Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0058-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-03-21T05:00Z

Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
i
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
PART
A
Page
1.
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
1(
a)
TITLE
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
1(
b)
SHORT
CHARACTERIZATION/
ABSTRACT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
2.
NEED
FOR
AND
USE
OF
THE
COLLECTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
2(
a)
NEED/
AUTHORITY
FOR
THE
COLLECTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
2(
b)
PRACTICAL
UTILITY/
USERS
OF
THE
DATA
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
(
i)
Detailed
Technical
Analyses
Supported
by
the
Collection
of
2000
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
(
ii)
Detailed
Economic
Analyses
Supported
by
the
Collection
of
2000
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
3.
NONDUPLICATION,
CONSULTATION,
AND
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
3(
a)
NONDUPLICATION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
3(
b)
PUBLIC
NOTICE
REQUIRED
PRIOR
TO
ICR
SUBMISSION
TO
OMB
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
(
i)
Publication
of
the
Federal
Register
Notice
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
(
ii)
Public
Response
to
the
Federal
Register
Notice
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
(
iii)
EPA
Action
Resulting
from
Public
Comment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
3(
c)
CONSULTATIONS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
22
3(
d)
EFFECTS
OF
LESS
FREQUENT
COLLECTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
23
3(
e)
GENERAL
GUIDELINES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
23
3(
f)
CONFIDENTIALITY
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
23
3(
g)
SENSITIVE
QUESTIONS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
24
4.
THE
RESPONDENTS
AND
THE
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
25
4(
a)
RESPONDENTS
AND
SIC/
NAICS
CODES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
25
4(
b)
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
25
(
i)
Screener
survey
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
25
(
ii)
Questionnaire
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
26
4(
c)
COLLECTION
OF
2000
AQUATIC
ANIMAL
PRODUCTION
INDUSTRY
DATA
ACTIVITIES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
37
5.
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTED
 
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY,
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
38
5(
a)
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
38
5(
b)
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
.
.
.
.
.
39
5(
c)
SMALL
ENTITY
FLEXIBILITY.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
42
5(
d)
SURVEY
SCHEDULE
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
42
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
ii
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
(
continued)

Page
6.
ESTIMATING
THE
BURDEN
AND
COST
OF
THE
COLLECTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
43
6(
a)
ESTIMATING
RESPONDENT
BURDEN
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
43
6(
b)
ESTIMATING
RESPONDENT
COSTS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
47
6(
c)
ESTIMATING
AGENCY
BURDEN
AND
COST
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
49
6(
d)
BOTTOM
LINE
HOURS
AND
COST
TABLE
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
51
6(
e)
REASONS
FOR
CHANGE
IN
BURDEN
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
51
6(
f)
BURDEN
STATEMENT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
52
PART
B
1.
SURVEY
OBJECTIVES,
KEY
VARIABLES,
AND
OTHER
PRELIMINARIES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
53
1(
a)
SURVEY
OBJECTIVES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
53
1(
b)
KEY
VARIABLES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
53
1(
c)
STATISTICAL
APPROACH
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
53
1(
d)
FEASIBILITY
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
54
2.
SURVEY
DESIGN
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
54
2(
a)
TARGET
POPULATION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
54
2(
b)
SAMPLING
DESIGN
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
54
(
i)
Sampling
Frame
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
54
(
ii)
Sample
Sizes
and
Their
Allocation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
55
(
iii)
Stratification
Variables
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
55
(
iv
Sampling
Methods
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
55
2(
c)
SAMPLE
SIZE
AND
PRECISION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
56
(
i)
Precision
Targets
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
56
(
ii)
Nonsampling
Errors
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
57
2(
d)
SURVEY
QUESTIONNAIRE
DESIGN
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
58
3.
PRETESTS
AND
PILOT
TESTS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
58
4.
COLLECTION
METHODS
AND
FOLLOW­
UP
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
58
4(
a)
COLLECTION
METHODS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
58
4(
b)
SURVEY
RESPONSE
AND
FOLLOW­
UP
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
58
5.
ANALYZING
AND
REPORTING
SURVEY
RESULTS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
58
5(
a)
DATA
PREPARATION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
58
5(
b)
ANALYSIS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
59
5(
c)
REPORTING
RESULTS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
59
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
iii
Attachment
1
CHARACTERIZATION
OF
2000
AQUATIC
ANIMAL
PRODUCTION
INDUSTRY
Attachment
2
COLLECTION
OF
2000
AQUATIC
ANIMAL
PRODUCTION
INDUSTRY
DATA
Attachment
3
First
Federal
Register
Notice
Attachment
4
SUMMARIES
OF,
AND
RESPONSES
TO,
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
2
1.
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
1(
a)
TITLE
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Collection
of
2000
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry
Data
EPA
ICR
1988.01
1(
b)
SHORT
CHARACTERIZATION/
ABSTRACT
The
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA
or
the
Agency),
through
this
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
package,
requests
that
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
review
and
approve
the
Collection
of
2000
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry
Data.
Through
this
collection,
the
Agency
obtains
data
essential
to
the
development
of
the
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Effluent
Limitations
Guidelines
and
Standards
(
proposed
40
CFR
Part
451).
Section
308
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA)
authorizes
this
data
collection.

The
Engineering
and
Analysis
Division
(
EAD)
of
EPA's
Office
of
Water
will
administer
the
Collection
of
2000
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry
Data
in
two
parts.
First,
EPA
will
administer
a
screener
or
short
survey
to
all
facilities
on
the
mailing
list,
which
consists
of
approximately
5,000
facilities.
The
screener,
located
in
Attachment
1,
is
necessary
to
adequately
characterize
the
aquatic
animal
production
industry
in
the
United
States.
Because
publicly
available
information
does
not
adequately
characterize
the
aquatic
animal
production
industry,
additional
information
from
the
industry
is
needed
to
enable
EPA
to
develop
a
statistically
valid
stratified
random
sample
for
the
detailed
survey.
The
screener
gathers
information
on
species,
production
methods,
production
levels,
pollutant
control
practices,
and
contact
information.
Second,
after
receiving
and
analyzing
the
results
from
the
screener,
EPA
will
distribute
a
detailed
survey
to
a
stratified
random
sample
of
the
industry
population.
EPA
will
administer
the
survey
instrument
located
in
Attachment
2,
designed
to
collect
technical
and
economic
data,
to
500
to
700
aquatic
animal
production
facilities
in
the
industry.
Third,
after
analyzing
the
detailed
data,
EPA
may
need
to
request
corporate
economic
information
from
no
more
than
100
firms
and
collect
sampling
data
on
process
water
and
effluent
from
no
more
than
25
facilities.
All
burden
calculations
in
this
document
are
based
on
the
upper
limit
of
a
total
of
5,825
respondents.

EPA
has
determined
that
the
data
obtained
through
the
Collection
of
2000
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry
Data
are
necessary
for
EPA
to
develop
effluent
limitations
guidelines
for
this
industry.
EPA
will
use
these
data
to
perform
technical
and
economic
analyses
to
support
the
Agency's
development
of
regulatory
options
for
the
aquatic
animal
production
industry
that
are
both
technically
and
economically
achievable.
Ultimately,
EPA
will
consider
economic
achievability,
implementation,
cost­
effectiveness,
and
projected
environmental
benefits
associated
with
the
proposed
options
when
selecting
appropriate
regulatory
options.

The
aquatic
animal
production
industry
will
devote
time
and
resources
to
respond
to
the
Collection
of
2000
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry
Data.
EPA
estimates
that
this
survey
effort
will
involve
an
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
3
upper
limit
of
5,825
respondents
and
place
a
maximum
total
burden
of
24,840
hours
on
the
aquatic
animal
production
industry.
The
collection
design
represents
a
culmination
of
the
Agency's
efforts
not
only
to
gather
sufficient
data
to
perform
the
analyses
required
by
the
CWA,
related
statutes
(
e.
g.,
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
as
amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
[
SBREFA]),
and
various
Executive
Orders,
but
also
to
cooperate
with
the
aquatic
animal
production
industry
to
administer
clear
and
concise
data
collection
instruments
that
place
the
lowest
possible
burden
on
all
respondents.

2.
NEED
FOR
AND
USE
OF
THE
COLLECTION
2(
a)
NEED/
AUTHORITY
FOR
THE
COLLECTION
The
Federal
Water
Pollution
Control
Act
Amendments
of
1972
("
Clean
Water
Act"
or
CWA),
33
U.
S.
C.
1251,
et
seq.
established
a
comprehensive
program
to
"
restore
and
maintain
the
chemical,
physical,
and
biological
integrity
of
the
Nation's
waters"
(
section
101(
a)).
Under
the
authority
of
the
Act,
EPA
is
required
to
issue
effluent
limitations
guidelines,
pretreatment
standards,
and
new
source
performance
standards
for
industries
that
generate
wastewater.
Under
section
304(
m)
of
the
CWA,
added
by
the
Water
Quality
Act
of
1987
(
P.
L.
100­
4,
February
4,
1987),
EPA
publishes
biennial
effluent
guidelines
plans
and
establishes
a
schedule
for
the
development
of
guidelines
for
new
industries.
The
data
collection
will
be
administered
under
the
authority
of
section
308
of
the
Clean
Water
Act,
33
U.
S.
C.,
section
1318.

EPA
published
its
first
biennial
plan
on
January
2,
1990
(
55
FR
80).
The
Natural
Resources
Defense
Council
(
NRDC)
and
others
filed
suit
against
EPA
for
alleged
inadequacies
in
the
plan.
See
NRDC,
et
al.
V.
Reilly,
Civ.
No.
89­
2980
(
D.
C.
Cir.).
The
court­
approved
consent
decree
between
EPA
and
NRDC
(
January
31,
1992)
required
the
Agency
to
propose
and
take
final
action
on
seven
effluent
guidelines
already
under
development,
four
effluent
guidelines
already
identified,
and
eight
additional
effluent
guidelines
that
had
not
yet
been
identified
by
EPA.

In
accordance
with
Section
304
(
m)
of
the
CWA,
EPA
is
developing
the
aquatic
animal
production
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards
(
40
CFR
451).
The
Agency
developed
recommended
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards
covering
the
fish
hatcheries
and
farms
point
source
category
in
1977,
but
these
were
not
promulgated.
Since
1977,
the
aquatic
animal
production
industry
has
increased
in
number
and
capacity.
EPA
needs
to
examine
potential
environmental
problems,
such
as
nutrient
pollution,
that
have
emerged
as
issues
of
concern
during
the
last
25
years.
EPA
may
develop
technology­
based
limits
and/
or
best
management
practices
for
ammonia
nitrogen
and
other
nutrients
that
can
degrade
water
quality.
Along
with
concentrated
animal
feeding
operations
(
CAFOs)
and
meat
product
facilities,
aquatic
animal
production
facilities
have
been
identified
as
potential
contributors
to
nutrient
loadings
in
the
Nation's
surface
waters.
The
surveys
will
provide
valuable
information
on
how
facilities
currently
treat
their
wastewater
so
that
EPA
may
more
accurately
estimate
current
baseline
conditions.
The
2000
aquatic
animal
production
industry
surveys
are
an
essential
portion
of
the
detailed
information
gathering
process
necessary
for
EPA
to
determine
whether
regulations
are
appropriate.

EPA
plans
to
mail
surveys
to
approximately
5,700
facilities
conducting
aquatic
animal
production
operations.
Approximately
5,000
facilities
will
receive
the
screener
survey,
and
700
of
these
respondents
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
4
will
also
receive
the
detailed
survey
at
a
later
date.
The
screener
survey
requests
data
for
the
year
2000,
the
most
recent
year
for
which
complete
technical
and
economic
data
are
available;
the
detailed
survey
requests
technical
data
for
2000
and
economic
data
for
2000,
1999,
and
1998.
Section
4(
b)(
ii)(
a)(
ii)
explains
the
need
for
three
consecutive
years
of
economic
data.
EPA
anticipates
follow­
up
activities
with
a
maximum
of
125
of
the
detailed
survey
respondents
for
corporate
financial
data
and/
or
sampling
data
as
necessary,
depending
on
the
results
of
the
detailed
survey.
The
data
collection
will
be
administered
under
the
authority
of
Section
308
of
the
Federal
Water
Pollution
Control
Act,
33
U.
S.
C.,
Section
1318.

2(
b)
PRACTICAL
UTILITY/
USERS
OF
THE
DATA
Under
the
effluent
guidelines
program,
EPA
establishes
technology­
based
limitations
(
based
on
best
practicable
control
technology
(
BPT),
best
conventional
control
technology
(
BCT),
and
best
available
technology
economically
achievable
(
BAT)),
and
standards
(
pretreatment
standards
for
existing
sources
(
PSES),
new
source
performance
standards
(
NSPS),
and
pretreatment
standards
for
new
sources
(
PSNS)).
BPT,
BCT,
BAT,
and
NSPS
apply
to
direct
dischargers
(
i.
e.,
sites
that
discharge
directly
to
navigable
waters
of
the
United
States),
while
PSES
and
PSNS
apply
to
indirect
dischargers
(
i.
e.,
sites
that
discharge
to
waters
of
the
United
States
through
publicly­
owned
treatment
works
(
POTWs)).

To
develop
technology­
based
limitations
and
standards,
EPA
collects
and
analyzes
information
pertaining
to
wastewater
characteristics
(
e.
g.,
pollutants
discharged,
wastewater
flows),
wastewater
treatment
technologies
(
e.
g.,
pollutant
control
practices,
pollution
prevention
techniques,
end­
of­
pipe
treatment
systems),
associated
costs
of
wastewater
treatment,
economic
impacts
of
associated
compliance
costs,
and
the
environmental
benefits
associated
with
the
regulatory
options
considered.
Specifically,
EPA
will
use
responses
to
the
Collection
of
2000
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Data
to
assist
in
characterizing
the
pollutants
discharged
from
aquatic
animal
production
facilities
and
to
develop
regulatory
options
to
control
these
pollutant
discharges.
The
Agency
will
use
the
data
collected
to
assist
in
establishing
current
baseline
estimates
of
industry­
wide
production­
normalized
wastewater
flow
rates,
pollutant
concentrations,
and
pollutant
loadings
in
order
to
estimate
the
engineering
costs
of
compliance
and
analyze
the
economic
impacts
and
environmental
benefits
associated
with
each
regulatory
option.
EPA
will
propose
and
select
appropriate
regulatory
options
for
the
aquatic
animal
production
industry
based
on
the
results
of
these
analyses.
Facilities
affected
by
the
regulations
ultimately
promulgated
will
have
the
choice
of
implementing
any
combination
of
technologies
and
practices
that
enable
them
to
comply
with
the
effluent
limitation
guidelines.
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
5
(
i)
Detailed
Technical
Analyses
Supported
by
the
Collection
of
2000
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry
Data
EPA
has
identified
the
following
types
of
aquatic
animal
production
facilities
to
be
included
in
the
Collection
of
the
2000
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry
Data:

°
private/
commercial
°
government
°
academic/
research
for
species
grown
in
the
following
production
systems:
ponds,
flow
through,
recirculating,
net
pens
and
cages,
floating
aquaculture
and
bottom
culture,
and
other
aquaculture
systems.

EPA
engineers,
economists,
statisticians,
environmental
assessment
analysts,
and
their
contractors
will
perform
detailed
analyses
of
the
data
collected
through
the
surveys.
The
technical
information
includes
basic
facility
information,
production
system,
species
grown,
water
use
data,
wastewater
characterization
summaries,
and
detailed
information
on
pollution
control
practices.
Specific
analyses
using
the
technical
data
are
described
below.

(
A)
Subcategorization
In
the
effluent
guidelines
program,
subcategorization
of
an
industrial
point
source
category
may
be
based
on:
facility
size,
location,
activity,
and
age;
products
and
by­
products
generated;
inputs
used
(
e.
g.,
feed
and
water);
total
energy
requirements;
water
use
practices;
wastewater
characteristics;
or
non­
water
quality
impacts.
EPA
will
study
the
technical
data
collected
through
the
surveys
to
determine
the
appropriate
subcategorization
for
the
aquatic
animal
production
industry.

EPA
will
survey
facilities
from
the
aquatic
animal
production
industry
to
fully
capture
the
range
of
operations,
wastewater
types,
and
in­
place
treatment
technologies
for
the
entire
sector.
Data
from
the
respondents
will
help
EPA
determine
whether
subcategorization
of
the
industry
is
necessary
for
establishing
effluent
limitations.
EPA
will
develop
estimates
of
pollutant
loadings
and
estimates
of
compliance
costs
associated
with
proposed
regulatory
options
for
each
subcategory.
It
is
important
that
EPA
fully
understand
these
differences
to
construct
subcategories
that
are
meaningful
and
effluent
limitation
guidelines
that
incorporate
the
differences
in
production
among
the
subcategories.

(
B)
Evaluation
of
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Processes
and
Wastewaters
EPA
will
use
the
data
collected
through
the
surveys
to
analyze
aquatic
animal
production
practices,
pollution
prevention
practices,
and
wastewater
treatment
systems
or
pollutant
control
practices.
Specifically,
EPA
analyzes
each
production
process,
including
the
water
use,
production,
and
wastewater
discharge
rates;
best
management
practices
(
which
may
differ
according
to
species);
and
the
characteristics
of
pollution
control
practices
to
determine
the
wastewaters
that
require
treatment,
the
treatment
technologies
applicable
to
those
wastewaters,
the
effectiveness
of
these
systems,
and
the
final
discharge
characteristics
from
aquatic
animal
production
facilities.
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
6
(
C)
Technical
Feasibility
Analysis
EPA
will
select
technically
feasible
technology
options
 
including
control
technologies
and
best
management
practices
 
for
all
subcategories.
The
Agency
assesses
the
technical
feasibility
of
each
technology
option
by
determining
both
its
availability
within
the
industry,
and
the
degree
to
which
it
effectively
eliminates
the
generation
of
pollutants
and/
or
removes
specific
pollutants.

(
D)
Assessment
of
Technology
Costs
EPA
will
use
data
collected
through
the
surveys
to
help
estimate
the
direct
costs
of
the
pollution
control
technologies,
and/
or
best
management
practices
selected
as
the
technology
basis
options
for
the
aquatic
animal
production
effluent
guidelines.
These
data
include
wastewater
flow
rates,
production
rates,
data
related
to
treatment
technologies
already
in
place,
and
pollutant
concentrations.
EPA
will
use
the
data
collected
through
the
surveys
to
help
assess
the
following
direct
costs:
treatment
equipment
capital
costs;
expenses
associated
with
the
engineering
design
of
the
equipment;
installation
costs;
annual
operating
costs
(
e.
g.,
power,
chemicals,
maintenance),
equipment
operator
salary
expenses
(
e.
g.,
salary,
benefits,
overhead
charges);
and
waste
disposal
costs.

(
E)
Calculation
of
Effluent
Limitations
EPA
will
develop
preliminary
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards
for
each
technology
option
it
has
developed.
The
Agency
will
base
these
preliminary
limitations
on
a
detailed
statistical
analysis
of
treated
effluent
data
from
facilities
that
implement
the
recommended
control
technologies
and/
or
management
practices
and
that
have
well­
operated
treatment
systems.
EPA
will
develop
preliminary
effluent
limitations
for
maximum
daily
and
average
monthly
discharge
levels.

In
addition,
EPA
will
evaluate
the
volume
of
wastewater,
as
well
as
the
mass
of
pollutant
generated
per
pound
of
product
(
e.
g.,
gallons
of
wastewater
per
pound
of
fish
produced,
or
pounds
of
ammonia
generated
per
pound
of
fish
produced).
This
evaluation
will
be
used
to
determine
if
certain
product
types
generate
different
types
of
wastewater,
and
if
subcategorization
is
appropriate.
EPA
will
develop
production­
normalized
flows
and/
or
pollutant
loadings
on
which
to
base
the
limitations
calculations
for
each
subcategory.

