 Name, address, and phone number of the Decision

- maker ; and
 Certification of eligibility for filing the NOT (i.e., the discharge has been eliminated or the person filing the NOT is no longer the Decision

- maker). **4(b)(i)(2) Respondent A ctiv**  **ities** This I CR explains respondent activities in det ail in Section 4(b)(i)(1) above. Activities can include reading and reviewing instructions and regulatory requirements, gathering general information, consulting technical and legal officials, filling out forms, drafting letters, maintaining records, and mailing completed submissions. For pesticide applications in areas where federal listed endangered and threatened species, and designate critical habitat may be presented , similar to other EPA general permit activities may include formal or informal evalu ation with the Services.4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

12

Activities for the 45 authorized States can include reviewing and processing NOI and NOT, determine which dischargers, if any, would be more appropriatel y governed by NPDES individual permit, and notify dischargers if they

need to apply

for NPDES individual permit. NPDES

- authorized states are not required to meet the ESA obligations and as such there are no burden s associated with state

- issued NPDES general permits. 

### 4(b)(ii) Plan Development **4(b)(ii)(1) Data Items** According to EP A’s PGP, all Decision

- makers required to submit an NOI and are large entities must develop a Pesticide Discharge Management Plan (PDMP). The PDMP is kept on

- site and is not required to be submitted to the Agency . The development of a PDMP is unique to ea ch pest management area even though it is based on common required elements. A PDMP must be kept up

- to
- date and modified whenever necessary to document any

corrective actions. According to EPA’s PGP, the following information must be documented in the PD MP: (1) pesticide discharge management team information; (2) problem identification ; (3) pest management options evaluation ; (4) response procedures (e.g., spill response procedures, adverse incident response procedures); and (5) documentation to support e ligibility considerations under other Federal laws. **4(b)(ii)(2) Respondent A ctiv**  **ities** This I CR explains respondent activities in detail in Section 4(b)(ii)(1) above. Activities can include reading and reviewing regulatory requirements, gathering general information, consulting technical and legal officials, reviewing guidance materials, drafting the plan, reviewing the plan, and maintaining records. 

### 4(b)(iii) Monitoring **4(b)(iii)(1) Data Items** Monitoring is required in any NPDES permit specifically for the purpose of demonstrating compliance with the permit conditions. Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(i) outline the monitoring requirements for permittees. There are a variety of monitoring methods that a “traditional” NPDES permit may require, including end

- of

- pipe monitoring to show compliance with relevant effluent limitations prior to discharging to a receiving waterbody . Monitoring may also pertain to actions taken to ensure that recordkeeping or other permit control activities are being properly

implemented. Pursuant to CWA section 308 and 402(a)(2), 40 CFR 122.43(a), and other applicable implementing regulations, the monitoring requirement for the PGP, according to EPA’s PGP , is narrative and demonstrates compliance with permit conditions by requiring visual monitoring assessment and documentation requirements

. V isual monitoring assessments are required as a means of identifying, for example, instances of detrimental impact to non
- target organisms, disruption or degradation of wildlife habitat, or the prevention of designated recreational or municipal uses of a waterbody that may possibly be related to the operator’s use of pesticides in a given area.4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

13

**4(b)(iii)(2) Respondent A ctivities**  This I CR explains respondent activities in detail in Sec tion 4(b)(iii)(1) above. Activities can include reading and reviewing regulatory requirements, observing impact on non

- target organisms, and consulting technical and legal officials. 

### 4(b)(iv) Reporting **4(b)(iv)(1) Data Items Annual Report**  According t o EPA’s PGP, all Decision

- makers required to submit an NOI and that are large entities must submit an annual report (s ee Appendix D for a copy of the Annual Report form)

. The annual report will be used by EPA to assess permit compliance and to determine whether additional controls on pesticide discharges are necessary to protect water quality . Specifically , the report must include identification of any waters or other treatment area, including size, either by name or by

location; pesticide use pattern(s) and target pest(s); company name(s) and contact information for pesticide applicator(s), if different from the NOI submitter; total amount of each pesticide product applied for the reporting ye ar b y the EPA registration number(s) and b y application method ; whether the pest control activity was addressed in your PDMP prior to pesticide application; if applicable, an annual report of any adverse incidents as a result of these treatment(s); and a description of any corrective action(s), including spill respon ses, resulting from pesticide application activities and the rationale for such actions(s). Similar to other EPA general permit, EPA assumes for this I CR that Decision

- makers eligible for coverage under the EPA’s PGP are required to file annual reports if their pesticide activities are in areas where federall y l isted endangered and threatened species and designate d critical habitat may be presented. **Permittee Report of Adverse Incident** According to EPA’s PGP, all O perators are required to report an y adverse incident that may have resulted from a discharge from their pesticide application. Operators are required to notify their permitting authority b y telephone within 24 hours of becoming aware of the adverse incident. T he following information is to b e provided: a. The caller’s name and telephone number; b. Operator name and mailing address; c. If covered under an NOI, the NOI NPDES tracking number; d. The name and telephone number of a contact person, if different than the person providing the 24