(
F)
Environmental
Assessment
EPA
will
perform
an
Environmental
Assessment
to
determine
the
potential
impact
of
aquatic
animal
production
discharges
on
aquatic
life
and
human
health,
as
well
as
on
the
proper
operation
of
POTWs
and
other
treatment
works.
This
assessment
will
characterize
the
potential
risk
posed
by
the
discharges
and
will
assist
the
Agency
in
projecting
the
environmental
and
economic
benefits
of
the
regulation.
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
7
(
G)
Development
of
Regulatory
Options
and
Selection
of
Final
Option
After
EPA
assesses
technology
options,
calculates
preliminary
effluent
guidelines,
and
performs
economic
analyses,
EPA
will
develop
regulatory
options.
For
each
option,
EPA
will
assess
the
amount
of
each
pollutant
removed,
the
potential
costs
to
the
industry,
the
economic
impacts
of
these
costs
on
producers,
cost­
effectiveness,
and
non­
water
quality
impacts.
Based
on
these
assessments,
EPA
will
select
the
best
regulatory
option
for
each
type
of
guideline
or
standard
for
each
subcategory
of
the
aquatic
animal
production
industry.

(
ii)
Detailed
Economic
Analyses
Supported
by
the
Collection
of
2000
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry
Data
EPA
economists,
statisticians,
and
contractors
will
perform
detailed
analyses
of
the
data
collected
through
the
Collection
of
2000
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry
Data.
The
economic
data
collected
in
the
detailed
survey
will
include
corporate
structure;
quantities
produced;
cost
and
income
information
such
as
total
sales,
gross
income,
total
expenses,
and
individual
expense
items
such
as
interest,
depreciation,
and
taxes;
and
assets
and
liabilities.
EPA
will
collect
these
data
for
two
levels
 
aquatic
animal
production
operations
at
the
facility
and
all
operations
at
the
facility
(
i.
e.
total
farm).
EPA
intends
to
gather
data
for
multi­
facility
companies
as
necessary
through
a
follow­
up
to
the
detailed
survey
effort.
Specific
analysis
using
the
economic
data
are
described
below.

(
A)
Estimation
of
Impacts
on
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Enterprises
One
element
of
the
economic
analysis
is
an
estimation
of
the
proposed
regulation's
impacts
on
aquatic
animal
production
activities
at
individual
facilities.
Aquatic
animals
might
be
the
only
enterprise
at
some
facilities,
while
other
facilities
may
have
several
agricultural
enterprises.
In
the
first
situation,
the
enterprise
and
facility
data
are
the
same
while
in
the
second
case,
the
enterprise
data
is
a
subset
of
the
facility
data.
In
the
second
case,
the
profitability
of
aquatic
animal
production
might
be
different
than
that
of
the
total
facility
when
examined
in
isolation.
A
successful
aquaculture
enterprise
might
support
an
otherwise
financially
vulnerable
facility,
or
an
unprofitable
aquaculture
enterprise
might
be
supported
by
other
facility
enterprises.

A
goal
of
the
analysis
will
be
to
identify
aquatic
animal
enterprises
that
might
be
vulnerable
to
closure
due
to
additional
pollution
control
requirements.
A
standard
financial
decision
model
will
predict
closure
if
the
net
present
value
of
future
income
(
net
income
or
cash
flow)
from
continued
operations
is
positive
prior
to
the
incurrence
of
additional
pollution
control
costs
and
negative
after
the
incurrence
of
such
costs.
The
forecasted
income
for
the
enterprise
is
a
major
determinant
of
the
net
present
value
of
continued
operations.
The
income
projections
are
calculated
using
the
information
collected
in
the
survey,
including
the
tax
status
of
the
facility.
A
cost
pass­
through
analysis
(
e.
g.,
the
estimated
percentage
of
costs
that
the
producer
will
be
able
to
pass
to
his
or
her
customers
through
higher
prices)
will
be
incorporated
into
the
estimates,
if
appropriate
and
sufficient
data
exist
to
model
and
estimate
this
effect.
Direct
losses
in
output,
revenue,
and
employment
are
calculated
directly
from
the
closure
analysis
results
and
survey
responses.
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
8
(
B)
Estimation
of
Impacts
on
Facilities
A
second
element
of
the
economic
analysis
is
a
determination
of
the
proposed
regulation's
impacts
on
individual
facilities.
With
actual
facility­
level
financial
information,
EPA's
analysis
can
compare
facility­
specific
costs
of
compliance
to
facility
financial
data.
For
each
proposed
regulatory
option
under
consideration,
EPA
can
estimate
the
likelihood
of
any
facility
closures
and
also
estimate
financial
impacts
that
are
less
severe
than
closure.
The
results
will
be
extrapolated
to
estimate
the
total
costs
and
impacts
of
the
proposed
regulation.

A
goal
of
the
analysis
will
be
to
identify
facilities
that
might
be
vulnerable
to
closure
due
to
additional
pollution
control
requirements.
As
with
the
enterprise
analysis,
the
financial
analysis
will
use
a
standard
financial
decision
model
to
predict
closure
if
the
net
present
value
of
future
income
(
net
income
or
cash
flow)
from
continued
operations
is
positive
prior
to
the
incurrence
of
additional
pollution
control
costs
and
negative
after
the
incurrence
of
such
costs.
The
forecasted
income
for
the
facility
is
a
major
determinant
of
the
net
present
value
of
continued
operations.
The
income
projections
are
calculated
using
the
information
collected
in
the
survey,
including
the
tax
status
of
the
facility.
A
cost
pass­
through
analysis
(
e.
g.,
the
estimated
percentage
of
costs
that
the
producer
will
be
able
to
pass
to
his
or
her
customers
through
higher
prices)
will
be
incorporated
into
the
estimates,
if
appropriate
and
sufficient
data
exist
to
model
and
estimate
this
effect.
As
mentioned
in
the
previous
section,
EPA
will
examine
the
facility
analysis
results
to
identify
facilities
that
are
vulnerable
to
closure
even
if
the
aquatic
animal
production
enterprise
itself
does
not
appear
vulnerable
from
the
additional
costs.
Such
a
situation
could
occur
if
the
aquaculture
operations
support
an
otherwise
unprofitable
facility.
Direct
losses
in
output,
revenue,
and
employment
from
aquatic
animal
production
can
be
calculated
directly
from
the
closure
analysis
results
and
survey
responses.
EPA
also
intends
to
evaluate
potential
losses
from
co­
located
crops
at
affected
facilities.

(
C)
Estimation
of
Impacts
on
Companies
If
the
facility
has
no
further
corporate
hierarchy,
the
company
analysis
will
be
based
on
the
financial
information
requested
in
the
detailed
survey.
EPA
intends
to
gather
data
for
multi­
facility
companies,
as
necessary,
as
a
follow­
up
to
this
survey
effort.
EPA
will
estimate
and
aggregate
the
costs
for
all
facilities
with
aquatic
animal
production
operations
owned
by
a
given
company.
The
combined
cost
to
the
company
will
be
analyzed
in
the
context
of
the
company's
financial
status
to
evaluate
the
overall
impact.
The
company­
level
impact
analysis
is
necessary
for
several
reasons:

#
It
identifies
situations
where
it
may
make
financial
sense
for
a
company
to
upgrade
each
facility
that
it
owns,
but
it
cannot
incur
the
aggregate
costs
without
financial
distress.

#
Financing
decisions
typically
are
made
at
the
corporate
level.

#
The
Small
Business
Administration
(
SBA)
defines
"
small"
on
the
basis
of
the
number
of
employees
or
revenues
at
the
company
 
not
the
facility
 
level.

EPA
intends
to
evaluate
a
farm's
financial
performance
using
criteria
that
have
been
established
by
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture
(
USDA),
as
well
as
other
financial
ratios
that
are
commonly
used
by
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
9
USDA
and
industry
to
assess
farm
financial
performance.
For
example,
in
its
analyses
of
the
financial
performance
of
U.
S.
farms,
USDA
uses
a
combination
of
a
farm's
net
income
and
debt­
to­
asset
ratio
to
classify
the
overall
financial
position
of
a
farm
based
on
annual
earnings
and
solvency.
Net
farm
income
 
which
is
obtained
from
income
statement
information
(
i.
e.,
income
and
expenses)
 
provides
a
measure
of
long­
term
profitability.
Debt­
to­
asset
ratios
 
which
are
obtained
from
balance
sheet
information
(
i.
e.,
assets
and
liabilities)
provide
a
measure
of
a
farm's
financial
risk.
Together
these
two
measures
provide
an
indicator
of
the
farm's
long­
term
financial
health
and
viability.
USDA's
financial
classification
of
U.
S.
farms
identifies
an
operation
with
negative
income
and
a
high
debt­
asset
ratio
as
"
vulnerable."
An
operation
with
positive
income
and
a
low
debt­
asset
ratio
is
considered
"
favorable."

Wherever
possible,
EPA
will
collect
supporting
data
needed
to
assess
company­
level
impacts
from
secondary
sources
to
reduce
the
burden
on
survey
recipients.
Secondary
sources
might
provide
data
for
multi­
facility,
publicly­
reporting
companies
but
are
inadequate
for
companies
with
private
ownership.

(
D)
Estimation
of
Secondary
Impacts
EPA
will
assess
the
secondary
impacts
of
projected
facility
closures
on
other
segments
of
the
economy.
For
example,
employment
losses
and
reductions
in
derived
demand
for
input
goods/
services
could
potentially
erode
the
economic
condition
of
households
and
aquacultural
firms
in
communities
around
aquatic
animal
production
facilities
that
reduce
production
or
close.
Estimation
of
these
community
impacts
depends
upon
employment
and
labor
income
data
from
the
aquatic
animal
production
survey
effort,
macroeconomic
multipliers,
and
economic
data
from
secondary
sources.

3.
NONDUPLICATION,
CONSULTATION,
AND
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA
3(
a)
NONDUPLICATION
The
Engineering
and
Analysis
Division
(
EAD)
of
the
Agency's
Office
of
Water
has
made
every
reasonable
attempt
to
ensure
that
the
Collection
of
2000
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry
Data
does
not
request
data
and
information
currently
available
through
less
burdensome
mechanisms.
Specifically,
EAD
has
explored
Agency
databases,
directories,
contacts,
and
sources
to
locate
data
and
information
significant
to
the
regulatory
development
process.
In
addition,
the
Agency
conducted
a
thorough
collection
and
review
of
secondary
sources,
which
include
data,
reports,
and
analyses
published
by
government
agencies
(
such
as
the
Department
of
Agriculture's
Aquaculture
Census
and
state
department
of
agriculture
reports);
reports
and
analyses
published
by
the
aquatic
animal
production
industry
and
its
associated
organizations;
and
reports,
analyses,
and
published
enterprise
budgets
published
by
environmental
organizations.
These
include
a
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
listing
of
Federal
hatcheries
and
fish
and
egg
distribution
report,
reference
book
and
internet
searches
for
academic
and
research
facilities,
a
Dun
and
Bradstreet
database
by
industry
(
for
mailing
list
information),
EPA's
Permit
Compliance
System
and
Discharge
Monitoring
Reports
for
pollutant
loadings,
and
the
Bureau
of
Indian
Affairs
web
site
for
hatcheries
on
Tribal
lands.
Although
the
sources
have
provided
valuable
industry
information,
and
the
Agency
will
combine
this
information
with
data
gathered
through
the
aquatic
animal
production
industry
surveys,
none
of
these
sources
can
provide
EPA
with
the
complete
and
up­
to­
date,
industry­
wide,
site­
specific
technical
and
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
10
economic
data
crucial
to
the
development
of
aquatic
animal
production
effluent
limitation
guidelines.
None
of
these
publicly­
available
sources
provide
treatment
or
financial
information
at
a
facility
or
company
level
that
can
be
used
to
analyze
potential
regulatory
impacts.

3(
b)
PUBLIC
NOTICE
REQUIRED
PRIOR
TO
ICR
SUBMISSION
TO
OMB
(
i)
Publication
of
the
Federal
Register
Notice
On
September
14,
2000,
EPA
published
a
notice
in
the
Federal
Register,
65
FR
55522,
announcing
the
Agency's
proposed
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry
Survey
(
Attachment
3).
The
notice
included
a
description
of
the
entities
affected
by
the
proposed
survey
effort,
a
brief
explanation
of
the
need
for
the
survey,
identification
of
the
authority
under
which
EPA
will
issue
the
survey,
and
an
estimate
of
the
burden
to
be
incurred
by
survey
respondents.
Through
the
notice,
the
Agency
requested
comments
and
suggestions
regarding
the
survey
and
the
reduction
of
the
data
collection
burden,
and
asked
the
public
to
submit
all
comments
and
suggestions
within
60
days
of
the
Federal
Register
notice
publication.

(
ii)
Public
Response
to
the
Federal
Register
Notice
EPA
received
written
comments
from
45
individuals
and
organizations
within
60
days
of
the
Federal
Register
notice
publication.
Attachment
4
contains
comment
summaries
organized
by
topic
and
EPA's
response(
s).

(
iii)
EPA
Action
Resulting
from
Public
Comment
Table
3­
1
summarizes
the
significant
changes
EPA
made
to
the
survey
instrument
in
response
to
comments.
The
question
numbers
in
the
topic
column
of
Table
3­
1
refer
to
the
September
14,
2000
version
of
the
survey.
EPA
also
added,
revised,
or
clarified
definitions
in
response
to
comments
and
these
changes
are
presented
in
Table
3­
2.
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
11
Table
3­
1
Significant
Changes
to
Survey
Instrument
Topic
Explanation
of
Modification
General
Changes
to
Survey
Survey
organization
Reorganized
the
survey
to
make
it
easier
to
follow.
Created
three
parts
to
the
survey:
°
Part
A
­
Technical
Information
°
Part
B
­
Financial
Information
°
Part
C
­
Certification
Changed
the
base
year
from
1999
to
2000.

Reorganized
Part
A
­
Technical
Information
into
sections
and
subsections
that
place
similar
questions
from
the
original
survey
into
groups
of
similar
topics.
Revised
questions
on
source
water
and
wastewater
and
placed
them
in
subsections
organized
by
production
system
(
i.
e.,
ponds,
flow
through
systems,
recirculating
systems,
net
pens
and
cages,
floating
aquaculture
and
bottom
culture,
and
other
aquaculture).
Skip
patterns
were
added
to
minimize
the
burden
to
respondents.

Worked
with
the
JSA
Aquaculture
Effluents
Task
Force
to
modify
each
of
the
production
system
subsections.
The
outline
for
each
subsection
is:
°
brief
introduction
explaining
the
subsection
°
site
diagram
that
asks
for
a
sketch
of
the
site
that
will
help
EPA
to
understand
the
layout
of
the
facility
and
the
pollution
treatment
controls
that
are
in
place
°
a
description
of
the
system
including
the
water
source
and
the
number
and
type
of
units
(
e.
g.,
ponds,
tanks,
etc.)
°
description
of
drainage
from
the
production
units
°
description
of
pollutant
control
practices
°
management
practices
that
are
used
before
water
leaves
the
production
system
°
pollutant
control
practices
after
it
leaves
the
production
system
°
treatment
of
effluents
from
treatment
systems
(
if
applicable)
°
solids
treatment
practices
(
if
applicable)
°
description
of
the
fate
of
wastewater
discharges
­
whether
wastewater
leaves
the
property,
NPDES
permit
information
and
location
of
the
discharge
°
directions
for
the
respondent
to
complete
additional
subsections
for
other
types
of
production
systems,
if
applicable
°
directions
for
the
respondent
to
complete
additional
sections
of
the
survey
or
to
go
directly
to
the
certification
section
if
no
water
leaves
the
property
Revised
Part
B­
Financial
Information
to
make
this
part
of
the
survey
easier
to
complete,
reflecting
comments
on
the
complexity
of
the
original
survey.
Expanded
the
introductory
explanatory
text.
Members
of
the
JSA
Economics
Task
Force
reviewed
the
Financial
Information
part
and
EPA
incorporated
all
of
the
suggestions
about
rewording
and
reorganizing
the
questions
from
this
group.
Skip
patterns
were
added
to
minimize
the
burden
to
respondents.
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
Topic
Explanation
of
Modification
12
Added
section
numbering
to
make
the
survey
easier
to
follow
and
created
skip
patterns
that
will
allow
respondents
to
skip
questions
that
are
not
applicable
to
their
individual
farm/
facility.

Introduction
Definitions
EPA
added
new
definitions
in
response
to
many
of
the
comments
that
asked
for
clarification
and
explanation
of
the
terms
used
in
the
survey.
Table
3­
2
provides
details
for
the
definitions
that
were
changed,
added,
or
deleted.

Terminology
Changed
Floating
Mariculture
to
Floating
Aquaculture
at
the
suggestion
of
industry
representatives
to
be
consistent
with
common
terminology
in
the
aquaculture
industry.

Certification
Moved
the
certification
portion
of
the
survey
to
the
end.
A
second
certification
statement
was
added
for
those
who
receive
the
survey
and
are
not
aquatic
animal
producers.

Information
Contact
and
Facility
Information
Renamed
to
Section
1
­
Information
Contact.
This
section
now
includes
three
questions.
°
Added
a
new
question
to
determine
if
respondents
are
aquatic
animal
producers.
A
no
response
directs
the
respondent
to
certify
and
return
the
blank
survey
to
EPA.
A
yes
response
directs
the
respondent
to
continue:
°
Old
question
1.
°
Old
question
2.

Question
2
Added
Saturday
and
Sunday
as
response
options
under
part
d
Question
3
Deleted
the
question
and
replaced
with
new
question
1
and
additional
directives
in
the
survey
for
those
respondents
who
do
not
discharge
off
of
their
properties.
Producers
who
do
not
discharge
off
their
properties
will
be
asked
for
information
that
enables
EPA
to
determine
the
scope
of
their
operations
and
which
category
of
no
discharge.

Ownership
Information
Created
new
Section
2
­
Ownership
Information.
This
section
includes
three
questions:

#
Old
question
21.

#
Old
question
23.

#
Old
question
26
Question
21
No
changes
Question
23
No
changes.
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
Topic
Explanation
of
Modification
13
Question
26
Changed
the
primary
product
category
column
to
primary
species.
The
respondent
will
not
have
to
enter
a
code
from
an
appendix,
but
will
be
asked
to
enter
the
primary
species
grown.
EPA
will
link
similar
species
responses.
Added
query
about
total
company
revenues
for
those
companies
that
have
multiple
facilities.

General
Facility
Information
Renamed
to
Section
3
­
General
Facility
Information.
This
section
now
includes
three
questions:
°
Old
question
4.
°
Old
question
5.
°
Added
a
new
question
to
determine
the
amount
of
land
at
the
facility
and
the
amount
of
land
not
in
aquacultural
or
agricultural
production.
This
information
will
be
used
to
estimate
the
availability
and
cost
of
land
for
wastewater
treatment.

Questions
4
Clarified
the
responses
to
the
question.

Question
5
No
change.

Question
6
Changed
to
table
to
reflect
the
actual
code
descriptions
as
the
column
headings
instead
of
asking
for
SIC/
NAICS
codes.
The
respondent
will
not
have
to
enter
a
code.
The
codes
can
be
correctly
coded
in
the
survey
analysis
phase.
Moved
to
Part
B
­
Financial
Information,
question
71.

Process
Water
Incorporated
this
section
into
the
subsections
of
Section
5
­
Wastewater
Control
Technology.
In
each
of
the
subsections,
the
question
was
modified
slightly
to
reflect
the
specific
characteristics
of
each
production
system
type.
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
Topic
Explanation
of
Modification
14
Wastewater
Treatment
Changed
this
to
Section
4
­
Wastewater
Control
Technology.
The
section
contains
six
subsections
for
each
of
the
production
system
types:
°
Ponds
°
Flow
through
systems
°
Recirculating
systems
°
Net
pens
and
cages
°
Floating
aquaculture
and
bottom
culture
°
Other
aquaculture
systems
Each
subsection
contains
a
series
of
questions
that
are
tailored
to
the
specific
system
type.
The
questions
are
generally
grouped
as:
°
Site
diagram
­
sketch
from
respondent
of
facility
layout
°
System
description
­
water
source
(
old
question
7),
list
of
number
and
types
of
similar
production
units
°
System
drainage
(
when
applicable)
­
descriptions
of
where
water
goes
after
leaving
the
production
unit
°
For
ponds,
description
of
overflows
from
ponds
°
Pollutant
control
practices
­
what
treatments
are
used
in
the
system
and
after
water
leaves
the
production
system
°
Water
discharges
(
when
applicable)
­
what
is
the
fate
of
the
water
leaving
the
systems;
NPDES
permit
number
and
discharge
location
information
After
completing
all
relevant
subsections,
the
respondent
is
directed
to
continue
on
with
the
remainder
of
the
survey.
For
those
facilities
that
do
not
discharge
offsite,
the
respondent
is
done
with
the
survey
and
directed
to
Part
C
­
Certification.

Question
7
Changed
the
responses
to
single
check
boxes
for
each
response.
Ask
respondents
to
check
all
responses
that
apply.
Changed
definitions
of
water
sources
to
be
consistent
with
the
sources
that
were
used
in
the
Census
of
Aquaculture
survey.
The
following
are
the
new
question
numbers:
°
Ponds
­
question
10
°
Flow
through
­
question
19
°
Recirculating
Systems
­
question
29
°
Net
pens
and
Cages
­
not
applicable
°
Floating
Aquaculture
and
Bottom
Culture
­
not
applicable
°
Other
Systems
­
question
47
The
question
is
in
two
parts,
the
first
asks
about
the
water
source
in
general
and
the
second
asks
whether
the
source
is
fresh
or
salt
water.
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
Topic
Explanation
of
Modification
15
Question
8
Changed
the
question
to
a
tabular
format
that
is
tailored
to
each
system
type.
The
following
are
the
new
question
numbers:
°
Ponds
­
questions
12
and
13;
the
question
was
reworked
into
a
table
to
ascertain
the
approximate
discharges
from
the
ponds
and
whether
flushing
is
a
regular
management
practice
°
Flow
through
­
question
21;
the
question
is
a
table
that
partitions
discharges
and
flow
rates
°
Recirculating
Systems
­
question
31;
the
question
is
a
table
that
establishes
a
water
discharge
balance
for
the
recirculating
system
°
Net
pens
and
Cages
­
not
applicable
°
Floating
Aquaculture
and
Bottom
Culture
­
not
applicable
°
Other
Systems
­
questions
49
and
50;
tables
to
determine
daily
discharges
and
drainage
frequencies
and
volumes
Question
9
This
question
was
moved
to
the
appropriate
subsections
for
the
different
culture
systems
(
ponds,
flow
through,
etc.).
The
question
responses
were
modified
to
be
appropriate
for
the
different
culture
systems.
The
following
are
the
new
question
numbers:
°
Ponds
­
question
16
­
reworded
to
include
appropriate
options
for
onsite
and
offsite
discharges;
question
17
­
NPDES
permits,
the
response
was
clarified;
and
question
18
­
location
of
discharge,
reworded
question
for
clarity
°
Flow
through
­
question
26
­
reworded
to
include
appropriate
options
for
onsite
and
offsite
discharges;
question
27
­
NPDES
permits,
the
response
was
clarified;
and
question
28
­
location
of
discharge,
reworded
question
for
clarity
°
Recirculating
Systems
­
question
36
­
reworded
to
include
appropriate
options
for
onsite
and
offsite
discharges;
question
37
­
NPDES
permits,
the
response
was
clarified;
and
question
38
­
location
of
discharge,
reworded
question
for
clarity
°
Net
pens
and
Cages
­
question
41
­
NPDES
permit
information
°
Floating
Aquaculture
and
Bottom
Culture
­
question
45
­
NPDES
permit
information
°
Other
Systems
­
question
54
­
reworded
to
include
appropriate
options
for
onsite
and
offsite
discharges;
question
55
­
NPDES
permits,
the
response
was
clarified;
and
question
56
­
location
of
discharge,
reworded
question
for
clarity
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
Topic
Explanation
of
Modification
16
Question
10
Created
two
or
three
questions
to
determine
management
practices
before
water
leaves
a
production
system,
practices
and
technologies
after
water
leaves
the
production
system,
and
(
where
applicable)
intermediate
treatments
or
technologies.
Incorporated
old
question
11
in
the
responses.
Responses
were
made
appropriate
for
each
culture
system
type.
The
following
are
the
new
question
numbers:
°
Ponds
­
question
14
­
pond
management
practices
before
water
leaves
the
pond;
question
15
­
pollutant
control
practices
after
water
leaves
the
pond
°
Flow
through
­
question
22
­
system
management
practices
before
water
is
discharged;
question
23
­
pollutant
control
practices
after
water
leaves
the
production
system;
question
24
­
pollutant
control
practices
after
water
leaves
a
treatment
system
°
Recirculating
Systems
­
question
33
­
list
of
in­
system
practices
to
treat
water;
question
34
­
pollutant
control
practices
after
water
leaves
the
system
°
Net
Pens
and
Cages
­
question
42
­
management
practices
to
improve
water
quality
in
and
around
the
systems
°
Floating
Aquaculture
and
Bottom
Culture
­
question
46
­
management
practices
to
improve
water
quality
in
and
around
systems
°
Other
Systems
­
question
51­
management
practices
to
treat
water
before
water
leaves
the
system;
question
52
­
pollutant
control
practices
after
water
leaves
the
system
Question
11
Incorporated
replacement
questions
for
each
system
type
for
management
practices
before
water
leaves
the
system,
pollutant
control
practices
after
water
leaves
the
system,
and
wastewater
discharge
questions.

Question
12
Responses
were
made
appropriate
for
each
culture
system
type.
The
following
are
the
new
question
numbers:
°
Ponds
­
question
15;
added
several
BMP
responses
that
were
recommended
by
comments
and
deleted
unlikely
responses
°
Flow
through
­
question
25;
added
several
responses
per
comments
and
deleted
unlikely
responses
°
Recirculating
Systems
­
question
35
°
Net
pens
and
Cages
­
not
applicable
°
Floating
Aquaculture
and
Bottom
Culture
­
not
applicable
°
Other
Systems
­
question
53
Question
13
Moved
to
Section
5
­
Cost
Information;
new
question
57;
asks
the
respondent
to
describe
in
detail
each
of
the
pollutant
control
practices
that
are
being
used
at
the
facility.

Question
14
Moved
to
Section
5
­
Cost
Information,
new
question
57;
creates
a
table
for
each
pollutant
control
practice
that
is
identified
by
the
respondent.
The
table
is
in
two
parts
­
capital
costs
and
annual
costs.
This
information
is
important
for
EPA
to
determine
the
costs
associated
with
pollutant
control
practices
that
could
be
recommended
as
a
part
of
the
effluent
limitations
guidelines.
An
example
is
provided
for
clarity.
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
Topic
Explanation
of
Modification
17
Question
15
Moved
to
Section
5
­
Cost
Information,
new
question
54.
Fixed
units
on
Feed,
depredation,
and
chemicals
to
be
a
mass,
not
rate.
Changed
depredation
to
predator
control.
Added
definitions
to
full
and
part
time
labor.
Deleted
6
items
from
the
Repairs
and
Maintenance
portion
of
the
table;
these
items
are
redundant
with
items
asked
in
the
Financial
Information
part
of
the
survey.
Three
items,
accounting/
legal,
advertising/
marketing,
and
misc.
supplies
no
longer
requested
as
individual
items.

Question
16
Moved
to
Section
6
­
Monitoring
Information,
new
question
59.
Simplified
the
table
to
ask
for
pollutants
and
frequency
for
the
past
three
years
(
1998
­
2000).
Added
check
box
to
determine
of
the
facility
monitored
for
pollutants
prior
to
1998.

Aquatic
Animal
Production
Operations
Question
17
Moved
to
Section
4
­
Wastewater
Control
Technology.
Respondents
are
asked
to
supply
a
site
diagram
and
fill
in
a
table
to
describe
the
facility.
Each
table
is
tailored
to
the
particular
system
type.
The
following
are
the
new
question
numbers:
°
Ponds
­
question
11
­
description
of
pond(
s),
number,
average
surface
area,
average
depth,
and
whether
supplemental
aeration
is
used
°
Flow
through
­
question
20
­
description
of
raceways,
ponds
or
tanks,
total
number
in
a
block,
water
is
reuse,
dimensions,
and
construction
materials
°
Recirculating
Systems
­
question
30
­
description
recirculating
system,
number
of
systems,
average
volume,
average
daily
volume
of
make­
up
water
°
Net
pens
and
Cages
­
question
39
­
description
of
net
pens
or
cages,
number
and
construction
materials,
dimensions;
question
40
­
location
information
(
latitude
and
longitude),
description
of
location,
water
depth
°
Floating
Aquaculture
and
Bottom
Culture
­
question
43
­
description
of
floating
aquaculture
or
bottom
culture,
number
and
construction
materials,
dimensions;
question
44
­
location
information,
description
of
location,
water
depth
°
Other
Systems
­
question
48
­
description
system,
number
of
systems,
average
volume,
average
daily
volume
of
make­
up
water
Question
18
Moved
to
new
Section
7
­
Product
Losses,
questions
61.
Clarified
wording
to
"
If
escapement
data
are
available,
how
many
fish...
escaped
from
your
facility
in
2000?"
Changed
the
check
box
for
no
escapement
to
"
Check
this
box
if
there
were
no
escapes
or
you
did
not
monitor
escapes
at
this
facility
in
2000..."
Added
definitions
for
native
and
non­
native
species
in
Definition
section
per
comments.
Added
lifestage
columns.
Changed
response
to
number
of
escaped.

Question
19
Moved
to
Section
7
­
Product
Losses,
question
60.
Changed
wording
to
include
the
total
loss
of
aquatic
animals
for
all
causes
(
including
escapement).
Changed
response
to
number
escaped.
Added
lifestage
columns.
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
Topic
Explanation
of
Modification
18
Question
20
Moved
to
Section
8
­
Feed
Information,
question
62.
Revised
the
table
to
include
columns
for
feed
type,
annual
amount
used,
peak
month
amount
used,
manufacturer
and
product
number/
ID
and
feed
content.
Changed
response
for
feed
content
to
%
protein
and
%
phosphorus
only.
Instructed
respondents
to
list
each
type
of
feed
used
at
the
facility.
Added
second
table
for
medicated
feeds
that
includes
feed
type,
annual
amount
used,
peak
month
of
use,
manufacturer
information,
active
ingredient,
and
feed
content.

ECONOMIC
AND
FINANCIAL
INFORMATION
Developed
three
sets
of
financial
questions
for
private/
commercial,
government,
and
academic/
research
respondents.

Ownership
Information
Question
21
Moved
to
Section
2
­
Ownership
Information,
question
4.

Question
22
Deleted.

Question
23
Moved
to
Section
2
­
Ownership
Information,
question
5.

Question
24
Deleted.

Question
25
Deleted.

Question
26
Moved
to
Section
2
­
Ownership
Information,
question
6.
Changed
the
primary
product
category
column
to
primary
species.
The
respondent
will
not
have
to
enter
a
code
from
an
appendix,
but
will
be
asked
to
enter
the
primary
species
grown.
EPA
will
link
similar
species
responses,
based
on
name.
Added
query
about
total
company
revenues
for
those
companies
that
have
multiple
facilities.

Employment
Question
27
Deleted.
Information
requested
in
Section
5
­
Cost
Information
(
question
54).

Income
Statements
Question
28
Moved
to
Section
B
­
Economic
and
Financial
Information,
question
1.
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
Topic
Explanation
of
Modification
19
Questions
29­
31
General
Formerly,
1999
­
1997
income
statement
information
for
aquatic
animal
enterprise,
facility,
and
company.
Changes
include:

°
Requests
cost
and
income
information
for
total
farm/
facility
for
2000
­
1998.
The
respondent
does
not
have
to
complete
question
67
if
aquatic
animals
are
the
only
agricultural
products
produced.
Data
for
multi­
facility
companies
will
be
collected
during
follow­
up.
°
Income
data
simplified
to
address
both
cash
and
accrual
accounting
methods.
Number
of
items
to
complete
reduced.
°
Costs
asked
as
total
expenses
and
selected
individual
items.
The
respondent
now
enters
data
directly
from
their
tax
forms
(
such
as
Schedule
F
or
Schedule
C).
While
there
are
more
cost
items
being
requested,
the
respondent
does
not
have
to
combine
individual
items
into
the
general
categories
asked
in
the
previous
questionnaire.
Also,
most
of
the
new
cost
items
in
this
question
are
those
that
were
previously
being
asked
in
the
old
question
15;
they
have
just
been
moved.
°
Added
option
for
respondents
to
voluntarily
provide
copies
of
their
2000
­
1998
tax
filings(
Schedule
F
or
Schedule
C)
or
income
statements
in
lieu
of
completing
the
question.

Questions
29c,
30c,
and
31c
Section
B,
question
65
requests
income
from
fee
fishing
operations
for
2000
­
1998.
A
skip
pattern
was
added
that
directs
respondents
to
the
next
question
if
there
is
no
income
derived
from
fee
fishing
operations.

Questions
29e,
30e,
and
31e
Section
B,
question
66
requests
income
from
agricultural
products
other
than
aquatic
animals
for
2000
­
1998.
A
skip
pattern
was
added
that
jumps
respondents
to
the
next
question
if
there
is
no
income
derived
from
other
agricultural
products.

Question
32
Moved
to
Section
B,
questions
69
and
70.
A
skip
pattern
was
added
to
help
respondents
who
do
not
keep
balance
sheets
for
their
facility
(
i.
e.,
small
entities).
If
the
farm/
facility
prepares
balance
sheets
the
respondent
is
directed
to
answer
question
69.
If
not,
respondents
are
directed
to
skip
to
question
70,
where
the
respondent
lists
the
basic
information
that
goes
into
compiling
a
balance
sheet.
This
approach
allows
EPA
to
gather
the
basic
information
needed
to
construct
financial
ratios
for
use
in
the
economic
analysis
without
requiring
respondents
to
prepare
complete
balance
sheets.
Accrual
items
are
shaded
to
indicate
which
should
not
appear
on
a
cash
basis
balance
sheet.

Questions
33
and
34
Combined
into
Section
B,
question
68.
Format
changed
from
product
category
to
species
and
life
cycle
code
for
clarity.

Question
35
Deleted.
Including
copies
of
financial
statements
is
now
optional.
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
20
Table
3­
2
Changes
and
Additions
to
the
Definitions
Term
Modification
Reason
General
Comment
­
Clarification
of
definitions
Suggested
by
National
Marine
Fishery
Service
to
clarify
definitions
and
make
them
less
technical
Accrual
Method
of
Accounting
Added
As
a
result
of
modifying
survey
Aeration
Lagoon
Added
Suggested
by
Florida
Department
of
Agriculture
and
Consumer
Services
and
US
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
Algae
Deleted
Not
referenced
in
survey
Aquaculture
Not
Added
Suggested
by
US
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service;
Defined
in
text
of
survey
Aquaculture
Industry
Not
Added
Not
referenced
in
survey;
Suggested
by
US
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
Best
Financial
Estimates
Added
Suggested
by
NASAC
Best
Management
Practices
Not
Added
Suggested
by
Richard
Bragg,
NASAC,
Carole
Engle,
and
US
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service;
Defined
in
text
of
survey
Biological
Control
Agent
Not
Added
Not
referenced
in
survey;
Suggested
by
Keo
Farms
Broodstock
Deleted
Defined
in
text
Cash
Method
of
Accounting
Added
As
a
result
of
modifying
survey
Chlorination
Deleted
Term
is
understood
by
those
who
use
chlorination
as
a
treatment
Clarifier
Clarified
Suggested
by
US
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
and
Florida
Department
of
Agriculture
and
Consumer
Services
Co­
located
crops
Added
Clarification
Company
Added
Suggested
by
the
US
Trout
Farmers
Association
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
Term
Modification
Reason
21
Cost
Method
of
Balance
Sheet
Valuation
Added
As
a
result
of
modifying
survey
Crustacean
Deleted
Defined
in
the
text
Dechlorination
Not
Added
Term
understood
by
those
who
use
dechlorination
as
a
treatment
Discharge
Added
Suggested
by
NASAC
Effluent
Added
Suggested
by
US
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
Facility
Clarified
Suggested
by
Keo
Farms
and
US
Trout
Farmers
Association
Fee­
fishing
Operation
Added
Clarification
Financial
Statements
Added
Clarification
Fingerling
Clarified
Standardize
the
definition
for
the
survey
Food­
size
fish
Clarified
Standardize
the
definition
for
the
survey
Fry
Clarified
Standardize
the
definition
for
the
survey
Groundwater
Deleted
Defined
in
the
text
Income
Statement
Clarified
Simplified
definition
for
survey
Lagoons
Deleted
Not
referenced
in
survey
Market
Value
Method
of
Balance
Sheet
Valuation
Added
As
a
result
of
modifying
survey
NAICS
Deleted
Not
referenced
in
survey
Native
Species
Added
Suggested
by
US
Trout
Farmers
Association
and
US
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
Non­
native
Species
Added
Suggested
by
US
Trout
Farmers
Association
and
US
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
Nitrification
Deleted
Not
referenced
in
survey;
Clarification
suggested
by
Freshwater
Institute
Ornamental
fish
Deleted
Defined
in
the
text
Point
Source
Added
Suggested
by
NASAC
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
Term
Modification
Reason
22
Pollutant
Clarified
Suggested
by
NASAC
Process
Water
Not
Added
Not
referenced
in
survey;
Suggested
by
US
Trout
Farmers
Association
Process
Wastewater
Not
Added
Not
referenced
in
survey;
Suggested
by
US
Trout
Farmers
Association
Publicly
Held
Deleted
No
longer
referenced
in
survey
Receiving
Water
Added
Suggested
by
Carole
Engle
Residual
Solids
Not
Added
Not
referenced
in
survey;
Suggested
by
US
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
Revenues
Not
Added
No
longer
referenced
in
survey;
suggested
by
Richard
Bragg
Sedimentation
Basins
Added
Suggested
by
Florida
Department
of
Agriculture
and
Consumer
Services
and
US
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
SIC
Deleted
Not
referenced
in
survey
Sludge
Dewatering/
dehydration
Added
Suggested
by
Keo
Farms
Stockers
Clarified
Standardize
the
definition
for
the
survey
Wastewater
Clarified
Suggested
by
US
Trout
Farmers
Association,
University
of
Arkansas,
and
NASAC
Wastewater
Recycle
Not
Added
Not
referenced
in
survey;
Suggested
by
California
Aquaculture
Association
and
US
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
Wastewater
Reuse
Added
Suggested
by
California
Aquaculture
Association
and
US
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
Wastewater
Treatment
System
Added
Suggested
by
Carole
Engle
and
NASAC
Water
Use
Not
Added
Not
referenced
in
survey;
Suggested
by
US
Trout
Farmers
Association
Waterway
Not
Added
Not
referenced
in
survey;
Suggested
by
Carole
Engle
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
Term
Modification
Reason
23
Wetland
Treatment
System
Added
Suggested
by
Florida
Department
of
Agriculture
and
Consumer
Services
Well
water
Added
Suggested
by
Keo
Farms
and
US
Trout
Farmers
Association
3(
c)
CONSULTATIONS
Prior
to
publishing
the
Federal
Register
notice
announcing
the
Agency's
proposed
Collection
of
2000
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry
Data,
EPA
distributed
draft
copies
of
the
survey
to
the
Joint
Subcommittee
on
Aquaculture
(
JSA),
Aquaculture
Effluents
Task
Force
(
AETF).
The
Agency
requested
that
the
JSA
AETF
conduct
a
review
of
the
survey,
and
provide
EPA
with
informal
comments
prior
to
the
publication
of
the
Federal
Register
notice.
EPA
then
reviewed
the
comments
provided
and
revised
the
preliminary
draft
survey
given
to
the
JSA
AETF.
EPA
incorporated
as
many
comments
as
possible
to
improve
the
preliminary
draft
survey.
As
a
result
of
this
initial
review,
EPA
revised
the
survey
and
made
it
available
for
formal
comment
at
the
time
the
first
Federal
Register
notice
was
published
on
September
14,
2000.
After
compiling
and
reviewing
the
formal
comments
submitted,
EPA
revised
the
detailed
survey
and
also
added
a
screener
to
address
concerns
raised
before
submitting
the
ICR
package
to
OMB
for
review
and
approval.
EPA
also
conducted
additional
outreach
with
AETF
members
during
this
time.
Table
3­
3
highlights
some
of
the
meetings
and
conference
calls
EPA
has
held
with
stakeholders
to
date.