- hour notice; e. How and when the O perator became aware of the adverse incident; f. Description of the location of the adverse incident; g. Description of the adverse incident identified and the EPA pesticide registration number for each product the O perator applied in the area of the adverse incident; h. Description of an y steps the O perator has taken or will take to correct, repair, remedy, cleanup, or otherwise address an y adverse effects ; and4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

14

i. If known, the identity of any other Operators authorized for coverage under this permit f or discharges from the pesticide application activities that resulted in the adverse incident. Reporting of adverse incident is not required under the permit in the following situations: 1. An Operator is aware of facts that indicate that the adverse incident are not related to toxic effects or exposure from the pesticide application; 2. An Operator has been notified by EPA, and retains such notification, that the reporting requirement has been waived for this incident or category of incidents; 3. An Operator recei ves information of an adverse incident, but that information is clearl y erroneous; or 4. An adverse incident occurs to pests that are similar in kind to potential target pests identified on the FIFRA label. Within 30 days of a reportable adverse incident, th e O perator must provide a written report of the adverse incident to the permitting authority and to all of the other authorized Operators where multiple Operators are authorized for that discharge

. See Appendix D for a copy of the Adverse In cident Report Form. The report must include at least the following information: a. In formation provided during notification of the adverse incident; b. Date and time of the notification, any instructions received from the permitting authority, and name of the staff fro m the permitting authority ; c. Location of incident, including the names of any waters affected and appearance of those waters; d. Description of the circumstances of the adverse incident including species affected, estimated number of individuals and approximate size of dead or distressed organisms; e. Magnitude and scope of the affected area (e.g., aquatic square area or total stream distance affected); f. Pesticide application rate, intended use site (e.g., banks, above, or direct to water), method of a

pplication, and name of pesticide product, description of pesticide ingredients, and EPA registration number; g. Description of the habitat and the circumstances under which the adverse incident occurred (including an y available ambient water data for pesticides applied); h. If laboratory

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

of the test results within 5 days after they become available if not available at the time of submission of the 30

- day report ; i. Description of a ctions to be taken to prevent recurrence of adverse incidents; and j

. Signature , date , and certification in accordance with Appendix B, Subsection B.11.4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

15

**Permittee Report of Adverse Incident to Threatened or Endangered Species or Critical H**  **abitat** According to EPA’s PGP, all O perators are required to report adverse incidents to threatened or endangered species or critical habitat that may have resulted from a discharge from their pesticide application. Operators are required to notify the National Marine Fisheries Service or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service b y telephone immediately upon becoming aware of the adverse incident. At least the following information must be provided: a. The caller’s name and telephone number; b. Operator name and mail ing address; c. The name of the affected species; d. How and when you became aware of the adverse incident; e. Description of the location of the adverse incident; f. Description of the adverse incident, including the EPA pesticide registration number for each product applied in the area of the adverse incident; and g. Description of an y steps the Operators has taken or will take to alleviate the adverse impact to the species. **Permittee Report of Spill, Leak, or Other Unpermitted Discharge** According to EPA’s PGP, all O p erators are required to report leak, spill or other releases containing a hazardous substance or oil in an amount equal to or in excess of a reportable quantity established under either 40 CFR Part 110, 40 CFR Part 117, or 40 CFR Part 302 occurs in any 24

- hour period. Operators must notify the National Response Center immediately in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 110, 40 CFR Part 117, and 40 CFR Part 302. Within 30 days of the O perator becoming aware of a spill, leak, or other unpermitt ed discharge, the O perator must document and retain the following information: a. In formation during notification of the spill, leak, or other unpermitted discharge b. Summary

of corrective action taken or to be taken including date initiated and date completed or expected to be completed; c. Any measures to prevent recurrence of such a spill, leak, or other discharge, including notice of whether PDMP modifications are required as a result of the spill or leak. **Permittee Report of Corrective Action** According to EPA ’s PGP, all O perators are required to document an y situation triggering corrective action and their planned corrective action within 30 day s of the operator becoming aware of the situation triggering the need for corrective action. The O perator must retai n a cop y of this documentation. The documentation must include the following information: a. Id entification of the condition triggering the need for corrective action review, including any ambient water quality

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

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

of corrective action taken or to be taken including date initiated and date completed or expected to be completed; and4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