Table
3­
3
Stakeholder
Meetings
and
Conference
Calls
Date
Meeting/
Conference
Call
February
2000
Conference
in
New
Orleans
March
2000
Meeting
in
Pennsylvania
(
State
Dept.
of
Ag)

April
2000
JSA
AETF
Meeting
May
2000
Meeting
in
Wisconsin
(
NASAC)

June
2000
JSA
AETF
Meeting
June
2000
JSA
Economic
Technical
Subgroup
Conference
Call
July
2000
Roanoke
Conference
July
2000
Economic
Technical
Subgroup
Conference
Call
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
24
September
2000
Economic
Technical
Subgroup
Meeting
September
2000
JSA
AETF
Industry
Profile
Meeting
November
2000
Roanoke
Conference
January
2001
JSA
AETF
Meeting
and
Econ
Technical
Subgroup
Meeting
February/
March
2000
Multiple
conference
calls
on
survey
with
JSA
AETF
Technical
Subgroup
3(
d)
EFFECTS
OF
LESS
FREQUENT
COLLECTION
EPA
intends
to
distribute
a
screener
or
short
survey
to
approximately
5,000
facilities
that
EPA
has
identified.
After
analysis
of
the
screener
responses,
EPA
will
distribute
a
more
detailed
survey
to
a
stratified
random
sample
of
approximately
500
to
700
facilities.
The
surveys
are
one­
time
mailing
designed
to
gather
the
necessary
data
to
develop
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards
for
the
aquatic
animal
production
industry.

3(
e)
GENERAL
GUIDELINES
EPA
will
conduct
the
Collection
of
2000
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry
Data
in
accordance
with
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(
5
CFR
1320.5(
d)(
2)),
and
will
adhere
to
OMB
general
guidelines
for
information
collections.

3(
f)
CONFIDENTIALITY
In
accordance
with
40
CFR,
Part
2,
Subpart
B,
section
2.203,
the
Collection
of
2000
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry
Data
instruments
inform
the
respondents
of
their
right
to
claim
information
as
confidential.
The
surveys
provide
instructions
for
claiming
confidentiality,
and
inform
respondents
of
the
terms
and
rules
governing
the
protection
of
Confidential
Business
Information
(
CBI)
under
the
Clean
Water
Act
and
40
CFR2.203(
B).
A
CBI
box
accompanies
each
survey
question
which
requests
potentially
confidential
information.
Survey
respondents
are
requested
to
check
all
CBI
boxes
which
accompany
responses
they
claim
as
confidential.
To
minimize
respondent
burden,
EPA
also
placed
a
global
check
box
at
the
beginning
of
the
detailed
survey.
By
checking
this
single
box,
the
respondent
indicates
his/
her
intention
to
identify
all
responses
as
confidential.

EPA
and
its
contractors
will
follow
EAD's
existing
procedures
to
protect
data
labeled
as
CBI.
These
procedures
include
the
following:

#
Ensuring
secure
handling
of
completed
surveys
to
preclude
access
by
unauthorized
personnel;
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
25
#
Storage
of
completed
surveys
and
databases
in
secured
areas
of
offices,
and
restrict
access
to
authorized
EPA
and
contractor
personnel
only;

#
Restricting
any
publications
or
dissemination
of
confidential
study
results
or
findings
to
aggregate
statistics
and
coded
listings.
Individual
respondents
will
not
be
identified
in
summary
reports,
and
EPA
contractors
will
not
release
respondents'
names
to
unauthorized
individuals.

Each
EPA
contractor
that
collects,
processes,
or
stores
CBI
is
responsible
for
the
proper
handling
of
those
data.
Each
contractor
shall
safeguard
information
as
described
in
section
2.211(
d)
of
Subpart
B
and
is
obligated
to
use
or
disclose
information
only
as
permitted
by
the
contract
under
which
the
information
is
furnished.

3(
g)
SENSITIVE
QUESTIONS
The
Collection
of
2000
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry
Data
does
not
include
sensitive
questions
regarding
sexual
behavior
or
attitudes,
religious
beliefs,
or
other
personal
matters.
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
26
4.
THE
RESPONDENTS
AND
THE
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
4(
a)
RESPONDENTS
AND
SIC/
NAICS
CODES
EPA
will
distribute
the
surveys
to
facilities
with
aquatic
animal
production
operations.
The
following
list
of
(
Standard
Industrial
Classification)
SIC
codes
are
associated
with
activities
affected
by
the
data
collection
effort
covered
under
this
ICR:

#
0273
­
animal
aquaculture
#
0921
­
fish
hatcheries
and
preserves
!
8422
­
aquariums
The
North
American
Industry
Classification
System
(
NAICS)
replaces
SIC.
The
following
NAICS
codes
cover
activities
covered
under
this
ICR:

#
112511
­
finfish
farming
and
fish
hatcheries
#
112512
­
shellfish
farming
#
112519
­
other
animal
aquaculture
#
712130
­
aquariums
4(
b)
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
(
i)
Screener
Survey
EPA
has
designed
the
survey
instrument
to
include
many
burden­
reducing
features,
such
as
questions
that
require
only
a
"
yes"
or
"
no"
answer
and
skip
patterns.
Question
1
asks
the
respondent
whether
he
or
she
grows
aquatic
animals
at
the
facility.
If
not,
the
respondent
is
instructed
to
skip
to
the
end
of
the
survey,
sign
the
applicable
certification,
and
return
the
survey
to
EPA.
If
so,
the
respondent
is
instructed
to
complete
the
survey.
Question
2
requests
verification
or
correction
of
the
facility
name
and
mailing
address
on
the
identification
label.

Question
3
requests
the
name
and
address
of
the
company
that
owns
the
facility.
Because
all
aquatic
animal
producers
that
receive
the
questionnaire
answer
this
question,
the
data
will
be
used
to
group
operations
by
company
in
order
to
aggregate
costs
and
evaluate
impacts
on
the
company
level.
Question
4
collects
information
to
allow
EPA
to
classify
a
facility
as
private/
commercial,
government,
or
academic/
research.
If
the
facility
is
private/
commercial,
the
information
in
Question
4
allows
EPA
to
classify
its
tax
status.

Question
5
asks
the
respondent
to
identify
the
production
levels
at
the
facility.
Question
6
asks
the
respondent
to
identify
the
production
methods
used
at
the
facility.
Question
7
asks
whether
water
from
aquatic
animal
production
leaves
the
property.
If
yes,
Question
8
asks
whether
the
water
goes
to
a
publicly
owned
treatment
works
(
POTW).
This
information
will
help
determine
whether
a
facility
is
a
direct
or
indirect
discharger.
Question
9
asks
the
respondent
to
identify
pollutant
control
practices
used
at
the
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
27
facility
if
water
is
released
from
the
property.
The
interrelationship
of
the
responses
for
Questions
5,
6
and
9
permit
EPA
to
develop
a
matrix
of
the
possible
species/
production
method/
pollution
control
combinations
seen
throughout
the
industry.
As
such,
EPA
can
identify
where
follow­
up
site
visits
might
be
required
to
evaluate
configurations
not
previously
identified
and
studied.
EPA
can
also
develop
a
sampling
frame
by
characteristic
to
relate
the
questionnaire
data
to
national
estimates.

(
ii)
Detailed
Questionnaire
EPA
has
designed
the
survey
instrument
to
include
many
burden­
reducing
features,
such
as
questions
that
require
only
a
"
yes"
or
"
no"
answer
and
skip
patterns.
The
introduction
to
the
survey
contains
information
on
the
authority
under
which
EPA
will
administer
the
survey,
help
line
contact
information,
how
respondents
should
identify
information
as
confidential,
instructions
for
completing
the
survey,
and
a
litst
of
definitions.

(
a)
General
and
Technical
Information
The
detailed
survey
is
divided
into
three
parts
(
Part
A
­
Technical
Information,
Part
B
­
Economic
Information,
and
Part
C
­
Certification)
to
make
the
skip
patterns
easier
to
follow.
The
introduction
to
the
survey
contains
information
on
the
authority
under
which
EPA
will
administer
the
survey,
help
line
contact
information,
how
to
mark
information
as
confidential,
general
instructions,
and
definitions.
Part
A
contains
primarily
technical
information
about
the
facility
wastewater
characteristics,
current
treatment
practices,
production
systems,
and
costs.

(
i)
Part
A
­
Technical
Information
contact
and
facility
information.
This
section
confirms
that
the
facility
produces
aquatic
animals,
verifies
the
facility
mailing
address
and
establishes
contact
information.
Question
1
asks
the
respondent
whether
aquatic
animals
are
grown
at
the
facility.
If
not,
the
respondent
is
instructed
to
skip
to
the
end
of
the
survey,
sign
the
applicable
certification,
and
return
the
survey
to
EPA.
If
so,
the
respondent
is
instructed
to
complete
the
survey.
Question
2
request's
verification
or
correction
of
the
facility
name
and
mailing
address
on
the
identification
label.
Question
3
asks
the
respondent
to
identify
an
individual
for
EPA
to
contact
concerning
information
submitted
in
the
survey,
as
well
as
the
days
and
times
when
EPA
can
reach
him
or
her.

Ownership
information.
With
Question
4,
EPA
begins
to
collect
information
to
help
assess
the
economic
achievability
of
the
regulatory
options
it
considers.
To
minimize
the
burden
of
responding
to
the
survey,
EPA
limited
the
information
it
will
request.
The
questions
are
phrased
with
commonly
used
terminology
and
the
tables
are
organized
in
formats
familiar
to
financial
officers
in
the
respondent
industry.

Question
4
requests
the
name
and
address
of
the
company
that
owns
the
facility.
Because
all
facilities
that
receive
the
questionnaire
answer
this
question,
the
data
will
be
used
to
group
operations
by
company
ownership
in
order
to
aggregate
costs
and
evaluate
impacts
on
the
company
level.
Question
5
requests
the
facility's
corporation
type
to
determine
a
facility's
tax
status.
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
28
Question
6
asks
the
respondent
to
list
each
type
of
aquatic
animal
production
facility
and
the
primary
species
raised
at
each
facility
owned
by
the
company
.
The
response
to
Question
6
allows
EPA
to
verify
its
findings
when
it
aggregates
data
on
the
basis
of
information
supplied
in
Question
4.
Question
6
also
requested
total
company
revenue
for
fiscal
year
2000.
The
Small
Business
Administration
size
standards
are
set
at
the
company
level,
not
the
facility
level.
Under
the
North
American
Industrial
Classification
System
(
NAICS),
the
size
standards
for
aquatic
animal
production
are
based
on
total
revenues.
EPA
will
use
the
information
in
Question
6
to
estimate
the
number
of
facilities
classified
as
small
businesses.

General
facility
information.
The
purpose
of
Question
7
is
to
provide
EPA
with
qualitative
information
about
the
relative
importance
of
aquatic
animal
production
to
the
individual
or
facility.
Question
8
asks
the
respondent
to
classify
himself/
herself
as
a
contract
operator,
an
independent
operator,
or
part
of
a
cooperative.
Other
effluent
guideline
studies
indicate
that
the
financial
characteristics
may
vary
substantially
according
to
these
categories.
Question
9
asks
the
respondent
for
total
acreage
of
the
facility
and
the
amount
of
land
not
in
aquacultural
or
agricultural
production.
This
information
will
be
used
to
help
estimate
the
availability
and
cost
of
land
for
wastewater
treatment.

Wastewater
Control
Technology.
EPA
divided
this
section
into
different
subsections
based
on
production
system
type
so
that
the
respondent
only
answers
the
subsections
relevant
to
his/
her
facility.
The
subsections
are
organized
in
the
following
order:
ponds,
flow
through
systems,
recirculating
systems,
net
pens
and
cages,
floating
aquaculture
and
bottom
culture,
and
other
aquaculture
systems.
The
introduction
to
this
section
directs
the
respondent
to
the
individual
subsections
that
may
be
applicable
to
the
facility
being
surveyed.

Questions
10­
18
request
information
on
pond
operations.
Questions
19
­
28
apply
to
flow
through
systems.
Questions
29
­
38
apply
to
recirculating
systems.
Questions
29
­
38
apply
to
net
pens
and
cages.
Questions
43
­
46
apply
to
floating
aquaculture
and
bottom
culture.
Questions
47
­
56
apply
to
other
aquaculture
systems.

Ponds.
The
pond
subsection
begins
with
a
brief
introduction
that
outlines
the
questions
on
ponds
and
explains
the
definition
of
discharge
as
it
is
used
in
the
survey.
The
respondent
is
asked
to
provide
a
detailed
sketch
of
the
pond
and
facility
layout
to
help
EPA
understand
the
extent
and
configuration
of
the
aquatic
animal
production
facility.
An
example
is
provided
for
the
respondent.

Question
10
asks
for
the
water
source
and
whether
it
is
fresh
or
salt
water.
Question
11
asks
for
the
number
and
types
of
ponds
at
the
facility.
The
information
from
questions
10
and
11
help
characterize
the
quantity
and
quality
of
influent
to
the
production
system.
Some
of
the
water
sources
for
ponds
will
have
an
impact
on
the
timing
and
quality
of
discharges
from
those
ponds.
For
example,
ponds
that
use
runoff
water
from
adjoining
watersheds
will
be
prone
to
overflows
that
are
similar
in
quality
to
the
inflowing
water
during
rainy
seasons.
Question
11
also
asks
about
supplemental
aeration
practices,
which
have
a
strong
influence
on
in­
pond
processes
that
will
affect
the
water
quality
of
any
discharges.
EPA
will
use
the
aeration
information
in
developing
the
cost
estimates
for
treatment.
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
29
Question
12
asks
about
the
typical
pond
drainage
practices
at
the
facility.
This
information
will
help
EPA
to
understand
the
pond
management
practices
at
the
facility
and
the
potential
volumes
and
quality
of
effluents
from
the
ponds.
Question
13
asks
about
the
pond
management
practice
of
flushing
water
through
a
pond
in
an
attempt
to
improve
water
quality
in
the
pond.
This
three­
part
question
asks
about
the
frequency
and
volume
of
exchange
flows.

Questions
14
and
15
ask
about
pollutant
control
technologies
used
both
before
and
after
water
is
discharged
from
the
ponds.
EPA
will
use
the
responses
to
these
two
questions
to
determine
best
management
practices
and
treatment
technologies
currently
used
to
improve
the
effluent
quality
of
pond
discharges.

Question
16
asks
the
respondent
to
identify
how
water
leaves
the
facility
property.
If
water
is
not
discharged
off
the
facility
property,
the
onsite
fate
is
queried.
Question
17
asks
for
an
NPDES
permit
number
if
the
facility
has
one,
and
Question
18
asks
for
the
location
of
the
discharge.
These
questions
will
help
EPA
with
the
environmental
assessment
and
impact
studies.

After
completing
Question
18,
the
respondent
is
directed
to
complete
additional
sections
of
the
survey.
For
those
facilities
that
have
systems
other
than
ponds,
the
respondent
is
directed
to
the
appropriate
system­
specific
sections.
For
offsite
discharging
facilities,
the
respondent
is
directed
to
the
additional
cost
and
economic
sections
of
the
survey.
For
those
with
only
ponds
and
onsite
discharges,
the
respondent
is
directed
to
the
certification
section.

Flow
Through
Systems.
The
flow
through
system
subsection
begins
with
a
brief
introduction
that
outlines
the
questions
on
flow
through
systems
and
explains
the
definition
of
discharge
as
it
is
used
in
the
survey.
The
respondent
is
asked
to
provide
a
detailed
sketch
of
the
flow
through
system
and
facility
layout
to
help
EPA
understand
the
extent
and
configuration
of
the
aquatic
animal
production
facility.
An
example
is
provided
for
the
respondent.

Question
19
asks
about
the
origin
of
the
source
water
and
whether
it
is
fresh
or
salt
water.
The
information
on
the
source
water
is
necessary
to
help
EPA
understand
the
quality
of
water
entering
the
flow
through
systems.

Question
20
asks
the
respondent
to
provide
additional
details
about
the
sizes
and
numbers
of
different
raceways,
ponds,
or
tanks
in
the
flow
through
system.
Question
21
seeks
information
about
the
flow
rates
of
water
through
the
flow
through
systems.
The
respondent
is
asked
to
partition
the
outflows
to
help
EPA
understand
the
volumes
of
discharges
that
are
treated
using
typical
treatment
technology
options.

Question
22
asks
about
management
practices
that
are
used
in
the
flow
through
system
before
water
leaves
the
raceways,
ponds,
or
tanks.
This
information
will
be
used
to
determine
the
extent
of
best
management
practices
used
in
the
industry.
Question
23
asks
about
pollutant
control
technologies
used
at
the
facility
after
the
water
leaves
the
production
raceways,
ponds,
or
tanks.
EPA
will
use
the
responses
from
these
questions
to
identify
treatment
already
in
use
and
to
determine
the
treatment
basis
for
regulatory
options
as
well
as
to
develop
cost
estimates
for
these
options.
Question
24
asks
about
any
treatments
that
occur
after
water
leaves
settling
basins.
Both
full
flow
and
offline
settling
basins
are
known
to
be
common
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
30
treatment
practices
in
the
industry.
Some
facilities
further
treat
water
that
is
discharged
from
the
settling
basins.
Question
25
asks
about
the
fate
of
solids
from
the
settling
basins
or
other
solids
separation
practices.
The
information
from
Question
25
will
inform
EPA
about
the
solids
disposal
practices
used
in
the
industry.

Question
26
asks
the
respondent
to
identify
how
water
leaves
the
facility
property.
If
water
is
not
discharged
off
the
facility
property,
the
onsite
fate
is
queried.
Question
27
asks
for
an
NPDES
permit
number
if
the
facility
has
one
and
Question
28
asks
for
the
location
of
the
discharge.
These
questions
will
help
EPA
with
the
environmental
assessment
and
impact
studies.

After
completing
Question
28,
the
respondent
is
directed
to
complete
additional
sections
of
the
survey.
For
those
facilities
that
have
systems
other
than
flow
through
systems,
the
respondent
is
directed
to
the
appropriate
system­
specific
sections.
For
those
who
discharge
offsite,
the
respondent
is
directed
to
the
additional
cost
and
economic
sections
of
the
survey.
For
those
with
only
flow
through
systems
and
onsite
discharges,
the
respondent
is
directed
to
the
certification
section.

Recirculating
Systems.
The
recirculating
system
subsection
begins
with
a
brief
introduction
that
outlines
the
questions
on
recirculating
systems
and
explains
the
definition
of
discharge
as
it
is
used
in
the
survey.
The
respondent
is
asked
to
provide
a
detailed
sketch
of
the
recirculating
system
and
facility
layout
to
help
EPA
understand
the
extent
and
configuration
of
the
aquatic
animal
production
facility.
An
example
is
provided
for
the
respondent.

Question
29
asks
about
the
origin
of
the
source
water
and
whether
it
is
fresh
or
salt
water.
The
information
on
the
source
water
is
necessary
to
help
EPA
understand
the
quality
of
water
entering
the
recirculating
systems.

Question
30
asks
the
respondent
to
provide
additional
details
about
the
sizes
and
numbers
of
different
types
of
recirculating
systems
at
the
facility.
Question
30
also
asks
about
the
daily
volume
of
water
added
to
the
recirculating
systems.
Question
31
seeks
information
about
the
average
daily
effluent
volumes
and
partitions
the
volumes
into
overflows
and
drains,
solids
removal,
and
other.
This
information
will
help
EPA
to
understand
the
quantities
and
relative
quality
of
water
discharged
from
recirculating
systems.

Question
32
asks
for
a
description
of
draining
practices
at
the
facility
and
for
information
on
cleaning
and
disinfection
products
used
in
drained
tanks.
When
recirculating
systems
are
completely
drained,
the
volume
of
water
is
often
an
order
of
magnitude
more
than
typical
daily
discharge
volumes.

Question
33
determines
any
management
practices
used
in
the
recirculating
system
before
water
is
discharged.
This
list
is
quite
extensive
to
help
EPA
to
determine
the
water
treatment
technologies
that
are
used
as
a
part
of
the
recirculating
system
to
maintain
water
quality
in
the
system.
Knowledge
about
the
different
water
treatment
technologies
will
provide
EPA
with
information
about
discharge
water
quality.
The
responses
will
also
inform
EPA
about
the
best
management
practices
currently
used
in
the
recirculating
system.
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
31
Question
34
asks
about
pollutant
control
technologies
used
at
the
facility
after
the
water
leaves
the
recirculating
systems.
EPA
will
use
the
responses
from
Question
34
to
identify
treatment
already
in
use
and
to
determine
the
treatment
basis
for
regulatory
options
as
well
as
to
develop
cost
estimates
for
these
options.
Question
35
asks
about
the
fate
of
solids
from
the
solids
separation
practices.
The
information
from
Question
35
will
inform
EPA
about
the
solids
disposal
practices
used
in
the
industry.

Question
36
asks
the
respondent
to
identify
how
water
leaves
the
facility
property.
If
water
is
not
discharged
off
the
facility
property,
the
onsite
fate
is
queried.
Question
37
asks
for
an
NPDES
permit
number
if
the
facility
has
one,
and
Question
38
asks
for
the
location
of
the
discharge.
These
questions
will
help
EPA
with
the
environmental
assessment
and
impact
studies.

After
completing
Question
38,
the
respondent
is
directed
to
complete
additional
sections
of
the
survey.
For
those
facilities
that
have
systems
other
than
recirculating
systems,
the
respondent
is
directed
to
the
appropriate
system­
specific
sections.
For
those
who
discharge
offsite,
the
respondent
is
directed
to
the
additional
cost
and
economic
sections
of
the
survey.
For
those
with
only
recirculating
systems
and
onsite
discharges,
the
respondent
is
directed
to
the
certification
section.

Net
Pens
and
Cages.
The
net
pens
and
cages
subsection
begins
with
a
brief
introduction
that
outlines
the
questions
on
net
pens
and
cages
and
explains
the
definition
of
discharge
as
it
is
used
in
the
survey.
The
respondent
is
asked
to
provide
a
detailed
sketch
of
the
net
pens
and
cages
layout
to
help
EPA
understand
the
extent
and
configuration
of
the
aquatic
animal
production
facility.
An
example
is
provided
for
the
respondent.

Question
39
asks
the
respondent
to
describe
the
net
pens
and
cages,
including
size
and
number.
This
information
will
be
used
by
EPA
to
determine
the
scope
of
the
operation.
Question
40
asks
for
the
exact
location
of
the
net
pens
or
cages.
EPA
will
use
this
information
in
evaluating
potential
water
and
non­
water
quality
impacts
from
the
systems
as
a
part
of
the
environmental
impact
and
analysis
phases
of
the
effluent
limitations
development
process.

Question
41
asks
for
an
NPDES
permit
number
if
the
facility
has
one.

Question
42
asks
for
any
management
practices
that
the
facility
uses
to
reduce
the
impacts
of
the
net
pens
or
cages
on
the
surrounding
water
quality.
EPA
will
use
this
information
to
determine
any
best
management
practices
that
are
currently
used
in
the
industry
for
net
pens
and
cages.

After
completing
Question
42,
the
respondent
is
directed
to
complete
additional
sections
of
the
survey.
For
those
facilities
that
have
systems
other
than
net
pens
and
cages,
the
respondent
is
directed
to
the
appropriate
system­
specific
sections.
The
respondent
is
directed
to
the
additional
cost
and
economic
sections
of
the
survey,
if
net
pens
or
cages
are
the
only
production
systems
at
this
facility.

Floating
Aquaculture
and
Bottom
Culture.
The
floating
aquaculture
and
bottom
culture
subsection
begins
with
a
brief
introduction
that
outlines
the
questions
on
floating
aquaculture
and
bottom
culture
and
explains
the
definition
of
discharge
as
it
is
used
in
the
survey.
The
respondent
is
asked
to
provide
a
detailed
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
32
sketch
of
the
floating
aquaculture
or
bottom
culture
layout
to
help
EPA
understand
the
extent
and
configuration
of
the
aquatic
animal
production
facility.
An
example
is
provided
for
the
respondent.

Question
43
asks
the
respondent
to
describe
the
floating
aquaculture
or
bottom
culture,
including
size
and
number.
This
information
will
be
used
by
EPA
to
determine
the
scope
of
the
operation.
Question
44
asks
for
the
exact
location
of
the
floating
aquaculture
or
bottom
culture.
EPA
will
use
this
information
in
evaluating
potential
water
and
non­
water
quality
impacts
from
the
systems
as
a
part
of
the
environmental
impact
and
analysis
phases
of
the
effluent
limitations
development
process.

Question
45
asks
for
an
NPDES
permit
number
if
the
facility
has
one.

Question
46
asks
for
any
management
practices
that
the
facility
uses
to
reduce
the
impacts
of
the
floating
aquaculture
or
bottom
culture
on
the
surrounding
water
quality.
EPA
will
use
this
information
to
determine
any
best
management
practices
that
are
used
in
the
industry
for
floating
aquaculture
or
bottom
culture.

After
completing
Question
46,
the
respondent
is
directed
to
complete
additional
sections
of
the
survey.
For
those
facilities
that
have
systems
other
than
floating
aquaculture
or
bottom
culture,
the
respondent
is
directed
to
the
appropriate
system­
specific
sections.
The
respondent
is
directed
to
the
additional
cost
and
economic
sections
of
the
survey,
if
floating
aquaculture
or
bottom
culture
are
the
only
production
systems
at
this
facility.

Other
Aquaculture
Systems.
The
other
aquaculture
system
subsection
begins
with
a
brief
introduction
that
outlines
the
questions
on
other
aquaculture
systems
and
explains
the
definition
of
discharge
as
it
is
used
in
the
survey.
The
respondent
is
asked
to
provide
a
detailed
sketch
of
the
aquaculture
system
and
facility
layout
to
help
EPA
understand
the
extent
and
configuration
of
the
animal
production
facility.
An
example
is
provided
for
the
respondent.

Question
47
asks
about
the
origin
of
the
source
water
and
whether
it
is
fresh
or
salt
water.
The
information
on
the
source
water
is
necessary
to
help
EPA
understand
the
quality
of
water
entering
the
aquaculture
systems.

Question
48
asks
the
respondent
to
provide
additional
details
about
the
sizes
and
numbers
of
different
types
of
aquaculture
systems
at
the
facility.
Question
48
also
asks
about
the
daily
volume
of
water
added
to
the
aquaculture
systems.
Question
49
seeks
information
about
the
average
daily
effluent
volumes
and
partitions
the
volumes
into
overflows
and
drains,
solids
removal,
and
other.
This
information
will
help
EPA
to
understand
the
quantities
and
relative
quality
of
water
discharged
from
other
aquaculture
systems.

Question
50
asks
for
a
description
of
draining
practices
at
the
facility
and
for
information
on
cleaning
and
disinfection
products
used
in
drained
tanks.
When
aquaculture
systems
are
completely
drained,
the
volume
of
water
is
often
greater
than
typical
daily
discharge
volumes.
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
33
Question
51
determines
any
management
practices
used
in
the
aquaculture
system
before
water
is
discharged.
The
responses
will
also
inform
EPA
about
the
best
management
practices
used
in
the
aquaculture
system.

Question
52
asks
about
pollutant
control
technologies
used
at
the
facility
after
the
water
leaves
the
aquaculture
systems.
EPA
will
use
the
responses
from
Question
52
to
identify
treatment
already
in
use
and
to
determine
the
treatment
basis
for
regulatory
options
as
well
as
to
develop
cost
estimates
for
these
options.
Question
53
asks
about
the
fate
of
solids
from
the
solids
separation
practices.
The
information
from
Question
53
will
inform
EPA
about
the
solids
disposal
practices
used
in
the
industry.

Question
54
asks
the
respondent
to
identify
how
water
leaves
the
facility
property.
If
water
is
not
discharged
off
the
facility
property,
the
onsite
fate
is
queried.
Question
55
asks
for
an
NPDES
permit
number
if
the
facility
has
one,
and
Question
56
asks
for
the
location
of
the
discharge.
These
questions
will
help
EPA
with
the
environmental
assessment
and
impact
studies.

After
completing
Question
56,
the
respondent
is
directed
to
the
additional
cost
and
economic
sections
of
the
survey,
for
those
who
discharge
offsite.
For
those
with
only
other
aquaculture
systems
and
onsite
discharges,
the
respondent
is
directed
to
the
certification
section.

Cost
Information.
Question
57
requests
the
respondent
to
identify
all
pollution
control
practices,
the
year
in
which
it
was
installed,
the
original
capital
cost
and
the
annual
operating
and
maintenance
(
O&
M)
costs
for
the
pollution
control
practices
only.
EPA
will
use
this
information
to
develop
cost
estimates
for
regulatory
options.

While
Question
57
requests
information
on
capital
and
O&
M
costs
for
pollution
control
practices
only,
Question
58
asks
for
detailed
information
on
the
annual
operating
and
maintenance
costs
for
the
facility
that
were
not
related
to
treatment.
EPA
needs
to
understand
existing
costs
for
existing
practices
to
evaluate
the
economic
impacts
of
additional
pollution
control
costs.

Monitoring
Information.
Question
59
requests
identification
of
pollutants
measured
and
the
frequency
of
monitoring
during
the
three
most
recent
years
starting
with
2000.
EPA
needs
this
information
to
characterize
and
study
each
facility's
discharge
permit
status,
the
pollutants
typically
regulated
prior
to
the
effluent
guideline
development,
and
frequency
monitored.
EPA
will
also
use
this
information
to
estimate
incremental
monitoring
costs
due
to
the
compliance
of
the
rule.

Product
Losses.
Question
60
asks
operators
to
estimate
the
total
loss
(
including
losses
from
predation,
escapes,
mortalities,
disease
or
other)
of
fish
or
other
animal
aquaculture
in
fiscal
year
2000.
Question
61
asks
operators
to
identify
the
number
of
escapees,
if
any.

Feed
Information.
Question
62
asks
for
the
amount
of
feed
(
annual
and
maximum
month),
feed
type,
and
feed
content
used
in
fiscal
year
2000.
40
CFR
122.24
Appendix
C
defines
a
concentrated
aquatic
animal
production
facility
for
cold
water
species
in
terms
of
either
harvest
weight
per
year
(
less
than
9,090
kg)
or
maximum
feed
month
(
less
than
2,272
kg).
EPA
will
use
the
feed
information
to
identify
facilities
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
34
that
are
covered
under
the
existing
requirements.
EPA
also
will
study
this
information
to
evaluate
possible
best
management
practices
in
aquatic
animal
production
operations.

(
ii)
Economic
and
Financial
Information
EPA
developed
three
versions
of
Part
B:
Economic
and
Financial
Information
to
address
different
questions
to
private/
commercial,
government,
and
academic/
research
facilities.
The
new
design
minimizes
burden
on
the
respondents
by
restricting
the
questions
to
those
applicable
to
each
respondent.
All
three
sections
begin
with
a
Question
63
because
the
last
question
in
the
technical
section
(
which
is
applicable
to
all
respondents)
is
Question
62.

(
A)
Private/
Commercial
EPA
introduces
the
economic
and
financial
portion
of
the
questionnaire
by
providing
an
explanation
of
why
the
data
being
requested
are
needed.
EPA
believes
that
 
when
the
respondent
understands
the
role
of
economic
and
financial
analysis
in
establishing
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards
 
the
respondent
will
also
see
that
it
is
to
his/
her
benefit
that
EPA
be
able
to
evaluate
economic
impacts
using
real­
world
data
that
reflects
actual
operating
conditions.

Question
63
asks
the
respondent
to
identify
whether
he
or
she
uses
a
cash
or
an
accrual
accounting
system.
EPA
needs
this
information
to
understand
which
data
items
it
anticipates
the
respondent
should
be
able
to
provide
and,
more
importantly,
to
know
whether
income
earned
reflects
costs
incurred
in
the
production
of
what
was
sold.

Question
64
requests
income
information
for
fiscal
years
2000,
1999,
and
1998
for
all
activities
at
the
facility.
EPA
limited
the
number
of
individual
items
requested
and
cross­
referenced
each
line
item
with
Internal
Revenue
Service
(
IRS)
Schedule
F
and
Schedule
C
tax
forms
as
part
of
EPA's
efforts
to
minimize
burden.
As
a
second
method
of
minimizing
burden,
the
respondent
is
given
the
option
of
voluntarily
providing
copies
of
his/
her
tax
filings
for
farm
income
(
e.
g.,
Schedule
F
or
Schedule
C)
or
prepared
income
statements
for
2000,
1999,
and
1998
in
lieu
of
completing
the
question.
EPA
is
not
requesting
off­
farm
income,
hence,
there
are
no
references
to
IRS
Form
1040.

EPA
asks
for
total
sales
and
gross
income
for
all
activities
at
the
farm.
Total
sales
and
gross
income
differs
by
such
components
as
cooperative
distributions,
agricultural
payment
programs,
commodity
credit
corporation
(
CCC)
loans,
custom
hire
[
machine
work]
income,
and
Federal
and
state
gasoline
or
fuel
tax
credit
or
refunds.
These
other
forms
of
farm
income
could
potentially
play
an
important
role
in
farm
finances,
and
EPA
needs
to
understand
this
aspect
when
modeling
economic
impacts.
EPA
asks
for
cost
of
products
sold
(
aquatic
animals,
livestock,
produce,
grains,
and
other
products)
for
those
farms
that
keep
financial
records
on
an
accrual
basis.

EPA
asks
for
total
expenses
and
individual
expense
items,
including
chemicals;
depreciation;
feed
purchased;
fertilizers
and
lime;
gasoline,
fuel
and
oil;
insurance
(
other
than
health);
mortgage
interest;
other
interest;
rent
or
lease
on
vehicles,
machinery,
and
equipment
or
land,
animals,
and
other;
repairs
and
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
35
maintenance;
taxes;
and
utilities.
Each
item
is
cross­
referenced
to
IRS
Schedule
F
and
Schedule
C
to
minimize
burden.
EPA
might
consider
options
that
affect
individual
cost
components
listed
and
the
data
provide
information
on
baseline
(
pre­
regulatory)
expenses.
For
example,
EPA
might
place
limitations
on
chemicals,
fertilizers
and
lime,
and
feed
used
in
order
to
control
contaminants
that
might
enter
the
water.
Mortgage
interest
and
other
existing
interest
payments
interact
with
farm
earnings
to
affect
the
amount
of
additional
debt
capacity
the
farm
has
available
for
response
to
EPA
effluent
limitations
guidelines.
Rent
from
available
land
might
be
lost
if
the
land
is
needed
to
construct
effluent
treatment.
Taxes
affect
net
earnings.
Depreciation
is
needed
to
evaluate
projected
earnings
on
a
cash
and/
or
net
income
basis.
If
an
option
includes
aeration,
for
example,
EPA
might
wish
to
compare
how
it
raises
the
farm's
utility
costs.
Question
64
provides
the
data
for
the
farm­
level
analysis
(
and
the
company­
level
analysis
for
single
facility
firms).

EPA
is
requesting
three
years
of
cost
and
income
data
for
several
reasons.
First,
and
most
important,
many
farms
keep
financial
records
on
a
cash
basis.
That
is,
revenue
is
recorded
when
received
(
not
when
earned)
and
expenses
are
recorded
when
paid
(
not
when
incurred).
Some
species
have
grow­
out
periods
in
excess
of
a
year,
hence
revenue
from
that
harvest
is
not
necessarily
offset
by
all
the
costs
incurred
by
the
product
because
they
were
incurred
in
an
earlier
year.
Three
consecutive
years
of
data
will
provide
a
much
more
accurate
picture
of
the
financial
condition
of
the
facility.
Second,
three
years
of
data
provides
EPA
with
an
estimate
of
the
year­
to­
year
variation
in
income
and
costs.
The
farm­
level
analysis
will
not
hinge
on
a
single,
possibly
atypical,
year.
Third,
EPA
can
identify
possible
outliers
or
trends
in
the
data.
A
farm
might
be
projected
to
fail
prior
to
any
incurrence
of
regulatory
costs
if
all
three
years
show
declining
to
negative
income.

EPA
needs
total
farm
income
because:
(
1)
EPA
wishes
to
examine
situations
where
a
successful
aquatic
animal
production
enterprise
offsets
losses
from
other
facility
enterprises.
In
such
a
situation,
reduced
profitability
in
the
aquatic
animal
production
might
lead
to
facility
failure
even
though
the
enterprise
is
still
profitable;
(
2)
lending
decisions
are
frequently
made
on
the
ability
of
the
farm
to
incur
additional
debt,
not
just
whether
the
enterprise
appears
feasible;
(
3)
EPA
wishes
to
evaluate
potential
impacts
such
as
the
loss
of
co­
located
agricultural
activities;
and
(
4)
the
Small
Business
Administration
sets
size
standards
at
the
company
level
(
at
the
farm
level,
generally,
in
this
industry),
not
an
enterprise
level.
The
facility­
level
analysis
includes
a
closure
analysis
based
on
information
collected
in
Question
64,
an
evaluation
of
the
ability
to
incur
additional
debt,
and
a
farm
vulnerability
analysis
modeled
on
USDA
methodology
which
examines
a
combination
of
net
income
and
debt­
to­
assets
ratio
for
the
farm.
If
EPA
does
not
collect
this
information,
it
loses
the
matched
pairs
of
costs
and
revenues
to
identify
marginal
facilities,
the
range
in
profitability
of
farm
operations
under
real
world
conditions,
and
the
range
in
impacts
caused
by
additional
water
pollution
control
costs.

Questions
65
and
66
request
more
detailed
information
on
total
sales
data.
Question
65
asks
the
respondent
if
any
of
the
sales
result
from
fee
fishing
operations
and,
if
so,
to
identify
the
amounts.
Feefishing
impacts
might
include
loss
in
recreation
as
well
as
loss
in
income
to
the
facility.
Question
66
asks
the
respondent
if
he
or
she
raised
agricultural
products
other
than
aquatic
animals
and,
if
so,
to
identify
the
income
from
various
operations.
Information
gathered
from
this
question
helps
EPA
understand
the
relative
role
played
by
aquatic
animal
production
in
facility
operations.
EPA
is
interested
in
income
from
co­
located
crops
because
an
impact
on
aquatic
animal
production
operations
might
also
result
in
lost
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
36
income
from
co­
located
activities.
In
both
questions,
the
respondent
skips
to
the
next
question
if
the
answer
is
"
no."
The
respondent
is
also
allowed
to
make
a
best
estimate
to
complete
these
questions
and
to
check
a
box
so
that
EPA
knows
the
responses
are
best
estimates.

Question
67
follows
the
same
format
as
Question
64,
however,
the
response
is
restricted
to
aquatic
animal
production
operations
only.
A
goal
of
the
analysis
is
to
identify
enterprises
that
might
close
due
to
additional
pollution
control
requirements.
The
data
provide
EPA
with
matched
pairs
of
real
costs
and
revenues
for
real
individual
enterprises,
thus
providing
the
most
accurate
way
to
construct
the
estimates
necessary
for
the
closure
model.
The
forecasted
income
for
the
enterprise
is
a
major
determinant
of
the
net
present
value
of
continued
operations.
The
income
projections
are
calculated
using
the
information
collected
in
the
survey,
including
the
tax
status
of
the
facility.
Direct
losses
in
output,
and
employment
are
calculated
directly
from
the
closure
analysis
results
and
survey
responses.
The
data
enable
EPA
to
identify
marginal
aquatic
animal
production
operations,
the
range
in
profitability
of
aquatic
animal
production
operations
under
real
world
conditions,
and
the
range
in
impacts
caused
by
additional
water
pollution
control
costs.
In
sum,
these
data
form
the
basis
for
the
enterprise­
level
economic
analysis.

EPA
received
several
comments
that
the
economic
analysis
should
be
restricted
to
aquaculture
enterprise
data.
EPA
concurs
that
it
is
important
to
evaluate
the
impact
of
incremental
pollution
control
costs
on
existing
aquatic
enterprises.
However,
aquatic
animal
production
operations
may
be
the
only
enterprise
at
the
facility
or
one
of
many
agricultural
enterprises
at
the
facility.
In
the
first
situation,
the
enterprise
and
facility
analyses
are
the
same
and
the
respondent
does
not
have
to
complete
Question
67.
In
the
second
case,
aquatic
animal
production
might
be
profitable
or
unprofitable
when
examined
in
isolation,
and
might
also
support
or
be
supported
by
other
enterprises
at
the
facility.
That
is,
the
comparison
of
the
enterprise­
level
analysis
(
Question
67
data)
and
the
facility­
level
analysis
(
Question
64
data)
will
clarify
the
relative
profitability
of
the
aquatic
animal
production
operations
to
the
overall
profitability
of
the
farm/
facility.
The
respondent
may
use
best
estimates
to
complete
the
question
as
well
as
prepared
financial
statements.
The
reasons
for
collecting
three
years
of
data
are
the
same
as
those
given
for
Question
64.