16

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

pically make this sort of report b y submitting a letter that explains the reasons for the anticipated noncompliance. The advance notice provided b y this reporting requirement enables the permitting authority to help a permittee mitigate the effects of anticipated noncompliance on the receiving waters. **Facility and Permit Transfer Report** Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.41(l)(3) specify that when a facility ’s ownership changes, it must notify

the permitting authority in a letter stating the date of the transfer and the name of the new permit holder. EPA does not anticipate an y respondents for the PGP because Decision

makers are required t o file a NOT (Notice of Termination), which is covered elsewhere in this ICR, when they

transfer ownership; rather than submitting some other ty pe of documentation. **Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous Information** According to 40 CFR 122.41(l)(8), p ermittees must correct inaccurate information that has been submitted in a permit application or permit report as soon as the permittee learns of the error(s). Usually , permittees notify the permitting authority

by letter. The permitting authorit y uses th is information to update permit records or to execute appropriate enforcement actions. **Noncompliance Reports** Requirements in 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6)

- (7) specify that a permittee must provide 24

- hour oral reporting of an y noncompliance that could endanger human health or the environment (with a written follow

- up submission within 5 day s). **4(b)(iv)(2) Respondent A ctivities**  This I CR explains these activities in detail in Section 4(b)(iv)(1) above. However, any respondent preparing and submitting reports may engage in the following types of activities:
 Preparing basic information. This can include reading instructions and regulations for report requirements, consulting technical, legal, and political staff, reviewing guidance materials,4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

17

gathering general info rmation, ty ping or completing forms or generating reports, and mailing or electronic submission of completed forms or reports to the NPDES permitting authority

.  Gathering detailed information. Detailed information gathered can include any data required by the NPDES permitting authorities as outlined in Section 4(b)(iv)(1). Activities for the 45 authorized States can include reviewing and handling reports. 

### 4(b)(v) Recordkeeping **4(b)(v)(1) Data Items** a. According to EPA’s PGP , all O perators are required to k eep the following records:
 A cop y of an y a dverse i ncident r eports  Rationale for an y determination that reporting of an identified adverse incident is not required consistent with allowances identified in the PGP  A cop y of an y corrective action documentatio n  A cop y of an y spill and leak or other unpermitted discharge documentation. EPA expects Operators to incur a relativel y minor additional burden for paperwork associated with adverse incidents, corrective action, and spills. EPA expects these Operators l ikel y already have filing capacity for paper files including an y correspondence with EPA, as well as to prepare and save an y adverse incident reports electronically

. In addition, entities would only incur these costs in the event of an adverse incident, c orrective action, or spill/leak. b. According to the EPA’s PGP, all Operators who are for

- hire applicators must retain the following records:
 Documentation of equipment calibration; and
 In formation on each treatment area to which pesticides are discharged, including:

1. Description of each treatment area, including location and size (acres or linear feet) of treatment area and identification of any waters, either b y name or by locations, to which pesticide(s) are discharged; 2. Pesticide use pattern(s); 3. Target pes t(s) 4. Name of each pesticide product used including the EPA registration number; 5. Quantity

of each pesticide product applied to each treatment area; 6. Pesticide application date( s); and 7. Whether or not visual monitoring was conducted during pesticide applicati on and/or post

- application and if not, why not and whether monitoring identified any possible or observable adverse incidents caused by application of pesticides.4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

18

c. According to the EPA’s PGP, any Decision

- maker required to submit an NOI and who is a smal l entity

must retain the following records:
 Copy of the NOI submitted to EPA, any correspondence exchanged between the Decision

- maker and EPA specific to coverage under this permit, and a copy of the EPA acknowledgment letter with the assigned permit tracking number;
 Documentation of equipment calibration (onl y if Decision

- maker is also the Applicator);
 In formation on each treatment area to which pesticides are discharged, including: o Description of treatment area, including location and size (acres or linear feet) of treatment area and identification of an y waters of the United States, either by name or b y location, to which pesticide ( s) are discharged; o Pesticide use pattern(s); o Target pest(s) and explanation of need for pest control; o Description of pest man agement measure(s) implemented prior to the first pesticide application; o Company

name and contact information for pesticide applicator; o Name of each pesticide product used including the EPA registration number; o Quantity

of each pesticide product applied t o each treatment area; o Pesticide Application Start Date; o Pesticide Application End Date; and o Whether or not visual monitoring was conducted during pesticide application and/or post

- application and if not, why not and whether monitoring identified any possi ble or observable adverse incidents caused b y application of pesticides. A worksheet (Pesticide Discharge Evaluation Worksheet) for documenting this information on each treatment area is provided in the permit (see Appendix D for a cop y of the Pesticide Di scharge Evaluation Worksheet)

. d. According to the EPA’s final permit any Decision

- maker required to submit an NOI and who is a large entity must retain the following records :
 Copy of the NOI submitted to EPA, any correspondence exchanged between the Decis ion

- maker and EPA specific to coverage under this permit, and a copy of the EPA acknowledgment letter with the assigned permit tracking number;  A cop y of the PDMP, including an y modifications made to the PDMP during the term of this permit;
 Copy of annual reports submitted to EPA;
 Documentation of equipment calibration (onl y if Decision