Question
68
requests
the
value
of
aquatic
animal
products
from
the
facility
by
product
category
and
in
total
for
fiscal
years
2000,
1999,
and
1998.
In
effect,
Question
68
requests
the
respondent
to
provide
a
detailed
breakdown
of
the
aquatic
animal
production
revenues
identified
in
Question
67.
This
information
is
necessary
to
determine
the
impact
of
regulation
on
certain
product
categories
(
e.
g.,
a
facility
may
suspend
some
product
categories
that
involve
more
effluent
or
that
will
be
subject
to
stricter
limitations.
In
other
words,
EPA
uses
the
value
of
aquatic
animal
production
when
estimating
the
direct
impacts
of
regulatory
options.
Where
products
correspond
to
subcategories,
EPA
is
required
to
evaluate
economic
achievability
by
subcategory.

Question
68
also
requests
the
total
quantities
of
aquatic
animal
products
sold
by
category
and
in
total
for
fiscal
years
2000,
1999,
and
1998.
EPA
uses
the
quantity
of
aquatic
animal
production
when
estimating
the
direct
impacts
of
regulatory
options.
If
EPA
establishes
regulatory
cutoffs
based
on
production
levels,
EPA
could
use
the
information
to
evaluate
who
is
within
the
scope
of
the
proposed
regulation.
EPA
also
might
use
the
information
to
evaluate
the
feasibility
and
appropriateness
of
production­
based
effluent
limitations.
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
37
Question
69
begins
by
asking
whether
the
farm/
facility
prepares
corporate
balance
sheets.
If
so,
the
respondent
completes
five
entries
from
the
2000
balance
statement.
The
question
is
designed
to
be
applicable
to
both
cash
and
accrual
accounting
methods.
Entries
are
included
for
inventories
(
if
accrual
based),
current
assets
excluding
inventories,
and
long­
term
assets
such
as
real
estate,
buildings,
and
equipment.
On
the
liabilities
side,
entries
are
included
for
current
liabilities
and
long­
term
debt.
Each
item
has
an
accompanying
description
plus
examples.
The
respondent
is
asked
to
identify
whether
the
balance
sheet
was
constructed
on
a
market
value
basis,
cost
basis,
or
unknown
basis.

If
the
respondent
does
not
have
prepared
corporate
balance
sheets,
he
or
she
skips
to
Question
70.
This
question
is
a
list
of
items
designed
to
help
the
respondent
construct
basic
balance
sheet
information.
The
form
is
designed
for
both
accrual
and
cash
methods
of
accounting.
EPA
states
that
it
does
not
intend
for
the
respondent
to
hire
a
professional
to
complete
this
question,
but
that
the
Agency
believes
that
it
can
perform
a
better
economic
analysis
with
best
estimates
rather
than
no
financial
information.
The
respondent
is
reminded
that
the
toll­
free
Help
Line
is
available
for
assistance.

EPA
examined
many
financial
analyses
for
farm
operations,
including
financial
ratio
analysis.
Most
financial
ratio
analyses
require
balance
sheet
information
in
their
calculation.
EPA
will
use
the
balance
sheet
data
to
calculate
a
series
of
financial
ratios
that
indicate
financial
health
and
viability
(
e.
g.,
current
ratio,
working
capital­
to­
debt,
and
debt­
to­
assets).
Based
on
a
methodology
typically
used
by
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture,
EPA
intends
to
use
a
combination
of
debt­
to­
assets
and
net
income
to
classify
a
farm
as
favorable,
marginally
solvent,
marginally
profitable,
or
vulnerable.

Question
71
asks
the
respondent
to
identify
the
percentage
of
sales
and
production
(
pounds)
at
the
company
level
that
are
attributable
to
finfish,
hatchery,
shellfish,
and
other
aquatic
animal
production
operations.
The
data
will
identify
the
appropriate
NAICS
code(
s)
for
the
company.

(
B
)
Government
EPA
establishes
effluent
limitations
guidelines
by
industry,
including
public
facilities
such
as
Federal
and
State
hatcheries.
Question
63
asks
for
the
total
operating
budget
for
2000,
1999,
and
1998.
Question
64
asks
the
respondent
to
identify
funding
source(
s)
for
the
operating
budget.
EPA
may
evaluate
the
annualized
cost
of
incremental
wastewater
treatment
as
a
percent
of
the
operating
budget
or
the
increases
in
user
fees
needed
to
cover
the
additional
costs.

Question
65
requests
information
in
how
the
government
facility
allocates
its
funding.
For
example,
increased
pollution
control
costs
might
be
a
small
fraction
of
the
overall
facility
budget,
but
it
might
be
a
substantial
portion
of
aquatic
animal
production
activities
(
items
a
and
b).
The
ability
to
make
these
two
comparisons
is
analogous
to
the
enterprise­
level
and
facility­
level
analyses
performed
for
the
private/
commercial
facilities.

Question
66
asks
the
respondent
to
identify
fish
and
egg
recipients.
EPA
needs
this
information
to
assess
impacts
on
the
populations
served
by
the
government
facilities,
particularly
Indian
tribes.
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
38
Question
67
requests
the
value
and
quantity
of
aquatic
animal
products
sold
from
the
facility
by
product
category
and
in
total
for
fiscal
years
2000,
1999,
and
1998.
Sales
may
or
may
not
be
a
substantial
portion
of
funding
for
state
and
local
hatcheries.
This
information
is
necessary
to
determine
the
impact
of
regulation
on
certain
product
categories
(
e.
g.,
a
facility
may
suspend
some
product
categories
which
involve
more
effluent
in
their
production
due
to
impending
regulation).
In
other
words,
EPA
uses
the
value
and
quantity
of
aquatic
animal
production
when
estimating
the
direct
impacts
of
regulatory
options.
Where
products
correspond
to
subcategories,
EPA
is
required
to
evaluate
economic
achievability
by
subcategory.

Most
government
hatcheries,
however,
do
not
focus
on
commercial
transactions
but
on
raising
aquatic
animals
for
recreational
and
restoration
purposes.
Question
68
requests
the
quantity
and
estimated
market
value
of
aquatic
animal
products
distributed
or
transferred
from
the
facility
by
product
category
and
in
total
for
fiscal
years
2000,
1999,
and
1998.
This
information
is
necessary
to
determine
the
impact
of
regulation
on
certain
product
categories.

The
quantities
reported
in
Questions
67
and
68
combine
to
report
the
entire
production
for
the
facility.
If
EPA
establishes
regulatory
cutoffs
based
on
production
levels,
EPA
could
use
the
information
to
evaluate
who
is
within
the
scope
of
the
proposed
regulation.
EPA
also
might
use
the
information
to
evaluate
the
feasibility
and
appropriateness
of
production­
based
effluent
limitations.

(
C)
Academic/
Research
EPA
establishes
effluent
limitations
guidelines
by
industry,
including
academic
and
research
facilities.
Question
63
asks
for
the
total
operating
budget
for
2000,
1999,
and
1998
as
well
as
whether
the
budget
is
at
the
facility­
level
or
department­
level.
Question
64
asks
the
respondent
to
identify
funding
source(
s)
for
the
operating
budget
and
whether
it
is
base
funding
or
grant
funding.
Grant
funding
is
restricted
to
the
project
and
cannot
be
applied
toward
other
purposes,
such
as
incremental
pollution
control.
EPA
may
evaluate
the
annualized
cost
of
incremental
wastewater
treatment
as
a
percent
of
the
base
funding.

Question
65
requests
information
on
how
the
facility
allocates
its
funding.
For
example,
increased
pollution
control
costs
might
be
a
small
fraction
of
the
overall
budget,
but
it
might
be
a
substantial
portion
of
aquatic
animal
production
activities
(
items
a
and
b).
The
ability
to
make
these
two
comparisons
is
analogous
to
the
enterprise­
level
and
facility­
level
analyses
performed
for
the
private/
commercial
facilities.

Question
66
requests
the
value
and
quantity
of
aquatic
animal
products
sold
from
the
facility
by
product
category
and
in
total
for
fiscal
years
2000,
1999,
and
1998.
Sales
may
or
may
not
be
a
substantial
portion
of
funding
for
academic
and
research
facilities.
This
information
is
necessary
to
determine
the
impact
of
regulation
on
certain
product
categories
(
e.
g.,
a
facility
may
suspend
some
product
categories
which
involve
more
effluent
in
their
production
due
to
impending
regulation).
In
other
words,
EPA
uses
the
value
and
quantity
of
aquatic
animal
production
when
estimating
the
direct
impacts
of
regulatory
options.
Where
products
correspond
to
subcategories,
EPA
is
required
to
evaluate
economic
achievability
by
subcategory.
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
39
Academic
and
research
facilities
may
raise
aquatic
animals
for
distribution
purposes.
Question
67
requests
the
quantity
and
estimated
market
value
of
aquatic
animal
products
distributed
or
transferred
from
the
facility
by
product
category
and
in
total
for
fiscal
years
2000,
1999,
and
1998.
This
information
is
necessary
to
determine
the
impact
of
regulation
on
certain
product
categories.

The
quantities
reported
in
Questions
66
and
67
combine
to
report
the
entire
production
for
the
facility.
If
EPA
establishes
regulatory
cutoffs
based
on
production
levels,
EPA
could
use
the
information
to
evaluate
who
is
within
the
scope
of
the
proposed
regulation.
EPA
also
might
use
the
information
to
evaluate
the
feasibility
and
appropriateness
of
production­
based
effluent
limitations.

4(
c)
COLLECTION
OF
2000
AQUATIC
ANIMAL
PRODUCTION
INDUSTRY
DATA
ACTIVITIES
Respondents
will
engage
in
the
following
activities
to
respond
to
the
Collection
of
2000
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry
Surveys
(
includes
screener,
detailed,
and
follow­
up):

#
review
survey
instructions
#
gather
requested
information
and
data
#
complete
survey
instrument
#
review
survey
response
#
mail
completed
survey
response
None
of
the
activities
associated
with
the
Collection
of
2000
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry
Data
is
considered
to
be
a
customary
and
usual
business
practice.

5.
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTED
 
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY,
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
5(
a)
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES
The
2000
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry
Data
collection
instruments
have
been
developed
by
EPA's
Engineering
and
Analysis
Division
(
EAD).
EAD
has
planned
for
and
allocated
resources
for
the
efficient
and
effective
management
of
the
information
to
be
collected.
EPA
is
conducting
the
following
activities
in
administering
the
survey
instruments:

°
Design
the
survey
instruments;
°
Create
a
mailing
list
database;
°
Provide
copies
of
the
survey
instruments
to
JSA
AETF
members
for
review;
°
Discuss
the
data
collection
and
the
burden
associated
with
its
administration
with
the
JSA
AETF
members;
°
Publish
a
notice
in
the
Federal
Register
to
announce
the
upcoming
ICR;
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
40
°
Consider
and
respond
to
all
comments
received,
and
revise
the
data
collection
based
on
these
comments;
°
Develop
the
ICR
package,
and
submit
the
package
to
OMB;
°
Design
a
system
to
track
mailing
and
receipt
activities;
°
Mail
survey
instruments;
°
Develop
and
maintain
Help
Lines
and
Internet
addresses
for
technical
and
economic
assistance;
°
Maintain
the
tracking
system;
°
Implement
appropriate
procedures
for
handling
CBI
responses;
°
Develop
guidelines
for
reviewing
and
coding
the
responses;
°
Develop
electronic
databases,
data
entry
systems,
and
documentation;
°
Review
and
code
survey
responses
for
input
to
an
electronic
database;
°
Collect
missing
information;
°
Enter
and
verify
data
in
the
database;
°
Conduct
follow­
up
activities,
as
necessary.

The
Agency
will
use
the
data
collected
through
the
2000
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry
Data
to
characterize
pollutant
discharges
from
aquatic
animal
production
sites,
and
to
develop
regulatory
options
to
control
these
pollutant
discharges.
Specifically,
EPA
will
establish
current
baseline
estimates
of
industry­
wide
production­
normalized
wastewater
flow
rates,
pollutant
concentrations,
and
loadings
in
order
to
analyze
the
engineering
costs
of
compliance,
economic
impacts
and
environmental
benefits
of
each
regulatory
option.
Ultimately,
EPA
will
select
appropriate
regulatory
options
for
the
industry,
and
will
develop
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards
for
the
aquatic
animal
production
industry
to
reflect
the
pollutant
control
practices
chosen
by
EPA
as
the
basis
for
the
guidelines
and
standards.

5(
b)
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
In
response
to
comments
on
EPA's
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry
Survey
(
65
FR
55522),
EPA
has
divided
the
survey
effort
into
two
parts:
a
short
screener
questionnaire
followed
by
a
detailed
questionnaire.

The
screener
questionnaire,
containing
nine
questions,
will
be
sent
to
all
aquatic
animal
production
facilities
known
to
EPA
(
approximately
5,000).
This
survey
will
be
used
both
to
confirm
that
the
facility
is
an
aquatic
animal
producer
and
to
identify
specific
facility
characteristics.
These
characteristics
include
the
type
of
facility
(
commercial,
academic,
or
governmental),
species
in
production,
methods
of
production,
and
pollutant
control
practices
in
place.
EPA
will
use
results
from
the
screener
questionnaire
to
develop
a
sampling
frame
to
select
respondents
to
the
detailed
questionnaire.

Respondents
to
the
detailed
questionnaire
will
all
have
the
same
chance
of
being
selected
from
within
a
particular
group
(
stratified
random
sampling).
Groups
will
be
created
based
on
facility
type,
species
in
production,
and
methods
of
production.
Examples
of
groups
include
commercial
facilities
raising
catfish
in
ponds
and
academic
facilities
raising
tilapia
in
recirculating
systems.
Between
500
and
700
facilities
are
expected
to
receive
the
detailed
questionnaire,
though
the
exact
number
receiving
the
detailed
questionnaire
will
depend
on
combining
results
from
the
screener
census
and
EPA's
design
principles.
These
principles
are
discussed
in
the
Part
B,
Section
2(
c)(
i).
(
The
census
of
pollutant
control
practices
in
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
41
place
will
be
used
to
develop
appropriate
regulatory
baselines
and
options
for
any
potential
regulation
of
the
aquatic
animal
production
industry.
EPA
will
use
detailed
questionnaire
data
for
costing
pollution
control
options
and
analyzing
the
economic
impacts
of
those
costs.)

Neither
the
screener
nor
the
detailed
questionnaire
has
been
officially
pretested.
However,
EPA
has
distributed
multiple
drafts
of
the
detailed
survey
to
JSA
AETF
for
review
and
comment,
and
many
of
the
AETF
members
are
aquatic
animal
producers.
All
of
the
questions
on
the
screener
survey
are
directly
from,
or
parallel
to,
the
detailed
survey.
EPA
is
relying
on
past
experience
with
similar
surveys
to
estimate
the
burden
on
the
industry.
EPA
has
also
received
comments
with
respect
to
the
burden
estimates.
Some
commenters
estimated
it
would
take
them
32
hours
to
complete
the
detailed
survey;
however,
they
did
not
provide
any
information
explaining
how
they
arrived
at
the
number.
EPA
does
estimate
the
average
burden
on
respondents
from
the
detailed
survey
to
be
31
hours
per
survey
(
see
Part
A,
Section
6
of
this
document).

The
screener
survey
collects
information
necessary
to
develop
the
sampling
frame
for
the
detailed
survey
as
well
as
to
develop
national
estimates
for
the
industry
profile.
EPA
designed
the
survey
mailing
list
database
using
information
from
the
following
sources:

°
Dun
&
Bradstreet
°
EPA
Permit
Compliance
System
(
PCS)
Database
°
EPA
State
and
Regional
personnel
°
State
Aquaculture
contacts
°
Bureau
of
Indian
Affairs
EPA
will
administer
the
surveys
in
hard
copy
format.
Respondents
may
download
additional
copies
of
the
surveys
from
EPA's
web
site
or
contact
EPA
if
additional
blank
copies
are
necessary.
However,
the
Agency
requires
that
respondents
submit
their
completed
surveys
in
signed,
certified,
hard
copy
format.

EPA
considered
administering
the
data
collection
surveys
in
an
interactive,
electronic
format.
However,
the
development
of
electronic
surveys
is
not
considered
efficient
for
the
following
reasons:

The
expense
of
developing
and
testing
an
electronic
survey
is
not
cost
effective
because
this
data
collection
is
a
one­
time
survey
effort.
Because
the
surveys
will
not
be
reused,
neither
the
respondents
nor
the
EPA
will
benefit
from
an
electronic
copy
of
the
survey.

Due
to
the
amount
of
detailed
information
required
for
the
effective
review
and
revision
of
the
aquatic
animal
production
industry
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards,
the
detailed
survey
is
complex.
EPA
has
used
several
features,
including
skip
patterns,
to
increase
the
efficiency
with
which
the
respondent
can
complete
the
survey
form.
EPA
will
incur
an
increased
burden
in
programming
these
special
features
into
an
interactive,
electronic
format.
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
42

EPA
could
not
be
sure
the
software
at
respondent
facilities
will
be
compatible
or
that
electronic
responses
will
be
correctly
formatted.
If
the
survey
were
administered
in
interactive,
electronic
format,
it
may
be
necessary
for
EPA
to
make
an
increased
effort
to
clarify
responses.

The
Agency
will
incur
an
increased
burden
in
maintaining
a
computer
support
Help
Line,
in
addition
to
the
potential
(
budget
permitting)
technical
information
and
financial
and
economic
information
Help
Lines.

Through
other
effluent
guidelines
projects,
EPA
has
established
mechanisms,
including
doublekey
entry,
verification,
and
resolution
systems,
for
effective
and
efficient
data
entry
from
hard
copy
surveys.
If
the
surveys
were
administered
in
electronic
format,
EPA
will
incur
increased
burden
in
designing
a
front­
end
electronic
system.

EPA
has
determined
that
the
option
to
administer
the
surveys
in
electronic
format
is
precluded
by
the
added
cost
and
increased
burden
that
will
be
incurred.

Although
EPA
has
chosen
not
to
administer
the
surveys
in
an
interactive,
electronic
format,
the
Agency
has
used
information
technology
throughout
the
development
of
the
surveys,
and
will
continue
to
use
this
technology
to
optimize
the
efficiency
of
both
Agency
and
respondent
activities
associated
with
the
survey.
The
Federal
Register
notice
accompanying
the
ICR
submission
to
OMB
includes
an
Internet
address
at
which
commenters
and
interested
members
of
the
public
may
download
the
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Data
ICR
package.
Finally,
EPA
will
provide
technical
information
and
economic
information
Internet
addresses
through
which
survey
respondents
may
obtain
Help
Line
assistance
on
the
detailed
questionnaire.

Where
possible,
EPA
will
distribute
the
survey
instruments
via
Federal
Express
or
a
comparable
carrier
that
requires
a
signature
to
acknowledge
receipt
of
delivery.
Through
this
process,
EPA
will
ensure
that
each
designated
site
receives
the
survey,
and
that
a
preliminary
point­
of­
contact
(
the
signee)
has
been
identified.
From
the
date
of
receipt,
aquatic
animal
production
industry
sites
will
have
45
calendar
days
to
respond
and
return
the
completed
detailed
survey
to
the
Agency.
Recipients
of
the
screener
survey
will
have
15
days
to
respond
and
return
the
completed
survey
to
the
Agency.

Budget
permitting,
EPA
will
maintain
a
toll­
free
technical
information
Help
Line
and
a
toll­
free
financial
and
economic
information
Help
Line
for
all
survey
respondents.
These
Help
Lines
will
be
staffed
with
trained
contractor
personnel
during
normal
business
hours.
In
addition,
EPA
will
provide
Internet
electronic
mailing
addresses
that
respondents
may
use
to
obtain
assistance.
In
every
case,
Help
Line
and
Internet
staff
will
work
to
provide
respondents
with
immediate
assistance.