- maker is also the Applicator);
 In formation on each treatment area to which pesticides are discharged, including:4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

19 o Description of each treatment area, including location and size (acres or linear feet) of treatment area and identification of any Waters of the United States, either by name or by

location, to which pesticide(s) are discharged; o Pesticide use pattern(s) (i.e., mosquito and other flyinginsects, weed and algae, an imal pest, or forest canopy); o Target pest(s) and explanation of need for pest control; o Action Thresholds; o Method and/or data used to determine that action threshold(s) has been met; o Description of pest management measure(s) implemented prior to the first p esticide application; o Company

name and contact information for pesticide applicator; o Name of each pesticide product used including the EPA registration number; o Quantity

of each pesticide product applied to each treatment area; o Pesticide application date( s); and o Whether or not visual monitoring was conducted during pesticide application and/or post

- application and if not, why not and whether monitoring identified any possible or observable adverse incidents caused b y application of pesticides. **4(b)(v)(2) Respondent A** **ctiv ities**  This I CR explains respondent activities in detail in Section 4(b)(v)(1) above. Activities can include developing recordkeeping s ys tems, collecting and entering data, training personnel, and filing information. All permit applicants must retain records for at least 3 years from the date that their coverage under the permit expires or terminated.5. The Information Collected

—Agenc y Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

20 

## 5. The Information Collected **— Ag**  **ency Ac**  **tiv ities,**  **Collection Methodology , and Information Management**  **5(a) Agency Activities** This I CR includes all the reporting requirements related to EPA as the NPDES permitting authority for discharges from application of pesticides. EPA’s activities as the NPDES permitting authority for non

-NPDES

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

- authorized states and territories. Some of the key activities permitting authorities will perform are:
 Receive NOIs and review them for completeness. If an NOI is incomplete, the permitting authority will notify

the applicant an d request the missing information. If the NOI is complete, an acceptance letter will be sent to the permittee, along with a unique permit number. For EPA, the NOI data will be maintained in a database at EPA’s Notice Processing Center.
 When a permitting authority issues a general permit, it may notify those dischargers eligible for coverage under the permit. Notification may include newspaper announcements, direct mailings, or other methods of communication.
 When permitting authorities receive notices of intent for general permits, they must determine which dischargers, if any, would be more appropriatel y governed by individual permits. As part of these activities, permitting authorities may notify dischargers that they need to appl y for individual permi ts.  When permitting authorities receive annual reports, they must review the annual reports for compliance with the general permit.
 When permitting authorities receive a notice of termination (NOT), they must review and process the notice. EPA will maintain these data in the database at the Agency’s Notice Processing Center. Permittees are not required to submit PDMPs to permitting authority for review. These plans are to be maintained on

- site where the pesticide activities are taking place and must be available for permitting authority review as requested. Therefore, for the purposes of this I CR, the plans are integral to the day

- to
- day operational control of each pest management area but are not included as a component of Agency activities. When rep orts or forms are submitted, permitting authority review is necessary , and in some instances, may

also require follow

- up actions. Data review will vary ; however, generall y, the permitting authority will screen data to identify permit violations and will c onduct a more thorough technical review and follow

- up when violations are detected. Follow

- up activities can include informal contact with the permittee (b y telephone or letter) requesting prompt corrective action, providing technical assistance, performi ng field inspections to further substantiate violations, or initiating formal enforcement action such as an administrative order or referral to the U.S. attorney

general (or state attorney general in the case of authorized states).5. The Information Collected

—Agenc y Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

21 The extent to which permitting authorities review data in assessing permit compliance will vary

. For example, permitting authorities often will conduct a more extensive review of permittees that are, or have been, in violation of their permit requirements, than of permittees who have been in full compliance. The extent to which permitting authority reviews data also depends on available resources and the specific review procedures of the permitting authority (state or EPA Region). In authorized states, state environmental agencies generally review permittee data. EPA also may review data from permittees in NPDES

- authorized states while performing program oversight functions (i.e., during file audits and when compiling statistical compliance summaries). EPA reviews data in no n -NPDES

- authorized states. EPA generall y places emphasis on data from major permittees and from minor permittees that can cause water quality problems (i.e., significant minors). EPA reviews data from general permittees less frequently . EPA does not require non

- NPDES

- authorized states to review data, but several states voluntarily review these data and use the results in their own water quality protection programs. In collecting and anal yz ing the information associated with this I CR, information for per mittees covered under EPA’s PGP will be entered into an NOI database. EPA uses these data to manage the NPDES program. Similar to other EPA general permit, EPA assumes for this I CR that the Services must help some Operators obtain information relating to federally listed endangered and threatened species, and designated critical habitat and may participate in informal or formal evaluation. NPDES

authorized states are not required to include this requirement in their NPDES general permits and therefore ne ither the authorized states n or discharges from application of pesticides within those states incur an y burden related to ESA

. 

## 5(b) Collection Methodology and Management EPA maintains some application data in databases such as ICIS

-NPDES, and the NOI datab ase. These s ys tems provide EPA with a nationwide inventory of permit holders. EPA uses this information to assess permit compliance. This technology also reduces the burden to EPA and the states for gathering and anal yz ing national permit and water quali ty data. In collecting and anal yz ing the inf ormation associated with EPA’s PGP, EPA will use its electronic NOI (eNOI) sy stem to store the information. EPA will ensure accuracy and completeness of the information by reviewing each submittal upon receipt and is responsible for ensuring that applicable data are entered into eNOI. Any form that is considered inaccurate or incomplete will not be accepted and will be returned to the sender with a letter requesting the missing or inaccurate information.5. The Information Collected

—Agenc y Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

22 

## 5(c) **Small Entity Flexibility** For man y reasons, EPA believes the reporting requirements discussed in this I CR do not place an unreasonable burden on small businesses. The NOI requests minimal information, such as the name and location of the discharge. Furthe rmore, operators submit NOIs once every 5 years. The burden represented by the NOI cannot be further reduced for small businesses. Permitting authorities need certain basic information to make permitting decisions. This basic information is not dependent on an O perator’s size. Minimizing the burden on small entities also comes in the form of guidance materials. For example, to assist operators of all sizes, but potentially most useful for small entities, EPA will develop guidance on developing PDMPs. A ll permittees, regardless of the size of the entity , are required to report instances of noncompliance. In most cases, these requirements do not impose a large burden on small businesses because the information required is simple and straightforward. 

## 5(d) **Collection Schedule** The collection schedule for the activities presented in this I CR varies greatly depending on the ty pe of activity . See Section 6 of this I CR for detailed estimates of collection schedules. Federal regulations require permittees to re appl y for permits at least every 5 years because the CWA limits the terms of an NPDES permit to 5 years. The regulations also grant permit writers the authority

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

23



## 6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection **6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden** This section presents the estimated respondent burden for each information request. Data are tabulated in the “Respondents and Agency Activities Table” provided as Appendix A. That table presents all assumptions, calculations, and results discussed in this I CR. Dischargers c overed under the pesticide general permit and authorized NPDES States are identified as respondents. The breakdown of cost and burden b y labor category is provided in Section 6(b). On the basis of information presented in the Economic Analysis of the Pes ticide General Permit (P GP) for Point Source Discharges from the Application of Pesticides, May 26 , 2010 , EPA assumes 90 percent of the total universe of permittees will be covered b y NPDES

- authorized State

- issued general permits. This percentage has been applied to the respondent values to estimate those pesticide general permittees that report directl y to authorized

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

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

is associated with preparing and issuing the permit. Because most state governments have authority for the NPDES programs, state governments will incur the majority of the permitting authority burden and costs. **Notice of Intent (NOI)** The NOI filing requirement is applicable onl y to certain permittees . EPA estimates that 2 hours is required to file an NOI for a general permit. This burden estimate includes 1 hour to read and understand the regulation, and 1 hour to fill out and submit the form. EPA estimates that 2.5% of the regulated universe would need to file an NOI ( 9,125 entities), for an annual average of 1, 825 NOIs ( 9,125 divided by the 5

- ye ar c overage). EPA estimates that the Agency and authorized NPDES States will spend 0.5 hour s processing these NOIs. Similar to I CRs for other EPA general permit s , EPA assumes that the burden for permittees covered under the EPA’s PGP as a result of ESA oblig ations be the following:6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

24

 In formal assessment needed in 0. 1% of the cases : 6 hours (3 7 NOIs with an annual average of 7 NOI s)  Formal assessment needed in 0.05% of the cases: 20 hours (18 NOIs with an annual average of 4 NOIs) **Notice of Termination (NOT)** E PA estimates that on average, permittees will spend 0.5 hour s filling out an NOT. EPA estimates the total number of respondents will be 4 56 (5 percent of the respondents required to submit NOI s ). EPA estimates that 91 NOTs will be filed annuall y. This a ssumes that, in general, the universe of dis chargers covered under this permit will not change significantly from ye ar to year. EPA estimates that permitting authorities will spend 0.25 hour s processing each NOT. 