Each
mailed
survey
will
have
a
unique
facility
identification
number.
EPA
will
use
an
electronic
tracking
system
to
record,
for
each
identification
number,
the
date
the
survey
package
was
distributed,
the
date
the
site
received
the
survey
package
(
i.
e.,
the
date
on
which
a
respondent
signed
for
the
delivery
of
the
survey
package),
the
dates
of
any
necessary
follow­
up
letters
or
telephone
calls
to
respondents,
and
the
date
EPA
receives
the
completed
survey.
The
identification
number
will
also
serve
as
a
facility
identification
code
for
data
entry
in
the
survey
database.
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
43
EPA
and
its
contractors
will
review
completed
surveys
and
perform
coding
and
data
entry
of
survey
responses.
Follow­
up
phone
calls
will
be
made
to
survey
respondents
as
necessary
to
ensure
quality
responses.
The
coded
survey
responses
will
be
entered
into
a
database
designed
to
ensure
the
retrieval
of
all
data
necessary
for
thorough
technical
and
economic
analyses.
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
44
5(
c)
SMALL
ENTITY
FLEXIBILITY
EPA
has
taken
many
steps
to
ensure
that
the
respondent
burden
is
minimized
for
small
entities,
while
collecting
sufficient
data
to
evaluate
regulatory
flexibility
for
small
entities.
EPA
will
identify
the
size
of
the
business
entity
according
to
Small
Business
Administration
definitions
from
survey
information.
The
financial
and
economic
information
collected
in
the
survey
is
necessary
to
perform
the
economic
analysis
of
the
proposed
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards
for
the
aquatic
animal
production
industry
in
order
to
meet
the
requirements
of
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
as
amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
(
SBREFA).
Part
A,
Section
6(
a)
summarizes
the
various
methods
EPA
used
to
minimize
respondent
burden.

5(
d)
SURVEY
SCHEDULE
The
schedule
for
the
data
collection
activities
associated
with
the
aquatic
animal
production
surveys
is
presented
in
Table
5­
1:

Table
5­
1
Screener
and
Detailed
Survey
Schedule
Action
Action
Duration
(
Approximate
Number
of
Calendar
Days)

Screener
surveys
mailed
15
Receive
all
screener
responses
and
conduct
necessary
follow­
up
30
­
After
Mailing
Review
and
code
all
screener
responses
30
­
After
Receipt
Design
explicit
sampling
plan
for
detailed
questionnaire
after
receiving
the
database
of
screener
survey
responses
5
­
After
Coding
Complete
Detailed
surveys
mailed
15
­
After
Sampling
Plan
Developed
Receive
all
detailed
responses
60
­
After
Mailing
Review
and
code
all
detailed
survey
responses
100
­
After
Receipt
Collect
all
missing
or
incomplete
information
115
­
After
Coding
Enter
all
coded
responses
in
database
130
­
After
Coding
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
Table
5­
1
Screener
and
Detailed
Survey
Schedule
45
Publish
preliminary
summary
results
from
both
the
screener
and
the
detailed
questionnaire
in
a
Notice
of
Data
Availability
After
Proposal
in
June,
2002
Publish
final
summary
results
from
both
the
screener
and
the
detailed
questionnaire
in
support
of
the
final
rulemaking.
June,
2004
6.
ESTIMATING
THE
BURDEN
AND
COST
OF
THE
COLLECTION
6(
a)
ESTIMATING
RESPONDENT
BURDEN
Members
of
the
Agency's
aquatic
animal
production
effluent
guidelines
project
team
share
experience
with
the
extensive
data
collection,
maintenance,
and
analysis
activities
associated
with
the
development
of
effluent
guidelines
and
standards,
and
they
worked
closely
with
AETF
members
that
have
detailed
knowledge
of
the
aquatic
animal
production
industry
to
eliminate
redundant,
unclear,
and
unnecessary
questions
from
the
Collection
of
2000
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry
Data.
EPA
designed
the
survey
instruments
to
be
as
user­
friendly
as
possible
by
requesting
data
in
the
form
and
units
in
which
respondents
have
already
collected
them.

The
Agency's
aquatic
animal
production
effluent
guidelines
project
team
designed
the
detailed
survey
instrument
to
include
many
burden­
reducing
formatting
features:

#
Many
questions
are
formatted
in
"
check
box"
form
or
as
easy­
to­
read
tables.
Examples
are
provided
with
several
questions.

#
Questions
on
related
topics
are
grouped
together
in
the
survey.

#
The
respondent
is
directed
to
skip
over
blocks
of
questions
not
relevant
to
his/
her
operation.

#
EPA
cross­
referenced
IRS
form
line
items
with
cost
and
income
information
requested
in
the
survey.

#
EPA
allows
the
respondent
to
voluntarily
provide
copies
of
their
IRS
forms,
income
statements,
and
corporate
balance
sheets
in
lieu
of
completing
some
questions.

#
Instructions
and
definitions
are
provided
in
the
introductory
material
to
the
survey.
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
46
Finally,
the
Agency
has
set
up
toll­
free
Help
Lines
and
Internet
e­
mail
addresses
where
a
respondent
may
request
assistance.
These
telephone
numbers
and
e­
mail
addresses
will
be
prominently
displayed
on
the
cover
of
the
survey
and
in
the
introductory
material.

Tables
6­
1
through
6­
5
present
the
average
hourly
burden
associated
with
all
respondent
activities
necessary
to
complete
the
screener
and
detailed
surveys.
These
correspond
to
the
type
of
survey
received
(
private/
commercial,
government,
or
academic/
research)
and
whether
the
respondent
avails
himself
or
herself
of
the
option
to
voluntarily
submitted
copies
of
prepared
forms
in
lieu
of
answering
some
questions.
Although,
in
many
cases,
the
survey
might
be
completed
by
a
single
individual,
the
Agency
considered
the
following
labor
categories:
facility
operator,
accountant,
clerical
staff,
manager,
and
legal
staff.
People
in
the
first
three
categories
will
be
assumed
to
spend
their
time
reading
instructions,
gathering
data,
and
completing
the
survey
form.
Managers
and
legal
staff
will
be
assumed
to
read
the
instructions
and
review
the
survey
responses.

EPA
estimates
that
it
may
be
necessary
to
perform
follow­
up
efforts
for
both
financial
and
sampling
information.
The
economic
follow­
up
requests
copies
of
company
financial
information
for
businesses
with
more
than
one
aquatic
animal
production
facility.
For
purposes
of
estimating
burden,
EPA
assumes
that
the
effort
involves
the
accountant
locating
and
copying
financial
statements
for
2000,
1999,
and
1998
(
2
hours).
EPA
estimates
that
follow­
up
activities
to
collect
sampling
data
will
involve
2
hours
for
the
facility
operator
and
1
hour
for
the
manager.

Table
6­
1
Average
Respondent
Burden
Per
Screener
Respondent
Activity
Facility
Operator
Accountant
Clerical
Support
Manager
Legal
Support
Total
Burden
Per
Activity
(
Hours)

Read
Instructions
0.25
0.25
Gather
Information
/
Data
0.25
0.25
Complete
Survey
Form
0.25
0.25
Review
Survey
Responses
0
0.25
0.25
Total
Burden
(
hrs)
0.75
0
0
0.25
0
1
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
47
Table
6­
2
Average
Respondent
Burden
Per
Survey
Private/
Commercial
­
No
Forms
Submitted
to
EPA
Respondent
Activity
Facility
Operator
Accountant
Clerical
Support
Manager
Legal
Support
Total
Burden
Per
Activity
(
Hours)

Read
Instructions
1
1
0
2
1
5
Gather
Information
/
Data
4
4
3
0
0
11
Complete
Survey
Form
5
1
2
0
0
8
Review
Survey
Responses
0
0
0
4
3
7
Total
Burden
(
hrs)
10
6
5
6
4
31
Table
6­
3
Average
Respondent
Burden
Per
Survey
Private/
Commercial
­
Forms
Submitted
to
EPA
Respondent
Activity
Facility
Operator
Accountant
Clerical
Support
Manager
Legal
Support
Total
Burden
Per
Activity
(
Hours)

Read
Instructions
1
0
0
2
1
4
Gather
Information
/
Data
4
0
4
0
0
8
Complete
Survey
Form
5
0
2
0
0
7
Review
Survey
Responses
2
0
0
4
1
7
Total
Burden
(
hrs)
12
0
6
6
2
26
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
48
Table
6­
4
Average
Respondent
Burden
Per
Survey
Government
Respondent
Activity
Facility
Operator
Accountant
Clerical
Support
Manager
Legal
Support
Total
Burden
Per
Activity
(
Hours)

Read
Instructions
1
0
0
2
1
4
Gather
Information
/
Data
4
0
3
0
0
7
Complete
Survey
Form
1
0
6
0
0
7
Review
Survey
Responses
0
0
0
4
1
5
Total
Burden
(
hrs)
6
0
9
6
2
23
Table
6­
5
Average
Respondent
Burden
Per
Survey
Academic/
Research
Respondent
Activity
Facility
Operator
Accountant
Clerical
Support
Manager
Legal
Support
Total
Burden
Per
Activity
(
Hours)

Read
Instructions
1
0
0
2
1
4
Gather
Information
/
Data
4
0
3
0
0
7
Complete
Survey
Form
1
0
6
0
0
7
Review
Survey
Responses
0
0
0
4
1
5
Total
Burden
(
hrs)
6
0
9
6
2
23
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
1The
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics'
National
Compensation
Survey:
Occupational
Wages
in
the
United
States,
1997,
Bulletin
2519,
September
1999
excludes
agriculture
from
the
scope
of
the
survey.
The
Compensation
Survey
report
the
average
hourly
earnings
while
the
Current
Population
Survey
reports
median
weekly
earnings.
The
Agency
used
the
same
data
source
for
all
labor
category
estimates
to
avoid
inconsistencies
caused
by
a
switch
between
mean
and
median
estimates.

49
6(
b)
ESTIMATING
RESPONDENT
COSTS
The
Agency
obtained
2000
earnings
data
from
the
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics,
Current
Population
Survey,
Employment
and
Earnings
tables
and
adjusted
them
to
account
for
benefits
(
see
Table
6­
6).
1
Table
6­
7
summarizes
the
total
hours
by
labor
category
and
the
cost
per
hour
for
each
category.
The
average
respondent
labor
cost
is
estimated
to
range
from
$
21
to
$
762,
depending
on
the
survey
version,
whether
a
respondent
opts
to
provide
copies
of
financial
statements
in
lieu
of
completing
some
questions,
or
follow­
up
is
needed.

Table
6­
6
Average
Hourly
Wage
Rate
in
Manufacturing
Industries,
United
States
2000
Dollars
Position
Median
Weekly
Earnings
Weekly
Earnings
Plus
Benefits
Median
Hourly
Earnings
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
Current
Population
Survey
Occupation
Facility
Operator
$
547
$
711
$
17.78
Farm
Operators
and
Managers
Accountant
$
766
$
996
$
24.90
Accountants
and
Auditors
Clerical
Support
$
469
$
610
$
15.24
Typists
Manager
$
965
$
1,255
$
31.36
Financial
managers
Legal
Support
$
1,304
$
1,695
$
42.38
Lawyers
Notes:
Wage
rates
are
increased
by
30%
to
account
for
benefits.

Source:
U.
S.
Department
of
Labor,
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics.
Current
Population
Survey.
Table
39.
Median
Weekly
Earnings
of
Full­
Time
Wage
and
Salary
Workers
Detailed
by
Occupation
and
Sex.
Table
19
 
Persons
at
work
in
agriculture
and
nonagricultural
industries
by
hours
of
work
 
is
the
source
for
an
assumed
40­
hour
week.
<
http://
stats.
bls.
gov/
pdf/
cpsaat39.
pdf>
downloaded
12
April
2001.
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
50
Table
6­
7
Average
Respondent
Labor
Cost
Per
Survey
Parameter
Facility
Operator
Accountant
Clerical
Support
Manager
Legal
Support
Total
Burden
Cost
per
labor
category
$
17.88
$
24.90
$
15.24
$
31.36
$
42.38
Total
labor
burden
Screener
0.75
0.25
1
Private/
No
forms
10
6
5
6
4
31
Private/
Forms
12
0
6
6
2
26
Government
6
0
9
6
2
23
Academic/
Research
6
0
9
6
2
23
Economic
Follow­
up
0
2
0
0
0
2
Sampling
Follow­
up
2
0
0
1
0
3
Labor
Cost
per
Survey
Screener
$
13
$
0
$
0
$
8
$
0
$
21
Private/
No
forms
$
179
$
149
$
76
$
188
$
170
$
762
Private/
Forms
$
215
$
0
$
91
$
188
$
85
$
579
Government
$
107
$
0
$
137
$
188
$
85
$
517
Academic/
Research
$
107
$
0
$
137
$
188
$
85
$
517
Economic
Follow­
up
$
0
$
50
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
50
Sampling
Follow­
up
$
36
$
0
$
0
$
31
$
0
$
67
Because
respondents
to
the
data
collection
surveys
will
be
required
to
photocopy
and
mail
the
completed
surveys,
the
Agency
does
expect
the
aquatic
animal
production
industry
to
incur
operating
and
maintenance
costs
to
respond
to
the
Collection
of
2000
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry
Data.
The
Agency
assumed
a
photocopying
rate
of
$
0.10
per
page.
The
copying
cost
of
the
screener
survey
is
estimated
at
$
0.50
(
assuming
four
pages
in
the
screener
survey
and
one
page
that
EPA
asks
to
photocopy
in
case
additional
space
is
needed).
EPA
estimated
a
mailing
rate
of
$
0.34
assuming
the
respondent
will
return
the
screener
survey
via
regular
mail.
The
total
operation
and
maintenance
costs
to
respond
to
the
screener
per
facility
will
be
$
0.84.
With
a
maximum
of
70
pages
in
the
detailed
survey
and
an
assumed
5
pages
in
financial
statements
and
notes,
the
copying
cost
is
conservatively
estimated
at
$
7.50
per
respondent.
To
determine
the
survey
mailing
rate
of
$
7.50
per
survey,
the
Agency
assumed
that
the
facility
respondents
will
return
the
completed
survey
via
Federal
Express
economy
or
a
comparable
economy
delivery
carrier
that
requires
a
signature
to
acknowledge
receipt.
The
total
operation
and
maintenance
costs
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
51
to
respond
to
the
detailed
survey
per
facility
will
be
$
15.00.
If
economic
follow­
up
is
needed,
the
respondent
is
assumed
to
copy
30
pages
(
10
for
each
year
of
financial
tables
and
notes)
for
a
copying
cost
of
$
3
and
a
mailing
rate
of
$
7.50
for
a
total
cost
of
$
10.50
per
follow­
up.
If
follow­
up
sampling
data
are
collected,
the
respondent
is
assumed
to
copy
20
pages
for
a
copying
cost
of
$
2.00
and
a
mailing
rate
of
$
7.50
for
a
total
cost
of
$
9.50
per
follow­
up.

Because
EPA
will
not
require
survey
respondents
to
purchase
any
goods,
including
equipment
or
machinery,
to
respond
to
the
Collection
of
2000
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry
Data,
the
Agency
does
not
expect
capital
costs
to
result
from
the
administration
of
the
data
collection
surveys.

6(
c)
ESTIMATING
AGENCY
BURDEN
AND
COST
Table
6­
8
presents
an
estimate
of
the
burden
that
EPA
will
incur
to
administer
the
Collection
of
2000
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry
Data.
The
table
identifies
the
collection
administration
tasks
to
be
performed
by
Agency
employees
and
contractors,
and
the
associated
hours
required
for
each
grouping
of
related
tasks.
EPA
determined
Agency
labor
costs
by
multiplying
Agency
burden
figures
by
the
hourly
Agency
labor
rate
of
$
53.08.
EPA
determined
this
rate
by
dividing
the
2000
GS­
13,
Step
5
rate
for
the
Washington­
Baltimore
Area
of
$
69,008
by
a
person­
year
of
2,080
hours,
and
then
multiplying
the
result
by
a
benefits
multiplication
factor
of
1.6.
EPA
determined
contractor
labor
costs
by
multiplying
contractor
burden
figures
by
an
average
contract
labor
rate
of
$
70.
This
rate
is
consistent
with
current
Agency
contracts.
Table
6­
8
also
includes
estimates
of
the
one­
time
operating
and
maintenance
costs
associated
with
printing,
photocopying,
and
postage.
EPA
estimated
these
costs
based
on
experience
with
similar
collections.
Total
Agency
costs
(
including
contractor
and
O&
M
costs)
are
estimated
at
$
463,280.
Labor
costs
for
responding
to
comments,
revising
survey,
and
analyzing
survey
responses
contribute
to
the
majority
of
total
costs.
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
52
Table
6­
8
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
for
Screener
and
Detailed
Surveys
(
including
Contractor
Cost)

Activities
Agency
Contractor
Burden
(
hours)
O&
M
(
Dollars)
Total
Cost
Burden
(
hours)
O&
M
(
Dollars)
Total
Cost
$
53.08/
hr
$
70/
hr
Develop
the
survey
instrument;
Provide
the
draft
survey
instrument
to
industry
trade
associations
for
review;
Meet
with
trade
association
representatives;
Publish
notice
of
anticipated
ICR
in
Federal
Register;
Respond
to
all
comments
received;
Revise
survey
instrument
based
on
reviewers'
comments.
300
$
15,924
200
$
14,000
Develop
a
mailing
list
database;
Develop
a
system
to
track
mailing
and
receipt
activities;
Mail
survey
instruments.
200
$
10,616
400
$
28,000
Develop
and
maintain
Help
Line
and
Internet
address
150
$
7,962
400
$
28,000
Maintain
response
tracking
system;
Implement
appropriate
procedures
for
handling
CBI
responses;
Review
and
code
responses;
Collect
missing
information.
600
$
31,848
2,500
$
175,000
Enter
and
verify
data
300
$
15,924
1,500
$
105,000
Economic
Followup
50
$
2,654
100
$
7,000
Sampling
Followup
25
$
1,327
120
$
8,400
COLUMN
TOTALS
BURDEN
AND
COST
1,625
$
3,625
$
86,255
5,220
$
8,000
$
365,400
TOTAL
BURDEN
AND
COST
$
463,280
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
53
6(
d)
BOTTOM
LINE
HOURS
AND
COST
TABLE
Table
6­
9
summarizes
the
total
costs
that
the
aquatic
animal
production
industry
and
the
Agency
will
incur
as
a
result
of
the
Collection
of
2000
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry
Data.
The
upper
bound
estimate
with
5000
screener
surveys,
700
detailed
surveys,
100
economic
follow­
up
requests,
and
25
follow­
up
sampling
information
requests
is
$
586,268
for
the
respondent
community
and
$
463,280
for
the
Agency.

Table
6­
9
Total
Estimated
Respondent
and
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
Parameter
Respondent
Cost
Agency
Cost
Screener
Private
Gov't
Academic/
Research
Follow­
up
No
Forms
Forms
Econ.
Sample
Number
of
Respondents
5000
315
315
59
11
100
25
5,825
Cost
per
labor
per
survey
$
21
$
762
$
579
$
517
$
517
$
50
$
67
$
451,655
Copying
and
mailing
costs
per
survey
(
O&
M
costs)
$
1
$
15.00
$
15.00
$
15.00
$
15.00
$
10.50
$
9.50
$
11,625
Total
Cost
$
109,200
$
244,755
$
187,110
$
31,388
$
5,852
$
6,050
$
1,913
$
463,280
Note:
Estimates
of
the
number
of
respondents
to
the
detailed
questionnaire
are
for
respondent
burden
estimates
only.
EPA
has
not
yet
determined
the
sampling
frame
for
the
detailed
questionnaire.