### 6(a)(ii) Plan Development Certain permitt ees will be required to develop a Pesticide Discharge Management Plan (PDMP) and keep it up

- to
- date. PDMPs document the evaluation and selection of pest management measures to meet the technology

- based effluent limitations. These plans may cover one or m ore treatment areas within one plan, and can reference other documents (such as pre

- existing integrated pest management plans). Thus, the cost to develop the PDMP will vary based on the extent of pest problems and pesticide use, as well as existing docume ntation that may be referenced to fulfill plan requirements. Decision

- maker s that have been evaluating pest problems and alternative management methods may have significant relevant material already compiled and available. In this I CR, EPA assumes that th e 9 67 respondents a year will be required to develop a PDMP (5 3 percent of the universe required to file NOI s ). Although components of a PDMP are similar, pest management area design, size and function, and the level of effort involved will vary for each pest management area. EPA estimates the average level of effort that might be required to prepare a PDMP. This burden estimate for preparing a PDMP includes 1 hour to select the team, 16 hours to describe sources, 14 hours to develop measures and control s, 8 hours to develop schedules and procedures, and 1 hour to document considerations under other federal laws. Thus, EPA estimates that the average time for a respondent to develop a PDMP is 40 hours. This is a one

- time development activity . Decision

m akers are required to update the plan as needed. EPA assumes that 1,2 09 plans (25 percent of the universe required to develop a plan) will be updated annuall y with the average time of 2 hours. 

### 6(a)(iii) Monitoring All 365,000 permittees are required t o conduct monitoring. According to the EPA’s PGP, this includes visual monitoring. EPA expects minimal additional burden associated with monitoring under the general permit. Where required , EPA expects an additional 0. 25 hour s per site monitored. EPA a ssumes larg e entities who are required to submit NOIs conduct an average of sixteen applications annually (4,836 respondents) . For small entities who are required to submit NOI S , pesticide applications are likel y to be fewer; EPA assumes an average of four applications per year ( 4289 respondents)

. EPA assumes one monitoring event per ye ar for entities who are not required to submit NOI s .6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

25



### 6(a)(iv) Reporting **Annual Report** Certain permittees are required to submit an annual report to the permitting auth orit y. The respondent activities include preparing and submitting annual reports. EPA estimates that respondents will spend 8 hours preparing and submitting annual reports. EPA estimates 4,892 reports) will be submitted annually . Permitting authorities will spend approximately 1 hour processing and reviewing these annual reports. **Permittee Report of Adverse Incident** Permittees are required to notify their permitting authority and provide a written report of adverse incident that may have resulted from a discharge from pesticide application. EPA reviewed ecological incidents reported b y registrants from 1976 to 2008. They range from 3 to 21 incidents annually . In the EPA PGP, all permittees are required to report incidents. EPA assumes that 37 advers e incidents (0.01% of the universe) will be reported annually b y permittees. EPA estimates that respondents will spend 2 hours gathering information and notifying their permitting authority . EPA estimates that respondents will spend an additional 2 hours preparing and submitting a report. The activities required for permitting authorities include processing and reviewing the information from permittees. EPA estimates that permitting authority will spend 2 hours on this activity for each adverse incident

. **Permittee Report of Adverse Incident to Threatened or Endangered Species or Critical Habitat**  Permittees are required to notify the National Marine Fisheries Service or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of an y adverse incident to threatened or endange red species or critical habitat. EPA estimates that respondents will spend 2 hours gathering information and reporting any adverse incident and that the Services will spend 2 hours reviewing and documenting each adverse incident. EPA assumes 4 adverse in cidents (0.001% of the universe) will be reported annually

. **Permittee Report of Spill, Leak, or Other Unpermitted Discharge** Permittees are required to notify the National Response Center of any spill, leak, or other release containing a hazardous substanc e or oil. These activities are already required under existing regulations and as such, no additional burden is included in this I CR for reporting. Permittees are also required to document the spill, leak, or other unpermitted discharge and retain the documentation for their record. EPA estimates that respondents will spend 1 hour to document the activity . EPA estimates 365 events (0.1% of the universe) will be reported annually

. **Permittee Report of Corrective Action** Permittees are required to docume nt an y situation triggering corrective action and their planned corrective action. EPA estimates that respondents will spend 5 hours on this activity . This burden is divided as follows: 1 hour to read and understand the regulation, 1 hour of planning, 1 hour of collecting information, and 2 hours to document the activity . EPA estimates 365 events (0.1% of the universe) will be reported annuall y.6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

26

**Permittee Report of Planned Facility Changes** Respondents will use an estimated average of 4 hours to complete their notification of planned alterations and additions. This burden estimate includes 1 hour to read and understand the regulation, 1 hour to plan the report, and 2 hours to write the report. EPA estimates that permitting authority will spend 0.5 hours handling and reviewing each report. EPA estimates 365 events (0.1% of the universe) will be reported annually

. **Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance** Respondents will use an estimated average of 5 hours of labor for each report of anticipated no ncompliance. This burden is divided as follows: 1 hour to read and understand the regulation, 1 hour of planning, 1 hour of collecting information, and 2 hours for writing and submitting the report. EPA estimates that permitting authority will spend 2 ho urs handling and reviewing each report. EPA estimates 365 events (0.1% of the universe) will be reported annually

. **Facility and Permit Transfer Report** EPA does not anticipate any respondents for the PGP because operators are required to file a NOT (Noti ce of Termination) when they transfer ownership. Burden for NOTs are discussed elsewhere in this I CR. **Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous Information** The respondent burden associated with this reporting requirement includes the time needed to verify the reporting error or omission, to prepare the revised form that details the reporting corrections, and to mail the information to the permitting authority . The time required under this regulation will vary

depending on the size of the pest management area and the extent of the error or omission. EPA estimates that a ty pical report requires 2 hours to prepare. EPA estimates that permitting authority will spend 1 hour handling and reviewing each report. EPA estimates 183 events (0. 05 % of the universe) will be reported annuall y. **Noncompliance Reports** When a permittee violates a permit condition, it must submit a noncompliance report to the permitting authority. EPA estimates the average burden to be 5 hours per response. This burden represents the ti me required to gather information, prepare and present/conduct the verbal notice, and prepare and submit a written report for noncompliance. EPA estimates that an average of 2 hours is required for the permitting authority to receive and process each nonc ompliance report. EPA estimates 183 events (0. 05 % of the universe) will be reported annually

. 

### 6(a)(v) Record Keeping The burden associated with recordkeeping depends on the pest management area and whether the permittee already has a recordkeeping s ys te m. EPA expects all operators to retain certain basic records related to pesticide applications that result in discharges to waters of the United States

. EPA estimates that basic recordkeeping will take 1 hour per ye ar. EPA assumes a small additional re cordkeeping burden for Operators that are not required to submit NOI s , including6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

27

information such as equipment calibration records or information on For

- Hire Applicators

. EPA estimates 0.5 hour s per year for 355,875 respondents

. Small entity

p ermittees who are required to submit NOI s keep basic records on pest control activities, including pesticide applications . EPA estimates that it would take approximately 1 hour per application (4 applications per year) for these abbreviated records , or 4 hours. In this ICR, EPA assumes that 4,289 small entities a year will be required to perform these recordkeeping activities (4 7 percent of the permitted universe applying for permit coverage)

. Permittees who are required to submit NOI s and are large entities must k eep more detailed records on pest control option assessments and pesticide application activities, consistent with PDMPs. EPA estimates that full recordkeeping will take 1 hour per application (16 applications per year) for these large entities, or 16 hours per year for 4,836 respondents

– which is in addition to the 40 hours to develop the PDMP

. 

## 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 capit al 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 anal ys is are present ed in the Respondents and Agency Activities Table in Appendix A. 

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

mittees:

 For state and local governments, EPA included employee benefits in the wage rate, and for commercial applicators, included benefits, overhead, and profit in estimating total labor rates. The BLS Emplo yer Cost for Employee Compensation (ECEC, 20 09) provides estimates for benefit markups for governments (benefits account approximately 25% of the total labor rate), and PSMJ (2009) indicates that the wage rate multiplier is 3.05 for commercial/engineering firms.  Rates for managers reflect OES cate gory 11

- 9121, Natural Sciences Managers. EPA used an average labor rate of $113 per hour for managers (state government at $51; local government6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

28

at $64, and commercial at $167). This rate is mean annual 2008 wages, updated to 2009 dollars.  Rates for technical staff reflect OES category 9

- 4091, Environmental Science and Protection Technicians, including health. EPA used an average labor rate of $51 per hour for technical staff (state government at $38; local government at $38, and commercial at $63). Thi s rate is mean annual 2008 wages, updated to 2009 dollars.  Rates for clerical staff reflect OES category 43

- 0000, Office and Administrative Support Occupations State. EPA used an average labor rate of $41 per hour for clerical staff (state government at $ 29; local government at $28; and commercial at $53). This rate is mean annual 2008 wages, updated to 2009 dollars. For the authorized States, EPA assumes $38 per hour which is the rate for technical staff at state government. 

### 6(b)(ii) Operating and Main **tenance (O&M) Costs** This I CR account for labor costs only . The pesticide general permits do not require respondents to perform activities outside the normal operation practices. 

### 6(b)(iii) Capital/Start **- up Costs**  This I CR account for labor costs only . T he pesticide general permits do not require respondents to perform activities outside the normal operation practices. 