6(
e)
REASONS
FOR
CHANGE
IN
BURDEN
Because
the
Collection
of
2000
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry
Data
Information
Collection
Request
is
not
associated
with
the
renewal
or
modification
of
any
existing
ICR,
the
burden
estimate
associated
with
this
survey
does
not
represent
a
change
in
any
existing
ICR
burden
estimate.
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
54
Form
Approved
OMB
Control
No.
­
Approval
Expires
/
/

The
public
reporting
and
recordkeeping
burden
for
this
survey
is
estimated
to
average
31
hours.
Burden
means
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
the
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
An
agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to,
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
control
number.
Send
comments
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
through
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques
to
the
Director,
Office
of
Policy,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Regulatory
Information
Division,
MC
2137,
401
M
Street,
S.
W.,
Washington,
DC
20460.
Include
OMB
control
number
in
any
correspondence.
Do
not
send
the
completed
survey
to
this
address.
6(
f)
BURDEN
STATEMENT
The
following
statement
will
be
included
in
the
questionnaire:
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
55
PART
B
1.
SURVEY
OBJECTIVES,
KEY
VARIABLES,
AND
OTHER
PRELIMINARIES
1(
a)
SURVEY
OBJECTIVES
The
aquatic
animal
production
survey
will
provide
information
essential
to
establishing
a
need
for
and
developing
regulations
under
Section
304(
m)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act.
Survey
data
are
essential
for
characterizing
the
nationwide
and
industry­
specific
status
of
aquatic
animal
production
facility
locations,
the
types
of
operations,
wastewater
characteristics,
wastewater
management
technology,
and
for
assessing
the
financial
status
of
aquatic
animal
production
facilities
potentially
affected
by
proposed
regulations.

1(
b)
KEY
VARIABLES
Please
refer
to
Part
A,
Section
4(
b),
of
this
ICR
for
information
on
this
topic
.

1(
c)
STATISTICAL
APPROACH
The
objectives
of
the
survey
information
collection
can
be
achieved
by
a
screener
census
and
a
detailed
sample
survey
at
considerably
lower
cost
and
burden
(
to
EPA
and
respondents)
than
will
be
required
for
a
detailed
census.
In
response
to
comments,
EPA
has
determined
that
a
screener
census
is
required
to
ensure
that
the
detailed
sample
survey
is
sent
to
the
types
of
facilities
necessary
to
evaluate
potential
regulatory
subcategories.
A
statistically
designed
sample
survey
is
necessary
to
ensure
that
the
resulting
inferences
and
analyses
are
as
statistically
unbiased
and
as
precise
as
is
practicable.
The
cost
and
time
burden
on
both
industry
and
EPA
is
reduced
by
collecting
detailed
information
through
a
sample
survey,
as
opposed
to
sending
the
detailed
questionnaire
to
all
facilities
in
the
aquatic
animal
production
industry.

This
survey
has
been
designed
and
will
be
implemented
with
the
assistance
of
four
contractors.
Tetra
Tech,
Inc,
10309
Eaton
Place,
Suite
340,
Fairfax,
VA
22030
will
provide
engineering
support
under
EPA
Contract
No.
68­
C­
99­
263,
which
is
monitored
by
the
Energy
Branch,
Engineering
and
Analysis
Division
of
EPA's
Office
of
Science
and
Technology.
Eastern
Research
Group,
Inc.
(
ERG),
110
Hartwell
Avenue,
Lexington,
MA
02421­
3136
will
provide
economic
and
financial
support
under
EPA
Contract
No.
68­
C6­
0022,
which
is
monitored
by
the
Economics
and
Statistics
Branch,
Engineering
and
Analysis
Division
of
EPA's
Office
of
Science
and
Technology.
Westat,
at
1650
Research
Blvd,
Rockville,
MD
20850
will
provide
statistical
support
under
EPA
Contract
No.
68­
C­
99­
242,
which
is
monitored
by
the
Economics
and
Statistical
Analysis
Branch,
Engineering
and
Analysis
Division,
Office
of
Science
and
Technology
of
EPA's
Office
of
Water.
Science
Applications
International
Corporation
(
SAIC),
at
11251
Roger
Bacon,
Reston,
VA
22090
will
also
provide
statistical
support
under
EPA
Contract
No.
68­
C­
99­
233,
which
is
monitored
by
the
Economic
And
Statistical
Analysis
Branch,
Engineering
and
Analysis
Division,
Office
of
Science
and
Technology
of
EPA's
Office
of
Water.
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
56
1(
d)
FEASIBILITY
The
survey
will
be
conducted
under
the
authority
of
Section
308
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
33
U.
S.
C.
1318).
Surveys
will
be
mailed
to
aquatic
animal
production
facilities.
Toll­
free
telephone
help
lines
will
be
provided
by
contractors.
Respondents
are
provided
information
regarding
these
help
lines
in
the
General
Information
and
Instructions
sections
of
the
screener
and
detailed
surveys.

The
collection
schedule
(
see
Section
5(
d)
in
Part
A
of
this
ICR)
accounts
for
the
events
and
response
times
leading
up
to
final
analysis
of
survey
data.
This
project
will
involve
the
design
of
analyses,
computer
programs,
and
report
formats
in
advance
of
data
entry
of
survey
responses.
This
approach
will
ensure
that
key
results
are
reported
promptly
once
data
entry
and
data
quality
checks
are
finished.
Completion
of
these
tasks
will
require
planning
and
coordination
among
the
contractors
for
statistical,
technical,
and
financial
analyses.

2.
SURVEY
DESIGN
This
information
collection
request
covers
two
separate
but
related
questionnaire
instruments.
The
first
is
a
screener
questionnaire
and
the
second
is
a
detailed
questionnaire.
The
procedures
for
collecting
information
associated
with
each
instrument
are
detailed
below.

2(
a)
TARGET
POPULATION
To
obtain
valuable
information
on
the
aquatic
animal
production
industry's
wastewater
management
practices,
EPA
has
targeted
aquatic
animal
production
facilities
with
pond,
flow­
through,
recirculating
system,
net
pens
and
cages,
floating
aquaculture
and
bottom
culture,
and
other
aquaculture
operations.
The
species
include
those
listed
in
Appendix
A
of
the
detailed
survey.
The
target
population
also
includes
private/
commercial,
government,
and
academic/
research
institutions.

2(
b)
SAMPLING
DESIGN
The
sampling
design
will
combine
a
screener
census
with
a
detailed
survey
that
uses
a
stratified
probability
sample.
Strata
for
the
detailed
survey
will
be
developed
using
information
from
EPA's
screener
census.

(
i)
Sampling
Frame
The
sampling
frame
for
EPA's
screener
census
was
developed
by
synthesizing
facility
information
found
in
the
Dunn
and
Bradstreet
database,
EPA's
Permit
Compliance
System,
contacts
with
EPA
regional
permit
writers,
EPA
site
visits,
State
aquaculture
contacts,
assistance
from
the
Bureau
of
Indian
Affairs
on
tribal
facilities,
universities,
and
recent
issues
of
Aquaculture
Magazine.
Additionally,
EPA
requested
but
was
denied
access
to
the
facility
identification
data
associated
with
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture's
1998
Census
of
Aquaculture.
EPA
believes
that
the
sampling
frame
is
current,
reasonably
complete,
and
considerable
effort
has
been
expended
to
reduce
duplication.
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
57
While
the
summary
statistics
available
from
the
Census
of
Aquaculture
are
not
sufficient
to
provide
regulatory
analyses
at
the
facility
level,
EPA's
sampling
frame
can
be
compared
to
summary
statistics
from
the
Census
of
Aquaculture
as
a
way
to
evaluate
EPA's
efforts
to
develop
the
sampling
frame.
In
particular,
the
1998
Census
of
Aquaculture
contained
response
from
just
over
4,000
facilities
while
EPA's
current
sampling
frame
contains
over
5,000
facilities
expected
to
practice
aquaculture.

Since
approximately
90%
of
the
facilities
identified
in
EPA's
sampling
frame
are
not
classified
by
species
of
aquatic
animal
in
production,
the
available
database
is
not
considered
to
be
sufficient
for
purposes
of
selecting
recipients
for
the
detailed
questionnaire.
The
primary
purpose
of
the
screener
census
is
to
collect
this
information.

(
ii)
Sample
Sizes
and
Their
Allocation
Approximately
5,000
facilities
will
receive
the
screener
census
and
approximately
500
to
700
facilities
will
receive
the
detailed
questionnaire.
Results
of
the
screener
census
will
be
used
to
ensure
that
a
high
percentage
of
facilities
receiving
the
detailed
questionnaire
are
in
the
aquatic
animal
production
industry
and
that
they
are
conducting
operations
of
interest
to
EPA.

(
iii)
Stratification
Variables
Strata
will
be
based
on
type
of
facility
(
commercial,
academic,
or
governmental),
the
species
produced,
and
the
methods
of
production.
Stratification
increases
precision
(
removing
the
variability
due
to
differences
explained
by
species
or
production
methods)
for
estimates
of
costs,
benefits
and
other
quantities.
The
thirteen
(
13)
categories
of
species
produced
will
include:
catfish,
trout,
salmon,
striped
bass,
tilapia,
other
fin
fish,
bait
fish,
ornamentals,
shrimp,
crawfish,
other
crustaceans,
molluscan
shellfish,
and
other.
Other
fin
fish
include
other
food
fish,
sport/
game
fish,
etc.
Bait
fish
include
fathead
minnows,
golden
shiners,
feeder
goldfish,
etc.
Ornamentals
include
koi,
ornamental
goldfish,
and
tropical
fish.
Other
crustaceans
include
lobster
pounds,
softshell
crabs,
etc.
Other
includes
anything
that
does
not
fit
in
the
above
categories,
such
as
alligators,
turtles,
frogs,
etc.
The
six
(
6)
categories
of
production
methods
will
include:
ponds,
flow
through,
recirculating
systems,
net
pens
and
cages,
floating
aquaculture
and
bottom
culture,
and
other.

(
iv)
Sampling
Methods
The
screener
questionnaire
will
be
sent
to
a
census
of
identified
facilities
(
approximately
5,000)
and
the
detailed
survey
will
be
sent
to
a
probability
sample
of
between
500
to
700
facilities,
with
stratification
as
described
above.
The
entities
selected
to
receive
the
detailed
questionnaire
(
the
sampling
unit)
will
be
facilities.
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
58
2(
c)
SAMPLE
SIZE
AND
PRECISION
(
i)
Precision
Targets
Screener
Questionnaire
The
sampling
design
for
the
screener
survey
is
a
census.
In
other
words,
all
known
aquatic
animal
production
facilities
will
be
required
to
respond
to
this
survey.
Counts
of
results
from
this
survey
will
be
used
to
describe
the
number
of
facilities:
that
produce
specific
species,
with
specific
methods
of
production,
and
that
use
various
wastewater
treatment
and
management
practices.
Since
a
high
degree
of
accuracy
is
required
in
answering
these
specific
questions,
the
variability
associated
with
sampling
fewer
than
all
known
facilities
is
not
acceptable.
Species
and
production
information
will
be
used
to
target
specific
types
of
facilities
in
the
detailed
questionnaire.
In
response
to
comments,
the
census
of
wastewater
treatment
and
management
practices
will
be
used
to
more
accurately
describe
the
potential
regulatory
options
associated
with
any
proposed
or
final
regulation
of
this
industry.
While
the
screener
survey
will
not
provide
enough
detail
to
cost
incremental
wastewater
management
practices
or
to
perform
an
economic
analysis
of
the
impacts
of
those
costs,
the
screener
provides
a
sampling
frame
for
the
detailed
questionnaire
as
well
as
the
ability
to
extrapolate
from
detailed
questionnaire
data
to
national
estimates.

Detailed
Questionnaire
Respondents
to
the
detailed
questionnaire
will
be
selected
at
random
from
within
groups
(
stratified
random
selection)
that
are
identified
using
results
of
the
screener
census.
Between
500
and
700
facilities
are
expected
to
receive
the
detailed
questionnaire,
though
the
exact
number
receiving
the
detailed
questionnaire
will
depend
on
combining
results
from
the
screener
census
and
design
principles
that
will
be
presented
in
this
section.

Groups
(
strata)
will
be
created
based
on
facility
type,
species
produced,
and
methods
of
production.
Stratification
increases
precision
(
removing
the
variability
due
to
differences
explained
by
facility
type,
species,
or
production
methods)
for
estimates
of
costs,
benefits
and
other
quantities.
The
anticipated
precision
associated
with
estimates
generated
from
the
detailed
questionnaire
can
not
be
calculated
prior
to
receiving
results
from
the
screener
questionnaire.
However,
EPA's
design
goals
for
the
detailed
questionnaire
can
be
described
as
follows:

EPA's
primary
design
goals
are
stated
in
terms
of
yes
or
no
questions
(
binomial
responses).
Examples
of
EPA
questions
that
can
be
characterized
this
way
include:

#
What
fraction
of
facilities
will
be
able
to
meet
proposed
limits
without
additional
costs?

#
What
fraction
of
facilities
will
be
able
to
meet
proposed
limits
after
incurring
additional
costs?

#
What
fraction
of
facilities
will
close
due
to
costs
associated
with
regulation?

For
estimates
across
the
entire
industry,
EPA
intends
to
design
the
sampling
plan
for
the
detailed
survey
such
that
95%
of
these
estimated
fractions
will
be
well
within
plus
or
minus
0.05
under
conditions
leading
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
59
to
maximum
variability.
Maximum
variability
occurs
when
the
true
national
fraction
of
facilities
answering
"
yes"
is
equal
to
0.5.
For
groups
defined
by
combinations
of
facility
type,
species,
and
production
methods,
EPA
intends
to
design
such
that
95%
of
these
estimated
fractions
are
within
plus
or
minus
0.30.
Given
three
(
3)
classes
of
facilities,
thirteen
(
13)
categories
of
species
and
six
(
6)
categories
of
production
methods,
there
could
be
as
many
as
two
hundred
and
thirty­
four
(
234)
of
these
groups.
However,
EPA
does
not
expect
a
number
of
these
survey
design
groups
to
have
any
associated
facilities
in
the
census.

An
additional
design
goal
is
to
not
allow
any
small
group
of
facilities
to
overly
influence
the
national
estimates.
An
individual
facility's
influence
on
national
estimates
is
inversely
related
to
the
percentage
of
facilities
sampled
within
a
survey
design
group.
Simplifying
some,
when
one
facility
in
ten
is
sampled,
then
the
sampled
facility
will
be
used
to
represent
ten
facilities
in
national
estimates.
If
another
group
in
the
same
survey
is
sampled
at
a
rate
of
one
in
ten
thousand,
any
facility
in
this
group
will
influence
national
estimates
approximately
a
thousand
times
more
than
those
in
the
first
group.
Since
each
survey
design
group
is
expected
to
be
of
a
different
size,
it
is
not
possible
to
give
all
of
the
sampled
facilities
exactly
the
same
influence.
However,
one
of
EPA's
design
goals
is
to
minimize
the
difference
in
influence.

(
ii)
Nonsampling
Errors
Nonresponse
is
relatively
low
for
surveys
sent
under
the
authority
of
Section
308
of
the
Clean
Water
Act.
EPA
will
employ
several
measures
to
reduce
nonresponses.
The
cover
letter
and
instructions
for
the
surveys
will
explain
the
legal
authority,
responsibility
to
respond,
reasons
for
the
survey,
and
penalty
for
nonresponse.
Delivery
or
nondelivery
of
the
surveys
will
be
tracked
using
Federal
Express,
thus
a
signature
of
recipient
will
be
required.
A
help
line
will
be
operated
while
the
surveys
are
in
the
field
so
that
technical,
financial,
and
administrative
questions
regarding
the
survey
can
be
addressed.
Recipients
not
responding
to
the
Screener
and/
or
Detailed
Survey
by
the
deadline
date
may
be
telephoned
to
encourage
response,
to
answer
questions,
and
to
determine
the
reasons
for
the
nonresponse.

Inaccurate
or
incomplete
responses
can
occur
due
to
misunderstandings
or
the
misinterpretation
of
questions
and
the
unintentional
skipping
of
questions
by
respondents.
Errors
can
occur
when
responses
are
coded,
edited
and
entered
into
the
database.
The
design
and
implementation
of
the
Detailed
Surveys
will
employ
a
number
of
quality
assurance
techniques
to
reduce
the
frequency
of
such
errors.
These
techniques
include
the
following:

Review
of
questions
for
ambiguity
and
clarity

Use
of
an
easily­
followed
sequence
of
questions
and
stopping
points

Provision
of
a
limited
number
of
carefully
considered
responses
to
each
question

Provision
of
clear
definitions
of
units
of
measurement
and
of
technical
terms

Provision
of
clear
instructions
with
references
to
the
definitions
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
60

Provision
of
a
"
help
line"
with
a
toll­
free
number
to
assist
respondents

Review
of
questions
by
engineers,
scientists,
and
economists
who
will
telephone
respondents
to
obtain
missing
information
and
resolve
problems
and
inconsistencies

Use
of
double­
entry
keypunch
verification
on
all
surveys

Conduct
of
computerized
comparison
of
selected
responses
to
detect
inconsistencies
and
illogical
responses

Conduct
of
computerized
analyses
to
screen
for
out­
of­
range
and
inconsistent
numerical
values

Conduct
of
computerized
analyses
to
detect
missing
numerical
data
and
missing
units

For
the
screener
survey,
use
of
a
small
number
of
questions
2(
d)
SURVEY
QUESTIONNAIRE
DESIGN
Please
refer
to
Part
A,
Section
4(
b)
of
this
ICR
for
information
on
this
topic.

3.
PRETESTS
AND
PILOT
TESTS
Please
refer
to
Part
A,
Section
5(
b)
of
this
ICR
for
information
on
this
topic.

4.
COLLECTION
METHODS
AND
FOLLOW­
UP
4(
a)
COLLECTION
METHODS
Please
refer
to
Section
5(
b),
Part
A
of
this
ICR
for
information
on
this
topic.

4(
b)
SURVEY
RESPONSE
AND
FOLLOW­
UP
Please
refer
to
Section
5(
b),
Part
A
of
this
ICR
for
information
on
this
topic
5.
ANALYZING
AND
REPORTING
SURVEY
RESULTS
5(
a)
DATA
PREPARATION
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Industry­
ICR
DRAFT
19
April
2001
61
EPA
will
prepare
the
aquatic
animal
production
survey
data
in
a
manner
consistent
with
other
survey
efforts
at
the
Agency
(
e.
g.,
past
effluent
guidelines
surveys).
Upon
receipt
of
the
completed
surveys,
the
data
will
be
entered
and
reviewed
for
coding
consistency,
missing
data,
and
obvious
inconsistencies
in
reported
data
by
engineering
and
economic
staff.
Any
inconsistencies
will
be
resolved
through
call
backs
and
any
changes
made
will
be
documented.
Contractor
resources
will
be
used
for
this
effort
as
well
as
for
data
entry.
Once
the
data
is
entered
into
a
database,
numerous
manual
and
electronic
QA
activities
will
be
performed
and
the
results
will
be
provided
to
engineering
and
economic
staff
for
further
resolution
and
documentation.

5(
b)
ANALYSIS
Analyses
of
the
surveys
will
have
the
objectives
of
(
a)
producing
narrative
and
quantitative
characterizations
of
the
aquatic
animal
production
industry,
aquatic
animal
production
operations,
process
wastewater
and
treatment
technologies,
(
b)
characterizing
plant­
specific
and
site­
specific
factors
that
distinguish
potential
for
adverse
environmental
impact,
(
c)
characterizing
plant­
specific
and
site
specific
factors
that
distinguish
technology
options
and
costs
for
reducing
adverse
environmental
impact,
(
d)
estimating
costs
of
regulatory
options
and
impacts,
(
e)
estimating
benefits
of
regulatory
options.

5(
c)
REPORTING
RESULTS
All
responses
containing
or
consisting
of
CBI
will
be
so
identified
in
the
survey
database.
Regulations
governing
confidentiality
of
business
information
appear
at
40
CFR
Part
2
Subpart
B,
and
these
are
adhered
to
strictly
by
EPA
and
its
contractors.
Safeguards
and
procedures
for
CBI
are
described
in
written
plans
maintained
by
EPA
and
its
contractors.

Information
not
classified
as
CBI
could
potentially
be
shared
with
any
interested
parties,
unless
releasing
such
information
in
conjunction
with
publicly
available
summary
statistics
will
divulge
CBI
from
one
or
more
facilities.
Such
information
is
subject
to
Freedom
of
Information
Act
(
FOIA)
requests.
Results
of
EPA's
analyses
become
publicly
available
most
often
in
three
ways:
(
1)
within
proposed
and
final
rules
published
in
the
Federal
Register,
(
2)
within
development
and
supporting
documents
otherwise
published
in
support
of
rulemaking,
and
(
3)
within
materials
placed
in
the
rulemaking
docket.
The
first
two
classes
of
documents
are
being
made
available
by
EPA
on
the
Internet
with
increasing
frequency;
and
this
mode
of
reporting
is
a
possibility
for
the
results
of
the
surveys
described
in
this
ICR.