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

cost, EPA makes the following assumption: EPA determined the hourly employ ment cost of federal employees using methodology established in previous ICRs. According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2009 General Schedule (200 9

- GS), the average annual salary of a government employee at the GS

- 9, Step 10 level is $53,234. At 2,080 hours per ye ar, the hourly wage is $25.59. Assuming overhead costs of 60 percent, or $15.36 per hour, the fully loaded cost of employ

ment for a fede ral employee is $40.95. Burden and costs incurred by EPA are presented in the Respondents and Agency Activities Table in Appendix A. EPA’s activities as the NPDES permitting authority for non

- authorized states and territories are the same as the activiti es performed b y the authorized states and territories. These burdens and costs are identical to those for authorized NPDES states and territories. For calculating the States’ cost, EPA uses the rate for technical staff (OES category 9

- 4091, Environmental Science and Protection Technicians, including health). EPA uses $38 per hour, the mean annual 2008 wages, updated to 2009 dollar.6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

29

**Pesticide General Permit NOI filing** EPA estimates permitting authorities will spend 0.5 hours processing each NOI

. EPA est imates formal ESA

- related evaluation by the Services will take 5 hours and informal evaluation by the Services will take 0.5 hour s . **Pesticide General Permit NOT filing** Permitting authorities will spend 0.25 hour s processing each NOTs. **Pesticide Genera l Permit Standard Permit Conditions**  Permitting authorities will handle and review Permittee Report of Planned Facility Changes, Permittee Report of Anticipated Noncompliance, and Permittee Report of Inaccurate Previous In formation. EPA estimates permitti ng authorities will spend 0.5 hour s , 2 hours, and 1 hour, respectivel y for this activity

. **Pesticide General Permit Noncompliance Report Review** Permitting authorities will spend 2 hours handling and reviewing each noncompliance report. **Pesticide Genera l Permit Adverse Incident Report Review**  Permitting authorities will spend 2 hours handling and reviewing each adverse incident report. **Pesticide General Permit Annual Report Review** Permitting authorities will spend 1 hour handling and reviewing each annu al report. 

## 6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden **and Costs** Detailed information describing the universe and basis for burden and costs is provided in Section 6(a). Results are presented in the Respondents and Agency Activities Table i n Appendix A. That table provides the respondent universe and the source of information for all respondent categories used throughout this I CR.6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

30



## 6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables **6(e)(i) Respondent Tally** The bottom line burden hours and costs f or facilities and authorized states are the average annual hours and costs collectively incurred for all activities during the 3

- year period covered b y this ICR. Table 6.1 provides a summary of the average annual number of respondents, burden hours, and c osts. A more detailed summary is in the Respondents and Agency Activities Table in Appendix A.
**Table 6.1 Respondent tally Permittees**  **States/tribes/ territories** * **Totals** Respondents (number) 365,000 45 365,045 Responses (number) 1, 277,08 3 7,136 1,284,219 Burden (hours) 841 , 037 6,615 847,652 Costs (labor) $ 4 7,783,297 $ 251,379 $48,034,676 Costs (capital) $0 $0 $0 Costs (O&M) $0 $0 $0 Total costs $ 47,783,297 $ 251,379 $48,034,676 Average annual burden per respondent (hours) 2. 3 1 47.0 2. 3 *The average annual burden per permitting authority is for responses associated with 90% of the universe of permittees. 

### 6(e)(ii) The A**gency**

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

incurred for all activities during the period covered by this I CR. Table 6.2 provides a summary

of the average annual Agency burden hours and costs. A more detailed summary is in the Respondents and Agency Activities Tab le in Appendix A. **Table 6.2 A gency tally**  Responses (number) 820 Burden (hours) 776 Costs (labor) $ 31,795 Costs (capital) $0 Costs (O&M) $0 Total costs $ 31,795 

## 6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden As a result of the Sixth Circuit Court’s decision, discharges from the application of pesticides will need an NPDES permit. The additional burden from this I CR will be consolidated in the existing I CR for the NPDES Program (I CR Number 0229.19, OMB Number 2040

- 0004). The current annual burden in OMB’s inve ntory for the existing I CR for the NPDES Program is 30,943,308. This I CR will add 847,652 hours. This I CR will increase the burden by 2.7 %.6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

31



## 6(g) Burden Statement The calculations made for this I CR cover the burden and costs for EPA and other Federal Ag encies, NPDES

- authorized States, and operators of pesticide activities. This I CR estimates an annual burden of 841,037 hours for 365,000 respondents (permittees) at a labor cost of $ 4 8 million. Burden for the State respondents is 6,615 hours annuall y at a labor cost of $ 0.3 million. Agency burden is 776 hours annuall y at a labor cost of $ 3 1,795 . The annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.7 hour s per response. Burden means the total time, e ffort, or financial resources expended b y 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 s ys tems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing way s to comply with any previousl y applicable instructions and requirements; train pers onnel 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 respon d 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 an y suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, the Agency has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2010

- 0852, which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday

through Friday , excluding leg al holiday s. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202

- 566

- 1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is 202

- 566

- 2426. An electronic version of the public docket is available at http://www.regulations.gov/. Use www.regulations.gov to sub mit 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 sy stem, key in the docket ID number identified above. You can also send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2010

- 0852 and OMB Control No. 204 0

-NEW in any correspondence.